Killary Clinton, The Donald, or Jill Stein: The US Election

Mrs. Tigersoap said:
Laura said:
Nobody wants Hillary for president - she's connected to Bill and she's a woman to boot.

Yes, and yet she gets the endorsement of a lot of people. Lots of women, usually in the entertainment industry (Amy Poehler, Jennifer Lopez, Beyoncé, Cyndi Lauper, Sally Field, Lena Dunham, Diane Kruger, Kerry Washington, Katy Perry, Salma Hayek, Jamie Lee Curtis, Rosie O'Donnell, Mary Steenburgen, Barbara Streisand, etc.). All of them claiming to be feminists, thus voting for a woman... Well, from men, too: George Clooney, Robert De Niro, Magic Johnson, Pharrell Williams, etc.

I don't know about the ones I just cited, but the endorsement from some celebrities (Oprah Winfrey or George Clooney, for example), is supposed to have a huge impact on voters. Some are the opposite (according to a study, an endorsement from Rosie O'Donnell has a 36 percent negative impact on the perception of a candidate).

The Cabala Flip and Flop

The Rachel Maddow Show 5/31/16 Video
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/former-bitter-clinton-rival-endorses-hillary-696371268000
Former Clinton foe, California's Jerry Brown, endorses Hillary
Seema Mehta, political writer for the Los Angeles Times, talks with Steve Kornacki about how the endorsement of Hillary Clinton by California Governor Jerry Brown fits into the context of the historically bitter rivalry between Brown and the Clintons. Duration: 17:59

Published on May 31, 2016

https://youtu.be/oBxKSwZMKlY
Jennifer Griffin reports from Washington, D.C.

Clinton adds campaign stops in California
May 31, 2016

https://youtu.be/mG_SCfGr_yg
 
Notice the same patterns of distractions within the Golden State of Ca. 2016

The Rachel Maddow Show 5/31/16 Video
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/former-bitter-clinton-rival-endorses-hillary-696371268000
Former Clinton foe, California's Jerry Brown, endorses Hillary
Seema Mehta, political writer for the Los Angeles Times, talks with Steve Kornacki about how the endorsement of Hillary Clinton by California Governor Jerry Brown fits into the context of the historically bitter rivalry between Brown and the Clintons. Duration: 17:59

Oklahoma City Thunder vs Golden State Warriors - Game 7 - Full Highlights | 2016 NBA Playoffs
Published on May 30, 2016

https://youtu.be/9RdLmnNXhKg

The top films released in 2016 by worldwide gross are as follows:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_in_film
1 Captain America: Civil War Disney $1,110,580,457
MV5BMjQ0MTgyNjAxMV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjUzMDkyODE@._V1_UY222_CR0,0,150,222_AL.jpg

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=marvel2016.htm

https://youtu.be/xD65C5opc08[/embed]

Most Popular TV Series Released In 2016
http://www.imdb.com/search/title?sort=moviemeter&title_type=tv_series&year=2016,2016
World Premiere Trailer: Preacher 2,668,810 views
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jg5dnedmoo4

https://youtu.be/UNgI2sRzr8I

Stephen Curry Personal life-MK?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Curry
Barack_Obama_and_Stephen_Curry.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2cShcXHE7g

On July 30, 2011, Curry married longtime girlfriend and Toronto native Ayesha Alexander in Charlotte.[12][13][130][131] Together, they have two daughters, Riley (b. 2012) and Ryan (b. 2015).[132][133] They currently reside in Walnut Creek, California.[134] Curry's younger brother, Seth, is also a professional basketball player,[135] and his younger sister, Sydel, plays volleyball at Elon University.[136]

Curry has been outspoken about his Christian faith.[137][138] Curry spoke about his faith during his MVP speech by saying, "People should know who I represent and why I am who I am, and that's because of my Lord and Savior." He also said the reason that he pounds his chest and points up is that he has a "heart for God" and as a reminder that he plays for God.[139] On some of his "Curry One" basketball shoes, there is a lace loop scripted "4:13".[140] It is a reference to the Bible verse Philippians 4:13, which reads "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me".[141][142] Curry has a tattoo of First Corinthians, 13:8 in Hebrew on his wrist ("Love never fails...").[143]

During the 1992 All-Star Weekend, Curry's father entrusted him to Biserka Petrović, mother of future Hall of Fame player Dražen Petrović, while Dell competed in the Three-Point Contest. Following the 2015 NBA Finals, Curry gave Biserka one of his Finals-worn jerseys, which will reportedly be added to the collection of the Dražen Petrović Memorial Center, a museum to the late player in the Croatian capital of Zagreb.[144]

In 2012, Curry started donating three insecticide-treated mosquito nets for every three-pointer he made to the United Nations Foundation's Nothing But Nets campaign to combat malaria. He was first introduced to the malaria cause by Davidson team-mate Bryant Barr when they were both in school. Curry visited the White House in 2015 and delivered a five-minute speech to dignitaries as part of President Barack Obama's launch of his President's Malaria Initiative strategy for 2015–2020.[145][146]

In 2015, Curry wore sneakers that had Deah Shaddy Barakat's name on them (one of the victims of the 2015 Chapel Hill shooting).[147] According to his sister Suzanne, Deah Barakat was known for his "love for basketball and anything Steph Curry."[148] Deah's number for his intramural basketball team at North Carolina State University was Curry's No. 30 and he posed for a photo that was similar to one that Curry did for GQ.[148] Curry said that Barakat's family "did a great job of reaching out to me and making me aware of the details of his life and personality [...] It was really kind of a cool deal to be able to use the platform yesterday to honor Deah and his family [...] I'm going to send them the shoes I wore yesterday. And hopefully they know that I've been thinking about them."[149][150][151]
(small print better to see the whole enchilada from the link)
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=stephen+curry+dunk
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=stephen+curry+3+point+2016+highlights
 
Looking just at the statistics, I think at this point Trump is unlikely to defeat Clinton in November. Clinton vs. Trump polls shows Clinton is far ahead of Trump in large states like NY and California: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

The betting exchange websites are showing odds considerably favoring Clinton to win in November, e.g. the betfair.com website presently has a successful bet on Clinton returning $1.50 on a $1.00 bet, Trump returning $3.80 on a $1 bet, and Sanders returning $25.00, i.e. Clinton is considered most likely to win, Trump less likely, and Sanders a long shot. These odds are determined by the actual movement of money from people placing bets with each other, so while they could be wrong, they do reflect people putting their money where their opinions are, and are one way of trying to make a prediction.

Trump has attracted large crowds and created something of a movement, but is continuing to poll very far down among Latinos and women in particular.

People who have looked into Hillary Clinton's history may reach the conclusion that she is incredibly corrupt and dishonest. Nevertheless, I think even after reaching such a conclusion, people should remember that the majority of democratic voters are never going to think of Hillary Clinton as being exceptionally bad. Even among those who have an unfavorable opinion of her, and who prefer Bernie, most Democratic Party voters will still see Hillary Clinton as a hard-working, dedicated politician, with a few flaws and foibles, and not as some kind of cold-blooded psychopath.
 
Mal7 said:
Many people here really don't seem to like Donald Trump. They seem to me to be quick to accept any source that makes out Trump to be unacceptably sexist, racist, dangerous, or psychopathic.
Anyway, personally I find there is more to like than to dislike about Trump. I don't agree with everything he says or does, but he has been consistent in some of his messages for over 30 years, as this compilation of clips of Trump speaking on his presidential aspirations shows:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuiW_Jagl4U "This is why Donald Trump deserves to be president!"

On one issue, the USA's southern border with Mexico, I think a strongly controlled border correlates well with ideas of nationalism and national sovereignty; while an open, uncontrolled border correlates with globalist plans for world government or the new world order.
Unfortunately with or without a controlled border we're already in a pathocracy - ruled and controlled by a psychopathic elite. The new world order isn't primarily about unification/globalism as it is about control and power. If they can have this control while maintaining the illusion of sovereign states/countries, they will do that. In fact, this might even be easier - keep us divided and fighting among ourselves within our own countries and with pretend enemies outside as we ignore the man behind the curtain. And guess who is at the helm of that agenda? US/Israel. So all correlations aside - we're already there, wall or no wall - we're living in the eye of the storm already.

Illegal immigrants have never been the cause of any major problems (unless you count the first ones that exterminated the Native Americans). For example, taxes - compare how many taxes are being unpaid by illegal immigrants (in shitty jobs where taxes would usually make the situation far shittier, and even THEN they pay taxes when they can!) vs how many are unpaid by the mega rich utilizing various loop holes and tax havens. Here's one estimate:
_http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-06/panama-tax-haven-leak-bigger-picture
The United States loses approximately $184 billion in federal and state revenue each year due to corporations and individuals using tax havens to dodge taxes. On average, every filer who fills out a 1040 individual income tax form would need to pay an additional $1,259 in taxes to make up for the revenue lost.

Add to this tab all the bailouts that "too big to fail" corporations/banks received and all the general theft/privatizing of tax money towards private contractors and other war profiteers and you're talking sums that will exceed the entire GDP of Mexico several times over. The paltry amount unpaid by illegal immigrants is so minuscule that to point a finger at them as any kind of "drain" on our economy is extremely misinformed and in fact, serves as an intentional distraction from the real issue.

_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States
Professor of Law Francine Lipman writes that the belief that illegal migrants are exploiting the US economy and that they cost more in services than they contribute to the economy is "undeniably false".[60] Lipman asserts that "illegal immigrants actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services" and "contribute to the U.S. economy through their investments and consumption of goods and services; filling of millions of essential worker positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services; and unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance programs."

Aviva Chomsky, a professor at Salem State College, states that "Early studies in California and in the Southwest and in the Southeast...have come to the same conclusions. Immigrants, legal and illegal, are more likely to pay taxes than they are to use public services. illegal immigrants aren't eligible for most public services and live in fear of revealing themselves to government authorities. Households headed by illegal immigrants use less than half the amount of federal services that households headed by documented immigrants or citizens make use of."[61]

Editorialist Robert Samuelson points out that poor immigrants strain public services such as local schools and health care. He points out that "from 2000 to 2006, 41 percent of the increase in people without health insurance occurred among Hispanics", although he makes clear that these facts are true of legal as well as illegal immigrants.[62]

According to a 1998 article in The National Academies Press, "many [previous studies] represented not science but advocacy from both sides of the immigration debate...often offered an incomplete accounting of either the full list of taxpayer costs and benefits by ignoring some programs and taxes while including others," and that "the conceptual foundation of this research was rarely explicitly stated, offering opportunities to tilt the research toward the desired result."[63] One survey conducted in the 1980s found that 76 percent of economists felt recent illegal immigration had a positive effect on the economy.[64]

And banning Muslims from entering the country? Cuz everybody knows terrorists aren't allowed to lie when asked about their religion, right? Terrorists can't just.. oh I dunno, say whatever it takes to accomplish their goals? It's just as stupid as the questions they ask already when you enter the US - they literally ask if you're a terrorist or plan to do terrorist things. Great work, Sherlock Holmes. That will weed them out! Let's not forget that we literally created ISIS by funding/arming/brainwashing rebel groups to fight our proxy overthrows of any government that doesn't bend to our will. Are we going to go ahead and stop creating the very problems we now face because after god knows how many decades of doing this we finally learned our lesson - or are we just gonna start banning entrance to entire religious groups and pretend that solves it, while continuing to create more terrorist groups (while literally inventing fake ones and false flagging all over the place too)? Applying band-aids to someone while you continue to shoot them in the face is hardly sensible, but this is exactly what we're proposing here.

And on and on. It's all just a charade - a bunch of lies, false solutions to false problems, to distract from the REAL problems - and Trump is a spokesperson for the group that punches you with one hand and then pretends to comfort you with the other. He and his type ARE the problem!
 
Let the mud sling fast and wide.....................LOL.. :lol:

Released Trump University ‘playbooks’ encourage using other people’s money
Published time: 1 Jun, 2016 03:19
574e48fec4618885338b4586.jpg

Documents related to Trump University, Donald Trump’s for-profit real estate program, were made public on Tuesday thanks to a federal judge who unsealed 381 pages due to an on-going lawsuit that accuses the company of fraud.

The released documents contain “playbooks” used by the defunct program to sell its courses to potential students. With a price tag of up to $35,000, Trump University charged almost as much as a real college, but may not have lived up to its promises.

The Trump University Scam Exposed
Uploaded on Dec 5, 2009
Donald Trump talks about Trump University, success and real estate investing

https://youtu.be/CfKURh567os

One of the sales scripts instructs staffers to tell prospective students, “We teach the technique of using OPM ... other people’s money,” the Hill reported. While this may explain Trump’s “Mexico will pay for that wall” logic, many people living in credit card debt are aware of the flaws in the following explanation of “other people’s money.”

“Most students who are invited to this program use established lines of credit, like a credit card, utilizing the bank’s money, OPM, to handle their tuition. I’m not talking about tens of thousands of dollars, but on the other hand, not a couple of hundred dollars either,” read one script.

The price of attending Trump University ranged from $1,495 for a three-day seminar to “Gold Elite” programs costing $35,000, according to CNN.

Potential students were required to provide a list of their assets, and Trump University employees were instructed to sort the students depending on how much in liquid assets they had. Trump team members were also told to push Trump University’s Gold Elite package as often as possible, saying “If they can afford the gold elite don’t allow them to think about doing anything besides the gold elite.”

The company also used credit cards – or OPM – as a base for real estate as well. “If a seller will take $10,000 down on a fixer-upper that you expect to make $20,000 on, why not use credit cards?” the playbook encourages.

For potential customers who had doubts about putting $10,000 on their credit cards, team members were told to ask, “[D]o you like living paycheck to paycheck?... Do you enjoy seeing everyone else but yourself in their dream houses and driving their dreams cars with huge checking accounts? Those people saw an opportunity, and didn’t make excuses, like what you’re doing now.”

In New York, over 5,000 victims are named as plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Trump, according to the National Review.

Trump claimed to have handpicked the instructors, asserting that they were real estate experts. For example, in one ad Trump said, “In just 90 minutes, my hand-picked instructors will share my techniques, which took my entire career to develop. Then, just copy exactly what I’ve done and get rich.”

Trump University Intro
Uploaded on Dec 5, 2009
Donald Trump talks about Trump University, success and real estate investing

https://youtu.be/BvaaeHP9xtQ

However, Trump later conceded that many of the instructors were from fields unrelated to real estate, and that he had not reviewed them – or any of Trump University’s materials or curricula, for that matter. In fact, National Review reported that the program’s materials were “in large part developed by a third-party company that creates and develops materials for an array of motivational speakers and seminar and timeshare rental companies.”

In another ad, the billionaire businessman refers to the instructors as “professors and adjunct professors.” However, the New York State Education Department would disagree with that classification, as they warned Trump in 2005 that his University was violating state law by operating without a license. As a result, the institution rebranded to become the Trump Entrepreneur Initiative.

images
 
Mal7 said:
Looking just at the statistics, I think at this point Trump is unlikely to defeat Clinton in November. Clinton vs. Trump polls shows Clinton is far ahead of Trump in large states like NY and California: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

The betting exchange websites are showing odds considerably favoring Clinton to win in November, e.g. the betfair.com website presently has a successful bet on Clinton returning $1.50 on a $1.00 bet, Trump returning $3.80 on a $1 bet, and Sanders returning $25.00, i.e. Clinton is considered most likely to win, Trump less likely, and Sanders a long shot. These odds are determined by the actual movement of money from people placing bets with each other, so while they could be wrong, they do reflect people putting their money where their opinions are, and are one way of trying to make a prediction.

Trump has attracted large crowds and created something of a movement, but is continuing to poll very far down among Latinos and women in particular.

People who have looked into Hillary Clinton's history may reach the conclusion that she is incredibly corrupt and dishonest. Nevertheless, I think even after reaching such a conclusion, people should remember that the majority of democratic voters are never going to think of Hillary Clinton as being exceptionally bad. Even among those who have an unfavorable opinion of her, and who prefer Bernie, most Democratic Party voters will still see Hillary Clinton as a hard-working, dedicated politician, with a few flaws and foibles, and not as some kind of cold-blooded psychopath.

I'm afraid that we are past the point where people's political opinions, bets or votes matter. Sadly, the next US president, like most of its predecessors, will be chosen by the PTB. Sometimes, it matches people's choice (thanks to the MSM propaganda efforts), sometimes it doesn't.

We had such a case in France during the 2007 presidential election. Polls were giving Royal (candidate of the 'left' party) well ahead of Sarkozy (candidate of the 'right' party). In the end though, it is Sarkozy who got 'elected'.
 
Pierre said:
I'm afraid that we are past the point where people's political opinions, bets or votes matter. Sadly, the next US president, like most of its predecessors, will be chosen by the PTB. Sometimes, it matches people's choice (thanks to the MSM propaganda efforts), sometimes it doesn't.

We had such a case in France during the 2007 presidential election. Polls were giving Royal (candidate of the 'left' party) well ahead of Sarkozy (candidate of the 'right' party). In the end though, it is Sarkozy who got 'elected'.
That's true which is why I think Clinton will win. She has done nothing but follow the PTB's orders and Trump is too much of a wild card. I think they would prefer control and predictability. But I could be wrong.
 
Trump is too much of a wild card.

Hillary is a bit of a wild card too, in that she is hard headed and likely to do her own thing. She just seem to know better than anyone else the best path to take, direction of which is changing like the wind. So it may be easier for PTB to surround Trump with the kind of advisers that will make sure their agenda stays on track. My impression is that he is completely unaware of deep state stuff. On the one hand, it is exciting to see this wild card (uncontrolled outsider) get ahead in the race, OTOH, it is The Donald. :(
 
Yupo said:
Trump is too much of a wild card.

Hillary is a bit of a wild card too, in that she is hard headed and likely to do her own thing. She just seem to know better than anyone else the best path to take, direction of which is changing like the wind. So it may be easier for PTB to surround Trump with the kind of advisers that will make sure their agenda stays on track. My impression is that he is completely unaware of deep state stuff. On the one hand, it is exciting to see this wild card (uncontrolled outsider) get ahead in the race, OTOH, it is The Donald. :(
I don't know, Yupo, I see nothing wild card about Clinton. I agree with Jon Stewart that there's no way to know what her convictions are or even if she has any. She will do whatever the deep state tells her to and always has. While overlaying it with identity politics inclusiveness and verbal compassion for the decimated middle class. And starting whatever wars they tell her to.

Trump on the other hand will do and say anything to get adulation. I don't think the situation is ripe at the moment for the PTB to go for the fascism option. Especially with such an unpredictable person like Trump.

And how better to get Hilary elected than to put her opposite Trump? And if that doesn't work there's always voting machine fraud (watch Remain win in the UK).
 
... While overlaying it with identity politics inclusiveness and verbal compassion for the decimated middle class.

Oh my goodness you nailed her!

And how better to get Hilary elected than to put her opposite Trump? And if that doesn't work there's always voting machine fraud (watch Remain win in the UK).

No doubt the boxes are jimmied, everywhere, for any important outcome. I don't think they expected Trump to get this far. Pass the popcorn (or maybe just the butter)!
 
c.a. said:

Just a note, this "meme" of the Trump quote from People magazine that was circulating widely early in the year has been discredited. I passed it on to a couple people myself but luckily caught it while I could still pedal it back. The sentiment may well hold true for him but as we know in these information wars, propagating demonstrably false info can be used to discredit the messenger, even for otherwise valid points.
_http://www.snopes.com/1998-trump-people-quote/
(I know there are issues with Snopes when it comes to more controversial topics but with this I think they explain it sufficiently.)
 
meta-agnostic said:
c.a. said:

Just a note, this "meme" of the Trump quote from People magazine that was circulating widely early in the year has been discredited. I passed it on to a couple people myself but luckily caught it while I could still pedal it back. The sentiment may well hold true for him but as we know in these information wars, propagating demonstrably false info can be used to discredit the messenger, even for otherwise valid points.
_http://www.snopes.com/1998-trump-people-quote/
(I know there are issues with Snopes when it comes to more controversial topics but with this I think they explain it sufficiently.)

Thanks for the correction.
 
c.a. said:
Thanks for the correction.

No problem. Hope it didn't come across as pedantic but like I said, it fooled me too a while ago.

Right now multiple attendees of a Trump rally in San Jose, California are saying they have been beaten up by protesters outside the rally. It calls to mind the mass shooting/crisis actor debate in that it just doesn't seem real, but how can one tell how much or what part of it is fake? The Trump and anti-Trump people are really going to start a civil war before the election even happens? Before the conventions even?
 
My bet is that Killary will win and then Trump and his supporters like Alex Jones will scream "election fraud!". I don't think Trump and Co. will accept a defeat and will do everything in their power "to bring justice back!". Of course backed by the PTB, who probably want to see more chaos on the streets, so that the focus is not on them.

Anyways it is quite interesting to watch that show right now and I'm sure as soon as it is official, that the US people have the "choice" between Killary and Trump, the earth will respond even more crazy.

That whole show there must be acting like a huge attractor for comets and all the earthchanges associated with it.
 
Mr. Premise said:
Pierre said:
I'm afraid that we are past the point where people's political opinions, bets or votes matter. Sadly, the next US president, like most of its predecessors, will be chosen by the PTB. Sometimes, it matches people's choice (thanks to the MSM propaganda efforts), sometimes it doesn't.

We had such a case in France during the 2007 presidential election. Polls were giving Royal (candidate of the 'left' party) well ahead of Sarkozy (candidate of the 'right' party). In the end though, it is Sarkozy who got 'elected'.
That's true which is why I think Clinton will win. She has done nothing but follow the PTB's orders and Trump is too much of a wild card. I think they would prefer control and predictability. But I could be wrong.

Trump is going to manage US debt though I think, which needs to happen at some point. He will tell some of our creditors, like Saudi Arabia, that we won't be nice to them. And he could take the blame for a recession. I think "the PTB" could benefit from Trump. He will make the hard decisions for them (that have to be made to keep America going). But so far the CIA has been not very receptive to him... so that goes against my theory. But I'd also look at what past state officials, especially generals say about Trump going forward.

It will also be telling if any independent or the libertarian ticket raises significant cash. That is how they would sink Trump IMO. Then Hillary only needs 45% to win.
 
Back
Top Bottom