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

Pashalis said:
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.

Alex Jones fans are checking out of society. The people that will deal with defeat the hardest are the anti-trump "activists". They will riot in the streets and could grind life to a halt in major cities... temporarily, I hope. We already see more protests than ever at Trump rallies that Romney never had. And multiple, perhaps dozens, of people were assaulted in San Jose last night.
 
wetroof said:
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.
Trump doesn't understand the the debt from US Treasuries in absolutely, completely a different thing from the debt Trump might owe a bank for one of his failing casinos. For all kinds of reasons. First, when Saudi Arabia buys treasuries they are doing the US favor, lending lots of money at very low interest because it's been a safe haven. If Trump starts not paying the small interest on them. If the U.S. tries to give a haircut to the creditors, the bills would plummet in price causing interest rates to soar. There are much easier ways for the PTB to pull the plug on the world economy than that. This just shows what an idiot Trump is when he goes outside his area of expertise, real estate and reality shows. He doesn't understand the difference between the debt of a business and the sovereign debt of a reserve currency.
 
meta-agnostic said:
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?

No Not at all.
To quote JFK.

https://youtu.be/5VqR3IMc-7Y
 
Mr. Premise said:
wetroof said:
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.
Trump doesn't understand the the debt from US Treasuries in absolutely, completely a different thing from the debt Trump might owe a bank for one of his failing casinos. For all kinds of reasons. First, when Saudi Arabia buys treasuries they are doing the US favor, lending lots of money at very low interest because it's been a safe haven. If Trump starts not paying the small interest on them. If the U.S. tries to give a haircut to the creditors, the bills would plummet in price causing interest rates to soar. There are much easier ways for the PTB to pull the plug on the world economy than that. This just shows what an idiot Trump is when he goes outside his area of expertise, real estate and reality shows. He doesn't understand the difference between the debt of a business and the sovereign debt of a reserve currency.

He is usually always outside his area of expertise ( doesn't seem to know what the nuclear triad is during republican debates...). China and Saudi Arabia hold a lot of treasuries. They couldn't sell them on the market -- even if it the largest bond market in the world -- or bond price fall, interests rates would rise. But maybe they have this leverage on us. So at some point, were would say "no, you are stupid ones". Keep everyone else happy. The current idea is: we inflate away our debt obligations like the Fed wants with 2% inflation, and at-par economic growth. The problem is if we don't have that growth, then we may have to QE and our creditors get nervous. I think it is just one scenario, that Trump strong-arms our allies to keep the dollar intact and the bond market under control. Global trade is moving away from the dollar as the unit of exchange already. Treasuries will continue to reduce as a percentage of global foreign reserves. There's just the question if this transition goes smoothly. I really think Trump did know what he was saying to some degree. He understands his potential usefulness. I think there is many plans, and Clinton AND Trump are part of those plans. Clinton could be sacrificed. She would make the hard decisions; Donald Trump would put on a grand show, while doing it. Donald Trump would project strength ( and maybe the elites want that, rather than aura of corruption. )
 
TTOI
Nomination seemingly in hand, Clinton hails cusp of ‘historic’ moment
_http://www.timesofisrael.com/nomination-seemingly-in-hand-clinton-hails-cusp-of-historic-moment/
June 7, 2016, 9:29 am
After count shows bid clinched, presumptive White House contender says work remains; Sanders refuses to bow out, maintains delegates can change minds
LOS ANGELES — Eight years after conceding she was unable to “shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling,” Hillary Clinton is embracing her place in history as she finally crashes through as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

Throughout her surprisingly rocky primary campaign, Clinton has been cautious about emphasizing her trailblazer status. But as she campaigned in California in recent days, the former secretary of state signaled she was ready to acknowledge her distinction as the first woman to top the presidential ticket of a major US political party.

The Associated Press determined Monday that Clinton had reached the 2,383 delegates needed to become the presumptive Democratic nominee.

The former secretary of state told a rally in Long Beach, California, that “according to the news, we are on the brink of a historic, historic, unprecedented moment.”

“But we still have work to do, don’t we?”
she said, referring to Tuesday’s primaries in California, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

The capital Washington rounds out the nominating contests when it votes on June 14.

Clinton has mounted a hectic 48-hour campaign push ahead of California’s high-profile primary, hoping to finish strong and end any argument for Vermong Senator Bernie Sanders to remain in the race, as he has pledged to do until the Democratic convention.

“It’s not over until it’s over,” the former secretary of state told reporters at a community center in Compton, near Los Angeles.

Clinton came to the brink of the nomination Sunday when she won the US territory of Puerto Rico, pushing her delegate count to 2,373, according to a CNN tally.

She reportedly surpassed the threshold Monday after a number of super-delegates — current and former elected officials and political activists who are not bound to vote for a specific candidate — committed to back her candidacy.

The Sanders campaign called it “a rush to judgment.”

“Secretary Clinton does not have and will not have the requisite number of pledged delegates to secure the nomination,” Sanders spokesman Michael Briggs said in a statement.

She will be dependent on super-delegates “who do not vote until July 25 and who can change their minds between now and then.”

Clinton noted Monday that she has earned three million votes more than Sanders and is well ahead in the pledged delegate count.

Clinton vowed Monday to “do everything I can to unify the Democratic Party,” saying she would be reaching out to Sanders.
“And I hope he’ll join me in that. We have to be unified going into and out of the convention to take on Donald Trump and to repudiate the kind of campaign he’s running.”
Smashing ‘the highest and hardest glass ceiling’

The seeming clinching of the nomination is a remarkable moment for a candidate who’s spent much of her life at the center of a heated national conversation about the role of women. From stridently defending her own career, famously saying in 1992 that she never “stayed home and baked cookies,” to a 2008 presidential bid that shied away from mentioning her gender, Clinton has addressed the issue of her historic role from nearly every angle.

Now she’s trying something new: owning it.

“Starting next Tuesday we’re on our way to breaking the highest and hardest glass ceiling,” Clinton said last week in Culver City, echoing the speech she made in 2008 when she conceded the Democratic primary to Barack Obama.

Her supporters are already there: At events in California, they chanted “deal me in” when she joked about “playing the woman card.”
“Having a woman president will make a great statement, a historic statement about what kind of country we are, about what we stand for,” Clinton told reporters at a community center in Compton Monday. “It’s really emotional and I am someone who has been very touched and really encouraged by this extraordinary conviction people have.”

Campaign aides say Clinton is mindful of the significance, especially when she thinks about her mother, Dorothy Rodham, who was born before women had the right to vote. Rodham, who died in 2011, was in attendance at Clinton’s concession speech in 2008 and Clinton has made her life story a focal point of the campaign.

That’s a reversal from her first presidential bid. In 2008, Clinton believed she needed to project an image of strength to persuade voters she could be the first woman to serve as commander in chief — a “kind of tough single parent” rather than a “first mama,” as Mark Penn, her chief strategist at the time, described it.

Aides and allies believe that her previous presidential run helped normalize the idea of a woman in the country’s highest position,

This year, Clinton wants to focus on how her groundbreaking achievement is symbolic of the kind of change she wants to effect as president, aides say. “Breaking down barriers” has been one of her campaign slogans, as she pledges to improve access to education, jobs and opportunity.

After a challenging primary against Sanders’ insurgent campaign, Clinton feels confident about the contrast this message offers with likely Republican nominee Donald Trump, who has made disparaging comments about women. In recent days, Clinton has drawn wild applause for a newly aggressive line of attack against Trump.

Her campaign thinks she can use Trump’s incendiary rhetoric against him, particularly to win over white, suburban women — a demographic Obama lost.

But that remains to be seen. Trump has shown himself willing to go after her with gender-related attacks, accusing her of “shouting” and of playing the “woman’s card” to get ahead. He has also sniped at her marriage to Bill Clinton as well as his personal indiscretions.

The unpredictability concerns some of Clinton’s strongest allies.

“There’s still a huge difference between the way in which female and males either running for or being in executive positions are treated,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. “Because we have not had a female executive as president of the United States, we have no idea how all of this is going to play out.”

When she started her campaign, Clinton frequently joked about being the
“youngest woman president.”
But in recent months she had largely stopped mentioning her place in history because her campaign found it was not effective with voters. That’s started to change.

All along, Clinton has heavily emphasized issues of importance to women, like paid family leave, equal pay and affordable child care. In California, she was joined by 17 female leaders and celebrities, including Sally Field, Mary Steenburgen and Debra Messing.

Field drew huge applause as she asked why Clinton gets accused of not being likable.
“What is this, a high school popularity contest? She’s not running to be anybody’s friend. She’s running to be the president of the United States,” Field said.

The Intercept
Tuesday, June 07, 2016
Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Super-Delegates Declare Winner Through Media
_https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/
Last night, Associated Press – on a day when nobody voted – surprised everyone by abruptly declaring the Democratic Party primary over and Hillary Clinton the victor. The decree, issued the night before the California primary in which polls show Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a very close race, was based on the media organization’s survey of “super-delegates”: the Democratic Party’s 720 insiders, corporate donors and officials whose votes for the presidential nominee count the same as the actually elected delegates. AP claims that super-delegates who had not previously announced their intentions privately told AP reporters that they intend to vote for Clinton, bringing her over the threshold. AP is concealing the identify of the decisive super-delegates who said this.

Although the Sanders campaign rejected the validity of AP’s declaration – on the ground that the super-delegates do not vote until the convention and he intends to try to persuade them to vote for him – most major media outlets followed the projection and declared Clinton the winner.
clinton.nyt1_-540x318.png

This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization – incredibly – conceals. The decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate interests, it’s only fitting that their nomination process ends with such an ignominious, awkward and undemocratic sputter.

None of this is to deny that Hillary Clinton – as was always the case from the start – is highly likely to be the legitimately chosen winner of this process. It’s true that the party’s governing rules are deliberately undemocratic; unfair and even corrupt decisions were repeatedly made by party officials to benefit Clinton; and the ostensibly neutral Democratic National Committee (led by the incomparably heinous Debbie Wasserman Schultz) constantly put not just its thumb but its entire body on the scale to ensure she won. But it’s also true that under the long-standing rules of the Party, more people who voted preferred Clinton as their nominee over Sanders. Independent of superdelegates, she just got more votes. There’s no denying that.

And just as was true in 2008 with Obama’s nomination, it should be noted that standing alone – i.e., without regard to the merits of the candidate – Clinton’s nomination is an important and positive milestone. Americans, being Americans, will almost certainly overstate its world significance and wallow in excessive self-congratulations: many countries on the planet have elected women as their leaders, including many whose close family member had not previously served as president. Nonetheless, the U.S. presidency still occupies an extremely influential political and cultural position in the world. Particularly for a country with such an oppressive history on race and gender, the election of the first African-American president and nomination of the first female presidential candidate of a major party is significant in shaping how people all over the world, especially children, view their own and other people’s potential and possibilities. But that’s all the more reason to lament this dreary conclusion.

That the Democratic Party nominating process is declared to be over in such an uninspiring, secretive, and elite-driven manner is perfectly symbolic of what the party, and its likely nominee, actually is. The one positive aspect, though significant, is symbolic, while the actual substance – rallying behind a Wall-Street-funded, status-quo-perpetuating, multi-millionaire militarist – is grim in the extreme. The Democratic Party got exactly the ending it deserved.


Reality Check

Rogue Money Radio
06.03.16
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY3SZd5xi0Y
 
:D and :cry:
Foul Language Alert
Making America F**ked Up Again: Clinton vs. Trump for the White House
Published on Jun 8, 2016
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZhQKSZVCNo
Well America…This is it.
You’re left with crazy and crazier. A witch or a wacko. Corporations vs. A corporation. Clinton’s Democratic Dynasty or TRUMP. Not much choice for the 2016 run for the White House
.
 
Found Trumps choice of words, directly after the Orlando shootings, interesting:

Trump: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/741965111968075776 said:
Really bad shooting in Orlando. Police investigating possible terrorism. Many people dead and wounded.

What does he really mean with "bad shooting"? Could it have been "better", or "more effective" in his eyes? With more victims for example? His choice of words there, just strike me as quite interesting.

By the way, he uses the Terror attack now (as expected), to further the fear mongering against muslims and against his "rivals" Killary and Obama.

He really blossoms when he gets such an opportunity to leash out...
 
Not only that, but this one got quite a lot of attention as well:


Trump https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/742034549232766976 said:
Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don't want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!

"No, really, there's no need for those of you who love me to point out that I told you so [which he could say for just about anything since he panders to everyone], let's do something! [what, exactly?]"

It gets a bit far afield from Trump, but there seems to be no shortage of 'alternative thinkers' who rail against Obama et al for not doing enough against "radical Islamic terrorism" without spelling out or even referencing how pretty much all of it is contrived either directly or indirectly by Western intelligence agencies, including Pakistan's ISI and the others sufficiently co-opted. It's disgusting and disappointing to see people who might be headed in the right direction fall for this sort of good cop/bad cop/incompetent cop/tough cop routine and fall under the spell of Trump.
 
Pashalis said:
Found Trumps choice of words, directly after the Orlando shootings, interesting:

Trump: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/741965111968075776 said:
Really bad shooting in Orlando. Police investigating possible terrorism. Many people dead and wounded.

What does he really mean with "bad shooting"? Could it have been "better", or "more effective" in his eyes? With more victims for example? His choice of words there, just strike me as quite interesting.

It's not uncommon in the US to see 'bad' used this way. It's awkward and imprecise but 'bad' often takes various meanings, probably because it is so simple and because our vocabulary is shrinking. Clearly, Trump doesn't "know words" or "have the best words"! :lol: In this context 'bad' would be understood as awful or sad.

Pashalis said:
By the way, he uses the Terror attack now (as expected), to further the fear mongering against muslims and against his "rivals" Killary and Obama.

He really blossoms when he gets such an opportunity to leash out...

Whether Trump wins the election or not, he sure is leading this strange caricatured reality.
 
On The Other Hand, and this is why this election choice is so frustrating, even though Trump is a despicable narcissist fanning the flames of nativist racism, his foreign policy statements are on point when it comes to Hillary's. From a speech he gave at St. A senior college on the shooting:

America must do more – much more – to protect its citizens, especially people who are potential victims of crimes based on their backgrounds or sexual orientations.

It also means we must change our foreign policy.

The decision to overthrow the regime in Libya, then pushing for the overthrow of the regime in Syria, among other things, without plans for the day after, have created space for ISIS to expand and grow.

These actions, along with our disastrous Iran deal, have also reduced our ability to work in partnership with our Muslim allies in the region.

For instance, the last major NATO mission was Hillary Clinton’s war in Libya. That mission helped unleash ISIS on a new continent.

He also said some nice things for a republican on LGBT tolerance:

TRUMP: Our nation stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando’s LGBT Community.

This is a very dark moment in America’s history.

A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub not only because he wanted to kill Americans, but in order to execute gay and lesbian citizens because of their sexual orientation.

It is a strike at the heart and soul of who we are as a nation.

It is an assault on the ability of free people to live their lives, love who they want and express their identity.

It is an attack on the right of every single American to live in peace and safety in their own country.
So the "TelePrompTer Trump" has a better foreign policy than Clinton. Here's what Clinton said (tl;dr, more war):
The attack in Orlando makes it even more clear: we cannot contain this threat – we must defeat it.

The good news is that the coalition effort in Syria and Iraq has made real gains in recent months.

So we should keep the pressure on ramping up the air campaign, accelerating support for our friends fighting to take and hold ground, and pushing our partners in the region to do even more.
 
c.a. said:
:D and :cry:
Foul Language Alert
Making America F**ked Up Again: Clinton vs. Trump for the White House
Published on Jun 8, 2016
_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZhQKSZVCNo
Well America…This is it.
You’re left with crazy and crazier. A witch or a wacko. Corporations vs. A corporation. Clinton’s Democratic Dynasty or TRUMP. Not much choice for the 2016 run for the White House
.

Crazy and crazier is putting it mild. I have to keep reminding myself - that this is a presidential campaign - for the highest office of the land. This campaign is starting to look as bazaar as that Switzerland ceremony?

If you think that the ongoing presidential run in the US has crossed all boundaries of decency, think again. Check out the T-shirt available for purchase online, with an image of Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton decapitating her GOP rival Donald Trump.

T-Shirt Depicting Clinton Beheading Trump Hits Online Stores
http://sputniknews.com/us/20160615/1041343936/t-shirt-clinton-decapitating-trump.html

The T-shirt, with its clumsy but bloodthirsty image, is the brainchild of devoted Hillary Clinton supporters, and is being distributed through the Wonkette website. The image is a take on a Biblical myth regarding one Judith, who beheads Holofernes, and is generally accepted as a metaphor regarding resistance to tyranny.

According to one version of the story, Judith is a Jewish patriot who saves her city from besieging Assyrians. In this version she seduces the hostile general Assyrian general Holofernes and then beheads him. Other versions have similar takes with small differences, including insistence on Judith’s chastity, the alcoholism of Holofernes, and the meddling of several colorful third-party characters.

In the photoshopped 2016 version, a robed Clinton plays the role of Judith, holding the severed head of Trump, his hair still intact. It also features former US President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton’s husband, looking happily from behind his wife’s shoulder.

The online store selling the Clinton-beheads-Trump t-shirts offers a variety of other items with the same graphic, as well as other goods such as popular “Truck Fump” notebooks, mugs and pillows.

The candidates are known for harshly criticizing each other, and disagreeing on nearly every issue throughout their presidential campaign. In the most recent instance, they showed completely different attitudes toward Orlando carnage.

According to recent polls, Clinton has surpassed Trump by seven percent in voting popularity.
 
Like everybody, I've been pondering the possible shape of American politics to come.

Here are my thoughts. One the one hand...

Looking purely at patterns, under the assumption that history repeats mechanically and that only the costumes and scenery change...

If WWII was a "Trial run"...

If "94% of containers will be used"(sic)...

If all of that stuff is still on the 4D STS itinerary...

While Hilary certainly seems like she's the current PTB favorite, the PTB are still just lab rats which happen to be employed at the management level. We mustn't forget that they're still just rats. -Lab techs don't usually feel any need to honor agreements made with their subjects or offer cushy retirement packages. I don't think any rats survive at the end of the day.

I suspect the PTB's millennias-long usefulness may be coming to an end. They have done their job in preparing the human race for the next level of treatment.

Time and again, people project possible futures based on black & white thinking, and are unprepared for unforeseen complexities. What else can we do? We can only see behind us with any rational degree of certainty. The twists and turns in the upcoming plot are simply beyond our knowing.

My guess is that there will be some confusion and surprising extra details which upend any projected outcomes based on reasonable expectations gleaned from our past experience with the U.S. political machine. -Hitler weaseled into power without a majority, and then once having gained a foothold, managed to manipulate and bully his way through a confused and broken government system into a position of final dominance. We may see another year of alarming, confusing weirdness before Trump actually becomes what people fear.

Trump's brand of crazy is certainly the next notch up on the crazy pole, and the world's ascent has been quite linear thus far. (Hm. A more apt metaphor is probably required; One which uses the word, "descent". The crazy slide? Needs work.)

Anyway...

Hilary seems designed for a world where the old systems still work. But as we're seeing, the old systems are beginning to unbutton, with Greece being among the first to pop, with bigger, more influential nations standing next in line. Reality seems ripe for a radical shift away from the "normal" we've grown accustomed to.

And let's not forget what Trump is; a narcissist opportunist. All politics aside, the man is on the edge of personal financial disaster; the wolves are through his door and in the living room. The banks (old system) are his enemy; his business failures were due, like many regular folks, to unmanageable debt based on a corrupt money system. And if he loses to Hillary, retains no power and loses the cushioning bubble of public adoration (and violent thugs), what then? He'll be eaten alive! Winning in his case becomes a matter of basic, primal survival. That's a motivator churning behind him like no other candidate has experienced that we've seen in a long while, if ever. How that survival might manifest is something which may well make the banking class more than a bit nervous. "We'll print our own money!" (Hang the bankers?) That would probably play well with a frenzied electorate. Heck, even I would be hard pressed to not feel some solidarity on that front.


4D STS needed a strong and consistent banking class with which to channel human development and maintain control. However, if things are ultimately meant to switch to global charnel house rules, then Trump is your man. Who needs to maintain Rothschildren and Rockefellers and the like when you're planning to burn the whole thing down anyway?

However...

On the other hand...

Those early transcripts were corrupted, and there is some question of whether or not humanity will be "consumed" here or ruled on the next density level. Things might not all be quite so literal.

It is arguable that a high percentage of "containers" are already being effectively used by 4D, filled with energies which vibrate according to STS tastes. The American empire has been described as a big experiment, which may mean that the truncheons and jackboots version of fascism might have been shelved for this current round of "Global Human Farmville", with the new plan being one of consumption through Matrix-style mind control and containment. -Which from all indicators, seems to work.

If that's the case, then Hillary makes more sense.

But on the other other hand...

Let's not forget space rocks, the twin sun and snow storms which never end...

If you reckon the pasture is going to open up and swallow your entire herd, then perhaps it makes sense to liquidate the livestock before you lose your investment to the elements. -Your genetically modified humans (abductees) are primed and ready to travel into the next density for service there. Sell the farm and run to your beach house paradise with your chosen slaves.

Ugh. Well, that's dismal.

Good morning. *sigh*
 
Woodsman said:
Hilary seems designed for a world where the old systems still work. But as we're seeing, the old systems are beginning to unbutton, with Greece being among the first to pop, with bigger, more influential nations standing next in line. Reality seems ripe for a radical shift away from the "normal" we've grown accustomed to.

And let's not forget what Trump is; a narcissist opportunist. All politics aside, the man is on the edge of personal financial disaster; the wolves are through his door and in the living room. The banks (old system) are his enemy; his business failures were due, like many regular folks, to unmanageable debt based on a corrupt money system. And if he loses to Hillary, retains no power and loses the cushioning bubble of public adoration (and violent thugs), what then? He'll be eaten alive! Winning in his case becomes a matter of basic, primal survival. That's a motivator churning behind him like no other candidate has experienced that we've seen in a long while, if ever. How that survival might manifest is something which may well make the banking class more than a bit nervous. "We'll print our own money!" (Hang the bankers?) That would probably play well with a frenzied electorate. Heck, even I would be hard pressed to not feel some solidarity on that front.


4D STS needed a strong and consistent banking class with which to channel human development and maintain control. However, if things are ultimately meant to switch to global charnel house rules, then Trump is your man. Who needs to maintain Rothschildren and Rockefellers and the like when you're planning to burn the whole thing down anyway?

Interesting observations I think. I also recently thought about something the Cs said in an early session:

Session 16 Oct 1994 said:
Q: (L) "His mouth was like that of a lion..." What does mouth represent and why is it like a lions?

A: Noisy and boastful.

Q: (L) Who is noisy and boastful and how is this going to manifest?

A: Economic power structure. Lion is powerful and commands attention by roaring. Who has been speaking loudly about a new world order?

Q: (L) The United States?

A: Close. Elements of same.

Q: (L) "One of his heads seemed to have a deadly wound, but his death stroke was healed and the whole earth went after the beast in amazement and admiration..." What does it mean that one of his heads seemed to have a deadly wound?

A: Aliens.

Q: (L) The aliens will seem to be a deadly wound to the Beast?

A: Initially.

Q: (L) "But his death stroke was healed, and the whole earth went after the Beast with amazement and admiration..." What does this mean?

A: Initial fear gives way to worship and admiration.


Q: (L) "They fell down and gave homage to the dragon because he had bestowed on the beast all of his dominion and authority..." Who is this dragon?

A: World Body Politic.

Q: (L) And who is this Beast?

A: New World Order aka Brotherhood aka Lizzies aka antichrist.

Q: (L) "The Beast was given the power of speech uttering boastful and blasphemous words and was given freedom to exert his authority and exercise his will during 42 months..."

A: Timing is open. Power of speech is self explanatory in terms of audio and video media.

Q: (L) "And he opened his mouth to speak slanders against God blaspheming his name and his abode even vilifying those who live in heaven..." Does this mean that this group, this beast are going to...

A: Disseminate disinformation with respect to encouraging worship, loyalty and obedience to antichrist.

Q: (L) "He was further permitted to wage war on God's holy people and to overcome them and power was given him to extend his authority over every tribe and people and every tongue and nation..." Does this means trials and tribulations of those who refuse to submit?

A: No. See previous answer.

Q: (L) "And all the inhabitants of the earth will fall down in admiration... everyone whose name has not been recorded from the foundation of the world in the Book of Life of the Lamb that was slain in sacrifice from the foundation of the world..." What are "those whose names are recorded in the Book of Life... what is the Book of Life?

A: Supercomputer.

Q: (L) The Book of Life of the Lamb... everyone whose name has not been recorded... it is saying that the people who are going to worship the Beast are names that have not been recorded... does that mean that there is a supercomputer recording the names of those who do not worship the beast?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) And who has this supercomputer?

A: Beast. All names will be recorded as being either obedient or disobedient.

Q: (L) Who is this "Lamb?"

A: Beast.

Q: (L) "If anyone is able to hear let him listen: whoever leads into captivity will himself go into captivity; if anyone slays with the sword, with the sword will he be slain... herein is the call for the patience and fidelity of the saints (God's people)... "Who are God's people?

A: All.

Q: (L) What does it mean: "Whoever leads into captivity will go into captivity?"

A: Follow the leader.

Q: (L) If they follow the leader they will become captive and if they fight with the leader they will be killed?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) "Then I saw another Beast rising up out of the land; he had two horns like a lamb and he spoke like a dragon..." What does this signify?

A: Other faces of the same entity.

Q: (L) What does it mean that he had two horns like a lamb? A lamb doesn't have horns. Why does it say he has horns?

A: Confusion by contradiction.

Q: (L) And what does the lamb represent?

A: Same face of the Beast.

Q: (L) What does it mean he "spoke like a dragon"??

A: Same.

Q: (L) "He exerts all the power and right of control as the former beast in his presence and causes the earth and those who dwell upon it to exalt and deify the beast whose deadly wound was healed and worship him..." Well, it seems to say that there is a second beast that is different from the first beast but you are saying that it is just another face of the beast...

A: Yes. Look at it this way, aliens one face; God another; government another et cetera.

Q: (L) Did you mean to say that God was another face of the beast?

A: As represented by religion.

Q: (L) "He performs great signs, startling miracles, even making fire fall from the sky to the earth in men's sight.." What does that mean?

A: Aliens perform "miracles".

Q: (L) And what is the "image" of the Beast?

A: Aliens.

Q: (L) What does it mean to have been wounded by the sword and still live?

A: Perceived as scary then Godlike.

Q: (L) "And he was permitted to impart the breath of life into the Beast's image so that the statue of the beast could actually talk and to cause all to be put to death that would not bow down and worship the image of the beast." What does this mean?

A: Total control once deception is complete.

As I understand it, there will be something/someone who "blows a deadly wound" to the beast (USA, bankers, power structure?), but this is part of a deception to make people worship it/him/her. So I think we should watch out for any false prophet or development that "finally gives it to them", which could take many forms and might be very cleverly disguised. It's also interesting that they speak of the "different faces" of the beast - which doesn't mean that everything and everyone is part of the beast, but that it has many faces which can make discernment very difficult IMO.
 
OilPrice.com's
Russia Is Reportedly Set To Release Clinton's Intercepted Emails
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Russia-Is-Reportedly-Set-To-Release-Intercepted-Messages-From-Clintons-Private.html
Jun 13, 2016, 2:37 PM
Reliable intelligence sources in the West have indicated that warnings had been received that the Russian Government could in the near future release the text of email messages intercepted from U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server from the time she was U.S. Secretary of State. The release would, the messaging indicated, prove that Secretary Clinton had, in fact, laid open U.S. secrets to foreign interception by putting highly-classified Government reports onto a private server in violation of U.S. law, and that, as suspected, the server had been targeted and hacked by foreign intelligence services.

The reports indicated that the decision as to whether to reveal the intercepts would be made by Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, and it was possible that the release would, if made, be through a third party, such as Wikileaks. The apparent message from Moscow, through the intelligence community, seemed to indicate frustration with the pace of the official U.S. Department of Justice investigation into the so-called server scandal, which seemed to offer prima facie evidence that U.S. law had been violated by Mrs Clinton’s decision to use a private server through which to conduct official and often highly-secret communications during her time as Secretary of State. U.S. sources indicated that the extensive Deptartment of Justice probe was more focused on the possibility that the private server was used to protect messaging in which Secretary Clinton allegedly discussed quid pro quo transactions with private donors to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for influence on U.S. policy.

The Russian possession of the intercepts, however, was designed also to show that, apart from violating U.S. law in the fundamental handling of classified documents (which Sec. Clinton had alleged was no worse than the mishandling of a few documents by CIA Director David Petraeus or Clinton’s National Security Advisor Sandy Berger), the traffic included highly-classified materials which had their classification headers stripped. Russian (and other) sources had indicated frustration with the pace of the Justice Dept. probe, and its avoidance of the national security aspects of intelligence handling. This meant that the topic would be suppressed by the U.S. Barack Obama Administration so that it would not be a factor in the current U.S. Presidential election campaign, in which President Obama had endorsed Mrs Clinton.

Moscow’s discreet messaging about a possible leak of the traffic, in time to impact the U.S. elections, was designed to pressure faster U.S. legal action on the matter, but was largely due to Russian concerns about possible U.S. strategic policy in the event of a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Apart from the breach of U.S. Federal law in the handling of classified material, the Clinton private server was, according to GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs analysts, always likely to have been a primary target for foreign cyber warfare interception operations, particularly those of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Russia, and North Korea (DPRK), but probably also by others, including Iran.

By Defense & Foreign Affairs
 
c.a. said:
OilPrice.com's
Russia Is Reportedly Set To Release Clinton's Intercepted Emails
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Russia-Is-Reportedly-Set-To-Release-Intercepted-Messages-From-Clintons-Private.html
Jun 13, 2016, 2:37 PM

Maybe I'm missing something here, but this doesn't make much sense to me.

Reliable intelligence sources in the West have indicated that warnings had been received that the Russian Government could in the near future release the text of email messages intercepted from U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server from the time she was U.S. Secretary of State.

Reliable intelligence sources in the West?? Whatever that means!

The reports indicated that the decision as to whether to reveal the intercepts would be made by Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, and it was possible that the release would, if made, be through a third party, such as Wikileaks. The apparent message from Moscow, through the intelligence community, seemed to indicate frustration with the pace of the official U.S. Department of Justice investigation into the so-called server scandal, which seemed to offer prima facie evidence that U.S. law had been violated by Mrs Clinton’s decision to use a private server through which to conduct official and often highly-secret communications during her time as Secretary of State. U.S. sources indicated that the extensive Deptartment of Justice probe was more focused on the possibility that the private server was used to protect messaging in which Secretary Clinton allegedly discussed quid pro quo transactions with private donors to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for influence on U.S. policy.

Why would Russia interfere with an internal US investigation? Why should they care? Putin stresses again and again that he's against meddling with sovereign countries... Also, he knows full well that it doesn't really matter who is president in the US...
 
Back
Top Bottom