Donald Trump wins 2016 US presidential election

[bjorb]

[quote author= luc]What would you have said if Trump turned out to be a fascist, after all? It's still a possibility, even if only in part. How about the not so nice things about him? I think in these times, we need to look very hard on the facts from every direction without blinders, and not become entangled in ideologies or what we 'like to see', whether we turn out to be right on certain aspects or not. It's an exercise in 'thinking with a hammer'. As bjorn said, betting on a horse because we identify with it doesn't mean we understand reality, even if the horse turns out to 'win'.[/quote]

Things is, as much as I like how Trump speaks out against The Establishment. History has shown again and again that those who do and successfully revolt become the next-dictator.

George Orwell wrote a classic about it called Animal Farm.

Taking this into consideration and some of Trump behavior and remarks and how people reacted on it, not having point out the possibility of Trump being next Hitler would have been a disserve in the name of objectivity.

I can only observe with the information that is currently available. And based on that I believe it was plausible at that moment, but new information later on showed otherwise.


I remember that at the start, Trump his campaign was all about building a Wall. It was all very ridiculous.

Luckily things turned out to be more positive along the way. But all of this can chance again with new information.

 

[Richs]

So what is it, is he either a saint or a devil?

Asking the question in this way puts us into 'black and white thinking' mode. I think we can all agree that he isn't perfect and does not agree with what we here think in a fair number of respects. Yet, he does appear to align with many of the ideas and goals that we espouse.

So, we need to understand that essentially when we look at someone they are 'shades of gray'. We can only hope that in this case it is one of the lighter shades that he is made of.

At this point we only have what he has said to judge him on. We will have to wait to see what he actually does once he assumes office to determine at that point what we think about his Presidency.

It does look fairly certain he is not willing to start a nuclear war. That, in itself, gives us some hope for the future. Times might surely be difficult ahead, but at least we will all have a chance to survive even if things are very hard for many of us.

Let's judge him by his deeds. As for now I am rooting for him.

Exactly!

 

[Cosmos]

[...]
Things is, as much as I like how Trump speaks out against The Establishment. History has shown again and again that those who do and successfully revolt become the next-dictator.

[...]

What if it is a bit different this time around? Maybe how the future looks depends directly on how "200 hundred conscious people" react NOW, since it can shape the whole fate "of the world", paraphrasing Gurdjieff . Maybe the future was never so open as today (in known history), and depends directly on what we do NOW and to a certain extend all the other people in the world who have a glimpse of the "terror of the situation"?

Non linear dynamics, enhanced through different areas and people becoming "conscious" and acting on it, on their scope of influence? Maybe all that has happened, for say the last 5 years, wouldn't have played out as it did, if there wouldn't have been SOTT, the forum, Putin and russia, RT etc.?

Maybe, or maybe not.

I remember that at the start, Trump his campaign was all about building a Wall. It was all very ridiculous.
[...]

Well when you look at it from the perspective of the ordinary authoritarian follower, giving such a "ridiculous" and "save" promise, will certainly give you a lot of votes from those types. So it could also be said to be a rather simple idea to get a lot of agitated people behind you, by means of "I'll make the world safe for you".

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= Pashalis]Well when you look at it from the perspective of the ordinary authoritarian follower, giving such a "ridiculous" and "save" promise, will certainly give you a lot of votes from those types. So it could also be said to be a rather simple idea to get a lot of agitated people behind you, by means of "I'll make the world safe for you".[/quote]

Yeah, it works with the non-thinking folks. Funny thing is that while those people kept shouting: ''Build that Wall.'' There already is a Wall and more Mexicans are leaving the US than entering at the moment.

 

[zak]

In this video, Trump talks about "The Establishment":

http://<iframe width="560" height="...8g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[neema]

Don't know if this has been posted before, but it is definitely a MUST SEE. He's been consistent through the years.

http://<iframe width="560" height="...SM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Thanks for sharing this video Laura. It was pretty eye-opening to see how he has maintained his position throughout the years. It seems like Trump really isnt the buffoon he has been made out to be, and I question whether a lot of the "bufoon" type behaviour and the whole "Trump" persona was actually part of the campaigning stretegy to appeal to more people for the votes. Ive got to admit that i cant help but kinda like the guy... despite not agreeing with some of his statements. I honestly get the impression that his heart is in the right place. Maybe after sitting down with Putin a couple of times, he may develop some of the skills be suited for the job. We can only wait and see, but after watching that video, it is clear now why the establishment launched attacks on him from day one of his campaign.

Interesting video.

Just wanted to mention if it hasn’t been brought up by anyone else, there is a brief few frames of the pic of Miley Cyrus licking herself in the mirror from 2013, at 12:39:16, 12:39:17 and 12:40:22.

Don’t know if it’s by accident or on purpose but it just caught my eye.

 

[happyliza]

Pashalis:

What if it is a bit different this time around? Maybe how the future looks depends directly on how "200 hundred conscious people" react NOW, since it can shape the whole fate "of the world", paraphrasing Gurdjieff . Maybe the future was never so open as today (in known history), and depends directly on what we do NOW and to a certain extend all the other people in the world who have a glimpse of the "terror of the situation"?

Non linear dynamics, enhanced through different areas and people becoming "conscious" and acting on it, on their scope of influence? Maybe all that has happened, for say the last 5 years, wouldn't have played out as it did, if there wouldn't have been SOTT, the forum, Putin and russia, RT etc.?

Maybe, or maybe not.

Thanks for the above Pashalis. This is partly what I was trying to allude to in my post much earlier regarding the whole 'show' not necessarily having to be 'cut in stone'. There are so many variables that can actually have a 'neutralizing' effect? I am only thinking of the Law of 3 and Law of 7 - context, shocks, intervals (maybe the 'interval' until the comets though!).

Another thing that has been on my mind a lot is the fact that Trump practically financed himself. Taking the video of his frank and supposedly caring comments and appearing to NOT wish to run for president at so many junctures (although I would like to have heard the whole interviews to hear precisely just what was cut out of the videos). But the comments we do hear are very down to earth and practically the way we would also 'wish' to see/do things being in the same shoes.

Would he - as a businessman really risk such huge amounts of money if he was not serious? Yes it has been mentioned that either way it could help market his businesses too.

But personally, business acumen and world-wide travel, as well as truly climbing the ladder - as success isn't guaranteed even if you did inherit money - in fact those who inherit normally squander money as they didn't sweat for it. But the acumen gained makes him shrewd hopefully and I am sure - for his own benefits as a businessman - he has been studying, following and aware of the games of the bankers and 'elite'. His comments certainly don't show he is blind to them. He also had to learn to be a diplomat, or at least to successfully negotiate to be where he is. Even if he does not appear to come across diplomatically - perhaps being 'himself'- ego - rich enough not to care about 'opinions'? Who knows?

For me - as others have stated - if he can pull it off - I am more, and more than happy if he just cancels the Killary timeline and keeps war off the agenda. And maybe allow the 'calm before the storm'.

Depending on what the C's take on the current situation is, the bottom line is to heighten our awareness and preparedness yet again for the 'storm' that looks like appearing on a collision course with planet earth! Of course it is about who we are (and for me much more 'being' work is needed now too, as I have written on my fridge!!). This last year has been so full of 'negative news' which I concentrated on suddenly realizing last night on studying Salzmann that I had not revised/properly understood and seriously practised 4th Way material for one year!!. I was horrified - to be immediately rectified! (Was mainly the cognitive science books).

Thanks for all the very insightful comments everyone - much learning material on this thread as usual.

 

[Keit]

And then, finally:

26 Oct 2015
(Joe) I have a question about Israel. Is the Israeli government/Zionists/people in control of Israel planning some kind of imminent "final solution" for Palestinians?

A: Wishful thinking exposes the man behind the curtain.

Notice again that "wishful thinking", i.e. "big miscalculation", is related to the exposure of the "man behind the curtain".

Yesterday on the Russian web there were news about Israel really wanting to become a new member of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) for quite awhile now, and about consultations on free trade area between EAEU and Israel that are going to be held in November. Sure, it may improve economic ties between Russia and Israel, but it involves much more than this.

Clearly, Israel, and particularly Netanyahu, have their own plans in mind. Netanyahu knows that Russia is becoming a major player in the region, and there were articles on the Russian web that talked about Israelis not being able to fly around the region and do what ever they want with Russian forces nearby. Others voiced concerns that Israel wants to become part of EAEU because it means that Russia will be obligated to help Israel with various issues. They want to be under the aegis of the bear, so to say.

Since we know that Netanyahu and his buddies are psychos, we can't expect anything good out of such a union. But Putin is far from being a fool. While Israel expresses eagerness to become closer, Russia in return pushes toward reopening negotiations with Palestinians. Surely, Israelis hate this particular point, but maybe they have no choice. As was mentioned in one of the articles on the topic of EAEU, becoming a member may mean for Israel "a need to modify some of its policies". And perhaps not performing a continuous genocide of the Palestinian population may be one of them.

It is still early to say or see what Russia really has in mind, but it is clear that Netanyahu for some reason wants this "friendship" very much. Hopefully Putin will use this opportunity to put this "mad dog" on a very short leash.

 

[BHelmet]

I have been pondering this idea that the US is leading the way to a global government by enforcing it's will on the world and that the global government coming out in the open will be brought about by the US bullying the rest of the world into it. (so "we", the US, can be the big alpha dog) I think that is wishful thinking: the rest of the world will balk at this and not willingly give up their free will.

I have also been recalling how I used to see the demise and implosion of the US as the final catalyst for the acceptance of a global government out in the open. Under what circumstances could a global government be rationalized in the US? Perhaps a scenario similar to what is occurring since Trump has won: with 50-75% of the population beating their breasts and ripping their garments over this result. Add to that an economic collapse and overt disgrace of the US government as a sham, corrupt "democracy" and enough Americans, especially the younger generations, might accept diminished sovereignty into a larger system.

Add to this the election of Trump which has triggered, and made very clear all the divisive factions within the US: 'our' split personality, if you will. The divide and conquer meme in action. Trump is a supposed outsider of the current power structure. I suppose it is a possibility that the disruption and chaos a Trump presidency might cause was predictable and certainly one of 'their' mantras is Order out of Chaos. Trump is certainly a match in the powder room.

I guess what I am saying is that, as usual, we don't really know what is going on behind the closed doors: if Trump was planned or a shock. Given that there are different levels to the hierarchy - perhaps a higher level asserted it's will on the lower levels that thought they were calling the shots and didn't realize they were just more beer nuts and pretzels in a glass bowl on the pyramidal food chain; hence the seemingly very genuine shock and dismay by the media.

I am trying to keep my balance and not anticipate or jump to conclusions too fast. So many people are flipping out and the man behind their curtain is certainly being exposed. Especially the "social justice warrior" types as was mentioned. Having a rational, objective exchange with them is almost impossible. In essence I have been saying "step away from the ledge; put the razor blades down; quit making Molotov cocktails and take a deep breath/don't lose who you are in the emotional upheaval." The results of this approach have been a mixed bag at best.

I guess the best thing is to "stay tuned for the next exciting episode".

My thanks to all for the insightful observations in this thread.

 

[whitecoast]

Was thinking that in terms of the rest of the world, not only from what is there to see (good and bad), for a a good half century or more America, its ideals, its power and control perhaps follows being linked with people across the globe on an information/psychic way - even a Karmic way or magnetic way, and as things accelerate and as people being so interconnected and linked to the accelerations, tectonic shifts follow; windows open. Maybe there will be this calm for awhile and maybe not, however, people would be well advised that one man may change little and may ultimately cause the PTB to light a fuse out of sequence, to get the timing all wrong - exposure.

If Ukraine's reaction is anything like other countries (some favorable), leaders are on edge as the system that protected them (gave them their corrupt mechanisms) are now in question (arms, trade deals - all of it) and they will be looking to solve the questions one way or another.

See here how the 'miscalculation' is affecting people like these in Kiev. This will be true of Israel, Egypt, China et all. These people do not now know where they stand at the moment all because of an election gone sideways and one man. Interesting dynamics going on.

Bolded elements above are really interesting. And it is FURIOUSLY INTERESTING to see how everybody is just acting nuts!!! Was it planned or not? Was it the "Big Miscalculation"? I guess if a whole lot of exposing of the "Man Behind the Curtain" is the outcome, we can say it was the latter.

I felt a lot of relief, and even giddiness, at Trump's victory. My feelings were that the amount of possibilities and "unknown unknowns" and Black Swans are beginning to multiply, and have been since 2014's Maidan Coup. Earlier on Joe made an interesting analogy of the control system to a stream that the controllers continuously adjust course with. The current trajectory of events seems to resemble a garden hose turning into a fire hose at full blast. The preponderance of events and variables is like the massive torrent, which can fly out of the hands of the control system at any moment.

It feels like the situation demands vigilance and awareness from everyone more than ever.

 

[BHelmet]

Just wanted to mention if it hasn’t been brought up by anyone else, there is a brief few frames of the pic of Miley Cyrus licking herself in the mirror from 2013, at 12:39:16, 12:39:17 and 12:40:22.

Don’t know if it’s by accident or on purpose but it just caught my eye.

Wow - nice catch. It is right as Trump says "they have no respect".
I doubt it is an accident.

 

[thorbiorn]

This is a list of references and excerpts to the alledged rape of a minor by Donald Trump in 1994, it has taken me a few hours to dig it up and I leave it for possible future reference.

Edit, one keeps on digging, and it is hard to say what is fake and what is real, after I ended I found a couple of more link, which I have attached at the end of the post.

Looking a bit further, into the case of "Jane Doe" I found a page called Justice for Katie http://www.justiceforkatie.com/ where there is is supposed to be a private Vimeo with supposedly unblurred picture, but I tried to watch it and it was not available. Then there is one Vimeo with blurred picture and also a short Youtube excerpt with blurred picture and voice. I watched the Vimeo which is good enough for anyone who knew her even slightly to recognize her. The film was done by one filmmaker, whom they quote:

This is the statement of the videographer:

To whom it may concern,

My name is Jonathan Launer. I am an award winning filmmaker in Los Angeles. In February 2016, I was hired to film an interview with Katie Johnson, who apparently had some Donald Trump story to tell. I drove to San Diego, and met Ms. Johnson. She was there with Al Taylor. She began the story, and she accused Mr. Trump of rape, and was very detailed in her allegations.

Now just to be very clear, I have no personal agenda, no beef with Mr. Trump, and no political affiliations whatsoever. I was simply there as a hired gun to do what I do. Film. As the interview went on, she gave more and more graphic detail about the alleged rape. I could tell she was very upset and genuinely disturbed. She was shaking and had to compose herself several times during the interview.

I am not an expert in psychology, and don't claim to diagnose her mental state, but I DO know acting when I see it. I do not believe she was acting. I believed she was telling the truth as she saw it. Now, I'm not accusing Mr. Trump of anything, as I was not there. But what I saw in Ms. Johnson's interview was very convincing. I have no stake in this whatsoever, and have nothing to gain. I have no ownership in the footage. Like I said, I was just hired to do a job.

He says he is a film maker. I checked his Youtube channel and there is not much. He is a drummer in the group Spock's Beard. They play, instrumental rock with quite a few instruments, and they have worked on it! Have a look at the presentation of his drum set: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEkkUtjWHRs This person attends to detail and appears genuine. What he is saying in his statement about doing the film, appears as fair.

My own assessment of the video: I was wondering if she was using a wig, I have found out she is. I was wondering if she realistically could be around 35 years of age, taking away the wig and so on, yes. In the interview the woman says it is only the second times she tells about it, and the impression of the interview is that she has not told it many times, as some emotions are evident. I have watched parts of it twice. When comparing it to seeing other interviews, this is real, was it Trump? Are the characteristics of the person, she describes similar to those of Trump??? Not far off in my opinion.

In the legal documents I saw the name of the counsel as

J. Cheney Mason Law Office of J. Cheney Mason, P.A. 250 Park Avenue South, Suite 200 Winter Park, Florida 32789

I went to the Wiki page:

Rape lawsuit against Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein
On October 10, 2016, it was announced attorney Mason will represent a woman using the pseudonym "Jane Doe" in a case claiming that 2016 US Republican Party presidential nominee Donald Trump and financier Jeffrey Epstein raped her in 1994, when she was 13 years old. Judge Ronnie Abrams scheduled the first hearing for December 16, 2016.[12][13][14] Epstein, Trump, and Jane Doe will also discuss the possibility of settlement and possible trial length.[15][16] Abrams asked for both sides to provide information to assist the court in advancing the case to settlement or trial.[17] Donald Trump was absolved of the issue after a voluntary dismissal of the claim by the alleged Jane Doe, most likely pointing to the fact that it was a frivolous lawsuit, probably filed for political aims..[citation needed]

I went to the Webpage of J. Cheney Mason, http://www.jcheneymason.com/ and found this is a high profile attorney, if you go through what he has written and done.

From the Wiki there is a link to an article in the Washington Times

Donald Trump rape accuser gets Dec. 16 court date for federal civil suit: Report[...] By Ken Shepherd - The Washington Times - Wednesday, October 12, 2016

A woman who alleges that GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump raped her at a party in 1994 — when she was just 13 years old — will get her day in a Manhattan courtroom, but not until well after the voters have gone to the polls.

The case is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal action, in which the woman claims Mr. Trump and billionaire Jeffrey Epstein assaulted her at a series of sex parties that Epstein threw in 1994, the Daily News reported Wednesday.

U.S. District Court Judge Ronnie Abrams — an Obama appointee to the federal bench confirmed overwhelmingly by the Senate — set a Dec. 16 court date, giving parties to the lawsuit time a deadline for their pretrial strategies or crafting an out-of-court settlement. The Electoral College will sit three days later, voting in all 50 state capitals and the District of Columbia to officially decide the presidency.

Mr. Trump has categorically denied the allegations, and Trump attorney Alan Garten dismissed the suit as “a completely manufactured claim” that was “designed to discredit my client and interfere with the election.”

The legal development comes as Mr. Trump has been hitting Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail as an enabler of her husband’s infidelities and alleged sexual misconduct, including Juanita Broaddrick’s allegation that the then-Arkansas attorney general raped her in 1978.

Mr. Clinton was separately alleged in a 2014 lawsuit against Mr. Epstein to have been present at sex parties thrown by the billionaire, who is a registered sex offender.

I kept digging, deciding the another name of the woman should be Katie Johnson, I looked that up and found a long article, covering what is said in the video, but in less detail, but also adding some other.

EXCLUSIVE: Trump's 13-year-old 'rape victim' dramatically DROPS her case. Woman withdraws legal claim she was assaulted at Jeffrey Epstein sex party
'Katie Johnson's' shocking allegations first emerged in a lawsuit filed in California in April this year
She claimed she was lured to a sex party by pedophile Jeffrey Epstein where she was forced into rough role-play sex with presidential candidate
She said she was 13 when she met Trump after leaving her home in Oklahoma in 1994 to try to pursue a modeling career in New York
On Wednesday Johnson suddenly cancelled a press conference at which she was set to reveal herself for the first time
She spoke to DailyMail.com - and we have now learned that lawyers are pulling the case she filed against Trump and Epstein
[...]
By RYAN PARRY, WEST COAST CORRESPONDENT FOR DAILYMAIL.COM
PUBLISHED: 23:09 GMT, 4 November 2016 | UPDATED: 12:33 GMT, 5 November 2016

The woman who alleged that Donald Trump sexually assaulted her at billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's notorious 'sex parties' in 1994 when she was a 13-year-old has dropped the civil lawsuit that was filed against him.
Trump's legal team branded the allegations 'disgusting at the highest level' and a 'hoax' clearly framed to 'solicit media attention or, perhaps... simply politically motivated'.
She first sued Trump and Jeffrey Epstein under the name Katie Johnson on April 26 in California federal court and filed an amended complaint in New York federal court in October, claiming she was subject to rape, criminal sexual acts, assault, battery and false imprisonment.
The court papers offer no corroborative evidence that her claims are true.
On Wednesday, Johnson suddenly cancelled a press conference at which she was set to reveal herself for the first time, saying she was 'too afraid' following a series of 'threats' against her.
[...]
But she also said that in 1994 she had no idea who her attacker was and that it was only when she watched The Apprentice that she came to believe it was Trump, claiming that she could not forget her attacker's face.
DailyMail.com learned she has two DUIs and a felony drug possession on her record and a history of drug abuse.
Regardless of the truth of her claims, she clearly has a troubled past, and told DailyMail.com that she believes her experiences as a young girl led to those troubles.
The former real estate worker said recent spinal surgery has meant she is unable to work and claims disability welfare.
[...]

The Daily Mail article gives the impression the whole story is fake, but that headline contradict the message it was withdrawn because of threats.

Jeffrey Epstein was mentioned, a convicted offender, he only served 13 months, it turned out this woman Katie Johnson was also mentioned there:

Sentencing
In June 2008, after pleading guilty to a single state charge of soliciting prostitution from girls as young as 14,[26] Epstein began serving an 18-month sentence. He served 13 months, and upon release became a registered level three (high risk of re-offense) sex offender.[27][28] There is a long-lived rumor that Epstein got off lightly.[29]

On June 18, 2010, Epstein's former butler, Alfredo Rodriguez, was sentenced to 18 months incarceration on an obstruction charge for failing to turn over, and subsequently trying to sell, a journal that he said recorded Epstein's activities. FBI Special Agent Christina Pryor reviewed the material and agreed it was information "that would have been extremely useful in investigating and prosecuting the case, including names and contact information of material witnesses and additional victims".[30][31] Epstein allegedly lent girls to powerful people to ingratiate himself with them and also to get possible blackmail information.[29][...]
Another woman, identified by the pseudonym "Katie Johnson",[52] filed a lawsuit in California federal court on April 26, 2016, accusing Epstein and real estate businessman Donald Trump of raping her in 1994, when she was 13 years old.[53][54][55] At the time of filing of the lawsuit, Trump was campaigning to become the Republican Party candidate for the office of U.S. President. Judges Ronnie Abrams and James C. Francis IV presided over the case against Epstein and Trump.[56] The suit was dismissed after it was determined that the address listed for "Katie Johnson" was a foreclosed abandoned home whose resident had died and the provided telephone contact information was also not a functioning contact.[53] The woman (now using the pseudonym "Jane Doe") filed a new lawsuit in June 2016, this time in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and without some of the accusations made in the initial lawsuit, including claims by the plaintiff that Trump threw money for an abortion at Johnson and that he called Epstein a "Jew bastard".[57] Following a delay caused by the accuser failing to show that the defendants had been served with formal notice of the suit,[58] the suit was then voluntarily dismissed on September 16,[59] but her lawyer said she would re-file the lawsuit and would provide an additional witness to substantiate the claims.[60] On September 30, 2016, the woman re-filed the lawsuit in New York, with an additional witness identified by the pseudonym "Joan Doe".[61][62] There was no further information available on the allegations outside the claims made anonymously by the two women, who were not made available for contact by the press.[53] Civil rights lawyer and legal analyst Lisa Bloom wrote in June 2016 that the claims by the anonymous individuals were credible.[55] However, journalist Jon Swaine reported in The Guardian in July 2016 that the "Katie Johnson" lawsuits appeared to be orchestrated by Norm Lubow, a former producer on the The Jerry Springer Show, whom he described as "an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities".[63] Two days after the woman failed to appear at an press conference announced by her attorneys, and immediately after granting an interview to The Daily Mail together with Bloom (who the Daily Mail identified as her lawyer) and allowing herself to be shown in photographs, the woman dropped her lawsuit against Epstein and Trump again on November 4, 2016.[52][64][65] The Daily Mail said they were aware of her actual identity but were honoring her request to not release her name. Her attorneys said the woman dropped her suit out of fear, based on having received "numerous threats" against her life.[52]

In other words, people rather go to prison than to disclose the truth about sex offences among powerful people. One thought is that if there was something the it was the Trump party that intimidated or settled the case, but I'm sure there are many other groups, certainly also the Democrats, who would be just fine without any attention.
About Donald Trump's knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein, there is this alledge quote:

"I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy,'' Trump told New York magazine in a 2002 profile of [convicted sex offender Jeffrey] Epstein written three years before Epstein began to be investigated. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life."

--Vice News, January 29, 2016

Donald Trump probably knew a thing or two of what was going on among the elites, like so many others. We do not know, if he was ever involved, and even if he was, who would be heavier on the scales of guilt, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

Edit: There is more gossip here: http://www.revelist.com/politics/i-talked-with-katie-johnson/3573/default/6
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow
The idea is that Katie Johnson is set up by others, while this may be true, it does not exclude that fiction and reality overlap. If her experience is still real in some way, she is being exploited for at second time.

 

[SummerLite]

Just wanted to mention if it hasn’t been brought up by anyone else, there is a brief few frames of the pic of Miley Cyrus licking herself in the mirror from 2013, at 12:39:16, 12:39:17 and 12:40:22.

Don’t know if it’s by accident or on purpose but it just caught my eye.

Wow - nice catch. It is right as Trump says "they have no respect".
I doubt it is an accident.

Yes, good catch Nima. I didn't see that at all while watching, it was so quick. I tried to find the frames that would allow me to stop and see exactly but this feature wasn't working for me at the moment. In the past, I've been able to go frame by frame and see how images are hidden which is interesting.
Mentioning Miley Cyrus, she made the news last night (on Fox). A clip of her was shown having a real melt down because Killary lost. Mournful and crying and looking a complete mess....poor girl she is totally used.

 

[aragorn]

Then again, I wonder if they're gonna try and cause a real upset here:

Electoral College: Make Hillary Clinton President on December 19

On December 19, the Electors of the Electoral College will cast their ballots. If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald Trump will win. However, they can vote for Hillary Clinton if they choose. Even in states where that is not allowed, their vote would still be counted, they would simply pay a small fine - which we can be sure Clinton supporters will be glad to pay!

We are calling on the Electors to ignore their states' votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton.Why?

Mr. Trump is unfit to serve. His scapegoating of so many Americans, and his impulsivity, bullying, lying, admitted history of sexual assault, and utter lack of experience make him a danger to the Republic.

Secretary Clinton WON THE POPULAR VOTE and should be President.

I've been wondering about what the chances are for these Electors to vote for Killary instead. Could they be "persuaded" to change their minds? On the other hand, what's happening with Trump right now - e.g. him participating in highly classified intelligence briefings, and meeting Obama (who now has completely "forgot" his previous insults agains Trump), might indicate that at least the "deep state" has accepted his presidency, or this might have been their plan all along. Right now, I'm thinking that the "Soro's inspired" anti-Trump protest might just be a sort of a tantrum – Killary's insiders and those who support(ed) her just want all hell to break loos because they are such bad losers, and they want revenge.

 

[angelburst29]

New York Times: We blew it on Trump
http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow&sr_share=twitter

November 11, 2016

The Gray Lady feels the agony of political defeat — in her reputation and in her wallet.

After taking a beating almost as brutal as Hillary Clinton’s, the New York Times on Friday made an extraordinary appeal to its readers to stand by her. The publisher’s letter to subscribers was part apology and part defense of its campaign coverage, but the key takeaway was a pledge to do better.

Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. admitted the paper failed to appreciate Donald Trump’s appeal.

“After such an erratic and unpredictable election there are inevitable questions: Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters?”

While insisting his staff had “reported on both candidates fairly,” he also vowed that the paper would “rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor.”

Ah, there’s the rub. Had the paper actually been fair to both candidates, it wouldn’t need to rededicate itself to honest reporting. And it wouldn’t have been totally blindsided by Trump’s victory.

Instead, because it demonized Trump from start to finish, it failed to realize he was onto something. And because the paper decided that Trump’s supporters were a rabble of racist rednecks and homophobes, it didn’t have a clue about what was happening in the lives of the Americans who elected the new president.

Sulzberger’s letter alludes to this, promising that the paper will “striv[e] always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you.”

But bad or sloppy journalism doesn’t fully capture the Times sins. Not after it announced that it was breaking it rules of coverage because Trump didn’t deserve fairness.

As media columnist Jim Rutenberg put it in August, most Times reporters saw Trump “as an abnormal and potentially dangerous candidate” and thus couldn’t be even-handed.

That wasn’t one reporter talking — it was policy. The standards, developed over decades to force reporters and editors to be fair and to build public trust, were effectively eliminated as too restrictive for the Trump phenomenon.

The man responsible for that rash decision, top editor Dean Baquet, later said the Rutenberg piece “nailed” his thinking, and went on to insist that Trump “challenged our language” and that, “He will have changed journalism.”

Baquet also said of the struggle for fairness, “I think that Trump has ended that struggle,” adding: “we now say stuff. We fact-check him. We write it more powerfully that it’s false.”

Baquet was wrong. Trump indeed was challenging, but it was Baquet who changed journalism. He’s the one who decided that the standards of fairness and nonpartisanship could be broken without consequence.

After that, the floodgates opened, and virtually every so-called news article reflected a clear bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton. Stories, photos, headlines, placement in the paper — all the tools were used to pick a president, the facts be damned.

Now the bill is coming due. Shocked by Trump’s victory and mocked even by liberals for its bias, the paper is also apparently bleeding readers — and money.

I’ve gotten letters from people who say they cancelled their Times subscriptions and, to judge from a cryptic line in a Thursday article, the problem is more than anecdotal.

Citing reader anger over election coverage, Rutenberg wrote that, “Most ominously, it came in the form of canceled subscriptions.”

Having grown up at The Times, I am pained by its decline. More troubling, as the flagship of American journalism, it is giving all reporters a black eye. Its standards were the source of its credibility, and eliminating them has made it less than ordinary.

It is because of those concerns that I repeat a suggestion about how to fix the mess. Because he now concedes a problem, perhaps Sulzberger will consider taking action.

Using an outside law firm or even in-house reporters, he must assess how and why Baquet made the decision to sever the paper from its roots. He must assess the impact on reporters and editors, and whether they felt pressure to conform their stories to Baquet’s political bias.

Whatever the findings, the publisher must insist that the standards of fairness again become a fundamental tenet in the news room. As an added guarantee, he must insist that the paper enlarge its thinking about diversity to include journalists who disagree with the Times embedded liberal slant. There has to be a difference of perspective to judge where fairness lies.

This is about survival. If it doesn’t change now, the Gray Lady’s days surely are numbered.

To our readers,

When the biggest political story of the year reached a dramatic and unexpected climax late Tuesday night, our newsroom turned on a dime and did what it has done for nearly two years — cover the 2016 election with agility and creativity.

After such an erratic and unpredictable election there are inevitable questions: Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters? What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome? Most important, how will a president who remains a largely enigmatic figure actually govern when he takes office?

As we reflect on this week’s momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.

We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers. We want to take this opportunity, on behalf of all Times journalists, to thank you for that loyalty.

Sincerely,

Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.
Publisher

Dean Baquet
Executive Editor