Donald Trump wins 2016 US presidential election

[Seamus]

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

*Edited: a quick summary:

• The GOP establishment is signaling that the "big beautiful" wall is probably going to be a fence instead
• It appears Trump's administration is getting ready to support big business
• It looks like Trump is moving to appoint industry insiders like Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase in his administration

So it looks like the new boss is the same as the old boss.

Thoughts?

 

[JEEP]

How many people are aware of this incident from the past involving Donald Trump who is obviously not your typical white male billionaire:

Donald Trump Apparently Stopped a Mugging in 1991, Resurfaced Report Says
April 20, 2016

Donald Trump apparently stopped a mugging in 1991, according to an old New York Daily News article at the time.

The original article, “Mugger’s Trumped: Donald stops attack,” written by Daily News staff writer James Rosen, is still on Philly.com, but with the title, “Trump Strikes Out Would-be Mugger.”

“I’m not looking to play this thing up,” Trump said in the Nov. 20, 1991, report. “I’m surprised you found out about it.”

In the incident, Trump ordered his driver to pull over after he saw “a big guy with a big bat” bashing another person.

An old copy of the article went viral on Reddit’s The Donald Subreddit on Wednesday.

“Someone in the car looked over and said, ‘Gee, look at that, it’s a mugging,’ ” Trump said. “I said to my driver to stop the car because it was brutal-looking.”

Witnesses told the Daily News that Trump got out of his black stretch limousine on Monday during the assault in Manhattan. Marla Maples, who was married to Trump in the ’90s, was seen grabbing his arm.

“The guy with the bat looked at me, and I said, “Look, you’ve gotta stop this. Put down the bat,”‘ Trump said. “I guess he recognized me because he said, ‘Mr. Trump, I didn’t do anything wrong.’ I said, ‘How could you not do anything wrong when you’re whacking a guy with a bat?’ Then he ran away.”

Kathleen Romeo, a student at the time, said a bunch of people cried: “There’s Trump!” when he got out.

“A lot of people were surprised that he got out to see what was happening,” Romeo said, adding that the bat-wielder ran off right before he appeared. Trump then “just looked around and went back into his limo,” she said.

But another witness supported Trump.

“All of a sudden, a big long limousine pulls up on an angle, and Donald Trump pops out with the blond, too,” the unnamed witness added. “There was a guy with a bat, hitting a guy over the head, and Trump yelled, ‘Put that bat down. What are you doing?’ The guy dropped the bat, came over and started talking to him.”

The attack wasn’t ever reported to police.

Also in 1991, Trump delivered a speech to the House on “economic recovery.” The clip has since gone viral on YouTube amid Trump’s run for president.

_http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2031210-donald-trump-apparently-stopped-a-mugging-in-1991-resurfaced-report-says/

Added details from another article re this incident:

“Witnesses said Trump, with Marla Maples tugging at his arm to try to stop him, leaped from his black stretch limousine Monday evening during the Manhattan assault.

“Trump said the bat-man delivered at least “five or six good whacks” before he interceded.

“Trump said he left the site only after he saw a man who appeared to be a doctor treating the victim and heard that an ambulance was on its way.

“A Midtown North Precinct spokeswoman said the attack was not reported to police.”

Afterward, Trump said he thought about the help his mother got when she was mugged three weeks before in which a witness to the attack chased and caught the man who attacked her.

“Trump said the incident occurred at 8 p.m. as he, Maples and another couple were heading toward the Lincoln Tunnel on their way to the Meadowlands in New Jersey for a Paula Abdul concert.”

Trump apparently did not seek publicity for this, the Daily News contacted him for the story.

Funny how this story didn't get much exposure when it resurfaced. Trump the secret superhero coming to the aid of a hapless victim but who otherwise has no qualms in tying a 13 year old to a bed and brutally raping her. Perhaps if scopolomine was involved . . .
[_http://www.deepblacklies.co.uk/the_pegasus_file-part1.htm]

I'm also reminded of the Rolling Stone rape story debacle - how convincing the accuser's rape story was that proved to be fiction.

 

[sbeaudry]

_http://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-campaign-fbi-director-james-comey-2016-11

The Hillary Clinton campaign pinned blame on FBI Director James Comey for its stunning election night loss to Donald Trump.

Navin Nayak, the director of opinion research on the campaign, sent an email to senior staff Thursday evening outlining what the campaign believed were the reasons for its loss. The email, which was first reported by Politico, was confirmed to Business Insider by a Clinton campaign staffer.

Nayak signaled in the email that the campaign believes two bombshells from Comey in the final days of the election helped swing the electorate toward Trump — an initial Comey letter to Congress that reactivated an investigation into Clinton's private email server, and a subsequent letter last Sunday that again cleared her of wrongdoing.

"We believe that we lost this election in the last week. Comey's letter in the last 11 days of the election both helped depress our turnout and also drove away some of our critical support among college-educated white voters — particularly in the suburbs," Nayak wrote. "We also think Comey's 2nd letter, which was intended to absolve Sec. Clinton, actually helped to bolster Trump's turnout."

The campaign said Comey's first letter likely helped depress turnout among Clinton's supporters. That served as a shift in thinking, or at least posture, from last week, when the campaign's communications director argued that the reactivated FBI investigation had actually helped excite Clinton's base.

But Nayak wrote that after seeing record early-vote turnout in several states, turnout lagged on Election Day in swing-state metropolitan areas like Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Raleigh-Durham.

Comey's second letter "energized Trump supporters," Nayak wrote.

"There is no question that a week from Election Day, Sec. Clinton was poised for a historic win," Nayak wrote. "In the end, late breaking developments in the race proved one hurdle too many for us to overcome."

Additionally, Nayak pointed to anger at global institutions, a desire for change after a two-term Democratic president, the challenges of reassembling President Barack Obama's voting coalition, and the "unprecedented task" of electing the nation's first female president as hurdles to the campaign's success.

Nayak also suggested some blame lay at the feet of Green Party nominee Jill Stein, whose 130,000 votes in three key swing states were "an important reminder of the influence of 3rd party votes."

So... First, it was the Russians and Putin, now it's Comey and Jill Stein. She can't take any blame, it's all someone else's fault. Ha! Hilarious. She can't get out of her own way and then blames someone else. Stein? Really? She got, what, 1% of the vote? Good grief.

 

[SummerLite]

So it looks like the new boss is the same as the old boss.

Thoughts?

Doesn't look good. :(

 

[sbeaudry]

So it looks like the new boss is the same as the old boss.

Thoughts?

Doesn't look good. :(

I think part of what's happening is still gaming. There is political unrest and a potential color revolution, so he may still be 'playing the game' to ensure he actually gets in. He doesn't like to lose. Much of what is coming out of his camp is conflicting and I think, even if he sincerely wants to make positive change(s), he will still have to pander to certain interests, even if it's just lip service (and maybe it isn't). We won't really know until the ball gets rolling, when and if he actually gets inaugurated and starts moving. OSIT

 

[Niall]

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.”

Interesting. At least they acknowledge that they were spectacularly wrong. Over in London, the other Leading Liberal Newspaper of Record in the Western Hemisphere, The Guardian, has been totally unapologetic, ranting about racists and bigging up the riots. However, they too seem to sense that they're toast as far as future readership is concerned; for some weeks they've been running banners with appeals for donations from the public. I've noticed that since the day after Trump's election, they've placed such banners far more prominently on their site, including front and center on the homepage!

 

[anothermagyar]

[quote author=thornbion] In the legal documents I saw the name of the counsel as
Quote from: http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/trump-team-fires-back-after-jane-doe-refiles-rape-lawsuit-with-new-witness/

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:

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheney_Mason

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.[/quote]

Thank you Thornbion for the info.
I find that interesting, because this Katie Johnson cancelled her public appearance and dropped the charges against Trump.
The other article the author and reporter Emily Schugerman says things like the police in Florida case against Epstein didn't mention Trump involvement in rape.
I think it was a weak attempt to smear Trump.

The other interesting fact about this attorney, J. Cheney Mason, he was a "co-counsel for Casey Anthony in the 2011 Casey Anthony trial and counsel for Nelson Serrano in his 2006 murder trial." ( the quote from Wikipedia.)

You remember the murder of Caylee Anthony, her mother was convicted, then released in 2011.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Caylee_Anthony

And now is this, from RT, about the mass hysteria because Killary didn't get elected:

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

 

[Seamus]

So it looks like the new boss is the same as the old boss.

Thoughts?

Doesn't look good. :(

I think part of what's happening is still gaming. There is political unrest and a potential color revolution, so he may still be 'playing the game' to ensure he actually gets in. He doesn't like to lose. Much of what is coming out of his camp is conflicting and I think, even if he sincerely wants to make positive change(s), he will still have to pander to certain interests, even if it's just lip service (and maybe it isn't). We won't really know until the ball gets rolling, when and if he actually gets inaugurated and starts moving. OSIT

Yeah that sounds about right.

 

[neema]

Just saw the new Russell Brand video and his take on the whole Trump win. I thought he made some good observations.

http://<iframe width="854" height="...8Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

He basically said the Trump election has been a long time coming and people should look at how bad the environment has become for this to happen.

He also compares it to the brexit vote.

 

[Ellipse]

So it looks like the new boss is the same as the old boss.

Thoughts?

Doesn't look good. :(

I think part of what's happening is still gaming. There is political unrest and a potential color revolution, so he may still be 'playing the game' to ensure he actually gets in. He doesn't like to lose. Much of what is coming out of his camp is conflicting and I think, even if he sincerely wants to make positive change(s), he will still have to pander to certain interests, even if it's just lip service (and maybe it isn't). We won't really know until the ball gets rolling, when and if he actually gets inaugurated and starts moving. OSIT

I think the same. We can't really judge right now.

 

[Glenn]

So it looks like the new boss is the same as the old boss.

Thoughts?

Doesn't look good. :(

I think part of what's happening is still gaming. There is political unrest and a potential color revolution, so he may still be 'playing the game' to ensure he actually gets in. He doesn't like to lose. Much of what is coming out of his camp is conflicting and I think, even if he sincerely wants to make positive change(s), he will still have to pander to certain interests, even if it's just lip service (and maybe it isn't). We won't really know until the ball gets rolling, when and if he actually gets inaugurated and starts moving. OSIT

I think the same. We can't really judge right now.

He is in a very precarious situation surrounded by those who wish to bring him down. Much like the position that Putin has been in. Too early to tell how he will handle things as yet.

 

[Richs]

He is in a very precarious situation surrounded by those who wish to bring him down. Much like the position that Putin has been in. Too early to tell how he will handle things as yet.

This reminds me I need to practice both patience and non-anticipation. I need to hold the thought of an eventual great outcome in my mind while not trying to guess the inns and outs, the events and circumstances leading to this outcome, but simply the end result.

Not very easy, but I will do my best at it. Perhaps we should all do the same.

 

[Mal7]

Well geez I met with a curtain of disapproval when I expressed my skepticism earlier in the year with regard to there being a close Trump/Hitler parallelism.

Can you give some examples?

Joe I gave two examples in my post. I don't mean personal disapproval, so much as disapproval of my views that Trump might not be "literally Hitler". I would paraphrase the gist or tendency of responses as "No, you're wrong, Trump is evil incarnate, the worst possible outcome for the USA and humanity. Go do more research. He's raising an angry mob of brownshirts, before you know it, it will be concentration camps and Holocaust 2.0" If you want me to quote more actual responses from the thread, I can, but like I said I already gave two examples.

 

[Mal7]

I think bjorn said it very well 7777. The problem is not whether you are 'right' about this or that when you identify with a certain ideology, the problem is that if you are caught up in an ideology, you become blind to everything that goes against it. 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'.

All very true and important I think. We are probably the only people on the planet that have our particular perspective and it is founded in the idea of staying 'open' hedging out bets, so to speak, but betting only on thing going a bit crazy with nothing much anyone can do about it other than watch it happen and give every thing its due, as it truly is. It's non attachment basically, to any particular outcome, while gathering as much objective data as possible to be in a position to explain things to whoever is listening at the point where nothing makes any sense to anyone anymore. Despite the fact that that means we have to live with a lot of uncertainty, which can be scary, it is a far better position than, as Luc says, being fully attached to or identified with one particular ideology or outcome. Because when things fall apart completely, people in that position have the most to lose and will be the most disorientated and traumatized. So in effect, by dealing now with the uncertainty involved in the most likely scenario of it ALL coming apart at the seams, we are kind of 'paying in advance' in the sense of preparing ourselves for that eventuality.

Joe it's not about me being right. I was in fact wrong, as I thought Hillary Clinton would win, based on the polls and her enormous support from the mainstream media etc.
I thought Trump was the better choice, and, pre-election, became something of an advocate for him. I still disagree with those people who think voting is pointless, or Hillary and Trump are both equally bad.
I don't recall saying I supported Trump 100% and had no disagreements with his policies. For example, I said I disagreed with Trump on the use of torture.

Now that Trump is the president-elect, I think the obvious thing to do is to switch roles from being an advocate, to being a critical watch-dog of Trump, calling him out if he seems to be going in a fascist direction on matters of civil liberties, religious or anti-religious bigotry, hegemonic military oppression of other countries.

 

[Mal7]

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>

Yes it was posted before, in May:

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!"