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

I think that people's anger at the elites can actually be a good thing, because it shows that many people are waking up and not believing the media lies anymore. But these situations are always dangerous and can easily go the wrong away with enough manipulation, scapegoating and other divide-and-conquer techniques that have been used for a long time.
 
[quote author= Sitting]Hence the reason for so many false flags -- to get that "gun control" mindset cemented in minds.[/quote]

Every false flag sores up more gun sells. I think it shows that the PTB don’t really fear a population with weapons. But what they do fear is to where those weapons are aimed at.

Its like you already mentioned:

[quote author= Sitting]But the ingrained & independent nature of some states and its people, poses a major resistance to such attempts. [/quote]

With the global nazification well under way people not to take a stand. Just like the people of Novorossiya took in Ukraine. Sooner or later millions of people throughout the Empire are going to get round up and 'deported' The united forces of Novorossiya (Donbass + Luhansk Militias ) in Ukraine grew from around 10.000 to 45.000 in just a few months after the coup. When people are faced with great injustice and have somewhere to go to fight back. Many will.

After all, the worst thing there is in a time of great injustice is unable to do anything about it.
 
There are good arguments for why Hillary might be the one (s)elected, but I still think that Trump might be the one because the objective seems to be to drive the US into the ground: revolution and all that. I think that the PTB behind the scenes - whoever that might be - may actually want a large portion of the US population dead and that can be effected via revolution or making the US so obnoxious that other countries start aiming their ICBMs at every significant US city and pushing the button. For that purpose, Trump would be ideal.
 
[quote author= Laura]There are good arguments for why Hillary might be the one (s)elected, but I still think that Trump might be the one because the objective seems to be to drive the US into the ground[/quote]

Well, the C's once said that the US will be hated just like Nazi Germany once was. With Trump as Fuhrer. It shouldn't be that hard.
 
Laura said:
There are good arguments for why Hillary might be the one (s)elected, but I still think that Trump might be the one because the objective seems to be to drive the US into the ground: revolution and all that. I think that the PTB behind the scenes - whoever that might be - may actually want a large portion of the US population dead and that can be effected via revolution or making the US so obnoxious that other countries start aiming their ICBMs at every significant US city and pushing the button. For that purpose, Trump would be ideal.

Lately i was thinking on the same line, taking in consideration the dumbing down by the PTB of the american people for many, many years with all the brainwashing that was/is going on through the media(Cinema, Music, TV, Radio, News) and through the educational system (kindergardens, Schools and Universities...) such an individual like Trump it seems the suited candidate for the PTB if they have in store for the US( and maybe as a domino effect for the EU also) a controlled color revolution. With his 4th grade level of speech it seems the perfect guy that can appeal and resonate with the dumb ed down population, off course i'm not implying here that all the americans are dumb ed down, absolutely not, only those who consume a lot of Fox News and other trash news and brainless entertainment which i think still are quite a lot...
 
I think we just got ourselves a new US puppet-president, a lot of psychopathic projection going on here btw, more than usual at least :

https://www.rt.com/usa/336506-trump-dismantle-disastrous-iran-deal/

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump told attendees at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference that he didn’t come to pander, saying “that’s what politicians do,” but he did make a promise related to the Iran nuclear deal.

“My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran,” Trump said, speaking before AIPAC in Washington, DC on Monday evening. “I have been in business a long time…this deal is catastrophic for Israel – for America, for the whole of the Middle East… We have rewarded the world’s leading state sponsor of terror with $ 150 billion and we received absolutely nothing in return.”

Trump criticized the deal for not requiring Iran to dismantle its military nuclear capability and only limiting its nuclear program for a certain number of years. He chastised Iran for contributing to problems in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia by providing weapons and money.

“Iran is financing military forces throughout the Middle East and it is absolutely indefensible that we handed them over $150 billion to facilitate even more acts of terror,” added Trump. “During the last five years, Iran has perpetrated terror attacks in 25 different countries on five continents. They’ve got terror cells everywhere, including in the western hemisphere very close to home. Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism around the world and we will work to dismantle that reach.”


He then slammed the United Nations, decrying it for its utter weakness and incompetence and arguing that it was “not a friend” of democracy, freedom, the United States, or Israel, while also vowing to veto any attempt by the UN to impose its will on the Jewish state.

“With President Obama in his final year, discussions have been swirling about an attempt to bring a Security Council resolution on the terms of an eventual agreement between Israel and Palestine,” Trump said. “Let me be clear: An agreement imposed by the UN would be a total and complete disaster. The United States must oppose this resolution and use the power of our veto. Why? Because that’s now how you make a deal. Deals are made when parties come to the table and negotiate.”

Other Republican presidential candidates spoke before and after Trump at AIPAC.

Ohio Governor John Kasich stressed his experience in foreign policy.

“I don’t need on the job training,” Kasich told the audience on Monday, explaining he already knows about the dangers facing the US and its allies. He stressed his “firm and unwavering” support for Israel and vowed to work to stamp out intolerance, racism, and anti-Semitism.

Kasich called for the suspension of the Iran nuclear deal in response to recent ballistic missile tests, which he said were a violation.

“We are Americans before we are Republicans and Democrats,” he said, adding, “I will not take the low road to the highest office in the land.”

Texas Senator Ted Cruz also spoke at AIPAC after Trump. He attacked the billionaire businessman for promising to be “neutral” in brokering a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians.

“As president, I will not be neutral,” said Cruz. He added, “America will stand unapologetically with the nation of Israel.”

Anti-Trump protesters gathered outside the venue to voice their anger over Trump’s brash political rhetoric and his attendance at the conference.

The leader of one of Washington’s most prominent synagogues said that he felt compelled to denounce Trump as he spoke at a conference of Israeli activists.

Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld of the Ohev Sholom congregation wept as he described to reporters the importance of standing up to what he viewed as Trump’s hatred, describing him as “wicked.”

“This man is inspiring violence,” Herzfeld said, according to the Associated Press. “He is an existential threat to our country.”

“This man is wicked,” Herzfeld added, referring to Trump. “He inspires racists and bigots. He encourages violence. Do not listen to him.”
 
Andre' said:
Laura said:
There are good arguments for why Hillary might be the one (s)elected, but I still think that Trump might be the one because the objective seems to be to drive the US into the ground: revolution and all that. I think that the PTB behind the scenes - whoever that might be - may actually want a large portion of the US population dead and that can be effected via revolution or making the US so obnoxious that other countries start aiming their ICBMs at every significant US city and pushing the button. For that purpose, Trump would be ideal.

Lately i was thinking on the same line, taking in consideration the dumbing down by the PTB of the american people for many, many years with all the brainwashing that was/is going on through the media(Cinema, Music, TV, Radio, News) and through the educational system (kindergardens, Schools and Universities...) such an individual like Trump it seems the suited candidate for the PTB if they have in store for the US( and maybe as a domino effect for the EU also) a controlled color revolution. With his 4th grade level of speech it seems the perfect guy that can appeal and resonate with the dumb ed down population, off course i'm not implying here that all the americans are dumb ed down, absolutely not, only those who consume a lot of Fox News and other trash news and brainless entertainment which i think still are quite a lot...

The strange thing is that the media has been reporting a lot about Trump, but mostly negatively. Trump became popular despite the negative press coverage, which begs the question whether this was intended by the media owners.
 
That's a good point. The media has a tried-and-true method for quieting the opposition - including any 'alternative' candidate, any alternative issue, any inconvenient truth: Just don't cover it. If it happens to be mentioned or even gain some traction, dismiss it as if it were crazy to even contemplate, or that in any case it'll all blow over in a week or so, and continue to do so because people have short memories.

Somehow, at this point I still expect a brokered convention, though. And if he were to be nominated, it would be a good year for an independent candidate, whether establishment or not, to make a Clinton win seem feasible (or even a win for a different deep-state approved candidate, which I guess is less likely at this point).
 
I'm sure this is due to go on sott - but for now i can't see it, it's a great article. Highlighted that relevant to this thread/

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/03/23/a-world-war-has-begun-break-the-silence/ said:
A World War has Begun: Break the Silence

by John Pilger

Email

shutterstock_339956981

I have been filming in the Marshall Islands, which lie north of Australia, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Whenever I tell people where I have been, they ask, “Where is that?” If I offer a clue by referring to “Bikini”, they say, “You mean the swimsuit.”

Few seem aware that the bikini swimsuit was named to celebrate the nuclear explosions that destroyed Bikini island. Sixty-six nuclear devices were exploded by the United States in the Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1958 — the equivalent of 1.6 Hiroshima bombs every day for twelve years.

Bikini is silent today, mutated and contaminated. Palm trees grow in a strange grid formation. Nothing moves. There are no birds. The headstones in the old cemetery are alive with radiation. My shoes registered “unsafe” on a Geiger counter.

Standing on the beach, I watched the emerald green of the Pacific fall away into a vast black hole. This was the crater left by the hydrogen bomb they called “Bravo”. The explosion poisoned people and their environment for hundreds of miles, perhaps forever.

On my return journey, I stopped at Honolulu airport and noticed an American magazine called Women’s Health. On the cover was a smiling woman in a bikini swimsuit, and the headline: “You, too, can have a bikini body.” A few days earlier, in the Marshall Islands, I had interviewed women who had very different “bikini bodies”; each had suffered thyroid cancer and other life-threatening cancers.

Unlike the smiling woman in the magazine, all of them were impoverished: the victims and guinea pigs of a rapacious superpower that is today more dangerous than ever.

I relate this experience as a warning and to interrupt a distraction that has consumed so many of us. The founder of modern propaganda, Edward Bernays, described this phenomenon as “the conscious and intelligent manipulation of the habits and opinions” of democratic societies. He called it an “invisible government”.

How many people are aware that a world war has begun? At present, it is a war of propaganda, of lies and distraction, but this can change instantaneously with the first mistaken order, the first missile.

In 2009, President Obama stood before an adoring crowd in the centre of Prague, in the heart of Europe. He pledged himself to make “the world free from nuclear weapons”. People cheered and some cried. A torrent of platitudes flowed from the media. Obama was subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

It was all fake. He was lying.


The Obama administration has built more nuclear weapons, more nuclear warheads, more nuclear delivery systems, more nuclear factories. Nuclear warhead spending alone rose higher under Obama than under any American president. The cost over thirty years is more than $1 trillion.

A mini nuclear bomb is planned. It is known as the B61 Model 12. There has never been anything like it.
General James Cartwright, a former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said, “Going smaller [makes using this nuclear] weapon more thinkable.”

In the last eighteen months, the greatest build-up of military forces since World War Two — led by the United States — is taking place along Russia’s western frontier. Not since Hitler invaded the Soviet Union have foreign troops presented such a demonstrable threat to Russia.

Ukraine – once part of the Soviet Union – has become a CIA theme park. Having orchestrated a coup in Kiev, Washington effectively controls a regime that is next door and hostile to Russia: a regime rotten with Nazis, literally. Prominent parliamentary figures in Ukraine are the political descendants of the notorious OUN and UPA fascists. They openly praise Hitler and call for the persecution and expulsion of the Russian speaking minority.

This is seldom news in the West, or it is inverted to suppress the truth.

In Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia — next door to Russia – the US military is deploying combat troops, tanks, heavy weapons. This extreme provocation of the world’s second nuclear power is met with silence in the West.

What makes the prospect of nuclear war even more dangerous is a parallel campaign against China.

Seldom a day passes when China is not elevated to the status of a “threat”. According to Admiral Harry Harris, the US Pacific commander, China is “building a great wall of sand in the South China Sea”.

What he is referring to is China building airstrips in the Spratly Islands, which are the subject of a dispute with the Philippines – a dispute without priority until Washington pressured and bribed the government in Manila and the Pentagon launched a propaganda campaign called “freedom of navigation”.

What does this really mean? It means freedom for American warships to patrol and dominate the coastal waters of China. Try to imagine the American reaction if Chinese warships did the same off the coast of California.

I made a film called The War You Don’t See, in which I interviewed distinguished journalists in America and Britain: reporters such as Dan Rather of CBS, Rageh Omar of the BBC, David Rose of the Observer.

All of them said that had journalists and broadcasters done their job and questioned the propaganda that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction; had the lies of George W. Bush and Tony Blair not been amplified and echoed by journalists, the 2003 invasion of Iraq might not have happened, and hundreds of thousands of men, women and children would be alive today.

The propaganda laying the ground for a war against Russia and/or China is no different in principle. To my knowledge, no journalist in the Western “mainstream” — a Dan Rather equivalent, say –asks why China is building airstrips in the South China Sea.

The answer ought to be glaringly obvious. The United States is encircling China with a network of bases, with ballistic missiles, battle groups, nuclear -armed bombers.

This lethal arc extends from Australia to the islands of the Pacific, the Marianas and the Marshalls and Guam, to the Philippines, Thailand, Okinawa, Korea and across Eurasia to Afghanistan and India. America has hung a noose around the neck of China. This is not news. Silence by media; war by media.

In 2015, in high secrecy, the US and Australia staged the biggest single air-sea military exercise in recent history, known as Talisman Sabre. Its aim was to rehearse an Air-Sea Battle Plan, blocking sea lanes, such as the Straits of Malacca and the Lombok Straits, that cut off China’s access to oil, gas and other vital raw materials from the Middle East and Africa.

In the circus known as the American presidential campaign, Donald Trump is being presented as a lunatic, a fascist. He is certainly odious; but he is also a media hate figure. That alone should arouse our scepticism.

Trump’s views on migration are grotesque, but no more grotesque than those of David Cameron. It is not Trump who is the Great Deporter from the United States, but the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama.


According to one prodigious liberal commentator, Trump is “unleashing the dark forces of violence” in the United States. Unleashing them?

This is the country where toddlers shoot their mothers and the police wage a murderous war against black Americans. This is the country that has attacked and sought to overthrow more than 50 governments, many of them democracies, and bombed from Asia to the Middle East, causing the deaths and dispossession of millions of people.

No country can equal this systemic record of violence.
Most of America’s wars (almost all of them against defenceless countries) have been launched not by Republican presidents but by liberal Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama.

In 1947, a series of National Security Council directives described the paramount aim of American foreign policy as “a world substantially made over in [America’s] own image”. The ideology was messianic Americanism. We were all Americans. Or else. Heretics would be converted, subverted, bribed, smeared or crushed.

Donald Trump is a symptom of this, but he is also a maverick. He says the invasion of Iraq was a crime; he doesn’t want to go to war with Russia and China. The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton. She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system whose vaunted “exceptionalism” is totalitarian with an occasional liberal face.

As presidential election day draws near, Clinton will be hailed as the first female president, regardless of her crimes and lies – just as Barack Obama was lauded as the first black president and liberals swallowed his nonsense about “hope”. And the drool goes on.


Described by the Guardian columnist Owen Jones as “funny, charming, with a coolness that eludes practically every other politician”, Obama the other day sent drones to slaughter 150 people in Somalia. He kills people usually on Tuesdays, according to the New York Times, when he is handed a list of candidates for death by drone. So cool.

In the 2008 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton threatened to “totally obliterate” Iran with nuclear weapons. As Secretary of State under Obama, she participated in the overthrow of the democratic government of Honduras. Her contribution to the destruction of Libya in 2011 was almost gleeful. When the Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi, was publicly sodomised with a knife – a murder made possible by American logistics – Clinton gloated over his death: “We came, we saw, he died.”

One of Clinton’s closest allies is Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of State, who has attacked young women for not supporting “Hillary”. This is the same Madeleine Albright who infamously celebrated on TV the death of half a million Iraqi children as “worth it”.

Among Clinton’s biggest backers are the Israel lobby and the arms companies that fuel the violence in the Middle East. She and her husband have received a fortune from Wall Street. And yet, she is about to be ordained the women’s candidate, to see off the evil Trump, the official demon. Her supporters include distinguished feminists: the likes of Gloria Steinem in the US and Anne Summers in Australia.

A generation ago, a post-modern cult now known as “identity politics” stopped many intelligent, liberal-minded people examining the causes and individuals they supported — such as the fakery of Obama and Clinton; such as bogus progressive movements like Syriza in Greece, which betrayed the people of that country and allied with their enemies.

Self absorption, a kind of “me-ism”, became the new zeitgeist in privileged western societies and signaled the demise of great collective movements against war, social injustice, inequality, racism and sexism.

Today, the long sleep may be over. The young are stirring again. Gradually. The thousands in Britain who supported Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader are part of this awakening – as are those who rallied to support Senator Bernie Sanders.

In Britain last week, Jeremy Corbyn’s closest ally, his shadow treasurer John McDonnell, committed a Labour government to pay off the debts of piratical banks and, in effect, to continue so-called austerity.

In the US, Bernie Sanders has promised to support Clinton if or when she’s nominated. He, too, has voted for America’s use of violence against countries when he thinks it’s “right”. He says Obama has done “a great job”.

In Australia, there is a kind of mortuary politics, in which tedious parliamentary games are played out in the media while refugees and Indigenous people are persecuted and inequality grows, along with the danger of war. The government of Malcolm Turnbull has just announced a so-called defence budget of $195 billion that is a drive to war. There was no debate. Silence.

What has happened to the great tradition of popular direct action, unfettered to parties? Where is the courage, imagination and commitment required to begin the long journey to a better, just and peaceful world? Where are the dissidents in art, film, the theatre, literature?

Where are those who will shatter the silence? Or do we wait until the first nuclear missile is fired?

This is an edited version of an address by John Pilger at the University of Sydney, entitled A World War Has Begun.
 
diligence said:
That's a good point. The media has a tried-and-true method for quieting the opposition - including any 'alternative' candidate, any alternative issue, any inconvenient truth: Just don't cover it. If it happens to be mentioned or even gain some traction, dismiss it as if it were crazy to even contemplate, or that in any case it'll all blow over in a week or so, and continue to do so because people have short memories.

Well, the Trump coverage started with the usual ridicule in the media - everyone thought it is just a joke. Then the media moved on to a more aggressive tone as his numbers started to rise. I don't know if the media could have completely ignored his campaign from the beginning and whether this constant focus on Trump - although negative - has been a deliberate way of making him popular. Maybe they wanted to build him up as some sort of 'controlled opposition'.

Another reason for a lot of reporting about Trump is that the media need advertisement income and the Trump stories, coverage, debates and so on have been pretty popular.
 
Thanks itellsya for posting this piece by Pilger. I haven't read anything by him in years and I may have missed it on Sott. Speaking for myself, I stopped being politically active, a voice of protest, a few years after the Iraq war began. The resistance to that war beginning was immense in the USA as it was around the world. It seems to me this was the last time, millions in this country came together, in a organized fashion to protest and stop that war. And we accomplished...nothing. For me it was the wake up call, that my naïve belief, the US government would listen to the people, and we could do something (in this fashion) was destroyed. The gov. was to corrupt so I stopped. How many others where like me in this regard? The voice, passion and actions of protest took a heavy hit when that war started and continued. All the energy poured into that without results left people drained.

I'm starting to pay attention more to this presidential campaign. Listening to a radio broadcast yesterday, Ted Cruz sounds like he's mimicking Trump now, trying to profit from that type of rhetoric I suppose, and he sounds nuts. Clinton comes in with her replies, a sane voice of reason and intelligence and comes out, smelling like a rose.

There are surprises in store I'm sure, for the best laid plans and wishful thinking.

Very good article.
 
Pashalis said:
Approaching Infinity said:
Didn't see it posted so far in this thread (I might've missed it, though!), but WhoWhatWhy recently ran a series of articles posting an old documentary of Trump that never aired at the time, because Trump threatened the filmmakers. But it's been available online for a while now. It exposes Trump's shady business practices and just generally shows what kind of a guy he really is.

http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/02/27/watch-trump-become-trump-trump/ (direct links to the 12 YT vids: https://www.youtube.com/user/RussBakerNews/videos)

Great documentary. A textbook example of the corporate Psychopath who is called Donald Drumpf...

One of the things that stood out for me in this documentary is what Drumpfs Ex Ivana Trump had to say about Drumpf in part 7 at 02:15:


But for all the smiles and glittering entrances at society events, this marriage was not as harmonious as it seemed:
[Ivana says]"If you are good to him he is incredible to you, if you are bad at him you are dead!"

Wonder if she meant that not only metaphorically... Guess how people will be treated that are against him, when he becomes präsident...
 
By the way: Alex Jones exposes himself ever more, as times go on. Ever since Drumpf was on his show, he is literally parroting Drumpf as a complete hero, comparing him to Kennedy, at every occasion he can. He is promoting the narrative that Drumpf is in very much in danger because he is a hero that wants to do good and the PTB don't like it. Jones also recently said that he has inside information that a couple of billionaires really want something good for the american people. Yeah right... Alex is also deliberately implying that muslims/refugees are the problem, as Drumpf does, while at the same time acknowledging that Paris and now Brussels are indeed false flags. Jones simply can not be that stupid to not see where the terror really comes from: Alex is pure evil and wants to get more power as well, for his grandiose violent visions.

Wonder what Jones new position will be, when Drumpf becomes president...

PS: And guess what will happen when Drumpf doesn't get selected. Drumpf, Jones and their followers will scream "election fraud!". Then just a little bit more incitement from them and their followers will rise up violently to bring Drumpf/Jones "justly" to power anyway. Revolution and all that...
 
Well there is this article from VT:

_http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/03/24/trump-aipac/


Supposedly the real speech before his advisor rewrote it.


Drumf to me is just as evil as the rest of them.

The C's say that our computers will destroy us, this article from VT might be one of the ways to accomplish this because an article like that makes it look like he is on the side of the "conspiracy theorists" or at least that he is a "truther".
IOW that he is on someone's side, not just his own, but it will probably just confuse a lot of people...
 
Back
Top Bottom