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

[A Jay]

An interesting data point:

https://www.sott.net/article/324129-Is-nature-saying-wake-up-and-smell-the-corpses-Americas-pungent-corpse-flowers-are-all-mysteriously-blooming-at-once

7 of these corpse flowers have bloomed in the past 2 months, 4 of them having bloomed within a little more than a week of Trump's nomination and within days of Killary's.

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= Laura]Exactly. And you vote for her, you align with her and her lies and evil.

A vote for Trump is also ill-advised. In the end, best to NOT vote or vote for the candidate you'd really like to see in office.[/quote]

Would never vote for her. It was about who the PTB would consider their most safe-option to go with. But yes, if you vote for her. Her lies shape your reality and those of others. That's on you.


This article estimates that only 9% will vote. Which must be a new low if that happens. I am sure they got a higher percentage than that they can rigg.


"Freedom" and "democracy" in the U.S.: Report shows 91% of Americans didn't want Clinton or Trump
https://www.sott.net/article/324110-Freedom-and-democracy-in-the-US-Report-shows-91-of-Americans-didnt-want-Clinton-or-Trump

A recent report published by The New York Times has pointed out that an overwhelming majority of Americans, 91% of them in fact, did not support or vote for Clinton or Trump in the recent primary elections.

The figures were calculated from statistics that were gathered by the U.S. Census Bureau, Federal Election Commission, Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, The Sentencing Project, and the Pew Research Center.

The figures illustrate that scores of people living in America are not allowed to vote, they are considered ineligible due to their age, prior arrests, or incomplete citizenship applications.

In total, there are 103 million people who are essentially banned from voting, so this demographic would technically fall into the category of people who did not support Trump or Clinton in the primaries, although their actual preference can't be determined.

Furthermore, there is an increasingly significant portion of the US population that is deciding not to vote on principle, because they don't feel particularly enthusiastic about any of the candidates.

It was determined that 88 million people who were eligible to vote, did not vote in the primaries, and will not be voting in the general elections either. These are principled non-voters who have refused to put their consent into a system that they don't believe is legitimate.

Of the Americans who do plan on voting in the main elections this November, most of them didn't vote in the primary elections. According to the report in the Times, an additional 73 million did not vote in the primaries this year, but will most likely vote in the general election.

In total, roughly 60 million people voted in the primaries, with about 30 million voting for Republicans and another 30 million voting for Democrats. The funny thing about this, though, is the fact that most of these voters supported other candidates in the primaries since there was a wider group of politicians from which they can choose.

Although Clinton and Trump did finish in the lead, they only needed a very small percentage of eligible voters to win the nomination. When looking at the overall level of support that they have among the average American, that number is even smaller. Together, Clinton and Trump had the support of roughly 14% of eligible voters, and 9% of American residents in general.

This may seem strange, but this is actually the case in every single election. The vast majority of American residents do not vote, and thus it would be safe to assume that at least a significant portion of these nearly 200 million people would prefer to have no president at all.

 

[Laura]

Maybe we should all start promoting a write-in vote for Jill Stein on FB and Twitter?

 

[Mr. Premise]

Maybe we should all start promoting a write-in vote for Jill Stein on FB and Twitter?

I think she will end up in the ballot in all states so people won't even have to write in. It's a process of getting signatures, etc., state by state but I think they are on more than half already.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Maybe we should all start promoting a write-in vote for Jill Stein on FB and Twitter?

I think she will end up in the ballot in all states so people won't even have to write in. It's a process of getting signatures, etc., state by state but I think they are on more than half already.

Also, the big thing for her would be getting into the debates, where the networks require that you poll between 10 and 15%. She's already quintupled her numbers in the last couple weeks (from 1% to 5% but still) so it's worth a shot. At least people will get exposed to a rational and compassionate view of things.

 

[axj]

Here is an interesting view by a professional on whether Trump is a narcissist:

https://www.youtube.com/embed/_OncXf8eLfM

He points out that most politicians are narcissistic to some degree and that it is helpful to look at those people's personal relationships to see whether they are deeply narcissistic.

 

[Seppo Ilmarinen]

Here's a good example of something that I think endears Trump to some people. He's not "politically correct". I can't imagine any other Presidential nominee saying this in public.

This "not being politically correct" kind of explains why Russians prefer him over Killary. Because Russians are familiar with this kind of behavior, since they have Zhirinovsky. Of course Zhirinovsky will never become or be allowed to become a president, but his long diatribes are tolerated by Putin and others because he is considered to be a clown, and that's why he can say (often true) things that others wouldn't. But then, it is clear that Zhirinovsky is at least a schizoid, if not with a bunch of other pathologies.

Bottom line is, it's much easier for Russians to handle narcissists like Trump, than overt snakes like Killary. Like, for example, Putin knows how to handle Berlusconi and make him feel like a king, or as if they are best buddies.

Yes, and IMO Trump is also a bit like George W. Bush from PR perspective; because he's not too smart and he's overtly fascist, he'll end up saying stupid things which can alienate U.S policies more from the rest of the world and make harder for people to lie to themselves about true nature of US Imperium (voting for Trump wouldn't still be good idea). In Obama's case many still project onto him this image of hope and progressive leader, even though in reality he is totally spineless politician, doing exactly what any other puppet would have done in his place. Similarly Hillary as president would enable many to think world is moving forwards, -since there's a first US female president and they evaded Trump- and miss the fact she's a hideous monster from inside. Believing this lie would be detrimental.

 

[shellycheval]

Mr Premise

Also, the big thing for her [Jill Stein] would be getting into the debates, where the networks require that you poll between 10 and 15%. She's already quintupled her numbers in the last couple weeks (from 1% to 5% but still) so it's worth a shot. At least people will get exposed to a rational and compassionate view of things.

my bold

I agree. Many people say they want a third party option for President--while here it is! Let's talk it up and see how big of a Wave we can make before the "Doomsday" election of 2016. Can't hurt.
What if every serious committed Forum member who wants a choice other than the "lesser of two evils" (oxymoronic) makes a point to speak Jill Stein's name and Green Party candidate to someone new everyday in whatever media format you have available? At least it is a way to channel ones election energy and exercise ones "choice" such that it is. It will remind people that there is almost always more choices or solutions to solving a problem than the divisional two-sides only dialectical thinking we are conditioned to believe there is by the PTB and MSM. At this point in The Game--what have we got to lose? Let's make a Wave!

 

[Nancy2feathers]

Some of Jill Stein's views in an article on SOTT: Green Party candidates share refreshing views on curing US problems in debate hosted by RT https://www.sott.net/article/317993-Green-Party-candidates-share-refreshing-views-on-curing-US-problems-in-debate-hosted-by-RT

 

[axj]

Here's a good example of something that I think endears Trump to some people. He's not "politically correct". I can't imagine any other Presidential nominee saying this in public.

This "not being politically correct" kind of explains why Russians prefer him over Killary. Because Russians are familiar with this kind of behavior, since they have Zhirinovsky. Of course Zhirinovsky will never become or be allowed to become a president, but his long diatribes are tolerated by Putin and others because he is considered to be a clown, and that's why he can say (often true) things that others wouldn't. But then, it is clear that Zhirinovsky is at least a schizoid, if not with a bunch of other pathologies.

Bottom line is, it's much easier for Russians to handle narcissists like Trump, than overt snakes like Killary. Like, for example, Putin knows how to handle Berlusconi and make him feel like a king, or as if they are best buddies.

Yes, and IMO Trump is also a bit like George W. Bush from PR perspective; because he's not too smart and he's overtly fascist, he'll end up saying stupid things which can alienate U.S policies more from the rest of the world and make harder for people to lie to themselves about true nature of US Imperium (voting for Trump wouldn't still be good idea). In Obama's case many still project onto him this image of hope and progressive leader, even though in reality he is totally spineless politician, doing exactly what any other puppet would have done in his place. Similarly Hillary as president would enable many to think world is moving forwards, -since there's a first US female president and they evaded Trump- and miss the fact she's a hideous monster from inside. Believing this lie would be detrimental.

I don't think that Trump is overtly fascist. Just because the globalist controlled media portray him as the next Hitler, doesn't make him one. If anything, it shows that he is perceived as a real threat by some of the elite factions - which is a good sign. Trump's position on improving relations with Russia, questioning NATO and interventionist policies are pretty much the opposite of Hillary's neocon stance. So yes, Trump is a bigger unknown than the only realistic alternative, but at least there is potential for a more sane foreign policy.

 

[Seppo Ilmarinen]

I don't think that Trump is overtly fascist. Just because the globalist controlled media portray him as the next Hitler, doesn't make him one.

In my book someone who've demanded "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States", and wants to build a wall in the south border against mexicans, is overtly fascist. I wouldn't put false hope on Trump, even if there's some "positive" outcomes compared to Killary, which may or may not manifest if he's elected.

 

[axj]

I don't think that Trump is overtly fascist. Just because the globalist controlled media portray him as the next Hitler, doesn't make him one.

In my book someone who've demanded "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States", and wants to build a wall in the south border against mexicans, is overtly fascist.

That sounds more like emotional reasoning than actual examples of overt fascism. There is nothing particularly nefarious about building a wall to stop illegal border-crossings. A temporary refusal to let any non-citizen Muslims enter the country is indeed a harsh measure and much more questionable. However, in itself it has nothing to do with overt fascism, other than the fear that other policies might follow to prosecute Muslims based on their religion. And so far, there is no indication for anything like this.

I wouldn't put false hope on Trump, even if there's some "positive" outcomes compared to Killary, which may or may not manifest if he's elected.

If the positive outcomes may manifest, as you say, then those are not false hopes.

 

[Cosmos]

I think Trump just "speaks to much and openly", in a childish, compulsive and narcissistic fashion, which simply exposes way to much for the PTB.

I somehow think that the PTB prefer Killary just because of that fact. Then again, maybe the wishfull thinking has reached such proportions there, that they actually think they could handle somebody like Trump as the Nr. 1 spokesperson for the US, even though somebody like that is likely to "reveal the man behind the curtain" inadvertently, with his improvident childish actions and statements.

I think Trump will make it a lot easier for the sane people in the world to see and expose the psychopathic US system, not because he is good, but because he is way to impulsive and childish for such a position. Killary is just a pure evil snake and trump a narcissistic child that speaks to much.

I think it is a big sign of the times that the US has reached a point where there is such a "choice" for president.

 

[axj]

One important difference between Trump and Hillary is that he is much more authentic in what he says. It may be brash, politically incorrect or even stupid at times, but there is a huge difference to Hillary's robot-like scripted performances that lack any kind of authenticity. I think that is one of the main appeals of Trump to many people who can sense this autenticity on some level.

 

[Seppo Ilmarinen]

I don't think that Trump is overtly fascist. Just because the globalist controlled media portray him as the next Hitler, doesn't make him one.

In my book someone who've demanded "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States", and wants to build a wall in the south border against mexicans, is overtly fascist.

That sounds more like emotional reasoning than actual examples of overt fascism. There is nothing particularly nefarious about building a wall to stop illegal border-crossings. A temporary refusal to let any non-citizen Muslims enter the country is indeed a harsh measure and much more questionable. However, in itself it has nothing to do with overt fascism, other than the fear that other policies might follow to prosecute Muslims based on their religion. And so far, there is no indication for anything like this.

I wouldn't put false hope on Trump, even if there's some "positive" outcomes compared to Killary, which may or may not manifest if he's elected.

If the positive outcomes may manifest, as you say, then those are not false hopes.

What i mean by overt fascism, is that Trump's pathological thinking is shining bright through his politically incorrect rambling, where as Hillary is wolf in sheep's clothing, saying things people expect, but in her actions does totally opposite. Whether Trump qualifies literally as a fascist is not the point, if that's what you meant. All these infamous "ism's" like fascism are just different manifestations of ponerogenic process. I don't think there's any question that Trump has serious pathological personality traits, though as said he's probably narcissist where as Hillary is full blown psychopath. There's plenty of articles in SOTT that shows Trump's pathology and how he's taking advance and channeling the anti-muslim and anti-immigration hysteria for his own advantage. That's why i think it's not wise to align oneself in any way with this kind of person, even if Hillary is even worse.

https://www.sott.net/article/306799-Taking-a-page-from-Hitlers-notebook-Trump-hints-at-surveillance-special-IDs-for-Muslims
https://www.sott.net/article/307379-Trumps-immigration-deportation-force-and-the-police-state
https://www.sott.net/article/302304-Donald-Trump-and-the-onslaught-of-American-totalitarianism
https://www.sott.net/article/314542-Radicalization-Hatred-and-violence-among-Trump-supporters