Killary Clinton, The Donald, or Jill Stein: The US Election
- Thread starter whitecoast
- Start date
birk
Padawan Learner
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
The whole thing is very fishy to me, seems it is already named podiumgate on youtube.
It would be nice if either Killary or her gear breaks down during the remaining debates
Or maybe the Killarymachine winding down after high power usage for 90 minutesangelburst29 said:
The whole thing is very fishy to me, seems it is already named podiumgate on youtube.
It would be nice if either Killary or her gear breaks down during the remaining debates
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
The light could be just a light so that she can read her notes on the papers better, that were put on the podium in front of her (the notes the cleaner guy carried away later). IMO that is the more likely explanation, compared to that light being some sort of beamer. Also notice that the light spans on almost the whole width of the podium. If the cleaner guy or the other guy removed that light in front of the camerra, we probably would have seen and noticed that well, since it is a big light. They removed other stuff in front of the camera after the debate from her podium and not that light IMO.
birk said:Or maybe the Killarymachine winding down after high power usage for 90 minutesangelburst29 said:
The whole thing is very fishy to me, seems it is already named podiumgate on youtube.
It would be nice if either Killary or her gear breaks down during the remaining debates
The light could be just a light so that she can read her notes on the papers better, that were put on the podium in front of her (the notes the cleaner guy carried away later). IMO that is the more likely explanation, compared to that light being some sort of beamer. Also notice that the light spans on almost the whole width of the podium. If the cleaner guy or the other guy removed that light in front of the camerra, we probably would have seen and noticed that well, since it is a big light. They removed other stuff in front of the camera after the debate from her podium and not that light IMO.
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
FWIW, 'snap' online polls nearly all show Trump as the winner - by a huge majority in some cases - of that first debate:
https://www.sott.net/article/329801-Mainstream-media-unanimously-supports-Killary-but-online-polls-suggest-huge-majority-of-Americans-support-Trump
FWIW, 'snap' online polls nearly all show Trump as the winner - by a huge majority in some cases - of that first debate:
https://www.sott.net/article/329801-Mainstream-media-unanimously-supports-Killary-but-online-polls-suggest-huge-majority-of-Americans-support-Trump
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
Not only that, but after the debates most polls show Trump's popularity actually went up in few days following the debate. The debates showcased Hillary at her best, and if that wasn't enough to swing voters, I don't think she has much of a chance of winning without active collusion with the electoral system to bias voting machines enough to tip the election.
Niall said:
Not only that, but after the debates most polls show Trump's popularity actually went up in few days following the debate. The debates showcased Hillary at her best, and if that wasn't enough to swing voters, I don't think she has much of a chance of winning without active collusion with the electoral system to bias voting machines enough to tip the election.
angelburst29
The Living Force
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
Trump may have enough votes for the Electoral College?
UPI Poll – Trump Now Leads in Electoral College
http://investmentwatchblog.com/upi-poll-trump-now-leads-in-electoral-college/
According to the new UPI/CVoter State Tracking Poll, for the first time, Donald Trump now leads in enough states to win the Electoral College.
According to the UPI story on the new poll:
“Trump would amass 292 votes and Hillary Clinton would get 246 with 270 needed to secure the oval office.”
What’s the change from the last time this poll was issued. Well, if the battleground states are not counted, Trump and Clinton would be dead even at 191 Electoral College votes each.
But Trump has surged ahead in 3 key swing states, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
So here is what the UPI Electoral College map looks like. The light blue and the light pink means that the margin is less than 5%, however, UPI is the first poll to show Virginia moving into the Trump camp. In fact, they say Trump leads now by 3.4%!
However, the Real Clear Politics average of polls just posted new numbers and almost without exception all the news is bad for Clinton.
Even Massachusetts is moving. It’s status has now been changed from Safe for Clinton, to Likely Clinton.
Minnesota has been changed from Leaning Clinton to a Toss Up.
Maine’s two statewide electors have been moved from Leans Clinton to a Toss UP.
Maine’s 2nd District has been changed from a Toss-Up to Leans Trump.
It’s all about momentum, and it’s bad news for Clinton. Regardless what her bought MSM polls say, the Sleeping Giant of the American people is awakening and turning towards the truth.
Trump may have enough votes for the Electoral College?
UPI Poll – Trump Now Leads in Electoral College
http://investmentwatchblog.com/upi-poll-trump-now-leads-in-electoral-college/
According to the new UPI/CVoter State Tracking Poll, for the first time, Donald Trump now leads in enough states to win the Electoral College.
According to the UPI story on the new poll:
“Trump would amass 292 votes and Hillary Clinton would get 246 with 270 needed to secure the oval office.”
What’s the change from the last time this poll was issued. Well, if the battleground states are not counted, Trump and Clinton would be dead even at 191 Electoral College votes each.
But Trump has surged ahead in 3 key swing states, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
So here is what the UPI Electoral College map looks like. The light blue and the light pink means that the margin is less than 5%, however, UPI is the first poll to show Virginia moving into the Trump camp. In fact, they say Trump leads now by 3.4%!
However, the Real Clear Politics average of polls just posted new numbers and almost without exception all the news is bad for Clinton.
Even Massachusetts is moving. It’s status has now been changed from Safe for Clinton, to Likely Clinton.
Minnesota has been changed from Leaning Clinton to a Toss Up.
Maine’s two statewide electors have been moved from Leans Clinton to a Toss UP.
Maine’s 2nd District has been changed from a Toss-Up to Leans Trump.
It’s all about momentum, and it’s bad news for Clinton. Regardless what her bought MSM polls say, the Sleeping Giant of the American people is awakening and turning towards the truth.
angelburst29
The Living Force
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
Saturday Night Live did a nine minute impression on the debate.
SNL Recreates Trump-Hillary Debate. Hilarious!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCFgIyqrYkA
Former 30 Rock star Alec Baldwin helped Saturday Night Live kick off its 42nd season by portraying Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in a cold open that satirized this week’s first presidential debate, but along with Kate McKinnon‘s dead-on Hillary Clinton impression, Baldwin and company mostly re-enacted the surreal debate almost exactly as it happened.
Baldwin nailed many of Trump’s mannerisms, including an observant bit on the real estate mogul’s pronunciation of “China,” and McKinnon capably portrayed Clinton’s polished delivery and coolness under Trump’s self-inflicted fire.
Saturday Night Live did a nine minute impression on the debate.
SNL Recreates Trump-Hillary Debate. Hilarious!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCFgIyqrYkA
Former 30 Rock star Alec Baldwin helped Saturday Night Live kick off its 42nd season by portraying Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in a cold open that satirized this week’s first presidential debate, but along with Kate McKinnon‘s dead-on Hillary Clinton impression, Baldwin and company mostly re-enacted the surreal debate almost exactly as it happened.
Baldwin nailed many of Trump’s mannerisms, including an observant bit on the real estate mogul’s pronunciation of “China,” and McKinnon capably portrayed Clinton’s polished delivery and coolness under Trump’s self-inflicted fire.
Heather
Dagobah Resident
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
After some extensive, uh, research on the matter, I think I found another reason why Hillary had the edge in the first debate. See 4:25 demonstrating how she actually had some help from behind the scenes.. (just for some additional comic relief here):
Actually, Carvey's impersonation of Trump should there be a nuclear war under his watch is pretty good too. See: 4:00 on same tape.
After some extensive, uh, research on the matter, I think I found another reason why Hillary had the edge in the first debate. See 4:25 demonstrating how she actually had some help from behind the scenes.. (just for some additional comic relief here):
Actually, Carvey's impersonation of Trump should there be a nuclear war under his watch is pretty good too. See: 4:00 on same tape.
angelburst29
The Living Force
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
The Clintons will break all rules and laws to seize White House power. This is amply proven by the manner in which they rigged and stole the first presidential debate.
“Podiumgate”: How the Clintons Rigged the First Presidential Debate
http://www.globalresearch.ca/podiumgate-how-the-clintons-rigged-the-first-presidential-debate/5549313
The operation appears to have been planned in advance of the September 26, 2016 event, involving the Clintons and their operatives, the debate organizers, the broadcast media (NBC and “moderator” Lester Holt), the managers of the venue, and the security detail at the facility.
The rig was carried out with near-military precision.
It began with the building of a special podium for Hillary Clinton: one that was smaller than the podium designated for Donald Trump. The smaller podium gave Hillary the illusion of being bigger in physical stature. More importantly, the podium seems to have been built or adapted with some sort of electronic console or teleprompter.
Who oversaw the building and modification of this podium? Why did the Trump people not notice this immediately?
Prior to the debate, tape footage shows how a device meant to be installed into Hillary’s podium was smuggled in by the Clintons and their operatives. Also brought in was a stack of documents; perhaps the debate questions obtained in advance from someone inside. The behavior appears highly suspicious; they are clearly up to something.
Photos also lay waste to the lie that Lester Holt was not wired during the debate. He clearly was, and a technician even removed his jacket to install it. Hillary herself might also have been wired. To what, we do not know, but they were both wired.
During the debate, footage shows Hillary Clinton’s podium lighting up with a computer screen, while Trump’s podium stays dark. Hillary’s hand appears to be pressing or toggling controls on the podium to scroll through her teleprompter screen. Her motions have been interpreted by some as involuntary tremors from Parkinson’s disease, but they appear to be far more deliberate than involuntary.
Analysis shows Hillary apparently giving signals to Lester Holt several times at key moments during the debate. Each time she scratched her nose or touched her face, Holt promptly interrupted, attacked and derailed Trump.
The timing was too systematic to be coincidental. Holt also clearly let Clinton have a free pass to speak ad nauseum without “fact checking” and without interruptions throughout the debate. This in addition to the inane topics—which did not include any questions about Clinton’s track record—were already a setup that did not favor Trump.
The most damning evidence of the rigging involves what happened after the debate ended. Footage shows the Clintons and their operatives “doing a sneaky dance” on the stage after the debate to retrieve the device from Hillary’s podium while the crowds mill about.
Watch these breakdowns:
Hillary Clinton’s teleprompter at the debate caught on camera
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C__OmNj508 (8:07 min.)
The main Clinton operative—the white-haired mustached man wearing glasses— has been identified as Brady Williamson, a Democratic Party strategist and lawyer, and a man who has worked for the Clintons for decades. Williamson, the “Cleaner Man” darts around, with two others lurking nearby acting as lookouts.
Their movements suggest that they are clearly up to no good. Finally the entire Clinton team, including Bill and Hillary, surround the secret podium to hide the retrieval of the object(s) out of the podium. These items are passed from Williamson to another operative, and then secreted out.
(Were it not for sharp-eyed observers who analyzed this footage and posted it on YouTube, we would not have caught the Clintons pulling this off. This is why the powers that be want to control and shut down the Internet to prevent citizen investigative work such as this.)
A clear difference in criminal experience
Criminal behavior on the part of the Clintons is no surprise. It is how they have always done things, and gotten away with all of it. Criminality, secrecy, and deception are the foundations of their political dynasty. Any seasoned observer expects the dirtiest dirty tricks from them.
What is baffling is that this blatant fraud occurred without the Trump camp noticing, or doing anything about it. Trump agreed to the terms and mechanics of the debate well in advance. What happened to Trump’s security detail? How did no one notice how Hillary’s podium lit up? Why was the stage controlled only by Clinton operatives? Didn’t anyone not aligned to Clinton check the podiums and the stage before the debate began? Why didn’t someone confront Williamson or the other suspicious characters? Why didn’t Trump cry foul during the fraud, or afterwards?
If the Trump forces are unable to counter or match the dirty tricks and psy-ops of the highly experienced Clinton machine, they will not survive.
Foolishness while the world burns
The world is facing unprecedented crisis. Yet substantive issues are not addressed in these campaign events. If and when any real issues are approached, deception, lies and falsehoods dominate the rhetoric.
As expected, the Clinton faction is trying to reduce matters to the lowest common denominator, focusing attention on gossipy tabloid material, such as “rude things that Trump said or tweeted”, Trump’s “fat shaming” of women and Miss Universe contestants, and Trump’s tax returns. The Clintons have calculated, probably correctly, that the dumbed down American masses care much more about trivial matters than such real issues as world war, nuclear holocaust, collapsing economies and other realities. The low road, familiar to the dirty Clintons, is their key to victory. They view the populace with utter contempt. Their goal is to seize power, and to hell with the rest.
Tragically, instead of turning matters to his advantage, Trump has so far taken the bait, falling into the Clinton trap, by reacting to the Clinton gossip. He has even added more hot air to the mix, blabbering about his own business affairs and matters of irrelevance. He himself is the embodiment of tabloid gossip and a reality show circus, and he has done a poor job changing this impression. Both Clinton and Trump are head cases.
Even when he has been given opportunities to drive the discourse, Trump has failed to articulate how he would be less of a New World Order neocon/war monger/corporatist than Clinton. He and Clinton argue about who is the better “anti-terrorist” and the tougher adversary against Russia and China, the more aggressive “law and order cop”.
Yes, Trump has criticized Clinton and Obama for some of their war policies, for “disasters” such as creating ISIS, etc. But would Trump have ended the wars if he had been at the controls?
<snip>
The next circus moment
The second debate scheduled for October 9, 2016 promises nothing better for Trump. The last debate saw Hillary Clinton and Lester Holt ganging up on Trump. This next time, it will be three against one.
One of the “moderators” is CNN’s Anderson Cooper, who was a CIA intern, who likely still functions as an intelligence asset.
CNN is so heavily skewed to the Clintons, and dominated by former Clintonites, that it is referred to derisively as the “Clinton News Network”. Cooper has pushed the lie that Lester Holt was deferential to Trump, when in fact Holt constantly interrupted Trump and bashed him every time Hillary asked him to. Cooper’s statements suggest that he will attack Trump even more aggressively than Holt.
The other “moderator” will be ABC’s Martha Raddatz, who was White House correspondent in the George W. Bush administration. Raddatz is further proof that the corporate media is a revolving door through which Washington insiders slither and slime back and forth.
As long as the Clinton operatives continue to be allowed to get away with fraud and criminal shenanigans—-be it rigged podiums, rigged stage props, hidden teleprompters, hidden transceivers, cheat notes, and collusion with “moderators”—and as long as the corporate media continues to conspire with the Clintons without consequences, then Donald Trump will be toast again.
That is what the Clintons are counting on.
The Clintons will break all rules and laws to seize White House power. This is amply proven by the manner in which they rigged and stole the first presidential debate.
“Podiumgate”: How the Clintons Rigged the First Presidential Debate
http://www.globalresearch.ca/podiumgate-how-the-clintons-rigged-the-first-presidential-debate/5549313
The operation appears to have been planned in advance of the September 26, 2016 event, involving the Clintons and their operatives, the debate organizers, the broadcast media (NBC and “moderator” Lester Holt), the managers of the venue, and the security detail at the facility.
The rig was carried out with near-military precision.
It began with the building of a special podium for Hillary Clinton: one that was smaller than the podium designated for Donald Trump. The smaller podium gave Hillary the illusion of being bigger in physical stature. More importantly, the podium seems to have been built or adapted with some sort of electronic console or teleprompter.
Who oversaw the building and modification of this podium? Why did the Trump people not notice this immediately?
Prior to the debate, tape footage shows how a device meant to be installed into Hillary’s podium was smuggled in by the Clintons and their operatives. Also brought in was a stack of documents; perhaps the debate questions obtained in advance from someone inside. The behavior appears highly suspicious; they are clearly up to something.
Photos also lay waste to the lie that Lester Holt was not wired during the debate. He clearly was, and a technician even removed his jacket to install it. Hillary herself might also have been wired. To what, we do not know, but they were both wired.
During the debate, footage shows Hillary Clinton’s podium lighting up with a computer screen, while Trump’s podium stays dark. Hillary’s hand appears to be pressing or toggling controls on the podium to scroll through her teleprompter screen. Her motions have been interpreted by some as involuntary tremors from Parkinson’s disease, but they appear to be far more deliberate than involuntary.
Analysis shows Hillary apparently giving signals to Lester Holt several times at key moments during the debate. Each time she scratched her nose or touched her face, Holt promptly interrupted, attacked and derailed Trump.
The timing was too systematic to be coincidental. Holt also clearly let Clinton have a free pass to speak ad nauseum without “fact checking” and without interruptions throughout the debate. This in addition to the inane topics—which did not include any questions about Clinton’s track record—were already a setup that did not favor Trump.
The most damning evidence of the rigging involves what happened after the debate ended. Footage shows the Clintons and their operatives “doing a sneaky dance” on the stage after the debate to retrieve the device from Hillary’s podium while the crowds mill about.
Watch these breakdowns:
Hillary Clinton’s teleprompter at the debate caught on camera
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C__OmNj508 (8:07 min.)
The main Clinton operative—the white-haired mustached man wearing glasses— has been identified as Brady Williamson, a Democratic Party strategist and lawyer, and a man who has worked for the Clintons for decades. Williamson, the “Cleaner Man” darts around, with two others lurking nearby acting as lookouts.
Their movements suggest that they are clearly up to no good. Finally the entire Clinton team, including Bill and Hillary, surround the secret podium to hide the retrieval of the object(s) out of the podium. These items are passed from Williamson to another operative, and then secreted out.
(Were it not for sharp-eyed observers who analyzed this footage and posted it on YouTube, we would not have caught the Clintons pulling this off. This is why the powers that be want to control and shut down the Internet to prevent citizen investigative work such as this.)
A clear difference in criminal experience
Criminal behavior on the part of the Clintons is no surprise. It is how they have always done things, and gotten away with all of it. Criminality, secrecy, and deception are the foundations of their political dynasty. Any seasoned observer expects the dirtiest dirty tricks from them.
What is baffling is that this blatant fraud occurred without the Trump camp noticing, or doing anything about it. Trump agreed to the terms and mechanics of the debate well in advance. What happened to Trump’s security detail? How did no one notice how Hillary’s podium lit up? Why was the stage controlled only by Clinton operatives? Didn’t anyone not aligned to Clinton check the podiums and the stage before the debate began? Why didn’t someone confront Williamson or the other suspicious characters? Why didn’t Trump cry foul during the fraud, or afterwards?
If the Trump forces are unable to counter or match the dirty tricks and psy-ops of the highly experienced Clinton machine, they will not survive.
Foolishness while the world burns
The world is facing unprecedented crisis. Yet substantive issues are not addressed in these campaign events. If and when any real issues are approached, deception, lies and falsehoods dominate the rhetoric.
As expected, the Clinton faction is trying to reduce matters to the lowest common denominator, focusing attention on gossipy tabloid material, such as “rude things that Trump said or tweeted”, Trump’s “fat shaming” of women and Miss Universe contestants, and Trump’s tax returns. The Clintons have calculated, probably correctly, that the dumbed down American masses care much more about trivial matters than such real issues as world war, nuclear holocaust, collapsing economies and other realities. The low road, familiar to the dirty Clintons, is their key to victory. They view the populace with utter contempt. Their goal is to seize power, and to hell with the rest.
Tragically, instead of turning matters to his advantage, Trump has so far taken the bait, falling into the Clinton trap, by reacting to the Clinton gossip. He has even added more hot air to the mix, blabbering about his own business affairs and matters of irrelevance. He himself is the embodiment of tabloid gossip and a reality show circus, and he has done a poor job changing this impression. Both Clinton and Trump are head cases.
Even when he has been given opportunities to drive the discourse, Trump has failed to articulate how he would be less of a New World Order neocon/war monger/corporatist than Clinton. He and Clinton argue about who is the better “anti-terrorist” and the tougher adversary against Russia and China, the more aggressive “law and order cop”.
Yes, Trump has criticized Clinton and Obama for some of their war policies, for “disasters” such as creating ISIS, etc. But would Trump have ended the wars if he had been at the controls?
<snip>
The next circus moment
The second debate scheduled for October 9, 2016 promises nothing better for Trump. The last debate saw Hillary Clinton and Lester Holt ganging up on Trump. This next time, it will be three against one.
One of the “moderators” is CNN’s Anderson Cooper, who was a CIA intern, who likely still functions as an intelligence asset.
CNN is so heavily skewed to the Clintons, and dominated by former Clintonites, that it is referred to derisively as the “Clinton News Network”. Cooper has pushed the lie that Lester Holt was deferential to Trump, when in fact Holt constantly interrupted Trump and bashed him every time Hillary asked him to. Cooper’s statements suggest that he will attack Trump even more aggressively than Holt.
The other “moderator” will be ABC’s Martha Raddatz, who was White House correspondent in the George W. Bush administration. Raddatz is further proof that the corporate media is a revolving door through which Washington insiders slither and slime back and forth.
As long as the Clinton operatives continue to be allowed to get away with fraud and criminal shenanigans—-be it rigged podiums, rigged stage props, hidden teleprompters, hidden transceivers, cheat notes, and collusion with “moderators”—and as long as the corporate media continues to conspire with the Clintons without consequences, then Donald Trump will be toast again.
That is what the Clintons are counting on.
Here is the Vice Presidential Debate between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine from yesterday:
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
Here is the Vice Presidential Debate between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine from yesterday:
Here is the Vice Presidential Debate between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine from yesterday:
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
Just listened in. No suprise there: Both encourage very hard treatment against Russia and Syria, via the usual propaganda nonsense. No difference whatsoever. Who would have thought... LOL!
Pashalis said:
Just listened in. No suprise there: Both encourage very hard treatment against Russia and Syria, via the usual propaganda nonsense. No difference whatsoever. Who would have thought... LOL!
Al Today
The Living Force
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
I watched that debate last night. Embarrasses me to be an American. To you all who don't live here within the frequency fence: What image is conveyed there. Geeze Louize... 'Tis totally embarrassing for me to think what image of us common folk is conveyed by these two. No wonder why the world is scared shitless. But I do have a front row seat so I gotta try to enjoy the show... I guess this is why I've been guided to move in the middle of CornVille. Hopefully more than two days walk from a major city because I heard most sheeple will give up after two days of walking, WTSHTF ...
Thinking about all this, perhaps being at ground zero is the way to go? Get it over with and move on...
Welcome to the amazement park... :D
I watched that debate last night. Embarrasses me to be an American. To you all who don't live here within the frequency fence: What image is conveyed there. Geeze Louize... 'Tis totally embarrassing for me to think what image of us common folk is conveyed by these two. No wonder why the world is scared shitless. But I do have a front row seat so I gotta try to enjoy the show... I guess this is why I've been guided to move in the middle of CornVille. Hopefully more than two days walk from a major city because I heard most sheeple will give up after two days of walking, WTSHTF ...
Thinking about all this, perhaps being at ground zero is the way to go? Get it over with and move on...
Welcome to the amazement park... :D
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
I watched about 20 minutes of it before calling it quits, and was watching it via Twitter so I was able to read people's reactions to it in real time. From what I read people were actually taking what these men were saying seriously, which was pretty depressing. They certainly put on a good 'show' from what little of it I watched, but are these really the kind of people the masses want in charge? Superficially charming and glib with absolutely nothing real behind their mask and no intent to act on their fine words? Apparently.
I watched about 20 minutes of it before calling it quits, and was watching it via Twitter so I was able to read people's reactions to it in real time. From what I read people were actually taking what these men were saying seriously, which was pretty depressing. They certainly put on a good 'show' from what little of it I watched, but are these really the kind of people the masses want in charge? Superficially charming and glib with absolutely nothing real behind their mask and no intent to act on their fine words? Apparently.
Heather
Dagobah Resident
Re: Presidential debates 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
I watched the whole debate last night. I mean, all you can do is address the depressingly limited context in which these debates take place. Everyone is always hawkish, and Russia remains the big bad wolf, etc.
By the way, immigration and the Syrian refugee crisis seem to become needlessly polarizing issues. Obviously, vetting immigrants and refugees is necessary for security reasons, so why wouldn't there be agreement on that? There seems to be an "all or nothing" sort of stance on this, with the Hillary camp inviting them all in, and Trump slamming the door shut. Is there something more here though? I mean, is Trump slamming the door for a reason other than his demagogic talk about the violence of immigrants which (according to something Jill Stein recently said) is entirely fictitious, with immigrants comprising the lowest crime rate of all. Of course, Trump's take resonates with a lot of ignorant, angry and dispossessed Americans. On the other hand.. and this is pure speculation on my part.. but if "manufactured" terrorists/spies are set to be brought in in substantial numbers via the Hillary camp (as seemed to have happened with Germany) that would be something to consider as well. I've not read anything to that effect, but it has crossed my mind, and could be another reason why Trump/Pence is so implacable on this issue. Who knows? Maybe Putin tipped him off (!)
[could be an area to look into]
Actually, the Putin connection is a puzzle in itself. If, as an earlier post indicated, the Neocons are the ones now backing Trump, one imagines that that development would foreclose on what could have been some sort of alliance between Trump and Putin. But of course there's a great deal more going on here than we could possibly know or even speculate about. Be that as it may, is Putin in any way advising Trump?
.. if the answer is yes, did he support Trump's "making a deal" (as Trump likes to say) with the Neocons? If so, what would Putin's motives be? Interesting if Trump were wedged between two feuding camps with Putin supplying additional intelligence as needed.
.. or am I just writing a fictional screenplay here?! No doubt. But what we do know is that something is going on, and the fact that Trump is in some way connected to Putin makes things rather interesting to speculate about. One thing Putin does know first hand is that the only way to really take on the tactics of Bush 'n Co. (or the old guard at the CIA, which is allied w/ the Clintons, and more recently Obama) is to get in league with the Neocons. And I suppose -- to try and be realistic here for a moment -- the buck stops there. Trump is their puppet, and that's that. But again, that's why the Putin connection is so interesting, since it really begs some interesting questions.
.. too bad Trump is so.. you know.. Trump like, since this almost seems like an opportunity to model oneself after Putin, using all one's wiles to set the wolves on each other and see to the "real" needs of a desperate nation.
.. (I know.. I'm dreaming)
I watched the whole debate last night. I mean, all you can do is address the depressingly limited context in which these debates take place. Everyone is always hawkish, and Russia remains the big bad wolf, etc.
By the way, immigration and the Syrian refugee crisis seem to become needlessly polarizing issues. Obviously, vetting immigrants and refugees is necessary for security reasons, so why wouldn't there be agreement on that? There seems to be an "all or nothing" sort of stance on this, with the Hillary camp inviting them all in, and Trump slamming the door shut. Is there something more here though? I mean, is Trump slamming the door for a reason other than his demagogic talk about the violence of immigrants which (according to something Jill Stein recently said) is entirely fictitious, with immigrants comprising the lowest crime rate of all. Of course, Trump's take resonates with a lot of ignorant, angry and dispossessed Americans. On the other hand.. and this is pure speculation on my part.. but if "manufactured" terrorists/spies are set to be brought in in substantial numbers via the Hillary camp (as seemed to have happened with Germany) that would be something to consider as well. I've not read anything to that effect, but it has crossed my mind, and could be another reason why Trump/Pence is so implacable on this issue. Who knows? Maybe Putin tipped him off (!)
[could be an area to look into]
Actually, the Putin connection is a puzzle in itself. If, as an earlier post indicated, the Neocons are the ones now backing Trump, one imagines that that development would foreclose on what could have been some sort of alliance between Trump and Putin. But of course there's a great deal more going on here than we could possibly know or even speculate about. Be that as it may, is Putin in any way advising Trump?
.. if the answer is yes, did he support Trump's "making a deal" (as Trump likes to say) with the Neocons? If so, what would Putin's motives be? Interesting if Trump were wedged between two feuding camps with Putin supplying additional intelligence as needed.
.. or am I just writing a fictional screenplay here?! No doubt. But what we do know is that something is going on, and the fact that Trump is in some way connected to Putin makes things rather interesting to speculate about. One thing Putin does know first hand is that the only way to really take on the tactics of Bush 'n Co. (or the old guard at the CIA, which is allied w/ the Clintons, and more recently Obama) is to get in league with the Neocons. And I suppose -- to try and be realistic here for a moment -- the buck stops there. Trump is their puppet, and that's that. But again, that's why the Putin connection is so interesting, since it really begs some interesting questions.
.. too bad Trump is so.. you know.. Trump like, since this almost seems like an opportunity to model oneself after Putin, using all one's wiles to set the wolves on each other and see to the "real" needs of a desperate nation.
.. (I know.. I'm dreaming)
