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

[luke wilson]

Trump has been drawing some really large crowds on the Campaign trail.

What happens - if someone other than Trump gets sworn in as the next U.S. President?

A Revolution = in the streets - of every city?

They can protest, they'll get met by the brute force of the Gestapo. Hillary is the chosen one, Trump is a class clown.

 

[mabar]

Trump has been drawing some really large crowds on the Campaign trail.

What happens - if someone other than Trump gets sworn in as the next U.S. President?

A Revolution = in the streets - of every city?

They can protest, they'll get met by the brute force of the Gestapo. Hillary is the chosen one, Trump is a class clown.

A class clown that is rising, and that's scary, I heard him yesterday at his speech after "Super Tuesday", promising how he will make sure mexicans would built the wall across the border, like the one in China, with his Caterpillars, right! Is what the people he is aiming at want it to hear, people desire to have someone that "out of the blue" change things. Or how he -with his -how to do business- would make companies go back to US, to make good jobs for the American people, how he will cut taxes, etc, etc.

I think, the US "elections" is heading to a non win situation for everyone.

 

[luc]

Trump has been drawing some really large crowds on the Campaign trail.

What happens - if someone other than Trump gets sworn in as the next U.S. President?

A Revolution = in the streets - of every city?

They can protest, they'll get met by the brute force of the Gestapo. Hillary is the chosen one, Trump is a class clown.

Interesting question angelburst29. I agree with Luke - if there are protests, "they" will hit them hard. They could have something like a "controlled demolition" in mind - partly let the people release the pressure, igniting just the right amount of chaos, which will make everyone afraid, and then go down on them with all their might - which most people would actually be grateful for at this point. But even if that's the plan, who knows how it all plays out in reality? I think the Cs said something in that direction...

 

[axj]

For what it's worth, Lada Ray predicts that the Democrats will lose this election. She seems to have been quite accurate in the past.

https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2016/02/29/lada-rays-first-us-presidential-elections-prediction-revolt-in-republican-and-democratic-parties/

From what I understand, she checks the "energy" of events with some sort of pendulum.

Also, Jesse Ventura announced that he will run for president in June if Bernie Sanders doesn't win the nomination:

Jesse Ventura: I’ll Run for President if Bernie Sanders Loses

The former governor of Minnesota likes Trump and Sanders, but says he will get in the race by June if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination.

MINNEAPOLIS — Jesse Ventura told The Daily Beast he will run for president if Bernie Sanders does not win the Democratic nomination.

Ventura was elected the governor of Minnesota as an independent in 1998 after serving as a Navy SEAL and professional wrestler. Ventura said his campaign was so successful at showing an outsider could be elected that Trump and Sanders are “ripping him off.” He bets he can do it again if Sanders loses and the election is Hillary Clinton vs. Trump.

“They’re setting the groundwork for me because if Bernie loses, by the time we get to June, how sick are the people going to be of all these people,” he said while dressed in a Jimi Hendrix shirt under a blazer and SEALs beanie.

“See, I’m an independent and I despise the two parties,” Ventura, who speaks as if he is prepared to tackle you, continued. “I love what Trump’s doing to the Republicans. He’s got them in complete disarray. In fact, it looks like the WWE when you watch their debates.”

As for who will prevail in the Minnesota caucus tomorrow night, Ventura really could not say.

“I support the revolution of what’s happening here,” Ventura said after telling a local that he worked for most “level-headed” news outlet (RT America). “There’s three things where I stand with Bernie on more so than Trump. Number one is campaign finance reform,” two is “the war,” and three is ending the War on Drugs.

Ventura’s main cause of concern with Trump is his hawkish nature, suggesting that the man who claims he will “bomb the shit out of ISIS” will get the U.S. stuck in more quagmires.

_http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/29/jesse-ventura-i-ll-run-for-president-if-bernie-loses.html

Ventura was the governor of Minnessota as an independent and is even more anti-establishment than either Trump or Sanders. He also said that he is fully aware that if he came close to winning, assassination attempts would be likely.

 

[Cassandra94]

I actually just read The Wave Chapter 48: The Juvenile Dictionary right before I watched this video of Trump using 4th grade vocab. I think what Laura is saying here can be applied to Trump and the way he manipulates people though this "Juvenile Dictionary".

Here's a excerpt of what Laura writes for context:

I wrote Amazing Grace for the explicit purpose of describing my life during the many years when my definitions and associations of reality were strictly circumscribed by the “dictionary of life” I was using. When things happened in my life, they were ever and always interpreted by this “dictionary” written by Christianity, and the linear, uniformitarian view of the world. If the interpretation didn’t quite fit the event, the event was either distorted in my mind, parts of it covered up, shoved under the rug, or I just ignored it. I didn’t realize that whoever writes the dictionaries that we use to understand the events of our lives have written them with only one or two basic definitions, and have left out a whole host of associations or other definitions that more fully explain the word/event. In a sense, the dictionary we use to define our lives is like a children’s dictionary where the simplest and most juvenile definition is given. This leads us to interpret our lives and the world around us in a cosmically juvenile way. Even great scholars and “experts” of all kinds continue to use the juvenile version of the cosmic dictionary when it comes to defining and interpreting the facts of their lives and the “real world.”

And:

Most of ordinary humanity – the vast majority of people – use the juvenile dictionary. They have adopted, internalized, and made real this narrow view of the world, and woe to anyone who points out that there are other languages, there are other definitions, and there is a wider semiotic content plane. But what is important is that no one is born to be forever stuck in a circumscribed semiotic content plane. They are first taught, and then they actively choose to select what definitions of their experiences they will accept and which ones they will edit out.

Trump is so vague when he's talking, he says nothing specific or doesn't expand on/explain what he is talking about in terms of the world/events. It's for the people to "fill in the blanks" like others have said on this thread. It seems to me that he doesn't really say much of anything and just uses the same words over and over again and people just keep eating it up because they can fill in the blanks with their "right" opinions.

 

[Cosmos]

For what it's worth, Lada Ray predicts that the Democrats will lose this election. She seems to have been quite accurate in the past.

https://futuristrendcast.wordpress.com/2016/02/29/lada-rays-first-us-presidential-elections-prediction-revolt-in-republican-and-democratic-parties/

From what I understand, she checks the "energy" of events with some sort of pendulum.

Also, Jesse Ventura announced that he will run for president in June if Bernie Sanders doesn't win the nomination:

Jesse Ventura: I’ll Run for President if Bernie Sanders Loses

The former governor of Minnesota likes Trump and Sanders, but says he will get in the race by June if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination.

MINNEAPOLIS — Jesse Ventura told The Daily Beast he will run for president if Bernie Sanders does not win the Democratic nomination.

Ventura was elected the governor of Minnesota as an independent in 1998 after serving as a Navy SEAL and professional wrestler. Ventura said his campaign was so successful at showing an outsider could be elected that Trump and Sanders are “ripping him off.” He bets he can do it again if Sanders loses and the election is Hillary Clinton vs. Trump.

“They’re setting the groundwork for me because if Bernie loses, by the time we get to June, how sick are the people going to be of all these people,” he said while dressed in a Jimi Hendrix shirt under a blazer and SEALs beanie.

“See, I’m an independent and I despise the two parties,” Ventura, who speaks as if he is prepared to tackle you, continued. “I love what Trump’s doing to the Republicans. He’s got them in complete disarray. In fact, it looks like the WWE when you watch their debates.”

As for who will prevail in the Minnesota caucus tomorrow night, Ventura really could not say.

“I support the revolution of what’s happening here,” Ventura said after telling a local that he worked for most “level-headed” news outlet (RT America). “There’s three things where I stand with Bernie on more so than Trump. Number one is campaign finance reform,” two is “the war,” and three is ending the War on Drugs.

Ventura’s main cause of concern with Trump is his hawkish nature, suggesting that the man who claims he will “bomb the shit out of ISIS” will get the U.S. stuck in more quagmires.

_http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/29/jesse-ventura-i-ll-run-for-president-if-bernie-loses.html

Ventura was the governor of Minnessota as an independent and is even more anti-establishment than either Trump or Sanders. He also said that he is fully aware that if he came close to winning, assassination attempts would be likely.

From what I can gather about Ventura , I think he is really an empathic good guy but I just don't think he has the right leader qualities. He is way to emotional and seems to be easily persuade by dangerous people like Alex Jones. The only thing that could give the US any kind of hope would be somebody like Putin. But even a Putin would probably not be able to change things there at that point...

 

[Carl]

From what I can gather about Ventura , I think he is really an empathic good guy but I just don't think he has the right leader qualities. He is way to emotional and seems to be easily persuade by dangerous people like Alex Jones. The only thing that could give the US any kind of hope would be somebody like Putin. But even a Putin would probably not be able to change things there at that point...

Yeah. Putin was in the right place at the right time. Currently the USA is descending into madness, and for the people on that landmass to regain any sanity it is going to take a tremendous, tragic suffering and emotional awakening. The pendulum has to swing all the way before it can swing back again. OSIT.

 

[Windmill knight]

From what I can gather about Ventura , I think he is really an empathic good guy but I just don't think he has the right leader qualities. He is way to emotional and seems to be easily persuade by dangerous people like Alex Jones. The only thing that could give the US any kind of hope would be somebody like Putin. But even a Putin would probably not be able to change things there at that point...

Yeah. Putin was in the right place at the right time. Currently the USA is descending into madness, and for the people on that landmass to regain any sanity it is going to take a tremendous, tragic suffering and emotional awakening. The pendulum has to swing all the way before it can swing back again. OSIT.

Didn't the Cs say something a few years back along the lines of the US having gone way past the point where anything could possibly be done to change its course leading to disaster?

 

[Yupo]

In fact, it looks like the WWE when you watch their debates.

Good one, Jesse!
I'll be happy to see him jump in the pool, as the circus will get even more interesting. Don't forget Gary Johnson is running again. He is a great candidate.
I have looked at this process as just entertainment for a while. I believe the boxes are rigged, so matters not how we vote. Nice idea, that we choose our leaders, though. Maybe at the local level we do, and at the local level we can effect good changes. I have seen evidence of this.

IMO, the PTB want someone they can fully control. Hillary is hard-headed, so maybe not their first choice. But they have some hard-ball leverage with her, so hard to say. Word on the street is that Clintons' dirt-digging was the actual, original source of the Kenya birth stuff, but they were warned to back off or face retribution. What goes around, comes around. None of them play nice.

 

[Yupo]

Didn't the Cs say something a few years back along the lines of the US having gone way past the point where anything could possibly be done to change its course leading to disaster?

I would like to see that, if so. My feeling is yes, this is the case. I felt this when Clinton took Ohio the first time, that that was the point of no return. I put on a flannel nightgown, went to bed and cried for the nation. Now, I don't think Bush was so great. I was just hurt to my core that such an obvious psychopath could woo so may people.

Anyway, I now think it best to stay well-away from the shadow of the magnificence. One day, it is going to fall and crush a lot of people.

 

[no-mans-land]

Trump has been drawing some really large crowds on the Campaign trail.

What happens - if someone other than Trump gets sworn in as the next U.S. President?

A Revolution = in the streets - of every city?

They can protest, they'll get met by the brute force of the Gestapo. Hillary is the chosen one, Trump is a class clown.

Interesting question angelburst29. I agree with Luke - if there are protests, "they" will hit them hard. They could have something like a "controlled demolition" in mind - partly let the people release the pressure, igniting just the right amount of chaos, which will make everyone afraid, and then go down on them with all their might - which most people would actually be grateful for at this point. But even if that's the plan, who knows how it all plays out in reality? I think the Cs said something in that direction...

It's really interesting (well, from a bizarre point of view) to observe, who is going to win the election. Drumpf have all the qualities needed to become a ruthless dictator kind of president. He could easily do whatever he want since the people expect that. It would be no surprise to anyone if he will announce draconian measures for whatever reasons he want to.

Hillary on the other side plays the sneaky role, keep a low profile and therefore it would be much harder for her to appear credible if she gets the order to close down the society entirely, full blown fascism and all that. She needs a new 9/11 to justify new and obviously suppressing measures onto the people.

Drumpf doesn't need such justifications. He already said what he is going to do and the people elect him because of that. He may appear like a clown, but then, Hitler looked like a clown too before the horror began. He have the ability to forge the masses into a ruthless mob, exactly like Hitler did it.

I think, for the last step, a Donald Drumpf is much better suited than Hillary.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

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)

 

[Renaissance]

The only thing that could give the US any kind of hope would be somebody like Putin. But even a Putin would probably not be able to change things there at that point...

Yeah, probably not. While 'democracy' in the US is a total farce, and the political system is rotten to the core, I think there is also something to be said about the relationship between a leader and the people in modern times. Ponerization at all social levels has really had it's effect. The masses are so dumbed-down and so satisfied with themselves that there is very little recognition of what a good leader is made of. Any decent world leader that has come on the stage like Chavez, Qaddafi, and Putin have been seen as evil tyrants while truly evil leaders have largely been accepted. Unfortunately, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are both pretty reflective of what has become of the people here.

Putin did seem to be in the right place at the right time as Carl mentioned, and I think a part of that was that the Russian people had suffered enough, were developed enough and smart enough to get behind him. The same cannot be said of the American people.

 

[luc]

Yeah, probably not. While 'democracy' in the US is a total farce, and the political system is rotten to the core, I think there is also something to be said about the relationship between a leader and the people in modern times. Ponerization at all social levels has really had it's effect. The masses are so dumbed-down and so satisfied with themselves that there is very little recognition of what a good leader is made of. Any decent world leader that has come on the stage like Chavez, Qaddafi, and Putin have been seen as evil tyrants while truly evil leaders have largely been accepted. Unfortunately, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are both pretty reflective of what has become of the people here.

Putin did seem to be in the right place at the right time as Carl mentioned, and I think a part of that was that the Russian people had suffered enough, were developed enough and smart enough to get behind him. The same cannot be said of the American people.

I agree Renaissance. Here's a response I wrote in the Bernie Sanders thread to a similar question, whether a Putin would be possible in the US, cross-posting here:

.. I guess what I'm saying is, given the idea that you can support Putin, doesn't that mean you have to allow that someone like Putin has the possibility, at least, of coming to power? Or is America so entirely different? Perhaps that's what you're saying. I don't know much about the Russian political system. And, having forgotten about this superdelegates thing, I probably don't know enough about ours either!

Note: I just read the last post (before posting this), which seems to answer my question about Putin.

Yeah, I think the short answer is that yes, America is so entirely different. Russia is not a global empire, waging wars, changing regimes, organizing corporate fascism and destroying the whole planet. Its economy is based on natural resources, not a financial ponzi scheme. When Putin came to power, Russia was on its knees, the population disillusioned, whereas in the US/West, people are full of themselves and live in the "freedom and democracy" illusion (though that's changing a bit I guess). Putin came from the inside of the system and had allies, plus he could fly "under the radar" for quite some time - which would be impossible in the global empire that is the "superpower" USA. Then, the real power in the US transcends different systems - military, big corporations, media, secret services etc., with the official government probably the least important one, whereas Russia was and is much more centralized. Etc. etc. I mean, imagine an "American Putin" bringing even the major media under control, which would be the first necessary step - impossible to even imagine! OSIT

 

[luc]

It's really interesting (well, from a bizarre point of view) to observe, who is going to win the election. Drumpf have all the qualities needed to become a ruthless dictator kind of president. He could easily do whatever he want since the people expect that. It would be no surprise to anyone if he will announce draconian measures for whatever reasons he want to.

Hillary on the other side plays the sneaky role, keep a low profile and therefore it would be much harder for her to appear credible if she gets the order to close down the society entirely, full blown fascism and all that. She needs a new 9/11 to justify new and obviously suppressing measures onto the people.

Drumpf doesn't need such justifications. He already said what he is going to do and the people elect him because of that. He may appear like a clown, but then, Hitler looked like a clown too before the horror began. He have the ability to forge the masses into a ruthless mob, exactly like Hitler did it.

I think, for the last step, a Donald Drumpf is much better suited than Hillary.

LOL no-man's-land, did you install the Drumpfinator? Because your post is surely drumpfinated :D I de-installed it actually because I couldn't reply in this thread without Drumpfinating my post. It's hilarious though to read drumpfinated articles!

On a more serious note, yes, the parallels with Hitler are really interesting - not so much because they have the same "spellbinding style" (they are different), but because indeed, people laugh at Trump, and he really is comical in his inconsistencies and nonsense. And so was Hitler :( There is this article from the Washington Post that speaks some truth I think:

_https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/moment-of-truth-we-must-stop-trump/2016/02/21/0172e788-d8a7-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html

The moment of truth: We must stop Trump

Like any number of us raised in the late 20th century, I have spent my life perplexed about exactly how Hitler could have come to power in Germany. Watching Donald Trump’s rise, I now understand. Leave aside whether a direct comparison of Trump to Hitler is accurate. That is not my point. My point rather is about how a demagogic opportunist can exploit a divided country.

To understand the rise of Hitler and the spread of Nazism, I have generally relied on the German-Jewish émigré philosopher Hannah Arendt and her arguments about the banality of evil. Somehow people can understand themselves as “just doing their job,” yet act as cogs in the wheel of a murderous machine. Arendt also offered a second answer in a small but powerful book called “Men in Dark Times.” In this book, she described all those who thought that Hitler’s rise was a terrible thing but chose “internal exile,” or staying invisible and out of the way as their strategy for coping with the situation. They knew evil was evil, but they too facilitated it, by departing from the battlefield out of a sense of hopelessness.

One can see both of these phenomena unfolding now. The first shows itself, for instance, when journalists cover every crude and cruel thing that comes out of Trump’s mouth and thereby help acculturate all of us to what we are hearing. Are they not just doing their jobs, they will ask, in covering the Republican front-runner? Have we not already been acculturated by 30 years of popular culture to offensive and inciting comments? Yes, both of these things are true. But that doesn’t mean journalists ought to be Trump’s megaphone. Perhaps we should just shut the lights out on offensiveness; turn off the mic when someone tries to shout down others; reestablish standards for what counts as a worthwhile contribution to the public debate. [Comment: Like Russia is doing in the Nanny case?] That will seem counter to journalistic norms, yes, but why not let Trump pay for his own ads when he wants to broadcast foul and incendiary ideas? He’ll still have plenty of access to freedom of expression. It is time to draw a bright line.

One spots the second experience in any number of water-cooler conversations or dinner-party dialogues. “Yes, yes, it is terrible. Can you believe it? Have you seen anything like it? Has America come to this?” “Agreed, agreed.” But when someone asks what is to be done, silence falls. Very many of us, too many of us, are starting to contemplate accepting internal exile. Or we joke about moving to Canada more seriously than usually.

But over the course of the past few months, I’ve learned something else that goes beyond Arendt’s ideas about the banality of evil and feelings of impotence in the face of danger.

Trump is rising by taking advantage of a divided country. The truth is that the vast majority of voting Americans think that Trump is unacceptable as a presidential candidate, but we are split by strong partisan ideologies and cannot coordinate a solution to stop him. Similarly, a significant part of voting Republicans think that Trump is unacceptable, but they too, thus far, have been unable to coordinate a solution. Trump is exploiting the fact that we cannot unite across our ideological divides.

The only way to stop him, then, is to achieve just that kind of coordination across party lines and across divisions within parties. We have reached that moment of truth.

The rest of the article promotes voting for Killary and so on, so I spare you that, but the parallels between Germany at the time of Hitler's rise and the US are very interesting, I think.