Topic: Up Like Trump - page 115. (Read 572791 times)

He'll take a load of votes away from Shillary too.

I am glad that the primaries are over. Now we can concentrate on the real fight, that is between Donald Trump and Hitlery Clinton. And there is another piece of encouraging news from the opinion polls team, after the one from Florida yesterday. In Pennsylvania, both of them are tied at 44% each. PPP is a Democrat-leaning pollster, and we can assume that right now Donald is leading in that state.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_PA_60816.pdf

BTW... this Gary Johnson guy is stealing a lot of Republican vote. Trump needs to take care of him without wasting any further time.

'Take that order and throw it the hell out': Trump reportedly rails against campaign staff for telling surrogates to stop attacking judge … Donald Trump advised prominent campaign surrogates to go after journalists who ask questions about a Trump University lawsuit and encouraged them to defend him against criticism of his comments about the US district judge presiding over the case. – AOL

Donald Trump is facing two fraud lawsuits over a for-profit real-estate school that supposedly didn't provide appropriate services.

The case currently is being presided over by US District Judge Gonzalo Curiel.

Supposedly, Curiel has indeterminate linkages to La Raza, a Mexican-based rights group that wants a large part of the Western US returned to Mexico, or at least turned into an independent country.

Some media reports have denied a direct linkage. But alternative media outlets like WorldNetDaily have made the case for a broader linkage.

Trump has objected to Curiel's continued presence on his case, and  his statements regarding Curiel being "Mexican" have caused considerable controversy.

The GOP presidential nominee has been pilloried as "racist" for his observations regarding Curiel.

The fundamental issue is once again Mexico versus America and how the two countries can put aside differences and exist harmoniously.

Right now, however, there is no harmony.

We told you so.

We've written a number of articles stating that the subtext of the Trump campaign is much larger than "immigration versus a wall."

The Trump campaign has surely reignited the controversy surrounding the so-called North American Union.

This was an elite plan to create a North American Union comprising the US, Canada and Mexico.

We suggested some three months ago that the Trump campaign would unite pro-Hispanic forces and put the North American Union back in play.

Our first article on the subject, posted March 14, was entitled, Trump and '60s Propaganda: Strategy to Launch North American Union?

Then only a few days later, we learned that George Soros had funded a large anti-Trump coalition that supposedly presented a Hispanic point of view.

We wrote about this on March 16 in a post entitled, Broadening the Race War? Soros Creates Anti-Trump Pro-'Illegals' Super Pac.

On May 4, we posted an article entitled, Trump Irony: Candidacy May Unify U.S. with Mexico

Then on May 14, we followed with an article entitled, As Predicted, Trump's harsh Rhetoric Reignites Mexican-American Embrace

In this last article, we pointed out the following:

The idea of merging Mexico, America and Canada into one large region sharing political and regulatory oversight subsided a few years ago because of determined and angry opposition in the US.  Highways between Canada and Mexico intended to bisect the US and further ruin the national economy are still being built. But their construction is surreptitious and indirect.  But Trump has set the debate in motion again. It has been reignited just as we feared.

Before a solution can be presented, the issue must be resuscitated and the arguments reheated.

This is what's going on now.

Our prediction, whether Trump wins or not, is that there will be advances made toward a union.

Too often it works that way in this weary, modern world.

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. The synthesis is a union.

That's our take as observers of elite propaganda. The dominant social themes that run the world.

We still have no idea if Trump is complicit. It could be that he is simply being used.

We have Hillary all wrong: Americans hate a politician of the press' imagination. To her detractors, she's either a bloodless automaton or the devil incarnate. Is it any wonder that she's guarded? -Salon

This article posted at Salon suggests that much of the criticism aimed at Hillary occurs because she is not a man.

As best we can tell, if we are properly following the article, Hillary's problems begin with her womanhood.

As Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado, a Hillary supporter, put it on CBS's Face the Nation, "If she was a man, all this stuff wouldn't be at the same level."  Of course, Trump fired back that she plays the "woman card," and the media didn't dare rebut it for fear, I suppose, of seeming to lend Trump proof.

This in turn generates a certain level of defensiveness.

Even when Hillary is in full campaign mode, she feels she needs the cover of policy so that the press won't eviscerate her.

Or put another way, she believes she has to be perceived as taking the high road even when she isn't. We will see how long it takes the press to turn on this feisty Hillary they seem to like now.

If this article is to be believed, Clinton's unpopularity has more to do with her personality than any particular misbehaving.

Her "sins are fairly standard," especially for someone who has been in public life for so long.

She has made mistakes and errors of judgment. She has also suffered from hubris, mostly because of her "associations with Big Money."

In fact, she isn't disliked for what she's done. She is disliked for "who she is."

This is the media's fault, we learn from the article. The media pounces on Hillary's defensiveness and plays it up.

Why? Because "bashing her" is a convenient way to rebut criticism that the mainstream media is generally sympathetic to liberalism.

Everything about Hillary is subject to criticism, from her shoes, to her hair to her voice.

The article ends on a discouraging note, if you are a Hillary supporter.

She has no strategy for placating the media and thus can "only plod along," absorbing press criticism and ignoring it as best she can.

The trouble with this analysis, it seems to us, is that criticism to which Hillary is subject is actually mild, compared to what could be aimed at her.

Her husband has been accused of rape and drug smuggling. Both have been accused of murder and other serious crimes.

A new book, Crisis of Character, by law enforcement agent Gary Byrne, who was stationed at the Oval Office when Bill Clinton was president, claims that Hillary is too "erratic, uncontrollable and occasionally violent" to be president.

A popular video clip on the Internet shows Hillary laughing when describing the death of Muammar Gaddafi. "We came, we saw, he died," she exclaims.

For her enemies, her glee in Gaddafi's death is symptomatic of a larger character flaw. She will adopt almost any policy and perform almost any action if it advances her personal and professional ambitions.

She portrays herself as a "liberal" but it seems she is actually an authoritarian who believes in state power.

The illegal criminals, are problematic. Not until trump talked about it, no other republicans dared talked about it, fearing of losing the hispanic vote.

Good news for you all... According to PPP (happens to be a Democrat-affiliated pollster), Trump is leading Hitlery by 1 point in Florida (45% vs 44%). And most importantly, there is no gender gap. Trump and Clinton are tied among the women voters, with 38% each, while Trump is leading among the male voters by 1%. Gary Johnson still eating up a lot of Republican vote.  

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_FL_607161.pdf

Hitlery leading Trump by 7% in Connecticut.

On June 2, a few days before the California primary, Hillary Clinton gave up trying to compete with Bernie Sanders on domestic policy. Instead, she zeroed in on the soft target of Donald Trump's most "bizarre rants" in order to present herself as experienced and reasonable. Evidently taking her Democratic Party nomination for granted, she is positioning herself as the perfect candidate for hawkish Republicans.

Choosing to speak in San Diego, home base of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, on a platform draped with 19 American flags and preceded by half an hour of military marching music, Hillary Clinton was certain of finding a friendly audience for her celebration of American "strength", "values" and "exceptionalism". Cheered on by a military audience, Hillary was already assuming the role to which she most ardently aspires: that of Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

Whenever Hillary speaks, one must look for the lies. The biggest lies in this speech were lies of omission. No mention of her support for the invasion of Iraq, no mention of the disaster she wrought in Libya, no mention of her contribution to pursuing endless death and destruction in the Middle East.

But she also lied in claiming partial credit for the Iran nuclear deal, which she had tended to block, and most profoundly in presenting herself as a champion of diplomacy. As Secretary of State, she blocked diplomacy that would have prevented or ended conflict, most notoriously concerning Libya, where even senior U.S. military officers were told to cut off their contacts with Gaddafi agents seeking a peaceful compromise.

The Washington Post reported prior to the speech that her campaign "hopes there are many more national-security-minded Republicans and independents who would vote for her, even grudgingly, rather than see Trump win the White House."

The Washington Post noted that the state of California's "defense industry and military bases lend a backdrop for her speech." Indeed! Hillary Clinton is quite simply catering to the military-industrial complex, as she has been doing throughout her career.   She is catering to the arms industry, which needs to keep the American people scared of various "threats" in order to continue draining the nation's wealth into their profitable enterprises. She needs the support of military men and women who believe in all those threats invented by intellectuals in think tanks and editorial offices.



This is the core of the "national-security-minded" electorate that Hillary is targeting. She warned that Trump would jeopardize the wonderful bipartisan foreign policy that has been keeping us great and safe for decades.

In reality, such "national-security-minded" leaders as Dick Cheney and Clinton herself have led the United States into wars that create chaos, inspire enemies and endanger everybody's national security. Despite the geographically safe position of the United States, it is that bipartisan War Party that has created genuine threats to U.S. national security by prodding the hornets' nest of religious fanaticism in the Middle East and provoking nuclear-armed Russia by aggressive military exercises right up to its borders.

The basis of Hillary Clinton's world view is that notorious "American exceptionalism" which Obama has also celebrated. If we don't rule the world, she suggested, "others will rush in to fill the vacuum". She clearly cannot conceive of dealing respectfully with other nations. The United States, she proclaimed, is "exceptional – the last best hope on earth."

Not all people on earth feel that way. So they must be brought to heel. In practice, this "exceptionalism" means acting above the law. It means a unipolar world policed by U.S. armed forces. In practice, Hillary's devotion to "our allies" means fighting wars in the Middle East for the benefit of Israel and of Saudi Arabia, whose arms purchases are indispensable for our military industrial complex. It means bombing countries and overthrowing foreign governments, from Honduras to Syria and beyond, in order to help them conform to "our values".

Trump is groping clumsily, at times idiotically, toward a major shift in US foreign policy. He is ill-prepared for the task.If ever elected, he would have to fire the neocons and take on a whole new team of experts to educate and guide him. That would be something of a miracle.

But some of Hillary's reproaches aimed at Trump's "reckless, risky" foreign policy statements are not as self-evident as she assumes.  For example, his statement that he would sit down to negotiate with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. Is that really such a crazy idea?

North Korea is a small country, whose leaders call themselves "communist" but who are essentially a dynasty that emerged from the resistance against Japanese invaders in World War II. Their quarrel with South Korea stemmed from the domination of Japanese collaborators in that part of the country. That is practically ancient history, and today North Korea feels threatened – and is indeed threatened – by the everlasting U.S. military presence on its borders. A small isolated country like North Korea is not a real "threat" to the world. Even with nuclear weapons. Its much-vaunted nuclear weapons are clearly meant both to defend itself from attack and as a bargaining chip.

Ah, Sheldon Adelson.  Who would have thunk it?

Perhaps Trump is reading both this forum and my posts and took my advice to 'never pick a VP who is more desirable to the establishment than himself' if he values his life and wants to get certain things accomplished for the United States and it's people.  Definitely not Newt (Johnson incarnate) Gingrich!  Of course it doesn't take a rocket scientist to come up with that formulation.

After a most unusual convention (I'm stockpiling popcorn) we'll see the Dem's fielding a Biden/Warren ticket.

That is a fine-tuning of my earlier predictions.  I stand by my prediction that if the Repubs cannot figure out a way to get rid of Trump we have a damn good chance of seeing some mixture of next 911, war, and economic collapse and will be damn lucky to have elections at all.  For my part, I'm trying to analyze Trump's leadership abilities more generally than as a 'traditional' president.

I just ran across a clip which gives me as much hope as just about anything that Trump is 'good people' in my own way of looking at things:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72wM6cqPS-c

When? December 25th?

When Donald Trump throws a big juicy steak in front of his adversaries (collectively, the mainstream media, Dems, Repubs, etc) they may someday learn to bite into it with some care.

Consider the case of the honorable judge Thor White-Mann.  He was selected to find justice in the the Trevon Martin - George Zimmerman case (as I recall.)  Some cretins thought he would not be able to produce a fair trail 'just because he was white.'

Judge White-Mann was born in South Africa (to white parents working fervently for PW Botha's regime, but of course that doesn't matter.)  Being born in Africa makes him default to be fair to Africans.

Judge White-Mann is quite active in efforts to help white youth integrate into mixed neighborhoods and get the ethnic ratio up into a more 'fair' number.  So interested in this project was Judge White-Mann that he was a leading member of 'The Aryan Brotherhood Lawyers Assn'.  Of course it is totally absurd to suggest that said organization has any 'affiliation' with 'The National Aryan Brotherhood Council' and anyone goes against the unassailable research of the mainstream media to suggest such an association is crazy...even if they find screen caps of links on the lawyers association web pages.

edit: wrong Botha