Topic: Up Like Trump - page 126. (Read 572883 times)

Look at how many jobs will be lost if Trump wins.

 

To be honest, I figured very early on in my research of who Trump even was that if he did not have some exposure to and experience with 'the mob' it would be a miracle.  This, of course, because of his vocation.  I decided that if Trump used the mob to intimidate people with bodily harm as part of his 'deals toolkit', I would not support him (and continue to hold this view.)  If he simply over-payed for some concrete, and especially if it helped deal with union issues, I'm actually pretty OK with that all things considered.

Speaking of 'the mob', in some circles I read that 'they' quit litterally moved right into banking as an evolutionary path, and at the highest levels of the biggest banks.  This compared to the rhetorical throw-away words like 'banksters.'  I actually don't rule this out especially after observing the likes of Paulson in relation to the 2008 financial goings-on.  I mention it because in this case Hillary and the massive money she gets from 'the banksters' for flapping her gums in front of them for a bit comes into focus.

THE DANGEROUS ACCEPTANCE OF DONALD TRUMP

"Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, / As, to be hated, needs but to be seen,” the poet Alexander Pope wrote, in lines that were once, as they said back in the day, imprinted on the mind of every schoolboy. Pope continued, “Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, / we first endure, then pity, then embrace.” The three-part process by which the gross becomes the taken for granted has been on matchlessly grim view this past week in the ascent of Donald Trump. First merely endured by those in the Republican Party, with pained grimaces and faint bleats of reluctance, bare toleration passed quickly over into blind, partisan allegiance—he’s going to be the nominee, after all, and so is our boy. Then a weird kind of pity arose, directed not so much at him (he supplies his own self-pity) as at his supporters, on the premise that their existence somehow makes him a champion for the dispossessed, although the evidence indicates that his followers are mostly stirred by familiar racial and cultural resentments, of which Trump has been a single-minded spokesperson.

Now for the embrace. One by one, people who had not merely resisted him before but called him by his proper name—who, until a month ago, were determined to oppose a man they rightly described as a con artist and a pathological liar—are suddenly getting on board. Columnists and magazines that a month ago were saying #NeverTrump are now vibrating with the frisson of his audacity, fawning over him or at least thrilling to his rising poll numbers and telling one another, “We can control him.’

No, you can’t. One can argue about whether to call him a fascist or an authoritarian populist or a grotesque joke made in a nightmare shared between Philip K. Dick and Tom Wolfe, but under any label Trump is a declared enemy of the liberal constitutional order of the United States—the order that has made it, in fact, the great and plural country that it already is. He announces his enmity to America by word and action every day. It is articulated in his insistence on the rightness of torture and the acceptable murder of noncombatants. It is self-evident in the threats he makes daily to destroy his political enemies, made only worse by the frivolity and transience of the tone of those threats. He makes his enmity to American values clear when he suggests that the Presidency holds absolute power, through which he will be able to end opposition—whether by questioning the ownership of newspapers or talking about changing libel laws or threatening to take away F.C.C. licenses. To say “Well, he would not really have the power to accomplish that” is to misunderstand the nature of thin-skinned authoritarians in power. They do not arrive in office and discover, as constitutionalists do, that their capabilities are more limited than they imagined. They arrive, and then make their power as large as they can....

The American Republic stands threatened by the first overtly anti-democratic leader of a large party in its modern history—an authoritarian with no grasp of history, no impulse control, and no apparent barriers on his will to power....

If Trump came to power, there is a decent chance that the American experiment would be over. This is not a hyperbolic prediction; it is not a hysterical prediction; it is simply a candid reading of what history tells us happens in countries with leaders like Trump....The national psyche never gets over learning that its institutions are that fragile and their ability to resist a dictator that weak. If he can rout the Republican Party in a week by having effectively secured the nomination, ask yourself what Trump could do with the American government if he had a mandate.

Here is a very interesting article about Donald Trumps connections to the "MOB" it will be interesting to see how he responds.


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-mob-organized-crime-213910?paginate=false

The article gives a good argument for a closer look to be made into Trumps dealings. However as an investigative journalist the author fails to bring any proof that TRUMP has broken any laws. It can also be argued that it would have been impossible not to have become successful in property development without having to have done business with MOB organisations, as the author points out they dominated the construction industry and its unions.

Paradoxically this whole election is a struggle between the mob against the Establishment who are seen by many as corrupt. Perhaps our best shot at real change is to have someone with Trumps credentials to take them on?      

Come on Wil, don't make us do all the work!

What's this about?

What does "up like Trump" mean for the Donald?

What's your opinion?

When it comes right down to it between Trump and Hitlery, at the last moment, when there is no chance to introduce anyone else, Trump will back out, and "flee" the country for places unknown.

A recent investigative series has shown that not only are there states with highly hackable voting machines, but Hillary Clinton tends to do better in counties with said machines. Sure, it may seem like a coincidence, but Lee explains that not only is Hillary outperforming Bernie in these counties, but she's even crushing her own projections! Dubious indeed. This and more on Redacted Tonight.

You make a good point. And now Trump is running to become KING of the BIGGEST MOB of ALL.

Here is a very interesting article about Donald Trumps connections to the "MOB" it will be interesting to see how he responds.


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-mob-organized-crime-213910?paginate=false

The article gives a good argument for a closer look to be made into Trumps dealings. However as an investigative journalist the author fails to bring any proof that TRUMP has broken any laws. It can also be argued that it would have been impossible not to have become successful in property development without having to have done business with MOB organisations, as the author points out they dominated the construction industry and its unions.

Paradoxically this whole election is a struggle between the mob against the Establishment who are seen by many as corrupt. Perhaps our best shot at real change is to have someone with Trumps credentials to take them on?      

I like the trump speech

Same guys backing Trump, right?    

Can you find a page regarding that specific story and being true on snopes?