March 6, 2016 at 11:57 pm #47735
I’m not sure ANY of the candidates can even achieve two of the list of qualities .March 7, 2016 at 12:28 am #47740
As an afterthought to my above post, I’ve considered the fact that Donald Trump has openly and frequently boasted about the amount of media coverage he’s gotten, amounting to free air time, massively “trumping” all other candidates’ media coverage. Networks have often times broken away from their regular, in-progress programs, with the following words: “Let’s take a listen to what Donald Trump is saying right now in [wherever he is].” And they cut directly to Trump’s live speech at the moment and take several minutes of their programming just for that. Think about that for a moment. Network TV is CAREFULLY scripted, right down to the second, and they know ahead of time just how long they’re going to take for even the shortest segment of a 30 minute or 60 minute show. So how would they know if what Trump has to say is even going to be interesting or relevant? Or do they already, and does the “convenient” timing amount to part of the careful scripting? And why would the networks be giving him that much coverage while at the same time seemingly demonizing him? Answer – they know that a large segment of the population will resonate with his emotional appeals, his apparent anger. So they play to that viewership in order to get their advertising stats and keep their ratings. They don’t CARE about the message.
Yet at least some of us believe the final candidates (and even the eventual election outcome) are all carefully scripted and manipulated. So why would the media give Trump so much time, and then trash him at the same time? Why would they not pull a Ron Paul or Ben Carson on him, and just stop covering him – if he isn’t part of the insider club? (That’s a rhetorical question, as far as I’m concerned. It’s all part of the manipulation.)
I just hope (and so far am still willing to believe) that Judge Jeanine and Judge Napolitano have it figured out. Napolitano lost his show apparently because he went TOO far (that’s a link to the 5-minute show if anyone hasn’t seen it). And as I wondered above, will Pirro also lose her show now too? Will they merely be allowed to weigh in on narrow topics for brief periods of time on someone else’s show, because they’re popular and can draw/retain viewers? (Perhaps also another rhetorical question, rather than one truly needing an answer, because it may have already been answered.)March 7, 2016 at 12:38 am #47742
Either Trump is truly a nationalist (meaning he favors America more than any other nation, or combination thereof) or he’s such a consummate insider actor, that he is able to fake it before the cameras, even to the point of controlling his off-the-cuff responses. I believe he is the former, though often with so little study and forethought as to propose unconstitutional (and unwise) ideas, some of which, he has taken back — sadly, along with some of the proposals which made him the popular candidate that he is. Still, if he is a non-globalist, he seems to offer the prospect of ending, or at least blunting, some of the 27-year (and counting) globalist march we have been forced to make under the last three presidents, their sycophantic CONgresses and Extreme Courts, and the Federal Reserve Scam. It looks like a lemming slowdown is about as much as we can get.
On the one hand, we have a roll of the dice with Trump who may or may not be the guy he portrays on TV, or who, though genuine, like Reagan, may sadly prove circumventable (or assassin-able) by the insiders who will invariably surround him. On the other hand, we have the rock-solid globalist guarantee of uninterupted more of the ruinous same under Hitlary, or possibly, some pre-vetted RINO quisling (Romney? Rubio?)
If the Repugs manage to jury-rig a globalist “victory,” by shutting Trump out with a few purchased (or gerrymandered) votes, they will have laid the groundwork for a replacement party, much as the Republicans replaced the Whigs (not that it would necessarily change anything.)
Its beginning to look like Roger Stone, in that Alex Jones interview, was on to something.
March 7, 2016 at 11:47 am #47753
- This reply was modified 3 years ago by L Tecolote.
.March 7, 2016 at 8:00 pm #47756
War is the health of the (media-military-industrial) State. It’s also the ruination and death of humankind.
I have this strange idea that a strong nation, if it didn’t waste its resources, energies, and people, getting involved in other nations’ affairs, but traded with all which could accept its armed neutrality, and exchange value for value, might not only avoid wars, but come to be regarded (for its lasting success) as a model to them all. Indeed, in the nineteenth century, America was so nearly such a model, that the map of Europe was redrawn several times over, by the mad scramble of peasants who had only heard of our less-than-perfect union … simply to get here. Think of that — so great was our founding ideal. And now so compromised, that people primarily now come, not to join in, but to cash in, and to trash in.
Hard for me to tell if Trump even intends to, “make America great again.” I doubt his ability to get very far, even if he does want to, given the established globalists striving to prevent that, at all costs. But it’s a seductive slogan. And I’d rather exchange goods and services with Russia, than bombs.
Cry, "Treason!"March 7, 2016 at 10:02 pm #47757
If you think about it , the world was abetter place when it was a bi-polar world power system . It was easy to determine who the bad guys were ( the Soviet Union ) .March 8, 2016 at 4:01 am #47759
Tec, is my aging memory just playing tricks on me again, or was there actually a candidate for President in 1988, 2008, and 2012, that unsuccessfully tried to promote essentially what you described in your strange idea above? Maybe I just dreamed it, and just think I still have the t-shirt. I’ll have to go check my t-shirt drawer again.March 8, 2016 at 4:52 am #47761
GS, your memory is at least as good as mine, and I remember such candidates back at least as far as the late Harry Browne. (L.P. presidential candidate, 1996, 2000) Mrs. Tec and I were honored to attend a small candidate dinner with Mr. Browne in 2000.
Sad to say, the average American answered, “no” to his Great Libertarian Offer, “Would you be willing to give up your favorite federal government program if it meant never having to pay income tax again?” I don’t know if he could have accomplished that or not, but it seemed worth a try at the time.
But then, to pile on the insanity, Boobus Americanus also said, “No!” to Dr. No, as well.
March 8, 2016 at 6:05 am #47763
- This reply was modified 3 years ago by L Tecolote.
Wow, Tec! First we found out you and Mrs. Tec got to talk with Russell Means and were invited to join the Republic of Lakotah. Now we find out you were able to attend a small dinner with Harry Browne! Very lucky couple!. And sadly, most Americans would just give you a deer-in-the-headlights stare if they heard that, asking, “Who were they?!?”
And speaking of Libertarians, want an interesting additional “blast from the past” that isn’t really as much about 1992 as it is about 2016? Here’s Nancy Lord (start at the 18:30 point). It’s almost amazing how she sounds like she could be speaking today – yet this was a quarter century ago. A handful of us even remember her as JJ’s former wife. I had forgotten, though, that she was a practicing MD as well, not “just” a practicing attorney.March 8, 2016 at 8:13 pm #47769
It’s almost amazing how she sounds like she could be speaking today – yet this was a quarter century ago.
And though the complaints of how excessive government has shafted us are essentially the same, many Americans would think their problems solved, if only we could get back to the 1992 conditions of which she was speaking. “Them wuz th’ good ol’ days!” The frog-cooking experts were right.
Cry, "Treason!"March 9, 2016 at 12:47 am #47772
But in retrospect, she was probably right that they likely had the last real chance of turning it around back then. Unfortunately, the dumbing down process had already sufficiently taken its toll, along with an additional quarter century (1966) since the Cloward Piven strategy was introduced (and implemented). Two Georges (Wallace and Romney) were so very right – there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican parties, and we’ve ALL been brainwashed (speaking collectively about society). So we wonder how we got here, not a quarter century later, but a half century (1966 – 2016). Indeed, there’s no hope when nobody but us old folks can trace it back even further than that. A full two centuries is more like it.
I regret that I am now to die in the belief, that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I live not to weep over it.
(Thomas Jefferson, 22 April 1820)March 12, 2016 at 3:18 am #47820
Indeed, there’s no hope when nobody but us old folks can trace it back even further than that. A full two centuries is more like it.
I as a youngin’ haven’t posted to oppose this remark, but to confirm it. People like me, young and informed, are of negligible numbers. I’ve tried to educate people my age. They just won’t listen. It’s the pride, usually. I am about to become the leader of a parish youth ministry, where I will have free reign to educate as many youths as show up. Not just about faith, strictly speaking, because civic duty is a biblical responsibility.
We are too late to save the country as we know it, but we are not too late to save many minds. Keep at it, folks. It’s never in vain!March 12, 2016 at 3:54 am #47822
Well look at what the Communist did today, Trump said “Our First Amendment rights have been violated.” Agree 100% with Trump. If we had gone to a Sander’s or Hillary rally we would be labeled terrorist, raciest, and many other names. This is how the Socialist work. We need to be strong and not let them do this to us. Free speech is to important.
TRUMP CANCELS RALLY: Violence erupts at Chicago campaign eventMarch 12, 2016 at 5:05 am #47823
I watched the live coverage of the pending Trump event on Fox News, and well on through the cancellation. It was absolutely incredible! Fox was repeatedly using words like “massive” to describe the size of the protest outside the hall where the event was to be held. FINALLY, someone got an aerial view of the protest, almost immediately after one of those “massive” type comments had been used – and OOOP! It’s highly unlikely there were even 1000 outside the hall. It numbered in the hundreds. And it turned out to largely be Bernie supporters, along with the usual suspects that we’ve seen over the years – you know the ones that you can spot as intentional, planted rabble-rousers. And the irony was what Gretta asked the man-on-the-street reporter: “WHAT are they chanting?” I don’t know what she thought, because she never got an answer (the street reporter couldn’t hear her), and suddenly they dropped the subject. It was pretty clear on the TV, however – among other things that they were chanting, among the usual worn out Vietnam-era type chants, was ““This is what democracy looks like!” Say what?!?
Oh wait, Georgia Saint. It’s that new definition of democracy, using Uncle Saul’s “Rules.” The First Amendment works just like a diode in an electronic device – a one-way gate where speech is free to flow only one direction, toward one conclusion or position. The protesters didn’t even “get” the extreme irony of their repeated chant. Or probably more accurately, it was irrelevant to them, because it didn’t fit their one-way agenda.
I also watched the fights that were shown inside the hall, where a number of protesters had gotten in. When the announcement was made that Trump’s speech had been cancelled, the protesters went wild. One “fight” was one way (unless you count the holder of an American Flag trying to keep control of it rather than have it ripped away from him, and only be pulling it back toward himself, as an “aggressive” move). A hyphenated “American” was trying to yank it away from him, and took the first swing – and the second (there were no more as far as I could see). Was he arrested? No, just briefly restrained. Another physical confrontation was not shown from the beginning, so it was unclear who started it. But what was very, very clear was the fact that the invading protesters were clearly aggressive (yes, I said “invading” – Trump paid for that hall).
But what became clear very very early in the coverage was the Fox News was doing all in its power to create an image of something that simply was made up! People were filing into the hall to hear Trump, and a few hundred were outside peacefully protesting. Before the cancellation announcement, there were apparently no fights, as evidence not only by the fact that the “news” people weren’t finding any to report, as well as the straight lines of police in the area, being allowed to just stand there doing their job as a barrier at that point. Freedom at its best – those that wanted to go in, could, those that wanted to protest outside also could. I do not like Trump, I don’t want him as my president (but Billary and Bernie and Elizabeth even trump Trump in my level of dislike). Still, I was deeply saddened at what I (again) witnessed the “news” media do tonight, creating an image of a “MASSIVE” protest, as if spontaneously THOUSANDS were gathered to peacefully protest Trump. Then came the aerial shot, and I was laughing out loud at what it showed – it was absurd! Somebody at Fox News really screwed up on that one – they completely torpedoed what their on-air personalities were creating in the minds of the public. A quick trip to CNN and one other network (can’t recall which one) showed similar Trump-bashing, with rhetoric that blamed Donald Trump for the “violence” that was going on in Chicago (there were very few incidents, from everything I could see, and we clearly know the media will show as many as they can find if they’re there). Can’t find any visible evidence of it? Make it up and report it verbally as “news.” And people believe the narrative. This is not a defense of Donald Trump. He didn’t need one tonight. I felt like I was in an LDS flashback, watching 60s protests all over again (and I never even did drugs in the 60s). “Hey hey! Ho ho!” and all that cr@p.
“This is what democracy looks like!” Indeed. There is far more wisdom in the title of this thread than most (even some here) realize.March 12, 2016 at 11:55 am #47824
I believe in always taking the high road and in this case what would be in order is for Bernie to apologize to Trump for the actions of his supporters and for Bernie to tell his supporters that this is not the way he wants them to behave. Not likely to happen though.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.