Investing in Precious Metals 101 Ad
  • Blog
    Orlok/Shutterstock

    We Risk Being Collateral Damage In The Neocon Lust For War

    So much so that I've upped my personal preparations
    by Chris Martenson

    Saturday, October 29, 2016, 1:40 AM

The winds of change are now swirling so rapidly that it's hard to make sense of what’s happening. And adding to the confusion is an all-out effort by the establishment to convince the masses that, despite the multiplying signs of instability, "everything is fine".

The deceptions surrounding us are now constant and impossible to avoid. How much longer will it take until a critical mass of the populace starts to see through the delusion?

The stock and bond markets are rigged by central banks and their allies to go ever higher, enriching an elite few at the expense of everyone else. The mainstream media over-reports the inconsequential, and under-reports the most important things.  It’s truly astonishing what is not being reported on, presumably in an effort to minimize attention on some really important matters (Yemen, Russia’s increasing concerns over western actions, Wikileaks on HRC, etc).

If it all weren’t so serious, it would be humorous because the chicanery is now so over-the-top obvious. 

The elites often commit crimes without any consequences.  It's so bad, we've seen the architects of wars based on lies get promoted to positions of greater power, now telling new lies on an even grander scale. (In DC, the polite term du jour is “fabrications”. But we’re all friends here, so let's use proper language: lies are lies.)

Meanwhile, whistleblowers end up facing the full weight of the law. And the little people face harsh, draconian consequences for even the most minor of infractions.

As James Howard Kunstler succinctly puts it: Racketeering is ruining us.

If you can make a lot of money doing it, in the US that’s A-OK with the powers that be. Who cares about the collateral damage, as long as Uncle Sam and his cronies get their cut?

The Winds Of Change

But this all is going to come crashing down, because it has to. Not because of a sudden case of enlightenment by the elites, but because of math.

Simple math, too. 

While there are lots of sub-equations we could parse through, the parent of them all is this one: Endless exponential growth on a finite planet is impossible.

It’s really that simple. And what’s transpiring now is nothing more complicated than what happens when a culture’s main growth narrative no longer matches the limits of its reality.

Unfortunately, it’s possible to fool people for just long enough into thinking it’s a workable plan. Give something a couple of decades in the sun (cheap, plentiful petroleum, for example) and entire institutions, political and monetary systems and dogmas will be fashioned around it. 

This kind of self-delusion is not new for humans. It's no different than if an ancient tribe was luckily blessed with 40 years of dependable rains which they attributed to a specific set of rituals.  It’s not too long before correlation becomes confused with causation. And when the expected rains start ceasing to arrive, the rituals get more convoluted and increasingly desperate measures are called for to appease the angry gods.

Eventually, finally, people slowly wake up to the fact that their rituals and the weather never had anything to do with each other. But by then, society has usually torn itself apart, unable to align the contradictions. 

This is what’s happening now. The narrative we live by is breaking down, and increasingly, our desperate ruling elites simply don’t know what to do.  People are confused and so they want to either return to the past “Make America Great Again!”) or they want to cling to the present (“Stronger Together"…as in don’t rock the boat, preserve the status quo!).

Neither will work of course because the rains have ceased for reasons that have nothing to do with America's elaborate but quirky rituals (the current presidential race being a prime example of such).

And this is why, despite the fact that our true challenges are rooted in the mathematics of resource depletion, our undoing will come when the social fabric tears apart.

Which is why the current unrest escalating all over the globe is so important to track. As we watch less-resourced societies begin to fail in advance, we better understand the nature of the reckoning heading our way.

Among the many conflicts that are boiling over, the one that concerns me the most — by far — is the West's very intentional efforts to demonize Putin specifically, and Russia generally.

The tactics being used are no different from those used to disparage Saddam and his regime right before the invasion of Iraq.  We’ve been down this path before; the playbook is literally exactly the same.

Blatantly obvious propaganda is being used, most heavily by the very same (and unrepentant) main stream media outlets that were used the last time around — when we ended up commencing a 'pre-emptive' war based on ginned-up intelligence that turned out to be wholly false. We owe it to ourselves not be so easily led this time around.

The Winds Of War

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

~ H. L. Mencken

Now, I'm sensitive to the idea put forth by some that this whole Putin demonization is merely the latest use of a hobgoblin intended to help get HRC elected president.

Obviously if this is true, it goes well beyond HRC herself. In the military industrial complex, there's a vast host of self-interested parties who feast on war and whose paychecks and future prospects depend heavily on it. There even are a few demented souls in the halls of power who believe in war as the best way to project one’s influence. Stew them together and you have a pretty good handle on what DC is all about these days.

So I'm sympathetic to the temptation to think: “Hey, it’s always a safe bet during an election year to try and appear tougher than your opponent…this is all just election year politicking and it will pass and fade after November 8th.”

Here’s why I don’t think that’s accurate. In fact, I think something deeper and more sinister has been set in motion. 

The blackballing of Putin and Russia started years ago, in 2013, when Putin managed to convince then-president of Ukraine Yanukovych to back out of the agreement intended to bring Ukraine into the EU fold as the final NATO brick in the wall.

That set-back enraged the neocons in Washington DC mightily and they’ve been rapidly anti-Putin ever since.  This neocon grudge has found help and support ever since from the UK, US, and EU press which were also willing partners in selling the fraudulent “evidence” that led to the Iraq war — and Libya, too, and now Yemen and Syria.

As examples, these cartoonish magazine covers (both from 2014) look like they were designed by Intro to Psychology 101 students asked to create a propaganda hit piece:

Heck, there's even potential evidence as far back as 2008: as exemplified by this TIME magazine cover where the "TIME" banner was placed behind Putin’s head in such a way that the peaks of the M gave him "horns".  (For fun, see how many example of other leaders you can find where TIME did this — there are precious few. The logo is almost always in front):

So the demonization began a long time ago, well before it’s reasonable to suspect HRCs advance team could start scheming about how to use an anti-Putin stance against Trump, or any other opponent. 

But the media has continued to beat the Putin=bad drums, and with increasingly volume. Here are a few more recent examples:

The message: Putin is manipulating us, and anybody who falls for it is a sucker. And if you dare to question the integrity of the US elections, which there is ample evidence that it is vulnerable to fraud & manipulation (listen to our podcast with election integrity analyst Brad Friedman), you are Putin’s patsy.

And here’s my favorite propaganda piece to date because it’s so blatantly over-the-top that it takes on a very special quality of being so bad it’s good. This is The Rocky Horror Picture Show of magazine cover art:

Okay, with all that said, we’ve established that “someone” has had it out for Putin for quite a long time.  We might surmise who or what agencies that might be, but such speculation is best reserved for those with greater insights than I happen to have.

I just know propaganda when I see it. And I see it in the examples above, and in the media pervasively today. So where does this lead us?

Well, given the fact that Russia has just undertaken the largest nuclear readiness drill in its history involving its citizens, maybe we should think that Putin and Russia are no longer amused by all this antagonism and are taking it as something more sinister than simple politicking.

Or we should pay attention that Russia recently announced the arrival of its latest nuclear ICBM (nicknamed Satan-2) capable of delivering 15 warheads each. 

And let’s not forget the even more recent announcement that a hypersonic glider warhead had been successfully tested, against which our military currently has no defense.

None of those Russian moves are being made in a vacuum of course. They've come only after many repeated provocations by the West, including assembling the largest gathering of military brigade forces on Russia’s borders since WW II. These are the kind of threats, mind you,  that would have caused the US to go into an absolute snit long ago were the situation reversed.

The real question is: Why?  What’s the plan here, if any exists?  Who’s behind all this and why? If we can answer any of these, then perhaps we can assess the risks regular people like us and our loved ones may be facing as potential "collateral damage" of this warmongering.

The So-Called Elites

The “who” has emerged in this election, at least partially. We now have a few names to put to the program, and they're familiar ones.

This is, generally speaking, the same cast of characters that has been agitating for a more belligerent global stance prior to 9/11.  Many of these names surfaced on my radar when the Project for a New American Century statement of principles was published in 1997. That document is pretty much all you need to read to understand the last 20 years of US foreign policy.

I mean, if you only had just one document to read on the topic, this one would pretty well sum it all up. 

Well, here they all come again. This time right on the front page of the Washington Post, making renewed calls for an even more aggressive and bellicose US military posture. For anybody concerned about conflict with Russia, this is more terrifying than any haunted house you could possibly visit this Halloween:

Washington’s foreign policy elite breaks with Obama over Syrian bloodshed

Oct 20, 2016

There is one corner of Washington where Donald Trump’s scorched-earth presidential campaign is treated as a mere distraction and where bipartisanship reigns. In the rarefied world of the Washington foreign policy establishment, President Obama’s departure from the White House — and the possible return of a more conventional and hawkish Hillary Clinton — is being met with quiet relief.

The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork for a more assertive American foreign policy, via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White House.

It is not unusual for Washington’s establishment to launch major studies in the final months of an administration to correct the perceived mistakes of a president or influence his successor. But the bipartisan nature of the recent recommendations, coming at a time when the country has never been more polarized, reflects a remarkable consensus among the foreign policy elite.

This consensus is driven by a broad-based backlash against a president who has repeatedly stressed the dangers of overreach and the need for restraint, especially in the Middle East. “There’s a widespread perception that not being active enough or recognizing the limits of American power has costs,” said Philip Gordon, a senior foreign policy adviser to Obama until 2015. “So the normal swing is to be more interventionist.”

“The American-led international order that has been prevalent since World War II is now under threat,” said Martin Indyk, who oversees a team of top former officials from the administrations of Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton assembled by the Brookings Institution. “The question is how to restore and renovate it.” The Brookings report — a year in the making — is due out in December.

Taken together, the studies and reports call for more-aggressive American action to constrain Iran, rein in the chaos in the Middle East and check Russia in Europe.

The studies, which reflect Clinton’s stated views, break most forcefully with Obama on Syria. Virtually all these efforts, including a report released Wednesday by the liberal Center for American Progress, call for stepped-up military action to deter President Bashar al-Assad’s regime and Russian forces in ­Syria.

“You can’t pretend you can go to war against Assad and not go to war against the Russians,” said a senior administration official who is involved in Middle East policy and was granted anonymity to discuss internal White House deliberations.

(Source)

There’s a lot to unpack in there. Let’s get started.

The article begins with the disquieting assertion that the presumptive return of a more hawkish Hillary Clinton to the white house is “being met with quiet relief.” You mean the longest stretch of active war in US history hasn't been enough for some of these folks? 

I talk with a lot of people in the military who are sick and tired of America's endless wars and their endless rotations with no end in sight and no clear mission.  Nobody can articulate what the US is doing in Afghanistan any more (and noting the enormous increase in heroin production is considered impolite).

Next, the article is loaded with “normalizing” words, such as ‘consensus,’ ‘broad-based’ and ‘bipartisan’ to make it seem that a more hawkish stance is really getting back to something we can all agree on. It’s centrist, bipartisan and broad-based after all.

It’s also insane when you combine it with the later part about how these folks want to undo the restraint of Obama and go after Syrian and Russian forces directly.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Getting into a shooting war with Russia would be a terrible idea. Insane really.

Not least of which is because, even if things don’t go nuclear (which they very well could given where we are in the shredding of the past narratives), then the US will discover that projecting its power all over the world is a heck of a lot harder when your navy is being sunk by the latest next-generation anti-ship missile technology.

Trust me, the petrodollar will get a lot weaker in a skinny minute as soon as American military power is revealed as stoppable.

I have a lot of faith in the training and equipment of the US military. But I also have faith in the power of a swarm of anti-ship hypersonic missiles to do a lot of damage.

The US Presidential Election

I'm on record as saying that I very much distrust the close relationship HRC has with the neocons and her hawkish foreign policy stance. Also, I do trust her readiness and willingness to get the US into more wars.

In the second presidential debate, she came right and said that she supports a no-fly zone over Syria. Quoting a US military general, I've since explained that doing so would meet the definition of an open act of war against Russia.

While there are a lot of issues on the table this election, I'm very much a single-issue voter when it comes to getting into a war with Russia. I want no part of it. I can't imagine any sane American would. 

At best, it would be a wildly destructive waste of time, life and money. At worst it ends with an EMP (if we're lucky) or nuclear disaster (if we're not).  Instead, we in the West should be confronting our massive overhang of debt, our looming energy predicament, and a host of ecological train wrecks right now — not stuck in the fantasy that global warfare is somehow glorious or 'winnable'.

After the next war, there won’t be any bountiful period of economically-simulative rebuilding that some have wistfully longed for. That takes energy. And in case anybody missed it, the 'high net energy' conventional oil slipped into the rearview mirror almost ten years ago now. There won’t be any super-duper rebuilding after the next big war. Just a massive struggle to get us back to even.

So hey, let’s not do that. OK?

Back to the main point here. The HRC campaign has several very close ties with the neocons who were instrumental in selling the Iraq war. None quite as prominent as Michael Morell:

Clinton Adviser Proposes Attacking Iran to Aid the Saudis in Yemen

Oct 26, 2016

Michael Morell is a former acting director of the CIA and a national security adviser to Hillary Clinton — one who is widely expected to occupy a senior post in her administration.

He is also an opponent of the Iran nuclear agreement, a defender of waterboarding, and an advocate for making Russia “pay a price” in Syria by covertly killing Putin’s soldiers.

On Tuesday, Morell added another title to that résumé: proponent of going to war with Iran, for the sake of securing Saudi Arabia’s influence in Yemen.

“Ships leave Iran on a regular basis carrying arms to the Houthis in Yemen,” Morell said, in remarks to the Center for American Progress, the liberal think tank founded by Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. “I would have no problem from a policy perspective of having the U.S. Navy boarding their ships, and if there are weapons on them, to turn those ships around.”

Morell did note, per Bloomberg’s Eli Lake, that this policy “raised questions of international maritime law.”

Which is a bit like saying, “Breaking into someone’s home, putting a gun in their face, and demanding they hand over all their weapons raises questions about armed-robbery law.”

(Source)

To me this is not an individual interested in a little Putin-bashing for the sake of votes. This is a guy who's deadly serious about using US power to get into a conflict not just with Russia, but with Iran as well.

Either of these adversaries could lead us into an armed confrontation that could escalate in ways we’d very seriously regret.

Even ‘just’ the shutting of the Strait of Hormuz would be a huge and mortal blow to a world economy saddled with low growth and enormous piles of debt.  Iran could accomplish this easily using the mobile, land based missile launchers they currently have in stock.

Sink a couple of Very Large Crude Carriers (VLCCs) and it’s a whole new ball game for world trade. 

In case you don’t take Mr. Morell all that seriously, I should remind you that he was the person who personally vetted and scrubbed the presentation that Colin Powell gave to the UN on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction that led to the final war resolution.

Clearly telling a few, uh, "fabrications" is well within his talent center if/when needed to get the job done.  He’s deadly serious about entering a conflict with Russia and Iran and he has Hillary’s ear.  Hopefully other more moderate people do as well, but my concern still lies with the fact that some people will hear equal arguments but then make the decision based on how they lean.

Hillary leans hawkish. That’s just a matter of record at this point. As even liberal-leaning Chris Matthews of Hardball said recently, “People don’t change because we swear them into the White House.”

Nope. The best rule of relationships I have is: You'll be disappointed if you are expecting (requiring, or hoping for) them to be different  tomorrow than they are today.

Conclusion

While I've focused on the election in this article, it may not even be relevant at all.  That is, there may well be a machine running in the background that is larger than any potential candidate or President. It may well be that the careful preparation of propaganda groundwork against Putin that began in 2008 is part of a large plan the public is being intentionally kept in the dark about. Who knows?

But learning how Obama has frustrated the aspirations of the neocons vis-a-vis Syria and Russia tells me that the office of the president does matter, at least to a point. 

I was personally horrified by what the US has brought to bear on Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan.  All in the service of Deep State objectives that are anything but obvious. 

My growing concern here is that the juggernaut that leads to war has already been untethered and is building up steam. I see it in the propaganda pieces against Russia on an almost daily basis. And I see Russia doing everything it can to both try and get the West to calm down and be reasonable, while getting its own citizens ready in case those efforts fail.

NATO is ramping up the pressure. Western media is faithfully (again) running necon talking points as if they were pearls of wisdom. We are heading back to the future.

Recently, for the very first time in my entire life, I have begun undertaking actual personal preparations for nuclear war. 

I absolutely deplore that I feel this is necessary. But a core tenet we live by here at PeakProsperity.com is that when anxiety builds, you need to align your actions with your beliefs. Right now, my beliefs are loudly telling me that the risk of a serious conflict with Russia breaking out are no longer dismissable.

Similarly, I've committed to readers that when something concerns me enough to take action in my own personal life, I'll share it.

In Part 2: My Personal Preparations For Nuclear War, I share the steps I've taken this week as well as additional precautions folks concerned about this topic should consider.

Look, it's crazy were even talking about this. But as this article has shown, there's ample evidence that the pressure between the West and Russia is building. Given the outsized risks involved, making an investment in safety is only prudent. After all: nuclear way is one of those potential scenarios where its far better to be early or overenthusiastic in your precautions, than a day late.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

Related content
» More

255 Comments

  • Sat, Oct 29, 2016 - 3:31am

    #1

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1911

    An anti-HRC ad on the risk of a Neocon nuclear war

    I must put out the usual disclaimer that I find Alex Jones to be far to sensationalist to be regarded as a balanced source of information.  And that just because I see danger in Hillary doesn't mean I like Donald much either….

     

    https://youtu.be/VoI7KMJuQBw

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Oct 29, 2016 - 7:28am

    #2

    Ivo

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 26 2009

    Posts: 20

    Thanks

    Great update Chris!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Oct 29, 2016 - 8:37am

    #3

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    WMDs.

    The big question: Does Russia have weapons of Mass Destruction? 

    Supplementary question: Do you have an entrance ticket for Weather Mountain?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Oct 29, 2016 - 12:29pm

    #4

    LesPhelps

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2009

    Posts: 475

    An EMP, if we are lucky...

    [quote=Chris]

    At best, it would be a wildly destructive waste of time, life and money. At worst it ends with an EMP (if we're lucky) or nuclear disaster (if we're not).

    [/quote]

    After just reading  "One Second After" followed by "One Year After", I won't feel all that lucky if we sneak by with just an EMP attack.  William Forstchen paints an ugly picture of the world after a few EMP devices are set off, one over the United States.  Forstchen has me convinced that losing a couple of major cities to nuclear strikes would be likely to cause less loss of life than one strategically placed EMP strike, with far greater potential for recovery.

    I can't agree more with what Chris writes.  Going to war with Russia is simply insane.  Having said that, if I were to anthropomorphize Washington DC these days, insanity would definitely be one of the personality traits I would include.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Oct 29, 2016 - 12:41pm

    Reply to #1

    LesPhelps

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 30 2009

    Posts: 475

    sand_puppy wrote:I must put

    [quote=sand_puppy]

    I must put out the usual disclaimer that I find Alex Jones to be far to sensationalist to be regarded as a balanced source of information.  And that just because I see danger in Hillary doesn't mean I like Donald much either….

    [/quote]

    Sadly, Trump is the only viable non status quo option we have available.  That's assuming that we even have the ability to vote a non approved candidate into office.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Oct 29, 2016 - 2:26pm

    #5

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4635

    Prof. Hudson on Trump, Hillary and Control Fraud

    I agree with a lot of what Professor Hudson says and how he's organized his thinking.

    Once you understand that everything is a racket and much is based on outright fraud, and the role of the neocons, you kind of come up with this view.

    It's a red pill moment…once you see the world this way, it all falls together and suddenly things make sense and you can make predictions.

    Claiming that the neocons are interested in killing Russians and starting a wider, definitive war with Russia is not a prediction, but a description.  Hey, 20 years of recent history allows us to say it that way.

    Why the US media is steadfastly ignoring this enormous risk, and calling out the individual actors really needs to asked and better understood.  

    (Hat tip Michael S. for this video link!)

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Oct 29, 2016 - 3:25pm

    #6

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4635

    If the War Party is not stopped...

    The party of war spans both sides of the aisle, and it means there is no conservative or progressive division. These fools are united in in their desire to bring more war to more places, and enriching themselves and consolidating their power as they do.

    As you should know by now, I think these were deeply immoral and ill-advised things to do when the US was beating up on much smaller rivals, but I think it’s sheer insanity to be doing this against Russia and China.

    It’s the proverbial case of the school yard bully eventually running into a matched foe who surprises him, and then he gets to suddenly find out what everybody really thinks of him.

    What seemed to be admiration from adoring crowds instantly transforms into seething hatred. Where did that come from? They never see it coming.

    This article in the Nation does a sound job of articulating my own views and concerns.

    The Geniuses Who Brought You the Iraq War Are at It Again

    Oct 26, 2016 The “Blob”—the epithet Obama speechwriter Ben Rhodes used to scorn Washington’s inbred, vainglorious, bipartisan foreign-policy elite—is striking back.

    In a series of foreign policy reports designed to influence the incoming administration, Greg Jaffe of The Washington Post reveals, the Blob will publicly criticize Obama’s “reluctance” to exercise America’s military prowess and call for a more “muscular,” “interventionist,” assertive policy, from the South China Sea to the Russian border, but particularly in the Middle East. They are pumping for more war.

    The names are familiar—former secretary of state Madeline Albright and former Bush national security adviser Stephen Hadley lead the Atlantic Council task force.

    Former Bill Clinton NSC adviser Brian Katulis and former Bush deputy secretary of defense Rudy deLeon are senior fellows at the Center for American Progress.

    The inescapable Martin Indyk heads a Brookings group of former top officials from Obama, Bush, and Clinton administrations.

    These are the apostles of American exceptionalism, from the neoconservatives who promoted the invasion of Iraq to the “indispensable nation” liberal interventionists who championed regime change in Libya. Virtually without exception, all supported Bush’s invasion of Iraq, the most catastrophic foreign policy debacle since Vietnam. Virtually without exception, none were held accountable for that folly.

    The reports—and the Blob—share two conclusions. They censure Obama for excessive timidity. “There’s a widespread perception that not being active enough or recognizing the limits of American power has costs,” the Postquotes Philip Gordon, a senior foreign-policy adviser to Obama until 2015. “So the normal swing is to be more interventionist.”

    And all favor ramping up US military activity—on the Russian borders, in the South China Sea, and particularly in the Middle East, promoting no-fly and safe zones in Syria, more special forces, more aggressive use of air power, more military aid, and a more integrated security partnership. The objective is not only to defeat ISIS and Al Qaeda and its offshoots militarily, but to create order in war torn Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia, as well as to counter Iran and Russia in the region.

    The Obama years demonstrate the dangers of “restraint”? Say what?

    The Obama administration is currently fighting wars in five countries and bombing seven.

    It toppled Gadhafi in Libya and left the country in chaos. Its regime change campaign in Syria ended in a brutal civil war. It backs the Saudi ravaging of Yemen. It helped spark a street coup in Ukraine, and moved military forces to the Russian border, reviving a new Cold War. It has bolstered US naval forces in the South China Sea as part of containing China. US Special Forces were active in more than 100 countries last year.

    Obama has signed off on more weapons sales and transfers than Bush. None of this has worked out very well, but neither did George W. Bush’s “damn the torpedoes” policy. If Obama represents excessive restraint, may the gods save us from what comes next.

    The Blob still believes that America has the writ and the power to decide. We are “indispensable,” bearers of law and democracy at the end of a cruise missile. Our insurgents are by definition “moderates.” Our clients—Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, from military dictatorship to desert sheikdom—have, in the words of the CAP Report, “internal cohesion” and domestic “political legitimacy.” Despite conflicting interests, they are allies against terror (even though some like Saudi Arabia provide significant funding for both the terrorists and the religious zealots that inspire them.)

    For the Blob, caution comes not in objective but in strategy. Only the most unhinged call for putting “boots on the ground.” This leads to a disconnect. They limit the military strategy—to drones, air power, advisers, intelligence cooperation, military aid, training—without trimming the objectives. It is hard to see this as anything other than a demented recipe for endless wars without victory.

    So if the war party is not stopped, they will continue until their own noses are bloodied. Can that happen short of a major kinetic confrontation that risks EMP or other nuclear exchanges from taking place?

    Well, all of us sane people would certainly like to think so, but we have to be honest here; these neocons and war hawks are not built the same as us. They do not think the same way. It is a mistake to project your own inner limits and ability to empathize onto them.

    They lack these things.

    Because I know this I can adjust to the world as it actually is, not as I want it to be.

    Would I prefer to live in a world where people with deep seated inner psychological wounds were not in positions of power? You bet! 100%!

    Are we living in such a world? Nope. Not even close.

    So we have to be honest about the risks we face here.

    And I think it’s just the beginning because as resources get short over the next years and decades, history says that conflicts are the way those will be resolved. Think Middle East (which is really a long-running resource conflict) but everywhere.

    This is why we must begin to confront out shadows, and begin to elect and elevate leaders who can operate from places of inner calm, reflection, and uncertainty without blowing a fuse.

    It’s going to take time.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Oct 29, 2016 - 4:46pm

    #7
    Rach3

    Rach3

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 06 2009

    Posts: 1

    Chris is right

    Those images of Putin do indeed look like good old propaganda…. scary.
    Here is one from WW1:

    https://sites.google.com/site/hannahadrianswiki/ww1-german-propaganda

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Oct 29, 2016 - 6:12pm

    #8
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1368

    interview with James Clapper, DNI

    http://www.cfr.org/intelligence/conversation-james-clapper/p38426

    This is an interview and Q&A with the Director of National Intelligence.  A broad range of topics is covered, including Russia, the ME, cybersecurity, etc.  He stays away from political issues and is rather general in most of his responses, but is nonetheless quite interesting as he has been at the eye of the storm for decades and has a unique perspective.  His last question is on climate, a subject that has been notably absent from the political slugfest so far this election year.  It's nice to know it has an important place in intelligence matters.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Oct 29, 2016 - 10:47pm

    #9

    newsbuoy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 10 2013

    Posts: 117

    Surviving a nuclear attack - Irwin Redlener

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW7IgKJWtqk&feature=em-share_video_user

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Oct 30, 2016 - 12:15am

    Reply to #6

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    Schizophrenia

    Would I prefer to live in a world where people with deep seated inner psychological wounds were not in positions of power? You bet! 100%!

    I have had more than my fair share of exposure to the effects of schizophrenia. Both its negative and is positive effects. I am not affected other than in my ability to imagine scenarios that others are blind to.

    These people are not "wounded". They are schizophrenics.  The very reason that they wield more power that the average Joe is because of their condition. History is replete with examples. 

    I covered this in my recent comment on Redice. Unfortunately the text would not format correctly, but you can find it here in my response to Chloe

     https://redice.tv/news/fbi-discovers-new-hillary-emails-after-investigating-anthony-weiners-lewd-conversations-with-teenager

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Oct 30, 2016 - 3:35am

    #10

    CleanEnergyFan

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 29 2012

    Posts: 104

    Good Video on Kennedy's distrust of Military Advisors

    I just viewed this excellent documentary of the Cuban Missile crisis and this really drives home what Chris said that if Kennedy had not been so restrained and had taken his advisors advice to pre-emptively attack Cuba we  would likely have had a nuclear war.  In watching this I couldn't help thinking what HRC would have done in this same situation…scary.  This is also a good journey down memory lane for preparations of a nuclear attack,

    Check out "The Sixties" on Netflix

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Oct 30, 2016 - 11:32am

    Reply to #5
    Chris Lilburn

    Chris Lilburn

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 30 2016

    Posts: 1

    On the pulse

    Professor Michael Hudson summed it up better than any economist I've heard or read. 

    I'm living in Australia and am glad of the distance but the sad fact is it's not far enough if the button gets pushed.  

    The media have beaten Trump up that badly that most Aussies want Clinton to win. 

    The more I research about HCR the scarier she becomes. 

    God help us all!!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Oct 30, 2016 - 2:41pm

    #11
    RiverWind

    RiverWind

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2015

    Posts: 9

    Other thoughts

    These events, and discussions around them, have splintered into a million pieces that we are all trying to understand.  Undoubtedly there is world history from which to draw essential information but it does not always clarify what will happen next as technology exceeds moral development at this point.  Each of us forms an opinion based on our own personal histories as well as what we can understand about what is happening around us.

    I do agree that as Chris wrote  the  "neocons do not think the same way and that it is a mistake to project your own inner limits and ability to empathize on them".   In my own  microcosm, I have lived with  people who would sacrifice everything and anything to get what they want regardless of the outcomes…..so long as they felt they "won"    Standing up to or enduring them is hell–there is no easy way out.  It can mean complete financial loss, illness, and a  re defining of your world.  Fighting these people does not work because they are fueled by your attention and energy —it affirms their "power."

    Creating a tribe/village of people who do not value material gain or resources over another human being weaves our lives back together so that we can thrive in our place as loving, caring, valued people in community.  It comes back to a grassroot movement on behalf of all of us who want to reclaim our planet.  The challenge is not to get distracted by all the noise  and to have a plan to help our tribes sustain and flourish when exposed to adverse forces.

     

     If the neocons and war mongers have an agenda they intend on fulfilling do we believe that Trump has the ability to thwart  their objectives? Do we think HRC is the solo decision maker in a nuclear war? How do we argue both sides of this?  Each of us can write a novel about what may happen if either is in office.  

    It really comes back to each of us and not under estimating our power.  We have to make change –create our own local sustainable communities.  Yes we need to know what is going on in the world, but it cannot suck our energy away from what we can do at home.  I am working on my house, my pantry, my animals and planning out how to support family and friends. I am speaking to as many people as I can. But I cant listen to the noise anymore –it is too depleting. 

    I wish you all peace and prosperity on your journey.

     

     

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 31, 2016 - 3:05am

    #12

    Karl Klein

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 25 2008

    Posts: 8

    Most powerful piece you have ever written

    Dr. Martenson – Your work over the years has been a powerful influence on my thinking and my teaching practice.  But, this essay is the most powerful thing you have ever written.

    Now, of course, you are on "The Lists."

    Thanks for putting this out there and in the widely available public section.  As always, data driven.

    BTW – Your interview with Ms. Tverberg was pretty good too.  

    I chuckled at the one point where there is the long pause after your one question.

    My chief complaint with her perspective is that she does not seem to be very concerned with the climate change aspects of continuing to burn fossil fuels.  

    Thanks again.

    – Karl

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 31, 2016 - 3:47am

    #13

    nickbert

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 14 2009

    Posts: 260

    Mutiny of the rank-and-file

    I was rather pleased to see the following at ZH: Is This Why Comey Broke: A Stack Of Resignation Letters From Furious FBI Agents

    While I don't know how true this article is, I can say it matches my personal experience.  From what I'd seen this past year before leaving my job, there are a huge number of government and contractor employees doing security clearance work who are really peeved about Clinton getting a pass for her email scandal.  Just about anyone who does or has done that kind of work knows her excuses are BS and that the pattern suggests a deliberate thumbing of her nose at rules and procedures (as well as possibly directing her subordinates to break said rules for her convenience), the same rules under which the rank-and-file are held accountable with rather severe penalties for even unintentional breaches of the rules.  I remember seeing a much larger group of fellow coworkers around the TV than normal when the news broke of Comey letting Clinton off the hook, and the mood was seriously UGLY.  I saw this as a hopeful sign…. whatever one may think of the leadership and elites running the gov't and military industrial complex, the majority of the average workers and soldiers working in that field are decent people trying to make a positive difference.  And while I had decided I'd be leaving that line of work behind long before that, I have to say Clinton's get-out-of-jail-free situation really killed any last shreds of morale I had left at that point.  Amusing story… during my out-processing, my company's security manager was reading off the mandatory spiel about the fines, penalties, and potential imprisonment one will suffer for disclosing sensitive information, at the very end of which he said, "unless you're Hillary Clinton". 

    So yeah, if she's elected she could face a lot of passive-aggressive and uncooperative suboordinates, officers, and other personnel in the DoD and Intelligence agencies.  THAT could be a game-changer… maybe enough to weaken the neocons' influence on current policy, given they're hitched their star to Clinton.  Leaders who don't enjoy the support of the rank-and-file who work for them don't tend to last long.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 31, 2016 - 10:46am

    Reply to #11
    fated

    fated

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 16 2014

    Posts: 52

    Trump/Hillary - any difference

    River Wind – a couple of days ago I would have considered Trump might be a thorn in the side of the Neo-cons, but after reading the article below, I'm no longer sure.

    Rigged Election: Hillary & Trump Caught Partying w/ Kissinger @ Jesuit Gala

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 31, 2016 - 11:48am

    #14

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    Meet Satan

    Pleased to meet you. I hope you get my name.

    Sympathy for the devil.  Rolling Stones. 

    http://futurism.com/meet-satan-2-russias-new-icbm-nuke-capable-of-leveling-france-or-texas-in-one-hit/

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 31, 2016 - 1:07pm

    #15

    Honorius

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 13 2011

    Posts: 2

    Bravo Chris and others

    I rarely comment, but bravo Chris and fellow PPers for these thoughts.  A clear and measured exposition of the risk we seem to face.

    Hard to know how to respond to it, or how to get our message out.

    But it seems to me worthwhile to try, so thank you for it.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 31, 2016 - 9:25pm

    #16

    mememonkey

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 01 2009

    Posts: 101

    CHS Deep State Thesis

    Charles Hughes Smith's connects a dot in his ongoing  thesis that more rational elements of the deep state are trying to neuter the Neocon's foreign policy to preserve the empire  and thus are likely  behind the recent FBI developments regarding Hillary in an effort to torpedo her candidacy according to his latest posted today at ZH

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-31/clinton-collapse-only-deep-state-so-precise

    [quote=Charles Hughes Smith]

    I submit another much more powerful dynamic is in play: the upper ranks of the Deep State now view Hillary as an unacceptable liability. The word came down to Comey to act whether he wanted to or not, i.e. take one for the good of the nation/Deep State/Imperial Project.

    [/quote]

    While I'm not convinced that this is the case,  it certainly is the most optimistic analysis and favorable spin on deep state I've seen  especially in light of the heightened nuclear confrontation risk.

    I'm hopeful that Chris will explore this thesis with Charles in his next off the cuff and am always appreciative that CHS engages us here directly in the dialog at PP.

    mememonkey

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Oct 31, 2016 - 10:56pm

    #17

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1911

    Will the Neocon's go quietly into the night?

    CHS's idea is very interesting.  Time2Help posted this yesterday on his fb page.

    The Deep State consists of multiple factions of powerful people inside and outside of government.

    They form and break alliances.  I imagine it like the TV show "Survivor."  Some DS players are most identified with the USA and some more identified in the international oligarchy.

    The number of people who understand that 9/11 was an act of the Deep State is very large now.  I'll make a guess that 50 million to 70 million Americans know.   With this understanding, faith in the MSM, especially the Neocon associated MSM, has been devastated.  They are understood to be guardians of "the myth."  Waging war by deception only works well on the gullible.

    Similarly, government scientific agencies are understood to be corrupt or corruptible.  What other scientific bodies have been corrupted to serve the oligarchy?   We can't know anymore. 

    The FBI and AG shenanigans of this last week show that the activities of these institutions are but pawns in the global power game.  They are certainly unrelated to "justice" and they are not even trying to pretend to be anymore.   Rampant corruption is tolerated with disinterest by both the justice department and the MSM both.  "Sure you can collect bribes.  We are cool with that."

    And Twitter, Reddit and Facebook are not trending the leading news stories.  Controlling the discussion is within the rights of for-profit privately-owned communication venues.

    I have watched videos of Hillary speaking in what are now known to be lies.  She does so without the hesitation and subtle discomfort (such as eyes looking away) that signal that a human being with an intact conscience is lying.  I am concluding that her psychological structure is that of a psychopath.  She will be able to lie utterly convincingly and has no preference for "truth" over "lies."   Cheney's  "We create our own reality" really only works for psychopaths who have not yet been discovered.

    So will the Neocons retreat quietly?  Admit defeat.  Lick their wounds.  Or will they go all in with one last Hail Mary event?

     

     

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 01, 2016 - 3:48pm

    Reply to #16

    nickbert

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 14 2009

    Posts: 260

    Re: CHS Deep State Thesis

    I suspect that what CHS says is at least partially the case (i.e. that they are slowly backing away from Clinton as her political liabilities add up), but as far as Comey's latest move I think it's just as likely (if not more likely) that Scott Adams of Dilbert fame is accurate in that with both the exoneration and the latest announcement Comey was doing what he thought was best for the country as a whole:

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152531307171/james-comey-as-seen-through-the-persuasion

    Now I wouldn't go as far as Scott Adams and say Comey is a "hero" because I think it is also likely (though not certain) that his initial decision was compromised to a degree by political pressure, yet the new emails on the laptop could be so damning that he felt compelled to announce the news to Congress as promised.  So he might have done it to either avoid a larger revolt of the FBI rank-and-file or to keep some shreds of his reputation intact after the full details come out (or both).  I can see how one might see giving Clinton a pass the first time (albeit with harsh words) was a way to let America decide and not interfere with the election, but from my perspective since Clinton's team were the ones stalling and deleting… er… I mean delaying… the email investigation, she has no one but herself to blame when some of the nastiness comes out so close to the election.  Oh well, too bad, shit happens.  Or Trump happens… but I probably repeat myself 😉

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 01, 2016 - 6:09pm

    #18

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1911

    Adelson donates $25 million to Trump yesterday

     
    Billionaire Sheldon Adelson has committed $25 million to an anti-Hillary Clinton super PAC, just one week before the presidential and congressional elections are decided…

    Adelson had previously said he would give $100 million to help Republican nominee Donald Trump win the Oval Office, but has waited until the end to follow through on his promise.

    The money was given to Future 45, a super PAC founded by the Ricketts family in Chicago, owners of TD Ameritrade. The Ricketts endorsed Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker during the primary season and has only recently come around to endorsing and funding Trump's campaign. One source said Adelson was motivated over the weekend to help Trump after the FBI enhanced its investigation into Hillary Clinton's email activities.

    Previously Adelson had urged other wealthy Jewish donors to join him in supporting Trump saying:

    … “like many of you I do not agree with him on every issue”, but he stressed that Trump will be a “tremendous president when it comes to the safety and security of Israel”.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 01, 2016 - 6:38pm

    #19
    Uncletommy

    Uncletommy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 03 2014

    Posts: 524

    Antidisestablishmentarianism

    I've always wanted to use that word in a sentence. Given the state of things in the U.S., perhaps its use may becoming back into vogue. It has only been 500 years since the last major "Deep State" shakeup. If Donald got rid of his 'comb-over", he might consider the tonsured look of the past befitting a heretic. Unfortunately, a tonsured head is a sign of humility. Guess that leaves Donnie out!  

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 01, 2016 - 8:45pm

    Reply to #17

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4635

    This my exact line of thinking and deepest concern

    [quote=sand_puppy]

    So will the Neocons retreat quietly?  Admit defeat.  Lick their wounds.  Or will they go all in with one last Hail Mary event?

    [/quote]

    I find myself unconvinced that the Deep State has suddenly developed cold feet about Hillary.  It's just too alluring and comforting to be correct.  It's something I want to believe, so I am immediately suspicious of my instincts.

    So let's assume we are talking about the same deep state that has pulled of a long and unbroken string of disruptive, and violent deceptions to achieve its aims.

    Are they about to go quietly into the good night?  If not, their options seem to be:

    • Hope that Hillary wins
    • Corral Trump to their cause somehow
    • Remove Trump and rely on Pence
    • Double down and commit another shocking event that can be used to usher in their desired candidate(s) and policies.  

    Whatever the next event, it would have to be really big because people are not so easily shocked anymore.  The Orlando shooting was horrifying, and large, and it just came and went in the national consciousness.

    So I fret a little as my inner thriller novelist concocts various scenarios knowing that any 'next event' would have to be quite inventive to really shock.  And the Deep State is clearly quite a creative lot.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 01, 2016 - 8:54pm

    #20

    newsbuoy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 10 2013

    Posts: 117

    Nuclear war looks like the best option

    Nuclear winter as geo-engineering.

    Believe that "they" believe it.

    "Granted that I must die,
    how shall I live?" — Michael Novack

    Important: anyone have a great vegan chorizo recipe? and a good source for purple potatos?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 01, 2016 - 10:29pm

    Reply to #17
    Uncletommy

    Uncletommy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 03 2014

    Posts: 524

    Hey, Chris. . .

    You've missed your calling in the literary field. I think there is an international, quasi-fiction, best seller waiting to be written. Ever toyed with the idea? If Kunstler can get away with it, why not you.

    Uncletommy

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Nov 02, 2016 - 12:41am

    Reply to #17

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4635

    I'll consider it!

    [quote=Uncletommy]

    You've missed your calling in the literary field. I think there is an international, quasi-fiction, best seller waiting to be written. Ever toyed with the idea? If Kunstler can get away with it, why not you.

    Uncletommy

    [/quote]

    Maybe that would be a good, creative outlet for me.  

    I am listening to a 'book on tape' (really a lecture series that was taped) right now that is having a big impact on my thinking.

    It's The Power of Vulnerability by Brene Brown,

    https://www.amazon.com/Power-Vulnerability-Teachings-Authenticity-Connection/dp/1604078588

    The way it ties in here is she talks about the research that supports the importance of creativity in keeping us happy and whole hearted.  It's one of many important elements she outlines, but I do have a creative writing side that's sitting there, and I let it come out in my family's Christmas letters.

    And I used to playa  lot more guitar than I currently do.  A ton more.  And I want to get back to that, so I am committing to penciling in more creative time for me.

    "Play" is another thing she surfaced, which I will crudely remember her defining as "an unstructured activity where you love it so much you lose track of time, and would choose to do it whenever given the chance."

    So good suggestion, I'll let you know what I come up with.  🙂

    At any rate, I highly recommend the above audio 'book.'

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Nov 02, 2016 - 2:40am

    Reply to #17

    mememonkey

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 01 2009

    Posts: 101

    Neo Con Pivot

    [quote=cmartenson]

    [quote=sand_puppy]

    So will the Neocons retreat quietly?  Admit defeat.  Lick their wounds.  Or will they go all in with one last Hail Mary event?

    [/quote]

    I find myself unconvinced that the Deep State has suddenly developed cold feet about Hillary.  It's just too alluring and comforting to be correct.  It's something I want to believe, so I am immediately suspicious of my instincts.

    So let's assume we are talking about the same deep state that has pulled of a long and unbroken string of disruptive, and violent deceptions to achieve its aims.

    Are they about to go quietly into the good night?  If not, their options seem to be:

    • Hope that Hillary wins
    • Corral Trump to their cause somehow
    • Remove Trump and rely on Pence
    • Double down and commit another shocking event that can be used to usher in their desired candidate(s) and policies.  

    Whatever the next event, it would have to be really big because people are not so easily shocked anymore.  The Orlando shooting was horrifying, and large, and it just came and went in the national consciousness.

    So I fret a little as my inner thriller novelist concocts various scenarios knowing that any 'next event' would have to be quite inventive to really shock.  And the Deep State is clearly quite a creative lot.

     

    [/quote]

    Chris, 

    I have a similar take with the exception that I think they may have indeed given up on their first choice of Hillary.    Where I  differ from CHS is that I don't think that is attributable to the conscious initiative on the part of a 'saner' faction of the deep State. 

    Rather that represents an emergent response to the cascading revelations of Wiki leaks, undercover videos and discrediting of establishment media propaganda organs and what appears to to be a potential significant upset win on Nov 8th.  All trends building to a critical mass that would make a Hillary Clinton presidency counter productive despite having all the right Neocon players and policies already picked out for her administration.

    The ass covering  under the bus throwing transition has started and will only pick up speed.  With the advantage to first movers!   You are seeing this everywhere from Obama,  not backing the 'Comey is a Corrupt Partisan' narrative in Hillary's defense, to some in the tank 'reporters' and commentators, suddenly starting to criticize Hillary and feign objectivity.  This was actually starting before the FBI bombshell dropped, on the strength of wiki leaks re the Clinton foundation pay to play corruption  notably on MSNBC where even Mika Brzezinski daughter of the grand poohba Neocon/cold warrior Zbig Brzeznsinski  got into the action.

    I believe at this point Hillary's goose is cooked regardless,  Best she can hope for even if she wins is a pardon. 

    There is a credible argument that Obama, in a Machiavellian twist worthy of the Prince,, has intended all along to really hand his legacy to VP Tim Kaine,.   Tim kaine who is actually an Obama Loyalist and was selected a year ago ( as we now know from Wiki leaks) in what appears to be a quid pro quo for Obama's public support of Hillary. was perhaps a manchurian candidate intended to ascend in the face of Hillary being subsumed in scandal.  (Scandal which is and was always there and ready to be exploited by insiders)  Despite public appearances,  I do believe there is real bad blood between Obama and Hillary.  

      To the extent that Obama's 'rapprochement with Iran was one of his signature achievements, and foot dragging re. confrontation with Russia in Syria spoke to his relative restraint vis a vie the hardcore Neocon agenda, perhaps catapulting  Kane over the corrupt corpse of the Clinton machine was a brilliant maneuver to extend and preserve that legacy.  Speculative of course but that scenario would be one that is moderately consistent with CHS thesis.

    That conspiracy theory aside,  my sense again is that developments are more a function of  heavy duty player awareness of leaks and revelations coming down the pike and the building public zeitgeist which would make Hillary ineffective.  That doesn't have to be a neocon thing,  Occams' razor tells me that is just political realists trying to save themselves.

    In the meantime you can see the Neocons/Likudniks rapidly maneuvering for influence with Trump. They have always had players in the trump camp with the entre' being his misperception and acceptance  of Iran as a boogie man as per Israeli talking points.  

     

    Remember Trump's advisors include General Flynn who co authored a book with Ultra Neo Con Ledeen,  and who's raison d'être is anti Iran anti Saudi.   Rudy Guiliani  who is either the dumbest prosecuter in the world or complicit in 911 and  Giuliani "stood with Israel" and helped murder 3000 Americans on 9/11

    Sheldon Adelson  who just pitched in 25 million to a last minute advertising blitz and is a total Zionist Sayanim     Even today you had uber neocon Bill Kristol softening his tone to trump advising him to commit himself to one term. 

    The race is on to surround and influence a potential Trump administration.  This fits the MO as the influence and control is devoid of any ideological underpinnings and is always first in support of LIkudnik Zionist agenda.

    While this fact is unpalatable to people who have been immersed in the dominant memes of our media and culture, but like trying to discuss Radical Salafist ideology without aknowleding its Saudi Whabist DNA even cursory study of the origin of the Neocon movement clearly shows that it was and remains a Zionist driven agenda, born from Jewish intellectuals.  It is by nature independent from other constraining political ideologies.  That is why it was birthed with  radical leftists, morphed into right wing conservatism, pivoted easily to Neo Liberalisim under democratic control and now is poised to adapt as necessary.

      While there are Neocons that are not necessarily Jewish or Israeli, such as Rudy Guliani, resulting from the alliances  with cold warriors, Super conservatives and hardcore elements of the military/security industrial complex  the architecture is fundamentally built around perceived Israeli Security interests.  Those interests dovetail nicely with the aforementioned alliances and full spectrum domination in support of American Empire.     

    Neo Con's  can work with Trumps anti Iranian anti Saudi stance   I suspect that any significant false flag would occur after Trump was in power, and would be blamed on Iran.  So while a populist non globalist egotist is not ther first choice,  a Neocon pivot to destroy Iran ( which was always their crowning intent ) could conceivably leverage the ideological belief systems already present in Trump and many of his supporters.  a lot of that agenda could be advanced in Bill Kristol's putative 'one term presidency

    Image result for netanyahu with trump

    Plan A to work through Hillary is likely dead because she has sustained too much damage

    Plan B (always a contingency)  is to put a different set of players in with Trump and pivot to the Iranian agenda.

    Plan C if that doesn't work is put in  Pence by assassination.

     

    While it is possible that Trumps populism and isolationism will prevail and diminish the Neocon agenda, I agree with Chris, there is basically no chance that the  Neo Con's will fold up there tent and going quietly into the night.  At a minimum they will adapt and lay in wait.

    Mememonkey

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Nov 02, 2016 - 5:09am

    #21
    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2252

    Re: Neo Con Pivot

    For those living within or near city cores prepping for several weeks of "shelter in place" may be prudent. 

    You have 6 days until the election.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Nov 02, 2016 - 5:41am

    #22

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 691

    100 Most Damaging Wikileaks

    Here are some of my favorites from: http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/. They claim to have the top 100 Most Damaging Wikileaks. Note that these change frequently because they are adding more. The numbers may not line up. Go there early and often.

    Grover

    31. Hillary says climate change activists should "get a life"

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9617 (in attachments)

    • “No. I won't promise that. Get a life, you know."

    Last year, environmentalists probed Hillary Clinton on renouncing fossil fuels, and this is how she responded to them. Yet another example of private vs. public positions on policy.

    43. John Podesta’s password was [email protected]

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/22335

     

    • “Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta [email protected]

       

    Why is this important? The media is lying to us. They are saying the "Russians are feeding Wikileaks" and that they are hacking us. Their passwords are literally password. Some security. They only blame Russia so it can take our focus away from what is actually in the emails, which they do not deny it's validity. As mentioned in the info section, Wikileaks has a 10 year, 100% accuracy rating. Not one leak has ever been disproven.

    Not only that… but Podesta LOST his cellphone Extremely dangerous since he illegally had access to top secret documents.

     

    Julian Assange has already strongly suggested that the source of the leaks are insiders, including ex-DNC staffer Seth Rich, who was killed right around the time of the DNC leaks

     

    John Podesta's password was [email protected] and the White House is trying to claim only a foreign state organization could have been savvy enough to hack these servers.

    44. Hillary Clinton had to be told when to smile during speeches

     

    Her campaign seems more scripted than the WWE. This is why people don’t like her (not accounting for the corruption, scandals, extremely careless behavior, etc.) She just doesn’t seem genuine/authentic at all. When you are told to smile, read “sigh” off the teleprompter never have an unscripted moment, have every word of every line you say get polled and tested by multiple focus groups several times before you even say it… people just don’t feel like they know what you truly stand for.

    55. Admitting Hillary failed foreign policy

     

    Yet Obama is signing off on another policy to do the exact same thing, again. Hillary has said she will be an Obama third term.

    61. Plotting to attack Obama because "his father was a Muslim"

     

    Yet people vehemently oppose the idea that Hillary's campaign came up with the birther movement… And here she is, her campaign planning to attack him on his Muslim father. This was back in January 2008.

    68. Hillary tweaks her policies based on donors’ wants

     

    These leaks prove that Hillary will do anything for money, regardless of morals. Her staff even comments often about how worrisome it is. She takes money from countries who (under Sharia law) kill gay people, enslave women, and persecute Christians, but turns a blind eye to it as long as she gets paid. She changes her policies based on who gives her what. She sells U.S. assets to countries who donate in pay-to-play schemes… what a mess…

    74. Hillary’s speechwriters: “I don't mind the 'backs of dead Americans' because we need a bit of moral outrage." (Benghazi)

     

    One prominent theme throughout the leaks is that Hillary is just a put together political head piece that is drafted, rewritten, and approved before being sent into public. They note where she should be outraged, they note where she should smile, she even sighed when they told her to sigh. All of the words coming out of her mouth go through weeks of tweaking so that she comes off as likable as possible.

    80. Bill Clinton admits Clinton Foundation has no “real projects”

     

    It was also mentioned that the employees are unhappy.

    92. Hillary finds out more debate questions

     

    • “Flagging that Bob B. heard that they could ask about carbon tax and late-term abortion restrictions. Solow and I are pulling debate book materials & running abortion answer by Jen & Rachel ahead of 3pm.”

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Nov 02, 2016 - 6:52am

    #23

    mememonkey

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 01 2009

    Posts: 101

    Steve Pieczenik, The case for CHS thesis

    If this is accurate, it is essentially describing exactly the scenario that CHS posited

    he is describing a coordinated whistle blowing effort on part of internal intelligence/FBI/ and other governmental agencies using wiki leaks as the weapons for a bloodless info 'counter coup'

    It will be interesting to see if this can rise above fringe awareness and if his assertions remains consistent with rapid ongoing and escalating  developments.

    His claims imply additional leaks beyond the Podesta files so time will tell if other bombshells start landing.

    I note that he has his Wikipedia page(if accurate) I lists and impressive educational background and resume.

     

     

    Steve Pieczenik

    From Wikipedia,   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Pieczenik#Controversies

     

    Pieczenik was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance and James Baker.[3] His expertise includes foreign policy, international crisis management and psychological warfare.[7] He served the presidential administrations of Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in the capacity of deputy assistant secretary.[8]

     

    Pieczenik is a Harvard University-trained psychiatrist and has a doctorate in international relations from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).[3]

    Pieczenik's autobiography notes that he attended Booker T. Washington High School in the Harlem neighborhood of New York City. Pieczenik received a full scholarship to Cornell University at the age of 16.[3] According to Pieczenik, he received a BA degree in Pre-Medicine and Psychology from Cornell in 1964, and later attended Cornell University Medical College. He attained his PhD in international relations from MIT while studying at Harvard Medical School.[4] Pieczenik claims to be the first psychiatrist ever to receive a PhD focusing on international relations.[5]

    While doing his psychiatric residency at Harvard, he was awarded the Harry E. Solomon award for his paper entitled: "The hierarchy of ego-defense mechanisms in foreign policy decision making".[3]

     

    Under the controversies section of wikepedia we find this:

    On May 3, 2011, radio host Alex Jones aired an interview in which Pieczenik claimed that Osama bin Laden had died of Marfan syndrome in 2001 shortly after the September 11 attacks, and that the attacks on the United States on 9/11 were part of a false flag operation by entities within the American government, the Israeli leadership and Mossad.[31]

     

    mememonkey

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Nov 02, 2016 - 12:26pm

    Reply to #23

    Jim H

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1798

    Thank you Meme....

    That is quite a resume.  I love it when really, really smart people act as truth warriors.. we so need them in times like these where the matrix of lies and propaganda threatens to drown us completely.  Here is another of my favorite, super-intelligent truth tellers (oxymoron alert) at work, lawyer John Titus.  John analyzes the legal aspects of what may be going on with Comey and recent events;

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Nov 02, 2016 - 1:11pm

    Reply to #22

    Quercus bicolor

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 19 2008

    Posts: 190

    The top 100 most damaging Wikileaks nead some confirmation

    I don't know about this site Grover.  I spent five minutes on this one:

    Hillary's campaign wants "unaware" and "compliant" citizens

    • https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599

    • “And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking – and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging.”

    he ClWatch this video about it.

    I didn't watch the video, but I did read the email linked to on the Wikileaks site.  It's from Bill Ivey, appointed chair of the National Endowment for the Arts by WJC in 1998.  As best I can tell, he is not directly involved in the campaign – he is perhaps a mid to upper level donor.  The quote above is taken out of context and seems to be just a general reference to "we", the citizens of the US or perhaps, we the establishment.  It is very unlikely that he has knowledge of or is speaking for the Clinton campaign when he writes it.

    I'm sure there is plenty of real evidence in the emails, but apparently there is a least one piece of manufactured dirt by people who don't like Clinton.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Nov 02, 2016 - 3:42pm

    #24

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3146

    shriek-o-meter to MAXIMUM

    Just looking at my news feed this morning, the number of articles that are basically yelling at me is just astonishing.  The entire mainstream media is vomiting up volley after volley of mud, hoping some of it might stick.  It just reeks of desperation.  "The mighty Wurlitzer" comes to mind.

    Nevada is now in play, 53/46 Clinton.

    These are actual headlines from reddit politics.  Shriek-o-meter to MAXIMUM.

    • Video shows trump with mob figure he denied knowing
    • Greenville Church burned and spray painted "Vote Trump" (No false flag there)
    • Mass media has utterly failed to convey the policy stakes in the election
    • White nationalists plot Election Day show of force
    • How the American freak out over Clinton's emails buried definitive proof of Trump's awful business record
    • Trump's supporters vastly overestimate unemployment – and they blame politicans for it
    • Jon Stewart rips Trump for past anti-Semitic attacks against him
    • Don't let the FBI decide the election
    • Donald Trump authored a novel and naturally it's about non-consensual sex and workplace racism
    • Trump's call for policing urban polls stirs defiant reaction among black voters
    • Conspiracy theories, not facts, driving Clinton haters
    • Florida poll: 28% of GOP early voters picked Clinton
    • Clinton's path to 270 appears unchanged
    • 35% of Donald Trump Twitter supporters also follow White Supremacists
    • Woman born before suffrage casts vote for Clinton

    Puppies and Kittens Vote Clinton!

    Mass Murderers Vote Trump!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 03, 2016 - 12:46am

    Reply to #5

    kelvinator

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 25 2008

    Posts: 181

    Wow - I really disagree with Prof. Hudson's Pro-Trump View

    And I disagree with your pro-Trump view, Chris, which is how I have to interpret your position, if you say your red-pill moment is to agree with Hudson, that Clinton is a greater danger.  Putting a narcissistic, constantly lying, torture advocating, environment trashing, uniformed fool in charge of one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world makes no sense under pretty much any circumstances.  It will do huge damage in the US and in the world in so many ways – as I saw first hand as I worked with global grass-roots activists on economic, social and environmental issues largely against corporate run governments when GW Bush was president.  It was horrible – "the clean air act, clean water act"  – 1984 speak for trashing our world.  Trump wants to kill the EPA, put the country's top climate skeptic on it, etc.  I understand Hudson's argument, but really don't buy it.  I'd rather have someone clever, corrupt and consistent than a obviously demagogic, fascistic wildcard who is guaranteed to do major damage.

    Yes, there's a danger that Clinton would start a war.  There's also quite a danger that Trump would start a war as well.  This website is finally getting a little too close to an Alex Jones conspiracy shout fest for me.  I'm really with you on recognizing the major danger of the Neocons being in control, the incitement against Russia, but we've got a number of potentially unstable regimes who have nuclear capability now.  Many are dangerous, including the US, but all have reason to pause before they start a nuclear war, no matter who they are.  I'd rather have someone that at least has a cover-story of intelligence, caring about the world and sanity, even if they're part of a corrupt Establishment and allied with Neocons.  Trump has no such cover story.  Neither is good, as 70-80% of the country knows.

    Okay, you all can start giving me a hard time now.  There must still be a couple of people who agree with me.  If not, I'm really not on the right website anymore, since, while I don't mind discussing or arguing with people, I really prefer and enjoy a range of opinions.  This is getting too over the top.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 03, 2016 - 2:59am

    Reply to #5

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3146

    Trump and the cycle

    kelvinator-

    I think the problem with many people here is that they are so tired of being harvested in a variety of ways by our corporate masters and their politician servants, they're willing to stick a thumb in the eye of the system and vote for Trump.  Not true for everyone, but I suspect its a common theme.

    As Armstrong might say, that's just where we are in the cycle.  We've hit peak confidence in government, and now we're skidding down the other side.  She is status quo, Trump is not, and its as simple as that.

    For me, I want to send a message to the party machinery that torpedoed Bernie.  I believe they will not actually receive this message – they will try and continue force-feeding us who they want – unless they first experience a colossally embarrassing defeat of their hand-picked candidate by someone like Donald Trump.  Experience is the only language they understand.  Only if they get collectively smashed in the face will they pay attention, and just maybe, democracy will have a chance next time around.  [If you get the idea I'm not pleased, you'd be right.]

    "Why am I not 50 points ahead?"  Because the party machinery picked a horribly corrupt politician rather than listening to the voters, that's why.

    I have confidence in the ability of the country to survive.  Roman Empire survived Caligula.  We can survive Trump.

    I respect those who have a different opinion of things – most of my friends are for Clinton.  Then again, most of my friends are well educated, are in the tech industry, they make a whole lot of money, and so the status quo for them is actually pretty nice.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 03, 2016 - 4:22am

    Reply to #5

    kelvinator

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 25 2008

    Posts: 181

    The Cycle is Happening - No Need to Hurry It Along

    Thanks for your thoughtful response, Dave.  I had to laugh when you said most of your friends are for Clinton, but then, most are well-educated, in the tech industry & the status quo for them is actually pretty nice.  That's because I strongly supported Bernie, and all the while was railing at my Clinton leaning friends before and after Clinton took the nomination that both Trump and Bernie are right, that the system is rigged, but that they just weren't noticing because they're in the relatively small group that's doing fine.  

    I kept quoting them the stats that in the last 25 years or so, the share of wealth of the bottom 80% of people in the US went from 14% of total US wealth in 1990 to 7% in 2014(!!), and that in the same time period, using 1990 inflation calc methods, the purchasing power of the median income in the US was cut in half, according to my rough calculations.  The constant Establishment Dem narrative that the Democrats have been making incremental economic progress for everyone has been a big lie (I called it a "false narrative" to be more polite), and now Americans are rightly really, really pissed off, and my friends are just out of touch with what's going on when they wonder in awe at the Bernie and Trump phenomena.  They told me Bernie was too risky a candidate, and I said no, this year, it's Hillary that's too risky, and they shouldn't support her. So, we share similar perspectives on that front.

    As I noted in my post, I'm an activist in various ways, and don't just express opinions around elections and vote (not to imply that you or others aren't active at other times, too).  It's just to say that I know from my own sad experience that I absolutely and without any question would rather be active and put pressure, (including civil disobedience pressure) on in a  Clinton environment than Trump environment.  That's what Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and millions of people across the board fed up with the corruption will do as they loudly go after Hillary's various hypocrisies if she's elected.  

    We just really disagree in a big way about Trump.  To me, it's not a game of sticking things in party's eyes and hoping by putting a fool and would-be demagogue in office to create change, as far as I'm concerned.  Bernie almost won this time, and the young demographics (and boiling public discontentment) favor busting the status quo by next election.  The deep stupidity, fear, hate, racism, potential major curtailing of civil-liberties and other mad dogs are likely to come out much more than they have so far as times get tougher, in any case.  It's important to hold everyone to a much higher standard than that, whether it's you, me, Trump or Hillary.  It makes no sense to set the mad dogs loose just to see them tear the old world to shreds.  I don't at all share your confidence they'll stop there.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 03, 2016 - 6:35am

    #25

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1911

    Shared Values

    Hi Kelvinator,

    I appreciate your speaking up and voicing your thoughts.

    We share a bunch of values.  Lets list them:

    • Honesty and abhorrence of lying, especially in a public figure.
    • Compassionate and respectful treatment of all human beings and absolute abhorrence of torture.
    • Valuing the environment and being aware that our human lives depend upon a healthy Earth.
    • Peace and the avoidance of conflict.  Not likely to start wars.
    • Intelligence and intelligent policy
    • Works well with others.  Can build a cooperating team.
    • Loves Bernie Sanders.  (my buddy-the only politician I have ever just LIKED)

    I must admit that Trump does not seem to have all of these values, and certainly not in abundance!  I suppose I should admit, that I actually know very little about Trump.

    I am guessing that the biggest difference is our understanding of the Neocons, sometimes the Global Domination Group, and sometimes called other things.  What is their scope and effect on our world.

    In my view, it was the Neocons (or the Global Domination Group) that brought us:

    • 9/11 attacks themselves.  Designed to traumatize, frighten and enrage the US citizens,
    • the re-introduction of torture as an "official American practice,"
    • The "extraordinary rendition" program (abducting an flying people to other countries to torture them)
    • Guantanamo Bay prison and torture location where people are taken without charges or evidence (and who are NOT prisoners of war) and tortured with no recourse whatsoever.
    • Abu Ghraib prison and torture,
    • Lying to kill millions in wars that were never declared or debated.
    • Bombing many nations.  Parking an aircraft carrier 200 miles off shore and sending bombers in day after day for weeks and months to destroy roads, dams, power stations, airports.  Creating living hell for the men, women and, especially, the children, living there.
    • Violation of international law to drone assassinate enemies across national boundaries (and kill all of the people near them) with no judicial process–just a secret decision from somewhere in the MIC.
    • the NSA who collects private electronic communications and transactions.  I have absolute certainty that, in time, this network will be used to imprison political opponents here in the US.
    • The passage of the NDAA, a legal framework where any US citizen can be arrested at any time without evidence or due process or notification of family for "suspicion of terrorism."

    The Neocons were active under Clinton 1, Bush 2, and promise to return to unchecked ascendancy under Clinton 2.

    I have heard Trump described as uninformed.  And he may well be on many areas where I know little about him.  But he does seem to understand 1) the criminality of a charity that functions as a bribe collection system, and 2) the leadership role the Neocons have played play in reshaping America into a totalitarian and militaristic society.

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 03, 2016 - 7:50am

    Reply to #5

    mememonkey

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 01 2009

    Posts: 101

    Trump is the Environmental Candidate...

    [quote=kelvinator]

    And I disagree with your pro-Trump view, Chris, which is how I have to interpret your position, if you say your red-pill moment is to agree with Hudson, that Clinton is a greater danger.  Putting a narcissistic, constantly lying, torture advocating, environment trashing, uniformed fool in charge of one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world makes no sense under pretty much any circumstances.  It will do huge damage in the US and in the world in so many ways – as I saw first hand as I worked with global grass-roots activists on economic, social and environmental issues largely against corporate run governments when GW Bush was president.  It was horrible – "the clean air act, clean water act"  – 1984 speak for trashing our world.  Trump wants to kill the EPA, put the country's top climate skeptic on it, etc.  I understand Hudson's argument, but really don't buy it.  I'd rather have someone clever, corrupt and consistent than a obviously demagogic, fascistic wildcard who is guaranteed to do major damage.

    Yes, there's a danger that Clinton would start a war.  There's also quite a danger that Trump would start a war as well.  This website is finally getting a little too close to an Alex Jones conspiracy shout fest for me.  I'm really with you on recognizing the major danger of the Neocons being in control, the incitement against Russia, but we've got a number of potentially unstable regimes who have nuclear capability now.  Many are dangerous, including the US, but all have reason to pause before they start a nuclear war, no matter who they are.  I'd rather have someone that at least has a cover-story of intelligence, caring about the world and sanity, even if they're part of a corrupt Establishment and allied with Neocons.  Trump has no such cover story.  Neither is good, as 70-80% of the country knows.

    Okay, you all can start giving me a hard time now.  There must still be a couple of people who agree with me.  If not, I'm really not on the right website anymore, since, while I don't mind discussing or arguing with people, I really prefer and enjoy a range of opinions.  This is getting too over the top.

    [/quote]

    … IF your issue is environmental radiation poisoning

    I'm sure there are plenty of people that share your view here with regards to the environment and even Trumps character and ideological flaws, it seems like you are projecting your emotional loathing of Trump onto what is really a narrow issue of discussion.   Conflating rejection of Hillary and what she represents  imply support of Trumps negatives.

    It is entirely possible and rational  for 'liberal, intellectual 'right thinking' earth loving people like yourself to choose Trump despite his qualities.   Once they fully understand the existential risk involved.   Even Jill Stein of the green party has warned that Hillary represents the greater threat in this regard.

    To be accurate and  fair to Chris,  He has explicitly not endorsed Trump or any candidate.   And nowhere have I seen Chris express any pro Trump sentiments. He has only expressed the strong and reasoned opinion that Hillary represents a significantly elevated risk of continued and expanding war and potential for provoking a nuclear confrontation and consequently can not support her.

    Indeed the substance of this particular alert thread is strictly in consideration of those risks of the Neocon agenda, an agenda that Hillary clearly represents and serves.

    Your rejoinder that Trump could also "start a war'  is of course theoretically possible,  but this is a discussion evaluating evidence based considerations that inform those potentials.  What is the relative probability? is really the issue

    By all means flesh out your thesis of how  Trump might spark off a nuclear war with one of the 'unstable nuclear powers'  do you haven any evidence, record of,  or scenario that make sense given Trumps record, or rhetoric?  Do you have a scenario where one where a nuclear power besides Russia or China represents an existential  threat of nuclear annihilation for the US? 

     Remember the primary risk is not that a country/leader isn't rationally bound to 'pause' before initiating an attack,  it is  that polices and aggressive confrontational actions as exemplified by HRC and the Neocons'  that put us at a heightened risk of scenarios that can escalate into full blown exchanges even without initial intent. The neocons's have shortened the response decision time and radically altered this equation in Europe with the missile 'defense' ring fencing of Russia. and they are lobbying for direct confrontation with Russians  in Syria.    That is a fact and is very real

      All I'm hearing in your statement is  what amounts to the HRC campaign talking point that Trump is a scary bad man who can't be trusted with the button. 

    While Trump has said some incredibly dumb and outrageous  things (Indeed stylistically that has served to get him nominated despite the entire media and establishment apparatus working against him) if you examine his actual statements ( not the distortions broadcast on the MSM) on these issues regarding war, foreign intervention, Russia, use of Nuclear weapons, he is way less scary, more reasonable and rational  than HRC

    FYI  I do see some risk factors with him on war issue as I alluded to in my earlier post,  but on balance I think he presents a significantly smaller risk of getting us into a nuclear exchange

    Two final points

    The issue is probably moot, because the amount of dirt begin exposed  and put into the public record on HRC and the implications that are implied by not only the resumption of the email server case but the existence of the FBI case on the Clinton Foundation  which has survived the DOJ attempts to kill it   are likely to make her either lose the election or be indicted if she does win.  One way or the other, I don't think we are going to have a Clinton presidency.  

    And lastly, Trump is likely to get us into a trade war, and could very well be 'responsible' or assigned responiblity  for triggering the financial reckoning that we all know is coming.

    In the face of world wide depression of Biblical proportions,  I suspect you will be able to credit Trump with way more clean air and reduction of green house gasses than anyone to date. Regardless of his enthusiasm for 'clean coal' and his denial of Global warming.  Maybe he really is the environmental candidate!

    He is not going to make America great again.  I suspect his only real accomplishment will be removing Hillary from our foreign/war  policy.   

    Given the danger she represents,  I'll take that.

     

    Mememonkey

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 03, 2016 - 11:02am

    #26

    nickbert

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 14 2009

    Posts: 260

    Does anyone else feel...

    … that given the Deep State tends to prosper and best operate when the populace is deeply divided, that either a Clinton or a Trump victory provides a net benefit for their interests?  Either outcome is going to have a large numbers of pissed off people ready to create unrest of one kind or another.  My sense of things is that the neocon clique is but one player in the Deep State, though admittedly a highly influential one at present.  So the neocon movement might be inconvenienced and have to postpone some of their objectives if Trump gets elected, but the resulting internal strife amongst the masses is still likely to play into their hands and that of the Deep State as a whole.  More protests, riots, crime, shootings (cops & civilians both), and any other long-term general unrest will pave a smoother road towards greater domestic surveillance, repression of personal liberties, and implementation of stricter economic controls.  And Trump seems open to or in favor of those methods.  So the neocons might just have to wait 4 years for a chance to advance their foreign agendas, whether that be actual war with Russia or just maintaining the ongoing threat of war (which is IMO more likely).  But domestically they'll probably still get what they want.  And who knows… Trump is likely to depend heavily on his advisors and subject matter experts for many complicated military and foreign policy matters (given the lack of in-depth knowledge he's shown of some such subjects).  Some such individuals could be (and IMO almost certainly will be) used by the Deep State to influence decision-making. 

    While I suspect Trump's campaign was not an intentional part of the Deep State plan (given that a lot of collateral damage was done to both parties as a result), if I were in their shoes I'd see a Trump presidency as something that could worked with, given some adjustments and a little patience.  So while I understand why one might choose to vote for Trump in the hope to decrease the chance for war and/or to give the middle finger to the establishment, I don't see it making a big difference in the long run.  Certainly not a good enough reason to give him my 'consent to govern'. 

     

    —————-

    (Quote from Star Trek: DS9)

    Lieutenant Jadzia Dax: "As the 34th Rule of Acquisition states, "Peace is good for business"."
    Quark: "That's the 35th Rule."
    Lieutenant Jadzia Dax: "Oh, you're right. What's the 34th?"
    Quark: ""War is good for business". It's easy to get them confused."

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 03, 2016 - 11:32am

    Reply to #26

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Online)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 857

    I think that deeper than the deep state

    is the spirit of a thing, and that is out of peoples' control. 

    There's a writing dating back to 70 AD: the 4th esdras eagle vision.  To my way of thinking, even if it had no divine inspiration, there can be truth that can be gleaned out of it.  Here's a truth:  suicide is evidence that a person no longer can hope in the mercy and justice of God.  When people no longer can hope in the mercy and justice of God, the eagle vision has the eagle nation writhing and bursting into flame, and burning to nothing.. 

    Point being, that's a very severe condemnation. 

    Only one suicide triggered the Arab spring.  Think about it.  Now, that isn't permission to go commit suicide to bring political change…  that one suicide became the icon for many.  Rather, it's just indicative that there is some truth in the eagle vision. 

    The spirit of the thing is that we are deeply divided.  And that isn't good for deep state or anyone else.  It's just the way things are. 

    I'm in Virginia, a swing state that has been 12% Hillary, and may end up voting Trump… (Probably won't, I think, but others think it will).  I'm voting neither.  I'll write in the CEO of Chik-Fil-A, or the 2009 CEO of McDonalds, because both of those men showed good faith in adversity.  Maybe whoever does win will get word and hire them on to their government. 

    Yes, I watched 13th, and it does seem there was a "Deep State" FBI that murdered the peaceful and persuasive civil rights leaders, leaving only those who would exchange their strength for the illusion of victory.  I live in the area of Bacon's Rebellion, another act of "Deep State".  I live in the area of a battle between Lloyds Names, and American investors whom the Names defrauded, then murdered, then burgled the evidence from the lawfirms.  So yes, there is something like "Deep State".  But the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, Shaka Zulu…  in the end, a spear, a sword, an axehead, a bullet took them all. 

    BTW… I'm more inclined to tie Deep State to the Holy Roman Empire elites, be it in England, US, Germany, France, or whatnot.  I call it HRE… others call it western civilization.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 03, 2016 - 3:01pm

    Reply to #5

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4635

    Well, then let's disagree...

    [quote=kelvinator]

    And I disagree with your pro-Trump view, Chris, which is how I have to interpret your position, if you say your red-pill moment is to agree with Hudson, that Clinton is a greater danger.  Putting a narcissistic, constantly lying, torture advocating, environment trashing, uniformed fool in charge of one of the most powerful and influential countries in the world makes no sense under pretty much any circumstances.

    [/quote]

    To begin, my view is not "pro Trump" except in the narrow area that I happen to be willing to risk some hope that Trump will be so bombastic, and so difficult to work with legislatively, that Congress and the Senate will have no choice but to reclaim their abdicated powers from the presidency.  Among the most important?  The powers to declare war and authorize spending.  

    I see the presidency as having claimed entirely too much power, a serious imbalance of raw, naked power, over the past several presidencies.  Time to clip that office back down to size.

    You fear the damage an overly powerful presidency can do and I am in agreement with your belief that the presidency has a lot of power.  Where we maybe depart is I think it's too much (that is, I don't accept it as a natural and acceptable condition) and fixable. 

    It will do huge damage in the US and in the world in so many ways – as I saw first hand as I worked with global grass-roots activists on economic, social and environmental issues largely against corporate run governments when GW Bush was president.  It was horrible – "the clean air act, clean water act"  – 1984 speak for trashing our world.  Trump wants to kill the EPA, put the country's top climate skeptic on it, etc.  I understand Hudson's argument, but really don't buy it.  I'd rather have someone clever, corrupt and consistent than a obviously demagogic, fascistic wildcard who is guaranteed to do major damage.

    As mememonkey noted above, any president that tears the covers off of this corrupt, self-dealing system of finance is likely to trigger an economic decline that would be any environmentalists fantasy come true.  At least from the perspective of limiting and halting the damage that exponential economic growth causes.  

    Yes, there's a danger that Clinton would start a war.  There's also quite a danger that Trump would start a war as well.  

    Now hold on there. This strikes me as a false equivalence. It' such an important point that it needs some serious backing up on your part.

    I've taken the time to present reams and mounds of evidence showing that HRC has always voted for war, and has abused her position at State to force a war on Libya that destroyed that country and created a massive amount of misery.

    These are her actions.

    Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan…all of them bombed without a peep of opposition from HRC and plenty of support.

    As always, to me actions speak louder than words.

    But let's use words too because that's all we have for DT.

    In the second presidential debate he said he'd negotiate with Putin and Russia to battle a common enemy (ISIS).

    HRC said she'd declare war on Russia by imposing a no-fly zone.

    So even on the basis of words alone I cannot find any support for an equivalency argument.  HRC is far more dangerous than DT when it comes to war with Russia in both actions and words.

    If you want to take it to the next level and debate your gut feeling of equivalence against my gut feeling of them being wildly different, then we'll have to take that to Reddit or Fark where unsupported opinions are part of the territory.

    This website is finally getting a little too close to an Alex Jones conspiracy shout fest for me.  

    How so?  Give examples please.  I don't really take all that kindly to ad hominem or smear-by-association attacks, even of the passive aggressive variety, so it would be great if you could back this up with what specifically has rubbed you as being a "conspiracy shout fest."  

    I'm really with you on recognizing the major danger of the Neocons being in control, the incitement against Russia, but we've got a number of potentially unstable regimes who have nuclear capability now.  Many are dangerous, including the US, but all have reason to pause before they start a nuclear war, no matter who they are. 

    Hmmm..this is an interesting belief system.  Your idea, if I can boil it down, is that a nuclear war is not really in the interests of any sane person or country.  So it won't happen.

    My belief system is that the neocons were so dreadfully harmed during their childhood development that they are not what you or I would consider sane.  They lack a moral compass because they lack all compassion or empathy.

    There's a reason certain people are attracted to power and there's a reason highly immoral crimes are regularly tracked back to those same halls of power.

    While a nuclear exchange may never happen, it won't be because everybody thought better of it like sane people might.  There are insane people up there in charge.  

    They have written about their views and published them for you to read, if you choose.  It's hard stuff to read, admittedly, because it's like peeking into a mass grave.  Very disturbing.

    But they have been clear.  They seek total world domination, and they are eager to use even more military muscle to achieve it.  It's right there on the front page of the WaPo in the article I linked and parsed.

    The next big war will destroy things that will not and cannot ever be rebuilt because the energy for rebuilding simply won't be there.  If it goes nuclear, then things will really suck badly.

    And I am willing to vigorously defend my views that the neocons are dangerous people with severe character defects that deserve aggressive intervention by mental health professionals, not key positions at State, the DoD, key think tanks, and the White House.  I have tons and tons of evidence.  Too much.  But there it is.

    May I remind you of this Wikileaks email from the Clinton email dump?  

    (Note: this is the email I keep in mind whenever the MSM talks about how Russia is responsible for the  misery in Syria.  Yeah, right.  Only if you completely ignore who started the Syrian conflict and why).

    UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015

    RELEASE IN FULL

    The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.

    Negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear program will not solve Israel's security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program — the capability to enrich uranium. At best, the talks between the world's major powers and Iran that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May will enable Israel to postpone by a few months a decision whether to launch an attack on Iran that could provoke a major Mideast war.

    Iran's nuclear program and Syria's civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about — but cannot talk about — is losing their nuclear monopoly.

    An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today. If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself.

    Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security — not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel's leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN's Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that "the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran…. It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world…and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza."

    Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel's security, it would also ease Israel's understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran's strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran's nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack — if necessary over the objections of Washington. With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the

    United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran's program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria.

    (Source

    In essence, hundreds of thousands of Syrians have died in an effort to preserve Israel's nuclear monopoly for a bit longer.

    That's a stone-cold calculus being performed there.

    But it really shouldn't be a surprise at this point, right?

    Again…the very, very big mistake one could make here is pretend these people, deep down, are actually just like the rest of us.  They are not.

    So I'm happy to disagree with you, but let's keep the accusations of being a conspiracy echo-chamber off the table, okay?  

    If you've got different or better information than what I've just presented, then please share it!  If the information changes you know what I'll do?  

    I'll change my mind.  🙂

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 03, 2016 - 6:14pm

    #27

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1911

    CAF: Thoughts on the end state of the election drama

    Catherine Austin Fitts gives her thoughts on the "counter coup" against Clinton being waged by insiders using the leaking of email to take down her lieutenants one at a time.

    She offers a fairly extensive list of the Clinton team that have been neutered via email leaks.  Then CAF  offers her impression of the possible options for the final acts of this drama.  And guess what–war with Russia is one of the Clinton ways out.

    Campaign Whack-a-Mole

    After a long itemization on the take down of the Clinton team members, one by one, she concludes:

    As compromised as Team Clinton is, as long as they maintain their establishment backing, their only choice is to do everything they possibly can to win the election. While the investigations will not stop if they are elected, they will be in a better position to deal with them if they have government resources to affirm and maintain their ongoing criminal enterprise.

    So this raises the question as to what the attacking team has that constitutes a “kill shot” to take out the queen before the election. Wikileaks and the assembled swarm has six more days – five really, to engineer their best shot. If you watch Campaign Whack-O-Mole to date, these folks are clearly building up to a kill shot. The question is what is it and will they be able to get it out and about on the Internet in time.

    Which leads us to the last question – one that is being asked a lot these days. To what extent can the Democratic party and their allies rig the election through compromised voting systems?

    This leaves us with two possible endings to Campaign Whack-O-Mole:

    1. Trump Wins: In this case Trump appoints a special prosecutor and we can look forward to years of illumination regarding the Clinton interests. Clinton likely will do jail time, unless the establishment can persuade Trump to let her off the hook. Hopefully, we will have a chance to cleanse Washington of the Neocons for good.
    1. Clinton Wins: In this case there is only one thing that the Republican Congress can do to redeem themselves in the electorates eyes – particularly if the Republicans won the popular vote in the presidential election – move for investigation and impeachment. What happens depends on the national security bureaucracy at the intelligence and enforcement agencies. If they support Clinton, the Republicans will likely be marginalized. This will be a dangerous situation. Traditionally, the way the Clintons and related allies win in these situations is to kill people or to target them with legal and financial torture and physical harassment. If the national security bureaucracy supports the House Republicans, Clinton will likely be impeached. However, this will come with a disgorgement of dirt the likes of which America has never seen. The way that Clinton can consolidate her power and command bureaucracy loyalty – including the banks and defense contractor who increasingly control the nuts and bolts of federal operations – is to have a war with Russia.

    I am waiting for the women who support Clinton because she is a woman explain to me why WW III is good for women.

    So lets see what the next six days bring. In the great game of campaign whack-o-mole, the situation is very fluid.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 03, 2016 - 9:13pm

    #28

    newsbuoy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 10 2013

    Posts: 117

    White Man's Got a God Complex

    Gentle souls need not apply.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ9Fiv21qdY

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 03, 2016 - 9:18pm

    #29

    newsbuoy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 10 2013

    Posts: 117

    Duplicate

    Duplicate

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 03, 2016 - 10:19pm

    #30

    blackeagle

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 16 2013

    Posts: 225

    What a campaign!

    We are Canadians, not Americans, so we should be neutral foreign observers, but, we are following this campaign with passion. People here are as divided as you are. When I talk to people about Clinton, Trump, the neocons, Putin or anything related to this campaign, then we are all divergent. Sometimes quite violently. People are "shouting" their opinions.

    Tuesday is not too far now… I just hope that whatever the outcome is, things may be better for Americans than what most of them fear or dislike. 

    Anything ahead, good or bad, will eventually become a thing of the past…

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 03, 2016 - 11:40pm

    Reply to #5

    Oliveoilguy

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 29 2012

    Posts: 521

    Look at both sides

    [quote=kelvinator]

    Okay, you all can start giving me a hard time now.  There must still be a couple of people who agree with me.  If not, I'm really not on the right website anymore, since, while I don't mind discussing or arguing with people, I really prefer and enjoy a range of opinions.  This is getting too over the top.

    [/quote]

    I agree with you on your observations about Trump, but I don't think that you understand HRC yet.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 12:30am

    #31

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1911

    White House Prepares for Russian Cyber Attack on Election

    Following on the heels of CAF's impression that WikiLeaks et. al. are preparing for a kill-shot data release on "the queen" in the next 5 days, we find this news story tonight from NBC New about the up coming Russian Cyber attack on the US on election day.

    (You can't make this stuff up.)

    Exclusive:  White House Readies to Fight Election Day Cyber Mayhem

    The U.S. government believes hackers from Russia or elsewhere may try to undermine next week's presidential election and is mounting an unprecedented effort to counter their cyber meddling, American officials told NBC News.

    Russia has been warned that any effort to manipulate the actual voting or vote counting would be viewed as a serious breach, intelligence officials say.

    "The Russians are in an offensive mode and [the U.S. is] working on strategies to respond to that, and at the highest levels," said Michael McFaul, the U.S. ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014.

    Officials are alert for any attempts to create Election Day chaos, and say steps are being taken to prepare for worst-case scenarios, including a cyber-attack that shuts down part of the power grid or the internet.

    But what is more likely, multiple U.S. officials say, is a lower-level effort by hackers from Russia or elsewhere to peddle misinformation by manipulating Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms.

    For example, officials fear an 11th hour release of fake documents implicating one of the candidates in an explosive scandal without time for the news media to fact check it. So far, document dumps attributed to the Russians have damaged Democrats and favored Trump….

    In the TV portion of this NBC story, they said that "Russia has been warned not to cross the Red Line."

    Whew.  This is intense.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 12:40am

    Reply to #23
    Tim Ladson

    Tim Ladson

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 22 2012

    Posts: 16

    Extremely Interesting Addition to the Crazytrain

    mememonkey,

    This guy is off the charts smart and connected beyond belief. I just have to wonder if this is the straight skinny or another diversion to grab our attention. His smarts, background and training would raise my back hair just being in the same room with him. IMO the Clintons are the public face of the deepstate / neocons who carry out deepstate's agenda and along with the security agencies are involved with the planning / actions we see being carried out on the world stage today. So his intention maybe to distance his guys from the "Clintanic" for self preservation, or this could be more smoke and mirrors. The Clintons and Obama are interchangeable political figures and came from nowhere to power because they have the right "qualities" that suit the ends of  TPTB. It would be great if what he claims in the video is actually what is going on right now, and some of us here would no doubt cheer his cadre on, but I remain skeptical that we are being played one more time.

    Tim.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 1:55am

    #32
    Hotrod

    Hotrod

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 20 2009

    Posts: 161

    Crazytrain

    I will never forget the one honest bit of wisdom given to us from one of the former CIA contractors who bought our company: "Always remember, NOTHING is ever as it appears."  Words to ponder.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 2:47am

    #33
    treebeard

    treebeard

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 18 2010

    Posts: 551

    Looking for other options

    I agree with everything said about HRC.  But I think we are fooling ourselves if we think that Trump would be anything other than an unprecedented disaster if it were even possible for him to be elected.  It is highly doubtful he we be able to do anything in the face of the machinery in place.  HRC has been appointed already, the Russian hacker stories are just cover in case they need to monkey with the voting system in case Trump gets too many votes. I think the goal is to give HRC a "mandate", they want to ensure a landslide.

    For all we know the goal may be to get Kaine into the presidency, who knows.  If lotteries are a tax on the mathematically challenged, then voting this election is for the politically challenged. Out, out brief candle.  Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and is heard no more!  It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.  How true that feels this election cycle and in hind sight now that the absurdities are becoming more and more apparent………..

    Let's take all that fury and do something productive with it even after Queen Clinton II has been anointed.  Putting the right person in office is not enough, you need to follow them out into the streets on a regular basis, especially after he/she is elected when that poor soul walks into the blades of the machinery.  Without a popular movement behind them, they would become either impotent or perhaps even dead.  Without a strong populist movement with a clear agenda and brilliant and articulate leader, nothing will change.  Let's give up on the cool-aid.  I don't see that yet, perhaps in one more election cycle, we will need to feel the heel of the boot a little harder still I'm afraid before we get off our asses.

    But most importantly, you don't need friend in congress or the White House. Get out in the streets now on a regular basis, issue by issue. And of course in the way you lead your life. Keep your hand on the plow and hold on…………..

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 2:58am

    #34

    kelvinator

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 25 2008

    Posts: 181

    Thanks for Your Response, Chris

    I'll respond in more detail in the next day or two when I have time, since I've got a day job, plus need to help put together a newsletter, get out the vote, etc.  I will say that, as you may know, I've been a member since 2008, and have appreciated over that time that you and Adam have made an effort to try to keep the site a place where people can disagree and still have a dialogue.  I am getting concerned that the site is getting skewed toward views that hyper-focus on demonizing the Clintons alone, a popular Republican and Libertarian pastime that's overdone when it singles them out.   The Neoconservative agenda and its massive corruption and inhumane horrors were hugely and most aggressively advanced by Bush/Cheney in the ghastly Iraq & Afghanistan adventures that I campaigned strongly against at the time. How much time was spent here calling for Bush to be brought up on war crimes and corruption, or for an investigation of his very powerful role in refusing to follow-up on the FBI's 2004 warning to Congress that fraud in the mortgage industry threatened to bring down the financial system?  Full coverage and "fair and balanced" bashing is appropriate. 😉

    As times get tougher, as most of us believe is likely, it seems even more important to hold good will, make an effort to understand and to take care of each other as best we can.  I've appreciated some of the underlying good will I've felt in responses here from people who disagree with me on some points.  We all know how truly aggravating it can be to have people disagree with us at times!  Yet, none of us has a lock on the truth.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 4:50am

    #35
    Hotrod

    Hotrod

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 20 2009

    Posts: 161

    I'm flummoxed over this election (as are most people)

    I honestly cannot argue against anyone, who in good faith decides to vote for either of the two major candidates.  Both of them are severely deficient in many areas and could easily bring on either war or economic catastrophe.  I have resigned myself to the fact that one of these two very imperfect people will be the next President and am working hard to make peace with that fact. I'm certain most, if not all, people here have put much thought and effort into making an informed guess at who is the least threat to our future here on Earth.

    That being said, whoever the next President turns out to be needs to be held up immediately to scrutiny by all of us by examining the people chosen to run the country.  If Hillary gets the nod and selects Neocons, this site and all the intelligent people here need to go ballistic. The same is true for Trump.  The recent influx of 25 million dollars of Sheldon Adelson's gambling money to further his campaign is not a good sign.

    The Neocons need to be opposed at every opportunity and it falls upon us to help light that flame of resistance.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 11:23am

    Reply to #34
    Tim Ladson

    Tim Ladson

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 22 2012

    Posts: 16

    Equal Bashing

    kelvinator,

    Thanks for your passionate stands on things that matter to us PP'ers.

    I have as much loathing of the Bush / Cheney administrations as I have recently expressed about the Democrats. My belief is that both parties are just a manifestation of the neocon / deepstate agenda and there is little to choose between them. I totally agree with your reminders of how we were strip-mined by the Republicans during their reign. The reason attention has been turned to the Clintons is that they appear poised to regain the levers of power, passed from Obama who in reality just continued the Bush / Cheney policies that have gotten us to the rotten state we are now faced with. The two parties are just a device to keep us little people divided and arguing over the scraps left behind by our betters. The Bush and Clinton crime families are playing for the same team that treat us like the farm animals we have become. We know what we get with Hillary, more of the same, Trump is a wildcard .

    Tim.      

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 11:24am

    Reply to #5
    Edwardelinski

    Edwardelinski

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 23 2012

    Posts: 324

    Kelvinator

    I really respect the fact that instead of stewing and spewing over our current situation you have spent a chunk of your life trying to effect change for a greater good!Here are 2 reasons to be hopeful.Last fall Saunders and Cummings enacted legislation to investigate price fixing and collusion in the pharmaceutical industry.The smart money already knew that this was coming down the pike.For what it's worth,this time around I believe there will be prosecutions and the prices of our drugs will be coming down.Second,over the last few weeks Dave Sirota from IBT published some terrifying plans that both Clinton and Blackstone have to hijack Americas retirement money.Sirotas piece was published before Wikileaks confirmed. It went as far as Geitner and company meeting up in a NY to try and get this done.After reading this I called The offices of Elizabeth Warren in DC and asked if they were aware of the Sirota piece.They were not,3 people came to the phone.At the time Warren was in NH Campaigning.They were disturbed and promised Warren would be made aware quickly.I wont go into the conversation too deeply,but they are very much aware of what is going on in regards to corruption.The women on the other end of the phone wouldn't tell me but promised that some big changes are coming and said she could not speak for Warren.For anyone living in Mass The DC phone number for Warren is (202)224 4543.The staff is excellent and may restore faith in some…

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 11:53am

    Reply to #5

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3146

    warren

    EE-

    I'm a big fan of Warren.  I believe her to be just as authentic as I find HRC to be corrupt.  I am not surprised that she surrounds herself with like-minded people.

    You can see what Warren believes from her donor list.  The New York bankers didn't give her one red cent.  That's a badge of honor.  She terrifies them.  I cheer every time I hear her speak.

    "Won't make me head of the CFTB?  Ok.  Perhaps you would prefer "Senator Warren From Massachusetts"

    Do you have a link to the piece about retirement money?

    Also – fascinating news about Big Pharma.  Sickcare stocks are really being sold right now.  You're right about big money knowing this in advance.  I saw the move, but didn't understand why.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 11:58am

    Reply to #5

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4635

    Collusion and a reason for hope

    [quote=Edwardelinski]

    Last fall Saunders and Cummings enacted legislation to investigate price fixing and collusion in the pharmaceutical industry.The smart money already knew that this was coming down the pike.For what it's worth,this time around I believe there will be prosecutions and the prices of our drugs will be coming down.

    [/quote]

    Excellent info there Edwarelinski!

    First, I have been an equal opportunity basher ever since this site was a lonely blog.  A pox on both their houses! has been my rallying cry for a long time.

    The left-right divide is a false construct to me.  Both are operating from essentially the exact same script.

    In case it has been forgotten, I have been writing about the Iraq war started under Bush the Second as a war crime.  Why?  Because it was.  

    But then literally nothing changed under Obama; no banking crimes prosecuted (actually a worse record than any other presidential regime in all of history), Guantanamo remained open, the drone program was expanded, and new countries were bombed back to the stone age (also war crimes IMO).

    Second, the collusion and price fixing in the pharmaceutical industry could not possibly be more obvious and it has happened under the careful (careless?) gaze of both parties and actually expanded vigorously under Obama.

    There's no more clear-cut example of price fixing and collusion available in all of history than what you can easily find in the pharma industry.  Please tell me what other interpretation of this next chart there could possibly be besides rigged!!

    (Source)

    What has astonished me is just how blatant it all is.

    Look, right there in front of our eyes is all the evidence anybody would need to conclude that a very precise form of price fixing collusion was operating.

    This is the price-chart equivalent of 2.25 seconds of free fall; it provides 100% of the information you would need to draw the conclusion; something ain't right here.

    And yet, it persists.

    The hope comes from the idea that finally the US can begin confronting it's own shadows internally rather than projecting them outwards (usually violently) onto the rest of the world. Yes, it will be painful, confronting one's shadows always is, but it's also well beyond time and quite necessary.

    The alternative is to continue down this path of self destruction all the way to the point that our very civilization is threatened.

    Some see that deep threat embodied in Trump, and some see it in Hillary.  I see it embedded in neither/both because it is really a function of failing to confront the idea that it is our entire system that is failing.  

    Until and unless one recognizes one has a problem (or a predicament) nothing can be accomplished.

    To use the above 'problem' of price gouging, that cannot really be 'fixed' by having a savior ride in and provide new punishments.  People are creative and will and other ways to price gouge.

    The problem is actually rooted in the system itself that encourages us to dehumanize and objectify other people (well, all life actually) and provides endless. tasty incentives to accumulate as much money as we can to ourselves.  

    That is, what we call capitalism, really isn't that as much as it is a structured system of incentives that decouple our actions from the consequences just enough so that almost literally anything goes.

    So, yes, bring the heavy hammer of justice down on the pharma scourges, I will be cheering!  

    But also be aware that those behaviors are not anomalies, but features of a system that badly needs a deep structural reformation.  It has no checks, no balances, no effective social control (through shame or even basic questioning).

    Without some form of evolution of consciousness that can translate into a deep realignment of the structural incentives that are driving every rapacious, self-consuming behavior out there we will just get an endless series of rear-guard actions directed against people and corporations and governmental entities that are endlessly amassing power and resources for their own narrow self-interests at the expense of everyone and even life itself.

    That's part of my thinking for why the status quo cannot be modified, but must be heavily disrupted.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 12:15pm

    Reply to #5

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1465

    Jesse agrees

    http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2016/11/corporate-crony-capitalism.html

    The Republican and Democrat insiders seem like two competing crime families, struggling for control of the spoils—  like the Marranzanos and Lucianos, for example, in 1930s New York.



    Or maybe Bill and Hillary are just a better educated, more fortunate, white collar version of Bonnie and Clyde.  Someone certainly selected Bill for 'greatness' and quite a few breaks for a kid from Hot Springs early on.  And Hillary wears her ambition like Lady Macbeth.

     

    "They are also the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers of our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan to fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves…



    The dramatis personae of the liberal class are all present in this amazing body of work [Podesta emails]: financial innovators. High-achieving colleagues attempting to get jobs for their high-achieving children. Foundation executives doing fine and noble things. Prizes, of course, and high academic achievement.



    Certain industries loom large and virtuous here. Hillary’s ingratiating speeches to Wall Street are well known of course, but what is remarkable is that, in the party of Jackson and Bryan and Roosevelt, smiling financiers now seem to stand on every corner, constantly proffering advice about this and that. In one now-famous email chain, for example, the reader can watch current US trade representative Michael Froman, writing from a Citibank email address in 2008, appear to name President Obama’s cabinet even before the great hope-and-change election was decided (incidentally, an important clue to understanding why that greatest of zombie banks was never put out of its misery)…



    Hillary Clinton staffed her state department with investment bankers and then did speaking engagements for investment banks as soon as she was done at the state department. Of course she appears to think that any kind of bank reform should 'come from the industry itself'. And of course no elite bankers were ever prosecuted by the Obama administration.



    Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people at the top tier of American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another’s careers, constantly.



    Everything blurs into everything else in this world. The state department, the banks, Silicon Valley, the nonprofits, the 'Global CEO Advisory Firm' that appears to have solicited donations for the Clinton Foundation. Executives here go from foundation to government to thinktank to startup. There are honors. Venture capital. Foundation grants. Endowed chairs. Advanced degrees. For them the door revolves. The friends all succeed. They break every boundary.



    But the One Big Boundary remains. Yes, it’s all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren’t part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don’t have John Podesta’s email address – you’re out."



    Thomas Frank, Podesta Emails Show Who Runs America and How They Do It





    "Most of them became wealthy by being well connected and crooked. And they are creating a society in which they can commit hugely damaging economic crimes with impunity, and in which only children of the wealthy have the opportunity to become successful.   That’s what I have a problem with.   And I think most people agree with me."



    Charles Ferguson, Predator Nation

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 1:40pm

    #36

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1911

    Al Qaeda to Attack on Election Day!!!

    You just CANNOT make this stuff up.

    Last night I posted the NBC News story predicting a Russian Cyber-Attack on election day, I now find that CBS is predicting an Al Qaeda attack on election day.

    Al Qaeda and the Russians will have to try and not trip over each other.

    Source of this information:  "highly placed officials" and "sources"

    Location of the attacks:  "no specific locations mentioned"

    Response:  "The counterterrorism and homeland security communities remain vigilant and well-postured to defend against attacks here in the United States."

    Here is some meaningless imagery that goes with the story:

    Herding the (stupid) sheep is really ramped up.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 1:57pm

    Reply to #36

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4635

    Too bad then...

    [quote=sand_puppy]

    You just CANNOT make this stuff up.

    Last night I posted the NBC News story predicting a Russian Cyber-Attack on election day, I now find that CBS is predicting an Al Qaeda attack on election day.

    Al Qaeda and the Russians will have to try and not trip over each other.

    [/quote]

    🙂

    I guess it's too bad then that the US first funded Al Qaeda, then fought them, and is now funding them again, only to fear them right before election day!

    It's like we're a nation with small children that is renting out the space over our garage to an unrepentant child molester….and then telling the kids to be very, very afraid of that monster we keep!

    That is, this is all grade-school level self-traumatizing behavior.

    Obvious, blunt, crude…and yet, sadly, still effective on a percentage of the population.

    The US has traumatized itself repeatedly during this heinous, endless election cycle, and this latest bogeyman effort is being done by some real punters,  It's neither sophisticated enough to believe nor silly enough to laugh at.

    If I had to guess the "unnamed source" is Rudy Guliani.  He's the sort of bottom feeder in the self-traumatizing story that lacks the capacity to understand what's actually happening or why (i.e. he doesn't mix the Kool Aid, he drinks it) but also, tragically, lacks the creativity to really add to the next evolution of the self-traumatizing playbook.

    When Rudy gets brought into one of the high level meetings, I always imagine they usher him to the intelligence community equivalent of this:

    So I give a big fat D-minus to the Al Qaeda booga-booga effort.

    Lame.  Boring.  

    indecision

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 2:12pm

    #37
    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2252

    Predictable

    This has been floating around social media pretty regularly over the past week:

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 2:25pm

    Reply to #5
    Edwardelinski

    Edwardelinski

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 23 2012

    Posts: 324

    davefairtex wrote:EE-I'm a

    [quote=davefairtex]

    Do you have a link to the piece about retirement money?

    [/quote]

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 2:31pm

    Reply to #5
    Edwardelinski

    Edwardelinski

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 23 2012

    Posts: 324

    Dave Sirota IBTimes article links

    http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-economic-team-planned-secret-meeting-wall-street-mogul-pushing?utm_content=bufferfa34b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

     

    http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-wall-street-financial-industry-may-control-retirement-savings

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 2:58pm

    Reply to #5
    jennifersam07

    jennifersam07

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 14 2012

    Posts: 115

    What kind of disruption are you talking about?

    I get the personal responsibility thing from Treebeard. You are the change…. etc. But this election has been so appalling and the expected result is so terrifying that I feel sick. People around me that I love and respect are hunkering down and voting for Clinton because she has been so successful at painting herself as a victim. 'I feel like a victim too!! She will fix things. Elizabeth Warren likes her. Obama, my hero, likes her. She will make it all better. I don't want Putin to win! We can't let foreigners influence our elections.' I guess a billion dollars can really create an alternative universe.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 3:14pm

    #38
    Edwardelinski

    Edwardelinski

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 23 2012

    Posts: 324

    The Corruption Trade:

    When you see another leg down in big pharma that will pretty much guarantee indightments are forthcoming.A reversal and all bets are off…

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 4:23pm

    Reply to #5

    Dogs_In_A_Pile

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 04 2009

    Posts: 810

    Bring on the dump truck

    [quote=davefairtex]

    Also – fascinating news about Big Pharma.  Sickcare stocks are really being sold right now.  You're right about big money knowing this in advance.  I saw the move, but didn't understand why.

    [/quote]

    I am also seeing a move set up.  I don't care why.

    But it sounds like a dump truck full of money is backing up to my door.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 4:59pm

    #39

    kelvinator

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 25 2008

    Posts: 181

    Great - We're Much More on the Same Page Than I Thought

    So, many good posts since yesterday.  It's heartening to hear you re-affirm you're a non-partisan basher, Chris!  I've known that, but had started to wonder.  

    Edwardinski, I did read the IBT article on the disgusting and corrupt Blackstone plan on retirement and that he is a big Clinton fundraiser, (and said to be a potential Treas. Secty choice!), but was not familiar with the Saunders and Cummings legislation, which is great to hear about.   

    There is a big battle going on that stretches way outside of and beyond this election – but, these elections absolutely do make a tremendous difference on what individuals and factions will be most in control or in position not just to start a nuclear war – a real risk – but to be most poised to enact or fight against massively widened electronic surveillance, and repression of civil rights and dissent when things get extreme, as I believe may easily happen in the next four years.  Everything we write here is freely available to any turnkey tyrant coming down the pike, as Edward Snowden sacrificed his comfortable life in Hawaii to tell us.

    There is a reason that longtime political warriors Warren and Sanders have affiliated with the Dem structure and advised a vote for Clinton, someone whom, I believe, they actually are both hugely critical of.  If the Dems get a majority in the Senate, Warren's and Sander's power will be magnified tremendously, as you may know.  Warren has already publicly fired more than one warning shot across Hillary's bow, as has Sanders.  They have let Clinton know they will loudly mobilize the fed up majorities – which will include the half or more of Dems that favored Sanders plus all the independents and Repubs fed up to the gills with corruption and war if she tries to stuff people like Blackstone President Tony James, or a neocon hawk into her administration.

    I'm also a huge fan of Warren, davefairtex, and also literally cheer almost every time I hear her lay into a corrupt banker, CEO or Fed official.  I also have been a huge fan of Sanders.  Do I think they have all the solutions to our economic bubble?  No, I don't.  Have I heard them question the underlying problem of our economic model of infinite economic growth?  I haven't, but then, many would consider questioning infinite growth downright un-American.  Do I think they sincerely are trying to smash corruption and make this a government much more "of the people"? Absolutely.  Do I think they support key values we need however the government and world evolve or devolve from here?  Absolutely.

    As Chris posted a few days ago:

    "This is why we must begin to confront our shadows, and begin to elect and elevate leaders who can operate from places of inner calm, reflection, and uncertainty without blowing a fuse.  It’s going to take time."

    Yes, it's going to take time, and as a climate campaigner, and believer in the energy debacle coming our way we talk about here, I think we may not have a great deal of it.  We are just disagreeing on strategy, but it's important.

    The potential reason to vote for Trump, as some have said, is that he would be a disruptor to the Establishment or deep state, and may be less dangerous.  I look at Trump and the structure of the Congress and actually don't believe that that would be the case in any way that really matters.  I don't believe he has any core views, but is a narcissistic floater with clearly demonstrated demagogic, repressive tendencies.  Both parties are now split, and have an Establishment faction and populist faction.  Both parties are struggling to manage their populist factions.  

    I just don't believe that Trump is particularly identified with the populist faction, even if that's what he would ride to office. Have you seen the beauty shots of him with the Clintons, and how he sang their praises?  I thought Obama might be a disruptor in 2008, but started getting angry at him even before he was sworn in, when he started making corrupt cabinet and other appointments after the election. IMO, you can count on being extremely upset with who Trump would appoint, and the Republican & Dem neocons he starts aligning with to consolidate money and power if this country is so deeply foolish to elect such a damaged person and maintain the current Republican congress, as could easily happen in that instance.  It will be license to steal and/or go to war – and anyone who doesn't think the Republicans don't have an army of hawks, a history of neocon hawks and staunch supporters of mass surveillance with an instinct to repress dissent in favor of the powers-that-be isn't paying attention.  I could dig out some quotes of Trump on his attitudes toward nuclear war but won't bother.  You can find them yourself if you look.  Most importantly, just look at his personal lack of integrity, the lawsuits for fraud, the non-payments, sigh.

    Meanwhile, on November 15th, regardless who's elected for any office, we're calling on our 1000+ members in our little part of the world to get out in the street in front of Citibank in our local town and actively protest them being the lead bank organizing underwriting for the Dakota Access Pipeline project, which apparently Trump owns a big chunk of via Energy Transfer Partners.  

    http://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/9/who_is_funding_the_dakota_access

    http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/26/headlines/trump_closely_tied_to_energy_transfer_partners_operators_of_the_dakota_access_oil_pipeline

    Expect civil disobedience to spread, whoever's elected.  As Chris pointed out regarding the importance of the DAPL protest in North Dakota, and as is being echoed within the climate movement, we don't have time to wait for national politics so much anymore, but have started shutting down corrupt climate policy and access of fossil fuels for overseas shipping all up and down the west coast of the United States. Benica, Oakland, San Luis Obispo, Seattle – the list goes on.  I read yesterday there's only one little port left in Washington for coal, and that will likely be closed, too.  

    We've taken the fight local and, with local allies have worked to curb export of coal and stop rail head and refinery expansions to accommodate tar sands shipping everywhere.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/todd-paglia/west-coast-deals-four-maj_b_12403372.html

    We're looking to put a hard cap of pollutant and green house emissions in the Bay Area, a national first, showing up to protest every month at the controlling Bay Area Air Quality board, and have garnered supporting resolutions from the city councils of San Francisco, Oakland and others around the Bay demanding the board take that action, in spite of facing law suit after law suit from the deep-pocketed fossil fuel industry against every attempt to independently monitor their emissions, curb their terrible local safety record or limit their expansion.  The fight to force change and end corruption is rolling and is going to build, regardless what happens Nov. 8.  But what happens that day actually isn't completely predetermined, and it absolutely does make a difference in how the battle unfolds afterward.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 5:53pm

    Reply to #39

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1465

    We will NOT have reform, no matter who is elected

    I'm with CHS: we will not have "reform" no matter who is elected.  Our only path to a chance for a better world is a complete destruction of the current status quo and those who are riding it to power and riches ("hitting bottom").  

    http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2016/11/nothing-good-can-come-of-this-election.html

    The overwhelming consensus of the punditry across the political spectrum is that "Nothing Good Can Come of This Election"–and that's a very good thing.The handwringing goes like this: The country is deeply divided by schisms that cannot be bridged, every institution from the two parties to the mainstream media to the Department of Justice has been tarnished by cover-ups, collusion or worse; whomever wins the election will enter the presidency without a mandate, and so on.

    Why is "nothing good can come of this" good? Because ridding the nation of its political corruption will require hitting bottom.

    Just as an alcoholic or drug addict is incapable of making any truly positive changes until he/she hits absolute bottom, so it is with our tolerance of a corrupt political system that is poisoning the nation, one injection of corrupt cash, collusion and pay-to-play at a time.

    If our rotten-to-the-core politics as usual is indeed flying off the cliff to complete destruction, that is an unalloyed good.

    Just as alcoholics continue down their self-destructive path with the aid of enablers, so too has the corrupt political order expanded with the aid of the Mainstream Media, insiders in the Department of Justice, K Street lobbyists and a veritable army of well-paid lackeys, pundits, academics, apparatchiks and assorted toadies in the organs of governance and in the big-money private sector and philanthro-capitalist dynasties of pay-to-play foundations.

    The only way anything will truly change in the political order is if every Establishment insider politico loses every election, from the presidency to dogcatcher. Nothing will change until the mere existence of a private foundation like the Clinton Foundation triggers a landslide loss for the politico with ties to such corruption.

    Nothing will change until the collusion of the mainstream media (supplying the insider candidate with debate questions, etc.) alone causes the colluding candidate to lose by a landslide.

    Nothing will change until candidates who refuse to accept any donation larger than $100 from anyone or any entity beat the Goldman Sachs/Saudi prince-funded insider candidates by a landslide.

    Nothing will change until candidates who fund costly negative TV advertising campaigns with millions in pay-to-play "contributions" from Goldman Sachs et al. lose by a landslide.

    You get the point: we the citizens and voters have to stop being enablers of systemic corruption. We have to stop being bamboozled by insiders with promises of "hope and change" and the usual negative TV blitzes funded by corrupt big money.

    It's easy to blame lax campaign laws or the corrupted candidates and their insider toadies, but ultimately we're responsible for enabling corruption, collusion, pay-for-play and a political and financial Elite that's above the law…

    And this is why I'm pessimistic. "We the people" are still not fed up in large enough numbers to take up our responsibility to kick the bums out.  Hillary is the candidate most likely to keep the status quo going the longest.  Trump is a loose cannon who might, even inadvertently, break the system.  What a choice: The Evil Witch or The Clown.  I'm voting against The Evil Witch hoping they get my middle finger message and maybe something vital will break and trigger the collapse.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 6:08pm

    #40

    kelvinator

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 25 2008

    Posts: 181

    Any Way the Wind Blows Trump

    Trump praises the Clintons to the moon.  Oh, right, I'm sure this standard bearer of integrity will stand up in powerful opposition to the Neocons' march to war, or wherever the nefarious impulses of his huge ego, his anger, or his pursuit of money, power, the spotlight and twitter domination leads him. 

    Like any politician, by 2008, he reads the public disgust tea leaves and sides against the Iraq war "We just made some bad decisions…"  Ooops.  Those well-meaning but bumbling neocons killed a few hundred thousand people, displaced millions, damaged the reputation of the US, threatened world peace, destabilized the Middle East, and damaged the lives of hundreds of thousands of American families, flushed trillions down the toilet into corruption and destruction which could have paid for education, healthcare that conservatives always say we somehow never have funds for…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q76rxpKm3m4

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 6:15pm

    #41

    Greg Snedeker

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 22 2012

    Posts: 380

    More perspective

    Hello, I decided to drop by and see what the news was on PP. I have to say I am dismayed by this thread. Neocons have been around since the 70's and yes they do permeate both parties. For awhile they were mostly pervasive in the republican party, but now it doesn't seem to matter. We've also been saber rattling with Russia for decades. I'm not trying to diminish the severity this time, but we don't know what the future holds with either of these candidates in regard to Russia. The videos I've watched in this thread could be seen as more propaganda. I'm not saying they necessarily are, but when someone makes a video and says…"I had to speak out, and there are all these others that are with me (but I won't name any of them)" We are merely going on credentials at that point.

    Chris I do think by framing your article in regard to HRC, it is an implicit nod to vote for Trump. You can try to frame it differently after the fact, but it doesn't really come across as politically neutral. To ask Kelvinator to give examples as to why he thinks Trump would be more likely to go to war is not a fair question. HRC has over 30 years of public service to call on. Her service is heavily documented, therefore there are plenty of examples to draw from.  Trump has zero public service experience. Zero, none! We can't even see his tax returns. But for some reason we as a nation continue to think an outsider in the white house is the answer. The past three presidents have all been considered "outsiders." We're all still here, but the system appears to be more corrupt than ever.

    First and foremost, I don't like either candidate. I would have taken Sanders or Kasich over either DT or HRC, but these two are what we have. I will say I prefer HRC in the white house over Trump, and I believe Trump would be more likely to go to war.

    My reasons? I am 99.9% sure Trump is a sociopath. On what do I base my opinion? I was the target of an aggressive sociopath for two years. It was a terrible experience and almost cost me my job and family. The behavior I experienced from this person is exactly the behavior I see in Trump. If you have never been the target of an aggressive sociopath, then this is all just an abstract mental exercise for you, and it can be dismissed since it hasn't been experienced firsthand. I cannot!

    His incessant need to win is what drives his daily lies, his denigration of minorities and women, his need to belittle any opponent, his lack of any sound judgment, and his changing his mind like the wind. He will say and do anything to win. These are not opinions, these are facts that are born out everyday in what he says and does in front of the camera. We don't have the luxury of being able to really know where he stands on anything because he has never served the public, but we do have a large amount of camera footage. Yes I know the press can try and obscure the context at times, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

    A sociopath's ultimate contest is war. I believe if Trump wins, his need for contests will continue. He will seek out confrontation. He thrives on it. A military contest is just too appetizing for a sociopath.

    So to clarify, do I think Hillary is corrupt and lies? Absolutely, what politician at that level doesn't.  Do I think she is conniving and tactical? Yes. Do I think she is a sociopath? No, I haven't seen that behavior in her. I have seen her act tactically/politically in a sociopathic system. There in lies the difference.

    What also amazes me is the moral pass this thread seems to give DT in relation to his  racist/sexist/xenophobic/demagogary statements. Where are the minorities on this thread? Where are the women? Do we give DT a moral pass because he's not a politician?  

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 6:32pm

    Reply to #39
    Edwardelinski

    Edwardelinski

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 23 2012

    Posts: 324

    Sirota on Trump:

    It gets worse.He wrote an investigative piece piece on Trump equally as filthy.The great disruptor?I dont think so.Mnuchin from Goldman will be his secretary of Treasury if elected…

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 6:39pm

    Reply to #36

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1465

    Have local police been alerted?

    Let me check and see if local police are being alerted to credible intelligence that an Al Qaeda attack is possible on Monday….  Nope.  Local police have not been alerted.  However, "something" could happen anywhere, anytime.  That's why we carry guns and wear ballistic vests, every day.

    Response:  "The counterterrorism and homeland security communities remain vigilant and well-postured to defend against attacks here in the United States."

    I would violate standard OPSEC rules to give you a glimpse of this "well-posturedness," but does the phrase "smoke and mirrors" mean anything to you?  For a splash-of-ice-cold-water-in-the-face about preparedness, I highly recommend HBO's 2004 movie "Dirty War."  

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War_(film)

    If that doesn't make you wet your pants try this book:

    http://dayofwrathbook.com

    Q: Why haven't either of these relatively-simple-to-execute attacks, or something like them, happened yet?  

    A: The Islamic terrorists used up their best 19 guys on 9/11.  However, one of these days… maybe they'll get their act together or maybe with the help of some US insiders they can pull it off.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 6:40pm

    Reply to #41
    Edwardelinski

    Edwardelinski

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 23 2012

    Posts: 324

    I am a women

    I have weighed in here and was met with an onslaught of insults.Sadly it took a beautiful white women to take down BillyBush.If you have time 538 has a great map showing the gender divide across the country.Red vs blue is all i will say.The issues that many women care about are not the same issues discussed here…

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 7:10pm

    Reply to #41

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4635

    I trust my eyes and ears

    [quote=gillbilly]

    So to clarify, do I think Hillary is corrupt and lies? Absolutely, what politician at that level doesn't.  Do I think she is conniving and tactical? Yes. Do I think she is a sociopath? No, I haven't seen that behavior in her. I have seen her act tactically/politically in a sociopathic system. There in lies the difference.

    [/quote]

    To me this is crystal clear.

    But I carry a different context than other people…so I respect this is my judgment call…but ne of the easiest ones I've ever had to make.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 9:45pm

    Reply to #41

    Greg Snedeker

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 22 2012

    Posts: 380

    Not convinced.

    Sorry, but an eleven second video clip is not enough to convince me, and I've watched plenty of HRC video bashing. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree. Personally I will not be happy with either election result. As someone that respects and supports you, I do think this article was a mistake. I'm sure it was meant to be informative, but it really comes off as being too politically bent for the PP non-political stance. (JMHO)

    Hope all is well!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 10:13pm

    #42
    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2252

    To each their own

    She's nuts.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 10:15pm

    Reply to #39

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4635

    Scratchy record sounds....

    [quote=Edwardelinski]

    It gets worse.He wrote an investigative piece piece on Trump equally as filthy.The great disruptor?I dont think so.Mnuchin from Goldman will be his secretary of Treasury if elected…

    [/quote]

    Maybe this dates me, but the sound of a record needle being pulled abruptly off a vinyl record to me indicates that something has gone wrong in a conversation or event.

    Mnuchin is a big, scratchy record sound!

    A Goldman guy?  Yes, but it's worse than that.

    Mnuchin spent 17 years at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., working his way up to partner and becoming head of the mortgage department before joining Hank Paulson in the executive suite, becoming the firm’s chief information officer in 1999.

    In 2003, the new finance director started a hedge fund with $1 billion from George Soros, the liberal New York financier who has spent more than $13 million to support Hillary Clinton and other Democrats this election cycle.

    (Source

    I've also started to develop an aversion to Soros's methods and aims.   And I really detest Goldman at this point.  Whatever their culture or onboarding selection process that place churns out some really unpleasant individuals that seem to only be able to view the world through a thick stack of money.

    So maybe there really isn't anything new under the sun?

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 04, 2016 - 10:32pm

    Reply to #39
    Edwardelinski

    Edwardelinski

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 23 2012

    Posts: 324

    You are correct:

    I could not bare to list the entire resume.I would not be surprised if we are looking at Christie for AG.He has left NJ in complete ruin…

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 12:55am

    #43

    Greg Snedeker

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 22 2012

    Posts: 380

    Just for balance...

    http://www.businessinsider.com/what-president-trump-will-do-2016-11

    Crazytown has arrived!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 1:06am

    Reply to #41

    Rector

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 07 2010

    Posts: 324

    I'm Triggered

    The patriarchy has got me down.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 1:09am

    Reply to #41

    Rector

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 07 2010

    Posts: 324

    At least it will get it over with faster

    The collapse will be accelerated if this monster wins.  If Trump wins they will allow the situation to collapse and blame it on us.  Either way – this is almost over.

    The future is bright indeed!

    Rector

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 1:35am

    Reply to #23

    mememonkey

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 01 2009

    Posts: 101

    PIECZENIK Redux

    [quote=Tim Ladson]

    mememonkey,

    This guy is off the charts smart and connected beyond belief. I just have to wonder if this is the straight skinny or another diversion to grab our attention. His smarts, background and training would raise my back hair just being in the same room with him. IMO the Clintons are the public face of the deepstate / neocons who carry out deepstate's agenda and along with the security agencies are involved with the planning / actions we see being carried out on the world stage today. So his intention maybe to distance his guys from the "Clintanic" for self preservation, or this could be more smoke and mirrors. The Clintons and Obama are interchangeable political figures and came from nowhere to power because they have the right "qualities" that suit the ends of  TPTB. It would be great if what he claims in the video is actually what is going on right now, and some of us here would no doubt cheer his cadre on, but I remain skeptical that we are being played one more time.

    Tim.

    [/quote]

     

    Tim,  I too am skeptical about PIECZENIK and his motivations. As it stands I've not seen an uprising of this group of patriotic agency professionals come forward since his announcement.  I have seen a trickle of corresponding corroboration such as a former ambassador going on the record that the leaks were not Russian but internal US Security state. As well as pretty good indications of internal dissent with the FBI  and further evidence of internecine battle between Justice and State.  We are now almost past the point of efficacy for further leaks/defections to have maximum impact pre election

    He recently released another video which I've watched, and have tried to parse his underlying message.

    Given his training and specialty in psy op's I've tried to wear my most jaundiced filter in examining his communications.  I still have not reached a definitive conclusion but here are some of my observations. from his most recent posts:

    The underlying message is still consistent with CHS thesis that he represents elements of the deep state that consider Hillary now more of a liability than an asset.

    He is appealing to both ends of the populist body politic with Nod's to Trump and Bernie

    HIs message to "Mr and Mrs America  is don't get violent as that will damage the International credibility and functional standing of the 'empire'  (my characterization)

    In another video has made claims of the existence of extremely damming evidence that is being held in abeyance and communicated as  leverage to force Comey et al into doing the right thing 

    While Trump supporters and Hillary haters clamor for the release of this evidence pre election  the way I parse his position It feels like he would not support the release of that info, but rather the use of that info to force the players involved to act on the wiki leaks evidence,  ie not block the FBI's existing Clinton Foundation and Clinton Server investigations from reaching their logical conclusion.

    This is entirely consistent with my perception of how elements within the Deepstate do battle.

    ie. They would want to use the leverage but not burn down the power structure. 

     

    I think it is still possible he is legit,  but I'm leaning more towards:

    A   The communications being a self serving co-option of organic trends arising from internal leaking of disaffected insiders as opposed to a coordinated 'counter coup'

    B    A  please don't riot Psyop on the part of the DeepState in the face of the obvious chaos that is coming.

    mememonkey

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 1:42am

    #44

    newsbuoy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 10 2013

    Posts: 117

    Holy Smokes! Putin and Pope Francis?

    Putin-Papal Alliance? Absolutely, mesmerizing analysis from Danny Sheehan.

    https://thegarynullshow.podbean.com/mf/play/8iim5h/GaryNull_110416.mp3

    And thought I was informed. psshaw! Like they say in India, "behind every train there is another train, careful walking down the tracks.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 1:49am

    #45

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3146

    public servant vs businessman

    A lot of the HRC vs Trump pieces describe Trump's rent-seeking behavior and say "see there, Trump does this sort of (rent-seeking) behavior too."

    The problem with that approach is that during his lifetime, Trump has been a businessman, while HRC has been a public servant.

    In the US, we imagine that people who choose public service allegedly don't do this to enrich themselves.  There's an expectation of self-sacrifice there; if you want to get rich, go to wall street or invent something or become a slumlord, etc.  But becoming rich while engaged in public service?  That is seen (or at least, it *used* to be seen) as something particularly evil – a betrayal of the public trust.

    So, Trump does everything he can to make money, and so does HRC.  Trump did this through his companies, while HRC achieved her material gain while she was a Senator, and then as Secretary of State.  Trump used private capital to make money, while HRC leveraged her position of public trust to make hers.

    Trump has no record in public service.  He's a "known unknown".  Will he bring corruption to the office?  We have no idea.  HRC is a "known known."  She will definitely bring corruption to the office – and most likely, the price tag for getting to talk with her will rise dramatically.  Tigers don't change their stripes.

    That's why I'm against HRC.  She's a known criminal.  She engaged in blatant, ongoing rent-seeking while in public office, and she did so at a scale that dwarfs her competition.  And it turns out, scale does matter.  Doug Band's "500 examples of conflict of interest" and the billions that have poured into the Clinton Foundation are really appalling.  That kind of money buys the power to kill with impunity.

    Does Trump have similar disqualifying features?  He has no record of what he will do in public service.  As a private businessman, he's used bankruptcy, he's sued people – a whole bunch of people – and he's pretty clearly a snake oil salesman.  That's "morally ok" for a businessman.  Can he make the transition to public service?  We just don't know.

    So on the one hand, we have a known criminal, and on the other, a business man with no record of public service.  Ultimately, I just can't vote for a known criminal, because the outcome there is pre-determined, and the scale of the criminality is just so massive.  She didn't just take one bite from the mango, she ate the whole tree.

    But I respect others who come down differently on this issue.  This is a particularly tough period we are in right now, and we should remember not to lose friendships or connections or anything truly meaningful based on what are basically side effects from all this anger and resentment flying around right now.

    My two cents!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 2:14am

    #46

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    Not Voting for Trump.

    Lookit all the fun that I am missing.

    I'm not voting Trump because I can't.

    Therefore I shall vote for the Joker. He seems to be a spirited fellow.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 2:41am

    Reply to #45
    Edwardelinski

    Edwardelinski

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 23 2012

    Posts: 324

    A known unknown businessman Trump

    Lets take a look shall we?AnthonyScaramucci.(Skybridge Capital)So rich that he was able to purchase Wall Street Week as a platform to espouse his views.He regularly brings on his buddies to  reinforce his supply side economics.Not content enough to rule the media, his ambition bought and paid for as an economic advisisor to Trump.His ambition is limitless .That just for starters.Future Republican President?Sure why not?That is what a billion dollars buys you….

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 2:53am

    Reply to #45

    kelvinator

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 25 2008

    Posts: 181

    Hillary/Bill Money In/Out of Public Office = Name of the Game

    Hi davefairtex, your analytical powers, which I greatly respect, may have failed you a little on this one if you concluded that Hill and Bill are particularly unusual these days, other than the scale of cash they can command as God-fearing All American post-Presidential hijinks media fodder.   Don't you think the Revolving Door is very much the name of the game for cash-conscious Washington public servants?   That's why it has it's very own moniker, and all those well established cash milking private career path job arcs, the lobbying gigs, the speaker circuit, the TV pundit, consultant gigs, influence peddling, international connecting peddling, name dropping, charity managing.  

    Hill and Bill are part of a vast glad-handing network, but it's all part of the Revolving Door culture – a vast demi-civilization of self-congratulatory payoffs and now and then some worthwhile projects, but – whatever – a thick industry with a long and fabled history.  Does anyone think that this hasn't always been what the sausage making looked like! 😉   Are you kidding? Are we really waking up every morning of every year like its ground hog day and imagining that it hasn't always been really corrupt like this?   But can it change?

    Anyway, apparently CNN says Hill and Bill made something like $153 million just from speaking fees alone between 2001 when Bill left office until Hillary started her presidential campaign last year.  Hey, what a great thing to happen to such nice, creative people, just as their great friend Donald Trump described.    I tell you people, this is the most absurd world I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot.

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 3:16am

    Reply to #43
    Edwardelinski

    Edwardelinski

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 23 2012

    Posts: 324

    Gillbilly-Welcome to the party:

    The same 8 that regularly attack are expected.Ignore them.Marginalization is par for the course.Granny where are you?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 3:20am

    Reply to #41
    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2252

    Me too

    [quote=Rector]

    The patriarchy has got me down.

    [/quote]

    We are all triggered now.

    Maybe that's the point.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 10:46am

    Reply to #45

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4635

    I don't accept t

    [quote=kelvinator]

    Hill and Bill are part of a vast glad-handing network, but it's all part of the Revolving Door culture – a vast demi-civilization of self-congratulatory payoffs and now and then some worthwhile projects, but – whatever – a thick industry with a long and fabled history.  Does anyone think that this hasn't always been what the sausage making looked like! 😉   Are you kidding? Are we really waking up every morning of every year like its ground hog day and imagining that it hasn't always been really corrupt like this?   But can it change?

    [/quote]

    Kelvinator, I've seen this meme floating around that you've just brought here and I am going to challenge it.

    I don't accept it and neither should you – or anyone.

    It boils down to this "Hey, Hillary is just doing what everyone does.  It's how things just work in DC, so that alone shouldn't be a disqualifier."

    This is simply not true.  Bernie Sander's has been in public office as long as HRC and his personal net worth is $528,000.  

    Oh, well, he wasn't a president you say?  Jimmy Carter's net wort is ~$5 million.  

    I can surface a lot of people who have admirably served and not sought massive self-enrichment while in office which, it should not have to be pointed out, always results in ethical compromises.  At least what a healthy society should recognize as ethical compromises.

    So, no, raking in huge bucks while in public service is not how things are….it is how things are with some people.  And we should note that and, in a healthy society, reject these people as soundly as we should reject a doctor that prescribes cancer treatments based on how much they would personally earn from each dose given.

    Whether you believe in climate change, a looming energy predicament, over population, ecological and species destruction one thing becomes abundantly clear; it is past time to begin dong things entirely differently. 

    Status quo just ain't gonna cut it.

    Now I completely understand the people who think that a Donald Trump presidency will be a disaster and end very badly.  They are correct.

    And I completely understand the people who thing that a Hillary Clinton presidency will be a disaster and end very badly.  They are correct.

    Everybody is right here.  The forces of decline are simply too strong for anybody to resist here.

    The only question remaining is which path to that end are we going to take?

    One path is war.  The other is an economic face-plant.  (I know, I know, …some of you are thinking why not both?)

    I simply cannot support the war path and I am 100% certain of which candidate represents that path.  At this time.  Of course what matters most is not the president but the people they surround themselves with.  I recall thinking that GWB was the worst, numbskull, unqualified president ever – an embarrassment of intellectual inability – and all of that was true….but the real threat came from scoundrels with which he surrounded himself.

    In closing I can understand anybody who is against either candidate but I am stumped by people who are for either one.

    For the record I would have excitedly supported an honest and admirable female candidate.  I really like Elizabeth Warren (even after taking a ding for her HRC endorsement) and I am an even bigger fan of Tulsi Gabbard.  Honorable and authentic.

    The DNC really only has itself to blame here by stealing the primary away from Bernie Sanders who, I am convinced, actually won.  I'm pretty sure that Bernie would be 30 points ahead at this moment.  Instead, we have this situation:

    “There are lots of people who don’t think Trump is qualified, but also believe Clinton is corrupt.

    What you hear a lot is that it’s a bad choice, between an incompetent and a corrupt politician,” said a former FBI official.

    (Source)

    This is a sad state of affairs, but here we are.  I think everybody needs to buckle up because there's no easy path form here, no matter who wins.  Both end in disaster…pick your poison.  

    The silver lining here?  It was well past time to confront the massive inconsistencies in our system, and nearly all of the sound and fury posted above signifies nothing.  It is noise.

    The real issue shocking all the rats in the cage is this; exponential growth is impossible on a finite planet.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 12:25pm

    #47
    treebeard

    treebeard

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 18 2010

    Posts: 551

    Voting is the problem

    Voting is the problem.  If anyone thinks that walking into a booth every two years and voting will do anything, they are badly mistaken.  The chances of Trump reigning in the neocons and preventing war with Russia are about the same as me winning the lottery (as noted in my previous comment).  Because a bloated arrogant pompous windbag made a few comments on the campaign trail about building relations with Russia we believe he has the will, perseverance and tenacity to take on the deep state, military industrial complex, and the neocon political apparatus?  And we don't imagine that this guy doesn't have so many skeletons in his closet that if he decided to "get out of line" they couldn't burry him politically in five quick minutes?  Are willing to go to the mat for DT?  Are you willing to stand in the cold for hours protesting to support DT?  Are you will to go to prison to support the policies of DT?

    We are in the trap, this whole dialogue is in the trap. The system is about defining the boundaries of acceptable discussion, and they are which sociopath do you want to rule us for the next four years.  Is it worth this much ink and every bodies time?  Everyone here pretty much sees eye to eye on the essential issues, but we are at odds with each other over an irrelevant issue.  Neocon mission accomplished!!!!!   Well done!

    Lets move into the territory we are not allowed to talk about, building an alternative political movement!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 1:32pm

    Reply to #45

    Quercus bicolor

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 19 2008

    Posts: 190

    Interview Bernie

    Hey Chris,

    While we're on the subject, wouldn't it be interesting to interview Bernie Sanders?  He has lot's to say and I'd be curious to see if you could get him to say anything meaningful about resource limits.  A mutual friend of ours and recent interviewee of yours, Mark Morey, got to spend a few minutes (longer, shorter?   not sure) with him after returning from Standing Rock. So why not you?

    While we're at it, Elizabeth Warren represents you in the Senate.  Why not interview her too if you can find an in?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 1:35pm

    Reply to #39

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Online)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 857

    Are you smarter than a 5th Gr^h^h^h^h^h^h

    … smarter than a buffalo?

    Let's see… the whole herd is being stampeded either to Hillary or Trump.

    AGAIN.

    And as Ms. Edwardelinski didn't point out, Hillary has long been in the pockets of Goldman Sachs and Soros.  As she DOES point out, Trump — play the needle scratch here — suddenly is in the pockets of Sachs and Soros.  (No criticism… it's been pointed out about HRC before, so that's why she pointed it out about Trump this time…) 

    And as the HRC campaign points out, Trump is under charges of being blackmailable by Epstein, and under lawsuit for raping a 13 year old.  And as the Trump campaign points out, Hillary and Bill are blackmailable by Epstein, and supposedly he TOO was busy raping 13 year olds.

    Now, let me ask:  The "drive-them-over-a-cliff-and-butcher-them-at-the-bottom" strategy worked well for American indians.  Repeatedly.  The buffalo just weren't smart enough to figure it out.

    Are you smarter than a buffalo?

    Can you prove it? 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 2:14pm

    #48

    nickbert

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 14 2009

    Posts: 260

    It's times like these...

    …. when I appreciate being in another country during election season.  It's doing wonders for keenly honing my feelings of intentional apathy regarding the presidential circus of dipshits, and all the other stuff outside my circle of influence   cheeky

     

    P.S.- I'm hoping when I come back next month that the shrill hype and highly charged emotions have subsided.  I'm finding even two minutes of CNN or Fox News (amazingly enough they have those channels even here in Central Asia) is more than enough to exceed my daily recommended dose of irrelevant BS…

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 2:20pm

    Reply to #39
    Edwardelinski

    Edwardelinski

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 23 2012

    Posts: 324

    Goldman Soros

    I linked a really important investigative report written by Sirota and confirmed by wikileaks connecting Blackstone and the Clintons.The report has the potential to effect Americas retirement system.Goldman is a known having employed none other than her son on law and who lost millions for Blankfein on Greece when he started his own now defunct hedgefund.So there's that.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 3:16pm

    #49

    Greg Snedeker

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 22 2012

    Posts: 380

    Dave and Chris...

    Dave, I also think you’ve missed the mark on this one. Those that enter public service came from the private sector. One of the misconceptions I see (and I see it often on this site) is that there is this notion of the public sector and then there’s the private sector. Government people are this way, and business people are that way. Is it realistic to assume when someone enters a public office, they are trading in their backroom cigar for a halo? I understand that the symbol of the office matters but why do we have a much lower bar for the private sector? Is the reality that those in public office “should” be the honest people trying to keep those nasty greedy private sector business people in line?

     

     My issue is that those who point to the government as the problem seem to have forgotten that the government is not a fixed group of people trying to control our lives. It is a relationship that exists between those that are temporarily representing the people with the people they represent (including those that work in business). There isn’t a line in the sand. We tend to draw them because of defined positions (i.e. Mayor, Governor = Public, Corps = Private). But it’s the relationship between the two and the process of decision making as a result of that relationship that is the real issue.

     

    If we are holding public servants to a higher standard than ourselves, we have gone astray.  The Catholics made that mistake with their priests. We should hold all to the same standard. Just because you are in business or the CEO of corp. shouldn’t give you a moral pass to act any different in relation to those around you than that of the elected official.

     

    HRC represents one part of the relationship, Trump the other. Trump believes he deserves a pass because he was just doing good business. That’s crazy!  HRC has capitalized on the public office and built her own fortune off it. I call BullS#$t again! Both are equally wrong in my eyes, and if it’s not the same in your eyes then ask why not? Both are taking advantage of a “system,” which is really the relationship I just mentioned.

    The laws that reflect that relationship can be distorted to fit the dynamic flow of that relationship, if in fact that relationship is distorted to benefit the few. There are no “fixed” laws that define us. There are belief structures that shape the laws that we affix to our current dynamic relationship. If laws in the past still apply to the current dynamic, they continue to stay with us, if not, they are retired or changed. (for ex. Governor Baker of Mass just weed-wacked a bunch of outdated laws) The context of how the laws apply to this dynamic relationship is what we argue and compromise over.

    If fewer and fewer people enter into the relationship, then it becomes a reflection of those few that are in the room, as we are seeing now. If that is what those on this site want to call the “deep state,” then it is only because we allow and give them the power to do so.  Do people in the public and the private sector cover up their crimes and mistakes. Yes, and both should be held accountable.

     So, what can we do? Get involved. I currently sit on two regional councils and three local boards that participate in this relationship. I put my voice in the decision making room, a voice that is educated in the 3Es (for which I will always be grateful!).  I would recommend more people do so. Stronger local govts create more accountable and responsive State govts, which in turn makes for a more accountable and effective Federal govt.  To think you can make a significant change in the relationship by electing a new president, or posting on FB or PP, or having arguments with your friends is fairytale thinking.  It takes commitment, sitting through long and often boring meetings. But if  you are doing that, then at that point you are participating in the relationship. To think we can have an internal revolution and end up with something immediately better than what we have now is also fairytale thinking. I'm not against well thought out civil disobedience, but an all out revolution? Who are we revolting against? Specifically who? We would be revolting against a relationship that we've all created.

    I disagree with Chris’s assessment of the two candidates. We can’t be 100% certain of anything. I remember telling my wife that we would be in a war within a year when Bush was elected, and  we were. Does that make me a prophet or lucky?  I don’t know.  Where Chris may be correct that HRC might be the greater threat of a war in the Middle East and/or Russia, Trump in my eyes is a much greater threat to a war inside our borders, and those that support him are becoming emboldened. They are people that lack respect for women, that are bigoted or racist, that snub there noses at education, that laugh at the disabled, that demonize foreigners, and the list goes on. That is more dangerous to me than any external war.  How can we make good decisions regarding our relationships outside our borders if we have internal upheaval. Chris says we must confront our shadow. I disagree. Carl Jung warned against confronting the shadow, whether personal or collective. It is dangerous and often very destructive. We need to integrate the shadow into our being, recognize its good and bad potential, but not directly confront it.  Those emboldened Trump supporters I mentioned need to be integrated into this relationship, but a confrontation? Not a good idea.

    Peace!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 3:37pm

    Reply to #45

    kelvinator

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 25 2008

    Posts: 181

    As You Said In Your Original Response, Chris, We Just Disagree

    My point is not that everyone is corrupt and so Hillary's great and should be given a pass, but that the Clintons are part of a culture of corruption which includes Trump, many Congress people, people in business, other parts of government.  Of course, there are many great people in all these areas – like ex-Pres. Carter, Tulsi, many business people who are phenomenally creative, productive, good people and so on.   I'm absolutely >not< excusing the Clintons, as I'm sure you know.

    But I don't think it's a coincidence at all that every single person you listed as someone you respect or potentially would vote for is recommending a vote for Clinton, given these two choices.  As you've said, your reason not to for Hill the Pill is based on your belief that Hillary is likely to start a nuclear war.  I also agree with many of the concerns you've outlined in the past about how the US and neocons have been aggressively pushing the Russians and are risking war, and share those concerns, but not to the over-riding degree you hold them.  

    Your view that Hillary is a war-bound sociopath (along with the current collection of neocons on both sides of the aisle, who mostly have been around for years or decades, I believe) based on your personal perception of her and something about how they were raised as children makes them different than all of us is certainly valid for you, (though I don't really get how you know how Hillary and all these various neocons were raised and so then, what your statement about that even means.  I certainly suspect the Great Leader sitting on nukes in N. Korea had a few psych issues in childhood, too, and Donald Trump, too, given his behavior, though I don't know those things for a fact).  

    Yet, anyway, your point of view is just not valid for me, or apparently for any other of the people you said you respect.  That's fine. People disagree.  We just disagree on what's a good strategy here, like people all over this country today, three days before an important election.  

    I'm cheered at least by the fact that we do see many other things and people the same way, and share many of the same goals.  I really appreciate the work you do, Chris, and just wish we were more aligned on strategy, and that you were aligned with all the good people you mentioned on strategy.  Just as you give a ding to Warren for supporting HRC, I give a ding to you for your position regarding essentially supporting Trump – okay, "not Hillary" – in this two horse race, but still value other things you do, of course.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 3:58pm

    #50

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1911

    Lets Attack Russian First, Cuz We Just KNOW They Will Attack us

    Pre-emptive cyber attack on Russia  (ZH)

    Five months ago, NATO announced that a cyber-attack by a non-NATO entity would trigger the "collective defense" provision, enabling grounds for a 'kinetic' real war. …

    (The line between espionage, economic competition, theft and cyber war can be indistinct.)

    The background

    … [N]on-stop drums of anti-Russia, Putin is the devil, propaganda has spewed forth from Democrats, Republicans, and the western mainstream media; headlined by the Obama administration literally threatening a cyber war with Russia in October over allegations it was behind the hacking of Clinton's emails.

    The counter:

    And then the Obama administration took another hit, this time from The FBI who stated they found no link between Donald Trump and Russia

    And now:

    However, as NBC News reports today, that has not stopped the Obama administration from implicitly declaring war on Russia…

    U.S. military hackers have penetrated Russia's electric grid, telecommunications networks and the Kremlin's command systems, making them vulnerable to attack by secret American cyber weapons should the U.S. deem it necessary, according to a senior intelligence official and top-secret documents reviewed by NBC News.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 4:23pm

    Reply to #49

    kelvinator

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 25 2008

    Posts: 181

    Integrating the Shadow

    This is an excellent comment, Gillbilly.  I especially agree with your point about the need to get involved – that's extremely important. And also with your last paragraph about the dueling dangers of the two candidates, and the tremendous greater risk of inviting the attitudes that Trump is the quite overt standard bearer of into the center of our body politic:  Trump has no program to speak of at all, doesn't deal with any problem in any real way except by saying, "I'll get the best people. It'll be fantastic!"  Are we now complete idiots, or what?  And as you say "lack respect for women, that are bigoted or racist, that snub there noses at education, that laugh at the disabled, that demonize foreigners, and the list goes on. That is more dangerous to me than any external war."  

    Chris has said he holds at least some hope that Trump would be a disruptor, and then Congress would take back some Presidential power.  And, let's see, which are the bright lights in Congress that will represent the people and take back that power?  How much power will they have after a Trump victory?  I don't see anything that even begins to look like a plan there, only destruction.  Again, a disagreement on strategy.

    Lastly, your point on needing to integrate the shadow has very deep meaning, and is very important for this era.  One of the great dangers we face now, and as Trump is demonstrating in spades, is to think of ourselves as only good, and to put all the badness in the world out there, on some other person or group.  I've loudly been telling any friends who think HRC would be an okay president that they really need to pay close attention to why they're scared out of their wits that Trump might win.  Why are so many people voting for Trump, even though he's clearly a deeply flawed, in many ways, even an unAmerican candidate?  There are very good reasons people are fed up with HRC and the Dems, and it's totally important that anyone in government realize how crucial it is that the concerns driving Trump voters be integrated into this democracy if it's to retain any vestige of being a true democracy.  This country will either travel down the road to become much cleaner and more democratic, or I fear it's very likely to evolve toward the kind of tyrannical, repressive state Trump seems to me to be a walking advertisement for.  

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 4:36pm

    Reply to #49
    Uncletommy

    Uncletommy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 03 2014

    Posts: 524

    Clarifying rational thought.

    I am always pleased when one of the PP crowd can take a minute and sum up what should be a given. My hat is off to you, Gillbilly, for concisely and cogently summarizing what is, obviously, overlooked by most of the US press and a large number of the American electorate, including some of the PP regular contributors. Democratically elected societies should be directed by a consensus and not by demagoguery. The old adage, " All of us are smarter than each of us", is appropriate if we think and consult with each other on matters that affect us all, globally. Whether you choose to believe in original sin or "fairytale" thinking, it behooves us all to step back, take a deep breath, and cast our eyes and thoughts on the good and not only the bad. The PP website has as its major tenet, 1) to face the realities facing us, 2) understand their implications and, hopefully, change our behaviors accordingly.  I'm not sure whether the impending US election will demonstrate this hope, but I remain somewhat optimistic. Well done Gillbilly!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 5:10pm

    Reply to #50

    nickbert

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 14 2009

    Posts: 260

    Re: Lets Attack Russian First, Cuz We Just KNOW They Will Attack

    Umm, yeah…. my initial reaction was to call total bullshit on that article.  Why would one announce one's capabilities and degree of penetration into an adversary's systems, giving them time to ferret out the malware or at least implement mitigation strategies and workarounds?  If the US gov't had that level of capability, announcing it would make no sense unless they were intending to use it SOON.  One red flag was the line "according to a senior intelligence official and top-secret documents reviewed by NBC News".  Official "unofficial" leaks of sensitive information by senior staff happen regularly (another fine example of separate rules for political elite… ), but an actively-serving official showing a classified document to uncleared reporters seems a rather big stretch.  The more probable explanation is that what was announced is highly exaggerating the level of capability and degree of penetration, with the purpose of this announcement being 1) to instill fear and misplaced patriotism in the US audience, 2) to draw the 'red line' for the Russians, and possibly 3) get the Russians chasing their tails and wasting intelligence and IT resources looking for malware and exploited vulnerabilities that are either nonexistent or extremely hard to find.  I expect we'll know if I'm wrong within the next 3-5 days.

    I don't know, I honestly need to mull this one over more…. not so much the announcement itself, but what kind of motivation and state of mind is driving this new development.  My initial hunches are either that it's a move of desperate individuals in power, or a deliberate PR move to draw a 'red line' that somehow conveniently gets crossed and so would be the casus belli needed to justify escalating things to the next level (possibly domestically as well as externally/militarily).  Either scenario concerns me a great deal. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 5:35pm

    #51

    mememonkey

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 01 2009

    Posts: 101

    Interesting and relevant article

    I found Scott Adams latest blog post and perspective to be relevant to many of the issues recently discussed here with regards to belligerence,  integrating shadow, and perception of danger for war in candidates.

    Having observed the evolution of Trumps rhetoric on various issues over time such as his walking back his initial statements on torture,and other evolutions of his signature issues  It is interesting to see Adams's thesis of pacing and leading as a persuasion technique as explanatory for the shift.  

    [quote=Scott Adams]

    Pacing and Leading: When normal politicians change their minds we label it flip-flopping or – more kindly – “evolving” in their thinking. When a Master Persuader does it, you are seeing pacing and leading, which is a major tool of persuasion. Pacing involves matching people – in this case emotionally – and later using that bond to lead them. We see Trump doing this often.

    a. Trump paced his base by saying he would deport 11 million undocumented immigrants. Once he had his base on his side emotionally, he led to them to his current policy of deporting only the people who committed crimes while here. Have you heard any Trump supporters complain about it lately?

    b. Trump paced his base by saying he would ban all Muslim immigration to stop terrorist infiltration. Once he had them on his side emotionally, he led them first to a ban on specific problem countries, and then again to “extreme vetting,” which is a lot like Clinton’s plan. Trump supporters followed, and you don’t hear them complaining.

    c. Early in the primaries Trump paced the racists in the Republican party by not disavowing them as clearly and as loudly as even the racists thought he would. Since then he has led Republicans to think that some form of a “New Deal” for African-Americans might be worth a look. 

    d. At the Republican National Convention, Trump used his emotional connection to his supporters to declare he was the strongest voice to protect the LGBTQ community. Republicans stood and cheered. 

    Readers of this blog might recall that months ago I predicted that Trump would soften his immigration proposals. That’s because I saw him from the start as a Master Persuader, not a crazy person, and not a common flip-flopper.

    In my opinion, Trump might be the safest president we have ever had. He can lead the dark parts of his base toward the light (as Nixon went to China) and he has no incentive for war. Claims about his “temperament” are mostly about his penchant for insults, and that isn’t a mortal danger to anyone.

    [/quote]

    The whole piece is worth a read.

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152734465316/unhypnotizing-a-clinton-supporter

     

     

    mememonkey

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 6:58pm

    #52

    newsbuoy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 10 2013

    Posts: 117

    Make Rome Great Again!!

    O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth,
    That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!
    Thou art the ruins of the noblest man
    That ever lived in the tide of times.
    Woe to the hand that shed this costly blood!
    Over thy wounds now do I prophesy,–
    Which, like dumb mouths, do ope their ruby lips,
    To beg the voice and utterance of my tongue–
    A curse shall light upon the limbs of men;
    Domestic fury and fierce civil strife
    Shall cumber all the parts of Italy;
    Blood and destruction shall be so in use
    And dreadful objects so familiar
    That mothers shall but smile when they behold
    Their infants quarter'd with the hands of war;
    All pity choked with custom of fell deeds:
    And Caesar's spirit, ranging for revenge,
    With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
    Shall in these confines with a monarch's voice
    Cry 'Havoc,' and let slip the dogs of war;
    That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
    With carrion men, groaning for burial.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 7:34pm

    #53

    newsbuoy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 10 2013

    Posts: 117

    Cyber war is undefined

    National Security Agency chief Adm. Mike Rogers told Congress that U.S. adversaries are performing electronic "reconnaissance" on a regular basis so that they can be in a position to disrupt the industrial control systems that run everything from chemical facilities to water treatment plants. "All of that leads me to believe it is only a matter of when, not if, we are going to see something dramatic,"

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-hackers-ready-hit-back-if-russia-disrupts-election-n677936?cid=sm_tw

    M.A.D.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 8:13pm

    Reply to #52
    DennisC

    DennisC

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 19 2011

    Posts: 101

    Salve Caesar!

    …or Cesarina

    "We Are The Most Indispensable Nation" Thanks To "The Most Powerful Military On Earth"

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-05/obama-we-are-indispensable-nation-thanks-most-powerful-military-earth

    Get ready to pony-up some more "coin of the realm" (or fiat "denarii").

    (The word denarius is derived from the Latin dēnī "containing ten", as its value was 10 asses, although in the middle of the 2nd century BC it was recalibrated so that it was now worth sixteen asses or four sestertii.)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denarius

    Not sure what the value would be now (in inflated asses).

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 8:51pm

    Reply to #52

    newsbuoy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 10 2013

    Posts: 117

    What is in a name?

    …That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet…

    A Caesar By Any Other Name is Still a Caesar.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 05, 2016 - 10:19pm

    Reply to #49

    Oliveoilguy

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 29 2012

    Posts: 521

    Gillbilly

    I will probably vote for Trump …so I feel compelled to respond to your comment that said "Trump in my eyes is a much greater threat to a war inside our borders, and those that support him are becoming emboldened. They are people that lack respect for women, that are bigoted or racist, that snub there noses at education, that laugh at the disabled, that demonize foreigners, and the list goes on."

    Let me take your list point by point……

    #1. My mother happens to be a woman and I respect her.

    #2 My beautiful daughters are 1/2 Hispanic …. and I am not a racist.

    #3 I love to learn….Went to Tufts University and at 65 years old have recently taken online courses in Solar PV installation, and study design and architecture as time permits.

    #4 I play music as a volunteer in Nursing Homes to try to comfort the disabled and infirm. 

    #5. I love foreigners …..and always try to learn words in their language before traveling abroad. I Lived in an Ashram in southern India and also learned some of the Nahautl Indian language in Mexico.  I strongly believe that when in a foreign country you should put their language and customs before your own.

    Perhaps there are other Trump supporters who do not fit your mould?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 12:42am

    #54
    Luke Moffat

    Luke Moffat

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 25 2014

    Posts: 365

    Outsider looking in

    As an outsider looking in, the Trump vs HRC debate is a symptom of the wider problem – the system no longer works for the majority, and the centre cannot hold indefinitely. I believe Britain's in/out vote with the EU amounts to the same thing. Most of us don't understand the context or the problems, we just feel the pain – whether that be depressed wages, the War on Terror, asset inflation, corruption in office, failure of the justice system, loved ones entering the lower rungs of the debt ponzi or resource depletion. We are in an Age of Consequences and to be honest, I don't think either Trump or Clinton are either informed or equipped to deal with these problems. Clinton represents the problem, Trump represents the reaction, and so neither can be the solution. It would be interesting to see what would happen if, instead of an election, there were a vote for certain States to secede from the Union – much like a 'Brexit' vote for the US. I think that would scare the establishment more.

    Perhaps that's where we ought to focus, almost as if a secession had taken place. What would we produce? What would we value? How would we organise? Who would participate? I know we have the monster bearing down on us right now, whether that be Washington or the EU, but as resources dwindle the centre breaks.

    So what comes next? Rather than getting swept up in the reaction, should we not be focusing on the society we wish to build? And then go build it?

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 12:43am

    #55

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    The Chat

    Settle down Gladys.

    If Trump gets in he will be given "the chat".

    If he were a single man he would never have gotten this far, as to approach the throne, one must offer ones head on a platter. 

    Hence all the schlock horror that is emerging about Wiener and Podesta. It's all part of the theater, scripted  way back when Machiavelli was a lad.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 1:26am

    Reply to #45

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3146

    scale does matter

    kelvinator-

    Hi davefairtex, your analytical powers, which I greatly respect, may have failed you a little on this one if you concluded that Hill and Bill are particularly unusual these days, other than the scale of cash they can command as God-fearing All American post-Presidential hijinks media fodder.

    Whoa there Nellie!  🙂  Maybe scale doesn't matter to you, but it does matter to me.  I shoot one guy, that's bad.  I shoot 52 guys – presumably that's worse, right?   Clintons have elevated pay-to-play to an art form worth billions – if you include all the money dropped into the Clinton Foundation.  Which I do.  If you don't include that, that's up to you, but you might consider asking why the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (funder of ISIS) thought the Foundation was such a fantastic idea that they'd cough up 25 million dollars.

    But ultimately, its not scale that is the critical bit.  As I look inside myself, I realize that I really do expect people in public service not to leverage their positions for private gain.  I just do.  Its just part of the agreement.  When people don't live up to these agreements, I expect for them to be held to account.  If we don't start here, now, with this candidate in this election, when will we start?  When is the corruption just too large to tolerate?

    When you're in a position of public trust, you just have to restrain yourself.

    Clintons were caught monetizing the office of the Secretary of State.  Period.  This disqualifies them for further public office.  Period.

    Again, that's my take.  You may say "gosh Dave that's naive, they all do this" (and in fact, you did say this!) but for me, if I have a chance to vote thumbs down on an egregiously corrupt public servant, I'm going to do just that – every chance I get.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 3:12am

    #56

    jtwalsh

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 261

    Election Eve

     

    I took the day off yesterday and came up to our northern New England camp.  It is late fall.  The trees are bare.  The gardens are dead from heavy night time frosts.  Winter is in the air.

    There is no Trump or Clinton here.  I spent the day puttering with end of summer chores.  Put in the orange poles to keep the plow from my perennial gardens, the old pine tree stump and the well head.  Took down the canvas roof and screen sides from the pavilion on the deck that makes it useable in this land of no seeums, black flies and killer mosquitoes.  Got the wood rack from the shed and moved a quarter cord of fire wood to the screen room off the kitchen.  Picked up fallen branches and broke them up for kindling.

    The sheer physical reality of this place takes you away from city thoughts and city issues.  Few vehicles came down our dirt road today. The sound of guns in the nearby woods reminds you that deer season is now. Hopefully my neighbor across the street will get a deer or two as he has promised me some venison steaks. (Must always remember to wear the orange hat, even working near the house.) Apart from the hunters, the only sound is the breeze upon the trees.  We are not “off grid” but we are “end of grid”.  We have redundancy.  If the electric power fails, the full propane tank will provide cooking and heat.  If the propane runs out, four cords of wood will keep us though the winter.  If the electric pump is off line, the dug well provides water.  Stock piles of food, blankets, sleeping bags and medical supplies provide a degree of security.  Portable solar will keep the computers and cell phones alive. In many ways this is a world unto itself, independent from the larger world.

    Even though Trump, Clinton and the city seem far away, I could not get my mind off the election.  I cannot vote for either Donald or Hilary.  Donald is too unknown, too raw for my liking.  As to Hilary, Dr. Martenson is correct, she is dangerously playing the neo-con game. She has some fantasy that she can take on Putin and win.  The more we challenge Putin the more the Russians feel threatened and will rally around him.  He is not a good guy but our bungling anti-Russian posturing is only pushing the Russian people further into his camp. After fifteen years we have been unable to pacify Afghanistan or Iraq.  What insanity makes us believe we can take on the Russians, head to head, without it becoming an existential disaster?

    I will write in a presidential candidate, more to my taste, on Tuesday.  I will cast my vote in the state and local races and referendum in the hope of making some small difference. Regardless of what I do, the nation is at a cross road.  Tuesday’s outcome will send us on one of two very different paths.  Unfortunately, neither  of these paths can ultimately escape the reality being forced upon us by the three E’s.

    JT

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 3:40am

    Reply to #45

    kelvinator

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 25 2008

    Posts: 181

    I Have a Different Approach, Dave, That I Think is Smarter

    It may not be, but I believe it is.   For me, scale makes a big difference, too, Dave, but in a different spectrum than you seem to feel is important, or maybe we just have different estimations of the potential damage.  

    When I look at my act of voting, I'm not thinking about the scale of sin, criminality, imperfection, amount of lies told (though, I do think Hillary tells fewer lies then Donald) but what will be the effect of the scale of harming to healing.  I believe you are harming.  That if what you and Chris do is successful, it's very likely to create way more misery in the world – brutal arrests, bullying as a cultural feature, massive environmental trashing, freedom of expression suppressed, ramp up mass surveillance, including inspection of all twitter origns ;-). By my estimation, it's more destructive than voting for Hillary.  And that's the dimension I care about.  The other way to say it is that I don't feel like what you're doing is creating or has any real, organized plan to create good, like Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, like Jimmy Carter, like Tulsi.  I just don't think you're wiser than these people.

    Obviously, you, Chris and others disagree.  Hey, people make different estimations – to me, it's completely obvious how dangerous it is, how hurtful and repressive to invite a true Devil like Trump into the center of our world than a true Devil like Hillary.  You seem to have made your choice.  To me, this has nothing to do with whose a criminal or a liar – your morality.  You really can't wait for one more year, one more election to get a better person?  Bernie almost won this time, for chissakes!  Are you willing to make a big noise other than by voting every two years?  I guess your way is just different than mine.

    I'll tell you one thing.  If Trump gets elected, I'm going to be thinking about you, Chris and others who helped him win.  Hopefully, we'll all be happy with what unfolds, right?  As I say, maybe I'm wrong.  But I trust my view much more than your and Chris' thoughts on this – not even close.  We all do the best we can.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 4:10am

    #57
    treebeard

    treebeard

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 18 2010

    Posts: 551

    Paul Craig Roberts

    Had not listened to him in a while and was wondering what his thoughts were.  Almost made me want to vote for Trump.  Almost.  Perhaps better not to listen to this tonight, probably will not want to get up in the morning.  Give it a listen in the morning when the sum is up.  Would be a good guest interview too.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp1zjJ21Otc

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 4:30am

    #58

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 691

    Electile Dysfunction

    It doesn't matter who wins this presidential election. The rest of us lose. More likely than not it will be either Clinton or Trump. Either way, half the country will be angry and most of the the other half will be temporarily relieved that the other "evil Devil" didn't win. But, reality will settle in relatively quickly.

    To me, it feels like the Third Turning (from Strauss & Howe's The Fourth Turning) will finally come to an end. TPTB have performed miracles with central bank money and government policies to artificially extend the contentious Third Turning as long as they did. It is only fitting that it ends in spectacular fashion where few are truly satisfied.

    For those of you unfamiliar with Strauss & Howe's theory, the Fourth Turning is what you've been prepping for. Remember when this election is over, that we (all of us here) are some of each other's best advocates.

    Grover

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 5:10am

    #59

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    The Lolita Express.

    No one gets to approach the throne until they offer their head on a Platter.

    Here we see the fall of the Clintons as the cover on the platter is removed with a flourish.

    https://youtu.be/-fxsGyaZfN8

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 5:19am

    #60
    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2252

    Broken Windows

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G244pnuoMU

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruiKa1GQ9jo

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chD7uFjsfH0

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 5:59am

    Reply to #45

    mememonkey

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 01 2009

    Posts: 101

    More Misery Calculus is flawed.

    [quote=kelvinator]

    It may not be, but I believe it is.   For me, scale makes a big difference, too, Dave, but in a different spectrum than you seem to feel is important, or maybe we just have different estimations of the potential damage.  

    When I look at my act of voting, I'm not thinking about the scale of sin, criminality, imperfection, amount of lies told (though, I do think Hillary tells fewer lies then Donald) but what will be the effect of the scale of harming to healing.  I believe you are harming.  That if what you and Chris do is successful, it's very likely to create way more misery in the world – brutal arrests, bullying as a cultural feature, massive environmental trashing, freedom of expression suppressed, ramp up mass surveillance, including inspection of all twitter origns ;-). By my estimation, it's more destructive than voting for Hillary.  And that's the dimension I care about.  The other way to say it is that I don't feel like what you're doing is creating or has any real, organized plan to create good, like Bernie, Elizabeth Warren, like Jimmy Carter, like Tulsi.  I just don't think you're wiser than these people.

    Obviously, you, Chris and others disagree.  Hey, people make different estimations – to me, it's completely obvious how dangerous it is, how hurtful and repressive to invite a true Devil like Trump into the center of our world than a true Devil like Hillary.  You seem to have made your choice.  To me, this has nothing to do with whose a criminal or a liar – your morality.  You really can't wait for one more year, one more election to get a better person?  Bernie almost won this time, for chissakes!  Are you willing to make a big noise other than by voting every two years?  I guess your way is just different than mine.

    I'll tell you one thing.  If Trump gets elected, I'm going to be thinking about you, Chris and others who helped him win.  Hopefully, we'll all be happy with what unfolds, right?  As I say, maybe I'm wrong.  But I trust my view much more than your and Chris' thoughts on this – not even close.  We all do the best we can.

    [/quote]

    It seems to me that you are projecting the sins of the established order onto a putative Trump presidency.  "brutal arrests, bullying as a cultural feature, massive environmental trashing, freedom of expression suppressed, ramp up mass surveillance"     This is what we have now due primarily to the rise of the Neocons's and the matrix of Banking and Governance that is the DC consensus.

      Hilary is  that orders candidate.   Moreover, she is personally responsible for untold suffering in the Mideast Africa and Europe and she has Asia in her sights as well.   Does the suffering of other nations count in your calculus? 

     

    You are confusing her 'stronger together' rhetoric and her public face of tolerance with her true character and demonstrated actions which are actually divisive and harmful. 

    And no,  the calculus of Nuclear war means we might not have another 4 years to wait for your white knight enlightened candidate to ascend to power and 'fix ' things.

    Again I don't like Trump.  I don't think he can fix things.  He  doesn't  know what the real problems are.   I wont vote for him because I don't have to  as  it wouldn't matter in my west coast state.   But I prefer him over Hillary. And if I thought it mattered I would hold my nose and vote for him.

      Like others my issue is strictly about Hillary's penchant for war and the very real threat that unchecked embracing of the Neo Con agenda represents a very real existential danger to all people. Not just Americans.  that issue has been hashed through, and either you get the calculus   or you don't

    Several people on here assert that Trump is a psychopath.  Based on my observations I find that highly unlikely,   He has obvious developmental deficits and personality flaws and a superficial value system reflected in a person who's business model centers around building grandiose  monuments to his ego. He has  misogynistic traits that you might imagine of a person that owns beauty pageants  and a succession of trophy wives.  He also has smart capable woman executives  he empowers throughout his businesses including running his campaign. So he cant be reduced to one dimension even on that.

    He is a Nationalist and that has been conflated by the media to being a racist but his s record doesn't bear that out.  he is endorsed by among others, the Black Panthers, and Louis Farahkahn he has been lauded by Jesse Jackson for his contribution to empowering minorities.

    Check out the video's linked below  for a different  perspective on his His 'Racism' that exists outside your belief  comfort zone.

     

    What he not is a sociopathic killer.

     

    Hillary is demonstrably a sociopathic killer. and like Dave F 'issue with her know financial criminality,scale matters here as well

    How Gillbilly and others can possibly look at the video of Hillary laughing at killing Kaddafi and not be convinced that she is a psychopath I can only ascribe to cognitive dissonance.

    But Perhaps they are unconvinced because they don't think 11 seconds video clip has enough context.

    The context of Hillary's role in the destruction of Libya is evidenced in the history of how it was implemented   Thanks to the email links we can see that was literally her War and it was done to polish her credentials for her coming run for the presidency.  See the Sidney Blumenthal mails and the TICK TOCK memo's  

    She overcame Obama's  objections and literally created a failed state orchestrating a conflict that killed 40,000 woman children and men and  empowered ISIS to entrench and now brutally repress the woman and children and minorities that survived.  Her actions  opened the flood gate of North African refugees to Europe.

    Libya is perhaps the most egregious example of her pattern of a callous disregard for people and use and support of violence based on political calculus.  But Make no mistake it is her MO and has been since she fired the travel employees in the Whitehouse, pushed Janet Reno to green light the showdown with Branch Davidians that burned those children alive, lobbied for the Bombing in Serbia, to divert attention of Her Husband's sex scandals. Voted for Invasion of Iraq to burnish her 'muscular' image etc etc. 

    She is not just a politician telling political lies and flip flopping.  Here again scale matters.  She has a documented incontrovertible record of falsehoods that show she is a serial pathological Liar.  This is one of the key attributes of a psychopath.  She lies without conscience.  From self serving whoppers like landing under fire in Bosnia, to her ever changing lies on the email server that evolve to accommodate each new development. 

     

     

     
    Black female executive
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxaKUo5naoY
     

    Blacks for trump   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVDliwn0Xjg

    latino employee of Trump   https://www.youtube.comwatch?v=QAPgh2V_mGQ

    Jesse Jackson Lauds Trump on helping minorities
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U6Pp5iflTs

    Louis Farahkahn  Black Muslims endorse

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6LsL-G9Gb0
     

    Black Panthers endorse
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeplUFT8BMI

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 6:12am

    #61

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    All Very Entertaining, no doubt.

    But has anybody been paying attention to what laws the Congress critters are passing while we are all rolling in the aisles?

    Without looking I'm going to bet thruppence that all sorts of dodgy deals are going on.

    Never trust quite children.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 10:16am

    Reply to #45

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3146

    smarter?

    kelvinator-

    Well I certainly won't claim that my approach is better, or smarter, or operating on some higher moral plane, or what have you.  You trust your approach, and I trust mine.

    We all have our own assessment of the situation.  For me, its HRC's corruption.  You have your own calculus.  Gillbilly sees Trump as a sociopath.  Our own experiences drive our viewpoints. I don't claim that my viewpoint is superior to anyone else's, and if I've come across that way – its just my enthusiasm for the subject, its not how I really feel.

    Warren and Sanders must work from the inside.  They have assessed that they can have the largest impact in that way.  Because I'm on the outside, I have have the freedom to act differently.  We can both have impacts, in our respective ways.  You see it working at cross purposes, and I see it working in harmony.

    If HRC gets smashed in this election as a direct result of all her shenanigans, I think its much more likely the next time around, the DNC will be forced to "act differently" when a new Sanders appears.  "Remember what happened with Clinton", they'll say.  A trainer at Ft Irwin told me something that's always stuck with me – about why the opposition force really needs to win most of the time: "Nobody listens to the trainers critiques when the Blue Force wins."  Same thing here.  If HRC wins, DNC will learn nothing from this election cycle – because they don't need to.  Defeat is a much better teacher.  That's just human nature.  We lose this one, so we can win the next.

    And if Warren works super hard to get Clinton elected, and the effort fails, that's a win for her.  She cannot afford to be seen operating against the party.  Same with Sanders.  That's just how it works.  But both of their positions will improve if the forces that stole the election from Sanders are completely discredited and end up having their asses handed to them.  That only happens with an HRC defeat.

    You may not agree with my thinking or this approach – and that's ok.  To quote you: "I trust myself far more than I trust you on this one."  I have to say, that's an excellent line.  I hope you don't mind if I borrow it.  🙂

    On a related note, if Clinton gets into power, and she destroys another half-dozen countries (the way she did with Syria and Libya – she came, she saw, he died…hee hee!) and sucks in another 5 billion into the Clinton foundation from donors around the world in exchange for heaven only knows what favors that we will only find out decades later, and we end up with a completely unnecessary shooting war with Russia that ends up with a grid-down event, I will not be "thinking about you" nor will I hold you responsible for the position you are taking or the vote you cast.

    I won't blame you for how it turns out, because I really do believe that you're doing the best you can.   I think that's true for most of us here, actually.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 11:43am

    Reply to #45

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4635

    Actual Sadness...and high hopes

    [quote=kelvinator]

    I'll tell you one thing.  If Trump gets elected, I'm going to be thinking about you, Chris and others who helped him win.  Hopefully, we'll all be happy with what unfolds, right?  As I say, maybe I'm wrong.  But I trust my view much more than your and Chris' thoughts on this – not even close.  We all do the best we can.

    [/quote]

    Is that a threat?  If so, what's at stake here?  Maybe I am misreading this, but I feel….threatened.  

    And I honestly feels sadness over that.

    I like you Kelvinator, I really do, and I honor your work and passion in the world…but where we differ, apparently, is in where and how we direct our emotional intensity.

    It's a mystery to me why you are threatening to hold myself and others here accountable for a Trump win, as opposed to holding accountable a corrupt and venal DNC that bent and broke rules to elevate one of the most tarnished candidates in all of US history. 

    And that concerns me.  

    Specifically here with this incident, but more broadly with the hostile anger that has been generally unleashed this election…on both sides!  Sorry, the democrats actually have a lot more to answer for here than the Trump side as they have been caught on tape planning and plotting acts of violence.  As a strategy.

    If I identified with the democratic party (and I identify with none, to be clear) I would personally be demanding a rigorous introspection of my party to expose the how's and the why's of its faults, not angrily blaming people who failed to rally around my venal candidate.  

    I would want to know how and why my organization had come to such a station in life.  What has befallen my group to lead to such an outcome?

    That is the sort of line of questioning that I would be both supporting and demanding.

    In other news, I cannot wait for this election to be done with.  It's really a huge distraction and it is tearing the country apart.  It is ruining friendships.  

    And, I hate to say it, that's all part of the design by people who know perfectly well what they are dong.

    If we here at PP fall for it, and lose friendships because our personal buttons got pushed by professional button pushers that is a tragedy on two levels.  One, shame on us for falling for such cheap ploys.  Two, if we cannot rise above even this level of agitation, then what hope do we have of operating in any fashion of civility during the darker days ahead?

    Let's rise above this, get ourselves back together as a group, and figure out what to do next.  

    There's a shitstorm coming and that fact is not changed by who's president of the US.  So consider this election a test of sorts.  Can we here at PP rise above the level-1 button-pushing propaganda or not?

    If we cannot, then we might as well just give up now. 

    But that's not even remotely where I am.  I feel like I was born for these times.  There's something very exciting about having been born to be alive at this time.  We are all being called to greatness, to be fully alive in every sense of that word, as men and women in our full divine power.

    It is time, past time really, to shed our self-imposed illusions of powerlessness and realize that there's a vast game being played, where those who understand the rules of how consciousness and creation coexist get to jump overboard, swim to the back, and nudge the tribtab rudder on this ship of human destiny.

    The forces of darkness are on one side pushing with all their might, and there is an increasing pod of people on the other side shoving in the other direction.

    This election has simply exposed what's been there all along, not created anything new.  There are no new dangers in either Trump or Hillary that have been revealed.  At least to me.  Trump has not created one single new racist…he's merely exposed racism that's been there all along, something black people have been waving their arms frantically about for decades, most recently under the uncaring nose of Obama of all people.  Hillary has not been any more corrupt during this campaign than she has been her entire career.  

    It serves no purpose at all that I can detect to try and blame the figureheads in play here for the underlying darkness their candidacies have exposed.  Or their followers.

    Instead, the invitation is to jump into the chilly waters below, and confidently add your creative motion to the task of nudging the rudder with all the humility of knowing just how small you are and that you personally do not get to see anything more than a small portion of the ship's journey.  

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 12:00pm

    #62
    robie robinson

    robie robinson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 868

    Thanks Chris

    Good thread here and your post #121, on point.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 12:33pm

    #63
    Tim Ladson

    Tim Ladson

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 22 2012

    Posts: 16

    Agree

    Agree totally with Robie.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 1:31pm

    #64

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    Racist?

    Us descendants of the Cro-Magnons and Neanderthal are nearly extinct. And if we protest we are Racists? The sheer perfidity of the moral position!

    Everyone votes with their feet. They are desperate to live amongst us, to emulate us, to breed with or extraordinarily beautiful womenfolk, destroying the very civilization that they crave to live in.  And if we raise a mue of protest they  shriek "Racist",  as though that were some kind of a sin.

    Jesus said " Thou Shalt not be a Racist "

    No he didn't. It is a faux sin. Evil resides in the use of the word, not in its exercise. One can be as ugly as one likes. It is a free world. Be rude if the mood takes you, but don't complain if you wear the natural consequences. 

    It is profoundly immoral to aid and  abet the Genocide of anyone. And it is illegal to promulgate it . Even your own genocide. Suicide can be understood an an individual tragedy,  but genocide is an abhorrent evil. 

    The forced migrations of peoples is an act of Genocide.

    And why are all these unfortunate souls left only at our doorstep? How many are billeted by the Chinese, their various Semitic kin in the Middle East, any non-European nation for that matter? None. All, all go to to Western Civilization. Just like all migrated to Rome until She fell under the weakness of her anemia. This is the premeditated genocide of my people.

    Never speak to me of Racism, for anti-Racism is another word for white genocide. 

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 1:40pm

    #65
    drbost

    drbost

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 18 2010

    Posts: 51

    It's time for confession.

    Thank you, Chris, for your humility and insight.

    My wife and I will carry this with us as we go to church this morning.  These thoughts will be with us as we participate the confession portion of the church service, and acknowledge the shadow in ourselves and in our society.  It's our first step toward better emotional and spiritual health.  May we all in our own way acknowledge the shadow in ourselves and our culture.  It will enable healthy participation in these exciting times.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 4:14pm

    #66

    Greg Snedeker

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 22 2012

    Posts: 380

    Wow, quite a backlash

    I am not surprised by the backlash I've received. This is exactly what I mean when I said this article was a HUGE mistake to write.  The internet has helped take us to a dark place. We pick through the pieces that fit our view and lob them at each other. For every video that has been lobbed at me for my position, I could easily find three or four Trump videos and ask how you can put your support behind him?…How you can't see that he is a sociopath… I won't do it. It would be VERY easy, but what's the point. As far as the black support? How many black panther members are there? Look it up.

    I am a white male, but I have family members that are black (sister in-law, nieces and nephews), and many black friends, as I grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood in the midwest. I don't know of one that supports Trump. I do know they are very frightened and angered by what they see in him. Do we have anyone on this site that is black/African American that would like to chime in???? Sorry, maybe that's a low blow, but seriously, we need to examine ourselves and our own biases and group-think. If there are not any minorities on this thread, we really need to ask why.

    I disagree that nothing has changed with Trump and that he is merely shining a light on what is already there. He has used his master manipulative skills to raise the level of mob emotions in a way that throws caution to the wind.  A good leader is one that de-escalates potential violence, not escalates emotions prone to violence.  In my opinion, everything has changed! I have no problem with civil disobedience that builds from the bottom up, but Trump is not the bottom. He's a billionaire. He's the top of the top. He has nothing in common with those he professes to represent. Nothing! Sociopaths are excellent at poking the rats in the cage just to watch them run. He's done an excellent job of that. If he decides to hit the wasp nest while in office, I don't think he'll be able to control it. I don't think anyone will.

    Am I willing to admit HRC might be sociopath? Sure, but an 11 second video where she makes a joke? People often joke when they are extremely uncomfortable with the subject matter, and she is known to have a sense of humor. Would someone send me the entire interview?

    Yes, I know her record and her hawkish position. Does that worry me? Yes. Do neocons worry me? Yes, but they've been around for decades and they have much more to lose than a lot of Trump's base. I am much more certain of Trump's sociopathic nature than I am of hers. It comes from my experience of being targeted. I am speaking from direct experience and that is what matters most to me. His history (business – casinos, celebrity seeking, chameleon positions) and behavior align perfectly with sociopathic behavior.

    Anyway, you can all lob away. I've stated my case and now I will now go back to second full-time job of trying to change the system in a peaceful way, through hard work and service. I have put my beliefs, that include the 3Es, into action. I encourage you to do the same. Don't just prep and wish for collapse, work for change and try to keep it from happening. Collapse will not bring relief, it will be very ugly… no matter how prepared you think you are.

    Chris, nothing's changed for me in regard to you and the cause. I support you and consider you a friend, but I really feel this article was a HUGE mistake. But it is only one article, so I hope you might write a follow up article that provides a meaningful balance. Why not pick and tear apart Trump? It would be very easy to do!

    Be Well Everyone!

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 4:29pm

    #67

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1911

    Lolita Express

    How does information about the Lolita Express fit in to people's thinking about the deep psychology of people?

    It is hard to see a person as a GREEN Meme, defender of women and children, when that person is flying on Epstein's private jet, the Lolita Express, to his private "rape island."

    There are many supporting links possible.  One summary is here.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 4:49pm

    #68

    AKGrannyWGrit

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2011

    Posts: 459

    yuk Political Angst

    My children are considering keeping their children home from school on Election Day and perhaps the day after as people's beliefs are based on one sided arguments and bad behavior may run rampant. I have taken an intentional break from the media and am happy to not feel the angst so many are feeling.

    I suspect there will be many who will want to get revenge or be very angry because their candidate doesn't win, the stock market will be volatile and violence will erupt and they will be able to say "see, see what happens because you voted for ________".

    My favorite prayer is the prayer the Knights of The Round Table recite.  It goes like this –

         "God grant me the wisdom to discover the right, the will to choose it, and the strength to endure it".  People who follow their conscience and strive to live with integrity often walk a singular path.

    Kudos to you Chris for walking a lonely path and be willing to take heat from people who don't agree with you!  You must indeed be blessed with a strong support group.

    AKGrannyWGrit

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 5:25pm

    #69

    kelvinator

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 25 2008

    Posts: 181

    As I Said, We All Do the Best We Can

    Chris, Dave, mememonkey and others, thanks for your comments.  Dave, I certainly don't mind if you also say "I trust myself far more than I trust you on this one."  😉  I would expect nothing less from you, Chris and others, if that's where you're at.  I genuinely respect your thoughts and analytical powers, even when I disagree, and have come to different assessments and conclusions.  And I do really like you both very much, to the extent I've been able to get to know you through your writings here.  One reason I bother to be impassioned and express some emotional intensity on this is because it's a little like speaking up with family members you disagree with – and I think we all know that's something that's happening across the country right now, often with unhappy results, as we all have said.  Some, friends and relatives are being "unfriended" on Facebook, or won't be showing up for Thanksgiving, Christmas.  Some relationships may be damaged permanently.  We can be certain these things are going on.  But better than many family conversations, from the start I have hoped and imagined that you are both people who are solid enough in yourselves to be challenged strongly but still stay in dialogue.  I'm very happy that, being tested by my impassioned disagreement, both of you have come through, and neither of you have failed me in that.  We haven't failed in that. And that's important.

    Chris, I agree with your call to move beyond this divisiveness and focus on trying to join forces in the larger battle.  My statement that I will think of you if Trump wins was absolutely not intended as a threat.  It was a reminder that we are all responsible for our actions in the sense of needing to stay connected to the outcomes, the benefits and damage caused by various choices.  Whether that’s the risk of war, continued corruption, etc. if Hillary is elected, or the risk of war, continued corruption and intensified tyranny, divisiveness and loss of civil liberties if Trump is elected.  We all need to be aware of how every small part we play evolves as each choice is made, and to the extent we can, try to learn what was right or wrong in our assessment on the fly, as I imagine you’d agree.  None of us are beyond learning in this rapidly evolving/devolving world. I’m prepared to accept responsibility for supporting Hillary as a matter of strategy, just as I assume you are for supporting Trump – (or, the “not Hillary” candidate).

    Dave, I completely understand your argument about why you believe it's important to deliver a defeat to the Dems, so they have a better hope of clearing the trash from their party and letting the anti-corruption forces like Warren and Sanders hold sway, even if I disagree with the strategy.  I considered and rejected that strategy after Bernie lost, but saw the potential logic in it.  I honestly believe, though, that potential Trump supporters completely underestimate how powerfully and rapidly the legal, cultural, domestic and international political environment will degrade if Trump is elected.  To me, it's really like saying maybe if a Hitler type personality takes over, the Green Party would be strengthened and win the next election.  As I said, maybe I'm wrong, and your idea that the better angels of our nature will react and still have an environment they can prevail in is true.  Or, maybe you're wrong.  Or, maybe as others have suggested, it won't matter that much either way.  Views differ, but of course can be impassioned on this point. 

    Whatever happens, our local 350.org group, which I’m on the steering committee for, is already calling out our 1000+ local members out to the street to demonstrate in front of Citibank in our local town on Tuesday, Nov. 15th, a week after the election, regardless who wins.  Citibank should have died under the weight of its own corruption in 2009 and been nationalized, if not before. Today, Citibank is the lead underwriter of the crony capitalist Dakota Access Pipeline project being jammed into and over Indian lands and rights – if you follow through the legalities, the brutalization and crony capitalist actions after the US gave this land to the Sioux in the Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1868.  The actions since are still under legal dispute: 

    “…in 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that the Black Hills were taken unjustly, and it ordered the U.S. government to compensate the Sioux tribes fairly for them. But the Sioux declined the payment [in those great, US fiat “Federal Reserve Notes” being printed by the trillions] —which still sits in U.S. Treasury accounts, earning interest—because they seek possession or co-ownership of the land itself.”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/09/dapl-dakota-sitting-rock-sioux/499178/

    My group, and others like us across the country and around the world are going to continue to take action, including civil disobedience.  Trump is a part owner of Energy Transfer Partners, the company trying to build the pipeline.  According to election disclosures, he apparently owns $½ million or $1 million of the crony capitalist firm we’re fighting in that particular action.  The prosecutors and militarized police in North Dakota, an oil/gas owned/driven state, have already begun violating the civil rights of protestors and journalists alike.  They’ve tried to charge journalists with “rioting” and “conspiracy” who did no such thing, as you may know, because those sentences engender warranted fear and have multi-year jail sentences.  Journalists.  They want to kill coverage.  Trump has called anti-corruption campaigner Warren “Pocahontas”.   How many Trump supporters are supporting the Indians? There are cultural issues and divisions here that we need to be aware of.

    If Trump is elected, I fear the harsh actions that will be taken against all activists – against me, my neighbors and our allies, and even against politicians like Warren and Sanders who are actively fighting crony capitalism  It may become extremely vicious.  The rule of law, which Chris has said is important to him may be thrown aside much more quickly than we imagine.  Maybe that will trigger a mass political and public response to stand up and become an active enough counter force to overcome the repressive evil at work, by the public, by Congress. 

    But I’ve been astounded at how few have stood up as civil rights have already been abridged, as “dark sites” were created and torture was carried out by the US, as the mass surveillance apparatus was built, as one criminal war after another was undertaken.  Public upset has toned these things down for now, but there’s a lot of fear out there.  In Trump, we have an outspoken advocate of torture, someone who has said freedom of the press needs to be curbed, that we need to be massively violent to fight terrorism, kill civilians, go elsewhere and steal oil by force, the list goes on. IMO, it would be so foolish to disregard these words.  Yes, there are a lot of people who are mad, but not willing to stick their neck out and engage in the kind of patient, deep and persistent way that’s required to generate the kind of eventual positive change that, to my mind, could result in a much more grounded and functional Peak Prosperity in the end.   In any case, risks are all around, however you slice it, as are opportunities, if we take them.  Positive change can also happen surprisingly quickly if people can just believe in their own power and find ways to activate themselves and align their forces.  How well we're able to meaningfully and effectively unite remains a question.  But what Chris and Crooked Hillary are both saying is true, "We're stronger together."  😉  

    Peace.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 5:40pm

    Reply to #69

    Jim H

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1798

    Kelvinator and Gillbilly..

    This seems to be one of those all-hands-on-deck threads where we really dig deep into what it is we are all doing here.  I resonate with everything Chris has said, so no need to rehash that.. but I do want to comment on one particular comment of yours Kelvinator;

      I honestly believe, though, that potential Trump supporters completely underestimate how powerfully and rapidly the legal, cultural, domestic and international political environment will degrade if Trump is elected.

    Kelvinator, under Obama, and the Neocon puppet masters, we have already lost rule of law in this country.  We are ALREADY in a dire state, and have been since at least the aftermath of the great financial crisis.  The best commentator in this arena is IMO the lawyer John Titus.. please watch this expose and then tell me that we are not already at rock bottom.  I reject the notion that our legal environment could possibly degrade further.. and I cling to the hope, while I cannot prove it to anyone, that Trump will at least attempt to bring some integrity back to the leadership of our judicial branch of government.  

         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHgbRYgpGGs

    I will throw out my own guess as to what's going on here – I will suggest that anyone still willing to support HRC does not believe 9/11 was a false flag.  I am not saying that HRC was in any way complicit or involved.. only that some of those pulling her strings probably were.  Anyone who has done enough due diligence to understand what 9/11 was will be so repelled by the Neocons, and what they are capable of, that they will be unable to support HRC.  Period. 

    Does this sound like a crazy man?  I can't promise that Trump is not lying, much like Obama did…. but I see him as our only hope.  

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vST61W4bGm8&feature=youtu.be

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 6:33pm

    #70

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3146

    the hitler meme

    kelvinator-

    Thanks for the post.  These are definitely trying times.

    So I am definitely laboring under the delusion (!) that our Republic will survive Trump or HRC.  Why is this?

    I believe you've been overly influenced by HRC's Mighty Wurlitzer, and specifically, the Hitler meme it continually spouts.  They are counting on you to ignore actual historical fact and focus instead on the supernatural invocation of the Grand Evil of the 20th Century.  Godwin's Law comes to life in a national campaign.

    Why isn't Donald Trump Hitler?  Well, let's review history.

    1) Hitler had an entire army of SA (Sturm Abteilung) brownshirts that ran around and beat people up and generally caused mayhem on his behalf.  How many?  By 1933, there were three million men in the SA.  In addition, 2) Hitler had a large Nazi party that was entirely behind him.  Because of 1) and 2), once elected, he got the Reichstag to pass the 3) Enabling Act, giving him the power to enact laws without the involvement of the Reichstag.  Hitler wins the Dictator Sweepstakes!

    So lets review how things are today.  How many Storm Troopers does DT have?  Three million?  Two million?  How about zero.  DT has zero Storm Troopers.  In fact, all the violence at his rallies were inspired by HRC's dirty tricks squad.

    Ok, so does DT have the unwavering support of the Republican Party, like Hitler did?  Hmm.  The Neocons have fled, and a fairly large chunk of Republicans bailed out after the pussy tape was aired.  DT is swinging in the breeze.  The Republicans would simply love if he vanished, so they could get back to looting-as-usual.  So that's a big no.  No, he doesn't have the support of his party.

    Ok, so do we imagine with no brownshirts and maybe a third of the party behind him – and them reluctant – that DT could get Congress to pass an Enabling Act?

    That would be no.  Unless of course you've been thoroughly brainwashed by HRC's Mighty Wurlitzer.

    Why all the effort to paint DT as Hitler?  It is the only possible motivation for anyone to vote for HRC.  DT has to be painted as fantastically evil – the impossibly evil love child of Sauron and Darth Vader – or else she doesn't stand a chance.

    The very fact they're trotting out the Hitler meme says they're out of bullets.

    Once again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 7:07pm

    #71

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1465

    So THIS is a banana republic!

    Isn't this the classical setup for a presidential election in a banana republic? A corrupt politician with blood on her hands versus a businessman who appears out of nowhere promising to save us. I've seen these before. Either the corrupt politician wins and engages is a bloody purge or the business man wins and in about 8 years IS the corrupt politician with blood on his hands. Being on the tip of the domestic spear I'm following the script closely to see if violent riots, mysterious assassinations, food shortages and hyperinflation are on the agenda next. But more than that, I've got my Bible open to the Book of Revelation to see if or when we start following that script too.  

    On a positive note, friends, family and co-workers have stopped giggling about my "preps" and started asking questions about them. 

    "Welcome to the Hunger Games! And may the odds be ever in your favor."

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 7:12pm

    #72

    ronbailey

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 29 2008

    Posts: 3

    Can't do it

    My vote is such a small thing. And yet it represents me. If I voted for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, I would be voting against my own well being and my own sense of self. Do that and look in the mirror after? Nope. I am voting for Gary Johnson and his running mate Bill Weld. Will they win the election? Unlikely. If they did win, would they do a better job than either of the duopoly candidates? Undoubtedly, since they are sane, honest, likeable, experienced and successful as governors. Also, they don't want to run your life, spy on you, tax you to death, (further) bankrupt the nation or engage in endless wars. Maybe more of us should consider voting for something rather than against someone. It would be good for us as individuals, and good for America as well.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 7:29pm

    #73

    Oliveoilguy

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 29 2012

    Posts: 521

    US hack on Russia?

    https://www.rt.com/news/365423-russia-us-hacker-grid/

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 7:40pm

    Reply to #72

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Online)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 857

    Ron, but Gary Johnson would make my church illegal

    With all you say about Gary, I don't disagree.  But in the debates it was brought out that he wants to force Christian churches to formalize homosexual marriages. 

    In the Catholic Church, there is no greater statement against something than, "We have no authority to do this…"  And that includes homosexual marriage.

    Johnson would make my church illegal.  My church is part of how I believe, how I pray, how I live.

    I can't vote for that.

    Oh, and Johnson isn't a libertarian.  If he wants to force this, who's to say what else he wants to force?  And he had an opportunity to separate himself from his actions, in the debate.  He chose not to.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 8:14pm

    Reply to #45

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Online)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 857

    One more thing... Kelvinator & Gillibilly

    One more thing…  I'd like for everyone here to watch "13th" on Netflix.  I've mentioned it before.  But pay special attention to where they see the mass-incarceration-enslavement going, at the end :  The legislation by ALEC.

    My own congressional representative, Bobby Scott, an "Our people" (African American) Democrat, who advocates blacks electing blacks based on skin color alone, is at the head of this legislation.

    Bounce over to his website and see, if you don't believe me:

    https://bobbyscott.house.gov/SAFEJusticeAct

    Look at the endorsements down below, the "ALEC support letter".

    Now, even the movie, by carefully clipping apart Trumps voice at a Seattle event, and then overlaying the modified speech with imagery from a Kentucky event, makes it appear that Trump is part of the establishment that wants to kill African Americans.  I honestly have no idea whether he does or not… but the movie slanders him.  It portrays Hillary and Bill as truly part of that same effort, "but now repentant".  

    But I can say this,  The ALEC support letter makes me believe that Bobby Scott is definitely part of the movement, and I don't believe Hill and Bill are repentant of ANYTHING, for one minute.

    No, I don't support Trump.  The rape allegations, the attitude toward foreigners… I can't be a part of.  But I can say I DEFINITELY see Hillary as part of that establishment that murders and enslaves blacks, from the day of the 13th Amendment until this.

    Please watch the movie, closing your eyes as appropriate. 

    Oh, and a PS… I also have seen the meme "I'll remember who had Trump signs"… I specifically asked, "is this blackmail or bribery?"  The structure of democracy, people being able to bring forth their concerns, is far more important than any individual victory.  The republican characteristic of voting for a leader, allows people to be heard once every two years, and be quiet unless they need to be heard…  so that there isn't a cacaphony.  Whoever wins, the effect of your twelve neighbors voting for the winner, is small.  Do you want to destroy your own little world, for what happens on the big scale?  Instead, spend your effort trying to understand WHY they wanted to vote that way, and then find other, better ways to satisfy their need, so that they don't have to vote that way next time.  Because of this, I went through and upvoted every conversation I saw that looked to be in good faith.  The dialogue is part of understanding why. 

    Take care of your neighbors' needs on the small scale, and make sure they understand yours… and it'll be easier to affect their vote on the large scale.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 8:15pm

    Reply to #72
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1368

    voting for Johnson/Weld

    Then perhaps you will listen to something Weld said the other day in response to a question of who he is intending to vote for. Paraphrasing, he said he will vote for his ticket, but the most important outcome is to ensure Trump is not elected. He considers a Trump election disastrous.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 8:26pm

    #74

    kelvinator

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 25 2008

    Posts: 181

    Trump Started His Own Hitler Meme

    Dave –

    Thanks for your thoughts.  On the Hitler meme, I just listened to what Trump himself has said over time.  I don't need to listen at all to what the Hillary Wirlitzer says in propaganda territory.  I just assess the candidate's characters, listen to what Hillary or Donald say their views, approaches and policies would be, (to the extent Trump has policy proposals at all).  And of course, I take what they both say with huge grains of salt weighed against each of their personalities and history.  Once again, we just come to different conclusions.  I make my own assessments. I'm someone who wrote to Bernie Sanders long before he ran, before most Americans even knew who he was, urging him to run, and sent him money repeatedly.  I make my own assessments which I try to make outside propaganda bubbles.  

    I find your notion that "all the violence" at Hillary or Trump rallies was instigated by HRC operatives not to be true (but rather very much part of Trump's "meme", if we're talking memes).  I watched his rallies.  I heard what Trump said.  If you don't believe Trump was encouraging violence, then we part ways on the evidence of our senses.  That said, I don't doubt that Hillary and Trump operatives or supporters both instigated violence, based on what I've seen with my own eyes and read.

    Regarding the lack of brownshirt support.  You're right on the current organized, explicit brownshirt support out there for Trump, and that is indeed a source of comfort for me, and should be for everyone.  But I don't agree with you at all that he's hanging alone in the wind, particularly when 10s of millions of angry Americans are about to vote for him. He's also got a load of politicians ready to move whichever way votes, money and power blows, many of whom I believe are quite comfortable with ignoring the constitution (as we're already seeing) and, I believe, enforcing repression.  There are white militias, including armed and unarmed whites associated the the KKK who I believe are much more ready than you imply to quickly line up in bullying, or even armed support of a strongman's "one man fight" against corruption in government and intrusion of foreigners.  You think this is just a "meme"?  What about all the judges that will change, the militarized police already being trained to enhance the efficiency their kill ratio as though American protestors are actually enemy terrorists.  Don't believe it?  Take some time to check it out beyond this link or others.  Thankfully, some police departments have stopped using David Grossman as a police trainer.  He's one of the subjects of this article, and example of how things can devolve as tension rises in communities.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/do-not-resist-militarization-of-police-documentary-2016-9

    You likely know the statistics on mass shootings in the US in recent years, and the outsized portion of them that were caused by white males, Trumps' primary political strength, many with Trump-like complaints on abortion or other issues.   Attacks by foreigners or jihadists made up a very small proportion.

    I sincerely hope your optimism about the sturdiness of our democracy is warranted, but, as I said, I do disagree with your and Chris' strategy.  I'm already planning to work hard against the administration of either candidate as soon as they're elected.  But I believe we need to support the actual laws and institutions we have and vastly clean them up, not do away with civil liberties, or suspend or ignore the constitution and election outcomes, if we don't like the results.  I hope you agree.

    We need to stop voter suppression, where it's occurring – and it's occurring in many states now thanks to the Republican party's desire to suppress minority or student voting based on the completely phony notion that widespread fraud is occurring.  Don't believe that "meme"?  As far as I'm concerned, it's completely factual, not a meme, based on my reading of the news and Supreme court rulings over many years.  I'd like to completely eliminate the potential for fixing of election results, investigate any real "fixed" elections, while challenging and debunking false stories of fixed elections created for the purposes of incitement.  I'd like to completely take big money out of election campaigns and our voting process.  I hope we agree on these most basic things, even if we don't agree on who to vote for.

    The propaganda wars rage.  It's a difficult time, likely to get more so.  Perspective, honest assessment, friendliness and communication are important, and can be easily lost. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 8:34pm

    Reply to #66

    mememonkey

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 01 2009

    Posts: 101

    Chris' Article Not a HUGE mistake

    [quote=gillbilly]

    Chris, nothing's changed for me in regard to you and the cause. I support you and consider you a friend, but I really feel this article was a HUGE mistake. But it is only one article, so I hope you might write a follow up article that provides a meaningful balance. Why not pick and tear apart Trump? It would be very easy to do!

    [/quote]

     

     I remain struck by your notion that this was an anti Hillary pro Trump hit piece by Chris.

    Certainly you could argue that the comments section evolved (devolved?) into a referendum on the candidates.   That said,  Chris' original piece was at it's core, a warning of the clear and present danger of the Neocon push for confrontation with Russia.  Chris presented the evidence and noted the parallels with the coordinated PR Campaign for getting us into IRAQ. 

    Noting that the same players are in Hillary's orbit and her record in support of the NEO CON wars  and anti Russia  aggression and that informs his "Can't support Hillary Stance"  is a far cry from being an unbalanced push piece for Hillary. You literally can't present the facts around the Neo Con threat without noting Hillary's role. For Chrissake, she is likely to put in Victoria Nuland as Secretary of State.

    This was not a piece to pick and tear apart HRC.  It was a warning of the material danger that the Neo con's agenda represents.

    I have noted that there is a potential Neocon contingent in Trumps camp.  But it is dwarfed by the Vast Neo Con Establishment apparatus attempting to Install Hillary.

    I would suggest that if Chris were to write  a " Follow up  article to provide your notion of " meaningful balance"  that would "pick and tear apart"  Trumps'  what?  His push for war with Russia and his support by the  players that brought us the wars in Iraq, Afganistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya? 

     it would be a pretty short piece.

    mememonkey

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 9:00pm

    #75

    Jim H

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1798

    #121, Most upvoted ever?

    Chris'  response to Kelvinator is the most up-voted post I have ever seen here…. just saying. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 9:19pm

    #76
    Tikky2

    Tikky2

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 24 2012

    Posts: 11

    Weighing in

    Someone asked where the women and minorities were on this thread. I'm a woman, I'll weigh in on the election choices.

    I think Donald Trump is a sociopath, racist and misogynist. He scares and disgusts me and I could never vote for him.

    I think Hilary Clinton is a liar and a criminal and belongs in jail. She scares and disgusts me and I could never vote for her.

    I've been told I should vote for HRC because she's a woman and it's important that I stand behind her. Really, I should vote for someone I find abhorrent, because her gender is the same as mine?

    I've been told more than once that I should vote for HRC because she's the lesser of two evils. My response is always the same: I don't vote for evil.

    If people want to vote for either of these two candidates, that is their right and their choice. I understand many of the reasons why people would choose one of these candidates.

    Election result if DT wins: We're screwed.

    Election result if HRC wins: We're screwed.

    Whatever happens, I will get up in the morning and do my work in the world. I can't change or fix what's going on the larger society. I can only do my part in my small corner working towards a better world.

     

      

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 9:32pm

    Reply to #74

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Online)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 857

    Just my two cents...

    … a lot of the factual or factoid claims that Kelvinator made… I am in agreement with.  It's part of why I was so annoyed at 13th for clipping and rewording Trumps words:  if you look at his words at the Seattle rally, they are bad enough without slanderously making them worse. 

    But Kelvinator, a TON of the violence HAS been at the paid or unpaid or plausably-deniable instigation of the DNC.  At the Seattle rally, Trump was dealing with such a DNC guy, throwing punches at the attendees.  Don't believe it?  Go and look at the three videos of what happened to the homeless woman who was defending Trump's star. 

    Here's one of the three:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB91BBPt8g4

    The brownshirts this time are largely Hillary supporters.

    But is there some brownshirt behavior on the trump side?  From what I have seen, yes.  A lot less, but yes.  Our society is breaking down, exactly according to the Hitlerian / Russian / Chinese pattern.  That pattern is stated by Frederich Hayak in "Road to Serfdom". 

    Which makes Chris Martensen's claim all the more urgent:  we need to move past the national, to the local, and act in good faith there.

    And MEMEMONKEY…  I agree that Chris' article wasn't a huge mistake, but STILL upvoted Gillbilly's comment regarding that, because I think Gillbilly is right to call it as he sees it.  He was also right to say, "In the end, it doesn't change between us over this article…"  That is the essence of dialogue, and without it, no healing will ever happen.  I also upvoted Chris' article, because that too is the essence of dialogue.

    I don't normally yell in caps; I use caps to draw attention to a single word (such as your name, above.)  But I'm going to make an exception.  Consider the sentence below yelled loud and clear, for all to hear.

    I SUPPORT DIALOGUE IN GOOD FAITH. 

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 9:45pm

    #77
    Uncletommy

    Uncletommy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 03 2014

    Posts: 524

    better viewing?

    From the 100+ comments so far, on this website thread, it seems to me, as an outsider, that the US is screwed. Perhaps rather than watching the Netflix offering, The 13th, we should be watching Call the Midwife,​  in anticipation of what may be delivered after the upcoming election. Crazytrain, indeed!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 06, 2016 - 10:21pm

    #78

    Greg Snedeker

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 22 2012

    Posts: 380

    Excellent! Thank you!

    Thank you Tikky.

    Meme, Jim, read Tikky… a woman's point of view. Short and to the point! And only her sixth post. I take my hat off to her, especially considering the overwhelming white male point of view on this thread. Why do we white males talk so much?…uggh.

    Anyway, I have expressed my views about both candidates in the same way as Tikky. The only slight difference is I do think HRC would be the lesser of two evils. That is what I've said and that's my opinion. Chris thinks the opposite. But, I'm not the one who professes a neutral political stance. A balanced follow up would include what real dangers Trump brings to the table, which are many! Kelvinator has been a very thoughtful voice in this thread, spelling out many of them.

    Meme, come on, I've already said you can't compare the two on public policy. Trump has no public service experience, but Chris could write another opinion piece on Trump and the dangers he brings…that's what this article is, an opinion piece. And a political opinion piece right before This election? Ouch… yes I believe it's a mistake.

    Jim… Trump is our only hope?…I have no words. Please watch your Trump video again. He and his campaign made it just for you, and you've fallen for it hook, line, and sinker. It's manipulation in its purest form. He is a master of it I'll give him that, but the smart sociopaths always are.  I try not to watch either campaigns' propaganda videos. Both sides are sickening in that respect. And up-votes as a measure of a post? I'll take no up-votes please. I've read much better from you…seriously, I mean that.

    Oh and breaking news…Comey has announced the FBI didn't find any new charges to bring against HRC. This is getting more comical by the minute. I'm sure even with little effort I could have found charges to bring against her. Now Trump will come back with how someone got to Comey, the election is rigged, yadayada!!! Why don't we all wake up…neither one brings us much hope at this point.This election has brought us damaged goods. The question is will we recover from it? I think so, but time will tell.

    Be Well!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 12:25am

    #79

    ronbailey

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 29 2008

    Posts: 3

    Gary Johnson

    Micheal_Rudman:

    In my opinion, Gary has this discrimination thing all messed up in his head. I was aware of him saying that a baker must be forced to bake a cake for a gay marriage whether or not they wanted to. This is crazy and I sent a note to Gary's campaign at the time making it clear that his position is wrong, and certainly not libertarian. Perhaps he has not thought through the concept of right of association. But then the much venerated Civil Rights Act makes the same error in its section on private discrimination. I was not aware that he had said that the government should force a priest, minister or pastor to perform a gay marriage against their will, but if he has said that recently he is clearly still wrong on this issue. Note that the correct position on this really has nothing to do with religion. All interactions between and among individuals must be voluntary, or someone's basic rights are being violated. 

    I met Gary in 2012 during his first run, and followed much of what he has said publicly since. I was totally shocked when the cake baking foolishness came up, but I have not found other policy statements of his to be way off the mark such as this one. Hopefully if elected he will think this through and come up with the right answer. Even if he doesn't I seriously doubt he could bring about a law forcing people to enter into acts that violate their core beliefs.

    Dave: Gary is mostly libertarian. Bill Weld is somewhat libertarian. I do think Bill is wrong to suggest that either DT or HRC would be worse than the other. Either or both could be considered a personification of Satan, if one were so inclined to think that way.

    So no, Gary is not perfect. So maybe instead of being 10 million times better than Trump or Clinton, he is only 5 million times better. Still good enough for me.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 3:43am

    #80
    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2252

    Pragmatism

    Outcome #1 – Hillary is elected.

    • Expect a repeat of the mid/senior level FBI disgust on a massive scale (rank-and-file military, veterans and beat-level LE).  Large scale resignations, retirements and walkouts on the civilian side, exodus at end-of-enlistment on the Mil side. Anyone that cares about the Bill of Rights and Rule of Law will check out of the Empire "in spirit". Massive apathy within the remaining Mil/LE structure. Expect unintended consequences.
    • It sure is taking a long time for someone to respond to your 911 call…

    Outcome #2 – Trump is elected.

    • Majority of rank-and-file military and LE remain committed to the system, at least for a while. As long as the outward appearance of rule-of-law, or hope of returning to rule-of-law, remains. This will serve to keep the wolves at bay a while longer. Expect the inner cities to explode in protest/violence. Expect a harsh crackdown from military and LE in response.
    • It sure is taking a long time for someone to response to your 911 call…

    Outcome #3 – False Flag, election is delayed, O stays in office.

    • See Outcome #1.
     Outcome #4 – Contested election. 
     
    • Probably some of all of the above. Who the hell knows. 

    From a Globalist's perspective:

    • If you’re running this shitshow and want to keep the Empire going a bit longer, then Trump makes sense. Particularly if your country (cough, cough, Israel) enjoys the support of a strong US Military. Spoiler alert – If you think Trump isn’t playing along with the big game, check out the viewpoints of his VP and DHS front runners. And if he isn't there's always the JFK/Scalia option. Pence will play ball.
    • If you want to "pull it" now, Hillary is the way to go. Once the politicians lose the support of the rank-and-file military/LE the Empire will fall. Think USSR, only amplified by the economic/energy collapse. High probability of civil unrest/revolt, increasing with time. High likelihood of war with Russia (thank you Neocons) as a distraction, particularly as more and more of the US population "awakens".

    Either way Rule-of-Law in this country is dead. Comey and Lynch have seen to that.

    But hey, vote pussy or vote dick – take your pick.

    Historical anecdote: Civil rights tend not to hold up well in war zones.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 3:56am

    Reply to #74

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3146

    agreement, the KKK, and voting for evil

    kelvinator-

    Ok, it sounds like there are some things we can agree on.

    • Take big money out of politics [this is vastly more important than I had realized; the "Rules for Rulers" video made me realize – although not explicitly – that money is a critical key to power.  Or phrased differently, big money effectively eliminates democracy; kind of like the "Super Delegates" rules do]
    • Neither Trump nor Clinton are Hitler.  (If you are honest, and a real student of that time period, you know there is a vast gulf between 1932 Germany and 2016 US)
    • Stopping election fraud is critical.  I'd start with eliminating computerized voting systems that can literally change an election result with physical access and just a few keystrokes, and bringing back paper ballots.  Second place is held by the Republican efforts to eliminate access to the polls for the people they don't like.
    • We should continue to support constitutional government.

    Now some detail.  Is the KKK a major factor in US politics?  Could they turn into Donald Trump's theoretical shake-and-bake brownshirt army?   High end estimates of KKK membership rise to a massive 8,000 members.  Put differently, 1 in 50,000 people in the US belong to the KKK.  He would get 160 KKK "brownshirts" per state – assuming the entire gun-totin' membership turned up in support for him.

    Am I worried that Trump has a secret KKK army waiting to do his bidding?  No.  This is all just crap turned out by HRC propaganda people – the same gang who are working overtime to "Demonize Putin."  Thing is, this propaganda works.  It reminds me of the same kind of propaganda/thought police that finds it necessary to suppress stats on refugee rape attacks in Germany.

    As for "white males" being disproportionally responsible for mass shooting events – stats again come to our rescue.  Its not true.  Or rather, yes it is, but whites also happen to be a larger part of the population.  Turns out, the single biggest selector for "who does mass shootings" isn't race, its gender.  Of the 87 mass shooting events since 1982, only 2 were done by women.  Go girls!  (Men, commence self-flagellation.)  Whites did 47, blacks 14, asians 6, latinos 6, and 5 were by done by "other" – any guesses what group that might be?  Tom?  Well, 4 of those "other" group had middle-eastern-sounding names.  Just saying.

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data

    There's a lot of stuff you are worried about that aren't borne out by the data.  KKK is a pimple on the ass of the total US population, and the 680 people killed in mass shootings (since 1982!) is about the same as the number of people killed by lightning (36 in 2016).  What's more, its clear that blacks are proportionally more likely to execute these sorts of attacks than are whites.  Who knew?  I didn't, until I looked it up.  But I'm not worried "the blacks" will suddenly become HRC's instant army, or that there's some larger takeaway about the potential for violence from "the whites" in support of a Trump presidency.

    @tikky2

    While I enjoyed everything you wrote, I resonated most with this:

    I don't vote for evil.

    Me either.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 5:15am

    #81

    Barnbuilder

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 07 2014

    Posts: 23

    The Original Article

    Chris, I read the article and all the comments posted since.  What strikes me at first glance is that certain posters have a conviction that cannot be swayed and if that conviction does not materialize all who didn't buy into it are to be condemned and made to pay.  I understand that very well and have encountered that very recently with my own family.  What concerns me is what comes out of the tube when we squeeze it.  Some posters have outright stated that a person is a racist, immigrant hater, war monger, etc just by their intention to vote for a particular person.  The funny thing I have experienced is that I have been very respectful of other family members beliefs but I have not been given the same courtesy in response.  I appreciate the rigorous debate of the facts,  but somewhere along the line we as a nation have to be able to live with one another when this is all over.  My personal sense is that we are past that point.  I agree with your thoughts in the article and I also am a one issue voter this time around.  I don't think that the populace is remotely aware of what the consequences of our present course are.  If it leads to nuclear conflict or down and dirty civil war the endgame will not be pretty.  We are at that point.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 10:00am

    Reply to #74

    kelvinator

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 25 2008

    Posts: 181

    I Rest My Case ;-)

    Hi Dave,

    I'm glad we agree on a few things, and I'm sure we agree on some others.  I don't have much time to write now cause I've got to go to bed with this time change, but I thought I'd point out something funny about your statement on the mass shootings that's kind of emblematic of the real blind spots that I think exist on both sides this election season, which help explain why it is such an intense and crazy cultural divide as well as a political divide.  

    You feel you just demonstrated that white males aren't an outsize percentage of mass shooters, when, you actually proved the opposite in the stats you gave, if we just accept them for now as accurate, since I've seen others as well.   You acknowledge, but then ignore, the fact that women, 51% of the US population, were only a tiny percentage of mass shooters.  The expected percentage of white male shooters in the 87 mass shootings if they were evenly distributed in the population of men and women – the actual population – would be about 25, or 28%, if my calculations are right.  There were actually, 47, or 54%, the majority of total mass shootings.  That's a much higher than expected proportion of white male shooters.  Blacks should have had 5 male shooters by my calcs, or about 6%, but you say there were 14, or 16% instead – more than double expected while whites were a little under double expected.  I just used the 49/51 male/female breakdown for all ethnic groups, but it shouldn't be far off.

    If Trump loses on Tuesday, and I really hope he does, it'll be because white males were his political mainstay and women and non-whites fled to Hillary.  Let's not forget the real cultural and political divides here.  It's not just about who's most corrupt, harmful, dangerous or the devil, etc..  It's also about political parties, about social attitudes, men, women, attitudes toward women, attitudes toward other religions and races, about what character traits matter or don't, guns, abortion and other policies that will affect the country. There's an awful lot there that's very important to people, too.

    Women aren't really figured in either Trump's or your calculations, though good guy that you are, you absolutely give them the great credit they certainly deserve for rarely being violent lunatics.   Hillary is "a flawed candidate", and one of her big flaws, from my point of view, is that it seems she felt she had to be such bad ass ready to go to war in order to be considered as a serious candidate for woman leader in the man's world crony capitalist United States.  You & Chris think she's a violent lunatic and mass-killer, but of the megalomaniacal variety.  I'm not with you to that level, but I'm worried about her, as I've said.

    To me, it's true that huge amount of the actual hatred aimed at Hillary does relate to the difficulty for this country of a woman in such a position of power, as well – sexism, a characteristic for which Trump is almost a walking advertisement.  He hires Roger Ailes, fer chissakes, just fired from Fox for sexual harassment, and is almost certainly a sexual assaulter himself!  What a jerk! It has to be said.  Don't waste your time, at least to me, making the case that that's just a "meme" and he's not a sexual assaulter.  I really hope you don't believe that, but who knows.  Anyway, that doesn't bother Trump voters, or if it does, it's not considered a sociopathic or a disqualifying character flaw, it's just "locker room" behavior, or less worse than blowing up the world, as I've found here.   Similarly, much of the true hatred from a large segment in the US aimed at Obama included racisim.  Donald said Obama wasn't born in the US for years, and his followers just lapped it up and loved it to death, along with the KKK.  That really put Trump on the white male political map!  You may or may not agree with both of my views, but those are clear observations for me and many people I know.

    Again, none of this says that I don't have big problems with both Hillary and Obama continuing the long line of crony capitalist administrations.  I do.  It's just to point out the real culture clashes to the point of blindness, or seeing the world in remarkably different ways, are really built in to the divided constituencies in this election.  That's why it's so crazy.

    Anyway, I appreciate talking with you, Dave.   I'm just trying to tell you how things look to me.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 12:24pm

    Reply to #80

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    Pulling the pin.

    If you want to "pull it" now, Hillary is the way to go.

    Nailed it.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 12:35pm

    Reply to #74

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3146

    resting cases

    kelvinator-

    Ok, so I'll include your original comment:

    You likely know the statistics on mass shootings in the US in recent years, and the outsized portion of them that were caused by white males, Trumps' primary political strength, many with Trump-like complaints on abortion or other issues.   Attacks by foreigners or jihadists made up a very small proportion.

    Let me rephrase, with a few key words changed:

    "You likely know the statistics on mass shootings in the US in recent years, and the outsized portion of them [by representation in the population] that were caused by black males, one of HRC's primary political support groups."

    Represented by population, black males are more likely to execute mass shootings than white males.  Sign of the Apocalypse?  Gosh.  I don't think so.  I just said it to expose your original bit of what-I-felt-to-be overblown concern over Trump + white males being the harbinger of doom, spawn of Satan, and so on.

    As you said:

    I thought I'd point out something funny about your statement on the mass shootings that's kind of emblematic of the real blind spots that I think exist on both sides this election season…

    It appears to me that your talk about "white males", mass shootings, along with references to the KKK suggests to me you are predisposed to see things through a certain lens.  Even though black males (proportionally) are a greater threat, you choose to focus on poor whitey!   And you imagine the KKK is a real threat, when their numbers are simply pitiful.  The NYPD just by itself would outnumber the scary-to-you KKK by 4:1.  Four NYPD cops for each KKK member.

    And all the violence at the DT rallies – paid for by the Clinton dirty tricks campaign – that's just swept under the rug?  You really seem to be working overtime to paint Trump supporters as Klan members.  Again, that's an HRC campaign propaganda win: its the only way she will ever get your vote.  Who wants to vote for the Klan?  Not me.

    To me, it's true that huge amount of the actual hatred aimed at Hillary does relate to the difficulty for this country of a woman in such a position of power, as well – sexism, a characteristic for which Trump is almost a walking advertisement.  He hires Roger Ailes, fer chissakes, just fired from Fox for sexual harassment, and is almost certainly a sexual assaulter himself!  What a jerk! It has to be said.  Don't waste your time, at least to me, making the case that that's just a "meme" and he's not a sexual assaulter.  I really hope you don't believe that, but who knows.

    If I had to guess, I think Trump's involvement in the whole Miss America contest business was largely driven by the goal of getting laid.  Sex seems to be a huge theme in his life, which strikes me as similar to Bill Clinton – although Clinton certainly wasn't as crass as Trump about it.  This whole side of DT's character is extremely tacky, and if I were an attractive woman working in his office, I'd find this side of him to be tremendously irritating.  If he did it to my sister, I'd want to punch him for sure.  [And as President, this impulse would be more than a little problematic with all those secret service agents around.]

    But – if you compare this against HRC's penchant for destroying countries and her clear desire to attack Russia, I'd have to say, gun to my head, I'd prefer to have pussy-grabber DT vs over War with Russia HRC.  One is extremely disagreeable company under some specific circumstances, while the other might actually end up destroying the planet via anger or miscalculation.

    Or, put more crudely and a bit more selfishly, neither myself, nor anyone I care about (women included) are likely to be within pussy-grabbing distance of DT, while the impact on me personally and the country overall of an HRC war-of-choice with Russia would be vastly more devastating.

    These are our two candidates two worst qualities, IMO.  DT's is personally offensive, while HRC's is civilization-ending.  This leaves aside the gross corruption from HRC which is probably more likely to affect policy on a daily basis than the relatively more longshot possibility of nuclear war with Russia.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 1:07pm

    Reply to #74
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1368

    nuclear button

    Doesn’t Trump’s fascination with having his finger on the nuclear button change your war calculations at all?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 1:28pm

    Reply to #74

    Tycer

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 26 2009

    Posts: 206

    Thanks Dave. Propaganda is so

    Thanks Dave. Propaganda is so well done in usa that even the brightest have been swayed by a lifetime of inundation. Thanks for calling it the way I see it. Wish I was a faster typist. Alas my hands are better with craftsman's tools. 

    Kelvinator, If you care to peek behind the curtain of propaganda regarding the stats on guns in usa to see actual facts purchase a copy of John Lott's newest book https://www.amazon.com/War-Guns-Yourself-Against-Control/dp/1621575802 . You'll see exactly how the propaganda machine has formed your opinion more than you care to admit. I know it helped me see how I was duped. 

    Cheers,

    Tycer

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 2:14pm

    Reply to #74

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3146

    evidence

    Doug-

    I'd appreciate some evidence for your allegation.

    Hopefully this evidence is similar in weight to HRC's speech where she said that Russia was involved in the cyber attacks on her campaign, and how HRC plans on responding to cyber attacks as though they were acts of war, with options up to and including using military force.  In addition, her desire to have a "no fly zone" over Syria, the enforcement of which would be an act of war against Russia.

    I'm not sure that qualifies as "fascination."  Its really more of an "I really want to attack Russia" statement.

    Rumor has it that Putin is actively supporting Trump in his Presidential bid.  We can either interpret this as a big old Commie misdirect and that Trump is actually a Russian "manchurian candidate" – or we could conclude that Putin sees Trump as a far better partner for peace than Clinton.

    Either way, if he was worried Trump had an itchy launch finger, Putin wouldn't be doing this, given that Russia is one of our two major theoretical opponents in any nuclear confrontation.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 3:14pm

    Reply to #74
    Doug

    Doug

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1368

    https://thinkprogress.org/9-t

    9 terrifying things Donald Trump has publicly said about nuclear weapons

    Of course these are only things Trump has said. As has been pointed out, he has no record to go by.  Whereas, there are supposedly 17 security agencies who have agreed Russia has been hacking the DNC.  Of course, from a larger perspective I assume that is a 2-way street.  If the NSA isn't hacking Russia's internet they are negligent.

    But, whatever the rhetoric, talking about cyberwar or even hot war is, in my estimation, a much different level of threat than those of using nuclear weapons.  This is particularly so when the threat is against a non-nuclear entity like ISIS.

    There is a whole area of discussion here that I don't get.  Neocons are not a monolithic whole threatening the world with nuclear conflagration.  I don't like neocons and think they are dangerous.  But, they have been in or near the seats of power since WWII, particularly beginning in the Reagan administration.  And, guess what.  We haven't used nuclear weapons in anger in all that time.  As far as I know, MAD is still the operative theory preventing nuclear war.  It's worked for a long time and I don't see anything that has rendered it inoperative.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 3:15pm

    #82

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1911

    Paul Craig Roberts: Election Day Grid Attack False Flag

    Many of us understand that the deep state stages "events" to affect public thinking and justify the actions that they want to take.  The most famous if the false flag attack.

    PCR opines that a grid or internet attack "by Russia" may be made by the deep state to ensure that HRC is the winner.

    This is of course, on top of efforts to secure the voting machines.

    I'm going to fill my gas tank and vote early in the day.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 4:36pm

    Reply to #74

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3146

    how MAD works

    So being a sort of cold war historian, none of what I read in what Trump says is "terrifying" in any way.  Its just standard nuclear war strategy.  If you've ever read On Thermonuclear War by Herman Kahn, many of the things Trump is saying just mirrors what nuclear war strategists discuss.

    If you say, "I will not use nuclear weapons", this completely undercuts MAD.  Completely.  It increases the likelihood that, in a crisis, an adversary will feel comfortable executing a first strike – because you've already said you won't retaliate.  Likewise, if you are outnumbered in conventional forces, saying "I will not use nuclear weapons" means you establish in the mind of your enemy that he will not have any risk if he attacks conventionally.

    So Trump is absolutely correct – from a nuclear strategy standpoint – that being unpredictable provides the single most credible deterrent.  And indeed for MAD to work, your threat to use nuclear weapons absolutely must be credible.  A well-known passage in OTW was that when embarking on a game of "chicken", the most credible position one might take would be to go into the car drunk, wear dark glasses, and throw the steering wheel visibly out the window before mashing the accelerator towards your opponent.

    If your adversary is worried that you could literally do anything, then that's when MAD works best – because credibility of use is the strongest.  As long as your nuclear forces are survivable, of course.

    Saudi Arabia is thought to have funded Pakistan's bomb program, and (it is assumed) could buy a bomb or two from the Pakistanis without much trouble.

    The only reason Japan and Korea don't have the bomb is because we are spending a bunch of money protecting them.  If they have to stand on their own, suddenly, they need the bomb.  Trump's position makes logical sense.  Its also a negotiating position.  That makes sense too.

    If China starts becoming relatively stronger in the Pacific, this might just need to happen.  Japan and China don't like each other much; if China starts pushing too hard, a good card to play for us would be to start hinting that perhaps Japan needs a nuclear deterrent of their own.  "You guys sure you want to push Japan to obtain the bomb?  Maybe its better if we all just calm down."

    And indeed if Japan had the bomb, they'd have a lot more credibility vs North Korea than we do.  Will we risk San Francisco to protect Tokyo?  Maybe.  But that's much more of a reach than for the Japanese themselves to retaliate against a North Korean launch using a hypothetical Japanese nuclear missile submarine.

    This is why we gave control over nukes to the Germans during the cold war.  If Russia attacked West Germany, it was much more credible for the Germans to be able to drop nukes on the attacking Russians than it was for us to sign up for the task.

    The sole worrisome thing is his lack of understanding about the triad.  But in truth, the Triad is down to a single leg these days.  Submarines are the triad now, at least when it comes to MAD.  Without the sub force, you have to have planes constantly aloft as well as a "launch on warning" policy for the missile force, neither of which are desirable postures.  But I digress.

    Bottom line: there is no fascination here.  This is a nothing-burger.  It sounds like Trump read about nuclear strategy/theory and was able to retain the essence of how it all works.

    Last bit: 17 agencies did NOT determine that the hack came from Russia.  Instead, it was two agencies that released a common statement that the hacks "are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts."  Does that sound like "evidence" to you?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 5:20pm

    Reply to #74

    kelvinator

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 25 2008

    Posts: 181

    Again, You Make My Point, Dave: The Great Cultural Divide

    Hi Dave,

    Thanks for your thoughts, once again.   One of the reasons I like to talk to you and other people here, even though it's a challenge at times, is because actually a majority of active posters have such wildly different views than I do in some areas, even if we also agree on many things.  That's judging not just by your comments, or sometimes Chris and others, but by the weighting of "likes" on different comments now and over time.  I really don't come here to try to stack up likes, but to try to communicate with people who think differently than I do – to do a little exchange of views, which to me is very worthwhile.  I'm not really expecting necessarily to prove something or even change minds very much, though that would be nice.  I'm just hoping maybe we all can open each others minds a little and understand each other better, even if we still don't agree.  My guess is that you agree that in itself is valuable, too.  

    If your and my comments were a thread in my Facebook stream or on some other sites I post on, the "likes" would be stacked high on my views and much less so on yours.  But who needs that!  I already know many people agree with me, and you know many people agree with you!  You're a smart guy.  I'm more interested in us trying to understand each other, at least as best we can.

    When I said "the outsized portion of [mass shootings] were caused by white males, Trumps' primary political strength", you still assume I'm talking about race.  That's the smaller part of it.  I mean exactly what I said, which is, in the US population which, excuse me, includes women, the outsized portion – and the majority of mass shootings at 54%, by my calculation –  is perpetrated by white males, the most loyal of Trump's fan base.  By your stats & my calcs, it's almost twice what it should be.  This relates to issues of guns, racism, sexism, social violence, abortion, cultural issues less important in your assessment because of Hillary's world-ending wacko warrior tendencies in your view, but not so in the eyes of a huge, huge part of the population on all sides of the issues, with majorities on sensible gun control and abortion skewing against Trump's male backers.  Yes, you're completely correct, by your figures, black males are proportionally even more outsize at 16%.  But 16% is way, way less than 54% in absolute numbers in the population, and that's extremely important, just as it is important that minorities have long been minorities, and that women and minorities both have been tremendously discriminated against in the United States historically, as you may agree.  

    And when you actually include the hugely less violent women as the members of society they actually are, white males take the cake for being the dominant crazed mass shooter demographic.  For me, your way of looking at this shows a certain type of remarkable selective awareness.  For me, it's similar to the way my "liberal" friends (and yours) voting for Hillary that apparently are well off enough economically to be okay with the status quo seem blind to the unbearable, wide frustration with the economy and corruption that I do see, and that drives much of Trump's popularity.  I've been pretty frustrated with my friends that just don't seem to see that, and talk to them about it all the time.

    In any case, I didn't assume we'd agree on this.  My post was just pointing out the huge cultural divide and kind of selective awareness that exists in people's perceptions and interpretations on issues like this, and helps make disagreements so intense.

    With best regards,

    Kelly

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 6:06pm

    Reply to #74

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3146

    i don't get it

    You are right, I don't get it.

    If you made the statement that "males are responsible for 97% of the mass shooting events", that is significant because we know males are about 50% of the population, so the 97% vs 50% is remarkable. Its not something you'd necessarily expect.

    If you then say, "white males are responsible for 54% of the shooting events", I then must ask, "but what is their share of the male population" before I can attach any significance to the observation.  When you then tell me that white males comprise 65% of the males, I conclude that males are dramatically more dangerous than females, but white males are LESS dangerous than males of other races.  That's it.

    Honestly, it stlll seems to me that you're working overtime to justify HRC's narrative that Trump supporters are just a vast swarm of KKK members who are right on the edge of staging mass shooting events, and will turn suddenly into brownshirts by the millions in order to stage a massive Kristallnacht moments after he is inaugurated.  Data didn't seem to dislodge that picture from your mind in the slightest.

    As for all your friends on facebook "liking" your posts over mine, my posts over yours, or "likes" in general, I must observe that one cannot change the laws of physics by voting "like."

    Lastly – you did not respond to the most important part of my post, namely, that the two candidates worst features are dramatically different.  Trump, while personally obnoxious, was less likely to cause problems for the nation than HRC, around whom your pussy will be safe, but who appears much more likely to go to war.

    So – I assume you are going to pick war, then?  🙂

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 6:07pm

    Reply to #74

    mememonkey

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 01 2009

    Posts: 101

    Propaganda works

    [quote=Doug]

    9 terrifying things Donald Trump has publicly said about nuclear weapons

    Of course these are only things Trump has said. As has been pointed out, he has no record to go by.  Whereas, there are supposedly 17 security agencies who have agreed Russia has been hacking the DNC.  Of course, from a larger perspective I assume that is a 2-way street.  If the NSA isn't hacking Russia's internet they are negligent.

    But, whatever the rhetoric, talking about cyberwar or even hot war is, in my estimation, a much different level of threat than those of using nuclear weapons.  This is particularly so when the threat is against a non-nuclear entity like ISIS.

    There is a whole area of discussion here that I don't get.  Neocons are not a monolithic whole threatening the world with nuclear conflagration.  I don't like neocons and think they are dangerous.  But, they have been in or near the seats of power since WWII, particularly beginning in the Reagan administration.  And, guess what.  We haven't used nuclear weapons in anger in all that time.  As far as I know, MAD is still the operative theory preventing nuclear war.  It's worked for a long time and I don't see anything that has rendered it inoperative.

    [/quote]

    I never ceased to be amazed at the power of propaganda.  Perhaps it is the education system that has produced uncritical thinkers en masse.  Certainly the dark arts of advertising and emotional manipulation have been perfected in our media saturated consumer culture.

    I would encourage anyone one (capable of objective thought) who has bought into the meme that DT is a itching to get his finger on the nuclear button and anxious to Nuke things  and  actually listen to the clips listed in Doug's linked propaganda piece. Despite Herculean efforts on the part of the interviewers to elicit a gotcha slip up he is just regurgitating standard MAD doctrine moreover, he is adamant that he would not want to use Nuclear weapons and recognizes their horrible consequences.

    With regards to the "17 agencies"  propaganda point:

     

    First, only two agencies have made public statements  DNI and DHS  the other 15 agencies are merely bureaucratic  subordinates and include such organizations as  the Coast Guard and Dept of Energy… Crack cyber warriors I'm sure…

    And even what the DNI and the DHS said was ambiguous about Russian involvement. An unclassified October 7, 2016 joint DNI-DHS statement on this issue said the hacks

    are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.

    “Such activity is not new to Moscow — the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europa and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.

    Leaving aside that Intelligence findings are historicaly fraught with agenda driven politicization (WMD in Iraq being and obvious example) the Statement by DNI and DHS are an obvious dodges framed to influence and agenda rather than declarations of actual proof 

    Doug's penchant for uncritically accepting propaganda talking points from authority figures would be comical if it weren't emblematic of the National discourse and representative of how dangerous the lack of context for our what little remains of our checks on the ruling Oligarchy.

    I take little comfort in Doug's uniformed conclusion that there is no increased threat of nuclear war from Neocons  because we've always had Neocons since WW2 and MAD is and remains the order of the day.

    Doug is  incorrect

    The Neo Con movement was birthed in the 60's

    The evolving Neo Con  Nuclear strategy is predicated on Nuclear primacy  "missile 'defense rings' around Russia' is but one obvious component of destablizing force and represents one component of  first strike ( or preemptive) capabilities. 

    Neo Con's are on record as advocating and strategizing around First Strike and survivability.  here from  THE CFR'S magazine Foreign Affairs 2006

    [quote=keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Pres]

    According to our model, such a simplified surprise attack would have a good chance of destroying every Russian bomber base, submarine, and ICBM. [See Footnote #1] This finding is not based on best-case assumptions or an unrealistic scenario in which U.S. missiles perform perfectly and the warheads hit their targets without fail. Rather, we used standard assumptions to estimate the likely inaccuracy and unreliability of U.S. weapons systems. Moreover, our model indicates that all of Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal would still be destroyed even if U.S. weapons were 20 percent less accurate than we assumed, or if U.S. weapons were only 70 percent reliable, or if Russian ICBM silos were 50 percent "harder" (more reinforced, and hence more resistant to attack) than we expected. (Of course, the unclassified estimates we used may understate the capabilities of U.S. forces, making an attack even more likely to succeed.)

    To be clear, this does not mean that a first strike by the United States would be guaranteed to work in reality; such an attack would entail many uncertainties. Nor, of course, does it mean that such a first strike is likely. But what our analysis suggests is profound: Russia's leaders can no longer count on a survivable nuclear deterrent. And unless they reverse course rapidly, Russia's vulnerability will only increase over time.

    [/quote]

    Perhaps what is most insidious is that lack of general awareness for Americans living in the propaganda bubble  is the clear and unequivocal nuclear policy of Russia,  If attacked conventionally on their home soil,  they will use nukes. FULL STOP    The Aggressive posture of the Neo Con's and their success in  actually  building up of tanks and NATO  Forces on Russia's borders is INSANE  It is not just rhetoric.

    NeoCon's are not Monolithic but given their coordinated and dominant penetration into all elements of our Security State. and both factions of the establishment duoopoly  and the dominance they achieved  in hive mind of our collective discourse by framing the debates and moving the narrative goalposts they have achieve an almost monolithic influence. They represent a clear and present danger 

     

     

    mememonkey

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 7:09pm

    #83
    robie robinson

    robie robinson

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 868

    Aw come on guys

    Pls don't stop now

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 7:10pm

    #84
    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2252

    Not really

    You've just reached your limits Kel.

    Perhaps you will move past them in time.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 7:22pm

    #85

    newsbuoy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 10 2013

    Posts: 117

    Breaking Through Power It's easier than we think.

    In Breaking Through Power, Nader draws from a lifetime waging—and often winning—David vs. Goliath battles against big corporations and the United States government. In this succinct, Tom Paine-style wake-up call, the iconic consumer advocate highlights the success stories of fellow Americans who organize change and work together to derail the many ways in which wealth manipulates politics, labor, media, the environment and the quality of national life today. Nader makes an inspired case about how the nation can—and must—be democratically managed by communities guided by the U.S. Constitution, not by the dictates of big businesses and the wealthy few. This is classic Ralph Nader, a crystallization of the core political beliefs and commitments that have driven his lifetime of advocacy for greater democracy.

    At the top of my reading list.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 7:23pm

    Reply to #74

    kelvinator

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 25 2008

    Posts: 181

    Apparently, We're Reaching Our Limits to Communicate on This One

    You're really missing my point in a big way, Dave, or somehow don't see it as important, which in my view just confirms the selective awareness or cultural divide I'm talking about:  It's absolutely not the percentage of white males of total males that's important, it's the percentage of violent white males to the total population of the US, including women.   Women are equal members of society, right?  They could be proportional mass shooters, but as you've noted, they're way not.  That's actually really important.  

    My point is not that this means that there is a ready army of armed KKK about to take over the country, but that there actually is a culture of male social violence, marital abuse, widespread sexism and racism, in life, in business and in law enforcement, that's a huge, huge deal, and giant blindspot in the US in the importance one cultural group gives to it.  Culturally, a big section of the public kind of would like to sort of sweep that under the rug and pretend these things don't exist as important issues.  This group is massively resisting losing cultural power, along with the real set of valid economic frustrations and anger about corruption they have.  Trump is their champion. Because of the associated behaviors of sexism, racism and social violence – not just mass shootings, but real hypocrisy about widespread marital abuse, sexual abuse and assault, suppression of and underpayment of women, racism and the rest – a huge other cultural chunk of the country thinks that it's crucial not to give this group, Trump's followers, more power than they already have, and I'm one of them.  Also, this mindset definitely does represent a potential threat of militia or social bullying or violence that could build much faster than you or many people believe exactly because those in power deny it exists, just like Trump denies the hatred he's chanelling, the violence, racism, sexism, and the sexual assaults.

    As far as Hillary and war, I didn't respond because I've already had that conversation with you, Chris and others, and we simply disagree about it.  One of the features of this cultural divide that you didn't respond to and may not believe is that sexism and racism actually drastically ramp hatred and the perception of "evil" in both Hillary and Obama.  I don't say this is necessarily true of you, Chris or any particular person here, but it's certainly true with many voters, as far as I'm concerned.  Bias against women, in particular, is very subliminal.  I remain very unconvinced that Hillary's danger of initiating nuclear war is at the level you and Chris say, though I have repeatedly admitted to you HRC's warlike aspects do worry me.  

    "pick war, then?"  –  I could ask you, "then you're going to pick a wall-to-wall liar, (absurdly more disrespect for the truth, facts and details than HRC on a day by day, percentage basis), a sexual assaulter, big nationalist and potential nuclear war starter, as far as I'm concerned, a crony capitalist who I've seen directly and repeatedly encourage violence and racism, with one or more probable fraudulent businesses and wildly unethical business practices, who even implied 2nd amendment people might want to assassinate his opponent HRC – and don't tell this was an HRC "meme" please.  I saw his statement myself. 

    But I wouldn't do that, because you've already told me your reasons for voting for Trump, and I accept your and Chris' reasons, since ultimately these things are judgment calls.  Anyway, maybe we've done as well as we can.  May be time to more on to more productive topics.  I enjoy the exchange!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 8:24pm

    #86
    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2252

    Not intended as a barb

    Rather, just an observation. How you read into it is entirely up to you.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 8:27pm

    Reply to #84

    kelvinator

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 25 2008

    Posts: 181

    Please Time2help

    Simple smugness doesn't communicate anything except disagreement and unfriendliness, or add anything to the conversation at all.  Dave and I, I feel, have a basic level of respect in our dialogue, even if we disagree.  It takes work to try to communicate in a meaningful and basically respectful way with someone you don't agree on all points, who doesn't share your worldview, don't you think?  I do.  That's why I always say I appreciate Dave's responses – because actually, I really do appreciate his attitude toward dialogue, and his work to be thoughtful!  I absolutely learn from how he thinks and expresses himself, even if neither of us change the other's mind in a big way, let alone, on how to vote.

    You're welcome to come argue your points in my Facebook feed and elsewhere if you like, where they'd be astoundingly less popular than here.  I wonder how much energy you'd put into each point as, on an on-going basis, hardly anyone agrees or even seems to understand what you're saying!  It starts to seem like a bit wasted energy, right?  Plus, I've got a day job to attend to, too.  I imagine you and I agree on a bunch of things related to this site, Time2help, but just making idle pot shots like that in an environment of people who most likely share your views rather than mine on this subject isn't helpful.   If I've taken your comment the wrong way, I'm sorry – and let me know what you meant.  But that's all I got from what you said…superiority and unfriendliness.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 8:42pm

    Reply to #86

    kelvinator

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 25 2008

    Posts: 181

    Just more disguised disagreement and unfriendliness, time2help

    And I guess with that, you've reached your limit, too.  Just an observation.  You can take it any way you like.  This is exactly the kind of exchange I call a waste of time and won't bother with further.  So, at least in this conversation, you're right, time2help, I've reached my limit.  Bye!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 8:54pm

    Reply to #84

    mememonkey

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 01 2009

    Posts: 101

    Consensus and Reality vs Popularity

    [quote=kelvinator]

    You're welcome to come argue your points in my Facebook feed and elsewhere if you like, where they'd be astoundingly less popular than here.  I wonder how much energy you'd put into each point as, on an on-going basis, hardly anyone agrees or approves of what you say!  Plus, I've got a day job to attend to, too.  I imagine you and I agree on a bunch of things related to this site, Time2help, but just making idle pot shots like that in an environment of people who more likely share your views than mine isn't helpful.  

    [/quote]

    Kelvinator,

    You have made several comment now to the effect that imply based on up votes/popularity that Peak Prosperity is somehow a pro trump echo chamber.   My perspective is that if there is any consensus here, it is that everyone dislikes both candidates but that based on analysis of the known data that the record of and association with the demonstrable Neocon threat, HIllary represents a more likely danger of war and potential Nuclear confrontation.

    You and others don't agree with that assessment and that is fine.  What I haven't seen though is any meaningful analysis or data that supports your position.   What I see is an emotional reaction and reaching suppositions that echo the propaganda themes and talking points that HRC and her army of media shills have been saturating the Public discourse with using their millions of Wall street dollars.

    I have no doubt that your opinions are popular within your supporting peer group/ echo chamber indeed that is the mechanism in the absence of meaningful debate by which propaganda points become the  'Facts' you take now as gospel.

    We of course are all vulnerable to filtering info through our personal biases  but with the emphasis here at PP on arguing with facts and data as opposed to emotion and with intelligent people distributed along a wide spectrum of  political beliefs l  I am confident that any 'consensus' that emerges is more likely than not to approach 'truth' vs belief in so much as that is possible.

    For me,  your ongoing debate with Dave is illustrative of and emotional based belief system superseding the logic of data.  

    I've seen emotional accusations that the original article by Chris was a pro Trump anti Hillary hit piece but haven't seen anyone refute or counter the data based and properly sourced arguments that supported his premise.

    And while I  don't  expect you to change or even examine your preconceptions. based on my observations  I can tell you from my perspective  that your reality and many of your base line  assumptions (not all) don't hold up to a fact based inquiry even though they give you a perfect fit with the image and suppositions  that has been spun by the HRC machine.

    I do appreciate and respect your engaging in the debate though.

    mememonkey

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 9:46pm

    Reply to #74

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3146

    its about men

    You could ask me:

    "pick war, then?"  –  I could ask you, "then you're going to pick a wall-to-wall liar, (absurdly more disrespect for the truth, facts and details than HRC on a day by day, percentage basis), a sexual assaulter, big nationalist and potential nuclear war starter, as far as I'm concerned, a crony capitalist who I've seen directly and repeatedly encourage violence and racism, with one or more probable fraudulent businesses and wildly unethical business practices, who even implied 2nd amendment people might want to assassinate his opponent HRC – and don't tell this was an HRC "meme" please.  I saw his statement myself.

    Ok.  Let's give you everything, minus the "potential nuclear war starter", since Putin would hardly help out someone he was worried would launch a nuclear war against his country.  He's a better judge of this than you since he's in a better position to know.  So I give you your entire laundry list, minus "war with Russia" which HRC is pretty clearly enthusiastic about, and Trump – from what Putin has demonstrated – is not.

    Right.  I still pick "no war with Russia."  Alleged pussy-grabs, wall-to-wall lies, disrespect for truth, alleged unethical business practices, etc, etc.  I prefer that over war with nuclear-armed Russia.  And of course the ever-present massive corruption of the HRC team which is owned and operated by the donor class.  Latest: turns out that Chelsea's wedding was paid for by the Clinton Foundation.  501(c)(3) tax fraud at work.  How exactly is paying for a wedding and 10 years of living expenses for the daughter part of the operation of a charity, again?  I think they'd call that black letter tax fraud.  Worthy of jail time, at least for us little people anyway.  This absurd level of corruption says HRC's "policy statements" are mis-directs, they can be safely disregarded, and what she will actually do will be driven entirely by the demands of her donor class/keys to power.

    As for "white males":

    You're really missing my point in a big way, Dave, or somehow don't see it as important, which in my view just confirms the selective awareness or cultural divide I'm talking about:  It's absolutely not the percentage of white males of total males that's important, it's the percentage of violent white males to the total population of the US, including women.

    Yeah, I'm going to reframe.  According to the data, the issue is, violent males, vs non-violent females.  White vs black is a non-sequitur, since black males are actually more violent than white males, as we know from the stats.  So the critical slice is violent males vs practically non-violent females.  I'm all for talking about that, because the data supports it.

    I direct you to the class I took on human evolutionary biology.  Boys are just more violent than girls due to biology.  Our consciousness is parachuted into our bodies when we are born, and we are then more or less impelled in a particular direction by the imperatives of our biology.  We can overcome it, but it takes effort and awareness.

    So – not black-white, it is male-female.  I'm fine to talk about that at length, because the data supports it.  If you persist in making the divide an artificial white-vs-black, which the data does not support, you lose me.

    I think its a fascinating concept of having females in charge as a way to reduce stupid conflicts.  However, I'd prefer a female who hasn't sold her soul to the corporations and the neocons, however – a female with a still-functioning moral compass.  Warren, for instance.  Best way to move her closer is for HRC to go down in flames, with Trump opposed by Warren in 2020.  My opinion, of course.  I'm guessing you imagine the best way to promote Warren is to have her work with the horribly corrupt HRC for the next 8 years, and yet still have her be agile enough to somehow dodge the taint that comes along with the absurd levels of Clinton corruption.

    Really not a fan of that approach.  Lie with dogs, end up with fleas, etc.

    Dave

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 9:58pm

    #87

    Adam Taggart

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 25 2009

    Posts: 2572

    The Watchers On The Wall

    I've kept quiet in the commentary during this presidential race, largely because there's been a lot occupying me behind-the-scenes here at PP.com to expand our message in 2017, but also because I have my attention focused elsewhere.

    At the risk of diminishing my reputation among those less nerdy than I, I'd like to make an analogy here based on the popular (and awesome) HBO hit fantasy series Game Of Thrones. (Don't worry; if you haven't watched it, you should still be able to get the gist of my point.)

    Speaking generally, all the passion that goes in to debating the (de)merits of a Clinton presidency vs a Trump presidency is like arguing whether Westeros is better off with a Stark, Lannister or Targaryen sitting on the Iron Throne. Whose tax and tithing policies would be better? Under whose rule would the harvests be more bountiful? Who would be more just?

    Such arguments fractured the kingdom after the death of Robert Baratheon, leading to the War of the Five Kings as each contender rallied their bannermen. Those watching the series know that years later, little has been accomplished as the vicious social rending has not healed.

    While some of these contenders would surely be better rulers than others, this contest is meaningless in the big picture. In the big picture, only one thing matters:

    Winter is coming

    And with it, the White Walkers with their army of the dead, who have one single objective: to kill all living men, women and children.

    As long as the kingdom's attention is focused on the game of thrones playing out at King's Landing, the future is doomed. The real existential question is not Who should sit on the Iron Throne? but How are we best going to marshal the resources we have against the White Walkers?

    In my personal opinion (and yours is free to differ), no matter who wins tomorrow, I don't see either candidate as likely to prioritize taking great strides to deal with the Three E challenges raised in The Crash Course.

    To my eye, our country is like Westeros, focused on the wrong battles. At least, until such time as harsh reality forces our hand.

    So I have my own attention elsewhere, focusing on what I, individually, can do to help this site, my family, and my local community be as prepared as possible for the nasty exponential trends working against us in our economy, energy systems and environment.

    I see the community here at Peak Prosperity as similar to the Night's Watch. Dedicated to protecting the public as best we can from the true existential threat, despite being way too shorthanded and under-resourced. We'll help as many as we can for as long as we can, for the fight is worth fighting, even if we lose. And who knows? Maybe along the way someone will show up with a few dragons to fight on our side…

    I'm not asking anyone to stop sharing their thoughts on tomorrow's election. And I'm very grateful that the vast, vast majority of the discourse on this potentially inflammatory topic has been measured and respectful in everyone's comments so far.

    But I do make a request of folks that, once the results are in from the election and the dust settles, let's keep the predicaments of the Three E's squarely in our focus. That's the real enemy.

    Valar morghulis!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 07, 2016 - 10:39pm

    Reply to #87
    Luke Moffat

    Luke Moffat

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 25 2014

    Posts: 365

    Seconded!

    Nice one Adam, you said it way better than I did.

    "Winter is coming"

    All the best,

    Luke

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 08, 2016 - 2:38am

    #88

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1911

    Blown-up v. Collapse: Recognizing Neocon Risk

    I believe that Jim H hit it on the head with his observation that people who cannot tell the difference between a building being blown up and one that is collapsing are probably NOT going to recognize the Neocons as a grave threat.    That is the key event that opened awareness of the Neocons' activity on the world stage to many of us.

    Can you tell the difference between an airplane crash site and a hole in a field?

    How about an airplane crash site and an explosion in the wall of a large building?

    No building in all of history have EVER done this:

    None ever.  It was a first.  (I have purchased several building collapse books and looked through tons of pictures.)  Nothing like this has every happened before.

    Then about an hour later, another building hit differently, did exactly the same thing.  A second in all of history.  And both on the same day!

    Does that strike you as improbable?

    And then this hole in a field in Pennsylvania was found.

    And despite not having any visible airplane parts and being smaller than the size of the airplane, we are told that an airplane crashed here and is buried beneath the soil.  Is it odd that this airplane crash site would be so uncharacteristic of other airplane crash sites?  What features would one look for to distinguish between a hole in the ground and an airplane crash site?  [google: airplane crash pictures]

    Then something big happened at the pentagon.

    But really no clearly identifiable plane crash debris.  And no pictures or CCTV video of an incoming plane.

    Is this story sounding improbable yet?

    And then for the 5th improbability of the day, a skyscraper NOT hit by an airplane collapsed to the ground, vertically, in a manner that almost everyone notes is classic for a controlled demolition. 

    But it was not a controlled demolition we are assured.  No.  It was the first ever collapse in all of history, of a building made entirely of steal and concrete, due to fire.  Never happened before or after.  Just that one time.  Honest.  And a computer simulation was made to show how this first-ever event happened.  But the simulation does not look at all like actual video of the event.  However, this discrepancy is not a problem for the news media, politicians and "reasonable people" who accept the explanation without curiosity.  This novel event has been explained.  Ignore it.  Lets move on.

    Then a couple of thousand engineers, physicists, demolition experts, intelligence agents and scientists look at the videos of the collapse and say "Wait a minute!"  But they are not mentioned in the MSM.  For only "nut cases" have skepticism and curiosity aroused by this string of unlikely events.

    So, if this story seems fine to you, I guess that the Neocon threat Chris describes above doesn't carry a lot of weight.

    My understanding is this:  The issue is not nearly so much differences in our values, as it is our factual understanding of how the world works.  Those of us who can recognize the characteristics of explosive building demolitions and airplane crashes are brought to a fundamentally different world view.

    If anyone wants to see the demolition wave preceding the collapse wave moving down the twin towers it can be found here in "The Anatomy of A Great Deception" starting just before the 53:00 minute mark.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 08, 2016 - 2:40am

    #89

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 691

    Gary Johnson

    [quote=Michael_Rudmin]

    Post #135  With all you say about Gary, I don't disagree.  But in the debates it was brought out that he wants to force Christian churches to formalize homosexual marriages. 

    In the Catholic Church, there is no greater statement against something than, "We have no authority to do this…"  And that includes homosexual marriage.

    Johnson would make my church illegal.  My church is part of how I believe, how I pray, how I live.

    [/quote]

    Michael,

    I've tried to find information relating to your statement, but I can't find anything. Gary supports gay marriage – actually, he supports government being out of marriage completely, but pragmatically accepts that government can't divorce itself from marriage [pun intended.]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Gary_Johnson

    Johnson says that "government doesn't belong in the bedroom."[48][48] He believes that the government should not regulate marriage at all.[67] He believes the government "should not impose its values upon marriage" but instead "should protect the rights of couples to engage in civil unions if they wish, as well as the rights of religious organizations to follow their beliefs."[49]

    He applauded the repeal of Don't ask, don't tell, and opined that the repeal was "long overdue."[68]

    Formerly a supporter of civil unions for same-sex couples, on December 1, 2011, Johnson voiced his support for same-sex marriage. He believes that "denying those rights and benefits to gay couples is discrimination, plain and simple."[69] He has also stated that marriage laws should treat every individual equally.[70]

    How would this make your church illegal?

    ++++++++++++++

    [quote=ronbailey]

    Post #145  In my opinion, Gary has this discrimination thing all messed up in his head. I was aware of him saying that a baker must be forced to bake a cake for a gay marriage whether or not they wanted to. This is crazy and I sent a note to Gary's campaign at the time making it clear that his position is wrong, and certainly not libertarian. Perhaps he has not thought through the concept of right of association. But then the much venerated Civil Rights Act makes the same error in its section on private discrimination. I was not aware that he had said that the government should force a priest, minister or pastor to perform a gay marriage against their will, but if he has said that recently he is clearly still wrong on this issue. Note that the correct position on this really has nothing to do with religion. All interactions between and among individuals must be voluntary, or someone's basic rights are being violated.

    [/quote]

    ronbailey,

    You need to separate the person(s) who owns the bakery from the bakery business. The business has no civil rights, and it has no voice (regardless of the Citizens United ruling.) It is purely chattel of the owners. The business can't legally discriminate. That is the real issue.

    Would you feel the same way if the bakery refused to bake a wedding cake for a black heterosexual couple who wanted to get married? Was the gay couple asking the bakery to include something illegal in the cake? As far as I've read, the lesbian couple wanted a traditional wedding cake – that was it. Isn't that what the bakery is in business to do?

    I think Gary got this right.

    Grover

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 08, 2016 - 2:50am

    Reply to #88
    MarkM

    MarkM

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 22 2008

    Posts: 355

    Naw, sp. You see, those

    Naw, sp. You see, those lateral ejections from the spring-like pressures of the columns being collapsed by the floors above. You know, kinda like a watermelon seed between your fingers. wink

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 08, 2016 - 3:22am

    Reply to #89

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Online)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 857

    Grover - the two halves of your post.

    Think this through, man. 

    The church is a 501A1 corporation, and therefore has no civil rights, and has no voice.  It is purely chattel of the owners, the bishops.

    Think about it.  That means *I* have no civil rights.  *I* have no voice.  I am purely the chattel of MY owners. 

    Either that, or you deny all property rights, which is a denial of life and liberty itself.

    You think Johnson got this right.  Thank you for the fair warning.

    There are libertarians, and there are libertines.  Libertines think that they should have liberty.  They often confuse themselves for libertarians.  Libertarians think that it is wrong to use force to bring about political goals.  Therein is the difference. 

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 08, 2016 - 5:51am

    Reply to #89

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 691

    Michael, You Lost Me

    Michael,

    I don't understand your line of reasoning. You have civil rights. You have a voice. You have choice. You can own property. How do you get to the *I* part that has none of this?

    I live in a zoned area that prohibits me from using my property for a multitude of uses. Although I don't want to do so, I can't put a shopping mall here. Of course, neither can my neighbors. I'm fine with this, because I believe that my rights/responsibilities extend to just where they don't infringe on others' rights/responsibilities. If I want more freedom with my land, I need to move to an area with fewer restrictions (due to fewer people to infringe upon.)

    I hadn't seen the term "Libertine" before so I looked it up:

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/libertine?s=t

    noun

    1. a person who is morally or sexually unrestrained, especially a dissolute man; a profligate; rake.
    2. a freethinker in religious matters.
    3. a person freed from slavery in ancient Rome.

    adjective

    4. free of moral, especially sexual, restraint; dissolute; licentious.
    5. freethinking in religious matters.
    6. Archaic. unrestrained; uncontrolled.

    The closest I come to this definition is #2. Do you have a definition that you like better?

    Grover

    [edited to include dictionary.com link.]

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 08, 2016 - 9:08am

    #90

    kelvinator

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 25 2008

    Posts: 181

    Dueling Nightmares of the Culture Wars - Finally!! The Election

    Again, thanks for your thoughts, Dave, mememonkey, and all.  I'm thinking that at this point, it's really less about debating or trying to convince each other, than just seeing what we can understand of what the other is saying.  We think really differently – it’s kind of fascinating on this male shooter discussion as an amazing example.   We each gave each other logical, statistical explanations really clear to the person giving it, but that we each did not buy, really did not get on the receiving end!   I'd like to take a good look at that later, if you're up for it, Dave.  We should be able to figure out the disconnects if we go through them step by step, and ask a few questions back and forth.

    The sharp differences in how we look at the US on its cultural structure, cultural changes underway, its cultural issues (or if we pay attention to them at all) would be really funny if it didn't expose the deep roots of the differences in the psyches and world views that have been roiling the US in this election, and that will continue to roil so much divisiveness in the future.  It’s possible they could stop us from uniting effectively to make good changes to the world, or at all, even among people of good will like us who agree about so many things.   I sincerely hope not.  Seems to me, though, if people can talk respectfully, constructively and with some curiosity about the things they don't agree about then there's more hope we can sort them out and become more united as a country, or even as a region, state or town about throwing the bums out as necessary and building a much better world.

    So, War.   Again, back to the Hillary as the corrupt, neocon sociopathic, megalomaniacal Devil about to blow up the world concept.  Ultimately, this is a character judgment that each person can only arrive at for themselves. Period.  We can project the future from the recent years’ Ukrainian news, 20 second obnoxious Hillary videos and speculation about childhoods.  We can imagine.  I understand the risk with Russia, and have really appreciated the articles and interviews Chris has done on this.  But, for me, they aren’t definitive in creating logic that Hillary will blow us up, (counter to what you all have implied).  You’ve made a character assessment, and that’s fine, and necessary.  To me, neocons and other potential megalomaniacs have been doing their threatening adventures, challenges and dastardly deeds for decades.  I did nuclear-attack practice duck-and-cover under my school desk as a child in the 1960’s under the earlier world megalomaniacs of the era.  And I'll tell you something: people really did >not< like that Cuban missile crisis brinksmanship glimpse-into-mass-annihilation thing at all, which is the main reason it hasn't happened in the half-century since.  But that doesn't insure it can't happen again and go wrong.  And if that's your Hillary character judgment, then, of course you can't support her!  I get that!  It's a no brainer for you and you have no further argument from me.  I respect that that's your assessment, even if I don't share it.

    We don't know who's right yet about Chris’ Hillary nuclear disaster “meme”, of course.  If she's elected, as seems likely at the moment, we won't know until the world's eventually blown up or not, or she’s put out of office, whether I was right or you all were on that wild sociopath thing.  So, we can put to bed that discussion, and your vote (and mine for that matter), since none of those things are at risk of changing. I already voted, for one thing, maybe you, too. So, let's move on from the crucial wacky war nut question.

    I have a different view on Hillary, Trump and the world, which you can choose to respect or not, but I seem to see the election really differently than you and many others here do, as I've been trying to explain.  I’ll try to outline the reasons I think HRC is likely to win tomorrow, even though she’s such an icon of corruption for so many.  It’ll also explain why, to me, that’s a preferred outcome, between these two lousy crony capitalists, even though I wanted Bernie to win.

    I’ve got to hit the hay now, though, so I’ll have to continue tomorrow on that.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 08, 2016 - 11:24am

    Reply to #89

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Online)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 857

    The corporation, like property, is an extension of the person.

    Grover, I’m gonna plus-one your post for talking this out. I value that. If I could plus-two it for trying to take a reasoned approach I would.
    I actually suspect the same of you. (that my plus one came from you for the attempt to dialogue).

    I like the first definition: morally unrestrained. By necessity, I’d say that the libertarian must be moral; and that ironically means that in NOT exercising an increase in force on others, he must be self-restrained. If that is the case, then he must be working for freedom for others, while never entirely receiving it himself. It may be ironic, but the beauty of life is in its irony. The libertine, on the other hand, insists that he himself must not be restrained in any way; that, then, frees himself from the grip of morals.

    So the libertarian who says that others must be restrained by force for the benefit of liberty, is actually a libertine.

    Now on to the property rights: chattel is property. The bishop is technically the owner of the church; if I give to the church,I give to the church as part of my daily moral choices. I choose to follow the guidance of the bishop as an expression of my own free will; I could pick any other church — but I pick this one.

    I pick it, because it states as clearly as my thinking can tell, the basic truths of reality; it is the wolf that I choose to feed.

    Now, if the church is required to uphold something it finds false, then its freedom of speech is destroyed. Freedom of speech is both a freedom of communication and a freedom of thought. Neither are a thing that is lawful (much less actually possible) for the government to control, though despots do continually try.

    But because of freedom of association, there is very little difference between the Bishop’s “I” and my “I”. So if I refer to “I”, you could think of me as being the bishop (for simplicity’s sake) , which in fact I am not.

    Or you can think of me being a business owner; which in fact I have been. It makes very little difference.

    The chattel of my hands has been given to me by God. It is not yours to control, though there are claims that some have been developing microchips to allow politicians to control citizen (slave) hands. I don’t know of the truth of that; I do know of the nuttiness of both technologists and politicians: if they thought they could do it, they would try.

    But the chattel of my property is very little different than the chattel of my hands. And you are right, that there are laws as to how I can use my hands. But those laws, when lawful, are LIMITATIONS on how I can use my hands, not COMMANDS. For commands would be an attempt to usurp the God-given rights (and in fact the natural rights, synonymous to a large extent with the Bill of Rights).

    They impinge on freedom of thought, and freedom of speech.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 08, 2016 - 12:12pm

    Reply to #90

    Jim H

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1798

    But one topic seems radioactive Kelvinator....

    Although Chris brought it up peripherally in his piece;

    This is, generally speaking, the same cast of characters that has been agitating for a more belligerent global stance prior to 9/11.  Many of these names surfaced on my radar when the Project for a New American Century statement of principles was published in 1997.

    And I brought it up.. and SandPuppy brought it up… but your voice has been missing on this subject.  Since we are trying to understand alternative viewpoints.. I would ask that you please address this topic.  Do you, as I am sure 99% of the people on your Facebook feed would, completely wave us off as conspiracy theorists on this topic?  I promise I won't try to, "convert" you if you answer in the affirmative.  I bring this up again in the spirit of understanding each other.  Thank you…    

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 08, 2016 - 1:18pm

    Reply to #90

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4635

    Assertions vs. Assessments

    [quote=kelvinator]

    So, War.   Again, back to the Hillary as the corrupt, neocon sociopathic, megalomaniacal Devil about to blow up the world concept.  Ultimately, this is a character judgment that each person can only arrive at for themselves. Period.  

    [/quote]

    Ummmm…here's where you really lose me.  

    I mean really lose me.

    Why?  Because you are actively choosing to side-step, ignore, or otherwise overlook all of the various efforts made here where people dredged up emails, communications, actions, data and evidence – reams and reams of it – and you still think this all sums up to mere opinion, which is what a character judgment is. Oh, hey, you have your opinion and I have mine, so we're equal here right?

    But let's imagine for a moment that a man who has been thrice convicted of child molestation moves next door to you and he's got a proven and repeated penchant for kids exactly the age of your children.  I come to you with all the evidence of his past activities and you barely listen to it and say "you cannot possibly know what this man is going to do in the future, you have your opinion and I have mine."

    The error I feel very strongly that you are making here is confusing the extraordinary difference between an assertion and an assessment.

    An assertion is a character judgment, an opinion, or something of the like, usually with very little substance underneath it.  Assertions are all equal to each other.  You have yours and I have mine.

    An assessment is a gathered opinion with lots of supporting data that is fundamentally more qualified and quantified than an assertion.   Assessments are not equal.  The boss who has been carefully monitoring an underling for 15 years has a more useful assessment of that person than the new hire in the other department that only met the employee twice.  That boss may find it denigrating if that new hire insists that their assertion about the employee is on equal footing with the boss's assessment.  

    So when you are being offered highly detailed assessments but then reducing them to mere assertions where every assertion is equivalent, I find that it reduces my desire to engage with you (with engagement with different idea sets being a stated and valued goal of yours).   It surfaces a feeling "why bother?" within me because you are, essentially, not engaging in a straightforward or trustworthy manner because you are either purposely or unconsciously insisting that your assertions are the same as my assessments.  

    If that feels like an unfair characterization here's my evidence; virtually none of your posts actually offer either a line-by-line refutation of the proffered data, or offer up any countervailing data of their own.  You just skip right past the data and say, time and again, well you have your opinion and I have mine.

    To circle back, my assessment of HRC rests upon all of the wars she has actively supported and promoted, the neocons in her employ and on her reputed short lists for other neocon hires in key positions, and the stated goals of the neocons in starting (and winning, they think) more wars, all of which has a big-time Putin demonization propaganda campaign running in parallel that mirrors, precisely, the Saddam demonization campaign that ran before.

    My assessment, therefore, is that when a group has already done something, and they say they will do it again, and they are actively laying the groundwork to do it again, that my only logical conclusion is that it's going to happen again.

    The 'it' in this case is more war.  I am counting on 'it' if/when HRC gets into the White House.

    I will happily concede, however, that your assertion about how bad that war might be and how far it might go, is on the same level as my assertion.  Nobody has any data on that future possibility and so we're all just guessing, some will have more context and experience than others, and so it might be our assessment to put more weight on the assertions of those people who have greater experience than those who have less experience.

    However my assessment of things that precede the point at which we are all guessing, along with those of others whoa re bringing data and evidence to the table, are very much more detailed and data rich than your assessments to date, and therefore there's no contest for which I am relying on at this point.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 08, 2016 - 1:20pm

    #91

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    Marshmallows now?

    Vote Hillary get Nuked

    Vote Trump get climate change denial.

    This is where you confront your discount rate.

    (Your discount rate is the rate at which you discount the impact of future events. The kiddie and marshmallow experiment.)

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 08, 2016 - 2:08pm

    Reply to #90

    jtwalsh

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 261

    Thank you.

    Chris:  Thank you for this important distinction and clarification.  My logics professor from long, long ago would have given you an A+ for this post.

    JT

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 08, 2016 - 4:09pm

    #92

    newsbuoy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 10 2013

    Posts: 117

    Did Some Say Radioactive?!

    What's radioactive is being on the wrong side of the power elite and Hillary and Bill and Chelsea (and Obamas) have been captured by that paradyne. They are in so deep there is no exit. She MUST continue the Neo-con foreign policy objectives in regard to regime change in Russia and then take on China. She will, and Obama will, continue the non-profit pay-to-play charity fraud scheme. It sounds like the Kelvinator is simply trying to make a rational real-politick choice that is less threatening to his activism (right-on!). Perhaps he believes that the Hillary environment will be easier than a Trump/Pence/Giulliani one. I dig it. Is Hillary going to be more Bolshevik or Menchevik. Look at how, much, more, effective activism has been under Obama than Bush. Millions of people took to the streets to stop the war–ah ooops, ah that was during Bush, Obama deported that many, well anyway. Of course you can't prove a negative, who know what heroics Obama has performed. Personally I have gone through the five stages of grieve around my identity with liberalism. What we all have to consider is one thing, survival, and how we are acting in the peoples best interest (fight or flight). Conscious, unconscious it's all the same thing these days, it is what it is. Will your grand-children be part of this world? probably not, the way I read it. Maybe you can contact prof. Micho Kaku and ask him if he still thinks our odds are 50/50. Nuclear war may be the merciful alternative to mass famine or the same damn thing. You can start the clock when the "Ice Free Arctic" bonanza hits the headlines (already did). That's when the temps really, really start to move upward. Broiled, baked or boiled. It's the future. We are the collateral damage we want to be [sic].

    We go down fighting or whimpering, you never know until the time comes, FOR YOU (bad boy/girl). (That includes you, descendent of Chromag-none of pure whiteness.)

    Judith Lowry (Maidu-Hamowi Pit River, b. 1948)

    Which is more than I can say to my friends and family. "Truth is for strangers".

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 08, 2016 - 6:23pm

    Reply to #90

    kelvinator

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 25 2008

    Posts: 181

    Yes, Wider War and Nuclear War is a Risk, Chris

    The US is at war in multiple countries right now, as you know.  The country's been at war on and off, but mostly on, for a very long time, and I hate it.  I've hated it for a long, long time.  I was hugely worried about the over-the-top neocons and the war nuts like Cheney after 9/11, which indeed, may have been a provocation as many here believe. I've marched against war, organized against it, worked against it.   Hillary absolutely has shown warlike tendencies.  I worked against her, too.  But I'm not going to be bullied by you, as the "boss" (to use your metaphor) of Peak Prosperity who has done much research (thanks again for your great interviews, by the way), developed your own views, under the guise that you, CHS or anyone else now actually owns all the facts, logic and narrative in this election decision based on your great logic or experience.  Sorry, you just don't, Chris, as far as I'm concerned, just as I don't.

    That's why we have elections.  That's why we have debates, publicly and online, that ideally would be fact, values, logic and issue oriented.  But the problem is, people give different weights to different groups of facts, different values and different chains of logic, as my discussion with Dave has shown.  I've found that interesting to explore, but not with disrespect – with a little more kindness and curiosity instead.  I'm not a "new hire" Chris.  I've seen and done a huge amount in my life.  And I've felt satisfied with Dave's attitude toward me and toward dialogue to this point, even though it's clear we differ strongly.  He's clearly not threatened by my views.  I'm not threatened by his.  He apparently has a lot of friends voting for HRC, so he's used to dealing with nuts like me.  (Just a little self-effacing humor there to break the tension ;-).  In the end, people have to choose a view, candidate and action, then move on and try to stay connected with others and take positive actions.  It's as simple as that.  We don't have a boss, a dictator who brow beats people into accepting that their set of facts, their set of values, their way of thinking about them, their narrative and their conclusions.  Not yet, anyway.

    You've shown virtually no interest in my views, or the views of the huge chunk of the US electorate that is voting today who are very, very concerned about HRC's corruption and warlike tendencies but will vote for her anyway.  Could there be other crucially important reasons why we might actually choose to risk those warlike tendencies of HRC which you've documented so well?  So far, I detect no interest on that score on your or Dave's part at all, though I've really appreciated the more patient phases of both your efforts to communicate with me.   It's kind of remarkable, to me.  Views like mine likely represent a view of a huge chunk of the US population, but you believe you're the expert, or already know what I think and discount it.  You don't want to hear about that worldview, except as it relates to disproving your urgent view in a particular style of thinking that you accept and approve of (on views I believe you are convinced of anyway).  

    I know it's frustrating for many here – it's frustrating for me, too, folks. This is the kind of division going on across this country today – right now – and it would be a mistake to pretend otherwise. These assertions that "I'm the authority, I'm the priest, I'm the intellectual, I'm the elite, I'm the progressive savior, I'm the Neocon, and I'm right and you're wrong."  We can't pretend that there's not a huge amount of worry and frustration out there.  I feel the same way you do about this war discussion:  I'm losing interest in trying to engage with you on it, and that's why I tried to just close the discussion on that aspect. 

    I thought you'd wanted move beyond divisiveness, and put that subject to rest.  I guess we all can be incited back into the fray on this troubling situation, and you're no exception.  You want to make me "bad" on your website, an incompetent who has hunches, but no arguments or logic.  I thought the idea was to accept we disagree on some things, agree on others and then move beyond to unite around things we value and agree on.  Both you and Adam have said that, and that makes perfect sense to me.  Let's do that. That's because, if you want, if we want, to keep this a website that encourages and supports dialogue and diverse views, you, and we all are going to have to be willing to do that.  It's as simple as that.  A basic requirement.  People will disagree.  That's just not going to change in any diverse group. We won't be able to convince each other on some points sometimes because we actually put the world together in a different ways.  That's a fact, in my world.  I can live with that.  Can you?  

    This kind of behavior, the urgency, the deep frustration, the belief in the weight of our particular collection of facts, our logic, our morality or the rightness of our own views, the need to make the "other" foolish, is at the heart of many deep divisions in this country, and you and I are caught in it, whether you or I believe we're above it or not.   As you said before, it's sad.  But that's what's going on with us and with the country, and it's a huge problem we can't pretend doesn't exist.  I'm afraid it's common to the culture wars and ideological wars going on now and there are meaningful risks that this inability to work together – to find common views and goals could intensify and disrupt the prosperity of communities at every level – world to town – in the future.  We need to just know that people are going to have strongly held, deeply different ways of assessing information and arriving at opinions, and that they'll arrive at different opinions.  

    It's a problem of humans in groups.  It's why wars happen, or fights in local communities – when people get tired of respecting each other, tired of talking.  My hope and preference is that we can stick with your and Adam's higher wishes to go beyond and unite around the broad common ground of agreement that I think we share on so many things.  If this site becomes a cult that needs to disrespect people that disagree with your strongly held view of reality, Chris, I and anyone else that doesn't agree with you is likely to eventually wander off from here, feeling the same impatience you do now.  It will just become just another self-referential silo, like so many other places on the web, so many other groups and communities in the real world.  Personally, I've always been interested in trying to explore differences, but in a spirit of respect and good will, even though that can get difficult.  I'll go wherever people are willing to do that.

    If you want to assert that your experience means I should accept what you say, and you have no interest, respect or curiosity about my views or the views of much of the country, then we're just not going to get far at all.  We're just stymied and at odds, like the opposing forces in Congress, and the opposing cultural forces in this country.  I've been hoping that we can do better than that.  I'm almost certain that we can.  But ultimately, it depends on what you, Adam, and everyone else at Peak Prosperity wants for this site.  That's what I'd like to do.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 08, 2016 - 7:22pm

    Reply to #90

    mememonkey

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 01 2009

    Posts: 101

    More than a feeling

    [quote=kelvinator]

    You've shown virtually no interest in my views, or the views of the huge chunk of the US electorate that is voting today who are very, very concerned about HRC's corruption and warlike tendencies but will vote for her anyway.  Could there be other crucially important reasons why we might actually choose to risk those warlike tendencies of HRC which you've documented so well?  So far, I detect no interest on that score on your or Dave's part at all, though I've really appreciated the more patient phases of both your efforts to communicate with me.   It's kind of remarkable, to me.  Views like mine likely represent a view of a huge chunk of the US population, but you believe you're the expert, or already know what I think and discount it.  You don't want to hear about that worldview, except as it relates to disproving your urgent view in a particular style of thinking that you accept and approve of (on views I believe you are convinced of anyway).  

    [/quote]

    That's what I keep waiting for from your or others. Some sort of logical or factual based argument that shows why Trump presents a greater risk for war and potential Nuclear conflict than the assessment that Chris has put forward with regards to Hillary integral support of the Neocon war and Russia aggression agenda.

    Your argument here if it can be construed as such. is that because there are lots of people that will vote for Hillary despite her poor record of what you charitably call "warlike tendencies" there must be a good reason.

    So go ahead and argue those 'crucial reasons' that support Trump being a higher risk for nuclear confrontation and support it with facts and logic. 

    So far all I've seen is a belief system ie. that you personally and lots of other people feel that Trump a scary bad white male.  Which regardless if it is true doesn't move the needle on the calculus of the threat of war and specifically potential for Nuclear war that is the narrow focus of Chris' original piece and which Dave and others have correctly pointed out is  big fucking deal in the grand scheme of things regardless of your politics and desire for social justice, environmental reform etc etc.

    mememonkey

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 08, 2016 - 8:29pm

    Reply to #89

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 691

    Corporations Are Only Convenient Constructs

    Michael,

    Thanks for explaining your position further. I think it is a stretch to say that you are chattel of the church simply because you chose to be so, thus exercising choice. True chattel has no choice. You, the Bishop, the "church," and all the other parishioners are all separate entities of various capacities. The "church," like a business, is only a convenient construct. I put quotes around church to separate the physical aspects (buildings, etc.) and the intellectual property (catechism, etc.) from the human aspects (congregation, beliefs, etc.) I don't conflate all entities. If I did, you would be responsible for a priest's choice to molest a child. The priest is responsible, not you.

    The same goes for a business. The business itself is a convenient construct in order to accomplish commerce. The owner's personal philosophy is irrelevant when it comes to the business. I asked if it would make a difference if the owners were racists and chose not to serve a black couple? Discriminating against a group because of race is racism. Offensive as it may be, the individual can hold those views, but a business legally can't. How is it different with the gay couple who only wanted to buy a wedding cake from a business that bakes wedding cakes?

    [quote=Michael_Rudmin]

    Post #135 With all you say about Gary, I don't disagree. But in the debates it was brought out that he wants to force Christian churches to formalize homosexual marriages. …

    [/quote]

    I couldn't find anything about this. Could you provide a link, please? Come to think of it, he wasn't invited to participate in the "debates." Was that an allegation by one of the attendees, or were you led to infer that statement?

    Grover

    PS I've given you a "thumbs up" on other threads when I agree with your position or get a profound insight that I didn't have before. I appreciate this dialogue, but I don't completely agree with your position. You can thank someone else for their thumb.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 08, 2016 - 10:32pm

    Reply to #92

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    Jealousy, Cello.

    I'm descended from Cro-magnon and Neanderthal,  you are not.

    Get over it.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Nov 09, 2016 - 1:15am

    Reply to #90

    Rector

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 07 2010

    Posts: 324

    Brevity & Coherance

    Forgive my lack of tolerance and I hope no one is triggered:

    I've read your post twice – What exactly are you getting at?  Can you summarize for me?  I'm having a hard time following the volume of "information" in your post.  "Dialogue" "communities" "explore differences" There's lots of angst but no content.  What the f*ck are you talking about?  Go watch the season finale of America.

    Rector

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Nov 09, 2016 - 3:59am

    #93

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1911

    GREEN Absolutely HATES Trump

    There are some places where Spiral Dynamics psychological theory explains quite a bit.  One place the the visceral aversion to Trump in the GREEN Meme. 

    Each Meme views the world through a specific lens. 

    When viewed through the GREEN Meme lens of Sensitive vs Insensitive, Trump stinks like a pile of dog doo-doo.

    Background summary  (skip this if you already have a feel for the different Memes)  This is a bit wonky — please skip if not that interested.

    RED Meme

    Rarely seen in the US at this time except in prison and inner city gangs.  Warlords who hold power over vassals through force and intimidation;  Morality:  If one has the power to dominate, it is “right” to do so.  “Might makes right.”  Cheating:  Of course–it is the best way to win.  Seeks to lie and cheat well.  Play involves domination (knock-out game).  Views others as predators or prey

    BLUE Meme

    General:  Law and order and rules of morality.   Righteousness.  Honor.  Truth” found in scripture.  BLUE LEOs are necessary to contain the chaos and lawlessness of RED.    An insightful BLUE LEO or soldier may refuse to follow an unconstitutional or immoral order.  Views others as righteous or sinners.  The BLUE meme usually overlaps with the mythic-membership level, where loyalty and identity is subsumed in a mythic group (race, religion, ethnicity, etc.)  Respect for flag, scriptures of the group.  Does not break rules, cheat or lie.

    ORANGE Meme

    General:  Concerned with achievement, getting ahead; accomplishment; status; material wealth.  Inventing the next big thing.  Going down in history. Getting a Ph.D., Black Belt, Nobel Prize,  building a transnational corporation.  Does everything possible for advantage, will cheat to gain advantage if can get away with it.  Strategic thinking,  Views others as winners and losers

    GREEN Meme

    The sensitive person.  Empathy and caring.  Human bond.  Egalitarian.  Everyone's viewpoint is equally important.  Includes everyone.   The golden rule.  Concern for the downtrodden and marginalized.  Volunteers at a soup-kitchen.  Views others as “sensitive” (good) or “insensitive” (very bad).  The official morality of liberal western cultures and universities.  [There is a pathologic variation, called the MEAN GREEN Meme (MGM), where Nazi-like enforcement of tolerance-rules is demanded.  Insists that the Ten Commandments be removed from public spaces so as to not "offend" other religions.  Degrading comments about "downtrodden groups" are absolutely forbidden, but voluntary effacement of ones own "dominator group" is considered noble.]

    GREEN sees a myriad of issues through the lens of sensitivity to the downtrodden.  Objections to a policy of Obama is perceived as "anti-black racism."  Opposition to a female candidate is probably an "anti-women bias."  Noticing that the Neocon are a part of a long term militant Zionists movement is "anti-Semitic" and should not be spoken of.  Immigration policy — unlimited admission of all immigrants is "sensitive" and the only moral option.  All white police shootings of blacks are "racism."

    Through the GREEN lens of "sensitive" v "insensitive," Trump is a stinking piece of doo-doo.  He says bad words.  I makes lewd comments about women.  He doesn't like Muslims (in the US).  He wants to keep illegal Mexican's out.  He is mega "insensitive" — the very epitome of all that is repulsive and BAD.  He rejects the GREEN Meme rules of speech and conduct.  (But as a result he has given voice to thoughts privately held by many.)

    YELLOW Meme

    The second-tier, where it is possible to have perspective on the lower memes.

    Egalitarianism is complemented with natural degrees of ranking and excellence. (Though all people have value, not everyone's viewpoint is equally informed or accurate.  We value the words of the insightful, educated and wise.)  Knowledge and competency should supersede power, status, or group sensitivity.   (If the media is in fact owned disproportionately by Jewish people, it is OK to notice this and discuss the potential for systematic bias.  It is OK to ask if the astronomical murder rates of downtown Chicago are a much more complex topic than simple "racism.")  (Floods of immigrants are known to destabilize societies and it is OK to say this and make decisions about who will be admitted.)  The prevailing world order is the result of the existence of different levels of reality (memes).

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Nov 09, 2016 - 9:05am

    #94

    nickbert

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 14 2009

    Posts: 260

    Buckle up folks....

    I'm sure a few of you Stateside are still awake at this hour watching the poll results, and are coming to grips with the reality of the new Assclown-In-Chief… er… President.  But here in Asia, markets are definitely NOT digging this at all.  Hang Seng down over 2%, Nikkei down over 5%, Dollar down vs. the Yen almost 3%.  S&P and Nasdaq futures limit-down at the moment, gold up over 4%.  So far, Jim Rickard's prediction seems on-course.  Prepare for some volatility, and just maybe get ready for opportunities to use that dry powder you may have been sitting on.

    (** Update/Correction – S&P and Nasdaq WERE limit-down… now both are treading around -2%)

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-08/markets-crash-peso-plunges-record-low-trump-looks-likely-winner

    But me?  I'm not worried… here to save us is the new upcoming Commander-In-Chief…

    …. President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert "Donald Trump" Camacho    wink

    ... Trump did in the last month that prove ‘Idiocracy’ is already here

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Nov 09, 2016 - 9:27am

    Reply to #94

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1465

    Yes, but...

    at least he's not going to attempt to impose a no fly zone over Syria like what's her name pledged to do.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Nov 09, 2016 - 10:02am

    Reply to #90

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3146

    green meme wins

    kelvin-

    I think SP hit the nail right on the head with his "Green Meme People Hate Trump" post.  I'm going to repeat it here just because I liked it so much.

    Through the GREEN lens of "sensitive" v "insensitive," Trump is a stinking piece of doo-doo.  He says bad words.  He makes lewd comments about women.  He doesn't like Muslims (in the US).  He wants to keep illegal Mexican's out.  He is mega "insensitive" — the very epitome of all that is repulsive and BAD.  He rejects the GREEN Meme rules of speech and conduct.  (But as a result he has given voice to thoughts privately held by many.)

    I'd say Green Meme lens through which Trump was viewed explains 80% of "Why Kelvin voted for a Criminal Serial Warmonger Corporate Stooge Even Though he's a Populist Antiwar Activist."  Viewed through GREEN lens, Trump is worse than dog poo indeed.

    I also suspect GREEN people believe themselves to be at the pinnacle of spiritual evolution.  Their values really are the only reasonable values for civilized people – and groups of GREEN people reinforce each other.  (Don't we all?)  As a result, Trump is viewed as a regression back to lower orders of evolution – perhaps even RED.

    A good GREEN cannot possibly vote for someone who sounds RED.  Period.

    Clinton, because her carefully focus-group-tested words don't trigger GREEN people, can engage in BLUE actions to her heart's content.

    She could write a manual on "how to sound GREEN, but act BLUE in order to retain power."

    I have a large number of GREEN people around me too.  Getting them to look at actions vs words was…challenging.  A challenge that I suspect I was not up to.

    Fascinating.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Nov 09, 2016 - 10:06am

    Reply to #94

    nickbert

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 14 2009

    Posts: 260

    Lesser of two douchebags...

    Well, we don't know exactly what he WILL do, but yes, at minimum I think the odds of him doing that are low.  So I'll take that as well as the (largely symbolic) "FU" to the status quo that he represents as being small victories.  But just because I think he's likely to be less of a long-term disaster than Clinton, doesn't mean I'm going to be nice to him or cut him any slack wink

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Nov 09, 2016 - 10:07am

    Reply to #94

    nickbert

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 14 2009

    Posts: 260

    dupe

    duplicate post

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Nov 09, 2016 - 1:22pm

    #95

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4635

    Sorry for the Green Memes

    There's real angst and pain out there today.  Here's just one example that I would guess speaks for a lot of people:

    How can our children wake up this morning with hope for tomorrow, ready to face the challenges of a world in need of so much repair when we have chosen a leader who exemplifies what seems to me, all that is wrong in our society???? HOW?

    As a parent and agent of change, I MUST be that hope this morning and every day. I must reject bullying, misogyny, greed and separateness from others and from myself.

    I have never been more scared to wake to a new day. Still, I will gather myself up, greet my family, my extended family, my community with fierce and unobstructed love, kindness, compassion and hope. What else can I do?

    I completely understand how this person, and many others, can feel this way, because it's pretty easy to take their perspective.

    From my perspective, the entire human experiment is under threat by the status quo and at least one positive from this outcome was well articulated by DaveF above; the is a crushing blow to the DNC and now they will have to figure out how to speak to the parts that Trump spoke to.

    Now before anybody pounces on that being a call to support all the worst things said about Trump, what I mean is that the middle and lower classes have been getting trashed by policy elites who wrap their thievery in such language as "trade deal" and "quantitative easing" and so on.  By the numbers, life has gotten measurably harder, and steadily so, for the vast majority of people.

    That is a large part of what drew a great many people to Trump.  I think Michael Moore captured that rather well (also posted in a comment earlier in this thread) and the DNC chose to ignore that aspect by promising various policy tricks that nobody can believe in anymore.  Trump spoke to the pain of the experience of being economically isolated and strip mined.  Brexit captured the same cohort of people for similar reasons.

      Time for the elites to receive their wake up call, and see if they can respond intelligently to this predicament of being surrounded by larger numbers of people who are no longer willing to put up with their predations.  That's true for both major parties.

    As well we should be hopeful that perhaps a new party or set of parties might arise, that can further challenge the sclerotic status quo crowd.

    After all, winter is coming.

    America will survive Trump.  The big question is now what do WE do?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Nov 09, 2016 - 2:25pm

    #96

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1465

    Cabinet selections

    Rep. Trey Gowdy for Attorney General with a blank check to drain the swamp (including Comey). David Stockman for Treasury Secretary. Ron Paul for Fed Chairman  until its abolished.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Nov 09, 2016 - 2:50pm

    #97

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    Polytheism

    Unlike the One God of monotheistic religions, polytheistic gods are often at variance with one another and are tied to contradictory systems of values and ways of being in the world. Polytheism accepts this pluralism as inevitable and healthy. Monotheistic religions, however, try to crush this pluralism and subject everyone to the same set of values and standard of conduct.

    My bold.

    The Aesir-Vanir War

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Nov 09, 2016 - 4:07pm

    #98

    sand_puppy

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 13 2011

    Posts: 1911

    Lack of Russian Attack on the Grid

    I am VERY happy to observe that the hypothesized "Russian" attack on the US internet and grid feared in the event HRC should slip from the lead last night did not happen.

    When a sub-population (like us) is aware of the potential for a false flag, the effectiveness of the false flag at shaping public thinking is diminished.  Knowing the possibility defends against it.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Nov 09, 2016 - 5:43pm

    Reply to #96

    mememonkey

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 01 2009

    Posts: 101

    Secretary of State

    [quote=thc0655]

    Rep. Trey Gowdy for Attorney General with a blank check to drain the swamp (including Comey). David Stockman for Treasury Secretary. Ron Paul for Fed Chairman  until its abolished.

    [/quote]

     

    Well we know what were not getting with Clinton.  Time will tell now how trumps rhetoric matches his selections and what influence and control will be retained by the embedded neocon apparatus.

    the one I'm looking at is Secretary of State.    If it is John Bolton  we are well and truly doomed to meet the the new boss same as the old boss. 

    State Dept is a nest of neocons, and it will take true  anti neocon to clean that up and change policy direction.

     

    mememonkey

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Nov 09, 2016 - 6:34pm

    Reply to #95

    thatchmo

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 13 2008

    Posts: 325

    Yes, it's time to turn off

    Yes, it's time to turn off the TV and the devices and get to work.  I see great times ahead, if the American people will take a few deep breaths, take a look around and see what is good, and what needs adjusting, and put some energy into that.  When the people lead, the leaders will follow.  I'm hoping this whole election process has been a wakeup call for all, and a call to action.  Hopefully it will be a good time to expand the awareness of our message here at PP.  Aloha, Steve.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Nov 09, 2016 - 7:07pm

    Reply to #93

    Christopher H

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 29 2009

    Posts: 120

    YELLOW = INTJ

    I think there was a thread a while back regarding Myers-Briggs personality types on PP, and INTJ was overwhelmingly the greatest number, in spite of being one of the rarer personality types.

    I'm a textbook INTJ, and in the YELLOW meme I can see many of the traits that INTJs embody.  Especially focusing on the strength of ideas over status/authority.  Don't know if that's a coincidence or something more….

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 10, 2016 - 2:59am

    #99
    Uncletommy

    Uncletommy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 03 2014

    Posts: 524

    Trump victory: something to look forward to. . .?

    "We would like to know exactly where that off-shore account is."

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/06/donald-trump-waterboarding-republican-debate-torture

    The quickest way to obtain a confession, during the Spanish Inquistition, was the fear of confiscation or worse. Of course, if you are really clever, you can avoid paying taxes within the system.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/28/donald-trumps-defense-of-not-paying-taxes-is-remarkable/

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 10, 2016 - 3:29pm

    #100

    Greg Snedeker

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 22 2012

    Posts: 380

    Uncle Tommy

    Uncle Tommy,

     

    They’ve all moved on to the next thread. The one that’s behind the closed member door. Their wish to not have Clinton in office has come to fruition. We will never know if her “knowns” as they say would have become a reality. We will know soon enough the “unknowns” of Trump, not to mention if what we already know about him will become a reality…God help us. 

    One only needs to read the posts  in this thread to see that these are overwhelmingly white men talking with other white men…ironically much the same practice they despise in the elites.  I remember reading an independent article awhile back that the PP members were 80-90% white males, but it seems more so than ever. It doesn’t negate the message of the 3Es but the fact that this site lacks diversity gives it a skewed sense of reality. The priorities in their eyes are the ones that matter, and the rest of us are being duped by the media, or the deep state, or whatever.

    This thread and article was a very narrow subject. Mememonkey wanted facts on how Trump would be more likely to engage in war. But, he failed to acknowledge you can’t provide historical public service records that don’t exist. Trump has no experience in public office. I get that Chris was pointing out what he thinks is a clear and present danger, but for many (most) of the marginalized, they've been hearing this for a long time…first world white man's problems.

    According to the poll data, Trump won primarily because of the white male vote, and in particular the uneducated rural white male. Mots writes in the headlines thread, these are the people that are the most important…the farmers, the industrialists. All the rest of us (lawyers, etc) I guess are just less important. How many African Americans or LGBT do you think want to move to the rural sections of the red states and become farmers or homesteaders? It's a luxury that is not a part of their reality.  I do think that white rural males deserve to have their voices heard. But I also believe the marginalization they are feeling is the same marginalization that minorities, LGBT, and women, have been feeling for centuries. It’s what equality feels like. The two women that did post in this thread were really not heard above the shouts of many of the men commenters…Again, the marginalized have been living with the white man’s  political, military and financial games for centuries. So as much as some may think that the HRC/neocon/Russian connection is THE main issue, and “trumps” (pun intended) all other concerns, that's not the reality or concern of many others…

    Tikky's last statement:

    "Whatever happens, I will get up in the morning and do my work in the world. I can't change or fix what's going on the larger society. I can only do my part in my small corner working towards a better world."

    Why do you think she wrote this? It speaks volumes! Why do you think she didn't even mention the content of what's in Chris's article. Those that have been marginalized will pick themselves up like they have for centuries and get back to work with everyday life. If some of the commenters had fully understood what she was saying I don’t think she would have received all the “thumbs ups” she did. It’s not their experience, so it gets lost on their ears, and/ or is dismissed since it’s not their reality.

    Edwardelinsky writes:

    I am a women

    I have weighed in here and was met with an onslaught of insults. Sadly it took a beautiful white women to take down BillyBush. If you have time 538 has a great map showing the gender divide across the country. Red vs blue is all i will say.The issues that many women care about are not the same issues discussed here…

    These are the facts that the white male PPers are ignoring. Feelings are facts! Facts that for many are born out of their every day experience. As much as these commenters want to try and psychoanalyze those that don’t share their views (green memes, etc), I would challenge them to take a step back and challenge their own experiential perspectives.

    My hope is that Chris and Adam can reach out to a broader demographic. It would be great to see and hear from more minority men and women, and LGBTs that are working to make a better world. Focusing so much on the elites, and in particular the white male perspective has created a PP site that reflects that interest.  Do I think any less of any of the commenters? No, I think the spirit of this site is good and is much better than the vitriol spewed in the comment sections of more mainstream media. I also think Chris and Adam’s hearts are in the right place and they do great work. I just think this article was a mistake and has already hurt the credibility of this site. I think if they want to repair some of the credibility lost they need to reach beyond the perspectives that are overwhelmingly present here.  Good luck to all of you, we are going to need it, and maybe, just maybe, what I’ve written will be given serious consideration…even though it's coming from a white male:-P

     

    Peace!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 10, 2016 - 5:19pm

    #101

    AKGrannyWGrit

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2011

    Posts: 459

    Thanks Gillbilly

    Thanks for taking the time to compose and post your thoughts.

    Group think is alive and well on this site.  I am one of a group of five women who used to post on this site and think I am the only one in our group that ever contributes now.  Each of us has felt attacked because we represented a different perspective that was not well received.  So now it's the same members who contribute over and over.  It's sad that the more things change the more they stay the same.  This site wants to know "how do we reach more people" well first thing I would suggest is that stifling diversity and encouraging think will deter new comers, drive away visitors and promote the status quo.  Perhaps it's not that the message isn't getting out there it's that the message is – your not welcome if your not like us.  Each time one member is allowed to verbally shout down another here, albeit very eloquently, the message is don't risk participating or you may be targeted.  I speak from experience.

    AKGrannyWGrit

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 10, 2016 - 5:59pm

    Reply to #101

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Online)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 857

    Agreed with grit

    I didn’t find the “You’re not welcome” based on my gender; I found it based on not believing the storyline given on proving the WTC was knocked down by us.
    Which is ironic, because I was inclined to the overall story; but the storyline here doesn’t match my understanding of reality.

    In other words, the groupthink requirement drives people away.

    Well, that didn’t bother me because I don’t really care about proving, reproving, and double-reproving history.

    I just dropped it. But if your basis is questioned, it might be PP.com you drop.

    So yeah, I kindof agree with Ms. Grit.

    Aside from that, I do get a little worn out by the repetitive “here it comes, the big slide, ummm… those darn neocons pushed it off again.” Well, I understand why it happens like that, but if there was a more serious effort to fill in our gaps with substance, I might be more interested.

    But then again, I love the things like Lambertad’s coldframes, and the greenhouse conversation.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 10, 2016 - 6:28pm

    Reply to #101
    Edwardelinski

    Edwardelinski

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 23 2012

    Posts: 324

    Rudmin

    I loved the greenhouse and the way you are teaching your son….

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 10, 2016 - 7:48pm

    Reply to #101

    thc0655

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 1465

    Freedom of association

    Each of us has felt attacked because we represented a different perspective that was not well received.

    I've heard you hammer away on this theme before, but I have trouble remembering the exchanges you're thinking of as "attacks."  Maybe I forgot them.  Maybe some people expressed strong disagreements with something you said.  That, by itself, does not constitute an attack in my mind.  That seems like a constructive sharing of conflicting values and ideas which in the best of circumstances enriches both people, even if there is no ultimate 100% agreement (though that sometimes happens too).  When people express a strong disagreement with something I've written I don't conclude they want me to leave the site (or the discussion) and I don't consider it a bad thing to be disagreed with, even if anger is involved.  And even if someone does want me to go away and not come back, I've decided to ignore them since they're the ones in the wrong.  However, I do think it becomes counterproductive and out of bounds when people say or imply to others here: 1) if that's what you think you should go somewhere else, 2) that kind of idea should not be expressed here, 3) you're a bad person for thinking/writing that, 4) you're a "jerk," "racist," or any other label.  I think PP is about 90% of the time engaged in discussing and disagreeing in reasonable and legitimate ways, and about 10% of the time people call each other names, suggest they go away, or other out of bounds behavior that I would agree are "attacks."  I can live with that level of incivility.  Most of the people I interact with and sites I visit are not nearly as open-minded and polite as the group I find here, and so I just keep my contributions to myself.  Let's all try to avoid this kind of thing:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viYuzuJom1k

    In my mind, here are some real attacks meant to punish someone for thinking or being different.  (I know these sites "shall not be mentioned at PP" but I couldn't find the same stories at CNN or NBC.)

    http://www.infowars.com/shock-video-black-mob-viciously-beats-white-trump-voter/

    http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/11/10/die-whites-die-anti-trump-rioters-vandalize-nola-monuments/

    Each time one member is allowed to verbally shout down another here, albeit very eloquently, the message is don't risk participating or you may be targeted.  I speak from experience.

    I keep my eye out for people being shouted down and targeted here, and I distinguish that from being vigorously debated.  I rarely call out attacks when I see them because in nearly every case I see others jump in first and call "foul."  I'll come to your side if I see what I deem to be an attack that is out of the bounds of civil discourse.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 10, 2016 - 8:18pm

    #102

    Jim H

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1798

    Gillbilly

    I hardly have words to respond to this;

    Feelings are facts!

    I'll try not to trigger you by responding any more than this.    

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 10, 2016 - 8:27pm

    #103

    Jim H

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1798

    CHS today

    Darn that insensitive white male Charles.. look at what he wrote today!

    Who Lost: A Biased Media, Pundits, Pollsters, Political Parties, Warmongers, the Corporatocracy, Pay-to-Play Grifters, Neoliberals

    November 10, 2016

    Fake Progressives are perfectly fine with soaring inequality and corrupt governance, as long as everyone's public utterances are politically correct.

    Sometimes who lost is more important than who won. Let's review who lost the election: …..

     

     

      6. Warmongers. Many Americans are sick and tired of interventionist, globalist warmongering. The only possible way they could register their opposition to warmongering was to vote for Trump.

    I registered my vote against warmongering.. the known warmonger lost.    

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 10, 2016 - 8:40pm

    Reply to #103
    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2252

    We'll see

    I'm reserving judgment until the cabinet position fillout is complete.

    • Rudy Giuliani for DHS?
    • Jamie Dimon for Sec Treasury?

    Not impressed.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 10, 2016 - 9:12pm

    Reply to #103

    Jim H

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1798

    Kranzler agrees with you T2H...

    The election results on Tuesday were not about giving Trump or the Republican Party a political and economic policy mandate. The only mandate issued on Tuesday – quite loud and clear – was this: “Someone please stop Washington DC and Wall Street from date-raping us in the bodily area where waste exits.” That was it. Obama had the same mandate in 2008 and completely betrayed his supporters.

    Judging from the early indications from the Trump camp regarding Trump’s likely cabinet and advisor appointments, it’s going to be out with the old and in with the old. Currently it appears as if the new Attorney General will be Rudy Guiliani, who is a blatant Establishment hack; Larry Kudlow as an advisor, who is the worst economist in modern era; and Jamie Dimon, CEO, JP Morgan/Chase – who should be in jail – and Goldman Sachs alumnus Steven Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary. More of the same. Neocon elitists, Establishment apologists and Wall Street thieves.

    Will Trump Be Different than Hillary Or Obama? SoT #125

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 10, 2016 - 9:40pm

    #104
    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2252

    Time will tell

    We may be seeing the formation of a Neocon battering ram.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 10, 2016 - 10:18pm

    Reply to #101

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Online)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 857

    Attacks

    THC, some of what I experienced included:
    Tagteam shaming,
    Questioning my ability to perform my job,
    Questioning whether I was a secret government agent trying to destroy the group

    Teamwork voting up such posts

    Great teamwork, guys! But I think you make one mistake…

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 10, 2016 - 10:22pm

    #105

    Greg Snedeker

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 22 2012

    Posts: 380

    Jim

    When people feel threatened or marginalized and have to live with those feelings as a reality in their daily lives, then those feelings are a fact. Can you say that they don't feel or experience them? Are we to believe this election was about facts?  Emotions that drove people to vote one way or the other is probably the primary fact of this election. Am I wrong? 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 10, 2016 - 10:41pm

    #106
    Uncletommy

    Uncletommy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 03 2014

    Posts: 524

    Choosing the right people

    Profile of the Sociopath
    Glibness and Superficial Charm.
    Manipulative and Conning. They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. …
    Grandiose Sense of Self. …
    Pathological Lying. …
    Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt. …
    Shallow Emotions. …
    Incapacity for Love.
    Need for Stimulation.
    Definition of integrity
    •   the quality of being honest and fair –   the state of being complete or whole

    Who you gonna trust? As CM has observed many times, "Past behavior is a good indicator of future behavior".

    •  

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Thu, Nov 10, 2016 - 11:54pm

    Reply to #105

    mememonkey

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 01 2009

    Posts: 101

    Feelings are Facts too

    [quote=gillbilly]

    When people feel threatened or marginalized and have to live with those feelings as a reality in their daily lives, then those feelings are a fact. Can you say that they don't feel or experience them? Are we to believe this election was about facts?  Emotions that drove people to vote one way or the other is probably the primary fact of this election. Am I wrong? 

    [/quote]

    It is a fact that people have feelings and emotions. And it is clear that political operatives that run elections work tirelessly to exploit and shape those feelings and emotions

    the problem is that pp aspires to foster data driven dialog around various topics. Trying to interject your feelings and emotions  into a discussion of an analytical assessment as a proxy for facts and data is both divisive and counter productive.

    Your constant attempt to turn this forum into  an online safe space with your 'white male' shaming gender identity bullshit really takes away from useful exploration of the topic.  

    And I say that as one who basically agrees that institutional racism and institutional misogyny exist in our culture at large. 

    In the absence of a  government record one can still make an argument for the relative nuclear war risk a DT presidency might entail.  You could cite statements, list affiliations with his circle of advisors and their history and declared policy positions  Instead  you and others merely defaulted to feelings and intuitive hunches and propaganda memes  and now cry bully because you didn't get enough up votes? 

    As near as I can tell, I was the only one arguing a  (your) counter case that DT might represent a neocon war risk with facts.

    This is supposed to be a market place of ideas.  Vigorous debate serves that.

    mememonkey

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 11, 2016 - 1:47am

    #107
    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2252

    Short List?

    It would be good to get some confirmation on this. Anyone else have a sourced short list?

    [quote]SecState: Bolton, Gingrich, Corker
    SecTreas: Mnuchin
    SecDef: Sessions, Hadley, Talent, Flynn, Hunter
    AttGen: Giuliani, Christie, Bondi
    SecInt: Lucas, Grady, Chistie, Trump Jr., Palin, Brewer, Fallin, Lummis, Hamm
    SecAg: Miller, Brownback, Heineman, Perdue, Perry, McCloskey, Tom (a farmer), among others
    SecCom: Ross, DiMicco, Perry, Huckabee
    SeccLab: Lipnic
    SecHHS: Scott, Gingrich, Carson, Bagger
    SecEnrgy: Hamm, Grady
    SecEd: Carson, Evers, but has said he may do away with the Dept. of Ed.
    VA: Miller
    Homeland Sec: Sheriff Clarke
    EPA: Ebell (a AGW skeptic), Grady, Aiello, Rutledge, Comer[/quote]

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 11, 2016 - 3:52am

    Reply to #105

    Greg Snedeker

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 22 2012

    Posts: 380

    Okay Meme

    Okay Meme, let’s look at the nuke topic. Chris picked a I will resort to videos and articles now…

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il-9j7BjLqc

    http://lobelog.com/trumps-apocalypse-is-a-self-fulfilling-prophecy/

    As for the necons, do we believe this? (which aligns with many here)

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-trumps-foreign-policy-really-scares-neocons/2016/06/09/86614ac6-2cac-11e6-9b37-42985f6a265c_story.html

    Or do we believe this? (which doesn’t)

    https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/28/is-trump-really-the-anti-neocon/

    On Russia…

    Trump…“I believe an easing of tensions, and improved relations with Russia—from a position of strength only—is possible, absolutely possible.” He furthered his position saying, “Some say the Russians won’t be reasonable. I intend to find out.”

    What does a position of strength mean? He never qualifies it. He attempts to leave that to others who have contrasting interpretations…and we're supposed to take their word?

    Dick Cheney supports Trump. (just throwing this in to scare the hell out of all of us)

    Why was neocon Woosley advising Trump’s campaign in the homestretch?

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-09-19/why-this-neocon-spy-chief-is-advising-team-trump

    And Meme, why do you want me to ignore the demographics of how Trump won…

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/white-voters-victory-donald-trump-exit-polls

    http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2016/11/polls_underestimated_trumps_ap.html

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/1109/Trump-rides-rural-rebellion-to-stunning-victory

    As much as you would like to confine the discussion to what you want it to be, there is much more to the context of what happened in this election, and the white vote is at the heart of it. I have been visiting this site on and off for almost five years, so I don’t need the reminder of the PP byline. I have been what I consider a thoughtful commentor.  I may not align with your views, but my pointing out a fact about the demographics of this thread and the site in general is not an attack on this site, a criticism yes.  It is also a chance to learn and grow. If you choose to call it BS, that’s your issue. Despite the thumbs up you all are giving yourselves, I remember years ago the conversations in these threads were much more diverse and interesting. I don't care about thumbs ups. I will be gone from this site in a few days and probably won't post again for months because I just don't have the time.

    I will say your data driven argument doesn’t hold water in respect to this article.  It is an opinion piece, not hard factual data driven research. Every fact Chris points to is there to draw a subjective opinion as to what the future might be. We can all do this if we want…it's pure opinion/specuation. Chris acknowledges this at the end…

    “While I've focused on the election in this article, it may not even be relevant at all.  That is, there may well be a machine running in the background that is larger than any potential candidate or President.”

    So I’ll pull it all together in my own way by asking questions…if the propaganda has been going on for so long and is so good, why didn’t HRC win the election?… Because the white rural white vote was smart enough to figure it out? Or was it more about Trump hitting the right emotional triggers by using racist comments to place blame, fear and hate mongering, and totally conning the white (and let's not forget Evangelical Christian) right?

    So again, my bringing in the subject of the demographics of who was responsible for Trump winning, and the demographics of this site are BS why?

    I’ll give you a fact. Trump is a conman (and most likely a sociopath). Maybe he’s not the aggressive sociopath, maybe he’s the sociopathic impersonator. Doesn't matter to me which. Both are experts at manipulation.

    Maybe the neocons just did a head fake and most of you fell for it? The news is coming out now of Trump’s appointments which Jim has already pointed out. They are pretty scary if you ask me. And when the supreme court justice appointments come in January, thanks to the Republicans not doing their job in the past six months? Well, I would bet it will get even uglier. Hate crimes are already beginning to spread. We are moving backwards with this guy already, and he will continue to cause damage. But hey, even after all the crazy meaningless contradictory stuff he's said…yeah let's give him a chance.

    As thc says, welcome to the hunger games.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 11, 2016 - 8:29am

    Reply to #93
    David Allan

    David Allan

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 15 2009

    Posts: 27

    Confusing levels and types (Yellow = INTJ)

    Integral theory speaks of 5 ' categories' that are basically independent – quadrants, levels states lines and types.

    INTJ is a type and manifests at every level.

    Yellow is a level of development and any type can be at this level.

    I suspect you are correct, Christopher, that a large number of INTJs at yellow haunt this site. And it's not just coincidence – the site is attractive to the inclinations of the INTJ behavioural style and resonates with a yellow level of development.

    The integral model is tremendously powerful in clarifying our world view and it's great to see it being applied here.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 11, 2016 - 2:29pm

    #108

    Greg Snedeker

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 22 2012

    Posts: 380

    Why Trump psychology

    Here's an article that is very well researched in regard to the Trump vote.

    Why Trump?

    Personality is one aspect, upbringing is another.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 11, 2016 - 4:43pm

    #109

    Jim H

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1798

    Now for a positive Trump appointment rumor..

    Trey Gowdy Returns To Washington Amid Rumors Of Trump Nominating Gowdy Attorney General

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 11, 2016 - 5:37pm

    #110

    AKGrannyWGrit

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2011

    Posts: 459

    Data vs Feelings

    Firstly thank you thc0655 for responding kindly to a previous post.

    Secondly I enjoy your posts Gillbilly you add diversity through respectful participation.

    And finally, mememonkey said this – 

    the problem is that pp aspires to foster data driven dialog around various topics. Trying to interject your feelings and emotions  into a discussion of an analytical assessment as a proxy for facts and data is both divisive and counter productive.

    Your constant attempt to turn this forum into  an online safe space with your 'white male' shaming gender identity bullshit really takes away from useful exploration of the topic.  

    Gosh I guess I missed that rule demanding dialogue should  be all data driven.  Apparently the idea of "we are trying to reach new audiences" is contingent upon those new people, unlike me, being highly educated, rich, and having copious amounts of time to research and and provide statistical and factual backup for every statement.  Oh for petes sake someone seeking answers and education may only have feelings and emotions to lead them to investigate further. And what is counter productive is creating an environment that prohibits those who only have feelings and emotions from sticking around here to learn more.

    And meme monkey attack on Gillbilly and myself and many others goes on without chastisement from Chris and Adam so it is seen as not only tolerated but endorsed.

    I was accused of being "judgmental" and a self appointed "moral arbiter" but that's exactly what goes on regularly here.  How was that a critique of what I said rather than an attack in my character?

    And how is the statement on Gillbilly "your constant attempt" not an attack?  It's a judgment call and and opinion, NOT A FACT, and yet these kinds of statements and posts go on all the time.  

    I regularly feel intimidated when I post here because, as I have said before, I am a high school graduate but feel that I can contribute something and I learn and grow from being a member.  Perhaps there are many, many more people like me out there and yet they don't stick around.  Ever wonder why?

    AKGrannyWGrit

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 11, 2016 - 6:20pm

    #111
    Uncletommy

    Uncletommy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: May 03 2014

    Posts: 524

    Lest we forget. . .

    It may not be front and centre in the minds of most Americans, on this eleventh hour of the eleventh month of 2016, but from where I view the world, we should be cognizant to the results that follow a covert, imperialist agenda. The example from 100 years ago should give us pause. We mustn't be fooled into a complacent confidence that "a new broom sweeps clean". I may not have a Ph.d, but I do read and try to stay current:

     

    ‘Thus I clothe my own naked villainy with odd old ends stolen out of holy writ and seem a saint…Then I sigh, and with a piece of Scripture tell them that God bids us to do evil for good.’  Richard III

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 11, 2016 - 8:16pm

    Reply to #105

    mememonkey

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 01 2009

    Posts: 101

    Conflating the Issue

    [quote=gillbilly]

    As much as you would like to confine the discussion to what you want it to be, there is much more to the context of what happened in this election, and the white vote is at the heart of it. I have been visiting this site on and off for almost five years, so I don’t need the reminder of the PP byline. I have been what I consider a thoughtful commentor.  I may not align with your views, but my pointing out a fact about the demographics of this thread and the site in general is not an attack on this site, a criticism yes.  It is also a chance to learn and grow. If you choose to call it BS, that’s your issue. Despite the thumbs up you all are giving yourselves, I remember years ago the conversations in these threads were much more diverse and interesting. I don't care about thumbs ups. I will be gone from this site in a few days and probably won't post again for months because I just don't have the time.

    I will say your data driven argument doesn’t hold water in respect to this article.  It is an opinion piece, not hard factual data driven research. Every fact Chris points to is there to draw a subjective opinion as to what the future might be. We can all do this if we want…it's pure opinion/specuation. Chris acknowledges this at the end…

    “While I've focused on the election in this article, it may not even be relevant at all.  That is, there may well be a machine running in the background that is larger than any potential candidate or President.”

    [/quote]

    Gillbilly, 

    I think this this horse is dead,  but since you responded out of respect for engaging in dialog  I will beat it one more time.

    Of course there is a lot of context to what happened in this election.   The reason I've tried to focus you and others on the Nuclear/Russia issue is that is at the core of the original article and is the reason Chris and others rejected HRC as an unacceptable risk. You have asserted the opposite.

    Swept up in your fear and loathing of all things Trump you have tirelessly conflated and projected all of Trumps negatives (and they are legion) into the counter argument that Trump is a bigger existential war threat than HRC.

    In a blinding  leap of non logic have asserted that Chris' article is merely an agenda driven hit piece on your preferred candidate and represents mere opinions and speculation.    You do this in the face of a factual recitation of HRC's  war record, an elucidation of the orchestrating propaganda campaign to demonize Putin and position the public for direct conflict with Russia  and it's parallels with the campaign to demonize Saddam and direct  conflict with him.  Pointing out HRC alignment with the demonization of Putin, and the exact group of neocons who are furiously advocating for a No fly zone in Syria where Putin is both flying and had complete air defense coverage makes a VERY compelling case that HRC represents a high risk for instigating a war which could turn into a NUCLEAR conflagration.   Similar dynamics are also present in Eastern Europe with similar risks.

    None of knows the future.  Chris doesn't claim a crystal ball. But like with his analogy of the pedophile next door it is prudent to assess the facts and make judgments.   His was a reasoned judgment. I know many smart people that dislike most everything DT stands for who have reached a similar conclusion.

    Since you disagree with that assessment and think that DT represents a greater existential risk of instigating nuclear war, it is incumbent on you to provide a data based logical argument to prove that case.   You simply have not done that.  Instead of you have conflated all of DT's personality flaws and all your fears which match the anti trump propaganda memes into a mushy recitation of Why DT was a  better choice than HRC

    Your Humanist report video linked above is a good example of this.     This is the third time someone as linked to a  variation of  of this propaganda theme. 

    It starts off repeating a hearsay rumor from Joe Scarbourogh who claims that an 'unnamed security expert' advised Trump and Trump asked three time "Why can't we use nuclear weapons"

    It then links to an interview with Chris Mathews who tries to elicit a provocative quote.   All Trump does is recite standard MAD doctrine, i.e.  that he would never rule out using nuclear weapons.

    Leaving aside that both Joe Scarobourgh and Chris Mathews have a clear anti Trump  agenda. and the origins of this meme are part of clear propaganda campaign,  nothing Trump says is abnormal or indicative of an irrational or caviler attitude about the use of nukes. 

      What is missing of course is the documented statements that Trump has made about the gravity and desire NOT to have a Nuclear confrontation.  Especially with Russia. 

    Also missing are HRC historical statements threatening Iran with Nuclear Destruction.

    The commentator in the video,  goes on to state incredulously that Trumps statement that he "won't take the use of Nuclear weapons off the table"  disqualifies him as an existential threat.  He further states that the only acceptable answer to that questions  is that we should unilaterally disassemble all of our Nuclear weapons  and THEN negotiate for other Nuclear powers to do the same.

    Really ?  Are people this naive?      I too would love to in a world that has happy unicorns and 0 nuclear weapons, but to the extent that they can be reduced  at all we know that is a function of realistic negotiation. 

    Calling Putin Hitler, engaging in economic war and threatening hostile cyber acts of war and unilaterally aggressing against him has killed existing arms control treaties.    Trump has publicly stated that he is willing to talk and work with Putin.    This FACT is at the crux of why he is arguably LESS of a nuclear war risk.

    I share your concern that the the Neocons'  like Woolsey and others like Flynn who are in Trump's orbit present a risk, as I've commented multiple times.  I'm particularly concerned about a the Israeli influence and neocon pivot of hostilities to tackle the 'Iran' issue.  

    Trump is not going to appoint Ron Paul to secretary of state and Jill Stein to head the CIA

    Realistically there is no chance that Trump will not have some pretty unsavory hawks including neocons in key positions of power.  The National Security deck is stacked with them.  However even there the National security state is not monolithic.    Defeat of HRC appears to reflect a defeat of the factions that support direct confrontation with Russia, in favor of Reaganesque hawks of a more realpolitic/realist bent.

    By  his own statements Trump favors building up the military and modernizing our Nuclear capabilities this reflects the advise of people like woolsey and Flynn, it also represent a throwback to the hawkish Reagan Era doctrine of "peace through strength"    Trust but verify and all that.  Recall that Reagan was demonized similarly as being Hitler with his finger on the nuclear button as well. 

    The issue of imminent existential threat really centers around the rush to war with Russia.  Both Flynn and Woolsey appear to support a rational engagement with Russia.    Woolsey has been in the trenches from the late  1960's to the early 1990's involved in major negotiations with the Russians from Salt 1 to START to Nuclear weapons in Space treaty to conventional forces in Europe.   Hopefully while he is advising Trump he will clue him in to the reality of global warming as well as  he at least gets that.

    Time will tell of course,  but Putin's statement to reset  relations with Trump  is a hopeful sign that we have perhaps set the Doomsday clock  back a bit

    On the completeu separate issue of race relations  etc.  I will only briefly note that  with regards to your assertion that Hate crimes are already increasing since the election, I would to see your examples of that.  It seems like projection to me.   Unless your definition of hate crimes include black on white violence which I suspect is not what you are referencing.

    So far all I've seen is violence on the part of the disillusioned anti trump contingent including a horrific beating of a white man by a black mob screaming that he would have to pay for his Trump vote , an 11 year old on crutches beaten because of casting a trump vote in a mock elementary election.  Numerous people including journalists calling for Trumps assassination and the same media that demonized Trump and paint the evil Hitler caricature feeding and fostering that division.   

    regards

    mememonkey

     

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 11, 2016 - 10:41pm

    Reply to #110

    mememonkey

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 01 2009

    Posts: 101

    censorship

    [quote=AKGrannyWGrit]

    And finally, mememonkey said this – 

    the problem is that pp aspires to foster data driven dialog around various topics. Trying to interject your feelings and emotions  into a discussion of an analytical assessment as a proxy for facts and data is both divisive and counter productive.

    Your constant attempt to turn this forum into  an online safe space with your 'white male' shaming gender identity bullshit really takes away from useful exploration of the topic.  

    Gosh I guess I missed that rule demanding dialogue should  be all data driven.  Apparently the idea of "we are trying to reach new audiences" is contingent upon those new people, unlike me, being highly educated, rich, and having copious amounts of time to research and and provide statistical and factual backup for every statement.  Oh for petes sake someone seeking answers and education may only have feelings and emotions to lead them to investigate further. And what is counter productive is creating an environment that prohibits those who only have feelings and emotions from sticking around here to learn more.

    And meme monkey attack on Gillbilly and myself and many others goes on without chastisement from Chris and Adam so it is seen as not only tolerated but endorsed.

    I was accused of being "judgmental" and a self appointed "moral arbiter" but that's exactly what goes on regularly here.  How was that a critique of what I said rather than an attack in my character?

    And how is the statement on Gillbilly "your constant attempt" not an attack?  It's a judgment call and and opinion, NOT A FACT, and yet these kinds of statements and posts go on all the time.  

    I regularly feel intimidated when I post here because, as I have said before, I am a high school graduate but feel that I can contribute something and I learn and grow from being a member.  Perhaps there are many, many more people like me out there and yet they don't stick around.  Ever wonder why?

    AKGrannyWGrit

    [/quote]

    Granny

    You miss my point entirely.  I am not invalidating feelings and emotions as part of a dialog here.  We all have feelings and emotions and they make up an integral part of how we communicate and what drives us to contribute or not.    We all make and assert subjective judgments.   Still the essence of the site as far as I understand seeks to advance our collective knowledge by introducing, comparing  and debating  perspectives that are informed by data.

    You are ignoring the qualifier in my sentence:  "Trying to interject your feelings and emotions  into a discussion of an analytical assessment as a proxy for facts and data is both divisive and counter productive."

    Just as I would advise someone not to bring a knife to a gun fight,  I am saying don't bring an unsupportable emotional  hunch to a critique of a data based assessment and expect to win in the contest of ideas.   I'm  not saying don't have or share and express feelings or emotions.

    We all have emotional buttons that get pushed. One of mine is censorship.  Despite your attempt to selectively reframe  that 'attack  on you  It was  direct critique of what you said and your censoring words.  I am sorry if the popular response to that critique hit a nerve and hurt your feelings.  I actually value your posts and as I've pointed out then and now agree with you more than not.  

    Just as I share many of Gillbilly;s concerns and values regarding Trump even as I reject his non argument argument critique of Chris's article. Aside from that point which has been made now many times I attacked his agenda as I perceived it.  I didn't attack him,  I attacked the theme he consistently promoted here that somehow being a white male invalidates a perspective.  Again this is a form of censorship.  It is very popular in colleges as well.  It is a hot button of mine.

    This perennial debate seems to surface at the end of long contentious threads everyone who's feelings have been bruised comes out and bemoans the halcyon days of a more gender diverse dialog. And like you resurfaces wounds from previous debates.  I would love to have more diverse opinions here but I don't control that dyanmic. 

    I've never engaged in any dialog or debate here with the gender of commenters on my mind.    And I can't help whether someone chooses to engage or not.  But I resent the notion that you Gillbilly and others are promoting that there is a hostile environment to women here or that their contributions are not valued.

    The implication is that I am am part of some woman hating privileged while male cohort that is shouting down woman's contributions.   

    The problem I have with your's and others approach and calls for admonishment/censorship is that it reflects a victim mentality.

    I note in your call to censor me  above that I didn't  hear you calling for the site admins to admonish/censor Edwardlinski,  when she called me " a nasty SOB"  no doubt you agree with her, which is your right.

    You didn't hear me call for it either, even though it was a blatant violation of the ad hominem forum rules  because,  A.   I don't believe in censorship.  B.  It didn't deter me from articulating my perspective.

    I don't and never will, see myself as a victim that needs protection from authority or popular consensus.

    I believe in ideas and am willing to defend and promote mine and listen to  and learn from others.

    mememonkey

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Nov 11, 2016 - 11:43pm

    Reply to #110

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    A Pagan's Perspective.

    This dialogue speaks to my assertion that I consider to be blindingly obvious.  That we are not cookie cutter critters.

    There are sex differences, there are race differences,  there are age differences, there are, believe it or not, even height differences.

    Each difference comes with its own perspectives, ideals and philosophies. To my internationalist opponents, you idealised  diversity, you've got it in spades. Now deal with it..

    The evidence is very strong that the Corporate world is in cahoots with  International Socialist in the destruction of Nation States, which they both see as an impediment to their designs for us, whom they both see as Their property  

    If these two Major Forces succeed in their desires I foresee a time when these two forces confront their differences and that implies more strife. Corporate mercenaries against Radicalised youth.

    But there are, a always,  wrinkles in the plot that can be exploited. The whole attempt to place people in boxes, to hammer round pegs into square holes is a Mediterranean thing. It has been augumeted by Monotheism.  Constantine at the Council of Nicaea offered the Christians an Italian deal. " Get my troublesome people off my back and it's no more lions".

    The Germanic Volk managed to keep them at bay for a while but were ultimately defeated with  Charlemagne's slaughter of the Saxons at Irumsul. (To the Germanic ethos a man's word is his bond. Charlemagne promised that if the Saxons baptised in the river he would spare them.  He lied. When they were naked in the river he butchered them all. 1000 Saxons)

    The three Semitic Death Cults are the nub of the issue.  Where polytheism is naturally pluralistic monotheism's modus is to force conformation on everyone.

    Unlike the One God of monotheistic religions, polytheistic gods are often at variance with one another and are tied to contradictory systems of values and ways of being in the world. 

    The Aesir-Vanir War

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 12, 2016 - 12:17am

    #112

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    A Pagan's Perspective. (II)

    This dialogue speaks to my assertion that I consider to be blindingly obvious.  That we are not cookie cutter critters.

    There are sex differences, there are race differences,  there are age differences, there are, believe it or not, even height differences.

    Each difference comes with its own perspectives, ideals and philosophies. To my internationalist opponents:- You idealised  diversity, you've got it in spades. Now deal with it..

    The evidence is very strong that the Corporate world is in cahoots with  International Socialist in the destruction of Nation States, which they both see as an impediment to their designs for us, whom they both see as Their property  

    If these two Major Forces succeed in their desires I foresee a time when these two forces confront their differences and that implies more strife. Corporate mercenaries against Radicalised youth.

    But there are, a always,  wrinkles in the plot that can be exploited. The whole attempt to place people in boxes, to hammer round pegs into square holes is a Mediterranean thing. It has been augmented by Monotheism.  Constantine at the Council of Nicaea offered the Christians an Italian deal. " Get my troublesome people off my back and it's no more lions".

    The Germanic Volk managed to keep them at bay for a while but were ultimately defeated with  Charlemagne's slaughter of the Saxons at Irumsul. (To the Germanic ethos a man's word is his bond. Charlemagne promised that if the Saxons baptised in the river he would spare them.  He lied. When they were naked in the river he butchered them all. 1000 Saxons)

    The three Semitic Death Cults are the nub of the issue.  Where polytheism is naturally pluralistic, monotheism's modus is to force conformation on everyone.

    Unlike the One God of monotheistic religions, polytheistic gods are often at variance with one another and are tied to contradictory systems of values and ways of being in the world. 

     

    http://norse-mythology.org/tales/the-aesir-vanir-war/

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 13, 2016 - 6:04am

    #113

    AKGrannyWGrit

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2011

    Posts: 459

    Bullying versus Censorship

    Ah meme monkey it seems that you would not pass up the chance to provide a short tirade to defend yourself and enthusiastically tell a fellow poster the error of their ideas and thoughts.  So be it.

    No, Just as I have recently been listening to people loudly justify their actions on a daily basis, ad-nausium (the election) I completely get your justifications as well.

    YOU missed my point entirely.  Let me try again to be more succinct.

    The point was not about ME or YOU it's about people visiting this website.  We have all heard that there is a desired goal of reaching new eyeballs and ears with the Three "E"'s . Right now people are hurting, life is difficult for many people.  I had a client today that shared that she is afraid for her pension.  I have clients that tell me they can't find a Doctor who will see them because they have Medicare.   I have clients tell me about the increased crime in their neighborhoods.  Peak Prosperity is the ideal place for people to come to get more information about the Three "E"'s.  However it saddens me knowing that people will stop by and leave because people are being attacked on the threads.  I don't tell people I am a high school graduate because I feel bad about that it's so that the visitor who stops by may see that if someone like me can participate here, maybe they can too.  Perhaps people should check out the threads from a different perspective.  They can sound like lawyers, contract writers and college professors debating and then when someone isn't up to intellectual snuff they get obliterated.  Think Joe The Plummer feels welcome or maybe a Granny?  And so I bring the subject to life knowing that I will get blasted and get numerous thumbs up for the bullying I receive.  Se le vie!  I am back for more abuse.

    So let's review 

    "We all have emotional buttons that get pushed.  One of mine censorship. Despite your attempt to selectively reframe the "attack on you" it was a direct critique of what you said and your censoring words.  I am sorry if the popular response to that critique hit a nerve and hurt your feelings.  I actually value your posts and as I've pointed out then and now I agree with you more often than not."

    So calling people names is permissible if framed as being a "direct critique"!  Telling someone that they are judge mental and a self appointed moral arbiter is not a "direct critique" it was a judgement call and an attack on my character.  And what the heck — " your sorry the popular response to that critique hit a nerve and hurt my feelings". You mean the 16 or 17 thumbs up you received for calling me names, sorry my ass.  It's Group Think at its finest!  And you value my posts…. ah bullshit, bullying and shaming do not show support or value in any way, shape or form.

    "I resent that you Gillbilly and others are promoting that there is a hostile environment to women here or that their contributions are not valued."

     OMG that statement is amazing!  I know for a fact that other women have left because they felt unwelcome and targeted.  Remember ferelhen, nervousnelly and others? Think about the 16 thumbs-up for your target bullying of me, ah that's openly hostile and sadly it was in a thread about rape.  And YOU are resentful?  Sounds like a claim of victim hood to me.  But then it's said that the best defense is a good offense.  Yes hostility is alive and well and a number of females don't post their gender or have left. It's nice to be at an age where I don't care as much about what people think.  I stick around because I believe I offer a unique contribution. Sadly the reason hostility is tolerated is because it's a spectator sport and the bully often gets rewarded.  Our recent elections were a testament to bad behavior.  And documentation of Jewish exterminations in WWII didn't happen in the dead of night or in secret but in broad daylight with copious spectators. (See 60 minutes)  So you all who like to give "thumbs up" when someone is getting bullied can just stick-em where the sun don't shine.

         "The problem I have with yours and others approach and calls for admonishment/censorship are that they reflect a victim mentality."

    Firstly, I had a client whose philosophy was "there are two kinds of people – screwers and screw-ees."  I suppose that translates to preditor's and prey.  Anyway he used to say he always tried to be the screwer rather than the screwie.  It is easy to vilify the victim if A) if you cant identify with them and B) they are your target.

    Secondly, if people self censored we wouldn't need censorship.  Here is the problem.  I am suggesting that ever so many people would contribute if they felt like no matter how clumsy, or awkward or basic their post might be they felt safe to contribute. We would have much richer discussions and people would be blessed with access to the abundant knowledge that so many members have to share not to mention the rich and valuable content of Chris and Adam.  This website changes lives and it can mean the difference between misery and comfort. Between a family at each other's throats, blaming each other for their problems versus knowing that the challenges they, and we, face are by social and economic design and not personal failures. The point is we lose potential and existing members because of name calling.  I remember the first time I posted It was exciting and scary and there are other people who would like to take a chance to poke their toe in the PP pond.  Unfortunately people won't participate unless they feel safe and that doesn't make them a victim it makes them cautious.

              "I note in your call to sensor me above that I didn't hear you calling for the site admins to admonish/censor Edwardlinski, when she called me a "nasty SOB" no doubt you agree with her."

    Firstly, I did not know Edwardlinski was a woman, but I am glad I now know.  Secondly, sadly I missed her post. Thirdly, I do not believe she called you such a name.  Rather, I think she was using your term "a direct critique" of your posts, their tone and content.  You see by your standards name calling can be rampant and ubiquitous we simply justify all actions by claiming it's a "direct critique".

    My direct critique is that you use written jujitsu to bully me and others as well, and the reason I am posting this post is because no one else will and I believe it's driving away people, stifling participation and deterring new members. If no one speaks up nothing changes.  Perhaps you vehemently abhor censorship because you don't want limits on your bullying.  Remember I am using the new politically correct term you created of "direct critique" here.  No doubt you are educated and can not fathom that your actions are bullying but others see your actions differently.

    Lastly, after hitting post I will be hitting "ignore" on you because A) I would be tempted to defend other people like I did with Gillbilly this time, sorry Gillbilly I know you can speak for yourself. B) I do not want to receive more hostile posts from you and C) I am looking forward to closing this post and putting it behind me.

    Okay fellow PP's you heard it here first the new politically correct term is "Direct Critique".  Who will be next???? 

    Cranky Granny 

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 13, 2016 - 7:09am

    #114
    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2252

    Umm, hey guys...

    Really big shit going down right now. Consider conserving your emotional/spiritual energy.

    You are going to need all you can muster.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 13, 2016 - 8:25am

    #115
    Transcend

    Transcend

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 28 2012

    Posts: 51

    Take a step back

    White Non-religious Jewish Canadian Male in his 30s chiming in…too much info? Too bad!

    Anyways, I’ve said this a few times before and I’m here to say it again, the entire PP community deserves my thanks and gratitude.  Everyone here should be proud of themselves and no one should feel lesser than anyone else.  As someone who hasn’t felt threatened or attacked, I can tell you from my perspective I see both sides very clearly.  There’s no reason to get in to details because I believe it’s the bigger picture that matters most. My personal opinion is that it boils down to this; our brains do not work the same!  It never ceases to amaze me how much we all take for granted every single day.  Do you ever take a step back to think about how hard your eyes worked and that hey…they actually work!  You can see?  Really?  Oh because a lot of people CAN’T! How about being able to use all your fingers to type a long, thoughtful, intelligent post on PP.com?  I’m not here to preach or tell anyone how to think or how they should feel, but I do always like to bring things back into perspective because from my standpoint, I see mememonkey, as an extremely bright person and I would go as far to say brilliant, especially compared to my peon brain and most of the time I have no idea what he’s talking about because it’s way above my head.  I do my best to put the pieces together and understand, but man, this guy is just incredibly smart in some areas.  I see Gilly as an extremely thoughtful person, who really wants what’s best and make no mistake, is also very intelligent.  Then you got good ol’ Granny.  Apparently, one of the few remaining women on this site who clearly has a unique perspective and one we should all respect and NOT take for granted.  She’s also another highly intelligent person in this world with deep feelings and someone who I believe has a lot of wisdom.

    I’m not saying don’t discuss and I certainly think an argument can be had.  The things to take away from this is patience, perspective, and respect.  I think we all know that it’s easy to misinterpret writing and take things personally.  I think it’s more important that we take a step back at times and truly try to understand each other and why we’re all here.  If we can each help one another then that’s the ultimate goal isn’t it?

    This is where the world loses someone like me and where my optimism becomes pessimism.  Where my manic becomes despondent.  It’s this very thing that makes me question everything.  How can we be so foolish and selfish?  No, this isn’t a direct attack at anyone here.  It includes me. It’s all of us because we all have some brilliance to offer.  While it’s true some brains have a higher IQ and some have a higher EQ and some score low on both, last time I checked you were lucky if you were born in this world and if you were so lucky to get a higher quality brain, you should also recognize that some people weren’t that lucky! Either we are all special or no one is, take your pick.  We all bleed red.  We can pretend to be superior, but you’ll soon realize you’re inferior because guess what, you’re going to die just like me.  We all f|_|ck up and we are all misunderstood because we are all different, but how come we can’t recognize this and work together!? How are we EVER(!!!!!) going to make this world better if we can’t figure out how to peacefully get through difficult situations or heated moments TOGETHER.  It isn’t about who is right or wrong nearly as much as it is about understanding the individual and I mean really truly understanding them and where they are coming from.  Do you know how much I look up to someone like Chris?  Not just him, lots of people on this site.  I see tons of you as mentors.  Some of the best teachers I’ve ever had.  No wait…THE best teachers I’ve ever had.  I mean seriously, these are some brilliant minds and I have access to them?  How fortunate.  I get to interact with them and see what they are up to and try to better myself through their personal thoughts.  Critical thinking I could just NEVER come up with because I’m not wired that way.  Chris is literally my guide through this propaganda storm because I don’t have the skills to see through it…call me dumb, I’ll accept.  I do my best, but let’s face it, my brain isn’t as fast at processing or whatever.  Maybe it’s my storage that’s faulty or RAM?  The part that gets me is that when someone like Chris (using him as a mock example and not actually personally) thinks they are better.  It’s like, ummmm, excuse me, you were just really lucky to have a brain that can handle that enormous amount of complex information.  Ya ya ya, some of us study harder and work harder, etc etc.  Chill.  Everyone CAN add value, they just might not know how. The autistic person who can’t speak CAN add value and to me they are as equal as anyone else in the world.  Maybe it’s you that needs to help them figure it out.  Have an open mind.  We have a ton of work to do folks.  We have to figure out how we’re going to interact with each other before anything else as far as I’m concerned.  Your family, your friends, your colleagues, your neighbours, E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y!

    I have no idea if I made any sense or if I contributed to the dialogue at all.  Bottom line is that it pains me when people can’t get along. I have my frustrations too so I’m just as guilty, but man, THIS is what we have to figure out before anything else.  It’s the communication and the level of respect and understanding that lacks this world more than anything else.  My suggestion is for everyone to take a breath and take a step back.  Don’t be so quick to reply.  Think first.  Digest.  Try to understand where the other person is coming from and what they are really after.  Maybe if you come at it in a different way it will be more effective. Thanks to Granny for giving me the inspiration to post because she’s definitely right on the fact that it can be intimidating here sometimes, but it’s also important to know that I absolutely love keeping quiet and taking in all these perspectives and all this knowledge.  Granny, don’t ignore Meme, he’s got so much knowledge and I truly believe his heart is in the right place.  We have to come together and we can’t shut each other out, but obviously you can do what you want.  You all ROCK!  THANK YOU!!!!

     <@:)

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 13, 2016 - 9:39am

    Reply to #113

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3146

    bullying and voting

    Granny-

    My feeling on votes is, first, the truth isn't subject to up-votes.  Its true, or its not.

    I say things that are sometimes popular.  I also say things that are sometimes quite unpopular.  Truth is truth; sometimes its just my truth, and sometimes I believe it to be a more independent truth.  Either way, I try and focus on the truth part and ignore the "vote" part.

    Not sure if this helps or doesn't help.

    These days I'm feeling a bit wiped out from the avalanche of emotions from this campaign.  I've experienced distinct bullying behavior on my facebook page to "think correctly" – its everything I can do to remain even tempered, and it takes a lot of energy.  When a "progressive" who is angry that Trump voters are all racist nazi pigs tells you to "grow the fuck up" at the end of a relatively nasty diatribe, the sight of "extreme written violence in service to the cause of polite discourse, tolerance, and open society" (RED in service to GREEN) caused me so much cognitive dissonance my head just about exploded.

    Bottom line is, I only have so much capacity to deal with the written violence, and right now, I don't have much left.  When your capacity runs low, its often a good time to take a break.  That's what I do from time to time.

    I'm not sure how aware people are of the effects they have.  My mom was famous for having the best intent in the world, but her execution could be really dreadful.  She didn't see the problem, because she was doing all of it with an eye towards helping people.

    Lots of people feel their intent is good.  "Everyone is the hero of their own story." The disconnect starts to happen when the intent is translated into action – that's where things can go sideways.

    "But my intent was pure – how can you doubt that?"

    Sometimes people can forget to apply kindness in their writing.  Kindness fixes just about everything.  Sometimes I forget that, especially when I get carried away by my own emotions.  Self righteousness doesn't help either.  When I'm feeling like I'm right, I can sometimes forget to be kind too.

    Just some thoughts on a Sunday afternoon.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 13, 2016 - 10:09am

    Reply to #113

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    Thought police

    Mind is a sea of data.

    Inasmuch as there is a "You" construct, it is a subroutine.

    Loss of Ego is the price of Immortality. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 13, 2016 - 10:58am

    Reply to #115

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    Transcend

    May I ask a personal question? This issue cannot safely be brushed under the rug.

    Do you as a Jew feel threatened by Nationalism?  A lot of blame is being apportioned to the Jewish fear of the Nationalists. Everything from International Socialism to the invasion of Europe is being laid at your feet.

    Here Sarah Silverman describes her reaction to a flag.

    If this fear is a problem how do we deal with it? There is a very strong positive feedback loop.  You suffer, you  seize  the controls of power, we react violently exacerbating your fear and so on.

    How do we break out of the cycle?

    My own solution is to destroy all Semitic religions, in the same way we destroyed the Japanese Bushido code. There is evidence that the Bushido code is re-emerging. So my solution is to replace the religions with the far more archaic native religions, 

    Monotheism was created by Akhenaten/ Moses and was violently opposed both in Egypt and by the Jews when they reverted to worshipping Baal.

    It is my contention that Akhenaten wasn't human, but Homo Capensis.  H.C (not Hillary Clinton) Homo Capensis  had about 25 to 50% more brain mass than even Neanderthal. Here are some skulls.

     

    Evidence, dear Watson. 

    This site attempts to debunk the evidence of their own eyes with an ad hominem on Lloyd Pye based upon Incredulity as an argument.

    Foerster, Pye and Ketchum collaborate: Paracas elongated skull exposed! (UPDATE)

    To sum. Are you afraid of The Volk and what can be done about that fear? Another attempt at the destruction of the Volk will go hard on you.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 13, 2016 - 6:32pm

    #116

    AKGrannyWGrit

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2011

    Posts: 459

    Thanks Dave

    Thanks for your kind response Dave.  Your message was very tactful and respectful and the intent was indeed understood.

    As a Grandmother to almost grown Grand-daughters I understand the social messages that are consciously and unconsciously presented to girls.  Be nice, smile, look pretty.  Boys – be tough, smart and don't be a pussy.  I know my message fell on deaf ears.  I just got a PM from someone who said they hide their gender  They have seen the snarky remarks I get from some of my posts.  

    A wise friend once told me that people who fight battles become dead bodies.  In other words …. don't bother. 

    Granny

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 13, 2016 - 6:54pm

    #117

    Jim H

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1798

    AK Granny..

    You said,

    You mean the 16 or 17 thumbs up you received for calling me names, sorry my ass.  It's Group Think at its finest!  And you value my posts…. ah bullshit, bullying and shaming do not show support or value in any way, shape or form.

    Meme said, 

    We all have emotional buttons that get pushed. One of mine is censorship.  Despite your attempt to selectively reframe  that 'attack  on you  It was  direct critique of what you said and your censoring words.  I am sorry if the popular response to that critique hit a nerve and hurt your feelings.  I actually value your posts and as I've pointed out then and now agree with you more than not.

    In my private dealings with Meme, I find him incapable of putting on a false face.  He could have said nothing – but instead he said he values your posts.. so I think you may be going a bit overboard in trying to paint a controversy.  Just my opinion and observation.  

    As to the Group Think.. I guess there is truth here, but we really, really need to frame it as a David vs. Goliath situation.  For many of us, our attempts to divine truth out of the morass of propaganda and mis-information that exist today have led us here, to PP.com.  Here's how I think about it;  Coming to PP.com and taking part in the conversations mean you are in the game.. you are seeking truth and seeking a better way.. you are beginning to see that our current way of being, with each other, with the earth, is unsustainable.

    Beyond that I personally use 9/11 as a way to draw the line between thinkers who can or can't help take me to the next level of understanding.  I for one became very disillusioned with Charles Eisenstein when I read this wishy washy piece of his;

    http://charleseisenstein.net/synchronicity-myth-and-the-new-world-order/

    Again, you can argue your own logic.. and I am sure there are many great people with great ideas and very positive spiritual intentions who are otherwise unable or unwilling to see what happened on 9/11.  I would suggest there is almost 100% congruence between the, "group" in this particular Group Think and an acceptance of the fact that 9/11 was a false flag.  Understanding 9/11 has nothing to do with feelings, and everything to do with a person's ability to process factual evidence and come to a conclusion via pattern recognition.  Processing factual evidence and coming to technical conclusions based on often incomplete evidence is what I have been engaged in for 33 years in my job as a semiconductor materials engineer  – so I know what it is, and indeed I see in retrospect that I ended up where I am because of my INTJ wiring.  

    We talk about Building 7 because the evidence is so clear that anyone should be capable of grasping it.  The fact that many can't or won't, even when spoon fed, is THE REASON that I often come back to my small group, my tribe here at PP.com for solace, and for closed discussion.  It is not Group Think, it is a unique group of thinkers.  Everyone is free to associate as they please.

    The evidence is overwhelming, and of every sort possible – in fact any ONE of these points I mention should be enough to initiate a new investigation of 9/11;

    Chemical:  All dust samples from 9/11 show small red flakes that have a very unique, layered composition that is suggestive of a highly engineered (read non-natural) material.  Using Differential Scanning Calorimetry (an instrument I used to run in the lab) these flakes indicate huge exothermic potential, consistent with an elemental composition matching that of thermate/thermite.  As well some of the building steel was found to have pockets of pure Sulfur, only explainable via the action of thermate.

    Structural/Visual:  The building(s) fell down in a way that can ONLY be described as a controlled implosion;

      http://www.ae911truth.org/news/199-news-media-events-60-structural-engineers.html

    Thermal:  The energy part of the three E's is thermodynamics.  Thermodynamics is the study of energy and energetic transitions. 

    Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF.”

    http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/347-high-temperatures-persistent-heat-a-molten-steel-at-wtc-site-challenge-official-story.html

    2800 deg. F?  That's impossible given the official scenario of office fires.  The simple existence of temperatures this high says that the official story is wrong.  What then could possibly account for this much energy?  What could have been the source for this exotherm?  Please see, Chemical above.       

    So there you have it.  Yet another exposition on 9/11 by one of the nasty, white make Group Thinkers.  I say that tongue in cheek because, while I am a white male, I consider myself an anti-racist, anti-sexist, supporter of all peace loving people regardless of sexuality or religion.  My wife and I function as equals – she has out earned me for most of her career and I was always proud of her for doing so.  

    One of the steps in my own personal evolution that I most value is the realization that I don't have to be driven to act in a way that makes other people like me.  If we understand ourselves, unearth our true core values and live in alignment with them, we can love ourselves.  Once we love ourselves, as we are, then we can let go of our almost universal desire to be liked.  If you can do this, you will be set free… not from your own feelings of grief or joy .. but from feelings about how your are perceived.  It is the power of these feelings of how one is perceived that lead to many an adolescent suicide… and most of us never manage to get control over these.

    The opposite of what I am describing is what is happening on college campuses and elsewhere today in society.. the idea that we should help protect people from having their feelings, "triggered" and that we should have, "safe spaces" where feelings don't get triggered.  What?  You gotta be kidding me, right?  While I would never deny that we have a sordid history in the US when it comes to racism, sexism, or any other in the panoply of failures on the road to, "All Men People Created Equal" I sincerely don't believe that giving every "feeling" validation is the answer.  

    The powers behind the movement that give these feelings validation are the powers that want to use this to separate and control us.  If we let this happen, then any old mass delusion that the Corp. captured mass media wants to paint (i.e. Trump is a racist) gets validated.  If you can't see this, then you are probably in the category of folks who also don't see 9/11 for what it is.  If you can't see this, then you are experiencing a form of Stockholm syndrome toward your elitist, globalist captors.  If you can't see this, then please do expect me to use all of the power of my writing to bludgeon your ideas as best I can…. because this is bigger than you and me.  I hope my friend Meme does the same.           

    I choose to stay with my Group Think cadre because they see things clearly, against all odds.  I really can't say why there are not more female members of the Group Think – I wish there were.  As T2H has pointed out… the game is really on now with Trump coming into power soon.  Lot's to decipher in the coming days.. and I am so glad to have PP.com as a place where we can sort it out. 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 13, 2016 - 7:19pm

    #118

    Rector

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 07 2010

    Posts: 324

    Russian Bombers?

    Any theories about what this is all about?

    http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3779791

    What are they going to bomb?

    Rector

    BTW – Watch Nov 20 for action in Iran/Israel hostilities theatre.  Don't ask me how I know – none of you would believe me if I told you anyway.  

    Rector

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 13, 2016 - 8:18pm

    #119
    Edwardelinski

    Edwardelinski

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 23 2012

    Posts: 324

    Granny:

    A few years ago my brother-in-law gave gave me the crash course to read.Soon after we both started reading Peak Prosperity. From the start I recognized what you were trying to do,it was not lost on me.At the same time I cringed reading many of the insults hurled your way.Every now and then I will post.I have been met with the same you received.Yesterday I posted here on the Women's March on Washington.Again, met with the same garbage.Groups have begun to mobilize.Yesterday I sent the Women's Info over to Lauren Evans the Weekend writer at Jezebel.com.An hour later she wrote a piece which has now been read by 35,000 women.In the comments section the ladies are making plans to attend.Some offering there homes in Baltimore etc.Women mobilize and get things done.Some have been hoping for an implosion, it appears we are getting just that.Sometimes you just have to find your tribe.I know where mine is not…Carry on Granny.Dance Nasty Girl Dance…

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 13, 2016 - 8:38pm

    #120

    AKGrannyWGrit

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2011

    Posts: 459

    Thanks Jim

    Thanks for sharing your perspective.  Its kind of you to defend your friend and I agree with you on 9/11.  It is indeed frustrating when others do not see what is so obvious to us.  I feel that way about the dynamics of this site and the gender issue.  It seems so simple to me, if this were a friendlier place we'd have more female members.

    And I too am an INTJ, and I am married to one as well.  He is an engineer too.  Hmmm Perhaps male INTJ's have difficulty with feelings?  I don't know but like Time2Help suggests… time to move on. 

    You sound like a nice guy and I appreciate your taking the time to respond.

    AK GrannyWGrit

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 13, 2016 - 9:58pm

    Reply to #119
    Luke Moffat

    Luke Moffat

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 25 2014

    Posts: 365

    Lost in Translation

    [quote=Edwardelinski]

    A few years ago my brother-in-law gave gave me the crash course to read.Soon after we both started reading Peak Prosperity. From the start I recognized what you were trying to do,it was not lost on me.At the same time I cringed reading many of the insults hurled your way.Every now and then I will post.I have been met with the same you received.Yesterday I posted here on the Women's March on Washington.Again, met with the same garbage.Groups have begun to mobilize.Yesterday I sent the Women's Info over to Lauren Evans the Weekend writer at Jezebel.com.An hour later she wrote a piece which has now been read by 35,000 women.In the comments section the ladies are making plans to attend.Some offering there homes in Baltimore etc.Women mobilize and get things done.Some have been hoping for an implosion, it appears we are getting just that.Sometimes you just have to find your tribe.I know where mine is not…Carry on Granny.Dance Nasty Girl Dance…

    [/quote]

    Hi EE,

    Being the first to respond to that comment I'm not sure if that was directed at me or not but in case it was there's a fair bit of misinterpretation going on. My 2 sentences of sarcasm wasn't directed at women organising to make a protest at a perceived wrong. On one hand I was highlighting the hypocrisy of the whole situation but more importantly I was attempting to draw attention to the environmental impacts – a million people march on Washington – carbon footprint anyone? Someday I'd like to write a book called, "What makes nature cry?" A million people now crying foul at misogyny in the White House is a) two decades overdue and b) a misallocation of resources. How many t-shirts will get printed? How many placards made? How much gasoline burned? How many trees felled? When do people make the distinction? Washington doesn't care. The Praetorian Guard have their Caesar. So why can't we have that conversation instead?

    Rather than encouraging these women to undertake such a fruitless endeavour to gain satisfaction for their righteous indignation, would it not be better for everyone, including the little creatures we barely give a moment's thought about, to explain the source of our predicament to them? As someone with access to the insight's that PP offers would it not be better to engage them on matters of resource depletion, credit cycles and human behaviour? 

    A million American women getting engaged in political issues is a brilliant thing. But wouldn't it be better if they understood the source of that angst? Surely all of that energy could be better spent establishing local networks that reduced their dependence on Washington so that when the centre breaks you have something to show for your efforts?

    Perhaps the medium of communication, i.e. the internet, distorts the intention of my posts. If we were sat across a table from one another, or in a group forum in general, then you'd see I wasn't so bad and that we probably share about 99% of the same concerns.

    All the best,

    Luke

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Nov 13, 2016 - 10:39pm

    #121

    AKGrannyWGrit

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2011

    Posts: 459

    Thanks EE

    Thanks Edwardelinski!  People getting involved is a good thing.  It gets them away from the TV/Internet and involved with trying to create a change.  Glad you are participating good for you!

    Thanks for the support! Yep no tribe here, good luck.

    AK Granny

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 14, 2016 - 2:31am

    #122
    Tikky2

    Tikky2

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 24 2012

    Posts: 11

    Many voices

    I appreciate the many comments on this thread, especially the female voices (thanks AKGrannyWGrit and Edwardeliski).

    I read a fair amount on this site but I rarely comment. It generally takes me a while to process things and figure out what I think. And then when I figure out what I want to say, the thread has usually moved beyond the subject I wanted to comment on. And there's a lot of data. I don't have the time and the headspace to read everything and sort through all the perspectives and ideas. I am also not great at arguing my point, which puts me at a disadvantage in such a forum.

    Gillbilly, I appreciated this:  

    "Tikky's last statement:

    "Whatever happens, I will get up in the morning and do my work in the world. I can't change or fix what's going on the larger society. I can only do my part in my small corner working towards a better world."

    Why do you think she wrote this? It speaks volumes! Why do you think she didn't even mention the content of what's in Chris's article. Those that have been marginalized will pick themselves up like they have for centuries and get back to work with everyday life. If some of the commenters had fully understood what she was saying I don’t think she would have received all the “thumbs ups” she did. It’s not their experience, so it gets lost on their ears, and/ or is dismissed since it’s not their reality."

    I hadn't thought about that way, thanks for this perspective. 

    In any case, I think the work I do in the world is just as important as what Chris and Adam do in this site (the Buddhist idea of "right livelihood"). Someone has to cook food, wash clothes, clean house, manage a household: jobs that usually fall to women, and aren't considered very important in our patriarchal and data driven world. But that doesn't mean they aren't important: they are vital. (And yes, I do work outside the home as well).

    I appreciate this website for its ideas and information. I take what I can use and leave the rest. I have no one in my life that I can really talk to about the subjects that are explored here. I've tried to discuss them with various people but no one is interested. So I turn to this website and the forums because there are like minded individuals here. But I don't always feel comfortable commenting, for the reasons I described earlier. But that doesn't make my voice any less important.  

    I'd love it if a more diverse range of voices would be included in this site. How about more interviews with people who are not white Anglo Saxon men? I've appreciated the past contributions of Carolyn Baker (Chris interviewed her several years ago), Teal Swan, Dmitry Orlov and FerFal. The human experience is broad, and truth and inspiration can come from many different (and often surprising) places.

     

     

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 14, 2016 - 3:31pm

    #123

    AKGrannyWGrit

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 06 2011

    Posts: 459

    Great Post Tikky2

    I agree we all benefit from wider perspectives and am glad you choose to post.

    Carolyn Baker would be a great guest and I heartily second Tikky2's suggestion!

    Now, Can We Talk About The End Of Business As Usual? By Carolyn Baker

    AK GrannyWGrit

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 14, 2016 - 7:34pm

    Reply to #90

    kelvinator

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 25 2008

    Posts: 181

    Better to Go for Understanding Than Pigeonholing

    "Why Kelvin voted for a Criminal Serial Warmonger Corporate Stooge Even Though he's a Populist Antiwar Activist." …I also suspect GREEN people believe themselves to be at the pinnacle of spiritual evolution.

    I see you're busy reaching out now after this brutal election with understanding and kindness, Dave? I was hoping something of a validation of your perspective by events might have made you more expansive when considering views on election choice or turmoil that don't match your own.   I don't think you ever acknowledged how much we agreed on, and that's a lot, certainly in the economic realm.  

    It seems it's too easy for any of us to be a confident and harsh critic on one side of a culture war that it would be better for all of us to try explore, dissolve and resolve as much as we can, in my opinion.  No one is the holder of all the truth, all the facts, or owns the narrative here.  Do you agree, or disagree?  For me, the question is hardly worth asking because the answer is obvious:  I said from the beginning my views, or aspects of them may be "wrong", but I don't seem to hear that acknowledged as a starting point by many people here, or much of the country.  Chris said he'd change his mind if I or someone else presented views and facts that caused him to do that, and I assume you feel the same way.  

    I've been off this site completely since the election both because I'm disturbed with the regime the new president promises, and in order to interact with many shocked HRC supporters who really didn't see this coming as a possibility the way I and others here did, and who have been blind to views that you, I, Chris and many others here share and agree upon.  I've also been interacting with more receptive Trump supporters online, who respond when they see I'm aligned with the economic anger at the Clinton war orientation and corruption they've felt.  With them, I've tried to communicate to them my concerns about the increasing corruption I expect in the Trump administration, deep and unnecessary damage to the environment, and the real dangers of an administration of a president that clearly has encouraged an attitude of threat, violence, sexism and bigotry among supporters that I've seen myself – it's not just as a MSM "meme".  

    When I came back here this AM, I found Chris has been making many of the points that I've been making to HRC supporters I know about what happened in this election.  He posted the same Thomas Frank article that I've been posting or sending over and over to friends who say, "oh, we won the popular vote" or who foolishly just identify racism or stupidity as the reason for this outcome.  I posted and emailed CHS's article on the Source of our Rage, and tell Dems about the $153 million the Clintons took in in speaking fees since 2001 while the working and middle class was trashed.  I'm very disturbed that so many Dems still seem in denial about the deep anger out there and why Hillary lost, and that some are ready to double down on a truly corrupt political structure.  

    I'm working to blow that effort up politically.  I'm an independent politically, but I became very active in online efforts to make sure that the corrupt Dem Big Money party never, ever gets rebuilt – actively supporting Bernie's and Warren's efforts to have Keith Ellison elected DNC Chair.  He's announcing his  candidacy today, and now apparently may be pulling in the support of the establishment Dems because they realize there's no real life in their same old establishment message to voters, even if there still is with their funders.

    Soon, I'll turn my efforts in the world to trying to staunch the great damage that I believe a Trump administration is likely to do as a one party corrupt, establishment Republican rule removes regs from Wall Street, the environment, and so on, bringing yet another big wave of corruption to finance and damage to our world in its wake and trying to quell any rationales for violence down on all sides.   At least the Dems had what I consider to be a powerful economic populist wing in Bernie and Warren – as I predicted and still predict, a force now greatly weakened in a Trump gov't.  Repubs had a cultural populist wing, IMO, not economic.  Trump is likely do the opposite of delivering actual opportunity and support for the lower 80% of the US.  David Stockman and others have said he won't do much, and I think that's best case.   Hopefully, he'll be less damaging, more beneficial than I expect, but I certainly see no particular reason to think so.  We know Trump said a bunch of things he doesn't mean, and Sen leader McConnel is already fighting to stop economic stimulus or help Trump wants to do, I understand.  I do think they'll deliver something – it would be foolish politically not to.   At the same time, those who supported Trump with the idea that it might pop the financial bubble must consider the possibility that Trump's presidency will actually extend the bubble we all see and its slavery and suffering by years without really fixing the issue of corruption or helping working class Americans at all.   

    Markets only have limited value as an indicator of such a thing, but that view could be consistent with the fact that the Dow broke to a new high, and gold dropped to a new recent low.  Just like trying to predict the stock market, none of us is a sure predictor of these social outcomes or arcs in their form and timing.  Among other things, I've done investment management for years, and as you know, that repeatedly teaches humility in such attitudes.

    Again, I suggest we try to see what we agree on and move forward in a positive way, trying to discuss differences with some willingness to learn on both sides.  This culture-war split country seems to need a lot more understanding than it does labeling and anger these days, right?  It already has a boatload of that.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 14, 2016 - 9:09pm

    Reply to #123

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4635

    On Carolyn Baker

    [quote=AKGrannyWGrit]

    I agree we all benefit from wider perspectives and am glad you choose to post.

    Carolyn Baker would be a great guest and I heartily second Tikky2's suggestion!

    Now, Can We Talk About The End Of Business As Usual? By Carolyn Baker

    AK GrannyWGrit

    [/quote]
    Agreed.

    Now this is something I can work with, a direct suggestion.  These can also be PM'ed or emailed to Adam which is even more direct way of putting in a suggestion, as many already do.

    In case you are wondering, perhaps, what sort of a woman might be raised from within the confines of this particular white male's household, may I direct you to Carolyn Baker's recent interview with one Erica Martenson, a.ka. my eldest daughter.

    Navigating The Global Crisis as a Millenial

    For the record, Erica was invited by Carolyn directly after Erica showed up at one of Carolyn's seminars (on grief) and impressed her so much as participant, she was invited on.  I was not involved in the that decision on either end.

    Also, Carolyn has been on my show before. http://carolynbaker.net/2011/10/08/chris-martenson-interviews-carolyn-baker-emotional-resilience/

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 15, 2016 - 1:22am

    Reply to #89

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Online)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 857

    Here's the link about Johnson.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COItiKtHWyg#action=share

    Grover, this is basically what I was talking about.  However, the question is about Nazis and Jewish bakeries.  I think that the basic question is a little removed from our society in speciffics; as far as I can tell, the general question is no different than the evangelical family's farm wedding chapel that was sued for not hosting a homosexual wedding.

    In fact, I suspect that is what triggered the question.  Maybe I'm wrong:  maybe there was a real (similar) event in Johnson's state… or a law passed that brought this question to the forefront.

    Anyhow, there is enough discussion for thought… not just simple sound bites.  Probably not enough discussion for some, maybe for you.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 15, 2016 - 1:25am

    Reply to #89

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Online)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 857

    Here's the link about Johnson

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COItiKtHWyg#action=share

    Grover, this is basically what I was talking about.  However, the question is about Nazis and Jewish bakeries.  I think that the basic question is a little removed from our society in speciffics; as far as I can tell, the general question is no different than the evangelical family's farm wedding chapel that was sued for not hosting a homosexual wedding.

    In fact, I suspect that is what triggered the question.  Maybe I'm wrong:  maybe there was a real (similar) event in Johnson's state… or a law passed that brought this question to the forefront.

    Anyhow, there is enough discussion for thought… not just simple sound bites.  Probably not enough discussion for some, maybe for you.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 15, 2016 - 2:33am

    #124

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    The Death of Philosophy.

    I also suspect GREEN people believe themselves to be at the pinnacle of spiritual evolution.

    No they're not. I am. (Dunning-Kruger, much?)

    Most people at PP. regurgitate their philosophies undigested.  The amount of unexamined pap that that I have wade through in these post is depressing.

    Just a taste. 

    1. All people are equal. I am not even my own equal. This becomes blinding obvious after my third beer. 
    2. Racism was a invented by Leon Trotsky about 1925 to describe a worldview and set of values at odds with the values of Communism. The International Communists also railed against Nationalism.  Since when did the entire planet embrace Communism?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 15, 2016 - 6:47am

    Reply to #90

    davefairtex

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 03 2008

    Posts: 3146

    oops

    Sorry Kelvin, I was just teasing you a bit with the pigeonhole, and that's probably not the right thing to do right now.  Its not really how I think.

    I do think that a large number of my GREEN friends imagine themselves to be at the pinnacle of cultural development, and that they believe the rubes who are against blindly accepting migrants and refugees (and "refugees") are just racist, KKK-inspired proto-nazi scum.  Political correctness run thoroughly amok, with no thought to the practical implications of all of it.

    Yes we agree on many things, yes I didn't talk enough about that, and yes – sometimes I forget to be kind too, which I believe I might have mentioned.

    I think its a great idea to hold Trump's feet to the fire on the many issues we don't agree with him on.  The more pressure he gets, the more he'll be forced to compromise.  I don't have high hopes regarding banking, but I didn't with Clinton either.  She's owned by banks 100%, and I don't think Sanders or Warren would have helped.  Donors Must Be Rewarded; keep your keys to power happy or else they will replace you.

    Trump has already backed away from simply gutting Obamacare – although I'm not sure Trumpcare will be any less of a giveaway to the drug companies.  Maybe he'll finally allow medicare to negotiate drug prices.  Obama didn't, and he had the chance.  Maybe Trump will do him one better.

    Scott Adams thinks Trump will back away from most of his crazy stuff and move to the center.  There's an interesting bit in there about how Trump has a clear path to become not-a-monster, while Clinton had no path to become not-a-criminal.

    http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153172272041/how-to-break-an-illusion#_=_

    Here's one way to view HRC's defeat: HRC would have stolen the limelight away from the true champions of the left, and would have brought further discredit on everything by constantly forcing Sanders and Warren to betray their principles for party loyalty.  She would have corrupted them.  Now, as the opposition, they don't need to be in this position any longer.  Going forward, HRC will try to remain relevant (in order to keep the money flowing into the Clinton Foundation; it will be interesting to see if donations continue to arrive with her political career at a likely end), but once she shuffles off the stage into well-deserved irrelevance, Warren and Sanders will continue to be the focus.  And that's all to the good.  Because they are the genuine article, while she is not.

    I like your support in replacing the current head of the DNC with a non-stooge.  (Or maybe, a Sanders stooge!).   This will help ensure that people who actually care and believe in what they say will be given a chance.  And while I'm not specifically a leftie, I think its critical to get people in government who are honest, from both sides of the spectrum.  Honest people from all sides can come to a compromise about things that matter, while the current raft of slime get together and pass TTIP and other pro-cartel harvest-enabling legislation because that's what the bipartisan donor class wants to happen.

    If Warren & Sanders keep it up, I think 2018 could be a stellar year for "real change", rather than the tepid synthetic brew HRC was offering.  If you combine authentic leadership with a real cause, you may actually motivate people to rally for real change.  With a Clinton victory, it would have been inauthentic, corrupt leadership, with only a tepid following, which meant nothing would change.

    The funny thing is, I think the whole "red + blue" thing is right, its just that the corrupt Clintons are the worst possible champions of this cause.  They probably ran some focus groups and figured out this is what they needed to do to remain relevant and keep that money flowing in.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 15, 2016 - 8:06am

    Reply to #89

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 691

    Johnson Position

    Michael,

    Thanks for finding this for me. I watched it 3 times to see what you were describing. It is a tortuous stretch to get from the bakery example to requiring Christian churches to formalize homosexual marriage. Although churches are corporate constructs (as far as the law is concerned,) their basis includes their particular philosophy. Because biblical teachings are the hallmark of the church and a cornerstone of their philosophy, it is unreasonable to require them to perform homosexual marriage ceremonies. The "sole provider" argument doesn't hold with marriages because States require marriage licenses and civil ceremonies are available.

    I find the "debate" format encourages too much confrontation – more heat than light. Johnson doesn't do this form of confrontation well. (Trump does it too well.) Austin was the outsider trying to make a name for himself. He said that he would form a protest outside the bakery. Well, as far as I could read in the news, he didn't do that. Was that wishful thinking or just political rhetoric?

    So, where do we draw the line? Is it okay for that same bakery (or any business) to refuse to serve blacks or Jews or Catholics or atheists due to some claimed moral indignation?

    Again, thanks for providing the video so I could see it.

    Grover

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 15, 2016 - 2:39pm

    Reply to #89

    Michael_Rudmin

    Status Gold Member (Online)

    Joined: Jun 25 2014

    Posts: 857

    If you're libertarian, then it's not okay.

    As stated by Johnson's opponent, he'll join anyone in boycotting a ****-ist bakery… but it's not the job of the government to destroy bigots. 

    Unless, you agree that it was fully appropriate for the FBI to shoot Vicky Weaver to death through the head of her infant son. 

    She was a racist (well, a racial separatist, but a very outspoken one).

    But I am against shooting her and her children; and I am against shooting Bundy; and I am against the "I can't breathe" Greene killing; and I am against the government using levels of force that wind up being lethal against those who hold unpopular or even BAD political positions.

    So where do we draw the line?  If you're a statist, there's no need to draw a line.  Government can and should do any and every thing the powerful want. 

    Just, my point is:  Johnson isn't a libertarian.  He's a libertine.  He wants freedom for himself, no matter what the cost.  A libertarian will absorb the loss of having less freedom in actual fact himself, so that all may have more freedom as a policy.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Nov 15, 2016 - 10:57pm

    Reply to #89

    Grover

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 15 2011

    Posts: 691

    Liberty's Responsibilities

    [quote=Michael_Rudmin]

    As stated by Johnson's opponent, he'll join anyone in boycotting a ****-ist bakery… but it's not the job of the government to destroy bigots.

    [/quote]

    I agree that it isn't the government's job to destroy bigots. I do think it is government's job to make rules (laws) so society can function. The fewer interactions you have with others, the more liberty you have. Libertarianism isn't about having total freedom to do whatever you choose. It is about limiting unnecessary governmental intrusion into your liberty. Your liberty ends where it impacts another's liberty.

    Somehow you miss that point. (You mention it at the end of your post, but you're not applying it in the middle of your post.) Libertines only want liberty for themselves. There is no empathy or consideration of others' rights. As far as I can tell, libertines don't accept responsibility for their actions. Why would they need to accept any responsibility? That only limits their hedonistic, self centered choices.

    [quote=Michael_Rudmin]

    Unless, you agree that it was fully appropriate for the FBI to shoot Vicky Weaver to death through the head of her infant son. 

    She was a racist (well, a racial separatist, but a very outspoken one).

    But I am against shooting her and her children; and I am against shooting Bundy; and I am against the "I can't breathe" Greene killing; and I am against the government using levels of force that wind up being lethal against those who hold unpopular or even BAD political positions.

    [/quote]

    Whoa! You keep blowing this out of proportion and assuming that I hold these positions. I'm against all these things, too. If I wore my feelings on my sleeve, I'd be insulted by your tactics. Let's stick on point.

    [quote=Michael_Rudmin]

    So where do we draw the line?  If you're a statist, there's no need to draw a line.  Government can and should do any and every thing the powerful want.

    [/quote]

    I've asked several times and you always skirt the question. Let me simplify it to its essence. Where do we draw the line? Is it okay for a bakery (or any business) to refuse to serve blacks due to a claimed moral indignation?

    I've answered this before, but let me do it again. A business has no human rights. Those rights are reserved for humans. A business is just a convenient legal construct for facilitating commerce. When the owners of a business open for business, they implicitly agree to abide to legal business conditions. The owners can be as racist as they choose, but their business can't legally discriminate based on that racism.

    If I go into a kosher deli and ask for a pulled pork sandwich, they can legally say that they don't have any pork due to kosher rules. My rights weren't violated. If I go to a bakery that advertises custom wedding cakes and I ask for a custom wedding cake, does the business (not the owners) have the right to discriminate against me because my choices don't align with the owners' sensibilities? That's really the issue here. You conflate a business with its owners. As a result, your construct limits others' liberty. That sounds libertine to me based on the following:

    [quote=Michael_Rudmin]

    Just, my point is:  Johnson isn't a libertarian.  He's a libertine.  He wants freedom for himself, no matter what the cost.  A libertarian will absorb the loss of having less freedom in actual fact himself, so that all may have more freedom as a policy.

    [/quote]

    I like your definition of a libertarian. Johnson fits that definition.

    Grover

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Nov 19, 2016 - 7:52am

    Reply to #80
    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2252

    Let's go for what's behind door # 2 Alex...

    [quote=Time2help]

    Outcome #1 – Hillary is elected.

    • Expect a repeat of the mid/senior level FBI disgust on a massive scale (rank-and-file military, veterans and beat-level LE).  Large scale resignations, retirements and walkouts on the civilian side, exodus at end-of-enlistment on the Mil side. Anyone that cares about the Bill of Rights and Rule of Law will check out of the Empire "in spirit". Massive apathy within the remaining Mil/LE structure. Expect unintended consequences.
    • It sure is taking a long time for someone to respond to your 911 call…

    Outcome #2 – Trump is elected.

    • Majority of rank-and-file military and LE remain committed to the system, at least for a while. As long as the outward appearance of rule-of-law, or hope of returning to rule-of-law, remains. This will serve to keep the wolves at bay a while longer. Expect the inner cities to explode in protest/violence. Expect a harsh crackdown from military and LE in response.
    • It sure is taking a long time for someone to response to your 911 call…

    Outcome #3 – False Flag, election is delayed, O stays in office.

    • See Outcome #1.
     Outcome #4 – Contested election. 
     
    • Probably some of all of the above. Who the hell knows. 

    From a Globalist's perspective:

    • If you’re running this shitshow and want to keep the Empire going a bit longer, then Trump makes sense. Particularly if your country (cough, cough, Israel) enjoys the support of a strong US Military. Spoiler alert – If you think Trump isn’t playing along with the big game, check out the viewpoints of his VP and DHS front runners. And if he isn't there's always the JFK/Scalia option. Pence will play ball.
    • If you want to "pull it" now, Hillary is the way to go. Once the politicians lose the support of the rank-and-file military/LE the Empire will fall. Think USSR, only amplified by the economic/energy collapse. High probability of civil unrest/revolt, increasing with time. High likelihood of war with Russia (thank you Neocons) as a distraction, particularly as more and more of the US population "awakens".

    Either way Rule-of-Law in this country is dead. Comey and Lynch have seen to that.

    But hey, vote pussy or vote dick – take your pick.

    Historical anecdote: Civil rights tend not to hold up well in war zones.

    [/quote]

    Not expecting this administration to be much more than a continuation of the last one where it counts. I was expecting a greater response from the protestors in major cities. Still early thought, particularly if any of mememonkey's predictions come to pass. 

    Time will tell.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 21, 2016 - 3:12am

    #125
    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2252

    Turkey rotating away?

    Fed up with EU, Erdogan says Turkey could join Shanghai bloc (Reuters)

    [quote]President Tayyip Erdogan was quoted on Sunday as saying that Turkey did not need to join the European Union "at all costs" and could instead become part of a security bloc dominated by China, Russia and Central Asian nations.

    NATO member Turkey's prospects of joining the EU look more remote than ever after 11 years of negotiations. European leaders have been critical of its record on democratic freedoms, while Ankara has grown increasingly exasperated by what it sees as Western condescension.

    "Turkey must feel at ease. It mustn't say 'for me it's the European Union at all costs'. That's my view," Erdogan was quoted by the Hurriyet newspaper as telling reporters on his plane on the way back from a visit to Pakistan and Uzbekistan.

    "Why shouldn't Turkey be in the Shanghai Five? I said this to (Russian President) Mr Putin, to (Kazakh President) Nazarbayev, to those who are in the Shanghai Five now," he said.

    "I hope that if there is a positive development there, I think if Turkey were to join the Shanghai Five, it will enable it to act with much greater ease."

    China, Russia and four Central Asian nations — Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan — formed the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in 2001 as a regional security bloc to fight threats posed by radical Islam and drug trafficking from neighboring Afghanistan.[/quote]

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 21, 2016 - 4:40am

    #126

    Jim H

    Status Diamond Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2009

    Posts: 1798

    Silly me T2H..

    I read the subject of your post and thought it was Thanksgiving related – at about 24 seconds in you will see turkey rotating away;

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Nov 21, 2016 - 4:49am

    #127
    Time2help

    Time2help

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 08 2011

    Posts: 2252

    Re: Turkey toss

    I liked yours better.

    Login or Register to post comments

Login or Register to post comments