Trump was NOT elected because he, as a human being, possesses any special qualities.
This election was NOT about promoting Trump and his "virtues". It was about OPPOSING the corruption, graft and tyranny that Hillary represented SO WELL.
Trump, as "the opposition" was, and is, merely a convenient unifying SYMBOL that The People could rally around to oppose the ruinous corruption that pervades BOTH parties and the entire Establishment.
Over the past year, a great awakening has happened, and the momentum generated is NOT attached to Trump, or to any human: It will continue, with or without him.
If Trump was a Trojan Horse - if he betrays the will of The People - he should be VERY aware that HE and his cronies will be exposed, opposed and NEUTRALIZED with all of the energy that crushed the corrupt Hillary Machine, and more. MUCH MORE.
We have come to a crossroads: Humanity will either evolve to a higher level, or perish by our own foolish hands. If Trump wants to participate in this existentially essential evolution, GREAT!
If not, he should know that he, like Hillary and others that have thrived on greed, graft and corruption, will be ground into powder.
Alternatively, Humanity, as a species, has failed. Our time has passed.
thats the thing tho. i feel like since they clearly were able to rig the primary and voting in favor of clinton why wouldnt they have been able to do the same for trump (maybe in less obvious ways)? how come all of a sudden our votes do matter and the power is back in our hands after TPTB have appeared to be in control for longer than who knows? could trump not have been a tool to get people to rally around and see as a symbol of anti-corruption in hopes that people believe they have "won" and defeated the corrupt powers that be (thus getting attention off of them-tptb)?
im not really directing these questions at you but just trying to show how completely confused I am about this election from a TPTB 'conspiracy' standpoint.
i know its weird/doesnt really make sense why so much energy was put into clinton just to have her fail, but im just not able to accept the idea that TPTB got stupid, forgot how to operate and have lost all their power after calling the shots (in sometimes complex ways) for so long
in my eyes both candidates were huge pieces of shit, but the fact that it came down to them two and the fact that this election was like a show/movie and was so strange, bizarre, & unlike any other and the fact that there was so much blatant rigging/corruption going on and the fact all of this just felt like a practice run or a testing the waters sort of thing (sort of like the increasingly militarized police showing up to peaceful protests) makes me think that we are headed towards some huge event or events that are gonna fuck shit up and change everything
I brought this exact point up in a thread last night. The conclusion that was reached was largely that the TPTB could not rig the election because of various reasons, the main one being that the votes for Trump were so large that it would have been impossible to sway it without being completely obvious. The other reasons being Trump is only superficially anti establishment/anti globalisation and once in office will play ball with the globalist. The angle I am sticking to is that a Trump victory will accomplish two things for TPTB
it will neutralize the growing anger at the establishment and give them cover
2 it will further divide the country along race lines that has been so clearly the agenda recently.
as far as the huge event/s coming I sure hope that is not the case but have a strong feeling it might be
Technically everything still I've when the last human dies has evolved to do better. The only measure of how well you do is based on survival to have children.
Humans have existed for, and experts argue, but we'll assume 1 million years because this is usually the high number in the argument. For all of those years that we existed as modern humans, we did quite well. Mastered the ability to live in any environment on earth.
Then. 10-15k years ago, about 4 different places independently developed agriculture. A blink of an eye has passed relative to our time in existence as a species. And we could end our own species via environmental destruction, nuclear warfare....
I don't think intelligence in the human form is beneficial evolutionarily. But the jury is still out on that one :)
On top of all this, (@OP) when did we say he was anti-establishment? We only liked his policies and the fact that we coukdnt find much (if any) dirt on him. All you lingering shills need to realize we hold him to the same standards we hold to all. So sorry that yours was an evil pedo ring leader. Fuck off with this shit posting.
I want to stress THIS: The FED is the primary driver of economic policy towards Wall Street.
It doesn't matter what Chase or Goldman figurehead is in the cabinet, because there are 100 of them in the Fed driving QE, ZIRP, and all of them are converts to Milton Friedman's monetarist dogma. As long as central banks believe they are the center of the economy, we will have insufficient growth, horrible income distribution, and asset bubbles.
Remember, Wall Street owns the Fed. Literally and figuratively.
Several of the board of governors of Fed are ex-Goldman employees, Mario Draghi is ex-Goldman.
J.P Morgan, Rockefeller, Warburg, Lazard, and Rothschild didn't create the Federal Reserve to have someone regulate them. They created it so THEY could regulate themselves and control economic policy.
People often get confused and think central bankers control the banks. It's actually the opposite, banks own and control the Fed and largely tell it what to do.
I still have trouble swallowing the irony of people believing a guy who had a skyscraper on Wall St was somehow going to be a champion for 'his people' against Wall St. It's just mind boggling to me.. Wall St is 'his people', not us.
Hillary was owned by them too, of that I have no doubt, but to suggest Trump wasn't is just... I can't even...
Every time I try to understand it I get an ice cream headache..
On the contrary, after getting the Republican nomination Trump flipped his campaign script on self-funding and started taking in lots of money from GOP bundlers and SuperPACs.
Donald Trump Jr. isn’t the only Trump son getting into the super PAC fundraising game. On Tuesday, Eric Trump attended a fundraiser for Great America PAC, another pro-Trump group, which was held at Trump Tower.
Furthermore, Trump has also already flipped his script on eliminating the control of "political insiders":
In August, his campaign told CNNMoney that “We will not cut Medicare or Social Security benefits, but protect them both.”
But two of the people said to be helming the president-elect’s Social Security Administration (SSA) transition team have a record of hostility to the program.
EDIT; tl;dr: Meet the new Boss...same as the old Boss.
QE ended is this country two years ago dude. Fed is tightening monetary policy, (even if at a snail pace). Gold will be sub 1100 in 6-12 months, IF they can keep the stock market bubble afloat with fiscal stimulus
The revolutionar war was led by wealthy elites who promised their fortunes for the good of liberating the american people from foreign enslavement, that is the same thing happening now and people should try to understand that before each thing trump does confuses people. Our government had become a puppet oligarchy controlled by foreign agents, transitioning from that will require wealthy people like trump to turn on that foreign control and help americans who could not do so peacefully.
yes, as much as george washington was a nobel soul, but remember, george washington led an army first, so he was responsible for making tough decisions and for motivating his army with words, we are a peaceful version of that.
if that is the leeway you will provide i understand your demands, i will support your demand for term limits. rmember that in 1776 there was no term limits, i have to look into when term limits first began.
"Prior to independence, several colonies had already experimented with term limits. The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut of 1639, for example, prohibited the colonial governor from serving consecutive terms, setting terms at one year's length, and holding "that no person be chosen Governor above once in two years."[2] Shortly after independence, the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 set maximum service in the Pennsylvania General Assembly at "four years in seven".[3] Benjamin Franklin's influence is seen not only in that he chaired the constitutional convention which drafted the Pennsylvania constitution, but also because it included, virtually unchanged, Franklin's earlier proposals on executive rotation. Pennsylvania's plural executive was composed of twelve citizens elected for the term of three years, followed by a mandatory vacation of four years.[4]"
The revolutionar war was led by wealthy elites who promised their fortunes for the good of liberating the american people from foreign enslavement, that is the same thing happening now and people should try to understand that before each thing trump does confuses people.
Trump dedicating his own fortune to his campaign is analogous to the founding fathers pledging their fortunes to the 1st american revolution, many others will recognize history rhyming and join the cause of liberty
God, I can only imagine.. someone made off like thieves, make no mistake. Probably the same group of assholes that have the insider track on every other major event that's going to tilt the markets one way or another.
Trump had that meeting at the white house today where he got to meet those twelve guys who reallly rule the world. He saw the real Zapruder film that was taken from a different angle to show what really happened. They then asked if he had any questions and he said nope.
Edit: I just read the wiki. So if I'm getting this right, the film the public saw was missing a frame that would reveal JFK being shot by someone other than Oswald
Yeah basically the film was altered to show the exit wound being in the front right side of his head. But if you look at real autopsy photographs or listen to interviews of the ones who saw his head that day they will say the back of his head was blown out. The z film was held from the public for years. The one thing they could not change though was the motion of his head. Thus the discrepancy between the fake frontal exit wound and the motion of his head being blown back by the real shot from the front and exit wound in back.
I still think a Trump presidency will be better than a Clinton one, or at least provide us with more of an opportunity to change things if we can seize it. With a Clinton presidency, the same bankers and CFR media would be running the show in the background, yet the liberal/progressive half of the country would be defending her from all attacks. Remember where the anti-war left went after Obama was elected?
Yet with Trump, there's at least the chance that we can start bringing some of the left, with whom there's still large disagreement from the right, over to our side of questioning the deep state. Unless even this was an act, Trump will not be so careful about not letting secrets slip. He's more likely to overplay his hand. Those on this sub and the population we represent, even those who supported Trump once their euphoria fades, will be strongly criticizing everything his administration does wrong.
the liberal/progressive half of the country would be defending her from all attacks.
No no no, let's clarify this a bit.
The liberal/progressives were the ones who didn't show up to the polls, or the ones who already said "Fuck the DNC" and voted for Trump or a third party.
The Democrats would be defending her from all attacks, that is true. Do not get the Democrats and the liberals/progressives confused, however. They are, at this point, two entirely separate entities.
Your typical anti-war, anti-interventionist, peace-loving, pot-smoking, gay-marriage-approving, planned-parenthood-supporting, universal-healthcare-wanting, immigration-friendly, minimum-wage-raising, tree-hugging, equality-for-all, liberal/progressive... they already question the deep state. As much as the right ever has. (side-note: the anti-war left was extremely vocal regarding their opposition to entering into a war in Syria)
They know the system is rigged against us. They know that the financial and political elite needs to be ousted. This is why they showed up for Bernie Sanders. And when he got screwed out of the nomination, they didn't willfully gather behind Clinton. Those that got behind her did so begrudgingly, many looked towards third parties for an answer, and some begrudgingly (or out of pure revenge towards the DNC) settled on Trump.
The "Establishment" that has taken over the DNC are "Third Way Democrats" who are snuggled up all cozy and close to the Neocons, as they share similar economic and foreign policy goals (they differ on domestic social policies, and do so to opposite extremes so that they can keep us bickering at each other instead of paying attention to the shit that they're doing behind the scenes).
This year's Democratic primaries have shown that these Third Way folks don't take kindly to liberals/progressives at all, just as the Neocons don't take kindly to the Tea Party and staunch conservatives.
This Third Way/Neocon insiders club (or the establishment, or whatever you want to call them) and their blind, loyal followers are the group that, as you accurately stated, would have protected Hillary from all attacks, and they have done so for this entire campaign cycle.
Liberals/progressives aren't in opposition with conservatives on this. If there's one thing we can easily agree on, it's that "the establishment" needs to go.
You're absolutely right; I did paint the left with too broad a brush (and to be fair, on many issues I identify more with the "left" than the "right"). The anti-war left didn't leave completely when Obama took office, but their ranks were cut by quite a bit. Many who had been anti-war during the Bush years were only anti-war by extension of being anti-Bush and Bush being pro-war. That's more the point I was trying to make, albeit poorly.
The actual liberals/progressives, some of whom I follow, were against the national security and national surveillance state even under Obama, and I need to give them credit for that.
There is, however, a large contingent of people who self-identify as progressive/liberal who are more concerned with identity politics and relatively superficial issues, that probably don't even know what the "deep state" refers to, or the difference between liberalism (in the modern US sense of the term) and neoliberalism. They follow the Third Way, but aren't even aware that's what they are.
Under a Clinton presidency, I think their defense of her would have largely cancelled out the critiques from the left, and the major dialogue would have been the Clinton brand of neoliberalism (with a few token concessions such as LGBT and women's rights) against a Republican neoconservatism with which she largely agrees on foreign policy.
Liberals/progressives aren't in opposition with conservatives on this. If there's one thing we can easily agree on, it's that "the establishment" needs to go.
Absolutely agreed. While I'm pretty liberal on most social issues, though stopping short of some of the overly aggressive PC culture which has hurt social liberalism, I have no problem uniting with social conservatives on issues which I think matter more, namely globalism ("trade" deals, global governance, etc) and individual and local/state power vs. a centralization of power. If the Trump presidency can manage to unite these sometimes disparate groups, I call that a plus.
However, I personally have a very difficult time seeing Trump being able to play the role of "uniter". His rhetoric and demeanor, stretching throughout his entire life in the public eye, has been so divisive and alienating (his public Twitter battles, his attempts at exclusion of minorities in his real estate properties, his staunch opposition against Obama and the birther movement he championed for so long, and so much more I could mention without even getting into this presidential campaign). Even when his views have been justified, his approach to those conflicts has been toxic more often than not. It's as if he isn't out to find solutions or compromises when other people stand at odds with him, but rather he seems hell bent on proving himself to be right, or justified in his opinions, or somehow better than the other person, or.... maybe he just enjoys arguing with people.
In any case, I think it will be difficult for him to adapt to the unifying role that he now needs to play. He's never shown that side of his personality in public, so I'm skeptical that it's in him to do that now.
(to circle back to your main point, I wouldn't have been able to see Hillary being able to unify the country if she had won, either.)
I'm also still not thoroughly convinced that Trump isn't part of the same Third Way/Neocon establishment. His rumored potential picks that he's vetting for cabinet positions include Giuilani, Christie, Gingrich, Dimon (from JP Morgan), McCaul, Rogers, Hensarling... all people that I'd consider to be part of that insiders club. I'd hardly consider that "draining the swamp".
But, with all that being said, I remain skeptical but completely open minded. I truly hope he proves everyone wrong and can become the unifying force that we so desperately need him to be.
Trump being a true uniter would be great, but I don't really see it going down that way, either. Even if he wanted to, I don't think he has enough people around him that he trusts and who also want that, and I think he would be pushed into pursuing the deep state's policies that end up hurting us all. And I think he probably is part of the neocon movement, or at least won't do much to oppose them.
No, my idea of Trump uniting us was more along the idea of forming coalitions against him, for those policies we can get consensus to oppose him. NSA and other domestic surveillance is one such area, and foreign interventionism could be another. Obama had enough popularity that he was given a pass by a large part of his party, but I don't know that Trump will have that same popularity with his own base for that to happen.
The hardest part of forming such coalitions will be agreeing to disagree with people who hold vastly different views on certain topics. At least ostensibly, Trump will be pushing more right wing social policies, including restrictions on abortions and LGBT rights. The left should oppose this if they want to, but they're going to have to be willing to work with those members of the right who support these if we are to have any chance of opposing the deep state he will likely represent.
The historical tactic of dividing the anti-war, anti-surveillance factions was along social lines, and so far it has worked spectacularly. I think the left will have to accept that they're probably not going to get much done on social issues for four years, but that does not mean they can't get work done on reforming the deep state if they can effectively organize alongside the right-libertarians and the like.
I would love for that to be true... but the quotes are cobbled together from various speaking engagements and he hasn't mentioned anything about reopening an investigation in recent months. Also he can't reopen anything until he is president...
Anecdotal but my dad is a higher up at a prestigious bank and he called today to say it was the worst day of work ever. I genuinely don't think some banks expected a Trump win. Trump may very well be establishment but I'm not sure he's in the club yet
No, I'm sorry. He just said they didn't expect Trump and everyone is running around with their heads cut off and the people above him are removing themselves from a lot of what is going on. He was basically just telling me the corporate structure is failing him right now
Thanks for the reply. Sounds like it might be a bad situation for your dad, like he might be one of the ones who end up holding the bag, but if a prestigious bank is running around scared that might just be a good sign.
I have speculated about this since he first started his campaign. And honestly its not looking good. But I will give him the benefit of the doubt until he appoints his cabinet and takes office.
63 comments
36 lamentationsoftheir 2016-11-10
I like Trump. I support Trump.
I sure as shit do not trust Trump. Always be vigil.
33 Amos_Quito 2016-11-10
^ This is the message.
Trump was NOT elected because he, as a human being, possesses any special qualities.
This election was NOT about promoting Trump and his "virtues". It was about OPPOSING the corruption, graft and tyranny that Hillary represented SO WELL.
Trump, as "the opposition" was, and is, merely a convenient unifying SYMBOL that The People could rally around to oppose the ruinous corruption that pervades BOTH parties and the entire Establishment.
Over the past year, a great awakening has happened, and the momentum generated is NOT attached to Trump, or to any human: It will continue, with or without him.
If Trump was a Trojan Horse - if he betrays the will of The People - he should be VERY aware that HE and his cronies will be exposed, opposed and NEUTRALIZED with all of the energy that crushed the corrupt Hillary Machine, and more. MUCH MORE.
We have come to a crossroads: Humanity will either evolve to a higher level, or perish by our own foolish hands. If Trump wants to participate in this existentially essential evolution, GREAT!
If not, he should know that he, like Hillary and others that have thrived on greed, graft and corruption, will be ground into powder.
Alternatively, Humanity, as a species, has failed. Our time has passed.
Perhaps cockroaches will evolve to do better?
7 Wh1teCr0w 2016-11-10
A-fucking-men brother. Well put, and couldn't agree more.
6 i-eat-ass 2016-11-10
thats the thing tho. i feel like since they clearly were able to rig the primary and voting in favor of clinton why wouldnt they have been able to do the same for trump (maybe in less obvious ways)? how come all of a sudden our votes do matter and the power is back in our hands after TPTB have appeared to be in control for longer than who knows? could trump not have been a tool to get people to rally around and see as a symbol of anti-corruption in hopes that people believe they have "won" and defeated the corrupt powers that be (thus getting attention off of them-tptb)?
im not really directing these questions at you but just trying to show how completely confused I am about this election from a TPTB 'conspiracy' standpoint.
i know its weird/doesnt really make sense why so much energy was put into clinton just to have her fail, but im just not able to accept the idea that TPTB got stupid, forgot how to operate and have lost all their power after calling the shots (in sometimes complex ways) for so long
in my eyes both candidates were huge pieces of shit, but the fact that it came down to them two and the fact that this election was like a show/movie and was so strange, bizarre, & unlike any other and the fact that there was so much blatant rigging/corruption going on and the fact all of this just felt like a practice run or a testing the waters sort of thing (sort of like the increasingly militarized police showing up to peaceful protests) makes me think that we are headed towards some huge event or events that are gonna fuck shit up and change everything
6 rah311 2016-11-10
I brought this exact point up in a thread last night. The conclusion that was reached was largely that the TPTB could not rig the election because of various reasons, the main one being that the votes for Trump were so large that it would have been impossible to sway it without being completely obvious. The other reasons being Trump is only superficially anti establishment/anti globalisation and once in office will play ball with the globalist. The angle I am sticking to is that a Trump victory will accomplish two things for TPTB
2 it will further divide the country along race lines that has been so clearly the agenda recently.
as far as the huge event/s coming I sure hope that is not the case but have a strong feeling it might be
3 ballsnweiners69 2016-11-10
Technically everything still I've when the last human dies has evolved to do better. The only measure of how well you do is based on survival to have children.
Humans have existed for, and experts argue, but we'll assume 1 million years because this is usually the high number in the argument. For all of those years that we existed as modern humans, we did quite well. Mastered the ability to live in any environment on earth.
Then. 10-15k years ago, about 4 different places independently developed agriculture. A blink of an eye has passed relative to our time in existence as a species. And we could end our own species via environmental destruction, nuclear warfare....
I don't think intelligence in the human form is beneficial evolutionarily. But the jury is still out on that one :)
2 RadMicah 2016-11-10
On top of all this, (@OP) when did we say he was anti-establishment? We only liked his policies and the fact that we coukdnt find much (if any) dirt on him. All you lingering shills need to realize we hold him to the same standards we hold to all. So sorry that yours was an evil pedo ring leader. Fuck off with this shit posting.
8 willsuckdick4money 2016-11-10
Question ALL authority. It's a saying for a reason.
22 fat_osvaldo 2016-11-10
I want to stress THIS: The FED is the primary driver of economic policy towards Wall Street.
It doesn't matter what Chase or Goldman figurehead is in the cabinet, because there are 100 of them in the Fed driving QE, ZIRP, and all of them are converts to Milton Friedman's monetarist dogma. As long as central banks believe they are the center of the economy, we will have insufficient growth, horrible income distribution, and asset bubbles.
9 Sirbinkai 2016-11-10
Remember, Wall Street owns the Fed. Literally and figuratively.
Several of the board of governors of Fed are ex-Goldman employees, Mario Draghi is ex-Goldman.
J.P Morgan, Rockefeller, Warburg, Lazard, and Rothschild didn't create the Federal Reserve to have someone regulate them. They created it so THEY could regulate themselves and control economic policy.
People often get confused and think central bankers control the banks. It's actually the opposite, banks own and control the Fed and largely tell it what to do.
16 DrauglinRog 2016-11-10
I still have trouble swallowing the irony of people believing a guy who had a skyscraper on Wall St was somehow going to be a champion for 'his people' against Wall St. It's just mind boggling to me.. Wall St is 'his people', not us.
Hillary was owned by them too, of that I have no doubt, but to suggest Trump wasn't is just... I can't even...
Every time I try to understand it I get an ice cream headache..
7 johnviku 2016-11-10
But he took no donor money. THAT's new.
The media+DNC+Republican establishement tried to take him out with trump tapes. It was a nationwide, coordinated attack.
Altho...yesterday and today the Dow Jones at record highs.
7 WolfgangJones 2016-11-10
On the contrary, after getting the Republican nomination Trump flipped his campaign script on self-funding and started taking in lots of money from GOP bundlers and SuperPACs.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-super-pac-rebuilding-america-now-228213
Furthermore, Trump has also already flipped his script on eliminating the control of "political insiders":
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/08/trump-transition-lobbyists/
Additionally, the defense industry is also celebrating:
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/defense-industry-stocks-surge-following-donald-trump-victory/
Finally, as a knife in the back for all you AARP old-timers out there who voted to 'Make America Great Again':
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/10/donald-trump-ran-on-protecting-social-security-but-transition-team-includes-privatizers/
EDIT; tl;dr: Meet the new Boss...same as the old Boss.
3 johnviku 2016-11-10
EDIT: UPDATES HERE
Ok you're scaring me. There are "tells":
The_Donald thread and 3 others one and two and three
RemindMe! july 2017 "Is TRUMP an outsider in governing or just while campaigning"
7 fat_osvaldo 2016-11-10
Yes that's my point, it's a feedback loop. Why else has QE been extended to infinity than they love the inflation of asset prices?
1 rah311 2016-11-10
QE ended is this country two years ago dude. Fed is tightening monetary policy, (even if at a snail pace). Gold will be sub 1100 in 6-12 months, IF they can keep the stock market bubble afloat with fiscal stimulus
1 ballsnweiners69 2016-11-10
Comcast et al. Own the FCC. This self regulation is apparent across many sectors of society. It's an inherent issue in a capitalist bureaocracy.
14 [deleted] 2016-11-10
The revolutionar war was led by wealthy elites who promised their fortunes for the good of liberating the american people from foreign enslavement, that is the same thing happening now and people should try to understand that before each thing trump does confuses people. Our government had become a puppet oligarchy controlled by foreign agents, transitioning from that will require wealthy people like trump to turn on that foreign control and help americans who could not do so peacefully.
18 4esop 2016-11-10
Trump is such a noble soul? lol This is really buying it. There are a lot of clues about him which do not indicate an altruistic personality.
RemindMe! 4 months.
2 RemindMeBot 2016-11-10
I will be messaging you on 2017-03-10 21:46:13 UTC to remind you of this link.
3 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
2 [deleted] 2016-11-10
yes, as much as george washington was a nobel soul, but remember, george washington led an army first, so he was responsible for making tough decisions and for motivating his army with words, we are a peaceful version of that.
6 4esop 2016-11-10
okay 4 months from now I expect term limits to be passed or it's all bullshit.
3 [deleted] 2016-11-10
if that is the leeway you will provide i understand your demands, i will support your demand for term limits. rmember that in 1776 there was no term limits, i have to look into when term limits first began.
"Prior to independence, several colonies had already experimented with term limits. The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut of 1639, for example, prohibited the colonial governor from serving consecutive terms, setting terms at one year's length, and holding "that no person be chosen Governor above once in two years."[2] Shortly after independence, the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 set maximum service in the Pennsylvania General Assembly at "four years in seven".[3] Benjamin Franklin's influence is seen not only in that he chaired the constitutional convention which drafted the Pennsylvania constitution, but also because it included, virtually unchanged, Franklin's earlier proposals on executive rotation. Pennsylvania's plural executive was composed of twelve citizens elected for the term of three years, followed by a mandatory vacation of four years.[4]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States
Based on that history i think term limits have a chance at good reform this time around as well.
n/a 4esop 2016-11-10
Well...nothing about term limits yet...
n/a PM_Me_Yo_Tits_Grrl 2016-11-10
Too bad that guy's gone.
But yeah we aren't seeing any altruism
1 Darkomantis 2016-11-10
George Washington was a spy master. Look it up. The guy was very skilled.
1 [deleted] 2016-11-10
yes he was good at recognizing things before they occurred.
5 THE_LORD_HERESY 2016-11-10
LOLWUT
1 [deleted] 2016-11-10
Trump dedicating his own fortune to his campaign is analogous to the founding fathers pledging their fortunes to the 1st american revolution, many others will recognize history rhyming and join the cause of liberty
11 ruborubo 2016-11-10
Stock market surged to an all-time high today.
So much for investors being "worried of uncertain markets", lol
5 DrauglinRog 2016-11-10
Remember all those articles saying how "scary" Wall St and investors thought a Trump Presidency would be? Yeah, that was funny..
4 CelineHagbard 2016-11-10
Gotta wonder how much wealth was transferred between the 700 pt drop in the DJIA futures and the what now, 200 some pt rise on Wednesday?
2 DrauglinRog 2016-11-10
God, I can only imagine.. someone made off like thieves, make no mistake. Probably the same group of assholes that have the insider track on every other major event that's going to tilt the markets one way or another.
1 PM_Me_Yo_Tits_Grrl 2016-11-10
Probably these guys, for one
10 Hillary_Antoinette 2016-11-10
Trump had that meeting at the white house today where he got to meet those twelve guys who reallly rule the world. He saw the real Zapruder film that was taken from a different angle to show what really happened. They then asked if he had any questions and he said nope.
2 Talamh3 2016-11-10
Is this the man who showed him the film?
http://tinyurl.com/hooenab
5 [deleted] 2016-11-10
That is not a place I expected to go mentally today
2 no-ez 2016-11-10
Ref. Bill Hicks
2 johnviku 2016-11-10
"High flying assets" as TRUMP said.
2 Sir_smokes_a_lot 2016-11-10
What really happened?
Edit: I just read the wiki. So if I'm getting this right, the film the public saw was missing a frame that would reveal JFK being shot by someone other than Oswald
3 rah311 2016-11-10
Yeah basically the film was altered to show the exit wound being in the front right side of his head. But if you look at real autopsy photographs or listen to interviews of the ones who saw his head that day they will say the back of his head was blown out. The z film was held from the public for years. The one thing they could not change though was the motion of his head. Thus the discrepancy between the fake frontal exit wound and the motion of his head being blown back by the real shot from the front and exit wound in back.
1 Sir_smokes_a_lot 2016-11-10
Thanks for the explanation. I'm going to have to give that tape another look.
8 CelineHagbard 2016-11-10
I still think a Trump presidency will be better than a Clinton one, or at least provide us with more of an opportunity to change things if we can seize it. With a Clinton presidency, the same bankers and CFR media would be running the show in the background, yet the liberal/progressive half of the country would be defending her from all attacks. Remember where the anti-war left went after Obama was elected?
Yet with Trump, there's at least the chance that we can start bringing some of the left, with whom there's still large disagreement from the right, over to our side of questioning the deep state. Unless even this was an act, Trump will not be so careful about not letting secrets slip. He's more likely to overplay his hand. Those on this sub and the population we represent, even those who supported Trump once their euphoria fades, will be strongly criticizing everything his administration does wrong.
10 NotNowImOnReddit 2016-11-10
No no no, let's clarify this a bit.
The liberal/progressives were the ones who didn't show up to the polls, or the ones who already said "Fuck the DNC" and voted for Trump or a third party.
The Democrats would be defending her from all attacks, that is true. Do not get the Democrats and the liberals/progressives confused, however. They are, at this point, two entirely separate entities.
Your typical anti-war, anti-interventionist, peace-loving, pot-smoking, gay-marriage-approving, planned-parenthood-supporting, universal-healthcare-wanting, immigration-friendly, minimum-wage-raising, tree-hugging, equality-for-all, liberal/progressive... they already question the deep state. As much as the right ever has. (side-note: the anti-war left was extremely vocal regarding their opposition to entering into a war in Syria)
They know the system is rigged against us. They know that the financial and political elite needs to be ousted. This is why they showed up for Bernie Sanders. And when he got screwed out of the nomination, they didn't willfully gather behind Clinton. Those that got behind her did so begrudgingly, many looked towards third parties for an answer, and some begrudgingly (or out of pure revenge towards the DNC) settled on Trump.
The "Establishment" that has taken over the DNC are "Third Way Democrats" who are snuggled up all cozy and close to the Neocons, as they share similar economic and foreign policy goals (they differ on domestic social policies, and do so to opposite extremes so that they can keep us bickering at each other instead of paying attention to the shit that they're doing behind the scenes).
This year's Democratic primaries have shown that these Third Way folks don't take kindly to liberals/progressives at all, just as the Neocons don't take kindly to the Tea Party and staunch conservatives.
This Third Way/Neocon insiders club (or the establishment, or whatever you want to call them) and their blind, loyal followers are the group that, as you accurately stated, would have protected Hillary from all attacks, and they have done so for this entire campaign cycle.
Liberals/progressives aren't in opposition with conservatives on this. If there's one thing we can easily agree on, it's that "the establishment" needs to go.
1 CelineHagbard 2016-11-10
You're absolutely right; I did paint the left with too broad a brush (and to be fair, on many issues I identify more with the "left" than the "right"). The anti-war left didn't leave completely when Obama took office, but their ranks were cut by quite a bit. Many who had been anti-war during the Bush years were only anti-war by extension of being anti-Bush and Bush being pro-war. That's more the point I was trying to make, albeit poorly.
The actual liberals/progressives, some of whom I follow, were against the national security and national surveillance state even under Obama, and I need to give them credit for that.
There is, however, a large contingent of people who self-identify as progressive/liberal who are more concerned with identity politics and relatively superficial issues, that probably don't even know what the "deep state" refers to, or the difference between liberalism (in the modern US sense of the term) and neoliberalism. They follow the Third Way, but aren't even aware that's what they are.
Under a Clinton presidency, I think their defense of her would have largely cancelled out the critiques from the left, and the major dialogue would have been the Clinton brand of neoliberalism (with a few token concessions such as LGBT and women's rights) against a Republican neoconservatism with which she largely agrees on foreign policy.
Absolutely agreed. While I'm pretty liberal on most social issues, though stopping short of some of the overly aggressive PC culture which has hurt social liberalism, I have no problem uniting with social conservatives on issues which I think matter more, namely globalism ("trade" deals, global governance, etc) and individual and local/state power vs. a centralization of power. If the Trump presidency can manage to unite these sometimes disparate groups, I call that a plus.
1 NotNowImOnReddit 2016-11-10
I agree with all of this.
However, I personally have a very difficult time seeing Trump being able to play the role of "uniter". His rhetoric and demeanor, stretching throughout his entire life in the public eye, has been so divisive and alienating (his public Twitter battles, his attempts at exclusion of minorities in his real estate properties, his staunch opposition against Obama and the birther movement he championed for so long, and so much more I could mention without even getting into this presidential campaign). Even when his views have been justified, his approach to those conflicts has been toxic more often than not. It's as if he isn't out to find solutions or compromises when other people stand at odds with him, but rather he seems hell bent on proving himself to be right, or justified in his opinions, or somehow better than the other person, or.... maybe he just enjoys arguing with people.
In any case, I think it will be difficult for him to adapt to the unifying role that he now needs to play. He's never shown that side of his personality in public, so I'm skeptical that it's in him to do that now.
(to circle back to your main point, I wouldn't have been able to see Hillary being able to unify the country if she had won, either.)
I'm also still not thoroughly convinced that Trump isn't part of the same Third Way/Neocon establishment. His rumored potential picks that he's vetting for cabinet positions include Giuilani, Christie, Gingrich, Dimon (from JP Morgan), McCaul, Rogers, Hensarling... all people that I'd consider to be part of that insiders club. I'd hardly consider that "draining the swamp".
But, with all that being said, I remain skeptical but completely open minded. I truly hope he proves everyone wrong and can become the unifying force that we so desperately need him to be.
We shall see.
2 CelineHagbard 2016-11-10
Trump being a true uniter would be great, but I don't really see it going down that way, either. Even if he wanted to, I don't think he has enough people around him that he trusts and who also want that, and I think he would be pushed into pursuing the deep state's policies that end up hurting us all. And I think he probably is part of the neocon movement, or at least won't do much to oppose them.
No, my idea of Trump uniting us was more along the idea of forming coalitions against him, for those policies we can get consensus to oppose him. NSA and other domestic surveillance is one such area, and foreign interventionism could be another. Obama had enough popularity that he was given a pass by a large part of his party, but I don't know that Trump will have that same popularity with his own base for that to happen.
The hardest part of forming such coalitions will be agreeing to disagree with people who hold vastly different views on certain topics. At least ostensibly, Trump will be pushing more right wing social policies, including restrictions on abortions and LGBT rights. The left should oppose this if they want to, but they're going to have to be willing to work with those members of the right who support these if we are to have any chance of opposing the deep state he will likely represent.
The historical tactic of dividing the anti-war, anti-surveillance factions was along social lines, and so far it has worked spectacularly. I think the left will have to accept that they're probably not going to get much done on social issues for four years, but that does not mean they can't get work done on reforming the deep state if they can effectively organize alongside the right-libertarians and the like.
8 shitbric 2016-11-10
Well he re-opened a new investigation into 9/11 already so we got that going for us.
1 neoplasticism 2016-11-10
No he didn't...
0 shitbric 2016-11-10
https://www.google.com/amp/yournewswire.com/trump-im-reopening-911-investigation/amp/?client=ms-android-sprint-us
Go live in fantasy land somewhere else.
2 neoplasticism 2016-11-10
I would love for that to be true... but the quotes are cobbled together from various speaking engagements and he hasn't mentioned anything about reopening an investigation in recent months. Also he can't reopen anything until he is president...
1 shitbric 2016-11-10
No one expected Trump to attack the government run media either. Lets hope we get the same suprises.
7 astralrocker2001 2016-11-10
Good pals with Rudy Giuliani and Larry Silverstein..
5 KingJames19 2016-11-10
Anecdotal but my dad is a higher up at a prestigious bank and he called today to say it was the worst day of work ever. I genuinely don't think some banks expected a Trump win. Trump may very well be establishment but I'm not sure he's in the club yet
1 CelineHagbard 2016-11-10
Any details why?
3 KingJames19 2016-11-10
No, I'm sorry. He just said they didn't expect Trump and everyone is running around with their heads cut off and the people above him are removing themselves from a lot of what is going on. He was basically just telling me the corporate structure is failing him right now
2 CelineHagbard 2016-11-10
Thanks for the reply. Sounds like it might be a bad situation for your dad, like he might be one of the ones who end up holding the bag, but if a prestigious bank is running around scared that might just be a good sign.
4 tonehead 2016-11-10
Him stopping the TPP is a really big move in the right direction towards the people and against the TPTB.
3 johnviku 2016-11-10
THIS.
And Canada AND Mexico said they are willing to renegotiate NAFTA.
And he has put Ben Carson (unqualified brilliant) to redesign obvamacare.
2 piles_of_SSRIs 2016-11-10
I wonder if a few days ago this post would have been criticized for being CTR.
2 NecrosedVales 2016-11-10
I have speculated about this since he first started his campaign. And honestly its not looking good. But I will give him the benefit of the doubt until he appoints his cabinet and takes office.
2 anaximander8 2016-11-10
There are two kinds of people in this world - those that have been burned by Trump's lies and those that will be
Bernie 2020...
1 LAT3LY 2016-11-10
I mean it surely seems like a lot of people are going to get a lot richer off of these short stocks and the downturn of the market.
I wonder how much was unloaded just before he won. Guess we'll see in a month or so.
1 illuminuti 2016-11-10
He says he's very good friends with Larry Silverstein.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYOY4S1x8BU
0 wheredotheoystersscr 2016-11-10
Thanks for changing the registry.
3 johnviku 2016-11-10
THIS.
And Canada AND Mexico said they are willing to renegotiate NAFTA.
And he has put Ben Carson (unqualified brilliant) to redesign obvamacare.
5 [deleted] 2016-11-10
That is not a place I expected to go mentally today