Lawyer versus Businessman; Presidential styles.

[joepistole]

A source you would accept as "credible", that means, a NATO propaganda source? Sorry, no, too many lies.

No. A credible source is a source which has earned credibility over the years by publishing the truth and being honest.

Those are not the sources you use. You only use Russian state owned or controlled sources. You have never been able to prove NATO issues propaganda, much less any media connection. You have never been able to prove even one of the many sources you proclaim are NATO propaganda are linked to or in any way related to NATO. Now that should be a problem for any seeker of truth. But it isn't for you, is it?

 

[Schmelzer]

Explain this to your grandmother. Maybe she believes it.

 

[joepistole]

Explain this to your grandmother. Maybe she believes it.

Well unlike you, she was born in the West. She knows what a free press is. There isn't a need to explain it to folks in the West. They know what a free press is.

 

[Schmelzer]

In this case, she may explain you that the free press which in that past existed no longer exists.

At least here in Germany I have seen during the last 25 years a heavy loss of quality in the press. What was 25 years ago a reliable and quite objective press has degenerated into cheap NATO propaganda.

 

[Tiassa]

And now, where do you see those sentiments?
...........................................
Is Brexit just the first wild card in a deck full of jokers?

It's how many days later, and I'm still uncertain what you mean.

The first part: "And now, where do you see those sentiments?"

▸ As logical support for various aspects of the American conservative outlook demonstrably fell apart, each plank found itself more and more isolated, with nothing but stubborn, "Oh, yeah? I'll show you!" puffery to hold the line. And when you have the sentiments of a majority, that actually can work for quite a while.

But, you know, the difference 'twixt now and my youth is that purity cult now stands out as strange, homosexuals just won, supply side is widely disdained, the concept of economic justice is now taken seriously enough that even conservatives are trying to exploit it .... Traditional sentiments aren't majority sentiments, anymore.

(#195↑)​

The sentiments of the majority would appear at this time to favor recognition of the humanity of homosexuals; we're almost there on the humanity of women, too. Indeed, Secretary Clinton's election to the presidency will mark a threshold achieved, and if President Obama's election has anything to say about what comes next, will trigger a supremacist backlash in which our society might actually finally achieve proper recognition of woman's place in the human species.

So the first answer is that the majority sentiments appear to include my humanity as a homosexual, and generally includes women's humanity, and society is preparing to settle that question.

Or did you mean something else?

The second: Is Brexit just the first wild card in a deck full of jokers?

Again, it's kind of hard to figure what you mean, but Brexit is an occasion of conservatism getting what it wants in a manner it will regret and seek to blame on others. Will Buckley's↱ commentary earlier this week about Eton includes a rather quite fun summary of Brexit: "... a referendum called by one Old Etonian being hijacked by another Old Etonian and ending up with a result that neither Old Etonian wanted. A vote that had the further unfortunate consequence of School, within the space of a week, somehow contriving to lose two prime ministers."

Apparently they underestimated populism. Imagine that.

Still, though, generally speaking, society contains such wild jokers. Nothing's perfect. I do wonder, for instance, what's going to happen the day nobody's watching closely enough and Texas actually up and secedes. Perhaps we'll build a border wall. You know, just to spite them.

Right now the biggest joker risk on the table is Donald Trump himself. And while I strongly advise against underestimating conservative populism especially, it is also true that I am not much for collapsing into a trembling jelly for self-deluded fear inspired by having forgotten that my own prissy pretense was, in fact, a pretense.

Trump is dangerous, but he won't be president. Rather, one benefit we'll get out of his danger is the electoral map; the states he wins will see their reputations dimininished. That is to say, we'll have a better idea of where the dangerous people actually are.
____________________

Notes:

Buckley, Will. "The big Eton con trick will run and run―don't let it fool you". The Guardian. 5 September 2016. TheGuardian.com. http://bit.ly/2cg2asc

 

[paddoboy]

In this case, she may explain you that the free press which in that past existed no longer exists.

At least here in Germany I have seen during the last 25 years a heavy loss of quality in the press. What was 25 years ago a reliable and quite objective press has degenerated into cheap NATO propaganda.

As against the propaganda you preach say?

 

[iceaura]

Trump is dangerous, but he won't be president. Rather, one benefit we'll get out of his danger is the electoral map; the states he wins will see their reputations dimininished.

How would that work? We have States that voted for W&Cheney twice, and remain in good repute.

That is to say, we'll have a better idea of where the dangerous people actually are.

After Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, W&Cheney, and McCain/Palin, anyone who doesn't know where the dangerous people actually are is not going to learn anything from Trump's vote - win or lose. And the reputations going in will be the same as those coming out - again, win or lose. The odds against a win are improving, btw - currently sit at around 3/1, up from around 9/1 at their nadir.

Trump is not an aberration. He's a continuation. He's a somewhat more vulgar version of Reagan, a less naive and more accomplished version of W, the embodiment of Rush Limbaugh as a candidate, a mainstream Republican. Life in America has no reason to change radically, in some manner unfamiliar to the country after Reagan or W, whether he is elected or not. The only way to make this a watershed moment would be to use it to arrange the disintegration of the Republican Party as a whole, and the dismissal of most of the upper level employees of the major news organizations - which also could have been done after the Iraq War launch, for example, but was not.

Compared with W's election, which apparently diminished no reputations of any consequence, Trump's election would be minor and further damage.

 

[Schmelzer]

As against the propaganda you preach say?

If you think I preach propaganda, quote please.

 

[Bells]

in fact, more than 50 % of Syrians even when polled by western firms, want Assad to continue being President of Syria, and more than 80 % blame the US for backing the jihadists

Are those more than 50% of Syrians the one who live in pro-Assad areas, where they still have power, telephone service, running water and are able to live a normal life? Or does that figure also include the swathes of areas in Syria where civilians are being bombed, gassed and poisoned by Assad's forces, where they do not have power, telephone service, running water or homes because it has all been bombed by Assad's forces and the Russians? At a guess, these "Western firms" conducted phone polls and at an even bigger guess, they called areas of Syria that still have phone service and are not being bombed, which would mean the polls were skewed because they polled pro-Assad areas in Syria. It would be akin to doing a poll of members of the KKK and asking them which candidate most supported their ideology and then advising that over 50% of Americans want Trump for President.

Are you able to provide a link to these polls?

Are you able to provide any information as to which areas of Syria were 'polled' by these Western firms? Which firms did the polls?

The vast majority of the illegal military forces in Syria are jihadists who had been hired by the Saudi government and the Qatari government, and supplied with U.S. weapons, to overthrow the Syrian government. Most of the other illegal forces in Syria are Kurdish forces, supported by the U.S. government to break Syria apart so as to create a separate Kurdish state in the majority-Kurdish far north-eastern tip of Syria.

Actually, the vast majority of fighters in Syria who are not ISIS are normal people, who came under fire by Assad for daring to want free democratic elections.

You know, they are defending their fundamental human rights against a dictator.

To put in terms you would understand.. They are doing exactly what you demand you should be allowed to keep your guns for.

The primary U.S. goal in Syria is to overthrow the Syrian government, which is led by the Baath Party, Syria’s secular Party. Many Arabs insist upon Sharia, or Islamic law, but Syria’s Arabs are an exception; the Baath Party is and has always been supported by the majority of the Syrian people, including by most of Syria’s Arabs. Most Syrians are strongly opposed to Sharia law. Syria is the most secular nation in the Middle East.

Everyone agrees, that once this war is over, Assad has to step down. That is the only way for Syria to move forward. Syria is led by a despotic regime. Assad was not democratically elected. Syrians do not have a choice but the ruling Baath Party that curbs their fundamental human rights. Do you believe Syrians should not have a choice in who leads them? Because your plaintive whining about how the US (along with everyone else), wants Assad to stand down, completely ignores the reality of the ruling Baath Party.

Syrian Arabs are not given any choice in who leads them. Do you understand how that is fundamentally bad?

The irony of your comment is the absolute hypocrisy of it all.

The uprising in Syria clearly shows that the majority do not support Assad's regime. Millions marching against said regime and then being fired upon for daring to protest peacefully is what drove the war in Syria. It is what drove ordinary Syrians to take up arms to fight a despotic regime.

Democracy. Do you know what that means? That is what Syrians want. But you seem to believe that their rights should be ignored because Assad's Baath Party is secular. It makes it no different to regimes that impose Sharia Law on the populace without choice. Syrians want to be able to vote freely, for their candidates of choice. Not be forced to vote for one candidate and party under the threat of death.

For example, when Western-sponsored polls were taken in Syria, after the start in 2011 of the importation of jihadists into Syria, those polls showed that 55% of Syrians want Bashar al-Assad (the current leader of the Baath Party) to remain as Syria’s President, and “82% agree ‘IS [Islamic State] is US and foreign made group’.” Furthermore, only “22% agree ‘IS is a positive influence’,” and that 22% was the lowest level of support shown by Syrians for any of the presented statements, except for, “21% agree ‘Prefer life now than under Assad’” — meaning that Syrians believe that things were better before the U.S.-sponsored jihadists entered Syria to overthrow Assad.

Firstly, Qatar is now part of the West? The poll was taken by an Arab organisation that is funded by the Qatar Foundation, which in turn is funded by and controlled by the Qatar Royal Family.

Secondly, the poll found that under threat of civil war, they prefer Assad to stay instead of having civil war. But the poll also found that the majority of Syrians would prefer for free elections in Syria. In other words, they do not want to have no choice but the Baath Party and Assad. From the link you provided:

The key finding was that while most Arabs outside Syria feel the president should resign, attitudes in the country are different. Some 55% of Syrians want Assad to stay, motivated by fear of civil war – a spectre that is not theoretical as it is for those who live outside Syria's borders. What is less good news for the Assad regime is that the poll also found that half the Syrians who accept him staying in power believe he must usher in free elections in the near future. Assad claims he is about to do that, a point he has repeated in his latest speeches. But it is vital that he publishes the election law as soon as possible, permits political parties and makes a commitment to allow independent monitors to watch the poll.​

Gee, what a surprise.

Could you please explain why you claimed it was a Western firm when it clearly was not? And could you please explain why you distorted the article as you did?

 

[paddoboy]

If you think I preach propaganda, quote please.

A general observation taken over many months of your rather biased political views, and which I have pointed out before.

 

[sculptor]

Ain't war grand?
Don't you wish we did this more often?
Don't it make you proud to be an American?
http://time.com/4485344/napalm-girl-war-photo-facebook/

I know
Lets support "moderate rebels" who cut the heads off of children for fun and sport.
Then America can restore it's pride one more time!

(old nam joke)(another democrat war)
pvt. "But sarg I can't shoot women and children!"
sarg: "Sure you can, just don't lead 'em as much."

Libya and HRC pride. Syria and more pride
How much blood will be enough for her?
Can that sort of bloodthirst ever be quenched?

If we are to be known by our "friends", perhaps we should choose our "friends" more wisely?

 

[iceaura]

Libya and HRC pride. Syria and more pride
How much blood will be enough for her?
Can that sort of bloodthirst ever be quenched?

If we are to be known by our "friends", perhaps we should choose our "friends" more wisely?

Too late for the Hillary Haters to choose their friends: - you guys chose Nixon, Reagan, Bush, anybody-but-BillC, W(and Cheney!), anybody-but-the-possibly-Muslim-friendly nigger, and now you're stuck trying to justify a vote for Trump.

That is, the Hillary-Haters are known by their friends, already;

going back to when they were little boy Hippie-Haters and had never heard of the Clintons:

- the Republican administration that doubled down on the already oil&Israel-exacerbated evil in Syria by sending a million Islamic refugees across the border from Iraq, and then set up torture prisons in Iraq to let them know just who had taken over their homeland.

- the Republican President who first launched military action against the shaky post-colonial Libya strongman government, continuing the stage-setting he had begun by dealing missiles to Iran for domestic political advantage while maintaining hostile military relations with Iran for domestic political advantage, stage setting which led to (he led it to) the many years's prolongation of the bloodiest and most destructive war in the Middle East since WWII (http://www.history.com/topics/iran-iraq-war). This is the same hero of the Hillary Haters whose questionable choice of friends gave Bin Laden his big career boost, and set the modern Islamic jihad in motion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

- the Republican President and administration responsible for the napalm bombing pictured in your photo , there. 1972 - Nixon's fourth year in office, during his expansion of the napalm and other anti-"personnel" bombing farther into rice fields and farming villages of Laos and Cambodia as well as Vietnam, the time of the central US meddling events in the creation of Pol Pot. (Remember Pol Pot? He made the current Islamic toughguy jihadists look like amateurs.)

It's too damn late for you guys to be taken seriously when you pretend to get all worried about Clintonian warmaking - that ship was unloaded when your pal Reagan invaded Grenada and your pal Bush invaded Panama, sailed when Al Gore lost the white male aged 30-65 vote by double digits (to a strutting macho warmonger and a military contracting CEO), and sank without a bubble under the celebratory hoopla on Mission Accomplished Day - even before the 2004 Kerry vote wrote its "missing at sea" notice. The complaints about Obama's arrogance, cozying with Muslims, lack of "patriotism" (i.e. combat eagerness), and withdrawal from Iraq; the support for Republican blockage of his attempts to shut down Gitmo, just iced the cake of hypocrisy.

 

[joepistole]

Ain't war grand?
Don't you wish we did this more often?
Don't it make you proud to be an American?
http://time.com/4485344/napalm-girl-war-photo-facebook/

I know
Lets support "moderate rebels" who cut the heads off of children for fun and sport.
Then America can restore it's pride one more time!

(old nam joke)(another democrat war)
pvt. "But sarg I can't shoot women and children!"
sarg: "Sure you can, just don't lead 'em as much."

Libya and HRC pride. Syria and more pride
How much blood will be enough for her?
Can that sort of bloodthirst ever be quenched?

If we are to be known by our "friends", perhaps we should choose our "friends" more wisely?

War is hell. But it takes two parties to tango, and it takes at least 2 parties to go to war. Some wars are necessary and noble, others are not. Vietnam in retrospect was a mistake. It was a civil war. It was a civil war the US should never have engaged in. People make mistakes; nations make mistakes; no matter how much you may wish it, people are not going to stop acting like people. Sometimes war is necessary. In an ideal world we wouldn't need policemen. But we don't live in a real world, do we? Sometimes we need policemen.

 

[sculptor]

.... But we don't live in a real world, do we? ....

whadd'ya mean "we" white boy?

 

[joepistole]

whadd'ya mean "we" white boy?

So do you live in a different world do you? What world would that be...Republican World?

 

[sculptor]

So do you live in a different world do you? What world would that be...Republican World?

I think that first:'It would be apropos for you to define what you mean by "But we don't live in a real world, do we?"

I ain't no republican.
Here's the kicker:
Many republicans have claimed that Trump ain't a republican.

 

[iceaura]

I think that first:'It would be apropos for you to define what you mean by "But we don't live in a real world, do we?"

I ain't no republican.
Here's the kicker:
Many republicans have claimed that Trump ain't a republican.

And a lot of the rest have claimed that they themselves aren't Republicans.

Very few true Republicans seem to exist any more. And yet we have this situation in Congress - - - -

 

[joepistole]

I think that first:'It would be apropos for you to define what you mean by "But we don't live in a real world, do we?"

I ain't no republican.
Here's the kicker:
Many republicans have claimed that Trump ain't a republican.

Well, who do think lives in the real world? We all do. Ok, so you don't want to be associated with a Republicans. Did I say you were a Republican? No. I didn't. Some Republicans claim Trump isn't a Republican. But Republicans elected him and no matter what some Republicans may wish, Trump is the party nominee and he does speak for the party.

 

[Schmelzer]

A general observation taken over many months of your rather biased political views, and which I have pointed out before.

Of course, to a Western mainstream follower, my position will look "biased", Simply because I do not get my information from NATO propaganda sources, like you.

That the NATO press is lying, consistently and in an organized way, I have shown explicitly, for example in http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sh...that-lie-for-money.151895/page-3#post-3315870
Feel free to prove that my sources are similarly biased.

 

[Tiassa]

¡Holy Shit, Dude! or, Reconciliation, Recovery, and Revisionism

​

Nine minutes.

Some Republicans claim Trump isn't a Republican. But Republicans elected him and no matter what some Republicans may wish, Trump is the party nominee and he does speak for the party.

Okay, so, you find yourself making a certain point:

▸ "Some Republicans claim Trump isn't a Republican. But Republicans elected him ...."​

There's a reason I'm parsing it like that.

Sculptor's↑ post is stamped 13.25 PDT.

Nine minutes before, in another thread, I happened to suggeset:

One of the more breathtakingly annoying projections we might offer is the litany of delegitimization against President Clinton. Republicans are, technically, already preparing to lay siege ....

.... Recalling the absurdity of the racist backlash against President Obama's legitimacy, we might wonder how ridiculous the GOP will get in response to the first female president. Nonetheless, somewhere in all that noise and fury we will most likely hear the argument that President Clinton isn't legitimate because conservatives were denied a voice in the election.

(#3403505/4↗; boldface accent added)​

They're already starting. That's the thing; you can feel it, too. And let's face it, the timing of Sculptor's post, even granting some leeway according to degrees of tacitry or explicitness, is pretty much coincidental. In truth, they've been at it nearly from the outset; yes, yes, I'm on about the whole phantom candidate↗ tinfoil, but it's a different context now compared to when we first started hearing about it fourteen months ago.

And I still wonder about the number of Republicans↗ tacking to line up behind the alleged conspiratorial Clinton plant, but that's the thing: As you said, "But Republicans elected him".

You know, the thing with the liberal angst about Hillary Clinton is that her husband's presidency is sometimes referred to as the best Republican presidency ever. And she did navigate the treacherous waters of the Beltway over the subsequent decade and a half by specifically not flying revolutionary colors.

For the Sanders movement, the problem was the Democratic institution. That is to say, the problem was that Hillary Clinton is a Democrat.

It is such a different context from the apparent Republican surrender of the presidential contest. Indeed, the Democrats will have much reconciliation to attend within their party after winning this election; Republicans require recovery, but it seems rather quite likely the institutional establishment will attempt to run with revisionism. They're going to disown this presidential run; the only question is how.

We know some Republicans say Trump isn't a Republican. We hear variations of that every election.

But Republicans have been prepared for this disaster at least since July of last year when they aimed to delegitimize what was happening in their own party. The trick is to convince everyone else that despite Republican voters selecting Donald Trump as their nominee, Republicans were actually excluded from having a say in selecting the nominee. Personally, I can't wait; this is going to be an astounding explanation when it finally comes.

Edit note: Clarification. (10 September 2016, 22.23 PDT)​