American Politics

[Spartan_Warrior]

@Chad: "I would argue that Trump's success this year suggests we could make a difference. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he would do good. I'm only suggesting that he is outside of the historical norm for political candidates, so was Bernie for that matter. No reason this can't happen in a good way at some point."

Well, that assumes that Trump is where he is against the will of the establishment. Whereas there is evidence that the Clinton campaign, the DNC, the Obama administration, the media and the rest of the corporate cabal all wanted Trump right where he is, or at least don't mind it all that much.

I know I've made this argument before, few seem to agree--but neither the media nor the rest of the corporate cabal really fears Trump. I think the wealthy elite vastly prefer Clinton because they know she plays by the Golden Rule--that is, he who has (and gives) the gold makes the rules--and their preference is clearly shown in their donations and propaganda. But I don't think they actually fear Trump, because he knows that rule, too, if only from the other side. Part of Trump's appeal is: "People like me own people like Clinton. I write the checks and they do what I say." So they know he understands how that works. However unpredictable he might be in other ways, they know he at least plays by the same rules that keep them rich and powerful. And as far as I'm aware, he's not talking about ending those rules, just touting his wealth and power as a strongman type feature that his base eats up.

What is scary about that to them? Absolutely nothing. What's scary about Trump in general? War? Racism? Crackdowns on civil liberty? Riots in the street? (Funny, all of that frightens me about Clinton, too.) None of that matters to these people. Nothing about Trump frightens the corporate cabal enough to make them use their influence to actually stop him. What they fear is populist threat to their Golden Rule, and Trump in no way represents that.

I think this is evident in the media coverage. Again, the media was never "out to get" Trump. There is a saying in the media: "There's no such thing as bad publicity." I'm sure Trump knows it well, as do the media moguls at the top of the business. The non-stop "negative" coverage was not meant to shut him down so much as it was to elevate him--making him appear as a legitimate candidate to skeptics on the right, so they would vote for a buffoon who would have been ignored as everyone originally expected if the media hadn't given him prominent airtime; and making him appear as a serious, dire threat in the eyes of the actual target audience (anyone left of neo-fascist), so they could be swayed by fear to support Clinton, an otherwise terribly weak candidate.

The strategy to elevate Trump appears to come from none other than the DNC themselves. I think I've posted this before from the Guccifer 2.0 leaks, but interestingly it was just re-released with the Wikileaks DNC leak (which IMO sort of confirms the veracity of the rest of Guccifer 2.0's stuff). This is a DNC strategy email that specifically lays out the "Pied Piper" strategy that I more or less outlined above.

http://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-r ... p-clinton/

Raw email (go to View Attachments): https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1120

"We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to (take) them seriously."

Bottom line, Trump is exactly where he's supposed to be. Where the DNC planned for him to be as early as April 2015. The media's coverage was intentional. The DNC told them to do it. It's there in plain English.

(Election process still clean...?)

By contrast, the media's most powerful tool of deception is not coverage, but omission. So, look at what they don't cover. That's what they fear. I think it's common knowledge at this point that the media gave Bernie's campaign a fraction of the time it gave Clinton's. Needless to say, it also ignores third parties:

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/ric ... ws-airtime

And those are the "liberal" channels, mind you. The ones you'd think would be out to "stop" Trump.

Point being, there are different factors at play for an anomaly like Trump versus a "good" anomaly--the kind interested in actually breaking the Golden Rule. Those kind of anomalies actually get shut down hard.

This is to say nothing of my further fear that, as a direct result of this election (Bernie more than Trump), the powers that be in the two party duopoly will tighten up the nomination and election processes to further shut out grassroots influence. I don't have any evidence for this, though. Just a strong suspicion based on my knowledge of the motives of all involved.

Why would they not? Chelsea 2024. Malia 2032. Sasha 2040. Caesar for life.

[Spartan_Warrior]

I wonder if in a century or so "Clinton" will have replaced the title of "President" for leaders of the American empire.

[Spartan_Warrior]

@m741:

A county local to me will be the first in the nation to propose a direct ballot item for public campaign finance:

http://marylandreporter.com/2016/10/05/ ... rd-ballot/

Since IMO removing corporate influence from politics would be the only way to reverse the trends that concern you, I thought this was relevant. If you want to do something, perhaps fighting locally for ballot items like this would be something.

Of course, the PACs have already lined up against the campaign: https://voteagainstquestiona.org/ How strange, why would they be against stopping the huge torrents of unaccountable corporate money that sustain their existence? So we'll see what happens. I'm not holding my breath.

[Myakka]

The growing conteniousness between the Republican party and the Democrats is in my interpretation of all the history (which I read when I was a poor grad student with two colleges' libraries within walking distance and no social skills) is that that is a natural step in an empire that no longer has any real external enemies. As I understand the internal mechanism behind that, they no longer have a need to collaborate due to the external threat, and so the natural competitiveness of the factions turns on each other.

Another trend I see is the growing distance between those who govern the USA and its citizens. I have read that in the time of Lincoln a man could stroll up to the outside of the White House and shout through the window asking for a job. I remember within my own lifetime being able to walk through the White House with little or no securiy (in those areas that were open for public exhibition). These days all of Washington and even our local courthouses have become much more fortress-like -- viewing everyone who enters with suspicion. This is another trend of empires I picked up on in my reading and as the opportunities for the elite to talk with ordinary citizens evaporate, their ability to understand us also will end if it is not gone already.

They have been manipulating us for a long time. I predict that they will cease to have that ability because they won't understand us enough to do that any more (and all their surveying us and spying us won't be al that helpful with that either). The question will end up being whether all their firepower will be an effective tool for them to continue controlling a population they no longer have the ability to understand.

[Dragline]

Some very interesting analysis in this -- several interviews, Neil Howe starts talking at around 10 minutes in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_7LUw0odWM

[Ego]

Some very interesting analysis in this -- several interviews, Neil Howe starts talking at around 10 minutes in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_7LUw0odWM

Insane. It is amazing to me that people have no idea just how bad this can get. Or just how good we have it. I'm glad Howe didn't mince words.

The interview wrap up was surreal. Neil, this is awesome! You're the man!

[Spartan_Warrior]

The interview wrap up was surreal. Neil, this is awesome! You're the man!

Wow, yeah. All those forthcoming "opportunities" were so "exciting" to that guy. He pissed me off well before that point with a few very tellingly-timed smug laughs.

Howe was pretty on point, though, IMO.