Gotta be tough if you wanna be President. Media’s always been biased.

Gotta be tough if you wanna be President. Media’s always been biased. I’ve love an unbiased media. We don’t have it and that’s how it is.

Foreign affairs aren’t unbiased either. It’s a tough world out there. “it’s 3 against 1″ was a low moment in the debate.

He’s gotta learn to handle things better if he wants to succeed. Clinton’s dealt with media BS for decades, at least since Rush Limbaugh.

Should it be more fair? Yes. Is the debate slanted? Yes. Was it ever fair and balanced? I doubt it. Does media need to improve? Yes.

But he’s gotta be tougher than that. World’s tougher than that.

He’s playing with the big boys now. He should be able to stand tall on his own, on his issues, on his stances. Confident.

===

[I may disagree with his vision of peace entirely but the way you flipped it, where peace = Russia > US 4 Peace, I can see that. Zazdarovje!

==

You’re a fan of Russia – that’s fine. I was gonna be a Russian Orthodox monk in the 90s, taught myself a little Russian. I actually don’t have a problem with Russia in general. I’m fully aware of NATO’s increases as a shadow part of American imperialism across Europe and into the Middle East.

By the logic, I ALSO don’t blame certain parts of the middle east for being royally pissed off at us and attacking NATO allies for continually trying to carve up their land for our gains.

China, meanwhile, is smart enough to make a Yen off of all of us. Good for China.

===

I’m not as much of a dolt as you assume, But are we ready for a mega-US/Russia power against NATO (ie – EU at this point basically) and China? Eh, I don’t really see the gains in shifting the balance of powers like that, especially with a guy who plays the blame game at every turn. He needs to get tougher than that if he wants to be President.

===

Thing is, our systems are too powerful for one guy in the Executive branch to do so. An overthrow of the US govt isn’t likely for a short 4 yr presidency.

Now Sanders’ idea of infiltrating Congress over a long period of time, flipping the democratic party to a progressive stance, *is* a workable revolution but it takes time. We’ve got a huge government with lots of departments that will pushback any attempts at revolution, no matter who’s barking orders.

—-

The way the USA has been handling the middle east has been shitsville for a long time now, starting with Bush’s dad, but it goes WAY BACK to England and France carving up the Ottoman empire into manageable bits and promising change and not delivering, way back 100 years ago.

====

There was a good chance with Turkey. Up until not that long ago, they were modernizing, as was Egypt, becoming a very excellent example of a European style Sharia law Muslim place to live. Sort of a best-of-both-worlds.

As far as revolutions go… it’s a tough one. Our police forces would have to become more reasonable before even considering such a thing.

Can revolutionaries face off against an undertrained, underpaid, sometimes all too trigger happy local/state law enforcement?

Now the National Guard, who *is* properly trained, would know how to control a revolution with less bloodshed but for an effective revolution like you’re talking about, you’d have to face off against that as well.

If it got strong enough, then you’d have the other military forces to contend with.

So I don’t know about that route

===

But if you have revolution in mind, watch BLM from a detached perspective as an example of a revolution-in-progress against the “powers that be”. See how they fare. That should give some idea of what success you may have.

===

I agree with you. That’s why I keep 1/2 an eye out for any progress/setbacks by BLM. The response THEY get from law enforcement, military, government and media mirrors what any other revolution would have to contend with.

===

You’re assuming I have all the same information as you. If I had the same information as you, I could pretend. Since I do not have all of the connecting pieces that tie together the OP with what you’ve said, they appear to be entirely disconnected.

So, I let it stand as a spurious comment.

-====

It’s about an issue that I don’t care about. Something about Israel and Jewish people. Something about control relating to media or money or government power. I think “pro-Israel” when I hear the word. But that’s about it. It has no emotional weight to me either way.

====

It’s not ignorance on my part btw: I’ll probably recognize most of what you’re talking about once you’ve said it. But to me, it’s akin to someone telling me about Desperate Housewives of Orange County. I don’t think about it much at all, but when someone talks about it, I find I start remembering the players a bit.

====

[or sports : Someone mentions Tom Brady, and I remember Patriots, deflated ball, controversy and showing up on the Simpsons or something once. But I don’t get wrapped up in the ins and outs of the players or teams… but I’ll recognize names and groups when mentioned]

====

It’s a familiar tale. I’m also remembering some fictional group called the “Protocols of Zion” or “Elders of Zion” or something like that.

===

I had a Southern Baptist friend years ago that was totally wrapped up in it and kind of obsessed. Linked it up to NWO, Trilaterial commission and such. Similar to a neighbor when I was a kid, although I don’t think he did the Zion connection explicitly, although he said something about the Catholic church.

====

hang on – ringing more bells…. there’s some connection to the Pogroms too. Knew a guy in the late 90s who got kicked out of a few Russian Orthodox monasteries who would bring that up a lot. Interesting guy to talk to (all online) but I had to take his stuff with a grain of salt.

====

I’d swear there’s some connection in there to broken promises by the French and British when they helped a bunch of Arabs overthrow the Ottoman empire.. man, my knowledge of this part of world history is weak.

—-

I’ve also heard that Wahhabism was created by a British spy trying to destroy Islam from within.

===

I don’t remember the narrative now of the British spy in full, but yeah – it’s similar to that. If I can remember, it was something like, the British spy was commissioned with the task of establishing Wahhabism in order to destroy the Ottoman empire from within to allow Britain to grab territories once the infighting began, and this conspiracy went back a few hundred years if I remember right somewhere in the 1700s.

====

Like I said, it’s like Desperate Housewives or sports to me. I don’t remember anything off the top of my head – because it’s things I don’t care all that much about at all… but when pieces are mentioned, I remember some things.

===

Well, i know of four ways to get rich in the USA. I’ve experimented with all of them, and they work. Stocks, Rental income, own a business, own several businesses. That’s about it.

===

Fractional reserve system is what allows governments to print money out of thin air based upon mathematical models and statistics, rather than being based upon hard, realizable assets.

====

Also, fractional reserve banking ignores historical circumstance, instead treating macroeconomics as “a thing in itself” rather than connected to the world it operates within.

===

 

You’ll have to remind me. I was just born when Nixon was around and have no memory of him.

====

Yeah, they were busy fixing shit that got bombed after dealing with years of their own people starving and stuff. We got off with a beach and some unfortunate casualties.

====

In a way, but it’s the export of oil that controls the value of the dollar vs the values of other currencies.

===

No, the value of the oil is in the export of surplus by nations and that export of surplus oil is measured in US dollars. This makes the US Dollar valueable as it can be easily traded back and forth more easily than oil exports, but the dollar value fluctuates with the oil export capabilities of nations compared to local currencies.

===

Well yes, it’s a dependable MEASURE of worldwide oil exports. But the value of the dollar continually fluctuates, which pisses of China frequently because it’s not really a stable world currency.

====

No. It’s export of surplus oil from nations.

===

It’s the movement. Oil can’t stop moving or the dollar dies.

====

It is, as long as the dollar is the benchmark. If oil trades happen in rubles or yen, we lose our place.

===

We should. We’re benefiting the most from this scheme.

=====

Average American making $34,000/yr is in the top 1% of the planet. We’re uber rich.

====

lol, because we can afford it because the dollar is tied into the trading of oil exchanges. The moment we stop being the benchmark for the petro, our stability collapses, we draw from the banks but they can’t give it to us because they’ve loaned 90% of everything away, leaving us with 10% or whatever.

====

Everything fits until you move over into taxes and the idea that we can print whatever money we want.

That’s not it. Our dollar is tied to oil exchange. Why else does it fluctuate in value?

===

Your beginning and ending didn’t work out, but a lot of your middle was good.

===

It’s politics though. Show me a time in history that politics *didn’t* work that way.

Political strategy means having a foreign policy strategy as well. If you have no strategy in politics, you fly blind. It’s disgusting but that’s how it always works.

===

Have you seen interviews from some supporters? Of course they pick the intellectual runts of the litter, but nevertheless, some just don’t think in metaphors.

Then again, they’re probably not ones that are going to fact check sites ’cause they’re happy with visions of Clinton getting bleach spilled over her denim pant suits.

To be honest, that image makes me smile a little too.

===

Well, it’s a process. After all, this is a unique situation. The powers that be are optimistic that long term settlement will result in a huge workforce in Germany that will improve their economy but for now, they’re just trying to do their part to ease the burden for other refugee countries, spreading the load.

===

I’m ok with that. Honestly, I’d prefer a smaller government myself. But, I don’t see that as likely. Last time I was a believer in that was H. Ross Perot, who I voted for twice. I had to swallow my idealism in that but I admire you have yours. Please do keep it alive. Maybe we’ll get there one day.

===

I’m in my own too most of the time. Gave up on politics a long time ago, but I still believe ultimately in the overall goodness of the majority of people on a one-on-one basis, once one scrapes off their rhetoric. Might be delusional on my part, but I believe in .

===

Oh I wouldn’t eliminate sources altogether but I’ve settled on a few sources that seem mostly trustworthy to me. I look for signs of hyperbole and when I see it, I try to temper it a little by looking for opposing hyperbole news, and then try to find middle ground. Sometimes, like in the case of Syria, no single source had it all.

====

rump’s the weakest candidate the GOP could’ve come up with. Maybe they could’ve gone with Ben Carson. He’d have been weaker.

===

Depends on what you mean by better. Bitter enemies, locked in perpetual battle have very strong relationships. Best friends / best enemies are two sides of a coin.

But is a weak positive relationship better than a perpetual game of chess masters? I don’t know to be honest.

====

Rigged or politically saavy strategy? All of them play politics but some play it better and are stronger at it.

=

as far as hate, it’ll just be those that hated Obama will transfer it over to her. Might pick up a few Jill Steiners that will also hate her but I don’t think the hate will increase much from Obama’s time.

==

But it’s an interesting question : Are there people who loved Obama but hate Hillary? They’d be worth interviewing.

===

It’s easy to explain the possible reasons why [x] person did something in the past and create a narrative that seems to obliterate free will.

But try to project that into the future? You can’t. Yes, there are patterns with groups and individuals : when people are ‘playing their roles’ properly (as socially expected) it’s easy to assume there’s a lack of free will there.

But free will is still there. The n400 is often pointed to as the part where the semantic systems ‘kick in’. That’s 400ms. Just under 1/2 a second. A *lot* of awareness takes place in that 400ms that can’t be put into words just yet.

Even if there is the glimmer of a moment of free will, it’s intact in full.

====

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


six − = 3

Leave a Reply