|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 24, 2020 15:03:54 GMT -5
Today in The Atlantic there is an article about President Trump planning to subvert the election. He has zero plans to concede under any circumstances. He has his staff researching ways to get around the vote. I didn't know the following until about 45 minutes ago (or forgot it), but the Constitution does not say that voters in a state picks the electoral vote. The Constitution calls for the state legislatures to pick electoral votes. At some point state legislatures chose to let the popular vote in a state, decide the electoral vote. There was a challenge to this in an election with Ulysses S Grant, and both candidates were set to be inaugurated. So, the article (I haven't read it yet, just have seen 2 reports on it, so far) says PDJT is planning not-to-lose (my words). He plans to ask state legislatures, in swing states, to award him their electoral votes regardless of the popular vote. That says everything. www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2020/09/2020-election-trump-barton-gellman/616457/The actual article, which will appear as a cover story in November, can be accessed by a link in the article above. The last Atlantic story about Trump calling soldiers loser's and sucker's, which was based on an anonymous source, has since been thoroughly discredited. As for trying to directly influence the electoral college, this is something the Democrats have been considering for months now: Bezos owns the Washington Post, and Jobs' widow owns the Atlantic. Who is it, exactly that wants you to think that Trump is the one who will contest the election results, even before they happen, and why? Several Democrats have already come out and stated, and have been quoted as stating, that this is their intention. I read the Atlantic article, and just as with the previous one about the WWI memorial trip, the sources are anonymous. The Times article is the same, but at least it's from a source with an editorial board hostile to Trump, and friendly to Biden.
President Trump. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 24, 2020 15:04:39 GMT -5
I'm not worried about the polls.. it's the scared and angry white men I'm starting to wonder about  You're a racist ... and sexist. No he's not. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 24, 2020 15:20:12 GMT -5
The last Atlantic story about Trump calling soldiers loser's and sucker's, which was based on an anonymous source, has since been thoroughly discredited. As for trying to directly influence the electoral college, this is something the Democrats have been considering for months now: Bezos owns the Washington Post, and Jobs' widow owns the Atlantic. Who is it, exactly that wants you to think that Trump is the one who will contest the election results, even before they happen, and why? Several Democrats have already come out and stated, and have been quoted as stating, that this is their intention. I read the Atlantic article, and just as with the previous one about the WWI memorial trip, the sources are anonymous. The Times article is the same, but at least it's from a source with an editorial board hostile to Trump, and friendly to Biden.
President Trump. As Reefs pointed out, he's being asked a double-bind, and he's answering in character: the thought that he's going to lose isn't one that he's giving much serious thought. I can appreciate why you interpret his answer that way, and this is precisely what the question was designed to evoke. The extremists on both ends of the spectrum have been floating this canard every cycle, by my recollection, starting with Clinton in '96. It's only gotten to the point now where someone poses the question directly to the incmubent, and Hillary, as Biden proxy is saying essentially the same from his side, and she's not the only one. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 24, 2020 18:52:05 GMT -5
As Reefs pointed out, he's being asked a double-bind, and he's answering in character: the thought that he's going to lose isn't one that he's giving much serious thought. I can appreciate why you interpret his answer that way, and this is precisely what the question was designed to evoke. The extremists on both ends of the spectrum have been floating this canard every cycle, by my recollection, starting with Clinton in '96. It's only gotten to the point now where someone poses the question directly to the incmubent, and Hillary, as Biden proxy is saying essentially the same from his side, and she's not the only one. He didn't think he was going to win in 2016, and he's now in worse shape that he was then. It's nonsense to say he hasn't thought about losing. All this ballot-fraud-cheating nonsense is just Psychology 101, projection. He is planning to cheat so he says they are planning to cheat. But it is also just sowing chaos. He has stated: Only votes counted the day of the election should count. Nonsense. Mail in balloting is not rocket science. Some western states have used mail in voting exclusively, for years. You have to be registered to vote. Match a ballot to a registered voter. Simple. If two votes happen to show up, investigate. History shows there has been very little illegal voting. PT is sowing chaos with all this nonsense of illegal voting. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 24, 2020 19:14:49 GMT -5
racism is pretty ugly but sexism is just how it goes I have not heard the following anywhere on the news, but today cutting my grass it popped into my head. I have hesitated to mention it anywhere, but this seems like an open door. (I don't think your intention). Why did Biden feel cornered into choosing a woman as a VP. And then because of the racial unrest, it had to be a black woman. Biden is pretty old, he could croak, and he probably will not run a second term. (That's just a guess). Trump has a firm 40%. I'd guess Biden has a firm 49%. So the swing voters will elect the President. How many men are aware of an unconscious bias against a woman being President? ..."walking into the voting booth". My pick was Amy Klobuchar. Despite her heritage, Kamala Harris is no Indira Gandhi, and no Golda Meir, no Margaret Thatcher. (But of course I might be wrong, she could turn out to be great). Not saying anything, just wondering... (sdp ducks to avoid slings and arrows...)... But I think the "9%" swing voters in mass cannot possibly pull the lever for Trump. I think he doesn't have a chance of winning, and he knows this. This is the why of all the nonsense about illegal voting. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 24, 2020 21:31:26 GMT -5
I'm not worried about the polls.. it's the scared and angry white men I'm starting to wonder about Anonymous sources familiar with the matter just recently confirmed that that's just another media hoax. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 25, 2020 3:48:41 GMT -5
Yes, you are both too far apart. There's no common ground. And as long as that doesn't change, you are wasting your time. I'm a fan of giving credit where credit is due. And I think that's exactly what's missing in political discussions these days. So, I'd say to you (SDP, Zeniac, Laffy), try to find at least 5 characteristics/accomplishments of the other side that are noteworthy and admirable. Let's see if you can find some common ground. Because, once we've started painting the other side as subhuman or loopy, we basically shut out any kind of rational argument. It's a bit sad that the news these days is mostly just a combination of mind reading sold as facts and emotions sold as arguments. So people probably got used to that kind of discourse as some kind of new standard. But it's actually straight from the political playbook. Just take a look at this: Does this sound familiar (especially rule #13)? I have stated previously, I voted for Trump in 2016. Most of that was on the basis of anybody but Hillary. Also a major factor was the choosing of Supreme Court Justices. I have never regretted that decision, made then. But that was then, this is now. + #1: Strong defense of Israel, which includes moving the embassy to Jerusalem. + #2: Choosing two conservative Supreme Court Justices, plus what will be a 3rd. minus: The China trade negotiations. I don't think he knows enough about international trade to know what he's doing (or what he did). minus: Coronavirus. We should have had central control on decisions made, not control by 50 (states). Trump should have backed the scientific experts, not cut the feet out under them. Dr. Brix has just about had enough of his nonsense. + #3: The economy. He has led the charge on the economy. But this may be as much a psychological response as much as know-how. He did bring some jobs back. He seems not to understand there is a difference between the economy and the stock market. minus: He is obviously a bigot, but he may not be aware this is the case. + #4: Choosing numerous conservative federal judges, of course with Senate help. minus: He thinks he is smarter than most anybody, always the smartest one in the room. "I know more than the generals". (nonsense). I know more than the doctors. (nonsense). He should know his own limitations and recognize when someone knows more about a subject than he. He lives by his second gut-brain, his instincts. He is crashing and burning by doing so. minus: No healthcare plan to replace ACA. McCain saved ACA. With a 6-3 court ACA will probably come down. If nothing is there to replace it, colossal mess. We need a single payer system to save healthcare. Rich people pay their fair share (in a National health plan), but ATST they should be able to pay for whatever healthcare they wish, IOW, pay extra for themselves. minus: He seems to think US money is his money. Example, he dismantled the committee that had a watch on Internation al virus outbreak, merely to save money. This was a colossal error. We were caught flatfooted with Coronavirus. minus: He lies every day. Most of this is deliberate, he thinks if he says it enough, people will believe what he says. minus: He thrives on causing chaos. minus: His posturing on being a law and order candidate. I'm having trouble coming up with a + #5, probably missing something obvious. OK, + #5: Strong military support. (If I think of a + #6, I'll edit). Okay, thanks. I wrote a rather long replay, but I am sensing this is one of those perpetual circular discussions that don't really go anywhere. But before I follow Zeniac's good example and move on to something non-dual, just let me say something about your last three negatives. Scott Adams, one of the few people who predicted a Trump presidency pretty early on, wrote a book, Win Bigly, where he looked at the 2016 election thru the filter of a hypnotist and his conclusion was that DJT's persuasion techniques are on par with the medias persuasion techniques (if not better). So what you would consider as repetitive lies, chaos, posturing or bigotry thru a conventional filter, are actually high-powered tools in the battle for our minds and attention thru the persuasion filter. If you are interested, read the book. I highly recommend it to people who just can't make sense of what's happening here. It will explain in detail why he says what he says the way he says it and why he does what he does the way he does it. He's not a fool and he isn't lost either. In fact, he does understand LOA and he's been beating the media at their own game for years now. So maybe you can add that as your + #6. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 25, 2020 9:56:57 GMT -5
I have stated previously, I voted for Trump in 2016. Most of that was on the basis of anybody but Hillary. Also a major factor was the choosing of Supreme Court Justices. I have never regretted that decision, made then. But that was then, this is now. + #1: Strong defense of Israel, which includes moving the embassy to Jerusalem. + #2: Choosing two conservative Supreme Court Justices, plus what will be a 3rd. minus: The China trade negotiations. I don't think he knows enough about international trade to know what he's doing (or what he did). minus: Coronavirus. We should have had central control on decisions made, not control by 50 (states). Trump should have backed the scientific experts, not cut the feet out under them. Dr. Brix has just about had enough of his nonsense. + #3: The economy. He has led the charge on the economy. But this may be as much a psychological response as much as know-how. He did bring some jobs back. He seems not to understand there is a difference between the economy and the stock market. minus: He is obviously a bigot, but he may not be aware this is the case. + #4: Choosing numerous conservative federal judges, of course with Senate help. minus: He thinks he is smarter than most anybody, always the smartest one in the room. "I know more than the generals". (nonsense). I know more than the doctors. (nonsense). He should know his own limitations and recognize when someone knows more about a subject than he. He lives by his second gut-brain, his instincts. He is crashing and burning by doing so. minus: No healthcare plan to replace ACA. McCain saved ACA. With a 6-3 court ACA will probably come down. If nothing is there to replace it, colossal mess. We need a single payer system to save healthcare. Rich people pay their fair share (in a National health plan), but ATST they should be able to pay for whatever healthcare they wish, IOW, pay extra for themselves. minus: He seems to think US money is his money. Example, he dismantled the committee that had a watch on Internation al virus outbreak, merely to save money. This was a colossal error. We were caught flatfooted with Coronavirus. minus: He lies every day. Most of this is deliberate, he thinks if he says it enough, people will believe what he says. minus: He thrives on causing chaos. minus: His posturing on being a law and order candidate. I'm having trouble coming up with a + #5, probably missing something obvious. OK, + #5: Strong military support. (If I think of a + #6, I'll edit). Okay, thanks. I wrote a rather long replay, but I am sensing this is one of those perpetual circular discussions that don't really go anywhere. But before I follow Zeniac's good example and move on to something non-dual, just let me say something about your last three negatives. Scott Adams, one of the few people who predicted a Trump presidency pretty early on, wrote a book, Win Bigly, where he looked at the 2016 election thru the filter of a hypnotist and his conclusion was that DJT's persuasion techniques are on par with the medias persuasion techniques (if not better). So what you would consider as repetitive lies, chaos, posturing or bigotry thru a conventional filter, are actually high-powered tools in the battle for our minds and attention thru the persuasion filter. If you are interested, read the book. I highly recommend it to people who just can't make sense of what's happening here. It will explain in detail why he says what he says the way he says it and why he does what he does the way he does it. He's not a fool and he isn't lost either. In fact, he does understand LOA and he's been beating the media at their own game for years now. So maybe you can add that as your + #6. Oh, yea, I understand all that, but I wouldn't consider it a positive. What is power for but to do good? I think the negatives outweigh the positives. His Coronavirus response in itself outweighs anything positive he has done. How many COVID-19 deaths will balance 3 conservative SC Justices? Thanks for the book recommendation. DJT's parents went to Norman Vincent Peale's church, so he was raised on the Power of Positive Thinking. I've known this for a long time. So yes, this stamp is on everything he has done. I have mentioned this previously. I've looked for a book where someone would lay out what happened in the 2015 campaign and the 2016 election, and how the Russians invaded Facebook and manipulated Americans. Couldn't find one. But a couple of weeks ago found a program, Hacking Your Mind on PBS. Three programs so far. (It is repeating so you can probably catch it). It goes into brilliantly how for years advertisers have hijacked our brains on autopilot, and the media, Facebook and in 2015-2016 DJT. His team went right from what they had been doing for years in promoting his brand name, to promoting him as presidential candidate. Yes, they were quite brilliant. Yes, I agree this subject has about run its course here. Time will be the arbiter. Who I like doesn't have much to do with it (Laughter). The last President I liked was Daddy George Bush. second program, Weapons of Influence www.pbs.org/video/weapons-of-influence-gpuj68/#:~:text=09%2F16%2F2020%20%7C%2055m%2056s%20%7C&text=The%20advent%20of%20big%20data,how%20you%20can%20protect%20it. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Sept 25, 2020 10:44:46 GMT -5
Anonymous sources familiar with the matter just recently confirmed that that's just another media hoax. but it's not. there is a large segment of white america that wants the country to remain controlled by whites. it's a pretty deep cultural divide in this country, made worse in recent years by internet conspiracy sites, political opportunist, shills and grifters... I don't know why there's such a connection between spiritual people and insane right-wing paranoia and crackpottery. It's really disturbing. Our fascist conman AGAIN stated, as if to clear all doubt: “We want to make sure that the election is honest, and I’m not sure that it can be... We have to be very careful with the ballots. The ballots — you know, that’s a whole big scam.” I don't know why I'm bothering posting here on this topic. I'm well aware it's an utter waste of time. But I can't help it, I guess! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 25, 2020 11:02:04 GMT -5
As Reefs pointed out, he's being asked a double-bind, and he's answering in character: the thought that he's going to lose isn't one that he's giving much serious thought. I can appreciate why you interpret his answer that way, and this is precisely what the question was designed to evoke. The extremists on both ends of the spectrum have been floating this canard every cycle, by my recollection, starting with Clinton in '96. It's only gotten to the point now where someone poses the question directly to the incmubent, and Hillary, as Biden proxy is saying essentially the same from his side, and she's not the only one. He didn't think he was going to win in 2016, and he's now in worse shape that he was then. It's nonsense to say he hasn't thought about losing. All this ballot-fraud-cheating nonsense is just Psychology 101, projection. He is planning to cheat so he says they are planning to cheat. But it is also just sowing chaos. He has stated: Only votes counted the day of the election should count. Nonsense. Mail in balloting is not rocket science. Some western states have used mail in voting exclusively, for years. You have to be registered to vote. Match a ballot to a registered voter. Simple. If two votes happen to show up, investigate. History shows there has been very little illegal voting. PT is sowing chaos with all this nonsense of illegal voting. Ok, fair enough, he's thought about losing, but in terms of how he answered the question about conceding he isn't willing to speak from that hypothetical. In case you hadn't noticed, candidates (in my memory) have always been introduced as "the next President of the United States" by their supporters, so, it's not a pathology invented by or specific to Trump. Sure he stated that, and as he's seen the other side hiring an army of lawyers, he's going to take the stand he's going to take, but concerns about him going dictator are hysteria based on ad-hominim opinion. The details of how the votes are counted are ultimately not his decision, and he hasn't said anything claiming that it is. Which states, specifically? That claim doesn't sound to me as if it's true. The anecdotes about ballot harvesting in cali are many, similar shenanigans are already being reported nationally now, and the result in cali is clear: it's now a one-party state. One of the funniest anectodes was a ballot mailed to a dead cat. Even if the claim about a Western State is true, it's apples/oranges to instituting the practice in a large population state with multiple big urban areas. Yes, our opinions about who is projecting are completely opposite, and I don't have any illusion about trying to change your mind. But notice that the Times article about the Dems is months older than the Atlantic article about Trump, and the Atlantic was caught red handed with false reporting about Trump less than a month ago. In any event, Trump's position is the one that is precedental, as the only exception in a Presidential election to a decision on election night in living memory was 2000, and the Biden campaign's position is the one in favor of confusion and delay in the process of selection. If you want to see the stats on mail-in fraud, review the other races that were decided after the fact by absentee: the Democrats almost always win. As long as they know the number they have to hit, then they can go out and harvest the fraudulent ballots to make it happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 25, 2020 11:11:39 GMT -5
Anonymous sources familiar with the matter just recently confirmed that that's just another media hoax. but it's not. there is a large segment of white america that wants the country to remain controlled by whites. it's a pretty deep cultural divide in this country, made worse in recent years by internet conspiracy sites, political opportunist, shills and grifters... C'mon man! You don't trust my anonymous... ye know... the... the... the thing!? Just messing with ya, nothing serious going on here.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 25, 2020 11:14:42 GMT -5
but it's not. there is a large segment of white america that wants the country to remain controlled by whites. it's a pretty deep cultural divide in this country, made worse in recent years by internet conspiracy sites, political opportunist, shills and grifters... I don't know why there's such a connection between spiritual people and insane right-wing paranoia and crackpottery. It's really disturbing. Our fascist conman AGAIN stated, as if to clear all doubt: “We want to make sure that the election is honest, and I’m not sure that it can be... We have to be very careful with the ballots. The ballots — you know, that’s a whole big scam.”
I don't know why I'm bothering posting here on this topic. I'm well aware it's an utter waste of time. But I can't help it, I guess!Ah, don't worry! Just a short bout of SVP. I'm sure it'll be over soon. Happens to the best spiritual teachers from time to time. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 25, 2020 11:18:36 GMT -5
Okay, thanks. I wrote a rather long replay, but I am sensing this is one of those perpetual circular discussions that don't really go anywhere. But before I follow Zeniac's good example and move on to something non-dual, just let me say something about your last three negatives. Scott Adams, one of the few people who predicted a Trump presidency pretty early on, wrote a book, Win Bigly, where he looked at the 2016 election thru the filter of a hypnotist and his conclusion was that DJT's persuasion techniques are on par with the medias persuasion techniques (if not better). So what you would consider as repetitive lies, chaos, posturing or bigotry thru a conventional filter, are actually high-powered tools in the battle for our minds and attention thru the persuasion filter. If you are interested, read the book. I highly recommend it to people who just can't make sense of what's happening here. It will explain in detail why he says what he says the way he says it and why he does what he does the way he does it. He's not a fool and he isn't lost either. In fact, he does understand LOA and he's been beating the media at their own game for years now. So maybe you can add that as your + #6. Oh, yea, I understand all that, but I wouldn't consider it a positive. What is power for but to do good? I think the negatives outweigh the positives. His Coronavirus response in itself outweighs anything positive he has done. How many COVID-19 deaths will balance 3 conservative SC Justices? Thanks for the book recommendation. DJT's parents went to Norman Vincent Peale's church, so he was raised on the Power of Positive Thinking. I've known this for a long time. So yes, this stamp is on everything he has done. I have mentioned this previously. I've looked for a book where someone would lay out what happened in the 2015 campaign and the 2016 election, and how the Russians invaded Facebook and manipulated Americans. Couldn't find one. But a couple of weeks ago found a program, Hacking Your Mind on PBS. Three programs so far. (It is repeating so you can probably catch it). It goes into brilliantly how for years advertisers have hijacked our brains on autopilot, and the media, Facebook and in 2015-2016 DJT. His team went right from what they had been doing for years in promoting his brand name, to promoting him as presidential candidate. Yes, they were quite brilliant. Yes, I agree this subject has about run its course here. Time will be the arbiter. Who I like doesn't have much to do with it (Laughter). The last President I liked was Daddy George Bush. second program, Weapons of Influence www.pbs.org/video/weapons-of-influence-gpuj68/#:~:text=09%2F16%2F2020%20%7C%2055m%2056s%20%7C&text=The%20advent%20of%20big%20data,how%20you%20can%20protect%20it. Game theory! |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Sept 25, 2020 11:25:47 GMT -5
I don't know why there's such a connection between spiritual people and insane right-wing paranoia and crackpottery. It's really disturbing. Our fascist conman AGAIN stated, as if to clear all doubt: “We want to make sure that the election is honest, and I’m not sure that it can be... We have to be very careful with the ballots. The ballots — you know, that’s a whole big scam.”
I don't know why I'm bothering posting here on this topic. I'm well aware it's an utter waste of time. But I can't help it, I guess!Ah, don't worry! Just a short bout of SVP. I'm sure it'll be over soon. Happens to the best spiritual teachers from time to time. Ah, but that would presume that confusion in the mind = identification with the confusion...  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 25, 2020 11:34:44 GMT -5
I responded to Marianne Williamson last week on twitter... Just for fun I took a look at her twitter, didn't seem to appeal to me what she was posting, but... ...as I kept scrolling down I saw that she actually posted a link to this: I already forgot about Bohm. I wanted to get back to QM but didn't really know how and why. Now I remember, it was because SDP recommended Bohm's work, he said I would probably like it. I watched about half of that docu, and yeah, I like it. That angle is worth exploring further. Thanks Andrew! That was co-creation at it's finest! Interesting path of least resistance, hehe. |
|
