Lawyer versus Businessman; Presidential styles.

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Explain this to your grandmother. Maybe she believes it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

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

 

As against the propaganda you preach say?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

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.

 

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.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

whadd'ya mean "we" white boy?

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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 - - - -

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Nine minutes.

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)​