I'm-not-voting-for-either-candidate

[vendic]

This seems relevant: http://www.news.com.au/world/north-amer ... ddb87eebe9

[Rommie]

So true story. My sister asked my dad via email at what point he'd admit that Trump's ethical issues are a problem. My dad responded with a long winded email detailing the ethics of individual freedoms versus the state telling you what to do, and ended it with "the question is whether Donald Trump is isolated from his business interests. A bribe, to be effective, must be known to the recipient. I don’t know enough about Trump’s legal arrangements to make an informed decision. I do know, however, that it was wrong for Hillary Clinton to take $12 million dollars from the King of Morocco as birthday present for Bill."

I'm not gonna respond because I literally do not think my dad will want to understand the fact that we can't compare Trump to Clinton on this doesn't mean he gets a pass and she's automatically far worse.

[squ1d]

Remember all those butthurt Bernie supporters? I wonder what they're thinking now about their childish decision not to vote for Hillary.

As in chess, sometimes you have to sacrifice the Queen to win the game.

What a load of absolute bollocks.

[vendic]

Here I thought it was an epic-ally awesome statement. lol

[Tarragon]

Here's the thing about politicians: a lot of them are spineless cowards who will do whatever it takes to save their worthless asses. So, when people march in the streets it gets them worried. They'll act like they're not, but they are. As vendic has said elsewhere, they're working with smoke and mirrors. Marches are not smoke and mirrors, but obvious and difficult to ignore.

Marches embolden the external opposition. Not only does it prove they have support, it proves they are willing to inconvenience themselves. Marching for peace is the first step towards marching for war, figurative or literal. Not only is it an escalation from merely mumbling and meme-posting , it's like physics in that a mass in motion has momentum. Now that it's started it will be hard to stop and may accelerate. This could silence Trump's supporters, but it might bring out counter protests. If counter protests crowds are small and few in number will make them appear impotent, demoralizing his supporters and dissuading others from joining their ranks.


It also emboldens opposition within his own party. My congressman, former senator and governor are GOP, but they all have publicly spoken out against Trump. One of them is a young war hero and if he wants to set himself up for a run for the senate or White House, he'll want to be on the right side of history on this.

If they really want to get the administration's attention, they'll start wearing the exact same clothing and carry the same signs and march in lockstep, since uniformity of appearance and action is one of the first things you learn in military training. The pussyhats are the first step. Instead of a crowd, they'll look like an army; and instead of a rabble in the streets of DC, it will look like an envelopment maneuver. It will scare the shit out of any bully, including the one in the Oval Office. Then, if he demands illegal action by the military, they'll feel emboldened to say no, which will infuriate him and drive him into paranoid isolation while providing opponents and opportunists in Congress excuse and motivation to impeach him.

The downside is that, like at the Edmund Pettis bridge, the police may beat the protestors. However, that is likely to turn public opinion against the administration. Some think it's about being passive, but it's serious game theory. You want to make your opponent look like the aggressor. Remove his support and his will or ability to fight, just like Sun Tzu said.

[vendic]

Here's the thing about politicians: a lot of them are spineless cowards who will do whatever it takes to save their worthless asses. So, when people march in the streets it gets them worried. They'll act like they're not, but they are. As vendic has said elsewhere, they're working with smoke and mirrors. Marches are not smoke and mirrors, but obvious and difficult to ignore.

Didn't seem to work out for Bernie and he had some huge crowds where ever he went.
Yet, when Hillary won the primaries she stated she wasn't going to take any of Sanders popular opinions and implement them as part of her campaign. Her reasoning was that she won the primaries by more votes than Sanders and it was because of her policies so she is not going to change them. Effectively dividing her base almost in two. She won 55% he 43% in the primaries.

Point here, even Sanders large crowds and popularity still wasn't enough to influence policy within their own party so why would it affect the opposition. The republicans and trump won't care that the left are having large numbers of people against them, they won against these people and have absolutely nothing to lose. While Hillary's campaign ignored the high crowds at the risk of losing their votes.

So I'm pretty confident it will make no difference to Trump, just like it made no difference to Hillary, and may even just piss him off so he puts policy out in spite. Because that's how narcissists are.

[code monkey]

Without getting into the issue of voting or not, I too, am confused by what all these people think they're going to accomplish with all these marches.

It's a way to promote visibility. It's a way to recruit like minded individuals. If the organizers of these marches are smart they are collecting contact information and putting people in touch with each other. The marches are one way to advertise that you are not alone. It can energize someone to volunteer for other activities that lead to actual changes and meaningful opposition.

what he said.

[vendic]

For what it's worth, I think there is a high probability that Trump will resign of his own accord before completing his term. I suspect he will blame the system when he goes out, though other options are also possible. If he does complete his first term I doubt he'll run for office for the second.
Of course, I could also be completely wrong.

[SciFiFisher]

Here's the thing about politicians: a lot of them are spineless cowards who will do whatever it takes to save their worthless asses. So, when people march in the streets it gets them worried. They'll act like they're not, but they are. As vendic has said elsewhere, they're working with smoke and mirrors. Marches are not smoke and mirrors, but obvious and difficult to ignore.

Didn't seem to work out for Bernie and he had some huge crowds where ever he went.
Yet, when Hillary won the primaries she stated she wasn't going to take any of Sanders popular opinions and implement them as part of her campaign. Her reasoning was that she won the primaries by more votes than Sanders and it was because of her policies so she is not going to change them. Effectively dividing her base almost in two. She won 55% he 43% in the primaries.

Point here, even Sanders large crowds and popularity still wasn't enough to influence policy within their own party so why would it affect the opposition. The republicans and trump won't care that the left are having large numbers of people against them, they won against these people and have absolutely nothing to lose. While Hillary's campaign ignored the high crowds at the risk of losing their votes.

So I'm pretty confident it will make no difference to Trump, just like it made no difference to Hillary, and may even just piss him off so he puts policy out in spite. Because that's how narcissists are.

No, it won't really change Trump. You are correct that it will make his behavior worse. And that is the point. Trump didn't get here alone. He had supporters. He is a narcissistic neo-fascist who was allowed to run as a Republican. The Republicans have their share of neo-fascists. But, the ones who are not jumped on board the crazy train because they couldn't stop having wet dreams about controlling the presidency, the congress, and the judicial system. When they realize that they don't really control the presidency they are going to start re-thinking this deal. The crazier that the White House acts the harder it will be for them to support him. Of course, I fully expect them to double down on the stupid because they won't have the courage to admit they are wrong. It's a lot like watching a train wreck. You know it's going to end badly but you can't tear your eyes away.

Once the crazy train starts spiraling out of control then the clowns will start bailing faster than you can say "frozen spit ball in hell". The challenge for the opposition is to decide if they have what it takes to help the crazy spin even further out of control. The natural instinct is to keep things from doing that. They won't want to hurt people. They won't want to see the government grind to a halt. They will try to claim they are taking the high road and not being like the Republicans. But, the faster this crazy train crashes the sooner we can get the clowns away from the Engine and get to fixing things.

I am not sure the Democrats understand that they must really help the Republicans and the White House crash and burn as fast as possible. Because if these clowns get time to shut down the press, gag the rest of the government, and implement the changes they really want then it will be a really long time before the crazy train crashes. And when it does they plan to convince a significant part of the population that their alternate facts are the truth.

[Tarragon]

No, it won't really change Trump. You are correct that it will make his behavior worse. And that is the point. Trump didn't get here alone. He had supporters. He is a narcissistic neo-fascist who was allowed to run as a Republican. The Republicans have their share of neo-fascists. But, the ones who are not jumped on board the crazy train because they couldn't stop having wet dreams about controlling the presidency, the congress, and the judicial system. When they realize that they don't really control the presidency they are going to start re-thinking this deal. The crazier that the White House acts the harder it will be for them to support him. Of course, I fully expect them to double down on the stupid because they won't have the courage to admit they are wrong. It's a lot like watching a train wreck. You know it's going to end badly but you can't tear your eyes away.

Once the crazy train starts spiraling out of control then the clowns will start bailing faster than you can say "frozen spit ball in hell". The challenge for the opposition is to decide if they have what it takes to help the crazy spin even further out of control. The natural instinct is to keep things from doing that. They won't want to hurt people. They won't want to see the government grind to a halt. They will try to claim they are taking the high road and not being like the Republicans. But, the faster this crazy train crashes the sooner we can get the clowns away from the Engine and get to fixing things.

I am not sure the Democrats understand that they must really help the Republicans and the White House crash and burn as fast as possible. Because if these clowns get time to shut down the press, gag the rest of the government, and implement the changes they really want then it will be a really long time before the crazy train crashes. And when it does they plan to convince a significant part of the population that their alternate facts are the truth.

There is a danger from antagonizing Trump. While internal resistance may prevent him from forcing his will on America, he may force himself on another country, like China. Starting a war would distract the attention from him and cause a lot of people to unite behind the troops and the flag. I think there's a 50% chance we'll be at war with the PRC within 6 months. This may be one of the reasons he's courting Russia and Taiwan, and they they're courting him. It may start as "Aggressive Negotiations" on trade, but as he becomes more embattled at home, this may embolden China to resist or become more aggressive in the South China Sea and tie it to economics, which could easily result in Trump putting troops into harms way with the expectation that China will take the bait or look spineless.

[Tarragon]

Here's the thing about politicians: a lot of them are spineless cowards who will do whatever it takes to save their worthless asses. So, when people march in the streets it gets them worried. They'll act like they're not, but they are. As vendic has said elsewhere, they're working with smoke and mirrors. Marches are not smoke and mirrors, but obvious and difficult to ignore.

Didn't seem to work out for Bernie and he had some huge crowds where ever he went.
Yet, when Hillary won the primaries she stated she wasn't going to take any of Sanders popular opinions and implement them as part of her campaign. Her reasoning was that she won the primaries by more votes than Sanders and it was because of her policies so she is not going to change them. Effectively dividing her base almost in two. She won 55% he 43% in the primaries.

Point here, even Sanders large crowds and popularity still wasn't enough to influence policy within their own party so why would it affect the opposition. The republicans and trump won't care that the left are having large numbers of people against them, they won against these people and have absolutely nothing to lose. While Hillary's campaign ignored the high crowds at the risk of losing their votes.

So I'm pretty confident it will make no difference to Trump, just like it made no difference to Hillary, and may even just piss him off so he puts policy out in spite. Because that's how narcissists are.

Campaigns are about competition. Rallies are part of the the participation in democracy as a lead-up to voting. People know that candidate platforms rarely make it to legislation intact.

Once someone gets into office, it's time to get to work. The job becomes serious. Rallies after this point also become serious.

From what I saw, Sander's platform did pull Clinton to the left. How she would be as a president, I don't know. The dynamic would be completely different.

But my point is that one march isn't enough. They need to keep up the pressure with more marches and fiercer rhetoric (though Trump's twitter rants achieve that so they may not need to). They need to convert those marchers into doing more, such as running for local office and pressuring local offices.

They can expand their pressure points from marching to promoting mass labor strikes. This will cause corporate interests to pressure their legislators to do something about the source of the problem. The protesters need to be so well organized that the path of least resistance to stopping the protests and strikes is not to go after the protesters but to get rid of Trump.

If these tactics don't work, and don't work quickly, we may find ourselves in a protracted state of emergency. Trump's hold on the enforcement mechanisms of the state may start cracking down. Some people will retire from marching, leaving the response to those who are more radical and willing to escalate after feeling abandoned by sellouts whose tactics didn't work. Radicals from both the right and the left will decide that violence is a better way to resolve the stalemate. I imagine at least a few foreign powers would be interested in stoking that fire.

[pumpkinpi]

I think war is inevitable. This man wants power. After you have more money than you could possibly need, the next step is the highest office in the land. Then use that to rule the world--get anyone out of the way that would challenge that. Russia may help us defeat China, (no I don't know if that would even be possible if we went to war, but since it's what Trump wants lets say it happens), then he goes to war with Russia to get rid of them.

None of this is based in fact, so if I'm wrong please educate me. I'm deliberately trying to think like an idiot.

[vendic]

There is a danger from antagonizing Trump. While internal resistance may prevent him from forcing his will on America, he may force himself on another country, like China. Starting a war would distract the attention from him and cause a lot of people to unite behind the troops and the flag. I think there's a 50% chance we'll be at war with the PRC within 6 months. This may be one of the reasons he's courting Russia and Taiwan, and they they're courting him.

I pretty much agree with that but I think it will be in the Middle East at a longer timeline unless ISIS/Iran does something to spark it earlier. The stage for that has been set long ago.

Winter is coming John Snow.
As with Winter, the President of the USA has little power to stop it.

China is a huge supply of goods world wide and would impact it dramatically so would get little if any support from other countries. North Korea however is the wild card that might change things.

The Middle East has little other than the oil producing areas and war in the non oil producing countries would provide the US with significant leverage in Saudi and Kuwait.
I doubt that Trump would directly target Israel. I think they would be courted as allies. Which imho is a bad thing for Israel that they really should strive to avoid if possible. They already live with constant threat which would only get worse in the future should something happen to destabilize the area further. I think Bush Snr had it right when he didn't want Israel involved in Iraq version 1.0 because that would have fueled the hate towards them and possibly united more of the Muslim states into war again. I don't think Trump could care less how US actions would affect the Israeli and I hope the extremists of Israel don't side with him or influence Israel's role if it happened.

[vendic]

I think war is inevitable. This man wants power. After you have more money than you could possibly need, the next step is the highest office in the land. Then use that to rule the world--get anyone out of the way that would challenge that. Russia may help us defeat China, (no I don't know if that would even be possible if we went to war, but since it's what Trump wants lets say it happens), then he goes to war with Russia to get rid of them.

None of this is based in fact, so if I'm wrong please educate me. I'm deliberately trying to think like an idiot.

I think it's far more insidious than that. Historically the best way to get rid of large numbers of people that oppose you is to give them someone else they hate more and send them off to war. It unites the people against a common enemy, removes their potency in going after you, kills many of them off, and, finally turns their minds towards peace when they grow tired of fighting.
From that perspective, Trump is a minor player in the symphony war that started playing long ago.

Aren't I just so cheery this morning.

[Rommie]

What I keep coming back to is my utter fascination and revulsion in all this that there are people out there who believe that Trump is not in it for himself but because he wants to make the country better. I know they exist because I've had people tell me this. The dichotomy is just insane. (I will agree though that there's a very good chance he would opt not to run in four years time. The guy is gonna be like 74 years old, and can't imagine his interest in "playing president" will last terribly long... but perhaps it would if he wants to be a figurehead.)

I guess we're building a wall now between us and Mexico, so while I hate to say it I hope bullshit like that will distract the powers that be enough from serious shit like getting into a war with China.

[geonuc]

I'm deliberately trying to think like an idiot.

Well, there's your problem. You're not qualified.

[squ1d]

None of this is based in fact, so if I'm wrong please educate me. I'm deliberately trying to think like an idiot.

Hahaha

Classic

[Swift]

I'm deliberately trying to think like an idiot.

You need to see a Brain Specialist

[SciFiFisher]

I think war is inevitable. This man wants power. After you have more money than you could possibly need, the next step is the highest office in the land. Then use that to rule the world--get anyone out of the way that would challenge that. Russia may help us defeat China, (no I don't know if that would even be possible if we went to war, but since it's what Trump wants lets say it happens), then he goes to war with Russia to get rid of them.

None of this is based in fact, so if I'm wrong please educate me. I'm deliberately trying to think like an idiot.

I think it's far more insidious than that. Historically the best way to get rid of large numbers of people that oppose you is to give them someone else they hate more and send them off to war. It unites the people against a common enemy, removes their potency in going after you, kills many of them off, and, finally turns their minds towards peace when they grow tired of fighting.
From that perspective, Trump is a minor player in the symphony war that started playing long ago.

Aren't I just so cheery this morning.

The classic fascist, populist, authoritarian playbook pretty much dictates that he has to find an external enemy to unite us against. He was able to turn enough people against "the establishment" and "The Liberals" and "The Democratic Party". The internal enemy won't be enough. He, and his administration, need an external enemy. I anticipate within a very short time that we will have a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident. It may actually be with China. But, if Trump is indeed the classic narcissist sociopathic bully he appears to be I suspect he will look for a weak opponent that can be easily picked off. The Middle East does present some aspects of that. There is also the Philippines which has recently started acting contrary to U.S. interests in that sphere. And they don't really have any decent allies. And their leader can easily be cast as a bad person who needs removing from office to save those poor Philippine people. We can restore Democracy, truth, and the American Way to the people who love us most.

[Tarragon]

I pretty much agree with that but I think it will be in the Middle East at a longer timeline unless ISIS/Iran does something to spark it earlier. The stage for that has been set long ago.

Winter is coming John Snow.
As with Winter, the President of the USA has little power to stop it.

China is a huge supply of goods world wide and would impact it dramatically so would get little if any support from other countries. North Korea however is the wild card that might change things.

The Middle East has little other than the oil producing areas and war in the non oil producing countries would provide the US with significant leverage in Saudi and Kuwait.
I doubt that Trump would directly target Israel. I think they would be courted as allies. Which imho is a bad thing for Israel that they really should strive to avoid if possible. They already live with constant threat which would only get worse in the future should something happen to destabilize the area further. I think Bush Snr had it right when he didn't want Israel involved in Iraq version 1.0 because that would have fueled the hate towards them and possibly united more of the Muslim states into war again. I don't think Trump could care less how US actions would affect the Israeli and I hope the extremists of Israel don't side with him or influence Israel's role if it happened.

I was thinking about North Korea today when watching the evening news. I could see Trump calling Kim Jong-un's bluff. This would give him a war to rally around the flag while being a show of force against China without actually attacking China. From what I've read, the Chinese are tired of North Korea's behavior too. So, maybe they won't lose face over it. China's economy is slowing and their population is growing wealthy enough to want stability, so Trump might be able to push them to concede on some points. But there's a risk that they will turn it into a proxy war. Russia shares a stretch of border with North Korea, so there could be a spoiler there. And with Trumps talk of abandoning allies, if North Korea launches over or near Japan to widen the war or threat of one, then Japan might remilitarize, which would really escalate tensions in the region.

I'm not sure what might happen in the middle east. Iran is close to Russia, so Trump might not do much, regardless of what the Republican hawks want. Russia wants higher prices for its fossil fuels as do companies in the US. Higher fuel prices might be bad for Trump, but if there's a war somewhere (Koreas) it will be called a patriotic sacrifice to quell Cognitive Dissonance. It's a classic move: make your supporters feel pain, then tell them it was someone else who caused it.

There is an important unknown. How advanced are North Korea's nuclear delivery systems? If they have managed to get them onto missiles, there is the potential that he might decide to try an EMP attack instead of trying to hit a city. Of course, if he wanted to do that reliably, he'd sneak in spies and have them launch it on a balloon or a rocket built on-site.

Just Saw SciFiFisher's post: I don't know how Duerte and Trump will get along. With Trump railing against China, and China invading the South China Sea islands, some of which are claimed by the Philippines, they may find a common enemy. On the other hand, two big egos might collide.

[vendic]

The classic fascist, populist, authoritarian playbook pretty much dictates that he has to find an external enemy to unite us against. He was able to turn enough people against "the establishment" and "The Liberals" and "The Democratic Party". The internal enemy won't be enough. He, and his administration, need an external enemy. I anticipate within a very short time that we will have a "Gulf of Tonkin" incident...

He didn't turn people against the establishment. He was smart enough however to tap into that, but could only tap half the available numbers since he also distanced the Democratic base.

The other half of that base is still up for grabs. If a nut job comes along that can unite both groups I think we'll have bigger problems. At the same time, you don't need popular support to wage war and it can be manufactured to create that support. 911 for example united the American people. I'm not claiming that it was manufactured, just that events like that can be and would have the same effect if one is determined to get their way as was done in the Vietnam era and countless other times in history.

[grapes]

The other half of that base is still up for grabs. If a nut job comes along that can unite both groups I think we'll have bigger problems. At the same time, you don't need popular support to wage war and it can be manufactured to create that support. 911 for example united the American people. I'm not claiming that it was manufactured, just that events like that can be and would have the same effect if one is determined to get their way as was done in the Vietnam era and countless other times in history.

Tiananman Square Massacre 4 Jun 1989

Operation Desert Storm/Shield 2 Aug 1990 -- 28 Feb 1991

World Trade Center Bombing 26 Feb 1993
Waco Siege 28 Feb 1993 -- 19 Apr 1993

Murrah Building Bombing, by McVeigh 19 Apr 1995

Heaven's Gate 26 Mar 1997

Columbine 20 Apr 1999

Twin Towers Destroyed 11 Sep 2001
Operation Enduring Freedom (War in Afganistan) 7 Oct 2001 -- 31 Dec 2014

Virginia Tech Massacre 16 Apr 2007

Iraq War 20 Mar 2003 -- 18 Dec 2011

Sandy Hook Massacre 14 Dec 2012

Boston Marathon Bombing 15 Apr 2013

Operation Inherent Resolve 15 Jun 2014 --

Charleston Church Massacre 17 Jun 2015

Paris Attacks 13 Nov 2015

mere distractions...

US Election 9 Nov 2016

ETC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e ... _massacres

[Tarragon]

Read what Bannon said today. "The Media is the Opposition." If there is a war, the media will be accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy if they tell anything other than the official line. Protesters will be accused of sedition.

Remember what Trump said about "the age of computer." He thinks it complicates lives. It helps his opponents organize against him. One might think he likes it because it helped get him elected. But now that they are in control of the organs of government, they may try to limit and control the internet so that only his messages go out. It might merely be through intimidation against ISPs and major entities, but there might be technological changes. A major cyber attack or EMP might be used to drive users to a new network infrastructure that can be controlled.

[vendic]

I think you might be reading more into what Bannon said than was intended.

"The media should be embarrassed and humiliated and keep its mouth shut and just listen for awhile.

"The media here is the opposition party. They don't understand this country. They still do not understand why Donald Trump is the president of the United States."

I've seen headlines such as this:

Bannon Declares War On The Media: "You Are The Opposition; Keep Your Mouth Shut"

Telling any group they need to listen instead of talk to save embarrassment is not declaring war. The above is a perfect example. Report the news, don't make the news. That subtle difference that seems to have been lost in this country.

I've heard a lot of people complain about the media, Democrats, Republicans etc. The media is in it for money and sensationalism. There are few good US media outlets left. They all seems to want to be able to act as tabloids but want respect for being the truth tellers. Calling them out on this is way overdue imho.
I do draw the line at telling them (by order) what they can and cannot do, but they are perfectly open to criticism and should be subject to it far more than they are.

The other thing that's driving me nuts here in the USA is that having a different opinion seems to make you the enemy. Democrats think Republicans are the Enemy. Republicans think that Democrats are the enemy. The media loves to play this off for ratings and make money out of it. It is counter to what should be happening. You are all people of the UNITED States. That word is there for a reason. It's high time you all started acting like it instead of this hatred for your fellow citizens. That imho is what is hurting the US and it needs to change and change fast.

*this isn't a attack on anyone here. Just an observation after living here for over 5 years and something I've been saying for a long time now. I trace it all the way back to 911, because shortly after that the United States was United. Then you went down the "You're with us or against us" path and split the nation. It has not recovered since but seems to be getting worse.

[geonuc]

Can't argue with that assessment too much, but I'd put the beginning of the split during the Clinton administration, when the Republicans tried to have Clinton removed and Speaker Gingrich instituted the Contract With America.