Jump to content
IGNORED

Observing from the outside....


HisFirst

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  21
  • Topic Count:  315
  • Topics Per Day:  0.11
  • Content Count:  3,491
  • Content Per Day:  1.27
  • Reputation:   2,582
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  09/25/2016
  • Status:  Offline

Is the US in chaos ATM or is this the normal settling of the dust ?

I really don't remember so much commotion, although I remember the opposition against Obama which stayed throughout the 8 years, but this  Trump "commotion" really seems to have no end.

Just observation from miles away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
1 hour ago, HisFirst said:

Is the US in chaos ATM or is this the normal settling of the dust ?

I really don't remember so much commotion, although I remember the opposition against Obama which stayed throughout the 8 years, but this  Trump "commotion" really seems to have no end.

Just observation from miles away.

Most of this stuff, this commotion is manufactured by the Left.   They are taking minor things, common to most administrations and turning them into colossal  events.  Almost every presidential administration has had to fire someone or ask for their resignations.  White House spokespersons almost always never make it through a week or a month without a misstatement or mistake.  Nothing ever goes the way you want it to go, and when you have a machine with as many moving parts as a presidential administration has, you are going to get mishaps, mistakes and stuff.

It's just that Trump is especially hated because the Left's soviet-styled utopia didn't' come to pass.  The Left thought they ruled the country.  They were assured that Hillary would win and soon we would have a Stalinesque, Communist, Progressive in the White House.   That Leftist dream was brutally crushed on election night when Trump won.

The press has done everything they could to first destroy his campaign, and now they are on  mission to destroy his presidency.  We, in America, value an adversarial press.   We value a press that is bold enough to speak truth to power, to be impartial and objective.   But the press in the US is arguably camped out on the far Left and is incapable of any kind of political objectivity.  The Left in Washington DC, is in cahoots with the media and our entertainment industry to destroy Trump.  

These are not just policy disagreements.  Trump is being targeted by the media and all of leftist America, personally. It's not about disagreeing with him; they hate the man, himself.   Death threats, calls for impeachment, criminal indictment, a military coup, all of this stuff is bared on a hatred of Trump and it is has manifested into an environment of violence and intimidation of anyone who publicly voices support for Trump.

It has gotten so bad, that anyone in Hollywood who doesn't toe the leftist line, is blacklisted, probably will not get jobs in the entertainment industry and are themselves sent messages containing death threats.   If you are  a public figure, you had better not support Trump or your career will be destroyed if the Left has anything to say about it. 

What they are doing is proving why Trump was elected.  If Hillary had been elected, any opposition to her would be met with the same brutality, the same intimidation, the irrational violent hatred that they are unleashing on Trump.  They are proving just how Stalinesque they really are.   We dodged a bullet when Hillary was defeated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  104
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  2,923
  • Content Per Day:  0.62
  • Reputation:   462
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  04/02/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/22/1953

5 hours ago, HisFirst said:

Is the US in chaos ATM or is this the normal settling of the dust ?

I really don't remember so much commotion, although I remember the opposition against Obama which stayed throughout the 8 years, but this  Trump "commotion" really seems to have no end.

 

I'm assuming you are not in the US?  (please correct me if I'm wrong)

You asked an 'open-ended' question, so I'll do my best to give an 'open-ended' answer.

Yes, the turmoil is greater than normal.  The reasons I'm going to give you are my own, somewhat controversial opinions as to why that is.  But they come from over 50 years of observing US politics.

We have two major political parties in the US - the democrats (Ds) and the republicans (Rs).  Nominally, the Ds are the more 'liberal' while the Rs are the more 'conservative'.  That's the textbook definition.  Mine is different - we have one party (I call it the ruling party or the uni-party) with two branches. (R and D)

Are you familiar with the term 'kabuki theatre'? It comes from the Japanese, but in political terms it simply means 'something done for show'.

Well, it's my opinion that our elections are usually 'kabuki theater' in that the Ds and the Rs on the surface oppose each other - but in the end they play for the same team.  The uni-party, you see, is a closed club.  Only establishment Rs and Ds can join.

Any opposition Obama may or may not have had was simply for show.  As an example, the Rs talked 'tough' (Mitch McConnell, an R leader said he wanted Obama to be one term president and that he would oppose him).  This was 'red meat' for other Rs.  When it came to actions, however, McConnell gave Obama pretty much everything he wanted.  Now, someone will cite the supreme court nomination that McConnell sat on.  That is a valid counterpoint, but it was during an election year and other factors were involved.

As it has done in every election since probably the 1930s, the uni-party had 2016 all planned out.  It was going to be Jeb Bush (R) against Hillary Clinton (D).  Each side would have its 'rah rah' followers - the 'pro-lifers' for Bush; the 'they're going to kill women if we don't vote Hillary' crowd for Clinton.  And in the end, it wouldn't have mattered who won.  It hasn't mattered for years - the US continues down the road to globalism and irrelevancy.  All that matters (to the uni-party) is that ONE OF ITS OWN inhabits the WH.

Enter Donald J. Trump.  He's a billionaire (therefore not beholden to special interest groups); he's known (doesn't have to pay to get his name out); he's brash and irreverent (not predictable - anathema to the uni-party).  Most billionaires are members by default in the uni-party - but the uni-party likes its billionaires to remain silent.  They like the George Soros type of billionaire (pay up but shut up); not the brash, in your face Donald Trump type.

Billionaires also are supposed to have one other thing in common - they're supposed to be globalists.  Bill Gates, check.  Warren Buffet, check.  Tom Steyer, check.  George Soros, check.

Trump has wandered off that reservation.  He's rejected globalism.  

He's committed (in the uni-party's eyes) the unpardonable sin.  

THATS why you're seeing the turmoil in the US.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

Edited by SavedByGrace1981
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1,022
  • Topics Per Day:  0.16
  • Content Count:  39,193
  • Content Per Day:  6.13
  • Reputation:   9,977
  • Days Won:  78
  • Joined:  10/01/2006
  • Status:  Offline

7 hours ago, HisFirst said:

Is the US in chaos ATM or is this the normal settling of the dust ?

I really don't remember so much commotion, although I remember the opposition against Obama which stayed throughout the 8 years, but this  Trump "commotion" really seems to have no end.

Just observation from miles away.

We are going through a seismic shift here in the U.S., HF, and yes, there is a lot of commotion going on.  It will settle down as soon as our leftist citizens come to terms with the new reality.  Either that or, God forbid, we will devolve into another civil war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, HisFirst said:

Is the US in chaos ATM or is this the normal settling of the dust ?

I really don't remember so much commotion, although I remember the opposition against Obama which stayed throughout the 8 years, but this  Trump "commotion" really seems to have no end.

Just observation from miles away.

I'd say it's in chaos only because a non establishment candidate actually attained the Presidency, which in my view is a good thing. Though I really wish someone more along the skill and temperament of Theresa May had become the President instead. Yet, he was duly elected, I don't want to see him fail, and I keep him and his administration in prayer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  16
  • Topic Count:  134
  • Topics Per Day:  0.04
  • Content Count:  8,142
  • Content Per Day:  2.37
  • Reputation:   6,612
  • Days Won:  20
  • Joined:  11/02/2014
  • Status:  Offline

4 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

We are going through a seismic shift here in the U.S., HF, and yes, there is a lot of commotion going on.  It will settle down as soon as our leftist citizens come to terms with the new reality.  Either that or, God forbid, we will devolve into another civil war.

Not necessarily.  A few critical arrests and prosecutions could turn the tables on the Leftist anarchists, rioters, and troublemakers. When people face serious jail-time, their attitude changes.

Why are we seeing this insanity from the Left?  Basically, they have been denied the opportunity to continue destroying America, and they are hopping mad.  The rejection of Hillary Clinton, the rejection of Obama's phony legacy, the rejection of the Democratic Party and the globalist Left-liberal agenda, along with the exposure of the MSM as propagandists for the Democrats and globalists, has created a state of shock on the Left (as well as among the RINOs and NeverTrumpers). 

At the same time George Soros has been funding and encouraging anarchy, chaos, violent attacks on innocents, and the murder of police officers ever since Ferguson.  Obama vowed to push through all his unacceptable policies at the last minute (which he did), and to sabotage Trump's presidency (which he is currently doing through an Alinsky-type training manual).  And that is why we are seeing these paid *protesters* coming out and trying to generate hatred and rebellion against Trump, while disrupting lawful assemblies of citizens.

This can only last so long before the Trump administration starts cracking down on lawlessness.  But to be really effective he must put Soros, Obama, and Clinton behind bars.  As the saying goes, when you cut off the head of the snake, the body become ineffective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  25
  • Topic Count:  275
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  5,208
  • Content Per Day:  1.00
  • Reputation:   1,893
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/02/2010
  • Status:  Offline

21 minutes ago, CCole1983 said:

I'd say it's in chaos only because a non establishment candidate actually attained the Presidency, which in my view is a good thing. Though I really wish someone more along the skill and temperament of Theresa May had become the President instead. Yet, he was duly elected, I don't want to see him fail, and I keep him and his administration in prayer.

The establishment lost their chance at an anti-establishment candidate that would've been more amenable to compromise by always gaming the system towards establishment candidates. Both parties did it this time, the republicans towards Bush and the Democrats toward hillary. The main difference is that Hillary had a staunch partisan running the DNC while bush did not in Priebus. Priebus just wanted to beat the democrats and when he recognized trump was that vehicle, he went all in. The democrats did not think it was possible that they would lose with hillary, seemingly. Even still, she was almost knocked off by a guy who pretty much everybody, including myself, assumed to be a glass-jawed shill, but ended up actually trying to win by taking the anti-establishment route. We very nearly had two anti-establishment candidates from both parties in the presidential race, though with obvious political differences between the two specifically.

I think that a trump type was always the only sort of anti-establishment candidate that could actually wrest power from the RNC, because the republican party as it had been constituted valued process above all and it took somebody who completely tossed the idea of political process out the window to break it apart. Simply put, in my opinion, they were unable to adjust rapidly enough to stop trump because, even while he was taking their party over, they literally did not believe it was possible, which meant that they didn't actually believe it was happening, that eventually it would even itself out, surely he would make a mistake and fall off, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  104
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  2,923
  • Content Per Day:  0.62
  • Reputation:   462
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  04/02/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/22/1953

5 minutes ago, Steve_S said:

The establishment lost their chance at an anti-establishment candidate that would've been more amenable to compromise by always gaming the system towards establishment candidates. Both parties did it this time, the republicans towards Bush and the Democrats toward hillary. The main difference is that Hillary had a staunch partisan running the DNC while bush did not in Priebus. Priebus just wanted to beat the democrats and when he recognized trump was that vehicle, he went all in. The democrats did not think it was possible that they would lose with hillary, seemingly. Even still, she was almost knocked off by a guy who pretty much everybody, including myself, assumed to be a glass-jawed shill, but ended up actually trying to win by taking the anti-establishment route. We very nearly had two anti-establishment candidates from both parties in the presidential race, though with obvious political differences between the two specifically.

I think that a trump type was always the only sort of anti-establishment candidate that could actually wrest power from the RNC, because the republican party as it had been constituted valued process above all and it took somebody who completely tossed the idea of political process out the window to break it apart. Simply put, in my opinion, they were unable to adjust rapidly enough to stop trump because, even while he was taking their party over, they literally did not believe it was possible, which meant that they didn't actually believe it was happening, that eventually it would even itself out, surely he would make a mistake and fall off, etc.

Up until about 9pm Eastern Time on election night, they STILL didn't believe it.

Blessings,

-Ed

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  21
  • Topic Count:  315
  • Topics Per Day:  0.11
  • Content Count:  3,491
  • Content Per Day:  1.27
  • Reputation:   2,582
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  09/25/2016
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

I'm assuming you are not in the US?  (please correct me if I'm wrong)

You asked an 'open-ended' question, so I'll do my best to give an 'open-ended' answer.

Yes, the turmoil is greater than normal.  The reasons I'm going to give you are my own, somewhat controversial opinions as to why that is.  But they come from over 50 years of observing US politics.

We have two major political parties in the US - the democrats (Ds) and the republicans (Rs).  Nominally, the Ds are the more 'liberal' while the Rs are the more 'conservative'.  That's the textbook definition.  Mine is different - we have one party (I call it the ruling party or the uni-party) with two branches. (R and D)

Are you familiar with the term 'kabuki theatre'? It comes from the Japanese, but in political terms it simply means 'something done for show'.

Well, it's my opinion that our elections are usually 'kabuki theater' in that the Ds and the Rs on the surface oppose each other - but in the end they play for the same team.  The uni-party, you see, is a closed club.  Only establishment Rs and Ds can join.

Any opposition Obama may or may not have had was simply for show.  As an example, the Rs talked 'tough' (Mitch McConnell, an R leader said he wanted Obama to be one term president and that he would oppose him).  This was 'red meat' for other Rs.  When it came to actions, however, McConnell gave Obama pretty much everything he wanted.  Now, someone will cite the supreme court nomination that McConnell sat on.  That is a valid counterpoint, but it was during an election year and other factors were involved.

As it has done in every election since probably the 1930s, the uni-party had 2016 all planned out.  It was going to be Jeb Bush (R) against Hillary Clinton (D).  Each side would have its 'rah rah' followers - the 'pro-lifers' for Bush; the 'they're going to kill women if we don't vote Hillary' crowd for Clinton.  And in the end, it wouldn't have mattered who won.  It hasn't mattered for years - the US continues down the road to globalism and irrelevancy.  All that matters (to the uni-party) is that ONE OF ITS OWN inhabits the WH.

Enter Donald J. Trump.  He's a billionaire (therefore not beholden to special interest groups); he's known (doesn't have to pay to get his name out); he's brash and irreverent (not predictable - anathema to the uni-party).  Most billionaires are members by default in the uni-party - but the uni-party likes its billionaires to remain silent.  They like the George Soros type of billionaire (pay up but shut up); not the brash, in your face Donald Trump type.

Billionaires also are supposed to have one other thing in common - they're supposed to be globalists.  Bill Gates, check.  Warren Buffet, check.  Tom Steyer, check.  George Soros, check.

Trump has wandered off that reservation.  He's rejected globalism.  

He's committed (in the uni-party's eyes) the unpardonable sin.  

THATS why you're seeing the turmoil in the US.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

Hi SBG,

That was a very clear, well put outline of your view of the US political parties and I have a question.

If Trump is outside of the "establishment", how did he get to the position of running and even Prez?

Money talks? (no matter who you are?)

Edited by HisFirst
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Servant
  • Followers:  25
  • Topic Count:  275
  • Topics Per Day:  0.05
  • Content Count:  5,208
  • Content Per Day:  1.00
  • Reputation:   1,893
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/02/2010
  • Status:  Offline

13 minutes ago, HisFirst said:

Hi SBG,

That was a very clear, well put outline of your view of the US political parties and I have a question.

If Trump is outside of the "establishment", how did he get to the position of running and even Prez?

Money talks? (no matter who you are?)

In the US anybody can run for president and, furthermore, basically anybody can run for president in either party. He had media exposure because he was already famous, so when he announced, there was mass coverage of it. He said what some would consider to be some very controversial things during his announcement, which caused it to basically be the only thing in the news for a couple of days.

Also, money talks, yes. He had enough liquidity to functionally finance the entire primary/caucus portion of his campaign. Even so, he still spent less than most other candidates during that period and far, far less than some others that didn't last nearly as long. He ran a different kind of campaign than anybody has ever ran here, directly appealing to voters through social media, personally posting his thoughts, not canned political statements that were ran through 5 or 10 advisors and public relations employees. Above all else, though, he did not play the political correctness game. I think it's likely that this, at the core of his candidacy, was responsible for his initial rise. He did not look or sound like a politician and in the current environment here, that was not a bad thing for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...