Hillary Clinton Campaign Launches Voter Registration Effort Led By Illegal Aliens

[raykeller]

Surround polling places with citizen gun owners using open carry and
citizens only signs as a means of protest (will work in open carry states
like Az)

The Daily Caller ^ | 4:41 PM 08/14/2016 | Alex Pfeiffer

Hillary Clinton Campaign Launches Voter Registration Effort Led By Illegal
Aliens


The Hillary Clinton campaign on Sunday announced a voter registration effort
led by illegal immigrants on the four year anniversary of President Barack
Obama's executive action to protect illegal aliens from deportation.

According to a statement the campaign launched "'Mi Sueño, Tu Voto' (My
Dream, Your Vote), to organize DREAMers to mobilize their communities and
ask voters to consider what is at stake for their families in November."

"DREAMers have played a pivotal role in our campaign, advocating for
families who constantly live in fear of deportation-so we've created a
program that aims to turn these stories into action," Lorella Praeli,
national director of the Latino vote said in a statement.

Astrid Silva, an illegal immigrant who spoke at the Democratic convention,
said, "We may not have the right to vote, but 'Mi Sueño, Tu Voto' will help
ensure that our stories are heard and it will send a clear signal to Donald
Trump that we cannot be silenced."

The program will be unveiled in the upcoming week at events in Florida,
Nevada, and North Carolina. "'Mi Sueño, Tu Voto' will also serve to remind
voters of Donald Trump's hateful and dangerous agenda, highlighting his
pledge to eliminate DACA and deport millions of DREAMers and immigrant
families."


(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[bruce2...@gmail.com]

Haha, did you even read the last sentence?

[Mr. B1ack]

How come Hillary doesn't trot out those OTHER
illegals ... the gang-bangers and thieves and
rapists ?

Sorry, but just because you can find some bright
stars in the mix doesn't mean all, or even most,
are such great folks.

[Dechucka]

"Mr. B1ack" <now...@nada.net> wrote in message
news:uof4rbl1ckd80p0ou...@4ax.com...

True look at GOP

[Governor Swill]

On Mon, 15 Aug Mr. B1ack wrote:

>How come Hillary doesn't trot out those OTHER
>illegals ... the gang-bangers and thieves and
>rapists ?

They're all working for Trump.

>Sorry, but just because you can find some bright
>stars in the mix doesn't mean all, or even most,
>are such great folks.

Swill
--
#imwithher
You can lead a wingnut to knowledge but you can't make him
learn.

[Mr. B1ack]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 08:44:27 +1000, "Dechucka" <Dech...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>True, look at GOP

And the DNC for that matter .... fuckin' corrupted politicians
by the truckload.

They always seem to have, maybe cultivate, one or
two "good guys" in the ranks. They trot them out every
time there's a big scandal to say how everything has
been fixed, no problem anymore .....

[Governor Swill]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 11:11:32 -0400, Mr. B1ack <now...@nada.net>
wrote:

They're no different. Both parties are rife with corruption - if
you're a member of the opposition party.

[Mr. B1ack]

Just depends on whose lawn you shit on.

Thing is they KNOW one's as bad as the other. I've complained
before that our DC pols have become just TOO much alike - they
all play the same games, commit the same crimes, stuff their
pockets with money from the same corruptors.

All WE see is the "consumer politics", the Machiavellian illusion
for public consumption.

There's a news blurb about one of Trumps campaign people
having bribed our politicians on behalf of pro-Russian orgs
in Ukraine. Sounds bad except that IT'S HOW BUSINESS
IS *DONE* in DC ... he ain't the only one with bags of cash
wandering the hill, not by a long shot. He's an example of
how bad The System has become. Betcha he bribed as
many Dems as Republicans ........

I do agree with you that we need to flush the legislative
branch even more than the executive ... but still note that
(honest) replacements are in short supply and citizens
usually think THEIR rep is a great guy - brings home the
bacon dontchaknow.

Of course THEIR guy helps his buddies screw over THEIR
states and his buddies team up to screw over HIS state -
while he valiantly, publically, votes against whatever. It's
a big scam. It's a variant of the "You kill my wife and I'll
kill yours" thing.

Alas, if you peruse the history of the Roman empire or the
Greeks or Egyptians or Babylonians ... it's basically the
same story. Same old tricks, same old scams, same
all-permeating corruption. This seems to be an inherent
feature of developed governments. Get rid of the old guys
and the new guys are up to the same old shit in no time
flat and there doesn't seem to be any way to stop it.

While I'm not in love with the idea of term limits, I think
they have become the ONLY way to limit the width
breadth and depth of political corruption. They disrupt
the good-ole-boy cliques. The overall level of expertise
in corruption decreases.

BTW ... do you know why the metalworking group has
become so abused by political posters ? Seems like a
very strange choice.

[Governor Swill]

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 22:02:11 -0400, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Aug Governor Swill wrote:
>>On Tue, 16 Aug Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>>On Tue, 16 Aug "Dechucka" wrote:
>>>>"Mr. B1ack" wrote

>>>>> How come Hillary doesn't trot out those OTHER
>>>>> illegals ... the gang-bangers and thieves and
>>>>> rapists ?
>>>>> Sorry, but just because you can find some bright
>>>>> stars in the mix doesn't mean all, or even most,
>>>>> are such great folks.
>>>>True, look at GOP
>>> And the DNC for that matter .... fuckin' corrupted politicians
>>> by the truckload.
>>> They always seem to have, maybe cultivate, one or
>>> two "good guys" in the ranks. They trot them out every
>>> time there's a big scandal to say how everything has
>>> been fixed, no problem anymore .....
>>They're no different. Both parties are rife with corruption - if
>>you're a member of the opposition party.
>
> Just depends on whose lawn you shit on.

A folksy way of repeating what I just said. Your neighbor's dog is
ruining your lawn, your dog is fertilizing his. ;)

> Thing is they KNOW one's as bad as the other. I've complained
> before that our DC pols have become just TOO much alike - they
> all play the same games, commit the same crimes, stuff their
> pockets with money from the same corruptors.

Partly true. While their political tactics tend to be the same, their
aims are often very different.

> All WE see is the "consumer politics", the Machiavellian illusion
> for public consumption.

Of which Trump would pretend to be a master.

> There's a news blurb about one of Trumps campaign people
> having bribed our politicians on behalf of pro-Russian orgs
> in Ukraine. Sounds bad except that IT'S HOW BUSINESS
> IS *DONE* in DC ... he ain't the only one with bags of cash
> wandering the hill, not by a long shot. He's an example of
> how bad The System has become. Betcha he bribed as
> many Dems as Republicans ........

And while you would let this scandal roll off Trump like water off a
duck's back, you'll struggle to nail Clinton's feet to the floor with
exactly the same scandal - even involving the same nation!

So, who's the hypocrite now?

> I do agree with you that we need to flush the legislative
> branch even more than the executive ... but still note that
> (honest) replacements are in short supply and citizens
> usually think THEIR rep is a great guy - brings home the
> bacon dontchaknow.

The replacements don't need to be honest. They only need to be new
and replaceable. Job insecurity is a powerful motivation.

> Of course THEIR guy helps his buddies screw over THEIR
> states and his buddies team up to screw over HIS state -
> while he valiantly, publically, votes against whatever. It's
> a big scam. It's a variant of the "You kill my wife and I'll
> kill yours" thing.

Horse trading has been the tradition since day one of the Republic.
The difference today is gerrymandering. Used to be, any given pol had
to keep a majority of his constituents happy. Today, he doesn't have
to. Gerrymandering assures him of his next election no matter what he
does simply because of the letter that follows his name on the ballot.

We could fix most of what ails America if we did away with
gerrymandering.

> Alas, if you peruse the history of the Roman empire or the
> Greeks or Egyptians or Babylonians ... it's basically the
> same story. Same old tricks, same old scams, same
> all-permeating corruption. This seems to be an inherent
> feature of developed governments. Get rid of the old guys
> and the new guys are up to the same old shit in no time
> flat and there doesn't seem to be any way to stop it.

Those were all autocratic civilizations. The Greeks came closest to
democracy but they only enfranchised propertied, ethnic majority
males. In that sense, their democracy was more a ruling elite
settling issues amongst themselves. The Roman Senate was the same. In
truth, the Greek civilization was a cultural empire, not a political
one, ruled by an oligarchy, not the common man. That cultural
influence it eventually conquered Rome and fueled it's greatness.

> While I'm not in love with the idea of term limits, I think
> they have become the ONLY way to limit the width
> breadth and depth of political corruption. They disrupt
> the good-ole-boy cliques. The overall level of expertise
> in corruption decreases.

The problem with term limits is they shorten the amount of time a pol
has to enrich himself. The elimination of gerrymandering would do
what we hope term limits might: Put the pols back into the position
of having to satisfy their constituents' demands. Their jobs would no
longer be guaranteed by the addresses in their districts.

> BTW ... do you know why the metalworking group has
> become so abused by political posters ? Seems like a
> very strange choice.

I've noticed that some of the most interesting and active political
threads include those. Perhaps there's some sort of demographic thing
here. Maybe guys who work metal are politically interested and
interesting.

[Mr. B1ack]

Well now ... they CLAIM their aims are different. Of course
anybody can SAY anything. The relative status-quo - be the
issues those hot-button popular issues or be they the bigger
more expensive issues like trade and budgets and wars -
strongly suggests a serious LACK of real differences. They
stuff 'donations' in their pockets and let everything else just
cruise along on auto-pilot ...

>> All WE see is the "consumer politics", the Machiavellian illusion
>> for public consumption.
>
>Of which Trump would pretend to be a master.

I don't know where Trump fits into that ... perhaps you are
confusing "populist" politics with "consumer politics" ? They
aren't the same thing at all.

There's realpolitik ... the way things REALLY are, how things
are REALLY run ... and then there's the watered-down bullshit
Joe Citizen hears about on the news, the illusion intended to
lead the citizens away from finding out how it REALLY is.
This is pure Machiavellian theatre, pretty much right from
the textbook. It has been done thusly for a VERY long time.
It's an important part of how you herd cats ... er ... people.

>> There's a news blurb about one of Trumps campaign people
>> having bribed our politicians on behalf of pro-Russian orgs
>> in Ukraine. Sounds bad except that IT'S HOW BUSINESS
>> IS *DONE* in DC ... he ain't the only one with bags of cash
>> wandering the hill, not by a long shot. He's an example of
>> how bad The System has become. Betcha he bribed as
>> many Dems as Republicans ........
>
>And while you would let this scandal roll off Trump like water off a
>duck's back, you'll struggle to nail Clinton's feet to the floor with
>exactly the same scandal - even involving the same nation!

Trump didn't do it.

Hillary DID do what she's done - and was an official
oath-taking public official when she was doing it.

>So, who's the hypocrite now?

You.

Let's see your logic .... "Some guy who recently started
working for Trump once bribed govt officials (maybe Hillary
too ?) - ergo Trump was bribing and taking bribes" ???

Doesn't quite cut it.

>> I do agree with you that we need to flush the legislative
>> branch even more than the executive ... but still note that
>> (honest) replacements are in short supply and citizens
>> usually think THEIR rep is a great guy - brings home the
>> bacon dontchaknow.
>
>The replacements don't need to be honest. They only need to be new
>and replaceable. Job insecurity is a powerful motivation.

There IS some sense to that. The serious problems with corruption
are ones of well-established, deeply-entrenched improprieties. These
take a long time to take shape, a lot of experience to organize.
If we maintained a fairly "young" legislative branch it wouldn't have
the time/associations/experience to dangerously rig the system
for fun and profit.

>> Of course THEIR guy helps his buddies screw over THEIR
>> states and his buddies team up to screw over HIS state -
>> while he valiantly, publically, votes against whatever. It's
>> a big scam. It's a variant of the "You kill my wife and I'll
>> kill yours" thing.
>
>Horse trading has been the tradition since day one of the Republic.

I can stand mere "horse trading" ... that's honest politics.

>The difference today is gerrymandering.

"The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander)
was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette on 26
March 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing
of Massachusetts state senate election districts under Governor
Elbridge Gerry. In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that
redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican
Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the
Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander."
- wikipedia

So ... it's hardly the "difference TODAY", is it ? It was given
a NAME in 1812, but I expect it's been a feature of every
flavor of representative 'democracy' since there was such
a thing.

>Used to be, any given pol had
>to keep a majority of his constituents happy. Today, he doesn't have
>to. Gerrymandering assures him of his next election no matter what he
>does simply because of the letter that follows his name on the ballot.

They DO try to ... hmm ... "optimize the system" :-)

But really, IS there any "perfect way" (or even close
to "perfect") in which to subdivide a geography so
it's "fair" to one political/ideological group or another ?
"Fair" on WHAT ISSUES exactly ? "Fair" to WHICH
PEOPLE exactly ? IMHO it can't actually be done. It's
one of those things that SEEMS simple, but perishes
under the weight of the fine details and subjective
aspects.

Basically, if YOUR party, pushing YOUR favorite issues,
can't seem to win then it's proof of Gerrymandering.
Also, if your favorite pig dies it's proof of witchcraft ....

>We could fix most of what ails America if we did away with
>gerrymandering.

Can't.

You just want to Gerrymander things so Dems almost
always win.

Oh, and if you take the geographical factor out - just pick
60 congressfolk from anywhere in NY State - then you've
done a de-facto gerrrymandering that will strongly favor
rich slick big-city politicians over the Honest Abes.

>> Alas, if you peruse the history of the Roman empire or the
>> Greeks or Egyptians or Babylonians ... it's basically the
>> same story. Same old tricks, same old scams, same
>> all-permeating corruption. This seems to be an inherent
>> feature of developed governments. Get rid of the old guys
>> and the new guys are up to the same old shit in no time
>> flat and there doesn't seem to be any way to stop it.
>
>Those were all autocratic civilizations. The Greeks came closest to
>democracy but they only enfranchised propertied, ethnic majority
>males. In that sense, their democracy was more a ruling elite
>settling issues amongst themselves. The Roman Senate was the same. In
>truth, the Greek civilization was a cultural empire, not a political
>one, ruled by an oligarchy, not the common man. That cultural
>influence it eventually conquered Rome and fueled it's greatness.

Save for barbarian hordes, even kings never rule alone.
They need helpers and henchmen. These evolve into
courts full of 'nobles', senates full of important/wealthy
influential people. That's when the politikking starts.
Also, even relative autocrats TRY to please the peasants
because there's less chance of revolution or a knife in
the back if you do. This is where "consumer politics"
takes shape - the 'truth' it's best for the peasants to
hear about.

>> While I'm not in love with the idea of term limits, I think
>> they have become the ONLY way to limit the width
>> breadth and depth of political corruption. They disrupt
>> the good-ole-boy cliques. The overall level of expertise
>> in corruption decreases.
>
>The problem with term limits is they shorten the amount of time a pol
>has to enrich himself. The elimination of gerrymandering would do
>what we hope term limits might: Put the pols back into the position
>of having to satisfy their constituents' demands. Their jobs would no
>longer be guaranteed by the addresses in their districts.

Well, theoretically, any displeasing politician can wind
up on the short end of an election. It does happen ...
and if your rep is bad enough, or the new guy looks
just *so* much better, you're OUT of there.

In reality of course ... well ... practice usually beats out
theory. Longstanding well-financed, good little Machivellian
front-men are VERY difficult to dislodge. They know how
to rig things in their favor and have friends/cohorts to
help them do it.

Representative democracy was supposed to fix the
problems of 'pure' democracy. It didn't. Any kind of
'democracy' is NOT a mechanism for finding Truth
or Perfection, it's a popularity contest. People with
the talent to be more popular wind up running things
even if they're otherwise ignorant/stupid/criminal.
Popular people who do what the big-money Powers
That Be tell them to do ... they've got a lifelong career
no matter how many layers of slime adhere to them.

And we're talking about the system that's better than
all the others ....

There just IS NO good way to herd cats ... er ... people.
Eight billion different, ever-changing, notions about the
way things ought to be, the way things ought to be done.
We're always winging it.

>> BTW ... do you know why the metalworking group has
>> become so abused by political posters ? Seems like a
>> very strange choice.
>
>I've noticed that some of the most interesting and active political
>threads include those. Perhaps there's some sort of demographic thing
>here. Maybe guys who work metal are politically interested and
>interesting.

I've been known to take lathe and mill and make
impossible-to-get parts for things. I liked watching
Jessie James use his antique metalworking tools
to create fenders and gas tanks and such. As such
I'd like there to be an uncorrupted metalworking
group somwhere.

[PaxPerPoten]

On 8/18/2016 12:39 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>
>> All WE see is the "consumer politics", the Machiavellian illusion
>> for public consumption.
>
> Of which Trump would pretend to be a master.

Better get used to it as Trump is our next president!!!

--
It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard
the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all
ages who mean to govern well, but *They mean to govern*. They promise to
be good masters, *but they mean to be masters*. Daniel Webster

[Ed Huntress]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 23:51:23 -0500, PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.org> wrote:

>On 8/18/2016 12:39 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>>
>>> All WE see is the "consumer politics", the Machiavellian illusion
>>> for public consumption.
>>
>> Of which Trump would pretend to be a master.
>
>Better get used to it as Trump is our next president!!!

As Chris Stirewalt said in a Fox News Politics article yesterday
("Don't kid yourself, the polls are usually right"), "82 days is a
long time to be whistling past the graveyard."

Don't bet the farm. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

[mog...@hotmail.com]

On Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 10:02:18 PM UTC-4, Mr. B1ack wrote:
>
> Alas, if you peruse the history of the Roman empire or the
> Greeks or Egyptians or Babylonians ... it's basically the
> same story. Same old tricks, same old scams, same
> all-permeating corruption.

Your thinking is primitive because history before Babylon is also being researched.

[Governor Swill]

On Thu, 18 Aug Mr. B1ack wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Aug Governor Swill wrote:
>>On Wed, 17 Aug Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>> Thing is they KNOW one's as bad as the other. I've complained
>>> before that our DC pols have become just TOO much alike - they
>>> all play the same games, commit the same crimes, stuff their
>>> pockets with money from the same corruptors.
>>
>>Partly true. While their political tactics tend to be the same, their
>>aims are often very different.
>
> Well now ... they CLAIM their aims are different. Of course
> anybody can SAY anything.

A Trump classic.

> The relative status-quo - be the
> issues those hot-button popular issues or be they the bigger
> more expensive issues like trade and budgets and wars -
> strongly suggests a serious LACK of real differences. They
> stuff 'donations' in their pockets and let everything else just
> cruise along on auto-pilot ...

Not seeing it. Not historically. Lately, yes, because neither side
can get it's way 100%. So, yeah, the government cruises along while
the parties stash cash to spend on the next election.

This isn't "the problem", it's a symptom of the problem.

>>> All WE see is the "consumer politics", the Machiavellian illusion
>>> for public consumption.
>>
>>Of which Trump would pretend to be a master.
>
> I don't know where Trump fits into that ... perhaps you are
> confusing "populist" politics with "consumer politics" ? They
> aren't the same thing at all.

Perhaps you forgot what "Machiavellian" meant as soon as you typed it?
Machiavellian thinking requires vast subtlety and a not inconsiderable
amount of what we used to call "reverse psychology". It requires, as
Frank Herbert noted, "plans within plans".

Trump is about as subtle as a bulldozer and as deep as a plastic
kiddie pool. These traits explain his many business failures and his
inability to beat Hillary Clinton.

> There's realpolitik ... the way things REALLY are, how things
> are REALLY run ... and then there's the watered-down bullshit
> Joe Citizen hears about on the news, the illusion intended to
> lead the citizens away from finding out how it REALLY is.

And Trump is part of that. He doesn't "tell it like it is", he tells
it like his voters want to think it is because they can't bring
themselves to admit their own culpability for their situation. The
same is true of most partisan info sites. Breitbart particularly
tells their readers what they want to hear, as long as it's not the
truth.

> This is pure Machiavellian theatre, pretty much right from
> the textbook. It has been done thusly for a VERY long time.
> It's an important part of how you herd cats ... er ... people.

I agree, and that's why Trump is going to fail. He hasn't a
Machiavellian bone in his body. Tuesday there was a meeting at Trump
Tower. Wednesday the campaign announced an "expansion" of staff. The
media immediately reported that Manafort had been "demoted". The
campaign and it's surrogates immediately denied any such thing, some
of them getting a bit angry in their denial that Manafort was being
marginalized in any way. Here it is Friday morning and Manafort has
resigned.

>>> There's a news blurb about one of Trumps campaign people
>>> having bribed our politicians on behalf of pro-Russian orgs
>>> in Ukraine. Sounds bad except that IT'S HOW BUSINESS
>>> IS *DONE* in DC ... he ain't the only one with bags of cash
>>> wandering the hill, not by a long shot. He's an example of
>>> how bad The System has become. Betcha he bribed as
>>> many Dems as Republicans ........
>>
>>And while you would let this scandal roll off Trump like water off a
>>duck's back, you'll struggle to nail Clinton's feet to the floor with
>>exactly the same scandal - even involving the same nation!
>
> Trump didn't do it.

Thanks for proving my point. He hired Manafort whose reputation was
well known. Trump's own dealings with Russia and his admiration for a
murderous dictator fit neatly in with the hiring of a pro Russian
operative.

> Hillary DID do what she's done - and was an official
> oath-taking public official when she was doing it.
>
>>So, who's the hypocrite now?
>
> You.

No, it's not.

> Let's see your logic .... "Some guy who recently started
> working for Trump once bribed govt officials (maybe Hillary
> too ?) - ergo Trump was bribing and taking bribes" ???

Trump has, *by his own admission* contributed to politicians on a quid
pro quo basis, has even bragged about it being an essential part of
his success.

> Doesn't quite cut it.

Neither do your attempts to paint Trump as an angel here to save us
from the demons of Democracy.

>>Horse trading has been the tradition since day one of the Republic.
>
> I can stand mere "horse trading" ... that's honest politics.
>
>>The difference today is gerrymandering.
>
> "The word gerrymander (originally written Gerry-mander)
> was used for the first time in the Boston Gazette on 26
> March 1812. The word was created in reaction to a redrawing
> of Massachusetts state senate election districts under Governor
> Elbridge Gerry. In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that
> redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican
> Party. When mapped, one of the contorted districts in the
> Boston area was said to resemble the shape of a salamander."
> - wikipedia
>
> So ... it's hardly the "difference TODAY", is it ? It was given
> a NAME in 1812, but I expect it's been a feature of every
> flavor of representative 'democracy' since there was such
> a thing.

"There is nothing new under the sun?" Gerrymandering to some degree
has been around a while, but in the past couple of decades, it's
become extreme. Consider the shapes of some Congressional districts.
There is no logical explanation for them.

"Democrats won in nine of the 10 most-gerrymandered districts. But
eight out of 10 of those districts were drawn by Republicans."

They don't even bother to make districts contiguous anymore. Look at
Maryland's 3rd district, the "Praying Mantis".
<https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2014/05/districts-03.png&w=1484>

"Maryland and North Carolina are essentially tied for the honor of
most-gerrymandered state."
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/>

Very amusing shapes. It's worth a click just to look at them!

Consider Austin, Texas. The Republican legislature divided it up like
a pie between adjacent districts to dilute the Democratic vote in the
city. This particular bit of gerrymandering has become famous. It
deprives the city of representation in Congress and dilutes the city's
vote to prevent a Dem from being elected.
http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact/photos/WEB071312austincongress.jpg

>>Used to be, any given pol had
>>to keep a majority of his constituents happy. Today, he doesn't have
>>to. Gerrymandering assures him of his next election no matter what he
>>does simply because of the letter that follows his name on the ballot.
>
> They DO try to ... hmm ... "optimize the system" :-)

"Optimizing the system" would seem to me arranging compact districts
by region. I take your point but would call it "gaming the system."

> But really, IS there any "perfect way" (or even close
> to "perfect") in which to subdivide a geography so
> it's "fair" to one political/ideological group or another ?
> "Fair" on WHAT ISSUES exactly ? "Fair" to WHICH
> PEOPLE exactly ? IMHO it can't actually be done. It's
> one of those things that SEEMS simple, but perishes
> under the weight of the fine details and subjective
> aspects.

Developing a system that encourages low voter turnout while
guaranteeing pols their jobs no matter how they behave, isn't fair to
anybody.

> Basically, if YOUR party, pushing YOUR favorite issues,
> can't seem to win then it's proof of Gerrymandering.
> Also, if your favorite pig dies it's proof of witchcraft ....

Not necessarily. You not only want to gerrymander to assure yourself
of a winning number of districts, you want to marginalize the other
party by compressing as many voters of theirs as possible into other
districts. Ideally, you would want your districts to be composed of
51% your voters and the opposition's districts to be composed of 100%
their voters. In this way, you maximize your party's number of reps
while minimizing the other's.

>>We could fix most of what ails America if we did away with
>>gerrymandering.
>
> Can't.
>
> You just want to Gerrymander things so Dems almost
> always win.

I'd fucking appreciate it if you'd stop insulting me like that. I am
not a Democrat or a liberal. I don't think districts should be
gerrymandered at all, let alone to the political advantage of one team
over another.

> Oh, and if you take the geographical factor out - just pick
> 60 congressfolk from anywhere in NY State - then you've
> done a de-facto gerrrymandering that will strongly favor
> rich slick big-city politicians over the Honest Abes.

While the political divide in America is largely based on population
density, I object to your characterization of city dwellers as
inherently dishonest and country dwellers as inherently honest.

>>The problem with term limits is they shorten the amount of time a pol
>>has to enrich himself. The elimination of gerrymandering would do
>>what we hope term limits might: Put the pols back into the position
>>of having to satisfy their constituents' demands. Their jobs would no
>>longer be guaranteed by the addresses in their districts.
>
> Well, theoretically, any displeasing politician can wind
> up on the short end of an election. It does happen ...
> and if your rep is bad enough, or the new guy looks
> just *so* much better, you're OUT of there.

Which brings us back to gerrymandering. When a poll looks really,
really, bad, so bad that even his own party can't support him, they
simply primary him out and put another pol in from the same party.
Alternately, the voters in heavily gerrymandered districts will simply
put him back in office rather than switch parties.

> In reality of course ... well ... practice usually beats out
> theory. Longstanding well-financed, good little Machivellian
> front-men are VERY difficult to dislodge. They know how
> to rig things in their favor and have friends/cohorts to
> help them do it.

The issue I see here is that it's always the losers and minorities
complaining about rigging and cheating. Trump's going to lose. He
knows it now. To his credit, he's going to go down swinging but he
will go down. That's why he's complained bitterly about rigged
systems since Iowa. It provides him with the groundwork to challenge
any result he doesn't like even if only in his own mind. More
importantly, it conditions his voters to accept that lie.

> Representative democracy was supposed to fix the
> problems of 'pure' democracy. It didn't. Any kind of
> 'democracy' is NOT a mechanism for finding Truth
> or Perfection, it's a popularity contest. People with
> the talent to be more popular wind up running things
> even if they're otherwise ignorant/stupid/criminal.
> Popular people who do what the big-money Powers
> That Be tell them to do ... they've got a lifelong career
> no matter how many layers of slime adhere to them.

And is still a better form of government than anything else that's
been tried or conceived of.

> And we're talking about the system that's better than
> all the others ....
>
> There just IS NO good way to herd cats ... er ... people.
> Eight billion different, ever-changing, notions about the
> way things ought to be, the way things ought to be done.
> We're always winging it.

The voters are, but the government isn't. Consistency and continuity
are hallmarks of our government. We didn't just win WW II and come
out on top. Our role post war was being engineered by the bureaucracy
from even before we entered the war.

This is yet another frightening think about Trump and his supporters.
Y'all want to throw the baby out with the bathwater because there are
things about America you don't like.

NEWSFLASH! NOBODY likes everything about America and throwing
everything away hoping the vacuum will pull in something useful is a
dangerous and childish tantrum.

>>> BTW ... do you know why the metalworking group has
>>> become so abused by political posters ? Seems like a
>>> very strange choice.
>>
>>I've noticed that some of the most interesting and active political
>>threads include those. Perhaps there's some sort of demographic thing
>>here. Maybe guys who work metal are politically interested and
>>interesting.
>
> I've been known to take lathe and mill and make
> impossible-to-get parts for things. I liked watching
> Jessie James use his antique metalworking tools
> to create fenders and gas tanks and such. As such
> I'd like there to be an uncorrupted metalworking
> group somwhere.

This is Usenet. There's no such thing as an "uncorrupted group". :)

One solution would be to find metalworking sites and check out those
forums. Manufacturers of metalworking tools or materials, for
example. Or google search "metalworking forums".

[PaxPerPoten]

On 8/19/2016 12:59 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug Mr. B1ack wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Aug Governor Swill wrote:

ll

Whine all you want Swine..But be prepared to bow down to your new
Commander in Chief "Donald Trump"! ;-p

[PaxPerPoten]

On 8/19/2016 9:00 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
> Better get used to it as Trump is our next president!!!

Better get used to it as Trump is our next president!!!

[Mr. B1ack]

On Fri, 19 Aug 2016 13:59:33 -0400, Governor Swill
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Aug Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>On Thu, 18 Aug Governor Swill wrote:
>>>On Wed, 17 Aug Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>>> Thing is they KNOW one's as bad as the other. I've complained
>>>> before that our DC pols have become just TOO much alike - they
>>>> all play the same games, commit the same crimes, stuff their
>>>> pockets with money from the same corruptors.
>>>
>>>Partly true. While their political tactics tend to be the same, their
>>>aims are often very different.
>>
>> Well now ... they CLAIM their aims are different. Of course
>> anybody can SAY anything.
>
>A Trump classic.
>
>> The relative status-quo - be the
>> issues those hot-button popular issues or be they the bigger
>> more expensive issues like trade and budgets and wars -
>> strongly suggests a serious LACK of real differences. They
>> stuff 'donations' in their pockets and let everything else just
>> cruise along on auto-pilot ...
>
>Not seeing it. Not historically. Lately, yes, because neither side
>can get it's way 100%. So, yeah, the government cruises along while
>the parties stash cash to spend on the next election.
>
>This isn't "the problem", it's a symptom of the problem.

We may be seeing the same thing, but through a
different glass.

*I* see well-refined classic Machiavellian technique - creating
an illusion of how things work, why they work that way and
what's really important that shields the self-enriching
machinations of the politicians and their patrons from the
eyes of The People. With the help of the big news media
they can create an alternate universe to keep The People
engaged ... and their energies misdirected.

Hmm ... I'll give you one prominent example, when the illusion
was accidently revealed. It was the 'Iran/Contra' affair. If you
remember, Iran was THE ENEMY, horrible dangerous
barbarians seeking to destroy all civilization in the name of
Allah and the Ayatollah. Iran was more hated than the USSR,
more acutely feared than the USSR. NAZIs in turbans
chanting "Death To America !" en-masse and funding all
sorts of terrorist orgs. Iranians hated US too. This was
the official reality.

But ... in the universe of realpolitik Iran was just another
country. North/Reagan had no problem doing business
with them and they had no problem doing business with
us either. Both countries conspired to disguise our aid
to the Contra rebels - cash was exchanged, arms were
shipped - Ronnie and Khomeni may as well have been
old bar buddies. This was ACTUAL reality ... the crap on
the 6-o-clock news was a propagandists universe designed
to engage and mislead Joe Citizen (and his counterparts
in Iran too) for a variety of useful political/financial ends.

>>>> All WE see is the "consumer politics", the Machiavellian illusion
>>>> for public consumption.
>>>
>>>Of which Trump would pretend to be a master.
>>
>> I don't know where Trump fits into that ... perhaps you are
>> confusing "populist" politics with "consumer politics" ? They
>> aren't the same thing at all.
>
>Perhaps you forgot what "Machiavellian" meant as soon as you typed it?
>Machiavellian thinking requires vast subtlety and a not inconsiderable
>amount of what we used to call "reverse psychology". It requires, as
>Frank Herbert noted, "plans within plans".

I think you're overstating the difficulty. Even piss-ant dictators
can play Machiavellis games quite well. It even works in
'compartmentalized' large govts where not everybody is in
on the schemes.

>Trump is about as subtle as a bulldozer and as deep as a plastic
>kiddie pool. These traits explain his many business failures and his
>inability to beat Hillary Clinton.

Trump definitely is not "subtle" ... I've said elsewhere that
he reminds me of Jessie Ventura in that respect - he's
practically un-edited, stream-of-thought, and has never
learned the definition of the word 'tact'.

Which means he's WYSIWYG .... he's not a phony, not
willing, perhaps not able, to pull the wool over anyones
eyes. In november we'll be asked whether we can tolerate
his truth - or prefer the tricker, the deceiver, the criminal,
instead because we prefer a comforting lie.

Assuming HRC lasts until november ... she's dragging
more weight than Dickens 'Jacob Marley' .............

>> There's realpolitik ... the way things REALLY are, how things
>> are REALLY run ... and then there's the watered-down bullshit
>> Joe Citizen hears about on the news, the illusion intended to
>> lead the citizens away from finding out how it REALLY is.
>
>And Trump is part of that. He doesn't "tell it like it is", he tells
>it like his voters want to think it is because they can't bring
>themselves to admit their own culpability for their situation.

Um ..... ya know .... I don't think he strays too far from
the way it is. What he's saying resonates strongly and
that's because it's mostly TRUE. Joe Citizen is NOT
feeling what Obama characterizes as a robust ascending
economy nor does Joe cotton to the further-lefts view of
life, the universe and everything.

However Trump does *exaggerate* the relative importance
and context of those gripes and dissatisfactions ... but then
so does HRC and Bernie. That's "campaigning" ... Truth
is slightly less important than *winning*.

>The
>same is true of most partisan info sites. Breitbart particularly
>tells their readers what they want to hear, as long as it's not the
>truth.
>
>> This is pure Machiavellian theatre, pretty much right from
>> the textbook. It has been done thusly for a VERY long time.
>> It's an important part of how you herd cats ... er ... people.
>
>I agree, and that's why Trump is going to fail. He hasn't a
>Machiavellian bone in his body.

No, he's NOT good at those sorts of games.

But then Truman wasn't much of a game-player
either ... a more literate Trump in many personality
aspects.

Trumps big advantage right NOW is that Joe Public has
become acutely aware of some of the games going on
just behind the curtains and is PISSED OFF. Tears
in the curtain are very dangerous for the established
powers - their lies and evil methods revealed can lead
to public rebuke, sometimes severe. Playing Machiavellian
games can create great power - but it's not *safe*.

>Tuesday there was a meeting at Trump
>Tower. Wednesday the campaign announced an "expansion" of staff. The
>media immediately reported that Manafort had been "demoted".

Manafort didn't work out ... so he's fired.

>The
>campaign and it's surrogates immediately denied any such thing, some
>of them getting a bit angry in their denial that Manafort was being
>marginalized in any way. Here it is Friday morning and Manafort has
>resigned.

Well, everbody doesn't know everything at the same time.
Likey the executive decision hadn't yet come down - so the
staff was defending the boss in the interim.

>>>> There's a news blurb about one of Trumps campaign people
>>>> having bribed our politicians on behalf of pro-Russian orgs
>>>> in Ukraine. Sounds bad except that IT'S HOW BUSINESS
>>>> IS *DONE* in DC ... he ain't the only one with bags of cash
>>>> wandering the hill, not by a long shot. He's an example of
>>>> how bad The System has become. Betcha he bribed as
>>>> many Dems as Republicans ........
>>>
>>>And while you would let this scandal roll off Trump like water off a
>>>duck's back, you'll struggle to nail Clinton's feet to the floor with
>>>exactly the same scandal - even involving the same nation!
>>
>> Trump didn't do it.
>
>Thanks for proving my point. He hired Manafort whose reputation was
>well known.

Was it ? I'd never heard of him.

His main problem wasn't in what he'd been doing for
a living, it was because of ONE politically-inconvenient
client. If he'd been bribing on behalf of the Ukrainian
fascists instead ..........

>Trump's own dealings with Russia and his admiration for a
>murderous dictator fit neatly in with the hiring of a pro Russian
>operative.

I think someone on Trumps staff heard Manafort was
a good lobbyist ... not so much about who he'd been
lobbying FOR recently.

Oh, and for Russia, Putin isn't such a bad fit. They
are used to czars, indeed EXPECT czars. Different
culture. A wimpy western democracy wouldn't cut
it in Russia, the people would see weakings and
ineffective cowards and install someone like Putin
as quickly as possible - a central decision-maker.

Or do you think Russians are just Americans in
furry hats .... ? I'm sure Wikipedia as a definition
of "ethnocentricity" for you .........

>> Hillary DID do what she's done - and was an official
>> oath-taking public official when she was doing it.
>>
>>>So, who's the hypocrite now?
>>
>> You.
>
>No, it's not.
>
>> Let's see your logic .... "Some guy who recently started
>> working for Trump once bribed govt officials (maybe Hillary
>> too ?) - ergo Trump was bribing and taking bribes" ???
>
>Trump has, *by his own admission* contributed to politicians on a quid
>pro quo basis, has even bragged about it being an essential part of
>his success.

And he said it as an indictment of The System ... said
that things are so screwed up in govt that you CAN'T
get an honest shake, that you HAVE to grease palms.

[Governor Swill]

On Fri, 19 Aug Mr. B1ack wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Aug Governor Swill wrote:
> We may be seeing the same thing, but through a
> different glass.
>
> *I* see well-refined classic Machiavellian technique - creating
> an illusion of how things work, why they work that way and
> what's really important that shields the self-enriching
> machinations of the politicians and their patrons from the
> eyes of The People. With the help of the big news media
> they can create an alternate universe to keep The People
> engaged ... and their energies misdirected.

I see that with the present form of government. It's something the US
perfected after the first world war when it became apparent that we
had no choice but to deal with other great powers and that they
functioned at levels of "Machiavellian" sophistication unknown to our
more provincial ways of thinking. That is, in order to win the game,
we had to learn their rules. Before WWII had started, we were well on
our way and by the end of the war, had achieved a mastery of
Machiavellian techniques that have left us the undisputed military,
economic, social and perhaps more importantly, cultural power on the
planet.

> Hmm ... I'll give you one prominent example, when the illusion
> was accidently revealed. It was the 'Iran/Contra' affair. If you
> remember, Iran was THE ENEMY, horrible dangerous
> barbarians seeking to destroy all civilization in the name of
> Allah and the Ayatollah. Iran was more hated than the USSR,
> more acutely feared than the USSR. NAZIs in turbans
> chanting "Death To America !" en-masse and funding all
> sorts of terrorist orgs. Iranians hated US too. This was
> the official reality.

Another official reality is that it was Carter who negotiated the
hostage release. But so incensed was the revolutionary government
over our refusing to give them the Shah, that they refused to send the
hostages back until after Reagan had been sworn in. This fits rather
neatly with your following paragraph.

> But ... in the universe of realpolitik Iran was just another
> country. North/Reagan had no problem doing business
> with them and they had no problem doing business with
> us either. Both countries conspired to disguise our aid
> to the Contra rebels - cash was exchanged, arms were
> shipped - Ronnie and Khomeni may as well have been
> old bar buddies. This was ACTUAL reality ... the crap on
> the 6-o-clock news was a propagandists universe designed
> to engage and mislead Joe Citizen (and his counterparts
> in Iran too) for a variety of useful political/financial ends.

Joe needs somebody to hate, some enemy, some convenient other to blame
things on. This is why there is so much opposition to dealing with
Iran from the far right. Obama has effectively removed a nation from
Joe's "hate" column and moved them to the "maybe not so bad" list. Who
is Joe supposed to hate now?

Machiavellian: The Cold War was about more than defeating communism,
it was about keeping war from breaking out. So, in the early
seventies when the USSR was nearing the starvation point, Nixon used
taxpayer dollars to feed our "enemy". He paid top federal dollar for
as much grain as he could which drove up the cost of food in the US.
He then sold that grain at a loss to the Soviets to make sure they
didn't starve. Not to keep an enemy alive, but to keep hungry mobs
from destabilizing a powerful nuclear state.

I don't have any problem with dealing with Iran openly. We've been
making common cause with them since they first began to work quietly
with us following 9/11. Becoming more open about it puts Sunnis on
notice that our issue isn't Islam, it's terror attacks and we will
have our security even if it means upending their agenda.

>>Perhaps you forgot what "Machiavellian" meant as soon as you typed it?
>>Machiavellian thinking requires vast subtlety and a not inconsiderable
>>amount of what we used to call "reverse psychology". It requires, as
>>Frank Herbert noted, "plans within plans".
>
> I think you're overstating the difficulty. Even piss-ant dictators
> can play Machiavellis games quite well.

Within their orbit, yes. But nobody is better at it than we are and
Trump would destroy that. Americans are very good at slipping
advantages into treaties, at fooling the enemy, at insisting on a
thing we don't want in order to get something we do. A sort of Trojan
Horse style of negotiation.

> It even works in
> 'compartmentalized' large govts where not everybody is in
> on the schemes.

It often works better there because so much is done on the QT. No
nation wants its people to understand everything being negotiated or
how those negotiations are being conducted. Such things come under
the heading of State Secrets and are why there's been so much concern
over classified info on Hillary's email server. Transparency in
government is suicide. Part of that is the need to do things without
people finding out so they don't mess up the plan.

And no matter where you stand in politics, our leaders have always
worked for the nation as a whole. Continuity is, and always has been,
our friend. Again, this is something Trump would deeply disrupt or
face the wrath of voters realizing he's no different from any of the
others.

>>Trump is about as subtle as a bulldozer and as deep as a plastic
>>kiddie pool. These traits explain his many business failures and his
>>inability to beat Hillary Clinton.
>
> Trump definitely is not "subtle" ... I've said elsewhere that
> he reminds me of Jessie Ventura in that respect - he's
> practically un-edited, stream-of-thought, and has never
> learned the definition of the word 'tact'.
>
> Which means he's WYSIWYG .... he's not a phony, not
> willing, perhaps not able, to pull the wool over anyones
> eyes.

All the more reason to keep him away from our international relations.
You can't win at poker if your opponents can see your cards. There
are reasons States are not fully transparent. Look, we can't change
the whole game just because Joe wants to know what's *really* going
on.

> In november we'll be asked whether we can tolerate
> his truth - or prefer the tricker, the deceiver, the criminal,
> instead because we prefer a comforting lie.

I prefer the deceiver because at the end of the day, it's our enemies
she'll be working hardest to deceive.

> Assuming HRC lasts until november ... she's dragging
> more weight than Dickens 'Jacob Marley' .............

Believe what you need to believe if it comforts you.

Another example of why Trump's general campaign is going to fail is
his far too late and counter productive appeal to blacks. Delivered
before an all white crowd in an almost all white community, he starts
out insulting African Americans by telling them they've let themselves
be played by Democrats all these years. No policy initiatives, no
hint of understanding of the black experience, no ideas for what might
be done, no empathy, just the implication that they've been duped by
the white man capped with the desperate plea, "what have you got to
lose?"
http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/153555/

I mean, didn't anybody on Trump's team see how much that language
would offend African Americans? Of course not, because there aren't
any African Americans on Trump's team and that tells the *real* truth
about Trump.

>>> There's realpolitik ... the way things REALLY are, how things
>>> are REALLY run ... and then there's the watered-down bullshit
>>> Joe Citizen hears about on the news, the illusion intended to
>>> lead the citizens away from finding out how it REALLY is.
>>
>>And Trump is part of that. He doesn't "tell it like it is", he tells
>>it like his voters want to think it is because they can't bring
>>themselves to admit their own culpability for their situation.
>
> Um ..... ya know .... I don't think he strays too far from
> the way it is.

I do. His grasp on reality is tenuous at best. Priebus's 2012
autopsy led to a decision to proactively address the issues of black,
Hispanic and women voters and reach out to them with policy. Trump
has thrown all that away with both hands. He thinks he's going to get
black votes because he has "an African American" at his rallies. He
thinks he's going to get Hispanic votes because "Hispanics love me"
and lets don't even get started on how much and in how many ways he's
offended women.

But his biggest sin has been the hiring of almost exclusively white
male staff. Conway, hired just days ago, is the first woman to be
hired for a position of any consequence, certainly for a position that
would be in regular contact with Trump.

>What he's saying resonates strongly and
> that's because it's mostly TRUE.

No, it isn't. It resonates with white males because they need to
believe it's true. They need to believe their problems are somebody
else's fault. They need to believe a flood of below minimum wage
lettuce pickers is why they can't get a $60k a year job with full
health care and benefits. They need to believe that the Toyota in the
driveway, the Malaysian built TV in the living room, shirts from
Honduras and Bangladesh in their closets, the Taiwanese made computer
on the desk and Chinese made smartphone in their pocket are things the
federal government forced them to buy through manipulative policies.

And they need to believe that somehow, Trump is going to make sure
their next car, TV, shirt, laptop and smartphone are all made in the
USA and the price won't go up a dime. That through the magic of
"telling it like it is" their taxes will be cut, federal spending will
keep increasing, economic growth will double and the debt will go away
all at the same time.

> Joe Citizen is NOT
> feeling what Obama characterizes as a robust ascending
> economy nor does Joe cotton to the further-lefts view of
> life, the universe and everything.

That's because the leftist view levels the playing field, the rightist
view reinforces historical white, male privilege. That's what's
really at stake here. Not the economy, not ISIS, not Iranian nukes or
unisex bathrooms, Joe is pissed off because his special privileges
have gone and they aren't coming back.

For decades white blue collar voters have been warned that voting
Republican on social issues was voting against their own economic
interests. They were warned that Republicans supported free trade and
wanted to tear down the unions. They were warned that the GOP was
resisting all efforts to reduce illegal immigration and that their
policies would drive jobs overseas. Over and over they were told by
Democrats and their union supporters than Republican political
priorities were working against Joe Street but Joe just kept on voting
Republican and against the unions who were there to protect his
interests and now those chickens have come home to roost.

> However Trump does *exaggerate* the relative importance
> and context of those gripes and dissatisfactions ... but then
> so does HRC and Bernie. That's "campaigning" ... Truth
> is slightly less important than *winning*.

There's plenty of truth to that. The trouble is, neither side, none
of the candidates have told the truth. They've only told the stories
they expect their base is most likely to respond to by voting.

If Joe knew the real reason his good paying, mindless, assembly line
jobs were gone, the next political movement would be a luddite one.
Terror attacks on cell towers, computer stores set on fire and telecom
switching station bombings would become a daily event.

>>I agree, and that's why Trump is going to fail. He hasn't a
>>Machiavellian bone in his body.
>
> No, he's NOT good at those sorts of games.

Which is what would make him a terrible President. If you can't run
with the big dogs, best stay under the porch.

> But then Truman wasn't much of a game-player
> either ... a more literate Trump in many personality
> aspects.

Literacy makes a difference. A bigger difference is that Truman,
while not a devious sort himself, understood it's value and continued
such persons in his employ. Trump has criticized every facet of
government from the military to the intel community and will replace
our highly competent bureaucracy with those willing to pay the most
for the jobs.

> Trumps big advantage right NOW is that Joe Public has
> become acutely aware of some of the games going on
> just behind the curtains and is PISSED OFF.

Joe Public is a minority. If the Dems had run anybody but Hillary,
the odds are very good their lead on Trump would be even bigger than
it is now. Sanders was heavily favorited by the public over Hillary
and Trump but the Dems weren't quite ready to go that liberal.

As for Joe suddenly discovering there are things about government that
are secret, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I mean, seriously, what the hell
does he think all those spy movies are about?

> Tears in the curtain are very dangerous for the established
> powers - their lies and evil methods revealed can lead
> to public rebuke, sometimes severe.

They're even more dangerous to Joe. He simply isn't competent to do
what has to be done to keep the nation safe and prosperous.

> Playing Machiavellian
> games can create great power - but it's not *safe*.

It's safer than total honesty. When your opponent can easily see your
strengths and desires, they can also easily see your weaknesses and
vulnerabilities. You lose.

>>Tuesday there was a meeting at Trump
>>Tower. Wednesday the campaign announced an "expansion" of staff. The
>>media immediately reported that Manafort had been "demoted".
>
> Manafort didn't work out ... so he's fired.

The fact of the matter is that Trump was clearly chafing under
Manafort's tutelage, and his links to Ukraine, Putin and the other
dictators he's represented over the years were making Trump look even
worse. Manafort was hired by Ferdinand Marcos to remake his image
shortly before the revolution that removed him from power. He was
also tied to a French scandal regarding submarines sold to Pakistan
and illegal arms sales profits being funneled into Manafort's
candidate's campaign. Manafort barely escaped the charge that some of
the money he was paid came from those illegal transactions. He also
narrowly escaped racketeering charges (on technical grounds) in an
investigation of New York real estate transactions carried on by and
for Muslim foreigners with dirty money to wash. And his connections
to Putin via the Ukrainian electoral process and the Kazahk/Icelandic
laundromat machine are well enough known not repeat here.
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/27/paul-manafort-donald-trump-campaign-past-clients>

The upshot is, given Trump's third shakeup of senior campaign
management, one wonders at the revolving door that will have to be
installed in the Cabinet Room. More to the point, in international
politics, there are no do overs and a candidate still trying to put
together an effective campaign staff 80 days before the election does
not bode well for his potential administration.

>>The
>>campaign and it's surrogates immediately denied any such thing, some
>>of them getting a bit angry in their denial that Manafort was being
>>marginalized in any way. Here it is Friday morning and Manafort has
>>resigned.
>
> Well, everbody doesn't know everything at the same time.
> Likey the executive decision hadn't yet come down -

Of course it could all be exactly the way it happened. Bannon and
Conway were brought in and I expect Manafort suddenly found himself
marginalized. Two days later, he gave up. I suspect his first
loyalty was to Priebus and his assignment was less about getting Trump
elected than minimizing damage to the party.

>so the staff was defending the boss in the interim.

Or maybe nobody knew until Manafort decided to quit. So maybe he
wasn't fired. Maybe he really did resign when he realized Trump
wasn't going to pivot after all.

>>Thanks for proving my point. He hired Manafort whose reputation was
>>well known.
>
> Was it ? I'd never heard of him.

Which is, you should pardon me, a ludicrous cop out. As soon as I
heard about Manafort's hiring last spring, I hit google and learned
most of what I've noted above within minutes. As for Trump, you have
to wonder about a candidate whose vetting of staff is so poor, he
can't even be bothered to take the step of googling them first.

> His main problem wasn't in what he'd been doing for
> a living, it was because of ONE politically-inconvenient
> client. If he'd been bribing on behalf of the Ukrainian
> fascists instead ..........

Not one. There was also Marcos. Not to mention at least two major
scandals involving money laundering and one about illegal arms sales
to Pakistan. Tashfeen Malik, the wife and co shooter of San
Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook, was from Pakistan. Pakistan
sheltered Bin Laden for a decade while denying they knew where he was.
Pakistan has nukes and seems always on the verge of a coup. And
Manafort got stained with the scandal of selling arms to Pakistan
while working on a Presidential campaign in France.

"For almost four decades, Donald Trump’s newly installed senior
campaign adviser, Paul Manafort, has managed to juggle two different
worlds: well known during US election season as a shrewd and tough
political operative, he also boasts a hefty résumé as a consultant to
or lobbyist for controversial foreign leaders and oligarchs with
unsavory reputations."
<https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/27/paul-manafort-donald-trump-campaign-past-clients>

>>Trump's own dealings with Russia and his admiration for a
>>murderous dictator fit neatly in with the hiring of a pro Russian
>>operative.
>
> I think someone on Trumps staff heard Manafort was
> a good lobbyist ... not so much about who he'd been
> lobbying FOR recently.

Which is precisely the point. Manafort wasn't vetted by the Trump
campaign. If he's not vetting staff, how can we expect him to vet his
appointees?

> Oh, and for Russia, Putin isn't such a bad fit. They
> are used to czars, indeed EXPECT czars. Different
> culture. A wimpy western democracy wouldn't cut
> it in Russia, the people would see weakings and
> ineffective cowards and install someone like Putin
> as quickly as possible - a central decision-maker.

That's Russia, and they can have any government they want. But this
is the US, and Trump is less a Russian business partner than a money
laundering terminal.

> Or do you think Russians are just Americans in
> furry hats .... ? I'm sure Wikipedia as a definition
> of "ethnocentricity" for you .........

Has nothing to do with ethnicity. Has to do with a wannabe emperor
still smarting from the bloodless defeat of his system and world view
by the United States. Having an American President in his pocket
would be an achievement no Soviet ever dreamed was possible.

>>Trump has, *by his own admission* contributed to politicians on a quid
>>pro quo basis, has even bragged about it being an essential part of
>>his success.
>
> And he said it as an indictment of The System ... said
> that things are so screwed up in govt that you CAN'T
> get an honest shake, that you HAVE to grease palms.

The only thing Trump wants to change is who's palm is getting the
grease. If you think anything else, he's fooled you completely.

Swill
--
#imwithher #strongertogether
Donald J. Trump: The asteroid destined to destroy
a party of dinosaurs. - Samantha Bee

Trump has written a lot of books about business, but they all
seem to end in Chapter 11. - Hillary Clinton

S. E. Cupp has characterized Trump as wearing the Republican party
like a rented tuxedo. When the prom is over, it's going to end up on
the floor with the liquor stains and cigarette butts.

So if you are thinking of voting for Donald Trump,
the charismatic guy promising to ‘Make America Great
Again,’ stop and take a moment to imagine how you
would feel if you just met a guy named Donald Drumpf:
a litigious, serial liar with a string of broken business
ventures and the support of a former Klan leader who
he can’t decide whether or not to condemn.
Would you think he would make a good president,
or is the spell now somewhat broken? - John Oliver

[Mr. B1ack]

On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 20:23:05 -0400, Governor Swill
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 19 Aug Mr. B1ack wrote:
>>On Fri, 19 Aug Governor Swill wrote:
>> We may be seeing the same thing, but through a
>> different glass.
>>
>> *I* see well-refined classic Machiavellian technique - creating
>> an illusion of how things work, why they work that way and
>> what's really important that shields the self-enriching
>> machinations of the politicians and their patrons from the
>> eyes of The People. With the help of the big news media
>> they can create an alternate universe to keep The People
>> engaged ... and their energies misdirected.
>
>I see that with the present form of government. It's something the US
>perfected after the first world war when it became apparent that we
>had no choice but to deal with other great powers and that they
>functioned at levels of "Machiavellian" sophistication unknown to our
>more provincial ways of thinking.

We were kinda hicks back then ... why, *honesty* and
*straight talking* were still valued ! :-)

>That is, in order to win the game,
>we had to learn their rules. Before WWII had started, we were well on
>our way and by the end of the war, had achieved a mastery of
>Machiavellian techniques that have left us the undisputed military,
>economic, social and perhaps more importantly, cultural power on the
>planet.

Well, we weren't the masters of the world until AFTER WW2 ...

And half the reason for that was because the rest of the
civilized world was blown to hell.

Had Hitler prevailed and taken full control of europe and
the middle-eastern oil reserves then Germany would
have been the master - better organized, better educated
and far more technologically capable. In time they would
have buried us all.

>> Hmm ... I'll give you one prominent example, when the illusion
>> was accidently revealed. It was the 'Iran/Contra' affair. If you
>> remember, Iran was THE ENEMY, horrible dangerous
>> barbarians seeking to destroy all civilization in the name of
>> Allah and the Ayatollah. Iran was more hated than the USSR,
>> more acutely feared than the USSR. NAZIs in turbans
>> chanting "Death To America !" en-masse and funding all
>> sorts of terrorist orgs. Iranians hated US too. This was
>> the official reality.
>
>Another official reality is that it was Carter who negotiated the
>hostage release. But so incensed was the revolutionary government
>over our refusing to give them the Shah, that they refused to send the
>hostages back until after Reagan had been sworn in. This fits rather
>neatly with your following paragraph.

Well, two facets to that. First is that they DID hate Carter, saw
him as responsible for all the nasty stuff that propped up the Shah.
The second was that Reagan promised to smack the shit out of
them if the hostages weren't released *immediately* - and they
believed him ... not a milquetoast like Carter.

>> But ... in the universe of realpolitik Iran was just another
>> country. North/Reagan had no problem doing business
>> with them and they had no problem doing business with
>> us either. Both countries conspired to disguise our aid
>> to the Contra rebels - cash was exchanged, arms were
>> shipped - Ronnie and Khomeni may as well have been
>> old bar buddies. This was ACTUAL reality ... the crap on
>> the 6-o-clock news was a propagandists universe designed
>> to engage and mislead Joe Citizen (and his counterparts
>> in Iran too) for a variety of useful political/financial ends.
>
>Joe needs somebody to hate, some enemy, some convenient other to blame
>things on.

Machiavelli advised that enemies must always exist, even
if you had to invent some, because their threat justifies
'extraordinary powers' to be excercised by the State. Since
2000, "terrorists" have been those Machiavellian enemies.
We didn't have to invent them but we HAVE greatly
amplified the level of threat they pose. Not the kind of
fanatics we wanna have around BUT they don't really
rise to the level of existential threat that fully justifies
spending terabucks blowing up several countries (to
little avail) over the 16 years since.

But Trump - or HRC - will get good political mileage
out of the 'terrorist threat' ... and the military-industrial
compex will continue to profit handsomly - so don't
expect much change in the propaganda stream.

Machiavellian politics stands out from the usual ivory
tower philosophizing in that he was describing how
*practical*, day-2-day, governance of the masses
was (and is) best done. He didn't make it up, he saw
it all in action - and his works show great scholarship
of the great empires that came before him. All BS
aside, that's how you get 'er done if you covet power
and wealth.

>This is why there is so much opposition to dealing with
>Iran from the far right. Obama has effectively removed a nation from
>Joe's "hate" column and moved them to the "maybe not so bad" list. Who
>is Joe supposed to hate now?

Well, do not count Iran as any sort of "friend" ... neither
Joe or the propagandists were all THAT far off the mark.
Doesn't matter if you can find some "friendly Iranians"
(they'll likely be disappeared soon enough) the Powers
That Be in that country do NOT like us or Israel one bit.

The unfortunate truth is that the situation in that part of
the world meant we could no longer afford to pretend
Iran didn't exist, could no longer afford to try and keep
them in a bottle. It's a big, populous, fairly well educated
and tech-savvy country with a large military ... and is
theologically opposed to OUR primary enemies in the
region. So, sort of an "the enemy of my enemy" thing
came to be. We MAY regret it ... Iran is in a much better
position to achieve regional dominance than any of
those piss-ant terror groups.

>Machiavellian: The Cold War was about more than defeating communism,
>it was about keeping war from breaking out. So, in the early
>seventies when the USSR was nearing the starvation point, Nixon used
>taxpayer dollars to feed our "enemy". He paid top federal dollar for
>as much grain as he could which drove up the cost of food in the US.
>He then sold that grain at a loss to the Soviets to make sure they
>didn't starve. Not to keep an enemy alive, but to keep hungry mobs
>from destabilizing a powerful nuclear state.

Had to be done.

But also had to be *spun* ...

Truth is that nukes *have* changed the geopolitical
reality. We just *cannot* allow nuclear powers to
become seriously destabilized. It's why we still back
those assholes in Pakistan, because we *know*
what would happen if they lost their grip.

BTW ... Iran has had far more than enough time to
build nuclear weapons - and it has the materials,
the expertise and the motivation to do so. IMHO
they're just not tellin' ............

>I don't have any problem with dealing with Iran openly. We've been
>making common cause with them since they first began to work quietly
>with us following 9/11. Becoming more open about it puts Sunnis on
>notice that our issue isn't Islam, it's terror attacks and we will
>have our security even if it means upending their agenda.

The Soviets were OUR 'friends of necessity' for awhile too ...

We may HAVE to deal with Iran right now, but there really *is*
a problem with it.

>>>Perhaps you forgot what "Machiavellian" meant as soon as you typed it?
>>>Machiavellian thinking requires vast subtlety and a not inconsiderable
>>>amount of what we used to call "reverse psychology". It requires, as
>>>Frank Herbert noted, "plans within plans".
>>
>> I think you're overstating the difficulty. Even piss-ant dictators
>> can play Machiavellis games quite well.
>
>Within their orbit, yes.

Usually enough for their purposes.

Saddam Hussein was actually a good intermediate-level
player ... delayed his ouster for a long time by pitting various
countries and interests against each other. The game
failed when the USSR fell and became irrelevant for a
long time. Oh well, he can contemplate his bad luck
from wherever he's living in Russia ... probably sharing
an apartment block with Snowden :-)

>But nobody is better at it than we are and
>Trump would destroy that.

Well ... if you consider Machiavellian politics to be a *good*
thing then I see why you'd be concerned. Personally I see
it as slimy ... not in the best American tradition. The trouble
with Machiavellian games is that they keep getting deeper
and deeper - lies within lies within lies - and there comes a
point where that's definitely NOT doing any good for The
People. Remember We The People ... ? Machiavellian
games serve the interests of the power elite - and can
make simple solutions to simple problems impossible.

Injecting a straight-shooter like Trump into the equation from
time to time is a good idea. It'd un-nest a lot of those schemes
but not destroy the entire slimy system at a stroke. Trump
isn't the ideal straight-shooter, but we've got what we've got.

>Americans are very good at slipping
>advantages into treaties, at fooling the enemy, at insisting on a
>thing we don't want in order to get something we do. A sort of Trojan
>Horse style of negotiation.

Apparently we lost that ability in the early 70s ... that's
when our trade balance went negative .......

>> It even works in
>> 'compartmentalized' large govts where not everybody is in
>> on the schemes.
>
>It often works better there because so much is done on the QT. No
>nation wants its people to understand everything being negotiated or
>how those negotiations are being conducted. Such things come under
>the heading of State Secrets and are why there's been so much concern
>over classified info on Hillary's email server. Transparency in
>government is suicide. Part of that is the need to do things without
>people finding out so they don't mess up the plan.
>
>And no matter where you stand in politics, our leaders have always
>worked for the nation as a whole.

Oh ... PLEEZE !!! Been smokin' Colorados Finest ????

>Continuity is, and always has been,
>our friend. Again, this is something Trump would deeply disrupt or
>face the wrath of voters realizing he's no different from any of the
>others.

'Continuity' ... is that the name of the trail the lemmings
take to the sea ?

Sure's been that way for us.

The USA is a *failed state* ... living off the money of its
enemies/competitors for a LONG time now. We are
not an economically viable country. The apparently OK
situation you see out your window is an illusion, and
longer-term it's an unsustainable illusion.

Time for a little discontinuity ... shake rattle & roll things a
little bit.

>>>Trump is about as subtle as a bulldozer and as deep as a plastic
>>>kiddie pool. These traits explain his many business failures and his
>>>inability to beat Hillary Clinton.
>>
>> Trump definitely is not "subtle" ... I've said elsewhere that
>> he reminds me of Jessie Ventura in that respect - he's
>> practically un-edited, stream-of-thought, and has never
>> learned the definition of the word 'tact'.
>>
>> Which means he's WYSIWYG .... he's not a phony, not
>> willing, perhaps not able, to pull the wool over anyones
>> eyes.
>
>All the more reason to keep him away from our international relations.
>You can't win at poker if your opponents can see your cards. There
>are reasons States are not fully transparent. Look, we can't change
>the whole game just because Joe wants to know what's *really* going
>on.
>
>> In november we'll be asked whether we can tolerate
>> his truth - or prefer the tricker, the deceiver, the criminal,
>> instead because we prefer a comforting lie.
>
>I prefer the deceiver because at the end of the day, it's our enemies
>she'll be working hardest to deceive.

It won't be good enough ... times have moved on since Slick
was in charge. Obama isn't good enough. "W" wasn't good
enough either. "They" keep gaining, we keep slipping. Time
for an emergency paradigm shift.

>> Assuming HRC lasts until november ... she's dragging
>> more weight than Dickens 'Jacob Marley' .............
>
>Believe what you need to believe if it comforts you.

Look at those polls more closely ... not this weeks "I'd vote
for" column but all those OTHER figures about trust and
honesty and other stuff that'll count when Joe is standing
in that little booth come november.

It's not supposed to be bulldozed level. "Level" is BAD.

Contemplate that.

>the rightist
>view reinforces historical white, male privilege.

Not as much as CNN tells you. It's more about a
set of civic and economic values and practices
proven to create and maintain a strong viable
country in the wicked wicked world of woe. Those
'old white guys' actually got a lot of stuff RIGHT.

>That's what's
>really at stake here. Not the economy, not ISIS, not Iranian nukes or
>unisex bathrooms, Joe is pissed off because his special privileges
>have gone and they aren't coming back.
>
>For decades white blue collar voters have been warned that voting
>Republican on social issues was voting against their own economic
>interests. They were warned that Republicans supported free trade and
>wanted to tear down the unions. They were warned that the GOP was
>resisting all efforts to reduce illegal immigration and that their
>policies would drive jobs overseas. Over and over they were told by
>Democrats and their union supporters than Republican political
>priorities were working against Joe Street but Joe just kept on voting
>Republican and against the unions who were there to protect his
>interests and now those chickens have come home to roost.
>
>> However Trump does *exaggerate* the relative importance
>> and context of those gripes and dissatisfactions ... but then
>> so does HRC and Bernie. That's "campaigning" ... Truth
>> is slightly less important than *winning*.
>
>There's plenty of truth to that. The trouble is, neither side, none
>of the candidates have told the truth. They've only told the stories
>they expect their base is most likely to respond to by voting.

Welcome to political reality .......

>If Joe knew the real reason his good paying, mindless, assembly line
>jobs were gone, the next political movement would be a luddite one.
>Terror attacks on cell towers, computer stores set on fire and telecom
>switching station bombings would become a daily event.
>
>>>I agree, and that's why Trump is going to fail. He hasn't a
>>>Machiavellian bone in his body.
>>
>> No, he's NOT good at those sorts of games.
>
>Which is what would make him a terrible President. If you can't run
>with the big dogs, best stay under the porch.
>
>> But then Truman wasn't much of a game-player
>> either ... a more literate Trump in many personality
>> aspects.
>
>Literacy makes a difference. A bigger difference is that Truman,
>while not a devious sort himself, understood it's value and continued
>such persons in his employ. Trump has criticized every facet of
>government from the military to the intel community and will replace
>our highly competent bureaucracy with those willing to pay the most
>for the jobs.

The bureaucracy has to stay. It's actually quite neutral ...
the people who do the work.

It's their BOSSES that have to get the 3rd degree.

The only serious threat to the bureaucracy would be
if the Libertarian candidate wins. They want *tiny*
government ... which probably isn't a viable idea in
todays globalist environment.

>> Trumps big advantage right NOW is that Joe Public has
>> become acutely aware of some of the games going on
>> just behind the curtains and is PISSED OFF.
>
>Joe Public is a minority. If the Dems had run anybody but Hillary,
>the odds are very good their lead on Trump would be even bigger than
>it is now. Sanders was heavily favorited by the public over Hillary
>and Trump but the Dems weren't quite ready to go that liberal.

Bernie is a goddamned pinko - but at least he's been
honest about it. Compared to his peers he's almost
as much a straight-shooter as Trump. Alas the bulk
of his popularity was based on his "free money" BS.
The peons always love THAT .... (and never get dick) ....

>As for Joe suddenly discovering there are things about government that
>are secret, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I mean, seriously, what the hell
>does he think all those spy movies are about?

It's not THOSE secrets he's pissed off about. It's his
effective disenfranchisement ... how "his" party keeps
conspiring to make his vote and opinion disappear.
Assange isn't releasing state secrets, he's releasing
PARTY secrets ... what yer masters REALLY think
of you .............

>> Was it ? I'd never heard of him.
>
>Which is, you should pardon me, a ludicrous cop out.

No ... it's a non-pol asking a simple question - "Who's
a good lobbyist ?" - and somebody said they'd heard
of this Manafort guy.

Lobbyists are pretty amoral - as are the pols who take
their money. Just happened that M had been, or seems
to have been, lobbying for an entity that's politically-
inconvenient at the moment.

Now what I'd like to see .... how much of his money
did the Clinton Foundation take in ? :-)

[PaxPerPoten]

On 8/20/2016 7:23 PM, Governor Swill wrote:

Ya Bloody Liberal Idiot..Its not your place to change history to fit you
idea of how things should be. The Iran/Contra scandal thingie totally
nullifies your tale tale of how Carter saved the day.