Understanding the United States of America (USA) - III

habal · Post by **habal** » 21 Oct 2016 07:01

the next potus puppet master

https://www.sott.net/article/331606-The ... Presidency

George Soros company owns/operates voting machines in 16 states.
Killary has unprecedented 16 state-lead already even before Nov 8.

It's OK GS will vote for you.
http://theduran.com/rigged-election-geo ... us-states/

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 21 Oct 2016 07:11

Coup bg china

Latimes

President Rodrigo Duterte announced Thursday that he was “separating” from the United States and embracing China as the new best friend of the Philippines.

The 71-year-old president, famous for blunt, often profane rhetoric, announced his country’s realignment in a state visit to Beijing, where he was hailed as China’s new “brother.’’

“Your honors, in this venue, I announce my separation from the United States … both in military, but also economics,’’ Duterte said to thunderous applause at a forum inside the Great Hall of the People, the bastion of the Chinese Communist Party. Without the United States, he said addressing the Chinese audience, “I will be dependent on you.”

What makes Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, who compared himself to Hitler, so popular
During the visit, China and the Philippines are signing agreements for $13.5 billion in trade deals. The Philippines also said China had committed itself to $9 billion in low-interest loans. And the Philippines offered to open negotiations with China over disputed fishing waters in the South China Sea, a surprising change of policy given that an international tribunal in The Hague had ruled in July against China’s claim of historical rights to the waters.

Duterte, who took office July 30, had other choice words for the United States during his Beijing visit. He said that "America has lost now” and suggested that he was also eager to cozy up to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“I’ve realigned myself in your ideological flow and maybe I will also go to Russia to talk to Putin and tell him that there are three of us against the world — China, Philippines and Russia,’’ he said. And as an added slap, Duterte mimicked an American accent and said: “Americans are loud, sometimes rowdy. Their larynx is not adjusted to civility.’’

Duterte has been issuing increasingly anti-American rhetoric for months, mostly in reaction to U.S. criticism of a shoot-to-kill vigilante campaign against drug dealers and addicts. Since winning the presidential election in May, an estimated 3,500 people have been killed.

“Duterte doesn’t like Western finger-wagging over human rights and he is not going to get that from China,’’ said John Gershman, a professor at New York University’s Wagner School of Public Service and a founder of the New York Southeast Asia Network.

GShankar · Post by **GShankar** » 21 Oct 2016 08:19

hooman trafficking. Look where?

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/1 ... man_t.html

29 pimps, prostitutes in N.J. arrested in FBI child sex trafficking bust

More than two dozens pimps and prostitutes were arrested in New Jersey as part of an international sweep led by the FBI to crackdown on human trafficking, authorities said.

In addition to the 29 arrests, a 17-year-old in New Jersey was rescued in what authorities called "Operation Cross Country X." Eight of the arrests took place in Franklin Township, Somerset County. Fairfield police in Essex County also made multiple arrests.

The FBI's Philadelphia division made 15 arrests. The crackdown was the 10th and largest led by the FBI.

The arrests, which were made from Oct. 13 through Sunday resulted in charges against 239 traffickers in the United States. In all, 82 minors were rescued.

Authorities in Canada, Cambodia, the Philippines and Thailand also made dozens of busts in similar operations.

Arrests were made in hotels, trucks stops and on street corners, the FBI said.

The FBI says 55 FBI of its field offices and 74 Child Exploitation Task Forces representing more than 400 law enforcement organizations were involved.

Among the 82 juveniles rescued in the U.S. were two sisters in Milwaukee, ages 16 and 17, who told authorities that their mother was their pimp. The girls said their mother also rented out their brother's room to a man who was a registered sex offender. The youngest U.S. victim is 13.

The following agencies in New Jersey took part in "Operation Cross Country."

Atlantic County Prosecutor's Office
Atlantic County Sheriff's Office
New Jersey Human Services Police Department
Egg Harbor Township police
Galloway police
Somers Point police
Cape May County Prosecutor's Office
Fairfield police
Essex Fells police
West Caldwell police
Caldwell police
New Jersey State Police
Essex County Prosecutor's Office
New York/New Jersey Port Authority police
Irvington police
Hudson County Prosecutor's Office
Franklin Township police
New Brunswick police
Somerset County Prosecutors Office
Middlesex County Prosecutors Office

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 21 Oct 2016 09:24

Strange that the POTUS election has been written off with 18 days still to go. Wimmen journos writing about Trumpanzee campaign in the past tense, as if the Debate was the election. A lot can happen, u know, in 18 days.

BTW, all this noise about Syria obscures a statistic from Afghanistan. Over 8000 civilians dead this year in fighting between Taliban and "Afghan police". Some 5000 Afghan Police dead too. Total disaster. So Killary's record stays unblemished: disaster all over.

habal · Post by **habal** » 21 Oct 2016 09:40

election is over.

this is how it went.

-> Media made a case against Trump.
-> BLM/Mexican gangs activated for open public dissent
-> Use this media outcry to give Trump narrow defeats in swing states saying 'women voted against him' or some bullcrap, using Soros+Hagel voting machines.
-> hand over baton to electronic voting machines owned & operated by Chuck Hagel & George Soros.

So in their eyes, this election is fixed.
American elections - An oxymoron.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 21 Oct 2016 10:09

Assuming half the country refuses to accept the results of the election, what generals are in line to take over? Or does the VP take over in that case?

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 21 Oct 2016 11:20

panduranghari wrote:
MurthyB wrote:Why isn't this getting more traction?
Because 92% of journalists are registered Democrats. I got this stat from Peter Schiff website.

Surprisingly Michael Cohen is registered democrat. He said it himself on blitzer.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 21 Oct 2016 13:09

http://blackbag.gawker.com/is-donald-tr ... 1723925057

Is Donald Trump Running a False Flag Campaign to Help Hillary Clinton?

Donald Trump, the 69-year-old New York real estate mogul and unrepentant bigot, continues to dominate the Republican presidential primary polls. Trump’s sudden ascendance, accelerated by his willingness to insult virtually any ostensible ally within the conservative movement, has left GOP leaders dumbfounded. How did this caricature of a Republican politician, who has never held elected office, and whose personal ideology is remarkably fluid, usurp more experienced, more conservative, and better-funded candidates like Jeb Bush and Scott Walker? Within this vacuum of understanding, an almost-believable conspiracy theory has obtained currency: Donald Trump is in fact a false flag candidate whose actual mission is electing Hillary Clinton as President.

To understand the contours of this theory, it’s helpful to understand where it came from. A Google search suggests the first person to remark upon Trump’s indirect assistance to Clinton was the anti-war activist and “conservative-paleo-libertarian” Justin Raimondo. In a long blog post dated July 13—just a few days after Trump stole Jeb Bush’s lead—Raimondo argued that the timing of Trump’s entry into the presidential race, which the candidate had long hinted at but until this year never followed through on, could only be explained by a hidden “Democratic wrecking operation” designed to assist Clinton’s parallel campaign:

[Trump’s] ties to the Clintons, his past pronouncements which are in such blatant contradiction to his current fulminations, and the cries of joy from the Clintonian gallery and the media (or do I repeat myself) all point to a single conclusion: the Trump campaign is a Democratic wrecking operation aimed straight at the GOP’s base.

Donald Trump is a false-flag candidate. It’s all an act, one that benefits his good friend Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party that, until recently, counted the reality show star among its adherents. Indeed, Trump’s pronouncements—the open racism, the demagogic appeals, the faux-populist rhetoric—sound like something out of a Democratic political consultant’s imagination, a caricature of conservatism as performed by a master actor.

The idea that Trump is running an elaborate interference campaign on behalf of Hillary Clinton may sound absurd. But there is enough truth to Raimondo’s theory—it makes just enough sense—that it’s already begun to infiltrate, and inform the mainstream voices of, the mainstream Republican Party. On July 23, for example, the popular conservative writer Allen Ginzburg distilled Raimondo’s argument into a vexing thought experiment:

If Trump had an agreement with Hillary to ensure her win by embarrassing R's & then running as an indie, what would he be doing differently?
— AG (@AG_Conservative) July 23, 2015

Ginzburg’s tweet has since been retweeted over 400 times (including, earlier this week, by Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto, who serves on the paper’s influential editorial board).

It would, of course, be incredible—and virtually unprecedented in modern American politics—if a major party’s top candidate were to run a campaign for the purpose of electing that party’s most imposing political opponent. So what exactly supports the theory that Trump is such a candidate? Though he has recently rebranded himself as the only Republican brave enough to speak the truth about undocumented immigrants, his past associations and political positions suggest the theory is, if not entirely believable, not exactly implausible, either.

There are three main lines of argument supporting the assertion that Donald Trump is running a false flag campaign:

Trump cannot possibly be considered either a Republican or a conservative, once you account for his apparent political beliefs (many of which are remarkably liberal) and concrete policy proposals (or lack thereof).
Trump has close ties to both Hillary and Bill Clinton, and has in fact donated to her and other Democrats’ campaigns in the past.
Trump’s apparent intent to run on an independent ticket—should he lose the Republican nomination—indicates he cares more about splitting the Republican vote (essentially ensuring the election of a Democratic president) than he does about actually electing Republicans. He also lacks the wherewithal and/or long-term funding to mount a legitimate presidential campaign were he to become the actual Republican nominee.

Let’s discuss each of these in detail:
Argument 1: Donald Trump is not actually a Republican (or conservative)

According to voting records, Trump is currently registered as a Republican, but in the past has been registered (and repeatedly voted) as a Democrat. In fact, he appears to have switched between the two parties at least three times in the past 14 years: In 2001, he switched from Democrat to Republican; in 2008, he re-registered as Democrat; in 2010, he re-registered as a Republican (and maintained that affiliation through 2013). So Trump is certainly a Republican, but only in the sense that any voter can register as a Republican; it’s not like party officials perform an ideological litmus tests on mere voters. (Complicating matters further is Trump’s New York City residency. Republican New Yorkers have been known to register as Democrats in order to participate in Democratic primary elections, which are frequently the only elections that matter in municipal politics.)

The question of whether Trump is conservative is trickier to answer. Within the modern conservative movement, for example, it’s more or less assumed that candidates representing conservative interests believe abortion rights should be restricted (in many cases, radically so). It’s also assumed that conservative candidates oppose the 2010 Affordable Care Act—not just the particulars of the legislation itself, but also the general idea of universal healthcare. But, as The Washington Post pointed out last month, Trump has publicly endorsed both abortion rights and universal healthcare in the past. He’s also endorsed increasing taxes on the wealthy and legalizing drugs. It’s true that Trump has since reversed his positions on abortion and the Affordable Care Act, but as many have noted, his change of heart is far from convincing.

One issue on which Trump is very right-wing, however, is immigration. Trump believes the United States is inadequately protected against invading Mexicans, and has accused undocumented immigrants from that country of raping Americans with impunity. The key to Trump’s appeal is his suggestion, which he utters repeatedly, that mainstream Republican leaders are deliberately sidelining both the issue of border security and the broader issue of immigration—a complex topic within both major parties—in order to shore up support among the country’s growing Latino population.

Trump’s implication of GOP cowardice is seductive to the segment of Republican voters who believe they’ve been sold out by the GOP to various elite interest groups who have relentlessly lobbied for immigration reform. At the same time, immigration reform happens to be an issue with which Democrats have bludgeoned Republicans among Latino voters, who are disproportionately affected by the inadequacies of the current immigration system.

In other words: Trump has focused his campaign on an issue that exposes the Republican Party to attacks from both its base (who want the party to move to the right) and Democrats (who have an obvious interest in portraying opponents of immigration reform—that is, most Republicans—as racist lunatics). If you were Hillary Clinton, it would be hard not to appreciate the strategic advantage of Trump’s campaign, which is doing the work of discrediting the Republican Party among its own voters, and the general public, for free.
Argument 2: Trump is friendly with the Clinton family

Based on his public statements, Trump seems to a) admire Bill Clinton, b) admire Chelsea Clinton even more, and c) regard Hillary Clinton with hostility. Here are some representative tweets:

Bill Clinton did a great job last night--the Democrats are lucky to have him. Do you really believe he likes @BarackObama?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 6, 2012

I really like Chelsea Clinton--an amazing young woman. She got the best of both parents. (@IvankaTrump agrees)
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 21, 2012

Many of Hillary’s donors are the same donors as Jeb Bush’s—all rich, will have total control—know them well.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 5, 2015

Until very recently, the nature of Trump’s relationship with the Clinton family seemed entirely transactional. After all, Trump is a wealthy resident of New York, and Hillary Clinton, as a former U.S. Senator of the state, was all but required to mingle with people like him. During last Thursday’s Fox News debate, Trump even bragged about getting the Clintons to attend one of his weddings, knowing they wouldn’t refuse an invitation from someone who has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to various Clinton causes, including Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and the Clinton Foundation.

Trump’s relationship with Bill Clinton, however, seems to have deepened in the past few years. On August 5, The Washington Post reported that Clinton spoke with Trump in May of this year about Trump’s political ambitions. Here’s the how the paper characterized the exchange (bolding ours):

Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House ... Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape.

An aide to Bill Clinton characterized the exchange as merely “a casual chat” (those are the Post’s words), and Trump later denied the suggestion that the former President somehow persuaded him to run on the Republican ticket, but the fact that the exchange took place at all—that Clinton gives a shit about Trump’s rank within the Republican Party; that Clinton stated, whether obsequiously or sincerely, that Trump’s rank should rise—certainly suggests that Clinton could have pictured what Trump’s campaign would look like, and more importantly, what it would mean for his wife and her own presidential ambitions.
Argument 3: Trump clearly intends to run as an independent

Trump’s current threat to the Republican Party is potentially exceeded by the threat of him running against both the Republican and Democratic candidates on an independent ticket (assuming, of course, he does not secure the Republican nomination). Conservatives believe, with some justification, that an independent Trump campaign would carve away a significant chunk of otherwise Republican voters, thereby lending the Democratic nominee an easy victory. (There’s precedent: The conservative movement still blames Ross Perot’s independent run in 1992 for the election of Bill Clinton. Whether this is an accurate read has been, for years, a matter of considerable debate.)

It remains unclear whether Trump actually intends to run as an independent. But during the debate on Thursday, he pointedly refused to agree to a pledge to endorse whoever wins the Republican nomination—the strongest signal yet that he considers the Republican Party’s political and strategic objectives to be much less important than his own.

What Trump would do if another candidate won the Republican nomination is the key to the False Flag Candidate theory. The best case scenario for the GOP is that he loses and does not run as an independent, allowing the party to dismiss Trumpmania as a passing fancy. Democratic attempts to define the GOP as the party of Trump would be neutered; after all, a lot of Republican candidates look comparatively sane and electable when compared to Trump. In the absence of an independent ticket, Trump’s ridiculousness could help other Republican candidates. (The eventual candidate would still need to secure the support of the nativists Trump appeals to while attempting to win over the moderates he appalls, but that is a dance Republican presidential candidates have been practicing for years.)

But if Trump does run as an independent, then Allen Ginzburg’s suggestion above would prove correct: A Trump campaign based on the candidate’s sincere desire to become President, and a Trump campaign based on his hidden desire to see Hillary Clinton elected President, would be completely indistinguishable.

This scenario would, of course, be an unmitigated nightmare for the Republican Party. At the same time, Trump’s frontrunner status has placed party leaders, in particular the other viable candidates, in the seemingly impossible position of attempting to disavow Trump (in order to shield the party from accusations of vicious racism) without completely pissing him off (in order to lessen the possibility of an independent Trump ticket in 2016). How do you marginalize someone like Trump without marginalizing him too much?

Still, it’s unclear how an actual independent Trump campaign would unfold, given what we know (and don’t know) about both the candidate’s finances and the plans of the wealthy donors who fund Republican campaigns. Whether or not Trump is willing to spend his own money on a campaign that would almost certainly help Democrats, not Republicans — and even whether he believes that an independent Trump campaign would help Democrats — remains to be seen.
So is Trump really a Hillary Clinton plant?

There is, we’re sorry to say, no definitive evidence that Trump and Hillary Clinton are colluding to wreak havoc on the Republican Party’s 2016 primary campaign for the purpose of securing a Clinton presidency. This does not preclude the possibility that Trump has secretly decided that he wants Clinton to be president, and is now sabotaging the GOP in order to help the Democratic frontrunner; nor does it mean that Bill Clinton didn’t encourage Trump to run in order to wreak havoc on the GOP nomination process. Even in those scenarios, however, the likelihood of smoking gun is close to zero.

The lack of evidence is not the biggest problem with this conspiracy theory, though. The biggest problem is that the theory’s most important underlying assumption—that Trump is anomalous, a xenophobic buffoon posing as a Republican—is wildly ignorant of actual Republican policies.

Boiled down, Trump’s appeal to the Republican Party’s base consists of his willingness to say nakedly racist statements and his promises to enact equally racist legislation. But why is that appeal surprising? In its contemporary manifestation, the GOP has repeatedly sought the support of voters who wish to disempower and intimidate racial minorities. This isn’t just about the party’s bizarre obsession with upholding the sanctity of the Confederate flag. To this day, for example, the party continues to advocate for Voter ID laws, which are ostensibly designed to combat in-person voter fraud—a virtually non-existent phenomenon—but in practice help prevent a disproportionate number of eligible non-white voters from actually voting. Its intellectual leaders have dismissed the ubiquitous threat of police violence towards black people as illusory.

Donald Trump’s popularity indicates that this country’s most fervent conservatives are primarily concerned not with reducing abortion rights, or repealing Obamacare, but rather with preserving white hegemony in the United States. For years and years, the Republican Party has happily accommodated these kinds of conservatives under the unspoken assumption that they would never be powerful enough to publicize their own candidate. Trump speaks to the error of that assumption.

In this context, the theory that Donald Trump is secretly helping Hillary Clinton get elected is not really about the Republican Party’s hostility toward Donald Trump or its habit of inventing conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton. (Although both factors have certainly helped with its formation.) It’s the result of a major political party coming to terms, however illogically, with who exactly its supporters are.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 21 Oct 2016 13:12

http://swarajyamag.com/world/trump-won- ... residency#

Trump Won Battle & Lost The War: India Must Prepare For A Clinton Presidency

It is now all over bar the shouting – of which there will be a lot of post 8 November, the date of the US Presidential election. The world, and especially India, will have to prepare for a Hillary Clinton presidency.

The world will heave a sigh of relief that it will be dealing with a known devil; India will have to deal with the possibility that America will elect someone who is part of the consensus that worsened the situation for the world, especially the rise of violent Islamists and crumbling regimes.

We also have to live with the suspicion that Donald Trump may have been better for us, given that he brought with him some refreshing new ideas on how to change the world, including how to deal with Pakistan and how to work constructively with Russia.

For India, the reality is clear: we have to build bridges to Clinton before it is too late. While this writer believes that Trump did quite well in the last of the presidential debates yesterday (19 October in US, 20th morning for India), it will make no difference to the electoral outcome.

Let’s be clear: Donald Trump is losing largely to himself. His voter base has remained solid, but his ultra-misogynist statements have alienated women in general. And the fact that his opponent is a woman enabled her to shift the focus from her own shortcomings to his. It is difficult to see women voting for Trump even if they badly dislike Clinton. When serious misogyny is the issue, you don’t vote for the man believed to be practising it when his opponent is a woman.

In the third presidential debate, Trump held his own, even though a CNN poll later put Clinton ahead by 52-39. But here’s the interesting bit. After the first debate on 27 September, Clinton was said to have won 62-27. In the second, she won 57-34, and in the third 52-39. Can you see the pattern? In every succeeding debate, Clinton is seen to have won by lower margins while Trump gains. But the polls probably do not matter for most people may have made up their minds. In national polls Clinton leads by 6.5 percent over Trump, according to RealClearPolitics poll averages.

The third debate went into several topics: who has better plans for the economy, immigration, the judiciary, dealing with foreign hotspots (Syria, Iraq, etc), the possibilities of a rigged election, and Russian hacking into Clinton’s emails (read the highlights here).

But the Trump reply that dominated news analysis immediately after the debate, and which will continue for a while, was his indication that he is not obliged to accept the election results in advance, thus indicating that he may dispute it later. His answer to a question on whether he would accept the electoral verdict was neutral: “I will look at it at the time. I am not looking at anything now.”

Such a statement would not be amiss in India, where candidates and parties often allege rigging and people not being allowed to vote, but in America this statement is considered sacrilege, a slur on their democratic values and peaceful handover of power. The media went to town over it, claiming Trump was alleging the elections won’t be fair.

Perhaps Trump could have given a better answer, something which went like this: “I will accept the verdict, assuming there is no rigging on 8 November.” But he said “I’ll keep you in suspense, OK?”

But to an Indian, Trump’s statement hardly sounds outrageous, given that allegations of unfair means are made by almost every party in every election. But, in the end, the reputation of the Election Commission has only gone up in recent years. Not so in America, where it is the states that conduct elections, and that too each in its own way.

The American system of voting is outdated, with at least one election – George Bush versus Al Gore in 2000 - depending on how you counted “hanging chads”. The matter was ultimately decided in the courts even though Gore actually won the popular vote.

Even today, America has a pathetic and disparate voting system, with multiple methods being adopted. There are states using paper votes; there are states which use paper ballots with optical devices recording the votes directly on a computer; yet others use ballot marking devices and punch cards. Not for nothing did the Brennan Center for Justice note that most voting machines were over 10 years old, with some machines being so old that replacement parts are difficult to find. Some state election officials wondered where they would get the money to fix their voting machines.

If this is the state of voting in the world’s oldest democracy, while the world’s biggest, India, has moved on to 100 percent electronic voting machines, one wonders if some parts of the voting may not be suspect.

Trump may have done himself some damage with this statement, but it is difficult to say how much. If he keeps asserting the voting may be unfair, is it not possible that his own voters may stay at home? The only situation in which his remarks may sound prophetic is if Clinton does not get 270 electoral votes to get elected outright. RealClearPolitics gives Clinton 260 electoral votes to Trump’s 170, 10 short of the halfway mark, before toss-up states are decided. It is unlikely that Clinton will not win even one toss-up state, when many are tilting her way. If there are no toss-ups, Clinton wins hands down 333-205. But if Clinton does fall short, the election shifts to the House of Representatives, and there it may be depend on party clout. Currently, Republicans dominate Congress. Trump has an outside chance only in this event, but it’s a 1 in 100 possibility. So his decision to doubt the electoral outcome in advance seemed unlikely to be of help. However, they do define what Trump is all about.

On Clinton’s allegations that the emails were leaked due to Russian hacking, Trump seemed uncomfortable acknowledging the point that Russia may well be interested in damaging Clinton. She is decidedly anti-Vladimir Putin. The tragedy is that Trump actually seemed to have a better policy on Russia and Putin – a promise to work with Putin rather than against him. Under President Obama and, possibly under a future Hillary Clinton presidency, America seems to be working under the assumption that the cold war isn’t over.

The Obama administration has put Putin in the enemy category instead of dealing with him as the head of a nuclear superpower and permanent member of the Security Council who may have something meaningful to contribute to world peace and the capping of Islamist violence. If America can work with a backward state like Saudi Arabia, a terrorist state like Pakistan, or a hegemonic power like China, one wonders why it can’t work with a Putin, even assuming he is an autocratic ruler and possibly backed by oligarchs. There are more US billionaires backing Clinton than Trump.

This US-Russia schism has played a major role in the rise of Islamic State, with Russia backing regimes that the Americans are targeting, creating more chaos. Moreover, this treatment of Putin has pushed Russia into China’s willing arms, something that will cost the US some loss of global clout. In its long-term fight with China for global supremacy, a Russia on China’s side is worse for the US than a neutral Putin.

Overall, though, this is the reality: Trump won the debate on points, but lost the war hollow, and possibly the election.

This reality is important for countries like India to absorb, which face terrorism from a next-door neighbour, and also a bully in China. India’s diplomacy with a Clinton administration needs more work than with a Trump presidency. We should focus on the following issues:

One, the Modi government needs to emphasise that a US-Russia-India-Japan-EU coalition will contain China and Islamic terrorism better than a situation where US slots Putin as an enemy and pushes Putin into China’s arms and forces him to help rogue nations to keep American influence out.

Two, the US has to lean harder on Pakistan both to control anti-India terror and to prevent it from sliding permanently into China’s embrace. India could also seek gentle support for human rights in Balochistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, and emphasise the fallacy that Pakistan can be appeased by making concessions on Kashmir.

Three, while India will up its purchases of military and high-tech hardware from the US, this depends on how much of the technology will be transferred and enable India to make more of its defence equipment at home.

Four, we need the US to marshall more support for our entry into the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group, especially by overcoming China’s blackball in some way. However, we have to realise that ultimately this will happen only when China feels the need to recognise India’s rise as inevitable.

Five, of course, the economic cooperation that deepened under Bush and Obama needs to further enhanced.

Modi has his work cut out. It would have been far easier under Trump.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 21 Oct 2016 13:17

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... -evidence/

Jeb Bush tweets Trump-Clinton conspiracy theory. Here’s a look at the ‘evidence.’

It sounds like something from “House of Cards”: Politician A enters into a secret alliance with Politician B — a loose-tongued rival from another party with the chutzpah, the cash and the power to play the spoiler — to ensure Politician A’s election.

Now, anyone living inside the Beltway can testify that Washington isn’t organized enough to work that way. But after GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump said he would deny Muslims entry to the United States — and, faced with the condemnation of Republicans in Congress, indicated he might be considering running as an independent, a move that could elect a Democrat — one of Trump’s rivals tweeted out the Grand Trump-Clinton Conspiracy Theory.

“Maybe Donald negotiated a deal with his buddy @HillaryClinton,” Jeb Bush tweeted. “Continuing this path will put her in the White House.”

[Jeb Bush: Trump’s call to block Muslims ‘helps his buddy, Hillary Clinton’]

Maybe Donald negotiated a deal with his buddy @HillaryClinton. Continuing this path will put her in the White House. https://t.co/AlvByiSrMn

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) December 8, 2015

Bush’s comment came in response to a tweet from Trump Tuesday afternoon. “A new poll indicates that 68% of my supporters would vote for me if I departed the GOP & ran as an independent,” Trump tweeted — despite making a more-or-less meaningless pledge in September to refrain from doing just that.

A new poll indicates that 68% of my supporters would vote for me if I departed the GOP & ran as an independent. https://t.co/ztP5d2ctZl

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 8, 2015

There’s no doubt that Trump is a hand grenade launched into the middle of a crowded Republican field — one whose controversial comments about Muslims, immigrants and women, among many other subjects, have proven popular with the party’s base even as the Donald’s rivals try to distance themselves from them. But is his refusal to flame out really the result of high-level machinations among Trump, a former president and the Democratic presidential front-runner — a former first lady, U.S. senator, and secretary of state?

Probably not — but it sure is fun to speculate about it, as many have in recent months. Here’s a look at the “evidence”:

Trump used to be a Democrat.

Politicians switch parties all of the time. Ronald Reagan, to choose but one prominent example, was a Democrat until 1962. That didn’t stop him from defining conservativism and the Republican Party as we know it today.

But though Democrats sometimes become Republicans, none has proven as potentially destructive to the GOP as Trump. He’s not just a RINO, some say — he’s a RINO on a rampage.

“According to voting records, Trump is currently registered as a Republican, but in the past has been registered (and repeatedly voted) as a Democrat,” Gawker explained in August. “In fact, he appears to have switched between the two parties at least three times in the past 14 years: In 2001, he switched from Democrat to Republican; in 2008, he re-registered as Democrat; in 2010, he re-registered as a Republican (and maintained that affiliation through 2013). So Trump is certainly a Republican, but only in the sense that any voter can register as a Republican; it’s not like party officials perform an ideological litmus tests on mere voters.”

As Trump himself said in 1999: “I’ve actually been an activist Democrat and Republican. I support almost equally — I really support people.”

In 2005, the Clintons attended Trump’s wedding.

Trump’s candidacy isn’t just suspicious to some because he once belonged to the Clintons’ political party. It’s suspicious because he’s the Clinton’s pal — golfing with Bill and, in 2005, hosting the Clintons at his wedding to Melania Trump. It was an invitation that Clinton had to explain away after Trump announced his candidacy earlier this year.

“I happened to be planning to be in Florida and I thought it would be fun to go to his wedding because it is always entertaining,” Clinton said. “Now that he is running for president it is a little more troubling.” She added: “I didn’t know him that well.”

Trump, meanwhile, implied that when he said “jump,” Clinton asked “How high?”

“Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding, and she came to my wedding,” he said in August. “She had no choice because I gave to a foundation.”

Trump donated to the Clinton Foundation.

Republicans love a good Clinton scandal, and went on the attack when some donations to the Clinton Foundation, allegedly given by people in need of political favors, were questioned earlier this year. Trump was right there down in front.

“If this was a Republican sitting right there, this would absolutely be considered illegal,” he said. He added: “This is about jail time; this isn’t about the voters.”

Yet, in one of the unabashed contradictions for which he is known, Trump gave at least $105,000 to the Clinton Foundation. At the first Republican presidential debate, Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) asked him how he could criticize a charity he himself donated to.

“You’ve donated to several Democratic candidates. You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business-related affairs,” Paul said. “And you said recently, quote, ‘When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.’”

“You better believe it,” Trump responded.

The mysterious Trump-Clinton phone call.

Donations are one thing. A personal phone call between Trump and former president Clinton just weeks before Trump declared his candidacy is, perhaps, something else.

Bill Clinton and Trump chatted in late May, as The Washington Post reported; the Donald became a candidate in mid-June. So what were Trump and President No. 42 discussing? Might it be a plot, years in the making, to ensure that Hillary doesn’t face a challenge from a more level-headed, moderate Republican — like Jeb Bush — who may have a better chance of winning a general election?

“The tone of the call was informal, and Clinton never urged Trump to run, the four people said,” Robert Costa and Anne Gearan reported, summarizing the comments of “four Trump allies.” “Rather, they said, Clinton sounded curious about Trump’s moves toward a presidential bid and told Trump that he was striking a chord with frustrated conservatives and was a rising force on the right.”

“Sounded curious,” eh? That’s pretty curious in itself.

Faced with this parade — or, at least, faint trail — of circumstantial evidence, some can only conclude that Trump and the Clintons are in it to win it together — by getting Trump to lose it.

“Donald Trump is a false-flag candidate,” conservative blogger Justin Raimondo wrote in July. “It’s all an act, one that benefits his good friend Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party that, until recently, counted the reality show star among its adherents. Indeed, Trump’s pronouncements – the open racism, the demagogic appeals, the faux-populist rhetoric – sound like something out of a Democratic political consultant’s imagination, a caricature of conservatism as performed by a master actor.”

Of course, this would mean that the Clintons — who, for all of their political power, couldn’t beat Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the 2008 Democratic primary — would have had to cultivate a fickle, volatile real-estate developer turned reality TV host for more than a decade; bet that he could mount a serious presidential campaign, but one not serious enough to win a general election; and engineer this grand conspiracy without anyone finding out about it. Also, what would be in it for Trump — isn’t he already worth “10 BILLION DOLLARS“?

Then again, there may not be much difference between Trump sincerely trying to win and Trump tanking on Hillary’s behalf.

As conservative writer Allen Ginzburg put it in July: “If Trump had an agreement with Hillary to ensure her win by embarrassing R’s & then running as an indie, what would he be doing differently?

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 21 Oct 2016 13:21

posting.php?mode=reply&f=1&t=7243#preview

PUTIN HAS ALL THE EMAILS HILLARY DELETED & WILL RELEASE THEM ENDING HILLARY’S CAMPAIGN ONCE & FOR ALL!

ELDER PATRIOT – Nobody knows the Clintons better than Dick Morris who served as Bill Clinton’s campaign manager and was his most trusted advisor. He knows them so well that he can no longer sit silently by and allow Hillary Clinton to become president.

So Morris has released a book, “Armageddon,” and this video detailing Hillary Clinton’s reasons for smearing Donald Trump with claims of ties to Vladimir Putin:

Morris is convinced that Hillary truly believes that the Russians were the ones who successfully hacked the DNC emails that were released on the eve of the DNC that caused so much havoc prior to and during the convention and that continues to leave a divide between her and Sanders millennial supporters who now know the primary process was fixed.

More significantly, she fears that Putin is sitting on the mother lode of all of her emails including the 33,000 deleted emails that they obtained by hacking Guccifer who had successfully hacked Mrs. Clinton’s private server. The contents of these emails would not only end any chance of winning the election but they will almost assuredly prove her treasonous behavior beyond any doubt. Moreover, it is likely everyone of Mrs. Clinton’s closest advisors are about to go down with her.

Mrs. Clinton fears this is the October surprise of all October surprises and Morris is certain that Hillary is tying Trump to the Russians to lessen the blow when the sh*t hits the fan later this month as the emails are made public.

The revelations that are coming with the impending email dump will prove once and for all that Hillary’s private emails comprised every aspect of our nation’s security and that they included the most highly classified of information concerning the people, methods, and locations from every department of government. They include field agents in high risk locations on extremely sensitive assignments as well as discussions of military strategies and objectives.

Morris reminds everyone that Putin has some serious payback in store for Hillary fueled by the animosity that he harbors towards Bill Clinton for illegally intervening in the 1996 Russian election. After the Hyde Park summit earlier that year President Clinton became intent on getting Boris Yeltsin re-elected but he was badly trailing Putin’s candidate when Bill turned to Morris for help.

With the help of Morris’ partner at the time, Dick Dresner, Yeltsin won the election that many believe might’ve been stolen. Morris states unequivocally that Bill Clinton used his political ties to the Saudis to convince them to forgive a $500 million debt that the Russians owed to them and that this allowed Yeltsin to pay his steel workers and coal miners who were owed months of back wages.

Morris, who was deeply involved in running Yeltsin’s campaign from the White House alongside President Clinton during this time, feels that the cash infusion that allowed for the restoration of the back wages was the impetus that propelled Yeltsin to victory.

Putin has never forgotten the Clintons intrusion into his country’s political affairs and is now in a position to return the favor in a major way.

The marvelous schadenfreude is that Mrs. Clinton is the author of her own coming demise.

Dinesh S · Post by **Dinesh S** » 21 Oct 2016 14:00

So, most Indian Americans will vote for Hillary despite how evil she is. I for one find that incredibly hypocritical and pathetic since these are the same people who constantly berate UP and Bihar for caste politics(identity politics) a lot (and few occurances happened in this very same thread ) despite the fact that these people are now going to vote on the same basis(minorities voting for leftists) anyway for Hillary .

One thing about this US election is very clear- it has exposed everyone for what they really are underneath their pompous morally righteous exterior

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 21 Oct 2016 16:30

no matter how awful you think hillary is, there is no way in hell anyone can say that trump offers a better alternative
the world is lurching to the right, if we are not careful it will go too far to the right - and thats not going to be good for anyone
need to get things back to the centre - by the least painful route

zoverian · Post by **zoverian** » 21 Oct 2016 17:13

Just once and for all ..may i ask does trump has any chance of wining the election....

can we have an internal poll for that...if moderators allows....

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 21 Oct 2016 17:30

UlanBatori wrote:Strange that the POTUS election has been written off with 18 days still to go. Wimmen journos writing about Trumpanzee campaign in the past tense, as if the Debate was the election. A lot can happen, u know, in 18 days.

Umm..why would they not write it off, when Trump himself has conceded?

What is happening now is what we in IT call "death march".

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 21 Oct 2016 17:31

vera_k wrote:Assuming half the country refuses to accept the results of the election, what generals are in line to take over? Or does the VP take over in that case?

half the country also thought ombaba was kenyan muslim. which general lined up and what VP took over?

is there no limit to the fantasies...

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 21 Oct 2016 17:36

nachiket wrote:This is a false equivalence. We (Hindus) are only shooting ourselves in the foot if we make this comparison. White-Christian culture in the US is not under any threat whatsoever except in the minds of racists and EJ's who think the brown and black people and godless-heathens are getting too uppity by demanding to be treated as equals. There is no comparison to India where 20% of the country is Muslim or Christian and Hindus are being physically attacked in areas where they are in a minority.

Comparing Mexico and pakistan is similar idiocy. How many terrorist attacks have mexicans carried out in the US? We are undermining our own struggles and threats when we give credence to this.

Try 'shooting ourselves in the head'.

Exactly the reason why there should be no adopting liberal/conservative, right/left concepts of US into India and do a con=dem, rep=bjp type shallow idiotic and self-damaging analysis.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 21 Oct 2016 17:43

Indian Americans most supportive of Trump of all minorities: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2016/10/ ... 476915617/

Looks like Trump has made up significant ground with Indian Americans.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 21 Oct 2016 17:45

UlanBatori wrote: Like the above post says, the equivalence is very strong. B4 the 2014 Election, the "mainstream Indian media" was like 95% against NaMo.
NaMO was the only leader who dared to come out and call it ISLAMIC TERRORISM rather than "Kashmiri Fedayeen" or "Revenge for Babri Masjid".
He refused to "apologize" for the Babri Masjid property value enhancement of 1992.
The media about his Divisiveness and Polarization of Society. Berkeley Haas School started preparing to incite the next communal riot by training lobotomized "students" from India to do a Color Revolution.

And .. has he turned out to the dangerous maniac that the media said he would be?

The key difference being - Modi never did or say things that were attributed to him by media.

Trump himself says things and does things which are then played up in media.

There is no ==.

Back to ISIS tunnel.

I think you should stay there until elections are over

you had enough fun...it is only getting stale now.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 21 Oct 2016 18:15

Gus, is it just my imagination, or are you perhaps leaning towards Senator Hillary Clinton's candidacy maybe? Just wondering..

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 21 Oct 2016 18:23

Meanwhile, the only way to find out about that other candidate's campaign is by going to their website:

I AM YOUR VOICE

To every parent who dreams for their child, and every child who dreams for their future, I say these words to you:
I’m With You, and I will FIGHT for you, and I will WIN for YOU.
This is a MOVEMENT. {Laugh/snicker/wash ur camo/wax ur red pickup/launder the Confederate Flag} today.
{Clean the RUSSIA *UC*S bumper sticker, get a crayon and make it ~~RUSSIA~~ ~~Mawnika~~KLINTUN *UC*S}

Point is:

Make this a weekly recurring donation until 11/8/16

No one has conceded - claims to the contrary are from increasingly desperate Hillarious Fans.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 21 Oct 2016 18:29

Trump will follow a policy of clamping down on illegal immigration and differentiating between groups that obtain preference in legal immigration vs groups that don't - based on their value-add to the home society.

A perfectly reasonable stance and one that needs accelerated adoption across the world. What's not to like in this policy, I wonder...??

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 21 Oct 2016 18:31

Nor has the Third Candidacy:

OCTOBER GOAL:
50,000 Individual Contributors
1 Historic Campaign
By winning just one key state, we can prevent Hillary and Trump from getting 270 electoral votes.
By getting just 5% of national vote, we help end two-party control of our elections.
TOTAL RAISED IN OCTOBER:
1,150,030
~~Clinton~~ Johnson ~~Trump~~

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 21 Oct 2016 18:32

But this takes the cake:

The key difference being - Modi never did or say things that were attributed to him by media.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 21 Oct 2016 18:38

And the FOURTH candidate

Jill Showed America What a Real President Looks Like
Last night, across the Internet, Jill Stein - a woman of true substance and integrity - stood up and showed America what a real president looks like. She once again proved that there is no reason to “hold your nose and vote Hillary” or “stay at home because Bernie is gone.”
Here are some notable quotes:
“The answer to our problems - war, immigration, security, economy, climate change, etc. is - we’ve got to stop causing the problems in the first place.”
“A friend of Wall Street is not who we need to put into the White House...remember who got the economy into the mess it’s in right now.”
“If we, as a country, can bail out Wall Street with its waste, fraud and abuse, then we need to bail out the students who are the future of this country.”
Jill and the Green Party are engaged, with you in the hard work of revolution.

Watch Jill in the Third Presidential Debate

Thank you for tuning in to watch Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein go head to head on the real issues with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump one last time before Election Day!

Campaign Rally in Ppl's Republic of Berkeley on Saturdin Oct. 22.

habal · Post by **habal** » 21 Oct 2016 18:53

Arjun wrote:Trump will follow a policy of clamping down on illegal immigration and differentiating between groups that obtain preference in legal immigration vs groups that don't - based on their value-add to the home society.

A perfectly reasonable stance and one that needs accelerated adoption across the world. What's not to like in this policy, I wonder...??

policy will be same for both, only internal policy may differ and that too only after a while in office main reason being Trump has no experience of holding public office. Trump will hold clutch on relations with Russia for a while. When it comes to action both will be eventually same.

Trump cannot manage everything by himself, there is
1. dept of state
2. dept of defense
3. homeland security
4. attorney general
5. dept of commerce

each of this is like managing 10 Trump organizations, day-to-day. So obviously it will be outsourced to specific 'advisors' and then things will more or less work as they are doing now. Trump cannot even add his 2 cents here because he has no prior experience of public adminstration.

who will be elected ultimately will depend upon which way the deep state swings. 'Wars for israel' yehudi menuhins is not exactly the 'deep state' yet I get a feeling, though they make a lot of noise on media. Let us see who prevails. If the establishment feels they are running out of time and they needs war with Russia tomm, then Hillary it is. If they decide to wait for MIC to make more dough with Russian scare mongering while they wait out for Putin to fade away then it is Trump. Whatever the choice, common people shall have no choice in this matter. Establishment hold on the country is absolute.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 21 Oct 2016 20:08

^Habal ji I thought Deep state uses the winner for its own policies, no matter who wins. If the winner doesn't comply then they go kennedy way.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 21 Oct 2016 20:17

UlanBatori wrote:Gus, is it just my imagination, or are you perhaps leaning towards Senator Hillary Clinton's candidacy maybe? Just wondering..

saar, I think I made my opinion clear in many posts. Trump has not demonstrated that he will be better than Hilary on things that matter to me from the pov of Indian interests. And no - "I love the hindus"

don't count as demonstration. I DON'T count him as an "outsider" who will 'destroy the system'.

I am not even going into his personal character or domestic politics in US - things where he is demonstrably worse than Hilary - but that is a separate argument.

If anything, he has STRENGTHENED the system.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/fe ... mp-w444943

He ran as an outsider antidote to a corrupt two-party system, and instead will leave that system more entrenched than ever. If he goes on to lose, he will be our Bonaparte, the monster who will continue to terrify us even in exile, reinforcing the authority of kings.

If you thought lesser-evilism was bad before, wait until the answer to every question you might have about your political leaders becomes, "Would you rather have Trump in office?"

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 21 Oct 2016 20:20

Trump is not == Modi.

Trump is == Kejri.

The ~~clown~~ guy who spoiled it forever for genuine outsiders who may have chance of reform.

Yayavar · Post by **Yayavar** » 21 Oct 2016 20:55

trump == kejri is what I've been equating too...
Kejri also in principle says good things but no evidence in practice...should add, and there are a lot of not-good things said too.

no need to change this view : viewtopic.php?p=2022302#p2022302

GShankar · Post by **GShankar** » 21 Oct 2016 20:58

Gus wrote:Trump is not == Modi.

Trump is == Kejri.

The ~~clown~~ guy who spoiled it forever for genuine outsiders who may have chance of reform.

The closest indian comparison to trump would be swamy@39. They both have a tendency to run their mouths but one of them is much more intelligent than the other.

Kejri is a two face. You cannot accuse trump, @swamy39 on those things.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 21 Oct 2016 21:32

The familiar Indo-American retards who infested NYT /Wapo type outlets in the runup to 2014 - crawling out of the woodwork with their old litany in a new ''Trump" bottle: http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/hindus ... 1787862963

MurthyB · Post by **MurthyB** » 21 Oct 2016 22:15

Trump is better for Hindu Americans and India relations. I will vote for Trump.

1) An end to invade the world/invite the world. Go depose some tinpot dictator, create a bloodshed and millions of refugees that you now take in on humanitarian grounds and lecture everyone else to do the same. No thanks. Oh, and fight the ruskies because dems missed out on that during the cold war. While jihadis cut off heads, Putin is the real enemy lol.

2) The wall. In line with what India is doing and that everyone here will defend. Gives support to those kinds of things if the US does it too. The Clinton/regressive left boner for Merkel is bad and spells trouble. If Germany can take in 2 million Islamics, and Clinton starts shoving some of them down Americans throats, the pressure will also be on India to taken in millions of Bangladeshis and be more islam-pasand. If Merkel's boner is what drives policy with "open borders", that's another contrarian hurdle for Indian policy.

3) A resistance to the cultural Marxists who are also part of the breaking India/Hinduphobic gang. As if Hindus gain anything from being part of the left wing coalition and get lots of love now. As if the Hindus being hacked to death in India are by neo Nazis. As if the petition against Modi was by white supremacists. As if the battle for Hinduism in CA textbooks resisted by KKK.

The LW/RW is a media concoction. 2 of Trump's policies: no overthrow of ME dictators and 'make in america' are traditional LW policies anyway. Only immigration anti-open borders is "RW". He is neither RW nor LW; a nativist populist. I am fine with that.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 21 Oct 2016 22:40

Voted for Clinton because frankly, Trump is just an rambling idiot who would mess up a lot of things. Clinton is a known factor and India has gotten used to her and learned how to manage her. Clinton didn't do much damage as SoS when it came to Indian affairs.

I think Clinton would continue the friendly policy towards India as long as India maintain womens rights and doesn't engage in any homophobic behavior. That is all India can ask for. India is strong enough to stand up for herself among the big powers.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Oct 2016 22:50

Hmmmmm.

Bery, bery interesting.

US Census Bureau is adding a category for Middle Eastern descendents.

Imagine.

Not many places to hide.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 21 Oct 2016 23:10

Gus wrote:Trump is not == Modi.

Trump is == Kejri.

The ~~clown~~ guy who spoiled it forever for genuine outsiders who may have chance of reform.

Kejri, ashish kothari are christians with Hindu names + surnames of their forefathers, while working to destroy the legacy and culture of their forefathers. Even when oath taking kejri spits on entire hindu population of delhi chiding them for attacking a church, while ignoring the attacks of 68 temples.

While trump is very much openly a crusader for his forefathers' legacy and culture. Just advantage I see in Trumpet is same loudmouthness of Sswamy. While crusadress hillary is like prannoy roy, burka dutt, sagarika ghose, kavita krishnan, arundhati suzzane roy under the hindu name and leftist lable are doing crusade for the christianity.

See how silently this long snake john kerry slithered in and got the clearance for 'compassion' evangelists. That is what is dangerous about hillary lot.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 21 Oct 2016 23:15

GShankar wrote:
Kejri is a two face. You cannot accuse trump, @swamy39 on those things.

No, Trump is not two-faced. He is many faced. His opinions change every day. Sometimes a few times a day. You never know what exactly his policy is going to be because you can never rely on anything he's said in the past. Only thing you can rely on is that he'll change it another 10 times in the next 10 days. His flip-flops would be quite hilarious if he wasn't a Presidential candidate. But sure, he'll be great for Hindus, according to BRF diggaj members. What do I know?

GShankar · Post by **GShankar** » 21 Oct 2016 23:42

^^ seems like you make too many assumptions.

Trump has policy
Trump changes policies
He will change it 10 times in next 10 days
He flip-flops

I counter(ed) all of the above in my post saying

They both have a tendency to run their mouths but one of them is much more intelligent than the other.

Don't tell me you thought trump was the intelligent one..

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 22 Oct 2016 00:27

nachiket wrote:No, Trump is not two-faced. He is many faced. His opinions change every day. Sometimes a few times a day. You never know what exactly his policy is going to be because you can never rely on anything he's said in the past. Only thing you can rely on is that he'll change it another 10 times in the next 10 days. His flip-flops would be quite hilarious if he wasn't a Presidential candidate. But sure, he'll be great for Hindus, according to BRF diggaj members. What do I know?

I keep asking the same question. Trump does not have any understanding of US-India foreign policy history and its issues. And he does not have the brains or attention span to develop this understanding. Nobody has any idea of what his actual policy will be or his set of advisors will be. Nobody, not even Trump.

How is he going to be better than Hilary? rambling and ranting on her now and then is not equal to policy or intent

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 22 Oct 2016 00:45

UlanBatori wrote:Gus, is it just my imagination, or are you perhaps leaning towards Senator Hillary Clinton's candidacy maybe? Just wondering..

Trump will lump Hillary like Paki El Presidon't-e on Lamppost to get 1/20 Tons of organic compost. Almost all Candidates heavy on data & sophistry have been dead in US election History.From Dada Reagan to Papa Bush to Baccha Bush, no Republican winner have ever given a remote hint of intellectual depth. Beside Tall guys always win the POTUS Hocus Pocus Offuc Rumble.
IMHO, Hallal-ery winning will be tactical brilliance for Indoi but strategic blunder in killing Tulsi's Triumphant March over Trump who will look like Bubba Gump in 2020.