Not quite "all of the above", then?
(01-18-2017, 02:30 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-18-2017, 02:10 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-18-2017, 01:15 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ][quote='Marypoza' pid='18150' dateline='1484717610']
[quote='Warren Dew' pid='18144' dateline='1484704453']
Maripoza, is that what you were talking about? I thought you were talking about Clinton's "Pied Piper" strategy of manipulating the press to get Trump nominated, because Clinton thought Trump would be easiest to beat:
In February, emails obtained by Gawker showed that the Clinton campaign was literally allowed to ghost write portions of the influential “Playbook” newsletter published by Politico.... [In one] memo, the Clinton campaign sought to enlist the help of the DNC to encourage the media to treat the campaigns of Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and Donald Trump seriously, in an attempt to damage the rest of the Republican field:... "We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to [take] them seriously."
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/10/09/...seriously/
Or for those who prefer left wing sources: http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hill...-strategy/
Of course, the press was in the business of doing everything Clinton wanted, so the result was ... President Trump.
-- yes that was what l meant. Actually the publicity in general, including paying trolls to incite violence @ his & Bernie's rallies. But X is right too- they were encouraging Clintonistas to vote for the Donald in repug primaries since they were vote flipping/purging the Bernie votes in their own primaries, & banking votes for her (ie, $hillary having yay many thousands votes in a county w/0 precincts reporting in. huh? wtf?)
All of the above. And it was all legal. Dirty? Sure. But legal. Politics is a dirty business.
-- in that case, then what's the point of getting upset?
Warren Dew Wrote:I don't think paying people to incite violence is legal. Accepted maybe; legal no.
--neither is vote flipping/purging & tampering with voter rolls, & none of this stuff s/b accepted
X_4AD_84 Wrote:You are referring to paying trolls. No one ever proved that. It's a conspiracy theory.
-- I googled Clinton paid troll violence & a sluagh of links came up. l wanted to use the one from ABC but apparantly the story's been taken down since the link no longer works. The link below has links to other stories on the matter & quotes from the emails you claimed to have read. Check out the last sentence
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/10/17/...p-rallies/
You must choose your enemy. This is a 4T. Is your enemy the DNC and Hillary Clinton, who has lost and will never be heard from again? Or is it the American Nazis who put Mussolini reborn into power? Which side are you on?
(01-19-2017, 03:13 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]You must choose your enemy. This is a 4T. Is your enemy the DNC and Hillary Clinton, who has lost and will never be heard from again? Or is it the American Nazis who put Mussolini reborn into power? Which side are you on?
Mayrypoza is one of those "Hate America First" types, the kind that will side with any vile dictator as long as they stick it to "evil AmeriKKKa". Putin has done a good job brainwashing those types by drawing them to RT, which is Russian state propaganda disguised as news and will often have stuff that panders to that sort of fringe Leftist.
(01-06-2017, 01:40 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2017, 05:29 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]Eric, pretty sure King Donald is succeeding Barry I, The Black Prince.
...Dubya Bush was a "King," who ordered up needless wars that killed thousands...
In that case he would be George VI.
(01-19-2017, 02:13 PM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2017, 01:40 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2017, 05:29 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]Eric, pretty sure King Donald is succeeding Barry I, The Black Prince.
...Dubya Bush was a "King," who ordered up needless wars that killed thousands...
In that case he would be George VI.
Not that I remember. There were two USA presidents named George before him; not three.
(01-19-2017, 02:31 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (01-19-2017, 02:13 PM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ] (01-06-2017, 01:40 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (01-05-2017, 05:29 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]Eric, pretty sure King Donald is succeeding Barry I, The Black Prince.
...Dubya Bush was a "King," who ordered up needless wars that killed thousands...
In that case he would be George VI.
Not that I remember. There were two USA presidents named George before him; not three.
Yes and those would be George VI and George V. At the time the US broke off the king was George III. I don't think we ceased to think of ourselves as an English country after the Revolution, so if you want to see presidents as kings (which they sort of are) then it would be natural to continue the regnal numbering.
Had the Brits had offered us Home Rule I think we would have opted for that, and Queen Elizabeth would be our Head of State, as in in Canada. I suspect if it had been up to Parliament, it would have gone that way. But George had other ideas and the king still mattered in those days. After the experience with America, Britain chose differently with the other
white dominions.
(01-19-2017, 03:13 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]You must choose your enemy. This is a 4T. Is your enemy the DNC and Hillary Clinton, who has lost and will never be heard from again?
--is that a promise?
Eric Wrote:Or is it the American Nazis who put Mussolini reborn into power? Which side are you on?
-- neither one of these sides that's for sure
Maryposa, it does not depend on my promise or anyone's promise. Hillary is done; that's just an objective fact. Schultz is not the DNC chair. What's not so clear Maryposa is whether you have moved past these, and where will your heart and action be.
(01-20-2017, 12:24 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Maryposa, it does not depend on my promise or anyone's promise. Hillary is done; that's just an objective fact. Schultz is not the DNC chair. What's not so clear Maryposa is whether you have moved past these, and where will your heart and action be.
-- well not with the Orange Menace that's 4 sure. l'm still with Bernie. Whether he manages to bring the Dems back to what they once were or eventually chucks them for something else, remains 2b seen
I'm not a Dem, btw, & frankly l'm verrrrrrry leary of them. I gotta see how all this rolls b4 l can pick a side
(01-19-2017, 12:42 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-19-2017, 07:58 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ] (01-19-2017, 03:13 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]You must choose your enemy. This is a 4T. Is your enemy the DNC and Hillary Clinton, who has lost and will never be heard from again? Or is it the American Nazis who put Mussolini reborn into power? Which side are you on?
Mayrypoza is one of those "Hate America First" types, the kind that will side with any vile dictator as long as they stick it to "evil AmeriKKKa". Putin has done a good job brainwashing those types by drawing them to RT, which is Russian state propaganda disguised as news and will often have stuff that panders to that sort of fringe Leftist.
We are so overdue for what I would deem a "good Nationalist" Left in this country. Ala FDR and JFK.
To do that we need to somehow overturn the long shadow left by Vietnam, which made that sort of thing unpalatable on the Left.
(01-20-2017, 12:24 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-20-2017, 09:36 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ] (01-19-2017, 12:42 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-19-2017, 07:58 AM)Odin Wrote: [ -> ] (01-19-2017, 03:13 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]You must choose your enemy. This is a 4T. Is your enemy the DNC and Hillary Clinton, who has lost and will never be heard from again? Or is it the American Nazis who put Mussolini reborn into power? Which side are you on?
Mayrypoza is one of those "Hate America First" types, the kind that will side with any vile dictator as long as they stick it to "evil AmeriKKKa". Putin has done a good job brainwashing those types by drawing them to RT, which is Russian state propaganda disguised as news and will often have stuff that panders to that sort of fringe Leftist.
We are so overdue for what I would deem a "good Nationalist" Left in this country. Ala FDR and JFK.
To do that we need to somehow overturn the long shadow left by Vietnam, which made that sort of thing unpalatable on the Left.
Haha! It always rolls back around to S&H!
Long shadow of Vietnam exiting = Boomers having less influence.
We'll need Boomer influence
BIG TIME!
I see and share the concern. Things and needs shift with the times, minds shift, realities beckon, and now I am less of a thorough peacenick than I was in the late 20th century. But a "good nationalist" by definition will heed and remember the lessons of Vietnam, as well as those of WWII. It's not good to get involved in needless wars, and especially wars that are waged against a peoples' revolution, which Vietnamese nationalism was. Somehow the nationalism within countries that promotes freedom and independence is the basis for world peace and cooperation and true global consciousness. True patriotism means respect for and participating in free dissent against wars that are folly. The good nationalism is thus also a good internationalism. The Many highlight the value of the One, and the One brings out the value of the Many. Metaphysical knowledge of principles like that will be seen as part of "good nationalism" too. The value of God and Spirit in that sense is recognized by folks of higher mind. The good nationalism is interdependence, at home, and abroad.
The peace movement is not a Boomer thing; it's an integral part of the world Green Revolution cycle which continues to unfold, in spite of temporary reversals. A balance of national and international interests, is "good nationalism." The right balance of military action or support in concert with allies and the UN, guarding against rogue tyrants, and diplomacy first and war as a last resort only, is shown to be necessary by recent events. The right balance of trade deals that don't emaciate ourselves, but boosts free trade with equal partners and fair trade with others, is good nationalism that's needed now.
Eric, the Donald is a Boomer. We don't need his kind of influence
When boomers say we need boomer influence, we're talking about "boomers like us", not "boomers like them", whoever "them" is.
The problem comes because all the different "like us" boomer groups can never get along. Maybe that's how crises happen, once Idealists are free of the moderating influence of Adaptives.
(01-23-2017, 03:18 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-23-2017, 10:38 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]When boomers say we need boomer influence, we're talking about "boomers like us", not "boomers like them", whoever "them" is.
The problem comes because all the different "like us" boomer groups can never get along. Maybe that's how crises happen, once Idealists are free of the moderating influence of Adaptives.
I can't wait for the Millies to take over politics.
That probably won't happen until the next second turning, at which point the next idealists will have a lot to say about how things go.
Don't Hero genertions take over during the 1T? And the Idealists in the 2T? Might be wrong.
(01-23-2017, 10:38 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]When boomers say we need boomer influence, we're talking about "boomers like us", not "boomers like them", whoever "them" is.
The problem comes because all the different "like us" boomer groups can never get along. Maybe that's how crises happen, once Idealists are free of the moderating influence of Adaptives.
Yes, and we need the "boomers like us" (the blue boomers like me, but better than me) to lead us through the 4T. We disagree with you red boomers, but that's just the nature of the 4T. The crisis is the battle. "Getting along" is not how 4Ts roll. Just ask Gen. Pickett at Cemetery Ridge, or Gen. Washington at Valley Forge.
(01-23-2017, 12:04 AM)Marypoza Wrote: [ -> ]Eric, the Donald is a Boomer. We don't need his kind of influence
No, we don't need a lot of the Boomers. But some of them, yes, we do. The boomer generation is not a monolith, each member just like the others.
And sorry Marypoza, but I think Al Gore and Hillary Clinton would have been good boomer leaders. The blue boomers have not been allowed to lead America.
(01-23-2017, 05:03 PM)flbones too Wrote: [ -> ]Don't Hero genertions take over during the 1T? And the Idealists in the 2T? Might be wrong.
Kennedy was the first GI President, and ushered in the Consciousness Revolution. There was little overlap with the postwar High.
(01-23-2017, 06:30 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-23-2017, 05:03 PM)flbones too Wrote: [ -> ]Don't Hero genertions take over during the 1T? And the Idealists in the 2T? Might be wrong.
Kennedy was the first GI President, and ushered in the Consciousness Revolution. There was little overlap with the postwar High.
If you identify the Consciousness Revolution with the civil rights movement, then you have a point. But culturally, things were still very traditional and conformist during his term. The youth and pop music styles of the 1T continued, although 1963 was a good transitional year. The JFK era had a strongly-humanitarian bent, but was very optimistic, consensus-driven and not yet rebellious, and did not question authority much. The JFK years were the
highest of the post-war high, in fact; easily. The early part was much more unstable, as early 1Ts tend to be, although the controversy (as in other early 1Ts) surrounded the persecution of dissidents tolerated during the 4T.
Of course, in many ways the early 2T (the mid-sixties, the "summer solstice" of the saeculum) were "higher," not the least of which was because young people in droves started getting "high." (now THAT was the real "consciousness revolution"). The humanitarian bent of the "To Kill a Mockingbird" era got more militant with the advent of Malcolm X and the first riots and Freedom Summer. But the passage of the civil rights bill in 1964 was followed by LBJ's massive victory over the cynic Goldwater, and on new years day 1965 LBJ remarked about how wonderful and potentially-great this moment was, just after his landslide election that carried the congress as his great society beckoned ahead of him. The shadow of Vietnam was already there, but the shadows weren't long until over a month later. Nor was the movement Goldwater and Reagan had re-mobilized in 1964 strong enough yet to block him and those of us who honor social justice and prosperity for all.