"the October Surprise"

[woodsmoke]

Trump Haters turn away. but...

Observe the ABSOLUTELY OVER THE TOP enthusiasm of this woman, a new, legal, citizen from Cuba who is doing the prayer.

1:17:12

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIKNSZ_Nf3w

if it is a "squeaker" she is just typical of the people who will think that the "election is rigged".
woodsmoke

[Qqmike]

She's not the only creature who is "enthusiastic" about Trump. KKK is also enthused. Some who are enthused are praising him for a start to legitimatize the possibility of an alt-Right political party.
https://www.google.com/search?client...utf-8&oe=utf-8

[GreyGeek]

She's not the only creature who is "enthusiastic" about Trump. KKK is also enthused. ...

The KKK was created by Southern Democrats, not Southern Republicans, Blacks or conservatives, who were hunted, shot and killed by the KKK. The first presidential election I voted in was Goldwater v Johnson in 1964. The Democrat political ads said that if I voted for Goldwater there would be war. (You may have seen the ad, a little girl picking pedals off of a daisy while saying "he will, he won't ...", and ends with a nuclear explosion). I voted for him and they were right, there was war. Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and used that lie to start aggressions against the Communists in Viet Nam. At the same time, the KKK was going around offering its support for Goldwater, who rejected it. Just like today, with provocateurs planted at Trump rallies to foment trouble that the press could blame on Trump, the KKK in the 1960s was considered an undercover tool of the Democrats. Also, during the 60's and 70's, the TV industry pitched in, painting Republicans and conservatives as knuckle dragging Neanderthals: Major Burns in Mash, Archie Bunker in All In The Family, The Jeffersons, etc.... The lead characters are always portrayed as extremely intelligent, loving, caring individuals whose personal philosophies are basically socialists. Ergo, conservatives are fools and socialists are smart. The movies were worse.

When I was in college one of the core classes I had to take was Civics. A semester long assignment was to read five national news sources a week and give oral reports on the articles I read. That started my habit of reading NYT, LA Times, Time, Life and others. I watched TV news religiously. My favorite was ABC World News Tonight with Frank Reynolds and Max Robinson (before Peter Jennings showed up). During most of Robinson's tenure, ABC News used the Westar satellite to feed Robinson's segment of WNT from Chicago to New York. TVRO receiver earth stations were also coming into use at the time, and anyone who knew where to find the satellite feeds could view the feed. In the early 80s I was setting up a satellite dish and it was focused on Westar, which I used with one other satellite to align the tracking.

Suddenly I heard "Hail to the Chief" from the 12" TV I used to observe the signal. Recently elected Pres. Reagan was attending a NOW convention to give a speech and received a LONG standing ovation as he walked onto the stage. Perhaps 10 minutes or more. He spoke for about 15 minutes and as his custom was he punctuated his talk with several jokes. All but one received hearty laughs. He concluded his speech and left the stage to another standing ovation, long, but not as long as his first. Since I was watching the ABC news feed I got to watch Reynolds and Robinson discuss how to present the story in such a way as to fit what was obviously a preconceived agenda. I was stunned. What they gave as the news "story" to Reagan's visit was this: "Reagan received mixed reviews at the NOW convention today", and they showed a clip of the only joke that didn't get a laugh. Then they had Elenore Shmeal (sp?) talk for 1:47 about how Reagan was going to grab women by the hair and drag them back into the stone age! For the next year the only news I watched were the satellite news feeds.

Every news organization was doing the same thing, with the same slant. When the suits at ABC and the others got wind of it they put scramblers on their news feeds. That started a small business in EPROM de-scramblers, so the news corps got Congress to pass a law that using importing, making or using de-scramblers was illegal.

Wikileaks has pointed out very clearly that "the key national reporters" were in the tank for Hillary.

[GreyGeek]

This is downright disgusting and evil

[Qqmike]

Media related issue ... It sure seems clear that the media played a major role in creating this Trump phenomenon/monster by focusing so much attention on him, especially early on. Trump himself said so in an interview; something along the lines of, I get all the media attention I want. All I have to do is call up a reporter and they give me [free] air time.

Did the media create Trump?
https://www.google.com/search?client...utf-8&oe=utf-8

[GreyGeek]

It's obvious he played them like a violin. Inviting them to what they thought was a presser, only to be presented with four victims which they studiously avoiding writing about in the past, except in a negative way if they wrote about them at all. In her ad Hillary says:

"I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault. Don't let anyone silence your voice. You have a right to be heard, and a right to be believed. We're with you"

[woodsmoke]

GG wrote

The KKK was created by Southern Democrats,

I will insert that KENNEDY put us into Viet-Nam with.....ahem..........advisors...

Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident and used that lie to start aggressions against the Communists in Viet Nam.

And WHO got us out? NIXON

Following his election, President Nixon began to withdraw American troops from Vietnam in June 1969

BUT THE MEDIA AND THE LEFTIES SAY THAT VIET NAM WAS.........."Nixon's war".


At the same time, the KKK was going around offering its support for Goldwater, who rejected it. Just like today, with provocateurs planted at Trump rallies to foment trouble that the press could blame on Trump, the KKK in the 1960s was considered an undercover tool of the Democrats.


I was in ......a bar............and the topic of the Ferguson riots came up and .....with no prodding....

THE BARKEEP volunteered..........."Hey, you guys know. "john doe"... right? He's being paid by the Democrats in Springfield with two way tickets and a bunch of cash to go up and riot at Ferguson."

The next week I had decided to drop in again and a guy said, "Hey, you missed out on the free drinks! "john doe" was in yesterday and had made so much money rioting that he was buying for everybody at the bar!" :0



BILL CLINTON said:

We come to celebrate and give thanks for the remarkable life of J. William Fulbright, a life that changed our country and our world forever and for the better. . . .

In the work he did, the words he spoke and the life he lived, Bill Fulbright stood against the 20th century’s most destructive forces and fought to advance its brightest hopes.

So spoke President William J. Clinton in 1995 of a man

(who) was among the 99 Democrats in Congress to sign the “Southern Manifesto” in 1956. (Two Republicans also signed it.)

The Southern Manifesto declared the signatories’ opposition to the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education and their commitment to segregation forever.

Fulbright was also among those who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That filibuster continued for 83 days.

Democrats Racist History

But....it is actually MUCH more complicated than that:

geography gets involved in rather curious ways....

To sum up the part before below...

As the south became less racist it became more Republican

and

Today, the transformation is nearly complete.

President Obama carried only 18% of former Confederate states, while taking 62% of non-Confederate states in 2012.

Only 27% of southern senators are Democrats, while 62% of Union state senators are Democrats. And 29% of southern members in the House are Democrats compared to 54% in states or territories that were part of the Union.

Thus, it seems to me that minorities have a pretty good idea of what they are doing when joining the Democratic party.

They recognize that the Democratic party of today looks and sounds a lot more like the Democratic party of the North that with near unity passed the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 than the southern Democrats of the era who blocked it,

and today would, like Strom Thurmond, likely be Republicans.

above from the British paper The Guardian

UNfortunately, it seems the the media have little clue about REAL history and the liberals have selective memory, AS DO THE conservatives.

woodpragmatist/populistsmoke

[whatthefunk]

All this pointless blaming isn't going to make our country any better. Republicans did this! Democrats did that! Like a bunch of little kids. Im so sick of it.

[Qqmike]

All this pointless blaming isn't going to make our country any better. Republicans did this! Democrats did that! Like a bunch of little kids.

Ain't that the zhit'n truth.

Anyone can research anything and make a case for anything. Are there no absolute standards of procedure, protocol, format, presentation, documentation? Random noise from human brain. Now toss in the half-truths/lies, whack-jobs, and photoshopping on Internet sources, and, well, just "and" ...

That's why in academia we have peer-reviewed standards for scholarly articles that really are designed to further the established "truth" in a field of study.

[GreyGeek]

Comey searched 650,000 emails in eight days to determine that they contained no incriminating evidence.
https://www.wired.com/2016/11/yes-do...ls-eight-days/

It is entirely possible to search those emails in ONE day using proper forensic tools and hashing.

HOWEVER, their speed with 650,000 emails (so quickly right before the election) makes a lie out of Comey's 1+ year searching through a mere 30,000 emails because "such a search is a long, detailed and complex process".



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GreyGeek]

...

That's why in academia we have peer-reviewed standards for scholarly articles that really are designed to further the established "truth" in a field of study.

Having done and published research into anti-cancer metabolites, and perfected the steps to produce a broad spectrum anti-biotic active at 1mg/L, I am very familiar with the "scholarly" process. I can still clearly remember the anxiety I felt after I sent off my thesis for publication, hoping that it would be published before someone else working in the same field published a similar or identical work. It was "publish or parish" and if someone published identical work before you then your only recourse was to go back to the beginning and start over on a new project. A co-student from Korea was waiting for her work to published, after submitting it, and just days before it was scheduled to be published in the journal she chose a nearly identical work appeared in another journal. She was heartbroken, but her thesis committee voted to award her the degree anyway because it was only a matter of days and she could not have benefited from that newly published research. Understandable. My thesis was only 52 pages long. A friend of mine, an English major, had a thesis which as over 350 pages. I was asked how I could "get away" with publishing such a short paper. I opened a copy of my thesis to one page, on which was the pathway for the elucidation of 3-Amino-3,5-dihydro-1-hydroxycarbostyril, which had no effect on cancer cells but was an excellent and safe broad spectrum anti-biotic. "That page", I said, "took me one year to write. How long have you be working on your 350 page paper?"

The much touted processes of peer-review and replication leave much to be desired and is often put forward as a smoke screen to hide unethical or even criminal behavior. In a NOVA episode titled "Do Scientists Cheat" two scientists working for the NIH reported that 48% of all published research involves cherry-picking, trimming, padding and cooking of the data. That is just some of the ways research can indicate misconduct if not outright fraud.

Recalling from my aging memory (you'll have to watch all 7 parts to get the facts), in one instance a world renown child behaviorist, who was the top ranked psychiatrist for 30 years and on his reputation several drugs and behavioral modifications were the "gold standard" treatment for behavioral problems, was revealed to be a cheat after his death when his maid found hidden journals which revealed his deception. Only then did another scientist in the same field "discover" that in most of his published works he had the identical margins of error to the same decimal point. Another PhD had his degree revoked after a colleague blew the whistle on his research. That research involved heart medicine.

Peer-review can get lucky, but "Peer-reviewed standards" didn't catch these crooks. The fact is that RARELY does anyone receive a grant to replicate the work of another. Most grants come from the government and the government doesn't give grants to test the validity of the "CO2 triggering" mechanism or any other challenge to AGW, for example. The FIOA emails from the CRU in Britain showed collusion to replace editors of climate journals with people supportive of AGW, and Mann and Jones were successful in stuffing the peer-review panels with their own colleagues. Articles from scientists which exposed flaws in AGW never had a chance. The CRU debacle is especially egregious because in the 2009 FOIA docs are proof that Mann and Jones signed a contract with the IPCC to deliver proof of AGW before any research was done or data collected, in exchange for money. The actual word doc contract gives "milestones" (their words) for when "proof" would be delivered and monies paid.

Then there is the Peltdown man debacle. From 1912 to 1953 it was the "missing link" in the evolution of man. Several received PhD extending the proof of its validity. It wasn't till after it was proven to be a hoax that its history was re-written to leave the impression that scientists were always doubtful of its authenticity. And it wasn't a peer-reviewed journal that exposed its as a fake, it was Time magazine. It would be like scientists in 2066 pointing to Richard S Lidzen from MIT, who was for 30 years the world recognized leader in climatology, until he refused to hop aboard the AGW train, as proof that "most" scientists didn't accept AGW.

How can science be so wrong for so long? AGW is a replication of another paradigm of science: Lysenkoism. When science gets political it goes off the rails.

The whistle blowers in the NOVA episode? To a person each has regretted blowing the whistle on wrong doing by their colleagues because it destroyed their careers and reputations as well. And the two NIH scientists whose own research into the fallacy that peer-review and replication keep scientists honest? They were both removed from their posts and assigned meaningless desk jobs in remote locations. One in Alaska, I've forgotten where the other one was assigned.

[Qqmike]

my impression of the current issue ...
I don't think it is so much the usual Democrat vs Republican divide that is primary in this election (it may be a strong secondary, though). I think one way or another, it comes down to the disturbing issue started in August 2016:
https://www.google.com/search?client...utf-8&oe=utf-8
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/a-ne...-world-leader/

People with that personality can be great artists, entertainers, and such. Now, at some level, many Americans--including fellow GOPs--sense that possibly there may be something that isn't quite right with the candidate. And, as explained in many of those links, such a personality when placed in a position of power can quickly change from being benign to being unpredictable and dangerous.

One thing's for damned sure: Something is not quite right.

All you have to do is grab today's news clips, see the childish, irrational reaction he has about the FBI. First the FBI is corrupt and the system is corrupt. Then it's not, it's great and working! Now, today, another flip-flop. And more crazy statements, like I WILL win ... [or else? else what?] ... we must watch the voting sites very closely ... and so on. And at age 70.

Frankly, I'm really not comfortable thinking about this too much. It really is disturbing. It won't be disturbing if he remains a non-politician, a businessman, even the mayor of some small town. He might possibly make contributions at that level--wealth building. And, frankly, I would like to see some sane person step in to the political realm, not fully aligned with party, get elected, and turn things around in D.C. But not this one, not on this round.

Mental illness is scary, because we don't fully understand it; but, then, it usually can't be understood very well. You know this if you've ever had a problem yourself, or if you have had friends or relatives with problems.

THAT, imo, is what really makes people uneasy about this election round, not so much the Republican-Democrat thing, although that--as always--is certainly in play, too.

I don't know. How do you guys read this whole deal?

[TWPonKubuntu]

Qqmike; At the real risk of talking about politics (looking over my shoulder and checking that the phone is off-hook and the door locked) we have only two "choices". I believe it a given that this "race" is controlled by those who seek continued positions of power outside of the limelight of the press. The actual election is just "bread and circus" for the voters.

I would prefer to see Trump "win" this election, but only because the alternative, Clinton, is too obviously involved in illegal, shady and criminal acts. Since you raise the question of, if I may paraphrase: "mental stability", neither candidate has a clean slate here.

Given the world situation(s) which will need to be addressed by the "winner", I fear what Clinton would try to do (be allowed to do), less MORE than I worry about how Trump might attack the same problems. Clinton looks mentally and physically unstable, while Trump just looks bombastic. Trump has experience, while Clinton has money and obligations attached to that money.

Whichever is anointed, we will find out whether we are screwed by being thrown in the fire, or slow boiled like the proverbial frog.

There is no clear choice, only options which are better or worse.

We will be informed sometime in the next couple of days, please direct your attention to the big screen when "Big Brother" announces the final selection. Celebrations will be in all the usual places and cake will be available. Don't drink the coolaid...

[GreyGeek]

I just read an interesting explanation as to why Comey didn't file charges against Hillary. The idea is that Comey believes Trump will be elected so if Comey charges Hillary now Obama would pardon her and she could never be charged again. Interesting.

PS- Narcissism appears to be a requirement for politicians, reporters, TV personalities and movie stars these days.

DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include these features:

• Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance
• Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
• Exaggerating your achievements and talents
• Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
• Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people
• Requiring constant admiration
• Having a sense of entitlement
• Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations
• Taking advantage of others to get what you want
• Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
• Being envious of others and believing others envy you
• Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner

Those attributes can be applied equally to both candidates. Both are insufferable.
Both exaggerate their achievements and talents, although Trump has made billions in business. To a Lefty that disqualifies him. Hillary has made millions via her "Foundation" in a pay for play scheme that would get ordinary folks charged, convicted and jailed.

As Orwell said, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". I know what I am getting with Hillary, and her record is, to say the least, scary. She is a pathological liar who has been caught in lies too many times, which should disqualify her as a candidate, but she's the media's anointed one, so they suck it up and spread the manure. The sheeple eat it up because, frankly, they don't care. Keep the games, porn and gov handouts coming and they're happy.

Look at all the self-worshiping that is taking place now. People think nothing of posting naked selfies on their websites for others to admire and praise, regardless of how repulsive the selfies are. We are a nation of narcissistic people. Lovers of selves and of pleasure.

It doesn't matter who gets elected. The party train is going off the rails because the country is so deep in debt (19 Trillion and counting) that either we or the next generation will have to repudiate the debt and create a full blown world wide depression, or live in abject poverty for the next two or three hundred years, or both. More than likely civil unrest, spontaneous or created by narcissistic politicians wanting to remain in power ad infinitum, will "force" them to suspend all rights and create a dictatorship. More than likely along Marxist principles, for the sake of the children, as tyranny is often peddled.

[Qqmike]

I just read an interesting explanation as to why Comey didn't file charges against Hillary. The idea is ...

This sort of thing is what I'm talking about: pure fiction. The Internet is full of this stuff. I know. I've been reading it daily since the start of the primaries. There is so much misinformation, hearsay, innuendo, and downright lies afloat. Check out the many stories and conjectures about Trump (his life, personal life, businesses, financials)--they are far worse than those about Hillary. The Clinton's are simply career politicians, turned entrepreneurs, made some money, playing the game, making $100k to give a speech--so what--all fairly harmless. Fair? Right? No one said it is. But they are doing what politicians do, what politicians have always done. They are known factors, predictable.

Palen's daughter, giving speeches about family planning and responsible sex and such -- at one time hitting $15k per speech? WTH is that?! It's a game. Status quo. Nothing new. Stinks.