I doubt that Trump was 'a big fan of Obamacare'.  Even I could see what a train-wreck it was going to be before it went in, and at the time I was a proponent of 'single payer.'  One of the problems with the problem/reaction/solution theme from a humanitarian perspective is the collateral damage it creates both when it fails and when it succeeds.

Health care was to me and is still something I consider to be fundemental aspect of a functional state.  Like a road, it is something which needs to be universally available in order that everyone has an opportunity to succeed in other aspects of life if they choose to try.  The double-edged sword is that like education, it can be 'weaponized' against citizens by the corp/state apparatus as well, but this is drifting off topic.  Suffice it to say, I personally don't equate 'universal health care' to 'socialism' in a simplistic and direct way and Trump may not either.  You are of course free to do as you please but don't blame me for the failures of the Libertarians to gain any traction.

If in some Libertarian economic theory a segment of the population needs to be deprived of health care (or roads or whatever) in order for market forces to perform their voodoo, you are in luck;  even with 'universal access' there are some people who won't use it anyway.  Crazies like me, for instance.

---

vokian in the post above provides a fairly obvious explanation for the tweet if it is not a hoax.  Trump has never been shy about how he played the game in his pre-politician days  I thought about pointing this out but doing so would have been out of sync with the content.

An understanding of 'climate change' involves about 2% physical science with the remaining 98% being a combination of political science, economics, history, etc.

In my observation, the 'skeptics' or 'deniers' who focus on the traditional 'hard science' aspects make quite a good account of themselves.  They have an easier task in this because it is to their benefit to reduce and simplify which is a key to starting the process of understanding.  Their counterparts on the 'consensus' side need to obfuscate and confuse in order to achieve their goals and this puts them at a disadvantage in head-to-head conflicts which, increasingly, the 'consensus' crowd seeks to avoid.

I'll speak for myself, but in some of the things I've heard Trump say, I suspect that he is somewhat in the same boat:

Back when Obama was first elected not a lot was known about him.  I think that the instinctive sentiment of most people was that he at least wished for the country to succeed in the way success was most commonly understood.  It was a rational expectation that Obama would have leveraged his status as 'the first black president' to foster improved cohesion.  When he at best neglected this task I suspect that a lot of thinking people were surprised.

In my observation it became clear very quickly that Obama was going to be a two-term president based on his activities which strongly favored the oligarchy class.  Only later did it start to dawn on me that even if it wasn't his idea to 'destroy be design' the U.S. and he was probably not himself an engineer in the task, he was perfectly willing to do whatever was asked in support of this project.  At that point a thinking person starts to ask 'why?'

One possible contributing factor in understanding Obama's disposition is that he is 'not born here.'  I don't know, and unlike others, I don't care that much.  There are many U.S. born people who 'hate America' just as there are many foreign born people who love it.  So, it's simply not an important factor in trying to unravel the mysteries of Obama's behavior as POTUS.

MS could not have come up with a better list of things which the Democrats are heading AWAY from.  And fast!

That is why I sense that a goodly number of Democrats, and especially us older ones, could find such a platform so appealing that we finally get around to trashing our voter's precinct card and getting another.  Until fairly recently there was no real hope for a preferable option because the alternative was equally repugnant.  IMHO, the 'drift' is more like a water-slide lately and it's carrying both parties in basically the same direction.

BTW, I'm not going to exclude 'radical evangelicals' from my comments about MS's list.  Using that term to describe the eco-fundies and scientismists (both those who hold Dem cards and those who do not) is stunningly appropriate.

Was reading Machiavelli last night.  A simple sounding strategy such as 'Divide, and Conquer' is easier said than done and there are a variety of pitfalls to watch out for.  "Many a slip twixt the cup and the lip.'

Of course our two-party political system is a fraud and a sham and a puppet show evolved over many years with 'divide and conquer' as a key element.  On the other hand so are various other charades as expressed in other 'democratic' nations.  The two party system does produce a certain efficiency which has contributed to our 'sole superpower' status...for better or worse.

I would not rule out the possibility that mistakes have been made by the oligarchy in the frantic struggle against a usurper.  And again, it seems possible to exploit these and cause one of the families of failure that Machiavelli describes.  Seems worth a shot and especially so since the future of our nation really does seem to be on the line...



This would be a very solid foundation upon which to build.  I like simple and straightforward.

Yes indeed!

The Democratic party has shown itself as a honey-pot for all of the slimy neo-cons, crony corporatists, war profiteering leaches, etc from the Republican party.  To a degree these scum, who caused me to never even consider being a Republican, are neatly packaging and labeling themselves 'Never Trumpers'.  This would be a golden opportunity for the Republican party to be re-born since the bottom feeders are self segregating and flocking to the Democratic side on their own.

On top of that, I'm certain that the Democratic party contains a lot of decent people who are very disenchanted.  A 'rebirth' of the Republicans who tried to document and adhere to a better set of principles could probably attract many of these folks.

I think if that were true in a technical sense, I would have heard about it.  It is clear that Trump is quite 'liberal' in a lot of technical ways as am I and as are a lot of his friends.  The modern left have not let go the term 'liberal' and have dragged it behind their politics which are increasingly regressive in practice.

Trump and Sanders are, to me, in the same category: Insurgents.  Both attempted to capture and ride the machinery of the Republican and Democrat parties respectively.  Unfortunately for Sanders, his skill levels did not rise to the level necessary to win his battle.  Trump's did.  Sanders had a somewhat tougher struggle as well since the Democrat machine was more corrupt (e.g., Wasserman-Shultz), more rigged (e.g., 'superdelagates') and generally more efficient.

While Sanders and Trump both had the advantage of popular support in their respective insurgencies, Trump's was much more overwhelming and it includes Dems, Liberals, and Progressives who label themselves as such under older and more technically and logically consistent definitions.

At the end of the day, Sanders runs out the clock in his newly acquired third home on the lake and is unlikely to be heard from again.  Trump (hopefully) goes on to save our nation from it's near-death close call and I hope will also forge the Republican party into a lean, mean fighting machine with elements of real liberalism and progressivism when these are of use in Making America Great Again and trying to keep it that way.

(or Trump turns out to be a phony which is also possible.)

Sort of.  Pro-Jewish and Pro-Israel are not a completely overlapping set, and even then different people have different ideas of what 'pro-' means.

I've read that 'Well, ya, Soros did help round up a Jew or two for the Nazis but his heart wasn't in it and he quit after a few days.'  I wasn't there so I don't know, but he and his organizations are of enough importance to have more complete information if you have it.

A more interesting thing I think I recall reading about Soros was that he was picked up as something of an indigent waif by the Rothschild fam after the war and sent on to school.  I guess there was something they saw in him which they thought may be useful.  If it were that he was a Jew who had no compunction about rounding up other Jews for the gas chamber, that would be interesting to know.  I mean, it would tell us something about both Soros and about the Rothschilds.

Since you are into this sort of thing, what do you think of the current spate of stories that Soros is very much 'against Israel'?

One hypothesis I have is that he is not, but 'the joos' don't want him to give them a black eye as the world wakes up to his games.

Another (favored) one is that he is, or simply doesn't care.  That he's a genuine 'peak oligarch' and Israel is just another entity to use when/where it is useful and discard when it's no longer.  In this way, not unlike Kissinger.  Basically if people can at least assume that these two and others like them (ostensibly Jewish) would have Israel's back when the shit hits the fan, they could leverage the disproportionate power that 'jews' are supposed to posses in various countries.  If it is at some point advantageous to play Israel and it's potential destruction in the process of high priority goals, they would do so.

If Trump is 'working for' anyone, he's certainly not been being reimbursed very well.  Seems to have nearly zero friends in the establishment or corporate world.

I'm still a registered Democrat.  When I registered 30 years ago or so the reasons made sense to me.  To be sure I had some mis-information and mis-conceptions, and various philosophies of mind have shifted.  Sometimes they have done a 180.  'Democrat' is not a dirty word to me, and compared to 'Republican' from back in the day I continue to believe that it is preferable for the timeframe.

Trump was asked back then why he was a Republican and the best he could come up with is 'I don't know.'  Trump was from an earlier generation than I and there had been shifts and upheavals in political party direction between when Trump made his choice and when I did.

Gen. Flynn who nearly became Trump's VP pick seems to be in my situation wrt party affiliation (and demoralization.)

Anyway, the cross-over seen in a lot of Trump's friends and associates is a big plus in my mind.  I like flexibility and adaptability which happens to be the biggest reason I avoid the Libertarians.  They seem hopelessly ossified to me and easily drawn in the wrong direction because of it.

My hope is that win, lose, or draw, the Trump-driven populist movement has pocketed the Republican party and will turn it into something I can actually support to a degree.  Seems possible.

My take is that this is going to be used as cover for the oligarchy to clamp down on our communication freedoms here in the U.S..  'Consensus of the global community...what can ya do?'

As for timing, I doubt that it will take very long.  It was only a couple of years ago that Obama granted the government the ability to kill people using robots here within our borders.  Rand Paul made a big stink about it with his filibuster and the 'consensus' was that he was nuts and the government would NEVER do anything like that.  Nobody really noticed, but a trial run happened in Dallas recently.  The whole thing was probably a hoax, but as and experiment it provided a good deal of feedback, legally it set precident, and socially it started the path to conditioning

Back to nameservice, DNS as currently implemented is a pretty archaic and weak method of addressing.  I sort of welcome an attack on it because something which can veg undeveloped for decades if unmolested can undergo rapid development when attacked.

Addressing in a combat environment is (I'm guessing) one of the things that will cause mesh networks to under-perform on many people's expectations.  It would be healthy to have nameservice attacks so that future developments on this front seek to address this issue.

If/when the internet is locked down, a smallish technical segment of the community will be able to communicate with reasonable freedom basically the next day.  Because there is a powerful desire for freedom of communication, that segment will grow rapidly.  The idea I outlined on the 'up like trump' thread seeks to deal with a situation where a minority, and potentially a fairly small one, can operate with some freedom while the majority cannot. [edit: yet still get information distributed broadly.]

I have stacks of CD's left over.  In fact, I think I still have some re-used AOL floppy disks in a box somewhere (and if Assange's 'insurance.aes256' file was on one and the passphrase was [suddenly, for some reason, made] public, I could probably dig it up...)

But you are right (...in terms of technology although few people of 'distributor' class should have much trouble figuring out how to burn an .iso image to CD.)  That is why I suggested several different size-flavors of image, and I expect that the 16G mem stick would be a common size and form factor at the moment.  If the distributor is 'close' to the consumer, as would be the case as I imagine things, then the decision could be a customized one.

A common attack mode is to bait the adversary into a position favorable to one's own strategy.  Having people rely on cloud-based and real-time delivered data is a good strategy because it introduces a control point.  I think it would be healthy to have a workable alternative in case attacks against this weak point are undertaken right here in 'the land of the free.'

[edit: slight boxed to make a currently relevant point]

Thanks.

Most of my friends and family are squarely in what I and others are now calling the 'regressive left' or 'regressive liberal.'  A strong characteristic of these people are that they are as closed minded as any other group and information which conflicts with their established communications channels is like garlic to a vampire to them.  Very frustrating.

In my mind I was trying to visualize a way that I might give these people a CD containing information without it being contentious and rejected as overtly political.  Something like 'hey guys, let's try to find the free shit' would probably go over better than 'watch this thing designed to make you like someone you already like to hate.'

Further, when one of my family claims that there is 'no proof' of some shitty thing that the Clinton Foundation did, I could say something like 'Yes there is.  Exactly here in that CD I gave you.'

A slight adjustment to the 'winnings' for finding an Easter Egg would be that the winner could choose a charity from a list.  In this way I could say 'if you find an Easter Egg you can help save the whales' and what-not.  This shifts the motivation away from politics and makes participation a tangible thing to non-greedy do-gooders.  Believe it or not, a lot of the 'regressive liberals' do have a heart which is in the right place and are not simple leeches...just highly conditioned and intellectually stunted for lack of information.

Lastly, and I didn't mention it before, but the 'distribution network' is a way for interested people to contribute their time and money to a cause they believe in without simply tapping in a credit card number.  I'd be happy to see all sides build their own distribution networks of such a nature and as I did mention, I believe that such networks could serve us plebs well in the future.  I would also be glad to see them integrate with some of the tools and concepts of distributed crypto-currency system and suspect tha it would happen naturally because the challenges to both are a good fit.

Well, whadaya know.  CiaNN couldn't resist trying to do a smear on the Foley thing and formed a panel to try to make hay of it.  As usual, mostly mouth-breathers which produced the following presented for the enjoyment of the reader:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK72xhmEmxM

Plant the tree, come back later and harvest the fruit

Gee, ya think?

This is why the Dems selection of Kaine was of critical interest (to me.)  Clear globalist butt-boy.  As you know, I've thought from my own personal day 1+4, half a year ago, that Clinton won't even be there as POTUS and I continue to believe it likely that she won't make it to the election.

I hope that Trump can use a replacement event of Hillary to pull one of his own and swap Flynn for Pence.  Manafort and the Republican convention are behind us and thus so is Pences' utility in my opinion.

To be perfectly honest I would like to see a genuine military coup if the alternate was a blatant theft of the election by the globalists via rigging and fraud, and especially if it involved the assassination of Trump.  It would be hard for me to believe that the military and paramilitary command structures do not have a fair bit of respect for Gen. Flynn.  I'd certainly take my chances with the Military general staff as corrupt as a lot of them are over either the Dem or Repub establishment who are obviously in bed with the multi-national globalists and on-board with their plans.

My take on this particular 'hack' is that it is not really much of anything.  Just documents on their intranet and stuff which was fairly widely distributed to operatives and others anyway.  It is not much different in nature to what Manning pilfered and not very 'classified.'

That said, it is abundantly clear that Soros' workings are expansive and very very ugly.  Many Soros employed people with access to much better internal information must be out there and must be realizing the nature of the Pandora's box that their efforts have opened up.  Particularly because the people who they probably thought they were 'helping' when they signed on are the ones who will be being hurt the most and many of whom already have been.

I anticipate a flood of real information from the bowels of the various Soros efforts eventually and I'm surprised that it has not happened more already.  My faith in humanity will be further damaged if we don't see it.

Idea that I 'slept on' last night.

Trump is totally right when he says that he's not running against Hillary as much as he is running against the mainstream media.  Clinton is a highly flawed candidate who may not even last another 80 days for health reasons alone, not to mention the very problematic fallout from her being the embodiment of corruption and treason.

Trump had his way with 'the media' (which is synonymous with 'the globalists' due to corporate governance realities) early on because they were greedy for eyeballs in competition with one another.  Now they realize the extreme danger that Trump poses and they are organized as a unified team.  I've never seen anything like it!

The biggest thing coming up are the debates.  The globalist expect to lose based on a variety of factors including Hillary's many weak points and Trump's proven record of performance (which seemed to have surprise even him.)  We can already see the globalist side trying to limit and bury the damage which is promised them.  What will tend to happen is that most people will see a 'recap' of the debates in the news cycle declaring Hillary the winner, and we've see touches of this in the last few elections.  Doesn't matter if she spent the entire debate writhing on the floor in a seizure; she'll still be advertised as the winner.  It's do or die for the mainstream media and they will pull out all the stops.

It will be tricky to overcome this problem.  Here is an idea:

Release information 'packets' and build a distribution network of interested citizens.  Basically incentivize some individuals to act as active distributors and incentivize even more to act as active consumers.  Here's an idea of how:

Release serial numbered ISO images from a server network.  Various things would be included in the images, but the main one would be the complete footage of the debate.

Embedded in the footage and ISO images would be a variety of 'Easter eggs'.  An example would be like when Trump did his Pepe the Frog pose.  I would pack up these 'Easter eggs' into a file and sign the text before hand so it couldn't be tampered with.  Just a list of things that Trump might try to do if possible.

Those who find and report 'Easter eggs' would be entered into a pools for drawings.  The serial number of the original ISO would allow both the distributor and the reporter to achieve a payout.

I would have each event have a set of different sized ISO images depending on the available media.  CD, DVD, 16G thumb drive, etc.  The extra space would be used to distributed general background information and presentations.  Also perhaps 'dead man switch' packages of the type which protect Assange and Snowden.  References to such info could be addresses as, say, 'D1L_Ffoobar_12:36'  (Debate: #1 Large, File: foobar, at 12 minutes 36 seconds.)

These ISO's would be kicking around in enough places that they could not be memory-holed.  Win, lose, or draw, those who continue the fight which Trump started would have some material in their arsenal.

---

I would note that while getting the debates in raw form to the voters is a goal, it is not even the most important one as I see it.  The real goal is to start a vialble information distribution network which does not rely on unrestricted access to the internet.

I have noted that one of the key fascinations of at least some of the top movers and shakers among the globalist crowd are in how China does certian things, and managing information flows to the citizenry is one of them.  They display a palpable envy in some cases.

If there is a seed of truth to the concept of 'American Exceptionalism', it is our respect for freedom of speech and of thought relative to many other parts of the world.  Those who layed down the framework of our nation were especially influenced by this concept and the residuals linger to this day.  The problem from the oligarchy class is to strip these things away without panicking the flock.  Ultimately there will come a point where our freedoms in this regard will be more dangerous than the operation of removing them.  Corporate media consolidation was a method but the recent election has made the media burn their ammo supply to fast and they are rapidly losing the trust necessary to sustain.  I believe that it is inevitable that an inflection point will occur and we will move rapidly toward much more restricted and controlled forms of information flow.  My idea here is, as much as anything, to try to set up for this inflection point.

Another couple suggestions for the Trump team:

Regularly 'talk right past' Hillary and near-directly to Kaine.  The idea is to make it seem pretty clear that it is known by everyone that if Hillary even gets to the start of her first term it is unlikely that she will make it to the end as a realistic and capable president.  Of course take any challenge on this as an opportunity to drive the point home of her limited shelf-life and talk about Clinton's and Kaine's interchangeability on most critical subjects such as TPP anyway.

I do agree with Nichols idea that it would play well for Trump himself to be ultra-nice about Hillary's unfortunate physical condition and her potential mental condition as well.  Maybe even admonish 'others' for being cruel as they continue to dig at the health issue.

I would be very gracious and allow Clinton to be comfortably seated during the debates, and even encourage it if she feels that she can perform better in that configuration.  If the Clinton side demands that Trump be seated as well, make sure that a loophole remains that he can 'stretch his legs' given that he is a fit and active person.  It would be great to see Trump pacing around making points while Clinton remains seated.  Also stipulate that bathroom breaks (or complete retirement) of either candidate can be used by the other to interact with the crowd.

---

BTW, I never even heard Hillary's enemies mention that at the rally with Biden in Scranton, Hillary spoke briefly to introduce Biden then sat down while Uncle Chester Biden rambled on for an hour.  Isn't that kind of backward?  I mean, the old creeper isn't running for anything...or is he???

Recently 'Dr. Drew' called into question the meds which Hillary is on.  I guess the guy is one of those mainstream doctor dudes.  I'd not heard of him because I don't do much mainstream media stuff, but it sounds like he is no fringe dude.

Anyway, Dr. Drew called attention to Hillary's use of 'ArmourThyroid'.  This is ground up pig glands, and the 'Armour' part comes from the meat packing company who has good access to pig organs.  I only know this because some time ago I tried to figure out what would take to keep a thyroid deficient person alive in a collapse scenario.  Dr. Drew says that it's medicine 'from the 1950's and that various more modern options with fewer side effects are available.  Why is she on it?

One hypothesis is that she has some allergy or some other reaction to the more modern thyroid replacement options.  If so, it sounds unusual and interesting.

Another hypothesis is that Hillary wished to avoid more modern pharmaceutical options because she doesn't trust them.  Perhaps Hillary believes that many of these modern pharma options are designed to send the patient into an expensive and unpleasant death spiral which enriches the medical-industrial complex.  If so, Hillary and I are thinking along the same lines.

---

Moving on to more esoteric quasi-medical things, it is interesting that the long held occultist beliefs that 'young blood' can be of use to the rich and powerful seems to be being mainstreamed.  With 'science'!

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/04/can-we-reverse-ageing-process-young-blood-older-people

http://www.inc.com/jeff-bercovici/peter-thiel-young-blood.html

(Parenthetically, the characters in these stories, including Thiel, lend some strength to the idea that if someone appears outwardly to be a deranged and dangerous freak, they may well be.)

Anyway, I just got to wondering if, given Hillary's unusual blood coagulation issues and rumored interest in the occult, maybe she had been puttering around with this 'young blood' stuff.

The 'buzz' today seems to be a reasonably well implemented set of sculptures of Donald Trump:



I approve!  One of Alinski's 'rules for radicals' had to do with 'ridicule'.  In his famous handbook, Alinsky, like Machievelli, Tzu, etc, was mostly describing basic concepts which are pretty universal.  'Radical' does not necessarily apply to one side or another.  Both sides of any conflict can and do use these principles and concepts to their advantage.

Another of Alinsky's rules had to do with 'hypocrisy'.

The wonderful Trump statue opens the door for a variety of equally delightful 'art' from the other side of the isle.  Off hand, I can think of several:

 - A comparable statue of Hillary sporting her catheter and urine bag.

 - 'Kinetic art' showing Hillary going into a seizure and being shot up with a diazapan pen by her handler.

 - Kinetic art 'celebrating' Joe Biden's dry-hump attempt on Hillary.  Or old Chester Biden attempting to diddle some hapless senator's child.

 - Elizabeth 'Pocahontas' Warren doing a ceremonial Indian dance to get into school ahead of equally white competition,