U.S. Politics, Elections & Culture issues

[Phoenix]

Another scalp for the anti-establishment movement in the western world...

[Risto the Great]

Lesson here is not to piss off the FBI.

I am hoping Trump mandates worldwide Miss Universe contests in every suburb!

[vicsinad]

I do not think this was an anti-establishment vote. Clinton did win the popular vote. Only by about 150,000, but she still won it. That may change by a few thousand, but I still think she secured this. Essentially, the American people did vote for the establishment.

Probably about 2/3s of Trump supporters showed up because of either anti-establishment or "lesser of two evils" beliefs. That was not enough to secure him the election. Of my extended family and friends who voted Trump, the common themes I heard for voting for Trump were: immigration, Muslims, guns, gays and black lives matter. There were some others who were part of the auto-unions who believe that Trump is going to bring back tons of manufacturing jobs (completing shunning the Democrats who bailed them out and actually saved their jobs). Some others were against minimum wage increases and healthcare insurance. Most just liked that he "calls it like it is," whatever that means.

Anyway, this guy Trump is the one who believed and led the movement spewing that Obama was a Muslim not born in the US and was going to bring Sharia Law to the US. The core base who followed him and these beliefs for the past 8 years are the ones who got him elected. Sure, they may be anti-establishment in some of their views, but they are also quite idiotic, racist and bigoted.

I'm glad I live in the state who had the smallest % of people vote for Trump, but still managed to elect a Republican as governor by a wide margin. Can see past bullshit on both sides of the aisle.

The Democrats were too arrogant in believing that Clinton had this in the bag. She was a terrible choice to follow Obama as the Democrat nominee. Too wrapped up in controversy, not inspiring, and out of touch with both minority voters and the youth.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I do not think this was an anti-establishment vote. Clinton did win the popular vote. Only by about 150,000, but she still won it. That may change by a few thousand, but I still think she secured this. Essentially, the American people did vote for the establishment.

Clinton may win the popular vote by that very slim and negligible margin but she (at 48%) doesn't have a clear majority share of the 125.5 million voters. If you combine all of the non-Clinton votes then the result would appear decidedly anti-establishment.

The core base who followed him and these beliefs for the past 8 years are the ones who got him elected. Sure, they may be anti-establishment in some of their views, but they are also quite idiotic, racist and bigoted.

Some of them are, no doubt, but Trump also swayed many voters who had previously voted for Obama, so I don't think those who could be classified as racist bigots had enough numbers to make a serious impact alone. In any case, if Clinton won it would have made history. But a Trump victory, in spite of all the opposition he received from the establishment, media, banks, corporations, etc is also historic. Time will tell if it's a good thing.

[vicsinad]

Clinton may win the popular vote by that very slim and negligible margin but she (at 48%) doesn't have a clear majority share of the 125.5 million voters. If you combine all of the non-Clinton votes then the result would appear decidedly anti-establishment.

Some of them are, no doubt, but Trump also swayed many voters who had previously voted for Obama, so I don't think those who could be classified as racist bigots had enough numbers to make a serious impact alone. In any case, if Clinton won it would have made history. But a Trump victory, in spite of all the opposition he received from the establishment, media, banks, corporations, etc is also historic. Time will tell if it's a good thing.

I think voter intents is just as -- if not more so -- important in determining if this was an anti-establishment vote. Even if a healthy majority of the people who voted for Trump (2/3) voted because of anti-establishment beliefs, that does not mean this was a victory for an anti-establishment platform moving forward. Many establishment and party Republicans voted Trump because they were anti-Clinton, anti-Democrat, or just vote pro-Republican all the time. Of course the racists/bigots couldn't have done it alone, but Trump couldn't have won without out them.

He is surrounding himself with establishment people -- Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, etc. People will very quickly see how much of a fraud and a liar he truly is. He has stoked deep divide and hatred in this country. As for the media being against him, I don't remember a candidate having ever received as much coverage as Trump got. Inadvertently, the media handed him this election.

My prediction is that time will relatively quickly show how much of a bad thing this was. A very terrible decision. But the pendulum swings.

[Soldier of Macedon]

Of course the racists/bigots couldn't have done it alone, but Trump couldn't have won without out them.

I think that is an overstatement of the effectiveness of those racists/bigots. If they were so influential and numerical, why weren't they galvanised to vote against and defeat America's first black president in the last two elections? Surely such a cause would have been more important to their warped ideology than voting in another 'white guy' this time around.

He has stoked deep divide and hatred in this country.

I understand he has said some distasteful things. But I also think his lack of political experience and political correctness led him to say some things in a way in which he would later regret. Can you mention a statement of his in particular that crossed the line for you?

As for the media being against him, I don't remember a candidate having ever received as much coverage as Trump got.

Receiving coverage is a general statement. Let's be specific, the overwhelming majority of coverage he received was negative. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Journalistic integrity flew out the window in the U.S (and, for that matter, in Australia as well) as most media outlets were either openly supportive or sympathetic to Clinton.

On a side note, do you think Sanders would have fared better against Trump?

[vicsinad]

I think that is an overstatement of the effectiveness of those racists/bigots. If they were so influential and numerical, why weren't they galvanised to vote against and defeat America's first black president in the last two elections? Surely such a cause would have been more important to their warped ideology than voting in another 'white guy' this time around.

Many of them did come out to vote against Obama. But the minority vote didn't come out for Clinton. Let's take two places she lost that made a big difference. In Detroit, black voter turnout was down by 80,000 compared to 2012. If those 80,000 would have turned out for her, she would have not lost Michigan by 12,000. She lost Wisconsin by 30,000 votes and black voters were down by over 50,000 compared to the previous election. On that same token, in crucial states like Pennsylvania and Florida, the youth vote was down compared to the turnout for Obama. The bigots and racists came out in droves against Obama just like they did now.

I just talked with my cousin on the phone, where the vigilante intimidation has already started in Chicago. His coworker is a first generation Mexican-American who was cornered by two white guys on her way to work and they threatened her with deportation. Trump has giving these people fuel to act in a way other Republicans haven't. This will increase around the country hundred-fold. This election was not a mandate for anti-establishment governance. That's a mask and it will soon lift within the next two years and we will see these right-wing movements for what they really are at their core.

I understand he has said some distasteful things. But I also think his lack of political experience and political correctness led him to say some things in a way in which he would later regret. Can you mention a statement of his in particular that crossed the line for you?

There are bunch of things that he said that have created divide; whether deservedly or not, they have. They can be attributed to his lack of political correctness, but that does not negate the effect they have had, and are having, on society. Such as: A temporary ban on all Muslims coming into the country; wanted to create a database to keep track of Muslims in the US; said an American born Mexican judge can't be impartial because he's Mexican; Mexico sending their criminals and rapists and that perhaps some might be good people; Obama's birth certificate is a fraud; that he'll build a wall and make Mexico pay for it; the countless misogynistic and sexist remarks; women should be punished for having abortions...these things crossed the line in the sense that they divided people not on issues but on categories and classes such as religion, race, gender, etc.

Receiving coverage is a general statement. Let's be specific, the overwhelming majority of coverage he received was negative. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Journalistic integrity flew out the window in the U.S (and, for that matter, in Australia as well) as most media outlets were either openly supportive or sympathetic to Clinton.

In Donald's view, bad coverage is better than no coverage. Or in his own words: "You know, it really doesn't matter what the media write as long as you got a young, beautiful piece of ass." But seriously, negative coverage is better than no coverage. Still, the coverage was fairly accurate. That it was negative was his own making. Did left-wing media tilt to Clinton? Yes. Did right wing media tilt to Donald? Some did, some didn't. But when you suggest that the media host of a debate has blood coming out of her eyes and vagina, you're not doing yourself any favors in the media regarding positive coverage. Still, the coverage gave him access to the living room of millions of families every night.

On a side note, do you think Sanders would have fared better against Trump?

Yes. He would have gotten out much more youth. He also would have pulled a category of Trump supporters who were anti-free trade and pro-US manufacturing. Many union workers who supported Bernie skipped Hillary and went to Trump. Bernie would have won by a couple million votes.

[Phoenix]

Vic,

I still think it was largely an anti-establishment vote.
No candidate screams "establishment" more so than Hillary Clinton.
Through the controversial activities of the 'B, H & C Clinton Foundation' and it's alleged generation of some 2 billion USD of 'donations' from corporate America and foreign governments alike it's hard to call it anything other than an 'establishment' cause.

Then there's the Clinton's talons fully embedded into the heart of the DNC

I think it's an absolute affront to democracy itself to have the wife of a former president on the verge of winning the highest office herself.

If the 'establishment' is generally considered the "...conventional social, political, and economic principles of a society...", I think the election platform of Donald Trump could clearly be termed anti-establishment...he had clearly campaigned against accepted social, political and economic norms, not so with Hillary Clinton who never deviated from the status quo.

Whether Trump lives up to a single election promise is yet to be seen, I doubt he will but his campaign was designed from Day 1 to set himself apart from the Washington crowd.

Trump needs to be given credit for the way he read the American public and got to the heart of THEIR issues...that's exactly what's driving the anti-establishment movement in the Western world....the 'unwashed masses' are sick of the bullshit, the erosion of their living standards, the general acceptance of 2 speed economies and the growing divide between the rich and everyone else in most of the world.

At the end of the day...Trump appealed to many traditional Democrat voters, those voters from the 'rust belt' and even the Latinos who are living legally in the USA, whilst many, particularly the left leaning media in the USA saw Clinton a long way over on the right side of the political dial due to her Wall Street connections...

Whether you like him or not, Trump is a fuckin genius at this moment...he was ridiculed at every single stage and he's walked away with the top prize...either Trump is a genius or most Americans are imbeciles...time will tell.

[vicsinad]

I'll agree to disagree about what kind of vote this was. I will just iterate that the people and world are being deceived into believing that these right wing movements in Europe and the US are actually anti-establishment movements. A true anti-establishment vote would pull significantly from both sides of the political spectrum.

But time will tell that the combination of deceptive campaigning and an "imbecile" American populace were the reasons for this victory. A real estate billionaire who lives a lavish lifestyle most could never comprehend comes in on his white horse to save the working class from their ills when he can't even relate to them. From ivy league education to real estate development, luxury hotels, casinos, reality TV...he represents both: a) everything antithetical to the working class; and b) the dumbing down and superficiality of American society.

What he will do is make it easier for many of his friends to make money. In his first few months he wants to reduce the Food and Drug Administration's bite to speed up the review of thousands of drugs for sale. Forget determining whether they're safe or not. Then he we lift the restrictions on oil, natural gas, and coal production and exploration. Forget concerns about health, conservation and the environment. And then he will increase the military budget...probably to drag Americans in another war or two. If not, at least to keep the military-industrial complex alive and healthy.

Oh, and creating a rule that says "for every new regulation two regulations will be eliminated." Aside from such an unworkable policy, he's going to deregulate the shit out of business. The workers will then really feel it when a lot of protections and safeguards are taken from them. Sure, throw in a thing or two about lobbying and term limits that will probably never get through Congress, and he gained some people to what otherwise is a big business movement.

[vicsinad]

Trump's future cabinet -- fascists in disguise?

Everything that these right-wing nuts said was going to happen under Obama -- martial law, Sharia law, FEMA disasters, government slavery, etc. -- is more likely to happen under a Trump cabinet if these people really mean what they say.

Way to go Trumpsters...potentially making Grujo look like a saint!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/10/1595788/-Potential-Trump-Homeland-Security-head-says-anti-Trump-protests-must-be-quelled

Potential Trump Homeland Security head says anti-Trump protests must be 'quelled'

One of the people being prominently floated as Trump's potential head of Homeland Security is Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, a prominent pro-Trump voice at the Republican convention and, as you will soon see, quite the self-promoter himself. Here's the reaction of our new potential Homeland Security chief to protests held across the nation last night over the results of Tuesday's election.

"These temper tantrums from these radical anarchists must be quelled. There is no legitimate reason to protest the will of the people."

For the record, yes: He was specifically referring to peaceful protesters.

[vicsinad]

3 separate attacks against Muslim college student girls following the election.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/muslim-women-wearing-hijabs-assaulted-just-hours-after-trump-win-n681936

The first police reports started trickling in within 10 hours of Donald Trump's victory speech.

A Muslim student from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette reported being attacked by two men on Wednesday morning. The victim told investigators that one wore a white "TRUMP" hat while they hit her with a metal object and shouted obscenities as she fell to the ground. University police say the suspects fled with the woman's wallet and hijab.

The center of the campus was also defaced with incendiary pro-Trump language.

Another Muslim woman said she was attacked from behind in a parking garage at San Jose State University. A man ran up and pulled at her hijab, choking her, university police said.

At San Diego State University, another Muslim student reported being followed by two men who made comments about Trump and the Muslims, according to the police report. University police say the suspects confronted the woman, stole her purse and car keys before fleeing the scene. They came back for her car while she was off searching for help.

It was the first full day of America under a President-elect Trump. And it reinforced fears that the Republican's upset victory would inspire a new wave of Islamophobia nationwide.

[vicsinad]

So much for "fighting the establishment." Americans have been duped.

Leaders in his transition include former Rep. Mike Rogers, former Reagan Attorney General and Heritage Foundation fellow Edwin Meese, former President of Heritage Edwin Feulner, former Bush administration official and lobbyist Christine Ciccone, former Dick Cheney adviser Ado Machida, former Senate Budget Committee staffer Eric Ueland and former Sen. Jeff Sessions' chief of staff Rick Dearborn. The effort is chaired by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Trump counts former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Sessions as close advisers.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/donald-trump-transition-drain-the-swamp/index.html

Trump's son in law might also get a significant position in the White House. Sarah Palin is also mentioned for certain cabinet positions.

[vicsinad]

Basically, anti-establishment has meant no Democrats, no liberals, few women and few minorities. Mostly Republican or wealthy white men.

Transition Chair: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) is currently leading Trump’s transition efforts, but if he no longer can ― he’s been tainted, for example, by the Bridgegate scandal ― tech billionaire Peter Thiel could replace him. Thiel secretly funded Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit that took down Gawker.com and once wrote that women getting the vote was bad for democracy.

White House Chief of Staff: Two top candidates for this leading role are believed to be Reince Priebus, the Republican National Committee chairman, and Corey Lewandowski, Trump’s first campaign manager who is currently a paid commentator for CNN. Steve Bannon, the chairman of the conservative Breitbart News who took a leave to be Trump’s campaign CEO, is another contender. Bannon’s website has peddled some of the major alt-right conspiracy theories and spread the vitriolic rhetoric that fueled Trump’s rise.

Attorney General: Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) is frequently talked about as a contender. Giuliani told CNN Thursday he would consider the job “if it really was just me and I couldn’t point to three others that would be just as good or better.” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) has also been talked about as a front-runner, as have Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (R). During the campaign, questions were raised about whether Trump improperly made campaign contributions to Bondi’s re-election effort to influence whether she investigated allegations against Trump University.

The attorney general oversees the Justice Department and enforces areas like civil rights. Giuliani has boasted that he made New York “safe” by implementing “stop and frisk,” a policing method that disproportionately affects black people and Latinos. He has also said “anything’s legal” during war. Two of Christie’s former top aides were recently convicted of conspiracy and fraud in the Bridgegate scandal, and their testimony has implicated the governor in their schemes.

Secretary of State: Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) are reportedly under consideration for this top job.

Defense Secretary: Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), one of Trump’s earliest supporters, has been mentioned as a possible defense secretary, as has retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who has also been floated as national security adviser. Other names are Stephen Hadley, who served as a top national security official to President George W. Bush; Rep. Duncan Hunter, Jr. (R-Calif.) and former Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.).

Homeland Security Secretary: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) and Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke are on the list for this position. Clarke, who is African-American, has been a forceful critic of the Black Lives Matter movement and spoke at the Republican National Convention. He also called for Trump supporters to bring out “pitchforks and torches” to fight a rigged system. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) is also a possible pick. The department includes the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency that the senator argues should ramp up its deportations.

Interior Secretary: Forrest Lucas, a California oil executive, is considered a top contender. Venture capitalist Robert Grady and fracking mogul Harold Hamm are also being discussed, as are three women: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R), Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R).

Treasury Secretary: Steven Mnuchin, the former Goldman Sachs executive who was finance chair of Trump’s campaign, is reportedly on the short list. Trump received a significant amount of criticism when he unveiled his 13-member economic advisory team in August. There were six men named Steve on the list ― including Mnuchin ― but not a single woman. JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon is also under consideration, although he has said he would not be interested in the role. Other names are Wall Street veteran Carl Icahn and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), who is chair of the House Financial Services Committee.

Education Secretary: Neurosurgeon and former GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson is being discussed for this post, as is Hoover Institution fellow Williamson Evers, who also worked in the Education Department during George W. Bush’s administration.

Commerce Secretary: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) and former Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.) make this list as well, as do former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) and Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.). In the business world, financier Lew Eisenberg ― who also chaired a joint fundraising committee for Trump and the Republican National Committee ― is being discussed, along with the former CEO of steelmaker Nucor Dan DiMicco and billionaire investor Wilbur Ross.

Health and Human Services Secretary: Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R), retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and former New Jersey state Sen. Rich Bagger (R) are the names at the top of the list.

Agriculture Secretary: One of the names on this list is Texas Agricultural Commissioner Sid Miller, who called Hillary Clinton a “cunt” on Twitter. Other names include Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback (R), Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman (R), former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue (R), former Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), National Council of Farmer Cooperatives CEO Chuck Conner, agribusiness leader Charles Herbster, Indiana dairy executive Mike McCloskey, Iowa agribusiness mogul Bruce Rastetter and Indiana farmer and congressional candidate Kip Tom.

Energy Secretary: Fracking mogul Harold Hamm and venture capitalist Robert Grady are the two names most frequently mentioned.

Labor Secretary: Victoria Lipnic, commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission since 2010, is frequently mentioned for this position.

Veterans Affairs: House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Jeff Miller (R-Calif.), who is retiring from Congress, is the man most discussed for this job.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-administration-cabinet_us_58249c70e4b01019814da7f9

[Philosopher]

We are way off topic on this thread, but to continue the discussion, I would add a couple of things.

Donald Trump is a very contradictory person, and has changed his position in this election a number of times on a number of things. This does not even begin to address his heretofore positions in ere years.

Donald Trump is both establishment and anti-establishment. On the issue of foreign policy, to instance, he is opposed by neoconservatives and yet his foreign policy advisors are prominent neoconservatives. Former DIA head General Michael Flynn, for example, and Michael Ledeen both advise Trump, with Ledeen in particular a pro Zionist extraordinaire.

His list of potential cabinet members are prominent Republicans and neoconservatives.

A truly anti-establishment president is one who would bring all US troops home; close down US bases around the world; pursue a non-interventionist foreign policy; abrogate the federal reserve; abolish or greatly enervate the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and a number of other government agencies; restore civil liberties; end the militarization of the police; end the charade known as the war on terrorism; respect US sovereignty; exit the United Nations; sever ties with NATO; end "entangling alliances" as George Washington admonished; terminate the war on drugs; create a truly independent body to investigate 9/11; end all foreign aid to foreign countries, including, and especially, Israel; and on and on and on.

I think part of the problem in analyzing this is that the Western media was decidedly pro Hillary Clinton (I don't think a day went by that I did not read a pro-Hillary and anti-Trump article on dw.com or other prominent media); Trump is an outsider; he is not a career politician or bureaucrat. He is not a Washington insider; many prominent Republicans opposed him, and in fact endeavored to end his candidacy.

I will post a good article after this written by Brandon Smith (published before the election) which I believe accurately portrays present reality.

[Philosopher]

Global Elites Are Getting Ready To Blame You For The Coming Financial Crash

by Brandon Smith

Those people that have any doubts about where the narrative is headed for global economic stability simply have not been paying attention lately.

As I pointed out in my pre-Brexit referendum article, Brexit: Global Trigger Event, Fake Out Or Something Else?, the story being scripted by the globalists is one of the “failures and crimes” of conservative movements. I predicted that the Brexit would pass based on this language used by international financiers and elites leading up to the vote.

The vast majority of analysts in the mainstream and in the alternative media refused to acknowledge the possibility that a successful Brexit actually works in FAVOR of the globalists, because it provides them a perfect scapegoat for a financial crisis that has been broiling for years and is now ready to burst into flames. I find still that many people will not dare to consider the idea that a successful conservative resurgence is actually part of the plan for globalist institutions. Many argue that the elites just don’t have that kind of pervasive control over the system, or that I am attributing “too much power and ability” to them.

I find this argument rather naive but also interesting, because many of the people that claim the elites do not have such influence were also the same people that argued before the Brexit that the elites would “never allow” the U.K. referendum to pass. So, do they have extensive influence, or don’t they? This kind of selective blindness to the game being played prevents a whole host of otherwise intelligent people from grasping reality.

These folks need to finally admit to themselves that they were half right; the globalists would not allow the passage of the Brexit, UNLESS, a successful Brexit actually works in their favor.

In my post-Brexit analysis I said that the meme of bumbling and destructive conservatives and “populists” would continue into the U.S. election, and so far it would seem this is exactly the case. In numerous mainstream articles globalists have been openly telling us exactly what is about to happen.

I find that the same naivety that developed during the Brexit campaign has also developed around the Trump campaign. Too many in the liberty movement will not entertain the idea that a Trump win is in the cards. Yet, the elites are using the same language in reference to the Trump campaign that they used before and after the Brexit.

Bloomberg’s latest report on the annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank showcase numerous warnings by the elites:

“The global economy has benefited tremendously from globalization and technological change,” the IMF’s top advisory panel said in a communique released on Saturday after meeting in Washington. “However, the outlook is increasingly threatened by inward-looking policies, including protectionism, and stalled reforms.”

“The IMF warned in its latest economic outlook that rising political tensions over open markets and free trade could undermine a recovery already lacking a growth engine.”

“In a rebuke to those advocating a turn away from trade, the members of the IMF panel redoubled their commitment to “maintain economic openness and reinvigorate global trade as a critical means to boost global growth.”

Barron’s reiterates the predictive programming, insinuating that a loss of faith in globalism and the financial elites will lead to disaster.

“Leaders gathered at the International Monetary Fund/World Bank annual meeting didn’t mention Donald Trump by name this week, but they warned the anti-trade and populist movements fueling his presidential campaign, as well as Brexit, could further slow already anemic economic growth.”

“…Populist movements have not fallen on deaf ears, with German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble noting during a panel on the global economy that: “More and more, people don’t trust their elites. They don’t trust their economic leaders, and they don’t trust their political leaders.”

Globalists are telling us what is about to happen.

I continue to hold to the position I always have — that Donald Trump is going to be ALLOWED into the White House, and that this will be a prelude to economic crisis. The stage is being set for a grand finale to our ongoing financial collapse. The great villain behind the whole disaster will be revealed, and we will be told that the villain is us.

By “us” I mean conservative movements in general, though, the mainstream media and globalist spokesmen refer to us more often today as “populists”, or maybe “deplorables”. Those people who think this brand of “conspiracy” is too far fetched because it requires an inordinate level of political and economic control have not really thought the situation through.

Fact – central banks and international financiers have already created the conditions necessary for economic instability. Fact – these same elites have staved off a larger or more immediate collapse over the past eight years through the use of fiat stimulus measures, market rigging and the manipulation of public perception. Fact – the elites can easily initiate an immediate collapse if they wish by simply refusing to prop up the system any longer. Fact – the elites have showcased the ability to stifle conservative movements in the past through interference and co-option (Tea Party, anyone?). Fact – they can also give conservative movements an opportunity to gain momentum by removing some of this interference.

The truth is, at this point globalists do not need expansive or intricate control over the system in order to cause a crisis or to place conservatives in the historical hot seat. All they have to do is step aside and let the train wreck happen. And, of course, they have to position themselves as prognosticators and saviors once the crisis event occurs.

The argument also arises that “people would never take the bait;” that the masses will not be fooled by the banking cabal into scapegoating conservatives for a crash the elites created. One can only hope. However, possession is nine-tenths of the law in the minds of many, and the mainstream has already conditioned the public with the notion that the mere presence of anti-globalist conservatives in positions of political authority will negatively affect market psychology.

Of course, this notion relies on the admission of certain truths. For example, the globalists would have to admit that the fiscal system they have held together is so tenuous and fraudulent that it depends solely on false public perception and false investor assumptions. In order to blame conservatives for the destruction of the global economy, the elites will have to tell the truth about the frailty of the system before they can lie about who broke it.

This may not matter. When people are facing national or international calamity with the potential to hurt them personally, critical thinking and logic tend to go out the window.

There is also the power of distraction to occupy the minds of the masses while a crisis is taking shape, and what could be more distracting than the Trump vs. Clinton U.S. election? I have to say, I don’t think I have ever witnessed or seen a historical accounting of an election more psychotic than the election of 2016. It is truly the most divisive event in over a century, and this is why I consistently compare it to the Brexit referendum.

The tone is very much the same, with citizens on the Left side of the political spectrum being lured into rallying in support of globalism as if it is a prerequisite to peace and harmony, while citizens on the Right side of the spectrum are portrayed as knuckle dragging isolationist barbarians hell-bent on urinating in the punch bowl and ruining everyone’s global prosperity party.

Brexit supporters were painted as older, selfish, potentially racist and out of touch with the changing times. Brexit opponents were painted as young, educated and victimized by older generations taking away the supposed future benefits of globalism.

Trump supporters are labeled as older, mostly white-centric, uneducated and fearful of the changing times. They just “don’t get” that it’s 2016. Trump opponents are elevated as the academic and worldly class battling to prevent another Hitler.

During the lead up to the U.K. referendum, polls indicated a wide margin in favor of the anti-Brexit crowd and the assumption by almost everyone was that the Brexit would fail.

The lead up to the U.S. election is also rife with polls indicating in most cases a margin of victory for Clinton over Trump. Of course, only a complete idiot would take polling numbers seriously in light of what happened during the Brexit.

The Brexit campaign witnessed what appeared to some to be an unrecoverable black swan event – the killing of British MP Jo Cox. Almost everyone claimed that the murder of Cox by an apparently pro-Brexit assailant meant that the Brexit was doomed (I actually argued that the murder would be forgotten in a week and that the Brexit would pass anyway).

The Trump campaign has witnessed its own kind of “black swan” event with the release of recordings from eleven years ago in which Trump is heard making “lewd remarks” about women. It is surprising to me how many conservatives (let alone liberals) have been declaring Trump’s candidacy effectively “over” due to the scandal. These people are dupes.

Once again, I argue that the Trump tapes will be forgotten in a week and that they have no bearing whatsoever on the election. They are nothing more than bread and circus. Beyond the fact that really, almost no one cares what Trump said a decade ago, I argue that this election has already been decided. I argue that the globalists want Trump in office, just as they wanted the passage of the Brexit. I argue that they need conservative movements to feel as though we have won, so that they can pull the rug out from under us in the near future. I argue that we are being set up.

Again, the elites are openly telling us what is about to happen. They are telling us that if “populists” (conservatives) gain political power, the system will effectively collapse. To what extent is hard to say, but let’s assume that the situation will be ugly enough to influence the masses to reconsider the ideal of globalism as a possible solution. The elites are fond of the Hegelian dialectic and the philosophy of “order out of chaos,” after all.

The only way to counter this developing lie is for liberty champions to first accept the idea that our political victories might be ultimately meaningless and that we are being allowed to take charge of a ship that is already sinking. Only then can we distance ourselves from an exponential fiscal disaster by distancing ourselves from the narrative.

Perhaps I am wrong, and in November we see a dismal Trump performance and a Clinton victory. But if we see a “surprise” Trump election win, just as we saw a surprise Brexit win, then it may be time to consider that the surface of this situation is not what it appears.

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/2982-2016-will-end-with-economic-instability-and-a-trump-presidency