Free Republic

Absolutely correct with your analysis.

I don’t think Obama’s out of office plans are going to amount to much. Without the power and perks he had as president he’s just a weak, lazy and uninspired has been.

I think Rush is right about Trump’s style of governing and the huge effect it will have on the permanent bureaucracy and both parties. It’s just what the country needs.

I hope that Trump continues to play the media the way he did in the primaries and has so far during his transition. The MSM seems to think that everyone is going to forget how they threw themselves on their swords for Hillary and, in the process, destroyed what little legitimacy they had left in the eyes of their rapidly shrinking viewer base. Four years of Trump treating them like the fake, partisan hacks they are will put the final nails in their coffins once and for all.

Any song that uses the word putrescence in the lyrics is good in my book.

I mean, when was the last time you heard Katy Perry or Beyonce use anything beyond 3rd grade level vocabulary?

I wrote the following in 2011...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2729674/posts

...and some laughed at my speculations. I can’t say I blame them because they sounded to ridiculous to take seriously. But I was only following the obvious logic the social engineers put forward, to its end.

Well here we are, and my speculations are coming true. It seems to be happening in Canada and not the U.S.... thus far.

But don’t think for a second the social engineers here in the states are not watching this Canadian program with an eye towards adopting it.

I wrote a comment predicting that this was coming five years ago. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2729674/posts

The next logical step for the government is to supply the heroin via a dispensary located in the "user friendly" housing complex.This may sound far fetched but the logic is there and will go something like this: After creating a environment where it's OK to use heroin the government wants to leverage this power over the addict in order to get them on methadone in order kick the habit. But if the addict doesn't want to go the methadone route they will be forced to leave the facility because it makes more sense to use the space for people who would potentially want to try and get off the drug. So they kick out the committed addict and bring in a new one and the process starts all over again.

But the social engineers will not be satisfied. They will want to be able to convince the committed addicts as well as those who genuinely want to quit. And in order to gain leverage over those committed users who have no interest in quitting, and only use the housing because it provides a safe, comfortable place to indulge their addiction the social engineers will propose supplying the heroin itself in addition to a safe place to use it. They will be able to source the heroin from a pharma company,thereby assuring it's quality and potency and avoiding any accidental overdoses which are common on the street. Once they start supply the heroin they will have total control over the addicts. At that point the argument will be made that it will be easier to force addicts to begin treatment to stop using because of the power afforded by being their dealers.

But this approach fail because their will always be addicts who cannot be convinced to try and quit and they will simply leave the facility when the daily dope rations get to small or stop altogether.

The next logical step, the social engineers will argue, is to allow the committed addicts to stay even though they will not attempt to get clean. They will say it will be safer for the addicts and society as a whole if the government just keeps them corralled in a facility, providing everything they need so that they do not go out into the world and commit crime for money to buy their dope. The hope will be that a certain percentage of the addicts will take advantage of the opportunity providing by the facility and attempt to quit. The rest will either stay and have the amount of heroin they use be controlled by the government and/or will simply leave once that amount is no longer enough to get them as high as they want to be.

The ongoing existence of these facilities will be justified by the fact that some addicts are able to successfully quit while staying in them. But I predict that these individuals will represent a very small percentage of the total population living in the facilities, and in fact the facilities will actually increase substantially the overall number of addicts and in the big picture exacerbate and institutionalize the scourge of heroin addiction. But this will not matter to the social engineers.

This may sound far fetched. But we are already at the point where the social engineers are pushing for the creation and funding of housing for addicts where it will be expected, in fact encouraged, to openly continue their drug use. Not to long ago, this very idea would've sounded absolutely ridiculous and nonsensical to be taken seriously. But here we are... and it's being proposed.

Most Globalists who work in the private sector don’t see business and profits as the ultimate goal the way a small business owner does. Globalists see business and profits as a way to acquire and wield power. The want to use this power to consolidate control of the world’s resources while simultaneously erecting a centralized and undemocratic political system to gain control over the entire human population. Bankers who happen to also be Globalists are in a unique position to help attain these goals.

Many of the high level corporate players in the banks you mentioned, as well as the people sitting on their boards are, in fact, Globalists seeking to literally rule over the world like a James Bond villain. Most of the people who work for these banks don’t even know what a Globalist is, or does but is too naive or scared to accept that the globalist agenda is a reality.

She’s got one hoof in the grave at this point. Time to put her down.

I’ve seen the original unedited clips, from two different angles, of her head bobbing with the drink in her hand incident. The reporters were asking her questions but the initial head bobs were clearly not her making a joke out of the purported barrage of inquiry. After the involuntary diskinesia (Parkinsons) she continues to bob her head in an obvious attempt to turn the whole thing into her joking about the situation. The gut reaction on the face of one of the reporters is very telling. If Hillary had really been making a joke by bobbing her head the social clues would have been apparent and the reporter would not have made such a face in reaction to the movements. I believe the Parkinsons theory.

It's hard to explain away the size and enthusiasm of Trump's rallies. And the supersized Republican primary turnout contrasted with the shrinking of the Democrat's. These two factors, along with the Democrat's being the incumbent party for POTUS, make it hard for me to believe the current "Hillary is 10 points ahead" narrative being pushed by the MSM. This entire election is one long Black Swan event which has carried Trump on the crest of it's paradigm destroying tsunami wave the entire time. A wave like this doesn't just fizzle because the MSM creates some BS narrative. Remember what the Dem convention looked like. It was a complete and utter disaster.

Those that have already decided to vote for Trump are not going to change the decision at this point. Can the same be said for those planning to vote for Hillary? Throw in the impending WikiLeaks docudump, the continued onslaught of terror attacks, the bad economy and the debates and I just can't feel like Hillary's going to turn it around at all. The media is all in for her, and it's so blatant this time, so brazen, so over the top as to be almost unbelievable. The MSM is literally throwing themselves on a grenade for Hillary. I have to agree with this article. Turnout is going to be huge for Trump but not so for Hillary. And the turnout is going to put him over the top.

Isn’t Islam as a whole a far-right entity? It sure as hell ain’t far left or moderate in the current sense.

I understand the media’s desire to conflate conservatives, libertarians et. al. with the far-right.

If they want to start painting jihad as far-right then doesn’t it mean that the Left needs to view it and the religion it originates from as something to be destroyed, right up their with Neo-Nazis?

I worked in the antique district in downtown San Francisco for a year back in the late 90’s and was shocked at the way the homeless were allowed to take over the public spaces. There was a park with fountain that had a giant abstract sculpture inside of it which had been turned off for some reason. The homeless would climb into it and use it as a toilet.

The smell was revolting and the fountain was littered with fast food wrappers and old news papers that had been used as toilet paper. This trash would blow around and then out of the fountain and into the park where office workers were eating their lunch on the grass.

Addicts were everywhere, incessantly begging for money, fighting with each other, having sex in door ways and dummpsters. Needles lay scattered on the ground were the heroin junkies had dropped them.

One day, while sitting in the park and talking with a friend I happened to glance at a young couple sitting in the grass. Suddenly the young man slumped over and vomited on himself while his companion patted him on the back. It was like this everyday at all hours.

Having moved to the Bay Area from Manhattan I was used to the sights and smells of a big city. But there was something different about the character of the homelessness in San Francisco that struck me immediately. There was a passive acceptance of the problem, a distinct feeling that the city government had simply given up on any on-going attempts to actively combat the problem much less work towards a long term solution. They had surrendered the streets of the city to an insurgent social rot.

The homeless were given free reign to do as they pleased and the productive, tax paying, law abiding residents of the city were told to shut up and deal with it. The homeless were elevated to a privileged status while everyone else was made to suffer quietly the daily spectacle of public spaces overrun with mental disease, drug addiction and criminal behavior.

I left the Bay Area after a year, enriched by my experience despite the obvious decline in public order which had taken root and clearly lowered the quality of life for everyone that lived there. It was puzzling to me how such substandard governmental management had become the norm, and that the people of San Francisco seemed unable to effectively use the powers granted to the local government to address and ameliorate the difficult, yet not hopeless problem homelessness. I understood that the local political culture was unabashedly liberal and proud of it. But what was it about the nature of this culture that created an environment that promoted the mainstreaming of a lax and decadent acceptance of homelessness?

In the end I came to the conclusion that, as a civic institution, the city of San Francisco was suffering from a disease, one symptom of which was the homeless being free to establish themselves on an equal footing with the properly functioning segments of the population. A mutually beneficial, parasitic relationship had developed between the homeless and the iron-like structure of well entrenched progressive ideology. Like remora locked on to the exterior of a shark, the homeless find a perverse form of social acceptance and status in the dystopic embrace of an ideology whose soul was forged by a predatory consciousness dressed up in the flowery rhetoric of selfless social concern.

I realize it’s a bit over dramatic, but hey, why should the Left get to monopolize political passion. Appealing to emotions has worked for them in a big way. I’ve been pondering lately why the Left’s narrative is so easy to adopt. I often find myself adopting their position and then trying to immitate the way by which they seem to so easily spin dialogue in their favor. It’s incredibly easy to do. So I’ve been thinking about what it is about the way they argue that is so effective. I’m convinced it’s their style or technique and obviously not the content of their positions that are effective.

But what exactly is their trick? Appealing to simplistic emotions shared by most normal humans is definitely part of it. But these appeals have their limits as even those of modest intelligence can seperate the feeling of wanting people to not suffer from the project of actually eradicating suffering all together, which is really what the rank and file of the Left want to believe is possible. It’s a that space in between the acknowledgement of the empathetic emotion and the exit ramp to a possible solution where the sleight of hand happens. Somehow they are able to blunt the onset of critical thinking enough that the average joe just glides right onto Solution Ave. while maintaining that raw, but somewhat naive emotional state of basic human empathy.

By the time the fog clears Joe Average is far from the highway and deep into ideology, group think and the push and pull of street level political gang warfare. It’s too late for the individual to begin to question the ideology they find themselves embedded into. They go along to get along because it’s easy and feels good. It helps the group operate smoothly with a minimum of conflict. They adopt the solutions without questioning and thus gain some personal power by their ability to bludgeon others with them in conversation. It feels good to speak truth to power and put that nasty right wing puke in his place. They get a kind of high off of this type of mindless intellectual bullying. It makes them feel superior, it assuages the secret self doubt that most people carry around in their head to one degree or another.

Instead of doing the hard work of self examination and the pain that comes with it they choose to use the power gained from ideology as a way to mask or distract themselves from the fact that they are not doing the grunt work of internal self improvement. Once the average shlub gets suckered into this psychological sleight of hand it becomes very hard to abandon it and the false sense of moral superiority it creates within them. So they go further and further down the rabbit hole of progressive political allegiance, hungrily lapping up the crumbs of hand me down self-esteem that they find along the way. They live in shadowy realm of cartoon boogey men and easy as pie, feel good validation that comes from like minded friends and fellow travelers.

They inhabit a political circle jerk wherein questioning the root assumptions of their ideology becomes an internal, intellectual and emotional no-go-zone to be avoided as a matter of course. But these mental ghettos where the freedom fighters of their conscience are hold up don’t go away. They remain and persist and continue be an eyesore in an otherwise clean and tidy domain. When confronted with the mortal threat of those who inquire as to what exactly is going on in the no-go-zones they quickly try to enforce uniformity and obedience by casting the offender beyond the city gates. In this fashion they have built up their palaces and castles and villages and created a kind of alternate mental space within which to dwell.

It’s obvious by the look on her face that the first series of head bobs were uncontrollable and spontaneous. It is equally as obvious due to her expression and the difference in movements that the second series of bobs was her trying to pass it off as some kind of joke. I would like to known exactly what the context was, what they were saying in order to pass a final judgement. But based on the visual evidence it doesn’t look good for her health-wise. These seizures are probably related to her head injury, which itself might have been a stroke.

Think about the turnout Trump produced for primaries. He’s proven his ability to get the vote out. Now remember the primary turnout for the Dems, even with Bernie’s Burn Victims passion it was still way down. I think that a lot of people who don’t like Trump will just sit this one out because they don’t really like Hillary either. Yes they both have high unlikable numbers, but he inspires and she does not. I don’t think her being a woman will give her that much of a bump because Americans(men and women alike) want the first female president to be not only capable, but good looking and younger than Clinton.

I see.

Captain John Smith never visited the site of Harrisburg. He met a group of Susquehannocks where the Susquehanna River empties into the Chesapeake Bay. From there he took a canoe trip up river to a series a falls next the modern day town of York Haven where he stopped.

If Trump can bring out all of these newly active Republican primary voters in the general then he’ll trounce Hillary. Because if you add up the increase in Republican primary turnout across the country it would equal the several million voters that didn’t turn out for Mittens, the ones who, by not voting, gave Obama four more years. I can’t see Hillary getting more Democrats out than Obama did for his second election. Nor can I see all of the young, fired up Millenial Bern Victims coming out to vote for her.

What is wrong with this analysis?

Don’t worry, in two weeks they’ll announce that Cruz in fact will be getting the NY delegates not Trump. It will all be legal and legit as per rules set by the GOP.

Cruz/Bush 2016!