Generational Dynamics World View News

[Higgenbotham]

What's happening to Trump is an old story out of the same old playbook. The idea is that if you can turn the system against somebody so as to make them feel vulnerable, also using violence or the threat of violence, their mental state can be ground down to the point where they appear "loony" and then the focus can be put on that. That is what played out in the 1992 campaign when Perot was leading in the polls. Probably the main difference today is it's more in our faces; for example, the secret service let someone take shots at Trump. It also plays out on a smaller scale to force whistleblowers out of government bureaucracies. I watched a man get ground down to the point that my last conversation with him was about the black helicopters circling over his house. As stated some years ago, the state (Wisconsin) unilaterally paid him disability and "free" medical for life - there was no hearing or court case.

Perot Charges Plot Forced Him Out; ‘Loony,’ GOP Says : Campaign: He accuses Bush camp of plan to smear daughter and disrupt her wedding, and says he quit race to protect her. Texan offers no proof for allegations.
By PAUL RICHTER and SARA FRITZ
Oct. 26, 1992 12 AM PT

PITTSBURGH, Pa. — Independent presidential candidate Ross Perot accused President Bush’s campaign Sunday of plotting to fake a photograph to smear his youngest daughter, of conspiring to disrupt her wedding and of hiring an ex-CIA employee to wiretap his computerized stock trading program and ruin him.

Perot said the plotting was the real reason he dropped out of the campaign for 11 weeks. He said he wanted to spare his daughter, Caroline, the pain that such dirty tricks could cause. After her wedding in August, Perot said, he told her what he had done. He said she replied: “Get back into the race.” He did, on Oct. 1.

“Preposterous,” said Marlin Fitzwater, the President’s spokesman, in response to Perot’s dirty-tricks allegations. Margaret Tutwiler, the White House communications director, declared: “It’s all loony.” Bobby R. Burchfield, general counsel for the Bush campaign, said he investigated Perot’s charges. “There is absolutely nothing to them.”

Perot made the accusations at campaign rallies in Pittsburgh and in Flemington, N. J., and in interviews with the Boston Herald and the CBS-TV program “60 Minutes.” He told voters in Pittsburgh that he had no proof of his allegations and asked them to put his accusations out of their minds. “Don’t spend five minutes fretting about it . . . because it’s irrelevant to fixing our country.”

His charges, however, reverberated throughout the campaign, drawing responses not only from the White House but also from Democratic nominee Bill Clinton, who recalled that the President once accused Perot of investigating Bush’s children. Clinton said he was concerned about the children of American voters and their future--and that both of his opponents should be, too.

Perot’s allegations could add to momentum that he is showing in the polls if voters believe his charges. His accusations also could backfire, however, and simply renew voter concern about what critics say is his conspiratorial view of the world. Perot’s standing in the polls fell when reports saying that he has a penchant for conspiracies were broadcast and published earlier this year.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html





https://www.economist.com/interactive/u ... rris-polls

"July 13: An assassination attempt injures Trump in Pennsylvania, and Republicans quickly seek to use the incident as a show of Trump's strength and resilience. Shortly before the assassination attempt, Biden had held tense private calls with Democratic lawmakers."

"July 21: Biden announces he will leave the presidential race and endorses Harris to be the party’s nominee."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-e ... rcna162965

[DaKardii]

Just when I was depressed enough by both parties scraping further and further towards the bottom of the barrel this election season, to the point where I'm tempted to just give up and go back to being apolitical, there is a second attempt on Donald Trump's life.

At this point, I think it's more likely than not that our next crisis war will be Civil War II rather than World War III. If there's a subsequent attempt and Trump dies, all bets are off. Heck, even if he doesn't die and goes on to win the election, most bets probably will be off anyway. That's how bad it's gotten.

I never thought I would ever be in a situation so dire that having to flee my country is a real possibility, but here I am. Please, America. I just want to live in peace.

[FullMoon]

Just when I was depressed enough by both parties scraping further and further towards the bottom of the barrel this election season, to the point where I'm tempted to just give up and go back to being apolitical, there is a second attempt on Donald Trump's life.

At this point, I think it's more likely than not that our next crisis war will be Civil War II rather than World War III. If there's a subsequent attempt and Trump dies, all bets are off. Heck, even if he doesn't die and goes on to win the election, most bets probably will be off anyway. That's how bad it's gotten.

I never thought I would ever be in a situation so dire that having to flee my country is a real possibility, but here I am. Please, America. I just want to live in peace.

I think history will note the current time as being already a part of WW3 with the bigger fireworks coming as what the majority feel as the war. Any internal conflict is just a benefit to the enemy and increasing our chances of prolonged conflict or defeat. We all just want peace, especially people who are raising kids and with responsibility for many people's lives. But we don't always get what we want.

[Navigator]

If Trump is assassinated, it is a giant win for the Republican party. If he had been killed the first time, right now Niki Haley would be the nominee and she would be leading Harris by 15-20 points, as she is competent, level headed, and intelligent.

If Trump is killed now, JD Vance would be the nominee. He is more level headed than Trump, but unfortunately prone to gaffs that the other side can twist/turn against him. Still, he would be viewed as much more intelligent and competent than Harris, who is an idiot. So he would be on track to win, plus he would have Trump as a martyr.

As I stated before, no matter who wins, the other side is going to go "off the rails", and there will be all kinds of disorder in the country, which will greatly embolden our enemies and make them go for it.

In some ways it may be good for the Dems to win, as the coming war and economic crisis would then be pinned on them by the vast majority. People in general have not yet figured out how bad the Dems have made things. The national debt, the regression in race relations (thanks Obama!), the welfare state, the masses of illegal immigrants (huge numbers of which are criminals), lack of basic law enforcement, and so on.

Once a war starts and this puts most people's lives at stake, all this woke BS and liberal Dem stuff will get thrown out. Until the war ends and people go back to their old ways.

[spottybrowncow]

Navigator, I really do have great respect for your opinions, but in college I was exposed to and adopted the Socratic ideal, and I never let myself agree with things that I don't understand.

Trump is a very, very flawed candidate - no argument whatsoever. He also happens to be the only candidate who espouses radical change in the federal idiocracy, and he has a well-documented plan to dismantle it. I have no doubt that Nikki Haley is more likely to win, but I am certain that she will not "ruffle feathers" (that's really putting it mildly) like Trump will. She is a former governor of my lifelong state, SC, and I assure you that she is not particularly loved here. I want real, fundamental change, and complete destruction of the federal government liberal bureaucracy is highest on my wish list. Trump has a well-formulated plan to accomplish this. As proof of this statement's veracity, I need only point to the anti-Trump hate of the establishment, as he would obliterate their power. Only Trump has shown any promise to deliver this result, and that is why he has such an ardent following.

Also, I think he is basically a good guy. This is a good example of why https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAbgc41pksE. Hillary Clinton would have spit in this man's face. Trump bent down to the ground in a humble gesture and tried to restore his dignity.
My 2 cents.

[richard5za]

If Trump is assassinated, it is a giant win for the Republican party. If he had been killed the first time, right now Niki Haley would be the nominee and she would be leading Harris by 15-20 points, as she is competent, level headed, and intelligent.

I am not an American and I would like to question an external understanding of how candidates win the Presidency: First of all it appears that a limited number of swing states will decide who becomes President. These are, I understand, for 2024 in the industrial north, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pensylvania, in the South East, North Carolina and Georgia, and in the south west Arizona and Nevada. My understanding is that the rest of America is either red or blue and because of the Electoral College system even though the people vote they don't in reality participate in the election. It's the swing states that are important. More than that its only the swing voters in the swing states that really count. So political analysts outside America calculate that the next President will be elected by some 4% of American voters. Is this a realistic view?
So the big question is who is the best candidate for these swing states?
I hear you that Niki Haley is competent, etc, I like Haley, but I suspect that the swing states have simpler agendas: They don't want migrants, they want the American jobs back that NAFTA (signed by Bill Clinton) sent to Mexico, they want the American dream back, and so on.
Thats why Trump has appeal for all his nonesense and bluster.
Its going to be a very close race, goodness only knows who wins!!

[DaKardii]

Hey, how is John doing? I looked at his profile and he hasn't been online for over a week, and hasn't posted for over a month.

[FullMoon]

Hey, how is John doing? I looked at his profile and he hasn't been online for over a week, and hasn't posted for over a month.

He had a health issue and hasn't posted in this News section for months. He's poked into other sections briefly. Apparently nobody knows his condition and he hasn't disclosed anything. Neil Howe did a good podcast yesterday on a financial site. I've been finding parallels between John and John Mearsheimer. It's strange how cyclical theories aren't more widely adopted, but historical parallels are more so.

[Navigator]

I am not an American and I would like to question an external understanding of how candidates win the Presidency: First of all it appears that a limited number of swing states will decide who becomes President. These are, I understand, for 2024 in the industrial north, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, in the South East, North Carolina and Georgia, and in the south west Arizona and Nevada. My understanding is that the rest of America is either red or blue and because of the Electoral College system even though the people vote they don't in reality participate in the election. It's the swing states that are important. More than that its only the swing voters in the swing states that really count. So political analysts outside America calculate that the next President will be elected by some 4% of American voters. Is this a realistic view?

So the big question is who is the best candidate for these swing states?

I hear you that Niki Haley is competent, etc, I like Haley, but I suspect that the swing states have simpler agendas: They don't want migrants, they want the American jobs back that NAFTA (signed by Bill Clinton) sent to Mexico, they want the American dream back, and so on.

Thats why Trump has appeal for all his nonesense and bluster.
Its going to be a very close race, goodness only knows who wins!!

The American Federal Government System, which includes the President (the other main parts being Congress and the Supreme Court) is based on the States. That is why we are called the "United States". Each state gets a number of votes for President based on their population, plus 2 more. Which is the number of Congressmen and Senators they have. So a very small and unpopulated state would get 3 votes, while a large state like California gets around 50 votes. It takes 270 of these state based "electoral" votes for someone to become president. The reasoning behind this is to balance urban versus rural concerns and to not completely marginalize small states.

Everyone does have a say in how their state votes, but in many states, the population is predominantly voting for one particular party. For example, California as a whole will vote predominantly for the Democratic party. So if you are a Republican voter in California, your voice will get drowned out by vast number of Democrat voters. (Converse is true in a predominantly Republican state like Utah). However, note that if people don't vote for some reason, those that do are the only ones who will have a say. But overall, you are correct that the only states really in play are those where the numbers of Republican and Democrat voters are roughly equal.

Americans overall want the economy to be better, and want to be secure in pursuing their dreams/goals, but few understand the role of Presidents and their policies in effecting these.

The real unfortunate thing for the American voter is that both parties are controlled by extremists. Hence the horrible binary choice presented by the parties in this election. At this point, also unfortunately, there is little to no debate on policies or platforms, it has degenerated to the point of name calling and little else.

[Navigator]

Navigator, I really do have great respect for your opinions, but in college I was exposed to and adopted the Socratic ideal, and I never let myself agree with things that I don't understand.

Trump is a very, very flawed candidate - no argument whatsoever. He also happens to be the only candidate who espouses radical change in the federal idiocracy, and he has a well-documented plan to dismantle it. I have no doubt that Nikki Haley is more likely to win, but I am certain that she will not "ruffle feathers" (that's really putting it mildly) like Trump will. She is a former governor of my lifelong state, SC, and I assure you that she is not particularly loved here. I want real, fundamental change, and complete destruction of the federal government liberal bureaucracy is highest on my wish list. Trump has a well-formulated plan to accomplish this. As proof of this statement's veracity, I need only point to the anti-Trump hate of the establishment, as he would obliterate their power. Only Trump has shown any promise to deliver this result, and that is why he has such an ardent following.

Also, I think he is basically a good guy. This is a good example of why https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAbgc41pksE. Hillary Clinton would have spit in this man's face. Trump bent down to the ground in a humble gesture and tried to restore his dignity.
My 2 cents.

I don't think its possible to do much to the Federal bureaucracy. I have read the project 2025 plan, and while I applaud removing union protections for any government employee, I think there is a danger in the P2025 plan to replace employees with political appointees. This would be even worse.

I remember hearing a lot in 2016 about "draining the swamp", but little happened. The biggest problem is that you must overwhelmingly control both houses of congress in addition to the President, and everyone in that majority needs to be on board with the change you want to make. The Republicans couldn't even get rid of the Dept of Education back in the Reagan era, even though that was promised.

As for Trump being a basically good guy, I just don't buy it. He screwed over every contractor who ever did work for him. He alienates people that should be his allies and supporters (Mattis, Kelly, McMasters), and turns on his own supporters (like Fox News, which is unfathomable) who dare take the slightest exception to anything he has said or done. He does, however, excel at playing to cameras.

On a personal note, sorry for delays in replying. We are trying to travel a lot while my wife is still able, and its hard to post while "on the road".