A prediction for the coming insanity

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

BH! It's great to see you again!

Correct me if I am wrong on this. As I am understanding the order, it differs in that it officializes the Transition Team so it is not an Obama team or a Clinton team or a Trump team... instead it is a beaurocracy in itself now to support the incoming/outgoing President, but not directly under the control of the incoming/outgoing President.

TheRedneck

That is the way I understood it as well.

Interesting times.

Welcome back!

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: DBCowboy

That's dark. Is that the picture you have?

I wouldn't put it past her.

Or they simply assassinate Trump.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Sacrifice the summer king. Can only be good for the country. Old tradition.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Very inciteful read Mr The Neck. (Don't wanna use any derogatory names, even if it is the one you go by)
I would like to know more about this "committee Obama has gathered. It's not that I don't believe you, if it's a truthful statement, then that's pretty scary. My father-in-law asked my wife and myself to watch 2016 From Freedom To Facism. We watched it. We also watched a lot of Bill Maher. So we watched it with an immediate bias. I am curious now to go back and rewatch it with no bias. I also stopped watching uber liberal talk shows. Not that I'm righted winged now, but just don't really think media news shows are truthful in anyway.
But your OP was a sobering read. This election has been polarizing for the U.S. This Nov will be very interesting.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: TheRedneck

An articulate and pragmatic assessment....based on the information that has reached us.

I have another concern and it isn't some move by Obama. I believe he flat out wouldn't get away with it and it would be destructive to his legacy. No, my concern is the power elite. When they see-and they probably do-that their usual mechanisms aren't working this election cycle, just how desperate are they??

If real desperate, would they use outside the political mechanism to derail this movement? An economic catastrophe? A new or vastly expanded military confrontation? Some blindside that diverts/deflects attention from this election and allows Obama to 'justifiably' implement some draconian executive order?

While I'm excited by the potential of change, my anxiety is also a bit higher due to this possibility....

You mean another 9/11, the likes which we've never seen before, on US soil?

a reply to: rollanotherone

First of all, redneck IS my name. I get called redneck as much as anything else. I'm proud of it.

More to point: I have not had time to actually read the order in full; in this case I am going off reports. I am hoping BH will enlighten us if I was incorrect. She's usually well-informed.

And to close: I actually watch the uber-liberal shows, along with the uber-conservative shows. Then I consider what I have heard from both sides, find the 99% of that that is BS, discard it, and think about what's left. The truth is buried in that somewhere. It seems easier to find if one remembers that these politicians and pundits aren't dumb, just sneaky. If something doesn't make sense, it's usually because you aren't seeing the real goal.

TheRedneck

a reply to: rollanotherone


It would have to be bigger than 9/11....a lot bigger.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Fair enough. I get my news and views from ATS now days. Don't have time to sift through the rabble and the members here do a great job of finding the stories and cases for us. (Kudos to the members for that).

Thanks for the read nonetheless. You now make me want to stock my crawl space with 3 months worth of canned food.

Oh, and as long as your good with it, I'll gladly call you redneck. Just didn't want to trigger any snowflakes.

a reply to: rollanotherone

I have a garden, fruit trees, chickens, and deer in the mountain. Don't have to worry about the crawl space.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Excellent post. I agree with you. I made one speculation early on though that I think you could include. If hillary wins the election she will immediately pardon obama for anything he may be accused of and appoint him to the supreme court. If hillary loses the election she will immediately be pardoned by obama who will appoint her to the supreme court. Either way, we are not finished with these two trouble makers.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: rollanotherone


It would have to be bigger than 9/11....a lot bigger.

Wasn't there an interview going around very early on in Obama's tenure, 1st term, where he was talking to someone ... I've searched and searched for it and can't find it where he was talking about the magnitude of disaster that the US can absorb, and he made it sound like the US could take nuke almost like he was more or less unconcerned with the idea of a nuke attack on the US (as in one nuke, not all out nuclear war).

I remember it making a splash at the time, but I can't find it now. I might be just searching for the wrong wording.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: rollanotherone

I have a garden, fruit trees, chickens, and deer in the mountain. Don't have to worry about the crawl space.

TheRedneck

I'm on the outskirts of Reno NV. Really close to Lake Tahoe. We have a kinda sorts plan but I hope to what ever God/gods/goddess/alien creators we never get to that point. Something like an apoc would surely end the progress we have made so far. Also, I don't know how to hunt. Yet.

a reply to: ketsuko


I don't recall it personally. I suppose that it's true that the U.S. could survive a single nuke hit.

Out west, though, with prevailing winds blowing the fallout eastward over the fruited plain....I'm not so sure about that scenario.

I believe/guess that attitude implied that there was doubt he'd retaliate with nukes if the U.S. was hit. I did have that concern about him....somewhere that suggestion popped up, I don't recall where. It 'might' be connected, though.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Hey, welcome back! Have missed your posts.

Glad (that I'm not alone, not glad that it seems certain to happen) to see that others see a massive trainwreck headed our way.

That executive order regarding the presidential transition team seems a bit hinky if differing in the ways posted above and could plausibly lead to a 'reluctant' Obama accepting the 'impartial' team's recommendation that he continue on due to the untimely event of a Clinton indictment so close to the general elections that it really would be unfair to anyone the DNC put up as a replacement for the witch to try and stand up to Trump.

A shame really.

Will Russia drop any bombs, figuratively or literally?

China's been awfully quiet and I'd bet a dollar to a donut that they were in that server too...

Interesting times indeed.

I believe/guess that attitude implied that there was doubt he'd retaliate with nukes if the U.S. was hit. I did have that concern about him....somewhere that suggestion popped up, I don't recall where. It 'might' be connected, though.

This tickles something in my memory, lemme see if i can find it...




Found it:

JAPANESE REPORTER: What is your understanding of the historical meaning of the A-bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do you think it was the right decision?
Obama took a deep breath, paused . . . and punted.

PBO gave a halting response that utterly failed to answer the question. The closest he came was to observe that Japan "has a unique perspective on the issue of nuclear weapons as a consequence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I'm sure it helps to motivate the Prime Minister's deep interest in this issue."

The reporter tried again: "do you believe the US dropping of nuclear weapons on --"

Obama cut him off, choosing to answer an unrelated question on the situation in North Korea.

Obama Declines To Defend U.S. Bombing Of Hiroshima, Nagasaki

And this arricle goes into more depth:

For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons, or launched a crippling cyberattack…

...

Unless I’ve misunderstood, we reserve the right to nuke the following, whether in self-defense or otherwise: (1) nuclear states, (2) non-nuclear states that are in violation of the NPT (i.e. Iran), (3) non-nuclear states that attack the U.S. with bioweapons, but only if they possess a stockpile large enough to pose a risk of a “devastating strike.” I hope I’ve misunderstood that last one; the idea of Obama explaining to Americans that, yes, 50,000 people may be dead of smallpox but we can’t nuke country X because they don’t have a big enough stockpile of the virus yet is dark comedy gold.

New Obama policy: No nuke retaliation for bio or chemical attack?

I wouldn't count Sanders out just yet. If your prediction comes true, I predict Sanders will be brought back in as the Democratic candidate.

a reply to: TheRedneck

First of all, congrats on the sheepskin.

I think your analysis was excellent. I have to differ with you towards the end.

I believe that media polls will show Clinton and Trump close through the summer. Then, bam! An October Surprise to rival Regan vs. Carter. Hillary wins, with a lot of allegations of voter fraud, manipulation, etc. that go no where.

The CFR knows Hillary will forward their agenda, as she is one of their own. Trump, on the other hand, has too much ego. He may play ball, or he may get too full of himself and go off the rails. Assassinating Trump after he wins the election would be too problematic. I'm sure the CFR would feel it's best just to keep him out of the White House.

Interesting. But I have to say your assessment of Obama is debatable:

Obama is, and has been during his national political career, a rebel in search of a cause.

He is exactly the opposite of a rebel. He is a very conservative person with a conservative agenda. For all intents and purposes, a neocon pursuing the imperialist agenda abroad. But because he is masquerading as a liberal he has to pursue this agenda by duplicitous means. Liberal rhetoric, conservative policies. His shtick is to allow the other side to when while in reality desiring the conservative outcome. It's a passive/aggressive style.

And he has and always has had a cause: the corporate, imperialist agenda.

Skimmed all three and don't really see anything obvious but as said I just skimmed and words do make a difference. The Obama order uses a lot of different words that could be construed to be more permanent but who's to know. The group is pretty much made up the same in all 3 as to positions that make up the "Committee/Council". The one difference I did note is that Bush's had an expiration date and the others do not.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Whatever is to come its going to be a rough ride. Fasten your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen.