The Election Was Rigged

[Lauren Johnson]

That has been my starting point in thinking about this election for POTUS. I am convinced that no one can be allowed to be the POTUS who does not get the nod from those who make these decisions. Therefore, I am not here to argue the case. I say it is just a fact.

I admit that I saw Trump as the guy who would get Hillary elected. Given my starting point, I can no longer hold that opinion obviously. She lost; he won. It can easily be argued that this is circular reasoning, that my starting point is not falsifiable. True. But nevertheless this is where I start.

Given this starting point, I have to ask Why The Donald? My answer is: I don't know, obviously. I do suspect that something significant is going on beneath the surface and the statements that Trump will put an end the the Establishment are bogus.

Here are three general possibilities: 1) Trump will continue on with the NWO agenda while pretending to struggle mightily to make America great again blaming someone for his troubles. Two, and this is the more serious, Trump is being put into place for great catastrophic false flag that will require a strong leader, with the consequent elimination of civil rights and his use of emergency powers to run the country as a dictator of sorts. Or a third possibility, he has been put in place to be a punching bag causing further damage to the trust in government and the disillusionment of the right wing populace. He might even be assassinated by some dark logic to inflame a revolution. (There is a saying: I will lead the revolution that destroys me.)

The imaginative can think of other possibilities -- probably better ones. But I invite members to think in terms of Trump being yet another sock puppet of the Establishment under disguise for purposes yet undisclosed.

[John Knoble]

We haven't had a major depression since the 1930s. Before that they happened on a regular basis for centuries about every 60 years. One of the things beneath the surface is probably preparation for the next one, which has been delayed by international credit expansion, government debt expansion and whatever creative things they did to save the Fed and the big banks back around 2008.

There's no doubt a lot of jostling for position between major financial centers. The beefing-up of domestic security and the various pretexts to do so were probably a prelude to a crisis that could cause civil unrest.

If you assume Trump has been casted for a role, I'd start with those facts to figure out the script.

[Lauren Johnson]

We haven't had a major depression since the 1930s. Before that they happened on a regular basis for centuries about every 60 years. One of the things beneath the surface is probably preparation for the next one, which has been delayed by international credit expansion, government debt expansion and whatever creative things they did to save the Fed and the big banks back around 2008.

There's no doubt a lot of jostling for position between major financial centers. The beefing-up of domestic security and the various pretexts to do so were probably a prelude to a crisis that could cause civil unrest.

If you assume Trump has been casted for a role, it could be to negotiate down foreign-owned federal debt, blame the next economic crisis on the public's bad judgment to elect a non-politician, etc.

That's intriguing for sure.

I now presume that GWB was made POTUS for the purpose of over-seeing the 9/11 aftermath -- to be the war president as he liked to call it. Did he know? My guess is no. But he was cast for that role, as I fear and suspect that Trump is.

[Tom Scully]

[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="class: lyr, colspan: 2"].....And Tommy dosen't know what day it is.
He dosen't know who Jesus was
Or what praying is.
How can he be saved
From the eternal grave?[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

It is rigged from it's inception by design, a feature, not a bug. Founders did not trust the voters despite
the vote restricted to land owing freemen at the time. This time, the wisdom behind the popular vote is
demonstrable but constitutionally irrelevant.

Michael MooreVerified account‏@MMFlint

The American Brexit. In June, Britain voted to leave Europe. Yesterday, America voted to leave America.

No, Michael, some of us did, not most of us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Un...pular_vote
Elections

1824: John Quincy Adams

In the 1824 presidential election John Quincy Adams was elected President on February 9, 1825. The election was decided by the House of Representatives under the provisions of Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution after no candidate secured a majority of the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson had received the most electoral votes, but he did not become President. This became a source of great bitterness for Jackson and his supporters, who proclaimed the election of Adams a corrupt bargain.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]
.....................
2016: Donald J. Trump

As of November 2016 (11/10 12:30am ET), the New York Times indicated that Hillary Clinton had over 200,000 more votes than Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, despite losing the election in the electoral college. Clinton received approximately 47.7% while Trump got about 47.5%.[SUP][9][/SUP]

[Tom Scully]

dollar
.........

If you assume Trump has been casted for a role, it could be to negotiate down foreign-owned federal debt, blame the next economic crisis on the public's bad judgment to elect a non-politician, etc.

The U.S. dollar is the world reserve currency, stronger with uncertainty in reaction to the sustainability of the European Union and thus the Euro. China offers a poor alternative because of non-transparency and
a stronger motive for sudden devaluation to sustain export competitiveness to preserve employment for domestic political stability. This insures low odds of a Trump like cult of personality,

"I am the only one who can fix this and make China great again."

U.S. debt is denominated in dollars, a dollar debt obligation. There is an overwhelming preference for printing down the intrinsic value of the foreign debt
obligation vs. even any talk of negotiation since it would have the same effect on valuation without the subtlety of dilution via printing and Fed's quantitative
easing.

IOW, insanity reigns and the premise of this thread and your own speculation are out of synch with the insane and eventually unsustainable status quo.

http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2016/05/0...ury-bonds/
Published Mon, May 9, 2016 | Alan Gula, Chief Income Analyst

The Federal Reserve holds $4.4 trillion worth of assets on its balance sheet.
Of this total, $2.3 trillion is in U.S. Treasury notes and bonds. These Treasuries are parked in the System Open Market Account, which contains assets acquired via open market operations including quantitative easing (QE).
I bring this up in response to a Bloomberg article penned by Narayana Kocherlakota, former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
In the article, titled "The World Needs More U.S. Government Debt," Kocherlakota claims the U.S. government isn't issuing enough bonds to satisfy household and corporate demand.
Well, if there aren't enough Treasuries for private investors, perhaps the Fed should sell off some of its own stockpile of Treasuries. Don't you think?
Of course, this would effectively function as reverse QE, which would cause financial asset prices to fall.
In other words, the Fed won't be shrinking its massive balance sheet and kindly releasing those bonds into the wild anytime soon.
There are too few Treasury bonds for investors, yet the Fed will continue to hold a big chunk of them.....

Fed has simply created dollars to buy Treasury bonds when demand for their new issuance is uneven. Fed owns a portfolio of U.S. debt paid for with
Fed created dollars which so far have influenced no dilution, in fact the opposite.

[David Guyatt]

dollar
.........

If you assume Trump has been casted for a role, it could be to negotiate down foreign-owned federal debt, blame the next economic crisis on the public's bad judgment to elect a non-politician, etc.

The U.S. dollar is the world reserve currency, stronger with uncertainty in reaction to the sustainability of the European Union and thus the Euro.

U.S. debt is denominated in dollars, a dollar debt obligation. There is an overwhelming preference for printing down the intrinsic value of the foreign debt
obligation vs. even any talk of negotiation since it would have the same effect on valuation without the subtlety of dilution via printing and Fed's quantitative
easing. Fed has simply created dollars to buy Treasury bonds when demand for their new issuance is uneven. Fed owns a portfolio of U.S. debt paid for with
Fed created dollars which so far have influenced no dilution, in fact the opposite.

If the BRICS nations do manage to float a currency competing with the US dollar for reserve currency status, then I rather suspect that the US will begin to really suffer the consequences of its vast indebtedness.

This, I think, is a primary reason why the US has tried to drive a wedge through BRICS by destablising Brazil and cuddle up to India, any also is why Obama pivoted to Asia, and is a contributing reason why Russia has again become the convenient scapegoat.

In fact, if we read the Wolfotwiz Doctrine, we see that these are the fundamental reasons for these actions. No competing power is to be allowed to develop:

"You shall have no other gods before me."

Such crazed zealotry will ultimately consume itself.

I hope I am still around to watch it happen.

[Martin White]

Dare I suggest that misdirection is the key to any successful trick.

We all watched the Democrats go through some very odd dealings to ensure that Clinton was selected instead of Sanders. It had all the hallmarks of a scheme determined to put a Clinton back in the White House. Even the selection of Trump as GOP candidate reinforced that.

Meanwhile, if Lauren's hypothesis is true, no one thought to suspect the clown in the room.

[Tracy Riddle]

Good points, Lauren. It's not hard for me to imagine scenarios where the National Security State loses patience with Trump and eliminates him in some way, perhaps via his connections to Russia, and uses it as a pretext to start a war.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...story.html

Intelligence community is already feeling a sense of dread about Trump

The lobby of CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. (Larry Downing/Reuters)
By Greg Miller November 9 at 7:06 PM
The election results were only hours old Wednesday when a sober team of intelligence analysts carrying black satchels and secure communications gear began preparing to give President-elect Donald Trump his first unfiltered look at the nation's secrets.
The initial presentation to be delivered as early as Thursday is likely to be a read-through of the President's Daily Brief, the same highly classified summary of security developments delivered every day to President Obama. After that, U.S. intelligence officials are expected to schedule a series of meetings to apprise Trump of covert CIA operations against terrorist groups, the intercepted communications of world leaders, and satellite photos of nuclear installations in North Korea.






The sessions are designed to bring a new president up to speed on what the nation's spy agencies know and do. But with Trump, the meetings are likely to be tense encounters between wary intelligence professionals and a newly minted president-elect who has demonstrated abundant disdain for their work.
[75 retired senior diplomats sign letter opposing Trump for president]
A palpable sense of dread settled on the intelligence community Wednesday as Hillary Clinton, the candidate many expected to win, conceded the race to a GOP upstart who has dismissed U.S. spy agencies' views on Russia and Syria, and even threatened to order the CIA to resume the use of interrogation methods condemned as torture.

[Lauren Johnson]

Good points, Lauren. It's not hard for me to imagine scenarios where the National Security State loses patience with Trump and eliminates him in some way, perhaps via his connections to Russia, and uses it as a pretext to start a war.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...story.html

Intelligence community is already feeling a sense of dread about Trump

The lobby of CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. (Larry Downing/Reuters)
By Greg Miller November 9 at 7:06 PM
The election results were only hours old Wednesday when a sober team of intelligence analysts carrying black satchels and secure communications gear began preparing to give President-elect Donald Trump his first unfiltered look at the nation's secrets.
The initial presentation to be delivered as early as Thursday is likely to be a read-through of the President's Daily Brief, the same highly classified summary of security developments delivered every day to President Obama. After that, U.S. intelligence officials are expected to schedule a series of meetings to apprise Trump of covert CIA operations against terrorist groups, the intercepted communications of world leaders, and satellite photos of nuclear installations in North Korea.






The sessions are designed to bring a new president up to speed on what the nation's spy agencies know and do. But with Trump, the meetings are likely to be tense encounters between wary intelligence professionals and a newly minted president-elect who has demonstrated abundant disdain for their work.
[75 retired senior diplomats sign letter opposing Trump for president]
A palpable sense of dread settled on the intelligence community Wednesday as Hillary Clinton, the candidate many expected to win, conceded the race to a GOP upstart who has dismissed U.S. spy agencies' views on Russia and Syria, and even threatened to order the CIA to resume the use of interrogation methods condemned as torture.

Is Trump in on "it" or is he being set up to be a patsy. OR is this an article meant to be a quick shot across the Trump jutting hairline -- don't mess with the plan asshole.

[R.K. Locke]

Trump was mentored by Roy Cohn so he is not likely to be naïve about the machinations of the deep state. My interpretation of this election is that Clinton was initially set up to win but another power bloc (the public face of which is Rupert Murdoch and his media empire) decided that it couldn't be allowed to happen. By that time, Trump was the only game in town.

I welcome any further discussion or criticism of this interpretation, which is also elucidated by Michel Chossudovsky on a recent interview on Guns & Butter.