Lindaland
  Uni-versal Codes
  Predictions on a Trump presidency world. How bad will it get?

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Predictions on a Trump presidency world. How bad will it get?
Astro keen
Knowflake

Posts: 6067
From: UK
Registered: Nov 2012

posted January 29, 2017 06:34 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro keen     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
IQ and anyone else, would appreciate any info on predictions or your personal intuitions, messages, etc., on how world events will turn now that Trump is in power.

iQ, you mentioned receiving messages in dreams - did any of these relate to what's to come now?

IP: Logged

Astro keen
Knowflake

Posts: 6067
From: UK
Registered: Nov 2012

posted January 29, 2017 09:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro keen     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Baba Vanga, a Bulgarian clairvoyant, appears to have predicted the demise of Donald Trump as she foretold that Barack Obama would be the 'last US president'. Now that hasn't come true so far.

She warned that an economic crisis would prevent the 45th president from taking office, meaning Obama would be the last to serve his term.

Incredibly, Baba correctly predicted that the 44th President of the United States would be black.

Baba has previously hit the headlines after apparently correctly predicting the 9/11 terror attacks, the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami and the rise of ISIS. Baba died in 1996.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/what-baba-vanga-predict-more-9237683

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 75105
From: From a galaxy, far, far away...
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 30, 2017 04:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
She was wrong. Trump took office, and the economy looks bright.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 75105
From: From a galaxy, far, far away...
Registered: Apr 2009

posted January 31, 2017 11:07 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I take psychics with a grain of salt.

IP: Logged

soren
Knowflake

Posts: 2977
From: a can
Registered: Sep 2012

posted January 31, 2017 05:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for soren     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
actually the real quote is "“AFRICAN AMERICAN”PRESIDENT WOULD BE THE LAST ACTING PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.”"

She went on, saying that at the time of his stepping into office, there would be a spectacular economic crisis.

‘Everyone will put their hopes in him to end it, but the opposite will happen; he will bring the country down and conflicts between north and south states will escalate,’

But the internet easily mislead that to: "She forewarned that an economic crisis would prevent the 45th president from stepping into office, meaning that Obama would be the last to serve his term."

/facepalm

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 75105
From: From a galaxy, far, far away...
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 01, 2017 06:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Ah...

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 75105
From: From a galaxy, far, far away...
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 02, 2017 10:50 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Some would say how GOOD will it get?

IP: Logged

Astro keen
Knowflake

Posts: 6067
From: UK
Registered: Nov 2012

posted February 02, 2017 12:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro keen     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oh please! Let's get real. All the people around the world campaigning against Trump can't be wrong. A silver lining - he galvanised people to gather and speak out.

IP: Logged

soren
Knowflake

Posts: 2977
From: a can
Registered: Sep 2012

posted February 02, 2017 02:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for soren     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
actually neither is wrong, its a co relationship of understanding, back and forth connection.

trump has an exact sun moon opposition. he NEEDS and desires lots of connectivity to EVERYONE. it is his place in existence that he needs peoples opinions and views. he naturally attracts this. even if people disagree, he is getting what his place in the universe is; connection, communication, understanding of the "other" people. the "other" thing. in which he works with

hence he stirs people up to get the reflection (of 'other' people) his soul needs (sun opp moon)

rodi duterte was much just similar, a 'celebrity'- like figure who the people loved, great personality, likeable person, did not seem the most political but seemed strong minded and get what he believes in. "NO DRUGS IT IS DESTROYING THE PHILLIPINES".

i think the new age ushered in ushers these types of people. figures. leo for maintaining an image of pride and power. no longer pisces about caring and making action for the future. living in the moment.

so just saying it's a part of his path to need others views.

IP: Logged

Astro keen
Knowflake

Posts: 6067
From: UK
Registered: Nov 2012

posted February 02, 2017 02:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro keen     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Soren, how Trumps's personal chart impacts his behaviour is besides the point here. There is another thread about his astrology where you could post your comments:
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum24/HTML/237189.html

IP: Logged

soren
Knowflake

Posts: 2977
From: a can
Registered: Sep 2012

posted February 02, 2017 03:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for soren     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
there is a side to every coin for his behaviour. if it was truly wrong in every way he wouldnt be doing it. putting a 90 day trial ban is maybe not the best, but it ensures that he will feel rest assured about terrorists. barely any people come from those countries to the US anyway. and no it is not a 'muslim ban' but just banning the place where there is the most terrorism (which is because people dont value their lives there because it is a sand/rock haven)

most of them are too poor to even travel.

building a wall will not even change much cause it wouldnt be hard to get over. but people rise in solidarity because they see what it 'looks like' so they have to stand up for that. 'it looks like a muslim or a discrimatory ban and we will not accept that'.

both sides getting angry about things that don't matter, for trump: it doesnt really matter that terrorists come because there is barely any terrorist attacks

but the image it projects: WE WILL NOT TOLERATE TERRORISTS! WE WILL SAFEGUARD OURSELVES!! WE WILL NOT ALLOW THEM TO DO ANY BAD! WE ARE AWESOME

it is just countering the OTHER image that people are protesting: WE ARE ACCEPTING OF ALL! WE ARE COMPASSIONATE AND CARING! WE VALUE AND ACCEPT ALL!

those are 2 opposite images being projected, but it just so happens that the majority slightly favours the former image than the latter. they are both things that don't really make any difference on the world, muslim ban, but they 'project images' which is mainly what people are standing for, 'what they believe is a better image' compassionate, or 'we can not be hurt from the bad guys, we are awesome'


actually if we get down to what a terror attack is is damaging just for the point of damaging. there is more white terrorists in america much outnumbering muslim, but it's not racist to ban the 'muslim' terrorists because they live in an extreme place (rock/sand barren) and so they have different motivations in general. it's not time to relax and take a bath, it's time to try to obey whatever it is they feel is right from being in that type of land and so they wrote those best ways to be in their books. it's the BOOKS that look bad from OVER HERE, but once those middle easterns come OVER to america, they don't follow those books as exactly as they regularily would because they start to have different values. they can now relax, enjoy beautiful landscape, and they value their life without having the same motivations. if their books didnt look so bad, having those 'writings of hurting those', that projects too strong of an image, unfortunately. however if anyone looked at facts, there is barely any terrorist attacks.

IP: Logged

Astro keen
Knowflake

Posts: 6067
From: UK
Registered: Nov 2012

posted February 02, 2017 03:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro keen     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Soren, you need to go speak to some Muslims first, before making judgements on how they feel or are impacted by the Muslim ban. Or read newspapers where they have expressed their views.

Here's a quote which clearly contradicts everything you have said. So please do read the papers.

"Donald Trump’s decision to ban immigration from a string of Muslim-majority nations has sparked fury and anguish around the world as refugees and migrants were prevented from boarding flights to the US.

Holders of passports from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen were stopped at airports, while passengers already in the air were detained in the US. In one incident, five Iraqi passengers and one Yemeni, all holding valid visas, were barred from boarding an EgyptAir flight from Cairo to New York and instead redirected on to flights to their home countries.

A Yazidi woman, who fled an Isis massacre in Iraq in 2014, was stopped from boarding a flight in Baghdad, after waiting months for a visa to be reunited with her husband, who is already in the US"
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/global-fury-donal-tru mp-us-ban-immigration-muslim-countries


IP: Logged

soren
Knowflake

Posts: 2977
From: a can
Registered: Sep 2012

posted February 02, 2017 04:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for soren     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
that is a lie to say it is a muslim ban. if you look at the global index of countries with terrorist attacks
here is how the banned countries rank on that list:

Syria: 4
Iraq: 1
Iran: 38
Yemen: 6
Libya: 9
Somalia: 8
Sudan: 7

Besides Iran, those are pretty high in the list of countries with the most terrorist attacks. Which is why I say, if it was just a ban of people of muslim faith, that would be very racist and/or ignorant because it is the LAND which induces those attacks, not the race. That is my belief, though others would say 'it's their religion'. Without a shred of idea of what it's like to live in a land. I even saw them post a picture of the land from the bad group and it's completely barren rock with NO plants. People complain when the temperature goes up by 4 degrees hotter, or it's slightly colder, or "i had to wait in the rain for 10 minutes!!" yet these children and people of middle east are living on barren rock. No life.

Also, I don't think it really matters that they couldnt merely 'vacation' in the US. However I am sure it does effect many, but how many immigrants from those countries come to live in the US for more than 2 years? How many in 3 years, like 1000? If that is so, it does suck for those 1000, especially people escaping potential terrorism, it is not good. People suffering trying to get better lives, but it is a short span of 3 months. At most 4 years. Or 8.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 75105
From: From a galaxy, far, far away...
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 03, 2017 02:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
These 7 countries have collapsed governments with no central command and are run by the terrorists.

IP: Logged

Astro keen
Knowflake

Posts: 6067
From: UK
Registered: Nov 2012

posted February 03, 2017 04:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro keen     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That is absolute rubbish Randall, a simplistic view that takes no account of history.

Although I have no wish to discuss politics in this forum or anywhere on LL, as it would take a huge amount of effort and time with little result, I am posting the following article about the recent history of Yemen. Other countries have long stories too.

-----------------------------------------------

"Britain is backing a Saudi invasion of Yemen that has cost thousands of innocent lives. It is providing advanced weaponry to the Saudis, training their military and has soldiers embedded with them, helping with targeting of air strikes.

Yemen is the sole country on the Arab peninsula with the potential power to challenge the colonial stitch-up reached between Britain and the Gulf monarchies it placed in power in the 19th century. This is true of today. But it also describes exactly what was happening during the 1960s, in a shameful episode which Britain has, like so much of its colonial past, effectively whitewashed out of history.

In 1962, following the death of Yemeni King Ahmad, Arab nationalist army officers led by Colonel Abdullah Al-Sallal seized power and declared a republic. The royalists launched an insurgency to reclaim power, backed by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel and Britain, whilst Nasser’s Egypt sent troops to support the fledgling republican government.

In his book Unpeople, historian Mark Curtis pieces together Britain’s “dirty war” in Yemen between 1962 and 1969, using declassified files which – despite their public availability and the incendiary nature of their revelations - have only ever been examined by one other British historian. British involvement spanned both Conservative and Labour governments, and implicated leading members of the British government in war crimes.

Just as today, the side under attack from Britain clearly had popular support – as British officials were well aware. Christopher Gandy - Britain's top official in Yemen’s cultural capital, Taiz - noted that the previous regime was "unpopular with large elements and those in many ways the best", describing it as "an arbitrary autocracy".

At first, Britain’s role was primarily to support and equip Jordan’s involvement in the war. Just as today, it was British-supplied fighter jets carrying out airstrikes on Yemen, with British military advisers embedded with their allies at the most senior level. This involvement stepped up a gear in March 1963, however, when Britain began covertly supplying weapons to the royalist forces themselves via their Gulf allies.

What Britain wanted, Prime Minister Harold Macmillian said, was "a weak government in Yemen not able to make trouble”
The following month, says MI6 biographer Stephen Dorrill, millions of pounds worth of light weapons were shipped from an RAF station in Wiltshire to the insurgents, including 50,000 rifles. At the same time, a decision was taken by Britain’s foreign minister (shortly to become prime minister) Alec Douglas-Home, MI6 chief Dick White and SAS founder David Stirling to send a British force to work directly with the insurgents. But to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and public accountability, this force would be comprised of mercenaries, rather than serving soldiers.

SAS soldiers and paratroopers were given temporary leave to join this new force on a then handsome salary of £10,000 per year, paid for by the Saudi Prince Sultan. The same time as these decisions were taken, Douglas-Home told parliament that “our policy in Yemen is one of non-intervention in the affairs of that country. It is not therefore our policy to supply arms to the royalists in the Yemen”.

British officials also knew that their insurgency had no chance of winning. But this was not the point, for as Prime Minister Harold Macmillan told US President John Kennedy at the time: "I quite realise that the loyalists will probably not win in Yemen in the end but it would not suit us too badly if the new Yemeni regime were occupied with their own internal affairs during the next few years". What Britain wanted, he added, was "a weak government in Yemen not able to make trouble”.

Labour came to power in the autumn of 1964, but the policy stayed the same; indeed, direct (but covert) RAF bombing of Yemen began soon after. In addition, another private British military company Airwork Services, signed a $26 million contract to provide personnel for training Saudi pilots and ground crew involved in the war.

This agreement later evolved into British pilots actually carrying out bombing missions themselves, with a foreign office memo dated March 1967 noting that “we have raised no objection to their being employed in operations, though we made it clear to the Saudis that we could not publicly acquiesce in any such arrangements”. By the time the war ended – with its inevitable Republican victory – an estimated 200,000 people had been killed.

Nor was this the first time Britain had aided and abetted a Saudi war against the Yemenis. In 1934, Ibn Saud invaded and annexed Asir - “a Yemeni province by all historical accounts” in the words of the academic and Yemen specialist Elham Manea – and forced Yemen to sign a treaty deferring their claims to the territory for 20 years. It has never been returned to Yemen and remains occupied by the Saudis to this day.

Britain’s role in facilitating this carve-up was significant. As Manea explains: “During this period, the real power was Great Britain. Its role was crucial in either exacerbating or containing regional conflicts… [and] in the Yemeni-Saudi war they intensified the conflict to the detriment of Yemen.”

When Ibn Saud claimed sovereignty over Asir in 1930, the British, who had been neutral towards disputes between the peninsula’s various rulers hitherto, “shifted their position, perceiving Asir as ‘part of Saudi Arabia’... This was a terrible setback for [Yemeni leader] Yihia and drove him into an agreement with the British in 1934 which ultimately sealed his total defeat.”

The agreement forced Yihia to recognise British sovereignty of Aden – Yemen’s major port - for 40 years. Britain then provided military vehicles for the Saudi suppression of the Asiri revolt and subsequent occupation that followed.

So the current British-Saudi war against Yemen is in fact the third in a century. But why is Britain so seemingly determined to see the country dismembered and its development sabotaged?

Strange as it may seem, the answer is that Britain is scared of Yemen, the sole country on the Arab peninsula with the potential power to challenge the colonial stitch-up reached between London and the Gulf monarchies it placed in power in the 19th century, and who continue to rule to this day.

As Palestinian author Said Aburish has noted, the “nature of the Yemen was a challenge to the Saudis: It was a populous country with more than half the population of the whole Arabian peninsula, had a solid urban history and was more advanced than its new neighbour. It also represented a thorn in the side of British colonialism, a possible springboard for action against their control of Saudi Arabia and all the makeshift tributary sheikhdoms and emirates of the Gulf. In particular, the Yemen represented a threat to the British colonisation of Aden, a territory which considered itself part of a greater Yemen which had been dismembered by colonialism."

The potential power of a united, peaceful, Yemen was also highlighted by Kennedy Trevaskis, Aden’s High Commissioner in 1963-4, who noted that, if the Yemenis took Aden, "it would for the first time provide the Yemen with a large modern town and a port of international consequence" and "economically, it would offer the greatest advantages to so poor and ill developed a country".

A peaceful, united Yemen would threaten Saudi-British-US hegemony of the entire region.
http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/britains-century-long-war-yemen-809826615

------------------------------------------------

And now please close this thread.

IP: Logged

soren
Knowflake

Posts: 2977
From: a can
Registered: Sep 2012

posted February 03, 2017 05:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for soren     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
tldr; it would be easier if you could sum it up in your own words in a short paragraph; like the country is actually rebelling against britain's co-op in taking them over.

much easier.

IP: Logged

Astro keen
Knowflake

Posts: 6067
From: UK
Registered: Nov 2012

posted February 03, 2017 10:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Astro keen     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I disagree. You need to be better informed. Read the whole article.

IP: Logged

Randall
Webmaster

Posts: 75105
From: From a galaxy, far, far away...
Registered: Apr 2009

posted February 04, 2017 09:38 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Randall     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Obama administration chose those 7 countries and passed the Terrorist Travel Protection Act, which Obama signed into law.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright 2000-2017

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a