Trump Alone at the Top

[B-Man]

 

Democrats/MSM say Trump is a #YUGE security risk...while Hillary is under FBI investigation for mishandling secrets.

 

 

http://observer.com/2016/05/the-double-standard-of-donald-and-the-spies/

 

 

 

 

REMINDER:

 

Hillary's server IS the smoking gun.

 

 

 

.

Edited May 6, 2016 by B-Man

[birdog1960]

 

What kind of logic is that?

sound logic. i'll diagram it for you if you can't discern it yourself. the initial premise is that citizens united resulted in more influence peddling in favor of big moneyed interests. the conclusion is that trump's (and sander's) popularity has significantly benefitted from the anger resulting from this. you can fill in the middle, I trust.

[GG]

 

...What?

 

:lol:

Yet, the candidate the money that owns the government wants to win and who was most helped by CU is conveniently left out of your narrative.

 

If you keep ignoring the reality smacking you in the face long enough... it'll still be reality.

 

She was a prohibitive favorite 9 months ago, and has seen that lead evaporate, despite all the money behind her. If Dems had a better candidate than a geriatric socialist, she'd be toast again.

 

It's truly a bizarre narrative you're spinning that Hillary's ascent is part of a preordained plot by the power brokers.

sound logic. i'll diagram it for you if you can't discern it yourself. the initial premise is that citizens united resulted in more influence peddling in favor of big moneyed interests. the conclusion is that trump's (and sander's) popularity has significantly benefitted from the anger resulting from this. you can fill in the middle, I trust.

 

Save your breath. You're looking for the excuses. The anger is because the Obama economy hasn't lifted people out of their misery unlike other recessionary rebounds. You want to use Citizens United as the reason go ahead, but it wouldn't rank in the top 10 of concerns that people could name.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

She was a prohibitive favorite 9 months ago, and has seen that lead evaporate, despite all the money behind her. If Dems had a better candidate than a geriatric socialist, she'd be toast again.

 

It's truly a bizarre narrative you're spinning that Hillary's ascent is part of a preordained plot by the power brokers.

 

It's only bizarre if you're watching what's happening with closed eyes.

[birdog1960]

 

She was a prohibitive favorite 9 months ago, and has seen that lead evaporate, despite all the money behind her. If Dems had a better candidate than a geriatric socialist, she'd be toast again.

 

It's truly a bizarre narrative you're spinning that Hillary's ascent is part of a preordained plot by the power brokers.

 

Save your breath. You're looking for the excuses. The anger is because the Obama economy hasn't lifted people out of their misery unlike other recessionary rebounds. You want to use Citizens United as the reason go ahead, but it wouldn't rank in the top 10 of concerns that people could name.

yes, trump supporters are generally miserable I believe. but their economic woes don't stem from obama's policies but from the global economy. neither trump nor anyone else can or will change that fact. I don't believe many of his supporters accept this.

 

special interest pandering at the expense of everymen is on many voters minds including trump supporters. this can actually be changed but I doubt trump is the guy to do it.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

She was a prohibitive favorite 9 months ago, and has seen that lead evaporate, despite all the money behind her. If Dems had a better candidate than a geriatric socialist, she'd be toast again.

 

But they don't, because the big money that owns this government wants Hillary... you keep talking around the obvious fault in your argument.

 

The field was stacked in Hillary's favor, and still is, because she's the biggest establishment candidate running and she has a long history of carrying the torch for their causes: more war, more divisiveness, greater inequity, and less financial regulation. Hillary is the 0.00001%.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

But they don't, because the big money that owns this government wants Hillary... you keep talking around the obvious fault in your argument.

 

The field was stacked in Hillary's favor, and still is, because she's the biggest establishment candidate running and she has a long history of carrying the torch for their causes: more war, more divisiveness, greater inequity, and less financial regulation. Hillary is the 0.00001%.

They don't "want more war". There is far more money to be made in peace. We've had this discussion before.

 

The issue is that government is now, and has always been, an organized destructive force. One of the few things is it very good at is making war, and it has few other tools, because at it's core, all government really is, is a monopoly on force.

 

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

[Deranged Rhino]

They don't "want more war". There is far more money to be made in peace. We've had this discussion before.

 

 

Disagree. Central banks LOVE war.

 

War is the most efficient debt-creation machine. For starters, wars are very expensive.

For example, Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz estimated in 2008 that the Iraq war could cost America up to $5 trillion dollars. A study by Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies says the Iraq war costs could exceed $6 trillion, wheninterest payments to the banks are taken into account.

This is nothing new … but has been going on for thousands of years. As a Cambridge University Press treatise on ancient Athens notes:

So wars have been a huge – and regular – way for banks to create debt for kings and presidents who want to try to expand their empires.

 

Financing wars is expensive business, and the scope for initiative was regularly extended by borrowing.

War is also good for banks because a lot of material, equipment, buildings and infrastructure get destroyed in war. So countries go into massive debt to finance war, and then borrow a ton more to rebuild.

The advent of central banks hasn’t changed this formula. Specifically, the big banks (“primary dealers”) loan money to the Fed, and charge interest for the loan.

So when a nation like the U.S. gets into a war, the Fed pumps out money for the war effort based upon loans from the primary dealers, who make a killing in interest payments from the Fed.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/04/another-reason-bankers-love-war.html

 

 

The issue is that government is now, and has always been, an organized destructive force. One of the few things is it very good at is making war, and it has few other tools, because at it's core, all government really is, is a monopoly on force.

 

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

 

No argument here. Though I'm not anti-government. I do think government has a role to play in our modern world when it's working for the people. Sadly our government is no longer working for the people.

[meazza]

 

 

No argument here. Though I'm not anti-government. I do think government has a role to play in our modern world when it's working for the people. Sadly our government is no longer working for the people.

 

I think you need to work for the government to finally understand our perspectives because right now, you sound like a raving uninformed asshat (with all due respect).

Edited May 6, 2016 by meazza

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I think you need to work for the government to finally understand our perspectives because right now, you sound like a raving uninformed asshat (with all due respect).

 

Your perspective being what? That there is no outside influence on the government?

 

I don't need to work in government to see this is false. I can read and interpret history and current events well enough to see what's happening.

[meazza]

 

Your perspective being what? That there is no outside influence on the government?

 

I don't need to work in government to see this is false. I can read and interpret history and current events well enough to see what's happening.

 

That everything isn't a conspiracy. That everything isn't pre-planned, it just happens through sheer ignorance and incompetence.

[DC Tom]

 

 

The irony is that I'm not even sure how to reply to that.

 

Call him an idiot. I'll license it to you, just this once.

[meazza]

 

Call him an idiot. I'll license it to you, just this once.

 

Go for it I'm ready.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

That everything isn't a conspiracy. That everything isn't pre-planned, it just happens through sheer ignorance and incompetence.

 

I'm not arguing everything is a conspiracy -- in fact I haven't even put forth anything that's conspiratorial. You can track everything I'm saying and see it sourced in multiple outlets. It's being done in the open, legally, and not in secret (the defining characteristic of a conspiracy). I'm also not discounting the human element, nor luck, nor incompetence. You're conditioned to lump what I'm saying into this conspiracy category for some reason when I'm not even bringing those up.

 

... Now if you want me to go there I can. But that conversation will have everything to do with the massive cover up of advanced technologies and off world intelligences that (maybe) have been interacting with this planet since before we rose from the primordial soup. THAT'S conspiracy and admittedly requires a great deal of speculation with very little empirical evidence. I don't bring any of that into this board because there is no possible way a constructive conversation about that topic can be had with the personalities around these parts.

 

Pointing out that war creates debt and debt is the driving profit center for banks isn't a conspiracy. That's historically provable and has been a pattern repeated since the beginning of banking.

 

Pointing out that the unfettered money into the political system in this country has had a chilling effect on our democracy is also not conspiracy but provable fact.

 

Pointing out that Hillary is the candidate most aligned with the big moneyed interests that have hijacked the federal government is also quite evident from a number of sources -- including Hillary herself.

 

I get that you're hesitant to see things as they are, but because you disagree with my position doesn't automatically make it a conspiracy theory.

[Observer]

 

You may well be right about everything you're saying. My original point was simply that the disconnect between the party leadership and the rank & file across the nation is what set the stage for Trump to gain the nomination, and that things might have been different had the party leaders paid closer attention to the people who put them in Washington in the first place.

 

Trump doesn't resonate with conservatives. He resonates with angry people who don't care that Trump has no clear vision.

 

"Anti" is not an ethos.

 

[Azalin]

 

Call him an idiot. I'll license it to you, just this once.

 

 

 

Go for it I'm ready.

 

 

You Idiot! (single-use permission granted by DC Tom)

[Observer]

 

 

 

You Idiot! (single-use permission granted by DC Tom)

 

You didn't even do it right. It's guys like you that make him enforce his monopoly.

[meazza]

 

 

 

You Idiot! (single-use permission granted by DC Tom)

 

Thank you for being gentle.

[Azalin]

 

You didn't even do it right. It's guys like you that make him enforce his monopoly.

 

Okay, I'll respond to you in my own inimitable fashion:

 

I like you - you remind me of myself when I was young and really, really freakin' stupid.

 

Is that more to your liking?

 

Thank you for being gentle.

 

I'm a bit amateurish using the "I" word. Forgive me.

[B-Man]

Obama Lectures Press on Donald Trump: ’This Is Not Entertainment. This Is Not a Reality Show’

 

 

 

 

So says the selfie-president who does YouTube interviews with people who bathe in cereal.

 

Edited May 6, 2016 by B-Man