Presidential Election

[Dale]

2 hours ago, aent said:

The thing is at the local level, those with the beliefs of the third party are gladly accepted and supported by the Republicans. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld both were elected (and re-elected) governors of solid blue states with completely libertarian ideas under the red ticket, and when you ask them why, they wanted the resources of the republican party as they knew it made them more likely to succeed. Ron Paul as well. At the national level, the party won't let them be on the ticket, but at the local level, they're fine with it, especially when they aren't predicting a win in the area otherwise. So the answer is yes, its happened at a local level, many, many times already.

Also funding and donations for the future cycles will be boosted to allow them to have a better chance in the future if they can hit new milestones in number of votes, along with the major parties somewhat adjusting their policies to try to gain back support. The other parties know people WANT to vote for a candidate who has a good chance of winning, and if they see 15% of people are willing to "throw their vote away" because the candidate they chose is so bad, they'll likely pick a different kind of person this time. The dems aren't happy with HRC either, but if we elect her, we'll be telling them thats what wins elections, please keep putting up candidates who are for that level of corruption, we the American people don't care.

I'm personally of the belief that Clinton and Trump's ACTUAL policies they'll push for are nearly the same, so why not show my dissatisfaction and vote 3rd party?

Johnson is sketchy as a libertarian. Weld is in no way a libertarian.

1 hour ago, JFW657 said:

Right-wingers and right leaning Libertarians love kooky conspiracy theories like Ross Perot being harassed by the FBI, etc., while in fact, it is they and their own political leaders who engage the most in skullduggery and underhanded political tactics.

Dallas Observer: Perotnoia

As for BLM... who, other than you, even brought them up?

I think they're just another typical group of agenda pushing opportunists, much like the tea party and Occupy.

 

Your analysis of right-wingers doesn't pass the giggle test, but is probably the best that could be expected from a left-winger in terms of intellectual rigor.

[jrs2]

^^

Controlling this site via mobile is confusing.  I was trying to reply to JFW657 but it was all wack.  Anyway:

Perot:  for JFW657's edification, Perot himself discussed it in an interview on national tv in 1992.  So is it a conspiracy to believe the man when he himself discusses it on national tv?  I'm assuming JFW657 didn't see that interview or wasn't paying attention to the 1992 election otherwise he'd know the difference.

Typical left winger, though, bc most don't pay attention to what's really going on, they just criticize those that do bc it doesn't conform to their world view.

[emerilescaladefan]

I'm voting for trump and to hell with hildabeast.

[JFW657]

7 hours ago, Dale said:

Johnson is sketchy as a libertarian. Weld is in no way a libertarian.

Your analysis of right-wingers doesn't pass the giggle test, but is probably the best that could be expected from a left-winger in terms of intellectual rigor.

That's just too funny coming from a denizen of the side of the ideological fence that nominated as their candidate, and is largely backing, the biggest joke to ever run for any office.

Anyone who could possibly think that a foul-mouthed, obnoxious, short-tempered, ill-bred, low-class boor like Dump is fit to hold high public office, much less the highest in the land, has no room to disparage the "intellectual rigor" of anyone else.

Intellectual rigor is among the last qualities that could be considered a hallmark of the political right.

Something closer to intellectual drool would be more like it.

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, jrs2 said:

^^

Controlling this site via mobile is confusing.  I was trying to reply to JFW657 but it was all wack.  Anyway:

Perot:  for JFW657's edification, Perot himself discussed it in an interview on national tv in 1992.  So is it a conspiracy to believe the man when he himself discusses it on national tv?  I'm assuming JFW657 didn't see that interview or wasn't paying attention to the 1992 election otherwise he'd know the difference.

Typical left winger, though, bc most don't pay attention to what's really going on, they just criticize those that do bc it doesn't conform to their world view.

Perot was a kook and everyone knew it. That's why his support came mainly from the kind of cranks and malcontents who are now brainwashed by Trump. The latest flavor of the day, sham du jour who they think is going to ride into Washington on a white horse and turn the country around on a dime.

Just because the paranoid nutjob discussed his goofball conspiracy theories on TV is cdrtainly no reason to believe him AFAIC.

35 minutes ago, emerilescaladefan said:

I'm voting for trump and to hell with hildabeast.

I'm voting for Hillary and to hell with the orange carnival barker.

Truck Fump.

[John Hargrove]

Let's be real here. There are two groups of people who support Trump:

1. Chronically misinformed or uneducated voters who are in some way burned by the status quo and basically don't know any better. These are your people who genuinely got screwed by globalization, automation and the general lack of prosperity for low-education work. They generally don't understand policy or the legislative process in great detail.
2. Long-time GOP voters who are educated, generally white, generally on the favorable end of the economic spectrum. These voters didn't really want Trump, but now that they have him, they are retroactively rationalizing him as a good candidate because this group DESPISES Hillary Clinton. Usually they are Republican because they believe in small government, low taxes, are business owners or are socially conservative (read: religious)

I once read something along the lines of, "Smart people are very good at rationalizing beliefs they arrived at for very dumb reasons." It's basically the same thing. Smart people can come up with a laundry list of reasons they'd prefer Trump over Hillary. It's not that they really wanted him, but now they have him and they are on team red. 

It's not even willful. It's more of a psychological defense mechanism for being undoubtedly on the losing side of the argument.

And the hatred of Hillary has been engineered for 3 decades. It goes way back. Hating her is so ingrained in the political machinery of the GOP that it's second nature at this point. The same "media machinery" that the Trump followers claim to hate is COMPLETELY responsible for keeping all of these Hillary memes going through the 90s and 00s. Right wing talk radio basically pays its bills on this.

You know what really sucks? That the GOP couldn't field an actual candidate. Trust me, there are a lot of people in this country who want a real alternative to the Democratic party. But the GOP just keeps doing this. I mean, every election cycle there is something. I mean, remember Palin? Same thing. Find someone respectable. It can't possibly be this difficult.

And here's the real rub: If Clinton wins, we get another 4 years of absolutely nothing getting done at the federal level. If Trump wins, who knows what will happen, but I suspect the dems will be just as obstructionist. We lose either way. We are looking at basically 16 straight years of the congress of the United States being completely paralyzed. That can't be good.

 

[aent]

4 hours ago, castorvx said:

And here's the real rub: If Clinton wins, we get another 4 years of absolutely nothing getting done at the federal level. If Trump wins, who knows what will happen, but I suspect the dems will be just as obstructionist. We lose either way. We are looking at basically 16 straight years of the congress of the United States being completely paralyzed. That can't be good.

 

Why can't that be good? We're supposed to have a limited federal government, and I would like it to get to the point where it is feasible for congress to actually read the laws they sign. They're still doing way too much that they literally don't know what they're doing. Running around with your head cut off passing things that lobbyists write without reading them seems worse then being paralyzed where maybe there is an opportunity to still use your head.... unlikely, but maybe

[JFW657]

I understand that there are intelligent Republicans and there are reasonable Republican politicians who would make a decent President. But the GOP can no longer field one of those respectable candidates because it's the low educated, knee-jerkers and xenophobes who now make up the majority of their voter base and it is they who decide who become their party's candidate. The fact that Trump's biggest leading demographic is white males with no college education, speaks volumes.

Trump didn't get where he is by accident or solely through his own machinations. He got there by appealing to the ugliness of the majority of the GOP's conservative base. As for Congress, if we could get a Democrat majority in both houses, which is possible, the gridlock would disappear.

But the real issue here is the SCOTUS. If Trump gets elected, we'll have a right-wing ideologue court making decisions like Citizens United for the next 40 years. You could expect Roe v. Wade to be overturned along with various other equal rights decisions including voting rights. If Hillary gets elected, we'll get a more moderate, reasonable court that views the law as being there for the good of common everyday people rather than corporations and the religious right. Goodbye Citizens United and its "corporations are people" premise as well as the restrictions on the ACA that helped crippled it's effectiveness in Republican controlled states like Texas, Florida, etc.

 

 

[jrs2]

^^

Believe it, Castorvx, I just "liked" your post.

You want to know the real "rub"?  Do some research on the central banks and federal reserve and then come talk to me.  I am serious about this.  This is for Mr. Conspiracy Debunker JFW657 especially.  I don't believe in coincidences, only fools do.  Do the research and you'll see that not only did "we" finance communism for profit, we've waged battles just to set these banks up in foreign states.  W/Cheney did it.  O'Hillary did it.  Either Trump is one of their stooges or he sees what's really going on and is trying to throw a wrench into the machine.  

But the media and Administration are trying to keep the country divided and arguing over BS issues about meaningless ideologies and ignorant to the big picture which lines their pockets.  Thats why theres globilization, bc they make money no matter what.  Who loses?  You do.  We do.  Fox used to be run by a conservative until this past year.  Now, they stack rigged polls against Trump.  

People need to take off the red/blue glasses and see what's really going on.  Why do you think both sides argue about new USSC nominees being strict constitutionalists vs progressive?  Bc they are trying to change the constitution.   Why bother?  So they can redefine the 2nd Amendment which is the only thing that slows down the process.  

FYI, the only two countries without a central bank are the US's only talked about enemies.  Take a guess who they are.

BTW, I don't think Trump will get anything done if elected bc the establishment won't let him, both Dem and Rep.

[John Hargrove]

2 hours ago, aent said:

Why can't that be good? We're supposed to have a limited federal government, and I would like it to get to the point where it is feasible for congress to actually read the laws they sign. They're still doing way too much that they literally don't know what they're doing. Running around with your head cut off passing things that lobbyists write without reading them seems worse then being paralyzed where maybe there is an opportunity to still use your head.... unlikely, but maybe

I understand your point and it's well-taken. If the corruption is there, why not stymie it. 

I guess my answer here is that despite all of that, there are real things that need attention. Infrastructure and health need a lot of action right now.

[John Hargrove]

2 hours ago, jrs2 said:

You want to know the real "rub"?  Do some research on the central banks and federal reserve and then come talk to me.  I am serious about this.  This is for Mr. Conspiracy Debunker JFW657 especially.  I don't believe in coincidences, only fools do.  Do the research and you'll see that not only did "we" finance communism for profit, we've waged battles just to set these banks up in foreign states.  W/Cheney did it.  O'Hillary did it.  Either Trump is one of their stooges or he sees what's really going on and is trying to throw a wrench into the machine.  

Can you provide me a link or some research to show me what you're talking about? I'm not trying to be snarky here, I genuinely don't understand your point. My understanding of the point of having a central bank is it can play a significant role in trying to control excess inflation or to avoid having stagnation or deflation. It's basically a way to help money keep moving within the economy. I think it helps to remember a lot of the modern economic infrastructure (particularly with banks) can be traced back to the calamity that happened in absence of them (see The Depression).

I mean, economics students spend entire careers concentrating on monetary policy. "Conspiracy" or not, there are a huge number of very educated economists who support the idea of the Fed.

2 hours ago, jrs2 said:

But the media and Administration are trying to keep the country divided and arguing over BS issues about meaningless ideologies and ignorant to the big picture which lines their pockets.  Thats why theres globilization, bc they make money no matter what.  Who loses?  You do.  We do.  Fox used to be run by a conservative until this past year.  Now, they stack rigged polls against Trump.  

I think globalization exists because 20th century economics said that economic protectionism is not always the greatest idea. The point of taking advantage of cheap imports is that it frees up expensive domestic human resources to work on tasks that the third world exporters simply don't have the education or infrastructure to handle. It lowers our overall cost of doing business while freeing up resources for us to take on bigger and better things. It's pretty much a no-brainer. The challenge arises when you allow for importing of cheap goods from low cost labor markets and fail to introduce policy which helps our low-skill workers to learn new skills or find jobs in the new markets that emerge here.

To put it another way, building cheap iPhones in China allows for the commoditization of the high-end mobile phone market, which created a massive domestic industry of mobile software. Granted a lot of the software development for mobile can be outsourced as well, but it tends to be low quality shovelware.

As for Fox no longer being a conservative media mill ... I mean, I don't even know what to say to that. Sometimes a poll is just a poll, man.

2 hours ago, jrs2 said:

People need to take off the red/blue glasses and see what's really going on.  Why do you think both sides argue about new USSC nominees being strict constitutionalists vs progressive?  Bc they are trying to change the constitution.   Why bother?  So they can redefine the 2nd Amendment which is the only thing that slows down the process.  

Personally I care about the SC nominees because it has a significant, hard to predict, nearly impossible to reverse outcome on future laws. We spend a great deal of time talking about Roe V Wade, Citizens United, and so on. Because those rulings have a huge impact on a lot of people's lives. Anyone who has had to make the hard decision to get an abortion, anyone who loves someone of the same gender, anyone who grew up in segregated schools ... have had REAL, SIGNIFICANT changes in their life because of the Supreme Court.

There is certainly a LOT of Red V Blue going on here. But let's be honest, Trump would be right down there with Jill Stein, Gary Johnson and the other third party/independent candidates if it weren't for the huge number of republican loyalist voters. He wouldn't even remotely have a chance. The only reason he's the GOP nominee is because he is a strong risk for siphoning off enough voters to sink the GOP ship in 2016.

Edit: Also another reason is the effects on downticket races. Losing voters at the executive could cost the GOP congress. They know people vote from the top down, and there are a lot of races happening lower on the ballot that are very tight. 

2 hours ago, jrs2 said:

FYI, the only two countries without a central bank are the US's only talked about enemies.  Take a guess who they are.

I don't know the answer to this question. I tried to research it but the only countries without central banks are very small and not really in the political limelight within the US. Can you point me to what you're talking about?

2 hours ago, jrs2 said:

BTW, I don't think Trump will get anything done if elected bc the establishment won't let him, both Dem and Rep.

True of just about any president at this point.

[jrs2]

Wow, so many points to comment on from multiple forumers.  I'll try to keep it short for the sake of peoples' attention spans:     

General comment: Leave the 2nd Amendment alone.  Period. It is for the people to keep the Fed in check, whether it is a realistic check or not.  I think it is.  If anyone thinks we can never have a totalitarian form of government in this country, in this era, think again.  Hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of the public keep the Fed in check.  In 2012 billions of rounds of hollow point .223/5.56 were purchased by Dept of Homeland Security; not even the military.  WTF for?  Practice rounds?  FMJ are practice rounds.  Something's up.  

1.  To Castorvx:

No links right now; sorry.  Iran and North Korea don't have a central bank.  Iraq and Afghanistan didn't until after 9-11 (thanks to W/Cheney).  Libya has one now, and a bunch of Americans were betrayed by our government to cover it up.  O'Hillary was behind it, but HW is the one with the NWO speech back in 1990.  To be fair, our entire military was put in harms way by W/Cheney after 9-11.  So, is the dog wagging the tail or is it the other way around?

Did you know that there have been talks of a unified currency and of also doing away with currency altogether?  Talk about the ultimate control over our lives; they could freeze your assets electronically in a heartbeat for whatever reason.  Congress was discussing this year eliminating the hundred dollar bill. It's the banks.  THey are pissed people pulled their money out after the building bust.  But they got bailed out without strings by both W and Obama.  Why no strings?  Because they are in control.  They always have been (at least for a hundred years).

2.  To JFW657:  Dems point to Roe v Wade being overturned; Reps point to the 2nd Amendment being in jeopardy ala the USSC future nominees.  With Roe, you can ensure 75% of the female vote.  With the 2nd, almost all Reps and a few Dems.  Roe will never be overturned.  But HRC has actually said that if she could confiscate all guns, she would.  Obama said he likes the Australian model (mandatory gun buyback making it a felony to not comply)  Wow.

Common people vs corporations and the religious right:  Do you realize how many minorities are religious and are people of faith?  A whole lot.  Not all corporate types are Republicans by any stretch.  This is a fallacy.  People go to church every Sunday and vote Democrat.  But people cling to even a single issue that boils their blood, you know, the talking point propaganda that both sides put out there to grab voters' attention, b/c, let's face it, a supermajority of Americans have a very low attention span.  They don't have time for, what we're doing here, or, they have a general apathy towards it:

I'm black- oh I'll vote Democrat.  I'm latin- oh I'm so not voting for Trump even though I'm Puerto Rican.   I'm Mexican; I hate Tijuana and Las Cruzas, b/c of the gangs and drugs, but I'm still voting for HRC.  Really?  I need a government grant or contract- I'll vote Democrat.  I have to make payroll this month and manage my business expenses- I'll vote Republican.  I'm a woman- Hmmm, I'll probably vote Democrat.  I need WIC- I'll vote Democrat.  I'm on SSI- I'll vote Democrat.  I'm a personal injury attorney- I'll vote Democrat b/c of no-fault laws.  I'm an insurance defense lawyer- I'll vote Republican b/c claimants are liars.  I'm Jerry Falwell- I'll vote Republican.  Anyway, there are numerous exceptions.  Very predictable.

The only honest people about why they voted the way they did was a black couple (business owners) I met who despised Obama b/c of how his policies affected their bottom line.

You want to know how I think?  Read below:

Public Figures:  Do I like Obama?  Yes.  Biden?  Yes.  Romney? No.  Ryan?  No, he's a douche. And I would have never voted for him after watching him debate Biden.  Palin?  she annoys the hell out of me.  Jeb? very disingenuous and douchy; well rehearsed.  Rubio?  even moreso; dry mouth stooge.  The former lead singer of Stryper, ole Lyin' Ted?  Douche, but entertaining.  Bernie Sanders?  I actually like the guy (and Larry David).  HRC- no friggin way.  No wonder Bill was...anyway.  The former head of the DNC? Thank you Putin for hacking the DNC and getting her fired, that harpie.  Bill Clinton? I love him; who doesn't?  HW Bush? 50/50.  Reagan-  loved him.  Dukakis- douche.  Donald Trump- He's an a-hole and a sexist and probably keeps his wife locked up in that penthouse of his, but his stance on immigration and globalization- I agree with him.  He calls it like it is.  I like that.  He does not like other Republicans which is obvious.  He is liberal; he is no conservative; never has been.  He's a real New Yorker and I like that.  All tv evangelists:  all douchebags until they prove otherwise.

so much for a short post...

[dcluley98]

12 hours ago, castorvx said:

Let's be real here. There are two groups of people who support Trump:

CastorVX, I think you left a couple of groups out.  Racists and gun nuts come to mind off the top of my head.

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, jrs2 said:

2.  To JFW657:  Dems point to Roe v Wade being overturned; Reps point to the 2nd Amendment being in jeopardy ala the USSC future nominees.  With Roe, you can ensure 75% of the female vote.  With the 2nd, almost all Reps and a few Dems.  Roe will never be overturned.  But HRC has actually said that if she could confiscate all guns, she would.  Obama said he likes the Australian model (mandatory gun buyback making it a felony to not comply)  Wow.

Common people vs corporations and the religious right:  Do you realize how many minorities are religious and are people of faith?  A whole lot.  Not all corporate types are Republicans by any stretch.  This is a fallacy.  People go to church every Sunday and vote Democrat.

FYI: A previous Supreme Court decision and a Constitutional amendment are two vastly different things with a vastly different set of standards and requirements for overturning them.

Roe v. Wade could be overturned by a simple 5 to 4 majority vote in the court. To overturn the 2nd, or any other amendment, it would take 2/3 majorities in both houses of congress to vote for the repeal, then it would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. 

Hillary Clinton has stated that she only wants to enact common sense gun control and accepts that the 2nd is a Constitutional right.

From FactCheck.org: Trump Distorts Clinton’s Gun Stance 

Regarding religion: Religious people of all faiths and political parties are different from those of the Religious Right, who have melded their Christianity with their far right conservative politics so that they are indistinguishable.

[John Hargrove]

2 hours ago, jrs2 said:

General comment: Leave the 2nd Amendment alone.  Period. It is for the people to keep the Fed in check, whether it is a realistic check or not.  I think it is.  If anyone thinks we can never have a totalitarian form of government in this country, in this era, think again.  Hundreds of millions of guns in the hands of the public keep the Fed in check.  In 2012 billions of rounds of hollow point .223/5.56 were purchased by Dept of Homeland Security; not even the military.  WTF for?  Practice rounds?  FMJ are practice rounds.  Something's up.  

When you say "The Fed" do you mean the federal government or the central bank? Because "The Fed" refers to the bank. They are different things.

As for the ammunition purchase, that was weird. Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence. Wasteful government spending. The DHS isn't trying to quell an uprising. Newsflash: people with guns in the woods aren't thought about at all. No one cares. Keep your guns. Seriously. We don't care.

2 hours ago, jrs2 said:

No links right now; sorry.  Iran and North Korea don't have a central bank.  Iraq and Afghanistan didn't until after 9-11 (thanks to W/Cheney).  Libya has one now, and a bunch of Americans were betrayed by our government to cover it up.  O'Hillary was behind it, but HW is the one with the NWO speech back in 1990.  To be fair, our entire military was put in harms way by W/Cheney after 9-11.  So, is the dog wagging the tail or is it the other way around?

Are these just completely fabricated or are we talking about different things? I'm lost:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_of_Libya Since 1956
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_of_Iraq Since 1947
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Da_Afghanistan_Bank Since 1939
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran Since 1960
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_of_the_Democratic_People's_Republic_of_Korea Since 1947

Are you saying there is a difference in how they apply monetary policy or are you saying there is some type of private ownership involved that is sketchy? I mean, you explicitly said they don't have them, or didn't have them before our involvement, but here is Wikipedia with 5 banks for 5 countries you mentioned and the youngest of the banks is 56 years old, and the oldest being 77 years old.

2 hours ago, jrs2 said:

Did you know that there have been talks of a unified currency and of also doing away with currency altogether?  Talk about the ultimate control over our lives; they could freeze your assets electronically in a heartbeat for whatever reason.  Congress was discussing this year eliminating the hundred dollar bill. It's the banks.  THey are pissed people pulled their money out after the building bust.  But they got bailed out without strings by both W and Obama.  Why no strings?  Because they are in control.  They always have been (at least for a hundred years).

The prevailing wind on currency is not unification. This is nonsense. There are far too many volatile markets out there to unify the world's currency. As for the $100 bill thing ... man, I don't know. Maybe its the same thing with the pennies. Reduce the amount of money we spend making money. Or maybe it's to annoy criminals. Who knows. There are a lot of simple explanations here. I'm just shooting in the dark, I haven't researched it. 

And money hasn't left banks. Banks are doing great. People moved their money. But it ended up in banks. 

[dcluley98]

Couple of things:

The Federal Reserve existed before the great depression.  It was created in 1913 by the Federal Reserve Act.  It was originally created in a reaction to several bank panics and the primary purpose was to prevent these panics.  In reality, policies of the Federal Reserve may have contributed to the factors leading to the Great Depression. Notable economists, including Milton Friedman and Ben Bernanke, have publicly stated beliefs that the Federal Reserve's failed policies were one of the major causes of the great depression. 

https://fee.org/articles/the-great-depression-according-to-milton-friedman/ 

http://www.wnd.com/2008/03/59405/

After several depressions, recessions, and panics continued, the Federal Reserves goals and policies were altered, now having their current stated goals as: " maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. " https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/225a

 

The overriding factor cited for eliminating the $100 bill is it's prevalence in organized crime and drug trafficking transactions.  See: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-plot-to-kill-the-100-bill-1455667926

 

Not sure what any of this has to do with the presidential election, but there you go.

[John Hargrove]

1 hour ago, dcluley98 said:

Couple of things:

The Federal Reserve existed before the great depression.  It was created in 1913 by the Federal Reserve Act.  It was originally created in a reaction to several bank panics and the primary purpose was to prevent these panics.  In reality, policies of the Federal Reserve may have contributed to the factors leading to the Great Depression. Notable economists, including Milton Friedman and Ben Bernanke, have publicly stated beliefs that the Federal Reserve's failed policies were one of the major causes of the great depression. 

https://fee.org/articles/the-great-depression-according-to-milton-friedman/ 

http://www.wnd.com/2008/03/59405/

After several depressions, recessions, and panics continued, the Federal Reserves goals and policies were altered, now having their current stated goals as: " maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. " https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/225a

 

The overriding factor cited for eliminating the $100 bill is it's prevalence in organized crime and drug trafficking transactions.  See: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-plot-to-kill-the-100-bill-1455667926

 

Not sure what any of this has to do with the presidential election, but there you go.

Ah, good point and thanks for the clarification.

 

[jrs2]

^^

It's so funny, because liberals were the first to accuse W of lying about 9-11 and the WMD's in Iraq in a major smear campaign against the then administration, for getting the US involved in a war in the Middle East that cost us trillions for nothing.  They/you said he did it for oil and to line Cheney's pockets.  But when I bring up the issue about the central banks as the behind the scenes reason for it, you guys seem hell bent to debunk it.  Seriously?  Are you satisfied sitting by the fire with Anderson Cooper every night content that the media is telling you everything that's really going on in the world with US's or someone's foreign policy?

This is an article about Libya and what Khadafi was planning regarding a new gold backed currency that financially went against western central banking monopoly, which resulted in him being taken out.  I'm not going to cite a dozen sources.  It came out in HRC's emails:

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/declassified-emails-reveal-natos-true-motive-topple-gaddafi-stop-creation-gold-backed-african-currency/

Iraq:  good summary here:  Paragraph 4.  Established in 2003

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_of_Iraq

Afghanistan:  again, pretty in depth about what they had, a patchwork of banks, and what was implemented in 2003/04

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/09/state-owned-central-banks-are-real.html

Article about the Federal Reserve recently and big issues with their unwillingness to allow the government more control ala guidelines ala interest rates, etc:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/item/23497-federal-reserve-at-issue-in-congressional-hearing

^^

$100 bill.  Oh, ok.  Is this the first time an entity has given a stated reason for some action that we are supposed to believe as it being their only reason?  It's control.  People pulled their money the past ten years from the banks and I bet you its more people than we realize and more money than we realize- enough for them to threaten to get rid of the Benjamins to disuade people from doing that again.  By getting rid of currency, they force all money to stay in their system so they make money off of it.  And then they have more control over everyone.  They still refuse to raise interest rates.  They make it hard to get a mortgage.  They make it hard to get a construction loan.  And they got their bailout no strings attached.  I know the history of the Fed.  I know how it was created, when it was created, the opposition to its creation, JP Morgan's involvement, etc.  

FDR confiscated everyone's gold to get us out of the Great Depression.  Then we were taken off of the gold standard over 40 years ago.  Inflation has gotten out of control because of that move; the Fed prints money with no controls.

Now, seriously, I'm not going to go research the email server for the damning email from ISIS to the terrorist that says definitively that the attack was ordered by ISIS, the absence of which prevents me from saying its a terrorist attack b/c of political correctness or the concept of saving face.

[HankStrong]

Serious question.

 

Is there a way to click a thread and never have to see it again?  This crap doesn't belong on this forum.

[tennis32801]

Every 4 years, candidates proclaim this is the most important election ever, and every 4 years, the truly fringe voters thinks its the end of the world if their candidate is not elected. Lets be honest here, like our favorite sport teams, we don't really care who wins or loses, we just want to wake up on Nov 9 to read and comment on our team victory. I have enough faith in our constitution, our democratic system, and our voters; because unlike communist North Korea, we have the opportunity to do it all over again.

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, tennis32801 said:

Every 4 years, candidates proclaim this is the most important election ever, and every 4 years, the truly fringe voters thinks its the end of the world if their candidate is not elected. Lets be honest here, like our favorite sport teams, we don't really care who wins or loses, we just want to wake up on Nov 9 to read and comment on our team victory. I have enough faith in our constitution, our democratic system, and our voters; because unlike communist North Korea, we have the opportunity to do it all over again.

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification. There are serious issues at stake. The direction of health care and civil rights, appointments to the SCOTUS, how the military will or might be used, etc, etc. 

One side will pull us in one direction, the other side in the opposite.

It's not a total, 100% popularity contest.

10 hours ago, jrs2 said:

^^

It's so funny, because liberals were the first to accuse W of lying about 9-11 and the WMD's in Iraq in a major smear campaign against the then administration, for getting the US involved in a war in the Middle East that cost us trillions for nothing.  They/you said he did it for oil and to line Cheney's pockets.  But when I bring up the issue about the central banks as the behind the scenes reason for it, you guys seem hell bent to debunk it.  Seriously?  Are you satisfied sitting by the fire with Anderson Cooper every night content that the media is telling you everything that's really going on in the world with US's or someone's foreign policy?

This is an article about Libya and what Khadafi was planning regarding a new gold backed currency that financially went against western central banking monopoly, which resulted in him being taken out.  I'm not going to cite a dozen sources.  It came out in HRC's emails:

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/declassified-emails-reveal-natos-true-motive-topple-gaddafi-stop-creation-gold-backed-african-currency/

Iraq:  good summary here:  Paragraph 4.  Established in 2003

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Bank_of_Iraq

Afghanistan:  again, pretty in depth about what they had, a patchwork of banks, and what was implemented in 2003/04

http://www.activistpost.com/2012/09/state-owned-central-banks-are-real.html

Article about the Federal Reserve recently and big issues with their unwillingness to allow the government more control ala guidelines ala interest rates, etc:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/item/23497-federal-reserve-at-issue-in-congressional-hearing

^^

$100 bill.  Oh, ok.  Is this the first time an entity has given a stated reason for some action that we are supposed to believe as it being their only reason?  It's control.  People pulled their money the past ten years from the banks and I bet you its more people than we realize and more money than we realize- enough for them to threaten to get rid of the Benjamins to disuade people from doing that again.  By getting rid of currency, they force all money to stay in their system so they make money off of it.  And then they have more control over everyone.  They still refuse to raise interest rates.  They make it hard to get a mortgage.  They make it hard to get a construction loan.  And they got their bailout no strings attached.  I know the history of the Fed.  I know how it was created, when it was created, the opposition to its creation, JP Morgan's involvement, etc.  

FDR confiscated everyone's gold to get us out of the Great Depression.  Then we were taken off of the gold standard over 40 years ago.  Inflation has gotten out of control because of that move; the Fed prints money with no controls.

Now, seriously, I'm not going to go research the email server for the damning email from ISIS to the terrorist that says definitively that the attack was ordered by ISIS, the absence of which prevents me from saying its a terrorist attack b/c of political correctness or the concept of saving face.

[jack]

On 9/23/2016 at 11:09 AM, JFW657 said:

That is what people who throw their vote away in the name of some lofty "principle" will tell themselves if Trump gets elected.

Most of the supposed "reasons" for non-rightwingers to not vote for HRC, are based upon a 20+ year smear campaign of character assassination, half-truths and outright lies.

Today's younger millennial voters were either not born yet, or are too young to remember the way the right-wing propaganda machine savaged her (and the rest of the family) back in the 90's when they occupied the WH, and it has continued non-stop ever since.

Nobody is as dishonest, calculating and conniving as the right has made Hillary Clinton out to be, and only the truly gullible believe it unquestioningly. Of course, that's what the Republicans are banking on.

Meanwhile, their candidate appears to be in some sort of collusion with Russia.

Sheer insanity.

To make thing clear, I am a Republican. Technically, I should be voting for Trump not HRC. So by your logic, I am helping HRC get elected if I go third party. Which gets to my point, I cannot simultaneously help Trump and HRC get elected by not voting. 

Voting to me is a moral act and one should be able to passionately defend most of their candidates positions. I cannot come close to defending or advocating either candidates positions. 

I am also not a millennial and remember the 90's all too well. 

[John Hargrove]

3 hours ago, HankStrong said:

Serious question.

 

Is there a way to click a thread and never have to see it again?  This crap doesn't belong on this forum.

Yeah, well ... asked moderators to move it. I don't think any of them are paying any attention.

[metal93]

Are the moderators here just bic and sunshine? I do wish to see this moved to the coffee house. It hasn't exactly got particularly nasty.... yet, but really this is off topic and not related to buildings/urnbanism in Orlando.

[JFW657]

Someone start threads about guns, religion and abortion, too!!!!