Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst 123456714 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 236

Thread: Bill Still Reporting on the US Election (& Other Things)

  1. #46
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    SR 1223 – Hillary Clinton Gets Away With Everything! Perjury, Bribery


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGbXIS1-NZk



    SR 1224 – The Fix Was In. How Hillary Clinton Avoided Prosecution by the FBI.


  2. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st October 2016), Aragorn (29th September 2016), Dreamtimer (29th September 2016), Elen (30th September 2016), jonsnow (29th September 2016), modwiz (30th September 2016)

  3. #47
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    19th March 2015
    Posts
    313
    Thanks
    1,427
    Thanked 1,701 Times in 325 Posts
    Hillary Clinton

    If she ( Hillary Clinton ) wins she will bail out the banks no matter what who are her main supporters ( donations ) . I think policy wise she will be the same as Obama ( promise everything give nothing ) no change she will spend her days on the golf coarse ( hospital ) the ptb ( powers that be ) will continue to rule . Donate here to receve attention from Hillary Clinton higher the amount more notice you get . ( note she sells apointments as she did when was Secterary of State for donations to her foundations)

    Obama used a fake name to email Hillary Clinton on her server that is why some emails are still missing he knew what she was doing was illegal so used a fake name so he would not go to prison consipracy charge.
    Nixon resigned over missing few minutes of tapes from White House but Hillary Clinton lost thousands of emails why is she not in prison instead of running for president people have gone to prison for far less. Hillary Clinton prosecuted Nixon .

    Donald Trump


    He ( Donald Trump ) is a wild card will destroy big banks like Golman sacks at the next crisis very wealthy but has been bankrupt several times as America is broke might be best President to turn things around might bring all America companys home. He (Donald Trump ) is no angel might be good for America bad for rest of the world .honestly a wildcard .......but if i could vote i vote for him the ptb ( powers that be ) might kill him ( hopefully not ) though if he causes problems to many people wealthy powerful people well
    Make America Great Again
    Last edited by jonsnow, 29th September 2016 at 21:50.

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to jonsnow For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st October 2016), bsbray (29th September 2016), Dreamtimer (29th September 2016), Elen (30th September 2016), modwiz (30th September 2016)

  5. #48
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    Two of the biggest issues this election cycle has been trade and jobs, and how the US is suffering enormously from losing manufacturers who move overseas to sell us back the same products from China or Mexico that they used to make here.

    Ford is in the middle of opening a massive new manufacturing plant in Mexico, but they're not the only "American" car manufacturers there:



    GM has plants there too, and some European companies. They build these plants in Mexico because they can pay the Mexicans cheaper wages, then turn around and sell the cars back to Americans at regular price and make a lot more money. But the Mexicans are benefiting from the employment, and the US isn't even earning any customs duties from the cars crossing the border into the US due to NAFTA.


    I had to study a similar issue that the US was having in the 1820's. The US produced lots and lots of cotton but didn't have textile factories to process it. We sent the cotton to Europe, European textile factories turned the cotton into clothing and other products, and then shipping those finished products back to the US. It was really no different than the mercantile system that the British intentionally created with us during the colonial era, and Americans could not develop textile industries here because they couldn't compete with the well-developed European manufacturers.

    The solution was a protective tariff. Then when the British wanted to unload cheap cotton clothing, US customs officials charged a large tariff. The prices of British cotton goods immediately went straight up, and it became less profitable for the British to sell here, and less shipments of cotton goods arrived. This created a cushion in the market for American industries to begin to develop without having to worry about being undercut by cheaper European products. Prices went up temporarily for Americans until our industries could be built up, but then we could make goods even cheaper, with less transportation costs, and weren't dependent upon a foreign country for our goods.

    Oh yeah, and the US government didn't make its money from taxes back then either. It made almost all of its money from collecting tariffs from these foreign importers.


    In the 1990's, Bill and Hillary Clinton supported a bill called NAFTA, the "North American Free Trade Agreement," and Bill finally signed it into law. NAFTA prevents the US from setting tariffs and customs duties on foreign nations which import goods. Supposedly the agreement goes both ways, but as you can see, there are no Chinese companies in a hurry to come build their factories in the US. Instead what is going on is a parasitic trade relationship, so that last I heard, the US's biggest export to China was scrap metal.

    Trump wants to reinstate tariffs and lower taxes to make it more attractive for businesses to move their manufacturing plants back into the US. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, was in favor of TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership, another deal like NAFTA which her husband signed into law) which even liberals were against. This was one of the biggest points of difference between her and Bernie Sanders, since, like Bernie liked to point out, he wasn't getting paid by all of the big Wall Street donors that Hillary is getting her money form.

    After Trump started talking about tariffs and rejecting TPP, Clinton broke with Obama (because she has an election to win, right?) and started saying that she was against TPP too. But then what is her plan to rectify US trade deficits that her husband helped to create? She wants to hire prosecutors to enforce the trade deals already on the books (like NAFTA), because unlike the US, not all countries are abiding by the terms and have been effectively charging customs duties on US imports anyway, just as Trump also talks about. I can already imagine a trade agreement prosecutor hired by Hillary trying to make China to "play fair." She has received millions in donations from Chinese donors, btw, if that's any indication as to how all of this would really play out.



    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qntfkkVi2A



    This is the part of the debate that focused on trade:

    Last edited by bsbray, 30th September 2016 at 00:09.

  6. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st October 2016), Aragorn (30th September 2016), Dreamtimer (30th September 2016), Elen (30th September 2016), jonsnow (30th September 2016), modwiz (30th September 2016), sandy (30th September 2016)

  7. #49
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    19th March 2015
    Posts
    313
    Thanks
    1,427
    Thanked 1,701 Times in 325 Posts
    trade and jobs are not the problem varying interest rates are killing jobs in America thats why companies are leaving they cannot plan for the future very important

    obamacare does not help


    As for tarriffs they are coming but doing so causes trade war tit for tat .
    The greatest danger to America is a strong dollar it will cause problems which will lead to America losing the reserve currency status default debt crisis riots pensions UN ( united nations ) being called into America . At the moment America is the reserve bank of the world and are paying free interest to park money at the federal reserve over 2 trillion and rising which cannot last because it is no risk investment and is the only game in town for big money.


    America 20 trillion debt more than 70 percent is interest .
    Last edited by jonsnow, 30th September 2016 at 12:49.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to jonsnow For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st October 2016), bsbray (30th September 2016), Elen (30th September 2016), modwiz (30th September 2016)

  9. #50
    Senior Member heyokah's Avatar
    Join Date
    22nd December 2014
    Location
    France
    Posts
    123
    Thanks
    1,220
    Thanked 796 Times in 121 Posts
    ....."Did Hillary Clinton Give Hand Signals to Debate Moderator Lester Holt? Even professional Poker Players have observed she would scratch her nose or chin in an obvious fashion".

    Baseball or a poker game, the signals were there.

    During the debate when Clinton wanted to signal Holt when she wanted the floor, she rubbed her face in a manner similar to a baseball manager.
    Poker pro Mike Matusow agreed. Hillary was signalling Lester Holt.

    What do you think?



  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to heyokah For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st October 2016), Aragorn (30th September 2016), bsbray (30th September 2016), Elen (30th September 2016), modwiz (30th September 2016)

  11. #51
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by jonsnow View Post
    trade and jobs are not the problem varying interest rates are killing jobs in America thats why companies are leaving they cannot plan for the future very important
    That's like having a rotten leg and saying it's not the rotten leg that's the problem, but the infection in the leg. I don't see why you are drawing a difference, because all these things depend on each other. It's not just interest rates. In foreign countries corporations can find cheaper labor with less protection, pay less in taxes and be less regulated.

    Nobody is going to say that the solution is for us to be like China, and work people in terrible conditions for terrible pay. Obviously that is not a solution. So how can the US force companies to return? What leverage do we have?

    The leverage we have is a market of about 320 million consumers, that buy and consume more than maybe any other single population on Earth. That's important if you manufacture things in China or Mexico and want a lot of people to buy your stuff. To make those companies that want to sell to the American people come back to the US, you just cut the US market off from them. You cut the US market off from them by putting high tariffs (called protective tariffs) on their imports, so they can't make a profit anymore. Instead industries will be built within US borders that are not subject to the tariff, and they will be able to sell at lower prices and cut off foreign competition coming into the US.

    Reagan enacted a tariff like this, for example, to protect American auto manufacturers in the 1980's against Asian car companies, until Clinton passed NAFTA and destroyed our auto industry. Detroit is literally in ruins now:





    If Clinton gets into office this is only going to continue, because her donors want TPP and regardless of what she says about it now (obviously lying comes naturally to her) she did call it the "gold standard" of trade deals before and you can bet she would implement it. She has never disavowed free trade and even though she won't defend NAFTA anymore, neither will be commit to repealing it like Trump talks about.


    As for tarriffs they are coming but doing so causes trade war tit for tat .
    When was the last time someone declared war on us because we made foreign importers pay tariffs? Maybe the war of 1812, and even that's really stretching it. It seems to me the US is the country that's usually going around attacking other countries for unfavorable deals, which is a separate problem than tariffs that we set. We need to just worry about defending ourselves and not trying to intervene in every foreign government we don't like.

    I think the fact that the US dollar is world reserve currency is part of the problem, not an advantage. It's what has allowed the dollar to be so abused, so debt-laden, and still countries all over the world are forced to accept it as payment. Just like Trump says, it's just a massive bubble. And without a lot more of these financial sleights of hand like "quantitive easing," it's just a matter of time before the bubble bursts and it's going to be terrible. Worse than the depression in the 1930's.

  12. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st October 2016), Elen (30th September 2016), heyokah (1st October 2016), jonsnow (30th September 2016), modwiz (30th September 2016)

  13. #52
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by heyokah View Post
    ....."Did Hillary Clinton Give Hand Signals to Debate Moderator Lester Holt? Even professional Poker Players have observed she would scratch her nose or chin in an obvious fashion".
    Or how about the fact that Lester Holt didn't ask a single tough question to Hillary about any of the numerous scandals she's faced this year? I know I'm not the only one who noticed that.

    Last night Holt asked Trump directly about his taxes, his support of birtherism, comments he made about Hillary looking "presidential," and Trump's false claim that he was always against the Iraq war. These questions put Trump on the defensive for much of the debate.

    The number of questions Holt asked Clinton about her ongoing email scandal, the Clinton Foundation's myriad or very questionable activities, or any of the other scores of relevant Clinton scandals going back decades? Exactly zero.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/lester...rticle/2004566

    Btw it's not a "false claim that [Trump] was always against the Iraq war." The only quote they keep using against him is right after the war started, when Trump was asked if he supported the war, he said, "Yeah, I guess so." That comes in the context of a lot of other statements he made criticizing the war. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, actually voted in Congress in favor of the war, and yet Trump is the one that's being criticizing for "supporting" the Iraq War?

    Hillary Clinton once again accused Donald Trump of lying about his early opposition to the Iraq War in the debate Monday, reiterating a dubious charge that hinges entirely on a brief interview with Howard Stern in 2002.

    “I hope the fact checkers are turning up the volume and really working hard,” Clinton said in response to an attack from Trump on her foreign policy judgement. “Donald supported the invasion of Iraq.”

    “That is absolutely proved over and over again,” she added.

    “Wrong,” Trump replied, maintaining he never supported the war.

    An army of fact checkers has indeed repeatedly and loudly deemed Trump a liar on this point, and they quickly responded to the debate with another round of headlines.

    “Trump [again] says he opposed the Iraq war,” Politico fact checkers wrote. “That’s still false.” Politifact re-upped its version of the piece, as did The Washington Post, which has given the statement four Pinocchios.

    But the facts of Trump’s position aren’t as clear cut as these headlines would suggest. All of them hinge entirely on a brief interview Trump gave with Howard Stern in 2002, before the war began, in which Stern asked Trump whether he supported the war. Trump replied: “Yeah, I guess so.”

    Trump’s answer, the verbal equivalent of a shrug, is one he now says was given “very lightly.” It’s the only time he is on record indicating support for the war. He called the initial invasion a “success” from a military standpoint in 2003, but was quoted just days later describing the war as “a mess.” He did go on to speak consistently and publicly against the war, including in an in-depth 2004 Esquire interview about a year into the war.
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/27/tr...se-i-guess-so/

    Maybe Hillary's "fact-checkers" also work for the DNC. In fact that is no exaggeration, because Politico is one of the media companies exposed as working directly with the DNC in the email leak! Two words: liberal media.

    And no questions about all of Hillary's scandals from this year. Hillary went before Congress earlier this year and told them blatant lies. To prove it, Congress summoned FBI director James Comey who told them himself that numerous claims that Clinton made under oath were not true. When asked if he was investigating Clinton for perjury, Comey said no, because Congress hadn't asked him to.

    And how many questions about that to Clinton? Zero. No questions about lying under oath to Congress about her emails and the cover-up of older scandals from when she resigned as Secretary of State. Oh yeah, no one seems to remember that she had to resign as Secretary of State either. Isn't that funny? She had to step down amidst a scandal only a couple of years or so ago and what? Then runs for president?

    What about the DNC email leak? That alone exposed numerous more scandals. Pay-for-play (which Obama is still engaged in as of May), staging fake protests against Trump, rigging the primaries against Bernie Sanders. Then the woman responsible for all of that resigned and was immediately hired by the Clinton campaign. No questions about any of that either.





    On another note, a review of the Snowden movie from the Stills:


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GE71BET1ss




    One more thing about Lester Holt and the company he works for. Does anybody remember the guy he replaced? Brian Williams. The guy who made up war stories until he was called on it by a veteran, and had to quit. But the network rehired him later anyway and he still gets on TV and spouts his nonsense on their behalf.

    Kind of like when he reported on the Civil War:



    Last edited by bsbray, 30th September 2016 at 18:54.

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st October 2016), Aragorn (30th September 2016), Elen (30th September 2016), heyokah (1st October 2016), modwiz (30th September 2016)

  15. #53
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    19th March 2015
    Posts
    313
    Thanks
    1,427
    Thanked 1,701 Times in 325 Posts
    Well we're do I start

    Okay trade wars are fairly common and do not involve fighting if you raise tariffs on other country they will do the same to you . World trade is collapsing the shipping figures are falling off a cliff we are heading into the greatest depression were poverty will become the normal. If you add tariffs with trade war and collapsing shipping trade falling off a cliff will be waterfall event ( happened at the collapse in Rome were all trade stopped) hopefully not

    America population is 300 million but gets far more goods and services than its population . Well mostly they live in Layla land which is debt mountains of it with unserviceable debt rising interest rates will bankrupt most of them . Okay interest rates kill civilisation because debt becomes unserviceable with products losing there value it is hard to plan ahead . Government only works in there self interest and are mostly broke having made trillions of empty promises with golden pensions free health care but they have armed even local cops to the teeth with latest in armour swat armour cars . They have built huge empty homeland protection centres in every state which can house more than 2 million these are maned but empty. Plans are afoot to say that ordinary pensions are being ripped off by huge fees with private pensions funds so all private funds must buy government debt which is 20 trillion same amount as private pensions ( you lose your money goverment pays off there debt ) you might get worthless goverment paper or promises maybe both

    Losing reserve currency is a big deal means you will have to balance your check book no pensions no social security reduce foreign wars taxes go up pay goes down . When a country loses a reserve status mostly they fall to third world status with the country breaking into a few pieces examples Spain , China which when they fell were looted by there creditors

    There are wild cards mostly very bad the Gmo agenda of America is scary depopulation agenda .i think rising interest rates with rising dollar are bad sign and are not to far away as the feberal reserve is boxed into a corner with little room to move they are delaying at the moment which will make the crisis worse when it comes.
    Last edited by jonsnow, 30th September 2016 at 18:56.

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jonsnow For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st October 2016), bsbray (30th September 2016), modwiz (30th September 2016)

  17. #54
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    I think the bottom line is that we both agree that the current economic situation is not sustainable and we are facing an enormous crisis when the dam finally breaks. Unless we re-establish protective tariffs, we are going to have ZERO industry in this country. We'll be a nation of consumers dependent upon the foreign nations that supply us to give us our fix. Like a bunch of cattle in a pen. It's already halfway to that situation right now, despite the enormous industrial potential of this country which is not being tapped.

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    jonsnow (30th September 2016), modwiz (30th September 2016)

  19. #55
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    19th March 2015
    Posts
    313
    Thanks
    1,427
    Thanked 1,701 Times in 325 Posts
    Tariffs are not the answer for they will be answered in kind .the solution as it is called there are two choices one is default in which case you will end up at war. The other choice is a debt restructure in which case your debt gets written down maybe 100 to 1 or such .

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jonsnow For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st October 2016), bsbray (30th September 2016), modwiz (30th September 2016)

  21. #56
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    Jon, you apparently do not understand the current situation with tariffs. China and Mexico already have tariffs on our exports. Did you miss that? You say a tariff will be "answered in kind," so it sounds like you don't realize that we are already suffering from a one-sided situation.

    You can default or you can restructure your debt, but how will that motivate more industry to return to the US? Companies aren't leaving because the US is in debt. Companies are leaving because of free trade, high taxes and heavy regulation that they are avoiding by moving to foreign countries. I don't know who you've been listening to to get your idea that going back on free trade is not an option, but Bill Clinton is the one who passed NAFTA. That wasn't that long ago. Remember when we actually used to be an industrial power house? We had tariffs back then. No one wanted war with us.

    Claiming that going back on free trade will result in warfare is the same kind of nonsense fearmongering that was going on when the Brits were saying that if they voted for Brexit, they risked war with Europe. I don't understand why people would take any of these kinds of threats seriously in the first place. Obviously some big money interests are doing their best to scare everybody back into line.

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st October 2016), jonsnow (30th September 2016), modwiz (30th September 2016)

  23. #57
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    19th March 2015
    Posts
    313
    Thanks
    1,427
    Thanked 1,701 Times in 325 Posts
    Great post

    The industry you wish to return to America is from there people companies only work in there self interest if it makes ecomonic sense to have companies working there than abroad then the industry will return home . Will trump or Hillary do this your guess is as good as mine. The president can force these companies to return or stop these companies being American with tarriffs or law etc.

    Well yes America still has tarriffs on country's and vice versa.It is no longer a major source of income but is mainly used as a threat to gain concessions from other country's .

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jonsnow For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st October 2016), bsbray (30th September 2016), modwiz (30th September 2016)

  25. #58
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    As far as if Clinton or Trump would actually address the problem, if we assume that they both act out of purely selfish interests, Clinton's interests lie in her donors (huge multi-nationals which are in favor of "free trade," NAFTA, TPP, etc.) while Trump's, if they remain in his own business interests (and there aren't many, if any, multi-nationals donating to Trump), will have to see the middle class revitalized. Trump made a lot of his money from middle class consumers. The casinos are one example. If the middle class has no spending money, they're not going to the casinos, and Trump's businesses (as well as the Italian mob which also deals a lot in casinos) are hurting.

    The split between where these two are getting their money is a perfect example of the nationalist/globalist motivations that are competing here.

  26. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st October 2016), jonsnow (30th September 2016), modwiz (30th September 2016)

  27. #59
    Senior Member Morocco modwiz's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Location
    Nestled in Appalachia
    Posts
    6,720
    Thanks
    40,125
    Thanked 41,242 Times in 6,698 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by bsbray View Post
    I think the bottom line is that we both agree that the current economic situation is not sustainable and we are facing an enormous crisis when the dam finally breaks. Unless we re-establish protective tariffs, we are going to have ZERO industry in this country. We'll be a nation of consumers dependent upon the foreign nations that supply us to give us our fix. Like a bunch of cattle in a pen. It's already halfway to that situation right now, despite the enormous industrial potential of this country which is not being tapped.
    You mentioned the USA made money on tariffs instead of taxes, and that is true. Taxes start, in earnest, with the creating of the federal reserve. So, the only presidential candidate who has ever addressed the central, and real, problem facing the USA is Ron Paul. As long as the fed exists, all of the problems we face will be extant as they all can trace to the problem of the fed. Income taxes pay for nothing other than fed interest. All money that congress uses comes from the fed, not taxes.
    Last edited by modwiz, 30th September 2016 at 23:25.
    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" -- Voltaire

    "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."-- Eleanor Roosevelt

    "Misery loves company. Wisdom has to look for it." -- Anonymous

  28. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to modwiz For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st October 2016), Aragorn (30th September 2016), bsbray (30th September 2016), jonsnow (1st October 2016)

  29. #60
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    Ron Paul is the only other candidate I've ever seen in my life who I was actually motivated to vote for. But in the end he had no chance. I don't even think he made the ballot in a lot of states, running 3rd party. Like Trump, he also set fundraising records from small donors, and I think held the single-day fundraising record until Trump came along.

    I finally got the rally pictures off of my camera and I'll post those in a minute, after I get them all uploaded.

  30. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (1st October 2016), Aragorn (1st October 2016), jonsnow (1st October 2016), modwiz (1st October 2016), Wind (1st October 2016)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •