REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Trump v Hillary Debate #1

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Friday, October 7, 2016 13:13
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6220
PAGE 1 of 2

Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:09 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Since the biggest reason to vote for Trump seems to be "Hillary", and the biggest reason to vote for Hillary seems to be "Trump", so many threads with either one as the putative topic turn into discussions of the other.

So, with the debate last night, this might a good time maybe to bring the Hillary v Trump discussion into a common thread, so that people don't have to check into three or four posts just to see what is being said about whom.

There are active and ongoing discussions about related topics in other threads, tho, I sure don't mean to displace those.

Too busy for a long post, but there are some points where I strongly agree with Trump, and some where I somewhat agree with Hillary.

IMHO, Trump's concept that you can't be a great country when you have NO PRODUCTION is spot-on. You can't be a great country by having the Federal government had out money so people can while away their time in college and consume unearned goods. Trade has to balance. And while Trump didn't SAY "tariff" imported goods, that is what he implied. OTOH, I do agree with Hillary that "trickle down" doesn't work. However, the answer to "trickle down" is not necessarily in the tax RATES, it's in the deductions, exclusions, exemptions, subsidies, off-shorings, and depreciations that companies and the wealthy are allowed to take. MOST big corporations don't pay anywhere the nominal tax rate, and some of them not only don't pay pay tax, they get a subsidies. So when Hillary accused Donald of )possibly) not paying any taxes, and he said, in essence, "It's the law, if you don't like the law change it" he was correct. Hillary had years in the Senate to make this an issue, and she didn't.

The other thing that he said, which I found to be very true, was "WE'RE IN A BIG FAT UGLY BUBBLE".

But more will have to wait for later.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 27, 2016 6:55 PM

WHOZIT


The big loser, (drum roll) Lester Holt. He'll get to stay A-List but I bet his ratings drop. As the polls come in it looks like Trump is the winner. Trump didn't take the bait when Hillary tried to get him to bring up Bills sexcapades, he didn't bite. My guess they wanted him too so they could get a shot of her family looking sad and shocked, he didn't give them that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 27, 2016 7:15 PM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:
The big loser, (drum roll) Lester Holt. He'll get to stay A-List but I bet his ratings drop. As the polls come in it looks like Trump is the winner. Trump didn't take the bait when Hillary tried to get him to bring up Bills sexcapades, he didn't bite. My guess they wanted him too so they could get a shot of her family looking sad and shocked, he didn't give them that.



•A poll of debate watchers by CNN/ORC, which found that 62 percent thought Clinton won and 27 percent thought Trump did. CNN’s David Chalian emphasized on air that the sample was 10 points more Democratic than in a typical poll, but that’s still a strong win for Clinton.

•A poll of debate watchers by Public Policy Polling, which found that 51 percent thought Clinton won and 40 percent thought Trump won.

•A focus group of 20 undecided Florida voters by CNN found that 18 of them thought Clinton won.

•And a focus group of Pennsylvania voters by GOP pollster Frank Luntz overwhelmingly thought Clinton had won.


____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 27, 2016 7:24 PM

WHOZIT


Quote:

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:
The big loser, (drum roll) Lester Holt. He'll get to stay A-List but I bet his ratings drop. As the polls come in it looks like Trump is the winner. Trump didn't take the bait when Hillary tried to get him to bring up Bills sexcapades, he didn't bite. My guess they wanted him too so they could get a shot of her family looking sad and shocked, he didn't give them that.



•A poll of debate watchers by CNN/ORC, which found that 62 percent thought Clinton won and 27 percent thought Trump did. CNN’s David Chalian emphasized on air that the sample was 10 points more Democratic than in a typical poll, but that’s still a strong win for Clinton.

•A poll of debate watchers by Public Policy Polling, which found that 51 percent thought Clinton won and 40 percent thought Trump won.

•A focus group of 20 undecided Florida voters by CNN found that 18 of them thought Clinton won.

•And a focus group of Pennsylvania voters by GOP pollster Frank Luntz overwhelmingly thought Clinton had won.


____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719



I'm not trusting any CNN polls these days.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 27, 2016 8:56 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:

I'm not trusting any CNN polls these days.

Jayne retweeted https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin :
Ayn Rand: 'I Would Never Vote for a Woman President'
Presumably Jayne believes a woman as the commander-in-chief of the Army is unspeakable, to quote Rand.



The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2016 7:24 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Where is economic growth going to come from?
In the debate, Trump thinks it only comes from one place. Clinton sees many.

Presidents have limited power to change the fundamental drivers of economic growth, which include consumer spending, population change, and business investment. But to the extent that they can do anything, candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have drastically different conceptions of where new growth will come from. The contrast was on full display during the debate Monday night at Hofstra.

Here’s the distinction in a nutshell: Trump would try to boost growth by forcing companies to stay in America and pushing immigrants out. Clinton would try to boost growth by making America a more attractive place to invest, making American workers more attractive to employ, and making sure people have enough in their pockets to revive the kind of consumer demand that has fueled America’s economic engine since the end of World War II.

Trump laid out his philosophy when debate moderator Lester Holt asked how Trump would raise wages and create new jobs in America. (He’s promised 25 million of them, which is demographically impossible without an increase in immigration that he opposes.)

Trump answered in exactly one dimension: Manufacturing jobs that in recent decades have migrated to Mexico and China. He’d bring them back, he and his advisers say, by charging steep tariffs on imports and slashing corporate tax rates so that companies bring cash back from overseas. “That’s going to be a job creator like we haven’t seen since Ronald Reagan,” Trump said. “It’s going to be a beautiful thing to watch.”

There are a number of problems with that simple prescription, which itself is based on faulty assumptions about the current dynamics of global trade.

First, although Trump isn’t wrong that trade deals played a role in manufacturing job loss, the movement of manufacturing overseas was, to a large extent, going to happen anyway.

Second, even if he magically forced companies to return all of their manufacturing output to the United States, it could never replace all the jobs that were lost, since advancing technology allows companies to produce the same amount of stuff with many fewer people.

Clinton, of course, also opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal that Trump has vilified. She, too, visits old manufacturing plants and talks about revitalizing them into high-tech wonder plants that will employ some of the millions of mostly men who've faded from the labor force in recent years.

But while Trump stops there, Clinton goes further. She's spent the last several years stuffing an economic toolbox with plans for investing in clean energy, bringing more women and disabled people into the workforce, allowing young people to go to college without taking on crippling debt, creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, reining in the parasitic financial sector and putting capital to work at businesses that will use it to create jobs, not just play the stock market.

And critically, she understands the importance of raising wages for workers in the service jobs, to re-store the consumer class that weakened as well-paid manufacturing jobs faded away.

Progressives have termed this approach "middle-out economics," rather than what Clinton called the "Trumped-up trickle-down" philosophy, referring to the Reagan-era idea of giving tax breaks to the wealthy in hopes that they would use the windfall to create more jobs. Targeting lower-income workers, Clinton figures, will have a bigger economic impact. "The more we can do for the middle class, the more we can invest in you, your education, your skills, your future, the better we will be off and the better we'll grow," she said.

At a recent event in Houston, Dallas Federal Reserve President Robert Kaplan briefly laid out the federal budget policy he thought should have complemented low interest rates to address the aging of the population that has created such strong headwinds for the economy, since there are fewer and fewer working-age people to support all the retirees. Without commenting on the presidential race, he essentially backed up Clinton's approach.

"We need to do things to increase the size of the workforce," Kaplan said. "Vocational training. As controversial as it is, some agreement or compromise on immigration, particularly skilled immigration. Maybe incentives that cause people to work longer in their career, so we don't have a deterioration in the workforce. Infrastructure spending in the United States."

It's true, many of these things cost money. But if billionaires like Trump paid more of their taxes, a lot more money might become available. And simply by virtue of trying lots more ideas, Clinton has a better chance of jump-starting the economy than pursuing one strategy — forcing companies to return jobs to the U.S. — that relies on history turning itself backwards instead of forwards.

www.houstonchronicle.com/business/texanomics/article/Where-is-economic
-growth-going-to-come-from-9294789.php

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2016 7:35 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


One of his most interesting quotes from the presidential debate Monday night was a firm reminder of the Republican nominee’s otherworldly perspective.

When Hillary Clinton accused the billionaire businessman of not paying federal taxes, he responded coolly, proudly: “That makes me smart.”

I guess the late real estate magnate Leona Helmsley was feeling smart, too, until her belief that “only little people pay taxes” landed her in prison for tax evasion.

Is that why Trump has not released his tax returns? Fear of jail for tax evasion? Does avoiding taxes make him responsible, or fair, or any of the other upstanding qualities Americans once desired in our highest representative?

I would say no. But apparently, some people are fine with that.

Somewhere, there’s a line between fair deductions and gaming. If a billionaire is paying nothing in taxes, it crosses that line.

And, as a presidential candidate, the hypocrisy is too rich. Here’s a guy running to lead a country he doesn’t feel obligated to help pay for. It’s akin to a preacher stiffing the collection plate.


The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2016 10:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Originally posted by SECOND:
Where is economic growth going to come from?



"Growth" is not the same as "jobs", so discussing one thing is not the same as discussion the other. "Growth" ... especially when you're measuring the aggregate growth, "percent increase in GDP" ... can come from financial services and other non-job-creating activities.

Quote:

In the debate, Trump thinks it only comes from one place.

Trump thinks jobs, especially good=paying jobs, come from manufacturing production.

Quote:

Clinton sees many.
Clinton thinks that "growth" comes from wealth transfer, rich to poor. so that most of the people can buy more. In that sense, she is Keynesian.

Quote:

Presidents have limited power to change the fundamental drivers of economic growth, which include consumer spending, population change, and business investment.
Disagree

But to the extent that they can do anything, candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have drastically different conceptions of where new growth will come from. The contrast was on full display during the debate Monday night at Hofstra.
Agree.

Quote:

Here’s the distinction in a nutshell: Trump would try to boost growth by forcing companies to stay in America and pushing immigrants out. Clinton would try to boost growth by making America a more attractive place to invest, making American workers more attractive to employ, and making sure people have enough in their pockets to revive the kind of consumer demand that has fueled America’s economic engine since the end of World War II.


And that's the problem- both approaches are incomplete. Starting with Clinton, if much of the money that she extracts from the wealthy goes to buying good FROM CHINA (or Vietnam, or the Marianas or Haiti or India) the USA will stay on the path of very bad trade deficit. Americans will experience a temporary but unearned improvement in living standards, but at some point when other nations are no longer willing to accept the dollar as payment, and the USA military can no longer force them to, that will collapse. The only ones who benefit are the transnational corporations.

Quote:

Trump laid out his philosophy when debate moderator Lester Holt asked how Trump would raise wages and create new jobs in America. (He’s promised 25 million of them, which is demographically impossible without an increase in immigration that he opposes.)

Trump answered in exactly one dimension: Manufacturing jobs that in recent decades have migrated to Mexico and China. He’d bring them back, he and his advisers say, by charging steep tariffs on imports and slashing corporate tax rates so that companies bring cash back from overseas. “That’s going to be a job creator like we haven’t seen since Ronald Reagan,” Trump said. “It’s going to be a beautiful thing to watch.”



On the other hand, if production is forced to stay in the USA and imported goods are tariffed, but Americans can't afford to buy any of them, then either the "surplus" good will be exported or the "surplus" productive capacity will be allowed to decay, and Americans will experience an immediate decrease in living standards.

Quote:

There are a number of problems with that simple prescription, which itself is based on faulty assumptions about the current dynamics of global trade.

First, although Trump isn’t wrong that trade deals played a role in manufacturing job loss, the movement of manufacturing overseas was, to a large extent, going to happen anyway.

Not true. IF a nation has an economic policy, that means it has control over the goods, services, people, and money which flows across its borders. IF a nation can't, or won't, control these aspects of flows across its border, then it will be completely at the mercy of international trends.

Quote:

Second, even if he magically forced companies to return all of their manufacturing output to the United States, it could never replace all the jobs that were lost, since advancing technology allows companies to produce the same amount of stuff with many fewer people.
The only driver for moving to low-wage nations and to automation is MAXIMUM PROFIT in a milieu of INTERNATIONAL TRADE. If that motivation is absent, or the companies involved aren't large enough to play nations off against each other, or are constrained by regulation, then these "drivers" can't operate. Because even "drivers" have drivers. You have to look upstream to where this is all coming from.

Quote:

Clinton, of course, also opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal that Trump has vilified. She, too, visits old manufacturing plants and talks about revitalizing them into high-tech wonder plants that will employ some of the millions of mostly men who've faded from the labor force in recent years.
Clinton has for years supported "free trade" agreements of various sorts. More importantly, HER WEALTHY BACKERS support the TPP and other free trade agreements. I agree with Trump that the only reason she (says) she opposes TPP and TTIP is because of the election. If she's elected, they will put lipstick on that pig, (i.e. make a few meaningless modifications) and then Clinton will find a reason to support it.

Quote:

But while Trump stops there, Clinton goes further. She's spent the last several years stuffing an economic toolbox with plans for investing in clean energy, bringing more women and disabled people into the workforce, allowing young people to go to college without taking on crippling debt, creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants
Rewarding people who broke the law

Quote:

, reining in the parasitic financial sector and putting capital to work at businesses that will use it to create jobs, not just play the stock market.
And critically, she understands the importance of raising wages for workers in the service jobs, to re-store the consumer class that weakened as well-paid manufacturing jobs faded away.


First of all, the idea that high-tech manufacturing and high-tech jobs are going to save us is bogus. Hi tech is a limited field, and there are serious competitors in it already including Korea, Japan, Sweden, Germany, and even Russia. Educating the population has all kinds of benefits, but it's not an economic driver: we'll simply have PhDs in physics working for Lyft. It's happened before.

Secondly, all of that extra cash in people's pockets is simply going to help CHINA'S or (fill in a low-wage nation here) growth.

Quote:

Progressives have termed this approach "middle-out economics," rather than what Clinton called the "Trumped-up trickle-down" philosophy, referring to the Reagan-era idea of giving tax breaks to the wealthy in hopes that they would use the windfall to create more jobs. Targeting lower-income workers, Clinton figures, will have a bigger economic impact. "The more we can do for the middle class, the more we can invest in you, your education, your skills, your future, the better we will be off and the better we'll grow," she said.

At a recent event in Houston, Dallas Federal Reserve President Robert Kaplan briefly laid out the federal budget policy he thought should have complemented low interest rates to address the aging of the population that has created such strong headwinds for the economy, since there are fewer and fewer working-age people to support all the retirees. Without commenting on the presidential race, he essentially backed up Clinton's approach.

"We need to do things to increase the size of the workforce," Kaplan said. "Vocational training. As controversial as it is, some agreement or compromise on immigration, particularly skilled immigration. Maybe incentives that cause people to work longer in their career, so we don't have a deterioration in the workforce. Infrastructure spending in the United States."

It's true, many of these things cost money. But if billionaires like Trump paid more of their taxes, a lot more money might become available. And simply by virtue of trying lots more ideas, Clinton has a better chance of jump-starting the economy than pursuing one strategy — forcing companies to return jobs to the U.S. — that relies on history turning itself backwards instead of forwards.
www.houstonchronicle.com/business/texanomics/article/Where-is-economic
-growth-going-to-come-from-9294789.php



A number of extremely large businesses either pay no tax, or very low tax, because they've been able to shelter (in various legal way) their revenues. If Clinton REALLY wants to close the deficit, she needs to eliminate all of those loopholes. I think she proposes a 65% tax rate because she knows that those who have access to services like Mossack Fonseca supply will be nearly impervious to the rate changes.

I think the solution isn't to average what Trump and Clinton propose (he proposed 15% and she proposes 65% and so the average is 40%) but to COMBINE them. We need tariffs AND wealth transfer. We need to control the flow of illegal migrants across our borders AND stop destroying nations abroad. It's not either-or. An economic policy that would lead to better-paying jobs, more economic security, improved infrastructure etc would need to be truly comprehensive.

But I appreciate Trump's national focus.



--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2016 11:21 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Donald Trump claimed that Mexico’s value-added tax (VAT) is an unfair trade policy. To cut through the BS, a VAT has the same effects as a sales tax. Sales taxes are NOT an unfair trade practice. New York has fairly high sales taxes; Delaware has no such tax. Does anyone think that this gives New York an unfair advantage in interstate competition?

A VAT is levied on both domestic and imported goods, so that it doesn’t protect against imports — which is why it’s allowed under international trade rules, and not considered a protectionist trade policy.

But it turns out that Trump wasn’t saying ignorant things off the top of his head. He was saying ignorant things fed to him by his incompetent economic advisers. Here’s the campaign white paper on economics. The VAT discussion is on pages 12-13 — and it’s utterly uninformed.
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Trump_Economic_Plan.pdf

But at least Trump read it to prepare for the debate. Should we be reassured that Trump wasn’t actually winging it here, just taking really bad advice? Not at all. This says that his judgment in advisers, his notion of who constitutes an expert, is as bad as his judgment on the fly during a debate.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2016 8:40 PM

THGRRI




There's another concern other than Hillary winning the debate. Hijacked election results.

More state election databases hacked than previously thought

Multiple law enforcement sources tell CBS News homeland security correspondent Jeff Pegues that more U.S. state election databases have been hacked than previously thought.

According to sources, a total of about 10 states have had their systems probed or breached by hackers, similar to what happened in Arizona and Illinois.

CBS News has learned that government officials are increasingly concerned about Russian efforts to disrupt or influence the 2016 presidential election.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/more-state-election-databases-hacked-than-
previously-thought
/

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 28, 2016 11:32 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


This where I found a serious problem with Hillary (and the media).

She seems to go by the motto

If you lie, lie BIG! (And, note to self, make sure the media is with you.)

In this first debate, Hillary stated “(Putin has) let loose cyber attackers to hack into government files, to hack into personal files, hack into the Democratic National Committee". But in the post-debate fact-checking frenzy, no one has bothered to fact-check this particular claim. That seems a pretty large gap in all this information-vetting.

In fact, unless Hillary’s received private information directly from the FBI - or indeed some other government security agency – Hillary’s claim runs contrary to all public statements: NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY has identified Russia as the source of the hack.

Not then, and not now.

I’ve been following this ever since the claim first came out, because it smelled – yanno – fishy. It came out in just a few days, and from a private firm hired by the DNC. How could they possibly ferret that out so quickly, especially when the FBI, with all its resources, could only claim they were ‘still investigating’?

But by then the claim was dutifully accepted by the media and - pardon the pun - trumped up beyond all reason. And it still continues today to be loudly asserted over and over by people who DO know better (like Hillary), and is still not challenged by people who SHOULD know better (especially not by the media).

Meanwhile, the much more low key and responsible statements made by Clapper at the time were buried pretty far down in the news. And there’s been zero follow-up or prominent press about what the FBI thinks since then.

So, I did some google searching about Hillary’s claim, because, while google doesn’t know all, it’s a reasonable place to start when you want to find something out and the media looks like it’s part of the problem of making news out of non-facts.


https://www.thenation.com/article/cyber-hacks-the-washington-posts-bas
eless-crusade-against-russia
/
Cyber Hacks: The Washington Post’s Baseless Crusade Against Russia
If you’re going to point the finger of blame at one country in particular you should have more, you know, proof.
By James Carden
September 7, 2016

These are the search terms I used.
did the fbi proof russia hacked the dnc +september 2016
This is the result I got. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=did+the+fbi+proof+russia+hacked+t
he+dnc+%2Bseptember+2016&sout=1&tbm=nws


But feel free to look it up yourself. Use whatever search terms you want. Spend as much time as you need. Knock yourself out.





And then, when despite your best efforts, you fail to come up with proof for Hillary’s claim – a statement by the FBI, or the CIA, or the NSA, asserting Russia was the hacker as a fact - ask yourself these reasonable questions: If this is a lie about US cybersecurity, why does Hillary knowingly lie so often? If such a consequential lie can be so often repeated and so often reported with so little investigation and so little proof, what kind of media do we now have?






Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 29, 2016 5:32 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I contend that it would behoove Mr. Moneybags to allow for companies to expand their growth and influence abroad. Why? Good question.

Let's take Mexico for instance. Ford recently struck a deal to manufacture small cars there, which creates job growth and keeps the general population,
well........there. It has been reported that the illegal immigration problem has slowed to a trickle in recent months, mainly because Mexico's economy has improved.

Ford makes money, the Mexicans make money (and consequently stay home), everybody's happy. Now we can cross the border to look for work, turnabout
is fair play. Well, Ford hasn't forgotten about us here in America; despite what the Donald says, Ford has committed to making large trucks and SUVs
here in the good old USA. So nobody here is losing their jobs.

Now if we could only find a way to make them share in their good fortune (an
understatement) and raise wages. CEOs are walking away with hundred million dollar bonuses, where's ours?

Speaking of "Crooked, Lying" Donald Frump - Newsweek will be releasing an article this morning about Trump's shady dealings with the Cubans in 1998-9.
Yes, Trump & Company did business with Castro & Cuba during the embargo, an
American No-No. Now, what does this have to do with the Debate...everything!
Do you think he lies? Of course he does. He lied to the government and he lied to the exiled Cubans in Miami; plus he took great pains to cover it up.
It's a wonder how he keeps his lies in order. My feeling is that he doesn't
really remember (pretty much like his surprise when Hillary brought up the
Miss Universe winner during Monday's debate.

Boy did he ever get sandbagged! It was beautiful, like watching Picasso paint. Hillary wiped the floor with him...the polls confirmed it yesterday.
Can't wait for Round 2!!!


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 29, 2016 6:54 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I found this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/25/fbi-suspects-russia-h
acked-dnc-u-s-officials-say-it-was-to-elect-donald-trump.html


Quote:

The DNC hired a computer security firm, CrowdStrike, to investigate the breach. It has publicly attributed the operation to two known hacker groups connected to the Russian government that it dubs Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear....
The two groups, which compete with one another, got into the DNC networks last summer and this April, respectively, CrowdStrike told The Washington Post, which first reported the breaches last month.




http://www.channel4000.com/nation/politics/could-a-couch-potato-hack-t
he-dnc/99339236


How do individuals go about their hacking?

While carrying out an attack the level of the DNC hack requires skill and manpower that individuals don't possess, attacks like breaking a few email accounts is within the realm of a single hacker.
Often the perpetrators use what's known as social engineering -- gathering clues about a person from their public life online and then using it to guess passwords or security questions to get into accounts and release the contents online.
But that's still probably beyond the abilities of most 10-year-olds.

Search term: Hack of DNC


SGG

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:06 AM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
This where I found a serious problem with Hillary (and the media).

She seems to go by the motto

If you lie, lie BIG! (And, note to self, make sure the media is with you.)

In this first debate, Hillary stated “(Putin has) let loose cyber attackers to hack into government files, to hack into personal files, hack into the Democratic National Committee". But in the post-debate fact-checking frenzy, no one has bothered to fact-check this particular claim. That seems a pretty large gap in all this information-vetting.

In fact, unless Hillary’s received private information directly from the FBI - or indeed some other government security agency – Hillary’s claim runs contrary to all public statements: NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY has identified Russia as the source of the hack.

Not then, and not now.

I’ve been following this ever since the claim first came out, because it smelled – yanno – fishy. It came out in just a few days, and from a private firm hired by the DNC. How could they possibly ferret that out so quickly, especially when the FBI, with all its resources, could only claim they were ‘still investigating’?

But by then the claim was dutifully accepted by the media and - pardon the pun - trumped up beyond all reason. And it still continues today to be loudly asserted over and over by people who DO know better (like Hillary), and is still not challenged by people who SHOULD know better (especially not by the media).

Meanwhile, the much more low key and responsible statements made by Clapper at the time were buried pretty far down in the news. And there’s been zero follow-up or prominent press about what the FBI thinks since then.

So, I did some google searching about Hillary’s claim, because, while google doesn’t know all, it’s a reasonable place to start when you want to find something out and the media looks like it’s part of the problem of making news out of non-facts.


https://www.thenation.com/article/cyber-hacks-the-washington-posts-bas
eless-crusade-against-russia
/
Cyber Hacks: The Washington Post’s Baseless Crusade Against Russia
If you’re going to point the finger of blame at one country in particular you should have more, you know, proof.

But feel free to look it up yourself. Use whatever search terms you want. Spend as much time as you need. Knock yourself out.

And then, when despite your best efforts, you fail to come up with proof for Hillary’s claim – a statement by the FBI, or the CIA, or the NSA, asserting Russia was the hacker as a fact - ask yourself these reasonable questions: If this is a lie about US cybersecurity, why does Hillary knowingly lie so often? If such a consequential lie can be so often repeated and so often reported with so little investigation and so little proof, what kind of media do we now have?




Why comrade do you insist on defending Russia at all costs if you are American? Why is it you always believe the Russians? My search took all of two minutes.

Russia's Attack on the Election

“U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies have seen mounting evidence of an active Russian-influenced operation targeting the 2016 presidential election. It is unlikely the Russians could sway the vote but they could sow disruption and instability”

http://time.com/

“Some of the most compelling evidence linking the DNC breach to Russia was found at the beginning of July by Thomas Rid, a professor at King’s College in London, who discovered an identical command-and-control address hardcoded into the DNC malware that was also found on malware used to hack the German Parliament in 2015. According to German security officials, the malware originated from Russian military intelligence. An identical SSL certificate was also found in both breaches. “

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/

US official: DNC email hack likely came from Russia

“A U.S. official involved in the investigation said that the classified information collected on the hack so far "indicated beyond a reasonable doubt that it originated in Russia."

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-official-dnc-email-hack-likely-came-
from-russia-2016-7





____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 29, 2016 7:11 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


So, what did Gary Johnson say in the Debate?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 29, 2016 8:54 PM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So, what did Gary Johnson say in the Debate?



He didn't say anything. BUT, on morning Joe two weeks ago when asked what he thought about Aleppo he asked what's Aleppo. Then yesterday on another talk show he was asked to name his favorite foreign leader. He couldn't name any foreign leader. Not one in the entire world. So I would suggest he didn't belong in the debate and is certainly not qualified to be president.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 30, 2016 12:24 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.




NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY has identified Russia as the source of the hack.

Not then, and not now.




It (the claim it was the Russian government who done dood it) came out in just a few days, and from a private firm hired by the DNC.



proof for Hillary’s claim – a statement by the FBI, or the CIA, or the NSA



The DNC hired a computer security firm, CrowdStrike, to investigate the breach. It has publicly attributed the operation to two known hacker groups connected to the Russian government that it dubs Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear....
The two groups, which compete with one another, got into the DNC networks last summer and this April, respectively, CrowdStrike told The Washington Post, which first reported the breaches last month.



Your post doesn't exactly refute the idea that NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY has said Russia was responsible.




Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 30, 2016 2:17 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


None found, but because there is no hard evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The FBI suspects it was Russia, but have had their hands tied by a Republican-led Congress. Meanwhile Hillary's e-mails are the hot topic of the day. I could see why you insist that the probe continue; you feel she lies. Trump, of course, he's totally beyond reproach and is innocent in all this. He never lies.

You state that hard questions should be asked of Clinton's lies and actions.
Granted, let's ask those hard questions. Let's tear down the barriers set up by Clintons; after all they have been evil for the last 30 years and deserve to be exposed. Obviously the hard evidence is there and has been produced, right!? If so, then hard questions need to be asked: Who's been protecting them all these years? What do they have over FBI Director Comey that he's so afraid to pursue legal action? Surely there must be some hard evidence that can back these claims of corruption and government manipulation? And if so, why aren't they in jail?

Trump is completely innocent in all this, I can tell.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:


NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY has identified Russia as the source of the hack.

Not then, and not now.




It (the claim it was the Russian government who done dood it) came out in just a few days, and from a private firm hired by the DNC.



proof for Hillary’s claim – a statement by the FBI, or the CIA, or the NSA



The DNC hired a computer security firm, CrowdStrike, to investigate the breach. It has publicly attributed the operation to two known hacker groups connected to the Russian government that it dubs Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear....
The two groups, which compete with one another, got into the DNC networks last summer and this April, respectively, CrowdStrike told The Washington Post, which first reported the breaches last month.



Your post doesn't exactly refute the idea that NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY has said Russia was responsible.




Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 30, 2016 10:49 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

How do individuals go about their hacking?
While carrying out an attack the level of the DNC hack requires skill and manpower that individuals don't possess,



If you have a PC or server attached to an internet, or phone, and you run MS, there is no way you can secure that thing against a determined but not-necessarily skilled hacker. All they have to do is go online and buy some hacking tools. Since the NSA is still asking MS to build in backdoors to the software, and MS is still complying, anyone can get to the keys of the kingdom here:

NSA Backdoor Exploit in Windows 8 Uncovered
http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/08/22/nsa-windows-8-exploit/

Microsoft's Software is Malware
https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html

The concept that you need an entire team of international experts to hack into the DNC server is laughable,

Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
None found, but because there is no hard evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The FBI suspects it was Russia, but have had their hands tied by a Republican-led Congress. Meanwhile Hillary's e-mails are the hot topic of the day. I could see why you insist that the probe continue; you feel she lies. Trump, of course, he's totally beyond reproach and is innocent in all this. He never lies.

Trump and Hillary are equally corrupt. Trump engages in what used to be called "sharp" business deals: deals where the fine print in his contracts allowed him to do whatever benefitted him.

Hillary, aside form being an alcoholic, got over 30,000 people uselessly killed in Libya and is partly responsible for another 1000,000 more if Syria and elsewhere. Her personal business dealing involve her drug-traficking husband.

So, ethically, they're a wash.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 30, 2016 11:50 AM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:


NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY has identified Russia as the source of the hack.

Not then, and not now.






In response to your Russian spin, I’ll speak for America.

There are diplomatic considerations. If this continues our government will be forced to act. Why hold off? It is a major decision and could start a cyber war. For now we are calling Russia out and giving them a chance to cease and desist. Like brushing aside a fly before swatting it. Remember, Clinton our next president IS calling them out. Therefore when she is sworn in the shit hit’s the fan for Russia if this is still going on.

I would also point out it is not just America but Europe as well that is dealing with an unprecedented amount of Russian trolls and hackers. If we all push back Putin will see the error of his ways. Our collective budgets far exceed his when it comes to funding cyber concerns.


____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 30, 2016 11:57 AM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Hillary, aside form being an alcoholic,




Just lie after lie SIG. You have no credibility.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 30, 2016 12:00 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Trump and Hillary are equally corrupt. Trump engages in what used to be called "sharp" business deals: deals where the fine print in his contracts allowed him to do whatever benefitted him.

Hillary, aside form being an alcoholic, got over 30,000 people uselessly killed in Libya and is partly responsible for another 1000,000 more if Syria and elsewhere. Her personal business dealing involve her drug-traficking husband.

So, ethically, they're a wash.

Is it Hillary's fault that Colonel Gaddafi was in charge of Libya for 42 years and his only plan for peacefully handing power to the next leader was to give it to his son? Is it Hillary's fault that Gaddafi had been using the mutual hostilities of different tribes to stay in power because keeping them divided is what kept him in control? Is it Hillary's fault that the price of oil dropped and that limited the amount of bribes Gaddafi could pay to tribal leaders to keep the peace? Is it Hillary's fault that these different tribes did not want the son to rule over them and they decided to fight for power because Gaddafi had exhausted their patience with his endless promises and schemes to keep every tribe divided against all the other tribes? Gaddafi ran short of money and stamina to keep the tribes from fighting.

Is it Hillary's fault that Syria is the same damn story as Libya, except the old Syrian President successfully passed power to his son, who is killing Syrians to remain in power? Gaddafi's son would have done the same. Syria had 2,500,000,000 barrels of petroleum reserves as of 1 January 2010 according to the Oil and Gas Journal. That amount of oil is worth killing to control and President Bashar al-Assad kills Syrians for the reward in prestige and money. It has nothing to do with Hillary.

On the flipside of this vinyl record Signym keeps playing, it is definitely Trump's fault that he violated the contracts he wrote, and not just the fine print technical details only lawyers read. Trump has been sued thousands of times to get him to keep minimum standards of behavior.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 30, 2016 1:08 PM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by SECOND:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Trump and Hillary are equally corrupt. Trump engages in what used to be called "sharp" business deals: deals where the fine print in his contracts allowed him to do whatever benefitted him.

Hillary, aside form being an alcoholic, got over 30,000 people uselessly killed in Libya and is partly responsible for another 1000,000 more if Syria and elsewhere. Her personal business dealing involve her drug-traficking husband.

So, ethically, they're a wash.

Is it Hillary's fault that Colonel Gaddafi was in charge of Libya for 42 years and his only plan for peacefully handing power to the next leader was to give it to his son? Is it Hillary's fault that Gaddafi had been using the mutual hostilities of different tribes to stay in power because keeping them divided is what kept him in control? Is it Hillary's fault that the price of oil dropped and that limited the amount of bribes Gaddafi could pay to tribal leaders to keep the peace? Is it Hillary's fault that these different tribes did not want the son to rule over them and they decided to fight for power because Gaddafi had exhausted their patience with his endless promises and schemes to keep every tribe divided against all the other tribes? Gaddafi ran short of money and stamina to keep the tribes from fighting.

Is it Hillary's fault that Syria is the same damn story as Libya, except the old Syrian President successfully passed power to his son, who is killing Syrians to remain in power? Gaddafi's son would have done the same. Syria had 2,500,000,000 barrels of petroleum reserves as of 1 January 2010 according to the Oil and Gas Journal. That amount of oil is worth killing to control and President Bashar al-Assad kills Syrians for the reward in prestige and money. It has nothing to do with Hillary.

On the flipside of this vinyl record Signym keeps playing, it is definitely Trump's fault that he violated the contracts he wrote, and not just the fine print technical details only lawyers read. Trump has been sued thousands of times to get him to keep minimum standards of behavior.



All true SECOND. It is also lost on SIG that America took a back seat to our European allies on this one. We backed them up. It's kind of hard to expect them to back us up if we don't reciprocate. Our decision to get involved was also founded on that. Being Russian SIG would not understand that.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 30, 2016 2:29 PM

THGRRI


Trump remains ensnared in Miss Universe trap Clinton set

Hillary Clinton set up Donald Trump with embarrassing stories about a former Miss Universe — and now Trump can't seem to let it go.

A bizarre early morning tweet storm by the Republican presidential nominee extended the Alicia Machado story into its fifth day Friday, enabling Clinton and her aides to continue hammering Trump over his treatment of women.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/09/30/
donald-trump-tweet-storm-miss-universe-hillary-clinton/91314446
/

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 30, 2016 4:52 PM

THGRRI

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 30, 2016 5:04 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Trump remains ensnared in Miss Universe trap Clinton set

Who gets up a three o'clock in the morning to engage in a Twitter attack against a former Miss Universe? He hurled as many insults as he could. Really, why does he do things like that? His latest Twitter meltdown is unhinged even for him.

Jayne, as stupid as ever, tweets "At least we know he’d be around for that 3am phone call..." #MicDrop
https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/781871866071752705

Jayne, proving he is a bigger jackass than Trump, announced in February: Hollywood actor Adam Baldwin has quit Twitter over concerns that the platform is censoring opponents of the "regressive" left. Clever, Jayne, to replace the word progressive with regressive.

Too bad Jayne didn't stay quit, but something had to be done to support Trump when he won the nomination!

The actor and star of TNT’s The Last Ship deleted his entire seven-year history of tweets over the weekend, replacing them with a single message calling on Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to be fired and the company’s new, widely-criticized “Trust and Safety Council” disbanded. It was Jayne's tweets that Hillary should be killed that caused the trouble. A picture of a target on Hillary and a quote that the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants was not real subtle.
www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/23/adam-baldwin-quits-twitter-calls-for
-jack-dorseys-resignation
/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 30, 2016 5:12 PM

THGRRI


Originally posted by THGRRI:

Trump remains ensnared in Miss Universe trap Clinton set

SECOND

Who gets up a three o'clock in the morning to engage in a Twitter attack against a former Miss Universe? He hurled as many insults as he could. Really, why does he do things like that? His latest Twitter meltdown is unhinged even for him.

ME

Trump does because he has no self-control. And think Nevada, a Latino Miss Universe.

SECOND

Jayne, as stupid as ever, tweets "At least we know he’d be around for that 3am phone call..." #MicDrop

Jayne, proving he is as big a jackass as Trump, announced in February: Hollywood actor Adam Baldwin has quit Twitter over concerns that the platform is censoring opponents of the "regressive" left. Clever, Jayne, to replace the word progressive with regressive. Too bad Jayne didn't stay quit, but something had to be done to support Trump when he won the nomination!

The actor and star of TNT’s The Last Ship deleted his entire seven-year history of tweets over the weekend, replacing them with a single message calling on Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to be fired and the company’s new, widely-criticized “Trust and Safety Council” disbanded.

ME
Great in FireFly, failure as a person.


____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 1, 2016 10:04 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

In an email sent to his business partner and Democratic fundraiser Jeffrey Leeds, former Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote of Hillary Clinton, “Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris.”
Indeed!

Quote:

Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State during Barack Obama’s first term was an unmitigated disaster for many nations around the world. Neither the Donald Trump campaign nor the corporate media have adequately described how a number of countries around the world suffered horribly from Mrs. Clinton’s foreign policy decisions.

Millions of people were adversely harmed by Clinton’s misguided policies and her “pay-to-play” operations involving favors in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative.

The following is a before and after recap, country by country, of the destabilizing effects of Clinton’s policies as Secretary of State:
Abkhazia

Before Hillary: In 2009, more and more nations began recognizing the independence of this nation that broke away from Georgia and successfully repelled a U.S.-supported Georgian invasion in 2008.

After Hillary: Clinton pressured Vanuatu and Tuvalu to break off diplomatic relations with Abkhazia in 2011. The State Department pressured the governments of India, Germany, and Spain to refuse to recognize the validity of Abkhazian passports and, in violation of the US-UN Treaty, refused to permit Abkhazian diplomats to visit UN headquarters in New York. The Clinton State Department also threatened San Marino, Belarus, Ecuador, Bolivia, Cuba, Somalia, Uzbekistan, and Peru with recriminations if they recognized Abkhazia. Georgia was connected to Clinton through the representation of Georgia in Washington by the Podesta Group, headed by Tony Podesta, the brother of Mrs. Clinton’s close friend and current campaign chairman John Podesta.
Argentina

Before Hillary: Under President Nestor Kirchner and his wife Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Argentina’s economy improved and the working class and students prospered.

After Hillary: After former president Nestor Kirchner’s sudden death in 2010, the U.S. embassy in Buenos Aires became a nexus for anti-Kirchner activities, including the fomenting of political and labor protests against the government. Meanwhile, Clinton pressed Argentina hard on its debt obligations to the IMF, also crippling the economy.
Bolivia

Before Hillary: Bolivia’s progressive president Evo Morales, the country’s first indigenous Aymara leader, provided government support to the country’s coca farmers and miners. Morales also committed his government to environmental protection. He kept his country out of the Free Trade Area of the Americas and helped start the Peoples’ Trade Agreement with Venezuela and Cuba.

After Hillary: Clinton permitted the U.S. embassy in La Paz to stir up separatist revolts in four mostly European-descent Bolivian provinces, as well as foment labor strikes among miners and other workers in the same model used in Venezuela.
Brazil

Before Hillary: Brazil’s progressive presidents, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff, ushered in a new era for the country, with workers’ and students' rights at the forefront and environmental protection and economic development for the poor major priorities.

After Hillary: Clinton’s authorization of massive electronic spying from the US embassy in Brasilia and consulate general in Rio de Janeiro resulted in a “constitutional coup” against Rousseff and the Workers’ Party government, ushering in a right-wing, CIA-supported corrupt government.
Central African Republic

Before Hillary: Under President Francois Bozize, the CAR remained relatively calm under a peace agreement hammered out under the auspices of Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya.

After Hillary: In 2012, Islamist terrorists of the Seleka movement and supported by Saudi Arabia conducted an uprising, massacring Christians and riving Bozize’s government from power. The CAR became a failed state under Clinton’s State Department.
Ecuador

Before Hillary: Ecuador began sharing its oil wealth with the people and the economy and the plight of the nation’s poor improved.

After Hillary: Clinton authorized a 2010 National Police coup against President Rafael Correa. The economy soon plunged as labor disputes wracked the mining and oil sectors.
Egypt

Before Hillary: Under Hosni Mubarak, Egypt was a stable secular nation that suppressed jihadist politics in the mosques. The jihadist-oriented Muslim Brotherhood was kept at bay.

After Hillary: After Clinton’s 2011 “Arab Spring” and the toppling of Mubarak, Egypt saw Mohamed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood elected president. Immediately, the secular country began a process of Islamization with Christian Copts experiencing repression and violence, including massacres. Morsi’s rule resulted in a military coup, thus ending Egypt’s previous moves toward democracy.
Germany

Before Hillary: The nation was a peaceful country where German culture, as well as religious freedom and women’s rights were guaranteed.

After Hillary: Clinton’s “Arab Spring” eventually resulted in a flood of mainly Muslim refugees being welcomed into Germany from the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia. Today, Germany is wracked by Muslim refugee street crime, unsanitary and harmful public health habits of migrants, sexual assaults by migrant men of women and children, increased acts of terrorism, and a diminution of German culture and religious practices.
Greece

Before Hillary: Greece was a nation that saw government safety net social services extended to all in need. It also remained a top tourist destination for northern Europeans.

After Hillary: The 2010 debt crisis emaciated the Greek economy and Clinton remained adamant that Greece comply with draconian economic measures dictated by Germany, the European Union, and the IMF/World Bank. Making matters worse, Clinton’s “Arab Spring” eventually resulted in a flood of mainly Muslim refugees being welcomed into first, the Greek isles, and then mainland Greece, from the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia. Today, Greece, especially the islands of Lesbos, Chios, Samos, Symi, Rhodes, Leros, and Kos, are wracked by Muslim refugee crime, unsanitary public health habits of migrants, sexual assaults by migrant men of women and children, acts of arson and vandalism, and a diminution of Greek culture and religious practices.
Guatemala

Before Hillary: Under President Alvaro Colom, the nation’s first populist progressive president, the poor received access to health, education, and social security.

After Hillary: Clinton authorized the U.S. embassy in Guatemala to work against the 2011 election of president Colom’s wife, Sandra Torres. Colom was succeeded by a right-wing corrupt president who resigned for corruption and then was arrested.
Haiti

Before Hillary: Haiti was prepared in 2011 to re-elect Jean-Bertrand Aristide, forced out of office and into exile in a 2004 CIA coup. The prospects of Artistide’s return to power was a blessing for the slum dwellers of Haiti.

After Hillary: Clinton refused to allow Aristide to return to Haiti from exile in South Africa until it was too late for him to run in the 2011 election. Under a series of U.S.-installed presidents, all approved by Bill and Hillary Clinton, Haiti is a virtual cash cow for the Clintons. The Clinton Foundation diverted for its own use, international aid to Haiti, and the Clintons ensured that their wealthy friends in the hotel, textile, and construction businesses landed lucrative contracts for Haitian projects, none of which have benefited the Haitian poor and many of which resulted in sweat shops and extremely low wage labor practices.
Honduras

Before Hillary: Emergent multi-party democracy with a populist progressive president, Manuel Zelaya. Children received free education, poor children received free school meals, interest rates were reduced, and the poorest families were given free electricity.

After Hillary: Clinton authorized a military coup d’etat against Zelaya in 2009. Clinton family “fix-it” man Lanny Davis became a public relations flack for the military dictatorship. A fascist dictatorship involved in extrajudicial death squad killings of journalists, politicians, and indigenous leaders followed the “constitutional coup” against Zelaya. During 2012, Clinton ordered U.S. embassy in Tegucigalpa to work against the 2013 election of Xiomara Castro de Zelaya as president.
Iraq

Before Hillary: Under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq experienced small moves toward an accommodation with the Kurds of the north and Sunnis. Iran acted as a moderating political force in the country that deterred any attempts by Saudi-supported jihadis to disrupt the central government in Baghdad.

After Hillary: Clinton’s Arab Spring resulted in the rise of the Sunni/Wahhabist Islamic State in northern and western Iraq and Iraq’s plunge into failed state status. Shi’as, Kurds, Yazidis, Assyrian Christians, and moderate Sunnis were massacred by the jihadis in northern, western, and central Iraq. The Iraqi cities of Mosul, Kirkuk, and Nineveh fell to ISIL forces with non-Muslims being raped, tortured, and executed and priceless antiquities being destroyed by the marauding jihadists.
Kosovo

Before Hillary: Kosovo, which became independent in 2008, initially granted its Serbian minority in northern Kosovo and Metohija some degree of self-government.

After Hillary: In 2009, Kosovo increasingly became a state ruled by criminal syndicates and terrorists of the former Kosovo Liberation Army. The rights of Serbs were increasingly marginalized and Kosovo became a prime recruiting ground for jihadist guerrillas in Arab countries subjected to Clinton’s “Arab Spring” operations, including Libya and Syria.

Clinton pressured states receiving U.S. aid and other U.S. allies to recognize Kosovo’s independence. These included Pakistan, Palau, Maldives, St. Kitts-Nevis, Dominica, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Burundi, East Timor, Haiti, Chad, Gambia, Brunei, Ghana, Kuwait, Ivory Coast, Gabon, St. Lucia, Benin, Niger, Guinea, Central African Republic, Andorra, Oman, Guinea-Bissau, Qatar, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Honduras, Somalia, Djibouti, Vanuatu, Swaziland, Mauritania, Malawi, New Zealand, Dominican Republic, Jordan, Bahrain, and Comoros. In the Kosovo capital of Pristina, there is a 10-foot-high statue of Bill Clinton standing over Bill Clinton Boulevard. Not far away is a women’s clothing store called “Hillary.”
Libya

Before Hillary: Under Muammar Qaddafi, post-sanction Libya saw a boom in urban construction and a new major international airport to serve as a hub for Africa. Plans announced for an African dinar, supported by Libyan gold holdings, to serve the needs of Africa. All Libyans received free education and medical care. There was a program for revenue sharing of Libya’s oil wealth with the Libyan people.

After Hillary: Clinton’s 2011 regime change operations against Qaddafi, which saw the Libyan leader sodomized, beaten, and shot in the head by U.S.-supervised jihadist rebels, resulted in Clinton laughing about the incident in the infamous, “We came, we saw, he died” comment. Libya became a failed state where Islamic jihadist terrorists vied for control of the country and Qaddafi’s arm caches were given or sold to jihadist terrorists in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, the pan-Sahel region, and sub-Saharan Africa. After Qaddafi’s ouster, black African guest workers and their families were massacred by jihadist forces.
Malaysia

Before Hillary: Malaysia, before 2009, was a religiously tolerant nation where Buddhists, Christians, and Hindus enjoyed freedom of religion.

After Hillary: In 2009, Najib Razak became prime minister and he began accepting bribes from Saudi Arabia that totaled some $2.6 billion with additional Malaysian public money in Razak’s personal bank accounts plus the Saudi cash totaling some $3.5 billion. Razak began allowing Saudi-influenced clerics to push for sharia law throughout Malaysia and Christians in Sarawak, Sabah, and Penang began experiencing Wahhabist repression. Clinton was silent about Malaysian persecution of non-Muslims. The reason may have been a reported several hundred million donation from Razak’s slush fund into the Clinton Foundation’s coffers.
Palestine

Before Hillary: In 2012, Palestine was granted non-member observer status in the United nations. The 2009 Goldstone Report of the UN found that Israel violated international humanitarian law in its war against Gaza in 2009. Palestine was gaining more support and sympathy internationally and was successfully putting to rest Israeli propaganda disinformation.

After Hillary: Hillary Clinton rejected the Goldstone Report as “one-sided.” Clinton’s unbridled support for expanding Israeli settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem and its silence on the dehumanizing Israeli blockade of Gaza, emboldened Israel’s theocratic right-wing government to further encroach on Palestinian territories and cementing into place an apartheid-like series of Palestinian “Bantustans” in the West Bank and an open-air ghetto in Gaza.
Paraguay

Before Hillary: The country under Fernando Lugo began lifting out of poverty the nation’s rural campesinos and urban workers. Paraguay also began a steady move toward democratization after years of military dictatorships.

After Hillary: Clinton’s 2012 “constitutional coup” against Fernando Lugo brought back into power the military-industrial oligarchy with the nation’s campesinos being forced back into poverty and repressive rule.
South Sudan

Before Hillary: Prior to independence in 2011, South Sudan, while rife with intra-tribal feuding, was relatively calm.

After Hillary: After being rushed into independence from Sudan in 2011, South Sudan, a special project of Clinton, George Soros, and actor George Clooney, descended into civil war and chaos. It beat all records in being transformed from a newly-independent state into a failed state.
Syria

Before Hillary: Syria was a multi-cultural and multi-religious secular state championing the concept of pan-Arab socialism and progressive policies advanced by Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser. Syria was not a safe place for jihadism.

After Hillary: After Clinton’s 2011 green light for the “Arab Spring,” Syria became a failed state where the Islamic State gained a firm foothold. Minority Alawites, Christians, Druze, and Kurds were massacred by jihadist groups aided and abetted by NGOs and other interests backed by Clinton.
Thailand

Before Hillary: Thailand’s Red Shirt movement was a powerful force that demanded a return to democracy in Thailand and the restoration of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, ousted in a 2006 military coup, to power.

After Hillary: A Red Shirt protest in 2010 resulted in a bloody crackdown by the Thai military. Clinton remained silent about the Thai army’s killing of protesters and the mass arrests of Red Shirt leaders. U.S. military assistance to the Thai government was continued by Clinton. When Thaskin’s sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, became prime minister in 2011, Clinton began working to undermine her and her government in a manner not unlike Clinton’s subterfuge against Rousseff in Brazil and Cristina Kirchner in Argentina. When it comes to women leaders, Clinton only tolerates conservatives who kow-tow to the United States. The pressure against Yingluck eventually resulted in her ouster in 2014 and her being criminally charged in the same manner that saw Rousseff charged in Brazil.
Tunisia

Before Hillary: Tunisia was one of the most secular nations in the Arab and Islamic world. A top destination for European tourists, the country was more European in its outlook than North African.

After Hillary: After Clinton’s 2011 “Jasmine Revolution,” a textbook themed revolution crafted by Clinton’s friend George Soros, Tunisia descended into Islamist rule and violence. Today, Tunisia is the top country for recruits to the Islamic State.
Turkey

Before Hillary: Turkey was moving steadily closer to European standards on human rights and democracy. Even under the Islamist-oriented Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the country remained committed to pluralism.

After Hillary: Clinton authorized the shipment of Libyan weapons captured from Qaddafi’s arms caches to Turkish middlemen in the employment of Erdogan’s government for transfer to the jihadist rebels in Syria. A complication in this arrangement resulted in the September 11, 2012 jihadist attack on the CIA warehouse facility in Benghazi, which killed U.S. envoy Chris Stevens and other State Department personnel. Turkey’s dalliance with jihadist rebels in Syria was mirrored by increasing Islamization of Turkey. The events of 2011 and 2012 resulted in Turkey today being ruled by an Islamist strongman, Erdogan, with open political opposition being stamped out.
Ukraine

Before Hillary: Ukraine was a stable and neutral country that neither aligned itself with the West and NATO nor with Russia under the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych, elected in 2009 and inaugurated in 2010.

After Hillary: Clinton tried everything possible to ensure the 2009 defeat of Viktor Yanukovych. The State Department and its friends in the George Soros camp provided assistance to Clinton’s favorite candidate Yulia Tymoshenko to defeat Yanokovych. It was this early interference in the 2009 election that ultimately led to the “Euromaidan” themed revolution in 2014 against the government, resulting in civil war, the retrocession of Crimea back to Russia, and secessionist states in eastern Ukraine. Clinton’s policies directly led to a failed state in Europe.
Venezuela

Before Hillary: Under Hugo Chavez, the country provided basic social services to its poorest of citizens. Venezuela also provided discounted gasoline to several Caribbean and Central American countries through the PetroCaribe consortium.

After Hillary: After Clinton allowed the U.S. embassy in Caracas to foment anti-Chavez labor and political protests, the country began to falter economically. After Chavez’s 2012 diagnosis of terminal cancer, the State Department stepped up pressure on Venezuela, crippling the nation’s economy and political system.
Western Sahara

Before Hillary: Recognized by the African Union and several nations around the world as the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), Western Sahara saw some hope for an evacuation of illegal Moroccan occupation troops from its territory.

After Hillary: In 2010, Moroccan troops began entering Sahrawi refugee camps and attacking residents, even in UN-protected exclusion zones, where Moroccan troops were prohibited from entering. Clinton ensured that UN talks and a proposed popular referendum on the future of Western Sahara were stalled. Clinton pressured a number of states to withdraw their recognition of the SADR, including St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Paraguay, Haiti, Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde, Malawi, Kenya, Mauritius, Zambia, Panama, and Burundi. The Clinton Foundation received a 2011 donation of $1 million from a Moroccan phosphate company owned by the Moroccan government and which has mining operations in Western Sahara.
Yemen

Before Hillary: Yemen was a largely secular state that was transforming into a federation where the rights of South Yemen and the Zaidi Houthis of north Yemen were being recognized.

After Hillary: Clinton’s “Arab Spring” of 2011 and the fall of Abdullah Saleh from power saw Yemen become a failed state. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the Islamic State gained control over several areas of North and South Yemen. The fall of Saleh permitted Saudi Arabia to conduct a genocidal war in the country with Mrs. Clinton’s full support.




--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 1, 2016 10:26 AM

THGRRI


Some of SIG'S sources for the above post. As you can see they are unreliable to say the least. Which is why SIG didn't post any. Isn't that right comrade?

http://finance.yahoo.com/m/e4bffa30-9506-38cd-9934-cc3b0df6dea6/undefi
ned

http://www.kosovo-metochia.org/2016/09/29/kosovo-countries-destroyed-h
illary-clinton
/
http://www.bullfax.com/?q=node-complete-z-nations-destroyed-hillary-cl
intons-hubris

https://www.yahoo.com/news/novartis-psoriasis-drug-maintains-efficacy-
four-years-study-051637981--finance.html

https://sports.yahoo.com/m/365f8b37-73d8-36d8-97ce-96ca4759d301/ss_kov
alev%3A-russian-boxing-is.html

http://beforeitsnews.com/gold-and-precious-metals/2016/09/the-complete
-a-to-z-of-nations-destroyed-by-hillary-clintons-hubris-2969109.html



____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 1, 2016 10:29 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Some of SIG'S sources for the above post.

How would you know what my sources are?

Oh, that's right: you don't. You're a liar.

And, of course, too dishonest to address the actual content of the post.

Anybody who claims to support Hillary because of her experience in government and her curriculum vitae as Secretary of State, Senator, and First Lady ... which gave her, presumably, first-hand knowledge of how politics "works" and the chance to practice her skills, especially as Senator and Secretary of State .... cannot then go on to claim that she has no responsibility for anything.

If she has no responsibility for anything, then she was useless female window-dressing, right? And all of her "experience" was for naught, correct?

She either had a hand in directing foreign policy .... which is what her title Secretary of State .... implies, or she was just a passenger in the administration. It can't be both.


--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 1, 2016 2:33 PM

THGRRI


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

Originally posted by THGRRI:
Some of SIG'S sources for the above post.



http://finance.yahoo.com/m/e4bffa30-9506-38cd-9934-cc3b0df6dea6/undefi
ned
http://www.kosovo-metochia.org/2016/09/29/kosovo-countries-destroyed-h
illary-clinton/
http://www.bullfax.com/?q=node-complete-z-nations-destroyed-hillary-cl
intons-hubris
https://www.yahoo.com/news/novartis-psoriasis-drug-maintains-efficacy-
four-years-study-051637981--finance.html
https://sports.yahoo.com/m/365f8b37-73d8-36d8-97ce-96ca4759d301/ss_kov
alev%3A-russian-boxing-is.html
http://beforeitsnews.com/gold-and-precious-metals/2016/09/the-complete
-a-to-z-of-nations-destroyed-by-hillary-clintons-hubris-2969109.html


Quote SIG

How would you know what my sources are?

Oh, that's right: you don't. You're a liar. And, of course, too dishonest to address the actual content of the post.




Actually I do know who your sources were and that makes you, once again the liar. Since all you do is cut and paste a bunch of bullshit lies, all I have to do is run it through a plagiarism checker and IT GIVES ME THE SOURCES.

So you cut and pasted a books worth of bullshit ( like always ). You do not post your sources and in response to me you deny them. Why, because you know they are propaganda sites and not reputable.

And I am addressing your post. By pointing out you always misrepresent the truth so your posts are not to be believed. further, by pointing out that if you are deceitful here, ( which you constantly are ), than you fit the description of an internet troll.

Isn't that right comrade?



____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 1, 2016 3:11 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


You can really pile on the B.S. can't you?

Quote:

Originally posted by SECOND:
Where is economic growth going to come from?
In the debate, Trump thinks it only comes from one place. Clinton sees many.


Clinton's places: more government, bigger government, more government, any "job creation" that can take away (reduce) non-government jobs - all paid for by more taxes which won't exist because fewer non-government jobs will exist.
Quote:




Here’s the distinction in a nutshell: Trump would try to boost growth by forcing companies to stay in America and pushing immigrants out. Clinton would try to boost growth by making America a more attractive place to invest, making American workers more attractive to employ, and making sure people have enough in their pockets to revive the kind of consumer demand that has fueled America’s economic engine since the end of World War II.

Trump laid out his philosophy when debate moderator Lester Holt asked how Trump would raise wages and create new jobs in America. (He’s promised 25 million of them, which is demographically impossible without an increase in immigration that he opposes.)


Quite a pile you've stepped into already - making phony fake claims to bolster your blustery pre-determined conclusion, avoiding any facts.

25 million new jobs would require 25 million people to fill them, is that how you are figuring?
7.8 million Unemployed under Obama's fake numbers, and forecasted to be about 8.2 million by December.
6.1 million Involuntary Part Time workers, meaning part of Obama's hidden Unemployed who he has forced out of the workforce, and they are looking for full time jobs and are readily available and wanting work. When these workers who are working 2 or 3 jobs to sustain the income they wish they had with one job get a decent job (meaning pre-Obama type), 2 or 3 times as many vacancies may open up - meaning about 12-18 million jobs.
1.7 marginally Unemployed, under counted from reality, but which Obama's fake numbers admit they are not counted as unemployed as a result of tricky government paperwork, but they really are unemployed and willing, able, and available to work. These figures are notoriously underreported, largely because nobody knows how many they really are.
So far this is a minimum of 16.0 million jobs, and as many as 28 million.

Then there are the Illegal Alien jobs. With estimated (2014) 11.3 milion Illegal Aliens, 8.1 million of them were working illegally, filling jobs.
Deporting these Illegal Aliens would free up these 8.1 million jobs - even if they are not filled, the jobs would still remain as unfilled jobs. Following the laws of supply and demand, these jobs could be modified, making higher income for these jobs, or changed to be more effective jobs, making a higher paying (new) job in place of one or more of these jobs, yet paying more.

That would make a total so far of around 24.1 million jobs, and as many as 37 million jobs.
And that is not even counting the unemployed who want to work but are hidden in Obama's fake figures, and those who are stuck at mom's house because they can't get a job, and those who would like to supplement their retirement but can't with this horrendous job market.
No immigrants required. But, with decent jobs in need of filling, we could start to allow legal, skilled, desirable workers to immigrate - which I have not heard that Donald is opposed to.
Quote:


Trump answered in exactly one dimension: Manufacturing jobs that in recent decades have migrated to Mexico and China. He’d bring them back, he and his advisers say, by charging steep tariffs on imports and slashing corporate tax rates so that companies bring cash back from overseas. “That’s going to be a job creator like we haven’t seen since Ronald Reagan,” Trump said. “It’s going to be a beautiful thing to watch.”


But while Trump stops there, Clinton goes further. She's spent the last several years stuffing an economic toolbox with plans for investing in clean energy,


such as the enormously successful Solyndra, and other fake dreamy companies - brought to you by bigger government, more taxes for yuo to pay.
Quote:


bringing more women and disabled people into the workforce,


bringing even more workers into the workforce, who aren't working now? But but but you already said there were not enough people to fill new jobs, and now you are saying Hilliary has hit on more unnoticed workforce? These figures further underlie you claim that there would not be enough workers.
Quote:



allowing young people to go to college without taking on crippling debt


translation: more government, bigger government
Quote:


, creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, reining in the parasitic financial sector


translation: putting people out of work ,in need of work, dependant upon the public dole, more government, bigger government
Quote:

and putting capital to work at businesses that will use it to create jobs, not just play the stock market.

And critically, she understands the importance of raising wages for workers in the service jobs,


translation: more government, bigger governmeent, and force jobs overseas so we have fewer jobs in America - a tried and true method of failure.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

http://freebeacon.com/issues/illegal-immigrants-outnumber-unemployed-a
mericans
/


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 1, 2016 4:29 PM

JO753

rezident owtsidr




----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 1, 2016 5:05 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


I really don't care about what Trump said. He made many valid points, and he said many stupid things, but he's not going to be president so TRUMP IS BESIDE THE POINT.

What we need to do is examine what CLINTON is shilling.






Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 1, 2016 5:33 PM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:

Originally posted by whozit:

As the polls come in it looks like Drumpf is the winner.





You must have been watching the polls with a bunch of cocaine addicts.

Even FauxNews's own poll shows Hillary winning by more than 40 points. Not one single legitimate poll has Trump winning. Probably a big part of why not one single major newspaper has endorsed him - something that has never happened before in this country.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 1, 2016 5:36 PM

ELVISCHRIST


I'm kind of curious why Trump thinks a woman being in a "sex tape" is "disgusting" - unless it's his wife, of course, who did lesbian porn.

The "sex tape" Trump referenced about Alicia Machado actually featured a cameo appearance by none other than Trump himself. Perhaps that's the "disgusting" part he refers to.

And how anyone in the Trump camp has ANYTHING to say about someone's weight is beyond me. But hey, these are a bunch of guys who average 3 wives each, trying to tell us there's something wrong with Hillary because she's only had one husband...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 1, 2016 6:33 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


What I don't get is why you guys (and gals) are focusing on such minor stuff.

What I recall of the debate is that Hillary launched a lot of personal attacks at Trump, about what he said about some beauty contest candidate, or making a lot of suppositions about Trump's taxes (or lack of), or whether Trump was for the war in Iraq (portraying Trump's "yeah I guess" as some sort of full-throated call to war) etc. Yanno, really stupid stuff. I mean REALLY stupid stuff. I think she and her campaign managers decided that was her best bet, because if Trump attacked HER like that, he's look like a mean-old man, attacking an elderly woman!

But all I could think was "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"...

I've heard about Trump's misuse of his Foundation. But Hillary and Bill have their own Foundation concerns, don't they? I've heard of Trump's fine-print charity contests where it turns out that you don't win anything, but then there was Whitewater. For all the dirt Hillary tries to smear Trump with, there is plenty on her, too. After all, who bleaches 30,000 emails about yoga and a wedding??? There are a lot of her staffers who've been given "criminal immunity" for something that supposedly didn't happen. Hillary has spent so much time stealing, hiding, and destroying evidence that sweeping up after her must be her staff's full-time job. And that's not even counting her drinking or her nasty unpredictable temper.

So Hillary and Trump are, ethically, a wash.

But what does that have to do with the price of eggs?

Trump said some very true things about debt, free trade, jobs, infrastructure, and war. Hillary said some true things about taxes and trickle-down. None of that was debated, and that's a shame.


--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 1, 2016 7:55 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.




Hillary Clinton: Trickle-down did not work. It got us into the mess we were in, in 2008 and 2009. Slashing taxes on the wealthy hasn't worked.


I agree. And I'm sure there are a lot of people just gobbling up your tasty junk-food sound-bites, Hillary.

But honey, there was a LOT more than trickle-down that caused the crash. And if you don't understand that, you'll never solve the problem - or avoid the next one.



America has ceased to be a nation that produces value. And so, people no longer invest in America because we produce things that others need and want to buy. (This is one point for Donald, btw. A country without robust manufacturing is economically crippled.)
Instead, people speculate. And drive bubbles. This has been commented on for over 15 years.
https://mises.org/library/americas-bubble-economy
http://www.economist.com/node/160056

As their name implies bubbles are valueless froth that pop and leave little behind but a disgusting mess.

And bubbles didn't start with dumbya. No, they can be traced back to the dot.com bubble 1995–2001. HIYA, BILL! Nor did Bill fix the problem. If anything the so-called 'free' trade agreements from his administration crippled US manufacturing even more. So not only did the US lose iron and then steel earlier, but THEN it ALSO lost auto, textile, chemicals, chips and memory and computers ... and made them, like, even worser. So, by the time dumbya took office, US manufacturing had already been thoroughly hollowed out.

Another factor that lead to the meltdown was the bank deregulation that took place - ALSO during Bill's term of office. HEY THERE - again - BILL! http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351
_1877350_1877322,00.html


AND finally there was the ruinous expense of the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq - financed off the federal budget books by floating bonds and selling them to the Chinese. Very clever! (not) Unfortunately, Hillary didn't seem to learn that expensive foreign conflicts, that drive the US government into competing for global lenders, can ruin your economy.

Trickle down was only one player among many large ones on our road to economic ruin. So called 'free' trade agreements that greased manufacturing flight from the US, bank deregulation, and ruinously expensive foreign conflicts also contributed their share.





Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 1, 2016 8:02 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


Quote:

Hillary, aside form being an alcoholic, got over 30,000 people uselessly killed in Libya and is partly responsible for another 1000,000 more if Syria and elsewhere. Her personal business dealing involve her drug-traficking husband.



Well then, drug traffic-king, he should be arrested, charged and tried before a judge and a jury of his peers.

Next.

Hillary, like other high profile folks, should go to the Betty Ford Clinic.

Next.

Partly, come on! You could do better than that. Why not blame her for the whole thing, what was it? 30K exactly! Are you sure? and A thousand, a hundred thousand, a million??? ..."more if Syria and elsewhere."

Arrest, charge, and try. I'll agree with you and be first in line to condemn.
When that happens.

And no, it's not a wash. Trump is a disgusting pig of a man, hell he's no man but a filthy womanizer and rapist. Child molester and incest artist.
That makes him the Devil in my book.

Anything else?


SGG



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 1, 2016 8:09 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Double standards ...


(Hillary) Arrest, charge, and try. I'll agree with you and be first in line to condemn.
When that happens.

And no, it's not a wash. Trump is a disgusting pig of a man, hell he's no man but a filthy womanizer and rapist. Child molester and incest artist.
That makes him the Devil in my book.



So ... you're OK with thousands of people being killed (as long as you get to quibble about numbers, and) as long as Hillary hasn't been convicted ... but you don't have the same caveats about Donald being accused of being a rapist and child molester? (not sure that being a 'womanizer' is a crime by any statute in the US)





Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 1, 2016 8:13 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


back to the debate ...


Hillary Clinton: Trickle-down did not work. It got us into the mess we were in, in 2008 and 2009. Slashing taxes on the wealthy hasn't worked.


I agree. And I'm sure there are a lot of people just gobbling up your tasty junk-food sound-bites, Hillary.

But honey, there was a LOT more than trickle-down that caused the crash. And if you don't understand that, you'll never solve the problem - or avoid the next one.



America has ceased to be a nation that produces value. And so, people no longer invest in America because we produce things that others need and want to buy. (This is one point for Donald, btw. A country without robust manufacturing is economically crippled.)
Instead, people speculate. And drive bubbles. This has been commented on for over 15 years.
https://mises.org/library/americas-bubble-economy
http://www.economist.com/node/160056

As their name implies bubbles are valueless froth that pop and leave little behind but a disgusting mess.

And bubbles didn't start with dumbya. No, they can be traced back to the dot.com bubble 1995–2001. HIYA, BILL! Nor did Bill fix the problem. If anything the so-called 'free' trade agreements from his administration crippled US manufacturing even more. So not only did the US lose iron and then steel earlier, but THEN it ALSO lost auto, textile, chemicals, chips and memory and computers ... and made them, like, even worser. So, by the time dumbya took office, US manufacturing had already been thoroughly hollowed out.

Another factor that lead to the meltdown was the bank deregulation that took place - ALSO during Bill's term of office. HEY THERE - again - BILL! http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351
_1877350_1877322,00.html


AND finally there was the ruinous expense of the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq - financed off the federal budget books by floating bonds and selling them to the Chinese. Very clever! (not) Unfortunately, Hillary didn't seem to learn that expensive foreign conflicts, that drive the US government into competing for global lenders, can ruin your economy.

Trickle down was only one player among many large ones on our road to economic ruin. So called 'free' trade agreements that greased manufacturing flight from the US, bank deregulation, and ruinously expensive foreign conflicts also contributed their share.





Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 1, 2016 8:22 PM

SHINYGOODGUY


You are right, the near financial collapse was not predicated solely on trickle-down. Many more factors were involved, but I didn't hear her say that was the case. Maybe I watched a different debate.

Anywho, the near "crash" was many different factors, but mainly allowing the financial institutions to go completely unchecked - no thanks to the republicans who insist we have too many regs on the books. And, it has nothing to do with production, and everything to do with market manipulation.
The world banking industry tried to do what was done during the original crash of '29. It wasn't about destruction, it was about limiting control to a chosen few. A kind of financial slavery, if you will.

There is a battle out there. It's not about black or white, but obscenely rich and everyone else. Maintain the status quo is the name of the game.

http://facts.randomhistory.com/millionaires-facts.html

Do you need to be rich to get elected to Congress? Or does getting elected to Congress make you rich? Whatever the cause and effect, Congress is now officially the land of millionaires.

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/09/millionaires-now-have-the-majority-in-c
ongress.html


There was a time when millionaires were growing on trees.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/14/rise-of-minority-businesses-in-the-us-s
urvey.html


Quote:

In the pursuit of the American dream, minority business owners often face an uphill battle. Often facing social and economic discrimination, the climb is tough. Despite the inevitable hurdles, minority entrepreneurs seem to be confident in what the future holds.

According to the Minority Business Development Agency, the rate at which minority-owned businesses are being formed continues to rise. The number of minority business enterprises increased 39 percent between 2007 and 2012 (from 5.8 million to 8.0 million), or more than three times faster than population growth among minorities, according to the Census Bureau's 2012 Survey of Business Owners. But they fall short in comparison to other businesses' overall success in terms of revenue and profit growth.



Control, that's the ticket.....control.

P.S. By the way, if you're for Gary Johnson. He's for TPP.


SGG


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:


Hillary Clinton: Trickle-down did not work. It got us into the mess we were in, in 2008 and 2009. Slashing taxes on the wealthy hasn't worked.


I agree. And I'm sure there are a lot of people just gobbling up your tasty junk-food sound-bites, Hillary.

But honey, there was a LOT more than trickle-down that caused the crash. And if you don't understand that, you'll never solve the problem - or avoid the next one.



America has ceased to be a nation that produces value. And so, people no longer invest in America because we produce things that others need and want to buy. (This is one point for Donald, btw. A country without robust manufacturing is economically crippled.)
Instead, people speculate. And drive bubbles. This has been commented on for over 15 years.
https://mises.org/library/americas-bubble-economy
http://www.economist.com/node/160056

As their name implies bubbles are valueless froth that pop and leave little behind but a disgusting mess.

And bubbles didn't start with dumbya. No, they can be traced back to the dot.com bubble 1995–2001. HIYA, BILL! Nor did Bill fix the problem. If anything the so-called 'free' trade agreements from his administration crippled US manufacturing even more. So not only did the US lose iron and then steel earlier, but THEN it ALSO lost auto, textile, chemicals, chips and memory and computers ... and made them, like, even worser. So, by the time dumbya took office, US manufacturing had already been thoroughly hollowed out.

Another factor that lead to the meltdown was the bank deregulation that took place - ALSO during Bill's term of office. HEY THERE - again - BILL! http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351
_1877350_1877322,00.html


AND finally there was the ruinous expense of the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq - financed off the federal budget books by floating bonds and selling them to the Chinese. Very clever! (not) Unfortunately, Hillary didn't seem to learn that expensive foreign conflicts, that drive the US government into competing for global lenders, can ruin your economy.

Trickle down was only one player among many large ones on our road to economic ruin. So called 'free' trade agreements that greased manufacturing flight from the US, bank deregulation, and ruinously expensive foreign conflicts also contributed their share.





Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 1, 2016 9:02 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Here's the transcript of the debate. I always find it helpful to examine what people actually said, instead of what I heard, or paid attention to, or remembered.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/the-first-tr
ump-clinton-presidential-debate-transcript-annotated
/

What did Hillary say about the economy (aside from stories about her father)?


CLINTON: I want us to invest in you. I want us to invest in your future. That means jobs in infrastructure, in advanced manufacturing, innovation and technology, clean, renewable energy, and small business, because most of the new jobs will come from small business. We also have to make the economy fairer. That starts with raising the national minimum wage and also guarantee, finally, equal pay for women's work.
... We can deploy a half a billion more solar panels. We can have enough clean energy to power every home. We can build a new modern electric grid. That's a lot of jobs; that's a lot of new economic activity.

Where is the money for this 'investment' going to come from? Has she ALREADY written off iron and steel, automotive and transportation, rubber and chemicals, chips and computers, textiles and soft goods? And how does SHE think small business is going to get us to renewable energy - an industry where many countries already have a head-start and that require large-scale industrial works, not small-business store-fronts.


CLINTON: Well, let's stop for a second and remember where we were eight years ago. We had the worst financial crisis, the Great Recession, the worst since the 1930s. That was in large part because of tax policies that slashed taxes on the wealthy, failed to invest in the middle class, took their eyes off of Wall Street, and created a perfect storm.
And nothing about free-trade agreements, too-big-to-fail institutions (which she seems reluctant to cut down to a more reasonable size), and god-awful ruinous spending on oversees adventurism like Afghanistan and Iraq.


Independent experts have looked at what I've proposed ...
Then she misstates what economists have said about her plan v Trump's.


CLINTON: And I have -- well, not quite that long. I think my husband did a pretty good job in the 1990s. I think a lot about what worked and how we can make it work again...
Though it was Bill's 'free' trade agreements and bank deregulation that moved our economic catastrophe along.


more later




Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 1, 2016 10:01 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.




CLINTON: Incomes went up for everybody.
Except if you were dependent on wages.



CLINTON: When I was secretary of state, we actually increased American exports globally 30 percent. We increased them to China 50 percent.
This is something that needs looking into. I expect she's talking about gross, not net. So, for example, it wouldn't matter if our exports to China went up 50%, if our imports went up 120%. And in terms of well-paying jobs, it makes a difference if we export raw materials, or manufactured goods.
ETA - it shows that exports went up but imports went up more - during Clinton's term, the trade deficit rose.


TRUMP: And, Hillary, I'd just ask you this. You've been doing this for 30 years. Why are you just thinking about these solutions right now? For 30 years, you've been doing it, and now you're just starting to think of solutions.
CLINTON: Well, actually...
TRUMP: I will bring -- excuse me. I will bring back jobs. You can't bring back jobs.
CLINTON: Well, actually, I have thought about this quite a bit.
TRUMP: Yeah, for 30 years.
CLINTON: And I have -- well, not quite that long. I think my husband did a pretty good job in the 1990s. I think a lot about what worked and how we can make it work again...
TRUMP: Well, he approved NAFTA...
CLINTON: Well, that is just not accurate. I was against it (the TPP) once it was finally negotiated and the terms were laid out. I wrote about that in...

I'll let Trump answer for me "TRUMP: You called it the gold standard."




Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 2, 2016 12:12 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Many left-of-center people who are generally strongly critical of Trump have been inclined to praise his criticisms of US trade policy. It is important, however, to understand that Trump is not in any way offering any version of the most sophisticated criticisms of America’s approach to global trade. Not just in his rallies and off-the-cuff remarks but in his policy papers prepared by PhD economists, he is appealing to the idea that arbitrary restrictions on the sale of foreign-made goods will mechanically boost the American economy.

There is no empirical or theoretical basis for this view, which is why no president of either party has ever attempted to make it the centerpiece of his national economic strategy. It’s just wrong. It’s the kind of thing you might come up with if you were a wealthy landlord and reality television personality who ran for president on a whim without learning anything about issues or public policy.

www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/29/13075538/trump-trade-policy


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 2, 2016 12:20 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Perhaps you can explain what Hillary's trade policies are, how they've been evaluated, and what was concluded.




Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 2, 2016 8:02 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Perhaps you can explain what Hillary's trade policies are, how they've been evaluated, and what was concluded.

You are asking too much work from me, but I did do some on manufacturing. I proved that you're half right and half wrong about it:

You aren’t right that the USA is getting weaker as times go forward from WWII: I see Industrial Production increasing, except when wars end or depressions begin.
http://myf.red/g/7vQS


You are right: I see Manufacturing Employment is decreasing. Why?
Industry was never in the job creation business. Just look at the record:
http://myf.red/g/7vRa


Many have complained about the decline of the manufacturing sector in the United States. If you look at the number of people employed in that sector, the decline started in July 1979. If you look at the share of manufacturing in total employment, the decline has been ongoing since Dec 1943.
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2014/04/the-decline-of-manufacturing/

The role of manufacturing in the U.S. economy is often discussed. As a year-over-year percent change, the level of manufacturing has generally grown. (One striking exception is during the recent recession.) The number of employees working in manufacturing is a different story, however. It has sometimes grown, but it has nearly always grown less than the growth in manufacturing. There have been years when production grows while employment shrinks. This suggests that growth in manufacturing does not equal growth in manufacturing jobs.
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2014/12/manufacturing-is-growing-even-
when-manufacturing-jobs-are-not
/

Industry is always trying to reduce employment. If industry wanted to increase employment (and why would they? what would be their motive?) industry would cut the number of hours worked per employee in half at the same time as doubling the hourly wage rate. Every doubling means twice as much manufacturing employment. But why would an industry do that to itself?

It would be as silly for industry to increase employment as it would be silly for semiconductor manufacturer Intel to follow an upside-down Moore's Law where transistors double in size every two years. Intel could really increase manufacturing employment if it completely stops making integrated circuits and switches all production to triode vacuum tubes.

And Ford Motors could really increase employment if it stopped using modern assembly lines and went back to the old ways that Henry Ford built cars in 1916! Those were the good old days when an American farmer could get a job at a factory in Detroit.


The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 2, 2016 10:48 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:

Perhaps you can explain what Hillary's trade policies are, how they've been evaluated, and what was concluded.

Trump proves it makes no difference what BS spews from the mouths of candidates with his profoundly lazy campaign.

One thing Donald Trump has taught us all over the course of the 2016 campaign is that a lot of things we might have thought mattered to winning elections turn out to not matter much.

Previous major party nominees have built teams of professional staff and circles of formal and informal advisers who have helped them craft policy blueprints across a wide range of issues. They have courted recognized authorities — typically well-regarded veterans of government service — to vouch for their competence to deal with various important matters. They have built large field operations. They have crafted communications teams that respond to damaging allegations leveled against their campaign in the media. When their factual claims are widely refuted, they work to develop new, more defensible claims that can nonetheless support their key political and policy goals.

Trump has done basically none of that, and so far it’s worked out pretty well.

Fundamentals-based models of the election suggest we should expect a close race. And Trump and Clinton are in fact giving us a close race, despite the fact that Trump, in some respects, barely seems to be trying.

This is a fascinating discovery and also a rather disturbing one. After all, the main reason we might have thought that building a team — a large, high-quality one capable of executing complicated tasks and developing policy ideas — is important to winning votes is that doing these things is essential to being an effective president.

Donald Trump briefly had a small policy team, but it collapsed over the summer when the whole team quit because he wouldn’t pay them.
www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/09/08/inside-the-collap
se-of-trumps-d-c-policy-shop
/

But while he hasn’t found any money to spend on a policy staff, his campaign has spent $6 million renting his own plane from himself. His donors are paying Trump for Trump to fly in his plane. Making a profit while running for President.
www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-business-campaign-trail-22
8500

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 2, 2016 11:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I contend that it would behoove Mr. Moneybags to allow for companies to expand their growth and influence abroad. Why? Good question.

Yes, good question!

THIS is what the USA has been doing ever since we entered into the WTO, so where has it gotten us? Seriously. Would "more of the same" yield a good result for Americans?

Quote:

Let's take Mexico for instance. Ford recently struck a deal to manufacture small cars there, which creates job growth and keeps the general population,
well........there. It has been reported that the illegal immigration problem has slowed to a trickle in recent months, mainly because Mexico's economy has improved.

How should this consideration affect our trade policies with China, Vietnam, Albania, and Ecuador? Should we export jobs to those other nations in order to keep illegal immigrants in their home nations? Or is Mexico a special case due to its proximity and pain-in-the-assedness?

And if Mexico is a special case, simply because of illegal immigration, wouldn't it be better to simply enforce the border and enforce immigration laws, especially those requiring that jobs go to American citizens?

Quote:

Ford makes money, the Mexicans make money (and consequently stay home), everybody's happy.
Except Americans?

Quote:

Now we can cross the border to look for work, turnabout is fair play. Well, Ford hasn't forgotten about us here in America; despite what the Donald says, Ford has committed to making large trucks and SUVs here in the good old USA. So nobody here is losing their jobs.
Ford has ALWAYS made their large vehicles in the USA.

So I don't see how Ford moving its small-car production - when subtracting the negatives from the positives, benefits AMERICANS (not corporations). What the real net effect would be is the question that needs to be answered and it would take some real research in order to figure out that answer, for real.

Now here is an article which attempts to explain why this is all a good thing for American workers. Somehow, it never quite gets around to explaining why Americans "shouldn't fear for their jobs" - as the subheading promises to explain - since all of the benefits seem to extend to shareholders and upper management. If I were to try to explain in their stead, maybe their logic is that American jobs won't be lost in this move. However, what is clear is that American jobs won't be gained either.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/09/why-ford-is-planning-
to-make-more-cars-in-mexico.aspx


Quote:

Now if we could only find a way to make them share in their good fortune (an understatement) and raise wages. CEOs are walking away with hundred million dollar bonuses, where's ours?
We need to change the TAX LAW. Corporations pay taxes in the nation where they "declare" their income. SO let's assume that Ford creates a shipping company, and headquarters it in Panama. This shipping company "buys" auto parts from the USA at a low price, and "sell" auto parts to Mexico at a high price. This shipping company makes a phenomenal profit, but that profit is made in Panama which has 0% tax. Why do you think that so many companies have headquarters in places like the Cayman Islands, Panama, and Nevada?

Quote:

Speaking of "Crooked, Lying" Donald Frump - Newsweek will be releasing an article this morning about Trump's shady dealings with the Cubans in 1998-9.
And Hillary sought to influence an arms sale to Saudi Arabia.

Yanno, Hillary and Bill are every bit as sociopathic as Trump - if not more so- and every bit as crooked. There was a long-time political analyst- and unfortunately I forget who otherwise I would link the statement - who said that the problem with Hillary is that she's gotten away with so much for so long through so many coverups (like browbeating and blackmailing the victims of Bill's extensive history of rape) that her hubris at this point knows no bounds. They're not the "nice people" you think.

All that banking deregulation? SIGNED BY BILL CLINTON.
All that mess with the Credit Default Swaps and other financial gizmos? SIGNED BY BILL.
NAFTA? SIGNED BY BILL.
The ridiculous copyright act which applies to software? SIGNED BY BILL.
The "end of welfare as we know it"? Guess who.
Minimum Federal mandatory sentencing (which Hillary is campaigning against). Guess again.

Not to smear Hillary with Bill's misdeeds- she has plenty of her own, which I'll be happy to detail- but this is a purely political couple whose main common goal is to make money from their time in office. Bill's secondary goal is to have sex- consensual or otherwise- with as many women as possible. I think he has rape fantasies and gets off on on a power-trip.

So I would take personality off the table as a distinguishing characteristic. Both sides are equally repugnant., the Clinton side perhaps a bit more so, since Trump was behaving like a businessman but the Clintons were supposed to be in public service.

NOT NICE PEOPLE. Remember that.


--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 2, 2016 12:23 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.



Trump proves it makes no difference what BS spews from the mouths of candidates
And then you go on at length refuting what you already claim is bs. Isn't that a little self-defeating?

MEANWHILE, when it comes to the candidate who actually WILL be president - you have nothing to say about her. Could it be you don't know anything about the candidate you claim to support?




Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Fri, April 19, 2024 07:10 - 6265 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, April 19, 2024 06:40 - 2273 posts
This is what baseball bats are for, not to mention you're the one in a car...
Thu, April 18, 2024 23:38 - 1 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Thu, April 18, 2024 23:20 - 742 posts
FACTS
Thu, April 18, 2024 19:48 - 548 posts
Biden's a winner, Trumps a loser. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Thu, April 18, 2024 18:38 - 148 posts
QAnons' representatives here
Thu, April 18, 2024 17:58 - 777 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, April 18, 2024 16:51 - 3530 posts
Why does THUGR shit up the board by bumping his pointless threads?
Thu, April 18, 2024 12:38 - 9 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, April 18, 2024 10:21 - 834 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, April 17, 2024 23:58 - 1005 posts
Sentencing Thread
Wed, April 17, 2024 22:02 - 364 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL