US Politics Thread

britbox

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
27,402
Reactions
6,205
Points
113
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
That's fair enough. But given Putins activities in Europe it's somewhat surprising that this wasn't taken seriously before. I thought this was one of those things that cut across party lines. I guess not anymore.

By the way HRC seriously offended China when she was Secretary of State. I doubt there was any such assistance:lol6:

The Clinton foundation took money from chinese billionaires, saudis, quataris and many more. Like I said in earlier posts I really doubt it was to further the empowerment of women which is one of the cornerstones of their programme.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrzz

mrzz

Hater
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
6,151
Reactions
2,960
Points
113
^I agree that it should be taken seriously... by the intelligence agencies. They do not need public support to do their jobs. If they find something concrete, then it should be taken to public.

And, yes, I agree with you that it is kind of amusing (the US/Russia relations). But the world spins fast...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Federberg

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,542
Reactions
5,607
Points
113
^I agree that it should be taken seriously... by the intelligence agencies. They do not need public support to do their jobs. If they find something concrete, then it should be taken to public.

And, yes, I agree with you that it is kind of amusing (the US/Russia relations). But the world spins fast...

Agreed!
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,542
Reactions
5,607
Points
113
The Clinton foundation took money from chinese billionaires, saudis, quataris and many more. Like I said in earlier posts I really doubt it was to further the empowerment of women which is one of the cornerstones of their programme.

That sounds like your opinion. It's funny how the Clinton Foundation has disclosed information about its activities but you choose to disbelieve. Meanwhile Trump reveals nothing and you dismiss legitimate questions. Bias much? :whistle:
 

britbox

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
27,402
Reactions
6,205
Points
113
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
That sounds like your opinion. It's funny how the Clinton Foundation has disclosed information about its activities but you choose to disbelieve. Meanwhile Trump reveals nothing and you dismiss legitimate questions. Bias much? :whistle:

The donors are posted on the Clinton Foundation website. Which activities am I supposed to have disbelieved?
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,542
Reactions
5,607
Points
113
^Maybe I'm wrong but you give the impression that the Foundation doesn't engage in charitable ventures or is also involved in pay for play. All of these things have never been proved, but it's interesting to me that an enterprise that freely discloses its activities is distrusted but Trump discloses nothing and his supporters act like he's a blood relative of Christ.

I saw your WP article. I hold them in as much esteem as any other journalistic enterprise... with simple objectivity. Why does the behaviour of a donor impugn the Clinton Foundation? By that argument a thief making a donation to the Red Cross impugns them too?
 

Ricardo

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
2,674
Reactions
646
Points
113
^Maybe I'm wrong but you give the impression that the Foundation doesn't engage in charitable ventures or is also involved in pay for play. All of these things have never been proved, but it's interesting to me that an enterprise that freely discloses its activities is distrusted but Trump discloses nothing and his supporters act like he's a blood relative of Christ.

I saw your WP article. I hold them in as much esteem as any other journalistic enterprise... with simple objectivity. Why does the behaviour of a donor impugn the Clinton Foundation? By that argument a thief making a donation to the Red Cross impugns them too?

maybe you are wrong? you've been wrong so many times it takes a bloody thick skin to keep twisting away, and you are wrong not on complicated matters but very simple things......anyone else would dig a hole and hide in there hoping nobody notices, but you, you are miraculously thick skinned :facepalm:

i must admit you are very very unique :D
 

britbox

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
27,402
Reactions
6,205
Points
113
Location
Gold Coast, Australia
^Maybe I'm wrong but you give the impression that the Foundation doesn't engage in charitable ventures or is also involved in pay for play. All of these things have never been proved, but it's interesting to me that an enterprise that freely discloses its activities is distrusted but Trump discloses nothing and his supporters act like he's a blood relative of Christ.

I saw your WP article. I hold them in as much esteem as any other journalistic enterprise... with simple objectivity. Why does the behaviour of a donor impugn the Clinton Foundation? By that argument a thief making a donation to the Red Cross impugns them too?

I'm not saying the Clinton Foundation doesn't engage in charitable ventures... I''m saying some of the biggest donors are not investing for that reason... Look at the objectives of the foundation... climate change, health, empowering women.... and some of the biggest donors are the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Friends of Saudi Arabia (just two examples) with donations running into millions of dollars. Seriously Federberg...... we have a government who stone women to death investing in a charity to empower women. If you can't see the irony then I really don't know what else to say.
 

Ricardo

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
2,674
Reactions
646
Points
113
That sounds like your opinion. It's funny how the Clinton Foundation has disclosed information about its activities but you choose to disbelieve. Meanwhile Trump reveals nothing and you dismiss legitimate questions. Bias much? :whistle:

child's play you are eager to criticise someone over something that hasn't been proven or disclosed but don't want to see Clinton Foundation being criticised for what's been disclosed.... and you call another person biased?

been telling you that you are utterly stupid, how many more confirmations do you need? sigh!
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,542
Reactions
5,607
Points
113
I'm not saying the Clinton Foundation doesn't engage in charitable ventures... I''m saying some of the biggest donors are not investing for that reason... Look at the objectives of the foundation... climate change, health, empowering women.... and some of the biggest donors are the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Friends of Saudi Arabia (just two examples) with donations running into millions of dollars. Seriously Federberg...... we have a government who stone women to death investing in a charity to empower women. If you can't see the irony then I really don't know what else to say.

I get the irony, really I do. But what matters is what the Foundation does with the money. Let's not kid ourselves a lot of donors have questionable motives. That's life!

And peanut head Ricardo....shush! Adults are talking.go back to your ladyboy fascination;-):
 

Asmodeus

Futures Player
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
147
Reactions
10
Points
8
Location
Somewhere on the edge of society.
I hope you all realize that foundations are the new way to personally expand one's wealth. For politicians in the U.S., at least traditionally, an elected official could become wealthy through insider trading (getting yet-public information), keeping campaign money, or simply selling access. But because laws now restrict such actions where people can and do go to jail, elites needed a new way to rob the system. Thus the growth of personal foundations. One thing that is quite obvious in figuring out which ones are sham organizations is to see how high their administrative costs are. You'll probably see that donations only take a small proportion of overall outlays.
 

Ricardo

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
2,674
Reactions
646
Points
113
I get the irony, really I do. But what matters is what the Foundation does with the money. Let's not kid ourselves a lot of donors have questionable motives. That's life!

And peanut head Ricardo....shush! Adults are talking.go back to your ladyboy fascination;-):

you don't get the irony, you just pretend.......like you pretend to know everything else to look smart......i'll keep exposing you on that, stay tuned Shemaleberg.
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,542
Reactions
5,607
Points
113
I hope you all realize that foundations are the new way to personally expand one's wealth. For politicians in the U.S., at least traditionally, an elected official could become wealthy through insider trading (getting yet-public information), keeping campaign money, or simply selling access. But because laws now restrict such actions where people can and do go to jail, elites needed a new way to rob the system. Thus the growth of personal foundations. One thing that is quite obvious in figuring out which ones are sham organizations is to see how high their administrative costs are. You'll probably see that donations only take a small proportion of overall outlays.


That's a fair point. And an analysis done on the Clinton Foundation shows their cost to distribution ratio is better than most. They weren't making money from it. That came from speeches. Obviously that could have been finessed by agreement with donors to make it look clean.
 

Asmodeus

Futures Player
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Messages
147
Reactions
10
Points
8
Location
Somewhere on the edge of society.
That's a fair point. And an analysis done on the Clinton Foundation shows their cost to distribution ratio is better than most. They weren't making money from it. That came from speeches. Obviously that could have been finessed by agreement with donors to make it look clean.

I hope you realize that those speech fees were to buy access. There is no logical reason to pay Bill $250,000 to speak for 45 minutes because we assume that's the going rate. Donors had to pay that to get access to H for Department of State favors. The whole thing (and they're not the only ones) is a front to make themselves rich. How else can a bumpkin from Arkansas go from lower middle class to a mega millionare without ever selling a product on the open market.

So the differences between the Clintons and the Trumps is both made their money the old fashioned way, though they used alternative routes:
Trump made it by earning it, the Clintons made it by prostituting themselves.
 

teddytennisfan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
3,166
Reactions
498
Points
113
PATRICK BUCHANAN -- former cabinet member and speech writer for ronald reagan -- has LONG warned USA about ''this useless empire of ours" --

and insists to donald trump to ''IDENTIFY EVERY SINGLE NEO-CON, NEO-LIBERAL in the government policy-making and administrative sections and HAUL THEM PUBLICLY in front of congress and give testimony -- and JAIL THEM".

may it be so.

lol.
 

teddytennisfan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
3,166
Reactions
498
Points
113
no wonder a lot of NSA, CIA, NED, etc..of the ''deep state" security and fascism industry are RUNNING AWAY and tendering their resignations like the cockroaches that they are!! lol because they fear HEADS WILL ROLL -- once TRUMP comes in -- for THEIR CRIMINAL attempt to SABOTAGE Trump's presidency even before he takes office as is HIS CONSTITUTIONAL right -- whether one likes him or not or whatever his policies are like ...

but above all because they are DEATHLY AFRAID that he JUST might have better relations with -- RUSSIA -- their COLLECTIVE TARGET of 'conquest" .
 

teddytennisfan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
3,166
Reactions
498
Points
113
sputniknews.com
Simple Loose Bracket Caused Troubled F-35 to Go Up in Flames
Sputnik
Military & Intelligence
22:06 21.12.2016(updated 00:31 22.12.2016) Get short URL

Officials have finally pinned down the root cause of a fire on an F-35B during flight tests at a Marine Corps base in Beaufort, South Carolina, at the end of October. An unsecured bracket in the weapons bay allowed electrical wires to shake free, leading to a spark near hydraulic lines and flammable components on the plane, Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said in a recent news conference.

"It had passed its previous inspection, but the bracket still became dislodged," Bogdan said, adding that flight crews knew about the issue "long before" the October fire. Astonishingly, modified brackets have not been replaced on all F-35Bs, and pilots must be wary of a heightened risk of fire when flying the aircraft, according to Bogdan.

US President-elect Donald Trump quipped that the F-35 program is "out of control" and promised to give the program a fresh look as part of a movement to “drain the swamp” of overly-high military expenditures in the US. The unreliable planes have drained hundreds of millions of dollars from US coffers.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, described by insiders as a money-pit, was previously derailed by flaws in logistical systems, avionics processors, landing gear, pilot helmets and seats, as well as the fuel tank. "Every time they test it they find another failure," Pierre Sprey, a member of the F-16 design team, told Sputnik Radio.

The F-35’s accessories, notably its $400,000-apiece flying helmet, have encountered a barrage of problems. Pilots report that a green glow created by the high-tech helmet, which displays target information and flight data, is like "looking through a dirty window." Further, the seat ejector poses an "elevated level of risk," including the possibility of accidental death, to pilots weighing less than 165 pounds, according to a government analysis.

Samuel King Jr./ for U.S. Air Force

A mishap with the jet’s coolant tubes caused the air force to ground 15 F-35s in September. In October, a spokesman said the fighters would again be operational before the end of the year.


==============================

of course tha tdoesn't mention the SUPER DUPER ''most fearsome littoral combat ship ever " the american ZUMWALT ''stealth" destroyer --

that - after more than a decade of TRILLIONS spent in ''development" -- still can't SAIL --and had to be TOWED by a TUGBOAT from the panama canal 2 months ago ....and back to san diego --ya -- where it will MAKE SURE CHINA STAYS in her place!!! 10,000 miles away....lol
 

teddytennisfan

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Oct 1, 2015
Messages
3,166
Reactions
498
Points
113
thesaker.is
Neocon panic and agony | The Vineyard of the Saker
The Saker
Selection_0012-300x89.jpg
This column was written for the Unz Review: http://www.unz.com/tsaker/neocon-panic-and-agony/

There are clear signs that the Neocons running the AngloZionist Empire and it’s “deep state” are in a state of near panic and their actions are indicating that they are truly terrified.

The home front

On the home front, the Neocons have resorted to every possible dirty trick on the book to try to prevent Donald Trump from ever getting into the White House: they have

  • organized riots and demonstrations (some paid by Soros money)
  • encouraged the supporters of Hillary to reject the outcome of the elections (“not my President”)
  • tried to threaten the Electors and make them either cast a vote for Hillary or not vote at all
  • tried to convince Congress to refuse the decision of the Electoral College and
  • they are now trying to get the elections annulled on the suspicion that the (apparently almighty) Russian hackers have compromised the election outcome (apparently even in states were paper ballots were used) and stolen it in favor of Trump.
That is truly an amazing development, especially considering how Hillary attacked Trump for not promising to recognize the outcome of the elections. She specifically said that Trump’s lack of guarantees to recognize the outcome would threaten the very basis of the stability of the US political system and now she, and her supporters, are doing everything in their power to do just that, to throw the entire electoral process into a major crisis with no clear path towards resolution. Some say that the Democrats are risking a civil war. Considering that several key Republican Congressmen have said they do support the notion of an investigation into the “Russian hackers” fairytale, I submit that the Republicans are doing exactly the same thing, that this is not a Democrat vs Republican issue, but a “deep state vs The People of the USA” issue.

Most experts agree that none of these tactics are going to work. So this begs the question of whether the Neocons are stupid, whether they think that they can succeed or what their true objective is.

My guess is that first and foremost what is taking place now is what always happens when the Neocons run into major trouble: they double down, again.

And again. And again. That is one of the key characteristics of their psychological make-up: they cannot accept defeat or, even less so, that they were wrong, so each time reality catches up to their ideological delusions, they automatically double-down. Still, they might rationalize this behavior by a combination of hopes that maybe one of these tricks will work, with the strong urge to do as much damage to President-Elect Trump before he actually assumes his office. I would never underestimate the vicious vindictiveness of these people.

What is rather encouraging is Trump’s reaction to all this: after apparently long deliberations he decided to nominate Rex Tillerson as his Secretary of State. From a Neocon point of view, if General Michael Flynn was bad, then Tillerson was truly an apocalyptic abomination: the man actually had received the order of “Friend of Russia” from the hands of Vladimir Putin himself!

Putin-Tillerson-medal-300x212.jpg

Vladimir Putin and Rex Tillerson

Did Trump not realize how provocative this nomination was and how it would be received by the Neocons? Of course he did! That was, on his part, a totally deliberate decision. If so, then this is a very, very good sign.

I might be mistaken, but I get the feeling that Trump is willing to accept the Neocon challenge and that he will fight back. For example, his reaction to the CIA accusations about Russian hackers was very telling: he reminded everybody that “these are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction”. I think that it is now a safe bet to say that as soon as Trump take control heads will roll at the CIA.

[Sidebar: is it not amazing that the CIA is offering its opinion about some supposed Russian hacking during the elections in the USA? Since when does the CIA have any expertise on what is going on inside the USA? I thought the CIA was only a foreign intelligence agency. And since when does the CIA get involved in internal US politics? Yes, of course, savvy observers of the USA have always known that the CIA was a key player in US politics, but now the Agency apparently does not even mind confirming this openly. I don’t think that Trump will have the guts and means to do so but, frankly, he would be much better off completely dissolving the CIA. Of course, that could get Trump killed – messing with the Fed and the CIA are two unforgivable crimes in the USA – but then again Trump is already very much at risk anyway, so he might as well strike first].

One the external front

On the external front, the big development is the liberation of Aleppo by Syrian forces. In that case again, the Neocons tried to double-down: they made all sorts of totally unsubstantiated claims about executions and atrocities while the BBC, always willing to pick up the correct line, published an article about how much the situation in Aleppo is similar to what took place in Srebrenica. Of course, there is one way in which the events in Aleppo and Srebrenica are similar: in both cases the US-backed Takfiris lost and were defeated by government forces and in both cases the West unleashed a vicious propaganda war to try to turn the military defeat of its proxies into a political victory for itself. In any case, the last-ditch propaganda effort failed and preventing the inevitable and Aleppo was completely liberated.

The Empire did score one success: using the fact that the most foreign forces allied to the Syrians (Hezbollah, Iranian Pasdaran, Russian Spetsnaz, etc.) were concentrated around Aleppo, the US-backed Takfiris succeeded in breaking the will of the Syrians, many of whom apparently fled in panic, and first surrounded and then eventually reoccupied Palmyra. This will be short lived success as I completely agree with my friend Alexander Mercouris who says that Putin will soon liberate Palmyra once again, but until this happens the reoccupation of Palmyra is rather embarrassing for the Syrians, Iranians and Russians.

It seems exceedingly unlikely to me that the Daesh movement towards Palmyra was undetected by the various Syrian, Iranian and Russian intelligence agencies (at least once source reports that Russian satellites did detect it) and I therefore conclude that a deliberate decision was made to temporarily sacrifice Palmyra in order to finally liberate Aleppo. Was that the correct call?

Definitely yes. Contrary to the western propaganda, Aleppo, not Raqqa, has always been the real “capital” of the US backed terrorists. Raqqa is a relatively small town: 220’000+ inhabitants versus 2’000’000+ for Aleppo, making Aleppo about ten times larger than Raqqa. As for tiny Palmyra, its population is 30,000+. So the choice between scrambling to plug the holes in the Syrian defenses around Palmyra and liberating Aleppo was a no-brainer. Now that Aleppo has been liberated, the city has to be secured and major engineering efforts need to be made in order to prepare it for an always possible Takfiri counter-attack. But it is one thing to re-take a small desert town and quite another one to re-take a major urban center. I personally very much doubt that Daesh & Co. will ever be in control of Aleppo again. Some Neocons appear to be so enraged by this defeat that they are now accusing Trump of “backing Iran” (I wish he did!).

The tiny Palmyra was given a double-function by the Neocon propaganda effort: to eclipse the “Russian” (it was not solely “Russian” at all, but nevermind that) victory in Aleppo and to obfuscate the “US” (it was not solely “US” at all, but never mind that) defeat in Mosul. A hard task for the tiny desert city for sure and it is no wonder that this desperate attempt also failed: the US lead coalition in Mosul still looks just about as weak as the Russian lead coalition looks strong in Aleppo.

Any comparison between these two battles is simply embarrassing for the USA: not only did the US-backed forces fail to liberate Mosul from Daesh & Co. but they have not even full encircled the city or even managed to penetrate beyond its furthest suburbs. There is very little information coming out of Mosul, but after three months of combat the entire operation to liberate Mosul seems to be an abject failure, at least for the time being. I sincerely hope that once Trump takes office he will finally agree to work not only with Russia, but also with Iran, to finally get Daesh out of Mosul. But if Trump delivers on his promise to AIPAC and the rest of the Israel Lobby gang to continue to antagonize and threaten Iran, the US can basically forget any hopes of defeating Daesh in Iraq.

Our of despair and spite, the US propaganda vilified Russia for the killing of civilians in Aleppo while strenuously avoiding any mention of civilian victims in Mosul. But then, the same propaganda machine which made fun of the color of the smoke coming out of the engines of the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov (suggesting that she was about to break down) had to eat humble pie when it was the US navy’s most expensive and newest destroyer, the USS Zumwalt, which broke down in the Panama canal and had to be immobilized, while the Kuznetsov continued to do a very good job supporting Russian operations in Syria.

Over and over again, the AngloZionist propaganda machine has failed to obfuscate the embarrassing facts on the ground and it now clearly appears that the entire US policy for the Middle-East is in total disarray and that the Neocons are as clueless as they are desperate.

The-Neocons.jpg


The countdown to January 20th

It is pretty obvious that the Neocon reign is coming to an end in a climax of incompetence, hysterical finger-pointing, futile attempts at preventing the inevitable and a desperate scramble to conceal the magnitude of the abject failure which Neocon-inspired policies have resulted in. Obama will go down in history as the worst and most incompetent President in US history. As for Hillary, she will be remembered as both the worst US Secretary of State the US and the most inept Presidential candidate ever.

In light of the fact that the Neocons always failed at everything they attempted, I am inclined to believe that they will probably also fail at preventing Donald Trump from being sworn in. But until January 20th, 2017 I will be holding my breath in fear of what else these truly demented people could come up with.

As for Trump, I still can’t figure him out. On one hand he nominates Rex Tillerson in what appears to be a deliberate message of defiance against the Neocons, while on the other hand he continues to try to appease the Israel Lobby gang by choosing a rabid Zionist of the worst kind, David M. Friedman, as the next US ambassador to Israel. Even worse then that, Donald Trump still does not appear to be willing to recognize the undeniable fact that the US will never defeat Daesh as long as the anti-Iranian stance of the Neocons is not replaced by a real willingness to engage Iran and accept it as a partner and ally.

Right now the Trump rhetoric simply makes no sense: he wants to befriend Russia while antagonizing China and he wants to defeat Daesh while threatening Iran again. This is lunacy. Still, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but somebody sure needs to educate him on the geopolitical realities out there before he also end up making a total disaster of US foreign policy.

And yet, I still have a small hope.

My hope is that the latest antics of the Neocons will sufficiently aggravate and even enrage Trump to a point where he will give up on his futile attempts at appeasing them. Only by engaging in a systematic policy of “de-neoconization” of the US political establishment will Trump have any hopes of “making America great again”. If Trump’s plan is to appease the Neocons long enough from him to be sworn in and have his men approved by Congress – fine. Then he still has a chance of saving the USA from a catastrophic collapse, but only as long as he remains determined to ruthlessly crack down on the Neocons once in power. If his hope is to distract the Neocons by appeasing them on secondary or minor issues, then his efforts are doomed and he will go down the very same road as Obama who, at least superficially, initially appeared to be a non-Neocon candidate and who ended up being a total Neocon puppet (in 2008 the Neocons had placed their bets on McCain and they only infiltrated the Obama Administration once McCain was defeated).

One way or another, we are headed for a crisis, the only open question whether the USA will come out of this crisis liberated or doomed.

The Saker


The Essential Saker: from the trenches of the emerging multipolar world

$27.95
More offers
 

Federberg

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
15,542
Reactions
5,607
Points
113
I hope you realize that those speech fees were to buy access. There is no logical reason to pay Bill $250,000 to speak for 45 minutes because we assume that's the going rate. Donors had to pay that to get access to H for Department of State favors. The whole thing (and they're not the only ones) is a front to make themselves rich. How else can a bumpkin from Arkansas go from lower middle class to a mega millionare without ever selling a product on the open market.

So the differences between the Clintons and the Trumps is both made their money the old fashioned way, though they used alternative routes:
Trump made it by earning it, the Clintons made it by prostituting themselves.

Didn't I just suggest that?
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
mrzz World Affairs 2449
T World Affairs 13
britbox World Affairs 82
britbox World Affairs 1004
britbox World Affairs 46