The Next Election, Political News, and Other Forms of Comedy (US, UK, & Intl)

Rain Man said:
if Herr Drumpfenfuhrer loses...we will be in a unique position where we have an eight-digit-strong contingent of violent, uneducated, racist, sexist, mouthbreathing, gun-toting, Rascal-riding, fatassed militia wannabes feeling cheated by a government that's now headed up by either a woman or a Jew. Drumpf's political movement scares me far more than any terrorist organization in the world. And I don't scare easy.
Click to expand...

Reposting because I still feel this way.
 
Also this.

The Problem.webp
 
Arnathor said:
How is Ron Paul retarded?
Click to expand...
Okay, here's how it works. When you have no argument to make, you start calling names. I know, it usually doesn't happen so immediately. A decent Aspie libertarian would have some defense of the candidate.
 
What pray tell is all this discussion? It will be Trump versus Hillary. The vile hated versus the not so veiled hated. Practise democracy in Churchill's vision - Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

You reap what you sow.
 
I was watching Hilary Clinton give a speech in front of a fake U.S flag with inverted pentagrams. I carefully studied the flag and noticed the points of the stars were specially designed to look like inverted pentagrams at any angle....the star points are kind of twisted around. It looked exactly like this:

The fake U.S flag with inverted pentagram stars
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=hillary+clinton+american+flag+inverted+pentagrams&client=opera&hs=iVx&channel=suggest&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixmfTHuvzMAhUCkJQKHY6mBe4QsAQIGg#imgrc=HMOxFZgTLkcagM:

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=hillary+clinton+american+flag+inverted+pentagrams&client=opera&hs=iVx&channel=suggest&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixmfTHuvzMAhUCkJQKHY6mBe4QsAQIGg#imgrc=BB7Mx0YjEzycxM:


The real U.S flag
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=hillary+clinton+american+flag+inverted+pentagrams&client=opera&hs=iVx&channel=suggest&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixmfTHuvzMAhUCkJQKHY6mBe4QsAQIGg#channel=suggest&tbm=isch&q=U.S+flag&imgrc=dfMra2WUQA56AM:


The inverted pentagram meanings
https://www.google.com.au/search?cl...&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&gws_rd=ssl


Whether you believe in satanic symbolism or not, the question should be, why are people running for president standing in front of false United States flags??? No-one can deny she regularly stands in front of a fake U.S flag,so what does this say about her, and what does she really represent??

Hilary doesn't seem to represent the U.S given the flag behind her. Is she one of those globalist types who have no allegiance to a nation? Does she serve a higher oath like the secret society people and corporate elites do?

 
Last edited:
Oh, the Republican party also changed it's logo from pentagram stars to inverted pentagram stars when Bush Jr became president. Scroll down and see for yourself:
http://tapnewswire.com/2011/11/occult-symbols-define-new-world-order/

So who is Hilary and who is Trump, really? What do they really represent? Are they telling the truth or are they like many candidates these days that will lie to the slaves and sell them out like they usually do. Be careful folks, l am dropping hints here.

Trump does hand symbols and Hilary does hand signals, and both are happy to be represented by inverted pentagrams. Do they serve a higher oath???
 
I saw CNN actually covering the Libertarian convention, which has been unnewsworthy in the past. Obviously this is, like (((Bill Kristol's))) RenegAID party, just an attempt to booster in Clinton's wife. But one can hope that the Libertarians overtake one of the establishment parties.
Or maybe not.
 
Fwiffo said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-choose-left-wing-running-mate-says-bernie-s/

Bernie mate, you don't get to dictate who to choose for VP if you're not the one who wins - unless of course you're conceding and you want something for the support you're about to throw behind the frontrunner.
Click to expand...

Really, Trump should pick Bernie as his running mate. He'd win, the Dems and Reps would melt down and we would all win.

And Rain Man would get to piss himself over the Vast Right Wing Obese Militia that will undoubtedly arise from their scooters and say mean things or whatever the hell that gibberish he posted meant.
 
Pauly Chase said:
I go for Trump/Sanders combo. Will be the best duo we've had in a long time.
Click to expand...
COG said:
I'd vote for this. Two honest people that are not whores and not for wars. Neither seems intent on disarming the citizenry either. They are like the opposite of Clinton's wife
Click to expand...
John Lee Pettimore III said:
Really, Trump should pick Bernie as his running mate. He'd win, the Dems and Reps would melt down and we would all win.

And Rain Man would get to piss himself over the Vast Right Wing Obese Militia that will undoubtedly arise from their scooters and say mean things or whatever the hell that gibberish he posted meant.
Click to expand...
you people are nuts. there is no way on earth either of them would want to be associated with the other.
 
They disagree on the solution but agree on the problem. Clinton's wife, being part of the problem, can't even get that far.
 
Rambo said:
you people are nuts. there is no way on earth either of them would want to be associated with the other.
Click to expand...

It's no doubt extremely unlikely. But there's not as much distance as you might think. Trump has to know that adding Sanders to the ticket will take the legs out from under Clinton. GOP turnout is already going be very low, so he's not going to be too worried about pissing off Republicans.

And from Bernie's viewpoint, by the time they'd be in office, their combined age would be what, 145? Statistically, one of them would not make it to the end of term. Bernie just has to hope the Donald is the one that dies.
 
John Lee Pettimore III said:
It's no doubt extremely unlikely. But there's not as much distance as you might think. Trump has to know that adding Sanders to the ticket will take the legs out from under Clinton. GOP turnout is already going be very low, so he's not going to be too worried about pissing off Republicans.

And from Bernie's viewpoint, by the time they'd be in office, their combined age would be what, 145? Statistically, one of them would not make it to the end of term. Bernie just has to hope the Donald is the one that dies.
Click to expand...
The vp position is effectively useless. Why would he want that?
 
Rambo said:
The vp position is effectively useless. Why would he want that?
Click to expand...

I thought I alluded to that in my original post, but I'll be more blunt. Trump is almost as old as Sanders. One of them will die. If Trump dies, Sanders is POTUS. Plus, being VP is a lot better than not being anything, which is where Sanders is going to be.
 
It'll all be fine until they have their first discussion in the Oval Office and Trump bites Sanders's ear off.
 
Drumpf owes over $100 million to DB. Conflict of interest, much?

The trick will be explaining to his supporters why this is important.

I imagine we'll have to start by explaining what a "bank" is.

http://billmoyers.com/story/trump-conflict-interest-problem-no-white-house-candidate-ever/

Drumpf Has a Conflict-of-Interest Problem No Other White House Candidate Ever Had

He owes at least $100 million to a foreign bank that's battled with US regulators.

BY RUSS CHOMA AND DAVID CORN | JUNE 2, 2016


GettyImages-534776664-1280x720.jpg

Donald Drumpf speaks during a rally in San Diego, California on May 27, 2016. (Sandy Huffaker/AFP/Getty Images)

In his most recent financial disclosure statement, Donald Drumpf notes he has billions of dollars in assets. But the presumptive GOP nominee also has a tremendous load of debt that includes five loans each over $50 million. (The disclosure form, which presidential candidates must submit, does not compel candidates to reveal the specific amount of any loans that exceed $50 million, and Drumpf has chosen not to provide details.) Two of those megaloans are held by Deutsche Bank, which is based in Germany but has US subsidiaries. And this prompts a question that no other major American presidential candidate has had to face: What are the implications of the chief executive of the US government being in hock for $100 million (or more) to a foreign entity that has tried to evade laws aimed at curtailing risky financial shenanigans, that was recently caught manipulating markets around the world and that attempts to influence the US government?

Drumpf’s disclosure form lists 16 loans from 11 different lenders, totaling at least $335 million, and the aggregate amount is likely much more. Deutsche Bank is clearly his favorite lender, and Drumpf’s financial empire has become largely dependent on his relationship with this major player on Wall Street and the global markets. The German bank has lent him at least $295 million for two of his signature projects. In 2012, Deutsche provided Drumpf with $125 million to help him buy Drumpf National Doral golf course. Last year, it handed Drumpf a $170 million line of credit for his new hotel project on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC.

Having a president who owes a lot of money to banks, particularly when it’s on negotiable terms — it puts them at the mercy of the banks and the banks are at the mercy of regulators.
— UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA PROFESSOR RICHARD PAINTER
Should Drumpf move into the White House, four blocks away from his under-construction hotel, he would be its first inhabitant to owe so much to any bank. And in recent years, Deutsche Bank has repeatedly clashed with US regulators. So might it be awkward — if not pose a conflict of interest — for Drumpf to have to deal with policy matters that could affect this financial behemoth?

Richard Painter, an attorney who teaches at the University of Minnesota and who was the chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007, says a situation in which a sitting president owes hundreds of millions of dollars to any entity, especially a bank that jousts with regulators, is disturbing. There have been wealthy presidents and vice presidents, Painter notes, pointing to John Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt and Nelson Rockefeller, but none were as heavily leveraged as Drumpf. “They had large assets and usually diversified assets. They weren’t in a situation where someone could put pressure on them to do what they want,” Painter remarks. “Whereas having a president who owes a lot of money to banks, particularly when it’s on negotiable terms — it puts them at the mercy of the banks and the banks are at the mercy of regulators.” Painter adds: “In real estate, the prevailing business model is to own a lot but also owe a lot, and that is a potentially very troublesome business model for someone in public office.”

MORE ON DEMOCRACY & GOVERNMENT

Bill Moyers: Campaign Finance Reform — It’s Not Just Liberals Anymore
BY BILL MOYERS | APRIL 20, 2016

Members of a Drumpf Cabinet would have to recuse themselves from any government business that would have a direct impact on their personal financial interests. If a Treasury secretary held this sort of loan, he or she could not participate in policy deliberations and actions that might have an impact on Deutsche Bank — and that would likely be many. But the president and vice president are excluded from this requirement. As president, Drumpf would have no obligation to divest his vast business holdings, though recent presidents and presidential candidates have taken steps to avoid any concern. President Barack Obama has even put off refinancing his Chicago home to save money because it would mean establishing a financial relationship with a bank, and that could prompt questions. In 2011, Mitt Romney promised to use a blind trust for his substantial personal business interests, though there were concerns regarding how “blind” the trust was.

Drumpf’s relationship with Deutsche Bank means he is in league with a financial giant that has been at odds with US government regulators and has attempted to skirt reforms designed to prevent Wall Street firms from wrecking the US economy once again. Last year, around the same time Drumpf secured the $170 million for the Washington project, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay a $2.5 billion fine to regulators here and abroad for its role in rigging interest rates. This included $600 million to the New York State Department of Financial Services, $800 million to the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, and $775 million to the Department of Justice. As Reuters reported, “Slamming Germany’s largest lender for ‘cultural failings,’ regulators squarely blamed senior staff for misleading them, failing to be open and cooperative, and prolonging the investigation.” From roughly 2003 to 2010, as the news service put it, the bank ran a scam to “fix rates…used to price hundreds of trillions of dollars of loans and contracts worldwide.” The bank also recently reached settlements in lawsuits alleging it had manipulated prices for precious metals and their derivatives.

Like most big banks, Deutsche Bank has been at odds with regulators over the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform measure. But it went to unusual lengths to dodge some of the law’s requirements. For years, the bank operated in the United States through two subsidiaries that were legally considered to be American entities. Yet in 2012 — after Dodd-Frank was enacted — the bank tried to rewrite its own corporate structure to make it less American. Under the new law, a foreign-based bank’s subsidiaries were required to maintain certain minimum levels of capital — as much as $20 billion worth of reserves in Deutsche Bank’s case — so that the bank could weather another financial catastrophe like the one that occurred in 2008. The consequence of the rule also restricted how freely an American subsidiary of a foreign bank could invest and how much risk it could assume. This was the point of the law: to prevent gargantuan financial firms from behaving recklessly, collapsing, and, once more, requiring a taxpayer-funded bailout.

MORE ON HISTORY

The Drumpf Files, Part One
BY GAIL ABLOW | FEBRUARY 26, 2016

Rather than accept these limitations, Deutsche Bank reorganized itself, moving its commercial banking subsidiary out of the holding company for its American operations, which also contained its investment arm. Deutsche Bank then claimed this banking subsidiary was not subject to the new Dodd-Frank regulations. The Federal Reserve didn’t fall for this stunt. The bank eventually was forced to comply with Dodd-Frank requirements.

That was only the beginning of Deutsche Bank’s problems with Dodd-Frank. Last September, in its first enforcement action on new Dodd-Frank provisions, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission fined Deutsche Bank $2.5 million for failing to report properly on its trading of swaps, which are complex financial derivatives.

And like most big banks, Deutsche Bank lobbies heavily in Washington. Last year it spent $600,000 on a stable of lobbyists. In 2010, the year Dodd-Frank was enacted, the bank spent nearly $2.6 million on influence-peddlers in the nation’s capital.

So how might Drumpf, should he become president, handle the conflict of interest posed by his relationship with Deutsche Bank?

The Drumpf campaign did not respond to a request for comment, but previously Drumpf has said (without mentioning Deutsche Bank specifically) that he would avoid any conflicts of interest by installing his children at the top of the Drumpf business empire.

“There would be enormous tax consequences from just giving it all to the children,” Painter says. “But just merely letting his [children] run the business doesn’t solve the problem. You really have got to figure out a way to sell your interest in the business and sell off the risk.” Other wealthy presidents have tended to own assets that could easily be unwound or sold off. But for Drumpf, disposing of his real estate holdings would be a special challenge. “I think what you need to do is wind down or sell off the real estate portfolio, and that probably takes time,” Painter says. “It’s not like liquid securities that are easy to sell. Or he’d need to start to focus on paying off this debt.”

POPULAR
  1. DRUMPF HAS A CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST PROBLEM NO OTHER WHITE HOUSE ...
  2. IS THE MEDIA RECALCULATING HOW IT COVERS DRUMPF?
  3. WHAT’S WRONG WITH HILLARY?
  4. WHY DRUMPF CAN LIE AND NO ONE SEEMS TO CARE
  5. BERNIE, THE DONALD AND THE SINS OF LIBERALISM: AN AMERICAN VERSION OF ...
Selling the parts of the businesses that he has mortgaged might be particularly difficult, because some of the debt may be tied to him personally. In the past that has led to problems, even with Deutsche Bank. In 2005, Drumpf borrowed $640 million from Deutsche Bank and several other lenders for the construction of a Chicago hotel tower. When he failed to pay back the money on time in 2008, the banks, including Deutsche Bank, demanded he pay up the $40 million he had personally guaranteed. In response, Drumpf sued Deutsche Bank for $3 billion, saying the project’s financial troubles were the fault of the economic recession, essentially an act of God, and accusing the bank of undermining the project and his reputation.

Drumpf and Deutsche Bank patched things up, and hundreds of millions of dollars in credit subsequently flowed from the German behemoth to Drumpf. But with all his debt to Deutsche Bank coming due before the end of what would be Drumpf’s second term as president, there’s more to this relationship than what’s on the financial ledger. The American public, too, has much at stake when it’s possible that the next president will be deeply in debt to a global financial player that has been caught trying to use its influence to rig the financial system.
 
I hate Trump, but the whole "Drumpf" meme is stupid, juvenile and, if done to most other people, would be considered racist. I'm not sure it's all that different from Birtherism.

I'm thinking of all the Crewses and Cruises, specifically, but a hell of a lot of ethnic groups had their names changed, or changed their names.
 
I'm just saying that the pussy can dish it out but he can't take it. And his supporters are bigger pussies about it than he is.
 
Rambo said:
doghouse doghouse this is your state in action

Virginia Republicans May Strip the Right to Vote From 200,000 People Who Just Got It Back
Click to expand...

John Lee Pettimore III said:
A more honest headline might have been:

Virginia Democrat Violates Constitution Right Before Election in Order to Win It for his Party
Click to expand...

Honestly, I'm ambivalent about the whole thing. On one hand Terry Mac is the oiliest shithead going, and I hope they give him the middle finger in what is an obvious vote grab on his part, on the other, the only real issue I have with the original order is that it really should include stricter petitioning requirements, if you fuck up and end up a felon, there needs to be a barrier to get your rights back. It's simple cause and effect and people want to be exempt from reality.
 
Also, double extra fuck Terry McAuliffe. Right in the eye. He is such a shitbag.
 
doghouse said:
Honestly, I'm ambivalent about the whole thing. On one hand Terry Mac is the oiliest shithead going, and I hope they give him the middle finger in what is an obvious vote grab on his part, on the other, the only real issue I have with the original order is that it really should include stricter petitioning requirements, if you fuck up and end up a felon, there needs to be a barrier to get your rights back. It's simple cause and effect and people want to be exempt from reality.
Click to expand...
Why? Why on earth would being a felon have a thing to do with your voting proclivities?
 
Rambo said:
Why? Why on earth would being a felon have a thing to do with your voting proclivities?
Click to expand...

You gonna vote for the guy that gives it back. Simple patronage. Classic McAuliffe move too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Back
Top Bottom