Corporate Governance of the United States Explained.

[ed skull murphy]

Well believe it or not. It’s the truth. What hasn’t been proven is collusion.


View attachment 92815 [

View attachment 92814

Plenty of juicy scandal on

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[mack341]

Well believe it or not. It’s the truth. What hasn’t been proven is collusion.


View attachment 92815 [

View attachment 92814

so are you of the view that Trump shouldn't have won the election and that people voted for him essentially on the basis of russian lies about hillary?

 

[mack341]

Just read an article in the new york post about hillary possibly running again in 2020, it could be trump vs clinton the rematch:

"And the day after

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

, Clinton introduced a newly minted resistance partner. Called Demand Justice, it promises to protect “reproductive rights, voting rights and access to health care” by keeping Senate Democrats united in opposing any conservative Trump nominee.

The instant, in-house nature of Demand Justice was reflected by the name of its executive director: Brian Fallon, Clinton’s campaign press secretary.

In truth, Fallon’s role doesn’t tell us something we didn’t know. Onward Together, formed in May 2017, is a Clinton 2020 campaign vehicle in waiting.
Its homepage says the group “is dedicated to advancing the vision that earned nearly 66 million votes in the last election.”

Advancing the vision? More like advancing the candidate who collected those votes despite not having a vision.

With the Democratic Party locked in a battle between its far left wing and its far, far left wing, no single leader has emerged to unite it. Clinton is trying to play that role by being a mother hen to the fledgling activists drawn to politics by their hatred of Trump.

If they were active in 2016, they most probably supported Bernie Sanders in his primary challenge to Clinton. But by helping to fund them now, she is putting them in her debt for later.

Ah, but will she need their support later? Is she really going to make a third run for the White House?

Not long ago, I told a group of friends, all liberal Dems, that I believed she was keeping open the possibility of a rematch against Trump, and might already have decided to run.

It was unanimous — they were horrified. “I would not give her a single cent,” one man, formerly a big donor to Clinton, said emphatically.

Their reasons are no surprise: Her moment has passed, she was a terrible candidate and her endless claims of victimhood are tiring rather than inspiring. It’s time to find new blood.

Those assessments are unassailable, and certainly are shared by the 20 or so Dems lining up to take their shot at the nomination.

Moreover, there isn’t any clamoring for another Clinton run in Hollywood or other leftist hotbeds. They want a new blockbuster, not a sequel to failure.

So she’s toast, right? Maybe.

On the other hand, the odds are zero that she is playing community organizer just to be a kingmaker. When it comes to money and power, the Clintons assume charity begins at home.

Here’s how I believe she sees the playing field, and why she can’t be ignored.

First, because there’s no clear front-runner for the nomination 18 months into Trump’s presidency, Clinton remains the closest thing to an incumbent. She’s also got numerous advantages, from name recognition to campaign experience to an off-the-shelf cabinet, that could give her a head start.

Second, a crowded, diverse field diminishes the chances of anyone knocking her off. Recall how Trump outlasted 16 GOP rivals by having a committed core of supporters that grew as the field shrank. Clinton could be in a similar position — unpopular among many, but also unbeatable by a single opponent.

Third, looking ahead to the 2020 primaries, she sees no reason to fear the favorite daughters and sons in key blue states. She would almost certainly beat Sen. Kamala Harris in California, Sen. Cory Booker in New Jersey and Gov. Andrew Cuomo in New York.

And please — forget Sanders and Joe Biden. Sanders is already 76 and Biden, at 75, has never been a viable candidate for president and still isn’t.

Fourth, money is not an issue. Some donors will resist Clinton at first, but any Dem nominee can count on all the money in the world to run against Trump.

To be clear, there are scenarios where Clinton doesn’t run. Health reasons, for example, or a younger rival could rocket to the top of the pack and become the party’s next Barack Obama. Either way, recurring nightmares of two previous defeats would send her back to wandering through the Chappaqua woods.

For now, I am convinced Clinton wants to go for it. Doubters should recall the line about pols who get the presidential itch: There are only two cures — election or death.

Besides, the third time could be the charm."

 

[ed skull murphy]

So she’s toast, right? Maybe.

Yep, she'd be wasting her time and money, no-one is going to vote for that satanic nutcase.

 

[mack341]

Yep, she'd be wasting her time and money, no-one is going to vote for that satanic nutcase.

I think she might run again unless there is another really strong candidate, we are only 16 months away now from the next election. Bloody hell time is going quick.

I wager we will have a general election here in the UK within this time frame too.

"The next general election in the United Kingdom is scheduled to be held on 5 May 2022 under the

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

. The election may be held at an earlier date in the event of an

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

being passed by a

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

in the House of Commons, or a

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

in the government which is not followed by a vote of confidence within 14 days."

We will probably end up with a liberal/labour coalition, I can see the headlines now: 'corbyn and cable to form government' Its that or Theresa May, I'm warming to Rees Mogg as he seems to be able to engage in calm, rational debate but I think he's a bit too eccentric for pm, Boris Johnson suffers from verbal diarrhea and is just not solid.

 

[goatwack]

The Cons are spent, there's no way they'll recover from the Brexit fiasco, or cabinet chaos of the last few days.

May will be long- gone by 2022 of course, but the warning signs were already there after the rush-job kamikaze Election called early by May last time, where Corbyn and his bribed student voters took a massive bite out of the Tories' collective ass.

Lord help us all with a LibLab coalition though. We'll all be pining for May before long

 

[mack341]

Don't worry these guys have got your back:

or perhaps you'd prefer

We are truly blessed in this country with our democratic options.

 

[ed skull murphy]

I hate to be a party pooper, but I have never once cast a vote in a general election, I don't even pay any attention to any of that parliamentary nonsense; at the risk of making more enemies than I already have, , it's a bit like watching World Cup football, or observing paint while it is drying - it is all utterly meaningless and irrelevant in my book.

Bear with me, if you will, while I try to explain myself.

Our futures have already long been planned, because these people work to thirty, fifty, one hundred year plans; think tanks around the globe sit and thresh out all possible scenarios for situations that might arise from their projected and desired societal changes.

The job of the incumbent government's cabinet ministers is not to represent our interests, as we have been led to believe, but rather to sell the policies; handed down to them by the establishment; to we the plebs.

Democratic elections are a con trick to prevent the plebs from rioting every five years or so, as we used to do before we had a vote. Instead of getting riled up by the greedy elites, we now vent our anger on the opposing political party... job's a good'un!

 

[paul7388]

Reading this thread makes me wonder who is playing Mulder and who is playing Scully. The truth is out there

 

[goatwack]

I was thinking more Cannon & Ball

 

[ed skull murphy]

Reading this thread makes me wonder who is playing Mulder and who is playing Scully. The truth is out there

Well it may sound a bit 'out there', but how do you think that guys like Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, H.G.Wells, Anthony Burgess, etc., were able to write such accurate prophecies of where we are right now?

They were not predicting the future, they were telling us the plan.

 

[mack341]

I was thinking more Cannon & Ball

rock on tommy

 

[Steviedoo]

so are you of the view that Trump shouldn't have won the election and that people voted for him essentially on the basis of russian lies about hillary?

It’s not my opinion. It’s that of the intelligence community.

Russia interfered in our election process, however they did it. They did it to help mr trump.

 

[Steviedoo]

Yep, she'd be wasting her time and money, no-one is going to vote for that satanic nutcase.

Maybe she’d get more votes this time around. Oh wait she did get more votes.

 

[slotplayer]

so are you of the view that Trump shouldn't have won the election and that people voted for him essentially on the basis of russian lies about hillary?

These are some of the ads Russia ran on FB. I never saw them until now. Some are pro, some anti. Notice the topic and # of likes, etc.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[mack341]

It’s not my opinion. It’s that of the intelligence community.

Russia interfered in our election process, however they did it. They did it to help mr trump.

do you know of any other countries that interfere in the us elections, or is it just russia?

was this the same intelligence community that stated categorically Saddam has weapons of mass destruction?

Does the US intelligence community try to influence elections in other countries?

 

[slotplayer]

It’s not my opinion. It’s that of the intelligence community.

Russia interfered in our election process, however they did it. They did it to help mr trump.

I think they released the access hollywood video too soon, if you flipped the released date of the access hollywood video with that of the comey press conference reopening the Clinton email investigation she would have won.

 

[mack341]

As far as I can remember, the donors and rich persons lining up behind hillary was much greater than trump and nearly the whole of the mainstream media was pro hillary and anti trump. Hillary had a larger fund to campaign with and yet these few russian adverts on facebook and twitter swung the election in trump's favour?

 

[slotplayer]

do you know of any other countries that interfere in the us elections, or is it just russia?

was this the same intelligence community that stated categorically Saddam has weapons of mass destruction?

Does the US intelligence community try to influence elections in other countries?

plenty of blame to around on that f-up.

"The Chilcot report identifies a series of major blunders by the British intelligence services that produced “flawed” information about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the basis for going to war.

The intelligence community emerges from the report with its reputation and some of its most senior staff badly damaged."

 

[slotplayer]

As far as I can remember, the donors and rich persons lining up behind hillary was much greater than trump and nearly the whole of the mainstream media was pro hillary and anti trump. Hillary had a larger fund to campaign with and yet these few russian adverts on facebook and twitter swung the election in trump's favour?

I'm sure it had some influence.
We'd have to know how many ran, where, how often and compare it to the number of legit ads to measure how much of an impact it actually had.

 

[weesie]

As far as I can remember, the donors and rich persons lining up behind hillary was much greater than trump and nearly the whole of the mainstream media was pro hillary and anti trump. Hillary had a larger fund to campaign with and yet these few russian adverts on facebook and twitter swung the election in trump's favour?

No way! I never saw a single one of those ads. So much bullshit, so little time.

I watched President Trump last night with his supreme court nominee. It was interesting. What I found surprisingly stupid was they had liberal outside the supreme court building protesting.... before they even knew who it was. It doesn't matter to them what is said or what is done..... Trump is wrong, PERIOD.
They need to get a grip, seriously!

 

[mack341]

plenty of blame to around on that f-up.

"The Chilcot report identifies a series of major blunders by the British intelligence services that produced “flawed” information about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the basis for going to war.

The intelligence community emerges from the report with its reputation and some of its most senior staff badly damaged."

So the USA decided go to war with Iraq on the basis of british intelligence? Or was the purpose of the 'flawed' british intelligence to persuade the uk public and labour ministers in the uk who were unsure. At least one million people marched in london to protest against the imminent iraq war. However I am of no doubt our british intelligence services misled the uk and larger international community on the iraq war.

I think for various reasons the US intelligence services, politicians and media are overplaying the effect russia played in the outcome of the US election. You make a very good point, that a comparative analysis has to be carried out to determine the likely amount of influence

 

[slotplayer]

No way! I never saw a single one of those ads. So much bullshit, so little time.

I watched President Trump last night with his supreme court nominee. It was interesting. What I found surprisingly stupid was they had liberal outside the supreme court building protesting.... before they even knew who it was. It doesn't matter to them what is said or what is done..... Trump is wrong, PERIOD.
They need to get a grip, seriously!

Where does all the group think come from?

 

[slotplayer]

So the USA decided go to war with Iraq on the basis of british intelligence? Or was the purpose of the 'flawed' british intelligence to persuade the uk public and labour ministers in the uk who were unsure. At least one million people marched in london to protest against the imminent iraq war. However I am of no doubt our british intelligence services misled the uk and larger international community on the iraq war.

I think for various reasons the US intelligence services, politicians and media are overplaying the effect russia played in the outcome of the US election. You make a very good point, that a comparative analysis has to be carried out to determine the likely amount of influence

Not the basis but a collection of intelligence but I have no idea the truth on anything unless I'm in the room.

part 1 of 3, you'll have to watch the the other parts on youtube if you so desire.

 

[mack341]

I think the 14 seasons trump did on the apprentice show must have had some bearing on him becoming president, there are some articles online that ponder this:

"The Apprentice" put together the best possible version of Trump it could. The "successful businessman" you see is a TV fantasy, and one the show sold well. Editors on the show have described how they stitched together the footage. Trump's role was

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

"carefully crafted and manufactured in postproduction to feature a persona of success, leadership, and glamour, despite the raw footage of the reality star that was often 'a disaster.'" Editors claim that on the set, Trump had trouble reciting facts and talked about how he'd like to "drill" female crew members....

Without "The Apprentice" and the carefully curated image of Trump it insinuated into millions of American homes, it's hard to imagine how Trump could have ever sold the American people on his ultimate pitch: becoming president"

I'm not anti trump btw, I'm in the undecided camp but think on balance he was better for the world than Hillary who would have sought to militarily intervene directly in syria and hope russia backed down and withdrew.