Posts: 3,038
Threads: 437
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
David Guyatt Wrote:Speaking of Jurgen Flopp...
The brilliant Cholmondley-Warner remains at work at the FO to this day.
By the way, here's an embittered Flopp on the subject of the Arse:
https://twitter.com/jurgen_flopp/status/...7222680577
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"
Joseph Fouche
Posts: 3,038
Threads: 437
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Why the Trump is a Russian agent' theme won't work
ALEXANDER MERCOURIS
30 July 2016
http://theduran.com/trump-russian-agent-...wont-work/
Quote:The US liberal elite is making the same mistake as the British liberal elite did during the Brexit campaign: they think non-elite voters are as obsessed by Vladimir Putin as they are.
Over the last week it has become clear that the default position of the Hillary Clinton campaign is to attack Donald Trump by attacking Vladimir Putin.
That was the same tactic that was used during the Brexit referendum by the Remain campaign. Despite protests from the Russian government the Remain campaign repeatedly claimed that the only foreign leader who wanted Britain to exit the EU was Vladimir Putin. This despite the fact that Putin unlike US President Obama and several EU leaders made no public comment on the issue until almost the end of the Brexit referendum campaign. When Putin was finally forced to comment about it (because of media questions) he said that it was a strictly internal British matter in which Russia was not involved and was not taking sides.
The important thing however is that the British Remain campaign's attempt to use Putin as a scarecrow to frighten British voters into voting Remain was a total failure. There is no evidence it persuaded a single British voter to change their vote.
I predict the same will be true in the US election. Though Britain and the US are very different societies, I think the liberal elite in both countries is making the same mistake: they think non-elite people (ie. the great mass of voters) are as obsessed by Putin as they are.
I doubt this is the case. I think most British and US voters broadly accept the elite's claims about Putin: that he is corrupt, ruthless and authoritarian. However my impression is that this goes hand in hand with a grudging though cynical respect for him as a strong leader who is not to be messed with. More to the point I don't think they think much about him or consider him or Russia dangerous. On the contrary they see jihadi terrorism which unlike Russia has actually carried out terrorist attacks on US and EU soil as the enemy, and are open to the idea floated by Putin and Trump of the US and Russia joining forces to fight this common enemy. Issues like Ukraine and the Baltic States by contrast are remote and far away and barely interest them.
As for the idea that such an extremely American figure as Donald Trump whom US voters have come to know and form a view about over several decades could possibly be a Russian agent, that is just too farfetched for most voters.
Unless Hillary Clinton is careful she could find that by banging on about Putin she is losing the voters' attention. This whilst Donald Trump talks about issues voters genuinely care about such as immigration, law and order and jobs.
The similarities between the far-right Democratic establishment and the English Tory party don't end there - precisely the same kind of donors, hedge fundies, fill the coffers of both:
Who is Funding Hillary Clinton? Here's The List
By Robert Gehl
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/wh...s-the-list
Quote:If you want to know what kind of president someone will be, pull back the curtain and look at who's funding them.
As we do that with Hillary Clinton, keep in mind that compared to these numbers in the many, many millions, Donald Trump is a piker having taken a fraction of this money (we'll run down that later).
Topping Hillary's list is the Saban Capital Group. The "private investment firm," (read: hedge fund) has given the Clinton campaign more than $10 million this year alone. Founded by Hami Saban, an Jewish Egyptian national, he has said his greatest concern is to protect Israel. He is also part owner of Univision, Hillary Clinton's greatest Spanish-language cheerleader....
A close second on the list is Renaissance Technologies, another hedge fund. They sunk $9.5 million into Hillary's campaign this year. Founder James Simons has given more than $30 million to Democrats and their campaigns since 2006....
Third on the list is the Pritzker Group, a venture capital firm that also owns Hyatt Hotels (looks like a boycott?). They've given $7.9 million to Hillary.
Everybody's favorite leftist billionaire George Soros has dumped $7 million into the campaign.
So as you'd expect leftist billionaires and hedge funds dominate Hillary's top donors...
Who Are The Biggest Donors to the Main UK Political Parties?
Where do the Labour Party and Conservative Party in particular get their money from?
Kenny Hemphill
04 . 03 . 15
http://mentalfloss.com/uk/politics/27591...al-parties
Quote:The biggest single Tory donor is hedge fund supremo and metals trader, Michael Farmer who made eight donations totalling and eye-watering £2.1m between 2010 and 2013. Next up is May Makhzoumi , wife of the billionaire Fouad Makhzoumi the arms dealer, who recruited Jonathan Aitken to the board of one of his companies in the 1980s. Aitken was minister with responsibility for arms sales in the early 1990s and failed to declare the directorship. He was later jailed for perjury after lying in court during a libel action against the Guardian which had exposed his connections with the arms industry.
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"
Joseph Fouche
Posts: 17,304
Threads: 3,464
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 2
Joined: Sep 2008
Cliff Varnell Wrote:Magda Hassan Wrote:Hilary has said she is prepared to compromise on abortion. No sure thing there.
Hillary said she was thinking of appointing a pro-life Supreme Court Justice?: :
Citation please!
Hilary and I said nothing about appointing a pro-life Supreme Court Justice. I said she has stated she is prepared to compromise on abortion. What form that may take is any one's guess.
http://modernliberals.com/major-problem-...ack-obama/
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Posts: 17,304
Threads: 3,464
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 2
Joined: Sep 2008
Check out Lukas Lundin too. Lot's of money gone to the Clintons from that direction and plenty of benefits in his direction too.
Recommend watching the new video called 'Clinton Cash'
Paul Rigby Wrote:Who is Funding Hillary Clinton? Here's The List
By Robert Gehl
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/wh...s-the-list
Quote:If you want to know what kind of president someone will be, pull back the curtain and look at who's funding them.
As we do that with Hillary Clinton, keep in mind that compared to these numbers in the many, many millions, Donald Trump is a piker having taken a fraction of this money (we'll run down that later).
Topping Hillary's list is the Saban Capital Group. The "private investment firm," (read: hedge fund) has given the Clinton campaign more than $10 million this year alone. Founded by Hami Saban, an Jewish Egyptian national, he has said his greatest concern is to protect Israel. He is also part owner of Univision, Hillary Clinton's greatest Spanish-language cheerleader....
A close second on the list is Renaissance Technologies, another hedge fund. They sunk $9.5 million into Hillary's campaign this year. Founder James Simons has given more than $30 million to Democrats and their campaigns since 2006....
Third on the list is the Pritzker Group, a venture capital firm that also owns Hyatt Hotels (looks like a boycott?). They've given $7.9 million to Hillary.
Everybody's favorite leftist billionaire George Soros has dumped $7 million into the campaign.
So as you'd expect leftist billionaires and hedge funds dominate Hillary's top donors...
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Posts: 2,131
Threads: 199
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Apr 2014
I heard on MSM yesterday that "Wall Street" has collectively given Hilary 68 million and Donald 19 thousand in contributions.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
Posts: 3,038
Threads: 437
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Anybody who thinks that Trump is an anti-imperialist needs to read his US-China manifesto. Trump trots out every lie and deceit about China in order to declare economic war against her. He proposes militarily challenging China in her own backyard when he declares that he will "Strengthen the U.S. military and deploying it appropriately in the East and South China Seas. These actions will discourage Chinese adventurism that imperils American interests in Asia and shows our strength as we begin renegotiating our trading relationship with China. A strong military presence will be a clear signal to China and other nations in Asia and around the world that America is back in the global leadership business."
But what about Trump's conciliatory attitude towards Russia? The US policy of confronting and isolating Russia has proven to be a failure. Trump represents a faction in the US ruling class which sees Russia's success in 1) aiding Assad and turning the tide against IS, 2) Putin's Eurasian Pivot that has led to a strengthened Sino-Russian entente, and 3) the unravelling of the EU due to the effects of the sanctions against Russia and the flow of refugees from North Africa and the Middle East, as an impending debacle for US foreign policy.
The majority opinion in both imperialist parties however has been to double down on the policies pursued by Obama to isolate and eventually deconstruct Russia. Resistance to that policy by Putin has actually led to a more resilient and obstinate Russia rather than a more compliant one.
Trump's policy is to placate Putin and turn him away from the East in order to reintegrate Russia into the Western alliance led by the US. Rather than pursue Brzezinski's failed "Great Game" policy of contending with Russia in order to eventually dismember it, Trump is pursuing a policy of detente with Russia.
The purpose of accommodating Russia is to weaken China's northern flank. China needs Russia for its ambitious OBOR New Silk Road initiative, which is central to China's growth and development. Having a secure relationship with Russia also frees China's military resources to contend with the US in the SCS and elsewhere where the US is pushing to contain her.
The imperialist faction that Trump represents wants to turn all its guns against China which they see as the ultimate threat to US global hegemony. In order to do that they have to neutralize Russia and reverse its burgeoning relationship with China.
At least that's the way I see it!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/68843034...291090057/
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"
Joseph Fouche
Posts: 9,353
Threads: 1,466
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Paul Rigby Wrote:David Guyatt Wrote:Speaking of Jurgen Flopp...
The brilliant Cholmondley-Warner remains at work at the FO to this day.
By the way, here's an embittered Flopp on the subject of the Arse:
https://twitter.com/jurgen_flopp/status/...7222680577
Transfer time for any Gooner is a period of unrelenting agony...
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge. Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14
Posts: 9,353
Threads: 1,466
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Paul Rigby Wrote:Anybody who thinks that Trump is an anti-imperialist needs to read his US-China manifesto. Trump trots out every lie and deceit about China in order to declare economic war against her. He proposes militarily challenging China in her own backyard when he declares that he will "Strengthen the U.S. military and deploying it appropriately in the East and South China Seas. These actions will discourage Chinese adventurism that imperils American interests in Asia and shows our strength as we begin renegotiating our trading relationship with China. A strong military presence will be a clear signal to China and other nations in Asia and around the world that America is back in the global leadership business."
But what about Trump's conciliatory attitude towards Russia? The US policy of confronting and isolating Russia has proven to be a failure. Trump represents a faction in the US ruling class which sees Russia's success in 1) aiding Assad and turning the tide against IS, 2) Putin's Eurasian Pivot that has led to a strengthened Sino-Russian entente, and 3) the unravelling of the EU due to the effects of the sanctions against Russia and the flow of refugees from North Africa and the Middle East, as an impending debacle for US foreign policy.
The majority opinion in both imperialist parties however has been to double down on the policies pursued by Obama to isolate and eventually deconstruct Russia. Resistance to that policy by Putin has actually led to a more resilient and obstinate Russia rather than a more compliant one.
Trump's policy is to placate Putin and turn him away from the East in order to reintegrate Russia into the Western alliance led by the US. Rather than pursue Brzezinski's failed "Great Game" policy of contending with Russia in order to eventually dismember it, Trump is pursuing a policy of detente with Russia.
The purpose of accommodating Russia is to weaken China's northern flank. China needs Russia for its ambitious OBOR New Silk Road initiative, which is central to China's growth and development. Having a secure relationship with Russia also frees China's military resources to contend with the US in the SCS and elsewhere where the US is pushing to contain her.
The imperialist faction that Trump represents wants to turn all its guns against China which they see as the ultimate threat to US global hegemony. In order to do that they have to neutralize Russia and reverse its burgeoning relationship with China.
At least that's the way I see it!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/68843034...291090057/
Deep down I harbour the sense that China and Russia have a mutual support understanding that is intended to stop the US playing the old divide and rule strategy they are so fond of. If they haven't reached such an agreement they would be pretty daft, as it's the most obvious counter strategy. Time will tell, I suppose.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge. Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14
Posts: 1,015
Threads: 17
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Nov 2008
31-07-2016, 06:24 PM
(This post was last modified: 31-07-2016, 07:58 PM by Lauren Johnson.)
Magda Hassan Wrote:Cliff Varnell Wrote:Magda Hassan Wrote:Hilary has said she is prepared to compromise on abortion. No sure thing there.
Hillary said she was thinking of appointing a pro-life Supreme Court Justice?::
Citation please!
Hilary and I said nothing about appointing a pro-life Supreme Court Justice. I said she has stated she is prepared to compromise on abortion. What form that may take is any one's guess.
http://modernliberals.com/major-problem-...ack-obama/
Late term abortion, Magda.
Yes, she's willing to compromise on late term abortion, not abortion rights per se.
Quote:HILLARY CLINTON: My husband vetoed a very restrictive legislation on late-term abortions and he vetoed it at an event in the White House where we invited a lot of women who had faced this very difficult decision, that ought to be made based on their own conscience, their family, their faith, in consultation with doctors. Those stories left a searing impression on me. Women who think their pregnancy is going well and then wake up and find some really terrible problem. Women whose life is threatened if they carry their child to term, and women who are told by doctors that the child they're carrying will not survive.
Again, I am where I have been, which is that if there's a way to structure some kind of constitutional restriction that take into account the life of the mother and her health, then I'm open to that. But I have yet to see the Republicans willing to actually do that, and that would be an area, where if they included health, you could see constitutional action.
Context is everything.
Posts: 1,015
Threads: 17
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Nov 2008
Goooooooaaaaaaaalllllllll!!!!!
paul rigby Wrote:anybody who thinks that trump is an anti-imperialist needs to read his us-china manifesto. trump trots out every lie and deceit about china in order to declare economic war against her. He proposes militarily challenging china in her own backyard when he declares that he will "strengthen the u.s. Military and deploying it appropriately in the east and south china seas. These actions will discourage chinese adventurism that imperils american interests in asia and shows our strength as we begin renegotiating our trading relationship with china. A strong military presence will be a clear signal to china and other nations in asia and around the world that america is back in the global leadership business."
but what about trump's conciliatory attitude towards russia? The us policy of confronting and isolating russia has proven to be a failure. Trump represents a faction in the us ruling class which sees russia's success in 1) aiding assad and turning the tide against is, 2) putin's eurasian pivot that has led to a strengthened sino-russian entente, and 3) the unravelling of the eu due to the effects of the sanctions against russia and the flow of refugees from north africa and the middle east, as an impending debacle for us foreign policy.
The majority opinion in both imperialist parties however has been to double down on the policies pursued by obama to isolate and eventually deconstruct russia. Resistance to that policy by putin has actually led to a more resilient and obstinate russia rather than a more compliant one.
Trump's policy is to placate putin and turn him away from the east in order to reintegrate russia into the western alliance led by the us. Rather than pursue brzezinski's failed "great game" policy of contending with russia in order to eventually dismember it, trump is pursuing a policy of detente with russia.
The purpose of accommodating russia is to weaken china's northern flank. China needs russia for its ambitious obor new silk road initiative, which is central to china's growth and development. Having a secure relationship with russia also frees china's military resources to contend with the us in the scs and elsewhere where the us is pushing to contain her.
The imperialist faction that trump represents wants to turn all its guns against china which they see as the ultimate threat to us global hegemony. In order to do that they have to neutralize russia and reverse its burgeoning relationship with china.
At least that's the way i see it!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/68843034...291090057/
|
