Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 206
» Latest member: Michael
» Forum threads: 272
» Forum posts: 327

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 11 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 11 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
Trump on a roll!
Forum: General Presidential Race Area
Last Post: Stanley888
Yesterday, 12:47 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 5
SPOILER ALERT: Gary Johns...
Forum: Campaign Talk
Last Post: Stanley888
08-24-2016, 04:15 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 37
The Swimmer and the Liar
Forum: General Presidential Race Area
Last Post: Stanley888
08-22-2016, 11:48 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 10
Latest LA Times Poll
Forum: General Presidential Race Area
Last Post: Stanley888
08-22-2016, 03:41 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 11
Sailor Denied 'Clinton De...
Forum: General Presidential Race Area
Last Post: Stanley888
08-22-2016, 01:40 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 10
As Hillary Clinton goes a...
Forum: General Presidential Race Area
Last Post: Stanley888
08-12-2016, 12:34 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 17
Trump Is Right: Here’s Pr...
Forum: General Presidential Race Area
Last Post: Stanley888
08-12-2016, 01:19 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 26
How Donald Trump Can Win ...
Forum: General Presidential Race Area
Last Post: Stanley888
08-11-2016, 07:19 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 16
Trump’s Contribution to S...
Forum: General Presidential Race Area
Last Post: Stanley888
08-11-2016, 07:08 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 20
Forum: Terrorism
Last Post: PrincessCarrie
08-08-2016, 12:36 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 20

  Trump on a roll!
Posted by: Stanley888 - Yesterday, 12:47 PM - Forum: General Presidential Race Area - No Replies

ahead in last 2 of 3 polls in FL, last poll only down by 3 in PA, only down by 5 in MI

RCP called PA and MI for Clinton they'll have to un-call them soon. that's what we wanna see, get Clinton off that 270+ projection

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/28/politics/d...l-records/ brilliant. this "trumps" tax returns any day of the week. Clinton walked into it ha ha

"i'm all for disclosing all records.....except my really important ones" - hillary

Dr. Drew said Hillary's health, and health care, has been a disaster, just before his show on CNN - Headline News got cancelled.

Print this item

  SPOILER ALERT: Gary Johnson/Romney Utah Steal
Posted by: IllTres - 08-23-2016, 10:05 PM - Forum: Campaign Talk - Replies (1)

Check this out...

GJ promising cabinet posts to both Mitt Romney and former Utah governor Hart... What do they have in common? Mormon/Utah votes.

The other third party candidate trying to get on ballot is GOP/NeverTrumper Evan McMullen is..... ex-CIA Mormon, Utahn.


What are the odds they aren't being funded by Clinton and/or Romney and neocon $$ to push off Utah electoral votes to Clinton.

I would think Gary Johnson is sophisticated enough to know he's playing Utah spoiler by blatantly dangling cabinet posts to top Utah/Mormon political figures Romney and Hart. And where did this ex-CIA Mormon suddenly come from to run 3P.


Gary Johnson ... decided to set up his campaign headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah, just a few blocks away from the HQ of the Church of Latter-Day Saints. That’s where Gary Johnson’s main Super PAC is located as well. Gary Johnson isn’t Mormon.

Gary Johnson’s campaign chief, Ron Nielson, is based here. Ron Nielson runs a conservative polling firm called NSON Opinion Strategies, whose headquarters is the same three-story building on South Temple Road as Johnson’s campaign headquarters...

The point here is that Gary Johnson’s campaign headquarters is located in Romney’s backyard, in a right-wing Republican polling firm’s office.


So what does the attorney who registered Gary Johnson’s “Our America” outfit really believe, the libertarian end of the Republican spectrum that Johnson represents, or the reactionary extremism of the Minutemen and Christian homophobes she serves?

Maureen Otis answered that question herself on her own twitter feed, such asthis June 5 tweet following Scott Walker’s win in the Wisconsin recall:

   “Great news for WI & start of an important trend for Repub’s in the fall. Time for everyone to $$ to Romney campaign.”


VP Bill Weld, like Romney, was Gov. of MA... and a private equity man.

Looking more and more like GJ campaign is a Clinton or Romney black op..


Obama recently caught golfing with Bain capital cofounder, Romney's old partner....

Print this item

  The Swimmer and the Liar
Posted by: Stanley888 - 08-22-2016, 11:48 PM - Forum: General Presidential Race Area - No Replies

Print this item

  Latest LA Times Poll
Posted by: Stanley888 - 08-22-2016, 03:41 PM - Forum: General Presidential Race Area - No Replies


Trump 44.6, Clinton 43.5

Print this item

  Sailor Denied 'Clinton Deal', Gets 1 Year in Prison for 6 Photos of Sub
Posted by: Stanley888 - 08-22-2016, 01:40 PM - Forum: General Presidential Race Area - No Replies


Sailor Denied 'Clinton Deal', Gets 1 Year in Prison for 6 Photos of Sub
The photos contained 'confidential' information, the lowest level of classification.
By Steven Nelson | Staff Writer Aug. 19, 2016, at 4:24 p.m.


Sailor Denied 'Clinton Deal', Gets 1 Year in Prison for 6 Photos of Sub

[Image: ?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2Ff5%2Fbb%2Ff94a8d0d49e...torial.jpg]Kristian Saucier was sentenced Friday after pleading guilty earlier this year to taking and retaining photos containing "confidential" information. COURT FILING
A former Navy machinist mate who admitted taking photos inside a nuclear submarine was sentenced to a year in prison Friday, with a federal judge rebuffing a request for probation in light of authorities deciding not to prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information on a private email server as secretary of state.
Kristian Saucier’s attorneys argued in a court filing last week that Clinton had been "engaging in acts similar to Mr. Saucier" with information of much higher classification. It would be "unjust and unfair for Mr. Saucier to receive any sentence other than probation for a crime those more powerful than him will likely avoid," attorney Derrick Hogan wrote.
U.S. District Judge Stefan Underhill sentenced Saucier to one year in prison and a $100 fine, along with six months home confinement, 100 hours of community service and a ban on owning guns, his legal team says. Prosecutors had asked for six years behind bars.
"We're very pleased," says Greg Rinckey, another defense attorney for Saucier.
Although relieved, Rinckey does say that "it could be argued here that depending on what your name is, that's the type of justice you get in the United States."
Rinckey says he's not sure if the judge was swayed by significant media attention comparing Saucier's case with the Clinton email controversy.
"He cryptically made some comments about selective prosecution and how that didn't play any factor. Do I think it may have? Sure. But I think there was enough mitigation that the judge was able to depart from the sentencing guidelines [on that basis alone]," he says.
Saucier pleaded guilty earlier this year to one count of unlawfully retaining national defense information after taking six photos inside the USS Alexandria with his cellphone in 2009. Saucier said he intended to show them to his future children, but prosecutors said they doubted that was true.

The photos were deemed “confidential,” the lowest level for classification.
By contrast, an FBI investigation found Clinton’s private email server contained at least 110 emails with classified information. The probe found eight email chains with "top secret" information, 36 with "secret" information and eight with confidential information.
Clinton was not charged with a crime, but FBI Director James Comey said last monthher conduct was "extremely careless." Comey also said three emails on Clinton's private server contained markings indicating they contained "confidential" information.
One key difference between the cases: Saucier, 22 years old when he snapped the photos, admitted he knew he was not supposed to have taken them. Clinton, meanwhile, has insisted she did not knowingly send or receive classified information.
Comey said no prosecutor would bring a case without a knowing violation of the statuteSaucier admitted violating, which includes provisions requiring either "gross negligence" or "intent ... that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States."
Although Clinton's emails were removed from her private servers, authorities have not alleged that was part of any cover-up, as was alleged against Saucier, who in pleading guilty avoided an obstruction of justice charge while admitting he had destroyed a laptop, a camera and a memory card after he was first interviewed by authorities in 2012.

Saucier's downfall began when a local dumpyard manager found the sailor's old cellphoneand told a friend about the submarine photos, leading to an investigation by the the Naval Criminal Investigative Service.

In arguing for a harsh punishment, prosecutors said defendants in similar cases had fully cooperated with authorities. Rear Adm. Charles Richard asked the court in a July letter to give a stiff penalty, partially as a deterrent to others.
But Saucier's former shipmates have described the prosecution as disproportionate when compared against penalties for others who took photos with their phones on the submarine.
Gene Pitcher, a former sailor who worked with Saucier, told Politico earlier this year that two colleagues had been punished with demotions after taking photos inside the USS Alexandria's engine room.
“I just don’t think it’s fair,” Pitcher told Politico. “In reality, what [Clinton] did is so much worse than what Kris did. ... I think it’s just a blatant double standard.”

Scott Nelson, Saucier's chief petty officer aboard the Alexandria through mid-2009, wrote a letter to the court that the order had collapsed aboard the submarine.
"There was no real discussion of legal ramifications of minor security violations, nor was there any significant enforcement of policy for most minor mistakes," Nelson wrote, adding that typical punishments including demotion or pay loss "could also be suspended at the commanding officer's discretion for sailors with great potential to overcome the mistake, as was the case with our sailor of the year who received a DUI."
Saucier, now married with a child, will report to prison in October. Rinckey says "he's most concerned with being able to return home to his family."

Print this item

  As Hillary Clinton goes after Donald Trump, her own email troubles undermine attacks
Posted by: Stanley888 - 08-12-2016, 12:34 PM - Forum: General Presidential Race Area - No Replies

Latest LA Times poll, released 8/11: Trump 43% Clinton 44%

As Hillary Clinton goes after Donald Trump, her own email troubles undermine her attacks

[Image: 750x422]
Hillary Clinton speaks Thursday in Warren, Mich., where she took on Donald Trump's economic agenda and what she called "outlandish Trumpian ideas." (Mandi Wright / Detroit Free Press)

Evan Halper and Del Quentin Wilber
Once again, Hillary Clinton’s carefully laid campaign plans have been disrupted by old emails.
On a day in which Clinton was hoping to inflict considerable damage on Donald Trump — this time, by ripping into his economic agenda — her campaign was on the defensive, scurrying to clean up the latest damaging revelations in years-old messages that were sent by Clinton and her staff and released as the result of a lawsuit.
The ongoing email dispute undermined the potency of a speech for which Clinton’s campaign had been laying groundwork all week, one in which she presented her economic agenda in full and tried to brand her self-styled populist rival a fraud.
Clinton, speaking in Michigan, did manage to deliver a combative, policy-laden address that effectively rebutted the economic plan that Trump presented in the battleground state days before.  Both are reaching out to the so-called Reagan Democrats who will decide the race’s outcome in the Rust Belt.
But Clinton and Trump continue to be distracted by self-inflicted wounds. Trump’s economic address was overshadowed by his suggestion soon after that maybe gun rights proponents would find a way to stop Clinton from appointing certain judges, which earned him widespread rebuke for casually inciting violence. Then, in unrelated and repeated comments, the Republican bizarrely repeatedly accused President Obama and Clinton of founding the Islamic State terrorist group.
[Image: 400x225]
Trump's call for ‘2nd Amendment people’ to stop Clinton isn't helping his dropping poll numbers
But Clinton, too, has had difficulty staying on task. The fresh batch of emails was pried from the State Department thanks to a lawsuit filed by the conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch. It revealed what appeared to be seedy dealings by Clinton’s team at the agency.
In one message, a top Clinton aide appears to be trying to get a million-dollar donor from the family’s Clinton Foundation access to the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, after an executive at the foundation requested it. In another, the foundation executive appeared to request special help finding a job for an associate, and he was assured that the right people knew of the potential employee.   
The emails are not devastating, but they are damaging as Clinton struggles to boost her trustworthiness with voters. And such messages will continue to surface until the election. The State Department is being forced to release more documents as a result of government investigations and lawsuits like the one filed by Judicial Watch.
And Democrats are particularly anxious about fresh FBI concerns that the Russian hackers who penetrated servers at the Democratic National Committee may have also breached private email accounts of many more key members of the party, including those with the Clinton campaign. The hackers who breached the DNC server used it as a springboard to access the accounts of at least some individuals associated with the party, and the list of victims could number in the dozens, a U.S. law enforcement official confirmed Thursday.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco called it an “electronic Watergate.”  
As the headwinds of distraction grew, Clinton worked to refocus voter attention Thursday on the economy.
“There is a myth out there that he will stick it to the rich and powerful because somehow he is really on the side of the little guy,” Clinton said of Trump during her address in Warren, Mich. “Don’t believe it.”
The speech, at a facility where aerospace parts are manufactured, was equal measure one-liners targeted at Trump and heady policy prescriptions. The Democratic nominee positioned herself as the child of a small-business owner who printed designs on draperies and struggled to provide a better life for his family.

She questioned what might have happened to her family if her father had done business with a man like Trump, whose companies have been accused by scores of contractors of refusing to pay for work they did.
“It wasn’t because Trump couldn’t pay them,” Clinton said. “It was because he wouldn’t pay them. I take it personally.”
She said Trump’s economic plan would also break his promise to workers, warning it would enrich only corporations and Trump himself.
Clinton called it “just a more extreme version of the failed theory of trickle-down economics, with his own addition of outlandish Trumpian ideas that even Republicans reject.”
Trump’s childcare plan, Clinton said, would help rich people like him afford nannies while doing nothing for those at the bottom of the income scale. She warned that the repeal of the estate tax Trump promises would net his family as much as $4 billion while providing no benefit to 99.8% of Americans. Another provision Trump wants got labeled by Clinton the “Trump loophole,” because she said it could cut the income tax rate for many of his companies in half.
She said Trump would roll back the tough rules placed on the financial industry in the wake of the mortgage crisis and usher in trillions of dollars “in tax cuts to big corporations, millionaires and Wall Street money managers that would explode our national debt.”
[Image: 750x422]
CAPTIONThe ultimate side-by-side convention comparison of Clinton and Trump on the issues
CAPTIONWho is Hillary Clinton’s running mate Tim Kaine?

Clinton contrasted the Trump plan with her proposal to make the rich pay more and expand the role of government. She laid out her familiar progressive agenda that included vows to launch the biggest infrastructure spending program since World War II, expand Obamacare, make public college debt-free and penalize firms that move their operations abroad.
In a part of the country where her past support for free-trade deals has become a political liability, Clinton also made a forceful vow to stop deals that are not in the interest of U.S. workers, part of a concerted effort to re-frame the trade debate and to defend herself against accusations that she might renege her stand against the massive Trans-Pacific Partnership pact.  
“Mr. Trump may talk a big game on trade, but his approach is based on fear, not strength,” Clinton said. “Fear that we can’t compete with the rest of the world even when rules are fair, fear that our country has no choice but to hide behind walls.”
“Before he tweets how about he is really the one who is going to put America first in trade,” Clinton said, “let’s remember where Trump makes many of his own products, because it sure is not America.”

Print this item

  Trump Is Right: Here’s Proof Hillary & Obama Founded ISIS
Posted by: Stanley888 - 08-12-2016, 01:19 AM - Forum: General Presidential Race Area - No Replies

Trump Is Right: Here’s Proof Hillary & Obama Founded ISIS

  • [Image: printer_famfamfam.gif]
    [Image: youtube.png]
    [Image: podcast.png]
    [Image: pptv.png]
    [Image: twitter.png]
    [Image: facebook.png]
    [Image: cart.png]

Hillary even admitted U.S. created al-Qaeda, the precursor of ISIS
Kit Daniels
Prison Planet.com
August 11, 2016

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are founding members of ISIS by bankrolling, arming and supporting jihadists in Syria and Libya to both destabilize the Middle East and expand the domestic police state.
Clinton even even admitted in 2009 that the U.S. government – staffed with many of her closest allies – was responsible for al-Qaeda, which morphed into ISIS.
“I mean, let’s remember here: The people we are fighting today we funded 20 years ago, and we did it because we were locked in this struggle with the Soviet Union,” she said.
Clinton continued:
Quote:They invaded Afghanistan, and we did not want to see them control central Asia, and we went to work, and it was President Reagan, in partnership with the Congress, led by Democrats, who said, “You know what? Sounds like a pretty good idea! Let’s deal with the ISI and the Pakistani military, and let’s go recruit these Mujahedin! That’s great! Let’s get some to come from Saudi Arabia and other places, importing their Wahhabi brand of Islam, so that we can go beat the Soviet Union!” And guess what? They retreated, they lost billions of dollars, and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. So there’s a very strong argument, which is: It wasn’t a bad investment to end the Soviet Union, but let’s be careful what we sow, because we will harvest.

She’s right: al-Qaeda was created by Western intelligence and has always been under the influence of the West, starting with al-Qaeda’s precursor, the Mujahideen of Afghanistan.
In 1979 the Mujahideen was America’s secret weapon in Operation Cyclone, the CIA project to arm and finance Jihadi warriors in a proxy war against the USSR.

It was geopolitical strategist and Clinton ally Zbigniew Brzezinski, then National Security Advisor under President Jimmy Carter, who used the Mujahideen to draw the Soviet Union into an unwinnable war in Afghanistan.

To aid in this endeavor, U.S. intelligence picked a mujaheddin fighter named Osama bin Laden to lead the Afghan resistance against the USSR and gave him the codename “Tim Osman.”
[Image: TimOsmanObl.gif]
He was chosen primary because his wealthy family was connected to the Bush family as a long-term business partner in the West.

The CIA also paid Osama to operate a “charity” front called the Maktab al-Khidamat (also known as the as Al-Kifah) which funneled recruits and money to the Mujahideen, and the US government later said MAK was the “precursor organization to al-Qaeda.”

And a few decades later, in 2012, Clinton’s State Dept. was backing al-Qaeda in Iraq, which morphed into ISIS, and other Islamic extremist groups as a proxy army to topple Syrian President Bashir al-Assad, a close ally to Russia and an enemy to Saudi Arabia, an Obama administration ally.
“The Salafist [sic], the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria,” a leaked memo between her State Dept. and the Pentagon stated. “The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support [this] opposition, while Russia, China and Iran ‘support the [Assad] regime.’”
View image on Twitter
[Image: Ck1nWi5UoAA0PbN.jpg:small]


[Image: g_sQmSnc_normal.jpg]Kit Daniels @KitDaniels1776
Hillary's State Dept. backed al-Qaeda in Iraq which later morphed into ISIS. @realDonaldTrump #Orlando #2a #tcot
9:29 AM - 13 Jun 2016



  • [url=https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=742363157251788800] 241241 likes

This secret document confirms that Clinton’s State Dept. – and the Obama administration in general – was directly responsible for the rise of ISIS.

The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, confirmed the document’s importance.
“I don’t know that [the Obama administration] turned a blind eye [to ISIS], I think it was a decision; I think it was a willful decision,” he said.

The document likely stemmed from a discussion during the 2012 Bilderberg conference held in Chantilly, Virginia, in which participants envisioned a Syrian puppet government taking orders from the U.S. State Department, the European Union and NATO.
A couple years later, in 2014 a $1.1 trillion federal spending bill rammed through Congress provided a half-billion dollars to arm and train ISIS-linked Syrian rebels.
The spending bill authorized the Secretary of Defense $500,000,000 to equip “appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition” who will defend “the Syrian people from attacks by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,” but a few months before, ISIS signed a truce with the remaining rebel groups and they began working together against the Syrian government.
That, however, didn’t stop Obama; on Oct. 1, 2015, he authorized a shipment of guns to ISIS-linked militants in Syria.
“The approval came at a National Security Council meeting on Thursday,” CNN reported at the time. “…The President also emphasized to his team that the U.S. would continue to support the Syrian opposition as Russia enters the war-torn country.”
Once again, it should be emphasized that the so-called “Syrian rebels” were either ISIS militants or allied with ISIS.
“We are collaborating with the Islamic State and the Nusra Front by attacking the Syrian Army’s gatherings in… Qalamoun [in Syria],” Bassel Idriss, the commander of a Free Syrian Army rebel brigade, told the Lebanese Daily Star in 2014. “ISIS wanted to enhance its presence in the Western Qalamoun area.”
“After the fall of Yabroud and the FSA’s retreat into the hills, many units pledged allegiance to ISIS.”
Another rebel, Abu Ahmed, also said his unit was willing to collaborate with ISIS and its affiliates.
“Fighters feel proud to join al-Nusra [an ISIS affiliate] because that means power and influence,” he told the Guardian.
In fact, at least 29 different Syrian rebel groups had pledged allegiance to the al-Nusra Front.
Clinton even admitted to BBC that these Syrian “rebels” serving the administration’s interests in Syria are terrorists.
“We have a very dangerous set of actors in the region, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and those who are on our terrorist list, to be sure, supporting – claiming to support the opposition in Syria,” she said.
But that didn’t stop the Obama administration from saving ISIS militants from U.S. airstrikes by giving thema 45-minute warning prior to an airstrike on their oil tankers.
“Get out of your trucks now, and run away from them. Warning: air strikes are coming. Oil trucks will be destroyed. Get away from your oil trucks immediately. Do not risk your life,” the warning leaflets given to ISIS read.
U.S. military pilots also confirmed they were ordered not to drop 75% of their ordnance on ISIS targets because they couldn’t get clearance from their superiors – which is exactly the kind of order the Obama administration would give to protect ISIS.
“We can’t get clearance even when we have a clear target in front of us,” said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-Calif.)
One of the reasons why the Obama administration sponsored and protected ISIS was because Assad stood in the way of a critical natural gas pipeline that would have deposed Russia as Europe’s primary source of energy.
“Syria is the site of the proposed construction of a massive underground gas pipeline that, if completed, could drastically undercut the strategic energy power of U.S. ally Qatar and also would cut Turkey out of the pipeline flow,” Aaron Klein of WND reported. “Dubbed the ‘Islamic pipeline,’ the project may ultimately favor Russia and Iran against Western energy interests.”
In other words, ISIS is a tool used to geopolitically isolate Russia, which under Putin has deflected attempts by the global elite to bring the country under their control – disconnected from the will of the people.
Additionally, due to the centuries-old conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims, Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia, a close Obama ally, wants Assad’s Shia government out of power.
There’s also trillions of dollars in potential oil and gas revenue in Syria that Saudi Arabia could tap into if a Western puppet is placed into power in Syria.
Donald Trump is spot-on: Clinton and Obama have aided and abetted ISIS to achieve their geopolitical objectives shared by their close allies and their predecessors who also created the precursors of ISIS.

Print this item

  How Donald Trump Can Win in a Landslide
Posted by: Stanley888 - 08-11-2016, 07:19 PM - Forum: General Presidential Race Area - No Replies

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

How Donald Trump Can Win in a Landslide

I have worked with and for people like Donald Trump. 

You see, such people have minds that move very fast through mountains of information and are satisfied if they capture about the most relevant 20% of the key points that convey 80% of the story.  They then have no problem telling you how much they know about the subject, while messing up on the 80% of the points that tell only 20% of the story.

Their minds can move faster than their mouths at times; while delivering a message to an audience, they might forget about the specific angle that should be taken with that audience – not that the message is different, but that different points need be emphasized or minimized.

They will move to tangential subjects if asked – even if not as prepared on these; they do this for all of the aforementioned reasons, plus they believe they are the smartest person in the room.

Such people can be great successes at business – the most successful people focus on the 20% that give 80% of the value; handling the rest is why they hire others.

My advice to such people is always: stay on point.  If Trump sticks to the following points, he will win the election and win it in a landslide.  In each case, Trump’s message – when he stays on point – resonates with many Americans. 

War and Foreign Intervention

Trump has the perfect candidate to run against on this issue, as he not only has Hillary’s record to attack but also Bill’s.  Bill began the road of expanding NATO and closing in on Russia; Bill used NATO as an offensive force in Yugoslavia.  Hillary, meanwhile, has yet to meet an intervention she didn’t like.

Press Hillary on Russia; press her on where her road leads; paint the picture of the folly of placing the safety of the United States at the whim of or in defense of Turkey or some Baltic country. 

Do not back off; do not give half-hearted answers: even if Latvia pays its share, are the people of the United States ready to risk a ground war or even nuclear war in defense of Riga?  Is there any reason on earth for the United States to risk nuclear war over Crimea or Donbass?

An unequivocal “NO” in answer to such questions will gain and keep many votes – including from many democrats and independents.

Trade Deals

Plenty of voters and previously non-voters are sick of these.  They see them for what they are: impossibly complicated treaties that ensure only the largest and most connected companies can sell and compete overseas while in exchange allowing for the import of foreign goods in a favored manner for the benefit of those same largest and most connected companies.

Bailing out Wall Street

Come out strongly against the actions of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, especially during 2007 – 2009 but also continuing.  Hit on the point that these have maintained and improved the wealth of the 1% while doing nothing for or even destroying the wealth and livelihoods of the 99%.

This is obvious to the 99% - they just want to hear someone pound on the message and state clearly how he will act differently.

Hillary & Bill Corruption

Talk about a target rich environment!  I need not expand.


In each case, Trump can paint a picture diametrically opposite to where Hillary stands. In each case, this picture is attractive to a majority of likely and potential voters.

Donald – just stay on point.


Print this item

  Trump’s Contribution to Sound Money
Posted by: Stanley888 - 08-11-2016, 07:08 PM - Forum: General Presidential Race Area - No Replies

Trump’s Contribution to Sound Money
The source of trade anxiety is a broken global monetary system that distorts price signals with sharp currency moves.

0:00 / 0:00

Atlas Network Senior Fellow Judy Shelton on why Donald Trump’s currency laments could spark much-needed change. Photo credit: Corbis.

Aug. 10, 2016 6:42 p.m. ET
The surest way to become alienated from Donald Trump supporters is to invoke the word “global” with regard to trade or economic interests. Even if you embrace the Trump economic agenda for enhancing U.S. competitiveness by lowering taxes and easing regulation, even if you support an “America First” approach for tackling domestic shortcomings from education to infrastructure—there is still a negative stigma attached to proposing any kind of global economic initiative.
Yet by insisting that the U.S. Treasury label China a “currency manipulator” and by promoting trade that is both free and “fair,” Mr. Trump may be laying the groundwork for a significant breakthrough in international monetary relations—one that could ultimately validate the rationale for an open global marketplace and restore genuine free trade as a vital component of economic growth.
The notion that something good might come out of a Trump policy elicits guffaws in certain economic circles. And questioning whether today’s exchange-rate regime serves the cause of beneficial cross-border commerce is tantamount to advocating protectionism. Nevertheless, Mr. Trump’s emphasis on currency manipulation brings into focus the shortcomings of our present international monetary system—volatility, persistent imbalances, currency mismatches—which testify to its dysfunction. Indeed, today’s hodgepodge of exchange-rate mechanisms is routinely described as a “non-system.” Or, as former International Monetary Fund chief Jacques de Larosière termed it at a Vienna conference in February 2014, an “anti-system.”
If monetary scholars once diligently sought to explain the relative virtues of fixed-versus-flexible exchange rates on global economic performance, they have largely abdicated any responsibility for the escalating political backlash against trade that blames currency manipulation for lost business.

No serious economist would claim today that the “dirty float” intervention tactics practiced by numerous countries would be remotely acceptable within the freely flexible exchange-rate system envisaged by Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman. Nor would anyone suggest that any coherent mechanism exists comparable with the fixed-rate system anchored by a gold-convertible dollar that reigned in the decades following World War II.
Nobel Laureate Robert Mundell has consistently argued for the restoration of a system of formally maintained exchange rates to reduce uncertainty and promote growth. Yet the lack of willingness among the great majority of economists to recognize the imperative for global monetary reform to avoid a breakdown in global trade relations has left policy makers in the lurch. Faced with mounting demands to address currency manipulation through “strong and enforceable provisions”—i.e., tariffs—those who support free trade are being forced to consider the broader implications of a sluggish world economy that has become overly reliant on central banks.
Is it more egregious when governments deliberately intervene in foreign-exchange markets to manipulate currencies to gain an export advantage—or when central banks seek to accomplish the same thing through monetary policy?
The point is that today’s free-for-all approach to international monetary relations permits nations to pursue any exchange-rate policy they wish. Relative currency values are thus vulnerable not only to the manipulative tactics of government authorities, but also to the speculative maneuvering of foreign-exchange traders—the most active of which, in a market that averages $4.9 trillion in daily volume, are the world’s largest banks.
No wonder so many workers employed by U.S. companies that manufacture products requiring substantial capital investment—automobiles and tractors, computer and electronic equipment—have become disenchanted with the supposed long-term benefits of free trade. It is one thing to lose sales to a foreign competitor whose product delivers the best quality for the money; it’s another to lose sales as a consequence of an unforeseen exchange-rate slide that distorts the comparative prices of competing goods.
To brand trade skeptics as sore losers is to malign them unfairly. To resent being victimized by currency movements is not the same as being opposed to free trade, nor does it signal an eagerness to engage in protectionist retaliation. It’s simply an honest response to incongruity: We need to reconcile global monetary arrangements with global trade aspirations.
As former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker has observed: “Trade flows are affected more by ten minutes of movement in the currency markets than by ten years of (even successful) negotiations.”
Mr. Trump’s forceful rhetoric may help put an end to the politically correct attitude so prevalent among economists that breezily dismisses what was once accepted as a truism: Stable exchange rates foster long-term prosperity by maximizing the productive use of economic resources and financial capital. Why continue to passively accept the negative economic consequences of global monetary disorder? Why permit legitimately earned profits from business operations and investments in foreign countries to be wiped out by unpredictable currency losses? Why hold global economic growth prospects hostage to antiquated exchange-rate arrangements?
It’s time to end the intellectual vacuum and focus on serious initiatives for global monetary reform. The goal is to maximize prosperity by harnessing the power of free-market signals across borders. Monetary clarity is the key to reconciling the principles of free trade with the promised benefits of an open global marketplace.
By focusing on currency manipulation as an unfair trade practice, Mr. Trump has not only identified the crux of the economic dilemma, he has also spotlighted the social and political tensions its consequences have fostered.
Ms. Shelton, an economist, is author of “Money Meltdown” (Free Press, 1994) and co-director of the Sound Money Project at the Atlas Network, a nonprofit that promotes free markets and economic liberty.

Print this item

Posted by: PrincessCarrie - 08-08-2016, 12:36 PM - Forum: Terrorism - No Replies

Trump was right - after 911 there was footage of extremists cheering in droves and footage of some of them driving away in a white box truck - it was all over the news for days.  On another note, why isn't the media digging into Obama about the $400,000,000 payment to our buddies in Iran?  Is that our tax money (obviously) - it is outrageous.

Print this item