Bitcoin Forum

Other => Politics & Society => Topic started by: awesome31312 on November 10, 2016, 08:39:31 PM



Title: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: awesome31312 on November 10, 2016, 08:39:31 PM
First of all, congratulations on Donald Trump being appointed to serve the 18th term of the Federal Reserve!

Who won the election?

231,556,622 eligible voters

>>46.9% didn't vote
25.6% voted for Clinton
25.5% voted for Trump
1.7% voted for Johnson

Voluntaryism won the election.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: criptix on November 10, 2016, 09:00:43 PM
The moment you realise that actually over 100 million people didnt vote  :-\


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: CoolJakeB on November 10, 2016, 09:59:08 PM
Voter turnout has always been an issue and a problem in United States elections. While all the votes have not been counted for this year, it is looking like the voter turnout is actually above that of the 2012 election, at 56% overall. In this election, it was mostly Democrats that decided not to vote (Bernie Sanders supporters) and that tilted the Presidency to Trump's favor. Clinton under-performed Obama's numbers of 2012 by more than 5 million votes.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: awesome31312 on November 10, 2016, 11:30:39 PM
Only 25% of voters voted for Trump, that's one heck of a "win"  ::) ::)


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: xhomerx10 on November 11, 2016, 12:17:07 AM
That's one of the problems with a first-past-the-post voting system.   At least there were really only two choices... imagine if there were several; you could have a president elected with an even lower percentage of the population!


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: Spendulus on November 11, 2016, 11:12:56 PM
First of all, congratulations on Donald Trump being appointed to serve the 18th term of the Federal Reserve!

Who won the election?

231,556,622 eligible voters

>>46.9% didn't vote
25.6% voted for Clinton
25.5% voted for Trump
1.7% voted for Johnson


Donald Trump.

Any other questions?

:)


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: xhomerx10 on November 11, 2016, 11:17:42 PM
First of all, congratulations on Donald Trump being appointed to serve the 18th term of the Federal Reserve!

Who won the election?

231,556,622 eligible voters

>>46.9% didn't vote
25.6% voted for Clinton
25.5% voted for Trump
1.7% voted for Johnson


Donald Trump.

Any other questions?

:)

 lol  Thats's Hillaryous!  ;)


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: Koloulinger on November 12, 2016, 04:06:34 AM
First of all, congratulations on Donald Trump being appointed to serve the 18th term of the Federal Reserve!

Who won the election?

231,556,622 eligible voters

>>46.9% didn't vote
25.6% voted for Clinton
25.5% voted for Trump
1.7% voted for Johnson



your write true result
you write voted to clinton is above from trump
so why vote congres republic win , and presiden election trump win too


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: gabmen on November 12, 2016, 10:55:31 AM
First of all, congratulations on Donald Trump being appointed to serve the 18th term of the Federal Reserve!

Who won the election?

231,556,622 eligible voters

>>46.9% didn't vote
25.6% voted for Clinton
25.5% voted for Trump
1.7% voted for Johnson



your write true result
you write voted to clinton is above from trump
so why vote congres republic win , and presiden election trump win too

Popular votes indicate that more people want clinton over trump but america's election process clearly won it for trump. I don't think the result was how the majority of americans would prefer it to be but hey, trump won. I believe in what clinton and obama is saying that it now time to move on and like it or not we have to help trump to succeed if we are to succeed


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: Tyrantt on November 12, 2016, 11:08:21 AM
First of all, congratulations on Donald Trump being appointed to serve the 18th term of the Federal Reserve!

Who won the election?

231,556,622 eligible voters

>>46.9% didn't vote
25.6% voted for Clinton
25.5% voted for Trump
1.7% voted for Johnson



your write true result
you write voted to clinton is above from trump
so why vote congres republic win , and presiden election trump win too

Popular votes indicate that more people want clinton over trump but america's election process clearly won it for trump. I don't think the result was how the majority of americans would prefer it to be but hey, trump won. I believe in what clinton and obama is saying that it now time to move on and like it or not we have to help trump to succeed if we are to succeed

cnn, CNN Reported that Trump voted by popular vote. No one likes killary, gtfo, qq somewhere else.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: Karartma1 on November 12, 2016, 11:18:28 AM
First of all, congratulations on Donald Trump being appointed to serve the 18th term of the Federal Reserve!

Who won the election?

231,556,622 eligible voters

>>46.9% didn't vote
25.6% voted for Clinton
25.5% voted for Trump
1.7% voted for Johnson


Any form of democracy is rigged nowadays. It's a circus, a reality show whatever you want to call it. People have no power over things! I think that was the most clever way to fool people.

George Carlin: The Illusion Of Choice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC_wjQtfhZQ


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: awesome31312 on November 12, 2016, 01:33:05 PM
Hillary lost despite attempts to rig it through the media, the DNC and Super PACs

I'd say she lost fair square, but she wasn't playing fair, karma got to her.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: Daniel91 on November 12, 2016, 03:16:06 PM
First of all, congratulations on Donald Trump being appointed to serve the 18th term of the Federal Reserve!

Who won the election?

231,556,622 eligible voters

>>46.9% didn't vote
25.6% voted for Clinton
25.5% voted for Trump
1.7% voted for Johnson

Voluntaryism won the election.

It's interesting statistic but it doesn't change the fact that Trump won.
Yes, Clinton received more popular votes, and many people didn't vote but still doesn't matter, Trump is new uS president.
I think that just now some people weak up and realized their mistake.
many people didn't like Clinton but didn't believe that Trump can win.
So, they decided to skip election and stay at home.
So, other people chose for them.
So, naivety and lack of understanding of reality (of many people) helped Trump to win the election, in my opinion.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: DodoB on November 12, 2016, 03:40:27 PM
Hillary lost despite attempts to rig it through the media, the DNC and Super PACs

I'd say she lost fair square, but she wasn't playing fair, karma got to her.

Hillary didn't exactly lost seeing as she still won the popular vote,it was the system that elected Trump. if the elections were held in any other country and had the same result,Hillary would have won.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: saddampbuh on November 12, 2016, 04:53:07 PM
Hillary didn't exactly lost seeing as she still won the popular vote,it was the system that elected Trump. if the elections were held in any other country and had the same result,Hillary would have won.
if the election had been held in other another country there would have been a second round of voting and the gary johnson voters would have switched to trump


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: ged00u on November 12, 2016, 05:45:32 PM
Hail people who did not vote for anyone. Hail riot. Hail rebel. Hail the world without any Government or President. LOL
Anyway, Trump has won the election, i hope that he will make some significant change for his country as well as the world


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: zikel on November 12, 2016, 06:11:42 PM
Hail people who did not vote for anyone. Hail riot. Hail rebel. Hail the world without any Government or President. LOL
Anyway, Trump has won the election, i hope that he will make some significant change for his country as well as the world

Change the world tried to Obama. And I think Trump will make changes in the country. I think this is a positive activity


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: xhomerx10 on November 12, 2016, 08:35:02 PM
Hillary didn't exactly lost seeing as she still won the popular vote,it was the system that elected Trump. if the elections were held in any other country and had the same result,Hillary would have won.
if the election had been held in other another country there would have been a second round of voting and the gary johnson voters would have switched to trump

 If the election was held in any other country it wouldn't have been a US election either.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: DRaGoN RaNTaRo on November 12, 2016, 08:57:41 PM
Hillary lost despite attempts to rig it through the media, the DNC and Super PACs

I'd say she lost fair square, but she wasn't playing fair, karma got to her.

Hillary didn't exactly lost seeing as she still won the popular vote,it was the system that elected Trump. if the elections were held in any other country and had the same result,Hillary would have won.
i did not understand what this popular vote is but people elected Trump the president and he won the elections even with the media against him and now Hillary is blaming the FBI for her loss and i do not know how the OP got these stats .


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: DodoB on November 14, 2016, 10:06:02 PM
Hillary lost despite attempts to rig it through the media, the DNC and Super PACs

I'd say she lost fair square, but she wasn't playing fair, karma got to her.

Hillary didn't exactly lost seeing as she still won the popular vote,it was the system that elected Trump. if the elections were held in any other country and had the same result,Hillary would have won.
i did not understand what this popular vote is but people elected Trump the president and he won the elections even with the media against him and now Hillary is blaming the FBI for her loss and i do not know how the OP got these stats .

Popular vote=getting the most votes,and Hillary got the most votes
The American elections are decided by a few hundred electors who vaguely act according to the popular vote of each state.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: Sithara007 on November 15, 2016, 11:06:38 AM
You can keep whining, but the fact is that Trump won. And he won despite the fact that polling in several inner city booths were rigged by the Clinton supporters. Now accept the results, and move on.

And I would never bother about those who refused to vote. If someone is too lazy to vote, then he doesn't deserve his voice to be heard.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: jondeen707 on November 15, 2016, 12:39:47 PM
Hillary lost despite attempts to rig it through the media, the DNC and Super PACs

I'd say she lost fair square, but she wasn't playing fair, karma got to her.

Hillary didn't exactly lost seeing as she still won the popular vote,it was the system that elected Trump. if the elections were held in any other country and had the same result,Hillary would have won.
i did not understand what this popular vote is but people elected Trump the president and he won the elections even with the media against him and now Hillary is blaming the FBI for her loss and i do not know how the OP got these stats .

Popular vote=getting the most votes,and Hillary got the most votes
The American elections are decided by a few hundred electors who vaguely act according to the popular vote of each state.

That's not the first it that happened, right? Unfortunately, that will keep happening until this current electoral system is in place.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: criptix on November 15, 2016, 03:20:26 PM
You can keep whining, but the fact is that Trump won. And he won despite the fact that polling in several inner city booths were rigged by the Clinton supporters. Now accept the results, and move on.

And I would never bother about those who refused to vote. If someone is too lazy to vote, then he doesn't deserve his voice to be heard.

Wow first mass voting fraud and now mass polling fraud.
Do they have no shame at all??!!  >:( >:( >:(

 :D


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: toy4lov3rs on November 15, 2016, 03:26:58 PM
You can keep whining, but the fact is that Trump won. And he won despite the fact that polling in several inner city booths were rigged by the Clinton supporters. Now accept the results, and move on.

And I would never bother about those who refused to vote. If someone is too lazy to vote, then he doesn't deserve his voice to be heard.

Wow first mass voting fraud and now mass polling fraud.
Do they have no shame at all??!!  >:( >:( >:(

 :D

When you say 'they', who exactly are you talking about here. I'd like to think you don't mean they the American People as a whole. Because I still love my country and it's people. Sure we got some Bigots, everywhere does. But I think America will stay strong. I have hope..


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: philggg on November 15, 2016, 07:34:25 PM
Donald trump won the election because his campaign speech is what the majority of Americans wanted,issue on illegal immigrants, they believe they are the cause of major crimes in u s


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: mindrust on November 15, 2016, 07:37:33 PM
Popular vote doesn't mean shit unless you win more states than your opponent. If it meant shit, Hillary would be president instead of Trump right now.

It is there for a consolation prize. A jerk off prize.

And the winneeeeer iiss: DONALD... J... TRUMP!

See you back in 2020.

Btw, Donald didn't do much to win. Instead, Hillary and all other media did it for him. He said something and the media told it 1000times on TV's. Priceless.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: tvbcof on November 15, 2016, 08:00:34 PM

The 'real' vote won't be knowable until if/when we get a functional justice system again.  Even then someone needs to take an interest in doing some forensics work.  No matter how the vote turned out in reality, Obama nullified the election by encouraging illegal voting shortly before 11/8.  Fortunately it was to little to late for their side.

I will say that the electoral college which complicates a theft clearly saved the day.  Without it it would have been trivial to steal this election.  I've never been a fan of the thing, but am warming to it for several reasons.  Certainly it should remain in place util the electronic voting machines are relegated to the dumpster.

Trump getting easily 10x the crowds to his much more numerous rallies spoke volumes about what the 'real' vote was.

---

Going forward 2016 has clearly shown that we have a cohort of pretty fucked up people.  They continue to walk out of classes and march in the streets.  It will be interesting to see what happens to this 'lost generation' so-to-speak.  I think it a fairly powerful hypothesis that they are to a degree 'designer people' who have been infused with 'sustainability' which in population dynamics terms means they won't reproduce and will more quickly die off.

I suspect that these victims were made that way through both psychological and chemical means.  They are both mentally and physically stunted, however, making them not a huge threat to the long term prosperity of the nation as long as we can stop the damage from continuing.  At least these victims of the globalist class can be taken care of with 'coloring books and play-doh' and 'mass cry-ins' and 'therapy dogs'.  Today's U.S. universities are hard at work doing cutting-edge research along these lines.



Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: awesome31312 on November 16, 2016, 02:06:06 PM
You can keep whining, but the fact is that Trump won. And he won despite the fact that polling in several inner city booths were rigged by the Clinton supporters. Now accept the results, and move on.

And I would never bother about those who refused to vote. If someone is too lazy to vote, then he doesn't deserve his voice to be heard.

Lol, so many things wrong with your post.

A protest of government policies is not "whining". It is still more constructive than sitting on your fat ass and troll shitposting on Bitcointalk.

Don't get it twisted. If you vote, you are responsible for everything that happens.

https://libertyontap.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/vote-carlin.jpg?w=700


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: olubams on November 16, 2016, 04:43:27 PM
The issue of participating in election by majority of the population has been an issue of concern but I didnt know its the same in advanced countries like this.  Over here you see an average of 22 million people deciding for a population of over 150 million people despite all the cries and campaign that they should come out and vote but our case is different as we dont use electoral colleges and based on OP analysis if it were to my country, then Hillary will be the winner even if it were to be by few votes...


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: usefrees on November 16, 2016, 05:51:19 PM
The issue of participating in election by majority of the population has been an issue of concern but I didnt know its the same in advanced countries like this.  Over here you see an average of 22 million people deciding for a population of over 150 million people despite all the cries and campaign that they should come out and vote but our case is different as we dont use electoral colleges and based on OP analysis if it were to my country, then Hillary will be the winner even if it were to be by few votes...

yes, I am surprised by the voting system in which the voice of the people do not count. I do not think it's right.
But the fact remains, and now we need to try to take a new president


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: DRaGoN RaNTaRo on November 16, 2016, 11:57:31 PM
The issue of participating in election by majority of the population has been an issue of concern but I didnt know its the same in advanced countries like this.  Over here you see an average of 22 million people deciding for a population of over 150 million people despite all the cries and campaign that they should come out and vote but our case is different as we dont use electoral colleges and based on OP analysis if it were to my country, then Hillary will be the winner even if it were to be by few votes...

yes, I am surprised by the voting system in which the voice of the people do not count. I do not think it's right.
But the fact remains, and now we need to try to take a new president
The voice of the people was with Trump when they went to the polling booth and what is the problem now people have to accept the democratically and constitutionally elected President


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: Cxfan on November 17, 2016, 01:27:17 AM
The banks continue to win, as always.  :)


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: birareru1988 on November 18, 2016, 05:59:02 PM
The issue of participating in election by majority of the population has been an issue of concern but I didnt know its the same in advanced countries like this.  Over here you see an average of 22 million people deciding for a population of over 150 million people despite all the cries and campaign that they should come out and vote but our case is different as we dont use electoral colleges and based on OP analysis if it were to my country, then Hillary will be the winner even if it were to be by few votes...

yes, I am surprised by the voting system in which the voice of the people do not count. I do not think it's right.
But the fact remains, and now we need to try to take a new president
The voice of the people was with Trump when they went to the polling booth and what is the problem now people have to accept the democratically and constitutionally elected President
The voice of the people was Hillary. She received more of the popular vote by almost a million! Just the imperfection of the electoral legislation in America brought to its present state.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: tvbcof on November 18, 2016, 06:26:28 PM

The banks continue to win, as always.  :)

Trump's former life put him generally in competition with 'the banks.'  When he negotiated it was opposite of this class and he did have a near-death business experience at their hands as they leveraged their powers at his expense (put another way, they took his shit).  Obviously Trump would have had relationships and friendships within the financial services sector, but generally speaking his situation as a seller of debt and their situation as a buyer defined an adversarial relationship when the pleasantries were pushed aside.

Trump learned how to cope and bragged numerous times on the trail that he was 'carrying very little debt.'  Reading between the lines, this was one of my take-aways and one of the reasons I became hopeful about the guy.  He also said at least one time when I was watching that 'while friends, these are horrible and vicious people' or something along these lines.  Who better should know?



Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: criptix on November 18, 2016, 06:32:29 PM

The banks continue to win, as always.  :)

Trump's former life put him generally in competition with 'the banks.'  When he negotiated it was opposite of this class and he did have a near-death business experience at their hands as they leveraged their powers at his expense (put another way, they took his shit).  Obviously Trump would have had relationships and friendships within the financial services sector, but generally speaking his situation as a seller of debt and their situation as a buyer defined an adversarial relationship when the pleasantries were pushed aside.

Trump learned how to cope and bragged numerous times on the trail that he was 'carrying very little debt.'  Reading between the lines, this was one of my take-aways and one of the reasons I became hopeful about the guy.  He also said at least one time when I was watching that 'while friends, these are horrible and vicious people' or something along these lines.  Who better should know?




That is why one of his main goals is to deregulate the banking sector. :D

Alex jokes believer duh


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: tvbcof on November 18, 2016, 06:38:12 PM

The banks continue to win, as always.  :)

Trump's former life put him generally in competition with 'the banks.'  When he negotiated it was opposite of this class and he did have a near-death business experience at their hands as they leveraged their powers at his expense (put another way, they took his shit).  Obviously Trump would have had relationships and friendships within the financial services sector, but generally speaking his situation as a seller of debt and their situation as a buyer defined an adversarial relationship when the pleasantries were pushed aside.

Trump learned how to cope and bragged numerous times on the trail that he was 'carrying very little debt.'  Reading between the lines, this was one of my take-aways and one of the reasons I became hopeful about the guy.  He also said at least one time when I was watching that 'while friends, these are horrible and vicious people' or something along these lines.  Who better should know?

That is why one of his main goals is to deregulate the banking sector. :D

Alex jokes believer duh

In case you didn't notice, almost without exception the 'regulations' were written by the banks themselves.  And locked in by the politicians funded by them.

Trump will prove or dis-prove himself when (probably not 'if') he and his choose between 'bail-outs', 'bail-ins', or 'other'.

No rational person I know is willing to predict with certainty one way or another which way Trump will go.  That includes me, Jones, or anyone else who's analysis I value.



Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: criptix on November 18, 2016, 06:45:22 PM

The banks continue to win, as always.  :)

Trump's former life put him generally in competition with 'the banks.'  When he negotiated it was opposite of this class and he did have a near-death business experience at their hands as they leveraged their powers at his expense (put another way, they took his shit).  Obviously Trump would have had relationships and friendships within the financial services sector, but generally speaking his situation as a seller of debt and their situation as a buyer defined an adversarial relationship when the pleasantries were pushed aside.

Trump learned how to cope and bragged numerous times on the trail that he was 'carrying very little debt.'  Reading between the lines, this was one of my take-aways and one of the reasons I became hopeful about the guy.  He also said at least one time when I was watching that 'while friends, these are horrible and vicious people' or something along these lines.  Who better should know?

That is why one of his main goals is to deregulate the banking sector. :D

Alex jokes believer duh

In case you didn't notice, almost without exception the 'regulations' were written by the banks themselves.  And locked in by the politicians funded by them.

Trump will prove or dis-prove himself when (probably not 'if') he and his choose between 'bail-outs', 'bail-ins', or 'other'.

No rational person I know is willing to predict with certainty one way or another which way Trump will go.  That includes me, Jones, or anyone else who's analysis I value.



Oh dear i forgive you because you dont know what you are talking about.

Here 2 things that you better look up:

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act


Im pretty sure you believe that trump urinates holy water and is the second coming of jesus?

 :D


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: tvbcof on November 18, 2016, 07:32:31 PM
...
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
...

Dodd-Frank's only real impact was making operations difficult and unpleasant for the smaller operators which had the (probably not unintended) consequence of reducing competition for the large players.  It absolutely had no impact that I can see on malfeasance within larger corporations or any impact on the rapid stratification of wealth in this country and evaporation of the middle-class.

Dodd proved himself a crony asshole immediately upon exiting 'public service.'  Frank, while being maybe the most entertaining people I've ever seen in a debate, was by no means a 'man of the people.'  His deep seated power roots were laid bare for all to see when he was caught molesting under-age male pages with no particular negative consequences.  Indeed, it seemed to have made him 'cool and trendy' in the eyes of much of our progressive electorate.



Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: criptix on November 18, 2016, 11:06:59 PM
...
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
...

Dodd-Frank's only real impact was making operations difficult and unpleasant for the smaller operators which had the (probably not unintended) consequence of reducing competition for the large players.  It absolutely had no impact that I can see on malfeasance within larger corporations or any impact on the rapid stratification of wealth in this country and evaporation of the middle-class.

Dodd proved himself a crony asshole immediately upon exiting 'public service.'  Frank, while being maybe the most entertaining people I've ever seen in a debate, was by no means a 'man of the people.'  His deep seated power roots were laid bare for all to see when he was caught molesting under-age male pages with no particular negative consequences.  Indeed, it seemed to have made him 'cool and trendy' in the eyes of much of our progressive electorate.



Regulating derivatives trading, increasing banks equity capital, increasing fed transparency, creating a consumer protection bureau, less speculation from banks with fed money...  just to mention some of the really good stuff.

wtf did you manage to miss the financial crisis 2008?

Trump wants to sweep all this in one go.
If you though that wall street loves hillary, you gonna see a lot of homo-butt-sex between trump and the wall street boys.



Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: tvbcof on November 18, 2016, 11:35:12 PM
...
Trump wants to sweep all this in one go.
If you though that wall street loves hillary, you gonna see a lot of homo-butt-sex between trump and the wall street boys.

Ya, that's why the banks gave Trump so much money and so little to Hillary I suppose.  Right?

I guess Hillary was a two-bit/speech quarter-million-dollars/speech whore while Trump found the compensation to be unsatisfactory else he'd have been prostituting himself as she was.

As I've said, I would like to see not only the so-called 'regulations' you worship but the whole fucking monetary system swept away since it is the only source of power that props up the current crop of shadow government tyrants.  I hope they push Trump hard enough so he does exactly that.



Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: criptix on November 18, 2016, 11:43:12 PM
...
Trump wants to sweep all this in one go.
If you though that wall street loves hillary, you gonna see a lot of homo-butt-sex between trump and the wall street boys.

Ya, that's why the banks gave Trump so much money and so little to Hillary I suppose.  Right?

I guess Hillary was a two-bit/speech quarter-million-dollars/speech whore while Trump found the compensation to be unsatisfactory else he'd have been prostituting himself as she was.

As I've said, I would like to see not only the so-called 'regulations' you worship but the whole fucking monetary system swept away since it is the only source of power that props up the current crop of shadow government tyrants.  I hope they push Trump hard enough so he does exactly that.



Trump is fiat billionaire. He would be the last person on earth to change the global monetary system.

Your arguments have more holes then a swiss cheese.

Btw. Fact is that trump got ~5 million directly from wall street and has best connections there.
But what a surprise who would have though that about a billionare with connections even to the mafia (not only the wall street but the real one).

Edit

Trumps minister of finance: Steven Mnuchin


LOL



Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: tvbcof on November 18, 2016, 11:52:03 PM
...
Trump wants to sweep all this in one go.
If you though that wall street loves hillary, you gonna see a lot of homo-butt-sex between trump and the wall street boys.

Ya, that's why the banks gave Trump so much money and so little to Hillary I suppose.  Right?

I guess Hillary was a two-bit/speech quarter-million-dollars/speech whore while Trump found the compensation to be unsatisfactory else he'd have been prostituting himself as she was.

As I've said, I would like to see not only the so-called 'regulations' you worship but the whole fucking monetary system swept away since it is the only source of power that props up the current crop of shadow government tyrants.  I hope they push Trump hard enough so he does exactly that.

Trump is fiat billionaire. He would be the last person on earth to change the global monetary system.
Your arguments have more holes then a swiss cheese.

Btw. Fact is that trump got ~5 million directly from wall street and has best connections there.
But what a surprise who would have though that about a billionare with connections even to the mafia (not only the wall street but the real one).

5 million?  Wow, stop the presses!  Didn't the election cost Hillary like half a billion (which, for the numerically challenged, is 500 million) ?  OK, true, she didn't get it all from Wall Street.  Plenty came from the same Saudi and Qatari governments who also fund ISIS.

Trump seems to be in the same category I am.  My holdings are in property (not owning other people's debt and not carrying debt myself.)  So, he's probably mainly neutral in financial statement terms when it comes to our monetary system and money supply being owned by the private federal reserve.



Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: criptix on November 18, 2016, 11:57:53 PM
...
Trump wants to sweep all this in one go.
If you though that wall street loves hillary, you gonna see a lot of homo-butt-sex between trump and the wall street boys.

Ya, that's why the banks gave Trump so much money and so little to Hillary I suppose.  Right?

I guess Hillary was a two-bit/speech quarter-million-dollars/speech whore while Trump found the compensation to be unsatisfactory else he'd have been prostituting himself as she was.

As I've said, I would like to see not only the so-called 'regulations' you worship but the whole fucking monetary system swept away since it is the only source of power that props up the current crop of shadow government tyrants.  I hope they push Trump hard enough so he does exactly that.

Trump is fiat billionaire. He would be the last person on earth to change the global monetary system.
Your arguments have more holes then a swiss cheese.

Btw. Fact is that trump got ~5 million directly from wall street and has best connections there.
But what a surprise who would have though that about a billionare with connections even to the mafia (not only the wall street but the real one).

5 million?  Wow, stop the presses!  Didn't the election cost Hillary like half a billion (which, for the numerically challenged, is 500 million) ?  OK, true, she didn't get it all from Wall Street.  Plenty came from the same Saudi and Qatari governments who also fund ISIS.

Trump seems to be in the same category I am.  My holdings are in property (not owning other people's debt and not carrying debt myself.)  So, he's probably mainly neutral in financial statement terms when it comes to our monetary system and money supply being owned by the private federal reserve.



Hillary could have gotten a trillion. Nobody cares - because this discussion is about trump and the wall street.
I showed more then enough proof which you either decided to ignore or sidestep by changing the topic to hillary, who lost the election and is totaly unimportant to the discussion at hand.

One nice quote about your anti wealthy elite wall street hero:

Quote
A populist candidate who railed against shady financial interests on the trail is putting together an administration that looks like an investment banker's dream.


#rekt


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: tvbcof on November 19, 2016, 12:11:27 AM

Hillary could have gotten a trillion. Nobody cares - because this discussion is about trump and the wall street.
I showed more then enough proof which you either decided to ignore or sidestep by changing the topic to hillary, who lost the election and is totaly unimportant to the discussion at hand.

One nice quote about your anti wealthy elite wall street hero:

Quote
A populist candidate who railed against shady financial interests on the trail is putting together an administration that looks like an investment banker's dream.

#rekt

#rekt by an unattributed nonsense quote?  I guess it's good enough for your type these days.  I've gotten used to it by now.

I'll feel free to talk as much as I like about Hillary until we 'lock her up', or until she croaks.  By the looks of things that day might come fairly soon.



Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: criptix on November 19, 2016, 12:14:52 AM

Hillary could have gotten a trillion. Nobody cares - because this discussion is about trump and the wall street.
I showed more then enough proof which you either decided to ignore or sidestep by changing the topic to hillary, who lost the election and is totaly unimportant to the discussion at hand.

One nice quote about your anti wealthy elite wall street hero:

Quote
A populist candidate who railed against shady financial interests on the trail is putting together an administration that looks like an investment banker's dream.

#rekt

#rekt by an unattributed nonsense quote?  I guess it's good enough for your type these days.  I've gotten used to it by now.

I'll feel free to talk as much as I like about Hillary until we 'lock her up', or until she croaks.  By the looks of things that day might come fairly soon.



I didnt see you refute one single claim of mine.

All you say is pretty much hillary is a bitch.

You dont think that deserves  a #rekt? Be honest  ;D

Edit

Do you mind to explain why that quote is nonsense (and all of my other claims about trump)?

Edit 2

I would bet with you that hillary wont go to jail while trump is president.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: tvbcof on November 19, 2016, 12:21:10 AM

I didnt see you refute one single claim of mine.

All you say is pretty much hillary is a bitch.

You dont think that deserves  a #rekt? Be honest  ;D


I know you didn't.  You and so many others like you are as blind as a bat on such things.  We don't want to throw you in a re-education camp...just figure out what went wrong here and try to fix it so we don't have another lost generation.  We can supply you folks with 'play-doh and coloring books' while you run out the clock.



Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: criptix on November 19, 2016, 12:24:30 AM

I didnt see you refute one single claim of mine.

All you say is pretty much hillary is a bitch.

You dont think that deserves  a #rekt? Be honest  ;D


I know you didn't.  You and so many others like you are as blind as a bat on such things.  We don't want to throw you in a re-education camp...just figure out what went wrong here and try to fix it so we don't have another lost generation.  We can supply you folks with 'play-doh and coloring books' while you run out the clock.



So just in the case that i am the delusional one please quote and bold your refutations.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: tvbcof on November 19, 2016, 12:31:10 AM

I didnt see you refute one single claim of mine.

All you say is pretty much hillary is a bitch.

You dont think that deserves  a #rekt? Be honest  ;D


I know you didn't.  You and so many others like you are as blind as a bat on such things.  We don't want to throw you in a re-education camp...just figure out what went wrong here and try to fix it so we don't have another lost generation.  We can supply you folks with 'play-doh and coloring books' while you run out the clock.

So just in the case that i am the delusional one please quote and bold your refutations.

I don't frequent bitcointalk.org in order to provide remedial reading instruction.  Sorry.



Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: criptix on November 19, 2016, 12:56:32 AM

I didnt see you refute one single claim of mine.

All you say is pretty much hillary is a bitch.

You dont think that deserves  a #rekt? Be honest  ;D


I know you didn't.  You and so many others like you are as blind as a bat on such things.  We don't want to throw you in a re-education camp...just figure out what went wrong here and try to fix it so we don't have another lost generation.  We can supply you folks with 'play-doh and coloring books' while you run out the clock.

So just in the case that i am the delusional one please quote and bold your refutations.

I don't frequent bitcointalk.org in order to provide remedial reading instruction.  Sorry.




Right you just come here to spout delusional nonsense because in rl people just walk past you whenever they see you right?

The standard of discussion reached a new low at this forum.
Congrats to all the "we against the world and their wealthy elite masters".

Go back to your flat earth society and alex jones blogs.
If you arent able to have a proper discussion why do you come to a forum in the first place?


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: tvbcof on November 19, 2016, 01:24:19 AM

So just in the case that i am the delusional one please quote and bold your refutations.

I don't frequent bitcointalk.org in order to provide remedial reading instruction.  Sorry.

Right you just come here to spout delusional nonsense because in rl people just walk past you whenever they see you right?

The standard of discussion reached a new low at this forum.
Congrats to all the "we against the world and their wealthy elite masters".

Go back to your flat earth society and alex jones blogs.
If you arent able to have a proper discussion why do you come to a forum in the first place?


Jones has a blog?  I've not seen it.

I've seen Alex Jones' Infowars news network and indeed have followed it quite a bit since Super Tue.  The reason why is that it was one of the only real news outlets which fairly covered a broad range of items in detail.  This is one of the reasons why I knew that the polls were fake as hell and was not boo-hooing from a state of stunned shock when the hoped-for and necessary Trump landslide made the election un-theftable.

Please do continue to assail Infowars with whole-cloth bullshit like 'flat earth' and 'lizard people'.  These are demonstrable inversions of reality and make your fake-news side sink that much faster.



Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: iamTom123 on November 19, 2016, 09:07:12 AM
Voter turnout has always been an issue and a problem in United States elections. While all the votes have not been counted for this year, it is looking like the voter turnout is actually above that of the 2012 election, at 56% overall. In this election, it was mostly Democrats that decided not to vote (Bernie Sanders supporters) and that tilted the Presidency to Trump's favor. Clinton under-performed Obama's numbers of 2012 by more than 5 million votes.

This was the big problem with Hillary Clinton. Many of Obama's supporters and voters did not supported her all the way...in the end she lost the race to the other side. However, things like these are now for the books as the election is over and we now have a President-elect Trump coming to the White House this January.

Many people in USA can not yet believe what happened and they want to scrap the Electoral College set-up but that is so myopic...changing the system just to suit someone's political interest will not result into something positive for the country and will only produce more problems.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: Sithara007 on November 19, 2016, 01:21:08 PM
Voter turnout has always been an issue and a problem in United States elections. While all the votes have not been counted for this year, it is looking like the voter turnout is actually above that of the 2012 election, at 56% overall. In this election, it was mostly Democrats that decided not to vote (Bernie Sanders supporters) and that tilted the Presidency to Trump's favor. Clinton under-performed Obama's numbers of 2012 by more than 5 million votes.

This was the big problem with Hillary Clinton. Many of Obama's supporters and voters did not supported her all the way...in the end she lost the race to the other side. However, things like these are now for the books as the election is over and we now have a President-elect Trump coming to the White House this January.

Many people in USA can not yet believe what happened and they want to scrap the Electoral College set-up but that is so myopic...changing the system just to suit someone's political interest will not result into something positive for the country and will only produce more problems.

Clinton rigged the democrat primaries to win the nomination. So she doesn't have any moral right to complain now. During the election campaign, she demonized certain voter groups, such as blue collar whites and conservatives. That is the reason why she lost.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: clickerz on November 19, 2016, 03:19:28 PM

Clinton rigged the democrat primaries to win the nomination. So she doesn't have any moral right to complain now. During the election campaign, she demonized certain voter groups, such as blue collar whites and conservatives. That is the reason why she lost.

Also tehre are many issues haunting Sec Hillary Clinton. From the email scandal, Iraq? Foundation donor etc.Though its part of election issues, it still greatly affected her image regarding her policies.

I think bitcoin is the real winner this 2016 election, it rise after Trump's win.  ;D


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: bryant.coleman on November 20, 2016, 04:38:09 AM
I think bitcoin is the real winner this 2016 election, it rise after Trump's win.  ;D

His position regarding Bitcoin is not yet clear. I am not too much worried though, as he is not a favorite of the banking cartel. Still, it is too early to say whether Bitcoin will flourish under his presidency or not. Hitlery's policies were clear. She was very very anti-Bitcoin, perhaps due to her closeness towards the big bankers.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: awesome31312 on November 20, 2016, 11:39:17 AM
I think bitcoin is the real winner this 2016 election, it rise after Trump's win.  ;D

His position regarding Bitcoin is not yet clear. I am not too much worried though, as he is not a favorite of the banking cartel. Still, it is too early to say whether Bitcoin will flourish under his presidency or not. Hitlery's policies were clear. She was very very anti-Bitcoin, perhaps due to her closeness towards the big bankers.

No presidential candidate has ever mentioned Bitcoin, except for Ron Paul, who has claimed that it could destroy the US Dollar.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: grermezter on January 02, 2017, 08:56:29 PM
Many People are disillusioned with the current administration that's why they choose not to vote. Obama promised change and delivered nothing.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: tvbcof on January 02, 2017, 10:17:45 PM

Many People are disillusioned with the current administration that's why they choose not to vote. Obama promised change and delivered nothing.

Obama delivered plenty.  He just delivered it to entities who I consider my and America's enemies.  He's 'changed' us to a much more divided, dysfunctional, and damaged nation and I am pretty confident at this point that that was exactly the plan.

Clinton --> GW Bush --> Obama was a viscous combination.  If there is one thing that speaks to the the strength and durability of the United States it is how well we've tolerated the the punishment.  I think that we still have a good chance to 'drain the swamp' and recover.  To a degree it will be a function of how well we identify and cooperate with other decent nations around the world who have not yet fallen.  Looks to me as though the likes of Sweden and Germany are simply to far gone and not worth trying to deal with.



Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: Xester on January 03, 2017, 01:30:51 AM
Trump did not cheated his way into winning the Presidency and it is the voting system and election process that enabled Trump to win. He did not told the people not to vote but many did not voted and it still favored him. Possibly Trump is destined to hold the seat of the Presidency in United States of America. Let us just congratulate him and support his office for the good of America.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: Sithara007 on January 03, 2017, 04:59:32 AM
Trump did not cheated his way into winning the Presidency and it is the voting system and election process that enabled Trump to win. He did not told the people not to vote but many did not voted and it still favored him. Possibly Trump is destined to hold the seat of the Presidency in United States of America. Let us just congratulate him and support his office for the good of America.

Trump won the elections, despite the massive propaganda against him. The Arabs and the oligarchs were in full force behind Hillary, and they spent more than $1 billion on her campaign. Trump won fair and square. Those who are complaining can go to hell.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: Daniel91 on January 05, 2017, 05:07:14 PM
Trump did not cheated his way into winning the Presidency and it is the voting system and election process that enabled Trump to win. He did not told the people not to vote but many did not voted and it still favored him. Possibly Trump is destined to hold the seat of the Presidency in United States of America. Let us just congratulate him and support his office for the good of America.

Trump won the elections, despite the massive propaganda against him. The Arabs and the oligarchs were in full force behind Hillary, and they spent more than $1 billion on her campaign. Trump won fair and square. Those who are complaining can go to hell.

Maybe Arabs supported Hillary but Russians supported Trump, not with money but hacking elections :)
Real winner of this election is not clear?
It can be Putin If Trump decides to isolate America and commit only domestic policy.
Trump proved that he can be good businessman but now have to prove to all world that he can be good US president.




Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: Sithara007 on January 05, 2017, 05:15:40 PM
Maybe Arabs supported Hillary but Russians supported Trump, not with money but hacking elections :)

Stop with this insane hacking allegations. It is getting quite irritating.

It can be Putin If Trump decides to isolate America and commit only domestic policy.
Trump proved that he can be good businessman but now have to prove to all world that he can be good US president.

Trump has made his point very clear. The previous presidents spent too much resources, trying to build good relations with everyone else, while ignoring the American tax payer. The US can no longer subsidize the militaries of Japan and the European Union.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: daiyuba1971 on January 05, 2017, 06:10:56 PM
Maybe Arabs supported Hillary but Russians supported Trump, not with money but hacking elections :)

Stop with this insane hacking allegations. It is getting quite irritating.

It can be Putin If Trump decides to isolate America and commit only domestic policy.
Trump proved that he can be good businessman but now have to prove to all world that he can be good US president.

Trump has made his point very clear. The previous presidents spent too much resources, trying to build good relations with everyone else, while ignoring the American tax payer. The US can no longer subsidize the militaries of Japan and the European Union.
Have you thought about the fact that the Americans are strong not only by its army, but due to the armies of its allies. What the Americans will do if we lose all our allies? Trump does not understand that politics is not the business!


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: Sithara007 on January 06, 2017, 09:54:16 AM
Have you thought about the fact that the Americans are strong not only by its army, but due to the armies of its allies.

Which ally are you referring to? The European armies have become a laughing stock around the world. The Saudi Army has very expensive equipment, but the soldiers don't know how to use them. Only Japan is having a strong army, among the allies of the United States.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: youdamushi on January 06, 2017, 11:05:12 AM
The moment you realise that actually over 100 million people didnt vote  :-\

The moment you realize your flawed "democracy" is a system in which even if more than half of your population refuse the candidates it doesn't matter and there won't be another election with better candidates. When you realize that this shit isn't any near to a real democracy because people have 0 real power only to chose their next butcher. That they have no call when it comes to the three major powers which are legislation, executive and justice and that all those powers are in the hands of few priviledged people.

And the worst part is when you understand that you can't know of which country I'm talking about because this applies to USA but also to UK France Germany Spain Canada Sweden... And every major "civilized" country of the West which are supposed to be democracies...


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: TicTacTic on January 06, 2017, 01:10:35 PM
Have you thought about the fact that the Americans are strong not only by its army, but due to the armies of its allies.

Which ally are you referring to? The European armies have become a laughing stock around the world. The Saudi Army has very expensive equipment, but the soldiers don't know how to use them. Only Japan is having a strong army, among the allies of the United States.
Start with the fact that Trump has not yet become President, and has already managed to quarrel with Japan. Also Europe is big. The army have not the strongest but plentiful. Why lose their support? Need to practice more.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: Sithara007 on January 07, 2017, 06:53:19 AM
Have you thought about the fact that the Americans are strong not only by its army, but due to the armies of its allies.

Which ally are you referring to? The European armies have become a laughing stock around the world. The Saudi Army has very expensive equipment, but the soldiers don't know how to use them. Only Japan is having a strong army, among the allies of the United States.
Start with the fact that Trump has not yet become President, and has already managed to quarrel with Japan. Also Europe is big. The army have not the strongest but plentiful. Why lose their support? Need to practice more.

Japan and Trump will get along quite well. The recent spat over Toyota will be forgotten in a few days. Japan is a country which is quite capable of defending itself from China. They don't need funds or military help from the United States.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: criptix on January 07, 2017, 06:55:15 AM
Have you thought about the fact that the Americans are strong not only by its army, but due to the armies of its allies.

Which ally are you referring to? The European armies have become a laughing stock around the world. The Saudi Army has very expensive equipment, but the soldiers don't know how to use them. Only Japan is having a strong army, among the allies of the United States.

As long as it is enough to hold russia down all is good. No need to waste money :)


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: RealityTruth on January 07, 2017, 07:28:00 AM
Have you thought about the fact that the Americans are strong not only by its army, but due to the armies of its allies.

Which ally are you referring to? The European armies have become a laughing stock around the world. The Saudi Army has very expensive equipment, but the soldiers don't know how to use them. Only Japan is having a strong army, among the allies of the United States.

As long as it is enough to hold russia down all is good. No need to waste money :)

In Europe, Russia could easily take Baltic states, Norway and Sweden. Finland would be surrounded and would eventually surrender. NATO or US forces could not prevent this. But why would they do it now when Soros & Co invasion plan is put on hold because of Trump


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: criptix on January 07, 2017, 07:39:46 AM
Have you thought about the fact that the Americans are strong not only by its army, but due to the armies of its allies.

Which ally are you referring to? The European armies have become a laughing stock around the world. The Saudi Army has very expensive equipment, but the soldiers don't know how to use them. Only Japan is having a strong army, among the allies of the United States.

As long as it is enough to hold russia down all is good. No need to waste money :)

In Europe, Russia could easily take Baltic states, Norway and Sweden. Finland would be surrounded and would eventually surrender. NATO or US forces could not prevent this. But why would they do it now when Soros & Co invasion plan is put on hold because of Trump

Russia took crimea and syria. Why dont they take more?

Easy answer: Angst.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: Sithara007 on January 07, 2017, 08:31:59 AM
Have you thought about the fact that the Americans are strong not only by its army, but due to the armies of its allies.

Which ally are you referring to? The European armies have become a laughing stock around the world. The Saudi Army has very expensive equipment, but the soldiers don't know how to use them. Only Japan is having a strong army, among the allies of the United States.

As long as it is enough to hold russia down all is good. No need to waste money :)

In Europe, Russia could easily take Baltic states, Norway and Sweden. Finland would be surrounded and would eventually surrender. NATO or US forces could not prevent this. But why would they do it now when Soros & Co invasion plan is put on hold because of Trump

If the Russians wanted to invade the Baltic states, then they would have done it decades back. The truth is that Putin does not consider these countries as part of historical Russian homeland, and therefore he has no interest in merging the Baltics with Russia.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: Alfa123 on January 07, 2017, 10:55:55 AM
Have you thought about the fact that the Americans are strong not only by its army, but due to the armies of its allies.

Which ally are you referring to? The European armies have become a laughing stock around the world. The Saudi Army has very expensive equipment, but the soldiers don't know how to use them. Only Japan is having a strong army, among the allies of the United States.

As long as it is enough to hold russia down all is good. No need to waste money :)

In Europe, Russia could easily take Baltic states, Norway and Sweden. Finland would be surrounded and would eventually surrender. NATO or US forces could not prevent this. But why would they do it now when Soros & Co invasion plan is put on hold because of Trump

If the Russians wanted to invade the Baltic states, then they would have done it decades back. The truth is that Putin does not consider these countries as part of historical Russian homeland, and therefore he has no interest in merging the Baltics with Russia.
To occupy the Baltic States Putin has no power. Russia is a colossus with feet of clay. Western sanctions against Russia are working and if they do not weaken very soon Russia will not have the strength to keep your boundaries.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: ridery99 on January 07, 2017, 11:13:31 AM
Have you thought about the fact that the Americans are strong not only by its army, but due to the armies of its allies.

Which ally are you referring to? The European armies have become a laughing stock around the world. The Saudi Army has very expensive equipment, but the soldiers don't know how to use them. Only Japan is having a strong army, among the allies of the United States.

As long as it is enough to hold russia down all is good. No need to waste money :)

In Europe, Russia could easily take Baltic states, Norway and Sweden. Finland would be surrounded and would eventually surrender. NATO or US forces could not prevent this. But why would they do it now when Soros & Co invasion plan is put on hold because of Trump

If the Russians wanted to invade the Baltic states, then they would have done it decades back. The truth is that Putin does not consider these countries as part of historical Russian homeland, and therefore he has no interest in merging the Baltics with Russia.
To occupy the Baltic States Putin has no power. Russia is a colossus with feet of clay. Western sanctions against Russia are working and if they do not weaken very soon Russia will not have the strength to keep your boundaries.

So the West is trying to weaken Russia before the invasion? That means that Russia have to strike first.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: Prohodimec on January 07, 2017, 11:34:18 AM
Have you thought about the fact that the Americans are strong not only by its army, but due to the armies of its allies.

Which ally are you referring to? The European armies have become a laughing stock around the world. The Saudi Army has very expensive equipment, but the soldiers don't know how to use them. Only Japan is having a strong army, among the allies of the United States.

As long as it is enough to hold russia down all is good. No need to waste money :)

In Europe, Russia could easily take Baltic states, Norway and Sweden. Finland would be surrounded and would eventually surrender. NATO or US forces could not prevent this. But why would they do it now when Soros & Co invasion plan is put on hold because of Trump

If the Russians wanted to invade the Baltic states, then they would have done it decades back. The truth is that Putin does not consider these countries as part of historical Russian homeland, and therefore he has no interest in merging the Baltics with Russia.
To occupy the Baltic States Putin has no power. Russia is a colossus with feet of clay. Western sanctions against Russia are working and if they do not weaken very soon Russia will not have the strength to keep your boundaries.

So the West is trying to weaken Russia before the invasion? That means that Russia have to strike first.
Aggression comes from Russia. The West is trying to weaken it to tame Russian Imperial ambitions. If the West to keep the sanctions for another few years then do not have to fight. I was enraged politicians who believe their losses from the sanctions! How much it costs to prevent a war?


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: criptix on January 07, 2017, 12:15:14 PM
Have you thought about the fact that the Americans are strong not only by its army, but due to the armies of its allies.

Which ally are you referring to? The European armies have become a laughing stock around the world. The Saudi Army has very expensive equipment, but the soldiers don't know how to use them. Only Japan is having a strong army, among the allies of the United States.

As long as it is enough to hold russia down all is good. No need to waste money :)

In Europe, Russia could easily take Baltic states, Norway and Sweden. Finland would be surrounded and would eventually surrender. NATO or US forces could not prevent this. But why would they do it now when Soros & Co invasion plan is put on hold because of Trump

If the Russians wanted to invade the Baltic states, then they would have done it decades back. The truth is that Putin does not consider these countries as part of historical Russian homeland, and therefore he has no interest in merging the Baltics with Russia.
To occupy the Baltic States Putin has no power. Russia is a colossus with feet of clay. Western sanctions against Russia are working and if they do not weaken very soon Russia will not have the strength to keep your boundaries.

So the West is trying to weaken Russia before the invasion? That means that Russia have to strike first.

We do not try. Russia is near bankruptcy already :)

First and last strike of russia is already done look crimea and syria.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: ridery99 on January 07, 2017, 05:14:20 PM
Have you thought about the fact that the Americans are strong not only by its army, but due to the armies of its allies.

Which ally are you referring to? The European armies have become a laughing stock around the world. The Saudi Army has very expensive equipment, but the soldiers don't know how to use them. Only Japan is having a strong army, among the allies of the United States.

As long as it is enough to hold russia down all is good. No need to waste money :)

In Europe, Russia could easily take Baltic states, Norway and Sweden. Finland would be surrounded and would eventually surrender. NATO or US forces could not prevent this. But why would they do it now when Soros & Co invasion plan is put on hold because of Trump

If the Russians wanted to invade the Baltic states, then they would have done it decades back. The truth is that Putin does not consider these countries as part of historical Russian homeland, and therefore he has no interest in merging the Baltics with Russia.
To occupy the Baltic States Putin has no power. Russia is a colossus with feet of clay. Western sanctions against Russia are working and if they do not weaken very soon Russia will not have the strength to keep your boundaries.

So the West is trying to weaken Russia before the invasion? That means that Russia have to strike first.

We do not try. Russia is near bankruptcy already :)

First and last strike of russia is already done look crimea and syria.

They did pretty well there, meanwhile we are running out of ammunation (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/were-bombing-isis-so-much-were-running-low-on-bombs-1790913223)


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: criptix on January 07, 2017, 05:18:46 PM
Have you thought about the fact that the Americans are strong not only by its army, but due to the armies of its allies.

Which ally are you referring to? The European armies have become a laughing stock around the world. The Saudi Army has very expensive equipment, but the soldiers don't know how to use them. Only Japan is having a strong army, among the allies of the United States.

As long as it is enough to hold russia down all is good. No need to waste money :)

In Europe, Russia could easily take Baltic states, Norway and Sweden. Finland would be surrounded and would eventually surrender. NATO or US forces could not prevent this. But why would they do it now when Soros & Co invasion plan is put on hold because of Trump

If the Russians wanted to invade the Baltic states, then they would have done it decades back. The truth is that Putin does not consider these countries as part of historical Russian homeland, and therefore he has no interest in merging the Baltics with Russia.
To occupy the Baltic States Putin has no power. Russia is a colossus with feet of clay. Western sanctions against Russia are working and if they do not weaken very soon Russia will not have the strength to keep your boundaries.

So the West is trying to weaken Russia before the invasion? That means that Russia have to strike first.

We do not try. Russia is near bankruptcy already :)

First and last strike of russia is already done look crimea and syria.

They did pretty well there, meanwhile we are running out of ammunation (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/were-bombing-isis-so-much-were-running-low-on-bombs-1790913223)

You can post as much propaganda as you want.
Meanwhile the russian ministry of finance says the russian emergency funds and overall economy is near collapse.
Additionaly crazy inflation and halving of wages for the normal russian citizien in just two years. Thank lord putin.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: Karloff on January 07, 2017, 10:17:25 PM
Have you thought about the fact that the Americans are strong not only by its army, but due to the armies of its allies.

Which ally are you referring to? The European armies have become a laughing stock around the world. The Saudi Army has very expensive equipment, but the soldiers don't know how to use them. Only Japan is having a strong army, among the allies of the United States.

As long as it is enough to hold russia down all is good. No need to waste money :)

In Europe, Russia could easily take Baltic states, Norway and Sweden. Finland would be surrounded and would eventually surrender. NATO or US forces could not prevent this. But why would they do it now when Soros & Co invasion plan is put on hold because of Trump

If the Russians wanted to invade the Baltic states, then they would have done it decades back. The truth is that Putin does not consider these countries as part of historical Russian homeland, and therefore he has no interest in merging the Baltics with Russia.
To occupy the Baltic States Putin has no power. Russia is a colossus with feet of clay. Western sanctions against Russia are working and if they do not weaken very soon Russia will not have the strength to keep your boundaries.

So the West is trying to weaken Russia before the invasion? That means that Russia have to strike first.

We do not try. Russia is near bankruptcy already :)

First and last strike of russia is already done look crimea and syria.

They did pretty well there, meanwhile we are running out of ammunation (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/were-bombing-isis-so-much-were-running-low-on-bombs-1790913223)

You can post as much propaganda as you want.
Meanwhile the russian ministry of finance says the russian emergency funds and overall economy is near collapse.
Additionaly crazy inflation and halving of wages for the normal russian citizien in just two years. Thank lord putin.
It is impossible to relax. The fact that Russia is devastated does not mean that she defeated. Russians have always lived in poverty and feel quite comfortable in this state. So I guess I'll have to make a little effort to defeat Russia


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: Klima on January 07, 2017, 10:26:40 PM
Maybe Arabs supported Hillary but Russians supported Trump, not with money but hacking elections :)

Stop with this insane hacking allegations. It is getting quite irritating.

It can be Putin If Trump decides to isolate America and commit only domestic policy.
Trump proved that he can be good businessman but now have to prove to all world that he can be good US president.

Trump has made his point very clear. The previous presidents spent too much resources, trying to build good relations with everyone else, while ignoring the American tax payer. The US can no longer subsidize the militaries of Japan and the European Union.
Modern conditions do not allow to isolate their country from the rest of the world. Who said that the Americans are funding an army of Europe and Japan? Another thing is that Americans have to help their allies, while pursuing America's interests.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: AdolfinWolf on January 07, 2017, 11:00:52 PM
Have you thought about the fact that the Americans are strong not only by its army, but due to the armies of its allies.

Which ally are you referring to? The European armies have become a laughing stock around the world. The Saudi Army has very expensive equipment, but the soldiers don't know how to use them. Only Japan is having a strong army, among the allies of the United States.

As long as it is enough to hold russia down all is good. No need to waste money :)

In Europe, Russia could easily take Baltic states, Norway and Sweden. Finland would be surrounded and would eventually surrender. NATO or US forces could not prevent this. But why would they do it now when Soros & Co invasion plan is put on hold because of Trump

If the Russians wanted to invade the Baltic states, then they would have done it decades back. The truth is that Putin does not consider these countries as part of historical Russian homeland, and therefore he has no interest in merging the Baltics with Russia.
To occupy the Baltic States Putin has no power. Russia is a colossus with feet of clay. Western sanctions against Russia are working and if they do not weaken very soon Russia will not have the strength to keep your boundaries.

So the West is trying to weaken Russia before the invasion? That means that Russia have to strike first.

We do not try. Russia is near bankruptcy already :)

First and last strike of russia is already done look crimea and syria.

They did pretty well there, meanwhile we are running out of ammunation (http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/were-bombing-isis-so-much-were-running-low-on-bombs-1790913223)

You can post as much propaganda as you want.
Meanwhile the russian ministry of finance says the russian emergency funds and overall economy is near collapse.
Additionaly crazy inflation and halving of wages for the normal russian citizien in just two years. Thank lord putin.
Russians are made out of communism, i really don't think they care as much about capitalism as europe.. So even if their economy completely collapses, the government will just rescue their currency, and/or go back to communism, getting really high debts.but come on, it is russia, do you really think they are going to pay it back? There is already a large part living in poorness, it can't really get much worse for them..


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: popcorn1 on January 07, 2017, 11:24:48 PM
Trump is the real winner ;D..C.I.A show the evidence to trey gowdy..
Until you do we all know your lying  ;)..
Hillary lost because of her past dealings and she cheated Bernie Sanders  :D JUSTICE ;D..

The C.I.A Gangsters want control of the american public's taxes..
The same goes for the F.B.I gangsters so they lie to each other and make shit up ;)..

IT'S CALLED TOTAL CAPITALISM  :)..

I hope mr trump is doing an AUDIT on the American money coming in and the money going out and to who and what for and why for???..I hope your doing this mr trump..
Remember they done enough AUDITS on you ;)..

You need to see who is taking what and why ;D..

And to Mr trump i want my favour please legalise weed in all states please..
Save on prison cost..save on police cost..and weed as never killed anybody in an overdose..
Alcohol should be banned more than weed because alcohol kills many ever year weed does not..
Only when it becomes illegal it then kills ;)..
Plus look what happened when alcohol become illegal the gang wars and so on..

So what ever you do let people smoke weed..
I would rather walk past a gang stoned of weed than walk past a gang stoned of alcohol ;D..

Trump filled stadiums hillary filled nothing only if she brought free music concerts and she still lost :D :D

i just lost money on a NHL bet and i am pissed..Must of been RUSSIA  ::)..
And i think putin knew all about it..He had too..



Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: Sithara007 on January 08, 2017, 01:13:19 PM
Modern conditions do not allow to isolate their country from the rest of the world. Who said that the Americans are funding an army of Europe and Japan? Another thing is that Americans have to help their allies, while pursuing America's interests.

The United States is maintaining large military bases in Europe and Japan, and the funds for maintaining them comes from the American treasury. This needs to change. The EU/Japan also needs to share the expenses.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: GreenBits on January 08, 2017, 01:37:07 PM
First of all, congratulations on Donald Trump being appointed to serve the 18th term of the Federal Reserve!

Who won the election?

231,556,622 eligible voters

>>46.9% didn't vote
25.6% voted for Clinton
25.5% voted for Trump
1.7% voted for Johnson

Voluntaryism won the election.
Ha! You have any sources of that information or just your opinion.But Donald Trump wins even in recounts he win.I didn't know some people dont accept the fact that they beloved candidate lose.The peoples choice it and the majority will win


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: v1ryspro on January 08, 2017, 07:18:19 PM
Modern conditions do not allow to isolate their country from the rest of the world. Who said that the Americans are funding an army of Europe and Japan? Another thing is that Americans have to help their allies, while pursuing America's interests.

The United States is maintaining large military bases in Europe and Japan, and the funds for maintaining them comes from the American treasury. This needs to change. The EU/Japan also needs to share the expenses.
Do not forget that American military bases. The country that offers land for construction of military bases should not have to bear the financial burden of maintaining them. These bases guard the interests of America.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: Sithara007 on January 09, 2017, 06:11:19 AM
These bases guard the interests of America.

No. That is not the first priority. For example, the main reason why the American bases exist in South Korea and Japan is to deter China and the DPRK from attacking these nations. Without the American military bases in South Korea, that country would have been over-run by the North Korean army many decades back.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: ekaterina77 on January 09, 2017, 10:59:33 AM
These bases guard the interests of America.

No. That is not the first priority. For example, the main reason why the American bases exist in South Korea and Japan is to deter China and the DPRK from attacking these nations. Without the American military bases in South Korea, that country would have been over-run by the North Korean army many decades back.
Wrong! Of course these bases serve to protect these countries from China, but it is primarily a weakening of China and the increase in the number of supporters in the fight against him. Isn't it in the interests of the United States?


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: joebrook on January 09, 2017, 11:22:06 AM
Bernie Sanders won the election, his message was clear and it brought lots of people on board that is Conservatives and Liberals alike am certain it was his supporters who decided the fate of the election either by voting against the Dems because of their sabotage or not voting at all.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: ovvidiy on January 09, 2017, 11:42:04 AM
Bernie Sanders won the election, his message was clear and it brought lots of people on board that is Conservatives and Liberals alike am certain it was his supporters who decided the fate of the election either by voting against the Dems because of their sabotage or not voting at all.
What to speak. Now I have to live with Trump at least 4 years. The only chance to save the situation is in any attempt by Trump to expand the course of American politics to correct it using the mass actions.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: Sithara007 on January 10, 2017, 09:20:34 AM
Bernie Sanders won the election, his message was clear and it brought lots of people on board that is Conservatives and Liberals alike am certain it was his supporters who decided the fate of the election either by voting against the Dems because of their sabotage or not voting at all.

Benrie Sanders might have won the Democrat nomination, had the establishment guys didn't rigged the primaries. You have only yourself to blame. Don't expect everyone to toe to your line, when politicians such as Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar reject the primary results and arrogantly decide to support Hillary.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: 21kevin21 on January 10, 2017, 08:24:54 PM
Bernie Sanders won the election, his message was clear and it brought lots of people on board that is Conservatives and Liberals alike am certain it was his supporters who decided the fate of the election either by voting against the Dems because of their sabotage or not voting at all.

Benrie Sanders might have won the Democrat nomination, had the establishment guys didn't rigged the primaries. You have only yourself to blame. Don't expect everyone to toe to your line, when politicians such as Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar reject the primary results and arrogantly decide to support Hillary.
What now to say. Now you need to follow each step Trump. Maybe he watched the movies and decided that the President still allowed. The slightest error needs to demand his resignation.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: AleSergio on January 11, 2017, 04:55:07 PM
USA has a huge debt and needs to focus on their economy, from those 3 - Trump is one who can carry this thing out, but we will see.


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: xenia4774 on January 12, 2017, 12:50:32 AM
Looking like the American people won an election for once lol


Title: Re: The real winner of the 2016 election
Post by: Sithara007 on January 12, 2017, 08:07:35 AM
USA has a huge debt and needs to focus on their economy, from those 3 - Trump is one who can carry this thing out, but we will see.

Trump is having a solution to reduce the federal debt. On the other hand, the policies of Hillary Clinton would have increased it by many fold. First of all, the US needs to refrain from invading third world nations. The invasion of Iraq alone cost them some $2 trillion.