US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1396

On April 27 2019 18:00 Zambrah wrote:
There is a bizarre dissonance from how you treat crime, totally excusing it as, “came with the territory of his business.” Is that not the same shitty excuse that the (corrupt) actions of politicians are justified with?

It seems like you only have an issue with crime when it’s the Democrats benefitting, and not when a Republican, aka the President, is involved.

Surely criminal behavior in private business is as criminal as criminal behavior in politics? If a person embezzles a million dollars from a private business it’s fine, because embezzlement is known to happen at private companies?

On April 28 2019 00:49 Doodsmack wrote:


This is very generous to Trump. He went above and beyond playing the game. This is why his mentor was Roy Cohn, mob lawyer and McCarthy lawyer. And it's why he went straight to Roger Stone to be his consultant like 30 years ago. His condos in NY and FL are full of laundered money and criminals of various stripes. He's surrounded by criminals and tax cheats, and he benefits off of all of it. He didn't need to use undocumented Polish workers employed by a mob company using cheap concrete to build Trump Tower. He embraced it and became a part of it. Also wonder how he got that tax abatement on his midtown building?

On April 28 2019 04:55 BerserkSword wrote:


There's no dissonance. The involvement of Trump vs Hillary are fundamentally different though. The clintons are literally at the top, at the source. It has nothing to do with political parties either. A few posts ago I literally said that Bushs and Clintons are two sides of the same coin. We all know that NYC is the citadel of the democratic party though and I was talking about NYC

I am not a Republican, I didn't vote for trump and I dont even like him for the most part due to his economic policies (big governmen spending, softcore version of Obama's and Bush's fed - economy is the most important thing to me). But he is leagues better than Clinton (or Jeb, if it makes you happy for me to say that)



Any bigshot of era has a similar story.

I am aware that his properties have been full of laundering operations. The outfit comes to you and makes you an "offer"

and actually, for projects the caliber of trump's, you do have to use their workers and their concrete.

He definitely embraced it and benefited from it, but people like clinton and schumer literally create the game

On April 28 2019 05:00 GreenHorizons wrote:


Trump's father was doing it long before Clinton and Schumer had any power no?

On April 28 2019 05:01 JimmiC wrote:



I'm not sure on the rest but it is interesting to read and think about. And I've said many times if their dirty get em out, I'm not like you and am OK with my guy being dirty as long as theirs is too.


But clearly Trump was in this game long before Clinton or Schumer. I mean Trump had been operating for decades before Clinton moved South or had any concept of NY let alone creating a system of Mob funded projects. If anything you think Trump would be educating them. Perhaps Trump actually run the Deep state and this is his greatest con! Had you considered that?

On April 28 2019 05:06 micronesia wrote:
I've heard from a family that owns (or perhaps used to own) a chinese restaurant in Chinatown, NYC, that on Chinese new year's when the dragon comes around collecting donations from the local business owners, it looks like a wholesome affair, but it's actually the local mob collecting their cut. I would believe there's some similar presence in other parts of NYC culture, but not to the extent as its being described here. Probably, there is a kernel of truth, but it's being exaggerated... especially with how closely tied to the local politicians this all is claimed to be.

On April 28 2019 05:09 BerserkSword wrote:


the fact that Trump was allowed to win and is alive (and the fact that he isnt really doing anything that different in terms of economy) is suspicious to me. he's still letting the fed fuck the country over, so it's possible they "got to him"

fact of the matter is that we'll probably never know and there's nothing we can really do. I already gave up on the system long ago. it's corrupt beyond repair. the keynsians, war hawks, and globalists won.

On April 28 2019 05:06 micronesia wrote:
I've heard from a family that owns (or perhaps used to own) a chinese restaurant in Chinatown, NYC, that on Chinese new year's when the dragon comes around collecting donations from the local business owners, it looks like a wholesome affair, but it's actually the local mob collecting their cut. I would believe there's some similar presence in other parts of NYC culture, but not to the extent as its being described here. Probably, there is a kernel of truth, but it's being exaggerated... especially with how closely tied to the local politicians this all is claimed to be.

On April 28 2019 05:21 KwarK wrote:

If I'm understanding correctly, you think there is a conspiracy that would lead "the Fed" to kill Trump to stop him from stopping them.

When Trump survived this caused you to call your conspiracy theory into question because if "the Fed" were all powerful and in opposition to Trump then he would be dead. He was not dead which caused conflict with your original theory about a secret all powerful entity called "the Fed".

Then you realized that there was actually a second conspiracy in which Trump had secretly been compromised by "the Fed" and therefore the fact that nothing had happened to Trump didn't disprove your first conspiracy theory but actually showed how powerful they were by forcing him to partake in the second conspiracy to secretly support the first conspiracy by making it look like there was no conspiracy at all.

On April 28 2019 05:48 BerserkSword wrote:


You're not understanding correctly. I'm just bringing up possibilities, rather than claiming to know the exact MO of the dep state. but i didn't write that well. I shouldn't have put that part in parentheses

I do think that if trump went after the fed's monetary empire something would be done to make sure he's not in office.

The fact that he is allowing a soft version of what Obama did makes me think he was compromised or he just reneged on his promises because it would make the stock market look bad/economy. That is the bottom line to me though - that he is keeping the ponzi scheme alive and well

On April 28 2019 05:50 KwarK wrote:

It's not really relevant but could you explain the Ponzi scheme reference for us?

On April 28 2019 06:38 BerserkSword wrote:


The methods the government (thanks to the federal reserve) use to dump depreciating fiat currency on the majority of americans.

The major culprit is the fed's easy money stance also known as quantitative easing. Which leads to inflation and ultimately a tax burdern that increases the lower on the economic totem pole you are in the U.S. (I call it a tax because wealth is transferred from the citizen to the government)

When the government sells a bond for say, 100 billion dollars, a bank like JP Morgan Chase can come in and buy the bond, representing the bank lending the government 100 bil. and now the government owe's the bank principle plus interest. Government then transfers the 100 billion dollars to bureaucrats, contractors, etc.

Then the federal reserves looks to buy government debt, and of course it finds the 100 billion dollar bond that JP morgan chase has. It buys the bond by printing the dollar value of the bond (100 billion + interest) and giving it to jp morgan, which is now in profit.

End result is that JP morgan profited, the government owes nothing to jp morgan, and technically the government owes money to the fed, but the fed gives that money back because it is a "government corporation"

The government loses nothing, the big bank actually gained money. Everyone in this deal came out richer. The people who lose out are the outsiders who do not see any of that newly printed money since their value of the money they traded for labor/capital has just went down.

That entails the first part of QE. Aside from straight up printing money, they also lower short term federal funds rates, which in turn increases money supply

the problem with driving the federal funds rate to near zero like has been going on for over a decade is that leads to a market distortion that has adverse consequences the poorer someone is. there is no value of saving/holding fiat money (since the interest rates on it are near zero) compared to investing it in something like the stock market or property. so while the economy in america sucked for most of the 2000s so far, anyone who had their money in stocks or property (ie anyone who could afford it) made off like bandits while middle class and lower class just got worse and worse off. the guy living pay check to pay check is seeing his hard earned peanuts become worth less and less (because all he is doing is living off of fiat)

basically, the federal reserve is dumping continually depreciating fiat money on people under the disguise of macroeconomic management. this is why the wealth gap just keeps increasing without a corresponding increase in capital (aka bad economy), even under the leftist hero obama

On April 28 2019 06:45 KwarK wrote:

Now could you define a Ponzi scheme for us?

On April 28 2019 07:00 KwarK wrote:

I think you're missing the point. I know what a Ponzi scheme is, it's a scheme where you steal from each subsequent round of "investors" to return the investment to the previous round.

What I don't understand is why you're describing monetary policy as a Ponzi scheme.

Let's put it in relatively simple terms.

The way a Ponzi scheme works is that Mr Ponzi offers Adam the opportunity to double his money with a high yield investment if Adam gives Ponzi the money. Adam gives Ponzi the money. Ponzi gives Adam regular account statements showing an increasing balance and Adam is so happy he tells Bob and Charlie about it too and they buy in. When Adam asks for his money back Ponzi can't give him the real investment returns because the investment never existed and so Ponzi steals money from Bob and Charlie's investments to give to Adam. Then when they want their returns he takes money from the next wave of investors (David, Ed, Fred, and George), and so forth. It continues much like a pyramid scheme until the number of new investors joining is insufficient to pay those leaving at which point Ponzi simply takes all the money and flees to a non extradition haven.

Could you explain why monetary policy is a Ponzi scheme in terms of which entity plays the part of Ponzi, Adam, Bob, and Charlie, what exactly the high yield investment they're offered is, what mechanism is used to transfer the money from Bob and Charlie to Adam and Ponzi, and what Ponzi's exit strategy is, ideally including the safe haven?

On April 28 2019 07:42 Wombat_NI wrote:
That all sounds unnecessarily complicated