things make sense Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 Check out @realDonaldTrump's Tweet: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/701868541545295872?s=09Also http://www.infowars.com/trump-it-is-important-to-audit-the-federal-reserve/I wonder what Ron/Rand Paul supporters think of this. 1
shirgall Posted February 22, 2016 Posted February 22, 2016 I wonder what Ron/Rand Paul supporters think of this. Let the light of a thousand suns shine on the Eccles athwart the swamp of the Potomac. But I'm merely a delegate.
Hecatonchire Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 He's talked about the Fed before. In 2012 he said the same thing Molyneux has said about the Fed and debt, that we're spending our childrens' futures. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/232839851945390080 In this video he mentions how the interest rates are giving him free money but lightly alludes that it's not good for the economy And here are some other tweets of his: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/357928308618428416 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/384736592776032256 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/185436481958068224
dsayers Posted February 23, 2016 Posted February 23, 2016 I think I missed the point. If politician X says they're going to do Y, what measures are in place to hold them to that? Would auditing the Fed do anything to address the involuntary nature of its existence? 1 1
regevdl Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 He's talked about the Fed before. In 2012 he said the same thing Molyneux has said about the Fed and debt, that we're spending our childrens' futures. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/232839851945390080 In this video he mentions how the interest rates are giving him free money but lightly alludes that it's not good for the economy And here are some other tweets of his: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/357928308618428416 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/384736592776032256 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/185436481958068224 He has made a lot of statements that lightly allude to important issues. He made comments about the Military Industrialized Complex without specifically calling it out. It's sort of speaking in 'code'. I think his strong build a wall stance is really an 'anti human smuggling' tactic. His 'bomb the hell out of them' referring to ISIS and the pig's blood is simply (not saying he WON'T take military action) but sort of send a chill and sound more threatening than we have been. IN Any case he also made a statement during a debate that 'we pay our friends in the M.E....those who we think are our friend." And left it at that. That could be Israeli or Saudi Arabia or both. It's amazing how he says it in the middle of a thought and it catches your ear and people can interpret it many different ways but it gets them THINKING. He is a really interesting candidate. I
Hecatonchire Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 I think I missed the point. If politician X says they're going to do Y, what measures are in place to hold them to that? Would auditing the Fed do anything to address the involuntary nature of its existence? It might be the first step in eliminating it, and freeing the currency. There are no measures to hold politicians accountable, but given that Trump is spending his own money, and risking bullets every day, there's a higher-than-average chance that he believes what he's saying, as opposed to the other politicians.
dsayers Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 Ross Perot had money. Believing in what we say doesn't mean we're saying anything useful or important.
Hecatonchire Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 Ross Perot had money. Believing in what we say doesn't mean we're saying anything useful or important. It's not that he has money. Rubio, Clinton, and Jeb!'s donors all have money. It's that he's spending his own money on this campaign to do something he believes in. Your second sentence isn't an argument. 1
dsayers Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 Your second sentence isn't an argument. You put forth believing in something as if that's meaningful. I'm willing to hear the argument for that. As opposed to just asserting it a second time as if no challenge has been offered. ALL candidates spend their own money. Pointing it out about one person as if it differentiates them isn't meaningful. Neither is saying it's for something they believe in. Unless you mean the belief that they will get more out of their investment than they put in. This is not only true of every campaigner, but every human decision. He believes people will listen to him, talk about him, that he stands to gain a LOT more money back, as well as power over other people, which has been proven to have biochemical satisfaction as potent as narcotics. The power over other people is the only belief that is of interest to me.
regevdl Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 You put forth believing in something as if that's meaningful. I'm willing to hear the argument for that. As opposed to just asserting it a second time as if no challenge has been offered. ALL candidates spend their own money. Pointing it out about one person as if it differentiates them isn't meaningful. Neither is saying it's for something they believe in. Unless you mean the belief that they will get more out of their investment than they put in. This is not only true of every campaigner, but every human decision. He believes people will listen to him, talk about him, that he stands to gain a LOT more money back, as well as power over other people, which has been proven to have biochemical satisfaction as potent as narcotics. The power over other people is the only belief that is of interest to me. Maybe more accurate to say that Trump is only spending his money with very very miniscule exceptions compared to his overall campaign spending. Compare that to the others who bring their own money versus donor money/special interest money, then Trump is putting HIS money where his mouth is while the others are putting other's ppl money where their mouth is. So yes. in the political matrix, there is a distinction, given we are all aware of corporate corruption in politics. Maybe he will be a corporate fascist to use the power to gain more power/money but how is that any different or worse than now? So either he means what he says and will stay as true to it, which would be an interesting and move towards positive change or he won't which won't leave us any worse off...just on the same course.
sb23rd Posted March 13, 2016 Posted March 13, 2016 The fed is a regulated institution. The regulator (the state) has exclusive monopoly to regulate. Auditing the fed is inconsequential because it is part of the state and the regulation is done by the state. The contradictions are fairly evident.
Recommended Posts