Jump to content

Saints Web Official US election  

114 members have voted

  1. 1. Who would you vote for?

    • Biden
      87
    • Trump
      27


Recommended Posts

Posted
17 minutes ago, egg said:

I think it's bollox. Sure, there's a war industry, but I don't accept that BlackRock are influencing leaders to go to war, which seems to be his implied point. 

I don't think it's BlackRock influencing, but I think it's Governments not giving two fucks as long as the money is funnelling back into companies of their Nationality.

  • Like 1
Posted

Evokes memories of the "military-industrial complex" of the 50's.

The military were constantly telling Eisenhower about how many missliles the Soviets had and that he had to pour millions into the military contractors so that they could compete.

Then, after the first overflights by the U2 and satellites, it became obvious that they had very few and all of the warnings were as much about boosting the profits of the contractors rather than strenghening defence.

Eisenhower referenced this in his farewell address in 1961 and warned about the unwarranted influence of this complex.

  • Like 3
Posted
Just now, ecuk268 said:

Evokes memories of the "military-industrial complex" of the 50's.

The military were constantly telling Eisenhower about how many missliles the Soviets had and that he had to pour millions into the military contractors so that they could compete.

Then, after the first overflights by the U2 and satellites, it became obvious that they had very few and all of the warnings were as much about boosting the profits of the contractors rather than strenghening defence.

Eisenhower referenced this in his farewell address in 1961 and warned about the unwarranted influence of this complex.

Halliburton had plenty of tentacles within the Bush Jr administration as well. 

Posted
24 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Pauses mid citizenship application...🙂

You’d have to spend it on Reese’s chocolate, Budweiser or a semiautomatic rifle. That’s your choices 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, whelk said:

You’d have to spend it on Reese’s chocolate, Budweiser or a semiautomatic rifle. That’s your choices 

Awww. I was hoping to swill a beer past the chocs I was eating, while taking aim. But only one of the three (admittedly superb choices), is it?

Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, egg said:

I think it's bollox. Sure, there's a war industry, but I don't accept that BlackRock are influencing leaders to go to war, which seems to be his implied point. 

Ok you can say what he said is rubbish but of what he said, which part is incorrect? I dont think he is saying Blackrock encouraged the war or influenced government (he said that weapons companies like countries joining Nato - the unintended impact was the Ukraine conflict) but that once it started, Blackrocks influence on matters and the financial benefits is dodgy

Edited by Sir Ralph
Posted
Just now, Sir Ralph said:

Ok you can say what he said is rubbish but of what he said, which part is incorrect?

As I posted...I don't accept that BlackRock are influencing leaders to go to war, which seems to be his implied point. 

I addressed the point, if you have a different opinion, feel free to make it, but I'm not debating it with you. 

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, egg said:

As I posted...I don't accept that BlackRock are influencing leaders to go to war, which seems to be his implied point. 

I addressed the point, if you have a different opinion, feel free to make it, but I'm not debating it with you. 

I dont think he is saying Blackrock encouraged the war or influenced government (he said that weapons companies like countries joining Nato - the unintended impact was the Ukraine conflict) but that once it started, Blackrocks influence on matters and the financial benefits is dodgy.

He stated a number of facts about things that have happened, that are not a matter of opinion - they happended or they didnt. You can say its bollocks but if you cant point to why the stated facts are incorrect thats your problem. Dont debate me but dont comment on things you dont want to back up either.

Edited by Sir Ralph
Posted

In Missouri the Republicans, with Trump's approval, created a new districting map that altered the balance of the State's seats in the House of Representatives from 6:2 in their favour to 7:1, and proposed using it for the midterms. The State Supreme Court, (Republican majority ), was asked to rule on this and unanimously rejected it and said the old map must be used until the new proposal could be put to a State-wide ballot.

The State's Secretary of State and Attorney General appealed this to the federal Supreme Court, which itself unanimously backed the State Court and rejected the appeal. The Secretary and AG then found a friendly fedreal Judge who gave them a new way to approach the State SC, but again the State SC ruled against them. The Secretary of State said he would again challenge the State SC ruling, however the Court ordered him to be held in Contempt of Court - he has now backed down and accepted their original decision.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...