The BBC's latest against Trump ....

[Drummond]

Never ones to fail to find excuses to wallop Trump, this is the BBC's latest poisonous 'take' on his possible Presidency ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35828747


Donald Trump winning the US presidency is considered one of the top 10 risks facing the world, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit.

The research firm warns he could disrupt the global economy and heighten political and security risks in the US.

However, it does not expect Mr Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton who it sees as "his most likely Democratic contender".

He is rated as riskier than Britain leaving the European Union or an armed clash in the South China Sea.

China encountering a "hard landing" or sharp economic slowdown and Russia's interventions in Ukraine and Syria preceding a new "cold war" are among the events seen as more dangerous.

"Thus far Mr Trump has given very few details of his policies - and these tend to be prone to constant revision," the EIU said in its global risk assessment, which looks at impact and probability.

The EIU ranking uses a scale of one to 25, with Mr Trump garnering a rating of 12, the same level of risk as "the rising threat of jihadi terrorism destabilising the global economy".

A disgusting anti-Trump fearmongering attack, no doubt from a body chasing a Globalist agenda ....

[fj1200]

A disgusting anti-Trump fearmongering attack, no doubt from a body chasing a Globalist agenda ....

What is the Globalist agenda? And who are the Globalists?

[Olivia]

You guys need a board rule. No being against Trump allowed. It causes severe meltdowns forum wide!

[LongTermGuy]

You guys need a board rule. No being against Trump allowed. It causes severe meltdowns forum wide!


:coffee:...Donald loves you...we all love you...we dont want you to have a meltdown...Everything is going to be OK...go makes some bacon...its good for you and you will feel better.:beer:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/wp-ag/wp-content/uploads/sites/72/2015/09/Donald-Trump-Faces.gif

[jimnyc]

:coffee:...Donald loves you...we all love you...we dont want you to have a meltdown...Everything is going to be OK...go makes some bacon...its good for you and you will feel better.:beer:

I'm thinking of either hitting up the diner or maybe IHOP for dinner this evening. And you can bet that there will be bacon involved in there somewhere! Shorter waiting time at IHOP and better mixed dinner/breakfast meals. But I always end up getting some damn syrup on the sausage, and that pisses me off.

My apologies, Drummond!! I'm not meaning to hijack your thread.

[Russ]

Donald Trump winning the US presidency is considered one of the top 10 risks facing the world, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit.

The research firm warns he could disrupt the global economy and heighten political and security risks in the US.

However, it does not expect Mr Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton who it sees as "his most likely Democratic contender".

He is rated as riskier than Britain leaving the European Union or an armed clash in the South China Sea.

China encountering a "hard landing" or sharp economic slowdown and Russia's interventions in Ukraine and Syria preceding a new "cold war" are among the events seen as more dangerous.

"Thus far Mr Trump has given very few details of his policies - and these tend to be prone to constant revision," the EIU said in its global risk assessment, which looks at impact and probability.

The EIU ranking uses a scale of one to 25, with Mr Trump garnering a rating of 12, the same level of risk as "the rising threat of jihadi terrorism destabilising the global economy".

I remember all kinds "risks" being predicted when Ronald Reagan was running for President. At the time, I even semi-believed them, and was worried when he became President. Turned out there was nothing to worry about.

Trump is not Reagan, but my point is just that people and the media will conjure up all kinds of "risks" whenever someone they don't like is in the lead.

Let me amend that - leftist people and media will conjure up risks whenever a Republican is doing well enough to attract independent and even Dem voters. There actually is more risk to the country if Bernie Sanders were to be President, since socialism can wreck an economy more effectively than a recession can. (Just ask the oil-rich but poor Venezuela)
But you don't hear the media warning of any Bernie Sanders risks.

[PixieStix]

What is the Globalist agenda? And who are the Globalists?

To have a world without borders and to have a new world order, and especially to knock America off her high horse.

God put oceans between us for a reason :coffee:

[fj1200]

To have a world without borders and to have a new world order, and especially to knock America off her high horse.

God put oceans between us for a reason :coffee:

And who are those crazy Globalists?

[aboutime]

What is the Globalist agenda? And who are the Globalists?


You mean..........other than you, or as well as you fj???

[Drummond]

You mean..........other than you, or as well as you fj???

Since you replied to FJ, Aboutime, I saw his comment (I have FJ on 'ignore'). Why am I not surprised ? It's in the Left's interest to disparage any suggestion of Globalism going on, and to try and neutralise any suggestion of anyone working towards it .....

[fj1200]

Since you replied to FJ, Aboutime, I saw his comment (I have FJ on 'ignore'). Why am I not surprised ? It's in the Left's interest to disparage any suggestion of Globalism going on, and to try and neutralise any suggestion of anyone working towards it .....

You're not very good at "ignore." I would expect those fighters of the "globalists" to be more adept at discussing them.

[revelarts]

What is the Globalist agenda? And who are the Globalists?
http://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/a0/42/13/a04213b925f81c4c623efed2a571e670.jpg

[revelarts]

What is the Globalist agenda? And who are the Globalists?

Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They Are Makinghttp://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Rr-qrkJOL._SX312_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

"Each of them is one in a million. They number six thousand on a planet of six billion. They run our governments, our largest corporations, the powerhouses of international finance, the media, world religions, and, from the shadows, the world's most dangerous criminal and terrorist organizations. They are the global superclass, and they are shaping the history of our time.
Today's superclass has achieved unprecedented levels of wealth and power. They have globalized more rapidly than any other group. But do they have more in common with one another than with their own countrymen, as nationalist critics have argued? They control globalization more than anyone else. But has their influence fed the growing economic and social inequity that divides the world? What happens behind closeddoor meetings in Davos or aboard corporate jets at 41,000 feet? Conspiracy or collaboration? Deal-making or idle self-indulgence? What does the rise of Asia and Latin America mean for the conventional wisdom that shapes our destinies? Who sets the rules for a group that operates beyond national laws?
Drawn from scores of exclusive interviews and extensive original reporting, Superclass answers all of these questions and more. It draws back the curtain on a privileged society that most of us know little about, even though it profoundly affects our everyday lives. It is the first in-depth examination of the connections between the global communities of leaders who are at the helm of every major enterprise on the planet and control its greatest wealth. And it is an unprecedented examination of the trends within the superclass, which are likely to alter our politics, our institutions, and the shape of the world in which we live."


"David J. Rothkopf (born 24 December 1955) is CEO and editor[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rothkopf#cite_note-1) of the FP Group.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rothkopf#cite_note-2) The FP Group publishes Foreign Policy magazine,[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rothkopf#cite_note-3) ForeignPolicy.com (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ForeignPolicy.com), presents FP Events, and is a division of Graham Holdings Company (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Holdings_Company).[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rothkopf#cite_note-Graham_Holdings_ownership_of_FP-4) Rothkopf was first announced as CEO and Editor-at-Large in 2012,[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rothkopf#cite_note-Rothkopf_Hire_to_FP-5) when Foreign Policy was owned by the Washington Post Company. He has been a regular contributor to the magazine for many years and continues to write columns[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rothkopf#cite_note-foreignpolicy.com-6) in his role as editor.
He is also President and CEO of Garten Rothkopf,[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rothkopf#cite_note-7) an international advisory firm specializing in transformational global trends, notably those associated with energy, security, and emerging markets...."

[revelarts]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I3sqpRtKUA



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I3sqpRtKUA

[fj1200]

I dispute the conspiratorial view of it all.

[revelarts]

I dispute the conspiratorial view of it all.

what do you mean by that?

that they plan together?
they do.

That they don't care that much about the democratic processes or national sovereignty?
seems they don't.

what "conspiratorial" aspect are you rejecting?

[fj1200]

what do you mean by that?

that they plan together?
they do.

That they don't care that much about the democratic processes or national sovereignty?
seems they don't.

what "conspiratorial" aspect are you rejecting?

There's fact that I accept and there's opinion that they "control" the world. I dispute the latter.

[revelarts]

There's fact that I accept and there's opinion that they "control" the world. I dispute the latter.

Fine line between "control" and "inordinate influence".
Do parents "control" their teen aged children?
Does a major employer in a small town control the town?
Does a rich Aunt control family members that live off of her money?
Do major stock holders control all aspects of corporations?

I think very few "conspiracy theorist" think of it as PURE control.
It seems to me that that's kind of a straw man set up to by some to make it easy to reject and ignore the reality of real controlling influence of these unelected shadowy people.

(shadowy in the sense they are not in the news or making public statements as to what they'd like they are going DIRECTLY to oe creating the politicians and making clear their wants)

[fj1200]

It seems to me that that's kind of a straw man set up to by some to make it easy to reject and ignore the reality of real controlling influence of these unelected shadowy people.

That's an interesting argument against the establishment of the conspiracy strawman in the fist place. :poke: "Control" or "access" by the "powerful" and "unelected" are not possible without a failure at the government level. I'll freely admit that there is failure at the government level but that's a different argument than this "Globalist" business.

[revelarts]

That's an interesting argument against the establishment of the conspiracy strawman in the fist place. :poke: "Control" or "access" by the "powerful" and "unelected" are not possible without a failure at the government level. I'll freely admit that there is failure at the government level but that's a different argument than this "Globalist" business.

Well the "globalist business" is admitted by the globalist.
You're free to think that they should not be taken very seriously. But does that make sense?
So I have to ask. Do you think they had a roll AT ALL in creating this "failure at a gov't level" your talking about?

[fj1200]

Well the "globalist business" is admitted by the globalist.
You're free to think that they should not be taken very seriously. But does that make sense?
So I have to ask. Do you think they had a roll AT ALL in creating this "failure at a gov't level" your talking about?

Not really, many governments completely suck. Witness most of the southern hemisphere and businesses can take advantage of that without being any part of the globalist conspiracy. And I think it does make sense because instead of focusing on, and making an enemy of, the agenda you lose sight of what can/should be done to make governments better.

When I look up the "Globalist Agenda" I see things like world enslavement, shadow governments, banking cartels and debt, population reduction, etc. Those things smack of the ridiculous. Can you find things that can fill out a book and a supposed agenda? Of course you can if you look hard enough but it doesn't really speak to anything coherent on a global scale... IMO.

[revelarts]

Not really, many governments completely suck. Witness most of the southern hemisphere and businesses can take advantage of that without being any part of the globalist conspiracy. And I think it does make sense because instead of focusing on, and making an enemy of, the agenda you lose sight of what can/should be done to make governments better.

When I look up the "Globalist Agenda" I see things like world enslavement, shadow governments, banking cartels and debt, population reduction, etc. Those things smack of the ridiculous. Can you find things that can fill out a book and a supposed agenda? Of course you can if you look hard enough but it doesn't really speak to anything coherent on a global scale... IMO.


I point you back the quote from Rockelfeller and others.

Here's the thing to me Fj, If there are billionaires ...even just loosely associated.. with an "agenda" that has multiple parts. and all the parts tend toward anti constitutional, anti national sovereignties and if not real human population control the use of the idea to help move their plans forward then it does me no good to blow it off with a tut tut my good man.

Just as we don't blow off more formal and upfront political movements like communism, socialism, anarchism, fasicm, islamism/shria etc.
Just because Hitler is dead that doesn't mean we dismiss Nazism as a current possibility. It's ideas still need to be guarded against. In a similar vain Globalism DOES have real live promoters and has had them for a very long time. The players have changed, some the players have promoted some aspects more than others and some parts even seem reasonable at times. But it doesn't mean a "globalist agenda" is ridiculous or should be ignored. The Populism you rail against is far less dangerous long term than the globalism that you don't want to take seriously seems to me.

[fj1200]

I point you back the quote from Rockelfeller and others.

Here's the thing to me Fj, If there are billionaires ...even just loosely associated.. with an "agenda" that has multiple parts. and all the parts tend toward anti constitutional, anti national sovereignties and if not real human population control the use of the idea to help move their plans forward then it does me no good to blow it off with a tut tut my good man.

Just as we don't blow off more formal and upfront political movements like communism, socialism, anarchism, fasicm, islamism/shria etc.
Just because Hitler is dead that doesn't mean we dismiss Nazism as a current possibility. It's ideas still need to be guarded against. In a similar vain Globalism DOES have real live promoters and has had them for a very long time. The players have changed, some the players have promoted some aspects more than others and some parts even seem reasonable at times. But it doesn't mean a "globalist agenda" is ridiculous or should be ignored. The Populism you rail against is far less dangerous long term than the globalism that you don't want to take seriously seems to me.

I "rail against" populism when it's a danger. I'll rail against the globalist agenda when it's a danger. Just look at the OP; faceless globalists are looking to take down trump. Or another thread where Zuckerberg was nobody a few years ago and now he's in with the globalist cabal. Anything that includes global enslavement when the globe has undergone the exact opposite of global enslavement seems to me not to be taken seriously.

I only need to tool around a few GA sites to be emboldened in my dismissal.