| Hillary Clinton 12:53 - Jun 7 with 29284 views | snork44 |
Well Ms Clinton has wrapped up the Democratic nomination for the President even though she could be indicted by the FBI over the private email server scandal. Uncle Bernie is staying in, mainly hoping that she is charged and he can take over the nomination even if that happens we will end up with a President Trump. |  |
| |  |
| Hillary Clinton on 16:00 - Sep 19 with 1818 views | Jack_Meoff |
| Hillary Clinton on 23:25 - Sep 18 by londonlisa2001 |
Treasure Islands you mean?
I have read it.
The Bank of England is nationally owned. As I've said before, when this last came up, most European central banks are (including Germany, France etc). Even the Fed is not quite as privately owned as people try to make out, it's a strange structure, but isn't 'private' in the way people imagine when they read that's it's private. |
Well I'll just say that Shaxson writes to the contrary in his book and leave it there.
I found the chapter on the City of London jaw dropping! |  |
| If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever. |
| |
| Hillary Clinton on 16:24 - Sep 19 with 1794 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Hillary Clinton on 16:00 - Sep 19 by Jack_Meoff |
Well I'll just say that Shaxson writes to the contrary in his book and leave it there.
I found the chapter on the City of London jaw dropping! |
I don't think he does say that (from memory) but if he does (which may be the case, it's been ages since I read it), he's wrong. See below:
"Freedom of Information - disclosures
Subject/Request Details: Ownership of the Bank of England
Date Released: 15 September 2011
Disclosure: The information below was provided in answer to questions relating to the ownership of the Bank:
The Bank of England is a corporate body, though not a PLC, and was established by Royal Charter pursuant to the Bank of England Act 1694. Prior to nationalisation in 1946 the Bank was privately owned. It has been in public ownership since 1946, when it was nationalised pursuant to the Bank of England Act 1946. The 1946 Act provided for the transfer of the whole of the Bank’s capital stock of £14,553,000 to HM Treasury. Holders of Bank stock were compensated by the allocation of an amount of stock created by HM Treasury for the purpose, known as ‘3% Treasury Stock’. In accordance with the 1946 Act and the related Bank of England (Transfer of Stock) Order 1946, the capital stock is now held by the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of HM Treasury."
Additional note - this 3% Treasury Stock, originally issued to finance the nationalisation was fully redeemed (paid off) in 2015 by the coalition government at a cost of £35m.
The chapter on the City of London was ridiculously sensationalist and undermined some good bits in the book about tax havens. [Post edited 19 Sep 2016 16:25]
|  | | |
| Hillary Clinton on 19:05 - Sep 19 with 1765 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Hillary Clinton on 16:24 - Sep 19 by londonlisa2001 |
I don't think he does say that (from memory) but if he does (which may be the case, it's been ages since I read it), he's wrong. See below:
"Freedom of Information - disclosures
Subject/Request Details: Ownership of the Bank of England
Date Released: 15 September 2011
Disclosure: The information below was provided in answer to questions relating to the ownership of the Bank:
The Bank of England is a corporate body, though not a PLC, and was established by Royal Charter pursuant to the Bank of England Act 1694. Prior to nationalisation in 1946 the Bank was privately owned. It has been in public ownership since 1946, when it was nationalised pursuant to the Bank of England Act 1946. The 1946 Act provided for the transfer of the whole of the Bank’s capital stock of £14,553,000 to HM Treasury. Holders of Bank stock were compensated by the allocation of an amount of stock created by HM Treasury for the purpose, known as ‘3% Treasury Stock’. In accordance with the 1946 Act and the related Bank of England (Transfer of Stock) Order 1946, the capital stock is now held by the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of HM Treasury."
Additional note - this 3% Treasury Stock, originally issued to finance the nationalisation was fully redeemed (paid off) in 2015 by the coalition government at a cost of £35m.
The chapter on the City of London was ridiculously sensationalist and undermined some good bits in the book about tax havens. [Post edited 19 Sep 2016 16:25]
|
Well "the man" would say that. |  |
| |
| Hillary Clinton on 23:44 - Sep 19 with 1725 views | Catullus |
| Hillary Clinton on 10:39 - Sep 19 by Humpty |
Angry?
I'm not angry at all. Amused more than anything. The 1% thing amused me. The corporate greed, self aggrandising, selfish, lying, hoarding all the wealth stuff even made me giggle. Vote Trump chaps. He's the antithesis of that type of thing.
You finding his nationalism appealing whilst thinking he's not racist also amused me.
Anyway, all the best. |
Did I say anywhere that I likec Trump, again "unhealthy leaning" and there is the irony of him being part of the 1%.
Basically, just so it's out there where I really stand, I wouldn't vote for either. They are both disasters waiting to happen.
And generally speaking, that's how I feel about most politicians. Including our own Corbyn and Smith, Boris, Gove.............I could go on for ages with this list!!
PS, nice_to_michu...........NO. I tried, it hurt, never again. | |
| |
| Hillary Clinton on 02:06 - Sep 20 with 1691 views | Humpty |
| Hillary Clinton on 13:10 - Sep 19 by Highjack |
You are clearly stupid and immature for finding funny things funny. |
I didn't call you stupid or immature. I just pointed out that someone else did because you seemed to be confused.
You were accusing him of saying you were a Trump supporter.
I just pointed out that he hadn't. |  | | |
| Hillary Clinton on 02:57 - Sep 27 with 1614 views | dailew |
She's wiping the floor with Trump in the debate. Looking a lot more presidential. |  |
| |
| Hillary Clinton on 07:21 - Sep 27 with 1576 views | builthjack |
Go Hillary |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| Hillary Clinton on 08:04 - Sep 27 with 1554 views | nice_to_michu |
Those who are suggesting that they could vote for neither Clinton nor Trump need to analyse what the result of either would mean. once clocked up, it should be fairly obvious a vote for Clinton is the best option by a country mile.
Those saying that's a vote for a third party would be better, just look at your options. The Green Party candidate (just like their leader here in the UK) is totally inept. And then you have Gary Johnson, the independent, who has no interest it seems with anything outside of his own little bubble. Neither are presidential, neither are qualified. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Hillary Clinton on 09:34 - Sep 27 with 1516 views | MillJack |
| Hillary Clinton on 02:57 - Sep 27 by dailew |
She's wiping the floor with Trump in the debate. Looking a lot more presidential. |
To be fair, 98% of the posters on Planet Swans would appear more presidential than Donald Trump in a head-to-head debate. [Post edited 27 Sep 2016 9:35]
|  | | |
| Hillary Clinton on 11:28 - Sep 27 with 1487 views | Humpty |
| Hillary Clinton on 02:57 - Sep 27 by dailew |
She's wiping the floor with Trump in the debate. Looking a lot more presidential. |
I thought he lost bigly. | | | |
| Hillary Clinton on 11:36 - Sep 27 with 1486 views | LeonisGod |
Whilst he's a batshit crazy, racist, sexist, bigoted, shallow, inexperienced, deluded, narcissistic, tactless, angry, attention-seeking and disagreeable tvvat, I do worry about what Clinton's cool relationship with Putin would mean for East-West tensions. |  | | |
| Hillary Clinton on 11:57 - Sep 27 with 1475 views | PatchesOHoulihan |
| Hillary Clinton on 11:36 - Sep 27 by LeonisGod |
Whilst he's a batshit crazy, racist, sexist, bigoted, shallow, inexperienced, deluded, narcissistic, tactless, angry, attention-seeking and disagreeable tvvat, I do worry about what Clinton's cool relationship with Putin would mean for East-West tensions. |
To be fair though I don't think Trump would be any better for East West tensions |  |
| This is Patches O'Houlihan saying "Take care of your balls, and they'll take care of you." |
| |
| Hillary Clinton on 12:01 - Sep 27 with 1470 views | LeonisGod |
| Hillary Clinton on 11:57 - Sep 27 by PatchesOHoulihan |
To be fair though I don't think Trump would be any better for East West tensions |
I'm not sure. There's a history of mutual admiration between Trump and Putin. That might be one area where Trump would build bridges if his administration would let him. Who knows what the consequences would be, but it's a possibility. | | | |
| Hillary Clinton on 12:06 - Sep 27 with 1460 views | Catullus |
| Hillary Clinton on 08:04 - Sep 27 by nice_to_michu |
Those who are suggesting that they could vote for neither Clinton nor Trump need to analyse what the result of either would mean. once clocked up, it should be fairly obvious a vote for Clinton is the best option by a country mile.
Those saying that's a vote for a third party would be better, just look at your options. The Green Party candidate (just like their leader here in the UK) is totally inept. And then you have Gary Johnson, the independent, who has no interest it seems with anything outside of his own little bubble. Neither are presidential, neither are qualified. |
In other words, you have to choose the lesser of the two evils. Neither are suitable to be POTUS, Trump is just less suitable!
He is crazy mind you, Clinton is just not entirely honest. Then which politicians are? | |
| |
| Hillary Clinton on 12:13 - Sep 27 with 1451 views | Highjack |
| Hillary Clinton on 12:06 - Sep 27 by Catullus |
In other words, you have to choose the lesser of the two evils. Neither are suitable to be POTUS, Trump is just less suitable!
He is crazy mind you, Clinton is just not entirely honest. Then which politicians are? |
Id take em both over corbyn |  |
| |
| Hillary Clinton on 12:15 - Sep 27 with 1449 views | nice_to_michu |
| Hillary Clinton on 12:06 - Sep 27 by Catullus |
In other words, you have to choose the lesser of the two evils. Neither are suitable to be POTUS, Trump is just less suitable!
He is crazy mind you, Clinton is just not entirely honest. Then which politicians are? |
Yep, but that's how life is. The perfect candidate is never on the menu.
I'm sure a Bentley Continental GT would be been perfect for you, but unfortunately you got the best car you could get that was on the menu. | | | |
| Hillary Clinton on 12:19 - Sep 27 with 1443 views | PatchesOHoulihan |
| Hillary Clinton on 12:01 - Sep 27 by LeonisGod |
I'm not sure. There's a history of mutual admiration between Trump and Putin. That might be one area where Trump would build bridges if his administration would let him. Who knows what the consequences would be, but it's a possibility. |
I understand that but I just don't see it lasting | |
| This is Patches O'Houlihan saying "Take care of your balls, and they'll take care of you." |
| |
| Hillary Clinton on 12:22 - Sep 27 with 1441 views | blueytheblue |
| Hillary Clinton on 08:04 - Sep 27 by nice_to_michu |
Those who are suggesting that they could vote for neither Clinton nor Trump need to analyse what the result of either would mean. once clocked up, it should be fairly obvious a vote for Clinton is the best option by a country mile.
Those saying that's a vote for a third party would be better, just look at your options. The Green Party candidate (just like their leader here in the UK) is totally inept. And then you have Gary Johnson, the independent, who has no interest it seems with anything outside of his own little bubble. Neither are presidential, neither are qualified. |
Evan cMullin.
Nuff said. | |
| |
| Hillary Clinton on 13:16 - Sep 27 with 1418 views | nice_to_michu |
| Hillary Clinton on 12:22 - Sep 27 by blueytheblue |
Evan cMullin.
Nuff said. |
A conservative, pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, former investment banker who used to work for the Republican leadership for many years?
These guys are a dime a dozen, nothing particularly interesting or special there.
I'll pass, thanks. | | | |
| Hillary Clinton on 13:17 - Sep 27 with 1418 views | LeonisGod |
| Hillary Clinton on 12:19 - Sep 27 by PatchesOHoulihan |
I understand that but I just don't see it lasting |
You're probably right. I can't get my head around where he's coming from. That's probably because he doesn't know himself; there's no substance to him but just sound bites that he thinks will appeal to his target audience.
How many live in America - and these are the best 2 they can come up with? | | | |
| Hillary Clinton on 13:30 - Sep 27 with 1414 views | swanjackal |
| Hillary Clinton on 13:17 - Sep 27 by LeonisGod |
You're probably right. I can't get my head around where he's coming from. That's probably because he doesn't know himself; there's no substance to him but just sound bites that he thinks will appeal to his target audience.
How many live in America - and these are the best 2 they can come up with? |
True, but it's no better under Clinton. A snake oil salesman, willing to say anything to gain power, contradicting herself from one speech to the next.
Do you elect the rich buffoon, one who pumps sound bites and takes no blame for his action, or the serpent , one who also pumps soundbites and takes no blame for her actions.
I can fully understand if people do not vote either. I know I could not at this moment, and would have to read policy outlines and take that over the cult of personality. |  |
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypocritically hypocritical ! |
| |
| Hillary Clinton on 13:55 - Sep 27 with 1407 views | nice_to_michu |
| Hillary Clinton on 13:30 - Sep 27 by swanjackal |
True, but it's no better under Clinton. A snake oil salesman, willing to say anything to gain power, contradicting herself from one speech to the next.
Do you elect the rich buffoon, one who pumps sound bites and takes no blame for his action, or the serpent , one who also pumps soundbites and takes no blame for her actions.
I can fully understand if people do not vote either. I know I could not at this moment, and would have to read policy outlines and take that over the cult of personality. |
Ok, given that the winner will either be Trump or Clinton, riddle me this.
Clinton would nominate Supreme Court justices with similar ideologies to that of the Obama nominees (I.e. more liberal socially, not contructivist in application of the constitution etc, and crucially, would vote to overturn the "Citizens United" ruling).
Trump would nominate a Suprene Court justice with a similar ideology to that of the now deceased Antonin Scalia, a strong conservative who was also a firm supporter of the Citizens United ruling.
The "Citizens United" is at the core of America's issue with money, politics and influence. You overturn that decision, and you almost immediately improve democracy and accountability.
Surely you don't still think both are as bad as each other? | | | |
| Hillary Clinton on 15:34 - Sep 27 with 1386 views | swanjackal |
| Hillary Clinton on 13:55 - Sep 27 by nice_to_michu |
Ok, given that the winner will either be Trump or Clinton, riddle me this.
Clinton would nominate Supreme Court justices with similar ideologies to that of the Obama nominees (I.e. more liberal socially, not contructivist in application of the constitution etc, and crucially, would vote to overturn the "Citizens United" ruling).
Trump would nominate a Suprene Court justice with a similar ideology to that of the now deceased Antonin Scalia, a strong conservative who was also a firm supporter of the Citizens United ruling.
The "Citizens United" is at the core of America's issue with money, politics and influence. You overturn that decision, and you almost immediately improve democracy and accountability.
Surely you don't still think both are as bad as each other? |
Still wouldn't draw me to vote. What you are offering is which ideology is better Democratic or Republican? Then I would be leaning democrat, but not invested enough to vote for the candidates on display. I would be more interested in the senate vote to be honest.
The problem will always lie with the senate make up when it comes to appointments, the real power seat. To make serious changes, this is where it needs to happen most.
The American people will vote the way they want. And honestly, I believe not a great deal will change with either winning. | |
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hypocritically hypocritical ! |
| |
| Hillary Clinton on 15:47 - Sep 27 with 1374 views | nice_to_michu |
| Hillary Clinton on 15:34 - Sep 27 by swanjackal |
Still wouldn't draw me to vote. What you are offering is which ideology is better Democratic or Republican? Then I would be leaning democrat, but not invested enough to vote for the candidates on display. I would be more interested in the senate vote to be honest.
The problem will always lie with the senate make up when it comes to appointments, the real power seat. To make serious changes, this is where it needs to happen most.
The American people will vote the way they want. And honestly, I believe not a great deal will change with either winning. |
The Senate is important, sure. But when it comes to Supreme Court justices, the weight of influence sides with the President.
Take this past year, for example, Obama wanted to name a Supreme Court justice to replace the deceased Antonin Scalia, he knew that his ideal choice would never get through a Republican Senate, and the Senate at the time had no interest in approving virtually any nomination he put forward, thus, gridlock ensued.
However, there had been considerable pressure upon the Senate, not the President, to confirm an appointment because it is customary to do so (within reason). One of the reasons the Republican-held Senate held off from confirming Obama's nominee is that they wanted to wait until the "public had spoken" and chosen a new president, and only then will they confirm.
So it is entirely reasonable to think that the new president, whoever that may be, will enjoy considerable influence in the appointmentt of the next Supreme Court justice. And, given that both Clinton and Trump have said what type of nominee they will put forward, there will be a massive shift in ideology of the court. It will either maintain the status quo in regards to money in politics (via a Trump win) or it will not (via a Clinton win).
It's a massive difference. | | | |
| Hillary Clinton on 16:05 - Sep 27 with 1359 views | Catullus |
When it comes to money in politics, aren't they equally as bad? When it comes to foreign policy, that's where I'm worried because that will affect us.
Trump will threaten to bomb others into submission whereas Clinton will push for cosy little deals that look after the elites, dress it up all nice, but it'll still be elitist. Like the Clinton charity foundation which has had terrible press, like many other charitable foundations (including some started by Premier league players) plenty of money goes in but mot a lot makes it to good causes.
It all comes back to Trump is a lunatic and Clinton is corrupt. On that basis I couldn't vote for either and I'm glad I dont have to.
The situation is slightly less fuzzy over here. I don't see Corbyn as electable in any way, shape or form. May isn't a brilliant choice but miles better. Anyone who gives Diane Abbott a job cannot be allowed into No10!! | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
