TrueScotsman

The Source of DNC Corruption: Debt

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, Vigile said:

 

Who knows, maybe Bezos is the third paragraph. 

     If you're talking about the tyrant then it's supposed to come from the "drones" which can't include Bezos.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.
36 minutes ago, mwc said:

     If you're talking about the tyrant then it's supposed to come from the "drones" which can't include Bezos.

 

          mwc

 

 

Yeah, you're right, but the idea that someone would enslave everyone to support his lavish lifestyle kind of sounds like a good fit for the richest guy in the world that is fast becoming the boss as his company swallows up all the competition. Just ruminating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Vigile said:

 

Yeah, you're right, but the idea that someone would enslave everyone to support his lavish lifestyle kind of sounds like a good fit for the richest guy in the world that is fast becoming the boss as his company swallows up all the competition. Just ruminating. 

     Maybe, but I think people thought the same about Bill Gates at one time.  I wouldn't be too surprised if before too long people won't start looking at Amazon like they did AT&T back in the day.  I imagine we'll see a bunch of Baby-zon's at some point.  Better they willingly break up and give the illusion of competition, like the bells, as opposed to being forced to break up and getting who knows what.

 

     Besides, I thought it was Zuckerberg who was showing the interest in office?  I figured Bezos just liked being rich and king of his own empire.  If it were me I'd just want to have a sock-puppet as opposed to actually sitting in the chair but maybe my perspective would change once I got to the top of the shit pile?

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any strong opinions about Bezos, I'm just pondering on the idea that Amazon is not just replacing brick and mortar, it's swallowing up virtually all retail industry. I'm not so confident about anti trust laws. They were enforced in the 70s, but Google and a lot of other companies are ripe for it but powerful enough to buy off politicians and keep them at bay. 

 

One major issue with Bezos is he is tight with the CIA. Amazon got a $600B contract with the CIA and it's pretty clear they are leveraging that over at WaPo. Now, I've heard rumors that they are talking about putting Bezos in charge of the CIA. IMO, that's way bigger than running for office and has arguably more power than Potus. 

 

Again, don't take this as me making any arguments. I'm just exploring possibilities. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     Our second Gilded Age can only last so long so I don't think we're going to be stuck with any of these corporations.  But even when that ended the rich did quite well.  It's not like people like the Hearst's suddenly disappeared overnight.

 

     The contract with AWS is for $600M not $600B.  Still a lot though.  They won out over IBM (which usually won those sorts of contracts).  I'm not really sure how this makes the WaPo an outlet for the CIA.  Lots of people use AWS.  I mean "the cloud" is simply short-hand for "other peoples computers" unless you're running your own cloud services on your own machines (and using AWS probably saved a ton of money as opposed to building from scratch but I don't know the requirements).  I guess the issue that the WaPo didn't disclose this is cause for alarm?  I don't know.  Maybe I'm missing something here?  Or maybe I work with computers too much so this doesn't actually look suspicious?

 

          mwc

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mwc said:

     The contract with AWS is for $600M not $600B.  

 

 

Yeah, sorry, typo/brain fart. As for WaPo being influenced, IMO, it's pretty clear for anyone who simply reads it with a critical eye. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Vigile said:

 

As for WaPo being influenced, IMO, it's pretty clear for anyone who simply reads it with a critical eye. 

     I'm not sure what this means.  I only have a critical eye if I see a CIA influence?  That can't be right.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mwc said:

I'm not sure what this means.  I only have a critical eye if I see a CIA influence?  That can't be right.

No. It means the CIA has a contract with Amazon for 600mil. Asking why is part of thinking critically.  Maybe the CIA just really really likes ordering stuff from Amazon?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Ann said:

No. It means the CIA won a contract with Amazon for 600mil. Asking why is part of thinking critically.  Maybe the CIA just really really likes ordering stuff from Amazon?

     So what's the answer?  Why Amazon and not IBM?  It's not a difficult question to find the answer for.  Amazon Web Services is something the CIA wanted to use over IBM's version.

 

     But we're talking $600M over ten years.  So $60M/year.  Sure, a lot of money, but Amazon made well over $100B in 2016 (I didn't look up the exact figure) so I'm thinking he could simply drop the CIA and still be doing pretty well.  This less than 1% seems like a pittance if we're talking about buying influence.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mwc said:

So what's the answer?  Why Amazon and not IBM?  It's not a difficult question to find the answer for.  Amazon Web Services is something the CIA wanted to use over IBM's version.

 

     But we're talking $600M over ten years.  So $60M/year.  Sure, a lot of money, but Amazon made well over $100B in 2016 (I didn't look up the exact figure) so I'm thinking he could simply drop the CIA and still be doing pretty well.  This less than 1% seems like a pittance if we're talking about buying influence.

I don't know...Is 60mil a year a "normal" price for that kind of service? Is there information about IBM's offer? Is it as simple as the CIA wanting Amazon Web Services over IBM? If IBM's offer was much lower, then I would ask why the CIA would pay more? To me, it doesn't seem too far a reach that a government intelligence agency would want to buy influence or that a billionaire would seek more power. But then again....if the CIA paid a "normal" price for services, then maybe it's not nefarious.  It's common knowledge that the CIA is totally trustworthy and has never been involved in shady operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can all be myopic and pretend that ad rev and contracts have no influence on the upstanding 4th estate, but I've seen way too much to ever believe that. I'm sure that our politicians, who only receive a paltry few hundred thousand from oil companies worth billions/trillions, etc... are not influenced and are under no obligations for such paltry sums either. If it's not obvious to some here, there is probably nothing that can be said on a message board that would convince them, so why bother? My personal opinions on this subject are the result of not one simple thing I can provide a link to to support, but from decades of research and paying attention. 

 

Heck, look how easy it was, with zero evidence, to convince virtually every single Clinton voter that Russia hacked the election. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Ann said:

I don't know...Is 60mil a year a "normal" price for that kind of service? Is there information about IBM's offer? Is it as simple as the CIA wanting Amazon Web Services over IBM? If IBM's offer was much lower, then I would ask why the CIA would pay more? To me, it doesn't seem too far a reach that a government intelligence agency would want to buy influence or that a billionaire would seek more power. But then again....if the CIA paid a "normal" price for services, then maybe it's not nefarious.  It's common knowledge that the CIA is totally trustworthy and has never been involved in shady operations.

     It's not unusual for a large customer.  Usually that information isn't made public so you're not going to know what such-and-such company spends.  I've seen estimates for large corporations spending in the $100M/year territory to use AWS.  Don't forget these same services are used by lots of companies.  Some you've never heard of, and perhaps don't want it known they're outsourcing, but many you have like NetFlix, Kellogg's, Hesh, Adobe and so on.  They spend large amounts each year, just like the CIA, to use AWS.

 

     I'm not defending the CIA as an upstanding group.  I'm not saying that about Amazon either.  I'm simply trying to see how using AWS is something more than using AWS.

 

          mwc

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, mwc said:

I'm simply trying to see how using AWS is something more than using AWS.

 

You'll never make much of a conspiracy theorist. Wake up and watch some YouTube videos! :P

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it mind boggling that smart people are out there that still believe there are no conspiracies in this world. But, then we have a world where a majority still believes in god/s. We have a majority in the US that still believes voting makes a difference, that the press is free and that the government, while making mistakes from time to time, generally has the interests of the good of humanity at heart as opposed to being a criminal organization that preys on said humanity for the benefit of the top 1% of 1%. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. We should consider that possibility as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vigile said:

We can all be myopic and pretend that ad rev and contracts have no influence on the upstanding 4th estate, but I've seen way too much to ever believe that. I'm sure that our politicians, who only receive a paltry few hundred thousand from oil companies worth billions/trillions, etc... are not influenced and are under no obligations for such paltry sums either. If it's not obvious to some here, there is probably nothing that can be said on a message board that would convince them, so why bother? My personal opinions on this subject are the result of not one simple thing I can provide a link to to support, but from decades of research and paying attention. 

     Okay, I get that I'm too stupid to get it.  Apparently, this is something for only the chosen few.

 

     I've tried to connect the dots between AWS, the CIA and the Washington Post and failed.  I do see a contract between the CIA and AWS.  I don't see any ad revenue in it.  I have no reason to think the $60M/year is out of line for the contract in question.  I have no idea what I'm looking for beyond these actual facts.  I see nothing to connect this back to the Washington Post.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Vigile said:

I find it mind boggling that smart people are out there that still believe there are no conspiracies in this world. But, then we have a world where a majority still believes in god/s. We have a majority in the US that still believes voting makes a difference, that the press is free and that the government, while making mistakes from time to time, generally has the interests of the good of humanity at heart as opposed to being a criminal organization that preys on said humanity for the benefit of the top 1% of 1%. 

     Believing that there are conspiracies and *knowing* what those conspiracies are really are two different things.  For example, "The banks are rigged...it's a conspiracy!"  That's nice.  But when we found out that there were a group of bankers that were conspiring to mess with the interest rates we suddenly get that "I was right!"  But not really.  It could have been anything.  It just happened to be Libor.  People asking "How exactly are the banks rigged?" and getting static doesn't make them not think something might be wrong with the banks either.  It makes them not take that walk down the rabbit hole with you where you have to be a certain sort of "enlightened" to see it.  See what?  That the banks are rigged.  So nothing.  Call me when you've got something more specific.

 

     Questioning a conspiracy should not be considered naive but I guess that's where we're at now so I guess I'm naive.  Which is okay since I like to ask questions.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, florduh said:

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. We should consider that possibility as well.

 

All well and good if it really is. But when we start calling the media, political influence, et al cigars, we have a problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mwc said:

     Believing that there are conspiracies and *knowing* what those conspiracies are really are two different things.  For example, "The banks are rigged...it's a conspiracy!"  That's nice.  But when we found out that there were a group of bankers that were conspiring to mess with the interest rates we suddenly get that "I was right!"  But not really.  It could have been anything.  It just happened to be Libor.  People asking "How exactly are the banks rigged?" and getting static doesn't make them not think something might be wrong with the banks either.  It makes them not take that walk down the rabbit hole with you where you have to be a certain sort of "enlightened" to see it.  See what?  That the banks are rigged.  So nothing.  Call me when you've got something more specific.

 

     Questioning a conspiracy should not be considered naive but I guess that's where we're at now so I guess I'm naive.  Which is okay since I like to ask questions.

 

          mwc

 

 

It seems to me you think a conspiracy claim represents a nefarious group in the back room making secret deals. People making the claim that the banking system is rigged aren't making anything close to that argument. 

 

One tiny example. Until the year 1970 (iirc) banks engaged in a system called red-lining. Districts on the wrong side of the red lines wouldn't qualify for loans. This was done all over the country and those who were on the wrong sides just happened to be primarily black and/or other racial minority. That's a rigged system and that requires a conspiracy. None of this took place in some dark room where secret handshakes were exchanged. This was done right out in the open by politicians and banking leadership all over the country. This was a huge conspiracy against racial minorities that kept them in their place. It's beyond dispute that it occurred and was real. 

If I am the CEO of Goldman Sachs and I lobby (read, bribe) select members of congress to get a bill passed that benefits my company at the expense of others, especially the voters, that's a conspiracy and that's system rigging. We all know this goes on as a matter of business. Of course the banks are rigged; as is the regulatory commissions and justice department, which is why we don't see high level prosecutions for outright fraud. Hell, the federal reserve, a private organization that controls money supply, conspires out in the open to rig the system for the benefit of the group they belong to at the expense of large masses of people. This is beyond dispute. Any dispute is only in how these facts are spun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A conspiracy is when two or more people agree to secretly commit an illegal act.

 

Business mergers, purchases, funding, political lobbying and agreements to cooperate are not conspiracies unless done in secret and with the intent to commit a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, florduh said:

A conspiracy is when two or more people agree to secretly commit an illegal act.

 

Business mergers, purchases, funding, political lobbying and agreements to cooperate are not conspiracies unless done in secret and with the intent to commit a crime.

 

Semantics. Outcome has the same efficacy. 

 

I think the most improbable, surprising thing about these types of discussions is that so many refuse to see the world for what it really is. They see a fantasy version of the world in a sense and call reality a fantasy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Vigile said:

 

It seems to me you think a conspiracy claim represents a nefarious group in the back room making secret deals. People making the claim that the banking system is rigged aren't making anything close to that argument. 

     I do think the whole idea of a conspiracy is something done in secret by a group of people (I think Florduh just replied saying as much).  I just searched to see if that was the agreed upon definition and it looks like it.  It would appear you're trying to redefine the term.

 

19 minutes ago, Vigile said:

One tiny example. Until the year 1970 (iirc) banks engaged in a system called red-lining. Districts on the wrong side of the red lines wouldn't qualify for loans. This was done all over the country and those who were on the wrong sides just happened to be primarily black and/or other racial minority. That's a rigged system and that requires a conspiracy. None of this took place in some dark room where secret handshakes were exchanged. This was done right out in the open by politicians and banking leadership all over the country. This was a huge conspiracy against racial minorities that kept them in their place. It's beyond dispute that it occurred and was real. 

     I have heard of redlining.  As I recall it was used to quickly identify the best places to hand out mortgages.  The problem with it was newer places were preferred over older places.  A simple idea that makes sense on the surface.  However, older places were where minorities lived and so it became a systemic way to deny minorities loans especially in inner cities leaving them to decay.

 

19 minutes ago, Vigile said:


If I am the CEO of Goldman Sachs and I lobby (read, bribe) select members of congress to get a bill passed that benefits my company at the expense of others, especially the voters, that's a conspiracy and that's system rigging. We all know this goes on as a matter of business. Of course the banks are rigged; as is the regulatory commissions and justice department, which is why we don't see high level prosecutions for outright fraud. Hell, the federal reserve, a private organization that controls money supply, conspires out in the open to rig the system for the benefit of the group they belong to at the expense of large masses of people. This is beyond dispute. Any dispute is only in how these facts are spun. 

     The Constitution allows lobbying like it or not.  I'm not sure how to fix how it works.  It's definitely broken but the people have to have access to the members of Congress to make their wants/needs/complaints/whatever known and to try to get their representative to act on those things.  It makes sense that if people can elect a representative for an office that they can also elect an representative to lobby that representative on their behalf.  So now it starts to run into problems with bigger and more powerful groups doing exactly what you propose though I don't know I'd call it a conspiracy.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2017 at 9:07 PM, florduh said:

Is anyone else old enough to long for the olden times when Liberals and Conservatives went up against each other in the marketplace of ideas? When one's philosophy on topics such as the economy, education, the military and education was of paramount importance, and compromises were reached so we could move on.

 

Now politics is about hatred of the "other" and division by whatever means necessary. Both sides of the aisle are rife with corruption and a lack of morality and honesty. It's been building since the first black president was elected but Trump and his regime really kicked it into high gear. Sadly, the other party is no better, only less effective. Regardless of election outcomes, our rights continue to be eroded and the wealth gap widens as does our theater of war. The Christian evangelicals run the Right and morons run the Left. God Bless America. :blink:

 

 

I agree with all the above, except that the hyper-partisanship has been building for several decades, not just since Obama was elected.  I think both major parties are past being capable of reform now.   I’d love to see some D and R Senators leave their parties and start a new one. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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