Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
What an excellent and profound post, Jim!Top political expert wouldn't say better.
I wish you could post an article like that in a Mainstream Media, people of your country need to look deep into the events taking place in USA now to be prepared to protect their country from internal enemy. However Soros owns almost all the Media and keeps feeding the people with self-created BS.
However Soros owns almost all the Media and keeps feeding the people with self-created BS.
Scratch a Soros-hater, and you always find a fascist. That's because Soros is anti-fascist and pro-democracy.
Moscow and the agents of Moscow especially hate democracy, so they've got a propaganda machine dedicated to faking stories about Soros. These sorts of conspiraacy theories get a "pants on fire" rating from the fact-checkers.
Alex Jones falsely says Soros, Clinton stoked Va. violence
Alas, to the fascists, that just proves that the fact-checkers are part of a liberal conspiracy. There's no getting through their anti-reality bubble.
Soros is currently the main fascist in the world. He goes to any country, sponsors brainwashing the population there, divides it and then makes them kill each other in a war or a coup or both. He has done exactly the same in my home country of Ukraine and now is trying to do the same in YOUR country with YOUR stupid liberals help.
You saud: Moscow and the agents of Moscow especially hate democracy, so they've got a propaganda machine dedicated to faking stories about Soros. These sorts of conspiraacy theories get a "pants on fire" rating from the fact-checkers.
You would be right with a few corrections: SOROS and the agents of SOROS especially hate democracy, so they've got a propaganda machine dedicated to faking stories about PUTIN and TRUMP. These sorts of conspiraacy theories get a "pants on fire" rating from the fact-checkers.
------
On Dec 20, 1998, on 60 Minutes did Steve Kroft interview George
Soros where Soros, a Hungarian Jew, admitted collaborating with the Nazi's
as a teenager and stated: "...I had no sense of guilt."
George Soros, Nazi collaborator - snopes.com
I give you George Soros. A SS in the National Socialist German workers party. Nazi party. He served under Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler. He said it was the best time of his life. The destruction and agony around him was euphoric to him. This man was making policy with Hillary Clinton. And some of you think Trump is dangerous. Wow!
Tom Dogionne
Is that why Obama gave billions to the nazi's in the Ukraine? Or is it just because he hates the Christians in the Ukraine and wanted to give Islamist a helping hand like ole' bj Clinton gave the Muslims in Serbia?However Soros owns almost all the Media and keeps feeding the people with self-created BS.
Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.
Normally, nobody can get earn more than 12 cuckoos, but you've managed 13. Seriously. You're nuckin' futz. Or a paid Russian stooge. It's not a coincidence that all Nazi movements look alike in all nations, because they're all highly influenced by the same Russian handlers. JimBowie and Stratfor here don't even try to hide their Russian allegiance.
Ironic, I would say, that the formerly commie Russians, the foes of the Nazis, are now the backers of Nazi movements worldwide.
Looks like admitting the truth is not our strongest feature. Ok, if you prefer to act like a Soros loyal sheep for HIS dirty goals, who can stop you? Too bad so many people in your country stopped using their own heads and allowed Soros to control them. His Soros to destroy YOUR country (as well as bunch of others) and to keep his world wide power. Only a blind and deaf person can't see it.However Soros owns almost all the Media and keeps feeding the people with self-created BS.
Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.
Normally, nobody can get earn more than 12 cuckoos, but you've managed 13. Seriously. You're nuckin' futz. Or a paid Russian stooge. It's not a coincidence that all Nazi movements look alike in all nations, because they're all highly influenced by the same Russian handlers. JimBowie and Stratfor here don't even try to hide their Russian allegiance.
Ironic, I would say, that the formerly commie Russians, the foes of the Nazis, are now the backers of Nazi movements worldwide.
Looks like admitting the truth is not our strongest feature. Ok, if you prefer to act like a Soros loyal sheep for HIS dirty goals, who can stop you? Too bad so many people in your country stopped using their own heads and allowed Soros to control them. His Soros to destroy YOUR country (as well as bunch of others) and to keep his world wide power. Only a blind and deaf person can't see it.
Scratch a Soros-hater, and you always find a fascist. That's because Soros is anti-fascist and pro-democracy.
Moscow and the agents of Moscow especially hate democracy, so they've got a propaganda machine dedicated to faking stories about Soros. These sorts of conspiraacy theories get a "pants on fire" rating from the fact-checkers.
Alex Jones falsely says Soros, Clinton stoked Va. violence
Alas, to the fascists, that just proves that the fact-checkers are part of a liberal conspiracy. There's no getting through their anti-reality bubble.
Soros is currently the main fascist in the world. He goes to any country, sponsors brainwashing the population there, divides it and then makes them kill each other in a war or a coup or both. He has done exactly the same in my home country of Ukraine and now is trying to do the same in YOUR country with YOUR stupid liberals help.
You saud: Moscow and the agents of Moscow especially hate democracy, so they've got a propaganda machine dedicated to faking stories about Soros. These sorts of conspiraacy theories get a "pants on fire" rating from the fact-checkers.
You would be right with a few corrections: SOROS and the agents of SOROS especially hate democracy, so they've got a propaganda machine dedicated to faking stories about PUTIN and TRUMP. These sorts of conspiraacy theories get a "pants on fire" rating from the fact-checkers.
------
On Dec 20, 1998, on 60 Minutes did Steve Kroft interview George
Soros where Soros, a Hungarian Jew, admitted collaborating with the Nazi's
as a teenager and stated: "...I had no sense of guilt."
George Soros, Nazi collaborator - snopes.com
I give you George Soros. A SS in the National Socialist German workers party. Nazi party. He served under Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler. He said it was the best time of his life. The destruction and agony around him was euphoric to him. This man was making policy with Hillary Clinton. And some of you think Trump is dangerous. Wow!
Tom Dogionne
The Bear and the Eagle Against the Octupus
More evidence that Putin is our best ally against the PNACko New World Order.
The leaders of the world not owned by Goldman Sachs should throw their full support behind Trump ASAP so that we can avoid a nuclear war that the Deep State will start if they think that they are losing power.One of them is that together Putin and Trump can put the end to globalism and Deep state very quickly just by exposing their crimes to the world. That's why Deep State uses their puppets all over the world (including US Congress!!!!) to hobble both Trump and Putin.
View attachment 144491
So, who is fascist: Trump, Putin or their enemies Soros&Co?
Is that why Obama gave billions to the nazi's in the Ukraine? Or is it just because he hates the Christians in the Ukraine and wanted to give Islamist a helping hand like ole' bj Clinton gave the Muslims in Serbia?However Soros owns almost all the Media and keeps feeding the people with self-created BS.
Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.
Normally, nobody can get earn more than 12 cuckoos, but you've managed 13. Seriously. You're nuckin' futz. Or a paid Russian stooge. It's not a coincidence that all Nazi movements look alike in all nations, because they're all highly influenced by the same Russian handlers. JimBowie and Stratfor here don't even try to hide their Russian allegiance.
Ironic, I would say, that the formerly commie Russians, the foes of the Nazis, are now the backers of Nazi movements worldwide.
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2017/Xproof Nazis in Ukraine.pdf
Obama Hands Corrupt Ukraine Another Billion US Dollars – Antiwar.com Blog
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554
People sell their names and act as front men for other causes, firms, etc. That is what Soros has done for his whole life. Don't get me wrong I believe he is a slime ball to the max but he is also told what to do.Is that why Obama gave billions to the nazi's in the Ukraine? Or is it just because he hates the Christians in the Ukraine and wanted to give Islamist a helping hand like ole' bj Clinton gave the Muslims in Serbia?However Soros owns almost all the Media and keeps feeding the people with self-created BS.
Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.
Normally, nobody can get earn more than 12 cuckoos, but you've managed 13. Seriously. You're nuckin' futz. Or a paid Russian stooge. It's not a coincidence that all Nazi movements look alike in all nations, because they're all highly influenced by the same Russian handlers. JimBowie and Stratfor here don't even try to hide their Russian allegiance.
Ironic, I would say, that the formerly commie Russians, the foes of the Nazis, are now the backers of Nazi movements worldwide.
http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2017/Xproof Nazis in Ukraine.pdf
Obama Hands Corrupt Ukraine Another Billion US Dollars – Antiwar.com Blog
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554
What Soros puppets (Obama, McCain and local traitors) have done to Ukraine is unbelievable. Besides breeding Nazis and physical eliminating of their political opponents, they made Ukraine a third world country where only crooks and Nazis are feeling safe and free.
1. Over $12 billion disappears from Ukraine’s budget every year, and global graft watchdog Transparency International ranks the country as Europe’s most corrupt.
Why Ukraine Must Outsource Its Fight Against Corruption
2. Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-11-06/unreformed-ukraine-is-self-destructing
Ukraine Is in Danger of Becoming a Failed State
3. In 2016 Ukraine officially became the poorest country in Europe.
Ukraine Becoming Poorest Country in Europe Amid IMF-Mandated Austerity
And so on and on... If your country allows Soros to keep destroying it, same may happen to you guys. God forbid.
JimBowie1958, would you mind telling me what you find funny about my having cited the findings of extreme bounds analysis (EBA) of coup d'etat determinants as the refutation to the OP-er's assertion?
Sure. You referenced this doc in stating that the conditions for a coup were not present by denying Stratfords claim that conditions are indeed good for a coup.
Your document states around page 5:
staging a coup would seem to be more attractive (and B should hence be larger) if one or more of the following three conditions are fulfilled. First, control over the state promises control over resources (which is, 5 for instance, the case if property rights are not secure, natural resources are abundant, inequality is high and the state apparatus is large).4 Second, the status quo of the elites or the military has been negatively affected by government policies that could be reversed easily in the aftermath of a coup (for instance, reduced military expenditure or liberalized economic sectors). In a similar vein, Tullock (2005) has argued that dictators maintain control by paying out benefits to those on whose loyalty they depend (see also Wintrobe 2012). If these payments are reduced by the incumbent regime, the net benefits of staging a coup may become positive for some actors. And third, the state does not depend financially on foreign governments being well disposed toward it (e.g., low dependence on foreign aid, not being under programs of the IMF or the World Bank, limited foreign trade).
ALL THREE CONDITIONS ARE MET TODAY here in the USA with an angry political establishment elite shocked that Trump won the last election and determined to do everything that they can to stop him, neutralize him and to remove him.
But about this use of statistical models to tell us what can happen as opposed to what is merely more plausible, it doesnt work that way. The past historical record does not have DETERMINANTS in it, but only indicators as to future plausibility, not possibility.
We are talking about the plausibility of a coup in a specific case, here in the USA. Mathematical/statistical models of what makes the conditions most likely for such an event cannot be used as a refutation for any specific event in a specific time and place. I took you to say it cant happen here because of the modeling for coups show that it is very unlikely to happen here.
As an analogy. Suppose we are playing some parlor game and to win the game, in some final end game situation, you have to roll 2 six sided dice and beat a nine. Were I to tell you I have already won the game because the odds are much more likely that you will roll an 8 or less because that is how dice operate would be premature. Even though dice do usually roll 8 or less you could still roll a 12.
Using statistics like this tells us about more fruitful methods, means, situations, etc, but it does not tell us what can happen, normally. You are saying that there is no determinant cause here, but that is conjecture based on incomplete information. For all we know the essential factors are there, but hidden from the public. Also, the events that are occurring are following many past chains of events that led to destabilized nations. That these mathematicians state that the past record of similar events has upper and lower ceilings and floors is at best dealing in mere plausibility. "Black Swan" events are always outside the record of known events and do happen.
You are an educated and intelligent person, and I am sorry if my lol was insulting, but it was all I could do at the moment.
I took you to say it cant happen here because of the modeling for coups show that it is very unlikely to happen here.
JimBowie1958, would you mind telling me what you find funny about my having cited the findings of extreme bounds analysis (EBA) of coup d'etat determinants as the refutation to the OP-er's assertion?
Sure. You referenced this doc in stating that the conditions for a coup were not present by denying Stratfords claim that conditions are indeed good for a coup.
Your document states around page 5:
staging a coup would seem to be more attractive (and B should hence be larger) if one or more of the following three conditions are fulfilled. First, control over the state promises control over resources (which is, 5 for instance, the case if property rights are not secure, natural resources are abundant, inequality is high and the state apparatus is large).4 Second, the status quo of the elites or the military has been negatively affected by government policies that could be reversed easily in the aftermath of a coup (for instance, reduced military expenditure or liberalized economic sectors). In a similar vein, Tullock (2005) has argued that dictators maintain control by paying out benefits to those on whose loyalty they depend (see also Wintrobe 2012). If these payments are reduced by the incumbent regime, the net benefits of staging a coup may become positive for some actors. And third, the state does not depend financially on foreign governments being well disposed toward it (e.g., low dependence on foreign aid, not being under programs of the IMF or the World Bank, limited foreign trade).
ALL THREE CONDITIONS ARE MET TODAY here in the USA with an angry political establishment elite shocked that Trump won the last election and determined to do everything that they can to stop him, neutralize him and to remove him.
But about this use of statistical models to tell us what can happen as opposed to what is merely more plausible, it doesnt work that way. The past historical record does not have DETERMINANTS in it, but only indicators as to future plausibility, not possibility.
We are talking about the plausibility of a coup in a specific case, here in the USA. Mathematical/statistical models of what makes the conditions most likely for such an event cannot be used as a refutation for any specific event in a specific time and place. I took you to say it cant happen here because of the modeling for coups show that it is very unlikely to happen here.
As an analogy. Suppose we are playing some parlor game and to win the game, in some final end game situation, you have to roll 2 six sided dice and beat a nine. Were I to tell you I have already won the game because the odds are much more likely that you will roll an 8 or less because that is how dice operate would be premature. Even though dice do usually roll 8 or less you could still roll a 12.
Using statistics like this tells us about more fruitful methods, means, situations, etc, but it does not tell us what can happen, normally. You are saying that there is no determinant cause here, but that is conjecture based on incomplete information. For all we know the essential factors are there, but hidden from the public. Also, the events that are occurring are following many past chains of events that led to destabilized nations. That these mathematicians state that the past record of similar events has upper and lower ceilings and floors is at best dealing in mere plausibility. "Black Swan" events are always outside the record of known events and do happen.
You are an educated and intelligent person, and I am sorry if my lol was insulting, but it was all I could do at the moment.I took you to say it cant happen here because of the modeling for coups show that it is very unlikely to happen here.
That is absolutely not what I wrote/said. It's not even close to what I said.
What I wrote is that the other member's assertion is not supported by the extreme bounds analysis. Reviewing the OP-er's OP, one observes that s/he identified a single criterion -- the society there must be very well divided -- and even your own read of the document reveals that no single criterion is sufficient to militate for a coup. At that point in the discussion, that terse point is the one I had to make.
More specifically and to the point I made earlier, you surely noticed that of the 66 criteria evaluated, the robustly related variable that comes closest to the one the OP-er identified is a compound one, "Political Stability and Absence of Violence." That variable really doesn't apply to the situation currently observed in the U.S.
Sure as we Americans prattle a lot about violence, the fact is that we quie literally do not have the sort of violence referred to -- violence against the government a la Boston Tea Party, Boston Massacre, Tiananmen Square, the Pine Tree Riot, or some other such violence, such as that happening in Venezuela, whereby material segments and quantities of the polity repeatedly and frequently rise up against their own government. The violence we have in the U.S. is one non-governmental group fighting another, with the government intervening as needed to stop the violence and arrest the perpetrators.
Even the BLM folks griping about the police aren't at that stage of violent revolt. Ditto the white supremacists/nationalists and the non-racist Trumpkins. They're pissed, but they don't want a coup or anything close to it, they just want comparatively minor changes, not the complete overthrow of the U.S. government and its Constitution, which is what a coup would be.
Obviously, absent the sort of violence described above, the U.S. is politically stable. Political instability and political contentiousness just aren't the same things. The U.S. has been politically stable since 1776 and there's been political contentiousness between/among the various political parties since 1776. It's a difference of degrees, and again, we're nowhere near being politically unstable as was, say, the USSR when Berlin Wall came down and the USSR dissolved, imploded, whatever you want to (for now) call it, or when the Bolsheviks overthrew the Tsar.
In short the differences I've highlighted are ones of nature and extent. Sure, a coup is possible anywhere, but the "political stability and violence" conditions that, in concert with other conditions, foster/support one simply don't at the requisite level exist in the U.S. right now, and as is shown in the referenced document, "political stability and violence" alone is insufficient. Thus, as I initially wrote, the OP-er's statement is not supported by extreme bounds analysis.
Okay. I never expect that one quickly read and reply to my posts. USMB just isn't that important.JimBowie1958, would you mind telling me what you find funny about my having cited the findings of extreme bounds analysis (EBA) of coup d'etat determinants as the refutation to the OP-er's assertion?
Sure. You referenced this doc in stating that the conditions for a coup were not present by denying Stratfords claim that conditions are indeed good for a coup.
Your document states around page 5:
staging a coup would seem to be more attractive (and B should hence be larger) if one or more of the following three conditions are fulfilled. First, control over the state promises control over resources (which is, 5 for instance, the case if property rights are not secure, natural resources are abundant, inequality is high and the state apparatus is large).4 Second, the status quo of the elites or the military has been negatively affected by government policies that could be reversed easily in the aftermath of a coup (for instance, reduced military expenditure or liberalized economic sectors). In a similar vein, Tullock (2005) has argued that dictators maintain control by paying out benefits to those on whose loyalty they depend (see also Wintrobe 2012). If these payments are reduced by the incumbent regime, the net benefits of staging a coup may become positive for some actors. And third, the state does not depend financially on foreign governments being well disposed toward it (e.g., low dependence on foreign aid, not being under programs of the IMF or the World Bank, limited foreign trade).
ALL THREE CONDITIONS ARE MET TODAY here in the USA with an angry political establishment elite shocked that Trump won the last election and determined to do everything that they can to stop him, neutralize him and to remove him.
But about this use of statistical models to tell us what can happen as opposed to what is merely more plausible, it doesnt work that way. The past historical record does not have DETERMINANTS in it, but only indicators as to future plausibility, not possibility.
We are talking about the plausibility of a coup in a specific case, here in the USA. Mathematical/statistical models of what makes the conditions most likely for such an event cannot be used as a refutation for any specific event in a specific time and place. I took you to say it cant happen here because of the modeling for coups show that it is very unlikely to happen here.
As an analogy. Suppose we are playing some parlor game and to win the game, in some final end game situation, you have to roll 2 six sided dice and beat a nine. Were I to tell you I have already won the game because the odds are much more likely that you will roll an 8 or less because that is how dice operate would be premature. Even though dice do usually roll 8 or less you could still roll a 12.
Using statistics like this tells us about more fruitful methods, means, situations, etc, but it does not tell us what can happen, normally. You are saying that there is no determinant cause here, but that is conjecture based on incomplete information. For all we know the essential factors are there, but hidden from the public. Also, the events that are occurring are following many past chains of events that led to destabilized nations. That these mathematicians state that the past record of similar events has upper and lower ceilings and floors is at best dealing in mere plausibility. "Black Swan" events are always outside the record of known events and do happen.
You are an educated and intelligent person, and I am sorry if my lol was insulting, but it was all I could do at the moment.I took you to say it cant happen here because of the modeling for coups show that it is very unlikely to happen here.
That is absolutely not what I wrote/said. It's not even close to what I said.
What I wrote is that the other member's assertion is not supported by the extreme bounds analysis. Reviewing the OP-er's OP, one observes that s/he identified a single criterion -- the society there must be very well divided -- and even your own read of the document reveals that no single criterion is sufficient to militate for a coup. At that point in the discussion, that terse point is the one I had to make.
More specifically and to the point I made earlier, you surely noticed that of the 66 criteria evaluated, the robustly related variable that comes closest to the one the OP-er identified is a compound one, "Political Stability and Absence of Violence." That variable really doesn't apply to the situation currently observed in the U.S.
Sure as we Americans prattle a lot about violence, the fact is that we quie literally do not have the sort of violence referred to -- violence against the government a la Boston Tea Party, Boston Massacre, Tiananmen Square, the Pine Tree Riot, or some other such violence, such as that happening in Venezuela, whereby material segments and quantities of the polity repeatedly and frequently rise up against their own government. The violence we have in the U.S. is one non-governmental group fighting another, with the government intervening as needed to stop the violence and arrest the perpetrators.
Even the BLM folks griping about the police aren't at that stage of violent revolt. Ditto the white supremacists/nationalists and the non-racist Trumpkins. They're pissed, but they don't want a coup or anything close to it, they just want comparatively minor changes, not the complete overthrow of the U.S. government and its Constitution, which is what a coup would be.
Obviously, absent the sort of violence described above, the U.S. is politically stable. Political instability and political contentiousness just aren't the same things. The U.S. has been politically stable since 1776 and there's been political contentiousness between/among the various political parties since 1776. It's a difference of degrees, and again, we're nowhere near being politically unstable as was, say, the USSR when Berlin Wall came down and the USSR dissolved, imploded, whatever you want to (for now) call it, or when the Bolsheviks overthrew the Tsar.
In short the differences I've highlighted are ones of nature and extent. Sure, a coup is possible anywhere, but the "political stability and violence" conditions that, in concert with other conditions, foster/support one simply don't at the requisite level exist in the U.S. right now, and as is shown in the referenced document, "political stability and violence" alone is insufficient. Thus, as I initially wrote, the OP-er's statement is not supported by extreme bounds analysis.
Well, I am not sure what you said other than to give a one line rebutal and link, which leaves wide room for interpretation.
But your post deserves more time and consideration than I have right now; gotta take the missus to see 'Hitman Bodyguard', lol.
It isnt USMB so much as the fair exchange of ideas.Okay. I never expect that one quickly read and reply to my posts. USMB just isn't that important.
Okay. I appreciate that.It isnt USMB so much as the fair exchange of ideas.Okay. I never expect that one quickly read and reply to my posts. USMB just isn't that important.
I learn a lot here.
It isnt USMB so much as the fair exchange of ideas.Okay. I never expect that one quickly read and reply to my posts. USMB just isn't that important.
I learn a lot here.
