Trumpin puhdistukset ja linjamuutokset

Vakaa Nero

Kersantti

Viikottain kirkossa käyvät kristityt
USA 47%
Venäjä 7%
Suomi 5%

Riippuu ilmeisesti aikalailla perspetiivistä löytyykö kirkkokanssaa vai ei ;) Toki varmasti noissa em tiedoissa on epätarkuutta, mutta jotain pohjaa kuiten antanevat. Nuoremmat sukupolven ovat hieman vähemmän uskonnollisia, http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2015/11/201.11.03_RLS_II_full_report.pdf
They believe in God, With absolute certainty
Silent generation (born 1928- 1945) - 71%
Younger Millennials (born 1990- 1996) - 50%
Kun keskiarvo on 50%, niin vaihteluväli on ehkä 25%-75%. Jos vertaa tilastotietelijöiden kartoilta kirkossakäynnin aktiivisuutta ja Trumpin voittamia osavaltioita, niin korrelaation havaitsee vaikka sokea kepillään. Sehän ei tietysti ole todiste, mutta subjektiivinen näkemykseni on, että kirkon lannistamat lampaat ja kiihkeät republikaanit ovat hyvin pitkälle samaa porukkaa. Bible belt ja kirkkokansa ovat todellisuutta.

Kuten tuolla edellä totesin on kirkossa käynti myös tärkeä osa arjen sosiaalista elämää. Lähes kaikki kietoutuu USA:ssa kirkkoyhteisön ympärille. Siksi pelkästään tuolla perusteella ei voi tyypittää ketään edes uskovaksi. Saati sitten kiihkoilijaksi tai fundamentalistiksi.
 

taantumu

Eversti
Trump ei onneksi ole innokas aloittamaan sotaa Irania vastaan, presidentti kertoi kannastaan virkaatekevälle puolustusministeri Shanahanille. Ulkoministeri Pompeolla ja turvallisuusneuvoantaja Boltonilla toisaalta on kova sotakiima.
President Trump has told his acting defense secretary, Patrick Shanahan, that he does not want to go to war with Iran, according to several administration officials, in a message to his hawkish aides that an intensifying American pressure campaign against the clerical-led government in Tehran must not escalate into open conflict.

Mr. Trump’s statement, during a Wednesday morning meeting in the Situation Room, came during a briefing on the rising tensions with Iran. American intelligence has indicated that Iran has placed missiles on small boats in the Persian Gulf, prompting fears that Tehran may strike at United States troops and assets or those of its allies.

No new information was presented to the president at the meeting that argued for further engagement with Iran, according to a person in the room. But Mr. Trump was firm in saying he did not want a military clash with the Iranians, several officials said.

On Thursday, Mr. Trump was asked during a visit by the Swiss president, Ueli Maurer, whether the United States was going to war with Iran.

“I hope not,” he replied.

The president has sought to tamp down reports that two of his most hawkish aides — the national security adviser, John R. Bolton, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — are spoiling for a fight with Iran and are running ahead of him in precipitating a military confrontation.“There is no infighting whatsoever,” Mr. Trump said in a tweet on Wednesday evening. “Different opinions are expressed, and I make a decisive and simple decision — it’s a very simple process. All sides, views, and policies are covered.”

But Mr. Trump added he was confident Iran “will want to talk soon,” signaling an openness to diplomacy that officials said is not shared by Mr. Bolton or Mr. Pompeo.

The president’s professed hopes for a dialogue with Iran seem unlikely to produce a breakthrough any time soon. In Tokyo, Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif of Iran said there was “no possibility” of discussions with the administration to ease the tensions, Agence France-Presse reported.

“The escalation by the United States is unacceptable,” Mr. Zarif told reporters, according to AFP.

Mr. Pompeo has outlined 12 steps that Iran must take to satisfy the United States — measures that some in the Pentagon view as unrealistic and could back Iranian leaders into a corner. He recently described American policy as being calculated to produce domestic political unrest in Iran.

Mr. Bolton, as a private citizen, long called for regime change in Tehran. He has resisted compromises that would open the door to negotiations with Tehran, has stocked the N.S.C. with Iran hard-liners and has masterminded recent policy changes to tighten the economic and political vise on the country’s leaders.

Mr. Trump is less frustrated with Mr. Bolton over his handling of Iran — he favors the tougher measures as a warning to Tehran — than over the evolving narrative that his national security adviser is leading the administration’s policy in the Middle East, according to three officials.

The president, they said, is well-versed and comfortable with the administration’s recent steps, which have included imposing increasingly onerous sanctions on Iran and designating the military wing of the government, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, as a foreign terrorist organization.

Still, the gravity of the Iranian threat has become the subject of a fierce debate among administration officials. Some officials have argued that it did not warrant a dramatic American response, like deploying thousands of troops to the Middle East, or the partial evacuation of the United States Embassy in Baghdad.

The Pentagon last week presented Mr. Trump with options to send up to 120,000 troops to the Middle East, if Iran attacked American forces or accelerated its work on nuclear weapons. The options were ordered by Mr. Bolton, who has kept an unusually tight grip on the policymaking process for a national security adviser.

Mr. Bolton, officials said, has quietly voiced frustration with the president, viewing him as unwilling to push for changes in a region that he has long seen as a quagmire. That, in turn, has led people in the White House to view Mr. Bolton with deepening skepticism, with some questioning whether his job is in trouble.

Mr. Trump also is impatient with another of Mr. Bolton’s major campaigns: the effort to oust President Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela. After the opposition’s failed attempt to peel away key Maduro allies and turn the Venezuelan military against him, Mr. Maduro appears harder to dislodge than ever.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/16/world/middleeast/iran-trump.html?action=click&module=Top Stories&pgtype=Homepage
 

Tex

Kapteeni
No kiitos John Kerryn, joka Trumpin mukaan huseeraa ominluvin Iranin tykönä.
 

Bushmaster

Ylipäällikkö
Lahjoittaja
The Democrats today have gone so far Left that they are far from where the party used to stand. If JFK was alive today, he certainly wouldn't be on the political Left.

Watch: https://l.prageru.com/2P6Gxgd

too far left_n – Kopio.jpg
 

notareal

Kersantti
 

taantumu

Eversti
The Democrats today have gone so far Left that they are far from where the party used to stand. If JFK was alive today, he certainly wouldn't be on the political Left.

Watch: https://l.prageru.com/2P6Gxgd

View attachment 30043
Kennedyn ja noiden muiden välillä on reilu 50 vuotta joten ei ole ihme että muutama asia on siinä välissä muuttunut. Kennedyn kaudella korkein tuloveroluokka oli 91%, nykyisin 37%. Kennedy on ainoa katolinen presidentti ja luonnollisesti vastusti aborttia. Aselait eivät Kennedyn aikana olleet suuren kiinnostuksen kohteena. Lakeja alettiin kiristää vasta 1968, syynä Kennedyn veljesten, Martin Luther Kingin ym. poliittiset salamurhat.
 

Bushmaster

Ylipäällikkö
Lahjoittaja
ja heti marssitetaan esiin "luotettavaa" marxilaista faktantarkistusta :LOL::LOL::LOL:
 

ILoveEU

Kapteeni
Ja heti väitetään "marxilaiseksi" kun ei pureksimatta niellä :LOL::LOL::LOL:
Meni kuitenkin mediasbias pureksimatta.

Katsoin listan salaliittosivustoista, eikä siellä ollut mainintaa CNN tai MSNBC:sta.

Keskeiset kanavat, jolla viljeltiin salaliittoteoriaa viimeiset kaksi vuotta. MSNBC:lla on edelleen ilmoilla Rachel Maddow, jonka ohjelma oli ja on puhdasta salaliittohäröilyä.

Edelleen Mediabiasfactcheck ei reagoi - eipä juuri anna luotettavaa kuvaa sivuston tasapuolisuudesta.


Edit: Se myönnettäköön, että sivusto uskaltaa selvästi pistää CNN ja MSNBC:n vasemmiston puolelle. Täällähän on yleensä viljelty jotain kuvaa missä eri mediatalot on jaoteltu vas-neutraali-oik akselille. Cnn ja msnbc olivat muistaakseni siinä enemmän neutraaleja.

Mutta tämä on selvästi poliittisesti korrektisti muotoiltu kuvaus salaliittoteorian viljelystä:

They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy
 
Viimeksi muokattu:

Bushmaster

Ylipäällikkö
Lahjoittaja
näitä kannataa lukea ilman marxilaisuuden verenpunaisia kakkuloita niin saa jotain "pureskeltavaa", eikä tarvii kulttuuri-marxistista Mediabiasfactcheck mössöä lutkuttaa...:LOL:





 

ILoveEU

Kapteeni
näitä kannataa lukea ilman marxilaisuuden verenpunaisia kakkuloita

WaPon "presidentin valehtelulista" mikälie, oli tehty hyvä faktantarkastus youtubeen, en valitettavasti enää sitä löydä; mutta senkään perusteella en ihmettele, jos ko. valehtelulistaan on päässyt Trumpin "mailin korkuinen hampurilaispino" - WaPo oli ainakin uutisessaan tehnyt sille faktantarkastuksen.

Wapon päätelmä oli, että Valkoisen talon pöydällä näkyvät mätöt eivät yllä 1,6km korkeuteen. En sano, etteikö presidentti käyttäisi vilkasta kieltä, mutta ei sentään tarvitsisi lukea kuin piru raamattua.

----

Enkä tarkoittanut, etteikö pitäisi kriittisesti katsoa PragerU:n videoita, varsinkin kun siellä on eri tekijöitä.

En kuitenkaan kehtaisi kenellekään mennä iskemään eteen mediabäiasfäktsekkiä, vähän sillä tarkoituksella, että. - Sinä, olet nyt hiljaa ja uskot mitä tämä auktoriteetin asemassa oleva nettisivu sinulle sanoo.

Kuitenkin, pitäisi aina itse tutustua aiheeseen ja sitä kautta kiistellä vaikka siitä, miksi Alex Jones tai Rachel Maddow on salaliittoteoreetikko; eikä lyödä pöytään pelkästään mediabäiasfäktsekkiä.

Mitä enemmän tietää asiasta, sitä vähemmän mediabiasfactcheckia tarvitaan.



Enkä voi väittää ettenkö melko pitkälle olisi samaa mieltä tämän PragerU videon kanssa.

 

Bushmaster

Ylipäällikkö
Lahjoittaja

Bushmaster

Ylipäällikkö
Lahjoittaja
Suomalaiset ovat tuossa ehkä maailman parhaimpia. Mediakriittisyydessä.
Suomalaiset ehkä mutta ei Suomen "vastuumediat" ....ulos suolletaan vaikka pitä sontaa suurena ja virallisena totuutena :LOL:
 

Heikki

Kersantti
Meni kuitenkin mediasbias pureksimatta.
Nah, en itse aiheeseen tuossa ottanut kantaa lainkaan, ilman perusteita tapahtuvan dissaamiseen vain, johon vastasin kyrpiintyneenä samalla tavalla. Ei ehkä olisi pitänyt, mutta ihan pikkuisen turhan usein kuitataan aiheellinen kritiikki ivallisella vittuilulla. "Jos joku kannatti verotuksen alentamista sen ollessa isoimmassa tuloluokassa yli 90%, totta kai tämä kannattasi sen alentamista nytkin! Ai et usko? MARXILAINEN KOMMUNISTI LOLOLOL!"

Vakavissaan: plussat siitä huomauttamisesta, ei pidä antaa mennä keneltäkään läpi.
 
Viimeksi muokattu:

Bushmaster

Ylipäällikkö
Lahjoittaja

taantumu

Eversti
Deutsche Bank jätti raportoimatta valtionvarainministeriölle epaillyttävää rahaliikennettä Donald Trumpin ja Jared Kushnerin hallitsemien firmojen tileiltä vuosina 2016 ja 2017.

Kesällä 2016 useita rahansiirtoja tapahtui Kushnerin firman tileiltä Venäjälle jotka pankin ohjelmisto merkkasi epäillyttäviksi ja pankin työntekijät laativat raportin mahdollisesta rahanpesusta. New Yorkin konttorin johto päätti ettei raportteja anneta valtionvarainministeriölle. Trumpin tultua presidentiksi Trumpin ja hänen omistamiensa firmojen tileillä oli useita epäillyttäviä tapahtumia mutta näitäkään ei raportoitu valvovalle elimelle.
Anti-money-laundering specialists at Deutsche Bank recommended in 2016 and 2017 that multiple transactions involving legal entities controlled by Donald J. Trump and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, be reported to a federal financial-crimes watchdog.

The transactions, some of which involved Mr. Trump’s now-defunct foundation, set off alerts in a computer system designed to detect illicit activity, according to five current and former bank employees. Compliance staff members who then reviewed the transactions prepared so-called suspicious activity reports that they believed should be sent to a unit of the Treasury Department that polices financial crimes.

But executives at Deutsche Bank, which has lent billions of dollars to the Trump and Kushner companies, rejected their employees’ advice. The reports were never filed with the government.

The nature of the transactions was not clear. At least some of them involved money flowing back and forth with overseas entities or individuals, which bank employees considered suspicious.

Real estate developers like Mr. Trump and Mr. Kushner sometimes do large, all-cash deals, including with people outside the United States, any of which can prompt anti-money laundering reviews. The red flags raised by employees do not necessarily mean the transactions were improper. Banks sometimes opt not to file suspicious activity reports if they conclude their employees’ concerns are unwarranted.

But former Deutsche Bank employees said the decision not to report the Trump and Kushner transactions reflected the bank’s generally lax approach to money laundering laws. The employees — most of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to preserve their ability to work in the industry — said it was part of a pattern of the bank’s executives rejecting valid reports to protect relationships with lucrative clients.

“You present them with everything, and you give them a recommendation, and nothing happens,” said Tammy McFadden, a former Deutsche Bank anti-money laundering specialist who reviewed some of the transactions. “It’s the D.B. way. They are prone to discounting everything.”

Ms. McFadden said she was terminated last year after she raised concerns about the bank’s practices. Since then, she has filed complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission and other regulators about the bank’s anti-money-laundering enforcement.

Kerrie McHugh, a Deutsche Bank spokeswoman, said the company had intensified its efforts to combat financial crime. An effective anti-money laundering program, she said, “requires sophisticated transaction screening technology as well as a trained group of individuals who can analyze the alerts generated by that technology both thoroughly and efficiently.”

“At no time was an investigator prevented from escalating activity identified as potentially suspicious,” she added. “Furthermore, the suggestion that anyone was reassigned or fired in an effort to quash concerns relating to any client is categorically false.”

Amanda Miller, a spokeswoman for the Trump Organization, the umbrella company for the Trump family’s many business interests, said: “We have no knowledge of any ‘flagged’ transactions with Deutsche Bank.” She said the Trump Organization currently has “no operating accounts with Deutsche Bank.” She did not respond when asked if other Trump entities had accounts.

Karen Zabarsky, a spokeswoman for Kushner Companies, said: “Any allegations regarding Deutsche Bank’s relationship with Kushner Companies which involved money laundering is completely made up and totally false. The New York Times continues to create dots that just don’t connect.”

Deutsche Bank’s decision not to report the transactions is the latest twist in Mr. Trump’s long, complicated relationship with the German bank — the only mainstream financial institution consistently willing to do business with the real estate developer.

Congressional and state authorities are investigating that relationship and have demanded the bank’s records related to the president, his family and their companies. Subpoenas from two House committees seek, among other things, documents related to any suspicious activities detected in Mr. Trump’s personal and business bank accounts since 2010, according to a copy of a subpoena included in a federal court filing.

Mr. Trump and his family sued Deutsche Bank in April, seeking to block it from complying with the congressional subpoenas. The president’s lawyers described the subpoenas as politically motivated.

Suspicious activity reports are at the heart of the federal government’s efforts to identify criminal activity like money laundering and sanctions violations. But government regulations give banks leeway in selecting which transactions to report to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.

Lenders typically use a layered approach to detect improper activity. The first step is filtering thousands of transactions using computer programs, which send the ones considered potentially suspicious to midlevel employees for a detailed review. Those employees can decide whether to draft a suspicious activity report, but a final ruling on whether to submit it to the Treasury Department is often made by more senior managers.

In the summer of 2016, Deutsche Bank’s software flagged a series of transactions involving the real estate company of Mr. Kushner, now a senior White House adviser.

Ms. McFadden, a longtime anti-money laundering specialist in Deutsche Bank’s Jacksonville office, said she had reviewed the transactions and found that money had moved from Kushner Companies to Russian individuals. She concluded that the transactions should be reported to the government — in part because federal regulators had ordered Deutsche Bank, which had been caught laundering billions of dollars for Russians, to toughen its scrutiny of potentially illegal transactions.

Ms. McFadden drafted a suspicious activity report and compiled a small bundle of documents to back up her decision.
Typically, such a report would be reviewed by a team of anti-money laundering experts who are independent of the business line in which the transactions originated — in this case, the private-banking division — according to Ms. McFadden and two former Deutsche Bank managers.

That did not happen with this report. It went to managers in New York who were part of the private bank, which caters to the ultrawealthy. They felt Ms. McFadden’s concerns were unfounded and opted not to submit the report to the government, the employees said.

Ms. McFadden and some of her colleagues said they believed the report had been killed to maintain the private-banking division’s strong relationship with Mr. Kushner.

After Mr. Trump became president, transactions involving him and his companies were reviewed by an anti-financial crime team at the bank called the Special Investigations Unit. That team, based in Jacksonville, produced multiple suspicious activity reports involving different entities that Mr. Trump owned or controlled, according to three former Deutsche Bank employees who saw the reports in an internal computer system.

Some of those reports involved Mr. Trump’s limited liability companies. At least one was related to transactions involving the Donald J. Trump Foundation, two employees said.

Deutsche Bank ultimately chose not to file those suspicious activity reports with the Treasury Department, either, according to three former employees. They said it was unusual for the bank to reject a series of reports involving the same high-profile client.

Mr. Trump’s relationship with Deutsche Bank spans two decades. During a period when most Wall Street banks had stopped doing business with him after his repeated defaults, Deutsche Bank lent Mr. Trump and his companies a total of more than $2.5 billion. Projects financed through the private-banking division include Mr. Trump’s Doral golf resort near Miami and his transformation of Washington’s Old Post Office Building into a luxury hotel.

When he became president, he owed Deutsche Bank well over $300 million. That made the German institution Mr. Trump’s biggest creditor — and put the bank in a bind.

Senior executives worried that if they took a tough stance with Mr. Trump’s accounts — for example, by demanding payment of a delinquent loan — they could provoke the president’s wrath. On the other hand, if they didn’t do anything, the bank could be perceived as cutting a lucrative break for Mr. Trump, whose administration wields regulatory and law enforcement power over the bank.

In the past few years, United States and European authorities have punished Deutsche Bank for helping clients, including wealthy Russians, launder funds and for moving money into countries like Iran in violation of American sanctions. The bank has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties and is operating under a Federal Reserve order that requires it to do more to stop illicit activities.

On two palm-tree-lined campuses in Jacksonville, Deutsche Bank has thousands of employees who vet customers and transactions. Six current and former bank employees there said the operations were deeply troubled.
Anti-money laundering workers were pressured to quickly sift through transactions to assess whether they were suspicious, the employees said. As a result, they often erred on the side of not flagging transactions.
Two former employees said that they had raised concerns about transactions involving companies linked to prominent Russians, but that managers had told them not to file suspicious activity reports. The employees were under the impression that the bank did not want to upset important clients.
Several employees said they had complained about the bank’s anti-money laundering processes to Joshua Blazer, the head of Deutsche Bank’s financial crimes investigations division in Jacksonville, and had then been criticized for having a negative attitude. One employee said she resigned last summer over concerns about the bank’s ethics.

Mr. Blazer, hired by Deutsche Bank in 2017 to strengthen the bank’s financial crime-fighting apparatus, declined to comment.

Ms. McFadden’s job at Deutsche Bank was to inspect clients and transactions in the company’s private-banking division — the unit that lent money to Mr. Trump. She joined the bank in 2008, after working for Bank of America, also in Jacksonville.

Ms. McFadden had left Bank of America in 2005, and later sued for racial discrimination and wrongful termination. According to court records, her lawsuit was settled on confidential terms the same year she joined Deutsche Bank, where she went on to win multiple performance awards.

Around the time she flagged the Kushner Companies’ transactions, Ms. McFadden said, she also complained about how the bank was scrutinizing the accounts of high-profile customers, such as those in public office. Those customers — known as politically exposed persons — are regarded as at heightened risk of being involved in corruption. As a result, their accounts are subject to extra vetting.

Ms. McFadden said she had told her superiors that dozens of politically exposed clients of the private-banking division, including Mr. Trump and members of his family, were not receiving that added attention. Her superiors told her to stop raising questions, according to Ms. McFadden and the two former managers.

After taking her complaint to the human resources department, Ms. McFadden was transferred to another division. She was terminated in April 2018. The bank told her that she was not processing enough transactions.

Ms. McFadden disputed that. She said her superiors had reduced the number of transactions she was assigned to review after she voiced her concerns. She and the two former managers said they perceived her termination as an act of retaliation.

“They attempted to try to silence me,” she said. “I’m at peace because I know that I did the right thing.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/business/deutsche-bank-trump-kushner.html
 
Top