Ontvang nu dagelijks onze kooptips!
word abonnee
sluiten ✕
Trump Job Approval Jumps to 53% - Seven Points Higher Than Obama at this point in his presidency!!!!!!!!!
Oeps, blijkt die grote linkse weldoener kinderen in kooien op te sluiten.... Wat doe je dan als dat uitkomt? Dan ontken je het en geef je Trump de schuld! Links op zn best!twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/11...
Trump denkt na een handelstarief op Goudse Kaas ook een importtarief op WC papier te moeten invoeren!!!
USA_Trader schreef op 10 april 2019 14:09 :
Oeps, blijkt die grote linkse weldoener kinderen in kooien op te sluiten.... Wat doe je dan als dat uitkomt? Dan ontken je het en geef je Trump de schuld! Links op zn best!
twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/11... Als het jou misschien uitkomt om dit artikel te lezen met inbegrip van de video zul je waarschijnlijk tot een meer genuanceerdere mening kunnen komen. De video is een reportage van Fox News met verslaggever Shepard Smith. Deze legt goed uit dat de tweet van Donald Trump niet correct is.www.newsweek.com/fox-news-shepard-smi... Hier de video uit het artikelwww.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5...
objectief schreef op 10 april 2019 14:49 :
Trump denkt na een handelstarief op Goudse Kaas ook een importtarief op WC papier te moeten invoeren!!!
Om geen invoerrechten op wc papier te betalen heeft hij een smokkel truc.www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-jYhxUaBbk
USA_Trader schreef op 10 april 2019 14:07 :
[...]
Zo is dat!
Heerlijk om de complete paniek bij luchtschip en zijn kornuiten te zien! De ene onzinnige post na de andere en ondertussen maakt de beste president aller tijden elke dag de wereld een betere plek!
Jup, ze blijven maar brullen, maar onderhand zakt hun linkse wereldje in elkaar..
Het is elke dag weer genieten om het links fascistische imperium in elkaar te zien storten. Trump zei voor zijn verkiezing: Ik ga zoveel winnen dat jullie er moe van zullen worden. Zover is het nog lang niet, ik geniet er elke dag van met volle teugen!
USA_Trader schreef op 10 april 2019 16:10 :
Het is elke dag weer genieten om het links fascistische imperium in elkaar te zien storten. Trump zei voor zijn verkiezing: Ik ga zoveel winnen dat jullie er moe van zullen worden. Zover is het nog lang niet, ik geniet er elke dag van met volle teugen!
Haha zeker! De media doet lijken alsof heel USA tegen Trump is maar volgens mij is het precies andersom!
trump's filmpje is verdwenen. Heeft Leni Riefenstahl geklaagd?
Maduro is als hopeloze leider in Venezuela nog een lieverdje vergeleken met een van de ergste dictator-uitbuiters uit de wereldgeschiedenis Kimmetje uit N-Korea. maar omdat de visieloze trump vriendjes is (tegen beter weten in) met Kim en hem op een podium getild heeft om daarmee zichzelf op de borst te kloppen dat hij het gevaar N-Korea bezworen heeft, dat slaat geweldig aan bij de trump fans en de trollenclub. zoals alles geweldig is aan die mislukte bedrijfsleider volgens zijn fans en ze steken elke dag de loftrompet af omdat ze daar behoefte aan hebben en wat moet je anders ? de feiten liegen niet en zijn niet in het voordeel van die leugenachtige narcist. wij hebben in ons landje wat last van klimaatdrammers maar die muurdrammer aan de overkant slaat alles wat in de moderne politiek over heel lange tijd vertoond is.
gbakl schreef op 10 april 2019 18:36 :
Maduro is als hopeloze leider in Venezuela nog een lieverdje vergeleken met
een van de ergste dictator-uitbuiters uit de wereldgeschiedenis Kimmetje uit
N-Korea.
maar omdat de visieloze trump vriendjes is (tegen beter weten in) met Kim en
hem op een podium getild heeft om daarmee zichzelf op de borst te kloppen dat hij het gevaar N-Korea bezworen heeft, dat slaat geweldig aan bij de trump fans en de trollenclub.
zoals alles geweldig is aan die mislukte bedrijfsleider volgens zijn fans
en ze steken elke dag de loftrompet af omdat ze daar behoefte aan hebben en
wat moet je anders ? de feiten liegen niet en zijn niet in het voordeel van
die leugenachtige narcist.
wij hebben in ons landje wat last van klimaatdrammers maar die muurdrammer
aan de overkant slaat alles wat in de moderne politiek over heel lange tijd
vertoond is.
Kijk daar is de linkse onnozelheid weer in optima forma! Noord Korea is al decennia een groot gevaar. Zo groot dat Obama bij zijn aftreden het zelfs het aller grootste gevaar voor de wereld noemde. Kim vuurde de ene raket af na de andere en niets kon hem stoppen. Toen kwam Trump, die tapte uit een ander vaatje en kreeg Kim aan de tafel. De lanceringen stopte direct en er is nu rust. In plaats van een standbeeld op te richten voor Trump maakt links er iets negatiefs van. Niemand die de domme leugens geloofd, inclusief henzelf maar toch papegaaien ze elkaar dag in dag uit na. En dan vragen ze zich af waarom ze de laatste tijd toch zoveel kiezers verliezen.... Dom links, het blijft genieten!
Crisis? What crisis? All the positions at DHS with no permanent leader: Secretary Deputy Secretary Under Secretary for Management CBP Commissioner ICE Director Secret Service Director FEMA Administrator
Julian Assange Julian Assange, WikilLeaks, die in de ambassade van Ecuador in London verbleef is door de politie van London uit de ambassade gehaald.ruptly.tv/en/videos/20190411-025
luchtschip schreef op 11 april 2019 13:16 :
Julian Assange
Julian Assange, WikilLeaks, die in de ambassade van Ecuador in London verbleef is door de politie van London uit de ambassade gehaald.
ruptly.tv/en/videos/20190411-025 Hij heeft nu in feite 7 jaar in een gevangenis gezeten, achteraf gezien had hij zich beter in Zweden kunnen aangeven.
As the Obama DOJ Concluded, Prosecution of Julian Assange for Publishing Documents Poses Grave Threats to Press Freedom theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-ob... THE TRUMP JUSTICE DEPARTMENT inadvertently revealed in a court filing that it has charged Julian Assange in a sealed indictment. The disclosure occurred through a remarkably amateurish cutting-and-pasting error in which prosecutors unintentionally used secret language from Assange’s sealed charges in a document filed in an unrelated case. Although the document does not specify which charges have been filed against Assange, the Wall Street Journal reported that “they may involve the Espionage Act, which criminalizes the disclosure of national defense-related information.” Over the last two years, journalists and others have melodramatically claimed that press freedoms were being assaulted by the Trump administration due to trivial acts such as the President spouting adolescent insults on Twitter at Chuck Todd and Wolf Blitzer or banning Jim Acosta from White House press conferences due to his refusal to stop preening for a few minutes so as to allow other journalists to ask questions. Meanwhile, actual and real threats to press freedoms that began with the Obama DOJ and have escalated with the Trump DOJ – such as aggressive attempts to unearth and prosecute sources – have gone largely ignored if not applauded. But prosecuting Assange and/or WikiLeaks for publishing classified documents would be in an entirely different universe of press freedom threats. Reporting on the secret acts of government officials or powerful financial actors – including by publishing documents taken without authorization – is at the core of investigative journalism. From the Pentagon Papers to the Panama Papers to the Snowden disclosures to publication of Trump’s tax returns to the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, some of the most important journalism over the last several decades has occurred because it is legal and constitutional to publish secret documents even if the sources of those documents obtained them through illicit or even illegal means. The Obama DOJ – despite launching notoriously aggressive attacks on press freedoms – recognized this critical principle when it came to WikiLeaks. It spent years exploring whether it could criminally charge Assange and WikiLeaks for publishing classified information. It ultimately decided it would not do so, and could not do so, consistent with the press freedom guarantee of the First Amendment. After all, the Obama DOJ concluded, such a prosecution would pose a severe threat to press freedom because there would be no way to prosecute Assange for publishing classified documents without also prosecuting the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian and others for doing exactly the same thing. As the Washington Post put it in 2013 when it explained the Obama DOJ’s decision not to prosecute Assange: Justice officials said they looked hard at Assange but realized that they have what they described as a “New York Times problem.” If the Justice Department indicted Assange, it would also have to prosecute the New York Times and other news organizations and writers who published classified material, including The Washington Post and Britain’s Guardian newspaper. Last year, the Trump DOJ under Jeff Sessions, and the CIA under Mike Pompeo, began aggressively vowing to do what the Obama DOJ refused to do – namely, prosecute Assange for publishing classified documents. Pompeo, as CIA Director, delivered one of the creepiest and most anti-press-freedom speeches heard in years, vowing that “we have to recognize that we can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us,” adding that WikiLeaks has “pretended that America’s First Amendment freedoms shield them from justice,” but: “they may have believed that, but they are wrong.” Remarkably, the speech by Donald Trump’s hand-picked CIA chief and long-time right-wing Congressman sounded like (and still sounds like) the standard Democratic view when they urge the Trump administration to prosecute Assange. But at the time of Pompeo’s speech, Obama DOJ spokesman Matt Miller insisted to me that such promises to prosecute Assange were “hollow,” because the First Amendment would bar such prosecutions: But the grand irony is that many Democrats will side with the Trump DOJ over the Obama DOJ. Their emotional, personal contempt for Assange – due to their belief that he helped defeat Hillary Clinton: the gravest crime – easily outweighs any concerns about the threats posed to press freedoms by the Trump administration’s attempts to criminalize the publication of documents. This reflects the broader irony of the Trump era for Democrats. While they claim out of one side of their mouth to find the Trump administration’s authoritarianism and press freedom attacks so repellent, they use the other side of their mouth to parrot the authoritarian mentality of Jeff Sessions and Mike Pompeo that anyone who published documents harmful to Hillary or which have been deemed “classified” by the U.S. Government ought to go to prison. During the Obama years, the notion that Assange could be prosecuted for publishing documents was regarded as so extreme and dangerous that even centrist media outlets that despised him sounded the alarm for how dangerous such a prosecution would be. The pro-national-security-state Washington Post editorial page in 2010, writing under the headline “Don’t Charge WikiLeaks,” warned: Such prosecutions are a bad idea. The government has no business indicting someone who is not a spy and who is not legally bound to keep its secrets. Doing so would criminalize the exchange of information and put at risk responsible media organizations that vet and verify material and take seriously the protection of sources and methods when lives or national security are endangered. In contrast to Democrats, Republicans have been quite consistent about their desire to see WikiLeaks prosecuted. As Newsweek noted in 2011: “Sarah Palin urged that Assange be ‘pursued with the same urgency we pursue Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders,’ and The Weekly Standard’s William Kristol wants the U.S. to ‘use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators.’” Some Democratic hawks, such as Joe Lieberman and Dianne Feinstein, joined the likes of Palin and Kristol in urging WikiLeaks prosecution, but the broad consensus in Democratica and liberal circles was that doing so was far too dangerous for press freedoms. In the wake of the 2010 disclosures of the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, Donald Trump himself told Fox and Friends’ Brian Kilmade that he believed Assange deserved “the death penalty” for having published those documents (a punishment Trump also advocated for Edward Snowden in 2013): What has changed since that Obama-era consensus? Only one thing: in 2016, WikiLeaks published documents that reflected poorly on Democrats and the Clinton campaign rather than the Bush-era wars, rendering Democrats perfectly willing, indeed eager, to prioritize their personal contempt for Assange over any precepts of basic press freedoms, civil liberties, or Constitutional principles. It’s really just as simple – and as ignoble – as that.
The same is true of WikiLeaks’ publication of the DNC and Podesta emails. Nobody has ever presented evidence of any kind that WikiLeaks worked on the hacking of those emails. There is no evidence that WikiLeaks ever did anything other than passively receive pilfered documents from a source and then publish them – exactly as the New York Times did when it received the stolen Pentagon Papers, and exactly as the Guardian and the Washington Post did when it received the Snowden documents. Moreover, journalists often do more than passively receive information, but instead frequently work with sources before publication of articles: encouraging, cajoling, and persuading them to provide more information. Accepting the theory that a journalist can be prosecuted for doing more than merely passively receiving information – something that nobody has even proved Assange did – would itself gravely threaten to criminalize core aspects of journalism. Then there’s the claim that WikiLeaks somehow stopped being a real journalism outlet because it acted to help one of the presidential campaigns at the expense of of the other. This is just another version of the false argument that only “Real Journalists” – whatever that might mean, whoever gets to decide that – enjoy the right to use a free press to disseminate information. That claim is pure legal ignorance. But let’s assume for the sake of argument that it’s true that WikiLeaks acted to help the Trump campaign and therefore should be disqualified from the protections of the First Amendment. To see how pernicious this argument is, look at how it was recently expressed by former Pentagon official Ryan Goodman and Obama WH Counsel Bob Bauer in justifying the prosecution of WikiLeaks: It is clear from disclosures by an internal WikiLeaks critic and other materials that Julian Assange targeted Hillary Clinton and sought to work with the Trump campaign and the Russians to secure her defeat. This is not a “legitimate press function.” And the conflation of Wikileaks’ plan of campaign attack with standard journalistic activity undermines important distinctions critical to the protection of the free press. Just ponder the implications of this incredibly restrictive definition of journalism. It would mean that any outlets that favor one candidate over another, or one political party over another, are not engaged in “legitimate press functions” and therefore have no entitlement to First Amendment protections. Does anyone on the planet doubt that outlets such as MSNBC and Vox favor the Democratic Party over the Republican Party, and the people they employ as journalists spent the last year doing everything they can to help the Democrats win and the Republicans lose? Does anyone doubt that MSNBC and Vox journalists spent 2016 doing everything in their power to help Hillary Clinton win and Donald Trump lose? No person with even the most minimal amount of intellectual honesty could deny that they did so. Does this mean that Rachel Maddow and Ezra Klein – by virtue of favoring one political party over the other – are not real journalists, that they are not engaged in “legitimate press functions,” and thus do not enjoy the protections of the First Amendment, meaning they can be prosecuted by the Trump DOJ without the ability to claim the rights of a free press? To state that proposition is to illustrate the tyrannical impulses underlying it. As Marcy Wheeler, otherwise sympathetic to the arguments made by the Goodman/Bauer article, put it: As Dan Froomkin wrote in response to that article, he finds some of Assange’s actions “despicable” and “abhorred the heedless, unedited publication of the non-newsworthy and personally hurtful” emails that were released (I have expressed similar highly critical views about WikiLeaks’ publication decisions). But Froomkin nonetheless recognizes that “Assange remains a journalist” and that “In the Trump era, when the president of the United States is using his office to attack journalists and journalism itself, the First Amendment is a key bulwark of liberty.” That’s how people who actually care about press freedom – rather than pretend to care about it when doing so suits their political interests of the moment – will reason. But that’s exactly the point. Neither the most authoritarian factions of the Trump administration behind this prosecution, nor their bizarre and equally tyrannical allies in the Democratic Party, care the slightest about press freedoms. They only care about one thing: putting Julian Assange behind bars, because (in the case of Trump officials) he revealed U.S. war crimes and because (in the case of Democrats) he revealed corruption at the highest levels of the DNC that forced the resignation of the top 5 officials of the Democratic Party and harmed the Democrats’ political reputation. They’re willing to create a precedent that will criminalize the core function of investigative journalism because – even as they spent two years shrilly denouncing that most trivial “attacks on press freedom” – they don’t actually care about that value at all. They want to protect only the journalism that advances their political interests, while putting people behind bars who publish information that undermines their political interests. It is this authoritarian, noxious mentality that has united the worst elements of the Trump administration and the Democratic Party that pretends to find tyrannical actions objectionable but is often the leaders in defending them.
It is this utterly craven and authoritarian mentality that is about to put Democrats of all sorts in bed with the most extremist and dangerous of the Trump faction as they unite to create precedents under which the publication of information – long held sacrosanct by anyone caring about press freedoms – can now be legally punished. Recall that the DNC itself is currently suing WikiLeaks and Assange for publishing the DNC and Podesta emails they received: emails deemed newsworthy by literally every major media outlet, which relentlessly reported on them. Until this current Trump DOJ criminal prosecution of Assange, that DNC lawsuit had been the greatest Trump-era threat to press freedoms – because it seeks to make the publication of documents, which is the core of journalism, legally punishable. The Trump DOJ’s attempts to criminalize those actions is merely the next logical step in this descent into a full-scale attack on basic press rights. THE ARGUMENTS JUSTIFYING the Trump administration’s prosecution of Assange are grounded in a combination of legal ignorance, factual falsehoods, and dangerous authoritarianism. The most common misconception is that unlike the New York Times and the Washington Post, WikiLeaks can be legitimately prosecuted for publishing classified information because it’s not a “legitimate news outlet.” Democrats who make this argument don’t seem to care that this is exactly the view rejected as untenable by the Obama DOJ. To begin with, the press freedom guarantee of the First Amendment isn’t confined to “legitimate news outlets” – whatever that might mean. The First Amendment isn’t available only to a certain class of people licensed as “journalists.” It protects not a privileged group of people called “professional journalists” but rather an activity: namely, using the press (which at the time of the First Amendment’s enactment meant the literal printing press) to inform the public about what the government was doing. Everyone is entitled to that constitutional protection equally: there is no cogent way to justify why the Guardian, ex-DOJ-officials-turned-bloggers, or Marcy Wheeler are free to publish classified information but Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are not. Beyond that, WikiLeaks has long been recognized around the world as a critical journalistic outlet. They have won prestigious journalism awards including the Martha Gellhorn Prize for excellence in journalism as well as Australia’s top journalism award. Beyond that, it has partnered with the planet’s leading newspapers, including the New York Times, the Guardian, El Pais and others, to publish some of the most consequential stories of the last several decades One does not need to be a “legitimate journalism outlet” to enjoy the press freedom protections of the First Amendment, but even if that were the case, WikiLeaks has long possessed all indicia of a news outlet. Then there’s the claim that WikiLeaks does more than publish documents: it helps its sources steal them. This was the claim made last night by former CIA agent John Sipher when trying to justify the Trump DOJ’s actions in response to concerns from a journalist about the threats to press freedom this would pose: What Sipher said there is a complete fabrication. When the Obama DOJ explored the possibility of prosecuting Assange, that was the theory it tested: that perhaps it could prove that WikiLeaks did not merely passively receive the documents from Chelsea Manning but collaborated with her on how to steal them. But the Obama DOJ concluded that this theory would not justify prosecution because – contrary to the lie told by Sipher – there was absolutely no evidence that Assange worked with Manning to steal the documents. As the Post put it: “officials said that although Assange published classified documents, he did not leak them, something they said significantly affects their legal analysis.”
DeZwarteRidder schreef op 11 april 2019 13:40 :
[...]
Hij heeft nu in feite 7 jaar in een gevangenis gezeten, achteraf gezien had hij zich beter in Zweden kunnen aangeven.
Zweden was niet zijn angst voor eventuele gevangenisstraf. Hij zou op termijn door Zweden uitwezen worden naar de US , waar men hem verdenkt van spionage. Zijn hoop was uit de ambassade gesmokkeld te kunnen worden, onder diplomatieke immuniteit van Ecuador. In Ecuador zou hij dan vrij man zijn. Dit plan is niet uitgekomen. Wat hij gedaan heeft toen hij de US ontvluchtte weet allen hij, een paar insiders en de CIA. Toen hij in London zat heeft hij een rol gespeeld met het vrijgeven van de e-mails van Hillary. Russische GRU(Russische Militaire Inlichtingendienst) hebben de e-mails gehackt. WikiLeaks heeft ze naar buiten gebracht. Er zijn contacten geweest tussen Trump Team mensen en Assange. Roger Stone's rechtszaak is direct gekoppeld aan de GRU medewerkers en in het vonnis wordt ook gesproken over een organisatie(WikiLeaks is de enige optie). Ook had hij(Assange) internet contact(e-mail) met Donald JR en/of Jared Kushner voorafgaand aan de e-mails vrijgave. Donald zelf zijn geen contacten mee. De aanname is dat Hope Hicks(ook in het Trump Team) de e-mails aan Donald heeft laten lezen. Zo voorkom je bewijs aan betrokkenheid van Donald. Mocht hij(Assange) naar de US uitgewezen worden dan ziet het er voor Team Trump niet gezellig uit. Bovendien in de UK kan hij ook verhoord worden.
Metropolitan Police (London) 1ste update : Arrest of Julian Assangenews.met.police.uk/news/arrest-update... 2de update : Update : Arrest of Julian Assangenews.met.police.uk/news/update-arrest...
Julian Assange arrest Theresa May in Parliament : " In the United Kingdom, no-one is above the law "twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/111632...
Aantal posts per pagina:
20
50
100
Direct naar Forum
-- Selecteer een forum --
Koffiekamer
Belastingzaken
Beleggingsfondsen
Beursspel
BioPharma
Daytraders
Garantieproducten
Opties
Technische Analyse
Technische Analyse Software
Vastgoed
Warrants
10 van Tak
4Energy Invest
Aalberts
AB InBev
Abionyx Pharma
Ablynx
ABN AMRO
ABO-Group
Acacia Pharma
Accell Group
Accentis
Accsys Technologies
ACCSYS TECHNOLOGIES PLC
Ackermans & van Haaren
ADMA Biologics
Adomos
AdUX
Adyen
Aedifica
Aegon
AFC Ajax
Affimed NV
ageas
Agfa-Gevaert
Ahold
Air France - KLM
Airspray
Akka Technologies
AkzoNobel
Alfen
Allfunds Group
Allfunds Group
Almunda Professionals (vh Novisource)
Alpha Pro Tech
Alphabet Inc.
Altice
Alumexx ((Voorheen Phelix (voorheen Inverko))
AM
Amarin Corporation
Amerikaanse aandelen
AMG
AMS
Amsterdam Commodities
AMT Holding
Anavex Life Sciences Corp
Antonov
Aperam
Apollo Alternative Assets
Apple
Arcadis
Arcelor Mittal
Archos
Arcona Property Fund
arGEN-X
Aroundtown SA
Arrowhead Research
Ascencio
ASIT biotech
ASMI
ASML
ASR Nederland
ATAI Life Sciences
Atenor Group
Athlon Group
Atrium European Real Estate
Auplata
Avantium
Axsome Therapeutics
Azelis Group
Azerion
B&S Group
Baan
Ballast Nedam
BALTA GROUP N.V.
BAM Groep
Banco de Sabadell
Banimmo A
Barco
Barrick Gold
BASF SE
Basic-Fit
Basilix
Batenburg Beheer
BE Semiconductor
Beaulieulaan
Befimmo
Bekaert
Belgische aandelen
Beluga
Beter Bed
Bever
Binck
Biocartis
Biophytis
Biosynex
Biotalys
Bitcoin en andere cryptocurrencies
bluebird bio
Blydenstijn-Willink
BMW
BNP Paribas S.A.
Boeing Company
Bols (Lucas Bols N.V.)
Bone Therapeutics
Borr Drilling
Boskalis
BP PLC
bpost
Brand Funding
Brederode
Brill
Bristol-Myers Squibb
Brunel
C/Tac
Campine
Canadese aandelen
Care Property Invest
Carmila
Carrefour
Cate, ten
CECONOMY
Celyad
CFD's
CFE
CGG
Chinese aandelen
Cibox Interactive
Citygroup
Claranova
CM.com
Co.Br.Ha.
Coca-Cola European Partners
Cofinimmo
Cognosec
Colruyt
Commerzbank
Compagnie des Alpes
Compagnie du Bois Sauvage
Connect Group
Continental AG
Corbion
Core Labs
Corporate Express
Corus
Crescent (voorheen Option)
Crown van Gelder
Crucell
CTP
Curetis
CV-meter
CVC Capital Partners
Cyber Security 1 AB
Cybergun
D'Ieteren
D.E Master Blenders 1753
Deceuninck
Delta Lloyd
DEME
Deutsche Cannabis
DEUTSCHE POST AG
Dexia
DGB Group
DIA
Diegem Kennedy
Distri-Land Certificate
DNC
Dockwise
DPA Flex Group
Draka Holding
DSC2
DSM
Duitse aandelen
Dutch Star Companies ONE
Duurzaam Beleggen
DVRG
Ease2pay
Ebusco
Eckert-Ziegler
Econocom Group
Econosto
Edelmetalen
Ekopak
Elastic N.V.
Elia
Endemol
Energie
Energiekontor
Engie
Envipco
Erasmus Beursspel
Eriks
Esperite (voorheen Cryo Save)
EUR/USD
Eurobio
Eurocastle
Eurocommercial Properties
Euronav
Euronext
Euronext
Euronext.liffe Optiecompetitie
Europcar Mobility Group
Europlasma
EVC
EVS Broadcast Equipment
Exact
Exmar
Exor
Facebook
Fagron
Fastned
Fingerprint Cards AB
First Solar Inc
FlatexDeGiro
Floridienne
Flow Traders
Fluxys Belgium D
FNG (voorheen DICO International)
Fondsmanager Gezocht
ForFarmers
Fountain
Frans Maas
Franse aandelen
FuelCell Energy
Fugro
Futures
FX, Forex, foreign exchange market, valutamarkt
Galapagos
Gamma
Gaussin
GBL
Gemalto
General Electric
Genfit
Genmab
GeoJunxion
Getronics
Gilead Sciences
Gimv
Global Graphics
Goud
GrandVision
Great Panther Mining
Greenyard
Grolsch
Grondstoffen
Grontmij
Guru
Hagemeyer
HAL
Hamon Groep
Hedge funds: Haaien of helden?
Heijmans
Heineken
Hello Fresh
HES Beheer
Hitt
Holland Colours
Homburg Invest
Home Invest Belgium
Hoop Effektenbank, v.d.
Hunter Douglas
Hydratec Industries (v/h Nyloplast)
HyGear (NPEX effectenbeurs)
HYLORIS
Hypotheken
IBA
ICT Automatisering
Iep Invest (voorheen Punch International)
Ierse aandelen
IEX Group
IEX.nl Sparen
IMCD
Immo Moury
Immobel
Imtech
ING Groep
Innoconcepts
InPost
Insmed Incorporated (INSM)
IntegraGen
Intel
Intertrust
Intervest Offices & Warehouses
Intrasense
InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp (NVIV)
Isotis
JDE PEET'S
Jensen-Group
Jetix Europe
Johnson & Johnson
Just Eat Takeaway
Kardan
Kas Bank
KBC Ancora
KBC Groep
Kendrion
Keyware Technologies
Kiadis Pharma
Kinepolis Group
KKO International
Klépierre
KPN
KPNQwest
KUKA AG
La Jolla Pharmaceutical
Lavide Holding (voorheen Qurius)
LBC
LBI International
Leasinvest
Logica
Lotus Bakeries
Macintosh Retail Group
Majorel
Marel
Mastrad
Materialise NV
McGregor
MDxHealth
Mediq
Melexis
Merus Labs International
Merus NV
Microsoft
Miko
Mithra Pharmaceuticals
Montea
Moolen, van der
Mopoli
Morefield Group
Mota-Engil Africa
MotorK
Moury Construct
MTY Holdings (voorheen Alanheri)
Nationale Bank van België
Nationale Nederlanden
NBZ
Nedap
Nedfield
Nedschroef
Nedsense Enterpr
Nel ASA
Neoen SA
Neopost
Neovacs
NEPI Rockcastle
Netflix
New Sources Energy
Neways Electronics
NewTree
NexTech AR Solutions
NIBC
Nieuwe Steen Investments
Nintendo
Nokia
Nokia OYJ
Nokia Oyj
Novacyt
NOVO-NORDISK AS
NPEX
NR21
Numico
Nutreco
Nvidia
NWE Nederlandse AM Hypotheek Bank
NX Filtration
NXP Semiconductors NV
Nyrstar
Nyxoah
Océ
OCI
Octoplus
Oil States International
Onconova Therapeutics
Ontex
Onward Medical
Onxeo SA
OpenTV
OpGen
Opinies - Tilburg Trading Club
Opportunty Investment Management
Orange Belgium
Oranjewoud
Ordina Beheer
Oud ForFarmers
Oxurion (vh ThromboGenics)
P&O Nedlloyd
PAVmed
Payton Planar Magnetics
Perpetuals, Steepeners
Pershing Square Holdings Ltd
Personalized Nursing Services
Pfizer
Pharco
Pharming
Pharnext
Philips
Picanol
Pieris Pharmaceuticals
Plug Power
Politiek
Porceleyne Fles
Portugese aandelen
PostNL
Priority Telecom
Prologis Euro Prop
ProQR Therapeutics
PROSIEBENSAT.1 MEDIA SE
Prosus
Proximus
Qrf
Qualcomm
Quest For Growth
Rabobank Certificaat
Randstad
Range Beleggen
Recticel
Reed Elsevier
Reesink
Refresco Gerber
Reibel
Relief therapeutics
Renewi
Rente en valuta
Resilux
Retail Estates
RoodMicrotec
Roularta Media
Royal Bank Of Scotland
Royal Dutch Shell
RTL Group
RTL Group
S&P 500
Samas Groep
Sapec
SBM Offshore
Scandinavische (Noorse, Zweedse, Deense, Finse) aandelen
Schuitema
Seagull
Sequana Medical
Shurgard
Siemens Gamesa
Sif Holding
Signify
Simac
Sioen Industries
Sipef
Sligro Food Group
SMA Solar technology
Smartphoto Group
Smit Internationale
Snowworld
SNS Fundcoach Beleggingsfondsen Competitie
SNS Reaal
SNS Small & Midcap Competitie
Sofina
Softimat
Solocal Group
Solvac
Solvay
Sopheon
Spadel
Sparen voor later
Spectra7 Microsystems
Spotify
Spyker N.V.
Stellantis
Stellantis
Stern
Stork
Sucraf A en B
Sunrun
Super de Boer
SVK (Scheerders van Kerchove)
Syensqo
Systeem Trading
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC)
Technicolor
Tele Atlas
Telegraaf Media
Telenet Groep Holding
Tencent Holdings Ltd
Tesla Motors Inc.
Tessenderlo Group
Tetragon Financial Group
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Texaf
Theon International
TherapeuticsMD
Thunderbird Resorts
TIE
Tigenix
Tikkurila
TINC
TITAN CEMENT INTERNATIONAL
TKH Group
TMC
TNT Express
TomTom
Transocean
Trigano
Tubize
Turbo's
Twilio
UCB
Umicore
Unibail-Rodamco
Unifiedpost
Unilever
Unilever
uniQure
Unit 4 Agresso
Univar
Universal Music Group
USG People
Vallourec
Value8
Value8 Cum Pref
Van de Velde
Van Lanschot
Vastned
Vastned Retail Belgium
Vedior
VendexKBB
VEON
Vermogensbeheer
Versatel
VESTAS WIND SYSTEMS
VGP
Via Net.Works
Viohalco
Vivendi
Vivoryon Therapeutics
VNU
VolkerWessels
Volkswagen
Volta Finance
Vonovia
Vopak
Warehouses
Wave Life Sciences Ltd
Wavin
WDP
Wegener
Weibo Corp
Wereldhave
Wereldhave Belgium
Wessanen
What's Cooking
Wolters Kluwer
X-FAB
Xebec
Xeikon
Xior
Yatra Capital Limited
Zalando
Zenitel
Zénobe Gramme
Ziggo
Zilver - Silver World Spot (USD)
Indices
AEX
877,88
+0,87%
EUR/USD
1,0734
+0,05%
FTSE 100
8.108,38
+0,37%
Germany40^
18.038,60
+0,68%
Gold spot
2.349,24
+0,74%
NY-Nasdaq Composite
15.611,76
-0,64%
Stijgers
Dalers