Trump?

[Paul Brancato]

4 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

A woman runs over her husband because he voted for Trump.

“I’d forgiven him for cheating on me with both my sister and my best friend, but this was too much!”

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/woman-runs-over-her-husband-with-an-suv-after-learning-he-voted-for-trump/

Ron - this is fake news.

Cliff - it doesn't work to talk about Trump's sexual fantasies. Didn't we see the liberal media outlets push this issue? And didn't Trump brush them off successfully? I'm not saying that women lied, I'm saying there are better issues to talk about.

an example - when Jeff Sessions is up for AG, or the Supreme Court, will the Democrats focus on the hot button issue of racism to the relative exclusion of other issues? I'm betting that's exactly what they will do, and exactly what the media will cover. And that will be a mistake. Didn't stop Clarence Thomas, who was eminently unqualified for so many reasons. It's yellow journalism no matter which side propagates it. 

[Paul Brancato]

Ron - you seem like a guy whose mind is open, but who can't figure out what to feed it. Try looking at the lists of fake news outlets that are finally, too late but better than never, being identified. 

[Cliff Varnell]

2 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Ron - this is fake news.

Cliff - it doesn't work to talk about Trump's sexual fantasies. Didn't we see the liberal media outlets push this issue? And didn't Trump brush them off successfully? I'm not saying that women lied, I'm saying there are better issues to talk about.

an example - when Jeff Sessions is up for AG, or the Supreme Court, will the Democrats focus on the hot button issue of racism to the relative exclusion of other issues? I'm betting that's exactly what they will do, and exactly what the media will cover. And that will be a mistake. Didn't stop Clarence Thomas, who was eminently unqualified for so many reasons. It's yellow journalism no matter which side propagates it. 

 

Good points, Paul.  Trump is such a target rich environment no need to go low, as they say.

However, there were only two topics of conversation running on The Donald J. Trump Show Starring Donald J. Trump (a/k/a CNN/MSNBC/Fox) prior to the Comey Treason Letter -- Trump's refusal to release his tax returns, and his serial sex offenses.

Once Comey swung into action all the news shows were about Hillary's e-mails and Trump's renewed attacks on her honesty.

[Paul Brancato]

Trump U. Was a good place to start. It takes more work to get media on board with substantive issues for sure.

[Ron Ecker]

1 minute ago, Paul Brancato said:

Ron - you seem like a guy whose mind is open, but who can't figure out what to feed it. Try looking at the lists of fake news outlets that are finally, too late but better than never, being identified. 

I didn't look closely enough before posting. I thought the site was World Net Daily, not the most objective site but also not the Onion. I saw later that it's World NEWS Daily. How clever of them. Then I see that another story there is about a gay man who became straight due to a heart transplant. Ha ha ha ha. But a woman running over her husband for voting for Trump actually sounds believable.

I've heard a lot about fake news lately, but I'm not up on fake news sites. I thought they were talking about emails that keep getting sent around full of bogus political "facts."

 

[Paul Brancato]

Ron - FaceBook now claims they are carefully going over the wave of fake news that is inundating their website who pay FB for the privilege. Others have published lists too. It's a major problem. Of course with the Onion, which I don't find particularly funny and therefore don't read, it's easy to see it's parodied not real. Other sites, unfortunately mostly far right, are not letting their readers know that. I can't believe some of the things I read when I dig, and they are fake for sure. So is it a new form of propaganda? I can tell you this - it's dangerous. Those sites have an affect on people, most of whom unlike you are not so quick to accept that they've been had. I've got a few relatives like that. My problem is not left right. I'm actually quite respectful of differences of opinion. But one thing that I doubt many saw coming is the extreme difficulty in separating fact from outright fiction on the internet, which was supposed to be a leveler of sorts, a democratization of information. Now it's being used as a propaganda tool by some pretty nasty folks, one of whom is an important member of Trump's team. We haven't talked about Breitbart yet. It's going to take a lot of careful digging on the part of fair minded truth seekers like you and I and I think nearly everyone who posts here to stay moored to reality. 

I've already posted to my FB friends my promise that I will not post anything I haven't carefully vetted. In. In my case the news I fell for twice was fake dirt on Trump. Boy do I wish I knew who was floating that stuff around, and why. This whole subject has become a major focus of my attention. 

[Ron Ecker]

Paul, I know nothing about Facebook or Twitter or Instagram except that I want nothing to do with them. So I'm not familiar at all with the false stories and propaganda that you find there. And I think that what has become an obsession with "social media," in particular mobile devices in our society is pathetic. Cell phones have become part of people's being. It's as if people can't go five or ten minutes anymore with nothing but their own thoughts. I'm always reminded of the high school teacher who tried to discipline a kid in his class by taking away his cell phone till class was over. The kid beat the hell out of him for violating his person.

Sorry if this sounds like a rant. I'm just an old-fashioned tech dummy and think that a great deal about our modern-day culture totally sucks.

 

 

 

[Douglas Caddy]

This was posted on Facebook but it not fake news, that is for certain. Actually, I read Facebook regularly and it is easy to spot fake news. But teenagers and college students have difficulty making the distinction between real and fake news.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html?mid=fb-share-di

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ron Ecker]

1 hour ago, Douglas Caddy said:

This was posted on Facebook but it not fake news, that is for certain. Actually, I read Facebook regularly and it is easy to spot fake news. But teenagers and college students have difficulty making the distinction between real and fake news.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html?mid=fb-share-di

 

This kind of thing is to be expected as long as they use electronic voting machines in elections. Oh, but paper ballots are so 19th century!

 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

27 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

This kind of thing is to be expected as long as they use electronic voting machines in elections. Oh, but paper ballots are so 19th century!

Trump didn't win.

The Republicans stole it.

http://www.newser.com/story/234448/experts-say-somethings-up-with-votes-in-3-swing-states.html

(Newser) – A group of notable academics believes it's found "persuasive evidence" that something is fishy with the presidential votes in three swing states, and it's encouraging Hillary Clinton to ask for a recount, New York Magazine reports. The group, which isn't going on the record at the moment, includes "prominent computer scientists and election lawyers." In Wisconsin, the group found Clinton got 7% fewer votes in counties that used voting machines instead of paper ballots or optical scanners. The group estimates hacking or vote manipulation in those counties may have cost Clinton 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000. The group says there's also evidence of possible vote tampering in Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Clinton would need all three of those states to win the electoral college. The group of academics is pushing for an independent review of votes in those three states—especially in light of Russia's hack of the DNC—something that the White House is against. The Clinton camp was informed of the evidence last week but hasn't publicly commented. They have until Friday to ask for a recount in Wisconsin; deadlines in Michigan and Pennsylvania are next week. Meanwhile, NPR reports Clinton's lead in the popular vote is 1.75 million and growing. A voting data analyst believes she'll end up winning the popular vote by 2.5 million—thanks to 2 million uncounted votes in California—the largest-ever margin of victory for someone not becoming president.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Ron Ecker]

What good would a recount do if there's no paper trail on the electronic votes?

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

9 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

What good would a recount do if there's no paper trail on the electronic votes?

 

A recount would also examine other ways of voter disenfranchisement, purge programs like Crosscheck.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Here-s-what-we-do-now--a-by-Greg-Palast-Election-Fraud_Election-Fraud-161121-236.html

And this is over and above the Comey/Assange/Putin voter suppression efforts aided and abetted by cable news.

Fraud in the 2016 election is massive.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

James Comey is a criminal.

Kris Kobach is a criminal.

Both violated the Hatch Act to effect the election of Donald Trump.

Lock them up!

[Cliff Varnell]

Back to the tackboard -- and the physical evidence in the JFK murder case.

Defect in the back of JFK's jacket: 4 & 1/8 inches below the bottom of the collar.

Bullet hole in the back of his shirt: 4 inches below the bottom of the collar.

That location is too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

The entrance in his back had no exit.

The entrance in his throat had no exit.

There were no bullets found in the throat or back during the autopsy.

What did the autopsists think of that?

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

 

<quote on>

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

<quote off>

 

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on>

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

<quote off>

 

The FBI had been alerted by US Army Special Operations Division that high tech weaponry might be brought in from outside the country.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

<quote on, emphasis added>

(pg 163)

Senseney: And the only thing that I can say is, I just have to suppose that, having been told to maintain the sort of show and tell

display of hardware that we had on sort of stockpile for them, these were not items that could be used. They were display

items like you would see in a museum, and they used those to show to the agents as well as to the FBI, to acquaint them

with possible ways that other people could attack our own people.

(pg 166)

Baker: ...There are about 60 agencies of Government that do either intelligence or law enforcement work.

Senseney: I am sure most all of those knew of what we were doing; yes...

...The FBI never used anything. They were only shown so they could be aware of what might be brought into the country.

<quote off>

The fact is, these high tech weapons were developed by a CIA funded death squad called MKNAOMI but as far as the FBI was concerned such weaponry "might be brought into the country," "possible ways that other people could attack our people."

Like a KGB/Cuban attack on President Kennedy?

Put MKNAOMI on the tackboard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Kirk Gallaway]

While Conservatives would assail Mark Zuckerburg as being part of the "liberal media'. It's now evident that Facebook and other social media  through their algorithms provided the infrastructure for these whacky Clinton conspiratorial allegations that  fueled the Trump movement. They've now acknowledged some blame because of their inability to distinguish between truthful articles and completely fabricated ones.The sad truth is that on both sides  people tend to read just the sources that  lean in the directions of their bias.

I think Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate. I think the Clintons are liars (like most current day politicians)and very conflicted, (though I'm not sure how many other politicians are as conflicted). However, I'm not sure how much she's done that is illegal. But it should be illegal, and the fact politicians are allowed to do some overwhelming conflicts of interests that are actually legal really is our fault as citizens. I'm not very well versed on the subtleties of the law involving Hillary, but I think when Cliff sticks to just the case against Hillary, he does a pretty good case of defending her against illegal charges, that coupled with the factor that nobody(including up to now the FBI) has  been able to make anything stick. Still I understand that there are probably a lot of people who don't subscribe to these incredibly villainous stories about the Clinton's that still don't trust her and would have a very hard time voting for her. 

I very much agree with  Tom Neal who echoed what had been said thoughtfully earlier by Joe Bauer. The future of the Supreme Court is an issue Liberals, but I think a number of  Conservatives here could agree upon. If you want openness in government, which is why you are here on this forum, and you  want to take back your government from huge corporations and big money interests, you are much less safe with a more conservative Supreme Court. You have only to look at Citizens United. A person I thought was a very thoughtful conservative Ross Douthat , a strong Gun Rights advocate thought Citizens United was "right wing judicial overreach". If Trump nominates justices that further favors his wealthy class we'll be further disenfranchised. Then imagine if he  tries to push back a women's right to choose by nominating a justice that would want to overturn  Roe Vs. Wade, it doesn't seem likely, but it will divide the Nation inseparably.  Unless you're the most virulent Hillary hater, and obviously there's a few of them, who can site sources over internet. But  IMO, the future of Supreme court is reason enough. 

Edited November 23, 2016 by Kirk Gallaway