Trump?

[Sandy Larsen]

11 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

Thanks, Cliff. And I am with you 100% on everything you have been posting - keep up the good work!

Tom

Tom,

I am definitely on your and Cliff's side. And I have problems with some of Jim D.'s earlier comments.

But regarding Jim's seeming throw-away vote, I believe his rationale was that his vote doesn't matter because his state is solid blue. And so he voted his conscience and went with a third party candidate. I think he also said he would have voted for Hillary had his vote counted.

[Tom Neal]

On 11/16/2016 at 6:35 PM, Ron Ecker said:

Your continual description of Trump as a "pedophile rapist" doesn't do a great deal for your credibility.

Has Trump ever been charged with rape? A lawsuit alleging that he raped an underage girl has been dropped. A judge has nonetheless scheduled a "status conference" to be held on the allegation on December 16, 2016.

That means that Trump is guilty, right? He's a pedophile rapist.

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

Not too long ago this very same Mr. Ecker stated unequivicaly that "Bill Clinton is a PROVEN rapist and belongs in prison."

Ecker's above defense of Trump is the same defense that was provided by NUMEROUS posters re Clinton in response to Ecker's above statement. Ecker refused to accept this as proof that Clinton was not a PROVEN rapist, but the identical rules clear Trump completely. What a difference a name makes.

I see several posters on this thread who participated in the above Ecker thread. Please make yourselves known and remind everyone that this is who Ecker is, lest anyone actually pay attention to what he says.

Clinton was in tears watching his daughter speak at the DNC. That's a dad who loves his daughter. Trump watches his daughter and tells everyone that "she's so hot, if she wasn't my daughter I'd date her." Trump stated that he introduces himself to women by grabbing them "by the p___." What do you suppose he would do 'on a date' with his daughter? Funny how Ecker defends the pervert, and condemns the dad...

Reminds me of when Trump and Hillary are on stage together, and HILLARY is called "The l*i*a*r". Compared to Trump HILLARY is singled out as "the l*i*a*r"??? 

Ecker is a guy who is smug about the fact that he hasn't voted for 50 years because the election process is corrupt, and he won't have anything to do with it, yet on this thread he can't shut up about this election. It's a chance to slam Hillary and deify Trump because Trump is not a Clinton. He validates this same election process by telling everyone that Trump is the President so "give him a chance."

HYPOCRITE much?

If LHO's name was revealed to actually be Lee Harvey CLINTON, Ecker would assume the role of 'Lone Nutter Supreme' and would  receive fan mail from DVP...

 

 

Edited November 25, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Tom Neal]

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tom,

I am definitely on your and Cliff's side. And I have problems with some of Jim D.'s earlier comments.

But regarding Jim's seeming throw-away vote, I believe his rationale was that his vote doesn't matter because his state is solid blue. And so he voted his conscience and went with a third party candidate. I think he also said he would have voted for Hillary had his vote counted.

I got all that.

On General Principle's I still think it was the wrong thing to do. Nothing is guaranteed, especially in an election where all 11 Intelligence agencies agree that THIS election was being hacked by another country as stated in the final debate. If it was right to do in CA, then why not in OTHER states that were expected to go to Hillary but did not? Where do you draw the line?

A 3rd party vote is arguably a vote FOR Trump and IMO doesn't differ from not voting at all. However, voting for Hillary was 100% a vote *against Trump* and can't be spun post election. The latter vote is a statement, but to me the 3rd party vote doesn't SCREAM "Anyone but Trump!", and that's the only way my conscience could be clear. i.e. I did EVERYTHING possible to keep him OUT.

BTW,

Please chime in on my response to Ecker's defense of Trump as "rapist" in my previous post and let everyone know that we are not Fox "News" - we fact check...

[Sandy Larsen]

2 minutes ago, Tom Neal said:

BTW,

Please chime in on my response to Ecker's defense of Trump as "rapist" in my previous post and let everyone know that we are not Fox "News" - we fact check...

Tom,

My memory isn't as good as yours, so I'll have to rely on what you said. That Ron Ecker has said that Bill Clinton is a proven rapist.

It certainly wouldn't surprise me if Ron said that, as he is a vocal, over-the-top Clinton hater. He seems to believe everything bad that is said or written about the Clintons.

Clearly you are right in pointing out Ron's hypocrisy when he defends Trump of the same charges he makes against Bill Clinton.

I attempted to set Ron straight on several points early on in this thread. But after a while I grew tired of doing that and have mostly ignored his comments since.

[James DiEugenio]

On November 22, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Tom Neal said:

They didn't *quite* elect him - the Electoral College did. The same system that put GWB in the Whitehouse instead of Al Gore. This last minute addition - that was suppose to be temporary - was regarded as a safety net by our Founding Fathers.

You couldn't be more right about the Supreme Court. That alone was MORE than enough of a reason to vote for Hillary. Either Hillary or Trump were going to occupy 1660 Pennsylvania Ave - no one else. Anyone here who voted for a 3rd party candidate (sorry Jim D. but IMO you were DEAD WRONG when you cast your vote) or didn't vote at all because their conscience wouldn't allow them to vote for Hillary, bears responsibility for everything the Supreme Court does for at least the next decade. More voter suppression, more Citizen's United... I can't go on, it's too sickening.

Anyone who has a "clear conscience" because they didn't vote for Trump or Hillary is deluding themselves, or they don't know what an actual conscience is...

I voted for Bernie, then Hillary. She was unquestionably the better option. Trump? As ignorant as Reagan, worse than "W"...

 

Hear hear!

Why did overt fascism come to America?

People like Jim D. need to look in the mirror.

You know Tom, I except this kind of baloney from the king of propaganda Varnell.   I actually thought you were smarter than that.  Anyone who lives in California can vote their conscience.  Its very simple as to why.  California is a blue state, through and through.  A Republican candidate has not won a presidential election here in some time.  Its just not possible.  With the EC its winner take all, period.  Trump had as much chance of winning California as Pat Paulsen.  ClInton had it sewn up before the gate opened.

And you tell me I should vote for someone as compromised as HRC to vote my clear conscience? This is as silly as Bauer saying he  voted for HRC because he wanted to save the Supreme Court, even though he lives in California.  His vote meant about nothing at all as far as that is concerned. Its like spitting on the sidewalk.

I voted for Stein since I knew Trump could not win California. Period.  He could have spent three weeks here and it would not have mattered.  So I voted for someone who actually represents real change. Instead of someone who wants to construct a no fly zone over Syria, says Putin hacked her DNC files--completely unproven, and she lied about this during the debate--and pushed for the PNAC agenda in Libya and voted for the Iraq War. Since I did not have to hold my nose and vote for her, I did not.  So it was not delusional at all.  In view of the fact of the EC, it is completely accurate, honest and true.

 

As per Varnell, you have not been able to prove any of your claims about Comey, and the Hatch Act. And I called you on that as I have on your moronic Harriman killed Kennedy idea.  I pointed to factual sources for my idea about the Bradley Effect, one from Trump's analytics team and one from three pollsters.  You don't like it? Too bad partner.  That is the real world.  Not Cory L. saying Trump had a lilt in is step after Comey's announcement.  Which you call evidence--of what? That he was walking more sprightly?

That is about as low as anyone can go in their desperate tactics.  I voted for Sanders and Stein--and you call that fascism. You should be ashamed of yourself.  But you are such a fanatic you are not.

•  

Edited November 25, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Ecker]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tom,

My memory isn't as good as yours, so I'll have to rely on what you said. That Ron Ecker has said that Bill Clinton is a proven rapist.

Tom is full of crap, Sandy.

He also says I want to "deify Trump." He's full of crap, Sandy. 

He also says I'm a hypocrite because I haven't voted and say to give Trump a chance. I want to see Trump do well because I still love this country and don't want to see it completely fail or have another civil war. Hell, I would would want to see Tom Neal do well if he was elected president, in spite of how much he hates my guts.

I attempted to set Ron straight on several points early on in this thread. But after a while I grew tired of doing that and have mostly ignored his comments since.

My memory isn't as good as yours, about you trying to set me straight. But I'm sorry if I tired you out. At least you don't seem to hate my guts, which shows character on your part.

 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

9 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

I want to see Trump do well because I still love this country and don't want to see it completely fail or have another civil war. Hell, I would would want to see Tom Neal do well if he was elected president, in spite of how much he hates my guts.

That's good to hear, Ron.

What about Hillary Clinton? Would you have wished her well had she won the election?

[Ron Ecker]

8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What about Hillary Clinton? Would you have wished her well had she won the election?

Certainly.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

Hear hear!

Why did overt fascism come to America?

People like Jim D. need to look in the mirror.

You know Tom, I except this kind of baloney from the king of propaganda Varnell.

I think you mean "accept." o' king of the empty dismissals.

I actually thought you were smarter than that.  Anyone who lives in California can vote their conscience.  

Anyone who lives in America can vote their conscience.

Its very simple as to why.  California is a blue state, through and through.  A Republican candidate has not won a presidential election here in some time.  Its just not possible.  With the EC its winner take all, period.  Trump had as much chance of winning California as Pat Paulsen.  ClInton had it sewn up before the gate opened.

And you tell me I should vote for someone as compromised as HRC to vote my clear conscience?

Only if you want to make a statement against fascism.

This election -- to anyone who was actually paying attention -- was a referendum on a new form of fascist government.

People like DiEugenio -- regardless of where they live -- didn't stand up to this fascist onslaught and now we have a racist kleptomaniac degenerate in the White House.

This is as silly as Bauer saying he  voted for HRC because he wanted to save the Supreme Court, even though he lives in California.  His vote meant about nothing at all as far as that is concerned. Its like spitting on the sidewalk.

Before the election (I know you weren't aware of this Jim, since you admit you weren't paying attention) Trump changed the rules when he said he wouldn't concede an election where the result wasn't clear -- if he won the popular vote and lost the electoral college he would not concede.

Back in 2012 he was under the impression Romney won the popular vote and the Big Orange Fraud called for a popular revolt.

So in the 2016 the popular vote total matters very much in the on-going public relations war.  The fact that Hillary won the popular vote by nearly 2% de-legitimizes Trumps victory.

Thanks to all the patriots who voted against fascism!

 

Quote

 

I voted for Stein since I knew Trump could not win California. Period.  He could have spent three weeks here and it would not have mattered.  So I voted for someone who actually represents real change. Instead of someone who wants to construct a no fly zone over Syria, says Putin hacked her DNC files--completely unproven, and she lied about this during the debate--and pushed for the PNAC agenda in Libya and voted for the Iraq War. Since I did not have to hold my nose and vote for her, I did not.  So it was not delusional at all.  In view of the fact of the EC, it is completely accurate, honest and true.

As per Varnell, you have not been able to prove any of your claims about Comey, and the Hatch Act.

The case is prima facie.  For the FBI Director to come out 11 days from the election to announce a non-existent investigation and then nine days later call it a false alarm is a prima facie case of "pernicious political activity."

And I called you on that as I have on your moronic Harriman killed Kennedy idea.  

No, calling someone out would require a fact based counter-argument, which you are incapable of.

And the above coming from someone who puts the blame on Alzheimer Allen Dulles is a nice bit of irony.

I pointed to factual sources for my idea about the Bradley Effect, one from Trump's analytics team and one from three pollsters.  

Clinton will end up winning the popular vote by 2% which means your pollsters were way off.

You don't like it? Too bad partner.  That is the real world.  Not Cory L. saying Trump had a lilt in is step after Comey's announcement.  Which you call evidence--of what? That he was walking more sprightly?

He said a lot more than that.  He pointed out the obvious: that the sole attention over the last 11 days was Hillary's e-mails.

Anyone watching cable news knows that the coverage over the last 11 days went from discussions of Trump's tax returns and pussy grabbing to relentless attacks on Clinton's honesty over the e-mails.

Only in Jim D's alternative universe would 11 straight days of relentlessly negative media coverage have no impact on an election.

The amount of denial here is mind-boggling.

That is about as low as anyone can go in their desperate tactics.  I voted for Sanders and Stein--and you call that fascism. You should be ashamed of yourself.  But you are such a fanatic you are not.

No, I have repeatedly pointed out that one doesn't have to be a fascist to be a fascism-apologist.

Not standing up to fascism is the shameful thing, Jim.

•  

 

Edited November 26, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Sandy Larsen]

51 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Only in Jim D's alternative universe would 11 straight days of relentlessly negative press coverage [over the Hillary e-mail controversy] have no impact on an election.

Of course it had a negative effect on Hillary. The e-mail controversy was the Republican's biggest weapon against her. It is what explains the sudden jump in her unfavorability rating in March 2015

 

Edited November 26, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Cliff Varnell]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Of course it had a negative effect on Hillary. The e-mail controversy was the Republican's biggest weapon against her. It is what explains the sudden jump in her unfavorability rating in March 2015

 

The political assassination of Hillary Clinton.

 

[Douglas Caddy]

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18053715/ns/politics/t/maryland-sidesteps-electoral-college/#.WDeC4Gfrs5s

[Douglas Caddy]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/25/trumps-economic-plan-this-isnt-going-to-work/

[James DiEugenio]

And BTW, Varnell's view of history is about as acute as his view that Comey brought fascism to America.

LOL  ROTF  LMO

Anyone who knows anything about modern American history understands that most historians agree that the real beginning of the MIC came with NSC-68.  

NSC 68 stated that the government could use the Cold War to scare the heck out of the public, so much so as to finance a gigantic military build up, thereby deleting any attempt at detente.  The Dulles brothers more or less activated NSC 68 and are responsible for extending it abroad and allowing for extraordinary rendition at home, which Talbot does a nice job of describing in his book, it was done via Robert Maheu.

The four major assassinations of the sixties, then stopped any attempt to roll back the MIC.  This was fascism at  its naked essence:  that is the elimination of the opposition by assassination and its sanctification by the state.  If anyone can find someone else who has protested this and written about it more than me, I would like to know who it is.  It sure is not Mr. Matrix, Varnell.

Nixon's Chennault connection, which stole the 1968 election and continued the Vietnam War, is another instance of this, as was the October Surprise with Casey and then the stealing in broad daylight of the elections of 2000 and 2004.  I could go on and on, but you have to leave it all out for Varnell to spout his propaganda about Comey being a jack booted Gestapo agent disguised in a Brooks Brothers suit.  Something he has not come close to proving by either design or intent.  Recall, one must show intent  to prove a crime.  That is a little nicety that Varnell wants to ignore to advance his agenda--one which he cannot begin to make a case for.

Edited November 26, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

50 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

And BTW, Varnell's view of history is about as acute as his view that Comey brought fascism to America.

LOL  ROTF  LMO

Anyone who knows anything about modern American history understands that most historians agree that the real beginning of the MIC came with NSC-68.

NSC 68 stated that the government could us the Cold War to scare the heck out of the public, so much so as to finance a gigantic military build up, thereby deleting and attempt at detente.  The Dulles brothers more or less activated NSC 68 and are responsible for extending it abroad and allowing for extraordinary rendition at home, which Talbot does a nice job of describing in his book, it was done via Robert Maheu.

Talbot also does a nice job of describing Dulles as hopelessly out of the loop on the Bay of Pigs.

See The Devil's Chessboard, pgs 393-6.

As far as JFK goes, the idea that Dulles would set up the Paines, family friends of his girlfriend Mary Bancroft, as Oswald-enablers is idiotic.

Quote

The four major assassinations of the sixties, then stopped any attempt to roll back the MIC.  This was fascism at it spur and naked essence:  that is the elimination of the opposition by assassination and its sanctification by the state.  If anyone can find someone else who has protested this and written about it more than me, I would like to know who it is.  It sure is not Mr. Matrix, Varnell.

1) You don't know the difference between the plot to kill Kennedy and the plot to kill Oswald.  Mostly you go on about the Oswald assassination, not the Kennedy assassination.

2) You are dismissive of the physical evidence in a murder case, which indicates you understand nothing about how murder cases are investigated. What was your famous line over at Deep Politics?  Oh yeah..."Most researchers respect the clothing evidence."

That's like saying -- "Most mathematicians respect the formula 1 + 1 = 2."

In fact, James DiEugenio has bragged about ignoring the physical evidence in the JFK murder case -- calls it a "Model T."

3) In your 2013 paper on JFK's foreign policy you proudly point out that you left out Vietnam.  As collateral damage from this approach you left out Laos.

You're a master of all details -- except the important ones.

Quote

Nixon's Chennault connection which stole the 1968 election and continued the Vietnam War in another instance of this as was the October Surprise with Casey and then the stealing in broad daylight of the elections of 2000 and 2004.  I could go on and on, but you have to leave it all out for Varnell to spout his propaganda about Comey being a jack booted Gestapo agent disguised in a Brooks Brothers suit.  Something he has not come close to proving by either design or intent.  Recall, one must show intent in to prove a crime.  That is a little nicety that Varnell wants to ignore to advance his agenda which he cannot begin to make a case for.

How can anyone in their right mind justify what Comey did?

Comey's intent can be inferred from the pattern of his behavior, starting with lies he told regarding Hillary's "extreme carelessness," which was revealed when Comey admitted under oath that any reasonable person would have made the same mistake she did thinking the e-mails were not classified.

It was the State Department as a whole which was guilty of "extreme carelessness," but Comey did his best to create the worst possible optics for Clinton.

I posted the Oct. 31 quote where Weiner's e-mails were revealed to be duplicates -- Comey didn't need 9 days to figure it out, it could have been done in under 9 hours.

If Comey had done this to Trump -- declaring him the subject of FBI inquiry 11 days out, then calling it a false alarm 9 days later --I'd be just as outraged, especially if Trump had then gone on to win the popular vote by 2% but lose.

That James DiEugenio cannot see the obvious voter suppression in all this is mind-boggling.

 

 

Edited November 26, 2016 by Cliff Varnell