• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Robert Prudhomme

Trump?

524 posts in this topic

15 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

There seems to be a real pattern of the FBI being used as a tool by its own Directors - is that really the case, how do the Directors get away with it and do they have some motive other than purely individual career/political interests?

The directors are under orders or pressure from higher up when they "get away" with something. Take Comey, for example. Was he naïve enough to believe that his boss the AG meeting with Bill Clinton (ominously to talk about "grandchildren") while Hillary Clinton was under investigation was an innocent, ill-advised little get-together? It didn't take but a few days after that for him to conclude, after listing all her "extremely careless" misdeeds, that Hillary shouldn't be indicted. Whew! Comey could rest assured after that that he and his family including any grandchildren and any family pets were safe.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 He might bring back the days of activism.

Yep, happy days are here again. Reminds me of the 60s, Vietnam, and Muhammad Ali ("I've got nothing against them Viet Cong!").

 

 

Edited by Ron Ecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

I just have to respond to Ron - unless I misread the popular vote totals, if you actually tallied the "droves" on pure head count Clinton would be President elect.

But more seriously I think Peter has brought up a relevant point, we know that the WC did not trust the FBI and bemoaned relying on them for investigative research, we know that they felt Hoover would willingly withhold information from them - yet they forged ahead and rendered an opinion with virtually no investigative resources of their own and a staff that was not composed of criminal investigators or even legal professionals. They were pushing the FBI on evidentiary issues right up to the issuance of their report and even up to that point we know that FBI HQ was spinning the information being provided to them, the Odio inquiry being an example where the field offices were saying one thing and HQ another.

In the JFK case the FBI was literally assigned to the WC, rather than acting under the Justice Dept as it would in a Federal crime investigation and prosecution; if you look at the MLK case you find the same thing with lots of documents showing that the FBI blindsided Justice and forced them out of what should have legally been a Federal crime investigation. And in 2016 we have the FBI Director bypassing Justice, even worse rejecting Justice legal opinions, violating all existing protocols about investigations in process and going directly to Congress. There seems to be a real pattern of the FBI being used as a tool by its own Directors - is that really the case, how do the Directors get away with it and do they have some motive other than purely individual career/political interests?

 

I think that Comey might have decided to go public because the NY office was leaking to Giuliani, and Comey may have decided to close ranks in order to preserve what he saw as the integrity of the FBI. Eventually the leaks became news too, but it had less impact than it would have. I don't mean to be whitewashing Comey's actions. He may have had a political agenda. But I'm presenting another possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of people act like they don't understand how Trump got elected. It's really quite simple when you start with the fact that each party nominated the worst candidate available. One of them had to win. And let's face it, when you get beat by someone as sorry as Trump in a presidential election, you are about as sorry as it gets as a candidate for the office.

Given all the sorriness involved, the election came down to issues. Trump won on issues that resonate with people like creating jobs, strengthening the military, and securing the border. Clinton ran on the status quo. The status quo lost.

Obama ran for president with the slogan "Change you can believe in." Clinton's slogan should have been "No change, can you believe it?"

Oh, but she wanted to be the first female president. Well, she found out that just wasn't enough.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joseph McBride wrote on Facebook today:

 

"The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature." -- Abraham Lincoln.
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt.
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." -- John F. Kennedy.
"Grab 'em by the pussy." -- Donald J. Trump.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone else think that when  the Billy Bush tapes came out,  it was a political assassination of Trump?  And it seems to me that it worked. Then came Comey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Joseph McBride wrote on Facebook today:

 

"The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature." -- Abraham Lincoln.
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt.
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." -- John F. Kennedy.
"Grab 'em by the pussy." -- Donald J. Trump.

 

 

And then about half the voters in the United States voted for this man - and about half of those voters were women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to find a relevancy of this thread topic to the JFK truth seeking one I "think" there may be a few.

Yesterday I sensed a shock, apprehensive concern and real dread among 10's of millions of Americans that I haven't seen and felt since 11,22,1963.

Well, not quite on that level, but maybe half as much ?

But still one of the darkest entire nation effecting political days in my 65 year long lifetime.

People everywhere shaking their heads and saying woefully...how could this happen?

People actually wearing all funeral attending black to their work places to express their deep sadness.

Hundreds of students at three S.F. Bay Area high schools staying home in protest.

Reports of young children in elementary schools crying spontaneously in class.

Yes, these were children of Latino families ( over half of California population is Latino now ) and the KCBS radio interview report was of a teacher in one of these schools stating that these children were truly fearing that mean armed boogie men would be coming to round up their families for deportation back to Mexico.

One also wonders whether the same Military Industrial Complex that JFK butted heads against wanted Trump in there more than Clinton.

Trump constantly shouted how depleted our armed forces are and that one of his highest priorities would be to "rebuild the military."

MY GOD ...ours is the most powerful and massively financed in the history of the world already and we've lost so much in sacrificing our society's other need areas for the price of this the last 70 years ... how much more can we pay?

The all out personal attacks on Hillary including Comey's weird and illogical last minute 5% point poll drop criminal investigation thing and the outrageous and suspicious Russian influence and it's Wiki leak connection was unprecedented in lowering the political election bar so low it made people physically ill and has shaken their already lost respect for our government and those who control and finance these elections.

And no matter how much self interested parties and their media mouthpieces keep downplaying the uproar millions of Americans feel about their majority vote winning candidates losing these elections ( TWICE NOW IN 16 YEARS! ) because of this antiquated electoral system that can be manipulated with enough money and sleazy doings  

they will always feel tremendously cheated with this invalidation of their votes in these most important elections that effect their lives more than any others.

Especially in regards to our SUPREME COURT and how these Repubs have stacked it in their political power favor and will now do so even more.

Just some thoughts on this.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I put together what has happened in this election, the more I believe it is related to the assassinations of the 60's - all of them.

They began with JFK and that makes this thread relevant. I believe forces that need the Republican establishment to stay in power have completely taken over the government in a very slick coup.

What Comey did is obvious,as is overlooking Trumps dialogues to Russia. Someone backing Clinton tried to stop him with the Bush tapes ( with a Bush family member no less) but it the counter punch by Comey neutralized that move.

The bottom line is that powerful forces could not bear a Clinton presidency, just like they could not have the Kennedys stay in power.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter:

Before I say this, I want to say that I like you and respect most of the stuff you write.  But to compare what happened with Kennedy with what happened with HRC is, I think, completely wrong.

Kennedy was assassinated for the simple reason that he was a change agent.  In fact, he was an ultra change agent.  He was, in some ways, trying to change things at warp speed.  I have talked about his foreign policy on many occasions, but if you look what he was doing on civil rights, and take a look at what Donald Gibson has written about his views of the economy, you will see that most objective analysts--which exempts nutty Noam Chomsky--would say that Kennedy was bent on reversing the EIsenhower-Dulles-Nixon status quo, in almost all aspects.  And, in some ways, his view of foreign policy, as influenced by Edmund Gullion, was actually kind of radical. In fact, I would argue that Kennedy was so extreme in that regard that he actually tried to disguise his agenda.

What happened two days ago, does not follow that model.  I would argue that in two major respects, HRC ran to the right of Trump.  Specifically these were 1.) The issue of globalization, and 2.) Foreign policy i.e. in the Middle East and towards reviving a Cold War with Russia.  On both those points, Trump was much more in sync with Kennedy than HRC was.  And, in my view, it was those two points that strongly influenced the result.  I will not say that is why Trump won, but I think it influenced much of the white working class to middle class vote that HRC lost in the Rust Belt and moderate southern states like North Carolina and Florida.

The one good thing about what happened is that the Democratic party is now finally rid of the Clintons.  I always thought they were poseurs.  And when they showed young Bill Clinton shaking hands with President Kennedy in the Rose Garden it used to make me blanche.  As I argued in Destiny Betrayed, Kennedy was not a globalist. He went head to head with David Rockefeller on this issue.  It took a Republican Lite like Clinton to get Rockefeller's globalist agenda through.  As for foreign policy, IMO what HRC was doing as Secretary of State was essentially what the PNAC advocated: overturning the Moslem world in the Middle East and trying to remake it in a pro west image to neuter Russian influence there..  Which ended up in disaster in Libya and Iraq and now Syria.

One can argue about Comey, but IMO that was her fault.  It was absolutely stupid to have an email private server.  But beyond that, Obama should have never made her Secretary of State.  She was the Democratic version of Condi Rice.

When we compare the Clintons to the Kennedys, we indulge in make believe  history.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jim, for taking the time to chime in on my thoughts and this topic. I guess I may be a little hungry for an issue worth looking into. My biggest concerns are about our National Security under a Trump administration.  I think voters should have had that in mind rather than voting anti-Clinton. An interesting story brewing is the unwillingness of National Security experts to even work for him.

Edited by Peter McGuire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump + Putin = economic/military bulwark against China?

Is this the real "wall"?

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now