Michael Clark Posted January 9, 2017 Share Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Tom Neal said: Michael, Thanks for your response, and I SINCERELY hope you are correct. Nothing would give me greater pleasure that to be dead wrong, but I foresee another victory for the "invisible gov't." As controlled by the owners as the media was in the JFK era, since Reagan forced them to become entertainment and propaganda driven only, our sole hope is the internet. Trump's rednecks are not online, and would only go to Fox News sites if they were. The gov't is elected by the masses who *choose* ignorance over facts. Until the other half of the voters acquire some knowledge of how things *actually* are done we have no hope of changing the current system. Greed runs the U$A, and about half of the voters are OK with it as they too are addicted to money. Bernie sat down with Wisconsin voters post election and asked why they voted for Trump. They believe that "maybe" Trump will bring bank jobs to America. Right. What about every one of Trump's companies that use only overseas labor? Not going to happen. As dishonest as the average politician's campaign promises are, with Trump they ain't seen nothing yet! They will eventually realize they have been had, but will continue to make the same mistake as their ignorance makes them gullible. Trump is not a business man, he's a con-man. He's made, and lost, his fortune by screwing over the competition and not paying his debts. He won't fare well doing this to China for example, as we will continue to need their money. His notion that "we just won't pay them" what we owe is born from a lifetime of doing just that in his business dealings. I predict his impeachment, but that is far from a happy ending. With Hillary we would have had a liberal Supreme Court and the power to make changes that are desperately needed. With a Republican president we will have a Republican Supreme Court for many years to come who will exacerbate the current already unacceptable situation. With control of the WH, the Supreme Court AND Congress what possible change 'for the better' could come from this administration? PLEASE convince me I'm wrong - - I need *some* hope... My problem with HRC, and it was an absolute game ender, is that she represented Dynastic power. Her husband was President. You do not, in a Democracy, field a presidents spouse, or child, or brother for the office of President. You certainly don't vote for them. Dynastic power is the end of Democracy. Of course, my pleadings fell on deaf ears during the run up to the convention. This is also a large source for my contempt for the Bush's, except Barbara, who said the same thing I am saying (too many Bushes!) even if it was one Bush too late. (I actively supported Evan McMullin ( a CIA agent, go figure), hoping to win a crap shoot on a Utah win and a 270 EV denial with a vote in The House.) Even as a kid, when I asked my parents about JFK, and why he was shot, and when I had other questions, and was told about RFK, and that people thought that nepotism was bad, this stuck with me. This was my parents talking to a curious child. I get it. Regardless of RFK's capabilities, or JFK's need to have him around, you just don't do that. Trumps inbred whitehouse staff is pretty scary, with his son-in-law setting-up a cot in the White House. Trump is a true wannabe dynast. It would be wise to ensure his tenure is short, and definitely forgoe all future Trumps in the office of President. The second most important thing I can say, next to the warning against dynastic power, is STOP TELLING THE RIGHT THAT THEY ARE STUPID! That just sets them off and makes them HATE you more than you know. It makes them gravitate directly to that which you despise the most. Telling people that they are stupid for how they feel is just, well, stupid. I may be grasping for hope in thinking Trump can put an end to the unconstitutional powers of the 4th branch, the intelligence branch of government. But his temperment is, it seems, just right for the job. Edited January 9, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted January 9, 2017 Author Share Posted January 9, 2017 (edited) Tom, Obama apparently thought enough of this threat that he felt it necessary to assemble Intelligence, law enforcement and Congressional leaders in September to reveal the scope of the Russian hacking and propose a united front against it. Mitch Mac Connell said if Obama was to go public, he'd declare the White House was tampering with the election, so Obama backed down. Comey was present at the meeting. I guess Obama feels double crossed now as Comey had no such reservations about tampering with the election only one week before the election even though he knew of the Russian hacking. In my opinion, Obama should have gone public 2 months before the election but he didn't have the courage and backed down in his perennial non confrontational tone. He said in his "Russian Hack" news conference he didn't go forward on his own because he thought it would just be part of the "political scrum". Obviously he didn't have much faith in the bully pulpit of his Presidency. He was so restrained, how serious is the average American supposed to be about it? Obama said he met with Putin in September and told him to stop it, but other members of the DNC said it didn't stop. If those later hacks are still from the Russians, than Obama was very ineffectual in dealing with the problem and could have cost his party an election.To use a 60's reference, given the buildup to the news conference, I would almost call it the "That Was The Leak That Was"conference. Adding insult to injury. The Republicans have said, hey if it was such a big deal and we had the goods on the Russians, why didn't Obama come out with it.? Though of course they would been screaming bloody murder if he did. The truth is, he did mention it, but it was only sort of a weak, ho hum in passing. Now that it's all over, the traditional Republicans are back to their hard line, and they're considering sanction,s but the damage, however conclusive you might think that is, is done. ************* Tom says, If Trump does what the real powers want, they will allow him to indulge his greed. If Trump doesn't follow orders (he won't!) the Republican Congress will impeach him, and the party will install a Cheney-like VP to keep bible-thumper Pence on track. That would be an interesting prospect if Trump was to step so out of line that he was impeached by his own party, but I don't think so. He has the perfect globalist, multi national corporate banner they love with just a few kinks in it. One kink is the globalist fear of a trade war with China. This was enough to cause International Markets to plummet 800 points on election night only to rebound in the morning when the positives were weighed against the negatives, and there became hope that Trump the campaigner's bark was probably worse than his bite.Then the markets rebounded and there's been a Trump rally to near 20,000, fueled mostly by 30, 40 and 50 % increases in Bank and finance stocks, which had been low for many years under Obama's regulations put in after the Great recession, and oil and infrastructure. One other lesser kink: they know now they can live with Trump's high profile tweets which will have a token effect of saving after all the taxpayer payouts maybe 50,000 jobs? in his first term out of the 5 million manufacturing jobs that were lost in the recession. (Let the kid have his toy.) Agreed Tom, the forgotten people who voted for Trump in the hope of a trickle down theory, which is really what is, lowering tax rates for the super wealthy, de-regulating Wall Street and the big banks, gutting Environmental regulations will "find out they've been had." After all, it has been done before. But this is music to the "Deep State". Tom, I'll submit to you, The "Deep State' isn't a bunch of old generals and spies who long for the days of the Cold War and would like to resurrect the Russians as their whipping boy.They're not letting Trump "indulge in his greed". They're jumping on the gray train! These aren't some dark,twisted old guys who do nothing but plot war. But they will finance and profit from war. These are bankers and financiers. They're into everything! Edited January 9, 2017 by Kirk Gallaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) A fortuitous find. http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2016/12/warren-commission-lawyers-strike-back.html Edited January 10, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 3 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said: Obama apparently thought enough of this threat that he felt it necessary to assemble Intelligence, law enforcement and Congressional leaders in September to reveal the scope of the Russian hacking and propose a united front against it. Mitch Mac Connell said if Obama was to go public, he'd declare the White House was tampering with the election, so Obama backed down. McConnell opposes literally anything and everything that BO does, so I'm finding it hard to belief his threat to cry election tampering was enough to make BO "back down." Particularly, when he had the intelligence community backing him up. It's already been said that BO didn't do enough about Russian tampering, so as expected he was damned if he do, and damned if he don't. And he's a lame duck - what did he have to lose? What was the reaction of the majority of Congress to BO's proposal of a united front? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 3 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said: That would be an interesting prospect if Trump was to step so out of line that he was impeached by his own party, but I don't think so. He has the perfect globalist, multi national corporate banner they love with just a few kinks in it. "Perfect?" If true, then *why* was Trump so strongly opposed by his own party? He's hardly their "darling" even now. Do professional politicians REALLY want billionaires to replace them in the WH? Trump put Ted Cruz out of a job. If Trump were impeached that would be a warning to anyone else, and they would still have a Republican president. They would play it as they heroically did what was best for the U$A and impeached their own man. They can say that the people elected him, and point to video clips stating that they never wanted him. The only man to become POTUS without being elected as P or VP was Gerald Ford. The forced resignations of Nixon and Agnew hasn't done the Republicans any lasting harm. Trump will go too far, because like the scorpion, that's who he is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 3 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said: Tom, I'll submit to you, The "Deep State' isn't a bunch of old generals and spies who long for the days of the Cold War and would like to resurrect the Russians as their whipping boy.They're not letting Trump "indulge in his greed". They're jumping on the gray train! These aren't some dark,twisted old guys who do nothing but plot war. But they will finance and profit from war. These are bankers and financiers. They're into everything! I don't know why you think that's what I meant; I said "The powers that be." I certainly didn't mean the CIA or "old generals." They are the ones that take the orders from the ultra-wealthy. They do NOT call the shots, and never have. The MICC (meaning those who profit by war or the threat of it) needs a boogey-man to keep a military force almost greater than the rest of the world's forces combined. This includes the oil companies as well as the Fed, Wall St. etc. As far as "The" cold war, we have the one against "communism" that started before WWII ended, and the one that was escalated by Reagan against the "Evil Empire." War hasn't gone out of style, and a cold war with Russian isn't a case of "been there, done that, got the T-shirt." Reagan effectively started a new cold war after Detente was murdered. You think it couldn't happen again??? Do the military contracters want 'peace' with Russia? Do the "bankers and financiers" not profit from cold war as well as business dealings with Russia? Can you have business and cold war simultaneously? Americans do not support another ME war, but another cold war with beloved Reagan's evil empire? People still believe life in the USA under Reagan was the best it has ever been. Why not do it again? Does Congress want to lift the current sanctions against Putin, or increase them? If they want to escalate and drops wants to drop them altogether and embrace Putin then he's putting himself in an unsafe position. IF on the other hand, Congress wants to do what Trump wants to do about Russia, then there is a marriage there for Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 4 hours ago, Michael Clark said: I may be grasping for hope in thinking Trump can put an end to the unconstitutional powers of the 4th branch, the intelligence branch of government. But his temperment is, it seems, just right for the job. What's in it for Trump, personally? Do you think he cares about "unconstitutional" powers of the intelligence branch? He knows nothing about the Constitution and cares even less. The public believes Trump, so he doesn't have to destroy the intelligence community's power to get what he wants. Trump is riding high, and he thinks he can't be beaten by anyone. If he goes head to head with the intelligence community who is only doing the bidding of the ultra-rich he will be eradicated. He has no idea the power they have... "Dynasty" or not, only Trump or Hillary could end up in the WH in 2017. She was and is better than Trump. That's all that matters. The longer Trump is in office, the better Hillary will look to all of us. Just like Bush there will be many cases of voter remorse, and the public will learn nothing from their mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Neal Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 2 hours ago, Michael Clark said: A fortuitous find. http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2016/12/warren-commission-lawyers-strike-back.html Michael, Definitely an interesting article. The last comment about exhuming JFK's remains begs the question: Who could we trust to do it? BTW, are you sure you didn't vote for Trump? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted January 10, 2017 Author Share Posted January 10, 2017 50 minutes ago, Tom Neal said: McConnell opposes literally anything and everything that BO does, so I'm finding it hard to belief his threat to cry election tampering was enough to make BO "back down." Particularly, when he had the intelligence community backing him up. It's already been said that BO didn't do enough about Russian tampering, so as expected he was damned if he do, and damned if he don't. And he's a lame duck - what did he have to lose? What was the reaction of the majority of Congress to BO's proposal of a united front? I agree, what did he have to lose? Still he acknowledges keeping shut in his Russian Hack conference because he didn't want to be part of the "political scrum".It depends on how you look at Obama. I look at him as backing down a lot. Yes sometimes it is "damned if you do or don't" and sometimes a President just has to show courage and be damned. It wasn't the majority of Congress, but the leadership and selected members. This was the first article I read about it. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/11/obama-and-congress-knew-about-russian-hacking-and-they-did-nothing.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Tom Neal said: Michael, Definitely an interesting article. The last comment about exhuming JFK's remains begs the question: Who could we trust to do it? BTW, are you sure you didn't vote for Trump? I know i sound like I might have, but I did not. To be sure, regarding your "Dynasty or not" statement, that's what I get from absolutely everyone to whom I have mentioned it. I have received absolutely no validation to my point on the dangers of Dynastic power; zilch, zero, nada. I am not trying to convince you to embrace my POV on that, I promise. I wish I could, however, just for the sake of this argument, express how emphatic about that point I really am. It is perhaps the most defining principle of our country. It's so defining that it is not even mentioned in the constitution or bill of rights. Our notion of popular sovereignty is the essence of our form of government, constitution, and is pre-eminent to any Bill of Rights. Our government rules at our will, not the other way around. The rights of the people of the English commonwealth are granted at the pleasure of the crown. Honestly, if we just poo-poo the idea that we have to reject daynastic power, we could save a whole lot of money and aggravation by just asking the queen for an application for readmittance to the Commonwealth. I learned a whole lot last fall. I read the Federalist papers, I ruminated on the meaning of our revolution and government. My political life has changed. My image of American freedom is no longer defined by the picture of the three guys drumming, piping and carrying a flag that I remember when I was 8 years old during the Bicentennial. And I am thankful. I am thankful that the past election stirred me to think, read and imagine what our revolution was really about; and I am a changed person politically. So, again, my aversion to dynasticism is serious and an absolute priority. I am embarrassed that the only person who agrees with me is Barbara Bush. I like Hillary Clinton. I think she is eminently qualified to be the Presidnt, and I have never done so well as I did under Bill Clinton. But, I'll make one more point about HRC that I think is huge, even if it pales in comparison to my aforementioned pet-political-peeve; and that is that she, they, would have come with baggage, and who knows what might have been in there. Part of the beauty of elections and term limits is the ability to sweep away baggage and have a fresh start; why would you give that up? Edited January 10, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 30 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said: I agree, what did he have to lose? Still he acknowledges keeping shut in his Russian Hack conference because he didn't want to be part of the "political scrum".It depends on how you look at Obama. I look at him as backing down a lot. Yes sometimes it is "damned if you do or don't" and sometimes a President just has to show courage and be damned. It wasn't the majority of Congress, but the leadership and selected members...... I like Obama. He is a true statesmen and we needed and need him. I could lay out some criticisms but I will demure. I Demure because he had a lot of enemies; vicious angry enemies that would have torn us apart if he had let them. Van Jones was spot on when he characterized the rabid forces of that election cycle as "blacklash". Trump and this administration, and these first 100 days, at least, are going to be a wholesale repudiation of a black President. It makes me sick when I read comments calling his administration a "failed experiment". I regret that in the last several posts I failed to tie my comments into the purpose of this forum, the JFK assassination. If I chime in again I will not fail to do so. Cheers, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted January 10, 2017 Author Share Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Tom Neal said: I don't know why you think that's what I meant; I said "The powers that be." I certainly didn't mean the CIA or "old generals." They are the ones that take the orders from the ultra-wealthy. They do NOT call the shots, and never have. The MICC (meaning those who profit by war or the threat of it) needs a boogey-man to keep a military force almost greater than the rest of the world's forces combined. This includes the oil companies as well as the Fed, Wall St. etc. As far as "The" cold war, we have the one against "communism" that started before WWII ended, and the one that was escalated by Reagan against the "Evil Empire." War hasn't gone out of style, and a cold war with Russian isn't a case of "been there, done that, got the T-shirt." Reagan effectively started a new cold war after Detente was murdered. You think it couldn't happen again??? Do the military contracters want 'peace' with Russia? Do the "bankers and financiers" not profit from cold war as well as business dealings with Russia? Can you have business and cold war simultaneously? Americans do not support another ME war, but another cold war with beloved Reagan's evil empire? People still believe life in the USA under Reagan was the best it has ever been. Why not do it again? Does Congress want to lift the current sanctions against Putin, or increase them? If they want to escalate and drops wants to drop them altogether and embrace Putin then he's putting himself in an unsafe position. IF on the other hand, Congress wants to do what Trump wants to do about Russia, then there is a marriage there for Trump. Tom I never said you depicted them as "old generals" and I think I agree with almost everything you've said here. But applied to now, Trump wants to boost our defense spending, increase our nuclear capability, (however insane that is) and the defense crazy Republicans control both houses and have Mc Cain and Graham calling the shots. Is this is like Republican hog heaven? How much better can it get? Ok, they might try to get even more appropriations for playing up the Russian fear. But it's already insane, the defense hawks have won the appropriations war.. Edited January 10, 2017 by Kirk Gallaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted January 10, 2017 Author Share Posted January 10, 2017 18 hours ago, Tom Neal said: "Perfect?" If true, then *why* was Trump so strongly opposed by his own party? He's hardly their "darling" even now. Do professional politicians REALLY want billionaires to replace them in the WH? Trump put Ted Cruz out of a job. If Trump were impeached that would be a warning to anyone else, and they would still have a Republican president. They would play it as they heroically did what was best for the U$A and impeached their own man. They can say that the people elected him, and point to video clips stating that they never wanted him. The only man to become POTUS without being elected as P or VP was Gerald Ford. The forced resignations of Nixon and Agnew hasn't done the Republicans any lasting harm. Trump will go too far, because like the scorpion, that's who he is... Tom, I don't know if you've been following all this thread. But if so, Keep in mind, if the Republicans try to impeach Trump, you've got a revolution on your hands from Michael. No, Trump's not a politician like them, but that would only make it harder, not easier. Besides during the Watergate hearings both houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats. As far as domestic legislation and the issues I've mentioned, they see their melding with Trump as an historic opportunity unparalleled in our lifetime. Do they like Trump? No, It's not the bedfellow they would have liked, but it's the only one they could have gotten. You sound very confident he will destroy himself like a scorpion, OK I get it, but as I said earlier, in my mind we can't absolutely know for sure until he gets in office. But looking at his recent tweets, the POTUS feeling he has to respond to Meryl Streep's speech and now today completely reversing himself on his tweet a few days ago saying the Republicans should wait on going after Obamacare. -----I'll grant you, we still can't be 100% sure that he's not just a crazy person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted January 10, 2017 Share Posted January 10, 2017 31 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said: Tom, I don't know if you've been following all this thread. But if so, Keep in mind, if the Republicans try to impeach Trump, you've got a revolution on your hands from Michael. No, Trump's not a politician like them, but that would only make it harder, not easier. Besides during the Watergate hearings both houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats. As far as domestic legislation and the issues I've mentioned, they see their melding with Trump as an historic opportunity unparalleled in our lifetime. Do they like Trump? No, It's not the bedfellow they would have liked, but it's the only one they could have gotten. You sound very confident he will destroy himself like a scorpion, OK I get it, but as I said earlier, in my mind we can't absolutely know for sure until he gets in office. But looking at his recent tweets, the POTUS feeling he has to respond to Meryl Streep's speech and now today completely reversing himself on his tweet a few days ago saying the Republicans should wait on going after Obamacare. -----I'll grant you, we still can't be 100% sure that he's not just a crazy person. JFK once said: "C'mon man! Do you really think that people in this forum want to read this kind of crap!". Or, at least, he probably said something like that to somebody at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) On 1/9/2017 at 10:14 PM, Tom Neal said: I don't know why you think that's what I meant; I said "The powers that be." I certainly didn't mean the CIA or "old generals." They are the ones that take the orders from the ultra-wealthy. They do NOT call the shots, and never have. The MICC (meaning those who profit by war or the threat of it) needs a boogey-man to keep a military force almost greater than the rest of the world's forces combined. This includes the oil companies as well as the Fed, Wall St. etc. As far as "The" cold war, we have the one against "communism" that started before WWII ended, and the one that was escalated by Reagan against the "Evil Empire." War hasn't gone out of style, and a cold war with Russian isn't a case of "been there, done that, got the T-shirt." Reagan effectively started a new cold war after Detente was murdered. You think it couldn't happen again??? Do the military contracters want 'peace' with Russia? Do the "bankers and financiers" not profit from cold war as well as business dealings with Russia? Can you have business and cold war simultaneously? Americans do not support another ME war, but another cold war with beloved Reagan's evil empire? People still believe life in the USA under Reagan was the best it has ever been. Why not do it again? Does Congress want to lift the current sanctions against Putin, or increase them? If they want to escalate and drops wants to drop them altogether and embrace Putin then he's putting himself in an unsafe position. IF on the other hand, Congress wants to do what Trump wants to do about Russia, then there is a marriage there for Trump. Interesting article on a nexus of state and privately financed security, military, intelligence: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jan/10/hereford-inside-england-unlikely-military-city-centre-global-conflict#img- Edited January 11, 2017 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now