Jump to content
The Education Forum

We band of brothers


David Andrews

Recommended Posts

In America, journalists get you killed...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/o’reilly-told-trump-that-putin-is-a-killer-trump’s-reply-‘you-think-our-country-is-so-innocent’/ar-AAmCCVG?li=BBnb7Kz

O’Reilly told Trump that Putin is a killer. Trump’s reply: ‘You think our country is so innocent?’

Washington Post 4 February 2017

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — President Trump has long been effusive in his praise for Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike.

In an interview with Fox News's Bill O'Reilly, which will air ahead of the Super Bowl on Sunday, Trump doubled down on his “respect” for Putin — even in the face of accusations that Putin and his associates have murdered journalists and dissidents in Russia.

“I do respect him. Well, I respect a lot of people, but that doesn’t mean I’ll get along with them,” Trump told O'Reilly.

O'Reilly pressed on, declaring to the president that “Putin is a killer.”

Unfazed, Trump didn't back away, but rather compared Putin's reputation for extrajudicial killings with the United States'.

“There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers,” Trump said. “Well, you think our country is so innocent?”

Trump added that he thinks the United States is “better” getting along with Russia than not.

“If Russia helps us in the fight against ISIS, which is a major fight, and Islamic terrorism all around the world, major fight. That’s a good thing,” Trump said. ISIS is another name for the Islamic State.

It wouldn't be the first time Trump has brushed aside the topic of Putin's political killings.

In a 2015 interview on “Morning Joe,” Trump was pressed on the same issue and gave a similar answer.

“He kills journalists that don't agree with him,” the show's host, Joe Scarborough, pointed out.

“Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing, too, Joe,” Trump said.

As recently as this week, a prominent Putin critic exhibited symptoms of poisoning for the second time since 2015. The incident drew the attention of Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), a staunch Russia critic, who tweetedtwo newspaper editorials that call for the United States to denounce the incident as an act of political retribution. He called both editorials “a must-read.”

 

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David - Thanks for the important post. Subtext to me is that Trump might do the same as Putin if he deems it necessary. He has laid the rhetorical groundwork with his open hatred of the media. I fear that Congress is unlikely to stop this coup until it's too late. My less fearful friends would say that the US has strong institutions that will make a fascist takeover impossible. The Washington State Judge who issued the ruling on immigration yesterday gives me some reason to hope. But other things are allowed to proceed, such as Bannon's inclusion on NSC meetings while others such as the Joint Chiefs chairman are kicked out.

What would Lincoln say? If he had lived through the reconstruction period would we be living in a different country today?

I find it hard to believe that so many citizens like Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good post, Dave. That he would shun  our allies and hunker down under pressure to defend Putin just reinforces his conflict.

Donald Trump Jr. said Trump's businesses "see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."
"And in terms of high-end product influx into the US, Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets;
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take your points gratefully, but it was the bald admission of state-sponsored killing that got to me.  "Beyond irony," someone said?

It's like Douglas Valentine said on BlackOp Radio this week: We're run by gangs of psychopaths who think that realpolitik is the real world, just because lives can be extinguished, Q.E.D.  (Extrapolation mine.)

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I fear that Congress is unlikely to stop this coup until it's too late.

What coup? Was Trump's election unconstitutional or something?

I find it hard to believe that so many citizens like Trump.

I don't think anyone really likes Trump. He's a disgusting human being. But many citizens like some of the things he's doing, such as trying to keep the country safe, and giving the military 30 days to come up with a plan to defeat ISIS. There are other things that are inexplicable, such as putting Bannon on the NSC in place of the DNI and JCS. If he wants his top aide on the NSC, surely there is room for one more chair instead of throwing out the DNI and JCS. But who can do anything about it? He's president because Hillary Clinton isn't.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, David Andrews said:

it was the bald admission of state-sponsored killing that got to me.

 

Wouldn't it be great if he reopened the JFK case as an example of what he's talking about?

Fat chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron - I appreciate your post and point of view. I don't think however that you see the coup that has taken place. Trump is in office largely because of draconian efforts to suppress voting, and very clever and successful Republican efforts to take over state legislatures and then gerrymander their voting districts. If one looks clearly at all these efforts it becomes obvious that all of them are designed by monied interests that could see clearly that the people who founded this country, namely white landowners, would eventually lose power at the ballot box unless steps were taken. Voting in the inner cities is a far different proposition than it is for you and I. Californians for instance can vote by mail, and don't have their identities questioned. The right wing has long stood against national ID cards, which would clearly make both voter fraud and voter disenfranchisement impossible. 

I would go even further than most and suggest that the gutting of public education, the extreme cost of higher education, the constant battle against universal health care, are part of the same plan to maintain control by elites. And now we have huge movements against immigration - a wall, real or metaphor, to keep non-whites out, to keep non-Christians out. It's identity politics, a phrase often reserved for what the Democratic Party engages in but more accurately describes Republican efforts. 

Please Ron - don't imagine I'm labeling you racist. 

To address one particular point you make, why do you feel unsafe? The terrorist acts of a few crazies during Obama's two terms would not have been stopped by what Trump is putting forward now. I want to feel safe too. But I don't buy the world view that everyone seems to embrace these days, which we now call the war on terror. No matter what the rhetoric, when you look deeply at this you see the Crusades all over again. We can't wipe out the Muslim faith. So why do we declare war on them? Why do we constantly hear the refrain that Muslims should be doing more to combat the Jihadists, a movement largely created and supported by our so-called ally Saudi Arabia? A longer view of history is necessary to put this in context of course. It cannot be disconnected from oil, or colonialism, so blithely. It's convenient to call it an Islamic problem, divisions that go back centuries. It it's far more complex than that, and western foreign policies beginning in the 20th century are to me at least more relevant. 

More war will not solve the problems that religion and oil politics have wrought. 

Edited by Paul Brancato
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Ron - I appreciate your post and point of view. I don't think however that you see the coup that has taken place. Trump is in office largely because of draconian efforts to suppress voting, and very clever and successful Republican efforts to take over state legislatures and then gerrymander their voting districts. If one looks clearly at all these efforts it becomes obvious that all of them are designed by monied interests that could see clearly that the people who founded this country, namely white landowners, would eventually lose power at the ballot box unless steps were taken. Voting in the inner cities is a far different proposition than it is for you and I. Californians for instance can vote by mail, and don't have their identities questioned. The right wing has long stood against national ID cards, which would clearly make both voter fraud and voter disenfranchisement impossible. 

I assume you have researched the subject of voter suppression. I haven't, and I haven't even seen it discussed in the MSM. I would think that CNN would be all over Republican voter suppression, but I haven't seen it discussed there, and I usually tune in every day. And I don't understand why lack of national ID cards would benefit Republicans and not Democrats. Seems to me it's an invitation to anyone who wants to vote fraudulently, several times.

Quote

I would go even further than most and suggest that the gutting of public education, the extreme cost of higher education, the constant battle against universal health care, are part of the same plan to maintain control by elites. And now we have huge movements against immigration - a wall, real or metaphor, to keep non-whites out, to keep non-Christians out. It's identity politics, a phrase often reserved for what the Democratic Party engages in but more accurately describes Republican efforts. 

Certainly we are controlled by elites. Nothing unique about that argument. But what you see as identity politics I see as an attempt to protect our borders, particularly in this age of terrorism. What country willfully doesn't want to protect its borders from constant illegal immigration? Well, the U.S. hasn't for decades. 

Quote

Please Ron - don't imagine I'm labeling you racist. 

To address one particular point you make, why do you feel unsafe? The terrorist acts of a few crazies during Obama's two terms would not have been stopped by what Trump is putting forward now. I want to feel safe too. But I don't buy the world view that everyone seems to embrace these days, which we now call the war on terror. No matter what the rhetoric, when you look deeply at this you see the Crusades all over again. We can't wipe out the Muslim faith. So why do we declare war on them? Why do we constantly hear the refrain that Muslims should be doing more to combat the Jihadists, a movement largely created and supported by our so-called ally Saudi Arabia? A longer view of history is necessary to put this in context of course. It cannot be disconnected from oil, or colonialism, so blithely. It's convenient to call it an Islamic problem, divisions that go back centuries. It it's far more complex than that, and western foreign policies beginning in the 20th century are to me at least more relevant. 

More war will not solve the problems that religion and oil politics have wrought. 

I don't "feel unsafe," because I know the odds are astronomical against me being the victim of a terrorist attack. Does that mean I should be content to watch other people getting shot or blown up?

Who's trying to wipe out the Muslim faith? Why do you want to equate the Muslim faith with radical Islamic terrorism? As for "our so-called ally Saudi Arabia," we are just as guilty as they are in bringing terrorism to America. And yes, more war may not solve the problems that religion and oil have wrought, but don't you think it would help a little to exterminate the death-cult vermin presently headquartered in Raqqa, Syria? If there was ever a just cause, I can't think of a better one.

 

 

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Run for cover," as Frank Sinatra once sang, just before the Basie orchestra tore up the bridge on "I've Got You Under my Skin"...

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a52809/trump-financial-deregulation/

Say Goodbye to Your Life Savings (Again)

President Trump's team of Goldman Sachs alums are in the hen house.

"Asked about the potential political pushback because of his Wall Street past, Mr. Cohn said the administration's goal of deregulating financial markets 'has nothing to do with Goldman Sachs.' "

 

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

oka"Run for cover," as Frank Sinatra once sang, just before the Basie orchestra tore up the bridge on "I've Got You Under my Skin"...

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a52809/trump-financial-deregulation/

Say Goodbye to Your Life Savings (Again)

President Trump's team of Goldman Sachs alums are in the hen house.

"Asked about the potential political pushback because of his Wall Street past, Mr. Cohn said the administration's goal of deregulating financial markets 'has nothing to do with Goldman Sachs.' "

 

When a guy starts out by saying that Tom Brokaw "invented World War II," I have no idea what he's talking about and don't care to read any further.

But maybe you can summarize the gist of his article, at least the parts that make sense.

 

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In summary?  The people who stole $20K from my mutual funds in 2008, and made it impossible for me to make any profit on the $20K I had left for as long as I could keep it, are now guarding the Wall Street henhouse and further deregulating the nexus of banks, financial firms, and insurance companies.. 

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

In summary?  The people who stole $20K from my mutual funds in 2008, and made it impossible for me to make any profit on the $20K I had left for as long as I could keep it, are now guarding the Wall Street henhouse and further deregulating the nexus of banks, financial firms, and insurance companies.. 

Could be, and I'm sorry about the money you lost. I'll be the first to admit that I know nothing about banking and economics. All I know is that I'm skeptical about the Illuminati, though I shouldn't be because I don't know enough to be skeptical.

.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron - I wanted to amplify a bit in voter suppression. I assume you know that historically it's very real, especially in the south. Speaking of the present I would focus on two elements, even though there are many more. First - voting machines and polling places. Of course I don't trust the machines that cannot be verified, and would prefer a uniform paper ballot system in all states. But more pressing to me are the dearth of machines and polling places in the inner cities. I can vote at home, or go to my local polling station and get home in 15 minutes. Think about it - where to you see pictures of long voting lines and multi-hour waits? Voting is handled differently in each state, and funded as far as I know by the states. Republicans are acutely aware, and I hope you are too, that higher voter turnout equals more Democratic votes. Republican controlled state houses limit voter turnout by underfunding the voting process - less machines, less polling places, less poll workers. 

In their zeal to limit Democratic turnout twenty something Republican controlled states joined together in something called 'Operation Cross Check'. This operation targets voters whose names appear in more than one state, and are not very careful about making sure the names are not just alike but actually belong to one person. They claim that social security numbers are cross checked, but investigators have shown that to be sloppily handled. Predominantly black surnames are targeted, and there are figures to prove that certain surnames are mostly black, such as Washington. So you are a black voter, you wait for hours to vote, only to find out your name is not on the voting roll, something you were not informed of. If you are lucky you get to fill out a provisional ballot, but that is no guarantee that it will be counted. In addition they target names who appear to be of dead people. Many investigations have shown that voter fraud - voting in two states, pretending you are a dead person, is extremely rare, statistically non existent in fact. So why the noise and effort? Quite simply, to make it hard for black people to vote. And historically that is nothing new. It dates back to Reconstruction, and gets more subtle as time goes on. Provisions of the voting rights act have been gutted in some states. Voter ID laws have been implemented that make it difficult for citizens who don't drive to vote. Just as in the old days, getting through this obstacle requires long drives to state capitals and lots of paperwork. Guess who that affects disproportionally? So when you hear the term 'voter fraud' be suspicious. Mainstream Republicans don't want to go down the road that Trump is pushing to tackle voter fraud, because it will expose voter suppression.

as to your point about CNN, that seems to be a dig at what you think of as the liberal media, as if I should be content to get my information and talking points there. I don't, and never have. I'm not a liberal, and don't like labels any more than you do. Left/right is a false dichotomy, a divide and conquer strategy. I'm more pissed off at the Democratic establishment than you could imagine. I only care about truth and lies. 

As for national ID cards, blocking this has long been the policy of the Republican Party, in the guise of protecting us from Big Brother. Many Democrats have taken this tack too, as in 'show me your papers'. What's the point now of blocking ID's? Anybody who uses the internet or a cell phone leaves an indelible track anyway. No one flies under the radar now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul, thanks for the informative post. I have one question. Hillary has just about run out of things to blame for her loss. The only thing she won't blame is herself. Why in the world hasn't she blamed the voter suppression that you speak of? Has she done so? I haven't heard it reported. The last thing I heard is that she blames Obama.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't heard Clinton at all recently. Where did you see a story about her blaming Obama? I know a Democratic strategist who has no trouble acknowledging the poor job Clinton did in rallying support in certain states like Wisconsin, Michigan, etc. I also think the Democrats have done very little to counteract voter suppression, even rhetorically. To be clear, I only voted Democratic in the last 3 elections, and only because I thought Obama was a good choice, and because I didn't want to see Trump in the White House. I've voted third party otherwise since 1984. I wanted Bernie Sanders and voted for him, don't mind saying so, in the primaries. I'm not at all a fan of either Clinton. But the incessant attacks on them from the right bother me, especially when the news is fake. There is real stuff too, which is what I pay attention to. 

I think Clinton ran a poor campaign. Too smug, too sure that taking the so-called high road would work. And she and the Democrats have done a lousy job for decades standing up for the poor, the unemployed. I understand that portion of the backlash. But don't you think Comey and Putin influenced the vote? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...