David Andrews Posted February 5, 2017 Author Share Posted February 5, 2017 2 hours ago, Ron Ecker said: 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. . It really doesn't take a mystical "illuminati" to crash the market and devalue people's mutual funds, 401Ks, and portfolios. It takes the same collusion on deregulation among Wall Street, banks, and insurance companies and successive executive administrations - Dem and GOP - that under other circumstances brought us the Silverado S&L looting. Administrations tear down regulations, and eventually there's a payday for the few. As observed after the 1929 crash, invested money is never "lost" - it just changes ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 9 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said: Where did you see a story about her blaming Obama? It was a headline, news caption, or forum subject that I saw somewhere. I didn't bother to read the story or wait to hear it, because all I care about the Clintons now is that we are rid of them. At least I hope. 9 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said: But don't you think Comey and Putin influenced the vote? I don't see how Comey and Putin could have had more effect on voters than the dozen or so women who publicly accused Trump of sexually assaulting them, with Trump himself claiming on audio tape that he molests women. I would imagine that things pretty well evened out, assuming that American voters have any decency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 4 hours ago, Ron Ecker said: 4 hours ago, Ron Ecker said: It was a headline, news caption, or forum subject that I saw somewhere. I didn't bother to read the story or wait to hear it, because all I care about the Clintons now is that we are rid of them. At least I hope. I don't see how Comey and Putin could have had more effect on voters than the dozen or so women who publicly accused Trump of sexually assaulting them, with Trump himself claiming on audio tape that he molests women. I would imagine that things pretty well evened out, assuming that American voters have any decency. I don't see the equivalence Ron. When Comey made his second appearance 10 days before the election in connection with sexual Deviant Wiener's computer it had a devastating affect on the polls. And Comey's FBI refrained from mentioning the Trump-Putin ties which were also under investigation. Putin's boys were active for months creating fake news and hacking the DNC and Podesta. There may have been more than that. Putin is busy covering it up now by arresting high ranking members of the cyber security wing of the FSB. Trump's financial ties with Russia run deep, so stated one of Trump's sons. I also think you should refrain from quoting news headlines from stories you haven't read. It's misleading. Hating the Clintons is no excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said: I also think you should refrain from quoting news headlines from stories you haven't read. It's misleading. Hating the Clintons is no excuse. Oh, lighten up. It was a half-joke, I only mentioned it because she has blamed everything under the sun except her sorry self. "What difference, at this point, does it make?" Edited February 6, 2017 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) Ron - I looked up the story you reference that Clinton was blaming Obama. The source for the allegation comes from unnamed Clinton staffers, and in essence it was that Obama knew about Russian hacking and did nothing. The botom line for me is this - you are ill informed, whether by choice or accident I don't know. You post on this forum from a position of ignorance, and sometimes it seems like you wear that like a badge of honor. Its your choice to either remain so, or open your world view up and look beyond the corporate media headlines. You're in a good place to do so, conversing with so many well informed people here. Edited February 6, 2017 by Paul Brancato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 To answer that last response, I don't give a hoot. I'm not a fan of either Clinton. She should blame herself, on that we can agree. But there is plenty of other blame, and ignoring it makes you look ill informed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 Paul, I'm not ignorant by choice, it was an accident of birth. I just wish I had your brains. You lucky devil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 Proving my point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 Ron, I got a pretty good idea what Paul perceives as a threat to our country. I know you have a healthy concern for an enemy threat from without. Internally or externally, What do you see as the biggest current threat to America today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 21 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said: Internally or externally, What do you see as the biggest current threat to America today? I'm too ignorant and ill-informed to answer that. From here on I'm going to stick to the JFK Assassination Forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) On 2/4/2017 at 6:30 PM, David Andrews said: 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.” Getting back to the story. as far as our governments official version about Putin. I do believe there was a looting of government resources by a privileged few insiders when the Soviet Union was dismantled. I think it was a great betrayal to the loyal citizens who at last had hope after years of enduring a life of repression and the stifling of their opportunities. Many who had fought to defeat the Germans. If ever there was a definition of a Kleptocracy, I believe they're it. I think these people who were party to it including Putin ended up sapping the life from their newborn country. They are an illegitimate government , but right now, I'm not sure we're much better. I remember Putin teasing us about the results of the 2000 Bush vs. Gore election.. That's what we get for not having a popularly elected President. Where I could grant that people could differ in opinion is the charge that Putin is guilty of having journalists killed is just our propaganda.. But if I had to bet, I'd say yeah, the suckers are guilty. Certainly a number of people on the inside think that. Edited February 6, 2017 by Kirk Gallaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted February 6, 2017 Share Posted February 6, 2017 13 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said: I'm too ignorant and ill-informed to answer that. From here on I'm going to stick to the JFK Assassination Forum. You know that wasn't a trick question. I thought your post back at Paul's, how do I call it "infiltrators thread" was pretty thoughtful, even if I may not agree with all of it. To me Ron, with this voting thing. You're like a guy at a junior high school dance who is waiting for the most killer girl in school to walk across the gym floor and ask him to dance. You should vote.----JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted February 7, 2017 Author Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) Roger Stone, in his e-mail ads for his book The Making of the President 2016 (original!) mentions that when Trump first began backing presidential candidates, his prime question would be, and I paraphrase because I don't want to read Stone's ads again: "How are we going to get him to 270?" As in electoral votes. Being a much larger nation than we were at the founding, why do we not constitutionally adjust the role of the electoral college to permit an accurate toting of the popular vote? France, a nation about the size of New York State, doesn't hold an Election Day - it takes an entire week, including a controversial Sunday vote. It's time to examine the US electoral history and review past legal precedents for change after systemic turmoil. Edited February 7, 2017 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 (edited) Great idea. But - will not happen because suppressing the vote keeps the right in the game, and making it hard to vote is at the core of that strategy. As I was writing this, I watched Elizabeth Warren, who was reading a letter from Coretta Scott King from 1986 in opposition to Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions of Alabama when he was nominated for a federal judgeship, get shut down by Mitch McConnell during discussion about Sessions current nomination as AG. That speaks for itself doesn't it? That's the country we live in, and it puts the Wall and the Muslim ban in its proper context. Edited February 8, 2017 by Paul Brancato 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