Jump to content
The Education Forum
Robert  Harper

Trump and the Unspeakable?

Recommended Posts

After reading the comments I am trying to stop laughing. . . except its really sad people believe some of this stuff. 

Are you suggesting that there was a conspiracy for Trump to beat Bush in the primary (strange, everyone seems to think his dad was behind the JFK plot lol), then to beat Hillary?

If so, the comment show you with little to no connection, knowledge, or understanding of the federal intelligence agencies or how Washington works.  Consider, you are an insider, why would you not support an insider like Cruz, Bush or Hillary?  Makes no sense to go with a wild card like President Trump.

But, interestingly enough, you then talk about a massive GOP purge which swung close states apparently.  I assume you have gone to the appropriate authorities with the proof.  No?  Ok CNN then?  No offense but really, people voted, some did not.  Ultimately things affected votes, but this vote was not rigged in the voting booth.  Come on!

To Robert's first post, sure there appear to be connections which go from the JFK assassination and Watergate.  Many people have stated that, including, Hunt.

But for anyone to imply that the powers that be wanted Trump over Bush and Hillary and helped him win, that theory has no evidence at this point. It is just speculation. Hillary probably had her enemies in the intelligence community and sure they probably did not want her to win.  But Trump was a wild card for them. 

As for JFK being hated, well, that goes beyond the government.  Lots of people hated him.  Business people, oil, most importantly, anti-Castro Cubans who did feel betrayed by him.  Some of the ones I know who were at the Bay of Pigs could not even speak about the event because of how terrible it was.  Few history books really explain what really happened over those couple of days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:


Why did the FSB "provide" the FBI with that fake memo, Cliff?  

 

--  T.G.

 

As part of their campaign to punk the American government, and the American public.

Which wouldn't have meant anything without Republican assaults on our electoral process (Comey and the NYC FBI are Republican).

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

As part of their campaign to punk the American government, and the American public.

Which wouldn't have meant anything without Republican assaults on our electoral process (Comey and the NYC FBI are Republican).

 

It had kind of a synergistic effect, then, huh.



What did the Ruskies think that "information," if leaked to the public before the election (by someone like Assange) would encourage Americans in authority and / or Americans in general, to do?


Vote for Clinton?

Vote for anyone but Clinton?

Vote for a specific person, but not for Clinton?

Not vote at all?

 

--  T.G.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

It had kind of a synergistic effect, then, huh.



What did the Ruskies think that "information," if leaked to the public before the election (by someone like Assange) would encourage Americans in authority and / or Americans in general, to do?


Vote for Clinton?

Vote for anyone but Clinton?

Vote for a specific person, but not for Clinton?

Not vote at all?

 

--  T.G.
 

B & D

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

The Sheehan lectures are very interesting. Did you watch the one about a CIA guy who was flown to Bolivia by Miguel Nazar Haro o meet a bunch of Nazis as a prelude to being appointed Station Chief in Mexico? 

No Paul, I am unfamiliar with that one. I will try and locate. Sheehan, as part of the Christic Institute, really uncovered Iran/Contra, but not sufficiently to defend in court, and the Institute was bankrupted by a defamation case from the perpetrators of the deal. I think he offers great insights into the JFK/Watergate nexus.

From comments left after my initial post here, I see I was unsuccessful in framing my observation. I wanted to extract the abstract structure of the working National Security apparatus and illustrate how one might view it with hindsight, as well as apply it to the latest flare-up of the Executive department with that apparatus. Di Genova was suggesting a frame-up and offering the possibility that the "Russia" probe was a red herring to deflect attention from FBI interference. So far, that made more sense to me than Russia "interfering" with the election. I mean Israel, through AIPAC, practically speaks as an agent for a foreign government and there hasn't been a special prosecutor appointed to investigate their activity. Both of the Kennedy brothers wanted the Israel Lobby to register as such, but were rebuffed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/12/2018 at 6:36 AM, Cory Santos said:

As for JFK being hated, well, that goes beyond the government

Cory--trying to understand what drove people to kill and cover-up has been challenging to me for years. Saying "well, they are evil" doesn't cut it; trying to see how they justified such, takes an effort at empathy. Pawley telling Billings and Martino that "we're gonna kill the M-F-er, is a shocking and harsh piece of information to process. I think this rogue group had a good understanding of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (from 1776) as they saw protection of the interests of the clients of Sullivan and Cromwell and those connected with the Council of Foreign Relations as primary goals to be accomplished. I don't think they had an understanding of Smith's earlier work - The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) where he projects the "impartial spectator" as a judge of all moral actions. I think JFK had an innate understanding  of Smith - who was after all, a professor of moral philosophy- and those who participated in his killing and cover-up,  didn't.

Edited by Robert Harper
correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

B & D

 

Cliff,

 

I think it's been shown that the original overall plan behind all of the "active measures" employed by the Ruskies before the election was B&D, but was later switched to C ("vote Trump").

Incorporating "anyone but Hillary" all along, of course.

 

--  T.G.

 

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Robert Harper said:

Cory--trying to understand what drove people to kill and cover-up has been challenging to me for years. Saying "well, they are evil" doesn't cut it; trying to see how they justified such, takes an effort at empathy. Pawley telling Billings and Martino that "we're gonna kill the M-F-er, is a shocking and harsh piece of information to process. I think this rogue group had a good understanding of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (from 1776) as they saw protection of the interests of the clients of Sullivan and Cromwell and those connected with the Council of Foreign Relations as primary goals to be accomplished. I don't think they had an understanding of Smith's earlier work - The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) where he projects the "invisible spectator" as a judge of all moral actions. I think JFK had an innate understanding  of Smith - who was after all, a professor of moral philosophy- and those who participated in his killing and cover-up,  didn't.

I think I see the broader point you’re trying to make, and agree with your analysis of why JFK was killed. In my words - he was a traitor in their eyes. But Trump and his minions are crooks and liars, morally repugnant and intellectually bankrupt. I agree that Russia is a diversion, but from what? He’s taking us backward, destroying what little progress we’ve made, harnessing the old hatreds and divisions that still underly our fragile Union in service of his ego and financial ambitions. I don’t see anything good on the domestic front. The analogy you make is in this case, in my opinion, turned completely upside down. Trump is no JFK, and he has the backing of some elements of today’s National Security State. As for Russia, I’m sure there was and is collusion. But I don’t think the US has the moral high ground. They’re all bad actors, including Israel. 

Btw I met Daniel Sheehan around 1990 because my Iran Contra trading cards were written with the Christie Institute affidavit in my hands. I visited their offices in DC after offering to donate a portion of my meager profits to their cause. I have a lot of respect for him. 

Edited by Paul Brancato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

I think I see the broader point you’re trying to make, and agree with your analysis of why JFK was killed. In my words - he was a traitor in their eyes. But Trump and his minions are crooks and liars, morally repugnant and intellectually bankrupt. I agree that Russia is a diversion, but from what? He’s taking us backward, destroying what little progress we’ve made, harnessing the old hatreds and divisions that still underly our fragile Union in service of his ego and financial ambitions. I don’t see anything good on the domestic front. The analogy you make is in this case, in my opinion, turned completely upside down. Trump is no JFK, and he has the backing of some elements of today’s National Security State. As for Russia, I’m sure there was and is collusion. But I don’t think the US has the moral high ground. They’re all bad actors, including Israel. 

Btw I met Daniel Sheehan around 1990 because my Iran Contra trading cards were written with the Christie Institute affidavit in my hands. I visited their offices in DC after offering to donate a portion of my meager profits to their cause. I have a lot of respect for him. 

 

Paul,

 

What do you mean, "Russia is a diversion"?

 

--  T.G.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A diversion in two ways - consumes too much media time, but more importantly a diversion from the voter suppression that is all too real. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

 I agree that Russia is a diversion, but from what? He’s taking us backward, destroying what little progress we’ve made, harnessing the old hatreds and divisions that still underly our fragile Union in service of his ego and financial ambitions. I don’t see anything good on the domestic front.

Russia may be a diversion to get the old guard back in charge. If I am right, Trump will be taken out be the media, before he serves 2 years; and we may end-up with 10 Years of Pence.

I hold the same revulsion for Trump that many people do. But there is no getting around the fact that most politicians and people are multi faceted, we/they wear different hats. One hat that Trump says he wears is that of the deep-state disruptor. I see some evidence of that being true. His recent statements regarding Big Pharma is hugely important. He did not cave completely on the records release and his most out of character statement came with regard to the same when he said "I have no choice" back in November. That was something to behold, I not know if that struck a chord with anyone else.

He promised a stupid wall and he has to follow through, or try to.

I just see him as posssibly making a turn towards the better. He is no conservative, fiscally, morally or otherwise. He's not a neocon. He's not a real oligarch, in the mold of Rockefeller and the like. He's a phony, wannabeee Oligarch.

Lastly the media is and has been on a Russia-did-it trip with regard to the elections. I start any analysis  by assuming that I am being lied to, and then see if that makes sense. I don't see the Russians as having put Trump in power, I see domestic forces as having prevented Hillary from taking the WH, propping up Trump for a couple years, then sliding in an unelected agent for the Sam-ole same-ole crap that we have seen for 50 years.

So, although it may go against the very core and conscience of your soul, you (anyone) may want to consider voicing support for Trump, because ten years of Pence might very well be the alternative.

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Robert; So Trump is the modern day Mc Govern opposite Hillary as Nixon?? You obviously don't know who Mc Govern is, he was the quintessential peacenik candidate of the Post War era.

Are you aware that Trump has bragged about launching the biggest peacetime  military appropriation increase in recent history."  These are his words. As Cliff says, Are you familiar with who Josh Bolton is? (other than he might have been your  favorite with Robert De Genova on your favorite news show?) Or statements from Mike Pompeo? So you want to get back on the Iranians again?, are you aware of our history and how we meddled in their fates and propped  a brutal monarch all for oil? 

Robert, if you're not a high flying hawk, maybe you should get a scorecard and research who these people are with public statements. So you honestly think after over a year in office JFK would agree with your assessment that Trump is his current day warrior carrying his mantle, battling his oppressive government?  Certainly there are certain news sources that encourage that sloppy sort of historical thinking.  But here's the epiphany. In general JFK actually had a benign outlook about the use of government in it's ability to address some social ills. He would never be into dismantling the social net, and rolling back environmental , consumer protections. Ok, He was slow to recognize the Civil Rights, but he wasn't a hundredth as divisive as our current chief executive.

Sometimes you just have to do research, get above rhetoric and images and learn what policy is.

 

Edited by Kirk Gallaway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

A diversion in two ways - consumes too much media time, but more importantly a diversion from the voter suppression that is all too real. 


So, Paul, you don't think the Russian's hacking of DNC's and Podesta's emails (and giving them to Putin's lackey Assange to distribute), and the divisive fake news and "ads" they placed on social media, and the way they targeted individual viewers of social media with said ads and fake news, etc, etc, etc, had much of an effect in, first, making sure that Hillary didn't win, and second, when they realized it was actually do-able, "pivoting" away from "Anyone But Clinton" to actively trying to help Russian mobbed-up, blackmail-able Trump win?

 

If not, I guess you still don't understand the concept of "active measures" and "strategic deception" counterintelligence operations.

 

(No, Paul, waged against us not by your bugbear, the evil, evil CIA, but by the Soviets/Russians for a very long time, indeed, now...)

 

Sad.  Very sad.

 


--  T.G.

 

 

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

After reading the comments I am trying to stop laughing. . . except its really sad people believe some of this stuff. 

 c

No, I'm suggesting that the Republican bible-thumping Dominionist Proto-Autocracy gathered around Trump.

13 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

If so, the comment show you with little to no connection, knowledge, or understanding of the federal intelligence agencies or how Washington works.  Consider, you are an insider, why would you not support an insider like Cruz, Bush or Hillary?  Makes no sense to go with a wild card like President Trump.

Unless you're a bible-thumping neo-con.

13 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

But, interestingly enough, you then talk about a massive GOP purge which swung close states apparently.  I assume you have gone to the appropriate authorities with the proof.  No?

Journalist Greg Palast has covered this in the MSM as much as he can.

13 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

 Ok CNN then?  No offense but really, people voted, some did not.  Ultimately things affected votes, but this vote was not rigged in the voting booth.  Come on!

No, it's voter registration that's rigged with voter ID laws and purge programs like Cross-Check.

http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/43329-how-the-republicans-helped-trump-steal-the-election

http://www.gregpalast.com/trump-not-ending-kobachs-racist-voter-purging-scheme-hes-putting-steroids-moving-homeland-security/

13 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

To Robert's first post, sure there appear to be connections which go from the JFK assassination and Watergate.  Many people have stated that, including, Hunt.

But for anyone to imply that the powers that be wanted Trump over Bush and Hillary and helped him win, that theory has no evidence at this point. It is just speculation. Hillary probably had her enemies in the intelligence community and sure they probably did not want her to win.  But Trump was a wild card for them.

You assume "the intelligence community" is a monolithic enrity.  It's not.  It's faction-ridden, always has been.

The Dominionists want war with Iran.  Trump wants war with Iran.

The Dominionists want to make women's reproductive capacities property of the State, just like Trump.

The bible-thumpers have always had a strong presence in the intel community, especially the FBI.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:


So, you don't think the Russian's hacking of DNC's and Podesta's emails (and giving them to Putin's lackey Assange to distribute), and the divisive fake news and "ads" they placed on social media, and the way they targeted individual viewers of social media with said ads and fake news, etc, etc, etc, had much of an effect in first, making sure that Hillary didn't win, and second, when they realized it was actually do-able, "pivoting" away from "Anyone But Clinton" to actively trying to help Russian mobbed-up, blackmail-able Trump win?

--  T.G.

I'm not disputing the impact Putin/Assange had on the election.

I'm arguing that GOP voter suppression/FBI interference had a bigger impact.

4 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

I guess you still don't understand the concept of "active measures" and "strategic deception" counterintelligence operations.

 

(No, Paul, not by the evil, evil CIA, but by the Soviets/Russians for a very long time, indeed, now...)

 

Sad.  Very sad.

 

Why don't you wait for an answer before you get the sads?

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

×