Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Zaid, JFK and Trump


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

      It's obviously a Deep State conspiracy to make it look like Trump and his lawyers were trying to conceal evidence of an alleged presidential crime that never happened.

      (Check with Sean Hannity, Cesar Sayoc, Berube, and Wheeler for the details.)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

DM: I suppose Cliff believes Tulsi Gabbard to be a Russian asset too. 

No, but I think Kirk does.

(Two can play the game, right Kirk?)

The astonishing thing is that none of these people here see any parallel or significance in how she slimed Stein and Tulsi.  Its one thing to go after the other party's candidate.  Its quite another to go after someone in your own party, and then  a Green?  I voted for Stein. 

Am I a Russian asset too? Well, am I Kirk? (BTW, am I getting my info from Jordan? Nope, but I do get info from Ray McGovern, who you somehow left off your list.  As you did Bill Binney.)

Sadly Jim I usually sign my email to most of my long time friends back  in MA "Your Russian asset" because they- all liberal Democrats who blindly believe MSM-fully believe in RG. Even Harvey- Yes- that one (Yazijian).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawn Says:

suppose Cliff believes Tulsi Gabbard to be a Russian asset too. 

Jim says:No, but I think Kirk does.

(Two can play the game, right Kirk?)

The astonishing thing is that none of these people here see any parallel or significance in how she slimed Stein and Tulsi.  Its one thing to go after the other party's candidate.  Its quite another to go after someone in your own party, and then  a Green?  I voted for Stein. 

Am I a Russian asset too? Well, am I Kirk? (BTW, am I getting my info from Jordan? Nope,
.
Relax, Jim I even said it was a joke.
Jim in his political endorsement thread "See, I told you Tulsi's the one"  actually implies and endorses that people should be so one-issue-simplistic that people should vote for Tulsi for no other reason than Hillary's doesn't like her. Implicit in that is that everyone should feel exactly the same about Hillary that Jim does.
 
I like Kathy's cameo comment that the fact that Tulsi in her picture  has a copy of "JFK  and the unspeakable" is hardly any indication that she's qualified to be POTUS or necessarily anything! I'll go further and say  it's destructive. I've seen how the Trump/Conspiracy cocktail element plays into some hard core Trumpists.  They are absolutely like moonies in their devotion to Trump. Their eyes glaze over with any logic to the contrary! I'm making no reference to any self proclaimed Trumpists here.
 
But regarding Hilary's comments about Gabbard and Stein. I said
"She should never have said that. The Clinton's should get lost for a long awhile."
Which of course you know Jim and you were just acting like you didn't know probably  to impress Dawn.
 
Dawn who has childishly referred to HC as "Killary". obviously has a lot of juicy info we could never be privy to. She was actually on this forum parsing together released Hilary e-mails to justify "Pizzagate". I could only assume she holds the most wicked vision of Hilary's getting it on with illegally trafficked young boys why Bill probably salaciously watches. I'm sure to Dawn, Hilary represents an embodiment of evil too spooky for even Halloween. And of course to resurface Seth Rich now. She was probably glued to the tube watching Sean Hannity go on his diatribe about that issue for 3 months straight. Dawn, you should network with Robert.
 
The allegation  of the Mueller investigation was that the President was conspiring with a foreign power to affect the American election process. When the Mueller testimony before Congress ended up not being the bombshell the Democrats had hoped for, on the FOLLOWING DAY, Trump does the VERY SAME THING, with the Ukranian President and ADMITS IT! 
 
Just like when the Republicans are asked if it's wrong for a President to dangle  taxpayer money to a foreign power to aid in getting information on his political opponents. I asked this question here and never got an answer. Jim, I'll address you.  With Trump's more recent admission in the Ukraine incident, is  the premise for establishing the Mueller probe, that the POTUS may have sold out out or compromised our national interests to our enemies now 1) more likely to have happened? or 2) less likely to have happened?
 
Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

DM: I suppose Cliff believes Tulsi Gabbard to be a Russian asset too. 

No, but I think Kirk does.

Tulsi Gabbard voted to move the Trump impeachment forward.  She's with The Resistance against Trump's theocratic fascist, slow rolling coup d'etat.  The Trump apologists on this thread can't say the same.

If not for her past as a gay conversion therapy activist she'd have a bright future in national Democratic Party politics.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/rep-tulsi-gabbard-apologizes-past-anti-lgbtq-views-n959941

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue - as others may as well - that the U.S. had her coup in '63 at the hands of the Military's armed forces, and one of the logical outcomes of that is seeing a U.S. major, who can seemingly defy Army regulations by not first resigning her commission, on the cusp of a presidential run following nomination - if not in 2020, then certainly the next time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

If not for her past as a gay conversion therapy activist she'd have a bright future in national Democratic Party politics.

Exactly wrong. She fell out with the DNC mainly for 2 reasons. She resigned from a prominent DNC position because of shillary's networks in taking down Sanders for the nomination. Equally important, she actually went to Syria, met with Assad and told the public we are supporting terrorists. 

Her former feelings about homosexuality are not significant at all in this context. The point is that a US politician cannot have a "bright future" with the DNC if they don't tow the line on foreign policy/covert operations issues. Tulsi recently stated that the American people deserve to know the truth about who was involved in 9/11 and has been reading Jim Douglass. These are the non starters that prevent the msm from endorsing her, not her somewhat dicey religious upbringing. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Exactly wrong. She fell out with the DNC mainly for 2 reasons.

The Democratic Party grass roots could care less about the DNC.

It's common for the ill-informed to conflate the grass roots voters and activists of the Democratic Party with it's establishment wing.

Quote

She resigned from a prominent DNC position because of shillary's networks in taking down Sanders for the nomination.  

I'm a Sanders man still, but the claim that the DNC took down his campaign is pure bovine offal.  Sanders lost because 3.5 million black voters went for Hillary.

Quote

 

Equally important, she actually went to Syria, met with Assad and told the public we are supporting terrorists. 

Her former feelings about homosexuality are not significant at all in this context.

Nobody give a damn about the DNC. 

Quote

 

The point is that a US politician cannot have a "bright future" with the DNC if they don't tow the line on foreign policy/covert operations issues. Tulsi recently stated that the American people deserve to know the truth about who was involved in 9/11 and has been reading Jim Douglass. These are the non starters that prevent the msm from endorsing her, not her somewhat dicey religious upbringing.

Nobody in the Dem grass roots gives a hoot about the DNC or the MSM. 

If Bernie had been able to reach out to more minority voters in 2016 he'd be President today.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dennis Berube said:

Exactly wrong. She fell out with the DNC mainly for 2 reasons. She resigned from a prominent DNC position because of shillary's networks in taking down Sanders for the nomination. Equally important, she actually went to Syria, met with Assad and told the public we are supporting terrorists. 

Her former feelings about homosexuality are not significant at all in this context. The point is that a US politician cannot have a "bright future" with the DNC if they don't tow the line on foreign policy/covert operations issues. Tulsi recently stated that the American people deserve to know the truth about who was involved in 9/11 and has been reading Jim Douglass. These are the non starters that prevent the msm from endorsing her, not her somewhat dicey religious upbringing. 

 

If Tulsi wants the American people to know the truth about PNAC, 9/11, and the Wolfowitz/Bush Doctrine, why isn't she calling for Donald Trump to tell Americans "who really destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11," as Trump said he would do during the GOP primary debates?  Explain.

Why is she focusing her vitriol on Hillary Clinton -- even re-naming the Wolfowitz Doctrine the "Bush-Clinton Doctrine" this week?

It's true that the Obama administration perpetuated the PNAC/Wolfowitz plan in Syria and elsewhere, (Libya, Egypt, Yemen, etc.) but you Trumpsters don't seem to realize that Trump has been a veritable Neocon mule since 2016-- withdrawing from the Iranian nuclear disarmament treaty, moving our embassy to Jerusalem, bombing Syria, (twice) signing off on the annexation of the Golan Heights, and abandoning our commitment to a Two State solution to the Israeli Palestinian crisis.

Michael Wolff has documented how Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, and other Bibi backers bribed Trump to become a Neocon mule.

Where's Tulsi's criticism of Donald the Neocon Mule?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

why isn't she calling for Donald Trump to tell Americans "who really destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11

She introduced legislation to this effect and advocated for it in public. I don't know how much more one could do than that.

 

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Why is she focusing her vitriol on Hillary Clinton -- even re-naming the Wolfowitz Doctrine the "Bush-Clinton Doctrine" this week?

Ugh... did you see the garbage that Hillary just spewed about Tulsi being a Russian asset? Plus Hilary was one of the worst and most militant sec of state we have ever had, she is a neo con with foreign policy that is indistinguishable from the CIA's.

 

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

but you Trumpsters don't seem to realize that Trump has been a veritable Neocon mule since 2016

Yes I do, I never voted for him or wanted him.

 

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Michael Wolff has documented how Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer, and other Bibi backers bribed Trump to become a Neocon mule.

Where's Tulsi's criticism of Donald the Neocon Mule?

 

If anyone owns Trump it is Netanyahu, and it's disgusting. The democrats are just as bad on that subject. But Trump stopped short of invading Iran or Syria for Israeli interests, would Hilary do the same?

 

If you haven't seen Tulsi's many critical posts about Trump, follow her in social media I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis,

      Just to clarify, Hillary never said that Russia was grooming Tulsi Gabbard as a third party candidate.  She speculated that Republicans might be grooming Gabbard as a third party candidate in 2020, and that Russian xxxxx factories would probably support that effort to sabotage Democrats running against Putin's orange puppet, just as they promoted Jill Stein in 2016 to sabotage Hillary.

       Hillary's comments about Gabbard in that podcast have been widely misquoted in the corporate MSM.

       Meanwhile voila! Trump's Minister of Trumpaganda, Sir Rupert Murdoch, is now actively promoting Tulsi Gabbard's 2020 candidacy!!

       In the past 24 hours, Sir Rupert-the-Trumpagandist has featured glowing Tulsi Gabbard interviews on Fox News (with Tucker Carlson) and an op-ed in his Wall Street Journal.

       But let's not kid ourselves.  Sir Rupert Murdoch has played a HUGE role in promoting our post-9/11 Neocon  wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria -- the Wolfowitz Doctrine-- and covering up PNAC's role in 9/11.  If Rupert Murdoch is a champion of ending our Forever Wars in the Middle East, I'm a monkey's uncle, (an allegation which my nephews would resent.)

      Not surprisingly, the new Tulsi Gabbard op-ed in the Rupert Murdoch's WSJ focuses on Rupert Murdoch's new Trumpaganda moniker for his favorite, old Wolfowitz/Bush Doctrine-- "the Clinton Doctrine."  Yeah, right...

      There it is.   Tulsi Gabbard is starting to distinctly resemble yet another well paid Rupert Murdoch Trumpagandist.

       As for Donald the Neocon Mule, he always follows the money in the same way that an ass follows a carrot and flees the stick.

      Trump's actions in Syria, IMO, are not about thwarting the Neocon/Wolfowitz Doctrine per se.  They are a response to Putin's stick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

 Trump's actions in Syria, IMO, are not about thwarting the Neocon/Wolfowitz Doctrine per se.  They are a response to Putin's stick.

How could you forget Erdogan's stick also?

Link to post
Share on other sites
 
3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Just to clarify, Hillary never said that Russia was grooming Tulsi Gabbard as a third party candidate.

Here is a direct quote of what she said WN.

"I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've (Russians) got their eye
on somebody whos currently in the democratic primary, and are grooming her to be
the third party candidate. She's a favorite of the russians. "

 

If she's not talking about Gabbard then please let me know who it is. I would say its absolutely Gabbard and she's saying it because of Tulsi's stance

on Syria and foreign policy in general, which the Russians would probably prefer to the fasces of the Clinton networks (Biden, possibly Warren) and Trump's erratic embarrassments.

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

There it is.   Tulsi Gabbard is starting to distinctly resemble yet another well paid Rupert Murdoch Trumpagandist.

Sure, even though her stance on the DNC was cemented 3 years ago when she wasn't on FOX at all.

FOX has her on their network because they know she will never be allowed to be a primary candidate for president and her views are generally opposed to the DNC at this point. Therefore, it is a smart political strategy to promote her. Is Tulsi supposed to turn down national air time that she barely gets on the "liberal" networks?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Tulsi also goes on FOX  because every time she goes on any other channel they call on her to explain why she is a fan of Assad.

  2. No  one should have to defend themselves for thinking HRC is a neocon and she  was a bad Secretary of State.

   Those are simply facts that are logically deduced from her record.  

    3. And no one  here likes Trump.  But there are people who can see something rather questionable and weird in Russia Gate.  And we also realize the power of the Neocon cabal, since we have seen it grow and grow at least since 1981. To deny that power is simple blindness.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Here is a direct quote of what she said WN.

"I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've (Russians) got their eye
on somebody whos currently in the democratic primary, and are grooming her to be
the third party candidate. She's a favorite of the russians. "

 

If she's not talking about Gabbard then please let me know who it is. I would say its absolutely Gabbard and she's saying it because of Tulsi's stance

on Syria and foreign policy in general, which the Russians would probably prefer to the fasces of the Clinton networks (Biden, possibly Warren) and Trump's erratic embarrassments.

Sure, even though her stance on the DNC was cemented 3 years ago when she wasn't on FOX at all.

FOX has her on their network because they know she will never be allowed to be a primary candidate for president and her views are generally opposed to the DNC at this point. Therefore, it is a smart political strategy to promote her. Is Tulsi supposed to turn down national air time that she barely gets on the "liberal" networks?

 

 

 

Turns out Hillary Clinton said Republicans — not Russians — were grooming Tulsi Gabbard

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/turns-out-hillary-clinton-said-republicans-not-russians-were-grooming-tulsi-gabbard-2019-10-24

 

Published: Oct 24, 2019

By

MikeMurphy

Editor
 

In a curious turn of events, a number of major news organizations ran corrections Wednesday night over week-old reports that sparked a testy war of words between Hillary Clinton and Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard.

Last week, a number of media organizations, including the New York Times, CNN and Politico, ran reports saying Clinton told the podcast “Campaign HQ with David Plouffe” that Russians were “grooming” a female Democratic candidate — widely assumed to be Gabbard — for a third-party run to play a potential spoiler in the 2020 election.

But apparently Clinton meant Republicans — not Russians — were doing the grooming.

The New York Times ran this correction Wednesday night: “An earlier version of this article described incorrectly an element of Hillary Clinton’s recent comments about Representative Tulsi Gabbard. While Mrs. Clinton said that a Democratic presidential candidate was ‘the favorite of the Russians,’ and an aide later confirmed the reference was to Ms. Gabbard, Mrs. Clinton’s remark about the ‘grooming’ of a third-party candidate in the 2020 race was in response to a question about the Republicans’ strategy, not about Russian intervention.”

The Associated Press said: “In a story Oct. 18 about Tulsi Gabbard and Hillary Clinton, The Associated Press reported erroneously that Hillary Clinton said she believes the Russians have ‘got their eye on somebody who’s currently in the Democratic primary and grooming her to be the third-party candidate.’ She was referring to Republicans, not Russians, according to an aide.”

It was unclear Wednesday night how so many news reports misunderstood Clinton’s quote, or why it took so long to clarify the remarks.

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

×
×
  • Create New...