Kirk Gallaway

Sam Harris is neuroscientist and an articulate vigorous thinker. He's also gained notoriety as an atheist, with the sort of saintly countenance of a puritan. Though I'm not, Still when we see the idiocy of action that usually follows any utterance where a politician invokes God, discussion of religion, philosophy, atheism, seems quite harmless. But in these 4 segments, he talks of politics, and the election of 2016. Mostly about our President, though spattered throughout the first 3 links, there are unflattering references to Hillary and the Democrats and then in the final link he gives his opinion how, Trump won and the Democrats lost. . The first link is the most fun, a primer on his thoughts about Trump.The second is a more elaborate panning of Trump during the campaign in the Summer of 2016. The third and most elaborate of all (almost a half hour) is his post election analysis of how Trump won, it's implications, and his advised course of action, and the fourth link focuses on, in his opinion how the Democrats ineptly lost.

I hear the sound of unraveling, whatever that sounds like. It's going to become increasingly hard to deny a special prosecutor. Here at 6:00. Bill Maher gets the Republican who has made his reputation more from investigating the Obama administration, than any other, Darrell Issa to say that there should be a special prosecutor.

I watch it too, Paul. I loved it with Brody. I mourned his passing more than any TV character I can remember, but it couldn't last. The last season with Brody's character was largely without Brody because he was in exile in Caracas. Then the next season I thought lost focus a bit. I came back last year with the antagonist being the woman CiA/ Russian double agent. She was a good antagonist focus. I love the cast, Danes, Patinkin,Friend (though he's a bit much sometimes), F. Murray Abrahams, can cast a sinister shadow pretty well. In this last episode, I knew that guy was going to die, he was almost too capable and it seemed inevitable he was going to burn out like a meteor, besides he wasn't enough of a heavy to join the permanent cast. The woman who ended up being a chauffeur for the President Elect had a rather quiet, but imposing presence. Do you think she's on the up and up? Is she going to factor in future episodes?

Then I've read that 87% of Republicans think Donald Trump is doing a good job. I was hardly encouraged. There are so many goodies that Trump gives the Republicans it would almost be like blowing their opportunity of a lifetime. There would seem to be little pressure to hire a special prosecutor. Would Mc Cain and Lindsey Graham really have the courage to play the spoilers? There are obviously people trying to build a case against Trump. It seems like we're going to a conflict of party over country.

Jeff, I don't really like to use "them" either, but it is sort of part of the venue. I relate so much to that HST passage, I feel almost foolish admitting it. That's what age will do to you. Those were even my stomping grounds. I even forgot that passage! heh heh Reminds me of that for some reason If that's your personal observation, I don't know if you should feel that way. You've got the numbers. On a social political level your group is just starting to be felt. For years I watched the main stream media and entertainment ignore my rock and roll, my music, literature, films. They'd sneak in snippets of my "alternative lifestyle" into tv shows just enough that that the mainstream culture could stomach it. That's not even to mention that people got thrown in jail for long periods of time for doing things that I did! Keep in mind, it wasn't until I reached my 40's that another baby boomer was actually elected President. So Jeff, I'd say to you that the high water mark is still ahead.

To the guy who resurrected this thread, I say Jefferey, great post!! I agree with your ageist criticism. I hear a lot of talking about the "Deep State" here but there isn't much articulation by many people of what it is. Almost as if it's better left unsaid and to one's most evil imaginings. If this is such an ongoing threat, does anyone ever think to "know thy enemy". But people just go over and over a 50 year past, which I enjoy too, but they never ask. Are the same forces in aggregate present today? Do they still need to leach off the government defense spending of the most powerful nation on earth as they did in the 50's and 60's? Are they the same type of people with the same goals? Does anyone here really think Trump will be assassinated? I say, If Trump goes it will be because of his own undoing. For people to hail Trump as the second JFK is the most absurd thing I could imagine, and i find sort of offensive.This gets to the bottom of "know thy enemy." Despite whatever populist rhetoric Trump is a globalist with investments in 25 countries. Trump wants financial deregulation,less security deregulation, (fewer cops on Wall Street)relax restrictions on banks, lower taxes across the board, lower corporate taxes, repatriation of foreign dollars, less environmental regulation. Why do you think the stock markets not just here, but around the world are going bonkers, and the banks in particular? Trump's agenda is music to any "Deep States" ears. That is the world financial elite corporate agenda. They make money if there is talk of war, the threat of war, or no war at all. They can always make money through black arms sales and drugs. If Sanders had won the ticket, Sanders would not be alive. Of that, I am certain. Of the two remaining after that, it didn't much matter. They all are aiming towards the same outcome. Right, and who is the real threat to this, of course the socialist who wants, free health care, free public education, a strong environmental platform, decrease in Defense spending and a pulling back of American power abroad. But the truth is, to the international elites, though the trend would be very disturbing, Sanders with Republicans controlling both houses, would mean gridlock, which would be perfectly acceptable to them. But I could imagine such a scenario, if in another 4 years, if the current problems of discontent are still not addressed, and the rich get richer and the poor poorer, and worse yet there were to be yet another financial collapse, and the Democrats were to regain control of both houses in a counter populist uprising and had a charismatic candidate who talked like FDR. That candidate could be in the cross hairs of the "Deep State"or maybe like Roosevelt, they might attempt a coup, like they tried to do with Smedley Butler in 1933.

Cliff, What Doug, I believe is alluding to is that there is a theory that Comey, knows now the extent of involvement of Trump, Flynn, and Manafort in coordinating with Putin to rig the election and has incentive to atone for his series of bad pre election decisions.

You've whet my appetite Cliff. Could you give me a thumbnail sketch of it?

I think that Trump was so deluded, he picked a fight with intelligence,the media and is still picking a fight with the Democrats (?? and what can they do?) thinking that his fringe would help him. Then the Intelligence met with him and showed him what they had. Now it's obvious there's a web of people around him that has been colluding with the Russians who were willing to offer a lifting of sanctions and now all of the press and Intelligence gathering agencies around the world are trying to find out what Trump knew and when he knew it. And whose fault is that? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sean-hannity-question-of-the-day_us_58a3f3b3e4b0ab2d2b1a7c44?

Trump obviously knows what Flynn was up to. Flynn has not admitted lying to Trump, but to Spence. I would assume, they must be able to question Flynn as to what Trump knew.

Yes, well done Pat. I actually eat this stuff up. What gives Republicans conviction is looking at an overall map of the 2016 red and blue states. which the overall land surface area looks like a Republican landslide. As well as county by county. It is interesting that you mention a 4.9% total loss by Republicans in house congressional elections from 2014 to 2016 as I believe I had heard that for all Federal congressional elections, the Democrats had more total votes than the Republicans in federal Congressional races in the 2014.election. Which means in order to be true the Democrats would have considerably outcast them in the Senate campaigns. But maybe the figure was taking in account all campaigns, governorships, state legislators, State attorney generals, controllers, Lt. Gov. etc. As you've pointed out the "split" elections have always been in favor of the Republicans. But It seems almost impossible that we will ever get 3/4 of the State legislatures to reverse it. Although you show very well equal inconsistencies with smaller states as well as larger states. It may be that the overall complexion will always over time be in a state of flux so the inequities never stay long enough to convince a smaller state to give up their privileged position,( which is really what it is.) Obviously California, New York gets screwed, and as you've pointed previously they are the "donor" states tax wise. while it seems the "red" states who complain the most about Federal encroachment are the "recipient" states.It certainly is a gross inequity, as the most populous states are overwhelmingly blue states, (with the exception of Texas and Florida) and are the economic engines of the country. But on the brighter side, which we certainly need in light of your findings. The demographics of Texas are inevitably slowly turning to blue.

At 2:54 , a touching encounter of man diagnosed with Cancer talking to Paul Ryan about Obamacare, but generally funny segment about Republican repeal of Obamacare.

Lance, Whew! I'm going to leave the JFK assassination and your view of the past and current political realities out. In your response to Paul, I don't find any of your political views intolerable. (of course to you, I'm a murderer for advocating a woman's choice) The "left wing agenda" as you put it, at the time, was confined to one thread that was critical of the election and Trump, largely made up of Doug Caddy's links until Paul put out a second thread. People are free to go to whatever threads here they please. Some topics can be of interest to some, and there might be theories here I find hogwash. Generally the outrageous theories are held up to some scrutiny. I probably wouldn't have used Paul's words "infiltrator", Because I have noticed contributing members to this site who are conservatives and Republicans. Yet still with your charge of " left wing agenda" and my joke at your expense, no number of people flocked to your defense. The reason for that is not political. But it is the prevailing snippy tone, you seem to have no choice about offering. Just in these last posts. (1)" a fair degree of genuine mental illness on the part of some," and (2)"simply because most of the conspiracy threads are boring and silly, and the political threads are so predictably leftist they serve no purpose except to reinforce the prevailing paranoia." 3)"childish fantasies that the Dark Forces responsible for his assassination have reached their zenith in the election of Trump." And then I read "In other weirdness forums on which I participate," it's sounds like you're a groupie participant in "weirdness" forums. Why would you do that? My first thought is that you're bored and would derive satisfaction from trolling sites and starting arguments with weird,incapable people in a debate you'd be confident you could win. But that's just my guess based on my limited experiences with you. I recently saw you over in "JFK F facts". What's your game here, Lance? What do you want from this forum? It would appear you're hoping to get a following through condescending behavior. If they could only see you now back at the old Jesuit Seminary or Theological School (was it one of those?)at 67, Trolling sites of people you obviously think are inferior to get in snarky little exchanges to satisfy your ego, bloviating endlessly about yourself and your opinions and establishing right at the onset your feeling of superiority and demeaning the members of this forum. I'm confused Lance, despite your Christian self righteousness, why should we see you as anything other than a self absorbed, garden variety bully?

Whoa, I guess this isn't "your land" , Woody. https://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/25/woody-guthrie-sang-of-his-contempt-for-his-landlord-donald-trumps-father/

Just in case you may have forgot and need reminding.It's been an action packed , off the wall 2 weeks.

I hope I'm wrong. It is what it's going to be. There will be no tax records showing LHO's spy employment. The content and amount of information would have been released and been identical no matter who won the Presidency. I tend to think the next big government disclosure will be through the courts involving Johannides. Again, I hope I'm wrong.

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

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.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/02/05/your_super_bowl_election_jokes_are_very_very_bad.html

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?

Great find, Jim.. I can't believe I've never read this before. I think Castro thought it was necessary to bring up every incongruity of the case against Oswald, lest hot heads prevail. The first third of it is sort of typically rambling, redundant, verbose Castro, but then what is remarkable is his command of Oswald's case. Asking the real questions that few others were asking.

Check out each countries individual ads. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tv-satire-europe-donald-trump_us_5894791ee4b0c1284f25556f?ncid=APPLENEWS00001

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;

Testimonial as to Donald Trump's Big Heart- At 8:00---Our President in a moment of sober reflection,talks of God

To any interested, here's DK's final appearance on What's My Line. She doesn't look great, a bit sweaty. She died that night or next morning.