Kirk Gallaway

All right, Glenn. I appreciate you admitted you're wrong. I see you work against Veteran homelessness. I appreciate that. Are you a veteran yourself? Then maybe you get turned off with non veterans talking about war when they have never had their character tested by experiencing a war firsthand. You have never experienced an election where the popular will is thwarted by the electoral college and you lost, so you've never had your character tested and that's why it's so easy for you to characterize their rage as "whining." Do you know we are the only country that uses an electoral college? We are also the only ones that use the phrase "the popular vote" In everywhere else it's just called "the vote" . And there are people from both parties who don't think the Constitution is so sacred that we can't admit that it might be wrong.

I think records do show that JVB did land the job at Coffee company at the same time as LHO. I don't know if they were ever introduced. Joe, I do think that interview with Mrs. Lewis, whatever her name is with JVB in the background are almost the most credible thing to her claims. I do agree she doesn't seem smart enough to be a good xxxx and couldn't seemingly restrain herself from her little axes to grind against Ron Lewis, which are neither here or there. But I think JVB is very cunning person who read all the literature up to that point about the Kennedy Assassination and used the fact that she worked with LHO and her previous connections to make a fantastic story, and all that information and allegation was already out there. That's she maneuvered herself into a central position in some circles in the assassination community is absolute coup, and a testament to her cunning. Thank God "60 minutes" thought better of going with her. That's really an interesting tidbit from Pamela that Haslam and Baker are from the same town. As I remember it wasn't Jack Ruby who told her to be a "vanilla girl" wasn't it David Ferry? This by itself doesn't mean much, but when I first saw her presentation on MWKK, she said quote. "Then Lee said to me, let me introduce you to my friend, Sparky Rubinstien" So now the pseudonym and then the proper name. I smelled a rat. Just too "inside" for me.

Thanks Sandy, Glenn, when you asked what I meant when I said that in the elections where a candidate won the electoral college and lost the popular vote, that candidate has never been a Democrat. I said this, All our elections are decided by one man- one vote except the Presidential Election. In our lifetime there's only been 2 times when a candidate has gotten the most votes but lost in the Electoral College, and that's happened twice in the last 16years. (Gore vs. Bush) In the only 2 cases, they've gone to Republicans. What's the point in Cliff or any of us "complaining about it every election" when it's not an issue? What don't you understand about this? And then you use these refuted points as your talking points against Cliff twice. Are you really listening? And facts do matter, you're citing 1960 as an example is wrong! John Kennedy won by both the popular vote and the electoral college. Maybe you should admit you've been wrong.

Glenn, Since we can guess Cliff's a Democrat, and in our lifetime, they've never gone to the Democrats so that's never happened. All our elections are decided by one man- one vote except the Presidential Election. In our lifetime there's only been 2 times when a candidate has gotten the most votes but lost in the Electoral College, and that's happened twice in the last 16years. (Gore vs. Bush) In the only 2 cases, they've gone to Republicans. There are a lot of us on both sides that don't like the Electoral College. Donald Trump has said it's scam , but now that he's benefited from it, he's not complaining. And Georgian Newt Gingrich has said we should do away with it. What's the point in Cliff or any of us "complaining about it every election" when it's not an issue?

Glenn, Since we can guess Cliff's a Democrat, and in our lifetime, they've never gone to the Democrats so that's never happened. Cliff, I believe he said he'd always go by the popular vote. You might not believe him but I do because I feel the same way.(I'm registered independent) "what would be interesting to hear, from those who feel that the presidential election was a scam - or whatever they think -, is how the gubernatorial, congressional and senatorial majorities are ALL STILL Republican..." Not arguing whether it was "scam" Glenn. But as a Republican you're seeing that the Republicans win the right to control both houses through "one man, one vote" and win the right to control the Presidency through the Electoral College which was setup at the beginning to ensure that the minority not have to suffer from the will of the majority, as Roger De Laria pointed out. That's a noble goal, but it clearly doesn't apply here as both houses were already Republican and continue to be, but that ruling only serves to make the balanced completely for the Republicans. To me it's becoming sort of an entitlement. You and Cliff obviously love to argue. But what is easy to miss in Cliff's zeal are a some facts. I don't know about this election but in the previous election in 2014, did you know that in all the House and Senate Congressional elections,more people voted for Democrats, yet Republicans took the House and Senate? How could be this be? It's because the state legislatures, that are controlled more by Republicans reapportion the districts to benefit Republican candidates. You've probably seen some of these contorted Congressional maps, particularly living near a big city. The map in this case is rigged so Republicans win in districts where they have somewhat of an advantage and Democrats win in districts where they have a big advantage. So many more Republicans can win while the overall vote count was for the Democrats. The Democrats do this too, they just don't control as many state legislatures. One good thing I like that Trump says is the idea of term limits. We have that in California on a State level. I'm not sure how effective I think it is. But for California to do that on a national scale and have no other states do it would be stupid because because our representatives would never gain seniority on any of the big committee posts because they wouldn't be around long enough to gain seniority. Trumps term limits could be good, but I think a better idea might be to just plug some bi partisan info into a computer and let it make the districts at random. Now the public hates Congress but always votes for their Congressman so there's no change. But scrambling up the districts would shake things up a lot and force some of these politicians in their "sacred cow districts" to actually face each other, and bring new blood in the process. Congratulations, the ball is now completely in your court. I'm curious to see what these forgotten people in the rust belt feel after 4 years with Trump. Honestly, I don't think he'll do crap for them. But we'll see.

John, I'm not an economist but from what I gather Trump wants to increase both defense spending and proposes a one trillion dollar infrastructure bill over 10 years.. All the while, he wants to cut taxes on the wealthy and he says the middle class across the board. He wishfully hopes his capital friendly policies and huge deficits can unleash growth in the 5-6% range (Make America Great Again!) and hopes that the high tide lifts all boats, which is reminiscent of the trickle down theories of the Reagan era. His counterpart Paul Ryan is a deficit hawk who believes in preemptively "Cutting Social Security to save it." He is in sync with Trumps strong defense proposals. Whether political reality forces that back there is no doubt there will be a step up in defense spending. Ryan has largely opposed Obama's and the Democratic party's infrastructure proposals over the last 8 years. But it now appears that logjam is over. It might turn out to be a half trillion infrastructure bill and Wall Street is now licking their chops for increased stimulus. Trumps proposed appointments to critical cabinet posts indicate that those forgotten disenfranchised white voters have been snookered again. Trade wars could have disastrous effects but will modification of existing treaties really produce that many more jobs and wouldn't the market for those jobs be only among the workers who previously lost those jobs? Is the trade treaty issue really the issue at all, but just a convenient scapegoat, or is it really the displacement of jobs brought on by technology? In any rate, I don't see this populous wave receding and the peak election will be in 2020. Then the Republicans will have no excuse for their poor performance. The deficits will skyrocket but Trump has used debt skillfully throughout his business career, and could easily be the first to use the "D" word. A mitigating force toward negotiation might be that all the major world economies are taking on much higher rates of debt loads to GDP.

Oh Jim, thank you for sharing. (I assume you're trying to broaden your political base before Lancer's? heh heh) Oh I get it, you're trying to show how wrong the mainstream media was, as if you knew along what the results would be. And yet somehow it would be so important to you that Julian Aassange would be "Time's Man of the Year for 2016'". Hmmm, you think that's got legs, Jim? Maybe if you just keep dutifully adding Assange into your bullet points for the next 6 weeks. Who knows? We are the change that we can hope to make happen. Or something like that, I forget. But of course I understand, he did a great service for you. As being an advocate for Hillary earlier this year, you just had no idea the Clinton's were conflicted at all, or that both parties were corrupt, and had no skepticism of media coverage of the campaign before this, so I understand he was the agent of a great epiphany in you. And with great zeal, you boldly parachuted into our post election analysis with the true dope on the Clintons, and the parties and the media, and gave us your new guidance for which we all owe you a debt of gratitude. Thank You!

Unfortunately the news doesn't get any better about our President Elect. I figured I'd be gracious and give Trump the benefit of the doubt that if he was faced with winning the popular vote and losing in the electoral college, he would accept the verdict and not throw the country into turmoil, but now it appears not. Back in 2012,on the night of the election between Obama and Mitt Romney. Trump actually tweeted this: "Obama lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election, We should have a revolution in this country". If he's talking about a revolution in an election he's not even in, How would he have any restraint in an election he was directly involved in?. He later deleted the tweet. Of course the conclusions he was basing this incitement on were totally false. Not that it mattered to him.

Jesus Cliff!, I was trying to engage in a friendly conversation with Glenn! That's ok, Glenn, I don't think you're a Fascist-apologist. ,

Wow, that's quite an analogy Glenn. Isn't an election more like a Super Bowl? Isn't it all finished in one day? I don't suppose I could appeal to you by saying "all lives matter?"

No, I understand that Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were the architects of it when there were 13 states in 1788 or so. Each state had their origins and traditions and were very independent of each other and didn't want one state to become so populous that they started ruling the others. It made more sense when there were so few states.

You certainly have to be willing to consider Hillary was a terrible candidate as Trump would make these extraordinary gaffes, have that bus incident where all fears were justified that he's a complete scum ball and yet he was coming back in the polls even before the Comey disclosure! I think in the end, there were a lot of whites in the middle of the country who didn't want to have some glib lawyers dismissing their cases. Still there are a couple of salient points. 1) I may have my doubts but I don't think anybody can say for sure what the results would be if Comey hadn't injected himself into the campaign in the final days, and she's certainly within her right to mention it, and I'd be disappointed with her if she didn't. and 2) Hillary Clinton won the the election!

All I can find on this Dan, are the links below. On I believe Oct.28th the 15 year old wrote a public letter to Comey, accusing Comey saying she was " “horrified” in how her case prompted the reopening of the Clinton investigation — and has now accused FBI Director James Comey of turning her situation into “political propaganda.” There is no mention of who initiated the text. http://ijr.com/2016/11/727121-15-year-old-in-anthony-weiner-sexting-case-accuses-fbi-of-using-her-as-political-propaganda She apparently contacted Buzzfeed about her involvement on the Friday before the election(Nov.4th.) On 2 instances there is a mention of her "allegedly receiving e-mails from Anthony Weiner", which implies but doesn't specifically state that Weiner initiated the texts. https://www.buzzfeed.com/davidmack/teen-who-allegedly-got-weiner-sexts-upset-with-comey?bftwnews&utm_term=.es5ZxpWoR#.bi7Kak0Xv

Again, Read my post Jim. You're the one who brings up Clinton and Libya incessantly that you'd think it was Vietnam. "Persuade a lot of people"?? Unfortunately not in the political realm. it could have just as well been sinister advice by PNAC to cast Obama's career's into political neverland. There's a reason it didn't happen. It's called political reality, not what we wish for. Jim, at the beginning of the year you were the only I can remember on this board who came out for Clinton. What happened? Was it a book you read? Was it anything like the epiphany Gary Mack must have felt when he could no longer convince himself about "Badgeman"? Just thought I'd add in a reference to the Kennedy assassination. Doug, that you state with such certainty indicates to me that you seem pretty convinced they have an open and shut case against Hillary Clinton.That you think that Trump will choose to prosecute tells me that you think he is a pathologically divisive person and is learning nothing from current trials. I think the distraction of a prolonged court trial would be disastrous for everyone including Trump.And what for? Trumps followers already have Hillary out of the picture. What would really be gained. If you're right, we're into a national disaster.

You're right Bob, that's exactly what it says. 1) The Democrats are guilty 2) they know they're guilty. 3) it's a sinking ship and they must save one of their own while they can. Doug, I realize the message in that piece you just sent is that Trump is a Trump card, and you don't know what he eventually will do. But conferring with Mitch Mc Connel and Paul Ryan doesn't reinforce your belief that Hillary will be prosecuted. Quite the opposite. Doug, that you state with such certainty indicates to me that you seem pretty convinced they have an open and shut case against Hillary Clinton.That you think that Trump will choose to prosecute tells me that you think he is a pathologically divisive person and is learning nothing from current trials. I think the distraction of a prolonged court trial would be disastrous for everyone including Trump.And what for? Trumps followers already have Hillary out of the picture. What would really be gained. If you're right, we're into a national disaster.

You're right Bob. I forgot to mention that. That would be an admission of guilt of the previous Democratic Party Presidential nominee, who had just been campaigning for President for the entire last year and a half. Doug,IMO I wish not to infringe on anyone's rights. But I think you should take Heavy news off your reading list. Doug, that you state with such certainty indicates to me that you seem pretty convinced they have an open and shut case against Hillary Clinton.That you think that Trump will choose to prosecute tells me that you think he is a pathologically divisive person and is learning nothing from current trials. I think the distraction of a prolonged court trial would be disastrous for everyone including Trump.And what for? Trumps followers already have Hillary out of the picture. What would really be gained. If you're right, we're into a national disaster.

Jim, Did you read what I wrote? I was talking about your suggestion that Obama should have propped up Qadaffi's son in the Libya crisis and that it ignores political reality and would have relegated Obama to the political waste basket. And I think your insistence that Hillary "had a bad influence" on Obama is a lame attempt to absolve Obama as he had appointed her, and signed on off everything she did, and certainly would share whatever blame.

Oh, I don't know Pam. I see a bit of sentiment here that Hillary is trigger happy. My guess is that she'd be just like Bill, and her bark would be worse than her bite. I think we could approach Putin more delicately. Trump might have been better for our relations with Putin, (unless he plays Trump and sucks him into taking measures we'll all regret, even the debates showed, he could get sucked into saying self defeating things) but even if that didn't happen, it's a big world out there, even without Russia. Pam, I noticed white women voted decisively for Trump. Do you think it's because Hillary is perceived as a crook as you said. Or on the other hand, Do you think any part of it is internalized sexism and their participation in oppressing each other as my daughter said. Heh

Some great posts! Trump all long just wanted to prove he could become President. Now the fun's really over. After he became the presumptive nominee, He starting to realize he's in way over his head. It finally occurred to him that he would actually have to govern, and that was something he knew nothing about. He. then toyed with idea of having a kind of Ronald Reagan presidency where he leaves others largely in charge of the details while he attends all the honorary functions and goes out in the stump and becomes a spokesman for a few of his pet political cause, tax and immigration reform etc.. He decided to offer Kasich a unprecedented amount of political policy power to serve as his Vice president, but he refused. It was so important for him to win at any cost,even by bitterly dividing the nation with his rhetoric then he expects forgiveness and now realizes that everyone has been more gracious to him than he ever could be. When he was with Obama he looked old and burned out. He's been campaigning for a year and a half now and he's 70 years old. But he's got a few friends, Wall Street has come to realize that this and a unified government could be their heyday, major income tax reform, cut the corporate tax in half and repatriate all those dollars.Trump makes a conciliatory speech, the markets turn around from a 800 point plunge. The next day HC gives a gracious concession speech, the markets skyrocket. Rumors circulate that Trump wants the CEO of JP Morgan Chase to be the Treasury secretary, great for another leg up. Deregulation on many levels, get the cops out of Wall Street, privatize Social security, all music to their ears. Trump wants increased infrastructure spending, up go all construction and material stocks. Unlike Hillary, Trump will initiate a new buildup now in defense spending, defense stocks pop,which can hardly be good. Cliff's right, the national debt has no impact on economic growth in periods of low interest , or the ability to wage war. Did it stop Reagan in a period of high interest? Yes we could still spend ourselves into another oblivion. David is right. Trump and Putin as the economic/military bulwark against China was the initial plan, but as all the Trump plans, was not thought out in great detail.. Trump has too much financial interest and connections in Russia and is as conflicted as the Clinton's in many matters. But when it really gets down to it, his friends with interests in Asia, may remind him it's not fair that he should favor his own interests in Russia and I tend to think that after some tough talk and a few days of unsettling market anticipation he gets a quarter of what he wants in renegotiation and claims a massive victory. Though Trump may not be a mainstream Republican, the effect will historically be the same, the Republicans find the people who feel they've been forgotten so they can forget them all over again as they always have. I stole this because it was good.--- Only in America does anyone ever talk of the "popular" vote. In every other country, it's just called "the vote".

In the public hearings, the CIA will “admit” that Hunt was involved in the conspiracy to kill Kennedy. The CIA may go so far as to “admit” that there were three gunmen shooting at Kennedy. Yeah ? coulda,shoulda, woulda. We didn't even get the limited hangout.

Douglas, I remember your revealing your conversation at dinner with Hunt on a "Dark journalist" interview a couple of years back,was it? My thoughts about it were that Hunt was under no obligation to tell you any truth about his motives for the Watergate break in, and perfect to the spy cast pathological xxxx he was, after relenting he gave you the most perfect dumfounding response he could think up that would have you leave pondering the implications, and keep his secret in tact. As any good spy, I'm sure he had given it some thought beforehand. JMO Having said that, you seem open to other reasons as well and I look forward to reading about these documents being pursued that link through a chain of events a decision by Vice President Nixon in 1960 to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy three years later, as you've stated.

When you talk of a "penchant" for war , I think of multiple incidents, perhaps the size of Libya. Lets contrast: Papa Bush instigated the First Persian Gulf War: Massive mobilization halfway around the world, 700,000 US troops on the ground, massive aerial bombing over a couple of countries, then the Panama invasion, 30,000 boots on the ground, aerial bombing. Then Somalia, though protecting a relief effort, 25,000 troops, aerial bombing. That's an exponential difference in magnitude, to put it mildly. Now that's a penchant! Bush Jr? ...........well, ............

I do not recall any other Kennedy associate or family member coming out and being explicit as Walinsky is here about how the Democratic Party of today has completely abandoned what the Kennedy brothers stood for in the sixties. Jim, You understand my confusion. You didn't state that Detente with Putin was your focus. Your focus was that the Democratic Party has abandoned the Kennedy legacy though you weren't clear about what Kennedy legacy the Democratic party has abandoned. I would probably disagree with both of you that the Democratic Party was ever a non interventionist Peace party while JFK was President and the closest they came near it, was later, due to a grass roots movement that owed almost none of it's genesis to the Kennedys, their assassinations or martyrdom, and was in full force before RFK ever threw his hat in the ring. But putting that aside. What Adam is doing is very specifically saying that the modern Democratic party has abandoned attempts to achieve detente with Putin. And they have also expanded the war on terror and the penchant to go to war for any pretext. Jim, just to be clear, since you've read the article, despite spending so much of the article professing his Kennedy legacy of peace,Walinsky is advocating expanding the war on terror. He's aligned himself with Trump's most definitive hawkish statement that there will be "no quarter" for Isis, (oooo, tough talk, I feel better!) and enlisting Putin to help us. Right? Penchant, to go to war for any pretext? At the beginning of the Obama presidency we had 185,000 troops in Afghanistan, now we have what 10,000? We can talk about the expanded use of drones and continued military presence overseas. But would you like to explain that "penchant" for me? Maybe contrast it to the previous administration? Frankly, I think Walinsky might some day run for office, as most of this sounds like a foreign policy platform, where's he's blathering on about his connections to the Kennedy's and their legacy of peace, to offset his stump for Trump as the "Peace" candidate. But to deal with your point, and since the press has focused on Trumps alleged love affair with Putin, which of course he inflamed with statements encouraging Russians to hack Hillary's e-mails, (which we know now positively they're doing.) I would agree with you, that we could have friendlier relations with Putin and should make more of an effort, but I don't see that as the panacea that Walinsky does. And it's insane in any way to compare the present U.S- Russia relations as anything resembling the Cold War. Jim, I remember earlier this year, you said you were voting for Hillary. Honestly, I thought that a bit odd as the theme you keep hammering home about JFK in this forum is that Kennedy had a non interventionist foreign policy, a view I share with you. I wondered if you had followed the campaign of Bernie Sanders at all. He seemed much more in tune with your espoused beliefs than Hillary. Since you've already offered who you were voting for, are you still voting for Hillary?