Kirk Gallaway

To the dismay of Ben and Chris, more red state blue state kool aid to ponder. ( Of course, When has having zero detailed understanding of the American political system iever stopped Chris from pontificating about it to mere American inhabitants? Ben's jingoes are at least, brief!) Fellow Trump obfuscator , and fervid 2020 stolen election advocate.Mark Meadows has now been found to have voter registration in a red and blue state. Virginia and North Carolina. https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article259506469.html kool aid, kool aid ----- tastes great! wish I had some--- can't wait!

Paul, I assume you wrote that long thoughtful piece, because you're inviting discussion about it. Paul: If we can read and think we see Democrats (or the NYT)lie about Biden’s son, or Hillary, or whoever the target is, understand why they are doing it, wish they had more courage to just do what’s right and oppose corruption in their own ranks as well as in the thoroughly corrupted elected segment of the Republican Party. The question i have here Paul is what are your examples of "Democrat media censorship?" So the NYT and the democrats are synonymous? I'm not sure of the specific case you're making with Hilary, was that the e mails? I'm sure there's something there, Of course once you start talking about Hunter Biden, it gets somewhat trivial about "democrat corruption". Because he's not really in their ranks. But still are the Democrats "lying" about Hunter Biden or hiding the dirt on Hunter Biden? What are they supposed to do? I haven't seen any evidence of that. The FBI has been investigating Hunter Biden. But Biden hasn't interfered in the case off his son, but Trump was continually stonewalling aiding he investigations involving his kids and Jared Kushner. Paul:The problem with Democrats engaging in media censorship, which Matt and maybe others don’t think worth mentioning, is that it reveals something deeper, which is that they are not the good guys and gals we imagine them to be, other than in comparison to the goons on the other side. Specifically, I saw something completely different here with Matt. You said , "The US calls RT Russian propaganda without putting in perspective that our media is also propaganda. " You weren't talking about Democrat controlled media. You were comparing the U.S. with Russia. I would agree with you that both sides are propagandizing maybe more than I think Matt might. (though i don't know) But I agree with Matt completely, there's no comparison of the censorship of Russians people getting thrown in jail for speaking their minds about the Russian war in Ukraine. One such case happened today. Your examples of Trump getting kicked off twitter, they are a private company. In Russia there are no private news companies or they've been disband by Putin and some independent dissident Russian voices have left the country. Chris Hedges having his earlier stuff on youtube scrubbed is worth getting upset about. But he's still free to push his point of view, just not on Youtube and it's worth mentioning, he's never a guest on CNN and MSNBC, yes. But people can seek him out online. The average Russian can't find information outside of state TV. There is a growing number of people who are buying VPN's because they don't want the government tracing them and they're probably scared to death to purchase it.. As for Trump getting banned on twitter. Personally i can respect other people's point of view on this one. But in my mind, if our justice system worked fairly and equitably at a faster speed. Trump should be in jail. I don't have anymore sympathy for him than I do for O.J.'s sentence in Las Vegas. Yes they're not the same, but for right now, Trump is free.

Paul you've come up with a lot of stuff here. There's a lot to sort out. Paul: Ask yourself this - if the 2016 election had been between Trump and Bernie Sanders who would have won? That would have been a great race, with 2 anti establishment candidates, occupying ideas out of the conventional political spectrum. I honestly think Trump would have won. People loved Trump's strength although it was really just masking his insecurity and incompetence. In the primaries , Hilary handily had more total votes than Bernie. That whole pro Hilary - anti Bernie DNC thing by Debbie Wasserman Schultaz sucked but it didn't matter. Yes the Dem donor class won with Hilary. But it's really more because of the Dem minorities not warming up to Bernie, as illogical as that seems. It played out again in 2020. Black voters don't want anything new and flashy. They wanted 3 time loser Joe Biden who made the most savvy political decision of his career by putting himself below Barack Obama in 2008. There's no question, we've all said many times Clinton sold out to The Republicans and Democrat globalists. He came into office with a typical liberal vision of being the next JFK. He appointed Robert Reich as Labor Secretary. That was a great appointment. ( Reich laments now that they had their chance and blew it.) He tried to pass an ambitious health care program and made Hilary his point woman. The Republicans stalled around and eventually ended up crucifying her. That same tactic was used 15 years later, the Republicans were going to fake like they were interested, Obama was sort of naive thinking they could all work together but Nancy Pelosi wasn't going to let that happen this time, but they got a lot less and got what? 12 million more people health care. Then in 1994, there was the "Republican revolution" and Gingrich's "Contract with America" and Clinton lost his chance for any sort of Progressive Presidency and started cooperating with the Republicans on the corrosive crime bill and went completely with the Republicans on Nafta, never to return, until they started paying a political price with the Trump candidacy. Nancy Pelosi is a Northern California guilty liberal, who would like to hold on to all of her appurtenances of power, like unregulated stock trading, not that she needs to, because she's come from a wealthy Mayland political family background. But ultimately she knows how well she's done and would pay more taxes if asked. She is aware of the inequalities of wealth and it could be in part out of a fear that things could get so out of control, that there could be a class revolution, that she wants to appear on the side of the lowly. I'm not in any way comparing her to FDR, as he was a President, from an aristocratic background during a very economically challenged era. But some have said of Roosevelt that his New Deal legislation and his attempt to a construct a social safety net "saved Capitalism." These "self hating white liberal" Democrats have somewhat of a guilty conscience and are not prepared to put up a strong stand against the hippocracy of their position, should there be a unified, concerted effort by constituents who know the issues. Just as Pelosi herself backed off on her insistence on Congress free stock trading rights. She may not work for it, but she won't use her power against it.There's a lot going on right now, so maybe not this session but something is going to done about that because it's developed bipartisan support. But Pelosi is pretty typical of blue state city liberals. You have a quarter to a third of the Democrats who are "the base". That is,they are politically active. They may knock on doors,circulate petitions, attend rallies. These are largely the Bernie, Elizabeth Warren people. They're mostly young, liberal, informed, intelligent,up on all the issues, civil rights, abortion rights, who goes to the Scotus. They're largely anti defense. They know what Citizen's United is. Then you have some entrenched capitalist globalist from rich districts and a few freaks who enjoy their privilege and somehow can swing in it in working class districts or states, like Joe Manchin. All this group is probably 10% of the total Democrat party, though they're generally well financed. Each party is polarizing ideologically. Whereas the Republicans may anticipate class warfare, but their attitude is to hunker down, and question the legitimacy of a government safety net at all, and they'll tell you further the government isn't effective at all at addressing these problems anyway, so they're making it a self fulfilling prophecy by simply opposing everything the Democrats are trying to enact. At the most generous assessment, they are adopting a bargaining position that the government should be at the size it was in the 50's, or maybe 100 years ago. The only moderates left of the House Republicans, that is the minority, come from wealthy districts. But the majority will tell you that governments just tax your hard earned pay and are really an evil, that just take away your rights. Many of the new or newly adapted Trump Republicans these days, push government conspiracies. Of course bringing up the Granddaddy of all conspiracies, the JFK assassination, is very profitable for them to allude to. Though, they have little detailed understanding.

Exactly Pat, our forum tabloid contributor New York Post er boy Ben, is smelling blood on Hunter Biden again! So what is it?, privileged families, using their connections to get cushy jobs on corporate boards? Tales of drug abuse? Tax infractions, After the Trump Presidency?? "Oh, you just wait" says Ben. Hoping to find the usual Fox News, Democrat pedophile gold, Ben? Obviously whatever information can be exposed, should be exposed on both the Trump and Biden family. And can there be any doubt who exponentially has more to hide? Exclusive: Leaked Messages Reveal the Origins of the Most Vile Hunter Biden Smear Fugitive Chinese tycoon and Steve Bannon ally Guo Wengui pushed out explicit material—and lies—on the eve of the 2020 election. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/04/hunter-biden-laptop-guo-wengui-bannon-giuliani/

I agree with you about Chris Hedges, that is absurd. I think in part it's because he worked for the NYT and is one of them. RT always had some good stuff you wouldn't see on our MSM. I was watching their coverage for a few weeks before the they shut it off, just to see what they reported. But their lead story for many weeks had been the Trucker's convoy in Canada. Then they'd repeat a story of a young passenger in a U.S. airliner wearing a "Let's go Brandon" T shirt and matching cap making a fuss when the attendants asked him to put on a jacket, as if such dissent is regularly tolerated in Russia. Just before they invaded they showed film of people the Russian Army were evacuating from East Ukraine over the border to Russia. But it wasn't clear if there was really a danger or the Russians just told them they are better off going, probably because they were about to invade. Part of it is that during war, all countries have restricted speech. I understand the global town square but if things got heavy enough, could we really trust the government? Why wouldn't that also eventually turn out to be the fox guarding the hen house? It would then be up to the legislators. Has there ever really been such a thing as unlimited free speech anywhere? Or is it just like "liberty and justice for all." Above everything, MSM is really about money. Trump was a boon for for ratings. MSNBC and CNN decided they boost ratings by going anti Trump, and Fox was pro. It was kind of absurd that CNN was for a long while still trying to act like they were just "reporting the news", when it became so Trump dominated, Then MSNBC decided they can broaden their base by pulling in neocons for no other reason than they're anti Trump. The closest thing they got to an anti U.S. imperialist, anti defense spending person is say a Michael Moore, whose not really treated as one of their pundits, but mostly an entertainer.

News flash! Get this, My the tables have turned! Previous Putinites (and Ben idols) Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald are now claiming that Ukraine hawks (like Ben) are calling them "treasonists and traitors" because they don't want the U.S. to get directly involved in a "hot war" with Russia in Ukraine! I'm more or less in the same "restraint mode" about U.S. involvement in Ukraine as them. And that's actually the majority point of view! So bottom line is even though Carlson and Greenwald are now actually in the majority, they are crying wolf that they're being persecuted as "traitors". Am I old school? Or are these guys just 2 whiny little privileged wimps! Listen to them commiserate! I can understand where people don't want to get in involved with these Greenwald bottom feeding twitter wars. But there's more to this. Both Carlson and Greenwald urged restraint on the reports of civilian killings in Bucha. And what Greenwald is reacting to is one twitter comment from Rick Wilson, (who he calls a Liberal icon,but Glenn didn't know in reality, he's a Republican media strategist). who responded satirically .\ Wilson tweets: Greenwald: See they tied their hands behind their backs, and shot themselves in the backs of their heads. Vladimir Putin's brave, strong, morally upright men were merely trying to liberate them.In fact, I'm sure it's a neocon plot to make Putin look bad. To this Glenn responds! Liberal icon @TheRickWilson fabricated a quote, attributed it to me, and now his drooling Dem fans are saying this is proof I'm a traitor! They should transfer more of their paycheck to his account to satiate their rage. *Fake quotes are fine with Twitter if for the right cause! It's called satire! The fact that people fall for satire and parody — even when it’s obvious — doesn’t make it not satire or parody. That’s the point. Someone said all satire is a joke between the writer and reader at the expense of a hypothetical third party who takes it seriously. Only the most humorless, self absorbed person like Greenwald couldn't see that, as the only Glenn I've seen is a guy whose hair is perpetually on fire and has never uttered anything near what I would consider a joke in anything I've read from him. Bottom line, don't fall for Greenwald's self victimization!

Paul , I agree with you about Steve Schmidt. He's an anti Trump Republican hawk, whose been given a platform by Msnbc because he's more articulate at bashing Trump than most Democrats. Specifically Jim Di speaking out against censorship of Trump? I think of 2 possibilities. Jim started a "Trump was right" thread, that's now I believe in the Trump thread category where he quickly defended Trump from the press because of Trump statement he made with Putin at Helsinki where he said "Putin didn't have reason to meddle in the 2016 election". But then he reversed himself 24 hours later and said he misspoke and meant to say Putin " did have reason to meddle". Or possibility 2. Jim may have been outraged that Trump got kicked off Twitter. Of course, Twitter is a private company, and I personally think there are a lot more worthy private business areas that the government could get involved with than Twitter Like the oil, pharmaceuticals and banks for starters. JMO. And you're mentioning Greenwald, and I hope I'm not considered unfair for bashing him now. As W. has appointed out, I remember in the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping case the second of the 2 ringleaders plead guilty a couple of months ago. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/09/second-man-pleads-guilty-plot-kidnap-michigan-governor-gretchen-whitmer Ben;s been talking about it for a year. It's no wonder why Ben has glomed on to this acquittal. Here's Glenn's Greenwald twitter feed yesterday. Greenwald: The DOJ completely failed to convict anyone in the "Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot" that the FBI concocted, paid for, directed and orchestrated. Completely wrong! Then today! Remember when countless journalists, pundits, and politicians screeched with such righteous certitude about the Governor Whitmer kidnapping plot, as though it were established fact, He's still at it! Obviously Greenwald, like Ben hasn't put that much effort into following it. I might add, 2 of these charges of the acquitted were hung juries! Does Glen Greenwald bear any responsibility for things he's saying? I have some more of this about Greenwald's victimization I'm working on.

Paul:The problem as I see it is that once Putin ordered Russian forces in and started killing people all discussions about NATO or any other compromising factors are put on the shelf. Chris and anyone else that points to NATO is now seen as exonerating Putin. In general I agree with you Paul that the general population has little interest in what happened decades leading up to this, which is unfortunate. But here, we have a patriarchal figure who did a 4 hour largely pro Putin interview film and made a very pro Putin film preaching that the 2014 uprising in Ukraine was the work of Nazis and we have a disciple in Jim whose been pretty much in lockstep and of course regular weigh ins by Jeff. If we're really listening to each other, there's been lots of opportunity here. I like to think I listen and I've learned a lot. Very little Chris has said is new to me though I might check into a few of his facts. I've said on a number of occasions that the U.S. had an excellent opportunity 30 years ago to take Russia under it's wing and ensure this subsequently would never have happened. It just seemed when we were no longer competing with them we just sort of grew tired and bored of them and dismissed them because that's who we are, unfortunately. But now having said that, to me we've missed the boat as far as any peaceful solution that won't in essence give Putin a victory even though he's badly botched this invasion. The main question I'm asking myself is are we really doing all we can to supply the Ukrainians to obliterate their occupiers to kingdom come? heh heh People are very impatient with sanctions, but to me , they have been much more successful than I ever would have thought. I don't think people realize , Bringing all the nato countries interests together is a Herculean task. You can't help but feel compassion for all their suffering and respect for their bravery.You're certainly lead by our media reports to ask the questions, "are the Russian conventional forces just posers?" Would anything above giving billions in arms to Ukraine just exacerbate a natural Russian tendency to unite behind their autocrat strong man,much more WW3? Of course we have to remember that in the first Persian Gulf War, even though it wasn't as pinpoint accurate as we were first told. The U.S. guided weapons systems revolutionized modern warfare in Iraq. Then after the war, there was a lot of shameless banter that Bush should have finished the job and take Baghdad and institute regime change. And if that wasn't bad enough. Later there was even crying that George Bush was now gone and Sadamm Hussein had outlasted him. ??? Then later on, his son gets elected and tries to avenge his daddy and look what happened? It's true. it's not exactly the same. But we have to be aware, we're not getting a 100% accurate idea of what's going on on the ground there. Don't get too cocky! My intuition which really means nothing is that this is a critical period to strongly refortify the Ukrainians as it might provide greater sustaining power in the long run. However it seems to me Putin will go to great lengths to not let the Ukrainians recapture the east. Including maybe missiles and WW3 if his back is to the wall. The only real victory would be if the Russian people overthrew Putin. But what possibility is there of that, 10%?, 20%, 30% 40%? It wouldn't be immediate. Is there hope of refortifying the Ukrainians in a longer range war where that could happen before the Ukrainian resistance finally has to throw in the towel? *****

Thank you for plummeting your depths for me, Ben! ****** Equal time, Thanked On Russian Media

Ben, I use to think you're repetition was because, let's face it none of us are getting younger, so I could put up with 2 consecutive posts where you talk about your Uncle Jerry "smelling a rat". Then i realized in the JFK section you're concerned about your performance level, that you're not at all repetitive. You contribute, thoughtfully, and earnestly, and have some of your own ideas and theories. . You're even a bit of a climber, regularly kissing Jim Di's ass. heh heh Seriously, Why the 2 personalities?

Overcoming early rejection in his life path in becoming a Canadian exchange student to the Soviet Union . Jeff has overcompensated and now fathoms himself as the forum Russian Putin expert confidently assuring us he was the man inside Putin's head and under no circumstances would Putin invade Ukraine. I knew the next season's drama would be victim Putin struggle with oppressive Nato that left him no choice but to coldly and brutally demolish any structure or human being standing on Ukraine's surface. I'll often defer to intelligent people who have read voluminously about a given topic and ask questions to get a firm understanding of their take. I still do, but I've revised my outlook here on this forum, that being the most knowledgeable means absolutely nothing if the initial aim aim is just confirmation of existing beliefs and theories. W:At least Jeff isn't repeating Ben's daily memes about NATO and Biden weakly dithering, etc., etc., etc. Isn't that the truth?, at least Jeff's writing style is concise, and fun to read, even if I may not agree. Ben style of writing is is so repetitive and boring. For the next months on end we'll continue to hear that Biden and dithering , flat footed, when granted he's following a rather boring Nato institutionalist path against direct intervention, it nonetheless reflects the majority thought as it is now. Ben as a typical member of a conspiracy forum can take the most moderate milquetoast political decisions and make them into hyphenated conspiracy notions.This is about as conspiratorial as a democracy reflecting the will of it's people and their elected representatives fear of not being re elected.Just as the majority want to seriously prosecute Trump for his crimes including 1/6 insurrection and it's leaders and foot soldiers. Ben hyphenated the opposition to Trump as the "Government Deep state-NSS", when in reality it reflected a solid majority who want criminals to be prosecuted. Just as now Ben will hyphenate this to death saying it Globalist Biden path. In reality, this is controlled by governments. No corporations initially wanted to be involved in this, and no corporations who are part of this are going to back out. As long as there's a politic fervor,their hands are tied. They can't bear the consequences of how it will look. Realizing this true relationship would actually be empowering but that entails too much future responsibility and no one really wants that.

I think Putin had more titanic aspirations, but now can slim this down to these 3 goals (above).With these he can declare victory and say he liberated Eastern Ukraine from Nazis. Nato can declare victory and spin it that that the 3 day war ending in the capture of the capitol failed and Ukraine remained 80% in tact without even even so much as Nato's direct intervention into Ukraine. Of course where does that leave Ukraine? Any loss of territory outside of finally conceding Crimea will be seen by Ukraine as loss and betrayal by the West and they'll be very vocal about it. The ultimate victory for the West would be the overthrow of Putin by the Russian people and leaving Ukraine's territory before the war in tact. This is seen as unlikely but the most effective means to that specific end is the Russian oligarchs and middle classes feeling the pinch of sanctions, though the progress of that will always be unclear. The West also has some hope in invading the iron curtain of communication and informing the everyday Russian people of atrocities and persuading them that this war is not going on as has been portrayed to them, thereby slowly winning a PR war. In the mean time, Nato will continue to provide more of the demonstrably effective weaponry, which they are very able to do. As long as Ukrainians show the will to fight. Then the question is, with the exposure of the complete decimation of Ukraine, the misery suffering and displacement, will their be popular support to mess with this equation, and extend this into a regional war including Nato? I think it's generally acknowledged that it's not wise to push Putin in a corner any more than he already is. The prospect however remote is still existent that the Russian people could remove Putin. But they won't if Russia is seen by it's people as being under greater assault. And no one wants to face the prospect of a Putin fearing being prosecuted for war crimes or even a Putin facing the prospect of a humiliating war that he doesn't come to a rational conclusion that it is in his best interests to remove himself from.

Pretty much says it all.

I wasn't going to bring this into this thread, but now that Bob has. You recommended this Jim. At first I liked Stone talking about his early journey. I talked about this in much more detail in the other thread. Later he gets into Ukraine, Stone is blaming this horrific Russian invasion on the U.S. Stone is actually doubling down on Putin's "denazifying" rhetoric. No protestation as to the brutality and killing of civilians. Rationalizing Putin threatening to use nuclear weapons because he says the U.S. is pushing him. Biden's part of the neocon warmongering. The U.S. is pushing Russia into regime change, and that's an awful thing! Because we'll get some peace monger who is more pro U.S. like Yeltsin!, who will "cannibalize" Russia, and make Russia go against it's interest, (to the oligarchy?) as if economically they couldn't be a more failed basket case than they presently are. At one point, he sort of comes unglued and tries to look cocky with sort of a forced bravado but just comes off very insecure, making fun of the way people look and makes a lot of guilt by association. The Abby Martin interview was such a set up. I always hate it when the host is trying to impress and reinforce the guest of their solidarity in world view. Some may get great comfort from that. To me, it's always boring. Obviously Stone can say whatever he wants, and to some, there will be only be an eye rolling that "that's Oliver" because they appreciate his film accomplishments. But you're really giving a cudgel to those who discredit us. The outcome is you're not going to attract people nearer to the middle who could actually help bring the JKAC toward mainstream credibility, but you attract a lot of the newfound Trump, Q. "perpetual conspiracy crowd" who may sell some books but ultimately will cause the JFKAC to be linked to the "fringies" of this era..

When Biden expressed confidence that Afghanistan wouldn't fall for a long time once we left.. I didn't for a second believe it. I was positive the Taliban would take over within a month. How long was it, a week? I can't remember. I remember Doug recently posted an article from Kissinger, who I consider a war criminal. It sounded like it was 6 years old. He explained that we must be understanding to Russia's historic claims to Ukraine, then on the other he said we should nicely ask Russia to give back Crimea, and of course keep the status quo as the Eastern region staying with Ukraine,( I don't think he even mentioned that, that was just understood!) and have Ukraine agree to not to join Nato, like that would enough, if we handled it nicely! I'll play devil's advocate. Despite our sometimes exhilarating combat updates. Bottom line: These are 3 points of contention, 1) Russia giving back Crimea. 2) Russia now giving back the Eastern region. 3)Ukraine agreeing not to join Nato. It's pretty obvious now, there's no way Russia is going to give back Crimea. That's just lost, and given that Russia now largely controls the Eastern region. Why would they give that up? The agreement for Ukraine not to join Nato is the only demand Zelensky has expressed he's willing to comply with. The effects of sanctions is somewhat longer term. If Ukraine insists on wanting to keep their Eastern territory. Wouldn't that prolong the war into years, unless the equation is severely altered? Obviously that would be an incredible Ukraine victory, rolling back the gains Putin has made, and would have to involve a great loss of Russian morale over time. But the way it is now. Russia could leave Western Ukraine alone and accomplish their war aims. What is to stop Russia from continuing to shell civilian targets and carpet bomb whole cities until there's no one standing?They obviously don't care. ***** Good article W!. Fox News buzzwords are relentless. Dossier Dossier Dossier! And of course, what choice would Ben have to not also adopt it as his mantra? Just that perfect apt phrase where they can shut the door and overlook all the other evidence that came before it.

Let's face it, now that a war has started there's a lot of BS going on from each side about what is truly happening. If Ukraine was marginally losing the War, I would expect our side to only emphasize facts to support they are winning. Over a month ago, before the invasion. Chris posted an article here, and maybe it was Paul who recommended it, so I read it. The author was Scott Ritter who I liked because he was at the forefront of exposing Bush's War in Iraq and asking questions about WMD. I was interested on how he'd weigh in. He said Nato would do nothing if Putin invaded and that NATO was a broken power with each country serving their own selfish interests. I believe he pointed out the noted example of Germany needing that pipeline from Russia and so the sanctions will do absolutely no good at all. And he acknowledged that the the West has no intention of a ground war with Russia in Ukraine, so Nato is stuck, and Putin will deliver a fatal blow to Nato as any sort of deterrent in the future. I thought that was an interesting opinion. But Ritter's attitude was sort "Attaboy Vlad! Which told me he could probably justify a Putin invasion. Putin's invasion, surprised many people, and it caused some in the anti Nato community , like Matt Taibbi to change his mind about Putin and declare he was wrong. It's pretty obvious Ritter's conclusion about Nato's response was 180 degrees off. But I wondered where Ritter would stand now given this brutal invasion. As it turns out Ritter is apparently a military strategist and is definitely a Russian partisan. He said Russia has played this perfectly. He notes that Russia has only 200,000 troops engaged and says they are out manned by Ukraine with 600,000 (where did he get that figure, how can anyone know?). He says Russia has engineered a feint, which I didn't know what it meant but in essence it is creating a diversion that could sacrifice some troops in order to misdirect the Ukrainians and Ritter says it's been hugely successful, and will give Putin and Russia a victory. People did skeptically respond in the thread that the loss in troops and tanks was much greater than any military would accept in a feint, and echoed the story line we've been hearing that the Russians expected Kiev to fall in 3 days, and have greatly miscalculated Ukraine resistance. Currently, with the civilian bombing and destruction of Maripol, the Russians are building a bridge down to Crimea and will benefit at solidifying that bridge if any temporary cease fire takes effect. But the latest western feed is that Putin surrounded himself with "yes men' and wasn't aware how miserably his military campaign in Ukraine has gone, and so will have to re calibrate. So what ultimately, is the truth? It's become apparent to me that there are a number of right wing westerners who've accepted Putin's invasion and are cheering it on, such as Ritter. This has all became great sport to them and there's no mention at all about depth of human suffering and displacement. Another one such right winger is Glenn Greenwald, who sarcastically says, "Watch how the West will spin this as a great victory, when Ukraine concedes Crimea, Donbass to Russia and agrees to not join Nato!" I then found out that Ritter writes for RT. A fact I didn't know, and one poster offered that Ritter was convicted in a sex charge with a minor in 2011, which I also know nothing about. I see this related article in the NYtimes. I'm always being asked to subscribe. Maybe some day I will. I understand there's a way for third parties to send articles by which they won't be blocked. If anybody know how, and could send this article to me. I would greatly appreciate it. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/28/opinion/putin-culture-war.html?campaign_id=9&emc=edit_nn_20220330&instance_id=57094&nl=the-morning&regi_id=61798350&segment_id=86957&te=1&user_id=48552702f942aacb0810b9de5ca41c55 .

Bob:In what world do we live in where informants and undercover cops don't exist? You think that's unusual? Exactly, Ground U.S. to Ben. If you took polls, you'd find out the vast majority of average Americans want undercover agents on the ground at the Capitol on 1/6. That's not evidence of anything, but as it turned out prudent judgment. Bob: Sometimes things are exactly what they appear to be As disappointing as this may sound to some. 95% of the time things are what they appear to be. You look at that group of people at the Capitol on 1/6. Use logic. Is it any real surprise they eventually broke into the Capitol with their own leaders, through their own volition,. without Ray Epps, or FBI agents leading them? How is that not the most obvious conclusion?? Why is Occam's razor so seldom applied? Bob:The marks are so far into the con at this point they can't possibly admit to themselves they've been played for fools. That's the definition of the ideal con game I'm not sure I'd put Ben in the category of a person who couldn't admit he was played. But I think in general the notion of Trump was assimilated almost as if in a dream as a comrade and a fellow victim to a vast conspiracy that is taking control of their lives. This affiliation is very powerful to those who hold it. Bob: Trump wasn't set up. He was recognized for what he was. Well put!, that's exactly what it was. A good majority first spotted Trump as a con, even if you didn't Ben. People in power spotted it when they came in contact with him. Putin spotted him as weak person who could easily be compromised. It's false to assume that the people who resisted Trump are some evil "deep state" faction of the government, whose aim was to usurp the rights of everyday citizen's and take power away from the people. They represent people of sound mind and thinking everywhere. They are us. The solid majority

Understood Paul, when I say "invoked", I didn't mean in a legal sense. Only that there's always been a stigma about the President weighing in on Supreme Court decisions, as being inappropriate to separation of powers. I can't think of a specific incident, but it could be that with Trump , that has already gone out the window. I'm only trying to tell you the pittance that you can expect. However. I think if the Democrats want to show up for the midterms, they do have to start distinguishing themselves from the Republicans. Maybe that's what they're trying to do with these 2 issues they are rolling out today. Adam Schiff is introducing a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. Congressman Schiff Introduces Constitutional Amendment to Overturn Citizens United This has no realistic chance of passing as it would need approval by 3/4 of the State legislature. But the Democrats should start forcing issues to show the party against wealth inequality and influence is the Democrats and the party favoring the super wealthy is the Republicans. https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/congressman-schiff-introduces-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united ******* Biden's proposing a 20% billionaire tax. It affects the taxation of everyone over 100 million in assets. Despite claims that the Democrats are in bed with Tech, it would have a great effect on Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerburg, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates. Apparently there are 4 mega wealthy Republicans that this would effect in Congress as well. It will be interesting to see how watered down this would become and why. President Joe Biden to propose new 20% minimum billionaire tax https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/26/president-joe-biden-to-propose-new-20percent-minimum-billionaire-tax-.html

As far as the President calling it out, I guess they'll always invoke the separation of powers. And the fact that it's Thomas's wife, and not Thomas. But still politicians should speak out about it, But it looks like the best we can get out of it, is a demand that he recuses himself in the future. It's hard to determine just what issue would get people demonstrating in front of the court for weeks at a time, but that does heighten public awareness of the problem. I'm for throwing the book at the lot of them. Once again it's aspiring U.S. immigrant Ben in breathless disbelief that there's actually inequities in the American justice system. That's not what he was told in Thailand! As for buffalo wings, a bit too fancifully white for me, not very real. I have more compassion for a black whose already served twice his sentence for possession of a pot seed.

Ben, you're all over the map, but you didn't deal with anything I wrote. A little hypocritical Ben. If you're so compassionate about Russia's historic ties to the Ukraine, how come you're the biggest "hawk" here and essentially championing America's interests. That's all in your mind. Nobody's accusing anybody.Maybe your reaction is because I don't have hallowed heroes? Let's see, "Putin a thug" , I didn't misquote you, I said "a thug in a scrum". Just to avoid silly arguments like that, I referred to Russiagate only in a historic context. It was at the beginning of the Trump Presidency, a polarizing event by which some never returned to a clear assessment of events afterward. Which was sort of a commentary on everything that eventually transpired. Re Dulles, then you agree with me.

Ben, What might be lost in the humor of the first picture. Is that you've taken a hard core stance that Trump could nor be influenced by Putin. You and others. But you've never looked at the broader picture. This started at the beginning of Trump Presidency as result of Russia Gate and an early perception that it was fueled by the "Deep state" and the MSM. And it became a matter of stubborn resistance, and they've been stuck ever since. For 20 years prior to Trump' running for President, he'd only on occasion weigh in on political events of the day. They were either big issues , such as 911 and the second War on Iraq, (where he was first in favor and then bailed),or they were small "hot button issues", involving local crime, or tabloid NY Post type stuff he'd weigh in on. He was always trying to make points on the hot topics. Trump never talked of Nato before he ran for President. That was too involved a topic for him to touch. When you understand Trump's involvement with Russian Oligarchs as a money launderer. When you understand Trump's massive debts and terrible business mismanagement. And why Putin's derision of Nato, and Trump's turnaround. Before the invasion, respect for Nato was at an all time low. The morale and unity was awful and each nation had carved out their own niches of their own national interests.The phony thing that Stone, Greenwald, Mate, Di Eugenio, Carter accepted was that Putin's kool aid about encroaching on Russia's territory , but NATO had only accepted 2 new wimpy countries in 18 years! Putin didn't publicly even make it known that he disapproved of a stronger Nato until 2007 and never mentioned it personally to Obama until 2014! It was completely the opposite, Putin saw an opportunity to invade Ukraine, not out of any great security threat. He knew the U.S. would never unilaterally invade Ukraine. It wasn't a matter of Biden "giving away the store" by saying the U.S. would not invade. He had one goal in mind, to force Nato's hand, and forever render Nato useless. Many so called experts in the west thought that is exactly what would happen.This would have been infinitely easier if Trump had won in 2020, according to plan, but he didn't. That's what's going on. People can disagree, but I'd say there's a stronger case made for this than at least that Alan Dulles specifically was at the forefront of a plot to kill JFK.

It is absolute garbage, Ben's always a sucker for big words. Talk about journeying into the realm of pseudo intellectualism! I guess, in Ben mind. He was trying to fight fire with fire. We have to keep Ben focused, or he'll spill off on endless Fox news tangents. But it's always important to keep in mind, W. that 5 of us collectively don't have the time to keep Ben up to the speed on life in America. We can only hope for some sort of osmosis. Keep in mind, 2 of Ben's repeated journalistic heroes, Glenn Greenwald and Aaron Mate are hardcore Putinista non apologists. So he's come somewhere. Even though I think his rather mild characterization of Putin as a "thug" in a "scrum" and not a war criminal means he still feels he has to do some fence sitting. That's politics! To Ben,

There are other instances that came to the fore where Thomas should have recused himself but the Scotus declined to take the case, with one case where Thomas and Alito issued a brief statement actually suggesting the majority acted too soon in shutting the case down. So Thomas was not even shying away from a decision where he should have recused himself. **** From this NY Times article: "Justice Thomas Ruled on Election Cases. Should His Wife’s Texts Have Stopped Him?" https://nyti.ms/36o1cJX : But Justice Thomas did participate in a ruling in January on an emergency application from Mr. Trump asking the court to block release of White House records concerning the attack on the Capitol. The court rejected the request, in a sharp rebuke to the former president. Only Justice Thomas noted a dissent, giving no reasons. He also participated in the court’s consideration of whether to hear a related appeal, one in which Mr. Meadows filed a friend-of-the-court brief saying that “the outcome of this case will bear directly” on his own efforts to shield records from the House committee investigating the attacks beyond those he had provided. The Supreme Court last month refused to hear the case, without noted dissent. There was no indication that Justice Thomas had recused himself. In December 2020, around the time of the text messages, Justice Thomas participated in a ruling on an audacious lawsuit by Texas asking the court to throw out the election results in four battleground states. The court rejected the request, with Justices Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. issuing a brief statement suggesting the majority had acted too soon in shutting the case down. In February 2021, Justice Thomas addressed election fraud in a dissent from the Supreme Court’s decision to turn away a challenge to Pennsylvania’s voting procedures. “We are fortunate that many of the cases we have seen alleged only improper rule changes, not fraud,” he wrote. “But that observation provides only small comfort. An election free from strong evidence of systemic fraud is not alone sufficient for election confidence.”

Clarence Thomas' wife told Mark Meadows that 'the Biden crime family' and 'ballot fraud co-conspirators' would be 'living in barges off GITMO to face military tribunals for sedition,' texts show That woman is obviously out of her mind. But they all are. Internet porn came a little too late for Clarence Thomas. Otherwise we might have been able to nab him 30 years ago! heh heh Of course the real issue is that Clarence Thomas didn't recuse himself and was the only justice to rule against release of Trump's records. There seems to be a built in phony excuse in the system that everything is so unprecedented, that there will never be enough evidence to dislodge any member of these exclusive clubs, and high ranking criminals won't be prosecuted. ****** The bottom line with Putin is still that he wants the same things. He hasn't really backed down about that. He wants Crime a recognized and now wants Donbass and wants Zelensky to agree not to join Nato. I don't see how this going to change anything. There's seems to be a rejuggling of forces, but they're still fighting and moving west to Lviv. .