Dennis Berube

Here we go. Well, Id have to agree Robert, I mean, they killed him, that was the solution. I think JFK put them in a critical situation where the future was literally at stake. I dont see how thats a fantastic extrapolation at all.

I was reading the headlines from CNN this morning and actually said this to someone. The article was comparing Cuomo to Trump immediately elevating him in the conversation for the masses. Whatever it takes to split this party I guess at this point is good. I hope this is enough.

Maybe not. If this story is true and has more behind the scenes, Biden could really damage trump on this. The Kushner’s look pretty bad here, like little adolescent-fascists (ode to Cliff). https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/guess-who-previously-owned-health-insurance-co-operating-coronavirus-testing-website/ar-BB11kwPT

There's a lot of chatter about different sequencing of the virus for Iran and Italy. I don't know if that's true, but it would certainly push the narrative towards man made. The whole Charles Lieber story is ugly at best too. Additionally, the latest consortium news article by Escobar certainly doesn't discount the possibility of it being man made. Regardless, trumps response was pathetic and inadequate. His responsibility to the nation was deferred because he couldn't get past himself. He seems to understand that to some degree now at least.

Your defensive credentialing war aside, what is your source that Putin told trump to bungle his virus response? I bet it’s absolutely nothing. Several world leaders reacted slowly to this, was that Putin too? Of course intel agencies are monitoring the situation here, that’s their job Doug. Did Putin advise trump to assassinate a leader of Iran? Did he advise him to pander to everything Israel wants? Did he tell trump to give the us military even more money than before? How about the $1000 handout plan? Putin there too? See the problem with this? Hopefully Putin next advises trump that paying for 11 obsolete carrier groups is a waste of taxpayer money.

Is this what passes for analysis on this forum now? Between constant lengthy cut and pasting, and comments like this... Theres nothing close to obvious about that Doug. On the other hand, Trump let big pharma secure all intellectual property from public tax coronovirus money, just like the big military contractors and DAARPAs of the world do every year. It might not be an invented Russian fantasy, but still.

I have no problem calling this a Chinese virus, but the disgraceful protectionism to big pharma in the 8 billion dollar coronavirus relief package is the real criminal brainwashing in my opinion. Trump is ensuring that big pharma, using public tax dollars to research a vaccine, can turn around and gouge the public by setting prices and owning “intellectual property rights”. There is nothing worse than this bankrupt neo-republican ideology that amounts to theft and should never happen. Imagine the reverse? How many ism’s would we hear on the tv? Far from draining the swamp, trump installed a top lobbyist of Eli Lilly’s and made him head of HHS and we are now dealing with the consequences. Also in the article, Biden unsurprisingly helped table a bill by Sanders to help curb healthcare profiteering years ago. https://theintercept.com/2020/03/02/coronavirus-vaccine-price-gouging-senate/?comments=1#comments

Looking forward to that Jim. The non-stop smearing of the Kennedy family is really hard to believe. It's amazing how the same people that cannot even fathom a conspiracy to kill JFK, somehow have absolutely no problem taking for granted that JFK had 50 affairs, JPK bootlegged, JPK paid off the mob, Marilyn, etc... btw, which book?

JFK a lifelong sexual predator? I hope that wasn’t your insinuation Robert. There’s more sexual affairs made up around jfk then appears likely to have actually occurred. It’s a certainty. Much like bootlegging and mafia election influencing, much of it never happened.

How can any democrat defend this? It’s way past embarrassing and draconian. It makes me think of a pertinent quote by JFK regarding revolution.

I agree with you up until this point. Then i started cringing for multiple reasons. Her sponsors are just as bad as any and if looks mean anything(Not sure they really do, trump?), how can anyone put warren anywhere close to Tulsi?

Exactly. Im not sure how Democrats can just gloss over this type of action which has been consistent since at least 2016 against Bernie and now Tulsi. It goes against core principles the party allegedly stands for (equality, justice, etc...) Imagine if Tulsi went one on one with Trump? I believe only the democratic party and their “liberal” media could have stopped her, and they did. The cover story for some of this meddling seems to be “We need to defeat Donald Trump at all costs and a centrist is the only way to do so”. I believe the reality is that the party simply doesnt represent those progressive political ideologies anymore. Identity politics typically doesnt affect international covert operations or the financial sector graft that so cripples us. The Clinton faction does everything possible to make sure those areas arent touched or just get a politically mollifying lip service. If you look at Keith Ellisons (the other option for DNC chair in 2017) political positions and compare that to Perez, it is yet another sign of just how reactionary the party has become. In my opinion, its just one more way the Clinton/Obama faction maintains the status quo.

Not that we would know this from our media, but Tulsi is still in the race. Can anyone say that $40k of facebook ads did more to interfere with democracy than the DNC/corporate media's handling of Tulsi Gabbard's entire presidency?

The Jackson closure of the 2nd Bank of the US in 1837 after vetoing the charter in 1832, was the final straw that set up the Civil War, as I see it. If the south had any chance of a growing non-slave based manufacturing economy to reduce their import reliance, it died with that last semi-public central bank. They should have listened to/elected Henry Clay.

Yes he did the minimum politically necessary to say he did something. It's been awhile, but I remember that derivatives were largely made illegal or close to it under FDR through the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936. As with many of the other New Deal policies that gave us the highest standard of living until the late 60's, this was mostly de-regulated in/by 1982 (Reagan, shocker). Immediately, you get the 1987 crash. " It was the sale of S&P 500 futures contracts in Chicago that caused sellers in the 500 stocks underlying the index to panic and dump stocks as fast as possible." But no serious legislation was passed then either. Clinton made it worse of course. I found this quote by Warren Buffet in 1982 regarding derivatives to be fairly telling. "In my judgment, a very high percentage, probably at least 95% and more likely much higher, of the activity generated by these contracts will be strictly gambling in nature." --Warren Buffett to Hon. John Dingell, March 5, 1982 https://www.forbes.com/2010/05/25/warren-buffett-derivatives-markets-streettalk-lenzner-john-dingell.html#a57ddf7a8939 So no, I don't think Obama really did anything meaningful. I view it as a Wall Street Democrat window dressing a bill he had to produce due to the political climate at the time. Something meaningful would have been something like a national Tobin Tax, who was a Keynes follower. A tax on financial speculation which would have the simultaneous effect of reducing wall street gambling which causes so many crises, and giving the treasury a large check every year. A progressive president might use this to build a national maglev train network or even rebuild infrastructure generally with a TVA type program. This is the type of opportunity Obama had that he completely wasted. For those interested, some good (albeit lengthy) videos regarding derivatives/speculation in the oil markets... They are from 2008 and you will hear a bipartisan group basically suggest financial regulations! That's how obviously bad some of this speculation was/is. Most of the witnesses agreed that speculation accounted for 30-50% of the price of oil! This happens in so many markets now that one wonders what the DJIA would be if you had to price it on physical value alone. https://www.c-span.org/video/?206134-2/oil-price-speculation-opening-statements https://www.c-span.org/video/?206134-1/oil-price-speculation Agreed. It is a shame that this country has been fear mongered into thinking that socialism means something distinctly negative. You never hear the word "corporatism" on television, but I would submit it is a far worse adjective to describe political policies than socialism. I hear countless people, even in Massachusetts, even though they are in a union, recently say things about Bernie and socialism as though it would be the end of the country somehow. This attitude of "he'll take all our money" which puts them in the Trump camp, neglects so many national economic factors that it seems difficult to unwind that philosophy to the average person watching television. I wasn't a Bloomberg fan before, but after reading that, if the DNC goes with this guy..... look out. I just realized how long this post is.... You gotta love leisurely Saturday mornings.

Bloomberg.... https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/02/a-republican-plutocrat-tries-to-buy-the-democratic-nomination

I could accept that view if Obama went to the public and made a case for an FDR style New Deal, but he never did that. Instead, he essentially invited Wall Street to draft his health care bill and put through a extremely tame financial regulation bill. He never tried to lobby the public for a ban on derivatives, reinstatement of Glass-Stegall, or even made more than a pathetic attempt at some kind of public option, etc.... When JFK wanted the test ban treaty, it was politically near impossible at the beginning, but he got out there and made his case to the public until opinion turned and forced Congress to push it through. Real change that benefits the public usually requires a fight, which requires integrity ala Tulsi. I don't know, he turned NYC into a corporate nightmare, fought unions, voted for every "kill brown people" action he could and genuinely believes a free market is a real concept. Economically, he is Reagan, trickle down, which any honest observer must acknowledge is awful for the "general welfare" that the POTUS is supposed to promote according to the Constitution. Not to mention his obvious racism, sexism, and "I'm going to heaven" attitude that Trump exudes. He is a Republican hands down, which is great for the GOP I suppose, but not FDR type Democrats like myself.

Agreed Robert. The “American/Hamiltonian“ school of economics seems to have died in Dallas. Hamilton > Keynes > Friedman/Von HayeK To our never trumpets, Im curious, what would you do if it was Bloomberg vs. Trump? In my opinion, Bloomberg is worse and would most certainly cause a split in the party that the Clinton faction is afraid of with Bernie.

That's actually kind of scary William. The political climate is in such a poor state of affairs and only showing signs like this of getting worse. Also, one of the co-founders of DU is Dave Allsopp. Robert, anything about familial connections to Joesph Alsop? I couldn't help but wonder.

Wow, I was shocked by the title alone, and I'm used to the MSM. This feels like another furtherance of the MSM's overt support of Wall Street to me, its more obvious now than ever before in my life. Russia gate distracted the country from the very real conspiracy of the Clinton faction and the DNC preventing Sanders from the 2016 nomination, but now in 2020... Everywhere you look on the MSM, they are freaking out again over Sanders. Here is a CNN editorial title on the front page "Opinion: Bloomberg needs to take down Sanders -- immediately " Part of me hopes Bernie gets the nomination and on November 1st, he switches to Independent or creates another party if he wins, the democrats (Tulsi and a couple others excluded in my opinion) are no longer the party of JFK/FDR.

Basically, you believe adequate proof has been provided that Trump and Putin conspired to sway an American election and I do not. Instead I believe a propaganda ploy that became politically and culturally ubiquitous after the election has spiraled out of control that currently resides in a vague McCarthy-ian level of paranoia and non realities. Please don't quote the same things we have already gone through multiple times in this thread, we simply disagree on the value of the evidence and thus the conclusions. Yes so it is plausible that the "attackers" were attempting to rob some form of information ala a usb drive and shot him in the process of stealing it. Of course that scenario is just speculation, but the point is that seeing this is an unsolved murder, no one can say for sure what happened. A plausible motive besides Wikileaks does not really exist. A random robbery gone wrong where nothing was actually taken as far as we know, completely fails to describe the circumstances. And considering the odd way the case has been handled and Rod Wheeler altogether (whether you believe him or not, its odd), to me, it is completely legitimate to question it, much like the Epstein case. Bob, please. It's a good thing RFK Jr. doesn't believe that mantra. The truth is what matters and the truth can hurt just as much as the lies.

Assange implying Rich is a source is certainly circumstantial evidence that a plausible motive is the leak and not a robbery (can't believe I had to type that out btw). Rich was shot in the back and his wallet wasn't "robbed". What evidence is there that this was a simple robbery? I would say nothing concrete at all. Why didn't they release any videos (that I'm aware of anyway) that they have admitted to having? " The police told the family they had located a surveillance recording showing a glimpse of the legs of two people who could possibly be the killers" I'm not 100% convinced of anything with Seth Rich, but it is very tough to believe the official story. I don't understand how the police can even say he wasn't robbed because his wallet was undisturbed. What if he had a usb drive on him that was taken? Gotcha, I misinterpreted that, my mistake.

But that leak did not connect "Russian hacking" to the Trump campaign in any way shape or form. Nor did that leak contain any raw intelligence that the claims were based on. I don't view that as particularly useful and its no surprise it has faded into obscurity.

Hence my saying the "new deal" type of democrat faction. That was related to the Gabbard article which you apparently neglected, not the interview. Not sure how that confused you. Assange implying that Rich was a source is evidence in and of itself. Not to mention the unsolved nature and shoddy "burglar" cover story and supposed unreleased videos. Talk about a quashing! Don't think so Robert. squash / quash. You can squash a spider or a tomato; but when the meaning you intend is “to suppress,” as in rebellions or (especially) legal motions, the more sophisticated term is “quash.”

Tulsi Gabbard: How Democrats’ impeachment campaign helped Trump https://fortune.com/2020/02/21/tulsi-gabbard-democrats-trump-impeachment/ She is right. The key takeaway.. "After Trump’s acquittal in the Senate, his approval rating reached the highest levels since he took office. And the risk that he will win in November is much greater than before." The democratic party needs to split into the "new deal" types and the Clinton/Buttigeg/Obama/Wall street faction and let them slowly join the republican party. So naturally your suggesting that the unsolved Rich murder means nothing because you don't interpret shock in that interview even though the interviewer clearly treated Assange's statement like a typical MSM broadcaster attempting to discredit an "out of bounds" talking point? That investigation was quashed just as thoroughly as the Epstein one. Is it because if Rich had something to do with Wikileaks than the entire Russia gate narrative COMPLETELY falls apart even more than it has?