Kirk Gallaway Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 (edited) Sandy, I think it was initially 1)that they didn't think Trump had a chance, so thought it best to keep out of it and let him die on his own. But more importantly 2) Trump was a ratings bonanza unlike any other Presidential candidate. As long as they could milk it , that would be great. The ratings of football in general and the NFL in particular went down because people were following the campaign. That's never happened. After Trump sewed up the nomination. They got into discussions about fact checking, and they saw that Trump had something like 82% misstatements compared to Hillary's 29%. But they became hesitant because I think they felt that at that point if they had made 3 times the issue about it with Trump than Hillary, the public would think they were picking on Trump. All the while their people who were covering the campaigns started to feel intimidated because Trump was singling them out at his rallies, and they felt the rage of his followers. I think when the conventions were over, they realized that without a bomb of a news article, that the more criticism they threw at Trump, with a certain segment of voter, that just solidified Trumps support, and their role as the public watchdog had disintegrated. Sad, very sad! DT Re Matthews, I hear you. I thought Ted Koppel's reaction to the buildup to the War in Iraq was, "Look! We're going to war even though there's no pressure at all to got to war. This is a big story!" Then remember he was "imbedded" with the troops in Iraq on the way to Baghdad? He later admitted that was a mistake but absolutely stonewalled any inference later, that the news media could have done a better job asking pertinent questions such as "Does Sadamn really have WMD?" The news media for years had become too chummy with the politicians they were covering. Edited January 29, 2017 by Kirk Gallaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted January 29, 2017 Author Share Posted January 29, 2017 http://www.palmerreport.com/news/insider-donald-trumps-top-advisors-now-believe-hes-misleading-them-on-russia-blackmail/1231/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 (edited) On 1/26/2017 at 0:31 PM, Douglas Caddy said: That said, there is also a growing consensus that Trump is a loon and may snap or have a public breakdown sooner rather than later, leading to his voluntary or involuntary resignation as President. Trumps son, Donald Trump Jr. said this:" Russia is one of the hottest places in the world for investment,” Trump said in a 2007 deposition. ... “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump's son told a real estate conference in 2008, according to an account posted on the website of eTurboNews, a trade publication.Jul 27, 2016 . Whatever intimate contacts may have with Putin, that if true, should eventually sink him.This is not even to mention Trumps conflict of interest already with Russia. In the days of JFK, Trump's holdings in Russia would have been enough to disqualify him from running for the Presidency. There is an obvious conflict of interest that no other candidates have ever had, that people are having to come to grips with, because apparently no one wants to deny a poor billionaire access to the Presidency in the modern multi national corporate day. Now we're being told it's unrealistic for a candidate to sell all of his holdings at the drop of a hat, but this question should have been vetted by the press over a year ago. Trumps election is a reflection of the neglected divisions in this country that have been growing for decades. Divisions of hate, anger, resentment, frustration , fear and insecurity. Fed to a very great extent by wealthy right wing funded propogandists like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Alex Jones and others who have been inciting these feelings to their millions of listeners 24/7 ... for decades! Also, sadly by the weakness and lack of courage of representatives from the other side of the political spectrum. I sent an E-Mail to our senator Dianne Feinstein last April or May ( which I might do once every 10 to 15 years ) expressing my concern that the Democrats weren't doing more to get a Supreme Court candidate nominated before the next Presidential election, and that a failure to do so may well result in losing this opportunity to swing the court back to a balance. They were so quiet and non-moving on this issue. I suggested that they ( the Dems - as a group effort ) take to the public opinion airwaves and fight for this as It seemed to me they were just much too quiet and acquiescent relative to the importance of losing their chance to pick a Supreme Court justice. I equated what the Republicans were doing to a bully pushing around a hapless victim and that it was time to start standing up to them. I also mentioned that the only high profile Democrat who seemed to have the courage to really stand up to this Repub. bullying was Elizabeth Warren. She did go on the political talk shows and had other media interviews where she tried to get something going on this issue. Senator Feinstein wrote back. Her response was professionally cordial, but all she did was go on and on about the good qualities of the nominee of the moment Merrick Garland. I got back, thanked Senator Feinstein for responding and stated that I knew the credentials of Garland, but I felt she missed the point of my initial E-Mail...which was a concerned plea for the Democrats to finally start standing up to the Republican bullys who have been "bitch slapping" them ( I didn't use those two exact words ) since the presidential election theft of 2,000. Needless to say, the Dems failure to even fight hard for their nominee has resulted in a loss of the Supreme Court to Trump and his right wing craziness for a long time. Edited January 30, 2017 by Joe Bauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 (edited) Hmm, in an article today, Trump added Steve Bannon (Chief Strategist) to the NSC and removed the CJC and the DNI from same. Am I incorrect in directly relating the two events? How strange is it to have a Chief Strategist on the NSC and not the DNI and CJC, and how crazy is it that it is Steve Bannon? Do you think Trump wants Bannon around for such phone calls in the future, instead of Pence? Both the JCS and the DNI require confirmation. The Senior Counselor, and Chief Counselor do not require confirmation. and.... "From Wikipedia".... by Presidential Policy Directive 19 signed by Barack Obama in October 2012, the DNI was given overall responsibility for Intelligence Community whistleblowing and source protection. From Wikipedia: "The position appears to have roughly the same level of authority as the Chief of Staff position. The position's level of decision making authority within the hierarchy of the President's personal staff was reported by the New York Times: "The arrangement appeared aimed at ensuring that both (the Chief of Staff and Chief Strategist) would be required to sign off on many decisions jointly." --- I bet COS Priebus gets replaced tout de suite! Edited January 29, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 The JFK assassination research community should work to bring our cause to the attention of Trump; we know that the vast majority of people do not believe the official myth. He may not even be aware of the forthcoming document release. This could make him a hero to many, can he resist? How would we go about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 29, 2017 Share Posted January 29, 2017 5 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said: Sandy, I think it was initially 1)that they didn't think Trump had a chance, so thought it best to keep out of it and let him die on his own. But more importantly 2) Trump was a ratings bonanza unlike any other Presidential candidate. As long as they could milk it , that would be great. The ratings of football in general and the NFL in particular went down because people were following the campaign. That's never happened. After Trump sewed up the nomination. They got into discussions about fact checking, and they saw that Trump had something like 82% misstatements compared to Hillary's 29%. But they became hesitant because I think they felt that at that point if they had made 3 times the issue about it with Trump than Hillary, the public would think they were picking on Trump. All the while their people who were covering the campaigns started to feel intimidated because Trump was singling them out at his rallies, and they felt the rage of his followers. I think when the conventions were over, they realized that without a bomb of a news article, that the more criticism they threw at Trump, with a certain segment of voter, that just solidified Trumps support, and their role as the public watchdog had disintegrated. Sad, very sad! DT Re Matthews, I hear you. I thought Ted Koppel's reaction to the buildup to the War in Iraq was, "Look! We're going to war even though there's no pressure at all to got to war. This is a big story!" Then remember he was "imbedded" with the troops in Iraq on the way to Baghdad? He later admitted that was a mistake but absolutely stonewalled any inference later, that the news media could have done a better job asking pertinent questions such as "Does Sadamn really have WMD?" The news media for years had become too chummy with the politicians they were covering. Thanks for your analysis, Kirk. I think you're spot on. Not having watched the news much during the campaigning, I hadn't considered the fact that Trump DID draw attention to the news. The media bosses no doubt figured they'd better take advantage of it while it lasted. They never dreamed it would extend past November 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) Mr. Caddy finds the best stuff. This was posted on another threads. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/01/29/trump-follows-nixon-nsc-model-except-worse-column/97215090/ Edited January 30, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 3 hours ago, Michael Clark said: The JFK assassination research community should work to bring our cause to the attention of Trump; we know that the vast majority of people do not believe the official myth. He may not even be aware of the forthcoming document release. This could make him a hero to many, can he resist? How would we go about this? Michael I like some of the things you have to say. I could agree with you that it's not impossible that Trump could do some good things that no one else would be able to do, but when you list them as: shedding light on the JFK assassination, the nefarious intelligence activities of the previous 3 or 4 decades, or, (if your a truther) 9-11. That's a pretty myopic wish list, There's more to running the most powerful nation on earth, than placating a bunch of Cter's. Besides, .I don't know what you base that on other than Trumps mention of bad intelligence getting us into the Iraq War (which he supported)but that war was not really spearheaded by the bad intelligence,but was a completely elective war, planned from the beginning of his Presidency, and inspired by the brilliant mind of GWB and his cronies. I agree completely with Paul, you're dreaming. In running a country there are actual policies, which I've never heard you mention.You referred a couple of times to Trump being a Populist and not a conservative, yet you ignore that all his appointments are either arch conservatives or pro business globalist conservatives.Your so bent on this image you have of a CTer friendly President, you seem to pass off everything he's actually doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) 11 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said: Michael I like some of the things you have to say. I could agree with you that it's not impossible that Trump could do some good things that no one else would be able to do, but when you list them as: shedding light on the JFK assassination, the nefarious intelligence activities of the previous 3 or 4 decades, or, (if your a truther) 9-11. That's a pretty myopic wish list, There's more to running the most powerful nation on earth, than placating a bunch of Cter's. Besides, .I don't know what you base that on other than Trumps mention of bad intelligence getting us into the Iraq War (which he supported)but that war was not really spearheaded by the bad intelligence,but was a completely elective war, planned from the beginning of his Presidency, and inspired by the brilliant mind of GWB and his cronies. I agree completely with Paul, you're dreaming. In running a country there are actual policies, which I've never heard you mention.You referred a couple of times to Trump being a Populist and not a conservative, yet you ignore that all his appointments are either arch conservatives or pro business globalist conservatives.Your so bent on this image you have of a CTer friendly President, you seem to pass off everything he's actually doing. I get it Kirk. I am however, trying to stay on topic. I try not to treat this forum like my Facebook timeline. In the "Healthy Scepticism" thread I began to notice that there was anything but healthy scepticism of intelligence agencies being discussed. So I tried to make a few points about that and then left it alone. I recall being rather blunt at one point, I was kind of rude, and I hurt my case but that was my attempt to point out that that thread was, almost from the get-go, beyond the scope of this forum. I'll have to disagree with the characterization of the three subjects above and the potential (wish) for openness as "myopic". Myopic implies pessimism and I doubt that you meant that; it is clear that I was expressing optimism, even if it was the Hail-Mary variety. The Hail-Mary may be all we have, and, with regard to the three "wishes", they are all on-topic. If I were to venture off topic, you would hear a lot of stuff that can be heard in a hundred other places, but, IMHO, they don't belong here, strictly speaking. I kind of wish Paul had given me an ack on some of my points, rather than just throwing the jab. I think that some of the things I mentioned were worthy of an up or down, and what I like about this forum is that more often than not you will get that kind of feedback rather than just typical trolling barbs from miserable people that have nothing better to do or no way of making themselves feel good than throwing stones from behind a computer. One important point I had made, which Paul curtly replied to, was that Trump appears to be relatively clean. I made my points before about Labor and the Mafia etc. There is also no Skull and Bones, maybe their is no secret societies, no Iran-Contra. The guy may never have killed anyone or ordered any one killed. That would be astonishing compared to what I have read in the last few months, in my studies of the last 50 years. What I have read in the last few months is a lesson in power politics and how people get owned and controlled and, eventually, horribly corrupt; to the detriment of American citizens, soldiers and many poor souls who find themselves getting killed. Perhaps Trump is and can avoid that gambit. Perhaps the Intelligence community right now is no different than it was during the BOPI, Vietnam, Iran Contra etc.. Maybe Trump will change that. Maybe he can. Maybe he is clean enough, maybe he is not owned. Maybe he can keep from getting assassinated. Maybe all of this bluster is happening just to satisfy a base to whom he made promises, according to a formula that was put together to win an election. Perhaps things might normalize somewhat once that is done. He obviously craves adulation, he may want to be a hero. But I am repeating myself. Myopic, in the sense of being nearsighted, with regard to the three "wishes"? Yes, because I am staying on topic. I'll not get into full blown, wide-ranging political discussions because it would be off topic. Myopic, In the sense of being pessimistic? I'm the one who is pointing out the potential for a silver lining, but within the focus of this sub-forum, so, no. Am I stupid? No. I understand that there is a lot of fear out there. But let me suggest that there is not "a healthy scepticism of" the media out there. Both the left and right MSM are feeding off that fear. It is dividing families and communities. It's impossible to make a political joke about one side or the other without the hair standing up on someone's neck. Am I dreaming? no. Am I hoping? Yes. Am I optimistic? Not really. Am I Myopic? No, because I am not nearsighted, and I am fighting pessimism. Cheers, Michael Edited January 30, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Ad with regard to 9-11. If there was something awfully nefarious that happened, to create a Pearl Harbor, a Maine incident, or a Tonkin Incident, Trump just may know about it. I don't see how he couldn't. He just may be clean with regard to that as well. I only seriously dug into 9-11 last September. I have questions. I would like answers. Some of the answers are not satisfactory. The arenas for questioning that event are contentious and ugly. So I stay away, but I do have my list of questions. If I knew where and how to get my questions answered I would go there, but I don't. I don't trust the MSM. The alternatives are improving, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Trump will not be helping shed light on our nefarious past any time soon, and he knows nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) Michael, I don't know if you fashion your own definitions to words.But "myopic" does not mean pessimistic. You could always refer to an authority, like a dictionary. It's apparent you don't have any idea what I'm referring to. But there are number of Trump policy issue that have come to the foreground. Questions like, should we start a new Nuclear Arms buildup?, should some poor people have access to health care?, Do you believe in climate change?, or is all a bunch of crap?. Do you want the repeal of Roe vs. Wade?, Do you want a wall built with Mexico? Do you want massive exportation of illegal aliens? Do you want to clamp down on people entering this country? Today, Do you want to see institutional continuity in the conduct of government policy? The fact that you overlook all this, yes your wish list seems very myopic or insular or just coming from purely inside Michael's conspiracy world. Some of these issues you may or not care about. But do you know, politicians have polls of Democrats and Republicans and Independents where they list the order of issues they consider important. I can tell you that list of your is not even on the top 30! The people who could be interested enough to go to this site are not even 5% of the population. No matter how important that seems to you or me. Edited January 30, 2017 by Kirk Gallaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) 9 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said: Edited January 30, 2017 by Michael Clark Ignore problem with Ipad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) Kirk, my bad on the Myopic definition. I was sure that I looked it up a few months ago when writing something. So, for the purpose of interpreting my statement above, please keep in mind my misunderstanding of the definition. What you are doing does not pass one of my basic tests for personal action or behavior. That test is: "Would you want everyone to do as your are doing?" If everyone on this forum engaged in the discussion that you want to engage in, the thread would be closed. If the the thread were not closed this place would be chaotic and ugly. I am being persued by you partly BECAUSE my comments were limited to the topic. You say that I don't have any idea of what you are referring to, and list all the things that I can dIscuss if I wanted to demonstrate that I did know what you are referring to. I thought I had more to say but I am repeating myself. I made some good points before and went into some depth with my perspective. I gave you enough where you could have acknowledged a couple important points that I made, most importantly acknowledging that I am remaining on-topic and not willing to muddy-up a forum that I like by engaging in a discourse which it was not meant to host. I see that you are very much a political guy, and you believe that that all things can be understood through the perspective you have developed. I looked through your postings and you are not really here to explore the JFK assassination. You are here largely for the little concurrent political banter that does arise. I am not at all about any of that, not on this forum anyway. I have places and times where I discuss those things. I just don't do it here, for the most part. It's kind of funny that I am being taken to task for staying on subject, and NOT delving into everyday political banter. So Kirk, it seems like you have a scorecard with my name on it, and you are having a hard time filling it out, checking boxes and grading me. That means I have done well. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that you file unknowns in the bad guy bin. That's unfortunate, but it seems par for the course these days; everyone is expected to carry their political mop and bucket wherever they go and get to work. I'll avoid doing that in places like this. Cheers, Mike Edited January 30, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 7 hours ago, Paul Brancato said: Trump will not be helping shed light on our nefarious past any time soon, and he knows nothing. Intentionally or not, he appears to be putting himself in a position where he could if he were so inclined. HRC would not have done it. kasich could not have done it. Bernie would likeley have been killed trying to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now