Jump to content
The Education Forum

Attorney's file on Roger Stone, LaRouche and Russia influencing the 2016 presidential election


Recommended Posts

Cliff, you posted an article full of conjecture in an attempt to disparage a notion that wider networks of information and more nuanced discussion might promote positive results. Most of the Twitter activity the Politico article describes seems like old school dirty politics updated to modern technology. If you haven’t noticed, the accompanying “solution” is for censorship and thought suppression.

I don’t watch US cable TV and so I am not up to speed on current descriptive terms, so under the label “voter fraud” I was actually referring to Greg Palast and academic papers discussing the Ohio vote in 2004, without understanding that “voter fraud” is the meme of minority repeat voting and “voter suppression”is the proper term for what they are talking about.

I find articles like the Politico piece to be laden with emotive content lacking precise referral. Pointing that out apparently makes me an “apologist” - although for what exactly I am not sure.

Again, if you haven’t noticed, there is very little substantive evidence that there are actual active  Russian or North Korean “disinformation programs” of any effective scale - although that is where the Politico article points. In turn, the unmentioned programs such as Integrity Initiative - which directs disinformation to the public to make them think there are active effective foreign-backed misinformation programs - have been proven to exist, and are paid for by the same taxpayers who are the disinformation targets.

Believe what you want to believe though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

14 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Looks like the allies of Trumpian fascism are hard at work attacking the Dems.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/20/2020-candidates-social-media-attack-1176018

You know where you can stick your Overton window, DiEugenio.

 

Exactly right Cliff!

Jim says of Kamala Harris, I'm preparing a critical essay on her.

Jim who spent his last 2 years being an unwitting, unquestioning dupe of Trump in his endless search of the Hannity "Deep State", is now hard at work  preparing something that will inevitably dish up some dirt on Kamala Harris, then maybe Elizabeth Warren, I suspect? I apply the same criterion to you as I do Bill Krystol.  Have you been right about any of the fundamental questions in the last 2 years, Jim?

So now 20 months away, Jim  will try to take us under his wing and interpret the Democratic candidates  for us, (which we're unable to do for ourselves), and we should adamantly listen?

I hope I'm wrong. but my guess from experience here is after smearing everyone else, you  will probably settle  on Bernie. If you must, can you confine yourself to something you haven't addressed in 2 years with Trump,  the potential (or in Trump's case actual) effects of the candidate's actual policies???

This is what Bill Maher means when he talks of Liberals antiseptically trying to clean up some little corner while a complete scourge goes on around them. In Jim's case, that was Trump.

and here's a more updated Maher piece that Democrats should take heed. Jim, this is a must watch!  Robert, you might even find this funny. Jeff, I'd advise against seeing it, a smile might end up cracking your face.             Ha ha

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

Cliff, you posted an article full of conjecture in an attempt to disparage a notion that wider networks of information and more nuanced discussion might promote positive results.

No, Jeff, I'm not disparaging "a notion that wider networks of information and more nuanced discussion might promote positive results."

That's something you just made up.

Here's my original statement: "Looks like the allies of Trumpian fascism are hard at work attacking the Dems."

I called out Jim DiEugenio for his "Insufficient Purity Test" and cited the POLITICO article about the widespread social media attack on Dems.

It's not about conjecture, Jeff, it's about bogus claims of Elizabeth Warren's racist doll or Beto O'Rourke's 25-year old racist phone message -- perfect examples of this new brand of dirty politics.

Jim DiEugenio's attacks on Dems follows the Trump playbook.

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

Most of the Twitter activity the Politico article describes seems like old school dirty politics updated to modern technology.

Yes, old fashioned dirty politics.  Looks like the allies of Trumpian fascism are engaged in dirty politics on new platforms.

Where does "a notion that wider networks of information and more nuanced discussion might promote positive results" enter into the discussion?

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

If you haven’t noticed, the accompanying “solution” is for censorship and thought suppression.

Facebook, Twitter and Instagram the are cracking down on foreign efforts to flood the USA with brand new forms of dirty politics.

Right wing interests are exploiting these foreign based attacks on Democratic politicians, purporting to counter-attack the Russians (for example) while employing propaganda to discredit the left.

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

I don’t watch US cable TV

Okay!

Let's stop right here.

You and Jim DiEugenio are like reporters sitting in a cubicle in your basement covering a foreign war.

Trump's genius was to turn cable news into a 24/7 Reality TV Show -- The Donald J. Trump Show starring Donald J. Trump (&featuring the lovely Ivanka!)

Everything Trump does is an effort to dominate cable news coverage.  Everything.  It's been like that since 06/15/2015 when he famously declared Mexicans rapists and criminals.

It worked as a political strategy well enough to win him the GOP nomination, but it was intended as a business strategy, a marketing exercise Trump planned to exploit to the max after he lost the election.

By October 28 the political strategy of Everyday Outrage wore thin.  The morning of October 28th found cable news occupied with 3 subjects -- Trump's serial pussy grabbing, his refusal to reveal his tax returns, and his steady whining about Hillary rigging the election.

Then the Repubs released the Comey Letter and for the next 11 days cable news was 24/7 The Hillary Clinton Show featuring a Sex Pervert and E-mails.  This allowed Trump to campaign with renewed vigor in the Upper Midwest.  Clinton wasn't allowed to make a closing argument.

On the morning of Nov. 9 the Donald J. Trump Show resumed.  Today it's the Donald  J. Trump Show featuring Robert Mueller.

If you guys aren't watching may I respectfully suggest you STFU about modern American politics.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know something Kirk, sometimes I wonder why you are here.

Do you know anything about these cases wider than what is on this board?

Because some of us actually do.  And we work on them and we interact with people who are actually in the arena trying to do something about them in a political and/or legal way.  That's because we think something went seriously wrong with America after Bobby Kennedy was murdered.  That tolled the bell for the sixties, which was a decade I really liked.  This is what I wrote about in my introduction to Lisa Pease's fine book, A Lie too Big to Fail.  Have you read it?  I doubt it.  If you had you would not write such stilly stuff as above.

Kamala Harris was the AG of California when Bill Pepper and Laurie Dusek presented their application for an evidentiary hearing to reopen the RFK case.  She did not need to oppose the motion.  She could have granted it and let the evidence be heard in court and let it stand or fail on its merits.  She did not do that.  She vigorously opposed the motion before the court.

But she actually did something even worse than that.  She did not know the facts of the case very well.  So she got some help in writing it.  I will not divulge all the details of that exercise.  Its all there is Lisa's book, which you should read sometime.  (pp. 501-02)  

Now, if you think that playing a prominent role in the cover up of Bobby Kennedy's murder is an attractive attribute for someone to lead America and the Democratic party forward after the Clintons and Obama, then I guess we have some severe differences about what that party should be about.  I don't think we need any more cover up artists in the White House, or someone who does not understand what happened to America in 1968.

And BTW, if you like Bill Maher, then that is another difference.  I much preferred this guy:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Now, if you think that playing a prominent role in the cover up of Bobby Kennedy's murder is an attractive attribute for someone to lead America and the Democratic party forward after the Clintons and Obama, then I guess we have some severe differences about what that party should be about. 

I can't think of a better break for the side of the angels than have a President who is guilty of covering up the RFK assassination.

Then it becomes An Issue and a rally point for heavy grass roots campaigning for the basic facts of the RFK assassination.

Change only comes from the bottom up, no matter who is President.

Everyone in the country would hear about the Girl in the Polka Dot dress under President Harris.

DiEugenio hasn't learned the lessons of the Trump Age because he doesn't watch cable news.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

And we work on them and we interact with people who are actually in the arena trying to do something about them in a political and/or legal way.

I hope the RFK case is handled better than the JFK assassination experts who could only convince 5 jurors out of 12 of Oswald's innocence.

Easiest case in the world to make!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you imagine Kamala Harris at a small town townhall and someone asks her why she put the kibosh on re-opening the RFK assassination?

If there was enough grass roots noise the question might be popped in the last debate before the election.

A President-elect Harris would have RFK on her plate given continued grassroots pressure.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Cliff, you posted an article full of conjecture in an attempt to disparage a notion that wider networks of information and more nuanced discussion might promote positive results. Most of the Twitter activity the Politico article describes seems like old school dirty politics updated to modern technology. If you haven’t noticed, the accompanying “solution” is for censorship and thought suppression.

I don’t watch US cable TV and so I am not up to speed on current descriptive terms, so under the label “voter fraud” I was actually referring to Greg Palast and academic papers discussing the Ohio vote in 2004, without understanding that “voter fraud” is the meme of minority repeat voting and “voter suppression”is the proper term for what they are talking about.

I find articles like the Politico piece to be laden with emotive content lacking precise referral. Pointing that out apparently makes me an “apologist” - although for what exactly I am not sure.

Again, if you haven’t noticed, there is very little substantive evidence that there are actual active  Russian or North Korean “disinformation programs” of any effective scale - although that is where the Politico article points. In turn, the unmentioned programs such as Integrity Initiative - which directs disinformation to the public to make them think there are active effective foreign-backed misinformation programs - have been proven to exist, and are paid for by the same taxpayers who are the disinformation targets.

Believe what you want to believe though.

I just moved from Ohio after being there 12 years. I don’t trust any election results from there. 2004 was bad, but it wasn’t the worst. Legal pot was on the ballot in 2015, I believe. It was polling right up to the election at 55-45 in favor, but wound up losing 65-35. I read somewhere — Wayne Madsen I believe— that such a result is a mathematical impossibility.

Edited by Andrew Prutsok
Link to post
Share on other sites

The top reasons Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election.  All of these had to happen, a perfect storm, for her to lose.

In order of greatest impact:

1) The Republican voter suppression  by way of Voter ID laws and voter-roll purge program like CrossCheck.

2) James Comey single-handedly changed the programing of the cable news shows over the last 11 days.

3) Hill sucked as a campaigner.

4) Bill went to chat with Loertta Lynch who had to recuse herself from the Clinton e-mail investigation allowing James Comey to strike.

5) MSNBC, CNN and Fox gave Trump billions of dollars in free advertising for the Trump Show and millions of saps like me binge watched it.

6)  The Vlad and Julian Show.  If not for the first 5 on this list the Vlad and Julian Show would have amounted to a prank; it's  like kids egging your house and your house falls down.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

You know something Kirk, sometimes I wonder why you are here.

Do you know anything about these cases wider than what is on this board?

Because some of us actually do.  And we work on them and we interact with people who are actually in the arena trying to do something about them in a political and/or legal way.  That's because we think something went seriously wrong with America after Bobby Kennedy was murdered.  That tolled the bell for the sixties, which was a decade I really liked.  This is what I wrote about in my introduction to Lisa Pease's fine book, A Lie too Big to Fail.  Have you read it?  I doubt it.  If you had you would not write such stilly stuff as above.

Kamala Harris was the AG of California when Bill Pepper and Laurie Dusek presented their application for an evidentiary hearing to reopen the RFK case.  She did not need to oppose the motion.  She could have granted it and let the evidence be heard in court and let it stand or fail on its merits.  She did not do that.  She vigorously opposed the motion before the court.

But she actually did something even worse than that.  She did not know the facts of the case very well.  So she got some help in writing it.  I will not divulge all the details of that exercise.  Its all there is Lisa's book, which you should read sometime.  (pp. 501-02)  

Now, if you think that playing a prominent role in the cover up of Bobby Kennedy's murder is an attractive attribute for someone to lead America and the Democratic party forward after the Clintons and Obama, then I guess we have some severe differences about what that party should be about.  I don't think we need any more cover up artists in the White House, or someone who does not understand what happened to America in 1968.

And BTW, if you like Bill Maher, then that is another difference.  I much preferred this guy:

 

Never heard of nor seen this fellow before.

Was he performing outside of the United States in this video?

Liked his "Sixth Floor Museum" routine and especially his take on how visitors might react if they could actually get close enough to the "snipers nest" window to see how low to the floor it was.

NO WAY DUDE!

I mentioned this "low to the floor" fact in a post just a few days ago after seeing the inside view of the sixth floor windows in a documentary.

Even a small framed person would have to uncomfortably squat or get on their knees to the floor to be able to get their upper body in any kind of square facing and securely stable shooting position out that very low to the floor window and to then face a difficult sharp downward shooting angle ... and at a moving target to boot?

Wonder if any of the investigation re-enactment shooters were placed in such a physically constrained confine exactly as the sixth floor shooter dealt with?

 

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Never heard of nor seen this fellow before.

Was he performing outside of the United States in this video?

Liked his "Sixth Floor Museum" routine and especially his take on how visitors might react if they could actually get close enough to the "snipers nest" window to see how low to the floor it was.

NO WAY DUDE!

I mentioned this "low to the floor" fact in a post just a few days ago after seeing the inside view of the sixth floor windows in a documentary.

Even a small framed person would have to uncomfortably squat or get on their knees to the floor to be able to get their upper body in any kind of square facing and securely stable shooting position out that very low to the floor window and with a sharp downward angle at a moving target to boot?

Wonder if any of the investigation re-enactment shooters were placed in a physically constrained confine exactly as the sixth floor shooter faced?

This Tuesday will be the 25th anniversary of the death of Bill Hicks.

Google "denis leary bill hicks"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe:

Bill Hicks was one of the very few stand ups who would touch the JFK case and portray it as it really was.

Mort Sahl was one of the very few others, but they torched him when he got too active.

And no one was going to shut Hicks up about it.  I like it here when he  mentions the complaint "well it happened so long ago" and he replied, "So did Jesus Christ and we are still talking about him!"

For reasons I will not go into, compared to Hicks, Maher is a pretentious fraud.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

For reasons I will not go into, compared to Hicks, Maher is a pretentious fraud.

Who's comparing Maher to Bill Hicks?

Hicks compares to Denis Leary.  DL nicked bits from Hicks.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Jim says of Kamala Harris, I'm preparing a critical essay on her.

She sabotaged a new RFK probe.

Which is why we should all vote for her.

I can see the placards now...on one side it says "We Love You Kamala" with a great big heart, on the other side "Why Did You Sabotage New RFK Probe?."

I like the idea of turning the country over to a couple of women out of San Francisco and holding their feet to the fire.

Pelosi is my congress critter...she's gotta listen to me.

Re-open the RFK case, President Harris, you no longer have to bend the knee for the LAPD.

 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...