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

[Cliff Varnell]

On 4/27/2019 at 2:19 PM, Jeff Carter said:

 partisan filters which, as can be seen with Cliff, promote muddy thinking.

How would you know, Jeff?

You don't know anything about American partisan politics.  You can't factually challenge a single thing I've written.

You know nothing of the fascistic elements within the bi-polar American ruling elite, because if you did you wouldn't be carrying water for a white supremacist.

[Bob Ness]

In general, I think of these things as more of investor classes that function in ways to insure their own survival. It's easy to label media, politicians, corporations and the like as members of cabals or the "deep state" but really in most cases I believe they're independent actors whose imperatives intersect and actions reflect those interests.

Trump didn't represent any of the traditional investor groups and that probably explains his popularity with his base. His only choice of the two parties was the Republicans. For one, he'd never win a nomination in the Democratic party. Secondly, the Republicans have been sliding downhill since Nixon and the Dixiecrat invasion in the sixties. The more centrist Reganites have been siding with the traditional groups to the point of seeing George Will on MSNBC! YIKES haha!

The Republicans have managed to make up for their slide by recruiting and appealing to people who didn't even used to vote. The disenfranchised, low information types, radicals etc. It seems to me out of necessity and survival the remaining traditional Republicans have to choose between that group or centering the Dems. Not a great choice for them.

[Michael Clark]

23 minutes ago, Bob Ness said:

In general, I think ........

.......The Republicans have managed to make up for their slide by recruiting and appealing to people who didn't even used to vote. The disenfranchised, low information types, radicals etc. It seems to me out of necessity and survival the remaining traditional Republicans have to choose between that group or centering the Dems. Not a great choice for them.

Trump has tapped-into the Howard Stern feed lot of American men.

[Bob Ness]

19 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Trump has tapped-into the Howard Stern feed lot of American men.

I think it's worse than just the Howard Stern zeitgeist. It's far deeper and older. Sort of revivalist. The immigrant/xenophobia schtick for instance has a long history. Much of his subtext don's that apparel.

Edited April 29, 2019 by Bob Ness

[Cliff Varnell]

8 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

• Cliff Varnell – “carrying water for a white supremacist.”

I remain convinced that calling potential voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and other flyover states, "deplorables", "racists", "white supremacists", "homophobes", "radicals", etc. is not a winning strategy. 

When Hillary or five (5) white guys, like those listed above, start calling Trump voters "deplorable", it comes across as disingenuous.

Let's not be disingenuous, by all means.

Here's what I wrote:

You know nothing of the fascistic elements within the bi-polar American ruling elite, because if you did you wouldn't be carrying water for a white supremacist.

I clearly referred to Trump as the white supremacist.  Which he is.

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, Robert Wheeler said:

• Paul Brancato – “his ‘base’, which is a well conceived loose knit group of ‘deplorables’ like racists, homophobes, anti-immigrant, anti abortion, mixed with undereducated undernourished underemployed white people who are justifiably angry.”
• David Andrews – “the Deporables [sic.] vote”
• Cliff Varnell – “carrying water for a white supremacist.”
• Bob Ness – “The disenfranchised, low information types, radicals etc.” (Bob, your first paragraph was pretty spot on as far as I am concerned. The first sentence in the second paragraph too.) 
• Michael Clark – “the Howard Stern feed lot of American men.”

I remain convinced that calling potential voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and other flyover states, "deplorables", "racists", "white supremacists", "homophobes", "radicals", etc. is not a winning strategy.  

A guy like Obama can maybe get away with it a little. He already had a solid base of African American voters and while that base would vote for him anyway, he was able to get very high levels of participation of the already solid base. ie. alienating and insulting potential white voters were easily offset by enthusiastic black voters.

Obama did not spend all that much time calling people deplorable. Voters like myself would probably even give Obama a pass on insults since, as a person of color, and more importantly, his primary constituency of African American voters, might actually have some justifiable grievances with respect to their current or historical treatment by "the system."

When Hillary or five (5) white guys, like those listed above, start calling Trump voters "deplorable", it comes across as disingenuous.

Not only do you turn off potential white voters by insulting them, you suppress the black voter participation rates. When five (5) white guys and a white women (especially an extremely wealthy white woman running for President) try to appeal to black voters through the adoption of slogans that are meant to appeal to the specific and real grievances and concerns of Black voters, it comes across as pandering. 

As anyone can see from the African American (Male) voter participation rate in 2016, Hillary did quite poorly versus Obama. Despite the tendency for Democrats to treat the Black Vote as a fait accompli, the inability to appreciate the black voter block's ability to recognize pandering, and then that voting blocks willingness to stay home on election day, makes Trump's win less surprising. In short, Black voters are not as "gullible" as white liberals make them out to be. The 5 White guys and Hillary can then avoid the false notion that Trump only won because of his natural appeal to deplorables, racists, and homophobes, etc. like myself.

 

 

Robert, you listed me above but failed to characterize how I fit into your list. On some level I feel left out while on another I feel unfairly included. I am confused, please elaborate as to where you are trying position me in this debate. What do you make of my characterization of the influence of Howard Stern on a generation of American men and their influence in the election of 2016?

[Paul Brancato]

What term shall we use for Trump supporters, now that he has shown himself to be the worst president ever, and a vile human being? If you still suppored Trump after his insensitive comments about Charlottesville, what does that say about you?  He hasn’t drained the swamp, he’s filled it with the worst vipers. It’s all quite self evident. I understand to some extent the support he got from certain working class segments of our society who were rightly pissed off. Being a wage slave gets old, especially when your on unemployment and oxy. I even took a wait and see approach. Looking at Trump’s public past it was hard to discern just what he would do as president. But it didn’t take long to figure it out. I don’t need the Russia Probe to know what a danger he is to our fractured Democracy. He is an autocrat and worse. So what do I think of his base now? I don’t care what word you use. His base is a mix of white people representing various one issue constituencies. No one can argue that. 

[James DiEugenio]

PB: The Republican FBI threw the election for Trump. Are you blind? 

Did I say this? C'mon Paul.

What I am saying is that I think the whole Russia Gate thing is a way of either crippling Trump  or impeaching him.

As per the 2016 election, we have been over this ad nauseum.  I explained at length why I think he won.  Once Trump prevailed in N. Carolina and Florida, then HRC had to take the Rust Belt.

And that did not hold because her campaign was so terrible on those Rust Belt issues.  Plus, Trump visited those states about three times more often than she did.  Her arrogant manager Robbie Mook believed the hype and actually was trying to extend into places like Arizona instead of shoring up the base.  Trump managed to convince enough people in the Rust Belt that he was a populist, or at least more than she was.  Which was not difficult considering her hubby's record on NAFTA, the FCC etc.  But Mook even overruled the hubby on that one since Bill wanted her to get in more small salon type settings to connect with people instead of the big media campaign HRC was running.

Trump ran a clever campaign, and I give him credit for that. And he did it with much less money and fewer resources.  He outclevered not just Mook and HRC but also the MSM.  And he tapped into the middle class resentment of the MSM in a way that no one else ever has.  And that is one reason they have it in for him on Russia Gate.

Meanwhile, who is screaming about his tax plan?  His environmental plan?  His attempts to cut middle class entitlements?  The overall strategy to crowd out the budget so that none of that is sustainable and no social  improvements can be made.  Pretty soon the only things on the budget will be military spending and interest payments on the debt.

Do you hear the media screaming about that Paul?  If so, where?  

 

 

Edited April 29, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

5 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

If you accuse me of carrying water for a white supremacist, Luciferian, Papist or Maoist, I interpret that as an accusation against myself.

If that is not your intent, that is not how it comes across.

That is not disenguity on my part, that is a lack of appreciation for how other readers will interpret your comments, even in the blatant context of the entire discussion.  

Choose what you want to believe.  The statement speaks for itself.

If you understood the nature of Trumpian fascism you wouldn't carry water for a fascist.

I'm saying the opposite of what you're trying to spin.

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Trump ran a clever campaign, and I give him credit for that. And he did it with much less money and fewer resources.  He outclevered not just Mook and HRC but also the MSM. 

Trump turned cable news into  Reality TV-- The Donald J Trump Show featuring Donald J Trump.

It was a ratings hit.  Cable news gave Trump $3 billion in free advertising. 

The MSM didn't want to cancel the Donald Trump Show.   To insure Trump's victory cable news blanketed the last 11 days of the campaign with constant attacks on Hillary Clinton, courtesy of the FBI re-opening the e-mail railroad job.

CBS Chief: Trump's Success Is 'Damn Good' For the Network

http://fortune.com/2016/03/01/les-moonves-cbs-trump/

It's even better for MSNBC/CNN/Fox.

Edited April 29, 2019 by Cliff Varnell

[Bob Ness]

9 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

• Paul Brancato – “his ‘base’, which is a well conceived loose knit group of ‘deplorables’ like racists, homophobes, anti-immigrant, anti abortion, mixed with undereducated undernourished underemployed white people who are justifiably angry.”
• David Andrews – “the Deporables [sic.] vote”
• Cliff Varnell – “carrying water for a white supremacist.”
• Bob Ness – “The disenfranchised, low information types, radicals etc.” (Bob, your first paragraph was pretty spot on as far as I am concerned. The first sentence in the second paragraph too.) 
• Michael Clark – “the Howard Stern feed lot of American men.”

I remain convinced that calling potential voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and other flyover states, "deplorables", "racists", "white supremacists", "homophobes", "radicals", etc. is not a winning strategy.  

A guy like Obama can maybe get away with it a little. He already had a solid base of African American voters and while that base would vote for him anyway, he was able to get very high levels of participation of the already solid base. ie. alienating and insulting potential white voters were easily offset by enthusiastic black voters.

Obama did not spend all that much time calling people deplorable. Voters like myself would probably even give Obama a pass on insults since, as a person of color, and more importantly, his primary constituency of African American voters, might actually have some justifiable grievances with respect to their current or historical treatment by "the system."

When Hillary or five (5) white guys, like those listed above, start calling Trump voters "deplorable", it comes across as disingenuous.

Not only do you turn off potential white voters by insulting them, you suppress the black voter participation rates. When five (5) white guys and a white women (especially an extremely wealthy white woman running for President) try to appeal to black voters through the adoption of slogans that are meant to appeal to the specific and real grievances and concerns of Black voters, it comes across as pandering. 

As anyone can see from the African American (Male) voter participation rate in 2016, Hillary did quite poorly versus Obama. Despite the tendency for Democrats to treat the Black Vote as a fait accompli, the inability to appreciate the black voter block's ability to recognize pandering, and then that voting blocks willingness to stay home on election day, makes Trump's win less surprising. In short, Black voters are not as "gullible" as white liberals make them out to be. The 5 White guys and Hillary can then avoid the false notion that Trump only won because of his natural appeal to deplorables, racists, and homophobes, etc. like myself.

 

 

Robert, if this were not the case then where are the objections from his base from his clear and unmistakable stabs in their backs (tax breaks, environment, Medicare etc) such as when people were in the streets against Clinton during GATT and NAFTA? Rather than getting behind a Ben Sasse or Rubio to run a challenge against him they double down on the charlatan!  You may disagree but to me it's obvious his actions are strictly measured to benefit himself and his narcissism. He has not once tried to hold out an olive branch to OVER HALF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA because his little baby ass can't do anything but act like a spoiled 8 year old. If his supporters can't see his incredibly obvious faults - out in the open for all to see - what else am I supposed to think of them? They're a bunch of geniuses that I should listen to and get behind? 

[Cliff Varnell]

12 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

I can not believe that obstructed justice.  Muelleron a JFK Assassination Forum that I have to say, "you do not get to kill, or incapacitate a President with made up criminal charges because you do not like his policies or you think he is a narcissist." 

 

Trump hired Michael Flynn.  Flynn lied to the FBI when he told them he didn't discuss sanctions with the Russian Ambassador.  Trump fired Flynn for lying.  Trump asked Comey not to investigate Flynn.  When Comey refused to play ball Trump fired him, bringing on the Mueller investigation.

Trump brought it on himself.

Just curious, do you approve of voter ID laws and voter roll purges which disenfranchise millions of American citizens?

[Bob Ness]

2 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Yes, because at least 4 of the 5 participants I listed (Clark's Howard Stern reference excluded for now, as I may have misinterpreted the context) level of maturity is at most 7 years ahead of an 8 year olds.

Everyone is a Nazi; parents, teachers, the crossing guard, the cafeteria lady, after learning about Hitler your freshman year in high school and you have run out of arguments as to why you should be treated like an adult.

This doesn't make any sense to me in relation to the quote of mine you've used. I think I was pretty clear about it but maybe I should put it another way. I don't understand why any reasonable adult, regardless of political views, finds the current POTUS as a President worthy of their support. That is, he's intentionally so far beyond the norms of respectful representation and discourse anyone who doesn't recognize this is suspect in my estimation. I can only conclude POTUS' interests align so much with those people they don't care about the effects on their fellow countrymen or the dilatory effect his behavior has in societal exchange, or they're too busy to be bothered and prefer the sound bites they hear that reinforce their bias.

I don't think that's controversial. It's human nature really and when I speak of "low Information voters" I mean those people who don't take the time, have little of it to give or simply don't want to be bothered. 

1 hour ago, Robert Wheeler said:

I can not believe that on a JFK Assassination Forum that I have to say, "you do not get to kill, or incapacitate a President with made up criminal charges because you do not like his policies or you think he is a narcissist." 

 

Kill??? Huh?

I personally think there was plenty of reason to investigate Trump and his campaign and that isn't controversial either. Put it to the acid test. Were there investigations that resulted in Trump officials being convicted of crimes? Yes. That's the answer. Trump is still the "unnamed co-conspirator" in a campaign finance violation also. "Made up" is a ridiculous assertion although I realize there are plenty of people running about trying to fog the air. It wasn't made up and there was plenty of justification for a counter intelligence investigation.

[Cliff Varnell]

16 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

No need for voter ID laws.

Trump needed them. 

Voter purges wiped 300,000 from the rolls in Wisconsin, and more than a half million in Michigan and another half million plus in North Carolina.

Do you support the system which allows politicians to pick their voters, instead of the other way around?

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Robert Wheeler said:

You asked me, not Trump.

Obviously my answer did not advance your narrative and now you are reduced to posing questions that you can then answer and attempt to advance your narrative.

You might as well stand in front of the mirror and argue with your reflection. It would only be marginally less effective and involve a lot less typing than your efforts here on the Forum.

Tell me what the problem is with the purple finger.

I double-dare you.

Shorter Robert Wheeler: I can't defend GOP voter suppression so I'll change the subject.

Robert, you took my "carrying water for a white supremacist" comment out of context, and then doubled down on the distortion.

How puerile.