Jump to content
The Education Forum

I agree with Trump


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

I found it interesting how the final question of the Helsinki press conference, a direct request to Trump to endorse the substance of Mueller’s two indictments of Russian persons - one on election meddling and the other on email hacking - became in effect a loyalty oath. And when Trump refused to directly answer, and spouted some reasons why the indictments might be lacking, that became the specific reason that the immediate charges of “Treason!” started to thunder across the commentariat and are continuing. It wasn’t Treason due to breaching the Constitution, it was treason because he would not accept the “truth” of an untested Indictment or accept the “word” of a small portion of the Intelligence community loyal to Brennan, Clapper, Hayden, etc - persons who actually have breached your Constitution and lied about it.

I don’t know why Comey released those emails late in the election cycle, but he can’t be said to be a Trump guy and if anything was tied to the “deep state” faction lining up behind Hilary. There have been hints of intense internal divisions within the FBI at that time. I would suggest Comey’s move was a reactive measure to stave off some other event which would have had more far-reaching consequences.

Terrible as it is, “racist appeals to the worst instincts of the worst Americans” have been part of the political playbook since the beginning.

I’m glad Hilary lost - she was assembling a national security team of neoliberal hegemonic globalists who gave every indication they were preparing to seize the moment and apply massive military force to reverse perceived geopolitical setbacks and directly confront Russia and China while they still held military superiority. The TPP trade agreement was also set to be ratified with no public debate or input, which would have codified a neoliberal corporatist economic structure resistant to any reform or reevaluation.

Marks never like to admit being scammed. We know as of last night that Trump was provided direct evidence that Putin personally directed the attack prior to the inauguration. It is not a matter of opinion. And he has continued to lie about it since. There is no longer any rationalization available to his supporters to justify it.

Edited by Andrew Prutsok
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

I found it interesting how the final question of the Helsinki press conference, a direct request to Trump to endorse the substance of Mueller’s two indictments of Russian persons - one on election meddling and the other on email hacking - became in effect a loyalty oath.

The guy from Reuters gave Trump a loyalty oath?

Actually, the last question was for Putin, asked if he had compromising material on Trump.

Putin snickered.

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

And when Trump refused to directly answer, and spouted some reasons why the indictments might be lacking, that became the specific reason that the immediate charges of “Treason!” started to thunder across the commentariat and are continuing.

The only reason Trump gave for not believing the indictments was Putin's "strong, powerful denial."

Publicly back Putin over his own Justice Department?

Fk'n traitor...

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

It wasn’t Treason due to breaching the Constitution, it was treason because he would not accept the “truth” of an untested Indictment or accept the “word” of a small portion of the Intelligence community loyal to Brennan, Clapper, Hayden, etc - persons who actually have breached your Constitution and lied about it.

He's under investigation for conspiring with the Russians to employ stolen material to boost Trump's electoral chances, and he goes and performs fellatio on Putin for all the world to see.

The guy is an idiot.

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

I don’t know why Comey released those emails late in the election cycle, but he can’t be said to be a Trump guy and if anything was tied to the “deep state” faction lining up behind Hilary.

You bet.  There's nothing like instigating 11 days of harsh news coverage to bolster a gal's campaign!

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

 

There have been hints of intense internal divisions within the FBI at that time. I would suggest Comey’s move was a reactive measure to stave off some other event which would have had more far-reaching consequences.

More far-reaching consequences than putting a white supremacist wanna-be fascist dictator in the White House?

Do tell...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:
Corey,  this thread isn't about re litigating the 2016 Presidential election. We did that in great detail after the 2016 election. But in trying to update your most salient point. So am I to assume now all your friends in Michigan are part of the great "Trump economic boom"  and are getting jobs at higher wages than before? If so, I would imagine that's because they're relatively newer to the work force,  because wages haven't increased and I would suspect that the vast majority of the older disenfranchised work force who voted for Trump in Michigan aren't near as lucky.
 
And I'm going to school a lawyer here, I thought using of all people Mike Tyson, a known wife beater, and Don King, one of the most quintessential  known boxer promoter scumbags (as purported by no less than Muhammed Ali), as examples of blacks who voted for Trump made a very poor argument. I realize you cite these people because you have ties to the "biz." But these guys are not to be emulated as exemplary informed voters and often such voters will vote for a candidate like Trump for no other reason, then the prospect of paying less taxes.

I know about Don Kings background very well.  

It seems I am not getting through here.  Let me put it this way, if you think Trump did not appeal to some African Americans-way more than Romney or McCain did-well, its your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.  

Trump reached out to voters that Republicans had not sought for a long time and he went to places Republicans had not gone to in a long time.

This is observation, not support or glorification of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Yeah?  Tell me how many folks in Michigan hold FHA mortgages.

Trump's first official act was to cancel a $500 a year tax break for lower income FHA loan holders, affecting three quarter million households nationwide.

Trump screwed over a bunch of his own voters.

When Trump pulled out of the Iran nuke deal oil prices spiked.

How those gas prices treatin' y'all?

Trump threatens putting tariffs on autos  -- but I guess Michigan is a state that doesn't worry about that industry much.

Study Greg Palast.

https://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/

Laws that make it difficult or impossible for millions to vote?

That's what I call treason.

Trump has always been the reigning champ of liars, so that couldn't have been a problem.

Besides, what they did with Hillary was criminalize both the fog of war and a lax institutional culture.

Hillary did a terrible job sticking up for herself, and I'm sure as hell not going to pick up any of that slack.

Lots of intelligent people are gullible.

 Yeah?  I made my bones in Reno back in the early 80's, helped start hardcore punk rock as a "thing."

We were political as hell, and I like to think we played a small part in turning Nevada from red to blue.

This is the operative definition of "false equivalency."  There is no appreciable voter fraud and voter suppression is the civil rights battle of the 21st century.

I binge watch the Donald J. Trump Show.  Have for 3 years.  I wish I had a buck for every time Trump or his surrogates claimed he opposed the Iraq War when the talking head would not correct them.

He lied about Obamacare and the economy and the Iran nuke deal with impunity.  For a start...

We'll see if there's an appetite for treason.  If not, he won't serve out his term.

When Mueller brings his report it's gonna be shock and awe...that's what my crystal ball sez.

 

Will you admit Hillary lied over and over and the voters noticed it?

Can you admit that or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know Kirk, if every once in awhile you would get something right about me, I might take you seriously.  You don't. Which shows the kind of cheap shot artist  you are.

I have never voted for a Clinton in my life.  Just like I never voted for Obama. California is a safe state.  So in the general I vote Green. So i voted for Stein.

In the primaries I vote for  the best I can find.  The last time I voted for Sanders.  In 2008 I voted for Edwards. In 1992 I voted for Jerry Brown.

Andrew, that whole thing about "racist appeals to the worst instincts", I mean how old are you?  You never heard of Nixon's Southern Strategy?  The Republicans have been doing this for almost half a century.  That is news to you?  You are shocked by it?  To me its sort of like Claude Rains tongue in cheek line in Casablanca: "Do you mean there is gambling at Rick's? I am shocked, shocked."

If the Clinton campaign did not anticipate a method that has been around since the sixties, then they were incompetent. For God's sakes, do you not remember where Reagan made his first post convention speech in 1980? The Neshoba County Fair just seven miles from Philadelphia, Mississippi.  Why was that significant?  Two reasons.  Philadelphia was where the bodies of Cheney, Schwerner and Goodman were found.  Reagan's speech was themed around the idea of states' rights.  So please, this technique is so old its banal.

The real question is why didn't those highly paid advisors and so called strategists find a way to neutralize this, especially in the north?  Why did she not spend more time there?  Why did she not talk about what she planned on doing for them and take Trump head on?

I can suggest one reason:  she had little credibility on the issue of globalization since her husband's record hurt her on that issue.   Secondly, its hard to say you have the interests of the middle class in mind when you are doing speaking engagements for Goldman Sachs at $260, 000 a pop.  Plus, there was the problem with the whole Clinton Foundation pay per play accusation which, incredibly, they never found a way to counter.

I have little doubt today that Sanders would have beaten Trump.  And its for this reason.  He would not have lost the Blue Wall.  He really could have convinced those people in Ohio and Pennsylvania that he understood what they were up against and had their best interests at heart.  But as we now know, the whole DNC structure and schedule was rigged against him.  And then, Obama made sure that Ellison did not take over the DNC and flush it out by getting his Perez flunky to take over, a guy who endorses in Democratic primaries.

 Another reason HRC lost is that Obama left her  little to run on. I mean JFK achieved more in 2 years and ten months, than Obama did in 8 years.  Obama had a Golden Opportunity to do some great things with the American economy in 2009. He could have blamed the GOP for causing the blowout and then said we will now rebuild, bypass the failed policies of the past and put the culprits who did this in jail. You know sort of like FDR.  And the GOP was really afraid he would do something big which would realign the American political system like the New Deal did. What does he do?  He appoints Geithner, the soul mate of Larry Summers, and decides to make the Affordable Care Act his hallmark.  Which would be cool if it worked, but it does not work well at all.  He then makes HRC his Secretary of State.  The Democratic version of Jeanne Kirkpatrick.  She is even worse on foreign policy than domestic policy.  From 2008-10, Obama had the senate, the House and the White House.  It could have been the new Hundred Days.  Instead he meets with conservative leaders like Kristol for dinner at the White House.  

 I have a friend from Illinois who once said, "Jim, the key to  Obama  is all those roll call votes he dodged in the state senate plus the fact he got pummeled by Bobby Rush when he ran for congress."  No one took any of that seriously though.  But he did bail out with a sixty million book contract. Leaving us with a candidate so flawed she could not even beat a goof like Trump. But what does one expect from Obama, a guy who once introduced Bill Clinton as a great president.

Thanks for that going away gift Barack.

 

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Will you admit Hillary lied over and over and the voters noticed it?

Can you admit that or not?

Sigh.  I really don't want to stick up for Hillary Clinton other than say Trump is 100 times worse.

Benghazi and the e-mail business were pure "Gotcha!"

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

I know about Don Kings background very well.  

It seems I am not getting through here.  Let me put it this way, if you think Trump did not appeal to some African Americans-way more than Romney or McCain did-well, its your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.   

Trump reached out to voters that Republicans had not sought for a long time and he went to places Republicans had not gone to in a long time.

This is observation, not support or glorification of him.

What I'm apparently not getting through to you, is that if you want to make a good argument, you appear to be scraping the bottom of the barrel when you use a wife beater and a convicted murderer. You should probably just leave names out of it, if you know of no other examples. That's cool.You can take my advice or leave it.

Of course these election stats can be easily obtained. Trump got 8% of the black vote to Romney's 6%  Hardly an endorsement and very low by historic standards.  Trump still couldn't pull as many black votes as George Bush or his Father. Did you ever think that maybe the reason Trump outdrew Romney and Mc Cain is because he wasn't running against Barack Obama? That's a very critical factor to overlook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

 Another reason HRC lost is that Obama left her  little to run on. I mean JFK achieved more in 2 years and ten months, than Obama did in 8 years.  Obama had a Golden Opportunity to do some great things with the American economy in 2009.

He turned the economy around and reduced the budget deficit.

15 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

 

He could have blamed the GOP for causing the blowout and then said we will now rebuild, bypass the failed policies of the past and put the culprits who did this in jail. You know sort of like FDR.  And the GOP was really afraid he would do something big which would realign the American political system like the New Deal did. What does he do?  He appoints Geithner, the soul mate of Larry Summers, and decides to make the Affordable Care Act his hallmark.  Which would be cool if it worked, but it does not work well at all.  

It works great for lower economic folks.  That's why it polls popular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

You know Kirk, if every once in awhile you would get something right about me, I might take you seriously.  You don't. Which shows the kind of cheap shot artist  you are.

I have never voted for a Clinton in my life.  Just like I never voted for Obama. California is a safe state.  So in the general I vote Green. So i voted for Stein.

In the primaries I vote for  the best I can find.  The last time I voted for Sanders.  In 2008 I voted for Edwards. In 1992 I voted for Jerry Brown.

Andrew, that whole thing about "racist appeals to the worst instincts", I mean how old are you?  You never heard of Nixon's Southern Strategy?  The Republicans have been doing this for almost half a century.  That is news to you?  You are shocked by it?  To me its sort of like Claude Rains tongue in cheek line in Casablanca: "Do you mean there is gambling at Rick's? I am shocked, shocked."

If the Clinton campaign did not anticipate a method that has been around since the sixties, then they were incompetent. For God's sakes, do you not remember where Reagan made his first post convention speech in 1980? The Neshoba County Fair just seven miles from Philadelphia, Mississippi.  Why was that significant?  Two reasons.  Philadelphia was where the bodies of Cheney, Schwerner and Goodman were found.  Reagan's speech was themed around the idea of states' rights.  So please, this technique is so old its banal.

The real question is why didn't those highly paid advisors and so called strategists find a way to neutralize this, especially in the north?  Why did she not spend more time there?  Why did she not talk about what she planned on doing for them and take Trump head on?

I can suggest one reason:  she had little credibility on the issue of globalization since her husband's record hurt her on that issue.   Secondly, its hard to say you have the interests of the middle class in mind when you are doing speaking engagements for Goldman Sachs at $260, 000 a pop.  Plus, there was the problem with the whole Clinton Foundation pay per play accusation which, incredibly, they never found a way to counter.

I have little doubt today that Sanders would have beaten Trump.  And its for this reason.  He would not have lost the Blue Wall.  He really could have convinced those people in Ohio and Pennsylvania that he understood what they were up against and had their best interests at heart.  But as we now know, the whole DNC structure and schedule was rigged against him.  And then, Obama made sure that Ellison did not take over the DNC and flush it out by getting his Perez flunky to take over, a guy who endorses in Democratic primaries.

 Another reason HRC lost is that Obama left her  little to run on. I mean JFK achieved more in 2 years and ten months, than Obama did in 8 years.  Obama had a Golden Opportunity to do some great things with the American economy in 2009. He could have blamed the GOP for causing the blowout and then said we will now rebuild, bypass the failed policies of the past and put the culprits who did this in jail. You know sort of like FDR.  And the GOP was really afraid he would do something big which would realign the American political system like the New Deal did. What does he do?  He appoints Geithner, the soul mate of Larry Summers, and decides to make the Affordable Care Act his hallmark.  Which would be cool if it worked, but it does not work well at all.  He then makes HRC his Secretary of State.  The Democratic version of Jeanne Kirkpatrick.  She is even worse on foreign policy than domestic policy.  From 2008-10, Obama had the senate, the House and the White House.  It could have been the new Hundred Days.  Instead he meets with conservative leaders like Kristol for dinner at the White House.  

 I have a friend from Illinois who once said, "Jim, the key to  Obama  is all those roll call votes he dodged in the state senate plus the fact he got pummeled by Bobby Rush when he ran for congress."  No one took any of that seriously though.  But he did bail out with a sixty million book contract. Leaving us with a candidate so flawed she could not even beat a goof like Trump. But what does one expect from Obama, a guy who once introduced Bill Clinton as a great president.

Thanks for that going away gift Barack.

************************

 I have never voted for a Clinton in my life.  

Read what I wrote again. I never said you did. I said 9 months into Sander's campaign you expressed a preference for HC. When we talked about it later  before the primary, you didn't deny it.  As in every instance,  every thing I've ever said about your positions have been  factually accurate.

Re: Obama, I have largely your same criticisms. He should taken control and made the big banks pay.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff - your partisanship is clouding your analytical skills. If you believe Comey released the emails because he was on Team Trump the whole time, then why does nothing which occurred before or afterwards fit with that assumption? That is why I speculate that some other matter forced his hand, and the release was similar to a limited hangout.

The only reason Trump gave for not believing the indictments was Putin's "strong, powerful denial."

That’s not correct, he alluded to other reasons, technical questions, which have been part of the debate stateside.

“Publicly back Putin over his own Justice Department?

Fk'n traitor…”

My country right or wrong? Wasn’t that the fall-back reactionary position not so long ago? Besides, he didn’t “publicly back Putin” but said Putin has a position and the Justice Department has a position. His stance seems to be that he has an open mind on the matter, which has been spun by the media to mean he is a traitor.

The internalization of McCarthy-esque paranoia, fealty to the Intelligence apparatus, and refusal to deal with things as they are on behalf of many intelligent rational people in America is astonishing to witness.

Again, I am no supporter of Trump as a businessman or politican, but my more objective take as an observer outside of the U.S. is that Trump is obviously an unvetted POTUS whose policies have gone “off-script” and the permanent deep state is determined to ruin him and have been since the moment the election results were confirmed. Trump’s unforgivable sin is his desire to ease tensions with Russia, there's no real push-back amongst the political class on most of his other policies. That both the campaign to demonize Putin and the campaign to get rid of Trump have extensively utilized known propaganda techniques such as repetition and insult, and that the equivalent of Orwell’s Two Minute Hate is now a daily feature of America’s media-sphere - might suggest that clear thinking has been abandoned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Cliff - your partisanship is clouding your analytical skills. If you believe Comey released the emails because he was on Team Trump the whole time, then why does nothing which occurred before or afterwards fit with that assumption?

Comey was on Team Trump when he announced in July '16 the FBI wasn't prosecuting Clinton but she screwed up big-time anyway.  That was a savage violation of protocol.

He was on Team Trump when he sent the October 28 letter to the Benghazi Committee.  Another savage violation of protocol.

After Trump took office he pressured Comey to drop the investigation into Michael Flynn.  That crossed a line.  Comey pivoted to Get Trump.

21 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

That is why I speculate that some other matter forced his hand, and the release was similar to a limited hangout.

Forced his hand?

He probably feared that Clinton would fire him so he struck first.

21 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

The only reason Trump gave for not believing the indictments was Putin's "strong, powerful denial."

That’s not correct, he alluded to other reasons, technical questions, which have been part of the debate stateside.

“Publicly back Putin over his own Justice Department?

Fk'n traitor…”

My country right or wrong?

No, and it's not "my country automatically wrong" either.

21 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

 

Wasn’t that the fall-back reactionary position not so long ago?

Finding a distinction between the credibility of Robert Mueller v. the credibility of Vladimir Putin isn't reactionary.

21 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Besides, he didn’t “publicly back Putin” but said Putin has a position and the Justice Department has a position.

And Putin's position made more sense to him.: "I don't see any reason why it would be" Russia.

21 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

His stance seems to be that he has an open mind on the matter, which has been spun by the media to mean he is a traitor.

He's been an overt traitor since calling for the Russians to hack Hillary's missing e-mails.

21 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

The internalization of McCarthy-esque paranoia, fealty to the Intelligence apparatus, and refusal to deal with things as they are on behalf of many intelligent rational people in America is astonishing to witness.

The accusation of "McCarthyesque paranoia" is ironic -- employing the icon of political smears so you can smear folks.

Deal with things as they are?

You can't see the white supremacist agenda of Trump?

21 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Again, I am no supporter of Trump as a businessman or politican, but my more objective take as an observer outside of the U.S. is that Trump is obviously an unvetted POTUS whose policies have gone “off-script” and the permanent deep state is determined to ruin him and have been since the moment the election results were confirmed. Trump’s unforgivable sin is his desire to ease tensions with Russia, there's no real push-back amongst the political class on most of his other policies.

Trump seeks a white nationalist strong-man regime.

Lucky for him there are so many useful idiots apologizing for him.

21 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

 

That both the campaign to demonize Putin and the campaign to get rid of Trump have extensively utilized known propaganda techniques such as repetition and insult, and that the equivalent of Orwell’s Two Minute Hate is now a daily feature of America’s media-sphere - might suggest that clear thinking has been abandoned.

You can't see the Two Minute Hate aspect of Trump rallies?

You can't see the proto-Fascist state the man if driving us toward?

You can't see that all of his policies are geared for the rich, or to disadvantage people of color?

Spare me the lectures on "clear thinking"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff:

If you read Josh Marshall's lengthy analysis of the IG report you will see that something did force Comey's hand.

It was the fear that the info would leak out of the NY FBI office which was anti HRC.  This is something that he feels was not made the focus of the report.  But it should have been.

Jeff:

I agree that this has become almost McCarthyite by the MSM.  The thing is that everything that Mueller had done so far is kind of questionable.  On two grounds.  First, it does not directly relate to the original charge.  I mean operating as a foreign representative without registering is a very common offense.  As many in that business have said, it is almost never enforced. Second, the Democratic hack charge has been criticized by some very smart and technically minded people. No less than Bill Binney.  

Third, where is the evidence of collusion and conspiracy?  Nothing that has come out so far comes near to what Bill Clinton did in Russia in 1996.  And hardly anyone ever mentions that double standard. 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certain Republicans, mostly in the House of Representatives, have been weaving their own Election 2016 conspiracy theory, which drops the Russians and instead focuses on politicized misuse of government surveillance power, i.e. using FISA warrants to conduct partisan opposition research illegally. This theory involves Perkins Cole, Fusion GPS, the DNC, Crowdstrike, the FBI, Steele Orbis, and GCHQ. There is a redacted document which 1) confirms the FBI was using “private contractors” to do “analysis” using the databases accessible only through the FISA warrant.  2) these private contractors were often abusing FISA restrictions on accessing information on US persons. If the redacted names of these private contractors are revealed to be DNC associated firms like Crowdstrike or Fusion GPS, then the Democrats will face serious credibility issues and the Russian influence narrative will really crumble as its origins can be linked with opposition research activity on the part of the Brits (according to the Republican theory).

Neither the RussiaGate conspiracy theory or the competing FISA Abuse conspiracy theory can be determined at this point to be correct or true by the public because the evidence to support either narrative is classified. But the House Republicans who have apparently seen the unredacted information appear confident, and certainly Trump felt secure enough to go ahead with the Putin meeting. If this blows up on the Democrats, then they would have compounded the mistake of anointing Hillary then losing the election, with the mistake of wasting two years going all in on a RussiaGate conspiracy theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

What I'm apparently not getting through to you, is that if you want to make a good argument, you appear to be scraping the bottom of the barrel when you use a wife beater and a convicted murderer. You should probably just leave names out of it, if you know of no other examples. That's cool.You can take my advice or leave it.

Of course these election stats can be easily obtained. Trump got 8% of the black vote to Romney's 6%  Hardly an endorsement and very low by historic standards.  Trump still couldn't pull as many black votes as George Bush or his Father. Did you ever think that maybe the reason Trump outdrew Romney and Mc Cain is because he wasn't running against Barack Obama? That's a very critical factor to overlook.

Interesting points.  

I understand what you say about King, Tyson, etc.

However, there are other names, but, really, no matter who I throw out it seems people disagree with.  Stacey Dash, there, ok I said it.

Actually, I think Trump outdid Romney in so many ways in how he presented his campaign.

Really though, I could be more elaborate and go on and on, as some apparently here do (not you Kirk), but, in a limited medium as this, I view this not for a learned legal opinion, but, for a common discussion with language that one would expect over lunch.

Edited by Cory Santos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...