The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

W - even though I mostly agree with your last post and others regarding Ben’s apparent blind spots, I wonder if you could address more recent news on Hunter Biden? Specifically his computer, and his father’s insistence that Ukrainian government fire the prosecutor looking into Burisma. On the former, I read a NYT apology for their original coverage. On the latter I remember hearing on KPFA the explanation for Biden’s actions at the time as being that the prosecutor was corrupt. I believed that then, but now I’m not so sure. What is your take? 
I followed RussiaGate closely via Rachel Maddow for many months, but I no longer watch her or any of the talking heads for that matter on any cable news channel. There were many things about Trump that made him unfit for the presidency, but to focus almost exclusively on this one story that clearly has many holes seemed like poor journalism. It certainly didn’t help Clinton in the election, and I’m certain that it was meant to. This is analogous to Diane Feinstein and company going after Kavanaugh for his college misdeeds. I just can’t take these people seriously when they demean our intelligence with smear campaigns. The real problem in 2016, 2020, and now too in the various primaries, is that the DNC wants to keep progressives out. We heard then and now that in a war of attrition with a thoroughly corrupt Republican Party they must run centrist candidates to have a chance at the ballot box. But that’s not really true, as has been proven many times. This is corporate America at work through the Democratic Party which they control with money. They didn’t want Bernie in the WH. They call the shots. 

Paul,

      I was deeply disappointed by the DNC/Wall Street sabotage of Bernie Sanders in 2016 and 2020 and, frankly, I was never a Joe Biden fan-- even back in 1992, when he ran against Bill Clinton.  If Hunter Biden's business deals have impacted affairs of state, that would be problematic.  But the alleged Fox/Giuliani/Hunter Biden laptop "scandal" has been fishy from the beginning-- conveniently publicized by Rupert Murdoch's propaganda empire just before the 2020 election.     It seemed like an attempted re-play of Giuliani's Weiner laptop/James Comey nothing burger in October 2016.  And now the alleged laptop repairman has pointed out that someone added data to the hard drive after the fact. 

      As for alleged corruption, Donald Trump was far and away the most corrupt, unfit President in American history, by several orders of magnitude.  Warren G. Harding was a mere puppet.  And compared to James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce, Donald Trump is like a villain from a Batman movie.  At least Pierce and Buchanan were educated, experienced statesmen who governed in what they viewed as the best interests of the country (and the Jacksonian Democratic coalition.) Both men tried desperately to keep the country from breaking apart, and have been vilified since 1860 for their efforts.

     George W. Bush probably did more damage to the U.S. than any POTUS, but Trump has been an unmitigated disaster-- and still is.

Edited May 21, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Kirk Gallaway]

 

5 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

l followed Russia Gate  closely.....    There were many things about Trump that made him unfit for the presidency, but to focus almost exclusively on this one story that clearly has many holes seemed like poor journalism.

I remember at the time Jim Di was inspired to write the thread "Trump was right" here right after Trump knuckled under Putin at that press conference in Helsinki.. I said that the Russia Gate story had become a "smoke screen" obscuring everything else Trump was doing at the time. Not that I didn't believe it was just another example of Trump corruption, and in my mind, being compromised by a foreign agent. But the burden of proof has only been substantiated endlessly in further incidents over the next Trump years!

 

5 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

This is analogous to Diane Feinstein and company going after Kavanaugh for his college misdeeds. I just can’t take these people seriously when they demean our intelligence with smear campaigns

I'm not sure what you're thinking Paul concerning Feinstien, but the real story was Congresswoman Anna Eshoo first brought the Kavanaugh story to Feinstein in early July when Kavanaugh's name was first being uttered and this whole thing could have been quietly handled, but  being an old "mad men" era biddie, she just sat on it indecisively for 5 6 weeks, and little by little, it leaked out, until it became a fabulous show trial where it looked like the Democrats were just trying to destroy Kavanaugh about something he did in high school just as he was about to become a Supreme Court Justice!

You and I probably disagree on that. I think Kavanaugh's a phony pig. And yes, if you forcibly try to rape a girl in high school that is more than ample ground to eliminate you from being Supreme Court Justice IMO.There are a number of reasons why that didn't happen, the most powerful is that It can't be positively proven.  Nobody's prosecuting him for it, but some things you do will follow you around for the rest of your life. Tough sh-t!

I remember at the time, the Democrats were also weighing it because they feared if the Kavanaugh nomination was nipped  in the bud, a more hard  right person  would be nominated, and that person was Amy Conan Barrett. But that's part of the problem, they're always weighing everything, because they don't have the conviction or courage to proceed. Just like now, they're weighing if they should prosecute Trump because it appears if things proceed the way they are. They think that maybe they should just be happy with Trump fading out of the picture and not give any of his cult ammunition by trying to prosecute him and failing.

5 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

The real problem in 2016, 2020, and now too in the various primaries, is that the DNC wants to keep progressives out.

That's true, the only thing that's going to change that equation is the younger generation coming in.

 

5 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

This is corporate America at work through the Democratic Party which they control with money. They didn’t want Bernie in the WH. They call the shots

I keep telling you guys. This is a very quantifiable question. Hilary outdrew Bernie in the primaries even more than Biden over Trump. The truth is, no matter what we think. Hell, even Joe Rogan said Bernie is the candidate whose always been the most consistent over the years and truly says what he believes ( then of course the Democrats go after him???) Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren just don't have the appeal as candidates. If they had it in spades. There's nothing the donor class could do. Yep, that's what I said!

Edited May 21, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Benjamin Cole]

Seems to me this corner of this forum should be a place for people to present their views, without personal animus. 

I am deeply skeptical of both major political parties, and allied M$M narratives. I understand some posters here are deeply anchored in partisan sentiments, and this is fine, that is their prerogative.

I am disappointed that there is not more concern about the melding of the Deep State, the Donks and M$M into a blob, but so it goes. All are entitled to their views.

There literally is no loyal opposition anymore in the US (OK, there is Bernie Sanders or a Ryan Paul, but we are talking fringe).

I don't understand the personal animus on this page. Are the posters deeply unhappy people? 

 

[W. Niederhut]

19 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Seems to me this corner of this forum should be a place for people to present their views, without personal animus. 

I am deeply skeptical of both major political parties, and allied M$M narratives. I understand some posters here are deeply anchored in partisan sentiments, and this is fine, that is their prerogative.

I am disappointed that there is not more concern about the melding of the Deep State, the Donks and M$M into a blob, but so it goes. All are entitled to their views.

There literally is no loyal opposition anymore in the US (OK, there is Bernie Sanders or a Ryan Paul, but we are talking fringe).

I don't understand the personal animus on this page. Are the posters deeply unhappy people? 

 

Ben,

     Most people here are "anchored in" a commitment to the facts and an accurate interpretation of historical and contemporary events.  They object to falsehoods about issues that matter, like JFK's assassination.

     You are misinterpreting the forum's commitment to the facts, and criticism of falsehoods, as "personal animus" and/or mere political partisanship.  It is neither.

      You are also confusing moral indignation with "unhappiness."

[James DiEugenio]

8 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

John Eastman Says He Dealt Directly With Trump Over Jan. 6 Plans (msn.com)

That is really a good one.  Nice catch Doug.

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, let me chime in on this whole Dems/ GOP issues.

I do not think that Hunter Biden should be off limits, and I do not think HRC should be off limits.

Many years ago, like 27 of them, I wrote an article for Probe describing our special Watergate issue.  

I said, I take a back seat to no one in my disdain for RMN.  I detested him then as I do now.  

But I said, we should not let our political feelings blind us to what really happened with Watergate.  In fact, I said, that was one reason why the MSM ended up being so wrong about Watergate. 

Watergate was not just about RMN, it was a battle between Nixon's White House and the CIA.  And the CIA, thanks to some lousy reporting, got off clean.  I know since I was part of that GET NIXON crowd.  

I really regret that today.  I made a bad mistake.  One which I have tried to pony up for.  That does not make Nixon any less culpable for what he did of course.  But today I see that in not examining the actions of Hunt and McCord and others, I missed the big picture.

So I am not willing to make that same mistake again.

So for me I am not going to make any innocence claims about Hunter Biden or HRC and Russia Gate just because I do not like Trump.  Let us be frank: both parties stink. 

Edited May 22, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Benjamin Cole]

59 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

     Most people here are "anchored in" a commitment to the facts and an accurate interpretation of historical and contemporary events.  They object to falsehoods about issues that matter, like JFK's assassination.

     You are misinterpreting the forum's commitment to the facts, and criticism of falsehoods, as "personal animus" and/or mere political partisanship.  It is neither.

      You are also confusing moral indignation with "unhappiness."

W-

 

You do not perceive a melding of the Donk establishment, the Deep State and the M$NM in the last 20 years? 

You think Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, or an Aaron Mate are generally wrong? 

I understand any earnest news reporter or commentator can be wrong on any particular issue, although even then, much is a judgement call and a matter personal prejudice.

But you think the characterization of the Donk establishment as coopted by the military-industrial-foreign policy complex is inaccurate? 

You do not perceive that multinationals have blended into the Donk establishment and control trade issues? 

If you disagree with these perceptions, then we disagree. In my view, in general, Glenn Greenwald is right in his commentary on these issues.

I think Greenwald has made the wrong call on Ukraine. 

I wonder---when you read or listen to Greenwald, you realize he is a highly intelligent and deeply experienced---and accomplished---observer of the US political scene.

Have ever broken a news story in your life? Written a book anyone should read? Written a magazine article worth reading? 

Why are you so sure your views are correct, and Greenwald's are incorrect? 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, let me chime in on this whole Dems/ GOP issues.

I do not think that Hunter Biden should be off limits, and I do not think HRC should be off limits.

Many years ago, like 27 of them, I wrote an article for Probe describing our special Watergate issue.  

I said, I take a back seat to no one in my disdain for RMN.  I detested him then as I do now.  

But I said, we should not let our political feelings blind us to what really happened with Watergate.  In fact, I said, that was one reason why the MSM ended up being so wrong about Watergate. 

Watergate was not just about RMN, it was a battle between Nixon's White House and the CIA.  And the CIA, thanks to some lousy reporting, got off clean.  I know since I was part of that GET NIXON crowd.  

I really regret that today.  I made a bad mistake.  One which I have tried to pony up for.  That does not make Nixon any less culpable for what he did of course.  But today I see that in not examining the actions of Hunt and McCord and others, I missed the big picture.

So I am not willing to make that same mistake again.

So for me I am not going to make any innocence claims about Hunter Biden or HRC and Russia Gate just because I do not like Trump.  Let us be frank: both parties stink. 

Amen. 

Trump has the personality flaws of any dozen other men put together, has grifted his way through life, and was an unnecessarily polarizing President. 

None of this exonerates the Deep State trying to fix who becomes president, with about 1000 times the influence of any foreign entity. 

The real concern is the ascendant blob of Donks, 'Phants, the Deep State and allied media. As I said, there is no loyal opposition in America anymore. 

PS. I am no fan of Putin, who I regard as a thug. 

[Matt Allison]

I sense a bit too much intellectual laziness here when I see claims of "both parties are all the same".

C'mon. No one is a simpleton here. The GOP is fractured and it isn't even "all the same" inside their own party lol.

Please read this, ok?

https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/meet-the-economist-behind-the-one-percents-stealth-takeover-of-america

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

I sense a bit too much intellectual laziness here when I see claims of "both parties are all the same".

C'mon. No one is a simpleton here. The GOP is fractured and it isn't even "all the same" inside their own party lol.

Please read this, ok?

https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/meet-the-economist-behind-the-one-percents-stealth-takeover-of-america

Matt:

I read the piece, thanks for posting. 

You realize that Buchanan was totally for open borders in regards to trade and immigration? 

And Buchanan is described in the linked article as the "hidden architect behind America's racist economics?" 

Indeed, American post-1960s trade and immigration policies hit most hard at the bottom half of the labor pool, which meant disproportionately striking at non-whites. 

To me, it is a class issue first and 90%, but if you want to make it a race issue you can: elite racists support open borders. Indeed, the most ardent racists in US history---the slavers---were all-in for immigration. Clue, there. 

And up until Trump, was there anyone in either party that challenged such policies? 

Here are the elite-catamite mouthpieces at Vox in 2015:

"Bernie Sanders's fear of immigrant labor is ugly — and wrongheaded"

Yes, forgotten today Bernie Sanders used to argue against open borders, as he contended that diluted the labor pool. It was a class issue, and Sanders was right. In 2020, Sanders very unconvincingly changed his position, and never put it on the front-burner. 

When the Rust Belt replaced great industry through the North, down went prosperous Bronzevilles too. 

The Donks have joined the 'Phants in being all in for open borders on trade and immigration, joining the Koches by the way. 

The Donks and 'Phants are both coopted by the Deep State-military-foreign policy complex. 

You say there is a difference? 

Your local Donk of "Phant might be worth voting for, an earnest person with principles they adhere to. That's fine, if you want to be a Donk or 'Phant.

But at the national level? Include me out. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Matt:

 If you check what I wrote I did not say both parties were equal.

I said they both stink. There is a difference.

No one has to tell me about Mr. Buchanan, as I read Democracy in Chains.  In fact I quote the book in Destiny Betrayed.

But please, can any objective person excuse what HRC did in Libya or Honduras, or what she wanted to do in Syria? Did you like TImber/Sycamore?

I can tell you right now that JFK would have never approved that operation. Why?  Because he wanted to foster the secular Moslem states against the Islamic fundamentalists and the Moslem Brotherhood. Now who was the CIA backing in Timber Sycamore?  The Islamic Fundamentalists and guys like the Moslem Brotherhood.

IMO, HRC was one of the worst Secretaries of State in a Democratic Administration since, well, her good buddy Madeleine Albright, who, while Indonesia was burning and trying to overthrow Suharto, so memorably said, "We are trying to encourage more dialogue."  Really?  With a guy who killed about 500,00 people to take power in the first place?  One of the most sane exchanges in recent political history was when Sanders asked HRC why she vacationed with and talked to Kissinger.  He then added he thought Henry was one of the most destructive Secretaries of State of recent times.  As he was: Mr. Triple Genocide Man--Pakistan, East Timor, and the big one in Cambodia. Did HRC need lessons in the art and science of genocide?

Look, let us be frank:  The Neocons, encouraged by the MSM, now control the foreign policy apparatus of both parties. If you talk to Kerry or Biden privately, they will tell you why Putin intervened in Syria. He had to.  It was either that or live with Al Quaeda close to his border, as France had to after the Libya debacle.  I know this because I saw someone who did get both of them  on the record in small settings, away from the cameras of the MSM. And that is what they said. So, in a real sense, it was self preservation.  The question is: was it done deliberately by the USA?  If not, why try and get a Moslem Fundamentalist regime in Syria at all?

 

Edited May 22, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Kirk Gallaway]

Oliver Stone has now come out and said Putin had cancer in the years Stone shadowed him for the documentary, and says he thinks he licked it..

So Stone's been sitting on this information for 6 years. Why now? Has Oliver at last given up on a Putin style world oligarchic regime to replace our oligarchic regime?! heh heh

Yes.almost 3 months into starting a war against Ukraine, that doesn't look very likely now Oliver!

More good PR for the JFKA? I don't think so. Maybe some favorable reactions from the Trump crowd. Is it a wash? Does it matter anyway?

https://www.newsweek.com/oliver-stone-says-putin-had-cancer-years-he-shadowed-him-project-1708885

[James DiEugenio]

Chris Steele, good source.👋

This is what I mean when i say the neocons have taken over both parties, encouraged by the MSM.

Edited May 22, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Kirk Gallaway]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, let me chime in on this whole Dems/ GOP issues.

I do not think that Hunter Biden should be off limits, and I do not think HRC should be off limits.

Many years ago, like 27 of them, I wrote an article for Probe describing our special Watergate issue.  

I said, I take a back seat to no one in my disdain for RMN.  I detested him then as I do now.  

But I said, we should not let our political feelings blind us to what really happened with Watergate.  In fact, I said, that was one reason why the MSM ended up being so wrong about Watergate. 

Watergate was not just about RMN, it was a battle between Nixon's White House and the CIA.  And the CIA, thanks to some lousy reporting, got off clean.  I know since I was part of that GET NIXON crowd.  

I really regret that today.  I made a bad mistake.  One which I have tried to pony up for.  That does not make Nixon any less culpable for what he did of course.  But today I see that in not examining the actions of Hunt and McCord and others, I missed the big picture.

So I am not willing to make that same mistake again.

So for me I am not going to make any innocence claims about Hunter Biden or HRC and Russia Gate just because I do not like Trump.  Let us be frank: both parties stink. 

Steele?? :Read it again Jim: "The Oscar-winning director told podcast interviewer Lex Fridman that Putin has overcome his cancer."

*****

I find this a little confusing Jim. i appreciate you admitting you made a mistake. But while you're at it, there might be some other admissions too.

I once had a disagreement with Jim over an assertion Jim made that that Nixon was the worst President of our lifetime. .I disagreed and said it was George W. Bush who brought us into a completely elective war on his part, (with no real pressure from the MIC as Nixon had at the time) under the completely false WMD allegations.This was before Trump ever came on the scene.

Jim was very dismissive of that, he actually said he shouldn't even be talking about it with me, it was so unquestionable, and said Nixon was a despicable human being, and cited his connection to Murray Chotiner?!! True, Jim was quite the Nixon hater!

In fairness, Jim did much later  expound on how Nixon dragged his feet on the Viet Nam War with his "Peace with Honor " policy, prolonging the war, death and suffering. Which I thought was always his best argument.

Now more recently. Jim has been comparing GW and Trump  as the worst Presidents of our lifetime. Though honestly I can't remember who he said was worse.

Edited May 22, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Douglas Caddy]

 

Sen. Mitt Romney suggests 'NATO could engage' in Ukraine, 'potentially obliterating Russia's struggling military' if Putin used nuclear weapons (msn.com)