Jump to content
The Education Forum

The inevitable end result of our last 56 years


Recommended Posts

On 12/3/2020 at 5:12 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

Why can’t anyone on the Anti-anti-Trump Left give Obama credit for anything?

Credit where it's due. The Obama DOJ gave immunity to bankers for any wrongdoing and even gave them data immunity which is a de facto sovereignty over the DOJ. The failure to prosecute any of the now immune cartel (biggest) banks has set a precedent that is hard to understate. Giving him credit for saving the economy is a bad joke, it's like crediting Bush for his "Mission accomplished" delusion.

 

Obamacare was written by BigPharma. It did contain some good things, largely token items designed to quell public backlash as much as possible, but a real president would have taken his case to the public and used their political power to pass a real "change" like a public option. This is what JFK did with the nuclear test ban treaty, it probably wouldn't have passed any other way. But Obama was always a Wall Street guy. I heard Jim D recently say that one of Obama's aides asked him if his second term would be like his first or if he was actually going to go for real hope and change, allegedly Obama said something like "Look what happened to Dr. King". I think that says it all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 7.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 12/3/2020 at 11:28 PM, Kathy Beckett said:

Anybody else got a guess?

The gif worked for me, a vague graph with no labels from the NY medical examiners office. The graph shows a sharp statistical increase for the years beginning in the mid 60's, roughly the same as when the checkered flag business began 56 years ago.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2020 at 11:28 PM, Kathy Beckett said:

Seriously, you probably should find a different venue to post this type of stuff. If you are trying to send a message or whatever, you may benefit by creating your own forum for cryptography.

I do have other venues where I post this type of stuff.

Normally, I do not have to be "cryptic" on the other venues because we mostly share the same "world view" about current events. To use a dog owner analogy, I don't have to hide the heart-worm pill in a spoonful of peanut butter or cheez-wiz to get them to swallow it. (Sometimes I am the dog.)

To be clear, I don't come to this forum to surreptiously hand out heart-worm pills. Personally for me, I derive a lot of education and entertainment value out of these "discussions." I would even argue that even though I mostly disagree with everyone here, this forum can often be more entertaining than other the other venues I frequent where everyone just agrees with each other and pats themselves on the back for propping-up the venue's consensus opinion. 

Anyway, if I articulated a full hypothesis and provided potential evidence, the hubris here would disallow even an inkling of interest.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part 2: Ratio Transfers Proved; Entire Algorithm Reversed, net 200,353 votes for Biden. (Georgia)

Summary: Final hijacked state is 287,424 total votes. 242,434 Biden, 42,109 Trump, Net gain 200,325

Final hijacked state is 14.65% Trump.

All hijacked precincts after release report: 93,327 Trump out of 504,700. That is 18.49%, if we subtract the hijacked votes from the final aggregate state we get: 51,218 Trump out of 217,276, which is 23.57% Trump.

That the final hijacked state of all precincts can have their total votes changed to a uniform number, such as 20,000 total votes per precinct, and the percentage remains the same (14.65%), which is proof that a simple linear algebra algorithm was adjusting requisite precinct totals against a flat polarized template....more summary at link below.

Link to video - It's over 2 hours. The comment section on Youtube has additional links to the data, spreadsheets and methods used. 

Go ahead and repeat the MSM mantra that "there is no evidence." 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Part 2: Ratio Transfers Proved; Entire Algorithm Reversed, net 200,353 votes for Biden. (Georgia)

Summary: Final hijacked state is 287,424 total votes. 242,434 Biden, 42,109 Trump, Net gain 200,325

Final hijacked state is 14.65% Trump.

All hijacked precincts after release report: 93,327 Trump out of 504,700. That is 18.49%, if we subtract the hijacked votes from the final aggregate state we get: 51,218 Trump out of 217,276, which is 23.57% Trump.

That the final hijacked state of all precincts can have their total votes changed to a uniform number, such as 20,000 total votes per precinct, and the percentage remains the same (14.65%), which is proof that a simple linear algebra algorithm was adjusting requisite precinct totals against a flat polarized template....more summary at link below.

Link to video - It's over 2 hours. The comment section on Youtube has additional links to the data, spreadsheets and methods used. 

Go ahead and repeat the MSM mantra that "there is no evidence." 
 

 

I'm curious as to why all the "evidence" of the election being rigged is of Democratic fraud. You would think that the party in power would have the upper hand in rigging an election (and isn't Georgia, for example, run by Republicans?), yet the Republicans couldn't steal one vote while the Democrats were having a field day?

Oh, wait, maybe that's why the Republicans did so well in the election outside of Trump. Massive Republican fraud! But then why didn't they help the poor thing at the top of the ticket?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

Credit where it's due. The Obama DOJ gave immunity to bankers for any wrongdoing and even gave them data immunity which is a de facto sovereignty over the DOJ. The failure to prosecute any of the now immune cartel (biggest) banks has set a precedent that is hard to understate. Giving him credit for saving the economy is a bad joke

 

Obamacare was written by BigPharma. It did contain some good things, largely token items designed to quell public backlash as much as possible, but a real president would have taken his case to the public and used their political power to pass a real "change" like a public option. This is what JFK did with the nuclear test ban treaty, it probably wouldn't have passed any other way. But Obama was always a Wall Street guy. I heard Jim D recently say that one of Obama's aides asked him if his second term would be like his first or if he was actually going to go for real hope and change, allegedly Obama said something like "Look what happened to Dr. King". I think that says it all. 

I think Dennis has done a pretty good job at listing Obama low lights. Though I do agree with Cliff's initial statement that he Obama doesn't get credit for highlights.

Obama missed his best chance at becoming a great President by not instituting financial reform after the Great Recession. When all the big bankers met with him, (and Geitner) they were expecting to be reprimanded much more than they were. It was the greatest financial debacle since the Great Depression in the 30's and the world kingpin of it was the U.S.banking system.

Dennis said: "But Obama was always a Wall Street guy."

Wall Street was bitchin' abut Obama for 8 years for the "slowest economic recovery in history", but the hole GW dug could have been catastrophic. Instead Wall Street took a couple of year hiatus, learned to game the new system and was bitchin all the way to the bank in Obama's last 6 years.

Dennis said;, it's like crediting Bush for his "Mission accomplished" delusion.

Actually Obama had much greater hopes and if he could of, would have gone for a "public option'. for a first step. But when he entered office he was left with a big campaign promise and saw that Reid and Pelosi were not making any progress in Congress, so he took the Mitt Romney Big Pharma Republican solution just like he did with Orrin Hatch's SCOTUS recommendation of Merrick Garland and thought naively in both cases "how could the Republicans possibly object?" Then he found out that after many years of Republican paying lip service about doing something about healthcare, It was just BS, and they  never had any intention of ever doing anything,

Dennis is right, he should have taken it to the American people. He should have made a pitch to the Gods at a time when the U.S. was down and desperate for solutions. .He ended up being the Jackie Robinson President. He was very aware of his place in history as the first black President and apprehensive about coming off too uppity because there would be a white backlash. I think I've put his judgment down on this more in the past, but the fact is now with Trump I've seen the white backlash. Trump is the white vote.

I don't think he pushed hard enough on the ACA at the beginning. But when they talk about  a "master politician". It is someone who knows what he can accomplish. But he left way too much on the table with the bankers, but in the end  I don't know how much better deal he could have gotten on healthcare. The Republicans and the right wing media persecuted him so much on Obamacare, and eventually came within one  vote of dismantling it.

****

In response to Sandy's benefiting from the ACA. As one center right American Colombian expat who spent 5 years in the UK, on this expat forum I check out, and generally pisses me off, but surprised me one day when he said "Obama's was inexperienced, he had career as a  community activist, I don't know what that means, but you've got to give him credit, I know several people who would have died if not for Obamacare."

 

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

You would think that the party in power would have the upper hand in rigging an election (and isn't Georgia, for example, run by Republicans?), yet the Republicans couldn't steal one vote while the Democrats were having a field day?

Not if you were analyzing the "power elite" media. To me, this isn't about party, this is about trump being unpredictable and not completely controllable, that seemed very obvious to me since Russiagate began. I'm not saying he's JFK or any kind of savior, that doesn't matter to powerful groups with agendas. For instance, It is unlikely trump would surrender US sovereignty (what's left of it) to a international digital currency as has been proposed as part of the great reset. He would even possibly get in the way of the bio security rollout that is under way by potentially opposing mandatory vaccines and further lockdowns/scientific fraud. Biden most certainly will take a nap and let technocrats run wild. That's why major corporate/tech/bio powers and some groups of Republicans were doing everything they could against Trump, and still are of course. Regardless, the (s)election is a bit of a sideshow to the economic and bio security machinations happening right now and the near future in my opinion.
 

A speaker at the recent jfk virtual conference, James Corbett, has a good podcast that covers this general type of material if people are interested. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

Credit where it's due. The Obama DOJ gave immunity to bankers for any wrongdoing and even gave them data immunity which is a de facto sovereignty over the DOJ. The failure to prosecute any of the now immune cartel (biggest) banks has set a precedent that is hard to understate. Giving him credit for saving the economy is a bad joke, it's like crediting Bush for his "Mission accomplished" delusion.

 

Obamacare was written by BigPharma. It did contain some good things, largely token items designed to quell public backlash as much as possible, but a real president would have taken his case to the public and used their political power to pass a real "change" like a public option. This is what JFK did with the nuclear test ban treaty, it probably wouldn't have passed any other way. But Obama was always a Wall Street guy. I heard Jim D recently say that one of Obama's aides asked him if his second term would be like his first or if he was actually going to go for real hope and change, allegedly Obama said something like "Look what happened to Dr. King". I think that says it all. 

The most disappointing thing about Obama was when he appointed Summers and Geithner to run the recovery. Right then, by doing just a bit of homework, I could see that this was going to save the big banks, have maybe a bit of reform, and pretty much make no structural difference. Even though it was the opportunity of a lifetime.  Obama punted, e. g. Summers was for Glass Steagall repeal, and in opposition to Brooksley Born (a hidden heroine of the whole 2007-08 crash) he was opposed to derivatives regulation.  And consider the following:

Summers had promised Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley that in exchange for supporting the second round of the Wall Street bailout, the administration would put $50 to $100 billion toward foreclosure relief and would lobby on behalf of cramdown: a law that would empower bankruptcy judges to reduce underwater mortgages and let people stay in their homes. Neither happened, and instead Summers later lobbied against cramdown. (The Intercept 11/18/20)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sometimes imagined Obama meeting with other black leaders in our society including, yet maybe even just his wife and having some discussion about the historical importance and impact his presidency would have in it's unprecedented 1st black American context.

I think the following contemplation may have been proposed:

Make sure that through the entirety of his term, that nothing too drastic, too controversial, too divisive, too status quo threatening and changing take place regards the policies, decisions and actions Obama would take during his time as President.

In other words, don't screw up by creating too much controversy, too much confrontation.

Don't take risks.

Don't be too progressive. Don't punish the recession responsible Wall Street manipulation bankers, etc.

Don't allow something to occur that was so society dividing controversial, that Americans who are racist could say loudly until their dying day..."Look, we voted in a GD XXXXXX and look what happened!"

Obama's presidency was not one of bold change, bold courage, bold risk, bold progressive advocacy and bold standing up to the wealthy 1% corporate elite and their hugely self favoring and benefitting status quo versus the opposite with the working class and poorer.

It was a purposely non-risk taking "safe" presidency in terms of creating and preserving it's historical legacy as maybe not a great entire society benefitting change one but at least a smooth and no major upheavel and conflict one.

We had a black president...and in most historically important measured categories he did a decent job. A proper legacy for future Americans to remember in it's never ending racial equality and qualification debate context. 

Perhaps this agenda was of at least equal importance in the over-all longer view contemplation of Obama's presidency and leadership plan?

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

I'm curious as to why all the "evidence" of the election being rigged is of Democratic fraud. You would think that the party in power would have the upper hand in rigging an election (and isn't Georgia, for example, run by Republicans?), yet the Republicans couldn't steal one vote while the Democrats were having a field day?

Oh, wait, maybe that's why the Republicans did so well in the election outside of Trump. Massive Republican fraud! But then why didn't they help the poor thing at the top of the ticket?

 

 

 

 

Exactly. Lets be rational here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Dennis Berube said:

Credit where it's due. The Obama DOJ gave immunity to bankers for any wrongdoing and even gave them data immunity which is a de facto sovereignty over the DOJ. The failure to prosecute any of the now immune cartel (biggest) banks has set a precedent that is hard to understate. Giving him credit for saving the economy is a bad joke, it's like crediting Bush for his "Mission accomplished" delusion.

 

Obamacare was written by BigPharma. It did contain some good things, largely token items designed to quell public backlash as much as possible, but a real president would have taken his case to the public and used their political power to pass a real "change" like a public option. This is what JFK did with the nuclear test ban treaty, it probably wouldn't have passed any other way. But Obama was always a Wall Street guy. I heard Jim D recently say that one of Obama's aides asked him if his second term would be like his first or if he was actually going to go for real hope and change, allegedly Obama said something like "Look what happened to Dr. King". I think that says it all. 

A lot of people completely miss what Obama was and is--a reasonable moderate.

His real motto was and is "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good".

What he meant by that was that in his take on history, those who aim too high often get nowhere, while those who aim a bit lower often get somewhere, and that if you add up all the somewheres you can get where you need to be. Baby steps.

It's kinda like John Nash's big idea in "A Beautiful Mind." If all the dudes try to hit on the hot chick, most everyone goes away disappointed, and the bulk of the chicks feel like afterthoughts. The successful strategy, then, is for the bulk of the dudes to modify their ambition, and shoot a bit lower. That way more successful sales take place, with more satisfied customers. Obama--a man who grew up half-black in a mostly white world--knew that this strategy worked. 

And so we got Obamacare, instead of Medicare for All.

If he'd have shot for the moon, he'd have ended up in the dirt. That's undoubtedly what he believed. And I believe he was right.

Now, some might say, Obama's very election proved he could push the envelope when he put his mind to it. I mean, a black guy named Barrack Hussein Obama? Got elected President of the United States? But that was just a name.

I suspect Obama knew that if his mom had been black as well as his dad, and he'd been dark-skinned, he would never have been elected. I suspect Obama knew as well that if he'd been from the South, and spoke like someone from the South,  and had been a direct descendant from slaves, he would never have been elected. 

You can only scrape the surface of America so deep before the Civil War seeps out.

 

 

 

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Even though it was the opportunity of a lifetime.

That is exactly why i disagree with Joe's, and seemingly Pat's, "Decent job" analysis. The Obama administrations actions (really, inactions) with regard to the massive LIBOR and other cartel banking frauds like HSBC in particular, represent a kind of criminal negligence, very indecent. Instead of jailing bankers for crimes like trading with the enemy, Eric Holder started asking around how the bankers would react to criminal indictments and he not only backed off, but started the "too big to jail" mentality shared by both parties. This reaction to the opportunity of a lifetime is so far from FDR. Can you imagine what history would have looked like if FDR did what Obama did? Open, systemic fraud legalized and protected by Obama. That alone is enough to say wall street president, nevermind his lack of transparency, support of terrorists in Syria and Libya, drone killings, etc... How many consecutive presidents can we afford if they continue to do a decent job like this? If Kamala ends up as president somehow, are we to say she can fulfill the highest job in the land decently by protecting high level financial crimes against the public because shes the first women potus? 
If Obama tried to right the ship ala FDR, just tried, id be willing to extend some of Joe and Pats charity towards him, but I do not believe he ever seriously did anything other than window dress and likely ascended the party so quickly and became potus because that was well known about him. Appointing the Goldman team to manage things is proof enough he was not interested in trying.
 

I recommend this video if anyone's interested in the 2012 hsbc case and similar.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

I'm curious as to why all the "evidence" of the election being rigged is of Democratic fraud. You would think that the party in power would have the upper hand in rigging an election (and isn't Georgia, for example, run by Republicans?), yet the Republicans couldn't steal one vote while the Democrats were having a field day?

Oh, wait, maybe that's why the Republicans did so well in the election outside of Trump. Massive Republican fraud! But then why didn't they help the poor thing at the top of the ticket?

 

Plus, the 2020 media has studiously avoided mention of past GOP election fraud, e. g. in Bush v. Gore 2000, exposed by high-profile journos such as Palast and Taibbi. 

For the media to ignore past reporting is to tacitly support the Trump/alt.right notion of a Clinton-Obama-Biden "Crime Family."  They'll pimp DEM election fraud to the public on the strength of memories of the GOP 2000 steal, referencing that for plausibility/precedent but not for fact/culpability.

Edited by David Andrews
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...