Jump to content
The Education Forum

The inevitable end result of our last 56 years


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Well, I can only shake my head about the credulity of Benjamin Cole and the Trumpsters here.  Critical thinking?  Huh?

First Trump advertised his Russia-gate cover up scenario as, "Obama-gate," then it was "Spy-gate," then he presented his carefully contrived, "Nunes Memo."  They were all debunked as nothing burgers.

The available evidence has clearly shown that the 2016 Trump campaign had extensive contacts with Kremlin officials, and that Putin meddled in our election to put Trump in the White House-- as Felix Sater foretold in 2015.  Paul Manafort repeatedly committed perjury during the Mueller investigation, but knew all along that Trump would pardon him if he stonewalled the investigation-- in a blatant case of witness tampering and obstruction of justice by a sitting President.

Next, Barr was appointed as AG in a dubious 53 Senate party-line vote, and promptly aborted the Mueller investigation, presenting a false summary of the results, while withholding the unredacted Report from Congress and tying it up in the courts-- to this day! 

Lastly, Barr appointed Durham to cook another Russia-gate Denial nothing burger for public consumption.

So, when do we finally get to read the Barr-aborted, heavily-redacted Mueller Report?

Similarly, Trump is now aggressively trying to block access to the records of his involvement in the January 6th coup attempt.

And I'm still waiting for Benjamin Cole to answer my old question about how an alleged Deep State "false flag" January 6th attack on Congress could have conceivably benefited anyone but Donald Trump.

Perhaps Ben could apply his critical thinking skills to answering that question.

W.-

Please try to keep the conversation, well, conversational.  If we disagree on issues and perceptions, that's fine. You have your views, and I have mine. 

Why not express your views, but respect the views of others, and leave it at that?

That is the art of civil discourse. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 10.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For those interested, Glenn Greenwald asks interesting questions about 1.6:

None of the 600 rioters arrested on Jan. 6 appears to have any conspiratorial connections, and that is based on charges levelled at them by federal prosecutors working for the Biden Administration. 

1.6 appears very much to have been a scrum, unless there were federal assets in the crowd, or assets that enabled participants to get to Washington. 

Why the Capitol Police were so undermanned on Jan. 6---with the Commander of the Civil Disturbance Unit in suburban Maryland making meatloaf in the afternoon, by the WaPo account---remains a question. 

It is curious the the top guys at Oathkeepers and Patriot Boys, a Stewart Rhodes and Enrique Tarrio, are suspected of being federal assets, and Tarrio is a confirmed asset in the past.  

M$M has a narrative on 1.6, but it is looking dubious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

W.-

Please try to keep the conversation, well, conversational.  If we disagree on issues and perceptions, that's fine. You have your views, and I have mine. 

Why not express your views, but respect the views of others, and leave it at that?

That is the art of civil discourse. 

 

 

Ben,

    Civility also consists in attending to the evidence that others present, and in answering the salient questions that they ask in the course of a conversation, rather than simply ignoring their detailed rebuttals and repeating the same dubious talking points.

     As for respecting people's opinions, are we to respect opinions that are refuted by the facts?

     I think it was the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan who said, "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."

    That is my main gripe with the Trump/Fox MAGA-verse-- it is often predicated on "alternate facts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

    Civility also consists in attending to the evidence that others present, and in answering the salient questions that they ask in the course of a conversation, rather than simply ignoring their detailed rebuttals and repeating the same dubious talking points.

     As for respecting people's opinions, are we to respect opinions that are refuted by the facts?

     I think it was the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan who said, "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."

    That is my main gripe with the Trump/Fox MAGA-verse-- it is often predicated on "alternate facts."

W.-

But I am not a Trumper-MAGA guy. I try to judge each book, news story or video on its merits. 

I am deeply skeptical, unfortunately cynical, about both major political parties and their allied media and embedded relations with the Deep State. 

I may feel the same way about the "liberal" M$M that you do about other news outlets.

I have an uneasy feeling that the "liberal" M$M is no longer presents fact-based narratives, but I do not impugn your judgement and perspectives by suggesting you are deluded, or harboring your own facts. 

Sometimes I feel you do not respond to my posts, but that is your right, and I respect it. This is a forum for presenting views. 

It is enough to present contrasting views, and to remain dubious about whatever stories we are fed by corporate media. I look forward to presentations, even if I often disagree. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, yeah -- "Affordable Health Care":

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/call-center-helps-americans-access-obamacare-struggle-afford-insurance-rcna4386

A call center helps Americans access Obamacare. They struggle to afford their own insurance.

"It's a hard pill to swallow," a frustrated Maximus call center worker said.
 
Oh, yeah -- "Wages going up"
Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

W.-

But I am not a Trumper-MAGA guy. I try to judge each book, news story or video on its merits. 

I am deeply skeptical, unfortunately cynical, about both major political parties and their allied media and embedded relations with the Deep State. 

I may feel the same way about the "liberal" M$M that you do about other news outlets.

I have an uneasy feeling that the "liberal" M$M is no longer presents fact-based narratives, but I do not impugn your judgement and perspectives by suggesting you are deluded, or harboring your own facts. 

Sometimes I feel you do not respond to my posts, but that is your right, and I respect it. This is a forum for presenting views. 

It is enough to present contrasting views, and to remain dubious about whatever stories we are fed by corporate media. I look forward to presentations, even if I often disagree. 

Ben,

    Let's, briefly, analyze this with regard to three serious Trump crimes-- Russia-gate, Ukraine-gate, and the January 6th coup attempt.  There is no equivalence with anything involving "liberals" or Democrats.  Trump's criminal conduct has been unprecedented in American history.

    In all three cases, Trump's modus operandi has been the same (with major assistance from Fox News, Breitbart, and various right wing propaganda outlets.)

1)  Obstruct investigations-- e.g., by firing law enforcement and/or prosecutors (e.g., Sally Yates, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Jeff Sessions, Robert Mueller, etc.)

2)  Deflect attention from Trump's crimes by accusing the investigators/opposition of illegal conduct (e.g., Obama-gate, Spy-gate, Nunes Memo, Durham Report, Patriot Purge, etc.)

3)  Stonewall investigations by refusing to comply with subpoenas or answer questions

4)  Tie up critical criminal evidence in the courts for years-- through endless appeals

Here's the latest chapter in the endless saga of Trump committing crimes and obstructing justice.

Former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark declines to answer panel questions : NPR

November 6, 2021

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Donald Trump Cashed In On Jan. 6 Riot Furor, Records Show

“Hotel dollars and invective piled up as his supporters gathered for the attack on the U.S. Capitol.”

By Mary Papenfuss

11/05/2021 10:10pm EDT

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-dc-hotel-room-prices-capitol-riot-gathering_n_6185d1ede4b055e47d7ab44d

“Former President Donald Trump has been accused of inciting the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, and it appears he also profited from it, according to records examined by Forbes magazine.

As Trump touted the coming gathering of his supporters — at one point last December tweeting: “Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” — the price of the least expensive rooms in his Washington hotel zoomed from $476 to $1,999. Just over a week later, prices hit $3,600 — and eventually reached an astonishing $8,000 on Jan. 6, Forbes reported.”

Room rates at the DC Hote December 20 – January 30, 2021:

https://twitter.com/Z_Everson/status/1344629191480905728

 

Who says crime doesn't pay?

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

    Let's, briefly, analyze this with regard to three serious Trump crimes-- Russia-gate, Ukraine-gate, and the January 6th coup attempt.  There is no equivalence with anything involving "liberals" or Democrats.  Trump's criminal conduct has been unprecedented in American history.

    In all three cases, Trump's modus operandi has been the same (with major assistance from Fox News, Breitbart, and various right wing propaganda outlets.)

1)  Obstruct investigations-- e.g., by firing law enforcement and/or prosecutors (e.g., Sally Yates, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Jeff Sessions, Robert Mueller, etc.)

2)  Deflect attention from Trump's crimes by accusing the investigators/opposition of illegal conduct (e.g., Obama-gate, Spy-gate, Nunes Memo, Durham Report, Patriot Purge, etc.)

3)  Stonewall investigations by refusing to comply with subpoenas or answer questions

4)  Tie up critical criminal evidence in the courts for years-- through endless appeals

Here's the latest chapter in the endless saga of Trump committing crimes and obstructing justice.

Former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark declines to answer panel questions : NPR

November 6, 2021

 

W.-

 

Thanks for presenting your views. 

I tend to favor the view of Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi, and is that the Russiagate story does not hold water. They can lay out the case better than I in that regard, and you can look up their commentary online. 

This does not make Trump a nice or good President, and I do not think Taibbi or Greenwald hold Trump in high regard. Only that the charges against him were, well, trumped up.

There are many other concerns I have about this trend of attaching the traitor or "Moscow stooge" to political adversaries. Of course, this is an old gag, going back to the 1950s.

One is the oldest concern of all, that we do not go down the road of "guilty until proven innocent."  

As you may know Special Counsel John Durham is bringing charges against various participants who created the Russiagate story. But no one has confessed or been convicted before a jury of peers. Let us see if Durham can convince a jury someone has done something wrong. The corporate-liberal M$M media spin has to be ignored.

On a separate matter, Greenwald recently pointed out that of the 600 people arrested in the Capitol occupation, not one has been charged with conspiring with anybody in the Trump Administration. This despite the federal government's panopticon apparatus. The occupiers are being tried as spontaneous rioters, with some very few exceptions, of people charged with conspiring with other rioters. 

That's what the evidence shows. 

That's my story and I am sticking with it---but I welcome other views. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

It's, certainly, endemic in the Trump/Fox Cult.

Sadly, the Dunning Kruger-ites never seem to ask, or answer, the salient questions.

 

In your opinion as an esteemed psychoanalyst, could it apply to the Dems also? Is it possible? 🙂
 

There are no prizes for being the least crazy in a mental asylum. 

Edited by Chris Barnard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

In your opinion as an esteemed psychoanalyst, could it apply to the Dems also? Is it possible? 🙂
 

There are no prizes for being the least crazy in a mental asylum. 

The Donks are a corporate party now, deeply aligned with--indeed subservient to--Wall Street, globalists, M$M media-entertainment, the national security state, Silicon Valley, the China lobby, the DC blob. 

The CCP can throw Jimmy Lai, the Hong Kong publisher, into prison, and where are the Donks? Quiet as a dead church-mouse.

The 'Phants are little better, and then only when advantageous. 

Interesting that a truck driver recently won a state seat in NJ, beating the longtime Donk Senate leader. 

In days of yore, a truck driver might have been a Donk hero. No more.  

Man, things have changed. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The Donks are a corporate party now, deeply aligned with--indeed subservient to--Wall Street, globalists, M$M media-entertainment, the national security state, Silicon Valley, the China lobby, the DC blob. 

The CCP can throw Jimmy Lai, the Hong Kong publisher, into prison, and where are the Donks? Quiet as a dead church-mouse.

The 'Phants are little better, and then only when advantageous. 

Interesting that a truck driver recently won a state seat in NJ, beating the longtime Donk Senate leader. 

In days of yore, a truck driver might have been a Donk hero. No more.  

Man, things have changed. 

 

 

 

 

Of course ... 

It’s so much easier to corral the masses using policy supposedly attached to compassionate causes, or the ethos of collectivism and the greater good. It was so effective for Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin, they’d be mad to ignore such effective methods, especially with the powerful technological methods of delivery today. Its only taken 80 years of educating society differently and 30 years of not teaching kids about the dangers or collectivism to make society oblivious to where it leads. 
That’s perfectly democratic, right? Socially engineering populations. 
 

What’s interesting in this red vs blue pantomime, this theatre or fantasy for the masses to buy into is; as long as there are just two teams, people will vote for the one that seems less dastardly at any give time. Imagine not being able to see that neither are serving the people who put them power. Imaging being that retarded that you put governmental mistakes down to buffoonery and job difficulty, every time. Imagine sitting there believing in coincidence after coincidence that defy the laws or mathematics and probability. Imagine not even realising that consent sits with the masses. Imagine a population of 340 million all sat there watching TV’s with empty eyes and not wondering why you only have two choices, or why the profiteers in pharma, military etc fund the two parties equally?! Imagine being sat there and seeing Bill Clinton & GHW Bush as mates and not thinking thats odd?! 
 

Imagine there is a whole class of people attending meetings, smoking cigars,  with brandy at $900 a bottle  and laughing their bloody arses off at the American public buying into this 4 yearly fakery. Imagine seeing the way boxing promoters and networks hype a heavyweight title fight and not pausing for one second and thinking; is this just to get us to buy pay per view? If you figure that one out while chugging beer and eating popcorn, how come the people don’t see politics that way? Perhaps the American public are no different to WWF fans?!  
 

It’s similar in my own country, I am not singling out Americans. This reply is probably least at you, Ben. I am so taken aback that those who are adamant JFK was murdered as part of a conspiracy that involved high level government have just paused their thinking there. Its absurd that they see no corruption or wrongdoing beyond that point in history. Its blind optimism and moronic thinking to believe that after JFK is murdered, that those insidious forces would suddenly become virtuous or that their protege’s would be more honest. The idea that a political system rotten to the core would veer naturally toward honesty and integrity is bloody delusional thinking. 
Yet, here we are with a thread of left and right, red vs blue, people saying “my team is better than your team” and not realising that you’re all victims and you’re being milked by the same system. 
 

I have a question for anyone on the forum reading this thread. Can you name how many presidents after JFK that you think were:

1) Serving the people. 

2) Honest.

3) Taking the country forward. 


4) Making things better. 

 

🙈


 

 

Edited by Chris Barnard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

In your opinion as an esteemed psychoanalyst, could it apply to the Dems also? Is it possible? 🙂
 

There are no prizes for being the least crazy in a mental asylum. 

Chris,

     IMO, there is no meaningful equivalence between the sheer volume and extent of disinformation and mass ignorance on the right and "left" sides of the political spectrum in the U.S. today.

     Consider some facts.

1)     Donald Trump told more than 30,000 well-documented lies during his Presidency.  There's nothing remotely comparable to Trump's habitual mendacity in American Presidential history.

2)     What is worse, Trump's daily litany of lies was routinely amplified throughout the right wing media-- Fox, Breitbart, Gateway Pundit, etc.-- and on social media.  His Big Lies about the election and the January 6th coup attempt are only the most recent examples.

3)    Fox News has been rated by fact checking organizations like Politico as the most mendacious of cable news sources.

4)    Fox viewers are the most poorly informed about the real news in various surveys.

 

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...