The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[W. Niederhut]

Ben,

     I'm responding to your comments in red here. 

 

Thank you for the advice. I have looked at some of the materials you advised, and recently I explored the thermite question, as you can see.

Ben, the explosive demolitions of the Twin Towers are clearly visible and audible on film.  It's not a question of whether the buildings were expertly demolished by high-tech explosives, but how.

The definitive science articles on the evident use of nano-thermite (and the physics) of the explosive demolitions of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 are published at the website of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.  These guys aren't conspiracy kooks-- as the government/M$M propagandists want people to imagine--they're accredited experts in physics, engineering, and architecture.

I can't imagine that you have actually studied all of these detailed science articles today about the thermitic residues at Ground Zero, extreme high temperatures, (which persisted for weeks) and the overwhelming scientific evidence of explosive demolitions, although I could be mistaken.

I'm also posting a useful summary article from the 911research.wtc7.net website.

https://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html

http://architectsandengineersfor911truth.org/

http://architectsandengineersfor911truth.org/

The observation that the 9/11 towers must have been imploded artificially at the time of the jet strikes is interesting, due to the way the towers collapsed. 

The near free fall acceleration is definitive evidence that the lower steel structures of all three skyscrapers were abruptly, explosively demolished-- creating zero resistance to free fall collapse.

But when one examines what it would take to wire up a 100+ story tower to properly implode---the proposition becomes iffy, IMHO. But not just one 110+ tower, but two. And then WTC 7 also, but no one noticed while preparation for the largest building implosions of all time went on.

Your comment reads like M$M or on-line government propaganda about 9/11.  It's like quoting John McAdams.edu on the JFK assassination.

I'll re-post these references for you on the subject of building security and prepping of the demolitions.  You must have overlooked them the last time I posted them for you.

https://aneta.org/911experiments_com/articles/HowCouldExplosivesBePlanted/index.htm

https://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html

Anyways, as you can see from the 9/11 literature, intelligent engineering-architect type people both agree with, and disagree with, your interpretation of 9/11.  

Dead wrong.  The scientists (Byzant, NIST, Cherthoff) et.al.) who have promoted the false government narrative about 9/11 are all working for the people who perpetrated the 9/11 black op. They were providing a pseudo-scientific cover up of a black op. They are analogous to the case of Nobel Laureate physicist Luis Alvarez and his pseudo-scientific exploding melon "simulation" of JFK's head, as an ersatz explanation for the retrograde trajectory during the fatal head shot.

You probably don't know that the fraudsters who published the Bush/Cheney government NIST computer "simulation" of the WTC demolitions refused to publish the physical parameters used in their bogus "simulation."  Nor did they acknowledge the obvious explosions that brought the buildings down!

Perhaps it is time to agree that we disagree and let it go at that. 

Not good enough.  You still haven't studied or understood the scientific facts in the case.

I entirely agree the Bush-Cheney Administration used 9/11 as a propaganda  platform to start fantastically expensive yet volitional and counterproductive perma-wars in the Mideast, alongside copious amounts of human dislocation and carnage.

It's worse than you think.  Study the history of the Project for a New American Century.

Scaring the public is often the first step to war or greater domestic suppression.  

Bingo.   Study what General Wesley Clark was told by Pentagon officials shortly after 9/11.

 

 

Edited January 11, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Benjamin Cole]

36 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

     I'm responding to your comments in red here. 

 

Thank you for the advice. I have looked at some of the materials you advised, and recently I explored the thermite question, as you can see.

Ben, the explosive demolitions of the Twin Towers are clearly visible and audible on film.  It's not a question of whether the buildings were expertly demolished by high-tech explosives, but how.

The definitive science articles on the evident use of nano-thermite (and the physics) of the explosive demolitions of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 are published at the website of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.  These guys aren't conspiracy kooks-- as the government/M$M propagandists want people to imagine--they're accredited experts in physics, engineering, and architecture.

I can't imagine that you have actually studied all of these detailed science articles today about the thermitic residues at Ground Zero, extreme high temperatures, (which persisted for weeks) and the overwhelming scientific evidence of explosive demolitions, although I could be mistaken.

I'm also posting a useful summary article from the 911research.wtc7.net website.

https://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html

http://architectsandengineersfor911truth.org/

http://architectsandengineersfor911truth.org/

The observation that the 9/11 towers must have been imploded artificially at the time of the jet strikes is interesting, due to the way the towers collapsed. 

The near free fall acceleration is definitive evidence that the lower steel structures of all three skyscrapers were abruptly, explosively demolished-- creating zero resistance to free fall collapse.

But when one examines what it would take to wire up a 100+ story tower to properly implode---the proposition becomes iffy, IMHO. But not just one 110+ tower, but two. And then WTC 7 also, but no one noticed while preparation for the largest building implosions of all time went on.

Your comment reads like M$M or on-line government propaganda about 9/11.  It's like quoting John McAdams.edu on the JFK assassination.

I'll re-post these references for you on the subject of building security and prepping of the demolitions.  You must have overlooked them the last time I posted them for you.

https://aneta.org/911experiments_com/articles/HowCouldExplosivesBePlanted/index.htm

https://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html

Anyways, as you can see from the 9/11 literature, intelligent engineering-architect type people both agree with, and disagree with, your interpretation of 9/11.  

Dead wrong.  The scientists (Byzant, NIST, Cherthoff) et.al.) who have promoted the false government narrative about 9/11 are all working for the people who perpetrated the 9/11 black op. They were providing a pseudo-scientific cover up of a black op. They are analogous to the case of Nobel Laureate physicist Luis Alvarez and his pseudo-scientific exploding melon "simulation" of JFK's head, as an ersatz explanation for the retrograde trajectory during the fatal head shot.

You probably don't know that the fraudsters who published the Bush/Cheney government NIST computer "simulation" of the WTC demolitions refused to publish the physical parameters used in their bogus "simulation."  Nor did they acknowledge the obvious explosions that brought the buildings down!

Perhaps it is time to agree that we disagree and let it go at that. 

Not good enough.  You still haven't studied or understood the scientific facts in the case.

I entirely agree the Bush-Cheney Administration used 9/11 as a propaganda  platform to start fantastically expensive yet volitional and counterproductive perma-wars in the Mideast, alongside copious amounts of human dislocation and carnage.

It's worse than you think.  Study the history of the Project for a New American Century.

Scaring the public is often the first step to war or greater domestic suppression.  

Bingo.   Study what General Wesley Clark was told by Pentagon officials shortly after 9/11.

 

 

W-

I wave the white flag!

Also, I have nagging balls-and-chains in life, called a wife and day job. Even some kids. Goats, too. 

When I am richer than Croesus, and can have underlings spoon-feed to me all the info you have provided, then perhaps we will get on the same page. 

For now, the JFKA is all the diversion I can afford. Which turns out to be a sprawling topic on its own. 

 

[Matt Allison]

Jamie Raskin is a true Patriot

 

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1480686665828032520?s=20

[Benjamin Cole]

OPINION-NYT

MICHELLE GOLDBERG

Are We Really Facing a Second Civil War?

---30---

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/06/opinion/america-civil-war.html

A full-court press (pun intended)?

BTW, these op-eds, news stories inevitably cite 

This is the compelling argument of “How Civil Wars Start,” a new book by Barbara F. Walter, a political scientist at the University of California San Diego. Walter served on an advisory committee to the C.I.A. called the Political Instability Task Force

A CIA-affiliated scholar is cited by any number of intel-state lackey outfits that now warn an American Civil War may be brewing.....

What does this mean?

That civil and political repression is justified, to avoid a civil war?

And relevant to this forum: If elites and the chattering classes create the fear of a civil war and loss of governmental authority---in that fear-drenched environment, what are the odds for full release of documents showing CIA-affiliates murdered JFK? 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Benjamin Cole
typo

[Greg Doudna]

On 1/9/2022 at 2:34 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

As I've said before the only impingement, the only check  that the  multi national corporate state can experience is through the separate governments of the world. And that's through appropriate taxation and the attempted diminution or eradication at whatever level of money in politics.The only way that can happen is through a grass roots movement of populations who understand and recognize these present relationships (because as we've seen in recent years, a miss as good as a mile!), and act on them in their everyday actions and at the ballot box. Not "withdrawing your consent" to represent yourself.

Yes. When I was in Denmark for four years in the late 1990s, my first time living outside the U.S., it was surprising to me to realize, looking at my home country from the outside, that compared to Denmark's ten political parties and similarly in other European nations, parties who form coalitions and participate in governments, the US was decidedly odd in having only two--two that matter that is in terms of holding power. And the two major American parties consisted of a center-right party and a far-right party. The Democratic Party (center-right) and the Republican Party (far-right), respectively. That's Americans' choices. But since then, in the era of Trump, the Republican Party has gone from far-right to extremist-right, a party of Trump comparable to the supporters of General Edwin Walker of the early 1960s, supporters who then wanted the death of political opponents and to take right-wing power in America by force, just as today.

Here is Noam Chomsky, so laser-sharp on nailing issues (like you in that respect Kirk, though different voices). Jan. 6, 2022, talking about real issues right out in the open. Talk about conspiracies--this is right out there in plain view.

"A year ago there was a coup attempt. No getting around it. It was an attempt to overrhrow an elected government. It came very close to success. If a few, handful of Republicans had changed their minds and gone along with Trump, it could have succeeded.

"Now since the coup, the Republican Party has been dedicated, openly, publicly, nothing hidden, to implement a kind of soft coup. To make sure that next time it works. They are doing it, nothing hidden. Its open, they're writing about it. Trying to set things up so that Republican legislatures will be able to intervene to overthrow votes of people at the election sites, will be able to intimidate voters, if you don't like the results you throw them out, a dozen different--keep the wrong people from voting. To make sure that a minority of white supremacists, Christian nationalists, of so-called conservatives, in fact reactionaries, will be able to carry out permanent minority rule.

'That's in the works. Nothing secret. Its in front of our eyes. Of course there is a strategy in Congress, McConnell's strategy, which is very sensible. Harm the country as much as possible. Make sure that no legislation passes that could help anyone. Blame it on the Democrats. Come back to power out of justified rage with misplaced focus. 'We're doing it, but we'll blame them. And people will see life is getting worse and so on, so it must be the fault of the Democrats. So we'll come back into power, we'll consummate our coup.' Its the end of American democracy. 'We can move forward on destroying the environment, enriching the very rich'--all of their main policy programs. 

"We might be facing not just something like the end of American democracy, but species destruction. It's very hard to exaggerate these days. It takes real literary talent to exaggerate. Because the simple facts that are before our eyes are frightening enough." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nd0cN7MVH, 35:20 to 38:25)

There are a number of good Democrats fighting the good fight. Bernie, not bought off, courageous, lit a fire for a new generation and some older ones too--lit a fire for me, I did doorbelling, sent in my token $6 or $8 repeatedly not to impoverish myself but to show continuing moral (if not significant material) support--but Bernie is not the only one. I remember 2016 when, as the saying goes, voters under 40 liked Bernie, voters under 30 loved Bernie, and voters under 25 did not know any other candidate existed than Bernie. Bernie did not make it, broke my heart. But he came close, and he's still there, in Congress. And I found good people around in the community in greater numbers than I could have imagined. These are the kind of people which I see as the hope for America and a better world.

And in the present situation, America's Democratic Party has become by default the firewall against Trumpism and spectre of hard fascism represented by what the other major party in America has been becoming--as if General Edwin Walker and his Minutemen militia supporters across the land with their mass rallies and death lists of liberals in public office, had taken over the Republican Party and the government of the United States in the early 1960s. 

[Benjamin Cole]

28 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Yes. When I was in Denmark for four years in the late 1990s, my first time living outside the U.S., it was surprising to me to realize, looking at my home country from the outside, that compared to Denmark's ten political parties and similarly in other European nations, parties who form coalitions and participate in governments, the US was decidedly odd in having only two--two that matter that is in terms of holding power. And the two major American parties consisted of a center-right party and a far-right party. The Democratic Party (center-right) and the Republican Party (far-right), respectively. That's Americans' choices. But since then, in the era of Trump, the Republican Party has gone from far-right to extremist-right, a party of Trump comparable to the supporters of General Edwin Walker of the early 1960s, supporters who then wanted the death of political opponents and to take right-wing power in America by force, just as today.

Here is Noam Chomsky, so laser-sharp on nailing issues (like you in that respect Kirk, though different voices). Jan. 6, 2022, talking about real issues right out in the open. Talk about conspiracies--this is right out there in plain view.

"A year ago there was a coup attempt. No getting around it. It was an attempt to overrhrow an elected government. It came very close to success. If a few, handful of Republicans had changed their minds and gone along with Trump, it could have succeeded.

"Now since the coup, the Republican Party has been dedicated, openly, publicly, nothing hidden, to implement a kind of soft coup. To make sure that next time it works. They are doing it, nothing hidden. Its open, they're writing about it. Trying to set things up so that Republican legislatures will be able to intervene to overthrow votes of people at the election sites, will be able to intimidate voters, if you don't like the results you throw them out, a dozen different--keep the wrong people from voting. To make sure that a minority of white supremacists, Christian nationalists, of so-called conservatives, in fact reactionaries, will be able to carry out permanent minority rule.

'That's in the works. Nothing secret. Its in front of our eyes. Of course there is a strategy in Congress, McConnell's strategy, which is very sensible. Harm the country as much as possible. Make sure that no legislation passes that could help anyone. Blame it on the Democrats. Come back to power out of justified rage with misplaced focus. 'We're doing it, but we'll blame them. And people will see life is getting worse and so on, so it must be the fault of the Democrats. So we'll come back into power, we'll consummate our coup.' Its the end of American democracy. 'We can move forward on destroying the environment, enriching the very rich'--all of their main policy programs. 

"We might be facing not just something like the end of American democracy, but species destruction. It's very hard to exaggerate these days. It takes real literary talent to exaggerate. Because the simple facts that are before our eyes are frightening enough." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nd0cN7MVH, 35:20 to 38:25)

There are a number of good Democrats fighting the good fight. Bernie, not bought off, courageous, lit a fire for a new generation and some older ones too--lit a fire for me, I did doorbelling, sent in my token $6 or $8 repeatedly not to impoverish myself but to show continuing moral (if not significant material) support--but Bernie is not the only one. I remember 2016 when, as the saying goes, voters under 40 liked Bernie, voters under 30 loved Bernie, and voters under 25 did not know any other candidate existed than Bernie. Bernie did not make it, broke my heart. But he came close, and he's still there, in Congress. And I found good people around in the community in greater numbers than I could have imagined. These are the kind of people which I see as the hope for America and a better world.

And in the present situation, America's Democratic Party has become by default the firewall against Trumpism and spectre of hard fascism represented by what the other major party in America has been becoming--as if General Edwin Walker and his Minutemen militia supporters across the land with their mass rallies and death lists of liberals in public office, had taken over the Republican Party and the government of the United States in the early 1960s. 

Greg D-

Then you subscribe to the idea there could be a Civil War in the US?

Have you met white supremacists who advocate a violent overthrow of various governments?  

If so, what part of the country do you live? 

Do you think the two political "halves" of the US body politic are demonizing each other for partisan gain? 

Many describe the D-Party (outside of Bernie-AOC) as controlled by Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, media, globalists, the national security state and a billionaire donor class. Is that a fair wrap-up? 

 

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Greg D-

Then you subscribe to the idea there could be a Civil War in the US?

Obviously there could be if Trump incites one. Whether that will happen I don't know. With any leading Democratic figure and with any other leading Republican figure it would be unthinkable it realistic that they would incite organized violence. It is not unthinkable in Trump's case. He has repeatedly incited violence in small cases (urging crowd violence toward protesters at rallies, promised once to pay legal fees for vigilante violence, has joked about shooting border crossers and regretted not possible to do so legally, expressed lust to restore torture of prisoners openly at his command, channeled mob hate toward and pointed at journalists covering his event calling them "enemies of the people", etc.). But it would be parsed by Trump in a way to have deniability, words that can be taken in more than one way, on purpose. 

Let me tell you what I see as about one hair's breath away, could happen at any time. Up to now there has not been organized violence against human targets, i.e. brownshirts or death squads. There have been wildcat killings, lone-nuts who get pumped up on Trump rhetoric and kill, but that is not organized. But on the road to fascism it seems there are always, in addition to the strong man authoritarian charismatic leader, militias personally beholden to that figure, who carry out violence upon signal from the strong man or the strong man's subordinates. This will always have deniability, but at some point the brownshirt phenomenon begins: organized beating up, organized violence, against demonized targets. In El Salvador charismatic right-wing D'Abuisson would go on television and read lists of names of leftists, social workers, teachers, labor union leaders, call them subversives. Death squads--off-duty police officers moonlighting for extra pay paid for by wealthy landowners--would then go out and kill the ones named on D'Abuisson's lists. D'Abuisson denied he had anything to do with it. 

If and when that becomes a phenomenon in the US--it is not yet, but I see it as the next-stage tripwire of many tripwires that everyone thinks cannot possibly happen in America--Trump will deny. The armed militias personally loyal to Trump exist at this point. (Trump during the campaign told his armed supporters to "stand by", remember that? Trump has more than once spoken of rough types--bikers, hoodlums--that support him and "hopes it will not come to that" that they would be so upset on his behalf that they would start taking out Trump's opponents.)

Trump has the ability to start a civil war. Whether there will be civil war depends on whether Trump chooses to do that. 

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Have you met white supremacists who advocate a violent overthrow of various governments?  

If so, what part of the country do you live? 

No, I don't hang out in those circles. I witnessed some high school kids in a small town locally, where I was working, peacefully marching for Black Lives Matter, and previously I observed Facebook calls from locations 50 miles away calling upon armed right-wing types to go there and be ready to use their firearms if any person or property was attacked. The unarmed high-schoolers (white) were entirely peaceful (and seemed blissfully unaware of the venomous attitudes near them), while I observed the out-of-towner pickup trucks with armed nasty-looking types driving around, though no incident occurred that evening. It could easily have become a mass shooting. Whether they were formally white supremacists I have no idea, but it was clear they were Trumpers, and from the Facebook talk, some of them seemed like they were itching to have some action with their firearms. Pacific Northwest.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Do you think the two political "halves" of the US body politic are demonizing each other for partisan gain? 

Yes but it is not equally distributed. 90% of the divisiveness is coming from the Trump side, 90% of the smearing, 90% of the big lies. I don't buy the notion that both sides are equally at fault on this. Trump has divided this country with his rhetoric in a way that no other major political figure, Democrat or Republican, has done. When the covid epidemic began (it began in the US here in Washington state) VP Pence came to meet Dem Governor Inslee to arrange federal aid. Pence behaved as a gentleman and Pence and Inslee conducted their necessary business amicably and productively. Trump made an ass of himself by publicly to the nation rhetorically attacking Inslee (Inslee had criticized him politically) and publicly, as linkage, urging Pence to withhold federal aid to the people of Washington state--we're talking medicine and medical care here--collective punishment because he thought Inslee had insulted him personally some time in the past. There are hardly any Democratic public figures, and hardly any other Republican public figures, that I can even imagine would behave in such a childish and atrocious way. He was wielding the power of the federal government as a sledgehammer as if he was a Mob boss.  

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Many describe the D-Party (outside of Bernie-AOC) as controlled by Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, media, globalists, the national security state and a billionaire donor class. Is that a fair wrap-up? 

Yes, its the worst major party in America except for all the others.  

But two things here. First is that a push for serious solution to that--concrete reforms for getting the power of money out of politics--is coming from the Democratic side in Congress, with industrial-strength opposition to reforms that address that problem at its cause, coming from the Wall Street, billionaire donor class etc. (similar string of adjectives as yours above) controlled Republican Party. And second, Bernie is not bought off, nor is the Bernie sector, and the Bernie sector of the Democratic big tent is major, and that is where I caucus. 

To your question, you leave out in your list of things "controlling" the Democratic Party, the power of the people, in my state, Washington, the voters in the precincts and the caucuses. You left that off your list. Think about that, why that is not on your list as having some pathway for reforms passed into law, something to do with what Democratic legislators fight for in Congress.

Think about whether you support the specifics of the reforms of the Democratic Party platform. I doubt you do, because if you did I don't think we would be having this discussion. If you do support such reforms, I am open to any better suggestion from you applicable to the real world in America to get those Democratic Party platform positions adopted into law than via the Democratic Party.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Paul Bacon]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

W-

I wave the white flag!

Very good Ben.  Progress.  The first step is usually surrender.

Now, over the course of the next few months or year, look at some of the stuff William posted and consider it.

In due time, you'll find "something fishy" and you'll smell a rat.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

14 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Obviously there could be if Trump incites one. Whether that will happen I don't know. With any leading Democratic figure and with any other leading Republican figure it would be unthinkable it realistic that they would incite organized violence. It is not unthinkable in Trump's case. He has repeatedly incited violence in small cases (urging crowd violence toward protesters at rallies, promised once to pay legal fees for vigilante violence, has joked about shooting border crossers and regretted not possible to do so legally, expressed lust to restore torture of prisoners openly at his command, channeled mob hate toward and pointed at journalists covering his event calling them "enemies of the people", etc.). But it would be parsed by Trump in a way to have deniability, words that can be taken in more than one way, on purpose. 

Let me tell you what I see as about one hair's breath away, could happen at any time. Up to now there has not been organized violence against human targets, i.e. brownshirts or death squads. There have been wildcat killings, lone-nuts who get pumped up on Trump rhetoric and kill, but that is not organized. But on the road to fascism it seems there are always, in addition to the strong man authoritarian charismatic leader, militias personally beholden to that figure, who carry out violence upon signal from the strong man or the strong man's subordinates. This will always have deniability, but at some point the brownshirt phenomenon begins: organized beating up, organized violence, against demonized targets. In El Salvador charismatic right-wing D'Abuisson would go on television and read lists of names of leftists, social workers, teachers, labor union leaders, call them subversives. Death squads--off-duty police officers moonlighting for extra pay paid for by wealthy landowners--would then go out and kill the ones named on D'Abuisson's lists. D'Abuisson denied he had anything to do with it. 

If and when that becomes a phenomenon in the US--it is not yet, but I see it as the next-stage tripwire of many tripwires that everyone thinks cannot possibly happen in America--Trump will deny. The armed militias personally loyal to Trump exist at this point. (Trump during the campaign told his armed supporters to "stand by", remember that? Trump has more than once spoken of rough types--bikers, hoodlums--that support him and "hopes it will not come to that" that they would be so upset on his behalf that they would start taking out Trump's opponents.)

Trump has the ability to start a civil war. Whether there will be civil war depends on whether Trump chooses to do that. 

No, I don't hang out in those circles. I witnessed some high school kids in a small town locally, where I was working, peacefully marching for Black Lives Matter, and previously I observed Facebook calls from locations 50 miles away calling upon armed right-wing types to go there and be ready to use their firearms if any person or property was attacked. The unarmed high-schoolers (white) were entirely peaceful (and seemed blissfully unaware of the venomous attitudes near them), while I observed the out-of-towner pickup trucks with armed nasty-looking types driving around, though no incident occurred that evening. It could easily have become a mass shooting. Whether they were formally white supremacists I have no idea, but it was clear they were Trumpers, and from the Facebook talk, some of them seemed like they were itching to have some action with their firearms. Pacific Northwest.

Yes but it is not equally distributed. 90% of the divisiveness is coming from the Trump side, 90% of the smearing, 90% of the big lies. I don't buy the notion that both sides are equally at fault on this. Trump has divided this country with his rhetoric in a way that no other major political figure, Democrat or Republican, has done. When the covid epidemic began (it began in the US here in Washington state) VP Pence came to meet Dem Governor Inslee to arrange federal aid. Pence behaved as a gentleman and Pence and Inslee conducted their necessary business amicably and productively. Trump made an ass of himself by publicly to the nation rhetorically attacking Inslee (Inslee had criticized him politically) and publicly, as linkage, urging Pence to withhold federal aid to the people of Washington state--we're talking medicine and medical care here--collective punishment because he thought Inslee had insulted him personally some time in the past. There are hardly any Democratic public figures, and hardly any other Republican public figures, that I can even imagine would behave in such a childish and atrocious way. He was wielding the power of the federal government as a sledgehammer as if he was a Mob boss.  

Yes, its the worst major party in America except for all the others.  

But two things here. First is that a push for serious solution to that--concrete reforms for getting the power of money out of politics--is coming from the Democratic side in Congress, with industrial-strength opposition to reforms that address that problem at its cause, coming from the Wall Street, billionaire donor class etc. (similar string of adjectives as yours above) controlled Republican Party. And second, Bernie is not bought off, nor is the Bernie sector, and the Bernie sector of the Democratic big tent is major, and that is where I caucus. 

To your question, you leave out in your list of things "controlling" the Democratic Party, the power of the people, in my state, Washington, the voters in the precincts and the caucuses. You left that off your list. Think about that, why that is not on your list as having some pathway for reforms passed into law, something to do with what Democratic legislators fight for in Congress.

Think about whether you support the specifics of the reforms of the Democratic Party platform. I doubt you do, because if you did I don't think we would be having this discussion. If you do support such reforms, I am open to any better suggestion from you applicable to the real world in America to get those Democratic Party platform positions adopted into law than via the Democratic Party.

Greg D-

Thanks for your replies. 

I lived in SoCal most my 55 years in the US, with four in DC and a couple in Texas, so I am unaware of what might be happening in Washington state, and what happens in precincts and caucuses. 

I hope you are correct, that some sort of small "d" democratic reforms will come from the D Party. 

On the national level, the D Party appears deeply compromised, along with allied media. As does the establishment GOP. 

Unfortunately the option, the Trump wing, often seems unhinged. 

Like a three-way Hobson's choice. 

Again thanks for your replies. 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

8 minutes ago, Paul Bacon said:

Very good Ben.  Progress.  The first step is usually surrender.

Now, over the course of the next few months or year, look at some of the stuff William posted and consider it.

In due time, you'll find "something fishy" and you'll smell a rat.

 

Paul B-

Thanks, and maybe I will. But this danged JFKA story is never-ending. I would write a book on it, except already about 1,000 guys have. 

Let me marinate in my own juices for a while. 

Edited January 11, 2022 by Benjamin Cole
typo

[Paul Bacon]

10 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Sans partisan posturing, what is your take on prospects for a new American Civil War?  

Don't forget to take into account the great possibility that this coming mid-term will see a republican sweep of congress.  Imagine what will happen in the U.S.  And then see how likely civil war may be.

[Paul Bacon]

2 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Let me marinate in my own juices for a while. 

Very well.  :>)

[W. Niederhut]

On a lighter note, can't make this stuff up... 🤣

Sarah Palin accuses liberals of wanting to "pound, pound pound" when it comes to sex.

https://news.yahoo.com/sarah-palin-liberals-aoc-want-051404655.html

[Steve Thomas]

'I hate to use this language:' Marjorie Taylor Greene suggests it's time to use 'Second Amendment' on Democrats

by Brad Reed January 11, 2022

https://www.rawstory.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-2656376515/

 

“Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) on Tuesday floated resorting to using the "Second Amendment" to deal with Democrats who are imposing what she described as a "tyrannical" government.

While speaking with right-wing media personality Sebastian Gorka, Greene slammed Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams for her policies regarding both vaccines and gun rights.

Greene then pivoted to talking about how Americans are guaranteed the right to bear arms to resist such supposed tyranny.

"Ultimately the truth is it’s our Second Amendment rights, our right to bear arms, that protects Americans and give us the ability to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government," she said. "And I hate to use this language but Democrats, they’re exactly -- they’re doing exactly what our Founders talked about when they gave us the precious rights that we have.””

 

Steve Thomas

[Matt Allison]

MTG will be in prison soon.