Jump to content
The Education Forum

The inevitable end result of our last 56 years


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 11.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Steve Thomas

    1194

  • Douglas Caddy

    1115

  • W. Niederhut

    1022

  • Benjamin Cole

    935

11 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Do you recall any Democrats that engaged in mass shootings? You can have legitimate complaints about Democrats - they are very disappointing - but you engage in a false equivalence. What exactly does mirror image mean? One side, for all its faults, accepts and in most cases welcomes a multicultural world, and one does not. Choose Ben. 

Paul-

Well, as regrettable as mass shootings are, I do not think they are the way to define politics, or choose a political party. 

But, in fact....

"On June 14, 2017, a gunman walked onto a baseball field at Eugene Simpson Park in Alexandria, Virginia, opening fire on politicians and wounding House GOP Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana and four others.

The representatives had been practicing for the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity. James Hodgkinson, a 66-year-old man, asked a passing congressman—South Carolina’s Jeff Duncan—whether Republicans or Democrats were on the field practicing. Once he received confirmation that the Republican representatives were the ones playing ball, Hodgkinson fired off 60 rounds into the unsuspecting elected officials."

---30---

This mass shooting below is also interesting in multiple levels:

"On June 12, 2016, Omar Mateen, a 29-year-old man, killed 49 people and wounded 53 more in a mass shooting at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, United States. Orlando Police officers shot and killed him after a three-hour standoff.

In a 9-1-1 call made shortly after the shooting began, Mateen swore allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and said the U.S. killing of Abu Waheeb in Iraq the previous month "triggered" the shooting.[2] He later told a negotiator he was "out here right now" because of the American-led interventions in Iraq and in Syria and that the negotiator should tell the United States to stop the bombing. The incident was deemed a terrorist attack by FBI investigators.

Pulse was hosting a "Latin Night", and most of the victims were Latino. It is the deadliest incident in the history of violence against LGBT people in the United States, as well as the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since the September 11 attacks in 2001, and was the deadliest mass shooting by a single gunman in U.S. history until the 2017 Las Vegas shooting."

---30---

Paul, you ask me to choose between the two present major political parties in the US, but I say, "Include me out." 

Both parties manipulate voters, on social issues, to obscure important class and macroeconomic issues that have actually crushed the middle class. 

You think anti-gay prejudice is what destroyed America's middle class? 

I am not a supporter of anti-gay prejudice. But it is the sort of divisive issue that can be raised so you never ask of either political party, "OK, front and center: What are your plans to restore America's middle class?"  

Some of the answer is taxes, but most of the answer is on trade and immigration, and another large portion in getting rid of property zoning, so that enough housing can be built. There is a section on making college eduction cheaper and faster, or not necessary. 

Here is a big clue: The more scarce labor is, the better labor will do. How does the Donk Party address this issue?

Why does the Donk billionaire class want more immigration, and why do they frame more immigration as a race issue, meaning if someone opposes illegal immigration, they must be a racist?  

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CNN throwing Hillary under the bus?

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/20/politics/hillary-clinton-robby-mook-fbi/index.html

Then this from Jonathan Turley:

"On July 28, 2016, then-CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama on Hillary Clinton’s alleged plan to tie Donald Trump to Russia as “a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server.” Obama reportedly was told how Clinton allegedly approved “a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.” That was three days before the FBI’s collusion investigation was initiated."

---30---

"We can only assume that federal authorities will now explore this direct connection between Trump and Russia as part of their existing probe into Russia's meddling in our elections," (Jake) Sullivan (Clinton campaign adviser) said in the release on October 31, 2016, one week before Election Day.

---30---

Jake Sullivan is now the National Security Adviser (NSA), that is, the very essence of the Deep State.

---30---

A week before the 2016 election, Clinton notably tweeted "Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank"

---30---

Ooof! Hillary Clinton plays hardball, no holds barred, octagon cage-style. 

None of this make Trump a nice guy, and or make the Donks or the 'Phants anything but what they are, which is crapulent beyond salvation. 

If you guys want to drink the blue (or purple, or red) kool-aid, guzzle away. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paul Brancato said:

Ben - where do you stand on multiculturalism? 

Paul-

I grew up in Los Angeles, and made a large effort to return to Los Angeles early career (probably at some career sacrifice, but who cares) and stayed there until by chance I ended up in Thailand. I lived in Washington DC, a majority black city, for four years, early career. 

Aside from two years spent in grad school in Texas, I never have lived in a majority white town, although I would love to spend a few years in many, many parts of Europe (which the Rick Steves travel shows make look divine), which are notably white. 

Some notably uni-cultural cities in Japan would be great spots to roost for couple years also. 

All said and done, I don't really care about multiculturalism. My two children consider themselves Thai, not multicultural. I don't care. Thailand is largely uni-cultural and that is fine by me. I accept I must conform, and fit into Thai standards. 

Thai people call criminals "monkeys." That is one cultural trait that America should adopt. 

IMHO, what is first a worthy cause then becomes politics, then becomes a business, and then becomes a racket. 

The ID politics crowd is at the stage, joining other worthies such as the defense (war) industry, the agriculture nexus, the pharma industry and who knows what all. 

All that said, I much admire your posts, your civility, and your viewpoints, and I think your Bronx eduction in the communist ideology would serve you well, if you would apply it to the present US political scene. 

I often say, "Vulgar Marxist diagnosis is 95% accurate, although Marxist medicine is poison." 

That is, states easily become as oppressive as large private-sector actors. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well, folks, it looks like Ben's favorite new MAGA-verse propagandist is Jonathan Turley... 🤥

Turley joins Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald in Ben's pantheon of Republicon M$M demi-Gods.

(At least Ben has finally refrained from pushing Tucker Carlson's "Patriot Purge" narrative about January 6th, while remaining remarkably silent about Tucker's "Great White Replacement" narratives.)

For those who don't recall, Turley is the Republicon pretzel who directly contradicted himself in his opposition to Trump's Ukraine-gate impeachment trial, based on a reversal of his previous arguments in favor of Bill Clinton's impeachment.

GOP Impeachment Witness Jonathan Turley Contradicted Own Previous Testimony (businessinsider.com)

Not surprising that Turley is aggressively pushing the Durham "investigation" deflections from Russiagate.

Ben, obviously, still hasn't figured out that Sussman is a Bill Barr/Fox/GOP strawman.

 

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2022 at 8:18 AM, Chris Barnard said:

I do have a question: are you pro equality or outcome doctrines, or are you for equality of opportunity? It seems to me that is a huge topic of contention in the race debate, in terms of problems that need solving. 

Equality of opportunity, which is why I am for reparations. Because there is nothing that means opportunity like capital. Nothing matches it--not income levels, not education, not charity or largesse or welfare, but assets, capital. 

Freed slaves never got their forty acres and a mule promised by General Sherman. 

There was political freedom, political equality (for a few years until the US Army left and then 80 years of Jim Crow and segregation until JFK sent federal troops back in to end segregation by force). There is legal equality under the law today.

But there was not, is not, equality of opportunity among Americans, because assets--capital--wealth ownership--grubstake--that is the real measure of equality of opportunity. Families with assets = greater opportunity. Families without assets = limited opportunity.

The US--as an institution, as collective responsibility--still owes an unpaid check to the descendants of slaves. Because family wealth is not equal. There is not equality of opportunity. 

Martin Luther King, Jr. had a vision of reparations for the descendants of slaves which those descendants of slaves would then share out to all poor in America including poor whites. Talk about a healing of divides based upon race if that happened. No wonder he was cut down. 

The moral grounding for the unpaid check is told in Edward Baptist, The Half Has Never Been Told, and other studies estimating that ca. half of America's national wealth pre-1860 was produced by slaves. Concentration camps of captive wealth-producers. Built America's national wealth and greatness. Built America's capital formation. There were white indentured servants too. (That was part of MLK's logic in sharing out reparations to put assets into the hands of all poor of America.) But African slavery was the big one. 

Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity. Capital. Family wealth indices, the most important measure of equality of opportunity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
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 by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 

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 by Kirk Gallaway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

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...