The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Douglas Caddy]

Home state newspaper blasts Hawley and questions his masculinity. 

Jan. 6 video shows cowardly Josh Hawley running from rioters | The Kansas City Star

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

We have a tale of 2 Chris's here. Chris Barnard. who obviously has no problem with the decorum and civility in Wheeler mentioning that the POTUS raped children and chose instead to ridicule . W. Neiderhut expressing outrage and actually telling him to chill out.

 

Kirk,

     Regarding Chris B's latest hissy fit, I was the one who suggested that I probably needed to "chill out" about the persistent Trumplicon denial of Trump's January 6th black op.   Chris gleefully agreed, and wanted me to get involved in another one of his usual puerile pissing contests about it.

    My only advice for Chris is to get a monkeypox vaccine before it's too late.

    Meanwhile, I'm not surprised that our monster "56 Years" thread finally got booted off of the JFK boards.

    Ben is in for a shock when he wakes up in Thailand this evening to begin another busy day of MAGA-spamming the 56 Years thread, only to realize that we've been banished to an obscure side board!  🤥

[Denny Zartman]

This thread was always off topic and imho it should have been moved long ago. It's understandable that intelligent and politically aware people on this board would want to discuss current events with each other. But it needs to be somewhere else on the board. The JFK assassination should be the topic on that section. There's more than enough room on the rest of this forum for discussions on other topics. The discussion here has been spirited to say the least, but frankly this thread has been repetitive for a while and just now began to turn ugly with personal taunting and unfounded accusations.

Now that this thread is isolated, if someone wants to get in the mud and make wild accusations, go for it. But they better be ready to bring their evidence. And hopefully they will all remember that we are all guests here. In my personal opinion, we should at all times try to approach the discussion here with maturity and respect. If we can't do that, the ignore button is a wonderful invention that should be considered useful.

Anyway, we'll find out if some of the people in this thread are really interested in discussion or whether they were playing to the readership.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Kirk,

     Regarding Chris B's latest hissy fit, I was the one who suggested that I probably needed to "chill out" about the persistent Trumplicon denial of Trump's January 6th black op.   Chris gleefully agreed, and wanted me to get involved in another one of his usual puerile pissing contests about it.

    My only advice for Chris is to get a monkeypox vaccine before it's too late.

    Meanwhile, I'm not surprised that our monster "56 Years" thread finally got booted off of the JFK boards.

    Ben is in for a shock when he wakes up in Thailand this evening to begin another busy day of MAGA-spamming the 56 Years thread, only to realize that we've been banished to an obscure side board!  🤥

What is funny is; I am the one in control of my emotions, yours rule almost everything you do here. Anyone who chucks you a bait is sure not to be disappointed. 

You’re not satisfied with your advice during the pandemic that the V treatments are perfectly safe. I guess anecdotally you’re still here. When the J&J jabs were pulled, I guess you buried your head in the sand? The same as when blood clot warnings flash on your TV screens, or when you read news headlines explaining away miscarriages, stillbirths, myocarditis, strokes, heart attacks, and god knows what else. I bet you haven’t even read the Pfizer paper releases or bothered to interpret them. Of course you haven’t. Mainstream media satisfies your curiosity and confirmation bias. Here you are thinking it’s normal to be quickly approaching a monkey pox pandemic, our second pandemic in quick succession. A pandemic that was simulated last year and predicted this outbreak to the exact month. Instead of thinking that seems odd, you’re cloudy old mind is nodding like its a normal occurrence. When the lockdowns, masks, testing and whatever else comes, you’ll be nodding again, watching the wealth pass upwards, feeling like its part of the “greater good.” The sad thing is that what Desmet calls “mass formation psychosis” or what Meerloo calls “mass psychosis” doesn’t discriminate or leave a person of higher education less susceptible, the criteria is different. You could read books on this from a psychology perspective, help yourself see it but, you won’t, you’re happy in your delusion. I have three close friends who are psychologists of sorts in my social group, they can all see it. Yet you prefer fairytales to reality. Its too much for your belief structures, right? I’d love to speak to this psychiatric patient who convinced you that the JFKA was a conspiracy, he obviously has the key to your mind. Do me a favour, have your academic peers psychoanalyse your interactions on this thread here, see what their conclusions are. 🙂  
 

“The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim. An individual in a crowd is a grain of sand amid other grains of sand, which the wind stirs up at will.”

Gustave Le Bon

[James DiEugenio]

Nice editorial on Hawley. 

He was afraid of his own followers.

You really have to wonder what would have happened if Trump had gotten there.

Edited July 23, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

When you lose the NY Post, the barometer is pointing down.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/new-york-post-editorial-board-slams-trump-on-damning-jan-6-silence_n_62dc41fae4b03dbb991962c2

[W. Niederhut]

8 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Want to see something really frightening?

Check out the "Church Of Trump" crusade revival rally last night in Arizona.

You can skip until the 3 hour and 30 minute mark.

This was a "religious" conversion experience.

Exactly like those I saw on Sunday morning TV in the 1960's. Jimmy Swaggert, Oral Roberts, Jimmy and Tammy Faye Baker, Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, etc.

These cheering people in this evangelical "Trump Is Christ's Chosen One" crusade event are completely believing that the violent mob Coup attack on our Capital building Jan.6th was justified!

Trump's followers are fanatical!

I really believe they think a violent uprising in defending Trump is a righteous command from the lord and they would support it. Hence their defending the Jan 6th attack on our congress.

5:04:10NOW PLAYING

 

 

Watch LIVE: Donald Trump is among the speakers in Prescott Valley rally for AZ's GOP candidates

 

 

 

 

228K viewsStreamed 11 hours ago

 

AZFamily 3TV and CBS 5 News

 

Joe,

     Your post about Trump's latest Arizona MAGA rally raises an important point about the recent history of this lengthy "56 Years" thread.  Trump is still lying his ass off, and his fans still believe him, and repeat the lies.

      A number of people have been understandably critical of the recent "redundancy" of this thread-- the repetitious debates about Trump's January 6th coup attempt, and the ongoing denial of Trump's serious crimes by an estimated 25-30% of the U.S. population, etc.

      What I would point out is that the recent "redundancy" on this thread has mainly been the result of the repetition of lies by Trump's apologists on this forum-- taken largely from right wing media sources.  Most recently, this repetition has taken the form of denying the damning J6 evidence presented in the Congressional hearings, and the repetition of the false GOP memes about J6 "hearsay" evidence and mere Congressional "theatrics."

      It's an example of the Goebbel-esque propaganda technique of repeating the lies until people believe they are true.  Famous examples in modern American politics include T. Boone Pickens' Swift Boat Vet commercials attacking John Kerry in 2004, and the Fox/GOP Benghazi smear campaign against Hillary Clinton from 2012-16.

     What I would ask the forum is the question, "How should any society (or forum) respond to the repetition of lies that are destructive to the society itself-- e.g., to its ideals, public welfare, democratic institutions, etc."

     Is it better, more civil, to say nothing?  To use humor?  To repeat the truth?

     A RAND Corporation paper on the subject of countering propaganda argued that people need to respond to the repetition of lies technique by repeating the truth.  Obama commented on this issue during his presidency by saying, "Our approach will be to repeat the truth until it finally sinks in."

     I see no evidence that Trump and his followers will cease repeating the lies, although it looks like Rupert Murdoch may finally be putting the kibosh on his longstanding Trumpaganda.

Edited July 24, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Benjamin Cole]

9 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Even the most brainwashed Trump cult followers know all the horrible things their fearless leader has done not just while he was President, but since then and even throughout his entire life.

The pathological l*ing, tax cheating, crude misogynistic comments and sexual misconduct behavior, grifting, dictator fawning, violating the most sacred constitutional laws, encouraging violence and dividing the country, intimidating vote officials and hearing witnesses, bullying, constantly insulting others and calling them derogatory nick names, food throwing tantrums, insecure obsession with exaggerating his crowd sizes, writing off poor countries as "sh** h*le countries, praising Putin, kissing up to the Saudis who bailed out his son-in-law's billion dollar 5th avenue building boondoggle, destroying our trust in the media, feeling sorry for child sex trafficker Ghislane Maxwell, pocketing 250 million dollars sent to him by his followers to help in his legal defenses and campaign runs, his pardoning convicted criminals who did his bidding ... and on and on and on and on.

Why blindly, illogically and irrationally follow and support one of the most corrupted, disturbed and immoral men ever to sit in the Oval office - Donald Trump?

Because of his stance on race mostly.

Followed by immigration, guns, gays, women's rights in general and his phony stance on abortion of which he really could care less.

Our society is still obsessed with race issues much more than we acknowledge.

To the degree that millions will blindly, shoutingly ( even violently ) support a psychopath if that psychopath can bring them the power to gain the upper hand in their battle against those who they feel promote the opposite of their views. IMO anyway.

 

 

10 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

A court document filed by an accused Proud Boy included '1776 Returns,' a detailed plan for the Capitol riot.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22060615-1776-returns

Ahead of Jan. 6, Willard hotel in downtown D.C. was a Trump team 'command center' for effort to deny Biden the presidency.

Bannon, Stone, Powell, Flynn among others.

Why is Bannon going to prison? He can't spill the beans on this aspect of the operation.

So, believe what you must, relating to the connection between "Don the Con" and these low life thugs, but you're wasting your time trying to convince anyone who has paid the least bit of attention to those 99% of Trump Republicans who have testified before the committee.

In this instance, there is no value engaging in a discussion with those that choose naivety.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CD--

I read the "1776 Returns" plan you linked to. You refer to it as "detailed," but it strikes me as a primitive document with huge gaps.

No detailed reconnaissance, for starters.

Nothing about which entrance to the Capitol would be most vulnerable, and so on. Nothing on the expected strength of adversaries and on and on. 

In any conflict, if the planning document was this basic...the troops would say, "And?" 

There is nothing in the document that even "links" it to President Trump. 

This is what worries me about an increasingly polarized America.

Accusations are now better than confessions. We see it in the #metoo movement, or when right-wingers say HRC is a pedophile.  

The most filmy "links" and "ties" are touted as iron-clad proof of collusion or corruption---the old red-hunting standards, btw. 

Based on the document you cite---what should I conclude about Trump? 

This is why I hope (in some regards) there is a trial of Trump. We need to see all the evidence, not just the evidence the 1/6 committee wants you to see. The 1/6 standard of evidence is the Warren Commission standard of evidence. 

Why is Ray Epps not called to testify under oath?  

Why no televised testimony from Secret Service agents actually in the vehicle with Trump?

Does any fair hearing place hearsay witnesses above actual participant witnesses? Of course not. That is a kangaroo court-level of justice. The 1/6 committee, like the WC, is something of a show trial. 

Imagine the government accuses you of a crime, and then provides hearsay witnesses against you, but actual witnesses, that you can provide, are not allowed. What would you say about such a trial? 

Why, when Steward Rhodes, Oath Keepers leader, volunteers to testify under oath for the 1/6 committee, he is refused? 

Let us wait for a serious inquiry into Trump and 1/6, with plenty of defense counsel.

If Trump goes to prison, fine, if he skates, fine, if he is exonerated, fine. 

 

 

[Denny Zartman]

Speaking for myself, my main problem with this thread was that it was off-topic, so my stance was to say nothing. Not that nothing should be said, just that it was inappropriate for the JFK discussion section. I agree that debate and repetition of the truth are the best ways to combat the steady stream of disinformation we are seeing. But if the conversation has deteriorated to only the repetition of the same sarcastic personal jabs, it's not as useful in making an argument. Just my opinion.

And @Benjamin Cole , if you have the time to opine about the congressional hearings, you have the the time to actually watch them yourself. It's a weak excuse to say that you're not watching these hearings because the other hearings you've seen you've found to be intolerably slow. Even if these hearings were slow (which they aren't) I think you should still be watching them if you're going to be commenting on them at length.

[Ron Bulman]

I've bookmarked the thread so I can continue to follow it.  I hope others will as well.  It's historic.  The most posts, the most views on the forum/topic by far.  I'm surprised it survived this long.  Been expecting this for a long time given the distractions and diatribes.  Glad it's survived here.

I noticed it went down from over 800 pages to 753.  I'm guessing that's from rob's posts being deleted.  Over 40 pages, good.  It makes it more readable for future historians, without some of the clutter.  I'd imagine he's gloating over his response to James and the thread being moved.  Well rob if your still lurking, friends don't take this personally or literally, listen to the words.  We're not all red.  We got a bad reputation from dallas . Our corporations are corrupt.  So, rob.

 (60) "Screw You Were From Texas" - Ray Wylie Hubbard (with lyrics) - YouTube   

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

Speaking for myself, my main problem with this thread was that it was off-topic, so my stance was to say nothing. Not that nothing should be said, just that it was inappropriate for the JFK discussion section. I agree that debate and repetition of the truth are the best ways to combat the steady stream of disinformation we are seeing. But if the conversation has deteriorated to only the repetition of the same sarcastic personal jabs, it's not as useful in making an argument. Just my opinion.

And @Benjamin Cole , if you have the time to opine about the congressional hearings, you have the the time to actually watch them yourself. It's a weak excuse to say that you're not watching these hearings because the other hearings you've seen you've found to be intolerably slow. Even if these hearings were slow (which they aren't) I think you should still be watching them if you're going to be commenting on them at length.

DZ-

I have watched segments of the 1/6 hearings, and read reviews. I may spend 20-30 minutes a day writing stuff here. I do not have hours to spend on committee hearings. 

I do like to do primary research when I have to time. 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases

I wish you and other commenters here would actually read through the cases brought against people inside the Capitol on 1/6. I have read perhaps 50 cases, and word-searched the entire document. 

You will find:

1. The 1/6 crowd was not armed. Of more than 800 arrested, only one had a pistol, and he was released on 1/7 on his own recognizance. When you read of "armed mobs" storming the Capitol...well, wild hyperbole. 

2. Many occupiers were Hispanic or women. 

3. Many texted in real time "they had been let in." 

4. No communications were found linking Capitol occupiers to Administration officials, or really to anybody, such as semi-formal groups, such as Oath Keepers. All the texts seem to be sent to friends, or Facebook posts, etc. All such communications were entirely ill-advised, and served as evidence of their involvement in the occupation. BTW, the ability to track and geo-locate occupiers by their smartphones was used extensively by federal prosecutors. 

In brief, a review of the primary evidence strongly suggests a 1/6 spontaneous scrum. 

But... it is possible there were provocateurs in the crowd---certainly Ray Epps was a provocateur, beyond question.

And why Capitol security was so lax and then stood down are interesting questions. 

Keep an open mind. 

 

[Ron Bulman]

42 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

DZ-

I have watched segments of the 1/6 hearings, and read reviews. I may spend 20-30 minutes a day writing stuff here. I do not have hours to spend on committee hearings. 

I do like to do primary research when I have to time. 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases

I wish you and other commenters here would actually read through the cases brought against people inside the Capitol on 1/6. I have read perhaps 50 cases, and word-searched the entire document. 

You will find:

1. The 1/6 crowd was not armed. Of more than 800 arrested, only one had a pistol, and he was released on 1/7 on his own recognizance. When you read of "armed mobs" storming the Capitol...well, wild hyperbole. 

2. Many occupiers were Hispanic or women. 

3. Many texted in real time "they had been let in." 

4. No communications were found linking Capitol occupiers to Administration officials, or really to anybody, such as semi-formal groups, such as Oath Keepers. All the texts seem to be sent to friends, or Facebook posts, etc. All such communications were entirely ill-advised, and served as evidence of their involvement in the occupation. BTW, the ability to track and geo-locate occupiers by their smartphones was used extensively by federal prosecutors. 

In brief, a review of the primary evidence strongly suggests a 1/6 spontaneous scrum. 

But... it is possible there were provocateurs in the crowd---certainly Ray Epps was a provocateur, beyond question.

And why Capitol security was so lax and then stood down are interesting questions. 

Keep an open mind. 

 

How ridiculous.  Not armed?  Watch the hearings.  Hispanic or women?  How far does left field stretch?

You keep an open mind.

Edited July 24, 2022 by Ron Bulman

[Matt Allison]

Hmm, been traveling between states today and looks like I missed some stuff. Did Bobby MAGA get banned?

[Ron Bulman]

9 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Hmm, been traveling between states today and looks like I missed some stuff. Did Bobby MAGA get banned?

He banned himself you might say by refusing to adhere to forum guidelines.  I'll PM you.

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

How ridiculous.  Not armed?  Watch the hearings.  Hispanic or women?  How far does left field stretch?

You keep an open mind.

RB-

This is my point. 

You watched the 1/6 hearings. You are under the impression that occupiers of the Capitol were armed, and were exclusively white males. 

I read the primary documents, the actual arrest reports. Only one 1/6 occupier was armed, and he was mysteriously released on his own recognizance on 1/7. That is Christopher Alberts. 

Here are some names from the A and B surnames arrested. You will notice some Hispanic names, and many female given names. I do not have time to go through C-Z. 

ALVEAR GONZALEZ, Eduardo Nicolas (aka, Alvear Gonzalez Eduardo Nicolas; aka, Nicolas Alvear)

43	ABUAL-RAGHEB, Rasha N.

ALVARADO, Wilmar Jeovanny Montano

ARCHER, Melanie

BAEZ, Stephanie

580	BALLESTEROS, Robert

BALLENGER, Cynthia Catherine

BANCROFT, Dawn

BARRON, Nancy

BAUER, Pauline

BAQUERO, Julio

BISIGNANO, Gina Michelle

BORGERDING, Therese

BRONSBURG, Tammy A. (aka, Tammy Butry)

BUHLER, Janet West

BUSTLE, Jessica

BUTEAU, Jennifer Peck

You might ask yourself: How did I get the impression the 1/6 occupiers were armed and only white males? Was that an intentional result of news coverage? 

I was also surprised by the large number of female given names. It is an uncovered the story about 1/6---why so many female occupiers? 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases