Trump’s lame conspiracy theories about practically everything 95 Comments / Assassination, News / By Jefferson Morley NPR: Donald Trump’s ceaseless efforts to inject unsubstantiated plots into the American political debate. Share this:Tweet
95 thoughts on “Trump’s lame conspiracy theories about practically everything”
I’ll just add this and then I’ll stop bringing up 911.
That the whole 911 operation was a false flag operation, is easily understood from the more obviously false flag anthrax letters:
THIS IS NEXT
TAKE PENACILIN [sic] NOW
DEATH TO AMERICA
DEATH TO ISRAEL
ALLAH IS GREAT
So good people. What do you think of this?
FBI Whistleblower: Pentagon, CIA, NATO and MI6 Were Masterminds Behind 9/11
I have followed Sibel Edmonds’ work for quite a few years now.
She has a lot of useful insight and a keen mind. Her work on Gladio, and Gladio B, both in essay form, and as presented in her novel are chock full of fascinating information.
Psst…don’t mention this to Paulf, he likely thinks that 9/11 as an inside job is “crazy talk”…grin
I don’t discount a lot of possibilities. I have a hard time believing that whatever fuel was in an airliner could make a skyscraper pancake so perfectly. My office was right across the river from the WTC in 2001 (I was not there that day, though). I think Saudis were the main culprits for financing 9/11 and more recent terrorist activity, and I think our government knows that, so one has to wonder why they are being protected and why we went after Iraq instead. I don’t doubt that there are government officials eager to start and perpetuate pointless wars because they are good for the business of contractors or other reasons.
That said, before such ideas go beyond the theoretical, or before I would be willing to assert specific things with confidence, I think we need evidence. I’m not aware of anything concrete that would prove an “inside job” scenario. What’s more, the term “9/11 inside job” sounds a bit offputting, even if I were inclined to believe it.
“I’m not aware of anything concrete that would prove an “inside job” scenario.”~Paulf
Here is some concrete to for you Paul:
Yes, and they would have all availed themselves of their back-door networking, but that’s still not the whole picture….
Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech). Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. 22-year Air Force career. Also taught Mathematics and English at the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and Phillips University.Member: Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth Association Statement:
“Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise—including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots—have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned.
They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official “investigations” have really been cover-up operations.
Thus far, however, there has been no response from political leaders in Washington or, for that matter, in other capitals around the world. Our organization, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, has been formed to help bring about such a response.
We believe that the truth about 9/11 needs to be exposed now—not in 50 years as a footnote in the history books—so the policies that have been based on the Bush-Cheney administration’s interpretation of the 9/11 attacks can be changed.
We are, therefore, calling for a new, independent investigation of 9/11 that takes account of evidence that has been documented by independent researchers but thus far ignored by governments and the mainstream media.”
Now people might be willing to take a much harder look at the links between Clay Shaw and Operation Gladio and what his real function was.
I hate, hate, hate to sound like McAdams, but holy smokes it’s scary to hear people talk about non-related subjects.
I hate the term conspiracy theorist because there is evidence for some conspiracies, and not for others. Lumping together every political event is foolish. So there is a ton of documented and credible information that lends credence to JFK being assassinated by someone other than Oswald, or at least in concert with others. Just these last couple of days, for example, there have been posts here about the botched autopsy and CIA lying about its role, things that logically infer something nefarious.
But Vince Foster and the other batshit stuff about the Clintons like Whitewater are crazy talk. The investigations were implemented as part of a strategy to bog down any Democratic president so they can’t focus on policy. They have all been thoroughly investegated and debunked by Republicans as well as Democrats. GOP operatives have discussed these strategies for years.
My point isn’t which party is better at running the country, it’s that people should stick to the subject at hand if they want to retain credibility.
“But Vince Foster and the other batshit stuff about the Clintons like Whitewater are crazy talk.”~Paulf
These issues are relevant to the thread because Roger Stone & Trump introduced the issues – which is in fact the topic of this thread.
Yeah, but when people spout crazy talk about obviously bogus conspiracies, it calls into question whether they are rational when talking about JFK or if they are just Glenn Beck-type crazies who fall for anything.
“Yeah, but when people spout crazy talk about obviously bogus conspiracies..”~Paulf
And how much research have you put into study of the drug running at Mena, Arkansas? Or the Whitewater schemes of the Clintons? Or of the details of Vince Fosters murder?
You of course must recognize that all your talk of a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy is seen as “crazy talk” by a great number of people of the mainstream persuasion.
Oh wow, seriously? Words just fail.
Yes, people think JFK conspiracy is crazy talk, and that’s why it’s important to not confuse it with actual crazy talk. You lose all credibility.
” The investigations were implemented as part of a strategy to bog down any Democratic president so they can’t focus on policy.” — Paulf
Do you think perhaps the strategy was to compromise the Executive Branch of government, regardless of who filled the role, in every instance?
Leslie, no. It hasn’t happened to GOP presidents. People like Grover Norquist have long talked about how the plan is to make it impossible for Democratic presidents to govern. So even if Democrats become president, they accomplish as little as possible.
But that has nothing to do with JFK.
Yes, it does have to do with JFK as it’s on this site and about assassinations. First, Reagan was shot, by a lone nut, whose daddy had some political connections I’ve read years ago.
Has it ever been asked if this might have been an effort to elevate Bush sooner?
Ronnie, don’t spout such nonsense….I, for one, am embarrassed.
OMG! Is Tom S. hinting there is a symmetry, that it all “runs together?”
Tom S. 05/31/2016 @ 2:08 am
Ha, Tom. I missed the post you linked. I really never had considered the Regan attempt as a attempt to elevate Bush before. I don’t remember reading about it elsewhere.
Just a suspicious thought on my part after reading about him, Nixon, LBJ.
I wonder what Russ Baker thinks?
Paulf, do you not think that Watergate was a set up of Nixon?
Luckily for Nixon,he was only driven away from the White House.Unlike JFK whose life was taken away.
Both were ways to get rid of democratically elected presidents.
Do I think Watregrate was planned by the intelligence agencies as a way to oust Nixon?
No I do not. For one thing, the plan was Nixon’s. The “rat xucking,” the illegal campaign contributions, the spying on enemies, he was an active participant and planner.
But did the CIA burglars botch it up to get back at him? Here again, I would say no. The fact that it ever came to light was the result of the luck of the two WP reporters and the axe that Mark Felt had to grind. But I don’t see any evidence that Felt was part of the intelligence community on the same way as Angleton and Dulles. And even with what he did, it never would have come to impeachment if Nixon had buried the evidence better.
Hey Paul! I’ve posted about this before. I was certain this “author” was a sockpuppet. Now, in the last few days, “he” has emerged with
a 700+ page “something” that my curiousity prompted me to plunk down $5.99 for the kindle edition….haven’t checked it out yet….
The thing about Dryer, Jr. is that he turned out to be connected to Tom Devine, who was assigned by CIA to front a CIA Op that interacted at least four times with DeMohrenschildt and Clemard Charles. First meeting was 25 April, 1963, two weeks after Gen. Walker was shot at.
Dryer, Jr. told author Joan Mellen he was close friend of Devine, growing up in Rochester, and he held separate meeting with DeM and Charles on 25 April, 1963. I got on to this because Devine’s h.s. graduating class had ten members, Devine was yearbook editor, and in the 1944 yearbook was a page reading, “Gone But Not Forgotten”. Dryer’s brother and Kenaf cultivation biz partner’s name, Peter was on that list.
Peter had departed Devine’s class after ninth grade to prepare at Choate Academy. Anyway….in 1973, Devine marries a Bonesman’s (Samuel Wynn Mills) daughter on Jupiter Island. His best man was Bill Macomber…. housemate of DeMohrenschildt’s step-nephew and oil wildcat partner, Edward Gordon Hooker.: https://jfkfacts.org/coming-soon-ebook-jfk-cia/#comment-879398
Macomber’s proximity to Hooker and close friendship with Devine makes it reasonable to suspect these reports were contrivances….that Devine was prebriefed on DeMohrenschildt:
Wubriny/1 was Thomas J Devine :
Bush, with no documented direct involvement, and a former congressman and UN Ambassador, was described as “briefed” on aspects of the Op, by his friend, Devine:
Sorry, this requires time and concentration to wade through.:
Lo and behold, many years in the making:
(BTW, Caddy, aka “Mr. Watergate” instead of asking Grey anything about his new book, “smothers” Grey’s announcement with a
link to some negative story about Woodward….topic, “Watergate” midpage: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=163 )
From my earlier comment.: (Ashton Gray was raising Dryer, Jr. in 2007….)
Ashton Gray – Posted 10 January 2007 –
Who was Joseph F. Dryer—really? I mean who was he in the grander scheme of things?….
Part I of II cont.
Part II of II
(…., ask me what I learned from that prompt by the then departed Gray.)
Ashton Gray Posted 30 December, 2015
“….Let no one ever underestimate your sniffer, Pat, …I am an author with a book. Because I am. It is already available in prerelease preorder, and the release date is 28 May 2016…”
Early 2008 :
July 2011 :
I started to read Ashton Gray’s book, but I stopped reading it, because he assumes there’s a contradiction if there’s only one receiver for a plurality of bugs. But I know from my own experience as a voice intercept operator in the Air Force that it’s possible to make a lot of sense of what’s said on a frequency where more than one person is speaking. When people are speaking on top of each other, you lose some stuff, sure, but it’s possible to infer most of what you miss from the context. And most of the time they aren’t talking on top of each other.
Nixon was set-up to fail, but he made the first step in bringing himself down.
Nixon was a pawn of the powers that be, but he wasn’t going to go down quietly if he had to go down hard.
Nixon had “the goods” on a lot of groups and individuals.
Nixon was in over his head long before the 1960 election….
Bingo Leslie. As was the public assassination of JFK in broad daylight. Regardless of who fills the role now.
But who was/is doing the compromising?
Yes, Leslie I Do think they were part pf a strategy. Though I’m not Paulf.
Sorry, but I don’t have the time to jump to links. If you could summarize what all that means, I’d appreciate it.
I don’t doubt that the intelligence people facilitated the arrangements between the people who shot JFK, mainly the Cuban exiles and Mafia. They’re hiding a lot. I don’t doubt that the intelligence agencies exert a great deal of pressure on presidents in general. The dynamics of that are probably very complicated and I wouldn’t presume to know the details.
But such pressure wouldn’t work if they killed or ousted every president who did not obey their every command. Because if every US president was assassinated or impeached, the strategy would start to become obvious. And incoming presidents — rather than fearing the CIA — would be best protected by making the problem public. The intelligence pressure works only because it is so shadowy and behind the scenes.
Now I’m open to changing my view if presented with evidence, but I would rather focus on talking about the facts of the JFK murder.
MARCH 11, 2016
Clintons, Contras and Cocaine
sh, for some balance, your linked article describes a $2 million line of credit “to Clinton”.
“Willy, have you observed appreciable differences, at all?”~Tom
Certainly Tom. The point is both “sides” march inexorably towards the TOTAL STATE, collectivism and authoritarian governance.
Both “sides” have been in power for the last several generations.
How did we end up in this panoptic maximum security state if there were any real resistance from one of these two “sides”?
Who continues with renewed effort the phony wars that Bush started?
Our ‘Dear Leader’ Obama the drone murderer.
I see influences of Ayn Rand and McAdams in your reply. You refer to “collectivism” with disdain. What would the lives of scores of millions of Americans be like today if your politics were widespread? May 27, 1936, no social security retirement benefit, May 27, 1966, no medicare medical insurance coverage. All of government and all of the electorate are not the problem, they are the potential.
As far as a practical and constructive approach, are the consequences of your opinion of Obama that much different than McAdams’s? Neither of you has any use for the man, you because he has been too oppressive and agressively militaristic, and Dr. McAdams partly because Obama has demonstrated too little of either. Do you exempt yourself from your broad brush?
Could the American electorate have done better than voting in Obama? Really? It didn’t happen in a vacuum, coming on the heals of Cheney-Bush and emerging from the “process” of the “two” right wing political “parties”.
There have been 153 years of steady progress, Willy, in spite of “the system,” not because of it. Of course it is not enough to be to either of our liking, but a list of where Obama has not taken our troops, despite the “opportunities,” indicates progress against all odds. To hear republicans tell it, Obama should have insisted on maintaining tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq post 2010, maintained an indefinite surge of twice the 30,000 troops he reluctantly ordered temporarily to Afghanistan, and done any number of large troop, military interventions in Syria and in Iraq against bogeyman du jour… con carne in Messopotamea, or whatever they’ve renamed it lately.
I have affordable, comprehensive health insurance while I had none and no means to obtain it until passage of ACA.
It is all relative, Willy. Maybe you are comfortable enough to be so angry and dismissive. Maybe your circumstances in 1863 or in 1936 would make the current ones look satisfactory. You and McAdams both seem to focus on the shortcomings with nothing to say about the accomplishment or the potential of government. If you’re young, black, or gay, these could seem the best of times. If you are a woman who remembers her greatgrandmother’s stories of petitioning for the right to vote, you might have a higher opinion. If you persist in accepting Snowden is some sort of limited hangout assigned to Moscow, that acceptance may not be constructive or inspiring.
How much of what you conclude and proceed accordingly because of, is defensible through presenting supporting evidence?
I talk about that too often because I don’t know how to get and keep my bearings without verifiable facts, and my self restraints seem remarkably similar to what you accuse the government of abandoning. Where do you get your bearings, and how dependent are they actually on suspicions?
Some very pertinent questions and well said Tom.
“Where do you get your bearings”~Tom S.
I think that each individual is responsible for a coherent epistemology.
I think all individuals are possessed of Unalienable Rights to Liberty.
I think that the individual’s right to Liberty is prime, and cannot justly be overridden by collective concerns.
I think is is historically proven that so-called “government” is organized on the principles of coercion and the dictum of a monopoly on the use of force and violence.
As such all governments are organized on the principles of ‘Might is Right’, ‘Ends are Justified by the Means’, as well as that the only organizational structure that can maintain a coercive authority is that of war, by promotion of “fear of the other” by whatever label du jour.
I think that the true struggle has always been between the individual and the collective.
A government powerful enough to provide all of your vital needs, is a government powerful enough to decide by caveat what those needs are.
“To each according to his need. From each according to his ability” is in fact the collectivist credo. Call it Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Communitarianism, Fascism, or National Socialism.
As a practical matter and as is shown to be historically true, the collective itself does not now, nor has it ever decided it’s own fate. That fate has always been dictated by the authority of the state.
The true and original conception of individual Liberty is drawn from the Golden Rule. Those who grasp Liberty understand that it is predicated on the rights of ALL being upheld and protected, not by coercion but voluntarily.
“Could the American electorate have done better than voting in Obama? Really? It didn’t happen in a vacuum, coming on the heals of Cheney-Bush and emerging from the “process” of the “two” right wing political “parties”.”~Tom S.
Is voting anything more than a charade? Is it not in fact a meaningless ritual that has little to no bearing on who is chosen by the Power Elite to be the next titular talking head for the technocratic state?
It is my opinion, and I have expressed it before, that “democracy”, “voting”, “representation”, are all Orwellian Newspeak and doublespeak nonsense. It is PR burlesque.
And absolutely NO ONE gets the PR but the pre-chosen candidates.
I think those who doubt these propositions should go back to the primers on PR and Propaganda:
“Public Opinion” by Walter Lippmann
“Propaganda” by Edward Bernays
Finally I think reading SKULL & BONES by Antony Sutton is absolutely necessary to grasping the architecture of political power in the modern era.
If I may add another good read …
For all of his faults in contributing to the MIMAC, Carroll Quigley produced perhaps one of the most historically thorough introductions to globalist power in the massively important Tragedy and Hope. Joe Plummer has a great primer on it at http://joeplummer.com/tragedy-and-hope-made-easy.html, but reading the actual text is highly recommended.
Great addition to another great read!
Carroll Quigley’s ‘Tragedy and Hope’.
The mindset that “There have been 153 years of steady progress” is the capture-bonding that centrally planning collectivists need to continue controlling the free will of people for another 153 years. If it isn’t voluntary, IT IS COERCION.
For the actual purpose of discussion, and in the context I presented, the Emancipation Proclamation was signed 153 years ago, (you did not ask about the reference to 153 years) how is your comment to be considered, other than to impress us that you embrace a radical view?
IOW, what can I, or anyone, actually do with your comment? What can be learned from it, aside from you informing readers of your radical view. Is the condition of slavery not inferior to the condition after the abolition of slavery, or are you claiming there is no actual difference? Where is this ideal place on this planet in the year 1863, or even later, you can offer in comparison, the place where “free will” was allegedly abided? How were the poor, ill, handicapped, or gravely injured, attended to in your “free will” scenario? What exactly is “with the consent of the governed,” designed? Who would claim the authority to design it, implement it, and attempt to enforce implementation? How old are you? Have you ever been ill or injured, has your residence ever caught fire?
I never claimed that such a place existed, and there doesn’t need to have been a place to compare to for someone’s concerns to be valid. Out of what school of fallacy do you operate?
My “radical” concerns, as they may seem to you, are not to impress and the concerns of other readers aren’t to be framed in your questioning. They can ask questions for themselves.
Is it “radical to ask” should moral ”free will” be determined by laws and/or institutions of coercion? Read a few new laws in the federal register every quarter and you will see that is the goal of damn near every POS legislation that gets added with little to no consent of the “governed”. This centuries’ long coercion is what is “radical”.
(“Radical” is no less a pejorative than “lone nutter” or “conspiracy theorist”)
That was your reference to make clear. Now that you have made it clear as mud …
It’s unclear why you are using an INERT amendment, which is fundamentally too limited for an exercise of addressing the totality of the coercion problem vs. your “153 years of steady progress”. Lincoln’s own message about The Emancipation Proclamation was that it was nothing more than a war measure. You taking the 13th Amendment to still hold effect today as the origin of “steady progress” since its inception is missing one enormous mechanism of enslavement: the issuance of money and how it affects every single human activity since fractional reserving was imposed on England in the 1600’s.
Easier-to-manipulate inflationary measures were re-imposed on the US citizenry in 1913 within the communist “Federal” Reserve Act (undergirded in perpetuity by the systematically oppressive Income Tax Act). Unspecified slavery of ALL was made a permanent condition requiring a faux wage-based economy. Woodrow Wilson’s education plans lead almost exclusively to labor that was to pay (via income tax) for the issuance of his cultural Marxist masters’ currency. Interest covered by the tax base is owed to federal reserve bank members on every dollar issued. THIS is slavery. Advocacy of such a system or any subsystem based on it is the manifestation of capture-bonding.
This alleged “steady progress” has been gained within an insidious yet massive vacuum of intertwining micro-trends of common foundational origins that together exhibit extraction of free will out of the development of subsequent generations the more the coercive state assumes involvement. It seems my concerns are of a greater magnitude than some war measure that had little effect on a war and has had virtually no effect on what it truly means to be enslaved today. The coercive tax-subsidized ACA and other collectivist-conjured central economic plans that only benefit private corporations are not saviors – they are the goals of parallel structure collectivists who can only achieve what they want via coercion that only applies to tax cattle downstream.
By the free will of others, not coercion. Have you ever heard of volunteer police, fire, and ambulatory services? They often perform better than the corrupt “for hire” versions, with less coercion on the “front lines” (they are still enforcing unjust, unasked for laws, though).
This question is unintelligible. Feel free to revise.
Only those that would opt to live within “it”. In other words, those who volunteer to live in it.
Reading some of these comments, from people who usually sound like leftists, I get the idea Trump may have considerable support from the people who post here.
In your dreams, maybe. It is fascinating that so much money has been spent by so few to inject opinions and beliefs you
just happen to march in lockstep with, according to what is presented in some of your comments. If I frequently repeated messages created, distributed, and reinforced through expenditures (“donations” to “think” tanks, political contributions by a few wealthy individuals, lobbying and advertising of major fossil fuel “interests,”) I would hope I’d have the self awareness to stop commenting. I hear ordinary people in growing numbers describing, “democrat” party or “democrat” leader.
Not that long ago, before the right began to develop it’s own language (who paid for that to develop?) the description was, democratic party, democratic convention, etc. …If it is nothing, why has the right trained itself to speak it that way?
So much is ingrained in you inside the bubble you’ve encased yourself in, you probably actually believe you were the Marquette U. speech rights champion and so many of your peers are woefully misguided. You seem an unauthentic variation
of Amish separateness.
July 1, 2013
Who Pays for Think Tanks?
Corporate and foundation money often comes with an agenda
Almost two-thirds of the think tanks studied (16 out of 25) took money from at least one oil company. Thirteen—more than half—were funded by ExxonMobil, ….; the Koch brothers contributed to seven….
Just 158 families have provided nearly half of the early money for efforts to capture…
Oct. 10, 2015
….the two groups contributed well over half the money in the presidential election — the vast majority of it supporting Republicans…..
…In May 1991,…., then U.S. President George H.W. Bush used the term in his speech: “The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones. It declares certain topics off-limits, certain expression off-limits, even certain gestures off-limits.”
After 1991, its use as a pejorative phrase became widespread amongst conservatives in the US. ….
Following his inauguration in 2001, President George W. Bush often used the noun-as-adjective when referring to the opposition party. Likewise, it has been used by …other Republicans. In 2006, Ruth Marcus, a columnist for The Washington Post, noted that “[t]he derisive use of ‘Democrat’ in this way was a Bush staple during the recent campaign”, and she chastised Bush, alleging he was being intentionally offensive. Marcus went on to say the argument about the term was “trivial, sticks-and-stones […] linguistic bickering”.
Bush spoke of the “Democrat majority” in his 2007 State of the Union Address.….
You mean I should not post things that in your mind you associate with people you don’t like.
Get this, Tom. I don’t care whom you like and don’t like. You are just a scruffy leftist.
And I stand by my comment that it’s odd if people who are so keen on conspiracy theories condemn Trump for thinking like they do.
Couching the threat a Trump presidency as simply a partisan issue misses the point that he is a declared enemy of our constitution and displays no personal allegiance to any party – except his own.
“ . . . Columnists and magazines that a month ago were saying #NeverTrump are now vibrating with the frisson of his audacity, fawning over him or at least thrilling to his rising poll numbers and telling one another, “We can control him.”
No, you can’t. One can argue about whether to call him a fascist or an authoritarian populist or a grotesque joke made in a nightmare shared between Philip K. Dick and Tom Wolfe, but under any label Trump is a declared enemy of the liberal constitutional order of the United States—the order that has made it, in fact, the great and plural country that it already is. He announces his enmity to America by word and action every day. It is articulated in his insistence on the rightness of torture and the acceptable murder of noncombatants. It is self-evident in the threats he makes daily to destroy his political enemies, made only worse by the frivolity and transience of the tone of those threats. He makes his enmity to American values clear when he suggests that the Presidency holds absolute power, through which he will be able to end opposition—whether by questioning the ownership of newspapers or talking about changing libel laws or threatening to take away F.C.C. licenses. To say “Well, he would not really have the power to accomplish that” is to misunderstand the nature of thin-skinned authoritarians in power. They do not arrive in office and discover, as constitutionalists do, that their capabilities are more limited than they imagined. They arrive, and then make their power as large as they can.
And Trump announces his enmity in the choice of his companions. The Murdoch media conglomerate has been ordered to acquiesce; it’s no surprise that it has. But Trump’s other fellow-travellers include Roger Stone, the Republican political operative and dirty-tricks maven, while his venues have included the broadcasts of Alex Jones, a ranting conspiracy theorist who believes in a Globalist plot wherein “an alien force not of this world is attacking humanity”—not to mention Jones’s marketing of the theory that Michelle Obama is a transvestite who murdered Joan Rivers. These are not harmless oddballs Trump is flirting with. This is not the lunatic fringe. These are the lunatics.” – Adam Gopnik
“Reading some of these comments, from people who usually sound like leftists”~John McAdams
What does that term mean to you McAdams? “Leftist”?
It seems that a professor of political science would have the sophistication to grasp the Hegelian Dialectic, and the false paradigm of Left & Right it generates. It is all “political language” as George Orwell noted, ‘political language is nothing but hot air.’
Part I of II
Willy, have you observed appreciable differences, at all? An example, the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1964. Compare the impact on the status quo with the rash of photo I.D. voting “requirements” passed almost exclusively in republican party dominant state governments over the last six years. The 1964 legislation seems intended to restrain controlling interests. Who is intended to be restrained by the photo I.D. legislation?
I find your repetition related to this, off putting. I see a clear distinction and just because many of our countrymen are
lost, resulting in this sorry condition compared to our European friends, do we simply dismiss what sane politics could
do for the benefit of our society, dare I say it, to define and support societal purpose?
In Norway, there is no death penalty, or even life sentences. Prisons like Halden indicate a real commitment to reducing recidivism and improving inmates’ futures on the outside. Some argue it works. Norway boasts one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world, 20 percent, while America’s hovers around 68 percent.
Are you dismissive of, or failing to consider a long, predictable pattern of targeting the least powerful and wealthy, targets with the least influence?
Reagan’s Stories Don’t Always Check Out . – Google News
…referred to her at nearly ‘every stop, using her as part of his “citizens press conference” … there’s a woman in Chicago,” Reagan said last week to am audience at …
Date: Friday, February 13, 1976 Paper: Boston Herald (Boston, Massachusetts) Page: 9
Thursday, Sep 17, 2009 11:18 AM EST
The distracting benefits of ACORN hysteria
Wall Street, defense contractors and the insurance industry v. the poor and dispossessed
….So with this massive pillaging of America’s economic security and the control of American government by its richest and most powerful factions growing by the day, to whom is America’s intense economic anxiety being directed? To a non-profit group that devotes itself to providing minute benefits to people who live under America’s poverty line, and which is so powerless in Washington that virtually the entire U.S. Senate just voted to cut off its funding
(see http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00275 )
at the first sign of real controversy — could anyone imagine that happening to a key player in the banking or defense industry?
Part II of II
Apparently, the problem for middle-class and lower-middle-class Americans is not that their taxpayer dollars are going to prop up billionaires, oligarchs and their corrupt industries. It’s that America’s impoverished — a group that is growing rapidly — is getting too much, has too much power and too little accountability. Anonymous Liberal has a superb post on the manipulative inanity of the Fox-generated ACORN ”scandal” (h/t D-day):
Let’s take a step back and consider just what ACORN is. It is a non-profit organization whose mission is to empower and improve the lives of poor people. As with many other organizations, ACORN has a number of legally distinct parts, each of which has different sources of funding and engages in different kinds of activities (ACORN’s conservative enemies routinely conflate these various parts to imply that ACORN is using federal money for improper political purposes). …
…the bill passed by both the Senate and House to de-fund ACORN… literally compels the de-funding.. of,… “has filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency.” By definition, that includes virtually every large defense contractor, which — unlike ACORN — has actually been found guilty of fraud.
You understand that all the political stuff you post gives the impression that buffs see everything in terms of politics, right?
That to buffs the issue is not who is guilty and who is innocent, but whom they like and whom they dislike on the basis of politics, right?
Dr. McAdams, you have just stated my principal conclusion in regards to Conspiracy Theory- that the physical evidence does not matter and never has. For left-wingers it is self-evident that right wing elements including the CIA had to have killed JFK-ergo the tangents that folks like DiEugenio and Douglass take .
For right wingers it is the paranoid view of the government and its influence controlling everything.
For both the evidence and unfortunately the truth often gets in the way.
“That to buffs the issue is not who is guilty and who is innocent, but whom they like and whom they dislike on the basis of politics, right?” ~McAdams
What preposterous nonsense you come up with “professor”, utterly ludicrous BS.
The assertion that “buffs” do not address the evidence is proven to be your own biased hogwash by reading these very threads.
“I get the idea Trump may have considerable support from the people who post here.”
As one who spends a good deal of time and energy on this site, I go on record – unequivocally – that I am exerting all of my efforts as a voter in spite of being limited by living pay check to pay check to oppose Donald Trump.
Jeff Morley might want to rethink – on principal alone – the possibility he is providing a venue for the Trump candidacy, veiled as it is as evidenced in John McAdams’ comments.
[John McAdams:] “I get the idea [that] Trump may have considerable support from the people who post here.”
Professor McAdams, a model of political ideology vs. position in the JFK case has been proposed.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/the-georgetown-set-112125 (Click in “Show Comments”)
You just stated that the majority of active CTs fall in group No. 4, when it has been traditionally believed (by themselves) that they fall in group No. 1.
Can you explain your reasoning? Can anybody out there raise your hands if you are a CT Trump voter?
Furthermore, professor: Since per his own admission Mr. Trump has historically been your fellow member of group No. 3:
[Click on “Show Comments”]
Why would his followers be members of No. 4?
I would say Trump is most like your Group 4.
But that makes no sense since he’s not really a conservative.
He’s more a populist/nationalist. And indeed that is fertile soil for conspiracy theorizing.
And in fact, those folks are close to Bernie Sanders in many ways, in that they think they are being screwed over by big interests, and oppose free trade.
It is being argued with increasing frequency, that Trump looks like a fascist, quacks like a fascist…right down to the practice of privatizing the profits and socializing the losses. (see https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=bks&q=gaetano+salvemini+%22profit+is+private*%22&oq=gaetano+salvemini+%22profit+is+private*%22&gs_l=serp.12…3675.3675.0.5518.104.22.168.0.0.0.60.22.214.171.124….0…1c.1.64.serp..0.0.0.q_Iq4u2K3q0 )
As a P.S., I’m sure you’re aware of his positioning on the political spectrum, but you deflect….perhaps too much? And….which of the two major U.S. parties is consolidating in support of the Trump presidential candidacy?
Of course, the Republicans are slowly and grudgingly coming to the support of Trump, since he is now the alternative to Hillary.
And I’m sure you know that Hillary is highly unpopular, even among Democrats. Having Bernie in the race has delayed Democrats rallying around her, but that will eventually happen. Hillary will be the alternative to Trump, after all.
So this election will turn on the question: whom do you hate less?
In 2004, some unserious internet voice pointed out that Dana Milbank, a member of Skull and Bones aka the Russell Trust, 64 High St. New Haven, CT was the Washington Post political reporter assigned to “cover” the campaigns of both major party presidential candidates, themselves both Bonesmen “tapped” two years apart. Skull and Bones traditionally selects only fifteen new members, all Yale University undergraduates nearing completion of their third year academic studies.
In that particular campaign, I can understand the merit of your question and your qualification to raise it. I was comfortable with my own reaction to that 2004 “competition” and the Post’s selection of the reporter to inform us of it.
Owing to my slightly diluted pedigree, mostly white anglo-saxon protestant male, I believe in all fairness that I could not react to the choices of Obama or Ms. Clinton with the disdain I developed while appraising the choices of Bush or Kerry.
I watched a brief clip of an interview of Sen. Barbara Boxer on “scruffy leftist” media last night, discussing her new book. She was
describing why she believed it was worth being “in the room,” despite all of the indignities she described experiencing in the book, resulting from her 25 years as an elected representative in one or the other federal houses of congress.
She said if she had not had the access and the input being “in the room” has given her the opportunity to have, it was likely that the decisions made related to the business of the congress would have been left entirely under the influence of white males and the legislation and other influences they produced would not have been representative of the American people.
Do not assume you know what is best or that you have all of the answers. Trump is already well represented in government and in society.
So are Milbank, Bush, Kerry, and the Russell Trust.
“those folks are close to Bernie Sanders in many ways, in that they think they are being screwed over by big interests, and oppose free trade.”
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has endorsed Senator Sanders:
After 1963, RFK Sr. became a leftie, compared with JFK who was pro-business, and therefore Free Trade.
If JFK and RFK were alive (but separate, one alive, the other dead), the older brother would probably endorse Mrs. Clinton and Bobby would endorse Senator Sanders.
It is my contention that most folks feeling the Bern fall in category No. 1:
[Click on “Show Comments”]
The “Free trade” that is opposed is no more free than the “Federal Reserve” is federal. “Free trade” is a perversion of nomenclature similar to how the media in the MIMAC calls its edu-indoctrinators, 5-star mercenaries, and elected fundraisers the “leadership”, but who are really only a syndicated dictatorship.
The “Free trade” that is opposed is no more free than the “Federal Reserve” is federal. “Free trade” is a perversion of nomenclature similar to how the media in the MIMAC calls its edu-indoctrinators, 5-star mercenaries, and elected fundraisers the “leadership”, but who are really only a syndicated dictatorship.
What you posted is racist and sexist.
You have just as much right to pass judgment on a black or female politician as a black person or female has to pass judgment on a white male politician.
I guess you only read the first half of my reply. I guess I’m trying to believe the world does not revolve around me, despite all of the advantages I’ve enjoyed resulting from an accident of birth. I try to walk a mile in other Americans’ shoes, not as often as I probably should, but enough to know to avoid writing what you’ve just presented.
I want to be the farthest thing I can be from the stereotypical Trump voter, a white, middle aged or older American male who is feeling sorry for himself because “the other,” the Kenyan, that woman, those Mexicans seem to be horning in on his
“deal”. I can go into a store to shop or walk up to a cop with no concern of presumption. I have no control over that privilege, but I do think about what it must be like to have to factor such concerns before I make any choice in public,
in the world.
I’m always amused when politically correct leftists use the phrase “the other,” since they have really vicious prejudices against people they view as “the other.”
“White, middle aged or older American male.”
Are you saying it is “vicious prejudice” to react to some of my countrymen who are of similar race and approximate age (I am physically indistinguishable from many of them) as if they are ridiculous, pathetic, obnoxious, intolerant, or ignorant? Please inform me of the politically incorrect reaction to their shameful ideology and attitude.
Ramon, I have to disagree with the idea that JFK was “pro-business” in the sense that Hillary Clinton is. JFK was not advocating for the overthrow of capitalism, but he was far more economically progressive than he’s often been portrayed. Donald Gibson’s book “Battling Wall Street” presents a good argument that JFK was basically a Keynesian, but one who was also determined to build up American industry and who was opposed to the schemes of Wall Street. His actions during the steel crisis are probably the single most dramatic confrontation between a president and big business in American history.
I’m always amused when politically correct leftists use the phrase “the other,” since they have really vicious prejudices against people they view as “the other.” “White, middle aged or older American male.” — Prof. McAdams
As a political scientist at a leading Roman Catholic university, it’s amusing that you fail to grasp what TomS is acknowledging, that he knows he has been privileged throughout his life by the simple fact of his birth as a white and male in these our United States of America. Ask a white female, Anglo Saxon or other, how things have been for them; more severe test, ask a descendant of a slave, and more contemporaneously, ask a person born with a gender disposition that offends your sensibilities, or ask a Latino, or an Asian, or God Forbid someone of the Muslim faith what it’s been like to navigate the world you white males in the United States have created.
As a child of staunch Methodist Freemasons in the Texas Panhandle and an adult convert to Catholicism – confirmed in Daniel O’Connell’s “St. Teresa’s Church on Clarendon Street”, Dublin, Ireland – I have been asking myself for the last four years, having encountered you on this JFK site, how in the name of Holy God have I ended up in the same corral with you? Maybe we should both rethink our allegiances, but I’m certain we’re not reading from the same ORIGINAL TEXT?
Only a small minority of women (20-30%) call themselves feminists.
Most women don’t have a gender grudge. They identify with their husbands, family, ethnic group, religion, etc.
Were you aware that women are as likely as men to say that abortion should be illegal?
Some blacks have a racial chip on their shoulder, but certainly not all.
For example, a majority of black people prefer “all lives matter” to “black lives matter.”
Asians have done better than European whites in the U.S. in terms of income and education. They are actually victims of affirmative action in college admissions.
Some data you should know about:
About 2/3 of American Muslims say that life is better for Muslims in the U.S. than in most Muslim countries.
Only 16% say the U.S. is unfriendly toward them.
You need to drop the bigotry toward white males.
It’s one thing to disagree with people’s attitudes, and other to judge them based on race and gender.
And as for “shameful ideology and attitude:” I have to same right to judge you and Leslie on your ideology and attitudes that you have to judge those you view as “the other.”
Do you think you get to call others “ridiculous, pathetic, obnoxious, intolerant, or ignorant” while being exempt from such a judgment being passed on you?
‘Most women don’t have a gender grudge. They identify with their husbands, family, ethnic group, religion, etc.’ — John McAdams
Gender grudge, John? Seems to me you are the one frantically arguing your dominant white male grudge instead of engaging in a rational conversation about what it is like to be any one but “YOU”.
As female, I have always identified as a sentient being, sometimes I’m married, sometimes I have children, sometimes I’m of an identifiable race or ethnicity, sometimes I belong to a religion … but always, always I’m free born just like you on the planet earth.
‘Were you aware that women are as likely as men to say that abortion should be illegal?’
WHO the HELL introduced the argument of abortion here? For eons those humans of child bearing capacity, – by design, and I have no explanation why – females have the ultimate responsibility of determining survival post conception. You know NOTHING of our power and wisdom, dear Pro-Fess-Or, and your attempts to take over our bodies finally failed. When you demonstrate similar wisdom that women hold sacred, how to accommodate ALL creation – after all the womb carries every race, creed, color, gender – with a compassionate policy that engages both mother and father in the decision making process, I’ll consider you a credible contributor. Otherwise you are nothing but a “has been” bully, the tail of the dragon, lashing desperately.
Since white males are so evil, that means places traditionally rules by white males (Europe, North America, etc.) are hell holes, and places ruled by black males (Sub-Saharan Africa) and places rules by Asian males (Asia) are really great.
Interesting….Saddam could have made an uncannily similar argument, or the executives at Seaworld.
I’m surprised you were not dismissed much earlier on the issue of competence.
Dr. McAdams, actually evaluating the justification for the interference and domination could trigger a crisis of faith even your hubris might not be able to mitigate. Don’t go there!
Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War
By Michael Isikoff, David Corn
Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper
Background on Women’s Status in Iraq Prior to the Fall of the Saddam Hussein Government
I’m not sure what your point is, Tom, other than that you did not like the Iraq War.
Iraq was a hell hole under Saddam. It’s not real great under the current regime. Neither Saddam nor the current regime are white European males.
So what is your point?
My point was that Iraq ruled by Saddam was arguably a much better place for urban female residents to reside in, compared to post Bush
invasion and occupation Iraq, that Seaworld executives pounded a similar drum as the one you were pounding, that killer whales had
“better” lives in careers as Seaworld performers than in the wild, that it takes a certain kind of individual to comment as you chose to…
Your comment, quoted above, is reminiscent of, “better dead, than red.”
Who has tried to take over your bodies?
This is nothing but a tantrum on your part.
If you have an argument to make, make it.
“Discrimminate against…” ???? Do tell, Dr. McAdams? Who is the state is concerned is doing the discrminating, and what is the legislative “remedy” poised to become law. Who is at risk of losing a right, if they happen to be of little financial means and trapped in Indiana with a diagnoses amounting to not much more than a nuisance for a wealth woman to obtain relief from?
That may be true, and it’s clearly the case that things are worse for Christians. But that’s not because white European males are running Iraq.
Things are best, in the world, for women in the nations traditionally run by white males of European ancestry.
If we had been real imperialists, and had stayed and run the country, things would be better for women.
And if we had kept a residual force and used it to fight ISIS, things would be better for women, Christians, various Muslim sects, and certainly gays.
>>> Who has tried to take over your bodies? <<<
What's your point? That you are pro-abortion?
If so, you need to know that women are as likely to oppose abortion being legal as men are.
Blacks are as likely to oppose abortion being legal as whites are. Actually more so.
John McAdams writes: “Things are best, in the world, for women in the nations traditionally run by white males of European ancestry.”
This is true, but not in a way that reflects well on the United States.
According to the most recent Gender Gap Report by the World Economic Forum, the top four countries with the smallest gender gaps are Iceland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. In other words, “things are best for women” if they live in countries that follow policies of social democracy, similar to the policies currently advocated by Bernie Sanders.
Tom S. where did the author of the reference you post get the idea that there were 7 million Taino , particulary on Hispaniola ?
There weren’t 7 million Taino in the whole Caribbean-the local resources for a subsistence culture probably couldn’t support a tenth of that population! How do I prove to you that a claim that no real anthropologist or historian of the period would ever make-or even consider to make is untrue? It is unsubstantiated hyperbole to make a point-sort of like Dr. Aguilar’s lie about the U.S. selling Sarin gas to Saddam-nobody who wants to believe it will ever check it out, immunizing the poster from the truth.
What is the point of posting links if the links themselves are worthless repositories of false information? Find me a reputable source that states that 7 million Taino lived on Hispaniola and I will apologize.
You’ll “apologize”? I supported a quote with a link to its source. It is a link to a source a reasonable person would accept, although it
is certainly reasonable to challenge the exactness of any number, especially a number of 7 million.
That said, you’re the challenger. Since I linked to a source that is not controversial on its face, don’t ask me to do the work of defending the accuracy of the details. You offered an opinion as you always do, with an implied authority. This is a manipulation you’ve become famous for presenting.
So as not to waste further reading time of other readers, here is another link with related information to consider.:
Photon, I won’t reply to you again unless you present your own supporting, working link. Please do not refer to anything I’ve supplied for the consideration of other readers, displayed on the page linked above this paragraph. Do your own research, share links you’ve found, supporting your opinions or analysis.
Why do you fall for the tactic of arguing within the frames that McAdams presents? This grouping 1,2,3,4, is gameshow nonsense.
It is ludicrous…a game of rhetorical blather.
And the Philippines is number 5!
Odd that you should mention Bernie. Part of the index is having a female head of state. So Hillary would bump the U.S. up, and Bernie would not. Maggie Thatcher pushed the U.K. up.
But a lot of the indices don’t make a lot of sense. For example, female labor force participation pushes the index up, but that could be an index of economic privation — women have to work who might prefer to be homemakers rather than work on a production line. Or would prefer to retire.
But more generally: comparisons of this sort always disadvantage large diverse countries, and advantage small homogeneous countries.
A better comparison would be the U.S. against the entire EU. The U.S. is actually in the middle of the European nations.
1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus
1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus is a 2005 non-fiction book by American author and science writer Charles C. Mann about the pre-Columbian Americas. The book argues that a combination of recent findings in different fields of research suggests that human populations in the Western Hemisphere—that is, the indigenous peoples of the Americas—were more numerous, had arrived earlier, were more sophisticated culturally, and controlled and shaped the natural landscape to a greater extent than scholars had previously thought.
He notes that two of the six independent centers of civilization in the world arose in the Americas: the first, Norte Chico or Caral-Supe, in present-day northern Peru; and that of Mesoamerica in what is now Central America.
On Fox News tonight a Trump supporter unintentionally said that Trump’s outspokenness “appeals to the middle crass,” which I think is priceless.
It certainly looks very much as if Vince Foster’s body was moved from the White House grounds to Fort Marcy Park. If you’re involved in corrupting the evidence after a possible murder, doesn’t that make you into a suspect?
Isn’t that the very reason for suspecting LBJ was involved in the assassination conspiracy?
Yeah…something about the body being moved just far enough to lie within a different jurisdition….I really hate it when that happens..!
While I am no fan of the Trumpster, I think it’s about time that people recognize the “alleged” issues regarding Vince Foster, Mena Arkansas, Barry Seal, the Clinton-Bush connections, and yes, the Rafael Cruz “thing” among others.
Have we, if not someone else, not already white-washed and ignored far too many plausible avenues of inquiry and possible alternate reasons and explanations for the behind the scene goings-on in the U.S. and elsewhere…?
Face it, treating Trump’s suspicions as though they are the ramblings of a conspiracy theorist smacks of the same attitude many hold in regards to those trying to get at the heart of the JFK riddle…
I have to agree with Jordan on this. Especially on the topics of, Vince Foster, Mena Arkansas, Barry Seal, the Clinton-Bush connections.
Fortunately, determination is not reached by public opinion or feeling. Are you saying Ken Starr was “in” on a cover up,
despite record expenditure in money and time in a vindictive, highly partisan “investigation”. Did Scaife reward Starr with
a presidency position at Pepperdine Law in Malibu just to throw the more gullible among us, off track?
Starr Probe Reaffirms Foster Killed Himself
The Washington Post
Oct 11, 1997 – Read the full text of Starr’s report on Vincent W. Foster’s death. … office of Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr has reaffirmed previous … of the United States somehow had complicity in Vince’s death,” she said.
I’m weary from asking….who do you expect your readership is? Is it well informed, in your mind’s eye? If your
readership is well informed, how long do you expect to hold their attention, given what you offer them? Do you expect
you have to earn their attention through what you write? I can only share my perspective, the only one I know how to have.
It is oriented to evidence that stands up under scrutiny, with a pinch or two of common sense.
My reply, Willy, is a general one. I have to read every comment. Some of the comments I read seem unreasonable, as many things as possible considered.
“Who do you expect your readership is? Is it well informed, in your mind’s eye? If your
readership is well informed, how long do you expect to hold their attention…”~Tom
I do expect my readership to be the well informed, and on these issues of Vince Foster, Mena Arkansas, Barry Seal, the Clinton-Bush connections; I think the better informed would understand and agree with what I and Jordan have expressed.
Is Ken Starr so principled? http://www.wsj.com/articles/baylor-plans-to-fire-art-briles-demotes-ken-starr-over-scandal-1464284169?mod=trending_now_4
Starr sure as hell should have been fired before or at least with Briles. Art Briles would have done what ever the University told him regarding disciplining players or kicking them off the team. He knows how to find more players. IF the University supported investigation and punishment he would have done what was necessary.
The Baylor Law School handled dealing with the legal aspects, overseen by Starr.
As was Briles.
He’s a scapegoat for Starr.