Clear and present danger

26 posts / 0 new
Last post
Doug's picture
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3200
Clear and present danger

I have concluded that a wake up call is needed here because of this site's tacit support for the current potus and his bromance with Vladimir Putin, of whom it can be said that once KGB, always KGB.  John Brennan, who has served six Presidents with no personal commentary about any, has decided it is time to speak out.


Doug's picture
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3200
Exclamation point

This article serves as kind of an exclamation point to Director Brennan's offerings.

cmartenson's picture
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5975
You mean this John Brennan?

Doug, I assume that by "serving six presidents" you mean to imply that John Brennan has some form of legitimacy?

You are referring, of course, to the John Brennan that oversaw the drone and torture programs, two completely unacceptable blights on any nation's record. 

By strongly coming out in support of Brennan, do you mean to imply that you were and are in support of torture and unadjudicated drone assassinations?

Or perhaps it is this next piece of history that we need to now overlook?  Brennan was CIA  station chief in Jeddah Saudi Arabia during a period when passports were issued to 9/11 hijackers, against the express worries of the people in charge of the US visa process?

9/11 Hijackers Passports were Issued by CIA - US Consulate Whistleblower (SACRAMENTO, CA) - A man who spent two decades as a high level State Department official, at one time in charge of issuing visas out of Saudi Arabia, Mike Springmann, has been trying to tell people the most important news about a direct connection between the CIA and 9/11 for more than a decade.

As you will note in this review and the video below, recorded at the National Press Club on 10 June 2002 in Washington DC, (Nobody can say the major press was not exposed to this information) this extremely credible eyewitness has been stonewalled by the government and major media for a long time, even as they reported the lax security conditions that allowed those men now associated with the 9/11 attacks to enter the U.S. 15 of the 19 did not qualify for a visa, yet they were granted one anyway. 10 of the individuals entered through the very agency Mr. Springmann once headed and then spent so much energy trying to expose.

Springmann went public (after internal efforts failed) to expose the State Dept/CIA conduiting terrorists into the USA. It occurs to me that there probably really will be a reinvestigation of 911 and that those involved could actually be taken to trial and brought to justice. I can feel my country beginning to implode because when the you know what really hits the fan, I do not think that the world will forgive us.


At best Brennan is wildly incompetent.  At worst he's covering up deeply traitorous actions.

Could he be a traitor?  Well, he already is an enormous criminal who illegally directed US spy talents against US Senators:


Let me take a wild guess here, Doug, but if Trump had overseen the CIA spying on the US Senate in order to dig up dirt on them to stop an inquiry into an illegal US torture program, you'd be singing a very different tune about Brennan.

I am an equal opportunity, non-partisan basher.  I don't care who's doing the illegal, nasty stuff, I am against it.

Finally, please cease your baseless assertions that this site is somehow pro-Trump.  I presume you occupy a world where anything Trump does has to, by default, be excoriated, but that's not the case here.  I might find merit in his stance on trade, but absolutely abhor his increasingly NeoCon  cabinet.  Both can be true.

Such is the life of a critical, self-thinker.

However, let me state that John Brennan is an absolute disaster of a human being.  He's truly awful, and without any redeeming qualities of which I am personally aware.  That's my view.  If you have other data to defend your strong support of him and his messages, please share it/them.



kelvinator's picture
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 25 2008
Posts: 215
Yes, Brennan Has Lied, But PP Almost Never Critical of Trump

I watched Brennan lie through his teeth to Congress, as you point out, Chris.  But as I've posted elsewhere, I don't find the Peak Prosperity site to be as objective, scientific, non-partisan basher of all politicians when appropriate as it could be, and as you suggest - I really wish it were.  Rather, as Doug says, it seems to give tacit support to Trump.  Yes, I, like you, sometimes agree with Trump's statements or positions - eg, I agreed with his campaign attacks on the corruption of the Democrats and stated wish to "drain the swamp", his brief campaign criticisms of the Fed, but did NOT assume that he and his administration would actually be any less corrupt than the Dems - rather I thought, that they would likely be even more corrupt.  And in my opinion, they clearly are.  They are selling out our precious resources of stable climate, the public internet (net neutrality), clean air, water and land to the highest bidder, they are fighting democratic (small 'd') representation via voting right suppression and gerrymandering, in spite of campaign promises to the contrary, they undermine the safety net for the poorest Americans, may let social security/medicare be cut while giving the Fed enriched 1% massive tax cuts and just hired Larry Kudlow to promote the long ago disproven Free Market Capitalism Trickle Down Lie, they say they favor jobs while they are selling out workers rights in favor of multinational corporate power.  Yet, I haven't seen you write much about those things - much more about how the Deep State is going after Trump.

You demonize Hillary Clinton (whom I also really don't like), and say things like the video you saw of her saying "We came, we saw, he died" about Khaddafi demonstrates that she's a psychologically unbalanced megalomanic who represented an extreme risk of starting a nuclear war, but seem to see little threat of war from Trump.  Yes, I also was very worried about Clinton's militaristic, neocon bent, but I was and remain at least as concerned about Trump's impulsive, aggressive egotism and divisiveness internationally and the real threat of war Trump represents in Korea and the Middle-East.   I also see the positive possibility that Trump may be able to reach peace accord in Korea that was unachievable by Obama, Bush, and all the establishment presidents before him because they refused to recognize North Korea and sign an agreement assuring its security.  Now that Trump's impulsivity has really worried S. Korea, South Korea may finally accept the status quo, recognize North Korea and permit the peninsula to be pacified.  The world's a complicated place.  It's also quite possible Trump's negotiations may fail, and he may initiate a war there, or return to a war path with Iran, now that he is threatening to pull out of the Iran treaty in May.

You totally trash Brennan, by saying things like you did above, "However, let me state the John Brennan is an absolute disaster of a human being.  He's truly awful, and without any redeeming qualities of which I am personally aware."    

But I never have read anything you've written that talks about what an "absolute disaster" of a human being Trump is, that he's a pathological, divisive, serial liar, that he's a megalomanic, etc.  If you have, I'd like to see it, and will stand corrected on that point.    More importantly, I've never seen editorial writing here that acknowledges it's possible that there is, in fact, a corrupt relationship between Trump and members of his administration (including Trump's oil cronies) and Russia, as part explanation for his supportive attitude toward it.  We don't know with certainty that there is a corrupt relationship, but it seems quite plausible to me based on Trump and his associates behavior and financial relationships before and since the election.  No one knows with certainty that there's not a corrupt relationship.  

Yes, I agree with your view, and those of others, that Dem and Repub neocons have acted aggressively toward Russia and created conflict and increased risk of war unnecessarily.  I also believe that Russia continues to act to create chaos, division and conflict in western politics just as the CIA and other agencies of the US have done in other countries in the past.  I also find it completely believable that Trump's campaign team - eg Manafort et al - followed the same divisive, fake news, conflict generating propaganda playbook that the Russians use in Europe and Asia, and that the CIA has generated elsewhere.  None of it's good.

The only way to counter all the divisive, often anger/fear blanket statement supporting tendencies inherent in dueling conspiracy theories we have these days is to try to stay as objective as we can, and appreciate the complexities - that in fact, few people or groups are all black or white, right or wrong, good or bad.  I appreciate the fact that you and Peak Prosperity have made a significant effort to uncover the truth and be objective.  You've created a phenomenal, unique body of work over time, IMO - great interviews with Art Berman. Tim Jackson - with endless guests and thought leaders.  Yet, I see friends and acquaintances across the political spectrum get caught up in one all-defining narrative or another, and sometimes get caught up myself for a bit.   Keeping a clear, open, unbiased view can be tough these days, but that's why it has particular value, it seems to me.  Toward that end, I hope you and PP will keep an unblinking, objective eye on Trump along with everyone else.  Best regards.

Doug's picture
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3200

Yes, I linked Brennan's rant, but did not personally endorse his actions over the years.  Although, I will note that as far as my limited reading indicates, his positions on policies, particularly torture and drone strikes, were arguably within the parameters of how those policies were being debated at the time.  He has been close to the seat of power for a lot of years and is entitled to his opinions.  Given his vantage point I would probably trust his judgment at least as much as the article you linked, observing that Michael Springmann, the cited whistle blower who was the visa guy at the Jeddah consulate for a couple years in the 80s, left that position more than two years before 9/11, so probably had no knowledge of the passports of the 9/11 hijackers despite the insinuations of the article.

At any rate, if you don't like Brennan's opinions, I'm sure I can dig up many harsh criticisms of Trump from long time conservative Republicans, except Congressmen of course.  With a couple possible exceptions, they seem to be totally cowed by Trump's bs.  

The point of my post was that the current potus is totally out of his depth in the White House.  As I recall this website's position during the campaign you were broadly complimentary but hesitated to endorse him because that's not what the blog does.  Your were certainly far harsher in your criticism of Hillary.  Fair enough, but I did question your judgment then and now wonder why the site fails to criticize him or Putin.  The evidence could not be clearer that Trump has no moral or ethical bottom, has no knowledge base from which to guide the ship of state, has no problem with dictators but lambasts those who differ with his views, appears to be determined to destroy large portions of the government through neglect or subversion and appoints people to run various departments who are as ignorant or malevolent as he is on the relevant issues.  In a word he is grossly incompetent.


Let me take a wild guess here, Doug, but if Trump had overseen the CIA spying on the US Senate in order to dig up dirt on them to stop an inquiry into an illegal US torture program, you'd be singing a very different tune about Brennan.

First, this statement makes no sense.  Second, I oppose the CIA spying on any US citizen no matter who the potus is.  Its not their job. 

Enough for now.  But lets be clear, Trump is the disaster here, not Brennan.

mememonkey's picture
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 1 2009
Posts: 257
The Real Disaster
Doug wrote:

Yes, I linked Brennan's rant, but did not personally endorse his actions over the years.  Although, I will note that as far as my limited reading indicates, his positions on policies, particularly torture and drone strikes, were arguably within the parameters of how those policies were being debated at the time.  He has been close to the seat of power for a lot of years and is entitled to his opinions.  Given his vantage point I would probably trust his judgment at least as much as the article you linked,....

be clear, Trump is the disaster here, not Brennan.

Wow,  that was a pretty weak disavowal of State sponsored torture and extrajudicial killing!

It is pretty clear Doug that you supports torture. If for no other reason than your continued use of tortured logic as you pop up periodically to whine about Peak Prosperity's 'support' of Trump, praise Obama's tenure as Dissembler/Drone Warrior in Chief or otherwise uncritically reflect the latest blue team 'Statist' Quo talking points that you mindlessly consume and then regurgitate from your favorite Mockingbird propaganda feeds.

And while the pain you engender here in a forum that specifically values and elevates critical and multidimensional thinking and data driven analysis over emotional and partisan screeds can certainly be described as a form of intellectual torture for many of us here, the real shame is that you represent the vast bulk of Americans both left and right that are easily manipulated by propaganda as long as it is framed and presented to conform to their ideological biases. Sadly that is the clear and present danger to our 'republic' the tool de jour in the oval office not withstanding.

Which is exactly how the Deep State/MIC/NeoCons likes things as they exsanguiate the body politic of blood and treasure in their relentless march towards full spectrum dominance, war and ultimately collapse.

With regards to Chris being "'broadly supportive of Trump during the election” that is frankly a load of B.S. My recollection was that he specifically warned against the danger of a Clinton Presidency given she was a pro war neocon with a track record for starting and enabling disastrous wars and was calling for establishing a No Fly zone in a country where the Russians ( a nuclear power) had both legal standing and were actively flying not to mention where they had their state of the art air defense systems up and running...  Essentially Chris said he couldn't  support someone that was proposing an act of  war with a Nuclear power.

That still seems like a pretty good call to me. Notwithstanding the fact that Trump's non interventionist anti war rhetoric has since been revealed as fraudulent or at best, naivete/ignorance subsequently undone and co opted by deep state 'forever war' interests (like your man Brennan)

The whole point of and the message of Peak Prosperity like the predicaments it elucidates transcends partisan politics. It is concerned with systemic level issues. Your's and other's constant calls for Chris to 'censor' trump and virtue signal alignment with the full spectrum of your particular set of values and beliefs would be counterproductive to the stated mission and objectives of the site. Just as it would be if he were to weigh in on abortion, gun control or other ideologically driven emotional wedge issues.

I think Chris does a pretty damn good job focusing specifically on critique of actions and analysis as they both reflect the three E's and are relevant to potential threats.  If it make you feel better you can consider every one of Chris's contemporaneous policy critiques to be 'anti' Trump After all, it's Trump's show now and he is in charge of and responsible for everything that is happening!

With your critique that Chris doesn't criticize Putin,  please provide us with specifics of how Putin is endangering the world.. Is he threatening to unilaterally attack sovereign Nations? Abrogate disarmament treaties? Has he ring fenced us with anti missile systems in pursuit of first strike capabilities? Sponsored a coup in Mexico? Has he expanded the Warsaw pact to our borders?

Perhaps he doesn't believe in or heed International Laws? Is he funding Lung eating, child head chopping Jhiadi's to accomplish regime change? Is he droning wedding parties? Is he refueling Saudi's as they bomb civilian poor in Yemen?

And before you answer with the barrel bombs, gas attacks and assorted war crimes in Syria, suggest you dig a little deeper into the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and the so called "white" helmets.

While I generally agree with you that Trump is both loathsome, morally bankrupt and dangerous I would say that the level of danger he represents is a function of and in direct proportion to to the influence that Netanyahu and the Neo con's have on him. The fact that you and others grazing in the propaganda pasture can't see that the 'Putin is evil~ Russia is Bad' is a wholly contrived Neo Con /Neo Lib MIC campaign, is a testament to the power of emotionally weaponized disinfo and the lack of critical thinking ability and discernment left here in the US.

Where's the # Resistance on our march to war with Nuclear Russia? Hyperventilating about made up shit and social issues that will all be moot when the missiles start landing. Thanks for that!

Enough for now, but to be clear the real disaster is 'Brennan' and the Deep state forces of empire and morality that he represents and the sheep that swallow the propaganda that enable those interests...not Putin and the Russians.




Tude's picture
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 1 2017
Posts: 38
Thank you Mememonkey

I have been wanting to reply to this thread all day...thanks for articulating my thoughts much better than I could have.


Beaster Bunny's picture
Beaster Bunny
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 27 2016
Posts: 1

Thank you for your articulation MM! 


davefairtex's picture
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5693
serving six presidents

John Brennan, who has served six Presidents with no personal commentary about any, has decided it is time to speak out.

Ok.  Those same six Presidents presided over a globalization regime that enriched all our friendly corporations & their shareholders, all while sucking money from the workers.  That's who John Brennan served without comment.  Are those two things related?  I'm sure you say no.  But - somehow - all our jobs migrated to China.  And corporate leaders got huge salaries.  And the top 1% got really rich.  Corporations share of profits vs worker salaries rose.  And the US working class is left with bupkis - well, except for the opioids.

I see Trump actually trying to do something about this, for the first time really ever.  Thus, it is no surprise that "the globalists" who have profited from the action of those past six Presidents that Brennan served without comment have orchestrated a serious effort against Trump that amounts to an attempted coup d'etat.

At the same time, I will agree that Trump is a disaster when it comes to acting Presidential, when it comes to facts, attention span, when it comes to hiring and firing - his hair, his orange color, his allegedly small male member, his alleged affairs with porn stars, his pussy-grabbing comments, his alleged support of nazi statues - he really is the worst President ever.

Well, except of course for those six Presidents that Brennan served without comment who arranged to send all our jobs overseas solely to enrich their (bipartisan) donor class.  One might argue, if one was a member of the working class, that each of them was worse than Trump.

And that's not an easy thing to accomplish.

And for the record, I think Putin is someone we need to watch very closely.  But he runs a country that has 1/18th the GDP of the NATO alliance.  He's a pimple on the ass of you-know-who.  I'm not scared of Russia, and I'm not falling for the hype that says I should be.

cmartenson's picture
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5975
Why I am non-partisan

This Venn diagram pretty accurately captures my reasoning for not getting too worked up over which party is better than the other.

Truly a distinction without a difference.

While we are all mainly bickering about wedge issues, the ecosystem is collapsing, irreplaceable energy reserves are expended in SUVs, and massive deficits, debts, unfunded liabilities, and deferred maintenance on critical infrastructure are being piled up and left for the next generations to deal with.

Meanwhile 96 out of 100 US Senators voted for an $80 billion increase in US military expenditures for this year alone.

Think the vote might have been a little more contentious if we didn't have big, bad Russia being crammed down our media throats each and every day for the past year?

The way I see it, the Russian narrative is merely clever marketing by an out of control MI complex and, boy, has it worked on some of you.  They merely figured out that terrorism was Pepsi, but Russia was Coke.  

Please note the dozens of articles coming out now about how Russia might decide to nuke us first and their hypersonic missiles and all the reasons that this means we need low yield nukes and vastly expanded funding for some next gen super exotic anti-anti missile missiles.

Meanwhile, here are some forlorn people from Detroit trying to draw attention to the fact that they've been living with toxic water for nearly four years now all for want of a few million dollars to tie the city's water system to a clean supply.

Great title, right?  This is what collapse looks like.  Help never comes.

At any rate, the idea that the US is somehow under attack from a clever and determined Russia just doesn't have a lot of purchase in my world because the evidence simply isn't there.  The hyperbole, the marketing, the repetition...that's all there.

The true threat lies within, and both parties currently own that problem. Sure, it's always a lot easier to blame outsiders for your personal problems, but it's never effective.  

Time for America to take responsibility for itself.  Russia didn't force the Senate to spend an extra $80 billion on "defense" while totally ignoring Detroit's water issues.  They did that all by themselves.  Both parties.

earthwise's picture
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
There is a difference

There is a difference between Republicans and Democrats, at least according to Pat Caudell, formerly a Democrat activist and campaign manager for Jimmy Carter.

" There is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are whores. They do it for money. Republicans are content to have their name on the bathroom wall 'For a good time call .............':


I always found that amusing.

earthwise's picture
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 848
There is a difference


skipr's picture
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 9 2016
Posts: 168
Dubya the elder statesman???

If Trump actually did something real to curtail the military-industrial-prison-banking-financial-CIA-NSA-yada-yada-yada complex he would be JFKed in short order.  Andrew Jackson was the only president to survive after successfully taking on these powers thanks to two jammed pistols.  Now The Donald is openly campaigning to fully weaponize space while the other neocon puppets kept it under wraps.  I guess that is his way of actually doing something about it.  His rolling back of all of the environmental protection laws (a backroom TPP?) is quickly making planet earth his real shit hole.

Back in the 80s I remember when moving real jobs to China was being promoted by Wall Street as a way of creating new and better jobs here.  Those burger flipping jobs are now being replaced by robots.  Trickle Down Economics would be a good title for a really kinky porn flick.

The military-industrial complex monster will not be denied its welfare.  A while back I worked as an engineer for a small startup aerospace company.  It was created by a retired Air Force officer who saw how wasteful the Boeings/Raytheons/etc were.  His company was actually ahead of schedule and under budget with some space based systems.  What happened next?  It got absorbed by the big boys.  Later on I did some analysis for some civil engineers trying to engineer earthquake resistant steel framed buildings.  Those guys live in a totally different world.  They have to count the cost of every single bolt and washer in order to remain competitive.  They would have to wear a diaper at a Raytheon. 

Full disclosure: I used to work for some of the big boys too.  Google EKV


kelvinator's picture
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 25 2008
Posts: 215
To Me, Non-Partisan Means Not Swallowing Any Narrative Whole

I absolutely do not swallow the Russian collusion narrative whole - it's not clear to me at all at this point that Trump colluded with the Russians.  And I absolutely do not swallow the "Deep State framed Trump" narrative whole either - the notion that an unconstitutional coup-d'etat against Trump with no basis is under way, or that Trump, in fact, is necessarily innocent of treason.  In any case, as far as I can tell, given the difficult political process, Trump is very unlikely to be impeached and turned out of office unless there's real evidence presented he actually did something seriously wrong.  It's happened to exactly zero presidents in US history, and this country has been through some pretty crazy partisan politics in its few hundred years.  

So I wouldn't get too worked up about there being an investigation of Trump. The guy for sure should be investigated based on the initial evidence, as far as I'm concerned.  I don't believe the conspiracy certainty and interpretation of evidence by those that say he should not be investigated.  IMO, he is obviously a self-centered, lying, immoral, divisive person who has refused to be transparent to the American public about his finances, his taxes, his business relationships, and who has refused to divest himself of his business assets while being President.  In a word, as a transparent public servant, he's a jerk.  In his attitude and lack of transparency, he has shown no respect for the office, for public service or to the American public as a whole, only to his particular crowd in the bleachers.  He clearly has articulated and admired anti-democratic, authoritarian tendencies.  All of this is not a good thing, IMO.

Yet, he also has articulated very deep, very real and quite justified anger of Americans, and in some ways been a positive change agent and wake up call for a corrupt, two party establishment that has been crying out to be challenged big time - and now it is being challenged.  As you say, Dave, it's great that he's finally trying to square up trade and disrupt the neoliberal order.  You're right on the money that Establishment Dems and Repubs alike ignored the US working class for decades and left them nothing but opioids.  The problem I see with Trump, though, is that, in reality, is he's personality, short attention span, and ego driven rather than idea driven.  He has no thoughtful, comprehensive, effective agenda.  He's primarily doing what he's doing as a manipulation for his own I'm-a-rich-guy self-aggrandizement - to gain and keep celebrity/power - not because he has any particular interest in or life-long affinity with workers.   

I do believe he wants to keep his promises to supporters on trade, and believes it can help with jobs.  But he's just not going to support what those people actually need - organizing and subsidizing the kind of education and training in new highly-skilled areas that is what's really needed to create decent jobs for the future.  He just hired Larry "Let Them Eat Cake/Trickle Down" Kudlow for his economic advisor, fer Chissakes, sycophant to the wealthy!  The result of his trade war is very likely to just be higher prices at Walmart for people that are barely getting by already - the manufacturing jobs lost just aren't going to be coming back in a big way with big pay, just like his promises to coal workers that he's going to bring coal back (and who wants to mine coal in the 21st century???) are just another Big Fat Trump Lie.

All the facts aren't in on the Trump investigation, and I have no use for yet another echo chamber here or anywhere that thinks it knows when it doesn't - it doesn't help.  There are too many echo-chambers already.  In other areas, this site is often great with unique and independent thought.   To hear the Deep State narrative, I don't need to come here to PP at all. I already can talk to a certain set of either my progressive or conservative friends or acquaintances who are in love with that big story. 

I think there's some value to that interpretation and being wary of the bias and false info from the intelligence agencies, but it's also limiting, IMO, if you mistake the map for the territory and believe it actually completely describes the complexity of what's going on.  I've known about the military-industrial complex and the United States' will to find an enemy to use all its battle toys and profiteer from war for ages.  My mom was the head of Another Mother for Peace in the Vietnam War in 1960's and 70's, & she was already on to it then, so that's the mother's milk I was raised on.  My mom testified before Congress against the war back then, and was a big supporter of Daniel Ellsberg.  I believe it's also true that there are people still in the intelligence community like Ellsberg, Snowden and Bill Binney who believe in civil liberties, believe in stopping corruption, believe in avoiding unnecessary, evil wars, and that there are individual Democrats, Republicans and Independents who also believe in those things  - even if there are many others who don't, including Donald Trump. 

For Trump, the only issue on that list the jury is still out on, IMO, is "avoiding unnecessary, evil wars".  Many people here seem to think he's less of a nuclear danger than Hillary and the Deep State would be, and I really hope they're right - they may be.  But I hope they will consider the possibility, like I do, that they're really not.  Trump just named Bolton as his National Security Advisor.   It looks to me like Trump is getting ready to get aggressive on trade, to go hard against Mueller, possibly getting ready to confront Iran and North Korea in potentially dangerous ways.   I'm prepared to admit I'm wrong about anything I've said here if and when the evidence warrants it.  I hope everyone else is prepared to do the same.  It's a good time to be open and on your toes rather than stuck to a story.

davefairtex's picture
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5693
compare investigations


In terms of "deep state conspiracy" stuff - here is my evidence.

All I need to do is to compare investigations.

HRC was investigated by "Friendly FBI."  All of her people got immunity deals in exchange for their testimony.  Her interview wasn't recorded, and no notes were taken.  And of course, no charges were filed.  She got a wrist-slap-light-spanking.  Tsk tsk, you were sloppy.

Contrast with Trump.  He is being investigated by "Unfriendly FBI."

Did his people get immunity deals?  Not exactly.  Ask Mike Flynn how his interviews went.  Will Trump be interviewed with no notes being taken, basically off the record?

Gee.  What do you think?  And if they find something, how will that play out?  A pass, with a light wrist-slapping?

Now - what might account for that difference in approach by the FBI?  All of his pussy-grabbing?  His orange hair?  His allegedly small male member?  No.  It has to be something else.

Certainly, it could be that some of them think he's been compromised by the Russians.  But if that were true, the NSA would have the goods on him already, tucked away in that big server farm in Utah.  And for sure they'd have found a way to leak it last January.  They leaked everything else.

I think its something different.  Here is my contention: the donor class doesn't like him.  He doesn't need them, and so they don't have a hook they can use.  And he's rude about it, too.  Contrast with HRC, who is the poster child for people and governments having their hooks into her, from soup to nuts.

Look, I really want my President to act Presidential.  Obama was perfect for the role.  And yet...globalist agenda, drone strikes, more endless war...and his signature achievement: "Healthcare For Insurance Companies."  Obama was the perfect front-man for the globalists.  I'm sure he tried to get things done around the edges, where he could, but he was beholden to the donor class in a way that Trump just isn't.

I'm certain I'd find Trump to be an extremely disagreeable boss.  He doesn't match my style at all.  But just maybe he'll get some deals done - North Korea, Iran, China trade - that the others simply couldn't do, because of who owned them.

Or maybe not.  We'll just have to see.

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Status: Platinum Member (Online)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 929
A different way of thinking about deep state

I have trouble posting. It only works on my phone -- not on my computer, even -- and that under Chrome.

Since I don't like to type long stuff on my phone, I emailed this to myself, and cc'd it. Please ignore the quote carets: the writing's all mine.

> My father had a stroke about ten years ago, and his very great
> capabilities have declined; so everything he says needs to be viewed
> from the point of view of wisdom, and seeing general patterns.  The
> specifics -- how old he is, for example -- he doesn't necessarily get
> right.  He guesses he's 73; he tells you his birth year, and you find
> that he's 75.
> Yet recently, he told in a drifting story, something that might make
> us rethink both Elliott waves, and the "deep state narrative".  He
> described how there are power poles, and they spiral around, either
> two or three of them, and create a sphere of destruction around
> themselves.  The biggest one, of course (he said), we live there --
> it's America.  However, they are much smaller than that.  They're
> actually every hundred miles or so.  The power and the events phase
> between the two or three. But the sphere of destruction, even as it
> intensifies, also gets exponentially smaller.   There's a lot more
> that he said... but not to this point.
> So let me point out that we've seen this.  It's more common than you
> realize, and more common than he said:  a man and wife get married.
> There's two, right there.  At the church level for many people, or at
> the city level, there are two or three power organizations (sometimes
> families) that continually seem to approach power.  Their corruption
> does create a sphere of destruction.
> Let's take it back to the family level:  1 + 1 = 2.  Now, you get two
> families battling it out :  your family, and your closest relative's /
> inlaw's patriarch, for example.  There's the next level: 2 + 1 = 3.
> Next, there's the neighbor family.  3 + 2 = 5 people battling it out,
> creating a sphere of destruction.
> 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, ....  the favorite series of Elliott fans.
> The Fibonocci series.
> So what happens when one person battles 13?  Carnage.  No cyclic
> phenomenon.  The one gets wounded, and drops out.  You only really get
> the cyclic phenomenon when you have relatively close numbers battling
> each other.  So that explains (for example) the Democrat and
> Republican parties, and their longevity, and then how they end up
> being one DemPublican party.
> It also explains some structure behind the Elliott waves, and why they
> don't always work -- because Fibonocci is only the 2-pole solution,
> but sometimes you get a 3-pole solution, or even a 4-pole solution:
> 2+1+8=11, which can actually battle 13, and will for a time.  I saw
> that structure happen in Harrisonburg, with "Citizens of Harrisonburg
> Against New Golf Expenditures" was made of about five or six small
> poles, battling the local DemPublican establishment.  They got control
> for a very short while, but couldn't hold their center together past
> half an election cycle.  But the dynamics involved such things as
> prostitution, blackmail, murder, denial of evidence in trials, and the
> like.  The background before that involved contractors, university
> corruption, IRS corruption, nepotism issues, and so on.  That's all
> the mix that you also see in Deep State.
> So if that's the case, there really may not be one deep state.  It
> really might be such a large mix.
> And if that's the case, then you might be able to better pick apart
> the gold scene, by looking to see what players there were, and how
> they were represented on the Fibonocci scale in terms of assets, and
> even predict what kind of destruction will ensue where.  Look for
> other industries to bounce against that whole thing, as well.

kelvinator's picture
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 25 2008
Posts: 215
>Plenty< in the Wealthy Establishment Donor Class Love Trump

You're right that many liberal types in the donor class don't, but many others do - for now.   They'll also toss him aside as too much of an unpredictable liability if they can when they think the time's right.  Or they may just stick with and support him as they do now if he can build power like Duerte in the Phillipines, Sisi in Egypt, Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi, or Xi in China - autocrats surrounded by cronies.  I think that's a model he genuinely admires, as he has made clear.  

Meanwhile, he's doing the bidding of many US wealthy donors.  He's killing Obamacare with absolutely no replacement.  I agree with you it was Healthcare for Insurance Companies.  But it also became the only healthcare millions of people have.  I was pissed at Obama and criticized him intensively from day one in 2009 about his complex, sellout plan when he refused to support real public healthcare from the start.  But Obamacare was and is better than nothing for those millions of people that now are going to have nothing at all thanks to Trump and his glib lie (Oct. 2017) that he's creating "great, great healthcare that will cost the government nothing." What a crock!  It's just another in the endless stream of big Trump Lies he makes up on the spot.  It's not a matter of Trump's "style".  It's a matter of him being as endlessly full of bullshit as a used car salesman.  

Has Trump stopped the Bush/Obama drone program?  Does he want to?  No. As largely a slave to the elite, wealthy establishment, he plays out their wet dream and gives billions more into the military and gives himself and his rich friends, including those on Wall Street a big fat tax cut and deregulatory freedom-to-defraud wet kiss while he gives false hope and cuts the safety net for Americans that are scraping by and strung out in despair, and may well go along with cuts to social security and medicare, too.  IMO, his promise to regular Americans that his administration will help their lives in real practical ways, help them transition to more and better jobs is complete BS, whether he believes his own baloney or not. Maybe I'm wrong, but right now I doubt it.  So far, almost everything I've seen him do supports that view.  He's just an opportunist who likes controversy and to be at the center of the news.  Last I heard, he's not pulling out of Afghanistan, stopping weapons to Israel, to Saudis for war in Yemen, to the middle east generally, or pulling back in any real way from endless war so far.  He just put, Bolton, a big proponent of war as his Nat'l Security Advisor - this is a guy that loved the Iraq war, pushed the false Saddam WMD story, advocates a pre-emptive strike on North Korea, etc.  Better keep those cell phones on in Seoul and Hawaii.

As you suggest, maybe it's just "the art of the deal" and he'll work out some positive, peace-making agreements with Russia, N. Korea or Iran, but maybe he won't.  I will be genuinely glad and give him credit if he does, but to me it doesn't seem the most likely outcome right now.  His own Defense Dept. head Mattis said, "If you don't fully fund the State Department, then I need to buy more ammunition."  Trump is decimating the State Dept. and diplomacy and adding billions to defense when we can't afford it - to me, as the general suggests, his approach doesn't bode well.

On the investigations, we just see them differently at this point.  I didn't see the FBI as friendly to Clinton when Comey violated FBI policy to announce the Bureau might have new evidence against her a few days before the election.   If the FBI had been friendly to Clinton, they also would have announced they had started investigating reports of collusion and corruption between Trump, Russia and various oligarchs before the election as well.

In any case, as you say, we'll just have to see what happens with the whole mess.   I'd rather have someone who actually fights against the billionaire class, is for protecting American workers in real, practical ways, has a history of doing that and is basically honest, like Sanders. I don't believe that Sanders has all the economic answers to the 3E predicaments described here at PP by any stretch.  But being honest, moral, committed to the whole population, able to deal with complex thoughts and systems and having a deeper plan make a big difference as a starting point.


davefairtex's picture
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5693
no difference?


You really think that HRC and Trump have been treated relatively equally by the FBI during their mutual investigations?

Flynn had to plead guilty to lying to the FBI.  Abedin got an immunity deal.

Flynn gets 5 years in the pokey.  Abedin gets to walk away.

Do you honestly feel these two outcomes are equivalent?

To me it is an egregious disparity.  If Mueller had been running the HRC email server investigation the same way that he's running the Trump investigation, her entire staff would be in the pokey for lying to the FBI, or for obstructing justice.  Deleting those emails via bleach bit after being ordered to preserve evidence: that's obstruction of justice.  Someone goes to jail - or they roll.  That's the choice.  And if they make one mistake in interrogation, that's 5 years for lying to the FBI.  Of course if you have immunity, you can't make mistakes in interrogation.

So they all walked.  Why?  Why did they all get a pass?  Why all the immunity deals?  The only possible conclusion is, they didn't want the investigation to go anywhere.

Why is that?  Why didn't they pursue justice with HRC with the same tenacity that Mueller is pursuing Trump?  Please, tell me.  If its not my tinfoil-hat-deep-state explanation, what was the reason?

I agree with you that lots of rich people like Trump.  A bunch more don't.  It changes depending on if they're winners or losers under the policy he wants to get through.

But the difference is, he doesn't *need* their money the way Obama did.  Obama would have been nothing without his donors.  Trump could have self-funded the entire process.  That gives him the whip hand to do more or less what he wants.

Clinton, Obama both need to give "speeches" after they leave office to live well.  Trump doesn't.  He's already rich.  He doesn't need to play along.  So he can afford to stiff whomever he wants, because he'll suffer no ill effects.

[Of course he hasn't done very much of that, sadly.  He has as many Goldman weasels in there as Obama did.  And I agree, while Obamacare will enrich the insurance and medical industry using taxpayer dollars, Trumpcare is just a bad joke.  All the while, Bernie's "medicare for all" goes nowhere.  And his "cheap drugs from Canada" got 12 Democratic votes against it.  Those donors again, having their bipartisan way.]

If I had to guess, had Obama (and his fellow Democrats) not been beholden to his donors, his presidency would have looked a lot different.  That's probably true of all the Presidents that came before.  But he (and they) were totally trapped by circumstance and the logic of money-in-politics.  Most likely, it was his donors constraining him to do the big Insurance Healthcare Giveaway.

I'm making a structural argument here, not a personal one.  Because of his wealth, Trump is outside the donor-class structure, so he can play by different rules.  That, plus the populist movement, gives him the opportunity to do stuff that the donor class has kept all the other presidents from doing.

What he does with it - well, that's the question.

I'd prefer someone of Sanders' character in there over Trump any day.  But HRC took care of that, didn't she, by buying off the DNC, and screaming "Russian Collusion" when people started to notice what she'd done.  And instead of going after her for her "meddling" in the primary - which she did very effectively I might add -  we're focused on "Russian Collusion" which if it existed, the NSA would have the evidence already, and most likely, it would have been leaked by now.  Good job HRC on the misdirect - with the help of Mueller and Strzok and crew.  When the investigators are your friends, you get to walk.

Ultimately, HRC, with her successful meddling in the US election cycle, ended up putting Trump in office.  It wasn't the Russians - it was all her.

fionnbharr's picture
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 27 2012
Posts: 87
Olive Branches ...


Doug's picture
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3200


Your Venn diagram has been blown all to hell by the current administration.  The balance between Dems and Reps no longer exists.  The Reps in Congress are now solidly Trump's party while chaos reigns in the White House.  You castigate Brennan and for that matter Hillary for a few lies they may or may not have told in their respective careers in the gov't while ignoring the 2000+ lies that Trump told during his first year in office.

And of course you repeatedly bring up the lies the NYT told about WMD and Tonkin Gulf, claiming you can no longer trust the NYT.  OK, that's two lies in the past 60 years.  How does Trump escape your criticism with his well documented history of mendacity?

And how do you blithely ignore virtually everyone in our and Europe's intelligence communities and Congress who claim Russia hacked our and European elections and will continue to do so if they aren't stopped?  Why would you assume Putin, the KGB guy, is innocent of this kind of behavior?  As they say in Russia, once KGB, always KGB.  And we know what the tradecraft for spooks includes, the ability to lie convincingly.  Why do you assume Putin's a nice guy when he has left a trail of dead bodies that have one common denominator, they were opponents of Putin.  You seem to forget that in Russia the oligopoly, KGB and the Russian mob have so many connections that they are almost indistinguishable from each other.  And who controls the strings with an iron fist?  Putin.  And who has a serious case of hero worship for Putin?  Trump.

How about a little even handedness?

Tude's picture
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 1 2017
Posts: 38
Doug wrote: You castigate
Doug wrote:

You castigate Brennan and for that matter Hillary for a few lies they may or may not have told in their respective careers in the gov't

Wow, just wow. I hear you are a long time member here and I am supposed to respect you...but anyone who cannot call out both Brennan and Hillary Clinton for the pure evil that they are and what they have done has no place lecturing others on their lack of "even handedness" or anything else. Few lies they may or MAY NOT have told? What a joke. Can you say that with a straight face?

kelvinator's picture
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 25 2008
Posts: 215
FBI Investigations in a Time of Corrupt Partisan Warfare

Oh lordy, Dave, don't make me do it!!  I am really not a fan of Hillary Clinton, a Secretary of State who takes Henry Kissinger as a role model and represents one head of the two-headed Establishment beast that has sat astride America and strangled it, propagating endless war, pay-to-play government, and on and on. 

In Kissingeresque style, as Sec'ty of State, by effectively recognizing a right wing coup in Honduras in 2009, as I posted here before the election, I believe she played a meaningful indirect role in the assassination of Berta Caceres, a heroic Honduran local community activist and Goldman Prize winner I saw speak in San Francisco 3-4 years ago.  I deeply admired Caceres' brave fight against corrupt multinational development in her region that was destroying an area owned and inhabited by poor traditional communities that had lived there for centuries.  Caceres called out Clinton for her acceptance of the coup (which had put Caceres already at-risk life in much greater danger) not long before she was killed by gunmen in a supposed home "robbery" which took nothing. 

If you stand up to corrupt money and power in many parts of the world, you're not just investigated or persecuted, you're often just killed.  That's what happened to her, and happens to many other local activists worldwide year in and year out.  I know, because I have contacts with the larger community of global activists who fight local big money corruption.  Too many of them don't live long.

Still, I'm not enthused to wade into all the partisan muck to try to compare the FBI's treatment of its investigation of Hillary and aides' potential violation of law regarding use her private email server and their possible destruction of evidence to the FBI’s investigation of Trump and associates potential violations of law regarding collusion and quid-quo-pro with Russia and other foreign gov'ts.  As is often true, I agree a number of things you say in your post, Dave, (eg, in this case, Goldman weasels, HRC deep-sixing Bernie, etc.).  

My position seems different that yours on the investigations only in that I don't think the FBI is so clearly in the tank for Clinton vs. Trump as you do.  I'm not going to spend a lot of time going deep into the weeds on this because I just don't think either of us is likely to convince the other of much.  In response to your question, though, I'll just try give a few reasons why I don't think there's as big a disparity between Hillary's treatment and Trump's as you do:

- I agree with the notion that Hillary set up a personal email server to try to shield some of her communications from the Freedom of Information Act - it was not some "aw shucks" happenstance.  As I posted here during the election, I believe that she’s guilty of massive “soft corruption”, as are the major figures in both parties, IMO.  At this point, I’m not aware of any illegal well-substantiated HRC quid-pro-quo corruption, though that may exist, just as Trump quid-quo-pros may or may not exist.  IMO, much of the corruption both parties are involved in pay-to-play campaign funding and legislating in should be investigated, made public, and made illegal to the greatest extent it reasonably can.

- I'm not surprised that the FBI, for its own sake, took some care in its >investigation< of a major Establishment Presidential candidate in an active election cycle to not issue >charges< (something different) that were not powerfully substantiated and serious.  I think the same will be true for Trump.  The FBI will also, take a lot of care with its investigation of a sitting President and is unlikely, for its own sake, to issue charges (or in Mueller's case, findings to Congress) that aren't powerfully substantiated and serious. This is an extremely partisan environment, filled with conspiracy theories and potential conspiracy realities.  It’s not surprising that the FBI’s reputation is already hugely damaged in the view of many on all sides.

- As it is, the long FBI email investigation & its public announcements about it alone likely could be seen as the final straw that caused Clinton to lose the election to Trump, and thus ended her (and the Clintons') political careers, which I personally hope are as dead as a doornail.  It’s likely that, if something is uncovered on Trump that is anything less than crystal clear evidence of treason, a return to private life will be the worst that happens to him as well.

- I have zero problem with Trump being investigated as a) a person who has repeatedly told lies publicly, 2) has been aggressively nontransparent – at historic level - as a Presidential candidate and President about his financial relationships and potential corruption, and for there being, as far as I'm concerned, 3) more abundant evidence than HRC that he and many those around him have told multiple lies about recent, relevant events to his investigation starting in 2016 and continuing since, specifically denying or failing to report contacts and financial relationships with Russians, the Ukraine, Turkey, etc. that occurred.  

- There’s some validity to your point regarding the apparent differing treatment that Flynn and Abedin got in their immunity deals, based on my current understanding of what went on, but I don’t believe it’s as definitively biased as you state.  The FBI’s explanation of the difference is that Flynn’s lie was completely provable and about the conversation with the Russian ambassador which had just happened a few days prior to the FBI interview and was centrally relevant to its investigation, whereas Abedin’s lies or potential lies that I’m aware of (that she didn’t know or recall about HRC’s private email server until after it had been in service awhile, and that she didn’t back up Clinton emails privately) was much less recent, less central, and harder prove were not just a false recollections or - re the backup - carelessly included with transfer of her own emails.  Still, I take your point of possible differential treatment – just don’t give it the extreme weight you do. 

For sure, I don’t think that the FBI has behaved in an unimpeachable way in these investigations.  They are an agency that’s funded by a corrupt establishment that gives them the job of enforcing the law against powerful, corrupt members of that establishment in a very partisan environment.   But it’s worked both ways.  As you know, HRC supporters were completely foaming at the mouth about the FBI announcement by the "Republican" Comey days before the election.  They are upset now that it’s been revealed Comey’s FBI had info on and was investigating the various Trump/Russia connections without making it public at all before the election while making announcements not in line with Bureau policy on HRC that affected her chances for winning in very real way.

Personally, I want much more powerful laws on transparency for people in public office and to get money the hell >out< of US politics, like more sane countries.  What passes for democracy in the US is an utter disgrace.  Trump and Clinton are both creatures rife with cronyism and corruption as far as I'm concerned.



davefairtex's picture
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5693
money out of politics

Removing money from politics would fix a lot of things.  As would a shorter campaign season.  But if we did that, the donors wouldn't control things nearly so completely, and its a massive ROI for these companies to control the politicians so...catch-22, money remains in politics.

But I'm all in favor of removing it.

I do place a lot of weight on the tactics employed by the FBI during their investigation.  Interestingly, Peter Strzok supposedly wrote up Flynn as probably truthful - it was Mueller's prosecutors on the team that ignored Strzok's writeup, and decided to drop the boom on him anyway.

Strzok did not decide on his own to interview Flynn. We know the matter was being monitored at the highest level of the Justice Department, by then–acting attorney general Sally Yates and then–FBI director James Comey. Strzok and a colleague were assigned to interview Flynn. More importantly, Strzok apparently reported that he believed Flynn had been truthful. Shortly after the interview occurred, it was reported that the FBI had decided no action would be taken against Flynn. On March 2, Comey testified to a closed session of the House Intelligence Committee that, while Flynn may have had some honest failures of recollection during the interview, the agents who questioned him concluded that he did not lie.

Tactics can be either delicate (as they were with HRC's team - who all got immunity) or very heavy handed (lying to the FBI - that's five years, bucko).  Its really a critical difference.  You can't get anyone to roll on their superior if there is no threat.  So by giving the immunity deals, they were saying, in effect, "we won't force any of your subordinates to give you up."  They are saying the exact opposite to Trump's former team.  "We're going to squeeze you like a lemon until there's no juice left, until you give us something on your former boss."

Its really a critical difference.  The delicate approach ensures the investigation goes nowhere.  The heavy-handed approach says you'd better give up your boss or your life will become very unpleasant.

Ideally there'd be some middle ground that conducted an investigation with at least some modicum of respect for innocence-until-proven-guilty - but that's not the world we live in today.

And interestingly, it seems that Peter Strzok actually did that for Flynn.  But he was ignored...

Its a complicated world out there.

cmartenson's picture
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 5975
Doug...with all due respect...
Doug wrote:


(...)  You castigate Brennan and for that matter Hillary for a few lies they may or may not have told in their respective careers in the gov't while ignoring the 2000+ lies that Trump told during his first year in office.


How about a little even handedness?

Doug, you seem weirdly inclined to believe that I am under some sort of obligation, perhaps even a moral one, to respond to your every point while you ignore every other one that Mememonkey, or I, might make.

It's a very weird engagement style, especially on the web, where all we have are our words.

But let me once again try to engage with your words (to quite probably no fruitful result based on your prior refusal to respond in kind, or even to stick to basic logic), which I do also for the possible benefit of others who might be reading.

Because each missive from you often contains one or more debatable, if not factual, errors and/or omissions in each sentence, let me focus on your third sentence:

"You castigate Brennan and for that matter Hillary for a few lies they may or may not have told in their respective careers in the gov't while ignoring the 2000+ lies that Trump told during his first year in office."

Doug, please..."a few lies"?

You do realize that Hillary's lies led to the complete ruin of Libya and Honduras as functioning states?  John Brennan, as I already pointed out, used the CIA as an internal mechanism for abuse of democratic power that runs afoul of the constitution in every conceivable way.

Of course, as Mememonkey and myself have already established, you are in favor of torture and extrajudicial assassinations as long as they are conducted by a Democratic president. 

I consider that to be among the most unacceptable, indefensible, and foul of stances to hold, but there you are.  Defending the indefensible.  Again.  Against all logic and morality.  As long as "your guy" is in power, you're cool.  But when not?  Then the opposite.  

How can I be so severe?  easy.

The article that you cite headlines these three "worst of the worst" Trump lies which you apparently think more than offset lying by Hillary and Brennan which has destroyed entire nations and killed thousands if not  millions of people:

  • “We can build the wall in one year and we can build it for much less money than what they’re talking about.”
  • In the diversity visa lottery, “what’s in their hand are the worst of the worst but they put people in that they don’t want into a lottery and the United States takes those people.”
  • “We have tremendous numbers of people and drugs pouring into our country. So in order to secure [the border] we need a wall.”

The Washington Post (WaPo) then "dismantles" each of these three whoppers by saying that the wall might take longer and cost more, that a Visa system is in place to prevent the sorts of things he's worried about in point #2, and that even if there were a wall it probably wouldn't impact the amount of drugs finding their way into the country.

Actually, I find each of those "dismantlings" to be debatable, or at least under the same sort of umbrella of political extravagance that we are regularly subjected to, daily, by ignorant politicians from both sides of the aisle.  If you want, I can easily surface dozes of totally dumb-ass statements by Democrats such as Pelosi or Waters any time I wish.

But which if those three whoppers told by Trump has led to the deaths of hundreds, thousands and even millions of civilians?  None.  None of them.

So far.  Trump could well turn out to be worse than any who have preceded him, but so far that's not the case.  It's like you want me/us to convict him on being an ignorant fool who might do something worse in the future but, again, I have to go by the data I have in hand.  

Hillary's lies and neocon position stances led to thousands and thousands of innocent people being killed (as in Honduras and Libya).  That's just a cold  hard fact.  Nothing you can do to minimize that by saying that Hillary and Brennan "may or may not have told lies in their respective careers in the gov't"

Doug, you may be a fool, or a GS-2 tool located in VA, but the rest of us are intelligent and capable of remembering history.  There's no possibility of you castigating us into falling for the ridiculously avoidable mental trap of believing that Hillary and Brennan "may or may not" have told lies.  Their lying is historical fact.  The consequences of their perfidy is historical fact.

If you are not, in fact, a government troll (which I am beginning to doubt), then you'd do better to offer up somebody we could respect, rather than try to make me love your chosen psychopaths by making me hate Trump even more.  

At best, I will end up hating him just as much. 

In other words, Doug, there's no upside to your stance.

How can you not see this?  Other than your salary depending on that, I mean?


Quercus bicolor's picture
Quercus bicolor
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 19 2008
Posts: 470
I've met Doug


I met Doug in person a number of years ago. I hiked with him and his daughter in a local nature preserve when he was visiting her from Buffalo.  It was pleasant enough and if I remember correctly, his daughter is a forester or botanist or something like that and we had a enjoyable time talking about and exploring the local plants including some valerian that had naturalized in a power line right of way.  I'm not saying this to defend his arguments, just to point out that the "GS-2 tool located in VA" possibility is rather unlikely.  If that's the case, then he really had me fooled.

thc0655's picture
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1716
It's a dead end

Chris wrote:

Doug, you seem weirdly inclined to believe that I am under some sort of obligation, perhaps even a moral one, to respond to your every point while you ignore every other one that Mememonkey, or I, might make.

It's a very weird engagement style, especially on the web, where all we have are our words.

But let me once again try, to quite probably no fruitful result based on your prior lack of ability to constructively engage or use basic logic, which I do entirely for the possible benefit of others who might be reading, engage with you, on your territory, using your words.

Your attempt to be rational, objective, open-minded, reciprocal, etc are the dead end in this interaction.

The Leftist is all the more formidable in that each of these strengths in the Modern democratic legal-political arena finds its counterpart in a corresponding weakness over on the Right, which inherits a legacy mindset from the patriciate of the ancien regime, and which is a ruling-class mentality properly and strictly so-called- that is to say, the ideology of an actual ruling class that enjoys secure power, and that does not have to prove itself to subalterns or fight legal or electoral contests with them. A value-system that places a premium on compromise and negotiation, impartial objectivity and fair play, solicitude for the welfare and harmony of the social whole, voluntary adherence to ethical standards even when under no positive legal obligation to do so, temperance and moderation in all things, diligent Statecraft and careful prudence and foresight in governing, speaking the truth and keeping one's word as a point of pride and manhood- all of these virtues presume the possession of secure personal power, that lines of authority are clearly drawn, and that those in positions of authority are in no way accountable to, or subject to being challenged by, any subaltern. For these virtues quickly become catastrophically dysfunctional and vicious when the person who has them must fight the congenitally anomic and shameless subaltern who has no scruples to handicap him. 

It's probably significant here that, in traditional social hierarchies, not only is a subaltern forbidden from challenging a superior, but the latter is equally forbidden by the code of honour from accepting any such challenge. After all, it isn't a good idea to e.g. fight a pistol duel with someone who isn't above just turning around and shooting you in the back before you've gone through your paces. It is not virtuous, but mere folly to try to act in good faith with someone who won't reciprocate, to attempt to reason with one who exalts madness and unreason, to sincerely debate with a hardened and cunning troll, to try to compromise and negotiate with a fanatic who for his own part would rather die (if he can't utterly annihilate you that is), to appeal to the piety of an atheist and the patriotism of a traitor, and above all, to try to be objective and impartial in an adversarial judicial or political contest with somebody who's much more solicitous about looking after No. 1 than about truth and the social good, and thus born to play in those sorts of arenas. 

With respect to the latter point: the stance of the Right is that of a patrician who serves as judge of a legal case; Leftism, the stance of the attorney or advocate that pleads the case (the latter a quintessentially and stereotypically bourgeois profession throughout the history of the modern bourgeoisie, and above all, the profession of choice of pariah castes with bourgeois aspirations- e.g. and especially Jews). 

Judging and pleading are two radically different things. A judge is the ideal-type of the patrician as defined here and the embodiment of the essence of objectivity. A judge towers above a fractious and warring set of particulars upon whose will his authority in no way derives or depends, and before whom the latter stand in subordination as equals. The judge is tasked with finding a just disposition that decisively resolves the dispute between the litigants and puts disrupted social relations back into order, and with discerning and arriving at public truth from a bunch of contending claims that do not have the status of truth, since they are partial, one-sided, and contested. Having arrived at a determination of the truth to his satisfaction, he pronounces his judgment as truth that is public in that it must be acknowledged as incontestably true by every particular once it is pronounced (the very definition of "objective" truth as opposed to contestable and subjective opinions that are "true" only for the particular that holds them). 

It should go without saying the possession of secure personal power is not only indispensably necessary to the exercise of this activity, but its a priori condition of conceivability without which it cannot even be imagined.

The activity of the attorney or advocate, meanwhile, intrinsically displays all the characteristics of democratic and Leftist politics. (It isn't a coincidence that the law college is always dominated by the Left, and that the historical trend is for litigation to assume a greater and greater importance as Liberalism advances). The attorney is in no way interested in the objective in any sense of the word. It is not his job to arrive at the truth, look after the good of social whole, see to it that justice is done, etc. His job is to ruthlessly advance the interests of his principal by any means necessary on the most radically one-sided and adversarial basis, and he would indeed be professionally derelict if he didn't, and he does so against a no less partial opponent who is his equal.

Read the whole thing.  It's well worth the time.

"Welcome to the Hunger Games. And may the odds be ever in your favor."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments