Anon Op-Ed + Public Backlash = Coup?

[TheNomad]

Are we watching the beginning of a coup?  coup=powerful cabal working in the shadows to seize power.

It all seems too convenient.  Massive attacks from multiple angles all at once.  It seems like 'victory' is near with this mess, but one cannot help to look past my own possible joy(?) others who are actually THERE say things like 'don't worry there ARE adults in the room' and things like 'removing documents from his desk in the name of patriotism'............. it all seems really great.

I know nothing about the vice president.  And I don't need all of you providing me with links and information about him (thank you tho ) since that is the person to assume power if this one is removed.

No one believed and people still do not believe today there are secret cabals of power that dominate through inter-agency transactions and private partnerships and alliances... we are seeing it right now.  The idea there are clusters of "patriotic americans" subverting the president in the name of "protecting the nation" SERIOUSLY?

If these people exist, and can get their agenda published anonymously in the NYT, and have it read to millions in entirety through media outlets.................. it smells like democracy!  Is it really?  And what can we learn from this?  Some of you giggle when I write about JFK or whatever, I don't know if it is because you don't believe cabals are possible................ or that they are not powerful enough to kill a president.............. or if you are just so hell-bent on wanting a lone angry figure to blame......... I am not sure.  But for whatever reason, you need to look long and hard at what is happening right now. 

It smells like democracy but it feels like a setup.

[pbrower2a]

We could see some political actors put pressure on you-know-who to resign. Secret cabals trying to get power? The lobbyists really rule America, with nominally-elected legislators in Congress and most State assemblies in practice beholden to corporate lobbyists. The 2018 midterm elections look very bad to them at least in Congress. Can Democrats flip some state legislatures? We would have to know on a state-by-state basis, and that is rarely in the news. President Trump generates more news coverage than did Barack Obama, and unlike the case with Obama, it isn't flattering.

The 'Adults in the Room' could be the ones least connected to democratic politics in daily activities: the military, the intelligence agencies, the diplomatic corps, the courts, and law enforcement within the government... and the powerful front groups of the Republican Party (Citizens United, Freedom Works, Americans for Prosperity, Club for Growth, etc) and the news media. Two months away from the midterm election is too late to do anything to stop an election which is nearly-certain disaster for the GOP unless a coup takes place, as in Chile in 1973.

The intelligence agencies despise this President. Barack Obama may not have been the optimum in 2008, but at least he could find them useful without him using them as political punching bags. He did not leak data, and the intelligence agencies may have done the one thing to get the 44th President re-elected: getting the intelligence necessary for whacking Osama bin Laden. Trump abuses and misuses intelligence, and that creates hostility toward the President from the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency.

The military? It will do a war which has justification, but something whose sole purpose is the political advantage of the President? It can refuse to invade Cuba or Venezuela in the absence of a casus belli. It will not do crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, or conventional war crimes (categories of deeds prosecuted in the main Nuremberg Trial in 1945 and 1946). Generals Marshall and Eisenhower could have never expected such prosecution against American officials because they never thought that American political and military figures could ever do such things. The Uniform Code of Military Justice specifically prohibits war crimes, and any officer has its prohibitions against war crimes as a pretext for disobeying unlawful orders from any superior officer including the Commander in Chief.

The Mueller investigation has been effective in its cat-and-mouse games in getting some people to expose the criminal misconduct of the President and his associates. It has yet to go after family members of the President, Cabinet officials, or the Vice-President. Real doom for this Presidency happens if the President's 'impeachment insurance', a Vice-President who could be even more unpopular than the President, disappears from the line of succession. There would be a need for a new Vice-President, amd your guess is as good as mine on who that would be. That will depend on who has control of the House and Senate after January 3, 2019. At this point I cannot name names.

The removal of Agnew and the resignation of Nixon resulted from Constitutional processes in which no election was held. We do not consider that a coup, for all went on without anyone poking a gun at someone duly elected.

[tg63]

I find myself thinking about the Reichstag fire. Will be interesting to see what actions are proposed over the next few days/weeks as a result of this.

[TheNomad]

You said: Reichstag fire,...

No one believes in that.  No one here believes a cabal with hidden agenda would do something like that.

At least not in America.  Just impossible.

EDIT: I forgot to invoke Alex Jones and the Pyramid Power folks.... because we all know Alex is a windbag looking into things like CFR and Bohemian Grove, and he is the FIRST one that would tell you a Reichstag Fire incident is just a DIFFERENT cabal of people looking to seize power in a DIFFERENT time with a DIFFERENT set of values.  

And we must not believe Alex Jones, because he is a "nut".  Therefore, such an idea of cabal within governments is just fantasy and we should never lean that direction because it is only untruths and fantastical lies.

No cabals.  Just Lee Harvey Oswald (another "nut" of the "angry lone" kind).

BTW how dare you invoke adolph hitler and the nazis when comparing to America.  I mean, how dare you.  How dare you actually imply any unelected people could ever seize power in The Land Of The Free.  Your assertion is baseless and you should not be "wondering" about it at all. 

All of us here trust in the government and the Constitution and we vote, therefore we rule.  Your post is just so offensive.

[TheNomad]

The lobbyists really rule America

That is like saying guns kill people.  Lobbying is only a conduit activity to exert power.  Your inability to see or acknowledge things which work in the shadows undermines your scope.  The control is not within any system of government, it acts outside of it.  Those who control/guide things to their advantage employ the use of Shared Values between Inter-Agency-Governnmental-And-Corporate Entities.

If a circle of people are "guiding" the president on what he sees and does in the name of "patriotism" that is - by definition - a cabal.  Working in secret.  To achieve some goal based on those shared values. 

The NYT anon article describes a group of "like-minded individuals" who have great concern for America and are subverting the president's ability to govern because they believe they are acting as patriots. <---------------------- THAT if you apply it to, say, the Obama admin, I think everyone in this forum would be in washington with a pitchfork.  But not so much because we agree with the "cabal" so we are down with it.

The precedent of "like-minded individuals acting in concert to subvert the presidency" REALLY IS Treason on paper.  It is.  I dare anyone to say otherwise.  Unless we are having some revolution I am unaware of?  Even then, the winner of a revolution decides who was the bad guy and not until it is over.

[pbrower2a]

(09-07-2018, 12:54 AM)TheNomad Wrote: The lobbyists really rule America

That is like saying guns kill people.  Lobbying is only a conduit activity to exert power.  Your inability to see or acknowledge things which work in the shadows undermines your scope.  The control is not within any system of government, it acts outside of it.  Those who control/guide things to their advantage employ the use of Shared Values between Inter-Agency-Governnmental-And-Corporate Entities.

More precisely, they are the real power in the legislative branch of the federal and most state governments because they pull the strings reliably upon the legislators whose election they have bought. Of course the lobbyists need a working majority, which means that if some fanatic shares their agenda but won in a self-financed campaign, then such is fine with them.

The ideal politician for them is an empty suit who makes no extremist statements but simply votes as told. Basically such is the lobbyists; employee who gets his paycheck from the government instead of from a lobbying firm.

Quote:If a circle of people are "guiding" the president on what he sees and does in the name of "patriotism" that is - by definition - a cabal.  Working in secret.  To achieve some goal based on those shared values.

 
Evidence now suggests that the President is in a very bad mental condition... think of Ronald Reagan around the time that his second term ended, but with faults that make one troublesome even without mental decay -- pugnacity, an extremist ideology, failure to understand the functions of the Presidency including checks and balances between the branches of government, and a lack of conscience or empathy. In 2016 a near-plurality of Americans distributed as was necessary for allowing him to win the electoral college with a minority of the total popular vote and less than the leader thought him refreshing or desirable.

But things are different. Reagan had handlers toward the end who made sure that he was lucid and presentable and on message, and not wandering off into senility. If you saw Reagan in 1987, you basically got to see what you elected in 1980. Handlers included medical staff. The public got to see what they thought they voted for because they saw him only at his best. Trump has none of the endearing qualities of Reagan. He would still be trouble if he were coldly rational,

 

Quote:The NYT anon article describes a group of "like-minded individuals" who have great concern for America and are subverting the president's ability to govern because they believe they are acting as patriots. <---------------------- THAT if you apply it to, say, the Obama admin, I think everyone in this forum would be in washington with a pitchfork.  But not so much because we agree with the "cabal" so we are down with it.

Considering that Obama was a chilly rationalist, fully understood the basics of the government including the Constitution and the checks and balances, left no question of sanity, has empathy and a moral compass, is humble enough to heed specialized advice outside his expertise, and has some flexibility of mind, he did not create problems. Thus if there is a natural disaster and solutions involve engineering, he would defer to the engineers on details because he is not a trained engineer. If you accept the generational theory, you will recognize that Obama is more characteristic of the sort of leader who follows the Crisis (Eisenhower) or emerges at its end (Truman) as a mature Reactive/Nomad who knows well enough to leave the hornets' nest alone. Even so he does not have a grand vision, which probably fits the reality of American unreadiness for one.

Quote:The precedent of "like-minded individuals acting in concert to subvert the presidency" REALLY IS Treason on paper.  It is.  I dare anyone to say otherwise.  Unless we are having some revolution I am unaware of?  Even then, the winner of a revolution decides who was the bad guy and not until it is over.

Subvert the Presidency -- or to keep it from going onto a dangerous and destructive path?

At this point the mental pathologies of this President and the moral pathologies are separate realities. Reagan may have slipped out his contempt for 'losers' in an unguarded moment. Trump seems to have no guarded moments. Let's not forget that unlike Ronald Reagan, unambiguously a reactionary, was in no way revolutionary. He consistently stood, at least nominally, for traditional values against what he saw as dangerous new trends. Trump is bringing forth an ideology new to America, one in which 'winners' like him are to run roughshod over 'losers' who are not as magnificent as he is. At the best he is Mad King Ludwig II of Bavaria from whose worst tendencies can be protected, At worst he is Wilhelm II, deutscher Kaiser. All that is missing is a regal heritage.

What I see is someone wholly unfit to manage anything. Reality is whatever he feels like at the moment, the voice in his head that he is now incompetent to judge. I have seen dementia in action, and although it is different I recognize the difference in personalities between people with dementia as well as different manifestations of the diseases. Someone passive and good-natured with dementia is less troublesome than someone who either always had a nasty personality or someone who had enough inhibitions against doing nasty things that he chose the right path when he had a choice.

I cannot know fully as I am not an insider and I am not a trained psychologist or psychiatrist. But I have seen dementia first hand, and it is not pretty. It will reshape one as a care-giver trying to keep a parent out of the nursing home as long as is possible because such is the desire of both care-giver and care-taker.

Donald Trump is the problem. The Presidency is not the problem except that Trump is President.

[TheNomad]

Subvert the Presidency -- or to keep it from going onto a dangerous and destructive path?

It isn't our Constitutional Framework for a group of individuals to subvert the office of the president to keep it from going into destructive waters.

If you want that, it isn't America.  I don't say that in a "take off the hijab, this is 'Merica" way.  It simply means what you say here is fundamentally outlandish at best and home-grown terror at worst.  Yep.  I'm calling your views here "terroristic".  You are swaying in motion to the idea there is a monster in the white house THEREFORE IT IS OK that 1/3 of our governmental processes be subverted "in the name of liberty".

I don't know what country or nation or system is being described above, but it is not here in the United States.

If you didn't know, we have a 3-tiered system of checks and balances.  A "loosely-affiliated group of individuals managing the office of the president in the name of freedom" is just JIHAD from within instead of abroad.  <--- The in bold I just described is not any part of the check/balance system of our nation.

Are you calling for a revolution?  Are you saying the checks and balances we have enjoyed for over 200 years is antiquated and needs revising?  I am not saying you are wrong or bad if that's the case.  But what you describe is NOT any part of the Constitution.  How can anyone complain if they think the president is shitting on the Constitution when they say it's OK to shit on the Constitution when it means stopping a crazy president.

Also, aren't you the one who does not believe in loose coalition of individuals working in secret to accomplish a goal of subverting an American agenda?  You are the one who does not believe in that idea, EXCEPT where it applies to the NYT anon article that attacks the current filth in office.

No JFK cabal for you.  Not possible.  But here, you say not only is it possible but right and proper.  

Decide.

Evidence now suggests that the President is in a very bad mental condition

What "evidence"?  There is "evidence" now?  Do you guys hear yourselves?  It is no different than insane Guliani or these crazy people when for them it is FACT when the claims say what they want to hear but "in dispute" when the claims say what they do not want to hear.  How are you different?  (<--- real question).  You say openly you are not psych or soc or any of that, but you say "evidence" as if you received some forensic report and have made your expert determination.  I like to think we are better than that.  I keep saying those who interact in this forum (MAYBE I AM WRONG) have ability and propensity for higher thought............. based on the idea we are able to comprehend saeculums and turnings and express the ideas rationally.  But for some part of it, we are going into low places acting just like the people we call "crazy".

[Marypoza]

(09-06-2018, 02:15 PM)tg63 Wrote: I find myself thinking about the Reichstag fire. Will be interesting to see what actions are proposed over the next few days/weeks as a result of this.

-- intetesting you should mention the Reichstag fire. Around that same time Grampa Bush was plotting a coup to overthrow Roosevelt. It was thwarted by General Smedley Butler
So it could happen here Nomad, it very nearly did
ps, be careful what you wish 4. As bad as the Donald is, l don't think l want some junta running this country, & l know l don't want Pence. You may know nothing about him but l do bcuz he used to govern the state next door (& l do mean next door, as in, say 30mi) from here. Since you aren't interested in any linx let me just say he's bad, infact the thinking around here is that the Donald picked Pence 4 veep so Congress would not impeach him

[pbrower2a]

I contrast the madness of Donald Trump to the Alzheimer's of Ronald Reagan. Sure, Reagan was a piece of work, but at the least he was surrounded by (mostly) competent administrators. Those people could make sure that we saw Ronald Reagan at his best, delaying his appearances until he was at his best. They could feed suggestions to him because he was still coachable. Reagan was a second-tier actor from his time (and in view of such top-level male stars who were his contemporaries, like Humphrey Bogart, Jimmy Cagney, Cary Grant, Henry Fonda, John Wayne, and Jimmy Stewart), "second tier" might be anything other than "second-rate". Nut he was never the studio boss who could order people about and make huge cuts in a motion picture or decide who was to be the star.

Donald Trump is a media figure, but his medium was trashy television. In no way a legitimate actor, he could get away with stream-of-consciousness discourse more as if he were a professional athlete (most are hideous communicators capable of discussing their favorite subjects -- themselves -- with the use of some hackneyed jargon from the sports world) than an experienced actor. But as a producer as a supplier of funds and not a creative person (as would be an actor himself or a director) he effectively became the equivalent of a studio boss. Trump can talk at any time, and he has nobody to stop him as an editor.

In a film studio (unlike the theater) one gets retakes. In a theater, which is more like politics as a form of communication, one gets no second chances. Reagan's handlers knew this and were able to coach him. Trump could get away with thinking that because he is Donald Trump he is magnificent enough that he needs no such help. The likes of Bogart, Fonda, and Stewart could still awe Reagan, and he knew his limitations. Trump knows no limitations.

[pbrower2a]

(09-09-2018, 09:45 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(09-06-2018, 02:15 PM)tg63 Wrote: I find myself thinking about the Reichstag fire. Will be interesting to see what actions are proposed over the next few days/weeks as a result of this.

-- intetesting you should mention the Reichstag fire. Around that same time Grampa Bush was plotting a coup to overthrow Roosevelt. It was thwarted by General Smedley Butler

So it could happen here Nomad, it very nearly did

ps, be careful what you wish 4. As bad as the Donald is,  l don't think l want some junta running this country, & l know l don't want Pence. You may know nothing about him but l do bcuz he used to govern the state next door (& l do mean next door, as in, say 30mi) from here. Since you aren't interested in any linx let me just say he's bad, in fact the thinking around here is that the Donald picked Pence 4 veep so Congress would not impeach him

I live in Michigan, and I know lots of people in Indiana. They might be conservatives, but they got sick of Pence. Indiana is so conservative in its voting patterns that Republican nominees for President have not won the Presidency while failing to win the state by at least 10%, and they can win the state by a little more (1960, 2012) and still lose Presidential elections if they win it by just over 10%.

I think that you are right about Pence being insurance against any impeachment or resignation of Trump. He is awful. He went to make a speech at Notre Dame, thinking that because he is from Indiana he would connect. The problem is that he is a lapsed Catholic and proud of it, which does not go well with people from all over the world who attend Notre Dame. Little offends devout Catholics than a lapsed Catholic (Pence is now a fundamentalist Protestant, which is almost as much a cause for a clash with Catholicism as is Islam) pushing non-Catholic values. Heck, if I had to go to Brigham Young University and speak, I would have to say some good things about Mormons and their ways. Like many fundamentalist Protestants Pence is a social Calvinist who believes that people having difficulties in life get what they deserve because they have never gotten the Blessings of God.

I will say this about educated Catholics: they know their Bible well, and they well know that contrary to the impression that the Right has that Jesus said "Blessed are the wealthy, for they can lord it over us"... He said quite the opposite.

.................

I would not be surprised if the penultimate target of the Mueller investigation if the Vice-President. I am tempted to believe that impeachment comes if the Republicans can be obliged to find a new Vice-President. Mike Pence must be complicit in something despicable and even criminal that Trump has done, before or after the election. It's probably not bribery or tax evasion as was the case of Spiro T. Agnew.

[TheNomad]

Why was grandpa bush thwarted?  Everyone is too busy arguing to form conclusions to learn anything.

He was funneling cash to the Nazis.  Funding different things actually.  What does that say his offspring for more than several generations hold major political positions?

[Marypoza]

(09-11-2018, 04:26 AM)TheNomad Wrote: Why was grandpa bush thwarted?  Everyone is too busy arguing to form conclusions to learn anything.

He was funneling cash to the Nazis.  Funding different things actually.  What does that say his offspring for more than several generations hold major political positions?

-- what it sez is that our Justice system was f-ed up even back then (so that's nothing new) Grampa Bush should of gone to jail for plotting a coup (Butler ratted him out 2 Roosevelt) he should of gone to jail for trading with the enemy (funneling things 2 the Nazis) lnstead he went 2 the Senate 

& his grandson only became Prez bcuz the Supreme Court put his loser ass there 

[David Horn]

(09-11-2018, 04:37 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(09-11-2018, 04:26 AM)TheNomad Wrote: Why was grandpa bush thwarted?  Everyone is too busy arguing to form conclusions to learn anything.

He was funneling cash to the Nazis.  Funding different things actually.  What does that say his offspring for more than several generations hold major political positions?

-- what is sez is thst our Justice system was f-ed up even back then (so that's nothing new) Grampa Bush should of gone to jail for plotting a coup (Butler ratted him out 2 Roosevelt) he should of gone to jail for trading with the enemy (funneling things 2 the Nazis) lnstead he went 2 the Senate 

& his grandson only became Prez bcuz the Suprem Court put his loservass there 

And the future court will be even less critical of overreach .. at least from the moneyed side of things.

[pbrower2a]

(09-11-2018, 09:50 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-11-2018, 04:37 AM)Marypoza Wrote:

(09-11-2018, 04:26 AM)TheNomad Wrote: Why was grandpa bush thwarted?  Everyone is too busy arguing to form conclusions to learn anything.

He was funneling cash to the Nazis.  Funding different things actually.  What does that say his offspring for more than several generations hold major political positions?

-- what is sez is thst our Justice system was f-ed up even back then (so that's nothing new) Grampa Bush should of gone to jail for plotting a coup (Butler ratted him out 2 Roosevelt) he should of gone to jail for trading with the enemy (funneling things 2 the Nazis) lnstead he went 2 the Senate 

& his grandson only became Prez bcuz the Suprem Court put his loservass there 

And the future court will be even less critical of overreach .. at least from the moneyed side of things.

That is the objective of the Koch family and others -- that government represent wealth and institutional power related to wealth over all else. In such a pathological order, no human suffering can ever be in excess, and if people show signs of dissent, they can die. We could end up with the sort of regime characteristic of some countries in southern South America during the Dirty Wars. In Chile a commonplace execution of opponents of the regime just after the 1972 coup was shooting -- first the feet, then the knees, then the genitals , then the abdomen and finally the heart to maximize the agony. Argentina had a somewhat clever way of eliminating 'troublesome people -- tricking them to get into a military airplane with promises that they could go to an unobjectionable country (let us say Italy, as about half of all Argentinians are of partial or full Italian origin, or Israel if they were Jewish). While on the plane they would get injections of 'vaccines' allegedly mandated in the countries in which they were to go while over the open ocean. Those 'vaccinations' would be knock-out drugs, and the sedated dissident would be cast off the plane.

Maybe it would be different in a fascistic America. The craziness of Trump would be gone in favor of someone who piously intones 'Christian values' on economics and work. I certainly hope that I will not be around in such a new high-tech feudalism that sounds like the setting of a Flash Gordon serial.

[TheNomad]

Prescott Bush was an opportunist who - even then - had no real national boundary of loyalty. And his offspring have infiltrated all kinds of political and economical processes in America. WHY is no one here looking at what this really means?

This is OLIGARCHY (rule by powerful families). It is FASCISM (profit regardless of boundary or national loyalty). It is CABAL (groups of loosely affiliated persons who govern by shared values).

So, add Bush families with many MANY other such families who rule by political power in America. Then add to THEN the same type of powerful elite in other nations who work with such oligarchies here. Extend that to SHARED BELIEFS with these people and just random single individuals or ladder-climbers who want power and ally themselves with these people.

Who rules? ANY person affiliated with the Nazis you and I could never imagine that person or their family becoming a most powerful thing in American rulership. But 2 presidents, 12 tears in office (and I'm not including Reagan's forgetful years where Papi might have been in charge). Many Governors, Senators, Congresspeople.

No one wants to hear it. Why? Because we can't do anything about it? Perhaps we can't do anything because too many of us want Oswald figures instead of the real rotted foundation of our Rulers.

[pbrower2a]

Maybe we need to look outside the WASP elite.

[TheNomad]

(09-13-2018, 08:11 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Maybe we need to look outside the WASP elite.

I had the same thought recently.  It has nothing to do with WASP elite except those are the people in those positions NOW.

I have no doubt if any other "ethnic group" had the same percentage in the ruling class, they would be doing no differently.

Our American system CHOSE hyper capitalism which leads to fascism by rise of large corporate entities.  In this Turning, it must be a different choice.  We also cannot forget these people and their misdeeds.  Why I was so pissed at W and Michelle having a nteflix-and-chill moment at McCain.  That was not cool.  W was and is an enemy. 

We are forgetting who fucked us over so quickly now, the same wrongdoers could come back in a decade and we would be so stupid to want them for anything.

It also PROVES this is not just about our ignorance but about POWER that can cover up Prescott's Nazi ties....... WHO WOULDN'T have asked that of Papi Bush while running for VP and especially President?

No one asked that question?  "Was your father funding Nazis during WWII and wasn't he censured by the U.S. authorities for it?"

No one asked that?

[pbrower2a]

(09-13-2018, 12:39 AM)TheNomad Wrote: Prescott Bush was an opportunist who - even then - had no real national boundary of loyalty.  And his offspring have infiltrated all kinds of political and economical processes in America.  WHY is no one here looking at what this really means?

We do not fault the children for the sins of their fathers. Woody Harrelson is not at fault for his father assassinating a federal judge, one of the most egregious wrongs that one can do. Children can rebel against the sins of their parents, as is shown by what seems a rebellion against a parent who merited rebellion as any could:



Her grandfather was the real-life villain, Nazi concentration-camp boss Amon Göth, best known for his depiction in Schindler's List. Her mother married and had a child by an African.

Quote:This is OLIGARCHY (rule by powerful families).  It is FASCISM (profit regardless of boundary or national loyalty).  It is CABAL (groups of loosely affiliated persons who govern by shared values).

Greed is not itself fascism. Were that so, then everyone operating a business or professional practice for gain would qualify as a fascist. l'm not going with that. There have always been powerful families in oligarchic societies, and fascism is (strictly speaking) a 20th-century phenomenon.

Quote:So, add Bush families with many MANY other such families who rule by political power in America.  Then add to THEN the same type of powerful elite in other nations who work with such oligarchies here.  Extend that to SHARED BELIEFS with these people and just random single individuals or ladder-climbers who want power and ally themselves with these people.

Who rules?  ANY person affiliated with the Nazis you and I could never imagine that person or their family becoming a most powerful thing in American rulership.  But 2 presidents, 12 tears in office (and I'm not including Reagan's forgetful years where Papi might have been in charge).  Many Governors, Senators, Congresspeople.  

I certainly would not defend Prescott Bush, a thoroughly amoral person. Anyone dealing voluntarily with Nazis and in knowledge of such is morally depraved.

Dubya was in over his head politically, and Neil Bush (head of a corrupt savings-and-loot association that went belly-up doe to malfeasance) had to be complicit.

Quote:No one wants to hear it.  Why?  Because we can't do anything about it?  Perhaps we can't do anything because too many of us want Oswald figures instead of the real rotted foundation of our Rulers.

It's up to us to question business associations of any potential elected official. Such would have been good cause to reject Donald Trump, a horrible person and not even a good businessman.

[TheNomad]

(09-14-2018, 08:05 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-13-2018, 12:39 AM)TheNomad Wrote: Prescott Bush was an opportunist who - even then - had no real national boundary of loyalty.  And his offspring have infiltrated all kinds of political and economical processes in America.  WHY is no one here looking at what this really means?

We do not fault the children for the sins of their fathers. Woody Harrelson is not at fault for his father assassinating a federal judge, one of the most egregious wrongs that one can do. Children can rebel against the sins of their parents, as is shown by what seems a rebellion against a parent who merited rebellion as any could:



Her grandfather was the real-life villain, Nazi concentration-camp boss Amon Göth, best known for his depiction in Schindler's List. Her mother married and had a child by an African.

Quote:This is OLIGARCHY (rule by powerful families).  It is FASCISM (profit regardless of boundary or national loyalty).  It is CABAL (groups of loosely affiliated persons who govern by shared values).

Greed is not itself fascism. Were that so, then everyone operating a business or professional practice for gain would qualify as a fascist. l'm not going with that. There have always been powerful families in oligarchic societies, and fascism is (strictly speaking) a 20th-century phenomenon.  

Quote:So, add Bush families with many MANY other such families who rule by political power in America.  Then add to THEN the same type of powerful elite in other nations who work with such oligarchies here.  Extend that to SHARED BELIEFS with these people and just random single individuals or ladder-climbers who want power and ally themselves with these people.

Who rules?  ANY person affiliated with the Nazis you and I could never imagine that person or their family becoming a most powerful thing in American rulership.  But 2 presidents, 12 tears in office (and I'm not including Reagan's forgetful years where Papi might have been in charge).  Many Governors, Senators, Congresspeople.  

I certainly would not defend Prescott Bush, a thoroughly amoral person. Anyone dealing voluntarily with Nazis and in knowledge of such is morally depraved.

Dubya was in over his head politically, and Neil Bush (head of a corrupt savings-and-loot association that went belly-up doe to malfeasance) had to be complicit.

Quote:No one wants to hear it.  Why?  Because we can't do anything about it?  Perhaps we can't do anything because too many of us want Oswald figures instead of the real rotted foundation of our Rulers.

It's up to us to question business associations of any potential elected official. Such would have been good cause to reject Donald Trump, a horrible person and not even a good businessman.

The very definition of FASCISM is when government rules beside powerful corporations.  FASCISM is consolidation of power between govt entities and corporate giants.

Googlefakebooktwitteryoutubeamazon is "the corporation".

The name could be a lot longer.  And there are many more.

U say don't blame sons for sins of fathers but the Bush family has done a lot of filthy things.  I can't believe you must pack it all up in a neat box and heap the blame onto Prescott and exonerate others.

Its the same Oswald picture.  Neat and no mess.  No further investigation required.  Move along no cabals exist here.

[pbrower2a]

(09-14-2018, 10:40 AM)TheNomad Wrote: The very definition of FASCISM is when government rules beside powerful corporations.  FASCISM is consolidation of power between govt entities and corporate giants.

Googlefakebooktwitteryoutubeamazon is "the corporation".

The name could be a lot longer.  And there are many more.

U say don't blame sons for sins of fathers but the Bush family has done a lot of filthy things.  I can't believe you must pack it all up in a neat box and heap the blame onto Prescott and exonerate others.

Its the same Oswald picture.  Neat and no mess.  No further investigation required.  Move along no cabals exist here.

I don't go much for dictionary definitions unless the dictionary definition is official within the profession (as with Black's Law Dictionary or the DMS-V in psychology). Laymen often use such words as conspiracy and paranoia more loosely than do the experts in the fields of law and psychology.

I have my own practical definition of fascism, which implies the ferocity of Bolshevist revolution and the pervasiveness of its propaganda in the service of the reactionary agenda of existing elites. Our President's pep rallies have much in common with those of the late Fidel Castro, stirring up hatred for the enemies of El Maximo Lider. Lider means exactly what it sounds like in English.

The Bush family is on the whole awful. One one-term Bush Presidency was enough. in view of what happened.

As for Oswald -- I wanted to believe that there was some deep conspiracy involving right-wing semi-fascists 



as shown on handbills in the station wagon of retired General Edwin Walker in Texas -- or the KGB. But we find that the scientific evidence indicates that the bullets that felled President Kennedy came from the general direction of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository wherein Lee Harvey Oswald had access because of his work... paradoxically, his pot-shot at JFK would have missed had it not been for a rigid back brace which prevented the President from ducking. He did not know about the back brace, but he took a shot at the President as if his target were an immovable object. Without the back brace, JFK survives, and a bullet lodges in the Presidential limousine.

No, the back brace is not part of any sinister plot.

American security in 1963 was far more lax than it is today.. but if you want to exculpate Lee Harvey Oswald you must ignore that he was an angry, mixed-up man full of resentments and whose loyalties could turn on anything. Ge murdered a Dallas police officer while in flight, which he would not have done had he not had knowledge of his guilt. This man defected to the Soviet Union and couldn't get along there. We will never know the whole story of psychological pathology of Lee Harvey Oswald, but it is safe to say that he was someone that one did not reasonably want in possession of a firearm. I have known of his type, a troubled young man whose parents urge to join the Armed Forces to straighten him out -- and it often works to drum out delinquency and a lack of direction, both of which military discipline often counteracts effectively. In his case he learned how to get a lucky shot but remained delinquent and without direction as before he enlisted.