The news is depressing: I don't see how the Republicans can stop Trump. I also believe Bernie Sanders will win the nomination, and that he cannot possibly win in the general.
So let's talk about something even more unpleasant: The JFK assassination.
Longtime readers know that I believe that Kennedy was murdered not be "the CIA" per se, but by the mad, ultra-powerful counterintelligence head James Jesus Angleton, who ran his own CIA within the CIA. The "cult of Angleton" (if I may use that term) extended into the Department of Defense, and had even become a force in allied intelligence services.
In this previous post, I included a side note which offers some of my reasons for fingering Angleton. But now I can show you a Master Class.
Your professor is Lisa Pease -- and she is indeed masterful. Forget every other video/television presentation on the JFK case. I guarantee: This presentation will make all of the usual arguments seem trivial. There is no Alex Jonesian speculative nonsense here. Pease relies on solid documentation and inarguable scholarship.
Lisa is an engaging speaker who makes difficult material easily understandable, even if you are a newcomer to the study of American intelligence in the 1960s.
This illustrated lecture solves the case. At least, this is as close to a solution as we are ever likely to see.
(Lisa still has not squeezed all the juice out of what I sometimes call "The Angleton Angle." I hope one day she writes a book which expands upon this presentation.)
(By the way: In the past, I've talked about the CIA document discussed by Lisa at the very beginning -- the one which totally exonerates JFK of ordering the plots against Castro. Kennedy has been subjected to on ongoing smear on that front.)
(One final point: Yes, I did mention Hillary and Bernie in the opening paragraph. That brief reference will probably have a Pavlovian effect on many of you. Berniebots, just give it a rest, willya? Just this once, stop trying to get your goddamned foot in the door. Please. It's Sunday -- the day of rest, the day on which this humble blog often turns away from contemporary politics. And frankly, your obsessive behavior is starting to look really, really sick.)
You'd think that the final paragraph would be clear enough. But guess what? The very first comments I received were ALL BernieBot horseshit.
God, but I have come to HATE Bernie Sanders -- and I used to admire him! If he has inspired that kind of cultish insanity, that kind of fanaticism, he must be as bad as Trump. Hell, I'm starting to think that he's as bad as Manson!
His zombie cult maniacs were the factor that transformed me from a fence-sitter into a reluctant Hillary supporter. Now they have turned me into a full-charge, raging white hot FURIOUS Hillary supporter. You ain't seen nothin' yet, you Berniebot motherfuckers.
And they keep doubling down on the same tactics that have proven self-defeating. What IDIOTS!
It's like I've always said: All movements are bowel movements.
worry not Joe, it won't be Sanders, nor Trump. Christ Joe, you still believe this system works as advertised? I don't. Lee Harvey, didn't kill Kennedy either. When you become a danger to the status quo, you must go. One way or another.
We'll see. Oh, and having a vested interest in protecting the status quo, is not a conspiracy. It's a humanity trait:)
posted by ben : 11:00 AM
ben, you may think I agree with your sentiment, but I don't. You mean well, but you have a beginner's understanding of the JFK assassination.
Listen to Lisa's lecture. Then read up on Angleton. (Mangold's book is the best start.)
Kennedy was not killed by a conspiracy. Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy THEORIST.
If you think Bernie Sanders is going to win the nomination, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. The man is literally falling apart before our eyes, with last week being the biggest debacle yet of his campaign. The Pope visit lie was the biggest debacle of It might have been the most blatant example of Sanders being an outright liar yet.
There is no way the math favors Sanders. He will limp along because of all of the money stupid people keep giving him. His advisers are rolling in the dough when they should be telling him to hang it up.
I cannot comprehend the killary support. Holy Christ. Is there any fucking sense in this other than a personal one? Are you not getting laid forever? Have you seen her visage on TeeVee? She looks like her liver is going to explode with vitriol and hate. Is she trying to match a man's inhumanity to man? Do you also think females should serve with men in hand-to-hand combat?
(ok..the last bit was unnecessary.)
posted by Anonymous : 4:19 PM
I let that last one through to illustrate the kind of thing that I've been getting constantly. Most of these trolls never pass moderation.
Even though I've warned the BernieBots that their obnoxious behavior will have exactly the opposite of the intended effect, they keep doubling down on their vileness.
THIS MEANS WAR.
I didn't want to be an enemy of the Sanders supporters. I gave him positive coverage when he entered the race. But if you want war, you have it.
IF BERNIE GETS THE NOMINATION, I'm sitting out the election. I don't care if Trump wins. If Bernie wins, a military coup (much like the one that almost toppled FDR) would quickly become inevitable. Thus, even Trump would be safer for the country.
Sorry I left my moniker off the last one Joe. it's BEN and I don't support the hunchback either. If you think this is between two factions of the Left you are so fucking sorely mistaken.
posted by Anonymous : 5:14 PM
I've come to believe that at least two-thirds of the BernieBots are GOP ratfuckers, given that such silly insults as "killary" is consistent with the the third grade mentality of Trumpers and Obots. I think the Koch money is pulling these fools from the same very shallow gene pool, or is perhaps breeding them in septic tanks. Most of their attacks seem perfunctory and without much creative energy, aside from some of the gross graphics produced by a few of the great brain damaged. I'm going Anon on this one since I don't want these fools following me home. But regular commenters probably will recognize me.
posted by Anonymous : 5:38 PM
Agree with the above comment. The ratfkrs are too abundant, and the phrasing is too crude (particularly for Democrats), to look like real people doing the posting. This is mass-production trolling, carried out by parties unknown ... although Koch operatives come to mind.
The really big difference between the two parties is the professional Democrats are going for the candidate that's given the party the most support over the years, and that's obviously Hillary. It doesn't hurt that she's been fighting the GOP for more than 25 years, and knows her way around a hostile media campaign.
The professional Republicans have the opposite problem. Their front-runner is the candidate that must be stopped for the good of the party. The GOP is so thoroughly dominated by outside actors like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Fox that the professionals have relatively little voice in the direction of the party. There is no equivalent media structure on the Democratic side that has anything like that degree of influence. What Rush and Fox want, they get. It's more of a PR-driven cult than an actual political party.
The BernieBros are annoying, but they are not driven by Rush and Fox, and there is no equivalent PR organization on our side. Thus, the party professionals are in a good position to make sure the candidate with the most actual votes gets the nomination. When it comes to choosing the nominee, votes count a lot more than polls.
posted by ColoradoGuy : 3:30 AM
The last one Bernie won was yet another caucus. Same way Obomba "won" with fewer votes. The caucus "system" needs to go. We need hand counted ballots, period. I'm waiting for New York....
posted by prowlerzee : 12:16 PM
Anon 5:38 PM, I don't recognize you, though I probably should. In any case, I agree with you. Most of the people I know on Facebook (mostly real life friends, not just FB friends) are not at all like what Joseph is describing. I have seen one or two meme's posted on their pages that I felt were unfair and/or just plain rude in regards to Hillary and I told them so, but I never see them actually generating such sentiments on their own. Most of them would probably have backed Hillary if someone like Sanders hadn't been running. Personally, I don't expect and never expected Sanders to get the nomination in the first place. Hillary is clearly the status quo candidate, though I am surprised at the hands off policy Sanders gets from the media (though for the most part that includes not reporting on him in ANY fashion, good or bad).
However, it's Joseph's blog, so he gets to make the rules. I can't agree with him on everything, but he's certainly right that the berniebots (and bots they are, no doubt.......created and funded by who, exactly, is the real question) are obnoxious on the level of the Obamabots from 2008. There is a slight difference here though, in that Obama was quite plainly getting huge amounts of money from the corporate and banking worlds, and Bernie is clearly not. Hillary is the top Dem candidate for that sort of thing, though the Republicans (minus Trump, of course) outstrip her by a good bit in that department.
Regardless, I'm voting of the Dem nominee, whoever it may be.
posted by Gus : 12:58 PM
Ratfuckers yes, but GOP ones? Or Trumpers? I'd be interested to hear more about the specific similarities between pre-election Berniebottery and pre-2008-election Obottery. If it's a massive operation and the similarities are overwhelming, then that would indeed suggest that Trump is the chosen one.
I looked up the betting markets. They don't tell us everything, as can be judged by the fact that the probability they're implying of a "Leave" result in the British EU membership referendum is currently about 33%, when there are strong reasons for thinking that Leave is more likely to win than Remain. But still.
I got the betting prices from Betfair. Using implied probabilities, Clinton is at 66% and Trump and Sanders are at 13% and 7%. Which supports Joseph's contention that Trump would be likely (he says certain) to beat Sanders if they are the two candidates.
Meanwhile the Huffington Post publishes an article by H A Goodman arguing that "Bernie Sanders Will Become Democratic Nominee Even If Clinton Leads in Delegates". He says that "anyone fearing Trump must vote for Bernie Sanders, primarily because he defeats Trump by a wider margin than Clinton".
I don't have extensive knowledge of US politics, but even I can notice that that statement is absolute bullshit of a kind that beggars the imagination that someone can make it in a mainstream publication.
PS When will there be a loud call for one-person one-vote in US presidential elections? Then you might get more of a choice.
PPS Is there any talk yet of who Trump, Clinton and Sanders would choose as running mates? Sanders would offer the position to Clinton, surely?
posted by b : 1:20 PM
I've been commenting over for a long time and never has a comment of engendered a response-- that I can recall right now. I should have become Anon 538 a while back!