Discussion:
Lone30%, Mafia13%,Govt13%, CIA7%, Fidel5%,KKK5%, LBJ3%
Add Reply
BOZ
2018-05-01 21:35:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
Ace Kefford
2018-05-03 02:22:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
Ace Kefford
2018-05-04 01:53:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
Re: O. Stone I should have wrote "all of the above conspirators" since
obviously he doesn't go for Lone.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-04 01:55:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
.001% Refused to answer.
BOZ
2018-05-04 12:59:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-05 01:45:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-05-06 01:12:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Trump's approval ratings are over 50%.

That should keep you quiet for about 30 seconds.

Thirty glorious seconds.
John McAdams
2018-05-06 01:20:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 5 May 2018 21:12:49 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Trump's approval ratings are over 50%.
That should keep you quiet for about 30 seconds.
Thirty glorious seconds.
Given moderation delay, you will have more than that. :-)

But not 50%

More like 44%.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

However, Trump's numbers have been on an uptrend.

Apparently, people have noticed that there is no evidence at all of
Russian collusion.

As for all Trump's faults (which are substantial), a good economy and
some *possible* success in foreign policy has been noticed.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bigdog
2018-05-06 19:40:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 5 May 2018 21:12:49 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Trump's approval ratings are over 50%.
That should keep you quiet for about 30 seconds.
Thirty glorious seconds.
Given moderation delay, you will have more than that. :-)
But not 50%
More like 44%.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
However, Trump's numbers have been on an uptrend.
Apparently, people have noticed that there is no evidence at all of
Russian collusion.
As for all Trump's faults (which are substantial), a good economy and
some *possible* success in foreign policy has been noticed.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
If Trump brokers a deal that results in a peace treaty finally being
signed or even more boldly, a reunification of Korea, watch his poll
numbers soar. The Democrats have the wind at their backs right now heading
into the midterms but political winds can shift and sometimes rather
dramatically. The anti-Trump sentiment is not as strong now as it was
earlier this year and come November, the Democrats might be wishing they
could have held the election in February. I can see control of the House
going either way but the most important battle is going to be in the
Senate. They are the ones that must approve judicial appointments and
there is a good chance Trump is going to be in position to appoint at
least one and maybe several more SCOTUS justices. If the Dems take
control, he will probably be forced to appoint moderates but if the GOP
keeps control he can nominate whom he likes and they will likely be
approved. Since the Dems have far more seats in play, it's going to be
hard for them to pick up the two seats they need. I just read an article
that says according to Arizona law, if McCain cashes his chips before
June, a special election for his replacement must be held this year. If he
hangs on until June, the governor can appoint a replacement to serve until
the 2020 election. I might send him a get well card. I wouldn't be too
upset if Thomas and Kennedy chose to retire at the end of the current
session, just in case. That way Trump could get their replacements
approved before the election. Breyer and Ginsburg will likely hold out for
Democrat President if they can.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-07 16:23:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by John McAdams
On 5 May 2018 21:12:49 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Trump's approval ratings are over 50%.
That should keep you quiet for about 30 seconds.
Thirty glorious seconds.
Given moderation delay, you will have more than that. :-)
But not 50%
More like 44%.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
However, Trump's numbers have been on an uptrend.
Apparently, people have noticed that there is no evidence at all of
Russian collusion.
As for all Trump's faults (which are substantial), a good economy and
some *possible* success in foreign policy has been noticed.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
If Trump brokers a deal that results in a peace treaty finally being
signed or even more boldly, a reunification of Korea, watch his poll
numbers soar. The Democrats have the wind at their backs right now heading
I have no problem with that. I'm all for peace.
I was even happy that the Mafia stopped their wars.
Post by bigdog
into the midterms but political winds can shift and sometimes rather
dramatically. The anti-Trump sentiment is not as strong now as it was
Just wait until he opens his mouth again.
Post by bigdog
earlier this year and come November, the Democrats might be wishing they
could have held the election in February. I can see control of the House
going either way but the most important battle is going to be in the
Senate. They are the ones that must approve judicial appointments and
there is a good chance Trump is going to be in position to appoint at
least one and maybe several more SCOTUS justices. If the Dems take
control, he will probably be forced to appoint moderates but if the GOP
keeps control he can nominate whom he likes and they will likely be
approved. Since the Dems have far more seats in play, it's going to be
hard for them to pick up the two seats they need. I just read an article
that says according to Arizona law, if McCain cashes his chips before
June, a special election for his replacement must be held this year. If he
hangs on until June, the governor can appoint a replacement to serve until
the 2020 election. I might send him a get well card. I wouldn't be too
upset if Thomas and Kennedy chose to retire at the end of the current
session, just in case. That way Trump could get their replacements
approved before the election. Breyer and Ginsburg will likely hold out for
Democrat President if they can.
Jeez, why do you even need a government? Just run the country by Tweets.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-05-06 23:30:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 5 May 2018 21:12:49 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Trump's approval ratings are over 50%.
That should keep you quiet for about 30 seconds.
Thirty glorious seconds.
Given moderation delay, you will have more than that. :-)
But not 50%
More like 44%.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
However, Trump's numbers have been on an uptrend.
Apparently, people have noticed that there is no evidence at all of
Russian collusion.
As for all Trump's faults (which are substantial), a good economy and
some *possible* success in foreign policy has been noticed.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I briefly saw mention of a Rasmussen tracking poll - which tends to favor
Republicans - that had him at 51% on Friday.

Here it is:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_may04

Is he "less awful" than what a Hillary Clinton Administration would have
been like. Yes, hell yes. But that's a low bar.

The illiberal left is just, well, insane with this identity politics and
SJW orthodoxy.

The silence is soothing though.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-08 17:25:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by John McAdams
On 5 May 2018 21:12:49 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Trump's approval ratings are over 50%.
That should keep you quiet for about 30 seconds.
Thirty glorious seconds.
May the 4th be with you.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by John McAdams
Given moderation delay, you will have more than that. :-)
But not 50%
More like 44%.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
However, Trump's numbers have been on an uptrend.
Apparently, people have noticed that there is no evidence at all of
Russian collusion.
Well, that's just like saying that Nixon himself didn't physically break
into the Watergate Hotel.

They have people to do these things for them.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by John McAdams
As for all Trump's faults (which are substantial), a good economy and
some *possible* success in foreign policy has been noticed.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
I briefly saw mention of a Rasmussen tracking poll - which tends to favor
Republicans - that had him at 51% on Friday.
As we said before, some polls are biased.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_may04
Is he "less awful" than what a Hillary Clinton Administration would have
been like. Yes, hell yes. But that's a low bar.
The illiberal left is just, well, insane with this identity politics and
SJW orthodoxy.
The silence is soothing though.
I'M BACKKK!!!
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-06 23:52:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 5 May 2018 21:12:49 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Trump's approval ratings are over 50%.
That should keep you quiet for about 30 seconds.
Thirty glorious seconds.
Given moderation delay, you will have more than that. :-)
But not 50%
More like 44%.
I don't mind when Trump supporters lie about his approval ratings.
Maybe for a couple of hours it was actually at 49%.
Close enough for a Trump supporter.
But as always I point out that they are selective about what to cheer
about. WHen the stock market goes up 10 points they cheer. When the
stock market goes down 1000 points, silence.
If unemployment goes down to under 4% they credit Trump.
They can't remember the last time unemployment was under 4%.
They refuse to remember who was President in 2000 and would never credit
him.

And as usual Trump supporters will only cherry pick the one point they
like best. They won't compare averages or dlctuctuations.
Post by John McAdams
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
However, Trump's numbers have been on an uptrend.
Apparently, people have noticed that there is no evidence at all of
Russian collusion.
As for all Trump's faults (which are substantial), a good economy and
some *possible* success in foreign policy has been noticed.
Poor baby.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
donald willis
2018-06-04 19:25:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 5 May 2018 21:12:49 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Trump's approval ratings are over 50%.
That should keep you quiet for about 30 seconds.
Thirty glorious seconds.
Given moderation delay, you will have more than that. :-)
But not 50%
More like 44%.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
However, Trump's numbers have been on an uptrend.
Apparently, people have noticed that there is no evidence at all of
Russian collusion.
As for all Trump's faults (which are substantial), a good economy
Before taking office, Trump would have called, and did call, the economic
indicators phony!

and
Post by John McAdams
some *possible* success in foreign policy has been noticed.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2018-06-04 19:27:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by John McAdams
On 5 May 2018 21:12:49 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
But not 50%
More like 44%.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
However, Trump's numbers have been on an uptrend.
Apparently, people have noticed that there is no evidence at all of
Russian collusion.
As for all Trump's faults (which are substantial), a good economy
Before taking office, Trump would have called, and did call, the economic
indicators phony!
And liberals said they were absolutely valid, so long as they could be
credited to Obama.

Seems we have yet another issue where the sides are flipped, don't we?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-05 20:38:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by donald willis
Post by John McAdams
On 5 May 2018 21:12:49 -0400, "Steve M. Galbraith"
But not 50%
More like 44%.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
However, Trump's numbers have been on an uptrend.
Apparently, people have noticed that there is no evidence at all of
Russian collusion.
As for all Trump's faults (which are substantial), a good economy
Before taking office, Trump would have called, and did call, the economic
indicators phony!
And liberals said they were absolutely valid, so long as they could be
credited to Obama.
Seems we have yet another issue where the sides are flipped, don't we?
No. You mischaracterize the views of the Obama supporters because you
can't defend Trump. Trump changes his story every week.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-06 23:53:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Trump's approval ratings are over 50%.
Fake News
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
That should keep you quiet for about 30 seconds.
Thirty glorious seconds.
Too late.
OHLeeRedux
2018-05-06 19:03:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Replace the word "public" with "Anthony Marsh's" and you have it exactly
right.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-07 16:22:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Replace the word "public" with "Anthony Marsh's" and you have it exactly
right.
Do try to keep up, boy. He just admitted it.
BOZ
2018-05-06 19:04:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
FUNNIEST THING I HAVE READ IN WEEKS.
So you have nothing but contempt for public opinion.
Yes, I have nothing but contempt for public opinion. Do you want to make
something out of it?
bigdog
2018-05-06 01:06:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by BOZ
http://news.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
What percentage did homosexual thrill kill get? How many would like
Oliver Stone pick all of the above?
Must have been a hell of a planning session.
d***@gmail.com
2018-05-04 00:24:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In a poll, "some kind of conspiracy" (lumping them all together) is always
going to be greater than the Lone Gunman Theory. But, if you break them
down separately, the theory that has the most adherents is the Lone Gunman
Theory.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-06 00:33:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
In a poll, "some kind of conspiracy" (lumping them all together) is always
going to be greater than the Lone Gunman Theory. But, if you break them
down separately, the theory that has the most adherents is the Lone Gunman
Theory.
Brlliant. So how many lone nut theories can you lump together? You are so
desperate that you will call a minority opinion the majority.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
BOZ
2018-05-06 19:17:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
In a poll, "some kind of conspiracy" (lumping them all together) is always
going to be greater than the Lone Gunman Theory. But, if you break them
down separately, the theory that has the most adherents is the Lone Gunman
Theory.
Brlliant. So how many lone nut theories can you lump together? You are so
desperate that you will call a minority opinion the majority.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Oswald did it alone is not a theory. It's a fact. Do some research.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-07 16:14:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
In a poll, "some kind of conspiracy" (lumping them all together) is always
going to be greater than the Lone Gunman Theory. But, if you break them
down separately, the theory that has the most adherents is the Lone Gunman
Theory.
Brlliant. So how many lone nut theories can you lump together? You are so
desperate that you will call a minority opinion the majority.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Oswald did it alone is not a theory. It's a fact. Do some research.
We were talking about the SBT. That means Single-Bullet THEORY.
Maybe you weren't around then, but the FBI solved the case with Oswald
as the lone shooter without needing the crutch of no damn stinkin SBT!
Only weak minds need a SBT.
d***@gmail.com
2018-05-08 23:52:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Brlliant. So how many lone nut theories can you lump together? You are so
desperate that you will call a minority opinion the majority.
If you define "the majority" as over 50%, then NOBODY holds the
"majority". My point was this: If you parse each of the various theories
into categories, the Lone Gunman Theory is the largest - and, by a wide
margin. Plus, think of all the conspiracy theories that believe Oswald was
the 6th floor gunman yet STILL believe in a conspiracy.

So, if there was a poll that only asked if Lee Harvey Oswald was the 6th
floor gunman without addressing whether he had any help or whether there
were additional gunman, I'm guessing it WOULD be in the majority (i.e.
over 50%).

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
BOZ
2018-05-09 23:10:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Brlliant. So how many lone nut theories can you lump together? You are so
desperate that you will call a minority opinion the majority.
If you define "the majority" as over 50%, then NOBODY holds the
"majority". My point was this: If you parse each of the various theories
into categories, the Lone Gunman Theory is the largest - and, by a wide
margin. Plus, think of all the conspiracy theories that believe Oswald was
the 6th floor gunman yet STILL believe in a conspiracy.
So, if there was a poll that only asked if Lee Harvey Oswald was the 6th
floor gunman without addressing whether he had any help or whether there
were additional gunman, I'm guessing it WOULD be in the majority (i.e.
over 50%).
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Your logic makes sense. That is what frightens Marsh.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-10 18:48:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Brlliant. So how many lone nut theories can you lump together? You are so
desperate that you will call a minority opinion the majority.
If you define "the majority" as over 50%, then NOBODY holds the
"majority". My point was this: If you parse each of the various theories
into categories, the Lone Gunman Theory is the largest - and, by a wide
margin. Plus, think of all the conspiracy theories that believe Oswald was
the 6th floor gunman yet STILL believe in a conspiracy.
The vast majority of humans has always believed that it was a
conspiracy. I guess that leaves you out. So you are jealous.
Post by d***@gmail.com
So, if there was a poll that only asked if Lee Harvey Oswald was the 6th
floor gunman without addressing whether he had any help or whether there
were additional gunman, I'm guessing it WOULD be in the majority (i.e.
over 50%).
WTF? Go ahead, make up your own silly poll. And then imagine your own
made up results.

For the record I am sure that there must be a handful of people on this
planet who believe that it was a conspiracy AND Oswald was part of that
conspiracy.

Are you one?
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-10 18:49:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Brlliant. So how many lone nut theories can you lump together? You are so
desperate that you will call a minority opinion the majority.
If you define "the majority" as over 50%, then NOBODY holds the
"majority". My point was this: If you parse each of the various theories
into categories, the Lone Gunman Theory is the largest - and, by a wide
margin. Plus, think of all the conspiracy theories that believe Oswald was
the 6th floor gunman yet STILL believe in a conspiracy.
So, if there was a poll that only asked if Lee Harvey Oswald was the 6th
floor gunman without addressing whether he had any help or whether there
were additional gunman, I'm guessing it WOULD be in the majority (i.e.
over 50%).
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Why don't you do some actual research and find exactly that poll that
makes you happy. Even if you admit that possibility you would never admit
that you believe it. You don't want any conspiracy at all, ever. Just call
it an accident or something.
d***@gmail.com
2018-05-13 00:01:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't you do some actual research and find exactly that poll that
makes you happy. Even if you admit that possibility you would never admit
that you believe it. You don't want any conspiracy at all, ever. Just call
it an accident or something.
Polls on the Kennedy assassination don't interest me; because, as I've
said many times before, most people who are polled are asked to express an
opinion on a subject which they are not even qualified to have an opinion.
You might as well be asking 1st graders about their opinions on Global
Warming. Consequently, most polls on the assassination reflect the pop
culture belief that there WAS "some kind" of conspiracy. The Kennedy
assassination has become a metaphor for conspiracy thinking.

My personal (and admittedly unscientific) experience when this topic comes
up with somebody - they usually say something very close to this, "I don't
know. It just seems hard to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by
himself." And that's about as deep as their "conspiracy" goes. They
tacitly acknowledge that Oswald WAS a shooter but they can't really put
together any cogent argument about WHO helped him, WHY they helped him,
and in what WAY they helped him.

Robert Dallek (author of "An Unfinished Life") may have said it best: "I
know that millions and millions of people in this country believe there
was a conspiracy. People want to believe that the world is not that random
- that things are not that chaotic - that something larger, bigger was at
stake here. Because, I think it's very difficult for them to accept the
idea that someone as inconsequential as Oswald could have killed someone
as consequential as Kennedy."

And then there's William Manchester's (author of "Death of a President")
insightful explanation: "To use an odd metaphor - if you put six-million
murdered Jews on one side of the scale and the Nazi regime on the other,
you have a rough balance - greatest crimes, greatest criminals. But if you
put the murdered president on one side of the scale and that wretched waif
Oswald on the other, it doesn't balance. You want to add some weight to
Oswald. It would invest the president's death with meaning. Kennedy would
have died for something. A conspiracy would do the job nicely."

Jackie Kennedy may have said it most accurately a succinctly, "He didn't
even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It had to be
some silly little Communist."

Why would I care what a person thinks about the Kennedy assassination if,
for example, they cannot even recall in which city the assassination
occurred? Or, if asked what Jackie Kennedy was wearing that day, they
would answer, "How should I know?"

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
bigdog
2018-05-14 03:37:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't you do some actual research and find exactly that poll that
makes you happy. Even if you admit that possibility you would never admit
that you believe it. You don't want any conspiracy at all, ever. Just call
it an accident or something.
Polls on the Kennedy assassination don't interest me; because, as I've
said many times before, most people who are polled are asked to express an
opinion on a subject which they are not even qualified to have an opinion.
You might as well be asking 1st graders about their opinions on Global
Warming. Consequently, most polls on the assassination reflect the pop
culture belief that there WAS "some kind" of conspiracy. The Kennedy
assassination has become a metaphor for conspiracy thinking.
My personal (and admittedly unscientific) experience when this topic comes
up with somebody - they usually say something very close to this, "I don't
know. It just seems hard to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by
himself." And that's about as deep as their "conspiracy" goes. They
tacitly acknowledge that Oswald WAS a shooter but they can't really put
together any cogent argument about WHO helped him, WHY they helped him,
and in what WAY they helped him.
Robert Dallek (author of "An Unfinished Life") may have said it best: "I
know that millions and millions of people in this country believe there
was a conspiracy. People want to believe that the world is not that random
- that things are not that chaotic - that something larger, bigger was at
stake here. Because, I think it's very difficult for them to accept the
idea that someone as inconsequential as Oswald could have killed someone
as consequential as Kennedy."
And then there's William Manchester's (author of "Death of a President")
insightful explanation: "To use an odd metaphor - if you put six-million
murdered Jews on one side of the scale and the Nazi regime on the other,
you have a rough balance - greatest crimes, greatest criminals. But if you
put the murdered president on one side of the scale and that wretched waif
Oswald on the other, it doesn't balance. You want to add some weight to
Oswald. It would invest the president's death with meaning. Kennedy would
have died for something. A conspiracy would do the job nicely."
Jackie Kennedy may have said it most accurately a succinctly, "He didn't
even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It had to be
some silly little Communist."
Why would I care what a person thinks about the Kennedy assassination if,
for example, they cannot even recall in which city the assassination
occurred? Or, if asked what Jackie Kennedy was wearing that day, they
would answer, "How should I know?"
Very well said. Most Americans don't even know the most rudimentary
details of the assassination. Jay Leno used to do a bit call Jaywalking
All-Stars in which he would walk the streets of LA and ask random people
elementary questions about American history or current events. It was mind
boggling how many people couldn't answer questions that most of us had
learned by the time we were in fifth grade. It was both comical and a
little sad. I would bet that if you did a similar exercise and asked
people the same sort of elementary questions about the JFK assassination,
you would find a similar level of ignorance among the general population.
As you said some people wouldn't know what city the assassination was in
or what Jackie was wearing. If they didn't know even that much, forget
about identifying key figures such as Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, Howard
Brennan, J.D. Tippit, Ruth Paine, Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman, Lee Bowers or
Mary Moorman, just to rattle a few names off the top of my head.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-15 13:08:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't you do some actual research and find exactly that poll that
makes you happy. Even if you admit that possibility you would never admit
that you believe it. You don't want any conspiracy at all, ever. Just call
it an accident or something.
Polls on the Kennedy assassination don't interest me; because, as I've
said many times before, most people who are polled are asked to express an
opinion on a subject which they are not even qualified to have an opinion.
You might as well be asking 1st graders about their opinions on Global
Warming. Consequently, most polls on the assassination reflect the pop
culture belief that there WAS "some kind" of conspiracy. The Kennedy
assassination has become a metaphor for conspiracy thinking.
My personal (and admittedly unscientific) experience when this topic comes
up with somebody - they usually say something very close to this, "I don't
know. It just seems hard to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by
himself." And that's about as deep as their "conspiracy" goes. They
tacitly acknowledge that Oswald WAS a shooter but they can't really put
together any cogent argument about WHO helped him, WHY they helped him,
and in what WAY they helped him.
Robert Dallek (author of "An Unfinished Life") may have said it best: "I
know that millions and millions of people in this country believe there
was a conspiracy. People want to believe that the world is not that random
- that things are not that chaotic - that something larger, bigger was at
stake here. Because, I think it's very difficult for them to accept the
idea that someone as inconsequential as Oswald could have killed someone
as consequential as Kennedy."
And then there's William Manchester's (author of "Death of a President")
insightful explanation: "To use an odd metaphor - if you put six-million
murdered Jews on one side of the scale and the Nazi regime on the other,
you have a rough balance - greatest crimes, greatest criminals. But if you
put the murdered president on one side of the scale and that wretched waif
Oswald on the other, it doesn't balance. You want to add some weight to
Oswald. It would invest the president's death with meaning. Kennedy would
have died for something. A conspiracy would do the job nicely."
Jackie Kennedy may have said it most accurately a succinctly, "He didn't
even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It had to be
some silly little Communist."
Why would I care what a person thinks about the Kennedy assassination if,
for example, they cannot even recall in which city the assassination
occurred? Or, if asked what Jackie Kennedy was wearing that day, they
would answer, "How should I know?"
Very well said. Most Americans don't even know the most rudimentary
details of the assassination. Jay Leno used to do a bit call Jaywalking
All-Stars in which he would walk the streets of LA and ask random people
elementary questions about American history or current events. It was mind
boggling how many people couldn't answer questions that most of us had
learned by the time we were in fifth grade. It was both comical and a
Excuse me? You just described the Trump base. We knew that already.
Post by bigdog
little sad. I would bet that if you did a similar exercise and asked
people the same sort of elementary questions about the JFK assassination,
A poll does not try to test people's knowledge, only their opinions.
Post by bigdog
you would find a similar level of ignorance among the general population.
As you said some people wouldn't know what city the assassination was in
or what Jackie was wearing. If they didn't know even that much, forget
about identifying key figures such as Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, Howard
Brennan, J.D. Tippit, Ruth Paine, Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman, Lee Bowers or
Mary Moorman, just to rattle a few names off the top of my head.
YOU can't answer my questions about the JFK assassination. You prove
your own point.
OHLeeRedux
2018-05-16 02:27:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't you do some actual research and find exactly that poll that
makes you happy. Even if you admit that possibility you would never admit
that you believe it. You don't want any conspiracy at all, ever. Just call
it an accident or something.
Polls on the Kennedy assassination don't interest me; because, as I've
said many times before, most people who are polled are asked to express an
opinion on a subject which they are not even qualified to have an opinion.
You might as well be asking 1st graders about their opinions on Global
Warming. Consequently, most polls on the assassination reflect the pop
culture belief that there WAS "some kind" of conspiracy. The Kennedy
assassination has become a metaphor for conspiracy thinking.
My personal (and admittedly unscientific) experience when this topic comes
up with somebody - they usually say something very close to this, "I don't
know. It just seems hard to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by
himself." And that's about as deep as their "conspiracy" goes. They
tacitly acknowledge that Oswald WAS a shooter but they can't really put
together any cogent argument about WHO helped him, WHY they helped him,
and in what WAY they helped him.
Robert Dallek (author of "An Unfinished Life") may have said it best: "I
know that millions and millions of people in this country believe there
was a conspiracy. People want to believe that the world is not that random
- that things are not that chaotic - that something larger, bigger was at
stake here. Because, I think it's very difficult for them to accept the
idea that someone as inconsequential as Oswald could have killed someone
as consequential as Kennedy."
And then there's William Manchester's (author of "Death of a President")
insightful explanation: "To use an odd metaphor - if you put six-million
murdered Jews on one side of the scale and the Nazi regime on the other,
you have a rough balance - greatest crimes, greatest criminals. But if you
put the murdered president on one side of the scale and that wretched waif
Oswald on the other, it doesn't balance. You want to add some weight to
Oswald. It would invest the president's death with meaning. Kennedy would
have died for something. A conspiracy would do the job nicely."
Jackie Kennedy may have said it most accurately a succinctly, "He didn't
even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It had to be
some silly little Communist."
Why would I care what a person thinks about the Kennedy assassination if,
for example, they cannot even recall in which city the assassination
occurred? Or, if asked what Jackie Kennedy was wearing that day, they
would answer, "How should I know?"
Very well said. Most Americans don't even know the most rudimentary
details of the assassination. Jay Leno used to do a bit call Jaywalking
All-Stars in which he would walk the streets of LA and ask random people
elementary questions about American history or current events. It was mind
boggling how many people couldn't answer questions that most of us had
learned by the time we were in fifth grade. It was both comical and a
Excuse me? You just described the Trump base. We knew that already.
Yes, you people in the Trump base have the pulse of the nation, Anthony
"Trump Man" Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
little sad. I would bet that if you did a similar exercise and asked
people the same sort of elementary questions about the JFK assassination,
A poll does not try to test people's knowledge, only their opinions.
And that ridiculous statement shows us not to take anything you say
seriously, Anthony "All Talk No Action" Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
you would find a similar level of ignorance among the general population.
As you said some people wouldn't know what city the assassination was in
or what Jackie was wearing. If they didn't know even that much, forget
about identifying key figures such as Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, Howard
Brennan, J.D. Tippit, Ruth Paine, Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman, Lee Bowers or
Mary Moorman, just to rattle a few names off the top of my head.
YOU can't answer my questions about the JFK assassination. You prove
your own point.
Yes, the poster proved his point. Good of you to admit it, Anthony "Lost
and Confused" Marsh.
BOZ
2018-05-17 02:01:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't you do some actual research and find exactly that poll that
makes you happy. Even if you admit that possibility you would never admit
that you believe it. You don't want any conspiracy at all, ever. Just call
it an accident or something.
Polls on the Kennedy assassination don't interest me; because, as I've
said many times before, most people who are polled are asked to express an
opinion on a subject which they are not even qualified to have an opinion.
You might as well be asking 1st graders about their opinions on Global
Warming. Consequently, most polls on the assassination reflect the pop
culture belief that there WAS "some kind" of conspiracy. The Kennedy
assassination has become a metaphor for conspiracy thinking.
My personal (and admittedly unscientific) experience when this topic comes
up with somebody - they usually say something very close to this, "I don't
know. It just seems hard to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by
himself." And that's about as deep as their "conspiracy" goes. They
tacitly acknowledge that Oswald WAS a shooter but they can't really put
together any cogent argument about WHO helped him, WHY they helped him,
and in what WAY they helped him.
Robert Dallek (author of "An Unfinished Life") may have said it best: "I
know that millions and millions of people in this country believe there
was a conspiracy. People want to believe that the world is not that random
- that things are not that chaotic - that something larger, bigger was at
stake here. Because, I think it's very difficult for them to accept the
idea that someone as inconsequential as Oswald could have killed someone
as consequential as Kennedy."
And then there's William Manchester's (author of "Death of a President")
insightful explanation: "To use an odd metaphor - if you put six-million
murdered Jews on one side of the scale and the Nazi regime on the other,
you have a rough balance - greatest crimes, greatest criminals. But if you
put the murdered president on one side of the scale and that wretched waif
Oswald on the other, it doesn't balance. You want to add some weight to
Oswald. It would invest the president's death with meaning. Kennedy would
have died for something. A conspiracy would do the job nicely."
Jackie Kennedy may have said it most accurately a succinctly, "He didn't
even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It had to be
some silly little Communist."
Why would I care what a person thinks about the Kennedy assassination if,
for example, they cannot even recall in which city the assassination
occurred? Or, if asked what Jackie Kennedy was wearing that day, they
would answer, "How should I know?"
Very well said. Most Americans don't even know the most rudimentary
details of the assassination. Jay Leno used to do a bit call Jaywalking
All-Stars in which he would walk the streets of LA and ask random people
elementary questions about American history or current events. It was mind
boggling how many people couldn't answer questions that most of us had
learned by the time we were in fifth grade. It was both comical and a
Excuse me? You just described the Trump base. We knew that already.
Post by bigdog
little sad. I would bet that if you did a similar exercise and asked
people the same sort of elementary questions about the JFK assassination,
A poll does not try to test people's knowledge, only their opinions.
Post by bigdog
you would find a similar level of ignorance among the general population.
As you said some people wouldn't know what city the assassination was in
or what Jackie was wearing. If they didn't know even that much, forget
about identifying key figures such as Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, Howard
Brennan, J.D. Tippit, Ruth Paine, Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman, Lee Bowers or
Mary Moorman, just to rattle a few names off the top of my head.
YOU can't answer my questions about the JFK assassination. You prove
your own point.
YOU REMIND OF ALI AFTER HE FOUGHT LARRY HOLMES.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-14 15:13:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why don't you do some actual research and find exactly that poll that
makes you happy. Even if you admit that possibility you would never admit
that you believe it. You don't want any conspiracy at all, ever. Just call
it an accident or something.
Polls on the Kennedy assassination don't interest me; because, as I've
said many times before, most people who are polled are asked to express an
opinion on a subject which they are not even qualified to have an opinion.
You might as well be asking 1st graders about their opinions on Global
Warming. Consequently, most polls on the assassination reflect the pop
culture belief that there WAS "some kind" of conspiracy. The Kennedy
assassination has become a metaphor for conspiracy thinking.
My personal (and admittedly unscientific) experience when this topic comes
up with somebody - they usually say something very close to this, "I don't
know. It just seems hard to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by
himself." And that's about as deep as their "conspiracy" goes. They
tacitly acknowledge that Oswald WAS a shooter but they can't really put
together any cogent argument about WHO helped him, WHY they helped him,
and in what WAY they helped him.
I don't know which person you are describing. I think you are projecting
your beliefs onto anyone you come into contact with.
If someone says it was a conspiracy, YOU interpret that as meaning that
Oswald was working for someone else.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Robert Dallek (author of "An Unfinished Life") may have said it best: "I
know that millions and millions of people in this country believe there
was a conspiracy. People want to believe that the world is not that random
- that things are not that chaotic - that something larger, bigger was at
stake here. Because, I think it's very difficult for them to accept the
idea that someone as inconsequential as Oswald could have killed someone
as consequential as Kennedy."
Straight from the CIA guidebook.
Post by d***@gmail.com
And then there's William Manchester's (author of "Death of a President")
insightful explanation: "To use an odd metaphor - if you put six-million
murdered Jews on one side of the scale and the Nazi regime on the other,
you have a rough balance - greatest crimes, greatest criminals. But if you
put the murdered president on one side of the scale and that wretched waif
Oswald on the other, it doesn't balance. You want to add some weight to
Oswald. It would invest the president's death with meaning. Kennedy would
have died for something. A conspiracy would do the job nicely."
Childish logic. Just deal with the evidence. The physical evidence alone
proves conspiracy. Maybe not who was part of the conspiracy.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Jackie Kennedy may have said it most accurately a succinctly, "He didn't
even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights. It had to be
some silly little Communist."
Why would I care what a person thinks about the Kennedy assassination if,
for example, they cannot even recall in which city the assassination
You're one to talk. You know so little of the evidence.
Post by d***@gmail.com
occurred? Or, if asked what Jackie Kennedy was wearing that day, they
would answer, "How should I know?"
Indeed, why should anyone care what irrelevancies you dredge up to
deflect from the Truth? What brand of shoes was JFK wearing? What would
that possibly have to do with where the shots came from?
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
d***@gmail.com
2018-05-15 03:12:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
My personal (and admittedly unscientific) experience when this topic comes
up with somebody - they usually say something very close to this, "I don't
know. It just seems hard to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by
himself." And that's about as deep as their "conspiracy" goes. They
tacitly acknowledge that Oswald WAS a shooter but they can't really put
together any cogent argument about WHO helped him, WHY they helped him,
and in what WAY they helped him.
I don't know which person you are describing. I think you are projecting
your beliefs onto anyone you come into contact with.
You have never stumbled into a casual conversation with somebody about the
Kennedy assassination outside of newsgroups and internet exchanges? I
think we all have. That's what I'm describing. I'm talking about the
average guy on the street, a neighbor, a co-worker, somebody I might meet
at a party - not a researcher or kooks like us who collect information
about the assassination (much of it amounting to nothing more than trivia)
like 10-yr-old boys used to collect Pokemon cards.

You say, "I don't know which person you are describing" - what the hell
kind of statement is that? Hell, Tony, I don't have all the names of
everybody with whom I've had a discussion on the Kennedy assassination on
an Excel spreadsheet, in alphabetical order with the date of the
discussion, length of discussion, and a summary of topics covered. I think
you understood my point perfectly well but cannot help yourself from being
snarky when you don't like the essence of somebody's point.

I understand what people are saying to me when they express their view on
the assassination. I'm not "projecting" my beliefs when somebody says, "I
just don't think Oswald could have done it all by himself." That's THEIR
statement! It tells me two things: 1) They believe that there was "some
kind" of conspiracy and 2) They accept that Oswald was the shooter, if
only one of many.
Post by Anthony Marsh
If someone says it was a conspiracy, YOU interpret that as meaning that
Oswald was working for someone else.
I don't interpret it that way at all. Here's what I said that you seem to
have ignored: "They tacitly acknowledge that Oswald WAS a shooter but they
can't really put together any cogent argument about WHO helped him, WHY
they helped him, and in what WAY they helped him." What I'm saying is that
they seldom tell me what they mean by "I don't think Oswald did it by
himself." When I ask them to elaborate, they usually have nothing to say.
They usually just shrug their shoulders and repeat something like, "It
just seems like one person couldn't do it by himself." And that's about as
far as the discussion gets. They don't know enough about the assassination
to even have much of a discussion and I usually don't waste my time trying
to make the case that there WAS no conspiracy.

Yet, every once in a while I'll run into somebody who really doesn't know
much about the assassination yet has a keen interest in it - which is kind
of odd to me because, it would seem, if they were that interested they
would have educated themself a bit. They often ask me a lot of questions
and I WILL engage these type of people.

My interest in this case has morphed over the past decade. I'm no longer
all that interested in the assassination itself. I'm confident what
happened. It's no mystery to me. I don't delude myself into thinking that
one day you'll logon on to this network and have an epiphany and declare,
"You guys have convinced me! Your arguments have been so compelling that I
am now forced to accept that there is no credible evidence of a conspiracy
in the Kennedy assassination. Thanks helping me see the light. I have no
idea why it took me so long to come to this understanding."

What FASCINATES me now is this pathology of conspiracy thinking that
doesn't seem to have any educational/intellectual boundaries. Stupid
people have always believed stupid things. That's not interesting. It's
when normally intelligent people believe stupid things - that's
interesting because, more and more, I'm observing how this phenomenon has
infiltrated people's political worldviews and plays some role in the
growing political divides in this country. Think about it - we have a
president who thinks Alex Jones (InfoWars host) is an insightful and
prescient thinker who deserves an audience.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Robert Dallek (author of "An Unfinished Life") may have said it best: "I
know that millions and millions of people in this country believe there
was a conspiracy. People want to believe that the world is not that random
- that things are not that chaotic - that something larger, bigger was at
stake here. Because, I think it's very difficult for them to accept the
idea that someone as inconsequential as Oswald could have killed someone
as consequential as Kennedy."
Straight from the CIA guidebook.
Are you saying Robert Dallek is a CIA disinformation agent? It seems to me that he's really just making a statement about a common aspect of basic human psychology.

You see it as a script out of a "CIA guidebook". That would be funny if you were joking. Sadly, you're not.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
And then there's William Manchester's (author of "Death of a President")
insightful explanation: "To use an odd metaphor - if you put six-million
murdered Jews on one side of the scale and the Nazi regime on the other,
you have a rough balance - greatest crimes, greatest criminals. But if you
put the murdered president on one side of the scale and that wretched waif
Oswald on the other, it doesn't balance. You want to add some weight to
Oswald. It would invest the president's death with meaning. Kennedy would
have died for something. A conspiracy would do the job nicely."
Childish logic. Just deal with the evidence. The physical evidence alone
proves conspiracy. Maybe not who was part of the conspiracy.
Yeah, that's what everybody seems to say about William Manchester - an individual prone to "childish logic". I'll bet he got that a lot. Pfft!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-17 02:00:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
My personal (and admittedly unscientific) experience when this topic comes
up with somebody - they usually say something very close to this, "I don't
know. It just seems hard to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did it all by
himself." And that's about as deep as their "conspiracy" goes. They
tacitly acknowledge that Oswald WAS a shooter but they can't really put
together any cogent argument about WHO helped him, WHY they helped him,
and in what WAY they helped him.
I don't know which person you are describing. I think you are projecting
your beliefs onto anyone you come into contact with.
You have never stumbled into a casual conversation with somebody about the
Kennedy assassination outside of newsgroups and internet exchanges? I
think we all have. That's what I'm describing. I'm talking about the
What about the average kook you run into at a JFK conference. Each has to
have a unique theory that no one ever heard of before. How about the sabot
theory? I shared a room with him. And he gave me a couple of samples.
Post by d***@gmail.com
average guy on the street, a neighbor, a co-worker, somebody I might meet
at a party - not a researcher or kooks like us who collect information
about the assassination (much of it amounting to nothing more than trivia)
like 10-yr-old boys used to collect Pokemon cards.
You say, "I don't know which person you are describing" - what the hell
kind of statement is that? Hell, Tony, I don't have all the names of
everybody with whom I've had a discussion on the Kennedy assassination on
an Excel spreadsheet, in alphabetical order with the date of the
discussion, length of discussion, and a summary of topics covered. I think
you understood my point perfectly well but cannot help yourself from being
snarky when you don't like the essence of somebody's point.
Don't you keep all the brochures from all the conferences?
Post by d***@gmail.com
I understand what people are saying to me when they express their view on
the assassination. I'm not "projecting" my beliefs when somebody says, "I
just don't think Oswald could have done it all by himself." That's THEIR
statement! It tells me two things: 1) They believe that there was "some
kind" of conspiracy and 2) They accept that Oswald was the shooter, if
only one of many.
Sure, but how many people tell you that Oswald was the only shooter AND
part of a conspiracy? Just Larry?
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
If someone says it was a conspiracy, YOU interpret that as meaning that
Oswald was working for someone else.
I don't interpret it that way at all. Here's what I said that you seem to
have ignored: "They tacitly acknowledge that Oswald WAS a shooter but they
can't really put together any cogent argument about WHO helped him, WHY
they helped him, and in what WAY they helped him." What I'm saying is that
they seldom tell me what they mean by "I don't think Oswald did it by
himself." When I ask them to elaborate, they usually have nothing to say.
They usually just shrug their shoulders and repeat something like, "It
just seems like one person couldn't do it by himself." And that's about as
But a hardline WC defender could explain how Oswald could shoot JFK in
the forehead from the front with no help from anybody else.
Post by d***@gmail.com
far as the discussion gets. They don't know enough about the assassination
to even have much of a discussion and I usually don't waste my time trying
to make the case that there WAS no conspiracy.
Yet, every once in a while I'll run into somebody who really doesn't know
much about the assassination yet has a keen interest in it - which is kind
of odd to me because, it would seem, if they were that interested they
would have educated themself a bit. They often ask me a lot of questions
and I WILL engage these type of people.
My interest in this case has morphed over the past decade. I'm no longer
all that interested in the assassination itself. I'm confident what
happened. It's no mystery to me. I don't delude myself into thinking that
one day you'll logon on to this network and have an epiphany and declare,
"You guys have convinced me! Your arguments have been so compelling that I
am now forced to accept that there is no credible evidence of a conspiracy
in the Kennedy assassination. Thanks helping me see the light. I have no
idea why it took me so long to come to this understanding."
Not in our lifetimes.
Post by d***@gmail.com
What FASCINATES me now is this pathology of conspiracy thinking that
doesn't seem to have any educational/intellectual boundaries. Stupid
people have always believed stupid things. That's not interesting. It's
when normally intelligent people believe stupid things - that's
interesting because, more and more, I'm observing how this phenomenon has
infiltrated people's political worldviews and plays some role in the
growing political divides in this country. Think about it - we have a
president who thinks Alex Jones (InfoWars host) is an insightful and
prescient thinker who deserves an audience.
Why not play your Trump card and blame it all on the Liberals?
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Robert Dallek (author of "An Unfinished Life") may have said it best: "I
know that millions and millions of people in this country believe there
was a conspiracy. People want to believe that the world is not that random
- that things are not that chaotic - that something larger, bigger was at
stake here. Because, I think it's very difficult for them to accept the
idea that someone as inconsequential as Oswald could have killed someone
as consequential as Kennedy."
Straight from the CIA guidebook.
Are you saying Robert Dallek is a CIA disinformation agent? It seems to me that he's really just making a statement about a common aspect of basic human psychology.
No, silly. Just that he abides by it.
Post by d***@gmail.com
You see it as a script out of a "CIA guidebook". That would be funny if you were joking. Sadly, you're not.
I uploaded the document for you.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
And then there's William Manchester's (author of "Death of a President")
insightful explanation: "To use an odd metaphor - if you put six-million
murdered Jews on one side of the scale and the Nazi regime on the other,
you have a rough balance - greatest crimes, greatest criminals. But if you
put the murdered president on one side of the scale and that wretched waif
Oswald on the other, it doesn't balance. You want to add some weight to
Oswald. It would invest the president's death with meaning. Kennedy would
have died for something. A conspiracy would do the job nicely."
Childish logic. Just deal with the evidence. The physical evidence alone
proves conspiracy. Maybe not who was part of the conspiracy.
Yeah, that's what everybody seems to say about William Manchester - an individual prone to "childish logic". I'll bet he got that a lot. Pfft!
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
d***@gmail.com
2018-05-21 02:47:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Don't you keep all the brochures from all the conferences?
I've never attended any of those conferences.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I understand what people are saying to me when they express their view on
the assassination. I'm not "projecting" my beliefs when somebody says, "I
just don't think Oswald could have done it all by himself." That's THEIR
statement! It tells me two things: 1) They believe that there was "some
kind" of conspiracy and 2) They accept that Oswald was the shooter, if
only one of many.
Sure, but how many people tell you that Oswald was the only shooter AND
part of a conspiracy? Just Larry?
What MOST people say (not just "Larry") is that they do not believe that
Oswald did it alone. To me, that means that they accept that Oswald "did
it" - but they think he must have had some kind of help. Whether that
"help" came in the form of other shooters or some kind of logistical
support, they usually don't say; because, as I've said, their thinking on
this matter doesn't go any further. Their view is very shallow. They don't
have a specific conspiracy in mind although, when asked, they WILL say
that they think there must have been "some kind" of conspiracy.

You are trying to characterize this as some kind of minority or aberrant
view of the assassination. You're wrong. It's actually quite common. I
think you know it is, too.

Like I said, if there was a poll question that factored out the TYPE of
conspiracy out of the equation and ONLY asked: Do you believe that Lee
Harvey Oswald fired a rifle at the presidential motorcade from the Texas
School Book Depository on November 22, 1963 ... I am extremely confident
that it would encompass about 75% of the people, probably MORE.
Post by Anthony Marsh
But a hardline WC defender could explain how Oswald could shoot JFK in
the forehead from the front with no help from anybody else.
Huh? There is no medical evidence that Kennedy was shot in the forehead.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
"You guys have convinced me! Your arguments have been so compelling that I
am now forced to accept that there is no credible evidence of a conspiracy
in the Kennedy assassination. Thanks helping me see the light. I have no
idea why it took me so long to come to this understanding."
Not in our lifetimes.
What a cop out! Basically, you're saying, "I'm right and you guys are
wrong! But it won't be proven until we're all dead." That sounds like an
argument you can't lose. It's interesting that you seem to know the
timeline of this revelation. I'm not as certain as you about what the
final historical record will be on the Kennedy assassination, but I DO
know that, after over half-a-century, no conspiracy was found. I think
that's pretty good evidence that we don't need ANOTHER half-a-century to
the "truth" to come out.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Jason Burke
2018-05-21 20:21:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Don't you keep all the brochures from all the conferences?
I've never attended any of those conferences.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I understand what people are saying to me when they express their view on
the assassination. I'm not "projecting" my beliefs when somebody says, "I
just don't think Oswald could have done it all by himself." That's THEIR
statement! It tells me two things: 1) They believe that there was "some
kind" of conspiracy and 2) They accept that Oswald was the shooter, if
only one of many.
Sure, but how many people tell you that Oswald was the only shooter AND
part of a conspiracy? Just Larry?
What MOST people say (not just "Larry") is that they do not believe that
Oswald did it alone. To me, that means that they accept that Oswald "did
it" - but they think he must have had some kind of help. Whether that
"help" came in the form of other shooters or some kind of logistical
support, they usually don't say; because, as I've said, their thinking on
this matter doesn't go any further. Their view is very shallow. They don't
have a specific conspiracy in mind although, when asked, they WILL say
that they think there must have been "some kind" of conspiracy.
You are trying to characterize this as some kind of minority or aberrant
view of the assassination. You're wrong. It's actually quite common. I
think you know it is, too.
Like I said, if there was a poll question that factored out the TYPE of
conspiracy out of the equation and ONLY asked: Do you believe that Lee
Harvey Oswald fired a rifle at the presidential motorcade from the Texas
School Book Depository on November 22, 1963 ... I am extremely confident
that it would encompass about 75% of the people, probably MORE.
Post by Anthony Marsh
But a hardline WC defender could explain how Oswald could shoot JFK in
the forehead from the front with no help from anybody else.
Huh? There is no medical evidence that Kennedy was shot in the forehead.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
"You guys have convinced me! Your arguments have been so compelling that I
am now forced to accept that there is no credible evidence of a conspiracy
in the Kennedy assassination. Thanks helping me see the light. I have no
idea why it took me so long to come to this understanding."
Not in our lifetimes.
What a cop out! Basically, you're saying, "I'm right and you guys are
wrong! But it won't be proven until we're all dead." That sounds like an
argument you can't lose. It's interesting that you seem to know the
timeline of this revelation. I'm not as certain as you about what the
final historical record will be on the Kennedy assassination, but I DO
know that, after over half-a-century, no conspiracy was found. I think
that's pretty good evidence that we don't need ANOTHER half-a-century to
the "truth" to come out.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
But the fools are still hoping.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-22 15:56:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Don't you keep all the brochures from all the conferences?
I've never attended any of those conferences.
Of course not, because you are not a researcher.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I understand what people are saying to me when they express their view on
the assassination. I'm not "projecting" my beliefs when somebody says, "I
just don't think Oswald could have done it all by himself." That's THEIR
statement! It tells me two things: 1) They believe that there was "some
kind" of conspiracy and 2) They accept that Oswald was the shooter, if
only one of many.
Sure, but how many people tell you that Oswald was the only shooter AND
part of a conspiracy? Just Larry?
What MOST people say (not just "Larry") is that they do not believe that
Oswald did it alone. To me, that means that they accept that Oswald "did
it" - but they think he must have had some kind of help. Whether that
"help" came in the form of other shooters or some kind of logistical
Don't try to get cute. Answer my damn question. How many people tell you
that Oswald was the ONLY shooter and also part of a a conspiracy. I've
seen only about a dozen who admit that Oswald was not the only shooter and
still do not call it a conspiracy.
Post by d***@gmail.com
support, they usually don't say; because, as I've said, their thinking on
this matter doesn't go any further. Their view is very shallow. They don't
You're afraid of offending them by asking them to explain themselves?
What a gentleman. Not interested in finding the TRUTH, but good manners.
Post by d***@gmail.com
have a specific conspiracy in mind although, when asked, they WILL say
that they think there must have been "some kind" of conspiracy.
Probably more than half the public is sure it was a conspiracy, but not
sure which group did it.
Post by d***@gmail.com
You are trying to characterize this as some kind of minority or aberrant
view of the assassination. You're wrong. It's actually quite common. I
think you know it is, too.
Yes, I know that you are in the minority and aberrant. But that does not
mean that you couldn't accidentally be correct. So tell us YOUR theory.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Like I said, if there was a poll question that factored out the TYPE of
conspiracy out of the equation and ONLY asked: Do you believe that Lee
Harvey Oswald fired a rifle at the presidential motorcade from the Texas
School Book Depository on November 22, 1963 ... I am extremely confident
that it would encompass about 75% of the people, probably MORE.
So why can't you find a poll like that? Start your own.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
But a hardline WC defender could explain how Oswald could shoot JFK in
the forehead from the front with no help from anybody else.
Huh? There is no medical evidence that Kennedy was shot in the forehead.
The autopsy photographs.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
"You guys have convinced me! Your arguments have been so compelling that I
am now forced to accept that there is no credible evidence of a conspiracy
in the Kennedy assassination. Thanks helping me see the light. I have no
idea why it took me so long to come to this understanding."
Not in our lifetimes.
What a cop out! Basically, you're saying, "I'm right and you guys are
wrong! But it won't be proven until we're all dead." That sounds like an
WHO? Someone else or me? I've already proven the conspiracy.
Post by d***@gmail.com
argument you can't lose. It's interesting that you seem to know the
timeline of this revelation. I'm not as certain as you about what the
I haven't set a timeline. But I did predict that the CIA would continue to
violate the law and will NEVER release the files. The new CIA director
will BURN all the files. Luckily for us SHE doesn't know about the extra
copies.
Post by d***@gmail.com
final historical record will be on the Kennedy assassination, but I DO
know that, after over half-a-century, no conspiracy was found. I think
Well, it DID take them a long time, 15 years.
Post by d***@gmail.com
that's pretty good evidence that we don't need ANOTHER half-a-century to
the "truth" to come out.
The conspiracy was proved. We're just looking for some more details.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
d***@gmail.com
2018-05-23 03:18:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Don't you keep all the brochures from all the conferences?
I've never attended any of those conferences.
Of course not, because you are not a researcher.
I've heard about those conferences and have talked to people who have
attended. From what I've been told, it's much more like a Star Trek
convention (weirdos) than it is gathering of "researchers". Another
analogy was that it is much like the Cantina bar in Star Wars.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I understand what people are saying to me when they express their view on
the assassination. I'm not "projecting" my beliefs when somebody says, "I
just don't think Oswald could have done it all by himself." That's THEIR
statement! It tells me two things: 1) They believe that there was "some
kind" of conspiracy and 2) They accept that Oswald was the shooter, if
only one of many.
Sure, but how many people tell you that Oswald was the only shooter AND
part of a conspiracy? Just Larry?
What MOST people say (not just "Larry") is that they do not believe that
Oswald did it alone. To me, that means that they accept that Oswald "did
it" - but they think he must have had some kind of help. Whether that
"help" came in the form of other shooters or some kind of logistical
Don't try to get cute. Answer my damn question. How many people tell you
that Oswald was the ONLY shooter and also part of a a conspiracy. I've
seen only about a dozen who admit that Oswald was not the only shooter and
still do not call it a conspiracy.
Post by d***@gmail.com
support, they usually don't say; because, as I've said, their thinking on
this matter doesn't go any further. Their view is very shallow. They don't
You're afraid of offending them by asking them to explain themselves?
What a gentleman. Not interested in finding the TRUTH, but good manners.
Recently Bill Newman was interviewed and he expressed the same view that
many Americans express when asked about the assassination - and, remember,
Bill Newman was a WITNESS!

http://www.hsvvoice.com/news/20180522/newmans-remember-witnessing-kennedy-assassination---part-i

“A thought that goes through my mind is when you talk conspiracy,
multiple shooters, to me if Lee Harvey Oswald was the shooter and in fact
he was the only shooter, there very well could have been other people in
the background. That’s always been a curiosity to me.” -
Bill Newman

You should almost be embarrassed to call yourself a researcher. I forgive
most people for having the wrong view of the assassination because I
realize it stems from the fundamental ignorance of the details. But you
have no excuse. You've been at this for a long time and, therefore, should
no better. All you've "researched", it seems to me, is how to chase your
own tail for decades.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-24 14:29:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Don't you keep all the brochures from all the conferences?
I've never attended any of those conferences.
Of course not, because you are not a researcher.
I've heard about those conferences and have talked to people who have
attended. From what I've been told, it's much more like a Star Trek
convention (weirdos) than it is gathering of "researchers". Another
analogy was that it is much like the Cantina bar in Star Wars.
Excellent. When you can't defend your position claim that everyone else
is a kook.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I understand what people are saying to me when they express their view on
the assassination. I'm not "projecting" my beliefs when somebody says, "I
just don't think Oswald could have done it all by himself." That's THEIR
statement! It tells me two things: 1) They believe that there was "some
kind" of conspiracy and 2) They accept that Oswald was the shooter, if
only one of many.
Sure, but how many people tell you that Oswald was the only shooter AND
part of a conspiracy? Just Larry?
What MOST people say (not just "Larry") is that they do not believe that
Oswald did it alone. To me, that means that they accept that Oswald "did
it" - but they think he must have had some kind of help. Whether that
"help" came in the form of other shooters or some kind of logistical
Don't try to get cute. Answer my damn question. How many people tell you
that Oswald was the ONLY shooter and also part of a a conspiracy. I've
seen only about a dozen who admit that Oswald was not the only shooter and
still do not call it a conspiracy.
Post by d***@gmail.com
support, they usually don't say; because, as I've said, their thinking on
this matter doesn't go any further. Their view is very shallow. They don't
You're afraid of offending them by asking them to explain themselves?
What a gentleman. Not interested in finding the TRUTH, but good manners.
Recently Bill Newman was interviewed and he expressed the same view that
many Americans express when asked about the assassination - and, remember,
Bill Newman was a WITNESS!
http://www.hsvvoice.com/news/20180522/newmans-remember-witnessing-kennedy-assassination---part-i
???A thought that goes through my mind is when you talk conspiracy,
multiple shooters, to me if Lee Harvey Oswald was the shooter and in fact
he was the only shooter, there very well could have been other people in
the background. That???s always been a curiosity to me.??? -
Bill Newman
So? A conspiracy does not need multiple shooters. But you have to be a WC
defender to say that shots from different directions does not mean
conspiracy. Maybe you think the other guy was also a lone nut. Or maybe
you think he was out hunting. Or maybe you think someone was cleaning his
gun and it went off accidentally. Or maybe you think one of the SS agents
reached for his gun and it went off acccidentally. Try to think up the
most ridiculous explains that you can, but never admit a simple fact.
Post by d***@gmail.com
You should almost be embarrassed to call yourself a researcher. I forgive
most people for having the wrong view of the assassination because I
realize it stems from the fundamental ignorance of the details. But you
You have done nothing. I have done a lot.
Did YOU prove that the Zapruder film is authentic? No.
Have you ever gotten any document declassified? NO.
All you can do is make personal insults. You are very good at that.
Post by d***@gmail.com
have no excuse. You've been at this for a long time and, therefore, should
no better.
Aren't you glad there are no grammar Nazis here to make fun of your typos?

All you've "researched", it seems to me, is how to chase your
Post by d***@gmail.com
own tail for decades.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Gooberville.
bigdog
2018-05-25 20:35:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Don't you keep all the brochures from all the conferences?
I've never attended any of those conferences.
Of course not, because you are not a researcher.
I've heard about those conferences and have talked to people who have
attended. From what I've been told, it's much more like a Star Trek
convention (weirdos) than it is gathering of "researchers". Another
analogy was that it is much like the Cantina bar in Star Wars.
I can't speak to conspiracy conferences but that certainly describes some
of the hangers-on around Dealey Plaza when I visited there about ten years
ago. One of them was Robert Groden hawking his latest self published book.
There was one old timer handing out pamphlets and telling anybody who was
willing to listen what his theory of the assassination was.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I understand what people are saying to me when they express their view on
the assassination. I'm not "projecting" my beliefs when somebody says, "I
just don't think Oswald could have done it all by himself." That's THEIR
statement! It tells me two things: 1) They believe that there was "some
kind" of conspiracy and 2) They accept that Oswald was the shooter, if
only one of many.
Sure, but how many people tell you that Oswald was the only shooter AND
part of a conspiracy? Just Larry?
What MOST people say (not just "Larry") is that they do not believe that
Oswald did it alone. To me, that means that they accept that Oswald "did
it" - but they think he must have had some kind of help. Whether that
"help" came in the form of other shooters or some kind of logistical
Don't try to get cute. Answer my damn question. How many people tell you
that Oswald was the ONLY shooter and also part of a a conspiracy. I've
seen only about a dozen who admit that Oswald was not the only shooter and
still do not call it a conspiracy.
Post by d***@gmail.com
support, they usually don't say; because, as I've said, their thinking on
this matter doesn't go any further. Their view is very shallow. They don't
You're afraid of offending them by asking them to explain themselves?
What a gentleman. Not interested in finding the TRUTH, but good manners.
Recently Bill Newman was interviewed and he expressed the same view that
many Americans express when asked about the assassination - and, remember,
Bill Newman was a WITNESS!
http://www.hsvvoice.com/news/20180522/newmans-remember-witnessing-kennedy-assassination---part-i
“A thought that goes through my mind is when you talk conspiracy,
multiple shooters, to me if Lee Harvey Oswald was the shooter and in fact
he was the only shooter, there very well could have been other people in
the background. That’s always been a curiosity to me.” -
Bill Newman
That would be the only conspiracy theory that is the least bit plausible
but that would call for evidence as to who Oswald's accomplices are. Since
evidence is in short supply in the conspiracy camp, it is far easier to
attack the evidence presented by the WC that Oswald was the assassin and
invent lame excuses to disregard that evidence.
Post by d***@gmail.com
You should almost be embarrassed to call yourself a researcher. I forgive
most people for having the wrong view of the assassination because I
realize it stems from the fundamental ignorance of the details. But you
have no excuse. You've been at this for a long time and, therefore, should
no better. All you've "researched", it seems to me, is how to chase your
own tail for decades.
TOUCHE!!!
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-26 18:45:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Don't you keep all the brochures from all the conferences?
I've never attended any of those conferences.
Of course not, because you are not a researcher.
I've heard about those conferences and have talked to people who have
attended. From what I've been told, it's much more like a Star Trek
convention (weirdos) than it is gathering of "researchers". Another
analogy was that it is much like the Cantina bar in Star Wars.
I can't speak to conspiracy conferences but that certainly describes some
of the hangers-on around Dealey Plaza when I visited there about ten years
ago. One of them was Robert Groden hawking his latest self published book.
There was one old timer handing out pamphlets and telling anybody who was
willing to listen what his theory of the assassination was.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I understand what people are saying to me when they express their view on
the assassination. I'm not "projecting" my beliefs when somebody says, "I
just don't think Oswald could have done it all by himself." That's THEIR
statement! It tells me two things: 1) They believe that there was "some
kind" of conspiracy and 2) They accept that Oswald was the shooter, if
only one of many.
Sure, but how many people tell you that Oswald was the only shooter AND
part of a conspiracy? Just Larry?
What MOST people say (not just "Larry") is that they do not believe that
Oswald did it alone. To me, that means that they accept that Oswald "did
it" - but they think he must have had some kind of help. Whether that
"help" came in the form of other shooters or some kind of logistical
Don't try to get cute. Answer my damn question. How many people tell you
that Oswald was the ONLY shooter and also part of a a conspiracy. I've
seen only about a dozen who admit that Oswald was not the only shooter and
still do not call it a conspiracy.
Post by d***@gmail.com
support, they usually don't say; because, as I've said, their thinking on
this matter doesn't go any further. Their view is very shallow. They don't
You're afraid of offending them by asking them to explain themselves?
What a gentleman. Not interested in finding the TRUTH, but good manners.
Recently Bill Newman was interviewed and he expressed the same view that
many Americans express when asked about the assassination - and, remember,
Bill Newman was a WITNESS!
http://www.hsvvoice.com/news/20180522/newmans-remember-witnessing-kennedy-assassination---part-i
“A thought that goes through my mind is when you talk conspiracy,
multiple shooters, to me if Lee Harvey Oswald was the shooter and in fact
he was the only shooter, there very well could have been other people in
the background. That’s always been a curiosity to me.” -
Bill Newman
That would be the only conspiracy theory that is the least bit plausible
but that would call for evidence as to who Oswald's accomplices are. Since
evidence is in short supply in the conspiracy camp, it is far easier to
attack the evidence presented by the WC that Oswald was the assassin and
invent lame excuses to disregard that evidence.
OK, so that's the conspiracy theory YOU like. Maybe other WC defenders
like other conspiracy theories.
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
You should almost be embarrassed to call yourself a researcher. I forgive
most people for having the wrong view of the assassination because I
realize it stems from the fundamental ignorance of the details. But you
have no excuse. You've been at this for a long time and, therefore, should
no better. All you've "researched", it seems to me, is how to chase your
own tail for decades.
TOUCHE!!!
OHLeeRedux
2018-05-23 15:12:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Don't you keep all the brochures from all the conferences?
I've never attended any of those conferences.
Of course not, because you are not a researcher.
Neither are you, Anthony "Makes It Up As He Goes" Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
I understand what people are saying to me when they express their view on
the assassination. I'm not "projecting" my beliefs when somebody says, "I
just don't think Oswald could have done it all by himself." That's THEIR
statement! It tells me two things: 1) They believe that there was "some
kind" of conspiracy and 2) They accept that Oswald was the shooter, if
only one of many.
Sure, but how many people tell you that Oswald was the only shooter AND
part of a conspiracy? Just Larry?
What MOST people say (not just "Larry") is that they do not believe that
Oswald did it alone. To me, that means that they accept that Oswald "did
it" - but they think he must have had some kind of help. Whether that
"help" came in the form of other shooters or some kind of logistical
Don't try to get cute. Answer my damn question. How many people tell you
that Oswald was the ONLY shooter and also part of a a conspiracy. I've
seen only about a dozen who admit that Oswald was not the only shooter and
still do not call it a conspiracy.
Post by d***@gmail.com
support, they usually don't say; because, as I've said, their thinking on
this matter doesn't go any further. Their view is very shallow. They don't
You're afraid of offending them by asking them to explain themselves?
What a gentleman. Not interested in finding the TRUTH, but good manners.
Post by d***@gmail.com
have a specific conspiracy in mind although, when asked, they WILL say
that they think there must have been "some kind" of conspiracy.
Probably more than half the public is sure it was a conspiracy, but not
sure which group did it.
Post by d***@gmail.com
You are trying to characterize this as some kind of minority or aberrant
view of the assassination. You're wrong. It's actually quite common. I
think you know it is, too.
Yes, I know that you are in the minority and aberrant. But that does not
mean that you couldn't accidentally be correct. So tell us YOUR theory.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Like I said, if there was a poll question that factored out the TYPE of
conspiracy out of the equation and ONLY asked: Do you believe that Lee
Harvey Oswald fired a rifle at the presidential motorcade from the Texas
School Book Depository on November 22, 1963 ... I am extremely confident
that it would encompass about 75% of the people, probably MORE.
So why can't you find a poll like that? Start your own.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
But a hardline WC defender could explain how Oswald could shoot JFK in
the forehead from the front with no help from anybody else.
Huh? There is no medical evidence that Kennedy was shot in the forehead.
The autopsy photographs.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
"You guys have convinced me! Your arguments have been so compelling that I
am now forced to accept that there is no credible evidence of a conspiracy
in the Kennedy assassination. Thanks helping me see the light. I have no
idea why it took me so long to come to this understanding."
Not in our lifetimes.
What a cop out! Basically, you're saying, "I'm right and you guys are
wrong! But it won't be proven until we're all dead." That sounds like an
WHO? Someone else or me? I've already proven the conspiracy.
Post by d***@gmail.com
argument you can't lose. It's interesting that you seem to know the
timeline of this revelation. I'm not as certain as you about what the
I haven't set a timeline. But I did predict that the CIA would continue to
violate the law and will NEVER release the files. The new CIA director
will BURN all the files. Luckily for us SHE doesn't know about the extra
copies.
Post by d***@gmail.com
final historical record will be on the Kennedy assassination, but I DO
know that, after over half-a-century, no conspiracy was found. I think
Well, it DID take them a long time, 15 years.
Post by d***@gmail.com
that's pretty good evidence that we don't need ANOTHER half-a-century to
the "truth" to come out.
The conspiracy was proved. We're just looking for some more details.
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
A PSY DOC
2018-05-30 02:40:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
https://www.poll-maker.com/results582529x14164d8d-25#tab-1
Jason Burke
2018-05-31 02:49:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A PSY DOC
https://www.poll-maker.com/results582529x14164d8d-25#tab-1
Oh. Goody. A poll from 50+ years later (from a whiny liberal site)
answered by a bunch of maroons who probably weren't even born in '63.

Yeah. That's reliable. And accurate.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-01 13:57:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by A PSY DOC
https://www.poll-maker.com/results582529x14164d8d-25#tab-1
Oh. Goody. A poll from 50+ years later (from a whiny liberal site)
I like that. Whiny Liberal Site. Did you just make that up all by
yourself? So you'd agree with it if it came from a whiny Conservative
Site? Do you understand that Alex Jones is a conservative and favorite of
your hero Trump? So when HE comes up with crazy conspiracy theories, YOU
have to believe HIM.

Breakfast with Lee Harvey Oswald?
Post by Jason Burke
answered by a bunch of maroons who probably weren't even born in '63.
Yeah. That's reliable. And accurate.
BOZ
2018-06-02 01:15:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by A PSY DOC
https://www.poll-maker.com/results582529x14164d8d-25#tab-1
Oh. Goody. A poll from 50+ years later (from a whiny liberal site)
I like that. Whiny Liberal Site. Did you just make that up all by
yourself? So you'd agree with it if it came from a whiny Conservative
Site? Do you understand that Alex Jones is a conservative and favorite of
your hero Trump? So when HE comes up with crazy conspiracy theories, YOU
have to believe HIM.
Breakfast with Lee Harvey Oswald?
Post by Jason Burke
answered by a bunch of maroons who probably weren't even born in '63.
Yeah. That's reliable. And accurate.
I AM QUITE SURE THAT ALEX JONES IS A LIBERTARIAN. MARSH DO YOU KNOW THAT
JONES BELIEVES THAT JFK'S ASSASSINATION WAS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. DO
YOU AGREE WITH JONES?
John McAdams
2018-06-02 01:16:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by A PSY DOC
https://www.poll-maker.com/results582529x14164d8d-25#tab-1
Oh. Goody. A poll from 50+ years later (from a whiny liberal site)
I like that. Whiny Liberal Site. Did you just make that up all by
yourself? So you'd agree with it if it came from a whiny Conservative
Site? Do you understand that Alex Jones is a conservative and favorite of
your hero Trump? So when HE comes up with crazy conspiracy theories, YOU
have to believe HIM.
Breakfast with Lee Harvey Oswald?
Post by Jason Burke
answered by a bunch of maroons who probably weren't even born in '63.
Yeah. That's reliable. And accurate.
I AM QUITE SURE THAT ALEX JONES IS A LIBERTARIAN. MARSH DO YOU KNOW THAT
JONES BELIEVES THAT JFK'S ASSASSINATION WAS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. DO
YOU AGREE WITH JONES?
In his view of government security agencies, Jones is no different
from unreconstructed 60s leftists.

Not that we have anybody like that here. :-)

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-03 17:38:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by A PSY DOC
https://www.poll-maker.com/results582529x14164d8d-25#tab-1
Oh. Goody. A poll from 50+ years later (from a whiny liberal site)
I like that. Whiny Liberal Site. Did you just make that up all by
yourself? So you'd agree with it if it came from a whiny Conservative
Site? Do you understand that Alex Jones is a conservative and favorite of
your hero Trump? So when HE comes up with crazy conspiracy theories, YOU
have to believe HIM.
Breakfast with Lee Harvey Oswald?
Post by Jason Burke
answered by a bunch of maroons who probably weren't even born in '63.
Yeah. That's reliable. And accurate.
I AM QUITE SURE THAT ALEX JONES IS A LIBERTARIAN. MARSH DO YOU KNOW THAT
JONES BELIEVES THAT JFK'S ASSASSINATION WAS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. DO
YOU AGREE WITH JONES?
In his view of government security agencies, Jones is no different
from unreconstructed 60s leftists.
SIlly and wrong. Alex Jones is just another Nazi like Bannon. Libertartian
is a polite Nazi. When he pushes you into the oven he says, "Excuse me,
but I have to do this for your own good." Like the Nazis telling the Jews
to go into the gas chambers to get deloused.
Post by John McAdams
Not that we have anybody like that here. :-)
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
d***@gmail.com
2018-06-03 17:44:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by BOZ
I AM QUITE SURE THAT ALEX JONES IS A LIBERTARIAN. MARSH DO YOU KNOW THAT
JONES BELIEVES THAT JFK'S ASSASSINATION WAS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. DO
YOU AGREE WITH JONES?
In his view of government security agencies, Jones is no different
from unreconstructed 60s leftists.
Not that we have anybody like that here. :-)
.John
In other words, Alex Jones is as misguided and quacky TODAY as
"reconstructed leftists" were in the 60s? Maybe Jones is ALSO trying to
make America great AGAIN ... which, apparently, means going back in time
to when America WAS great. I can guarantee you, America was NOT great in
the 60s.

I'm still amazed that so many intelligent people in this group - those who
see the evidence in the JFK case for what it obviously is - a simple crime
perpetrated by a single man - cannot see the glaring shortcomings and
conspiracy-laden worldview of our current president. It's baffling to me.

It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.

Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.

In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high. That is the group that Hillary
Clinton characterized as the "basket of deplorables" - a very politically
ill-advised characterization but, sadly, accurate.

Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
an anti-authority, government-distrusting paranoid. But, if you ARE all
those things - you believe in a conspiracy.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John McAdams
2018-06-03 18:32:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by BOZ
I AM QUITE SURE THAT ALEX JONES IS A LIBERTARIAN. MARSH DO YOU KNOW THAT
JONES BELIEVES THAT JFK'S ASSASSINATION WAS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. DO
YOU AGREE WITH JONES?
In his view of government security agencies, Jones is no different
from unreconstructed 60s leftists.
Not that we have anybody like that here. :-)
.John
In other words, Alex Jones is as misguided and quacky TODAY as
"reconstructed leftists" were in the 60s? Maybe Jones is ALSO trying to
make America great AGAIN ... which, apparently, means going back in time
to when America WAS great. I can guarantee you, America was NOT great in
the 60s.
I'm still amazed that so many intelligent people in this group - those who
see the evidence in the JFK case for what it obviously is - a simple crime
perpetrated by a single man - cannot see the glaring shortcomings and
conspiracy-laden worldview of our current president. It's baffling to me.
I'm surprised that so many intelligent people in this group -- those
who see the evidence in the JFK case for what it obviously is -- a
simple crime perpetrated by a single man -- cannot see the corruption
and arrogance of the Democratic 2016 presidential candidate. It's
baffling to me.
Post by d***@gmail.com
It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.
In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high.
If you are a snobbish elitist politically correct Prius driving latte
sipping leftist the probability that you are a Hillary supporter is
astronomically high.
Post by d***@gmail.com
That is the group that Hillary
Clinton characterized as the "basket of deplorables" - a very politically
ill-advised characterization but, sadly, accurate.
The real deplorables are those who agreed with Hillary on this.

Tell us, David, what you think of these?







.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-04 19:30:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by BOZ
I AM QUITE SURE THAT ALEX JONES IS A LIBERTARIAN. MARSH DO YOU KNOW THAT
JONES BELIEVES THAT JFK'S ASSASSINATION WAS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. DO
YOU AGREE WITH JONES?
In his view of government security agencies, Jones is no different
from unreconstructed 60s leftists.
Not that we have anybody like that here. :-)
.John
In other words, Alex Jones is as misguided and quacky TODAY as
"reconstructed leftists" were in the 60s? Maybe Jones is ALSO trying to
make America great AGAIN ... which, apparently, means going back in time
to when America WAS great. I can guarantee you, America was NOT great in
the 60s.
I'm still amazed that so many intelligent people in this group - those who
see the evidence in the JFK case for what it obviously is - a simple crime
perpetrated by a single man - cannot see the glaring shortcomings and
conspiracy-laden worldview of our current president. It's baffling to me.
I'm surprised that so many intelligent people in this group -- those
who see the evidence in the JFK case for what it obviously is -- a
simple crime perpetrated by a single man -- cannot see the corruption
and arrogance of the Democratic 2016 presidential candidate. It's
baffling to me.
So as a Trump supporter you can not defend his crimes so you have to try
to place the blame on Hillary. But you can't back it up by pointing out
anything that she did wrong.
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.
In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high.
If you are a snobbish elitist politically correct Prius driving latte
sipping leftist the probability that you are a Hillary supporter is
astronomically high.
Post by d***@gmail.com
That is the group that Hillary
Clinton characterized as the "basket of deplorables" - a very politically
ill-advised characterization but, sadly, accurate.
The real deplorables are those who agreed with Hillary on this.
The deplorables are the Nazis who marched with the Tiki Torches and ran
over a woman. And then Trump said that some of them are good people. Not
all Trump supporters are Nazis, but all Nazis are Trump supporters.
Post by John McAdams
Tell us, David, what you think of these?
http://youtu.be/gqJIR-gXExQ
http://youtu.be/5Qd8vg4uON8
http://youtu.be/t_XNsvjjISA
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2018-06-04 19:38:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 4 Jun 2018 15:30:47 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by BOZ
I AM QUITE SURE THAT ALEX JONES IS A LIBERTARIAN. MARSH DO YOU KNOW THAT
JONES BELIEVES THAT JFK'S ASSASSINATION WAS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. DO
YOU AGREE WITH JONES?
In his view of government security agencies, Jones is no different
from unreconstructed 60s leftists.
Not that we have anybody like that here. :-)
.John
In other words, Alex Jones is as misguided and quacky TODAY as
"reconstructed leftists" were in the 60s? Maybe Jones is ALSO trying to
make America great AGAIN ... which, apparently, means going back in time
to when America WAS great. I can guarantee you, America was NOT great in
the 60s.
I'm still amazed that so many intelligent people in this group - those who
see the evidence in the JFK case for what it obviously is - a simple crime
perpetrated by a single man - cannot see the glaring shortcomings and
conspiracy-laden worldview of our current president. It's baffling to me.
I'm surprised that so many intelligent people in this group -- those
who see the evidence in the JFK case for what it obviously is -- a
simple crime perpetrated by a single man -- cannot see the corruption
and arrogance of the Democratic 2016 presidential candidate. It's
baffling to me.
So as a Trump supporter you can not defend his crimes so you have to try
to place the blame on Hillary. But you can't back it up by pointing out
anything that she did wrong.
The "Trump crimes" are a figment of your imagination. All sorts of
immoral sexual behavior, yes. But crimes are a different matter.

For Hillary: Benghazi, the deleted e-mails, Haiti, "pay for play"
with the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.

And enabling Bill's bad behavior:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-women.html
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.
In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high.
If you are a snobbish elitist politically correct Prius driving latte
sipping leftist the probability that you are a Hillary supporter is
astronomically high.
Post by d***@gmail.com
That is the group that Hillary
Clinton characterized as the "basket of deplorables" - a very politically
ill-advised characterization but, sadly, accurate.
The real deplorables are those who agreed with Hillary on this.
The deplorables are the Nazis who marched with the Tiki Torches and ran
over a woman. And then Trump said that some of them are good people. Not
all Trump supporters are Nazis, but all Nazis are Trump supporters.
OK, all communists were Hillary supporters, if you want to play that
game.

But Trump said that some of the people who didn't want the statues
removed were good people. That's true, and in fact a majority of
Americans opposed the removal of the Confederate statues.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Tell us, David, what you think of these?
http://youtu.be/gqJIR-gXExQ
http://youtu.be/5Qd8vg4uON8
http://youtu.be/t_XNsvjjISA
What do you think of those, Tony?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
d***@gmail.com
2018-06-04 22:21:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.
In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high.
If you are a snobbish elitist politically correct Prius driving latte
sipping leftist the probability that you are a Hillary supporter is
astronomically high.
Is that really the best you can do to counter MY caricature of the right
with YOUR caricature of the left? I mention xenophobia and you counter
with "Prius driving"? I mention racism and you mention "latte sipping"?
What is the leftist equivalent to Christian zealotry? It seems to me that
we'd actually be better off with increased latte-sipping Prius driving
than increased xenophobic racism.
Post by John McAdams
Tell us, David, what you think of these?
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/gqJIR-gXExQ
OK, I'll respond to them individually - since you asked.

The above YouTube clip is of Hillary being interviewed and asked why
almost 52% of the "white women" voted for Trump despite the Access
Hollywood tape.

First of all, the YouTube title is a bit misleading, "Clinton Blames Her
Loss on White Women Listening to Their Husbands". That is a bit out of
context through omission. What she actually says is, "... a sort of
ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son,
whoever believes you should."

I think there's a lot of truth to that. We tend to vote in a very tribal
manner. It's more common than not that spouses have a similar political
view. White men, by a fairly wide margin, preferred Trump. To expect that
not to affect their wife is naive. Yet, I wouldn't say that's WHY Trump
won and Clinton lost - and that's not what she's claiming. She's simply
answering the question.

This brings to mind something regarding the O.J. Simpson trial. The
prosecutors could have had the venue for the trial where the crime
occurred which would have produced a prominently white and affluent jury
pool. But, it would have been a logistical pain in the ass to prosecute it
there. The prosecutors thought that they could successfully prosecute the
case in the city despite the jury pool being predominantly black. They
knew that they were going to have a predominantly black jury but they
thought GENDER would be the primary issue. They decided to load the jury
pool up with WOMEN, whether they be white or black, because a woman would
be repulsed by Simpson's treatment of Nicole. What the prosecutors found
out to their horror is that RACE trumped GENDER.

Wives were not going to vote for Hillary Clinton simply because they
shared a gender. They would be more likely to be loyal to their "tribe",
their husband, their friends, their family's political views, than to any
notion that "I'm a woman ... she's a woman ... so, I'm voting for her."
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/5Qd8vg4uON8
Again, another misleading and intentionally inflammatory YouTube title -
"Hillary Clinton: I Got More Votes In The Places That Matter"

This is the type of rhetoric that inflames the angry mob (the deplorables)
who voted for Trump, those irrationally angry people who thought "elitist"
were laughing at them and that they were being forgotten.

What Clinton ACTUALLY says is, "I won the places that represent two-thirds
of America's Gross Domestic Product. So, I won the places that are
optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward ..." In other words, not the
areas that are predominantly white (i.e. not diverse) where they may grow
a lot of soybeans but have no libraries, museums, concert halls,
universities or hospitals. There is a huge cultural and experiential
divide between the Rural Red and Coastal Blue, that's for sure. She's
simply pointing out what most people know is true. Sure, it sounds elitist
- and it probably is - but what IS an "elitist"? It's basically a term
that has been hijacked and turned into a pejorative to describe
well-educated people who live in cities or the suburbs who tend to have
well-paying jobs. Deplorables HATE that because Trump convinced them that
all these "elitists" are sitting around a table laughing at the Iowa
farmers.
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/t_XNsvjjISA
Like the first YouTube link you provided, this is from her interview in
India. The link above rockets forward to the 30-minute, 41-second point in
her answer which leaves out some significant stuff leading up to it.

This is the continuation of her comment about how voters need to become a
bit more sophisticated in this age of social media and manipulation. For
instance, regarding Trump, she says, "Voters have to be prepared to say,
'OK, that was entertaining. Wow - I couldn't take my eyes off of him -
but, what's he really going to do and what has he ever done that convinces
me that he could actually accomplish any of it?' So, it's going to require
a lot more sophisticated by voters if this trends goes from our 2016
campaign."

Then the question is asked, "Is he a symptom or a disease?" She says there
are "several problems" and briefly goes through them. You "fast-forwarded"
to just ONE of those several points (about the fourth one in her list as
they came to her mind) and that is that many people saw that the
opportunities that were being advanced for groups who historically had
less opportunities in the past (she mentions "African-Americans, the LGBT
community, women") necessarily meant that others would have less
opportunity. They were convinced (wrongfully so, according to Clinton)
that it was a "zero sum game" ... in other words, if "others" are getting
more opportunities then I (not being an "other") will have less
opportunity.

I think that mentality certainly existed - how prevalent it was is
unknowable. She included it in her list and I don't think it is an
unfounded thing to point out. Certainly this viewpoint was encouraged by
Trump with his "America first" rhetoric and anti-immigration policies.

All intelligent people know that opportunities are mostly created, not
handed over. It's like the old sports adage, "The harder I work, the
luckier I seem to get." There was a not-too-insignificant number of rural
Americans who were angrily asking, "Where's MY opportunity?" ... as if
they expected something fantastic to happen in their stagnant, rural
community. That's why people move OUT of those areas to ... well ... the
"blue" areas where it's easier to CREATE your opportunities.

That's not a very JFK assassination topical response - but you asked and
YOU'RE the moderator.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John McAdams
2018-06-04 23:20:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.
In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high.
If you are a snobbish elitist politically correct Prius driving latte
sipping leftist the probability that you are a Hillary supporter is
astronomically high.
Is that really the best you can do to counter MY caricature of the right
with YOUR caricature of the left? I mention xenophobia and you counter
with "Prius driving"? I mention racism and you mention "latte sipping"?
What is the leftist equivalent to Christian zealotry? It seems to me that
we'd actually be better off with increased latte-sipping Prius driving
than increased xenophobic racism.
What you don't understand is that the most bigoted people are the
Prius driving, latte sipping NPR listening people.

They are the ones who call those who disagree with them "racist" and
"xenophobic."

Do you even understand that you are proving my point?
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Tell us, David, what you think of these?
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/gqJIR-gXExQ
OK, I'll respond to them individually - since you asked.
The above YouTube clip is of Hillary being interviewed and asked why
almost 52% of the "white women" voted for Trump despite the Access
Hollywood tape.
First of all, the YouTube title is a bit misleading,
Actually, it's not.
Post by d***@gmail.com
"Clinton Blames Her
Loss on White Women Listening to Their Husbands". That is a bit out of
context through omission. What she actually says is, "... a sort of
ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son,
whoever believes you should."
I think there's a lot of truth to that. We tend to vote in a very tribal
manner. It's more common than not that spouses have a similar political
view.
Then they don't have to be *told* by their husbands how to vote.

But Hillary is demeaning women who voted for Trump by saying they were
weaklings who just do anything their husbands "pressure" them too.

You don't actually know any conservative women, do you?
Post by d***@gmail.com
White men, by a fairly wide margin, preferred Trump. To expect that
not to affect their wife is naive.
No, it's not. You are just doubling down on Hillary's smear of women
who voted for Trump. It assumes that female Trump voters are easily
manipulated by their husbands.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Yet, I wouldn't say that's WHY Trump
won and Clinton lost - and that's not what she's claiming. She's simply
answering the question.
By demeaning female Trump voters.
Post by d***@gmail.com
This brings to mind something regarding the O.J. Simpson trial. The
prosecutors could have had the venue for the trial where the crime
occurred which would have produced a prominently white and affluent jury
pool. But, it would have been a logistical pain in the ass to prosecute it
there. The prosecutors thought that they could successfully prosecute the
case in the city despite the jury pool being predominantly black. They
knew that they were going to have a predominantly black jury but they
thought GENDER would be the primary issue. They decided to load the jury
pool up with WOMEN, whether they be white or black, because a woman would
be repulsed by Simpson's treatment of Nicole. What the prosecutors found
out to their horror is that RACE trumped GENDER.
Of course, neither should have mattered, rather only the evidence.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Wives were not going to vote for Hillary Clinton simply because they
shared a gender. They would be more likely to be loyal to their "tribe",
their husband, their friends, their family's political views, than to any
notion that "I'm a woman ... she's a woman ... so, I'm voting for her."
How does that make them any different from women who voted for
Hillary? They voted the way their husbands, friends, family and tribe
voted.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/5Qd8vg4uON8
Again, another misleading and intentionally inflammatory YouTube title -
"Hillary Clinton: I Got More Votes In The Places That Matter"
Again, it's quite accurate.
Post by d***@gmail.com
This is the type of rhetoric that inflames the angry mob (the deplorables)
who voted for Trump, those irrationally angry people who thought "elitist"
were laughing at them and that they were being forgotten.
No, actually those elitists were, after the election, fuming with
hatred at those people.

Remember Obama's "bitter clingers" remark?

You can't make up your mind whether to deny that liberals tend to be
nasty elitists, or to *affirm* that they are, and say they have a righ
to be.
Post by d***@gmail.com
What Clinton ACTUALLY says is, "I won the places that represent two-thirds
of America's Gross Domestic Product. So, I won the places that are
optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward ..." In other words, not the
areas that are predominantly white (i.e. not diverse) where they may grow
a lot of soybeans but have no libraries, museums, concert halls,
universities or hospitals.
This is ridiculous. You are showing your own stereotyped views of
people who don't vote they way you do.
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is a huge cultural and experiential
divide between the Rural Red and Coastal Blue, that's for sure. She's
simply pointing out what most people know is true. Sure, it sounds elitist
- and it probably is - but what IS an "elitist"? It's basically a term
that has been hijacked and turned into a pejorative to describe
well-educated people who live in cities or the suburbs who tend to have
well-paying jobs.
So you are admitting to being an elitist.

Interesting that now the Democratic Party is bragging about being the
party of the rich and affluent.

In fact, white college graduates went for Trump.

Check the exit poll data reprinted here:

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2018/03/democrats-party-of-elites-and-elitists.html

Also, if you assume the "better" people are the ones having high
incomes, the highest income group split evenly between Trump and
Hillary. See the link above.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Deplorables HATE that because Trump convinced them that
all these "elitists" are sitting around a table laughing at the Iowa
farmers.
No, they were viewing them with contempt, and attacking and demeaning
them. Asking "What's the Matter With Kansas," rather than "what's the
matter with us that we alienate so many Americans."

The elitists deserved a kick in the teeth.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/t_XNsvjjISA
Like the first YouTube link you provided, this is from her interview in
India. The link above rockets forward to the 30-minute, 41-second point in
her answer which leaves out some significant stuff leading up to it.
This is the continuation of her comment about how voters need to become a
bit more sophisticated in this age of social media and manipulation. For
instance, regarding Trump, she says, "Voters have to be prepared to say,
'OK, that was entertaining. Wow - I couldn't take my eyes off of him -
but, what's he really going to do and what has he ever done that convinces
me that he could actually accomplish any of it?' So, it's going to require
a lot more sophisticated by voters if this trends goes from our 2016
campaign."
Translation: she is demeaning Trump voters as "unsophisticated" about
social media.

Just more of her nasty elitism.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Then the question is asked, "Is he a symptom or a disease?" She says there
are "several problems" and briefly goes through them. You "fast-forwarded"
to just ONE of those several points (about the fourth one in her list as
they came to her mind) and that is that many people saw that the
opportunities that were being advanced for groups who historically had
less opportunities in the past (she mentions "African-Americans, the LGBT
community, women") necessarily meant that others would have less
opportunity. They were convinced (wrongfully so, according to Clinton)
that it was a "zero sum game" ... in other words, if "others" are getting
more opportunities then I (not being an "other") will have less
opportunity.
Does affirmative action not take opportunities away from groups not
among the favored?

Do you think white are racist for resenting being victims of racial
discrimination? Males for being victims of gender discrimination.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I think that mentality certainly existed - how prevalent it was is
unknowable. She included it in her list and I don't think it is an
unfounded thing to point out. Certainly this viewpoint was encouraged by
Trump with his "America first" rhetoric and anti-immigration policies.
All intelligent people know that opportunities are mostly created, not
handed over.
You are coming down against your leftist buddies!

They believe that if whites have more, it must be because they took it
from blacks.

They believe that if the rich have more, it's because they took it
from the poor.

So try telling Bernie Sanders what you just said.

However, it's the liberals zero sum games (affirmative action, tax and
redistribute) that *limit* the creation of opportunities.
Post by d***@gmail.com
It's like the old sports adage, "The harder I work, the
luckier I seem to get." There was a not-too-insignificant number of rural
Americans who were angrily asking, "Where's MY opportunity?" ... as if
they expected something fantastic to happen in their stagnant, rural
community. That's why people move OUT of those areas to ... well ... the
"blue" areas where it's easier to CREATE your opportunities.
Are you even aware tht net migration in the U.S. is from blue states
(and localities) to red states and localities?

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/04/24/the_politics_of_migration_from_blue_to_red__133681.html

Net migration of blacks is into red states:

http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2011/04/blacks-leaving-liberal-states.html

The liberals "identity politics" plus "tax" plus "regulate" formula
doesn't work very well to create opportunity for lots of people.

It can create cozy enclaves for the rich. Net migration is *out* of
California, and the out migrants are most poor and middle income
people.
Post by d***@gmail.com
That's not a very JFK assassination topical response - but you asked and
YOU'RE the moderator.
You are the one who posted a political polemic. So I respond with a
counter-polemic.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Mark
2018-06-06 19:40:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.
In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high.
If you are a snobbish elitist politically correct Prius driving latte
sipping leftist the probability that you are a Hillary supporter is
astronomically high.
Is that really the best you can do to counter MY caricature of the right
with YOUR caricature of the left? I mention xenophobia and you counter
with "Prius driving"? I mention racism and you mention "latte sipping"?
What is the leftist equivalent to Christian zealotry? It seems to me that
we'd actually be better off with increased latte-sipping Prius driving
than increased xenophobic racism.
What you don't understand is that the most bigoted people are the
Prius driving, latte sipping NPR listening people.
They are the ones who call those who disagree with them "racist" and
"xenophobic."
Do you even understand that you are proving my point?
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Tell us, David, what you think of these?
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/gqJIR-gXExQ
OK, I'll respond to them individually - since you asked.
The above YouTube clip is of Hillary being interviewed and asked why
almost 52% of the "white women" voted for Trump despite the Access
Hollywood tape.
First of all, the YouTube title is a bit misleading,
Actually, it's not.
Post by d***@gmail.com
"Clinton Blames Her
Loss on White Women Listening to Their Husbands". That is a bit out of
context through omission. What she actually says is, "... a sort of
ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son,
whoever believes you should."
I think there's a lot of truth to that. We tend to vote in a very tribal
manner. It's more common than not that spouses have a similar political
view.
Then they don't have to be *told* by their husbands how to vote.
But Hillary is demeaning women who voted for Trump by saying they were
weaklings who just do anything their husbands "pressure" them too.
You don't actually know any conservative women, do you?
Post by d***@gmail.com
White men, by a fairly wide margin, preferred Trump. To expect that
not to affect their wife is naive.
No, it's not. You are just doubling down on Hillary's smear of women
who voted for Trump. It assumes that female Trump voters are easily
manipulated by their husbands.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Yet, I wouldn't say that's WHY Trump
won and Clinton lost - and that's not what she's claiming. She's simply
answering the question.
By demeaning female Trump voters.
Post by d***@gmail.com
This brings to mind something regarding the O.J. Simpson trial. The
prosecutors could have had the venue for the trial where the crime
occurred which would have produced a prominently white and affluent jury
pool. But, it would have been a logistical pain in the ass to prosecute it
there. The prosecutors thought that they could successfully prosecute the
case in the city despite the jury pool being predominantly black. They
knew that they were going to have a predominantly black jury but they
thought GENDER would be the primary issue. They decided to load the jury
pool up with WOMEN, whether they be white or black, because a woman would
be repulsed by Simpson's treatment of Nicole. What the prosecutors found
out to their horror is that RACE trumped GENDER.
Of course, neither should have mattered, rather only the evidence.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Wives were not going to vote for Hillary Clinton simply because they
shared a gender. They would be more likely to be loyal to their "tribe",
their husband, their friends, their family's political views, than to any
notion that "I'm a woman ... she's a woman ... so, I'm voting for her."
How does that make them any different from women who voted for
Hillary? They voted the way their husbands, friends, family and tribe
voted.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/5Qd8vg4uON8
Again, another misleading and intentionally inflammatory YouTube title -
"Hillary Clinton: I Got More Votes In The Places That Matter"
Again, it's quite accurate.
Post by d***@gmail.com
This is the type of rhetoric that inflames the angry mob (the deplorables)
who voted for Trump, those irrationally angry people who thought "elitist"
were laughing at them and that they were being forgotten.
No, actually those elitists were, after the election, fuming with
hatred at those people.
Remember Obama's "bitter clingers" remark?
You can't make up your mind whether to deny that liberals tend to be
nasty elitists, or to *affirm* that they are, and say they have a righ
to be.
Post by d***@gmail.com
What Clinton ACTUALLY says is, "I won the places that represent two-thirds
of America's Gross Domestic Product. So, I won the places that are
optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward ..." In other words, not the
areas that are predominantly white (i.e. not diverse) where they may grow
a lot of soybeans but have no libraries, museums, concert halls,
universities or hospitals.
This is ridiculous. You are showing your own stereotyped views of
people who don't vote they way you do.
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is a huge cultural and experiential
divide between the Rural Red and Coastal Blue, that's for sure. She's
simply pointing out what most people know is true. Sure, it sounds elitist
- and it probably is - but what IS an "elitist"? It's basically a term
that has been hijacked and turned into a pejorative to describe
well-educated people who live in cities or the suburbs who tend to have
well-paying jobs.
So you are admitting to being an elitist.
Interesting that now the Democratic Party is bragging about being the
party of the rich and affluent.
Queen Hillary, 2016, to the grandchildren of the bluecollars who gave JFK
his margins in the 1960 primaries in Wisconsin and West Virginia: Let them
eat cake.

Mark
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-08 01:08:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.
In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high.
If you are a snobbish elitist politically correct Prius driving latte
sipping leftist the probability that you are a Hillary supporter is
astronomically high.
Is that really the best you can do to counter MY caricature of the right
with YOUR caricature of the left? I mention xenophobia and you counter
with "Prius driving"? I mention racism and you mention "latte sipping"?
What is the leftist equivalent to Christian zealotry? It seems to me that
we'd actually be better off with increased latte-sipping Prius driving
than increased xenophobic racism.
What you don't understand is that the most bigoted people are the
Prius driving, latte sipping NPR listening people.
They are the ones who call those who disagree with them "racist" and
"xenophobic."
Do you even understand that you are proving my point?
Au contraire, mon frere. I am proving my point and pointing out the
fallacy of your point. You said Hillary supporters. I know it was Bernie
supporters. Hillary supporters still drive Volvos.

You've got to get your cars right. Trump supporters drive Dodges and run
over Liberal protestors.
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Tell us, David, what you think of these?
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/gqJIR-gXExQ
OK, I'll respond to them individually - since you asked.
The above YouTube clip is of Hillary being interviewed and asked why
almost 52% of the "white women" voted for Trump despite the Access
Hollywood tape.
First of all, the YouTube title is a bit misleading,
Actually, it's not.
Post by d***@gmail.com
"Clinton Blames Her
Loss on White Women Listening to Their Husbands". That is a bit out of
context through omission. What she actually says is, "... a sort of
ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son,
whoever believes you should."
I think there's a lot of truth to that. We tend to vote in a very tribal
manner. It's more common than not that spouses have a similar political
view.
Then they don't have to be *told* by their husbands how to vote.
Influenced, not ordered to.
Post by John McAdams
But Hillary is demeaning women who voted for Trump by saying they were
weaklings who just do anything their husbands "pressure" them too.
I like that. So now you say she called them weaklings.
So what do they call them now after the MeToo movement?
Post by John McAdams
You don't actually know any conservative women, do you?
In what sense? I know plenty of them, but not in the Biblical sense. I
did when I was younger.
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
White men, by a fairly wide margin, preferred Trump. To expect that
not to affect their wife is naive.
No, it's not. You are just doubling down on Hillary's smear of women
who voted for Trump. It assumes that female Trump voters are easily
manipulated by their husbands.
I didn't see it as a smear. I saw it more as a complaint or shaming.
LOOK WHAT YOU DID!
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Yet, I wouldn't say that's WHY Trump
won and Clinton lost - and that's not what she's claiming. She's simply
answering the question.
By demeaning female Trump voters.
Chastising them.
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
This brings to mind something regarding the O.J. Simpson trial. The
prosecutors could have had the venue for the trial where the crime
occurred which would have produced a prominently white and affluent jury
pool. But, it would have been a logistical pain in the ass to prosecute it
there. The prosecutors thought that they could successfully prosecute the
case in the city despite the jury pool being predominantly black. They
knew that they were going to have a predominantly black jury but they
thought GENDER would be the primary issue. They decided to load the jury
pool up with WOMEN, whether they be white or black, because a woman would
be repulsed by Simpson's treatment of Nicole. What the prosecutors found
out to their horror is that RACE trumped GENDER.
Of course, neither should have mattered, rather only the evidence.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Wives were not going to vote for Hillary Clinton simply because they
shared a gender. They would be more likely to be loyal to their "tribe",
their husband, their friends, their family's political views, than to any
notion that "I'm a woman ... she's a woman ... so, I'm voting for her."
How does that make them any different from women who voted for
Hillary? They voted the way their husbands, friends, family and tribe
voted.
Women can be just as racist and rightwing as men. Whose going to make all
those KKK robes.

Isn't Rebekah Mercer really the one who's in charge of the right wing now?
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/5Qd8vg4uON8
Again, another misleading and intentionally inflammatory YouTube title -
"Hillary Clinton: I Got More Votes In The Places That Matter"
Again, it's quite accurate.
Hillary got more votes overall.
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
This is the type of rhetoric that inflames the angry mob (the deplorables)
who voted for Trump, those irrationally angry people who thought "elitist"
were laughing at them and that they were being forgotten.
No, actually those elitists were, after the election, fuming with
hatred at those people.
Not hatred. Loathing.
Post by John McAdams
Remember Obama's "bitter clingers" remark?
You can't make up your mind whether to deny that liberals tend to be
nasty elitists, or to *affirm* that they are, and say they have a righ
to be.
Not all Liberals are rich enough to be elitists.
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
What Clinton ACTUALLY says is, "I won the places that represent two-thirds
of America's Gross Domestic Product. So, I won the places that are
optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward ..." In other words, not the
areas that are predominantly white (i.e. not diverse) where they may grow
a lot of soybeans but have no libraries, museums, concert halls,
universities or hospitals.
This is ridiculous. You are showing your own stereotyped views of
people who don't vote they way you do.
It was a wild over-generalization.
I'm sure they have museums to the KKK and Confederacy.
And they got the Grand Old Oprey. HOwdy y'all.
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
There is a huge cultural and experiential
divide between the Rural Red and Coastal Blue, that's for sure. She's
simply pointing out what most people know is true. Sure, it sounds elitist
- and it probably is - but what IS an "elitist"? It's basically a term
that has been hijacked and turned into a pejorative to describe
well-educated people who live in cities or the suburbs who tend to have
well-paying jobs.
So you are admitting to being an elitist.
Interesting that now the Democratic Party is bragging about being the
party of the rich and affluent.
WHo?
Post by John McAdams
In fact, white college graduates went for Trump.
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2018/03/democrats-party-of-elites-and-elitists.html
Also, if you assume the "better" people are the ones having high
incomes, the highest income group split evenly between Trump and
Hillary. See the link above.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Deplorables HATE that because Trump convinced them that
all these "elitists" are sitting around a table laughing at the Iowa
farmers.
No, they were viewing them with contempt, and attacking and demeaning
them. Asking "What's the Matter With Kansas," rather than "what's the
matter with us that we alienate so many Americans."
Exactly.
But we know what's wrong with the Democrats. They win too much.
Post by John McAdams
The elitists deserved a kick in the teeth.
Sounds like you're advocating violence. Did they deserve to get run over
by the Tiki Torch carriers?
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/t_XNsvjjISA
Like the first YouTube link you provided, this is from her interview in
India. The link above rockets forward to the 30-minute, 41-second point in
her answer which leaves out some significant stuff leading up to it.
This is the continuation of her comment about how voters need to become a
bit more sophisticated in this age of social media and manipulation. For
instance, regarding Trump, she says, "Voters have to be prepared to say,
'OK, that was entertaining. Wow - I couldn't take my eyes off of him -
but, what's he really going to do and what has he ever done that convinces
me that he could actually accomplish any of it?' So, it's going to require
a lot more sophisticated by voters if this trends goes from our 2016
campaign."
Translation: she is demeaning Trump voters as "unsophisticated" about
social media.
Misled by HACKED social media. AKA LIES.
Post by John McAdams
Just more of her nasty elitism.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Then the question is asked, "Is he a symptom or a disease?" She says there
are "several problems" and briefly goes through them. You "fast-forwarded"
to just ONE of those several points (about the fourth one in her list as
they came to her mind) and that is that many people saw that the
opportunities that were being advanced for groups who historically had
less opportunities in the past (she mentions "African-Americans, the LGBT
community, women") necessarily meant that others would have less
opportunity. They were convinced (wrongfully so, according to Clinton)
that it was a "zero sum game" ... in other words, if "others" are getting
more opportunities then I (not being an "other") will have less
opportunity.
Does affirmative action not take opportunities away from groups not
among the favored?
WTF? Does obey the law deprive criminals of income?
Post by John McAdams
Do you think white are racist for resenting being victims of racial
discrimination? Males for being victims of gender discrimination.
Can be.

But there is no such thing as reverse discrimination. That ia s racist
meme.
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
I think that mentality certainly existed - how prevalent it was is
unknowable. She included it in her list and I don't think it is an
unfounded thing to point out. Certainly this viewpoint was encouraged by
Trump with his "America first" rhetoric and anti-immigration policies.
All intelligent people know that opportunities are mostly created, not
handed over.
You are coming down against your leftist buddies!
Like Trump or the Koch brothers?
Post by John McAdams
They believe that if whites have more, it must be because they took it
from blacks.
That's how whites got rich. Slavery.
Post by John McAdams
They believe that if the rich have more, it's because they took it
from the poor.
It often works that way.
Post by John McAdams
So try telling Bernie Sanders what you just said.
However, it's the liberals zero sum games (affirmative action, tax and
redistribute) that *limit* the creation of opportunities.
Libeerals createed and built this country.
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
It's like the old sports adage, "The harder I work, the
luckier I seem to get." There was a not-too-insignificant number of rural
Americans who were angrily asking, "Where's MY opportunity?" ... as if
they expected something fantastic to happen in their stagnant, rural
community. That's why people move OUT of those areas to ... well ... the
"blue" areas where it's easier to CREATE your opportunities.
Are you even aware tht net migration in the U.S. is from blue states
(and localities) to red states and localities?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/04/24/the_politics_of_migration_from_blue_to_red__133681.html
That's your favorite rightwing source? What about the JBS?
Post by John McAdams
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2011/04/blacks-leaving-liberal-states.html
Farmers?
Post by John McAdams
The liberals "identity politics" plus "tax" plus "regulate" formula
doesn't work very well to create opportunity for lots of people.
Ok, so you think there should be NO taxes. Jesus didn't agree with that.
What are you, anti-Christian?
Post by John McAdams
It can create cozy enclaves for the rich. Net migration is *out* of
California, and the out migrants are most poor and middle income
people.
Maybe they're afraid of the big earthquake.
You missed a perfect opportunity to show off your Xenophobia. You could
have said that the Whites are being pushed out by the illegal aliens.
So how's your wall coming? And all the new concentration camps?
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
That's not a very JFK assassination topical response - but you asked and
YOU'RE the moderator.
You are the one who posted a political polemic. So I respond with a
counter-polemic.
You ALWAYS do that. You are SOOOO easy to bait. Then after you lose the
argument you shut down the thread as being OFF-TOPIC.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2018-06-04 23:57:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.
In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high.
If you are a snobbish elitist politically correct Prius driving latte
sipping leftist the probability that you are a Hillary supporter is
astronomically high.
Is that really the best you can do to counter MY caricature of the right
with YOUR caricature of the left? I mention xenophobia and you counter
with "Prius driving"? I mention racism and you mention "latte sipping"?
What is the leftist equivalent to Christian zealotry? It seems to me that
we'd actually be better off with increased latte-sipping Prius driving
than increased xenophobic racism.
Post by John McAdams
Tell us, David, what you think of these?
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/gqJIR-gXExQ
OK, I'll respond to them individually - since you asked.
The above YouTube clip is of Hillary being interviewed and asked why
almost 52% of the "white women" voted for Trump despite the Access
Hollywood tape.
First of all, the YouTube title is a bit misleading, "Clinton Blames Her
Loss on White Women Listening to Their Husbands". That is a bit out of
context through omission. What she actually says is, "... a sort of
ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son,
whoever believes you should."
I think there's a lot of truth to that. We tend to vote in a very tribal
manner. It's more common than not that spouses have a similar political
view. White men, by a fairly wide margin, preferred Trump. To expect that
not to affect their wife is naive. Yet, I wouldn't say that's WHY Trump
won and Clinton lost - and that's not what she's claiming. She's simply
answering the question.
This brings to mind something regarding the O.J. Simpson trial. The
prosecutors could have had the venue for the trial where the crime
occurred which would have produced a prominently white and affluent jury
pool. But, it would have been a logistical pain in the ass to prosecute it
there. The prosecutors thought that they could successfully prosecute the
case in the city despite the jury pool being predominantly black. They
knew that they were going to have a predominantly black jury but they
thought GENDER would be the primary issue. They decided to load the jury
pool up with WOMEN, whether they be white or black, because a woman would
be repulsed by Simpson's treatment of Nicole. What the prosecutors found
out to their horror is that RACE trumped GENDER.
Wives were not going to vote for Hillary Clinton simply because they
shared a gender. They would be more likely to be loyal to their "tribe",
their husband, their friends, their family's political views, than to any
notion that "I'm a woman ... she's a woman ... so, I'm voting for her."
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/5Qd8vg4uON8
Again, another misleading and intentionally inflammatory YouTube title -
"Hillary Clinton: I Got More Votes In The Places That Matter"
This is the type of rhetoric that inflames the angry mob (the deplorables)
who voted for Trump, those irrationally angry people who thought "elitist"
were laughing at them and that they were being forgotten.
What Clinton ACTUALLY says is, "I won the places that represent two-thirds
of America's Gross Domestic Product. So, I won the places that are
optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward ..." In other words, not the
areas that are predominantly white (i.e. not diverse) where they may grow
a lot of soybeans but have no libraries, museums, concert halls,
universities or hospitals. There is a huge cultural and experiential
divide between the Rural Red and Coastal Blue, that's for sure. She's
simply pointing out what most people know is true. Sure, it sounds elitist
- and it probably is - but what IS an "elitist"? It's basically a term
that has been hijacked and turned into a pejorative to describe
well-educated people who live in cities or the suburbs who tend to have
well-paying jobs. Deplorables HATE that because Trump convinced them that
all these "elitists" are sitting around a table laughing at the Iowa
farmers.
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/t_XNsvjjISA
Like the first YouTube link you provided, this is from her interview in
India. The link above rockets forward to the 30-minute, 41-second point in
her answer which leaves out some significant stuff leading up to it.
This is the continuation of her comment about how voters need to become a
bit more sophisticated in this age of social media and manipulation. For
instance, regarding Trump, she says, "Voters have to be prepared to say,
'OK, that was entertaining. Wow - I couldn't take my eyes off of him -
but, what's he really going to do and what has he ever done that convinces
me that he could actually accomplish any of it?' So, it's going to require
a lot more sophisticated by voters if this trends goes from our 2016
campaign."
Then the question is asked, "Is he a symptom or a disease?" She says there
are "several problems" and briefly goes through them. You "fast-forwarded"
to just ONE of those several points (about the fourth one in her list as
they came to her mind) and that is that many people saw that the
opportunities that were being advanced for groups who historically had
less opportunities in the past (she mentions "African-Americans, the LGBT
community, women") necessarily meant that others would have less
opportunity. They were convinced (wrongfully so, according to Clinton)
that it was a "zero sum game" ... in other words, if "others" are getting
more opportunities then I (not being an "other") will have less
opportunity.
I think that mentality certainly existed - how prevalent it was is
unknowable. She included it in her list and I don't think it is an
unfounded thing to point out. Certainly this viewpoint was encouraged by
Trump with his "America first" rhetoric and anti-immigration policies.
All intelligent people know that opportunities are mostly created, not
handed over. It's like the old sports adage, "The harder I work, the
luckier I seem to get." There was a not-too-insignificant number of rural
Americans who were angrily asking, "Where's MY opportunity?" ... as if
they expected something fantastic to happen in their stagnant, rural
community. That's why people move OUT of those areas to ... well ... the
"blue" areas where it's easier to CREATE your opportunities.
That's not a very JFK assassination topical response - but you asked and
YOU'RE the moderator.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Does anybody here recognize the irony of a fellow from Memphis
claiming that all red states are uncultured useless backwaters?

Does he even realize how important in U.S. history and culture Memphis
has been?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
BOZ
2018-06-05 22:09:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.
In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high.
If you are a snobbish elitist politically correct Prius driving latte
sipping leftist the probability that you are a Hillary supporter is
astronomically high.
Is that really the best you can do to counter MY caricature of the right
with YOUR caricature of the left? I mention xenophobia and you counter
with "Prius driving"? I mention racism and you mention "latte sipping"?
What is the leftist equivalent to Christian zealotry? It seems to me that
we'd actually be better off with increased latte-sipping Prius driving
than increased xenophobic racism.
Post by John McAdams
Tell us, David, what you think of these?
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/gqJIR-gXExQ
OK, I'll respond to them individually - since you asked.
The above YouTube clip is of Hillary being interviewed and asked why
almost 52% of the "white women" voted for Trump despite the Access
Hollywood tape.
First of all, the YouTube title is a bit misleading, "Clinton Blames Her
Loss on White Women Listening to Their Husbands". That is a bit out of
context through omission. What she actually says is, "... a sort of
ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son,
whoever believes you should."
I think there's a lot of truth to that. We tend to vote in a very tribal
manner. It's more common than not that spouses have a similar political
view. White men, by a fairly wide margin, preferred Trump. To expect that
not to affect their wife is naive. Yet, I wouldn't say that's WHY Trump
won and Clinton lost - and that's not what she's claiming. She's simply
answering the question.
This brings to mind something regarding the O.J. Simpson trial. The
prosecutors could have had the venue for the trial where the crime
occurred which would have produced a prominently white and affluent jury
pool. But, it would have been a logistical pain in the ass to prosecute it
there. The prosecutors thought that they could successfully prosecute the
case in the city despite the jury pool being predominantly black. They
knew that they were going to have a predominantly black jury but they
thought GENDER would be the primary issue. They decided to load the jury
pool up with WOMEN, whether they be white or black, because a woman would
be repulsed by Simpson's treatment of Nicole. What the prosecutors found
out to their horror is that RACE trumped GENDER.
Wives were not going to vote for Hillary Clinton simply because they
shared a gender. They would be more likely to be loyal to their "tribe",
their husband, their friends, their family's political views, than to any
notion that "I'm a woman ... she's a woman ... so, I'm voting for her."
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/5Qd8vg4uON8
Again, another misleading and intentionally inflammatory YouTube title -
"Hillary Clinton: I Got More Votes In The Places That Matter"
This is the type of rhetoric that inflames the angry mob (the deplorables)
who voted for Trump, those irrationally angry people who thought "elitist"
were laughing at them and that they were being forgotten.
What Clinton ACTUALLY says is, "I won the places that represent two-thirds
of America's Gross Domestic Product. So, I won the places that are
optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward ..." In other words, not the
areas that are predominantly white (i.e. not diverse) where they may grow
a lot of soybeans but have no libraries, museums, concert halls,
universities or hospitals. There is a huge cultural and experiential
divide between the Rural Red and Coastal Blue, that's for sure. She's
simply pointing out what most people know is true. Sure, it sounds elitist
- and it probably is - but what IS an "elitist"? It's basically a term
that has been hijacked and turned into a pejorative to describe
well-educated people who live in cities or the suburbs who tend to have
well-paying jobs. Deplorables HATE that because Trump convinced them that
all these "elitists" are sitting around a table laughing at the Iowa
farmers.
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/t_XNsvjjISA
Like the first YouTube link you provided, this is from her interview in
India. The link above rockets forward to the 30-minute, 41-second point in
her answer which leaves out some significant stuff leading up to it.
This is the continuation of her comment about how voters need to become a
bit more sophisticated in this age of social media and manipulation. For
instance, regarding Trump, she says, "Voters have to be prepared to say,
'OK, that was entertaining. Wow - I couldn't take my eyes off of him -
but, what's he really going to do and what has he ever done that convinces
me that he could actually accomplish any of it?' So, it's going to require
a lot more sophisticated by voters if this trends goes from our 2016
campaign."
Then the question is asked, "Is he a symptom or a disease?" She says there
are "several problems" and briefly goes through them. You "fast-forwarded"
to just ONE of those several points (about the fourth one in her list as
they came to her mind) and that is that many people saw that the
opportunities that were being advanced for groups who historically had
less opportunities in the past (she mentions "African-Americans, the LGBT
community, women") necessarily meant that others would have less
opportunity. They were convinced (wrongfully so, according to Clinton)
that it was a "zero sum game" ... in other words, if "others" are getting
more opportunities then I (not being an "other") will have less
opportunity.
I think that mentality certainly existed - how prevalent it was is
unknowable. She included it in her list and I don't think it is an
unfounded thing to point out. Certainly this viewpoint was encouraged by
Trump with his "America first" rhetoric and anti-immigration policies.
All intelligent people know that opportunities are mostly created, not
handed over. It's like the old sports adage, "The harder I work, the
luckier I seem to get." There was a not-too-insignificant number of rural
Americans who were angrily asking, "Where's MY opportunity?" ... as if
they expected something fantastic to happen in their stagnant, rural
community. That's why people move OUT of those areas to ... well ... the
"blue" areas where it's easier to CREATE your opportunities.
That's not a very JFK assassination topical response - but you asked and
YOU'RE the moderator.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Does anybody here recognize the irony of a fellow from Memphis
claiming that all red states are uncultured useless backwaters?
Does he even realize how important in U.S. history and culture Memphis
has been?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
IT'S NOT EMERLING'S FAULT. IT'S A GENE. JUST ASK EMERLING. I NOMINATE
DAVID EMERLING FOR A NOBEL PRIZE. HE IS THE FIRST ONE TO DISCOVER A
CONSPIRACY GENE EVEN THOUGH HE REACHED HIS CONCLUSION AFTER READING
BUGLIOSI'S RECLAIMING HISTORY.
d***@gmail.com
2018-06-06 01:09:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Does anybody here recognize the irony of a fellow from Memphis
claiming that all red states are uncultured useless backwaters?
Does he even realize how important in U.S. history and culture Memphis
has been?
.John
Not to prolong our obvious political differences, I'll just end by noting,
with interest, how even more ironic it is that you tend to lean right with
a background of academia which, typically, has members who
disproportionately lean left and I, having a strong military background
and employed in an occupation that disproportionately leans right, have
far more liberal views.

Here is an audio segment from the book "The Moral Arc" that you might find
interesting that describes the origin and highlights these "bookend"
worldviews.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B59zyTl2EQl2cHVUS0o3TUNmNzQ

If we all had the same worldview, life would be boring.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN (born and raised in St. Louis, by the way. I don't even have a
southern accent)
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-07 13:43:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Does anybody here recognize the irony of a fellow from Memphis
claiming that all red states are uncultured useless backwaters?
Does he even realize how important in U.S. history and culture Memphis
has been?
.John
Not to prolong our obvious political differences, I'll just end by noting,
with interest, how even more ironic it is that you tend to lean right with
a background of academia which, typically, has members who
Lean? Didn't you see him at CPAC getting the award?
Post by d***@gmail.com
disproportionately lean left and I, having a strong military background
and employed in an occupation that disproportionately leans right, have
far more liberal views.
I suspect that are over-generalizing. There are probably as many
rightwingers in teaching as leftists.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Here is an audio segment from the book "The Moral Arc" that you might find
interesting that describes the origin and highlights these "bookend"
worldviews.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B59zyTl2EQl2cHVUS0o3TUNmNzQ
If we all had the same worldview, life would be boring.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN (born and raised in St. Louis, by the way. I don't even have a
southern accent)
bigdog
2018-06-05 20:46:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.
In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high.
If you are a snobbish elitist politically correct Prius driving latte
sipping leftist the probability that you are a Hillary supporter is
astronomically high.
Is that really the best you can do to counter MY caricature of the right
with YOUR caricature of the left? I mention xenophobia and you counter
with "Prius driving"? I mention racism and you mention "latte sipping"?
What is the leftist equivalent to Christian zealotry? It seems to me that
we'd actually be better off with increased latte-sipping Prius driving
than increased xenophobic racism.
Post by John McAdams
Tell us, David, what you think of these?
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/gqJIR-gXExQ
OK, I'll respond to them individually - since you asked.
The above YouTube clip is of Hillary being interviewed and asked why
almost 52% of the "white women" voted for Trump despite the Access
Hollywood tape.
First of all, the YouTube title is a bit misleading, "Clinton Blames Her
Loss on White Women Listening to Their Husbands". That is a bit out of
context through omission. What she actually says is, "... a sort of
ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son,
whoever believes you should."
I think there's a lot of truth to that. We tend to vote in a very tribal
manner. It's more common than not that spouses have a similar political
view. White men, by a fairly wide margin, preferred Trump. To expect that
not to affect their wife is naive. Yet, I wouldn't say that's WHY Trump
won and Clinton lost - and that's not what she's claiming. She's simply
answering the question.
This brings to mind something regarding the O.J. Simpson trial. The
prosecutors could have had the venue for the trial where the crime
occurred which would have produced a prominently white and affluent jury
pool. But, it would have been a logistical pain in the ass to prosecute it
there. The prosecutors thought that they could successfully prosecute the
case in the city despite the jury pool being predominantly black. They
knew that they were going to have a predominantly black jury but they
thought GENDER would be the primary issue. They decided to load the jury
pool up with WOMEN, whether they be white or black, because a woman would
be repulsed by Simpson's treatment of Nicole. What the prosecutors found
out to their horror is that RACE trumped GENDER.
Wives were not going to vote for Hillary Clinton simply because they
shared a gender. They would be more likely to be loyal to their "tribe",
their husband, their friends, their family's political views, than to any
notion that "I'm a woman ... she's a woman ... so, I'm voting for her."
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/5Qd8vg4uON8
Again, another misleading and intentionally inflammatory YouTube title -
"Hillary Clinton: I Got More Votes In The Places That Matter"
This is the type of rhetoric that inflames the angry mob (the deplorables)
who voted for Trump, those irrationally angry people who thought "elitist"
were laughing at them and that they were being forgotten.
What Clinton ACTUALLY says is, "I won the places that represent two-thirds
of America's Gross Domestic Product. So, I won the places that are
optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward ..." In other words, not the
areas that are predominantly white (i.e. not diverse) where they may grow
a lot of soybeans but have no libraries, museums, concert halls,
universities or hospitals. There is a huge cultural and experiential
divide between the Rural Red and Coastal Blue, that's for sure. She's
simply pointing out what most people know is true. Sure, it sounds elitist
- and it probably is - but what IS an "elitist"? It's basically a term
that has been hijacked and turned into a pejorative to describe
well-educated people who live in cities or the suburbs who tend to have
well-paying jobs. Deplorables HATE that because Trump convinced them that
all these "elitists" are sitting around a table laughing at the Iowa
farmers.
I know from personnel experience that does happen. While the Democrats
didn't do that openly during the campaign, I don't think there is any
question that that attitude permeates among leftists.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/t_XNsvjjISA
Like the first YouTube link you provided, this is from her interview in
India. The link above rockets forward to the 30-minute, 41-second point in
her answer which leaves out some significant stuff leading up to it.
This is the continuation of her comment about how voters need to become a
bit more sophisticated in this age of social media and manipulation. For
instance, regarding Trump, she says, "Voters have to be prepared to say,
'OK, that was entertaining. Wow - I couldn't take my eyes off of him -
but, what's he really going to do and what has he ever done that convinces
me that he could actually accomplish any of it?' So, it's going to require
a lot more sophisticated by voters if this trends goes from our 2016
campaign."
You could ask that question of just about every major party candidate in
my lifetime and I doubt you'd get a very positive answer. Politicians
ALWAYS promise more than they can deliver. I especially get a chuckle out
of it from non-incumbent people running for the House or Senate. As if a
junior back bencher is going to be able to get anything done on their
own.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Then the question is asked, "Is he a symptom or a disease?" She says there
are "several problems" and briefly goes through them. You "fast-forwarded"
to just ONE of those several points (about the fourth one in her list as
they came to her mind) and that is that many people saw that the
opportunities that were being advanced for groups who historically had
less opportunities in the past (she mentions "African-Americans, the LGBT
community, women") necessarily meant that others would have less
opportunity. They were convinced (wrongfully so, according to Clinton)
that it was a "zero sum game" ... in other words, if "others" are getting
more opportunities then I (not being an "other") will have less
opportunity.
I think that mentality certainly existed - how prevalent it was is
unknowable. She included it in her list and I don't think it is an
unfounded thing to point out. Certainly this viewpoint was encouraged by
Trump with his "America first" rhetoric and anti-immigration policies.
I also think there is some truth to that belief. There are only so many
jobs to go around and if one group is getting preferential treatment, it
is being done at the expense of another group.
Post by d***@gmail.com
All intelligent people know that opportunities are mostly created, not
handed over. It's like the old sports adage, "The harder I work, the
luckier I seem to get." There was a not-too-insignificant number of rural
Americans who were angrily asking, "Where's MY opportunity?" ... as if
they expected something fantastic to happen in their stagnant, rural
community. That's why people move OUT of those areas to ... well ... the
"blue" areas where it's easier to CREATE your opportunities.
This remark seems to me to be looking down upon those that live in rural
areas. "stagnant, rural community". Doesn't that sound just a wee bit
elitist to you?
d***@gmail.com
2018-06-06 19:46:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Americans who were angrily asking, "Where's MY opportunity?" ... as if
they expected something fantastic to happen in their stagnant, rural
community. That's why people move OUT of those areas to ... well ... the
"blue" areas where it's easier to CREATE your opportunities.
This remark seems to me to be looking down upon those that live in rural
areas. "stagnant, rural community". Doesn't that sound just a wee bit
elitist to you?
Obviously, not EVERY rural community is stagnant - but there are plenty of
them out there. Cities tend to be more dynamic. Sure, they have their up's
and down's. Over the years, many of our nation's more troubled cities have
managed to reinvent themselves where certain downtown areas, where nobody
would dare tread in previously decades, have actually become profitable
tourist areas with restaurants and burgeoning attractions.

I don't look down on these people but I do believe that they have become
cynically, and irrationally angry and Trump was the "rock" they could
throw through the window of government as if to say, "Can you f---in' hear
us NOW?" Trump played to their worst fears and insecurities, in my
opinion.

John McAdams mentioned that people were actually migrating OUT of the
cities. But they're not heading for the corn fields. They're going to the
SUBURBS. In my initial post, I lumped the suburbs WITH the cities. I
included the surrounding suburbs with the cities for the purposes of
distinguishing them from the more rural areas, which are neither cities
nor suburbs.

Have you ever read J.D. Vance's book, "Hillbilly Elegy"? His book rose to
the top of the bestseller list and stayed there for a long time because,
quite coincidentally and surprisingly (even to J.D. Vance), it hit a
timely chord and a central nerve behind the reasons why the cultural chasm
between rural communities and more urban areas has become deeper and wider
- something that was being purposely exacerbated during the 2016 political
campaigns. Those who live in the "flyover areas" of the country (where you
see all the red on the electoral map) have been conditioned to believe
that the "elitists" are out to get them and, worse yet, are "laughing at
them".

J.D. Vance grew up in these stagnant rural communities and ended up at
Yale Law School. His experience is personal and very insightful. He has a
great TED talk where he briefly mentions "brain drain", where talented,
intelligent, motivated people move out of these struggling, rural
communities. He also addresses affirmative action:


And, if you think Vance is an anti-Trumper, that is not quite so clear
from this interview:


[snippets from "Hillbilly Elegy" below - read or don't read - just to give
you a sense of what is in the book]

I once ran into an old acquaintance at a Middletown bar who told me that
he had recently quit his job because he was sick of waking up early. I
later saw him complaining on Facebook about the "Obama economy" and how it
had affected his life. I don't doubt that the Obama economy has affected
many, but this man is assuredly not among them. His status in life is
directly attributable to the choices he's made, and his life will improve
only through better decisions ... There is a cultural movement in the
white working class to blame problems on society or the government, and
that movement gains adherents by the day ... Instead of encouraging
engagement, conservatives increasingly foment the kind of detachment that
has sapped the ambition of so many of my peers ... What separates the
successful from the unsuccessful are the expectations that they had for
their own lives. Yet the message of the right is increasingly: It's not
your fault that you're a loser; it's the government's fault ... My dad,
for example, has never disparaged hard work, but he mistrusts some of the
most obvious paths to upward mobility. When he found out that I had
decided to go to Yale Law, he asked whether, on my applications, I had
"pretended to be black or liberal." This is how low the cultural
expectations of working-class white Americans have fallen.

[J.D. Vance lists numerous wild conspiracy theories, one of which that
Obama was not born in the U.S.]

The list goes on. It's impossible to know how many people believe one or
many of these stories. But if a third of our community questions the
president's origin - despite all evidence to the contrary - it's a good
bet that the other conspiracies have broader currency than we'd like. This
isn't some libertarian mistrust of government policy, which is healthy in
any democracy. This is a deep skepticism of the very institutions of our
society. And it's becoming more and more mainstream

[end of citation]

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John McAdams
2018-06-06 20:30:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Americans who were angrily asking, "Where's MY opportunity?" ... as if
they expected something fantastic to happen in their stagnant, rural
community. That's why people move OUT of those areas to ... well ... the
"blue" areas where it's easier to CREATE your opportunities.
This remark seems to me to be looking down upon those that live in rural
areas. "stagnant, rural community". Doesn't that sound just a wee bit
elitist to you?
Obviously, not EVERY rural community is stagnant - but there are plenty of
them out there. Cities tend to be more dynamic. Sure, they have their up's
and down's. Over the years, many of our nation's more troubled cities have
managed to reinvent themselves where certain downtown areas, where nobody
would dare tread in previously decades, have actually become profitable
tourist areas with restaurants and burgeoning attractions.
I don't look down on these people but I do believe that they have become
cynically, and irrationally angry and Trump was the "rock" they could
throw through the window of government as if to say, "Can you f---in' hear
us NOW?" Trump played to their worst fears and insecurities, in my
opinion.
John McAdams mentioned that people were actually migrating OUT of the
cities. But they're not heading for the corn fields. They're going to the
SUBURBS. In my initial post, I lumped the suburbs WITH the cities. I
included the surrounding suburbs with the cities for the purposes of
distinguishing them from the more rural areas, which are neither cities
nor suburbs.
Have you ever read J.D. Vance's book, "Hillbilly Elegy"? His book rose to
the top of the bestseller list and stayed there for a long time because,
quite coincidentally and surprisingly (even to J.D. Vance), it hit a
timely chord and a central nerve behind the reasons why the cultural chasm
between rural communities and more urban areas has become deeper and wider
- something that was being purposely exacerbated during the 2016 political
campaigns. Those who live in the "flyover areas" of the country (where you
see all the red on the electoral map) have been conditioned to believe
that the "elitists" are out to get them and, worse yet, are "laughing at
them".
J.D. Vance grew up in these stagnant rural communities and ended up at
Yale Law School. His experience is personal and very insightful. He has a
great TED talk where he briefly mentions "brain drain", where talented,
intelligent, motivated people move out of these struggling, rural
http://youtu.be/iEy-xTbcr2A
And, if you think Vance is an anti-Trumper, that is not quite so clear
from this interview: http://youtu.be/eljLSzocJwo
[snippets from "Hillbilly Elegy" below - read or don't read - just to give
you a sense of what is in the book]
I once ran into an old acquaintance at a Middletown bar who told me that
he had recently quit his job because he was sick of waking up early. I
later saw him complaining on Facebook about the "Obama economy" and how it
had affected his life. I don't doubt that the Obama economy has affected
many, but this man is assuredly not among them. His status in life is
directly attributable to the choices he's made, and his life will improve
only through better decisions ... There is a cultural movement in the
white working class to blame problems on society or the government, and
that movement gains adherents by the day ... Instead of encouraging
engagement, conservatives increasingly foment the kind of detachment that
has sapped the ambition of so many of my peers ... What separates the
successful from the unsuccessful are the expectations that they had for
their own lives. Yet the message of the right is increasingly: It's not
your fault that you're a loser; it's the government's fault ... My dad,
for example, has never disparaged hard work, but he mistrusts some of the
most obvious paths to upward mobility. When he found out that I had
decided to go to Yale Law, he asked whether, on my applications, I had
"pretended to be black or liberal." This is how low the cultural
expectations of working-class white Americans have fallen.
[J.D. Vance lists numerous wild conspiracy theories, one of which that
Obama was not born in the U.S.]
The list goes on. It's impossible to know how many people believe one or
many of these stories. But if a third of our community questions the
president's origin - despite all evidence to the contrary - it's a good
bet that the other conspiracies have broader currency than we'd like. This
isn't some libertarian mistrust of government policy, which is healthy in
any democracy. This is a deep skepticism of the very institutions of our
society. And it's becoming more and more mainstream
[end of citation]
Look, your fundamental problem is that you think the rural Trump
voters are the victims of some sort of "false consciousness," and
should not be hostile to liberals.

But your *own posts* show they should. You demean and deride those
voters.

You act as though they are wrong to believe they are being sneered at
by costal elites, but then you (representing costal elites) demean
them by implying their grievances are bogus.

Are or are not liberals wanting to discriminate against whites? Do
you really think whites should *not* resent that?

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tell coal miners they want to destroy
their jobs.


https://www.courier-journal.com/story/tech/science/watchdog-earth/2016/03/13/clinton-well-put-coal-miners-out-business/81750336/

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/04/uttered-in-2008-still-haunting-obama-in-2012-074892

The fact that *you* side with urban environmentalists doesn't change
the fact that coal miners might *correctly* infer that liberals are
willing to screw them over, on behalf of those environmentalists.

Then there is the fact that liberals don't much like Christians.

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-religious-groups/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/28/liberalism-eaten-itself-british-religious-liberty-christianity-tim-farron

Again, it doesn't matter if you don't particularly like Christians,
the issue is whether those supposedly ignorant rural voters are
correct about who shares their values, and who does not.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2018-06-06 21:06:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 16:30:05 -0400, John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
J.D. Vance grew up in these stagnant rural communities and ended up at
Yale Law School. His experience is personal and very insightful. He has a
great TED talk where he briefly mentions "brain drain", where talented,
intelligent, motivated people move out of these struggling, rural
http://youtu.be/iEy-xTbcr2A
OK, I watched the video.

It's about the loss of social capital among poorer whites.

This is basically the same story told by Charles Murray in COMING
APART.

And it's true.

Ironically, all of that could be said of the *black* community. Broken
families, domestic abuse, drug use, etc.

Your problem is: you want to view these folks as the *typical* Trump
voter.

Look at the CNN exit poll page I linked to.

College educated whites voted for Trump. People in the highest income
category split equally between Trump and Clinton.

Further, even the poor whites who voted for Trump are *correct* that
elitist liberals reflect neither their values nor their interests.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-08 00:40:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On Wed, 06 Jun 2018 16:30:05 -0400, John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
J.D. Vance grew up in these stagnant rural communities and ended up at
Yale Law School. His experience is personal and very insightful. He has a
great TED talk where he briefly mentions "brain drain", where talented,
intelligent, motivated people move out of these struggling, rural
http://youtu.be/iEy-xTbcr2A
OK, I watched the video.
It's about the loss of social capital among poorer whites.
This is basically the same story told by Charles Murray in COMING
APART.
And it's true.
Ironically, all of that could be said of the *black* community. Broken
families, domestic abuse, drug use, etc.
Your problem is: you want to view these folks as the *typical* Trump
voter.
Look at the CNN exit poll page I linked to.
College educated whites voted for Trump. People in the highest income
category split equally between Trump and Clinton.
Further, even the poor whites who voted for Trump are *correct* that
elitist liberals reflect neither their values nor their interests.
Yes. Extremely rich white people like the Mercers and the Koch brothers
support Trump because they are Nazis and Trump gives them tax breaks.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-08 00:42:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Americans who were angrily asking, "Where's MY opportunity?" ... as if
they expected something fantastic to happen in their stagnant, rural
community. That's why people move OUT of those areas to ... well ... the
"blue" areas where it's easier to CREATE your opportunities.
This remark seems to me to be looking down upon those that live in rural
areas. "stagnant, rural community". Doesn't that sound just a wee bit
elitist to you?
Obviously, not EVERY rural community is stagnant - but there are plenty of
them out there. Cities tend to be more dynamic. Sure, they have their up's
and down's. Over the years, many of our nation's more troubled cities have
managed to reinvent themselves where certain downtown areas, where nobody
would dare tread in previously decades, have actually become profitable
tourist areas with restaurants and burgeoning attractions.
I don't look down on these people but I do believe that they have become
cynically, and irrationally angry and Trump was the "rock" they could
throw through the window of government as if to say, "Can you f---in' hear
us NOW?" Trump played to their worst fears and insecurities, in my
opinion.
John McAdams mentioned that people were actually migrating OUT of the
cities. But they're not heading for the corn fields. They're going to the
SUBURBS. In my initial post, I lumped the suburbs WITH the cities. I
included the surrounding suburbs with the cities for the purposes of
distinguishing them from the more rural areas, which are neither cities
nor suburbs.
Have you ever read J.D. Vance's book, "Hillbilly Elegy"? His book rose to
the top of the bestseller list and stayed there for a long time because,
quite coincidentally and surprisingly (even to J.D. Vance), it hit a
timely chord and a central nerve behind the reasons why the cultural chasm
between rural communities and more urban areas has become deeper and wider
- something that was being purposely exacerbated during the 2016 political
campaigns. Those who live in the "flyover areas" of the country (where you
see all the red on the electoral map) have been conditioned to believe
that the "elitists" are out to get them and, worse yet, are "laughing at
them".
J.D. Vance grew up in these stagnant rural communities and ended up at
Yale Law School. His experience is personal and very insightful. He has a
great TED talk where he briefly mentions "brain drain", where talented,
intelligent, motivated people move out of these struggling, rural
http://youtu.be/iEy-xTbcr2A
And, if you think Vance is an anti-Trumper, that is not quite so clear
from this interview: http://youtu.be/eljLSzocJwo
[snippets from "Hillbilly Elegy" below - read or don't read - just to give
you a sense of what is in the book]
I once ran into an old acquaintance at a Middletown bar who told me that
he had recently quit his job because he was sick of waking up early. I
later saw him complaining on Facebook about the "Obama economy" and how it
had affected his life. I don't doubt that the Obama economy has affected
many, but this man is assuredly not among them. His status in life is
directly attributable to the choices he's made, and his life will improve
only through better decisions ... There is a cultural movement in the
white working class to blame problems on society or the government, and
that movement gains adherents by the day ... Instead of encouraging
engagement, conservatives increasingly foment the kind of detachment that
has sapped the ambition of so many of my peers ... What separates the
successful from the unsuccessful are the expectations that they had for
their own lives. Yet the message of the right is increasingly: It's not
your fault that you're a loser; it's the government's fault ... My dad,
for example, has never disparaged hard work, but he mistrusts some of the
most obvious paths to upward mobility. When he found out that I had
decided to go to Yale Law, he asked whether, on my applications, I had
"pretended to be black or liberal." This is how low the cultural
expectations of working-class white Americans have fallen.
[J.D. Vance lists numerous wild conspiracy theories, one of which that
Obama was not born in the U.S.]
The list goes on. It's impossible to know how many people believe one or
many of these stories. But if a third of our community questions the
president's origin - despite all evidence to the contrary - it's a good
bet that the other conspiracies have broader currency than we'd like. This
isn't some libertarian mistrust of government policy, which is healthy in
any democracy. This is a deep skepticism of the very institutions of our
society. And it's becoming more and more mainstream
[end of citation]
Look, your fundamental problem is that you think the rural Trump
voters are the victims of some sort of "false consciousness," and
should not be hostile to liberals.
Why do you ASSuME that Liberals were responsible for their illiteracy?
Post by John McAdams
But your *own posts* show they should. You demean and deride those
voters.
Which voters? ALL Trump voters?
Post by John McAdams
You act as though they are wrong to believe they are being sneered at
by costal elites, but then you (representing costal elites) demean
them by implying their grievances are bogus.
Is it a good job, does it pay well representing the coastal elites?
Post by John McAdams
Are or are not liberals wanting to discriminate against whites? Do
you really think whites should *not* resent that?
No, there is no such thing as reverse discrimination. We are just asking
people to obey the Law and the US Constitution. Is that too much to ask?
Post by John McAdams
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tell coal miners they want to destroy
their jobs.
Not exactly. Make them obsolete. Like whaling.
Ever buy any whale oil any more?
Post by John McAdams
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/tech/science/watchdog-earth/2016/03/13/clinton-well-put-coal-miners-out-business/81750336/
https://www.politico.com/story/2012/04/uttered-in-2008-still-haunting-obama-in-2012-074892
The fact that *you* side with urban environmentalists doesn't change
So, what's the other type of environmentalists? Country environmentalists?
Post by John McAdams
the fact that coal miners might *correctly* infer that liberals are
willing to screw them over, on behalf of those environmentalists.
Willing to or determined to?
How come you aren't crying for the whale hunters?
Post by John McAdams
Then there is the fact that liberals don't much like Christians.
Nonsense. Liberals ARE Christians. Not all Evangelicals are required to
be racist goobers.
Post by John McAdams
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/07/16/how-americans-feel-about-religious-groups/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/28/liberalism-eaten-itself-british-religious-liberty-christianity-tim-farron
Again, it doesn't matter if you don't particularly like Christians,
You keep trying to manufacture enemies to hate.
Post by John McAdams
the issue is whether those supposedly ignorant rural voters are
correct about who shares their values, and who does not.
They are not all ignorant. If they were they couldn't survive.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
d***@gmail.com
2018-06-08 00:44:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Then there is the fact that liberals don't much like Christians.
Can you name a single Democratic congressman or senator who is a
self-professed atheist? Hell, the president's own daughter and husband are
not even Christians. If you're really Jewish, then you can't possibly
believe Jesus Christ is the son of God.

Liberals simply have a stronger conviction toward the separation of church
and state than conservatives do. Conservatives want to make LAWS based on
their religious beliefs - and I'm fairly confident that is because they
are hyper-aware that part of their base is the Christian right. Wanting a
secular government is not the same as being anti-Christian.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John McAdams
2018-06-06 20:38:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Americans who were angrily asking, "Where's MY opportunity?" ... as if
they expected something fantastic to happen in their stagnant, rural
community. That's why people move OUT of those areas to ... well ... the
"blue" areas where it's easier to CREATE your opportunities.
This remark seems to me to be looking down upon those that live in rural
areas. "stagnant, rural community". Doesn't that sound just a wee bit
elitist to you?
Obviously, not EVERY rural community is stagnant - but there are plenty of
them out there. Cities tend to be more dynamic. Sure, they have their up's
and down's. Over the years, many of our nation's more troubled cities have
managed to reinvent themselves where certain downtown areas, where nobody
would dare tread in previously decades, have actually become profitable
tourist areas with restaurants and burgeoning attractions.
I don't look down on these people but I do believe that they have become
cynically, and irrationally angry and Trump was the "rock" they could
throw through the window of government as if to say, "Can you f---in' hear
us NOW?" Trump played to their worst fears and insecurities, in my
opinion.
But you talk about "fears" and "insecurities" as though those people
have some psychological problem.

They don't. They know perfectly well who despises them, and does not
share their values.

Not that Trump does share their values, but the Democrats certainly
don't.
Post by d***@gmail.com
John McAdams mentioned that people were actually migrating OUT of the
cities.
Not exactly. Out of blue states. Out of blue regions.
Post by d***@gmail.com
But they're not heading for the corn fields. They're going to the
SUBURBS. In my initial post, I lumped the suburbs WITH the cities. I
included the surrounding suburbs with the cities for the purposes of
distinguishing them from the more rural areas, which are neither cities
nor suburbs.
But suburbs voted for Trump.

Go to the very bottom of this page:

https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

Trump won a majority of the white college educated voters.

Same page.

.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
d***@gmail.com
2018-06-07 13:42:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Trump won a majority of the white college educated voters.
It's not difficult to find demographic groups that sided with the ultimate
winner of an election. Smart, intelligent people certainly voted for Trump
- no doubt. I would consider you one of them.

I would argue that one of the key reasons that Trump got elected (it is
actually multi-faceted and cannot be reduced to a single reason), and is
the glue that keeps him even remotely popular, is what is often referred
to as his "base". I would define his "base" as those who didn't simply
hold their nose as they pulled the lever beside his name in the voting
booth - I'm talking about those who enthusiastically pulled that lever,
fully embracing his nonsense as a great course for our nation ... those
who actually thought that "This guy is EXACTLY what America needs!"

Were YOU one of those "Lock her up!" and "Build that wall!" chanters,
John?

More disturbing is that 72% of self-identified Republicans believe that
Trump is actually a GOOD role model for children. I wouldn't say his
"base" is as large as 72% (more like 35%), but it just shows how polarized
and blinded the Republican party has become to Trump's glaring
shortcomings in a host of areas. We no longer have political parties. We
have tribes.

I can accept that unintelligent people can, on occasion, come up with
brilliant ideas. I can accept that unsophisticated and naive legislators
can stumble upon effective policies. Not everything Trump has done is bad.
I simply cannot get over his manifest lack of tact, decorum,
articulateness, perceptiveness and courtesy. Quite frankly, he's
embarrassing.

Anybody who has ever taken a Leadership 101 course can see in Donald Trump
everything a good leader is NOT. Perhaps it's my military bias. It
probably is. I've known many great leaders in my life and NONE of them
have any of the traits that Trump exhibits as a core part of
personality.

I've heard an argument recently in a podcast where the author of the book
"The Square and the Tower: Networks and Power, from the Freemasons to
Facebook", Niall Ferguson, makes an excellent point. He is no Trump
supporter but he asks people to consider, had Hillary Clinton been
elected, would things really be much better? What would have been the
reaction of all those Trump supporters? What would have been Trump's
status as the loser? Would they have just shrugged their shoulders,
graciously accepted that their guy lost and slipped into the shadows? No!
It would have been a mess! It just would have been a different kind of
mess.

Trump would have been an icon for them! He would probably would have been
MORE popular in defeat than in victory. Ferguson suggests that,
ironically, by Trump getting elected, his ideology is more glaringly
exposed and will be more quickly expunged from the mainstream psyche. His
four years as president is simply something that is best endured. It's
like putting America on PAUSE. There's probably some truth to that.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John McAdams
2018-06-07 20:08:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Trump won a majority of the white college educated voters.
It's not difficult to find demographic groups that sided with the ultimate
winner of an election. Smart, intelligent people certainly voted for Trump
- no doubt. I would consider you one of them.
I would argue that one of the key reasons that Trump got elected (it is
actually multi-faceted and cannot be reduced to a single reason), and is
the glue that keeps him even remotely popular, is what is often referred
to as his "base". I would define his "base" as those who didn't simply
hold their nose as they pulled the lever beside his name in the voting
booth - I'm talking about those who enthusiastically pulled that lever,
fully embracing his nonsense as a great course for our nation ... those
who actually thought that "This guy is EXACTLY what America needs!"
Maybe some people did that, but I wouldn't say it's entirely
irrational. When all the conventional candidates seem to promise more
failure, "throwing a brick through the window" might seem necessary.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Were YOU one of those "Lock her up!" and "Build that wall!" chanters,
John?
Were you one of those Bernie supporters, David?

I wasn't chanting anything, but yes we need a wall (as well as visa
tracking, universal e-verify and a bunch of other stuff).

There is *zero* possibility of any comprehensive immigration reform
without border security.

The Democrats have been entirely cynical about this, wanting illegals
to flood in, believing that they will eventually get citizenship and
vote Democratic.

As for Hillary: let her run free, embarrassing herself.
Post by d***@gmail.com
More disturbing is that 72% of self-identified Republicans believe that
Trump is actually a GOOD role model for children. I wouldn't say his
"base" is as large as 72% (more like 35%), but it just shows how polarized
and blinded the Republican party has become to Trump's glaring
shortcomings in a host of areas. We no longer have political parties. We
have tribes.
Do you really think Hillary supporters are better? Is she a good role
model for children?
Post by d***@gmail.com
I can accept that unintelligent people can, on occasion, come up with
brilliant ideas. I can accept that unsophisticated and naive legislators
can stumble upon effective policies. Not everything Trump has done is bad.
I simply cannot get over his manifest lack of tact, decorum,
articulateness, perceptiveness and courtesy. Quite frankly, he's
embarrassing.
You might try look beyond his buffoonery at substance.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Anybody who has ever taken a Leadership 101 course can see in Donald Trump
everything a good leader is NOT. Perhaps it's my military bias. It
probably is. I've known many great leaders in my life and NONE of them
have any of the traits that Trump exhibits as a core part of
personality.
I've heard an argument recently in a podcast where the author of the book
"The Square and the Tower: Networks and Power, from the Freemasons to
Facebook", Niall Ferguson, makes an excellent point. He is no Trump
supporter but he asks people to consider, had Hillary Clinton been
elected, would things really be much better? What would have been the
reaction of all those Trump supporters? What would have been Trump's
status as the loser? Would they have just shrugged their shoulders,
graciously accepted that their guy lost and slipped into the shadows? No!
It would have been a mess! It just would have been a different kind of
mess.
Haven't you noticed the frenzy of Trump hatred on the part of liberals
and Democrats?

Did you not notice those women in pussy hats?
Post by d***@gmail.com
Trump would have been an icon for them! He would probably would have been
MORE popular in defeat than in victory. Ferguson suggests that,
ironically, by Trump getting elected, his ideology is more glaringly
exposed and will be more quickly expunged from the mainstream psyche. His
four years as president is simply something that is best endured. It's
like putting America on PAUSE. There's probably some truth to that.
Suppose Trump succeeds? You have to be hoping for a recession, right?

And real nuclear disarmament by North Korea would be a horror, right?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
d***@gmail.com
2018-06-07 13:46:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 3:38:18 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:

I mentioned Niall Ferguson (author of "The Square and the Tower") in a
previous post and forgot to include this link that gives you some insight
as to what an open-minded and temperate view he has. This is just a
portion of the podcast where Ferguson makes a reasoned argument.



Sam Harris, the host of the podcast, who is an ardent Trump critic,
admitted that Ferguson's argument gave him pause. That is saying a lot.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
d***@gmail.com
2018-06-07 14:18:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
I don't look down on these people but I do believe that they have become
cynically, and irrationally angry and Trump was the "rock" they could
throw through the window of government as if to say, "Can you f---in' hear
us NOW?" Trump played to their worst fears and insecurities, in my
opinion.
But you talk about "fears" and "insecurities" as though those people
have some psychological problem.
Perhaps that's the way you interpret it. I'm pretty sure I characterized
them as an "irrationally angry" group. I'm not so sure being irrational is
a psychological problem. If that were the case, all the conspiracy
theorists in this group need psycho-therapy. :)
Post by John McAdams
They know perfectly well who despises them, and does not
share their values.
Do you really think that these so-called "elites" are wasting energy
"despising" these working-class Americans? At worst, they just don't think
about them. That's a far cry from "despise".

I can't imagine how anybody could think that Donald Trump shares their
values UNLESS they are a xenophobic, misogynstic racists - you know,
because there's "good people" on BOTH sides. Policies? Yes - I could see
that. Values? Give me a break.

It's particularly bewildering how any Christian can see anything
redeemable in Trump other than his Pro-Life platform and having the
Disciple Pence urging him to placate the religious right. I think it's
obvious that Trump doesn't have a religious bone in his body. I'd actually
have more respect for him if he just said, "I'm not religious but I
respect the values of those who are." To be fair, I don't think Obama was
particularly religious, either. [In fact, statistically, a good number of
the members of Congress must be atheists - yet, I doubt a single one of
them would ever admit it. This is a uniquely American thing.]

He has claimed that he has never had to ask God for forgiveness for his
sins. How can a Christian hear that and think, "That man's a Christian!"?
Hell, that's practically the DEFINITION of a Christian! Further, anybody
who has any familiarity with the Bible would never say "TWO Corinthians"
although that's how it is written in most Bibles, which indicates that
Trump was just reading a verse handed to him without realizing that it
always stated as "SECOND Corinthians". Trump is no Christian but he's
smart enough to know what the Christian Right wants to hear. I guess one
could make the argument that they'd rather somebody tell them what they
WANT to hear, even if they do not represent those values, than for
somebody (like Hillary Clinton) to tell them something they definitely do
NOT want to hear. I could understand that. But Trump is no Christian.
Post by John McAdams
Not that Trump does share their values, but the Democrats certainly
don't.
Well, does he share their values or not? Because, the way you've just
framed it, they are voting AGAINST Clinton more than they are voting FOR
Trump.

Maybe that is actually true for the Christian Right. But I think the
angry, rural, working-class Americans actually EMBRACE nearly every aspect
of Trump.

Like I said earlier, I can understand voting AGAINST Clinton (I didn't
vote for her), but I cannot understand enthusiastically voting for Trump.
That's what defines Trump's "base". They WERE enthusiastic.

You stated that conspiracy believers are equally split between Trump and
Clinton supporters. That's probably true because I don't see how there is
any relationship between party affiliation and a propensity to believe in
conspiracies. For instance, you're a rational, conservative individual who
cannot make the distinction between a real SPY (very unusual) and an
INFORMANT (quite typical). Hell, technically speaking, Jack Ruby was an
FBI informant ... or was he a spy?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John McAdams
2018-06-07 20:47:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
I don't look down on these people but I do believe that they have become
cynically, and irrationally angry and Trump was the "rock" they could
throw through the window of government as if to say, "Can you f---in' hear
us NOW?" Trump played to their worst fears and insecurities, in my
opinion.
But you talk about "fears" and "insecurities" as though those people
have some psychological problem.
Perhaps that's the way you interpret it. I'm pretty sure I characterized
them as an "irrationally angry" group. I'm not so sure being irrational is
a psychological problem. If that were the case, all the conspiracy
theorists in this group need psycho-therapy. :)
Post by John McAdams
They know perfectly well who despises them, and does not
share their values.
Do you really think that these so-called "elites" are wasting energy
"despising" these working-class Americans? At worst, they just don't think
about them. That's a far cry from "despise".
Why do you keep asserting things when you own posts falsify what you
have asserted?

*You* seem to be "wasting energy" attacking Trump supporters.

Hillary was "wasting energy" in India demeaning Trump supporters.

This isn't new. Remember the book WHAT'S THE MATTER WITH KANSAS.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I can't imagine how anybody could think that Donald Trump shares their
values UNLESS they are a xenophobic, misogynstic racists - you know,
because there's "good people" on BOTH sides.
See? You buy the liberal spin on Trump.

There are good people on both sides of the debate on the Confederate
Monuments.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/confederate-statues-removal-polls_us_599de056e4b05710aa59841c

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2017/sep/06/sid-miller/sid-miller-poll-shows-70-percent-75-percent-americ/

There were also bad people on both sides in Charlottesville. Have you
never heard of Antifa?
Post by d***@gmail.com
Policies? Yes - I could see
that. Values? Give me a break.
It's particularly bewildering how any Christian can see anything
redeemable in Trump other than his Pro-Life platform and having the
Disciple Pence urging him to placate the religious right.
Oh? Opposing abortion of "placating the religious right?"
Post by d***@gmail.com
I think it's
obvious that Trump doesn't have a religious bone in his body. I'd actually
have more respect for him if he just said, "I'm not religious but I
respect the values of those who are." To be fair, I don't think Obama was
particularly religious, either. [In fact, statistically, a good number of
the members of Congress must be atheists - yet, I doubt a single one of
them would ever admit it. This is a uniquely American thing.]
He has claimed that he has never had to ask God for forgiveness for his
sins. How can a Christian hear that and think, "That man's a Christian!"?
Hell, that's practically the DEFINITION of a Christian! Further, anybody
who has any familiarity with the Bible would never say "TWO Corinthians"
although that's how it is written in most Bibles, which indicates that
Trump was just reading a verse handed to him without realizing that it
always stated as "SECOND Corinthians". Trump is no Christian but he's
smart enough to know what the Christian Right wants to hear.
Demeaning the Christian Right again.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I guess one
could make the argument that they'd rather somebody tell them what they
WANT to hear, even if they do not represent those values, than for
somebody (like Hillary Clinton) to tell them something they definitely do
NOT want to hear. I could understand that. But Trump is no Christian.
But neither is Hillary. So a lot of Christians voted for somebody who
wasn't a Christian, and whose sexual behavior has been horrid.

But the other candidate was not Christian, and hated them as
"deplorables" and has consistently supported abortion.

And who *enabled* Bill's bad conduct.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-women.html

Have you read that? It's the NEW YORK TIMES.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Not that Trump does share their values, but the Democrats certainly
don't.
Well, does he share their values or not? Because, the way you've just
framed it, they are voting AGAINST Clinton more than they are voting FOR
Trump.
In a lot of cases, yes.

But Trump also seems to like America. The Democrats don't. Obama
went around the world apologizing for the U.S.

Democrats believe we can never go to war without Europe's permission.

Obama wanted to "fundamentally transform" America.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Maybe that is actually true for the Christian Right. But I think the
angry, rural, working-class Americans actually EMBRACE nearly every aspect
of Trump.
Like I said earlier, I can understand voting AGAINST Clinton (I didn't
vote for her), but I cannot understand enthusiastically voting for Trump.
That's what defines Trump's "base". They WERE enthusiastic.
You stated that conspiracy believers are equally split between Trump and
Clinton supporters. That's probably true because I don't see how there is
any relationship between party affiliation and a propensity to believe in
conspiracies. For instance, you're a rational, conservative individual who
cannot make the distinction between a real SPY (very unusual) and an
INFORMANT (quite typical). Hell, technically speaking, Jack Ruby was an
FBI informant ... or was he a spy?
If you are talking about Halper, he was *sent* and *tasked* to contact
Trump campaign people and seek information. That is spying.

If the Bush Administration had done that with the Obama campaign you
would be livid.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-08 00:41:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Americans who were angrily asking, "Where's MY opportunity?" ... as if
they expected something fantastic to happen in their stagnant, rural
community. That's why people move OUT of those areas to ... well ... the
"blue" areas where it's easier to CREATE your opportunities.
This remark seems to me to be looking down upon those that live in rural
areas. "stagnant, rural community". Doesn't that sound just a wee bit
elitist to you?
Obviously, not EVERY rural community is stagnant - but there are plenty of
them out there. Cities tend to be more dynamic. Sure, they have their up's
and down's. Over the years, many of our nation's more troubled cities have
managed to reinvent themselves where certain downtown areas, where nobody
would dare tread in previously decades, have actually become profitable
tourist areas with restaurants and burgeoning attractions.
I don't look down on these people but I do believe that they have become
cynically, and irrationally angry and Trump was the "rock" they could
throw through the window of government as if to say, "Can you f---in' hear
us NOW?" Trump played to their worst fears and insecurities, in my
opinion.
But you talk about "fears" and "insecurities" as though those people
have some psychological problem.
But you don't see racism and Xenophobia as some psychological problem.
You just see it as a difference of opinion about political beliefs.
Post by John McAdams
They don't. They know perfectly well who despises them, and does not
share their values.
Why should they share values with those who despise them? They may be in
the same boat, but for different reasons.

Do the Jew and the Catholic in the concentration camp argue about who
should be pushed into the oven first?
Post by John McAdams
Not that Trump does share their values, but the Democrats certainly
don't.
Post by d***@gmail.com
John McAdams mentioned that people were actually migrating OUT of the
cities.
Not exactly. Out of blue states. Out of blue regions.
Post by d***@gmail.com
But they're not heading for the corn fields. They're going to the
SUBURBS. In my initial post, I lumped the suburbs WITH the cities. I
included the surrounding suburbs with the cities for the purposes of
distinguishing them from the more rural areas, which are neither cities
nor suburbs.
But suburbs voted for Trump.
Exactly. White Flight. The racists.
Post by John McAdams
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls
Trump won a majority of the white college educated voters.
Same page.
.John
-------------------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-07 01:20:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Americans who were angrily asking, "Where's MY opportunity?" ... as if
they expected something fantastic to happen in their stagnant, rural
community. That's why people move OUT of those areas to ... well ... the
"blue" areas where it's easier to CREATE your opportunities.
This remark seems to me to be looking down upon those that live in rural
areas. "stagnant, rural community". Doesn't that sound just a wee bit
elitist to you?
Obviously, not EVERY rural community is stagnant - but there are plenty of
them out there. Cities tend to be more dynamic. Sure, they have their up's
and down's. Over the years, many of our nation's more troubled cities have
managed to reinvent themselves where certain downtown areas, where nobody
would dare tread in previously decades, have actually become profitable
tourist areas with restaurants and burgeoning attractions.
I don't look down on these people but I do believe that they have become
cynically, and irrationally angry and Trump was the "rock" they could
throw through the window of government as if to say, "Can you f---in' hear
us NOW?" Trump played to their worst fears and insecurities, in my
opinion.
I get it. You you are trying to help a disadvantaged group that means
you are looking down on them. So well meaning people are not allowed to
point to a disadvatantages group and try to help them. That is to make
sure that no one ever notices that they are disadvantaged. If one group
is disadvantaged that is to the benefit of another group which IS
advantaged. So obviously the advantaged group does not want their money
taken away from them to help the disadvantaged. Like the Mercers or the
Koch brothers. Giving them huge taxes breaks and pay for it by cutting
food stamps.
That's why Jesus said, "The poor you will have with you always."
Post by d***@gmail.com
John McAdams mentioned that people were actually migrating OUT of the
cities. But they're not heading for the corn fields. They're going to the
SUBURBS. In my initial post, I lumped the suburbs WITH the cities. I
Correct. It's called White Flight.
Post by d***@gmail.com
included the surrounding suburbs with the cities for the purposes of
distinguishing them from the more rural areas, which are neither cities
nor suburbs.
Have you ever read J.D. Vance's book, "Hillbilly Elegy"? His book rose to
the top of the bestseller list and stayed there for a long time because,
quite coincidentally and surprisingly (even to J.D. Vance), it hit a
timely chord and a central nerve behind the reasons why the cultural chasm
between rural communities and more urban areas has become deeper and wider
- something that was being purposely exacerbated during the 2016 political
campaigns. Those who live in the "flyover areas" of the country (where you
see all the red on the electoral map) have been conditioned to believe
that the "elitists" are out to get them and, worse yet, are "laughing at
them".
Is that the Deep State?
Post by d***@gmail.com
J.D. Vance grew up in these stagnant rural communities and ended up at
Yale Law School. His experience is personal and very insightful. He has a
great TED talk where he briefly mentions "brain drain", where talented,
intelligent, motivated people move out of these struggling, rural
http://youtu.be/iEy-xTbcr2A
And, if you think Vance is an anti-Trumper, that is not quite so clear
from this interview: http://youtu.be/eljLSzocJwo
[snippets from "Hillbilly Elegy" below - read or don't read - just to give
you a sense of what is in the book]
I once ran into an old acquaintance at a Middletown bar who told me that
he had recently quit his job because he was sick of waking up early. I
later saw him complaining on Facebook about the "Obama economy" and how it
In case you figured it out yet, Whites complain about Obama because they
feared that he would rob them to pay the blacks.
Post by d***@gmail.com
had affected his life. I don't doubt that the Obama economy has affected
many, but this man is assuredly not among them. His status in life is
directly attributable to the choices he's made, and his life will improve
only through better decisions ... There is a cultural movement in the
You can't always make the choices you want.
Post by d***@gmail.com
white working class to blame problems on society or the government, and
that movement gains adherents by the day ... Instead of encouraging
engagement, conservatives increasingly foment the kind of detachment that
has sapped the ambition of so many of my peers ... What separates the
successful from the unsuccessful are the expectations that they had for
They are paid to do that by the Mercers and the Koch brothers.
Post by d***@gmail.com
their own lives. Yet the message of the right is increasingly: It's not
your fault that you're a loser; it's the government's fault ... My dad,
for example, has never disparaged hard work, but he mistrusts some of the
most obvious paths to upward mobility. When he found out that I had
decided to go to Yale Law, he asked whether, on my applications, I had
"pretended to be black or liberal." This is how low the cultural
expectations of working-class white Americans have fallen.
Typical lies being fed to them by the rightwing racists.
Post by d***@gmail.com
[J.D. Vance lists numerous wild conspiracy theories, one of which that
Obama was not born in the U.S.]
You mean Trump's theory, not his.
Post by d***@gmail.com
The list goes on. It's impossible to know how many people believe one or
many of these stories. But if a third of our community questions the
president's origin - despite all evidence to the contrary - it's a good
bet that the other conspiracies have broader currency than we'd like. This
isn't some libertarian mistrust of government policy, which is healthy in
Libertarian if just a polite Nazi.
Post by d***@gmail.com
any democracy. This is a deep skepticism of the very institutions of our
society. And it's becoming more and more mainstream
[end of citation]
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
BOZ
2018-06-07 14:14:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Americans who were angrily asking, "Where's MY opportunity?" ... as if
they expected something fantastic to happen in their stagnant, rural
community. That's why people move OUT of those areas to ... well ... the
"blue" areas where it's easier to CREATE your opportunities.
This remark seems to me to be looking down upon those that live in rural
areas. "stagnant, rural community". Doesn't that sound just a wee bit
elitist to you?
Obviously, not EVERY rural community is stagnant - but there are plenty of
them out there. Cities tend to be more dynamic. Sure, they have their up's
and down's. Over the years, many of our nation's more troubled cities have
managed to reinvent themselves where certain downtown areas, where nobody
would dare tread in previously decades, have actually become profitable
tourist areas with restaurants and burgeoning attractions.
I don't look down on these people but I do believe that they have become
cynically, and irrationally angry and Trump was the "rock" they could
throw through the window of government as if to say, "Can you f---in' hear
us NOW?" Trump played to their worst fears and insecurities, in my
opinion.
John McAdams mentioned that people were actually migrating OUT of the
cities. But they're not heading for the corn fields. They're going to the
SUBURBS. In my initial post, I lumped the suburbs WITH the cities. I
included the surrounding suburbs with the cities for the purposes of
distinguishing them from the more rural areas, which are neither cities
nor suburbs.
Have you ever read J.D. Vance's book, "Hillbilly Elegy"? His book rose to
the top of the bestseller list and stayed there for a long time because,
quite coincidentally and surprisingly (even to J.D. Vance), it hit a
timely chord and a central nerve behind the reasons why the cultural chasm
between rural communities and more urban areas has become deeper and wider
- something that was being purposely exacerbated during the 2016 political
campaigns. Those who live in the "flyover areas" of the country (where you
see all the red on the electoral map) have been conditioned to believe
that the "elitists" are out to get them and, worse yet, are "laughing at
them".
J.D. Vance grew up in these stagnant rural communities and ended up at
Yale Law School. His experience is personal and very insightful. He has a
great TED talk where he briefly mentions "brain drain", where talented,
intelligent, motivated people move out of these struggling, rural
http://youtu.be/iEy-xTbcr2A
And, if you think Vance is an anti-Trumper, that is not quite so clear
from this interview: http://youtu.be/eljLSzocJwo
[snippets from "Hillbilly Elegy" below - read or don't read - just to give
you a sense of what is in the book]
I once ran into an old acquaintance at a Middletown bar who told me that
he had recently quit his job because he was sick of waking up early. I
later saw him complaining on Facebook about the "Obama economy" and how it
had affected his life. I don't doubt that the Obama economy has affected
many, but this man is assuredly not among them. His status in life is
directly attributable to the choices he's made, and his life will improve
only through better decisions ... There is a cultural movement in the
white working class to blame problems on society or the government, and
that movement gains adherents by the day ... Instead of encouraging
engagement, conservatives increasingly foment the kind of detachment that
has sapped the ambition of so many of my peers ... What separates the
successful from the unsuccessful are the expectations that they had for
their own lives. Yet the message of the right is increasingly: It's not
your fault that you're a loser; it's the government's fault ... My dad,
for example, has never disparaged hard work, but he mistrusts some of the
most obvious paths to upward mobility. When he found out that I had
decided to go to Yale Law, he asked whether, on my applications, I had
"pretended to be black or liberal." This is how low the cultural
expectations of working-class white Americans have fallen.
[J.D. Vance lists numerous wild conspiracy theories, one of which that
Obama was not born in the U.S.]
The list goes on. It's impossible to know how many people believe one or
many of these stories. But if a third of our community questions the
president's origin - despite all evidence to the contrary - it's a good
bet that the other conspiracies have broader currency than we'd like. This
isn't some libertarian mistrust of government policy, which is healthy in
any democracy. This is a deep skepticism of the very institutions of our
society. And it's becoming more and more mainstream
[end of citation]
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
IN PREVIOUS POSTS YOU HAVE CALLED OBAMA A BLACK PRESIDENT. OBAMA'S MOTHER
WAS WHITE. IF OBAMA'S MOTHER WAS WHITE AND HIS FATHER WAS BLACK ISN'T
OBAMA BIOLOGICALLY BLACK AND WHITE?
John McAdams
2018-06-07 19:49:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Americans who were angrily asking, "Where's MY opportunity?" ... as if
they expected something fantastic to happen in their stagnant, rural
community. That's why people move OUT of those areas to ... well ... the
"blue" areas where it's easier to CREATE your opportunities.
This remark seems to me to be looking down upon those that live in rural
areas. "stagnant, rural community". Doesn't that sound just a wee bit
elitist to you?
Obviously, not EVERY rural community is stagnant - but there are plenty of
them out there. Cities tend to be more dynamic. Sure, they have their up's
and down's. Over the years, many of our nation's more troubled cities have
managed to reinvent themselves where certain downtown areas, where nobody
would dare tread in previously decades, have actually become profitable
tourist areas with restaurants and burgeoning attractions.
I don't look down on these people but I do believe that they have become
cynically, and irrationally angry and Trump was the "rock" they could
throw through the window of government as if to say, "Can you f---in' hear
us NOW?" Trump played to their worst fears and insecurities, in my
opinion.
So you don't "look down" at such people, but you believe they have
become "cynically and irrationally angry" and that they were
victimized by Trump playing on their "worst fears and insecurities."

If that's not "looking down," what would be.

You seem stunningly unaware of the message you are sending.

You say you are not an elitist, but every post you make demeans people
who voted in a way you disapprove.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bigdog
2018-06-08 01:04:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by bigdog
Post by d***@gmail.com
Americans who were angrily asking, "Where's MY opportunity?" ... as if
they expected something fantastic to happen in their stagnant, rural
community. That's why people move OUT of those areas to ... well ... the
"blue" areas where it's easier to CREATE your opportunities.
This remark seems to me to be looking down upon those that live in rural
areas. "stagnant, rural community". Doesn't that sound just a wee bit
elitist to you?
Obviously, not EVERY rural community is stagnant - but there are plenty of
them out there. Cities tend to be more dynamic. Sure, they have their up's
and down's. Over the years, many of our nation's more troubled cities have
managed to reinvent themselves where certain downtown areas, where nobody
would dare tread in previously decades, have actually become profitable
tourist areas with restaurants and burgeoning attractions.
If any place is stagnating, it is the cities. Columbus, OH where I spent
most of my adult life is about as middle America as it gets. Many
companies consider it a test market because it is so representative of the
nation as a whole. It's a big city, but not too big. Almost all the growth
and development is in the suburbs and the suburbs continue to sprawl
farther and farther from the city. When our family moved there in 1966,
there were numerous small farm towns that were not even connected to the
city that have since been swallowed up by suburban development, much of it
high end. Two in particular are Dublin and New Albany. During that same
period, much of the city of Columbus has gone downhill. There was a lot of
new development inside the city limits in the 1960s and well into the
1970s but that hit a wall in the late 1970s and there has been much decay
since. The Northland and Westland shopping malls which were once
considered jewels of urban development have since been bulldozed. There
have been exceptions, such as German Village just south of downtown where
the old brick houses have been refurbished into upscale housing and
Victorian Village just south of the Ohio State campus has also been
revitalized but those are the exceptions. A few neighborhoods have held
their own but many once thriving areas are now crime ridden. The suburbs
and the exurbs and small towns as much as an hour drive from the city are
where many people are choosing to raise their families.

I myself chose to move out of the city to just outside of the little burg
of Utica. The high school is attended by both kids from inside the town
and the surrounding farms. Those kids are not hayseeds. They are as
sophisticated and dialed into social media every bit as much as their
urban and suburban counterparts. I go to ball games and see these kids
glued to their smart phones doing their Twitter, Facebook, or whatever
else kids these days are dialed into. It is areas such as that went
overwhelmingly for Trump. They voted overwhelmingly for him and that was
more than enough to offset the gains Hillary racked up in the cities.

Small towns and rural areas have always been Republican strongholds but
where Trump won the election was by flipping a lot of blue collar white
voters. This is a demographic that has long sided with the Democrats on
economic issues but culturally are more in tune with the Republicans.
These are people who resent a Democrat Party that has become very much
anti-Second Amendment. Meanwhile they feel abandoned by a Democrat party
that seems to want to pander to minorities, LGBT, and other special
interest groups while taking them for granted. That's why they turned in
droves to Trump. He tapped into their frustrations and they rewarded him
for it. He spoke their language.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I don't look down on these people but I do believe that they have become
cynically, and irrationally angry and Trump was the "rock" they could
throw through the window of government as if to say, "Can you f---in' hear
us NOW?" Trump played to their worst fears and insecurities, in my
opinion.
Whether you know it or not, your words ooze elitism. You call their anger
irrational. There is nothing irrational about it. They didn't abandon the
Democrat Party. The Democrat Party abandoned them and 2016 was their
payback. These people are now seeing the rewards for their choices.
Unemployment is at its lowest levels since 2000 and thanks to the Trump
tax cut, these people are seeing more money in their paychecks and
employers are handing out raises and bonuses.
Post by d***@gmail.com
John McAdams mentioned that people were actually migrating OUT of the
cities. But they're not heading for the corn fields. They're going to the
SUBURBS. In my initial post, I lumped the suburbs WITH the cities. I
included the surrounding suburbs with the cities for the purposes of
distinguishing them from the more rural areas, which are neither cities
nor suburbs.
Both the suburbs, the small towns, and the rural voters went heavily for
Trump. The Democrats rack up huge surpluses inside the big cities but
those get offset by Republican gains elsewhere. That was certainly the
case in Ohio where Trump won easily and I'll bet it was also true in the
blue wall states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Hillary took
those states for granted and they made her pay for her indifference toward
them.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Have you ever read J.D. Vance's book, "Hillbilly Elegy"? His book rose to
the top of the bestseller list and stayed there for a long time because,
quite coincidentally and surprisingly (even to J.D. Vance), it hit a
timely chord and a central nerve behind the reasons why the cultural chasm
between rural communities and more urban areas has become deeper and wider
- something that was being purposely exacerbated during the 2016 political
campaigns. Those who live in the "flyover areas" of the country (where you
see all the red on the electoral map) have been conditioned to believe
that the "elitists" are out to get them and, worse yet, are "laughing at
them".
I'd say they are very perceptive. One of the most interesting electoral
maps I saw was one shown by Chuck Todd in the election post mortem.
Interstates I-95 and I-5 roughly parallel the east and west coasts
respectively. Hillary racked up a 6 million vote margin in those narrow
strips of land between those freeways and the coast. Trump overwhelmingly
won all that land in between. Whatever else you may think of Trump, he ran
the most brilliant presidential campaign in my lifetime and perhaps in the
history of the republic. The elitists were literally laughing at his
chances to even win the nomination much less the general election. Who's
laughing now? Trump tested the waters in 2012 but decided it wasn't the
right time. By 2015, he recognized that there was a sizeable portion of
the rank and file in both major parties that was frustrated with their
party's leadership and he crafted a message that spoke to their
frustrations. He easily won the nomination despite most of the Republican
establishment being against him. He was given almost no chance of winning
the general election but he fooled all those so called smart people what
had openly laughed at his chances. I posted this in another thread but I
will repeat it here. It is a compilation of elitists among political
establishment, the media, and the entertainment industry who were mocking
him prior to the election.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=donald+trump+will+never+be+my+president&view=detail&mid=768E7EC4975E4F1C92E7768E7EC4975E4F1C92E7&FORM=VIRE
Post by d***@gmail.com
J.D. Vance grew up in these stagnant rural communities and ended up at
Yale Law School. His experience is personal and very insightful. He has a
great TED talk where he briefly mentions "brain drain", where talented,
intelligent, motivated people move out of these struggling, rural
http://youtu.be/iEy-xTbcr2A
More elitism.
Post by d***@gmail.com
And, if you think Vance is an anti-Trumper, that is not quite so clear
from this interview: http://youtu.be/eljLSzocJwo
[snippets from "Hillbilly Elegy" below - read or don't read - just to give
you a sense of what is in the book]
I once ran into an old acquaintance at a Middletown bar who told me that
he had recently quit his job because he was sick of waking up early. I
later saw him complaining on Facebook about the "Obama economy" and how it
had affected his life. I don't doubt that the Obama economy has affected
many, but this man is assuredly not among them. His status in life is
directly attributable to the choices he's made, and his life will improve
only through better decisions ... There is a cultural movement in the
white working class to blame problems on society or the government, and
that movement gains adherents by the day …
The Democrat Party has thrived on convincing much of their constituency
that they are victims. They depend on these people believing that the
Democrats are their only hope for improving their lot in life yet it never
happens.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Instead of encouraging
engagement, conservatives increasingly foment the kind of detachment that
has sapped the ambition of so many of my peers ... What separates the
successful from the unsuccessful are the expectations that they had for
their own lives.
This is the polar opposite of the message the Democrats have tried to sell
their constituency for as long as I can remember. When did you hear a
Democrat tell their supporters to take control of their own lives and be
responsible for improving the quality of their lives. Their message has
always been, vote for us and we'll take care of you. The blue collar white
voters finally wised up to that lie.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Yet the message of the right is increasingly: It's not
your fault that you're a loser; it's the government's fault
The irony couldn't get any thicker.
Post by d***@gmail.com
... My dad,
for example, has never disparaged hard work, but he mistrusts some of the
most obvious paths to upward mobility. When he found out that I had
decided to go to Yale Law, he asked whether, on my applications, I had
"pretended to be black or liberal." This is how low the cultural
expectations of working-class white Americans have fallen.
I guess that's the result of generations of Democrat indoctrination.
Post by d***@gmail.com
[J.D. Vance lists numerous wild conspiracy theories, one of which that
Obama was not born in the U.S.]
The list goes on. It's impossible to know how many people believe one or
many of these stories. But if a third of our community questions the
president's origin - despite all evidence to the contrary - it's a good
bet that the other conspiracies have broader currency than we'd like. This
isn't some libertarian mistrust of government policy, which is healthy in
any democracy. This is a deep skepticism of the very institutions of our
society. And it's becoming more and more mainstream
[end of citation]
Given the performance of our government institutions, I'd say the cynicism
is well founded, and I don't just blame the Democrats for that. I blame
the establishments of both major parties.
BOZ
2018-06-05 20:50:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.
In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high.
If you are a snobbish elitist politically correct Prius driving latte
sipping leftist the probability that you are a Hillary supporter is
astronomically high.
Is that really the best you can do to counter MY caricature of the right
with YOUR caricature of the left? I mention xenophobia and you counter
with "Prius driving"? I mention racism and you mention "latte sipping"?
What is the leftist equivalent to Christian zealotry? It seems to me that
we'd actually be better off with increased latte-sipping Prius driving
than increased xenophobic racism.
Post by John McAdams
Tell us, David, what you think of these?
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/gqJIR-gXExQ
OK, I'll respond to them individually - since you asked.
The above YouTube clip is of Hillary being interviewed and asked why
almost 52% of the "white women" voted for Trump despite the Access
Hollywood tape.
First of all, the YouTube title is a bit misleading, "Clinton Blames Her
Loss on White Women Listening to Their Husbands". That is a bit out of
context through omission. What she actually says is, "... a sort of
ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son,
whoever believes you should."
I think there's a lot of truth to that. We tend to vote in a very tribal
manner. It's more common than not that spouses have a similar political
view. White men, by a fairly wide margin, preferred Trump. To expect that
not to affect their wife is naive. Yet, I wouldn't say that's WHY Trump
won and Clinton lost - and that's not what she's claiming. She's simply
answering the question.
This brings to mind something regarding the O.J. Simpson trial. The
prosecutors could have had the venue for the trial where the crime
occurred which would have produced a prominently white and affluent jury
pool. But, it would have been a logistical pain in the ass to prosecute it
there. The prosecutors thought that they could successfully prosecute the
case in the city despite the jury pool being predominantly black. They
knew that they were going to have a predominantly black jury but they
thought GENDER would be the primary issue. They decided to load the jury
pool up with WOMEN, whether they be white or black, because a woman would
be repulsed by Simpson's treatment of Nicole. What the prosecutors found
out to their horror is that RACE trumped GENDER.
Wives were not going to vote for Hillary Clinton simply because they
shared a gender. They would be more likely to be loyal to their "tribe",
their husband, their friends, their family's political views, than to any
notion that "I'm a woman ... she's a woman ... so, I'm voting for her."
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/5Qd8vg4uON8
Again, another misleading and intentionally inflammatory YouTube title -
"Hillary Clinton: I Got More Votes In The Places That Matter"
This is the type of rhetoric that inflames the angry mob (the deplorables)
who voted for Trump, those irrationally angry people who thought "elitist"
were laughing at them and that they were being forgotten.
What Clinton ACTUALLY says is, "I won the places that represent two-thirds
of America's Gross Domestic Product. So, I won the places that are
optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward ..." In other words, not the
areas that are predominantly white (i.e. not diverse) where they may grow
a lot of soybeans but have no libraries, museums, concert halls,
universities or hospitals. There is a huge cultural and experiential
divide between the Rural Red and Coastal Blue, that's for sure. She's
simply pointing out what most people know is true. Sure, it sounds elitist
- and it probably is - but what IS an "elitist"? It's basically a term
that has been hijacked and turned into a pejorative to describe
well-educated people who live in cities or the suburbs who tend to have
well-paying jobs. Deplorables HATE that because Trump convinced them that
all these "elitists" are sitting around a table laughing at the Iowa
farmers.
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/t_XNsvjjISA
Like the first YouTube link you provided, this is from her interview in
India. The link above rockets forward to the 30-minute, 41-second point in
her answer which leaves out some significant stuff leading up to it.
This is the continuation of her comment about how voters need to become a
bit more sophisticated in this age of social media and manipulation. For
instance, regarding Trump, she says, "Voters have to be prepared to say,
'OK, that was entertaining. Wow - I couldn't take my eyes off of him -
but, what's he really going to do and what has he ever done that convinces
me that he could actually accomplish any of it?' So, it's going to require
a lot more sophisticated by voters if this trends goes from our 2016
campaign."
Then the question is asked, "Is he a symptom or a disease?" She says there
are "several problems" and briefly goes through them. You "fast-forwarded"
to just ONE of those several points (about the fourth one in her list as
they came to her mind) and that is that many people saw that the
opportunities that were being advanced for groups who historically had
less opportunities in the past (she mentions "African-Americans, the LGBT
community, women") necessarily meant that others would have less
opportunity. They were convinced (wrongfully so, according to Clinton)
that it was a "zero sum game" ... in other words, if "others" are getting
more opportunities then I (not being an "other") will have less
opportunity.
I think that mentality certainly existed - how prevalent it was is
unknowable. She included it in her list and I don't think it is an
unfounded thing to point out. Certainly this viewpoint was encouraged by
Trump with his "America first" rhetoric and anti-immigration policies.
All intelligent people know that opportunities are mostly created, not
handed over. It's like the old sports adage, "The harder I work, the
luckier I seem to get." There was a not-too-insignificant number of rural
Americans who were angrily asking, "Where's MY opportunity?" ... as if
they expected something fantastic to happen in their stagnant, rural
community. That's why people move OUT of those areas to ... well ... the
"blue" areas where it's easier to CREATE your opportunities.
That's not a very JFK assassination topical response - but you asked and
YOU'RE the moderator.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
EMERLING WOULD YOU PREFER AMERICA LAST? WHAT COUNTRY IS TRUMP THE
PRESIDENT OF? WHAT WOULD BE YOUR MOTTO FOR YOUR AIRLINE? IT'S NO WONDER
THAT SINGAPORE AIRLINES IS KICKING YOUR ASS.
BOZ
2018-06-05 22:12:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.
In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high.
If you are a snobbish elitist politically correct Prius driving latte
sipping leftist the probability that you are a Hillary supporter is
astronomically high.
Is that really the best you can do to counter MY caricature of the right
with YOUR caricature of the left? I mention xenophobia and you counter
with "Prius driving"? I mention racism and you mention "latte sipping"?
What is the leftist equivalent to Christian zealotry? It seems to me that
we'd actually be better off with increased latte-sipping Prius driving
than increased xenophobic racism.
Post by John McAdams
Tell us, David, what you think of these?
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/gqJIR-gXExQ
OK, I'll respond to them individually - since you asked.
The above YouTube clip is of Hillary being interviewed and asked why
almost 52% of the "white women" voted for Trump despite the Access
Hollywood tape.
First of all, the YouTube title is a bit misleading, "Clinton Blames Her
Loss on White Women Listening to Their Husbands". That is a bit out of
context through omission. What she actually says is, "... a sort of
ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son,
whoever believes you should."
I think there's a lot of truth to that. We tend to vote in a very tribal
manner. It's more common than not that spouses have a similar political
view. White men, by a fairly wide margin, preferred Trump. To expect that
not to affect their wife is naive. Yet, I wouldn't say that's WHY Trump
won and Clinton lost - and that's not what she's claiming. She's simply
answering the question.
This brings to mind something regarding the O.J. Simpson trial. The
prosecutors could have had the venue for the trial where the crime
occurred which would have produced a prominently white and affluent jury
pool. But, it would have been a logistical pain in the ass to prosecute it
there. The prosecutors thought that they could successfully prosecute the
case in the city despite the jury pool being predominantly black. They
knew that they were going to have a predominantly black jury but they
thought GENDER would be the primary issue. They decided to load the jury
pool up with WOMEN, whether they be white or black, because a woman would
be repulsed by Simpson's treatment of Nicole. What the prosecutors found
out to their horror is that RACE trumped GENDER.
Wives were not going to vote for Hillary Clinton simply because they
shared a gender. They would be more likely to be loyal to their "tribe",
their husband, their friends, their family's political views, than to any
notion that "I'm a woman ... she's a woman ... so, I'm voting for her."
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/5Qd8vg4uON8
Again, another misleading and intentionally inflammatory YouTube title -
"Hillary Clinton: I Got More Votes In The Places That Matter"
This is the type of rhetoric that inflames the angry mob (the deplorables)
who voted for Trump, those irrationally angry people who thought "elitist"
were laughing at them and that they were being forgotten.
What Clinton ACTUALLY says is, "I won the places that represent two-thirds
of America's Gross Domestic Product. So, I won the places that are
optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward ..." In other words, not the
areas that are predominantly white (i.e. not diverse) where they may grow
a lot of soybeans but have no libraries, museums, concert halls,
universities or hospitals. There is a huge cultural and experiential
divide between the Rural Red and Coastal Blue, that's for sure. She's
simply pointing out what most people know is true. Sure, it sounds elitist
- and it probably is - but what IS an "elitist"? It's basically a term
that has been hijacked and turned into a pejorative to describe
well-educated people who live in cities or the suburbs who tend to have
well-paying jobs. Deplorables HATE that because Trump convinced them that
all these "elitists" are sitting around a table laughing at the Iowa
farmers.
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/t_XNsvjjISA
Like the first YouTube link you provided, this is from her interview in
India. The link above rockets forward to the 30-minute, 41-second point in
her answer which leaves out some significant stuff leading up to it.
This is the continuation of her comment about how voters need to become a
bit more sophisticated in this age of social media and manipulation. For
instance, regarding Trump, she says, "Voters have to be prepared to say,
'OK, that was entertaining. Wow - I couldn't take my eyes off of him -
but, what's he really going to do and what has he ever done that convinces
me that he could actually accomplish any of it?' So, it's going to require
a lot more sophisticated by voters if this trends goes from our 2016
campaign."
Then the question is asked, "Is he a symptom or a disease?" She says there
are "several problems" and briefly goes through them. You "fast-forwarded"
to just ONE of those several points (about the fourth one in her list as
they came to her mind) and that is that many people saw that the
opportunities that were being advanced for groups who historically had
less opportunities in the past (she mentions "African-Americans, the LGBT
community, women") necessarily meant that others would have less
opportunity. They were convinced (wrongfully so, according to Clinton)
that it was a "zero sum game" ... in other words, if "others" are getting
more opportunities then I (not being an "other") will have less
opportunity.
I think that mentality certainly existed - how prevalent it was is
unknowable. She included it in her list and I don't think it is an
unfounded thing to point out. Certainly this viewpoint was encouraged by
Trump with his "America first" rhetoric and anti-immigration policies.
All intelligent people know that opportunities are mostly created, not
handed over. It's like the old sports adage, "The harder I work, the
luckier I seem to get." There was a not-too-insignificant number of rural
Americans who were angrily asking, "Where's MY opportunity?" ... as if
they expected something fantastic to happen in their stagnant, rural
community. That's why people move OUT of those areas to ... well ... the
"blue" areas where it's easier to CREATE your opportunities.
That's not a very JFK assassination topical response - but you asked and
YOU'RE the moderator.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Dave maybe the OJ Simpson jury had a not guilty gene.

The Jury By Race: 9 Blacks, 1 Hispanics, 2 Whites. The Jury By Sex: 10
Women, 2 Men. The Jury By Education: 2 College Graduates, 9 High School
Graduates, 1 Without Diploma. (1) None regularly read a newspaper, but
eight regularly watch tabloid TV shows, (2) five thought it was sometimes
appropriate to use force on a family member, (3) all were Democrats, (4)
five reported that they or another family member had had a negative
experience with the police, (5) nine thought that Simpson was less likely
to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete.

The racial composition of the initial jury pool differed considerably from
the racial composition of the final jury. The pool was 40% white, 28%
black, 17% Hispanic, and 15% Asian.

http://famous-trials.com/simpson/1989-jurypage
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-08 00:28:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.
In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high.
If you are a snobbish elitist politically correct Prius driving latte
sipping leftist the probability that you are a Hillary supporter is
astronomically high.
Is that really the best you can do to counter MY caricature of the right
with YOUR caricature of the left? I mention xenophobia and you counter
with "Prius driving"? I mention racism and you mention "latte sipping"?
What is the leftist equivalent to Christian zealotry? It seems to me that
we'd actually be better off with increased latte-sipping Prius driving
than increased xenophobic racism.
Post by John McAdams
Tell us, David, what you think of these?
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/gqJIR-gXExQ
OK, I'll respond to them individually - since you asked.
The above YouTube clip is of Hillary being interviewed and asked why
almost 52% of the "white women" voted for Trump despite the Access
Hollywood tape.
First of all, the YouTube title is a bit misleading, "Clinton Blames Her
Loss on White Women Listening to Their Husbands". That is a bit out of
context through omission. What she actually says is, "... a sort of
ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son,
whoever believes you should."
I think there's a lot of truth to that. We tend to vote in a very tribal
manner. It's more common than not that spouses have a similar political
view. White men, by a fairly wide margin, preferred Trump. To expect that
not to affect their wife is naive. Yet, I wouldn't say that's WHY Trump
won and Clinton lost - and that's not what she's claiming. She's simply
answering the question.
This brings to mind something regarding the O.J. Simpson trial. The
prosecutors could have had the venue for the trial where the crime
occurred which would have produced a prominently white and affluent jury
pool. But, it would have been a logistical pain in the ass to prosecute it
there. The prosecutors thought that they could successfully prosecute the
case in the city despite the jury pool being predominantly black. They
knew that they were going to have a predominantly black jury but they
thought GENDER would be the primary issue. They decided to load the jury
pool up with WOMEN, whether they be white or black, because a woman would
be repulsed by Simpson's treatment of Nicole. What the prosecutors found
out to their horror is that RACE trumped GENDER.
Wives were not going to vote for Hillary Clinton simply because they
shared a gender. They would be more likely to be loyal to their "tribe",
their husband, their friends, their family's political views, than to any
notion that "I'm a woman ... she's a woman ... so, I'm voting for her."
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/5Qd8vg4uON8
Again, another misleading and intentionally inflammatory YouTube title -
"Hillary Clinton: I Got More Votes In The Places That Matter"
This is the type of rhetoric that inflames the angry mob (the deplorables)
who voted for Trump, those irrationally angry people who thought "elitist"
were laughing at them and that they were being forgotten.
What Clinton ACTUALLY says is, "I won the places that represent two-thirds
of America's Gross Domestic Product. So, I won the places that are
optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward ..." In other words, not the
areas that are predominantly white (i.e. not diverse) where they may grow
a lot of soybeans but have no libraries, museums, concert halls,
universities or hospitals. There is a huge cultural and experiential
divide between the Rural Red and Coastal Blue, that's for sure. She's
simply pointing out what most people know is true. Sure, it sounds elitist
- and it probably is - but what IS an "elitist"? It's basically a term
that has been hijacked and turned into a pejorative to describe
well-educated people who live in cities or the suburbs who tend to have
well-paying jobs. Deplorables HATE that because Trump convinced them that
all these "elitists" are sitting around a table laughing at the Iowa
farmers.
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/t_XNsvjjISA
Like the first YouTube link you provided, this is from her interview in
India. The link above rockets forward to the 30-minute, 41-second point in
her answer which leaves out some significant stuff leading up to it.
This is the continuation of her comment about how voters need to become a
bit more sophisticated in this age of social media and manipulation. For
instance, regarding Trump, she says, "Voters have to be prepared to say,
'OK, that was entertaining. Wow - I couldn't take my eyes off of him -
but, what's he really going to do and what has he ever done that convinces
me that he could actually accomplish any of it?' So, it's going to require
a lot more sophisticated by voters if this trends goes from our 2016
campaign."
Then the question is asked, "Is he a symptom or a disease?" She says there
are "several problems" and briefly goes through them. You "fast-forwarded"
to just ONE of those several points (about the fourth one in her list as
they came to her mind) and that is that many people saw that the
opportunities that were being advanced for groups who historically had
less opportunities in the past (she mentions "African-Americans, the LGBT
community, women") necessarily meant that others would have less
opportunity. They were convinced (wrongfully so, according to Clinton)
that it was a "zero sum game" ... in other words, if "others" are getting
more opportunities then I (not being an "other") will have less
opportunity.
I think that mentality certainly existed - how prevalent it was is
unknowable. She included it in her list and I don't think it is an
unfounded thing to point out. Certainly this viewpoint was encouraged by
Trump with his "America first" rhetoric and anti-immigration policies.
All intelligent people know that opportunities are mostly created, not
handed over. It's like the old sports adage, "The harder I work, the
luckier I seem to get." There was a not-too-insignificant number of rural
Americans who were angrily asking, "Where's MY opportunity?" ... as if
they expected something fantastic to happen in their stagnant, rural
community. That's why people move OUT of those areas to ... well ... the
"blue" areas where it's easier to CREATE your opportunities.
That's not a very JFK assassination topical response - but you asked and
YOU'RE the moderator.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Dave maybe the OJ Simpson jury had a not guilty gene.
It's called Jury Nullification. They were punishing the prosecution.
Post by BOZ
The Jury By Race: 9 Blacks, 1 Hispanics, 2 Whites. The Jury By Sex: 10
Women, 2 Men. The Jury By Education: 2 College Graduates, 9 High School
Graduates, 1 Without Diploma. (1) None regularly read a newspaper, but
eight regularly watch tabloid TV shows, (2) five thought it was sometimes
appropriate to use force on a family member, (3) all were Democrats, (4)
five reported that they or another family member had had a negative
experience with the police, (5) nine thought that Simpson was less likely
to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete.
The racial composition of the initial jury pool differed considerably from
the racial composition of the final jury. The pool was 40% white, 28%
black, 17% Hispanic, and 15% Asian.
Tell us about the challenges.
Post by BOZ
http://famous-trials.com/simpson/1989-jurypage
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-05 16:39:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 4 Jun 2018 15:30:47 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by BOZ
I AM QUITE SURE THAT ALEX JONES IS A LIBERTARIAN. MARSH DO YOU KNOW THAT
JONES BELIEVES THAT JFK'S ASSASSINATION WAS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. DO
YOU AGREE WITH JONES?
In his view of government security agencies, Jones is no different
from unreconstructed 60s leftists.
Not that we have anybody like that here. :-)
.John
In other words, Alex Jones is as misguided and quacky TODAY as
"reconstructed leftists" were in the 60s? Maybe Jones is ALSO trying to
make America great AGAIN ... which, apparently, means going back in time
to when America WAS great. I can guarantee you, America was NOT great in
the 60s.
I'm still amazed that so many intelligent people in this group - those who
see the evidence in the JFK case for what it obviously is - a simple crime
perpetrated by a single man - cannot see the glaring shortcomings and
conspiracy-laden worldview of our current president. It's baffling to me.
I'm surprised that so many intelligent people in this group -- those
who see the evidence in the JFK case for what it obviously is -- a
simple crime perpetrated by a single man -- cannot see the corruption
and arrogance of the Democratic 2016 presidential candidate. It's
baffling to me.
So as a Trump supporter you can not defend his crimes so you have to try
to place the blame on Hillary. But you can't back it up by pointing out
anything that she did wrong.
The "Trump crimes" are a figment of your imagination. All sorts of
immoral sexual behavior, yes. But crimes are a different matter.
OMG! You aren't even allowed to mention S&X.
Are you talking about his raping 13 year olds? I guess you don't
consider that a crime.
I was talking about the crime called Treason. Being an agent for a
foreign power.
Post by John McAdams
For Hillary: Benghazi, the deleted e-mails, Haiti, "pay for play"
with the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.
Nonsense. None of those are crimes.
They are just rightwing paranoid rambling.
WOW, so now you want to put the wife in jail for her husband's
infidelities? Can you cite any court cases as precedent?
Post by John McAdams
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/hillary-bill-clinton-women.html
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.
In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high.
If you are a snobbish elitist politically correct Prius driving latte
sipping leftist the probability that you are a Hillary supporter is
astronomically high.
Post by d***@gmail.com
That is the group that Hillary
Clinton characterized as the "basket of deplorables" - a very politically
ill-advised characterization but, sadly, accurate.
The real deplorables are those who agreed with Hillary on this.
The deplorables are the Nazis who marched with the Tiki Torches and ran
over a woman. And then Trump said that some of them are good people. Not
all Trump supporters are Nazis, but all Nazis are Trump supporters.
OK, all communists were Hillary supporters, if you want to play that
game.
Fine with me. Have at it. That does not make Hillary a Communist.
Post by John McAdams
But Trump said that some of the people who didn't want the statues
removed were good people. That's true, and in fact a majority of
Americans opposed the removal of the Confederate statues.
So you do approve of racism. Nice to know.
Do you know that a slim majority of Americans used to approve of
slavery? So that make slavery ok?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Tell us, David, what you think of these?
http://youtu.be/gqJIR-gXExQ
http://youtu.be/5Qd8vg4uON8
http://youtu.be/t_XNsvjjISA
What do you think of those, Tony?
Of what? I won't even click on some of those racist links.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-08 00:38:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by BOZ
I AM QUITE SURE THAT ALEX JONES IS A LIBERTARIAN. MARSH DO YOU KNOW THAT
JONES BELIEVES THAT JFK'S ASSASSINATION WAS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. DO
YOU AGREE WITH JONES?
In his view of government security agencies, Jones is no different
from unreconstructed 60s leftists.
Not that we have anybody like that here. :-)
.John
In other words, Alex Jones is as misguided and quacky TODAY as
"reconstructed leftists" were in the 60s? Maybe Jones is ALSO trying to
make America great AGAIN ... which, apparently, means going back in time
to when America WAS great. I can guarantee you, America was NOT great in
the 60s.
I'm still amazed that so many intelligent people in this group - those who
see the evidence in the JFK case for what it obviously is - a simple crime
perpetrated by a single man - cannot see the glaring shortcomings and
conspiracy-laden worldview of our current president. It's baffling to me.
I'm surprised that so many intelligent people in this group -- those
who see the evidence in the JFK case for what it obviously is -- a
simple crime perpetrated by a single man -- cannot see the corruption
and arrogance of the Democratic 2016 presidential candidate. It's
baffling to me.
Post by d***@gmail.com
It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.
In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high.
If you are a snobbish elitist politically correct Prius driving latte
sipping leftist the probability that you are a Hillary supporter is
astronomically high.
I guess that leaves me out of. I don't have a car and I don't like lattes.
Every snobbish elitist politically correct Prius driving latte sipping
leftist I knew supported Bernie. One of them is one of my bridge partners.

Do I have to dig out my old Bernie shirt and wash it?
Post by John McAdams
Post by d***@gmail.com
That is the group that Hillary
Clinton characterized as the "basket of deplorables" - a very politically
ill-advised characterization but, sadly, accurate.
The real deplorables are those who agreed with Hillary on this.
Tell us, David, what you think of these?
http://youtu.be/gqJIR-gXExQ
http://youtu.be/5Qd8vg4uON8
http://youtu.be/t_XNsvjjISA
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-04 19:23:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by BOZ
I AM QUITE SURE THAT ALEX JONES IS A LIBERTARIAN. MARSH DO YOU KNOW THAT
JONES BELIEVES THAT JFK'S ASSASSINATION WAS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. DO
YOU AGREE WITH JONES?
In his view of government security agencies, Jones is no different
from unreconstructed 60s leftists.
Not that we have anybody like that here. :-)
.John
In other words, Alex Jones is as misguided and quacky TODAY as
"reconstructed leftists" were in the 60s? Maybe Jones is ALSO trying to
make America great AGAIN ... which, apparently, means going back in time
to when America WAS great. I can guarantee you, America was NOT great in
the 60s.
No. That's like saying that the Communists are exactly like the Nazis.
Both may be evil, but they are on opposite sides of the political
spectrum.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm still amazed that so many intelligent people in this group - those who
see the evidence in the JFK case for what it obviously is - a simple crime
perpetrated by a single man - cannot see the glaring shortcomings and
conspiracy-laden worldview of our current president. It's baffling to me.
You like simple solutions. Why don't you just call it an accident?
Post by d***@gmail.com
It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.
So you think that only Goobers voted for Donald Trump?
That would be not quite enough votes. He needed some sophisticated white
suburban women.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.
Are you calling Donald Trump stupid? FYI, he can be intelligent and
crazy at the same time.
Post by d***@gmail.com
In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high. That is the group that Hillary
Clinton characterized as the "basket of deplorables" - a very politically
ill-advised characterization but, sadly, accurate.
No, you just add up all those groups to get to 45%.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
an anti-authority, government-distrusting paranoid. But, if you ARE all
those things - you believe in a conspiracy.
Oh, so that's how it works. You get to dictate WHO MUST believe in
conspiracy? All conspiracy or just the JFK assassination?
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
BOZ
2018-06-05 16:41:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by BOZ
I AM QUITE SURE THAT ALEX JONES IS A LIBERTARIAN. MARSH DO YOU KNOW THAT
JONES BELIEVES THAT JFK'S ASSASSINATION WAS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. DO
YOU AGREE WITH JONES?
In his view of government security agencies, Jones is no different
from unreconstructed 60s leftists.
Not that we have anybody like that here. :-)
.John
In other words, Alex Jones is as misguided and quacky TODAY as
"reconstructed leftists" were in the 60s? Maybe Jones is ALSO trying to
make America great AGAIN ... which, apparently, means going back in time
to when America WAS great. I can guarantee you, America was NOT great in
the 60s.
No. That's like saying that the Communists are exactly like the Nazis.
Both may be evil, but they are on opposite sides of the political
spectrum.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm still amazed that so many intelligent people in this group - those who
see the evidence in the JFK case for what it obviously is - a simple crime
perpetrated by a single man - cannot see the glaring shortcomings and
conspiracy-laden worldview of our current president. It's baffling to me.
You like simple solutions. Why don't you just call it an accident?
Post by d***@gmail.com
It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.
So you think that only Goobers voted for Donald Trump?
That would be not quite enough votes. He needed some sophisticated white
suburban women.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.
Are you calling Donald Trump stupid? FYI, he can be intelligent and
crazy at the same time.
Post by d***@gmail.com
In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high. That is the group that Hillary
Clinton characterized as the "basket of deplorables" - a very politically
ill-advised characterization but, sadly, accurate.
No, you just add up all those groups to get to 45%.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
an anti-authority, government-distrusting paranoid. But, if you ARE all
those things - you believe in a conspiracy.
Oh, so that's how it works. You get to dictate WHO MUST believe in
conspiracy? All conspiracy or just the JFK assassination?
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Adolf Hitler in a 1927 speech, “We are socialists. We are the
enemies of today’s capitalist system of exploitation … and
we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-06 14:53:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by BOZ
I AM QUITE SURE THAT ALEX JONES IS A LIBERTARIAN. MARSH DO YOU KNOW THAT
JONES BELIEVES THAT JFK'S ASSASSINATION WAS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. DO
YOU AGREE WITH JONES?
In his view of government security agencies, Jones is no different
from unreconstructed 60s leftists.
Not that we have anybody like that here. :-)
.John
In other words, Alex Jones is as misguided and quacky TODAY as
"reconstructed leftists" were in the 60s? Maybe Jones is ALSO trying to
make America great AGAIN ... which, apparently, means going back in time
to when America WAS great. I can guarantee you, America was NOT great in
the 60s.
No. That's like saying that the Communists are exactly like the Nazis.
Both may be evil, but they are on opposite sides of the political
spectrum.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm still amazed that so many intelligent people in this group - those who
see the evidence in the JFK case for what it obviously is - a simple crime
perpetrated by a single man - cannot see the glaring shortcomings and
conspiracy-laden worldview of our current president. It's baffling to me.
You like simple solutions. Why don't you just call it an accident?
Post by d***@gmail.com
It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.
So you think that only Goobers voted for Donald Trump?
That would be not quite enough votes. He needed some sophisticated white
suburban women.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.
Are you calling Donald Trump stupid? FYI, he can be intelligent and
crazy at the same time.
Post by d***@gmail.com
In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high. That is the group that Hillary
Clinton characterized as the "basket of deplorables" - a very politically
ill-advised characterization but, sadly, accurate.
No, you just add up all those groups to get to 45%.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
an anti-authority, government-distrusting paranoid. But, if you ARE all
those things - you believe in a conspiracy.
Oh, so that's how it works. You get to dictate WHO MUST believe in
conspiracy? All conspiracy or just the JFK assassination?
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Adolf Hitler in a 1927 speech, ???We are socialists. We are the
enemies of today???s capitalist system of exploitation ??? and
we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.???
Adolf Hitler was sent by Army Intelligence to infiltrate Communist groups
and spy on them for the German government. When he infiltrated the
National Socialists he found it very easy to take it ove for himself and
HE turned it into the Nazi Party.

Obviously he would not say that in 1941 when HE was the system.
BOZ
2018-06-07 01:19:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by BOZ
I AM QUITE SURE THAT ALEX JONES IS A LIBERTARIAN. MARSH DO YOU KNOW THAT
JONES BELIEVES THAT JFK'S ASSASSINATION WAS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. DO
YOU AGREE WITH JONES?
In his view of government security agencies, Jones is no different
from unreconstructed 60s leftists.
Not that we have anybody like that here. :-)
.John
In other words, Alex Jones is as misguided and quacky TODAY as
"reconstructed leftists" were in the 60s? Maybe Jones is ALSO trying to
make America great AGAIN ... which, apparently, means going back in time
to when America WAS great. I can guarantee you, America was NOT great in
the 60s.
No. That's like saying that the Communists are exactly like the Nazis.
Both may be evil, but they are on opposite sides of the political
spectrum.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm still amazed that so many intelligent people in this group - those who
see the evidence in the JFK case for what it obviously is - a simple crime
perpetrated by a single man - cannot see the glaring shortcomings and
conspiracy-laden worldview of our current president. It's baffling to me.
You like simple solutions. Why don't you just call it an accident?
Post by d***@gmail.com
It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.
So you think that only Goobers voted for Donald Trump?
That would be not quite enough votes. He needed some sophisticated white
suburban women.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.
Are you calling Donald Trump stupid? FYI, he can be intelligent and
crazy at the same time.
Post by d***@gmail.com
In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high. That is the group that Hillary
Clinton characterized as the "basket of deplorables" - a very politically
ill-advised characterization but, sadly, accurate.
No, you just add up all those groups to get to 45%.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
an anti-authority, government-distrusting paranoid. But, if you ARE all
those things - you believe in a conspiracy.
Oh, so that's how it works. You get to dictate WHO MUST believe in
conspiracy? All conspiracy or just the JFK assassination?
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Adolf Hitler in a 1927 speech, ???We are socialists. We are the
enemies of today???s capitalist system of exploitation ??? and
we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.???
Adolf Hitler was sent by Army Intelligence to infiltrate Communist groups
and spy on them for the German government. When he infiltrated the
National Socialists he found it very easy to take it ove for himself and
HE turned it into the Nazi Party.
Obviously he would not say that in 1941 when HE was the system.
HE WAS THE SYSTEM? HITLER WAS THE SYSTEM. SOUNDS LIKE LEFTWING DOCTRINE. EXTREME LEFTWING IS TOTAL GOVERNMENT. EXTREME RIGHT IS NO GOVERNMENT. HOW CAN HITLER BE RIGHTWING IF HE IS THE SYSTEM?
BOZ
2018-06-05 20:38:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by BOZ
I AM QUITE SURE THAT ALEX JONES IS A LIBERTARIAN. MARSH DO YOU KNOW THAT
JONES BELIEVES THAT JFK'S ASSASSINATION WAS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. DO
YOU AGREE WITH JONES?
In his view of government security agencies, Jones is no different
from unreconstructed 60s leftists.
Not that we have anybody like that here. :-)
.John
In other words, Alex Jones is as misguided and quacky TODAY as
"reconstructed leftists" were in the 60s? Maybe Jones is ALSO trying to
make America great AGAIN ... which, apparently, means going back in time
to when America WAS great. I can guarantee you, America was NOT great in
the 60s.
No. That's like saying that the Communists are exactly like the Nazis.
Both may be evil, but they are on opposite sides of the political
spectrum.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm still amazed that so many intelligent people in this group - those who
see the evidence in the JFK case for what it obviously is - a simple crime
perpetrated by a single man - cannot see the glaring shortcomings and
conspiracy-laden worldview of our current president. It's baffling to me.
You like simple solutions. Why don't you just call it an accident?
Post by d***@gmail.com
It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.
So you think that only Goobers voted for Donald Trump?
That would be not quite enough votes. He needed some sophisticated white
suburban women.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.
Are you calling Donald Trump stupid? FYI, he can be intelligent and
crazy at the same time.
Post by d***@gmail.com
In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high. That is the group that Hillary
Clinton characterized as the "basket of deplorables" - a very politically
ill-advised characterization but, sadly, accurate.
No, you just add up all those groups to get to 45%.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
an anti-authority, government-distrusting paranoid. But, if you ARE all
those things - you believe in a conspiracy.
Oh, so that's how it works. You get to dictate WHO MUST believe in
conspiracy? All conspiracy or just the JFK assassination?
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
HITLER'S PARTY WAS CALLED National Socialist German Workers' Party
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-08 00:59:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by BOZ
I AM QUITE SURE THAT ALEX JONES IS A LIBERTARIAN. MARSH DO YOU KNOW THAT
JONES BELIEVES THAT JFK'S ASSASSINATION WAS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. DO
YOU AGREE WITH JONES?
In his view of government security agencies, Jones is no different
from unreconstructed 60s leftists.
Not that we have anybody like that here. :-)
.John
In other words, Alex Jones is as misguided and quacky TODAY as
"reconstructed leftists" were in the 60s? Maybe Jones is ALSO trying to
make America great AGAIN ... which, apparently, means going back in time
to when America WAS great. I can guarantee you, America was NOT great in
the 60s.
No. That's like saying that the Communists are exactly like the Nazis.
Both may be evil, but they are on opposite sides of the political
spectrum.
Post by d***@gmail.com
I'm still amazed that so many intelligent people in this group - those who
see the evidence in the JFK case for what it obviously is - a simple crime
perpetrated by a single man - cannot see the glaring shortcomings and
conspiracy-laden worldview of our current president. It's baffling to me.
You like simple solutions. Why don't you just call it an accident?
Post by d***@gmail.com
It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.
So you think that only Goobers voted for Donald Trump?
That would be not quite enough votes. He needed some sophisticated white
suburban women.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.
Are you calling Donald Trump stupid? FYI, he can be intelligent and
crazy at the same time.
Post by d***@gmail.com
In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high. That is the group that Hillary
Clinton characterized as the "basket of deplorables" - a very politically
ill-advised characterization but, sadly, accurate.
No, you just add up all those groups to get to 45%.
Post by d***@gmail.com
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
an anti-authority, government-distrusting paranoid. But, if you ARE all
those things - you believe in a conspiracy.
Oh, so that's how it works. You get to dictate WHO MUST believe in
conspiracy? All conspiracy or just the JFK assassination?
Post by d***@gmail.com
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
HITLER'S PARTY WAS CALLED National Socialist German Workers' Party
Yes, and they were originally a Communist party. Hitler took it over and
turned it into a Fascist party.
BOZ
2018-06-04 19:41:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by BOZ
I AM QUITE SURE THAT ALEX JONES IS A LIBERTARIAN. MARSH DO YOU KNOW THAT
JONES BELIEVES THAT JFK'S ASSASSINATION WAS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. DO
YOU AGREE WITH JONES?
In his view of government security agencies, Jones is no different
from unreconstructed 60s leftists.
Not that we have anybody like that here. :-)
.John
In other words, Alex Jones is as misguided and quacky TODAY as
"reconstructed leftists" were in the 60s? Maybe Jones is ALSO trying to
make America great AGAIN ... which, apparently, means going back in time
to when America WAS great. I can guarantee you, America was NOT great in
the 60s.
I'm still amazed that so many intelligent people in this group - those who
see the evidence in the JFK case for what it obviously is - a simple crime
perpetrated by a single man - cannot see the glaring shortcomings and
conspiracy-laden worldview of our current president. It's baffling to me.
It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.
In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high. That is the group that Hillary
Clinton characterized as the "basket of deplorables" - a very politically
ill-advised characterization but, sadly, accurate.
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
an anti-authority, government-distrusting paranoid. But, if you ARE all
those things - you believe in a conspiracy.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
DAVID DO YOU EXPECT TRUMP TO INVADE THE FORTRESS OF LOUISBOURG IN CAPE
BRETON NOVA SCOTIA?
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-05 16:38:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by d***@gmail.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by BOZ
I AM QUITE SURE THAT ALEX JONES IS A LIBERTARIAN. MARSH DO YOU KNOW THAT
JONES BELIEVES THAT JFK'S ASSASSINATION WAS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. DO
YOU AGREE WITH JONES?
In his view of government security agencies, Jones is no different
from unreconstructed 60s leftists.
Not that we have anybody like that here. :-)
.John
In other words, Alex Jones is as misguided and quacky TODAY as
"reconstructed leftists" were in the 60s? Maybe Jones is ALSO trying to
make America great AGAIN ... which, apparently, means going back in time
to when America WAS great. I can guarantee you, America was NOT great in
the 60s.
I'm still amazed that so many intelligent people in this group - those who
see the evidence in the JFK case for what it obviously is - a simple crime
perpetrated by a single man - cannot see the glaring shortcomings and
conspiracy-laden worldview of our current president. It's baffling to me.
It only serves to confirm my belief that attaching oneself to weird things
is not a sole province of the unintelligent. This is why I found Michael
Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" so fascinating.
Intelligence and education-level often have an orthogonal relationship
with what one believes. There are so many other factors.
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
necessarily stupid. But, if you ARE stupid, the likelihood that you
believe there was a conspiracy is astronomically high.
In the same way, not everybody who is a Trump supporter is a xenophobic,
homophobic, racist, gun-loving, Christian zealot (because Trump is
Pro-Life). But if you ARE a xenophobic, homophobic, racist, gun-loving,
Christian zealot (single issue voter), the probability that you are a
Trump supporter is astronomically high. That is the group that Hillary
Clinton characterized as the "basket of deplorables" - a very politically
ill-advised characterization but, sadly, accurate.
Not everybody who believes in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is
an anti-authority, government-distrusting paranoid. But, if you ARE all
those things - you believe in a conspiracy.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
DAVID DO YOU EXPECT TRUMP TO INVADE THE FORTRESS OF LOUISBOURG IN CAPE
BRETON NOVA SCOTIA?
Staples was just hacked by China. Why doesn't Trump ever want to invade
China?
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-03 17:38:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by A PSY DOC
https://www.poll-maker.com/results582529x14164d8d-25#tab-1
Oh. Goody. A poll from 50+ years later (from a whiny liberal site)
I like that. Whiny Liberal Site. Did you just make that up all by
yourself? So you'd agree with it if it came from a whiny Conservative
Site? Do you understand that Alex Jones is a conservative and favorite of
your hero Trump? So when HE comes up with crazy conspiracy theories, YOU
have to believe HIM.
Breakfast with Lee Harvey Oswald?
Post by Jason Burke
answered by a bunch of maroons who probably weren't even born in '63.
Yeah. That's reliable. And accurate.
I AM QUITE SURE THAT ALEX JONES IS A LIBERTARIAN. MARSH DO YOU KNOW THAT
JONES BELIEVES THAT JFK'S ASSASSINATION WAS THE RESULT OF A CONSPIRACY. DO
YOU AGREE WITH JONES?
No. Excuse me, but I just pointed out to McAdams that Alex Jones is a
conspiracy believer. You can call him a Libertarian, but that's just a
polite word for Nazi, like Bannon.
Jason Burke
2018-06-02 17:22:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by A PSY DOC
https://www.poll-maker.com/results582529x14164d8d-25#tab-1
Oh. Goody. A poll from 50+ years later (from a whiny liberal site)
I like that. Whiny Liberal Site. Did you just make that up all by
yourself? So you'd agree with it if it came from a whiny Conservative
Site? Do you understand that Alex Jones is a conservative and favorite
of your hero Trump? So when HE comes up with crazy conspiracy theories,
YOU have to believe HIM.
Breakfast with Lee Harvey Oswald?
Do you have to work hard to say something more foolish today than you
came up with yesterday, Anthony Anthony?

Or does it just come naturally, day after day?

In any case, it's pretty impressive.

Perhaps you wrote a BASIC program to do it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
answered by a bunch of maroons who probably weren't even born in '63.
Yeah. That's reliable. And accurate.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-03 17:40:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by A PSY DOC
https://www.poll-maker.com/results582529x14164d8d-25#tab-1
Oh. Goody. A poll from 50+ years later (from a whiny liberal site)
I like that. Whiny Liberal Site. Did you just make that up all by
yourself? So you'd agree with it if it came from a whiny Conservative
Site? Do you understand that Alex Jones is a conservative and favorite
of your hero Trump? So when HE comes up with crazy conspiracy
theories, YOU have to believe HIM.
Breakfast with Lee Harvey Oswald?
Do you have to work hard to say something more foolish today than you
came up with yesterday, Anthony Anthony?
Can you do anything else except post personal insults every day?
Ever read a book or some documents?
Post by Jason Burke
Or does it just come naturally, day after day?
In any case, it's pretty impressive.
Perhaps you wrote a BASIC program to do it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
answered by a bunch of maroons who probably weren't even born in '63.
Yeah. That's reliable. And accurate.
Anthony Marsh
2018-05-31 03:32:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A PSY DOC
https://www.poll-maker.com/results582529x14164d8d-25#tab-1
Even I would not cite that. It is not a real opinion poll. It is not a
random sample.

The only thing interesting about it was the breakdown of how many
conspiracy believers blamed which group. Guess what led with 25%?
bigdog
2018-05-31 03:37:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A PSY DOC
https://www.poll-maker.com/results582529x14164d8d-25#tab-1
This is hardly a scientific poll given that there was no effort to mimic
the population as a whole. It isn't representative of public opinion.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-01 03:01:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by A PSY DOC
https://www.poll-maker.com/results582529x14164d8d-25#tab-1
This is hardly a scientific poll given that there was no effort to mimic
the population as a whole. It isn't representative of public opinion.
Mimic? I didn't know the goal was to mimic.
How about satirize?
Loading...