Robert Bonomo on how 9-11 Truthers defeated Hillary |336|

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Dec 20, 2016.

  1. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,615
    Robert Bonomo on how 9-11 Truthers defeated Hillary |336|
    by Alex Tsakiris | Dec 21 | Skepticism

    Share
    Tweet
    SHARES0
    [​IMG]

    Robert Bonomo is a Gnostic 9-11 Truther who reads Tarot and writes for “deplorable” websites — my kind of alt-media journalist.[​IMG]
    photo by: Skeptiko
    Alex Tsakiris:
    Today’s guest is a blogger, novelist, a anarcho-capitalist—we’ll have to ask him about that one— and a part-time Tarot reader with a Gnostic bent… sounds like a great Skeptiko guest already, hey?

    Now, if you visit Robert Bonomo’s excellent website, The Cactus Land, you’ll be introduced to the wide ranging interest he has and a lot of his writings, which we’re going to talk about today, but you won’t quite be prepared for today’s interview because we are going to take it in a slightly different direction….

    Alex Tsakiris: …I mean, for people who weren’t following it, or are outside the United States, this was not an election of Donald Trump, this was a repudiation of Hillary Clinton and The Establishment…

    Robert Bonomo: Oh, yeah. I think totally, it was a vote against mainstream media. It was a vote for a lot of skeptical views, even conspiracy views.

    Alex Tsakiris: Exactly.

    Robert Bonomo: How many Trump voters do you think are skeptical of the official version of 9/11, for example? Something nobody talks about. Nobody talks about that.
     
    Reece, Hurmanetar and Trancestate like this.
  2. "Did the 2016 US presidential election represent the kind of dramatic shift we're talking about here, or is it more just business as usual?"

    Are you asking about what the voters said, or what will happen over the next four years?

    If you are asking about the voters, then it is a dramatic shift.

    "Donald Trump is the only person in history to be elected president of the United States without having held a prominent public office or military command, the only one to have paid for his own campaign for the nomination, the only one to have run successfully against the leadership and all the principal factions of both parties, the oldest and wealthiest person to be elected, and the first of a business background. He ran against the system, both parties, and almost all the media and the polls, to “drain the swamp,” against the OBushtons: all the Clintons and Obamas and Bushes"

    "Trump’s positions follow the contours not of movement conservatism but of American folk nationalism, often known as Jacksonianism....Jacksonians characteristically emphasize anti-elitism and egalitarianism while drawing a sharp distinction between members of the folk group and those outside it....Jacksonians don’t fit easily into either the liberal or the conservative camp; they are the “radical middle.”...When Jacksonians take up politics, they do so with a vengeance, and Jacksonian uprisings have overturned the American political order more than once. But Jacksonians tend to be quiet politically when things are going well. Much of the time, it’s easy for elites to misread them as supporters of other movements, forget them, or take them for granted."

    "the gender card doesn’t work any more either. Trump is a feminist’s worst nightmare. He won anyway. He came close enough to winning the entire female vote to trigger bitter post-election denunciations of American women in general by feminists"


    "Don’t they realize Republicans just use them every four years, and then screw them?” I have heard some version of this over and over again, and it’s actually a sentiment the WWC agrees with, which is why they rejected the Republican establishment this year. But to them, the Democrats are no better."

    If you are asking about the next four years, I think we have to wait and see, and it depends on what you think business as usual is, what you think the "swamp" is.
    The never seen before level of effort to derail and delegitimize the results of the election, the efforts to disenfranchise Trump voters, to the point where more democrat electors changed their votes than Trump electors, means someone thinks this was more than business as usual.

    "If you want to go against established interests, huge government bureaucracies, multinational corporations, and investment banks, you need people who know how they work from the inside.
    "

    http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/the-donald-trump-thread.3146/page-123#post-103883

    But some of his [Trump's] cabinet nominees seem to be against the very existence or purpose of the agencies they are nominated to run.
    • His nominee for dept of labor is a fast food mogul, an industry known for low wages.
    • His nominee for the EPA is a global warming skeptic.
    • His nominee for department of energy was a candidate in the republican primaries during which he vowed to eliminate that department if elected president.
    • His nominee for department of education is a strong proponent of charter schools that are run by private, not government, organizations.
    • Trump himself has taken a phone call from Taiwan, something no other president has done in decades.
    • His ambassador to Israel wants to move the embassy to Jerusalem.
    • Trump's nominee for homeland security is a retired general, someone who should know something about defending borders. Trump a wants to end illegal immigration and H1-B visa abuse, which is the opposite of what the corporate establishment wants because they benefit from cheap labor, and the opposite of what democrat politicians want.
    Trump's tweets about airforce one and the F35 indicate he is going to run military procurement programs like a businessman not like a government (establishment) employee looking for a job at a defense contractor (establishment). He plans to use the same negotiation skills for his infrastructure spending to get the most value for taxpayers instead using them as boondoggles for senators and corporations.

    Trump, a billionaire who spent much of his own money on his campaign, is much less dependent on corporate and special interest donation than other candidates.

    ... I do think Trump wants to take the status quo and turn it upside down and shake it until the government does not resemble anything we have seen before in this country.

    Furthermore I think we have to wait and see what happens when Trump is in office. If you want to go against established interests, huge government bureaucracies, multinational corporations, and investment banks, you need people who know how they work from the inside.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2016
    Vault313 and Judith like this.
  3. E.Flowers

    E.Flowers New

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,052
    Unfortunately, I don't think that most Americans really care about 9/11 anymore, the majority seems perfectly content with the official narrative. For that matter, a lot of groups claim to have defeated Hilary, but for the most part, she defeated herself by being hyper-establishment friendly. Although I'm sure that bringing in a bunch of SJWs as key figures in her campaign accelerated that as well, since a lot people feel that political correctness became way too intrusive during the last few years.
     
    Vault313 and gabriel like this.
  4. JD1

    JD1 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2016
    Messages:
    33
    There was a lot for me to disagree with in this episode.

    For one thing, I don't know how anyone can characterize Trump's "victory" as somehow being a blow against the establishment. Trump is more establishment than Clinton could ever hope to be, and he's filling his prospective cabinet with plutocrats and generals, several of whom are actively opposed to the very existence of the departments they'll be leading if they're confirmed. I also don't understand how Alex and Robert could talk about this election being some kind of statement from the people, when the fact is that the people voted for Clinton. Clinton got nearly three million more votes. In any sane election system, she'd be the president-elect. Trump only "won" by squeaking by in a few swing states. The only reason Trump is president-elect is that our system (unfairly and undemocratically) makes one vote from a Montana resident worth more than a thousand votes from California residents. This is the second time in less than twenty years that our system has handed the White House to a dangerous buffoon who lost the election.

    I was also quite surprised that Alex and Robert, who both seem to have an interest in various conspiracy theories, didn't say one word about Russia's involvement in this election, and the fact that the Russians' intention was specifically to install Trump. And then once Trump is "elected", he chooses Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobil, as Secretary of State - a man who was given a Medal of Friendship from Vladimir Putin himself, and whose half-trillion dollar oil deal with the Russians, which went against both US interests and environmental concerns, was stopped by US sanctions on Russia that Trump will now conveniently have the power to rescind. The US government knew what the Russians were doing before the election, and wanted to tell the public, but they insisted on making sure the Republicans were on board so it wouldn't look like Obama was using the CIA to help Clinton win. Of course, the effort to release the information was stopped by Mitch McConnell, whose wife is now slated to become Trump's Secretary of Transportation. How convenient.

    As for the libertarian/AnCap stuff? I have no idea why anyone would think corporate rule would be better than government rule. At least governments are theoretically supposed to answer to the people, and occasionally do. Not so for corporations.

    Now for Alex's question at the end: Does this election represent some kind of big shift, or will it just be business as usual?
    It'll be business as usual, only even worse, because the horrendously unqualified president-elect is planning to fill the government with more horrendously unqualified people directly under him. It would appear that he only wants to drain the swamp so he can turn it into a cesspool instead. The Tweeter-In-Chief will run things into the ground, a Democratic president will be elected to clean up his mess, and then, after the Democrat has had some moderate success fixing things despite Republican resistance, the country will turn stupid again and put another Republican in office for some reason, and the cycle will repeat itself once more. And that's the best case scenario. Worst case scenario is that he gets us all killed by starting a nuclear war.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2016
    Psiclops, lhl, north and 4 others like this.
  5. E.Flowers

    E.Flowers New

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,052
    Perhaps, but he was not carrying the burden of actually cheating a distinctly anti-establishment candidate out of the race. Besides that, it's all about perception, and he played his cards well by defying the old GOP heads at every turn.
     
    Vault313 and Trancestate like this.
  6. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,127
    Alex's question at the end of the show is an interesting one, which I've been pondering for a while. Although I'm a Brit, I stayed up to watch the US presidential election because I had stayed up on a previous occasion to watch the results of the Brexit vote, which I could hardly believe, and wondered if this would be another case of the same kind of thing.

    What kind of thing? Maybe we've reached a tipping point in the West where the influence of the Internet has finally become more prevalent than that of the legacy media. It only seems like a shock, but it's been brewing for quite some time. People like Alvin Toffler and his wife Heidi can be seen discussing their lives and works in 1995:



    They mention here that they had ceased being political-party-based, and, of course, discussed Future Shock and The Third Wave. They didn't get all their predictions right, naturally, but I think it's fair to say they got a fair number right.

    One question is, will the elites try to control upcoming changes? They can't stop them, so that would be a logical thing for them to try (and maybe the "fake news" thing is just an opening salvo). Maybe we'll face, 32 years after the originally floated date, the prospect of George Orwell's 1984. Maybe perpetual war is on the horizon; maybe it's already started, who knows. Or maybe some sort of mass revolution, hardly less destructive, will occur.

    Whatever, the world is likely in for interesting times; still, the Chinese word for crisis comprises two characters, one for danger and the other for opportunity, and so eventually some good might come of it, but it's hard to see us avoiding at least some of the danger component.

    The thing quietly simmering away in the background is the thought of nuclear war/terrorism, which we forgot for a while after the fall of the Berlin wall. If some dumbass Islamic terrorist were to get hold of a nuclear bomb and blow it up in his favoured Kuffar location, the lord only knows what would happen, but my guess is, it'd make Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lybia and all the rest look like a kindergarten.

    What I'm worrying, I suppose, is that maybe while we're all agonising over things like whether or not the elites will try to control and to further the "new world order", whether there are any number of paradigm shifts about to materialise, and so on, events will take over and we'll all have different fish to fry.
     
  7. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,127
    I'm no great fan of Trump, but frankly, as I've said before, if you live in California or some other coastal states, you knew that under the electoral college system, your vote for Trump wouldn't count, because of the majority Democrat vote there. Hence you quite likely wouldn't have turned out to vote.

    On the other hand, if election of the president by popular vote were to be the system in operation, Trump voters could have voted for him secure in the knowledge that their vote would count. Who knows? There could have been millions extra who would have turned out to vote for him and maybe he'd have won anyway. You're trying to compare apples to oranges, and a move by Democrats to alter the electoral system could end up biting them in the backside.

    You just watch: the Democrats won't seek to change the electoral system because they know they tend to predominate in the Coastal states. They won't want to throw that away.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2016
    Steve likes this.
  8. The articles of confederation are looking better all the time:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation#Operation
    "After the war, nationalists, especially those who had been active in the Continental Army, complained that the Articles were too weak for an effective government. There was no president, no executive agencies, no judiciary and no tax base."
     
  9.  
  10. http://theweek.com/articles/668508/electoral-college-actually-awesome

    Unlike governors, whose state governments have total sovereignty within their borders, the presidency governs over states with their own sovereignty under the Constitution. The role of the presidency is at least somewhat limited to foreign policy and questions that are at least loosely connected to interstate issues and enforcement of other provisions of the Constitution. For that reason, the framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that the president would have the greatest consensus among the sovereign states themselves, while still including representation based on population.

    That is why each state gets the same number of electors as they have seats in the House and the Senate. It reduces the advantage that larger states have, but hardly eliminates it entirely; California has 55 electors while Wyoming has only three, to use the Times' comparison. Rather than being an "antiquated system," as they write, it's an elegant system that helps balance power between sovereign states with national popular intent, and it forces presidential contenders to appeal to a broader range of populations.

     
    Trancestate likes this.
  11. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,045
    A common misconception.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel and Trancestate like this.
  12. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,461
    Alex,

    I am just listening to that great interview, but I had to make two immediately comments.

    I can understand why you thought the establishment would manage to win regardless, but I think what everyone forgot was that the media lulled the Clinton campaign into complacency.

    I live outside the US, of course, but make no mistake, we were all watching this - because we could all see that this election might be make or break world peace.

    David
     
  13. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,615
    yeah, it's a strange paradox... as the MSM (which was shown by Wikileaks to be totally biased and ethically compromised) actually undermined their corrupt purposes.
     
  14. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,461
    I'm not saying this can't happen, but one interesting fact is that nuclear weapons (at least use to) need refurbishing at regular intervals. The radiation from the fissile material warps the metal components (and probably fouls up the electronics) so they distort out of shape so you don't get the required spherical implosion. I do wonder if stolen warheads would actually work by the time they were used.

    David
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  15. E.Flowers

    E.Flowers New

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    1,052
    I suspect that even if the hardware or other components are damaged, the leftovers would be useful for making one hell of a dirty bomb.
     
    Ian Gordon, Sciborg_S_Patel and malf like this.
  16. Business as usual. Economic interest influencing elections, pundits and internet-personalities like "911 truthers who defeated Hilary Clinton" misread this as some kind of important message about their own relevance or as a barometer of where the country is at.

    Obama won in 2008 for the same reason Trump won in 2012. "It's the economy, stupid" remains as valid as ever.

    And if predictions of a recession are correct it's why Trump will lose - regardless of his own policies/merits, or lack thereof - in 2020.
     
    Ian Gordon and malf like this.
  17. Trancestate

    Trancestate Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    406
    You might have to be a libertarian to appreciate the hilarity of this clever video, from the folks at Reason.com:




    Murray Christmas to all! :)

    Doug
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2016
  18. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,615
    nice. I like the Atlas Shrug :)
     
    Trancestate and Sciborg_S_Patel like this.
  19. Hahaha genius!

    I thought the funniest part had happened and then the next gag would show up...
     
    Trancestate likes this.
  20. Hurmanetar

    Hurmanetar New

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2015
    Messages:
    2,377
    Home Page:
    I obviously liked this episode. :)
     
    malf, Ian Gordon and Sciborg_S_Patel like this.

Share This Page