Kirk Gallaway

W. I gleaned your very good article in the Political Discussions forum . It does seem like the one issue where I would have preferred Obama as President over Biden is the Israel Hamas War. As Obama was rightfully opposing  Netanyahu and it almost appears that Biden started out  using "atonement" with Bibi for Obama's sins for offending him!

Obviously Bibi was very upset at Obama's peace accords with Iran and was very happy when Trump came in and pulled every lever with Trump to make sure he destroyed it. Of course, when Bibi came to Washington, he completely bypassed and snubbed meeting Obama and talked directly and wooed favor from the Republican Congress, who love him!

Hey, I'm for decreased U.S. Defense expenditures. But there seems to be a  sort of myopic projection back to the 60's here about the current U.S. military establishment. Correct me where I'm wrong, but from what I gleaned, it's worth  mentioning  that all of Trump's first cabinet military leaders were very much in favor of keeping the Iran peace initiatives as well as the MIC (Rex Tillerson), until Trump replaced them and Mike Pompeo, a known Iran hawk,  became Trump's Secretary of State. 

I think the world, at this time  would be at least a little closer to Peace if we had better relations with Iran,. though I don't claim to know the ins and outs of the Iran Peace initiative. 

I know the Iranians were hoping to start it up again when Trump left office.  But Biden's put a lot more conditions on it and it failed, to Bibi's delight! Why do you think Biden jettisoned it?

Former Australian P.M Malcolm Turnbull says "When Trump's with Putin, it's like a 12 year  old who goes to High School and meets the captain of the High School football team.

Trump, the other day: "How many judges do I have to endure until  somebody steps in?

Somebody steps in? to do what Donald? To attack the judges or kill them?"

On 4/13/2024 at 1:12 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Kirk Galloway has suggested that the Water Cooler threads be moved back to this -- the JFK Assassination Debate -- forum. (That's not exactly his idea, but it is the only way his idea can be achieved.) They currently reside outside this forum, near the Political Discussions forum.

Kirk's goal is to make it easy to see if there is a new post to read, and to make it a bit quicker to navigate to.

William Niederhut reminisces how interesting the old "56 Year" was when many forum members were participating. Unfortunately that thread met its demise when it was -- in some members' opinions -- spammed by individuals who believe in "alternate news." It was ultimately closed from further posts due to endless bickering related to that issue.

I later opened up the Water Cooler threads in an effort to restore the "56 Year" thread general discussion. I segregated the Cooler by "news type belief" (mainstream vs. alternate vs. both ) to satisfy the "spam" averse members and to keep the peace.

Generally speaking, this has worked out well for mainstream news believers. For some reason, alternate news believers don't post there.

The downsides of the Water Coolers are what Kirk and William have expressed concern about, as noted above:

1. More difficult to use.
2. Loss of participation.

 

I am considering the following solution to these problems: Move the Water Cooler threads to this forum, but keep them segregated. Members would be allowed to post on any topic they choose, as long as their post didn't cross the news-type line of segregation. (Posting to the "both types" Cooler would allow any news-type post.)

Doing this would definitely satisfy Kirk's desire of making it easy to see when there is a new post, and making it easier to navigate to. But I don't know if it would increase participation. The latter, in my opinion, would be of greater value than the former.

I am opening this topic up to discussion. Any suggestions? What can be done to increase participation?

 

Sandy,  As far as redefining the cooler descriptions. I'm used to it. I think by reading the descriptions of the 3 coolers, it's easy to understand your intentions. Maybe Cliff can give you a better description.

To address your earlier post, Sandy. I also became disgusted with the direction of the 56 year thread  and quit. You notice I didn't post at all in at least the final 10 pages.

It's a tough job. But IMO a certain individual in particular was allowed to get out of control when they could have been nipped in the bud much earlier.

I saw it all coming. To me, it became like the LAPD  during the Rodney King riots. I think the mods just let it go completely to sh-t so we could get rid of it.

I wasn't around for the end.  I read it yesterday, and in the last couple of pages , there were people trying to re civilize the conversation.

13 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Attachments.  There's no edit function in a locked thread.

"For those who believe mainstream contemporary facts."  I find that off-putting.

Ok, That's Sandy's definition. I would have worded it differently. But you see it in distinction to the other 2 topics,  so you see what he's going for and you can open it up and see.

I thought Sandy did it pretty well, and you challenge the other side on the third option if you are so inclined.

Cory, in your honor, maybe we should change the name of  this thread to "Sleuth of Ruth"       heh heh     You know I like you.

Ok, Let's focus, and wrap this up. I don't need diversions about Cliff, and .Imdb, and this has nothing to do with whether Ruth knew the parade route. You asked this. 

4 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Namely, why she did not go down to the parade with Marina and children?

And I answered one of several reasons that haven't already been given, that is they are 2 women with 4 children under 4 and may not like the prospect of minding them in big crowds. If you don't understand that answer, my guess is that married with children in Cory's life could be a very rude awakening!

You might skip it!

heh heh

Don't be coy. So you got 4 kids under 4, and one of them is a month old,  and your wife loves to take them to parades?

Well you're not typical.

? Why can't I just go to Cory?

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Because the 56 years thread is locked, I can't edit out attachments.  Anyway around this?

Cliff, So you want to delete some of your links?  I was able to go there and  copy links. Go to "Political discussions", you'll see it there.

I don't know if maybe the reason you haven't posted in the water cooler is because it's kind of confusing the way it is now.

I'm trying to correct that and make it easier.

You did bring this up before Cory.

2 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

For example, she chose to shop rather than see the president- interestingly Ruby wanted nothing of Dealey plaza either.  

Of course, why wasn't everybody in Dallas there?

Cory:  Namely, why she did not go down to the parade with Marina and children?

Do you have kids Cory?  Ruth Paine had 2 kids 4 and 2. Marina had 2 kids, one kid was 1 and a half, and one daughter was one month old!

I assume if you had kids, that question wouldn't be such a mystery.

In the 80's, Bibi confidently brags about how he owns us!

Ben, The 56 year thread is permanently closed. I never suggested the 56 year thread would be moved on to this main page.

What I suggested is if you pick the Water Cooler thread option on this JFK side, there would  be a picture of the latest poster as  in every other thread. And by clicking it, it  would take you directly to the water cooler page, where you could still post your alternative view option.. It would save time and clicks.

At a certain point, just as in Ukraine, you have to draw the line when a country invades another's country's sovereignty. Israel escalated their conflict by invading Syria and bombing Iran's embassy.Then  Biden won't stand up to Bibi about it. So now It's obvious Iran did a largely telegraphed ineffectual bombing back to save face but not to escalate a conflict with a superior opponent. The result is called "bullying." And Biden' doesn't have the balls to publicly call out Bibi on it. And Bibi  got away with another one..

I'm watching CNN and this Jim Sciutto  who now has a book about geopolitics (I thought he was a news anchor!) and he asked hopefully of a guest if this incident might help  break the U.S. logjam and get more funding for Israel!

It must be a secure feeling for Bibi to know  that he can just bomb a foreign country and have the American taxpayer empty his pockets to stake the Israeli War Machine even further.

Now this morning I see ABC's Martha Raddatz, war groupie, aching to go on assignment is somewhat exhilarated but "cautious."

Obviously the U.S. is so powerful no civilized countries in Europe who wonder why is the U.S. is so in bed with Israel about this, would dare utter anything in opposition. 

Welcome, Kevin, that was a good interview..

I agree with you it was not the oil depletion allowance or the right wing hard monetarists claims that JFK wanted to buck the Fed ,and the financial establishment.

The theory that was very prevalent here that was propagated a lot by Oliver Stone and Jim di Eugenio is that the MIC, the mighty generals and big industrialists revolted when they found out JFK was going to pull out of Vietnam. I never bought that. Though I can understand Oliver Stone served his country and wanted to make some sense of it.

13 hours ago, Kevin Balch said:

Regarding Dulles specifically, I listened in on a recorded phone call between Dulles and LBJ/RFK regarding sending Dulles to Mississippi to act as a representative of the federal government and check the progress in the search for the missing civil rights activists.on the progress of the search. I did not sense RFK had any animosity toward Dulles based on the tone of voice.

I agree with your conclusions on this. Though it could hardly be said to be any smoking gun. Maybe about 7 years ago, when the forum IMO was really stagnant and seemed to be moving in lock  step with the Dulles did it declarations of a couple of highly touted authors,  I circulated this phone call in a thread to a stony silent reception.

A couple of years later, when things had loosened up a bit, i posted it again, noting the previous reception  in essence saying "Is there some reason we can't discuss this ? I'd like to hear anybody's reaction " and it was better. But the overwhelming response was that RFK  suspected Dulles of killing his brother just as much as they all did. And was just going undercover and "feeling out" Dulles in the phone call.  I didn't see it that way. i think if RFK had strong suspicions about Dulles, he wasn't the sort to hide it., and despite the well documented hostility between RFK and LBJ, I think they actually were working in tandem  for the good of the country. (oh how could that be!)

 I think  after the assassination  RFK's,  "Your guys did it " to Mc Cone was just a shot in the dark and he was totally overwhelmed with the question of who among the many possibilities could have killed his brother for probably quite a while.

Dulles to RFK :  "What is the timing on this?, I'm on this other commission you know, and we're trying to finish up our work".

https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/secret-white-house-tapes/conversation-allen-dulles-and-robert-kennedy-june-23-1964

2 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

Or maybe he just saw intelligence that proves we really are under threat.

I know it's difficult for some on this board to contemplate sometimes, but there really are other countries in the world more nefarious than the one you live in.

I will say KK has a point that intelligence could just make up BS stories about doomsday threats to Johnson to justify FISA warrants. But to assume that under some situations FISA warrants aren't necessary is just plain naive.

But what kind of BS excuse could intelligence make up to Trump to justify not opening up files on a 60 year assassination?I wouldn't tend to believe any BS excuse Trump could make, as history has shown him a compulsive liar. But what was said?

I don't know how many hundreds of times I've witnessed the trembling at hearing that  Schumer statement here,

Schumer is an institutionalist  and will play up the U.S. as the biggest, baddest, and meanest intelligence organization in the world and it works!, as witnessed by the awe it  inspires by it's the very mention here, particularly among those foreign to the U.S. 

But to those  in Washington, that was not a "limited hangout". There's nothing ominous about that statement other than  a general advisement to be careful who you screw with  that most people understand.

Hey I was asking Sandy in his "Moderator Announcement " thread. What do you guys think of saving time and clicks  and going directly to the water cooler from the JFKA forum, and being able to see from the JFKA forum, the latest poster on the water cooler like all other threads here?

You might check out Sandy and I's dialog on that on the JFKA side.

So you're saying that would make it too accessible for our own good?

Sandy Do you and @W. Niederhut want to return to the days of the "56 years" thread?

Well sure. I'm a big boy.   IMO, that thread  screw up was largely instigated by a very small clique, and one person in particular.

It's not for the idea of getting more forum eyeballs, if you think that's harmful. It's just ease of use, not just for W.and I. but everybody who uses it. Maybe even including you!

Incidentally I should say I agree with this post's judgment. Threatening another member of the forum even as a joke blows!

More unhinged incoherent ramblings

Off topic:

Sandy, i noticed the bottom thread of  the "controversial issues from history" is the Water Cooler thread with a picture of the latest poster.

I've always loved your picture Sandy, in that it makes me want to know who this person is. But your picture does dominate the skyline of this JFK assassination forum, heh heh a joke!, and for those of us who regularly use the water cooler,  as you do, it would be much more direct (fewer clicks ) if we could 1) know if a new poster posted and 2) just go directly to the water cooler page from the JFK forum. 

Could you just put the water cooler page access with the latest poster directly here on the forum as you do on the "Controversial issues in history" page?

Ron: That photo of Rita Palma standing beside Looney Bird Powell means nothing because we don't know if it's real or not.

Yes Ron it could be. Either that or she loves wearing that leopard skin coat.

As far as Palma, This is no danger as she's completely out of her mind if she thinks RK is going to win New York!

RK knows he's not going to win the election barring a Biden heart attack. RK's strategy for maximum leverage is to win one of the purple states Wisconsin, Michigan  and Pennsylvania and hold the balance of power. But he knows if in the last days before the election he doesn't drop out or cut some deal with Biden to drop out and and  urge his voters to vote for him , Trump will be elected. I would suspect this could break up his marriage as Cheryl Hines couldn't rationalize this to her Hollywood crowd and would become a Pariah. She does have  influence as during covid she insisted in donors wearing masks at a  fundraiser at their  house. RK in interviews cleverly always acts like he defers to her.

It's the electoral college that matters and RK isn't going to win one state. So he would be in a super spoiler role. Because  of course his name on the ballot could throw one of those states to Trump.

Of course recent revelations have caused people to think RK is an outright traitor to his Democratic roots.We must be vigilant but I'm nor convinced RK would make himself such a villain and still have no chance of getting the brass ring.If he does that, then we'll  know he was always just a nut case. But I'm not convinced of that just yet.

Actually Matt, I did a little math and it's not such a stretch but not a landslide either.

It was the best voter turnout in years in 2020. If most all of those people vote in 24 and we have say, 5 million more new voters from people coming of age to vote. If my scenario,, (which I don't stand firmly behind) of Trump losing a step and falling  to 4% behind Biden and didn't advance beyond that point, Biden would win by near 12 million! votes.!

After figuring it out, I would say a landslide would be near a 20 million vote margin.

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Cliff,

     RFK, Jr. reminds me of some addicts I have worked with-- or heard about-- who are hostile to psychopharmaceuticals.  There is a subset of recovering addicts who used to harass my former patients in AA or NA for taking antidepressants or mood stabilizers (for depression and bipolar disorder.)

    Ironically, RFK, Jr. has injected heroin and anabolic steroids, while advising people to avoid vaccines and antidepressants.  He's an ignoramus who thinks he's a genius.

    I also noticed-- while watching the documentary, JFK Revisited-- that RFK, Jr. needs psychotherapy.  He was so overwhelmed with grief while talking about the murders of his father and uncle that he couldn't even speak-- more than 50 years after the incidents.

    That's an obvious sign of a person who has avoided working through their PTSD issues in psychotherapy.

    My hunch is that he has avoided working through his grief for 60 years, while taking recreational drugs and acting out his unresolved rage in public-- e.g., toward doctors and other perceived malefactors.

I agree W. I do think there are unresolved PTSD issues with RK. I'm reminded of a story from Stephen Talbot who credits himself with first  turning on RK to the fact that both his Father and Uncle were killed by conspiracies in 2004!  He said RK coming to grips with Talbot's information was rather traumatic and he said his Mother always told the kids to "look ahead and not behind. "

As I've said many times, the Kennedy clan have historically been absolutely useless to the cause and work of the JFKA conspiracy community. And their help could have been critical in the 60's but even so in the 70's . The forum is completely behind the Talbot idea that RFK if elected President would vigorously gone after the people behind  the JFKA conspiracy, But there are only 2 pieces of evidence to that fact, and one isn't evidence at all.  I forget some of the exact details  but Talbot used the word of the wife of Walter Sheridan in his interview,  I believe in the 90's or early 200's, long after Sheridan died.  Talbot seemed to think she was  very credible source but previously Di Eugenio has completely slandered Sheridan for his role in a 1967 CBS documentary that soft pedaled the JFKA. So i pointed out the contradiction there and it wasn't well received.

The other quoted source that it seemed the forum embraced was a RFK aide, Adam Walinsky But when quoted Walinsky said that  the potential RFK Presidential investigation  was something that  was  fraught with danger if it didn't succeed and  would require great deliberation if it was to be pursued. That statement was adopted here as if it was evidence that RFK would positively have launched an investigation into his brother's death, but the statement is very much the opposite, and yet it's now been accepted and bandied about the forum as if it's a hard fact! I'm open to any other evidence.

But back to the point to Talbot's account,  RK  was finally considering that there was a conspiracy behind his Father and Uncle's death at 50 years old! And the excuse he gave for not being curious is that his Mother told all the kids to "look forward."??  He obviously just blotted out the entire chapter of his life. What a therapeutically dumbass thing to say, to your kids,  but typical of the time.

Even though he first started his researching in 2004, It's amazing how people here embrace RK as a real researcher! I'm sure he's now read Douglas, Scott, Talbot and Di Eugenio's, books  which in some cases I think RK could come out after reading with a family Messiah  complex! JMO 

He has a real dummied down, simplistic view of his family's legacy. But now it's pretty obvious he's been using the JFKA to fuel his campaign. He's so conveniently dummyed down, playing  up his family peacemaker image, to "My Dad and Uncle were peacemakers and loved the U.S. S. R. so with the spirit of world peace we should give Putin everything he wants in Ukraine!     This is a f----g travesty!

Ok, right now the good polls are showing the margins to be pretty even, and you're Biden up 12- 15 million. i think most political experts would say you're betting on a sea change.  But I see the direction now as Biden.

So we'll see on Nov. 5th.

Ok, I could see a situation  where we will look back at now as the period where Trump "peaked." In that situation i might think that Trump falls about 4% behind Biden and it stays steady and he never catches up.

That to me is the good realistic situation.

To distinguish what I think from Ron, I think if the election were held today. Biden would squeak by.

In order to have Biden win the election by 12-15 million votes, which I would love.  I think it would be an existential moment of the "king has no clothes", a mass realization and awakening from a slumber, and a complete burnout on Trump.  I would of course, welcome that.

If that were to happen in the next 4 months, which ironically from your perspective would be as result of polling! Under normal circumstances, the RNC under such a collapse could turn 180 degrees against him, even in the last moments before a nominating convention. If not  for the fact, that he completely controls the RNC  now.     heh heh

That's how much every politician from each party respects polling. Some polls are better than others. Polls a year out say nothing.

The reason for this is the average dimwitted unaligned voter is unsure, and has a lot of peer pressure anxiety, and sees being asked for how he'll vote as I see doing my taxes. He puts it off and just follows a sort of, in this case MSM message about inflation, and joins the crowd and adopts the biggest complaint going on. Don't be surprised if oil keeps going up.

As I mentioned in the cooler  the best polls in the 2016, said Hilary was up by 1.5 % but within the margin of error. That is exactly the margin of Hilary's popular victory. But no one was asking about the electoral  college  as if that could never happen again!    duh!

Ok, to clarify, so Biden for say the last year has always been  leading by a landslide and none of the polling is accurate so we will never know the true count until election day, and that will be a landslide for Biden?

So if we assume the 2020 election was accurate, which I do. Biden won 81 to 74 million. Was that by your definition, a landslide?

Ron, I feel the same way after hearing Matt's predictions that I use to feel hearing Michael Cohen on MSNBC. Both are supremely confident that Trump can't win and will end up in jail. I'm not sure if Cohen still feels that way anymore because I don't  see him as much. I did ask Matt why he was so confident. I suggested my hope was that Trump  would fly so far off the deep end,(which he seems to be doing)that everybody would finally recognize that. He didn't respond. It sounds like I'm like you in that I don't have near the faith in the intelligence of the average American that Matt has.

But on the other hand, I do think now that Biden has woken from hibernation, the ads he's running I think are pretty effective and I think the ace in hole  for the Democrats is the Dobb' s  decision. That's a total loser for the Repubs that the Dems can keep pounding home.