Kirk Gallaway

Paul, I can't really figure out what you're saying. But what I notice is you come into threads cold asking me questions that indicate you haven't read anything I previously posted on the thread, and you're doing it again. I've mentioned my problems earlier with Biden and that I want somebody else, just not RFK Jr... Paul:I’d like to know why you are taking this candidacy so personally? I'd say you're taking the RFK Jr. candidacy way too personally. And you've been largely silent about Ben spamming endlessly about RFK Jr. despite our pleas,and the continual hijacking going on by people who want to make every ongoing event in RFK Jr's candidacy a JFKA forum event, and now you're up in arms because I'm trying to substantively dissect RFK' Jr.s responses before a neutral pair of hosts who are more open to conspiracies than the typical MSM hosts. You can't claim these people are trying to railroad Jr's candidacy! As far as Rfk Jr's responses, he said nothing that hit a clear home run with me, and he was given a few easy layups. But I've listened to previous responses from you over the years Paul, about climate change. And now that you've weighed in. I'll ask you Is this acceptable to you?

Wow. This is great! Since Trump is not in jail yet, we can now see our frustration physically vented at some of our best remembered venues by AI! The future looks bright! https://preview.redd.it/7xxkpt76wh6b1.gif?width=480&format=mp4&v=enabled&s=2dd6bff81fede797afaf78ddbf6effb204b5ed54

Thanks Roger. You have some good questions. I'll address them more fully than you did my response to the thread you opened "The relevance of JFK's Peace Speech.... which was no response at all and W's response which you dismissed as a "rant" but as I said later was a serious legitimate question you again never addressed, as you seemed to lose interest in manning your post, which in fairness I realized was hijacked a bit by others giving JFK further accolades. Listen to the tape again. Jr's first in essence asked the question at 11:40. He talks about getting corporate influence out of government institutions which is good, but again he doesn't tell you how.. But there is a one answer fits all, getting the profit motive out of government really involves getting money out of politics, or at least getting these corporate dodges out of campaign laws. Which he could have addressed , but he didn't. eehh ok. But after sort of a circuitous answer Ball asks him specifically the question and he finally addresses that at 14:30, . That he's in favor but doesn't know how realistic a single payer system is. That response was not at all bold. It indicates he'll be a follower rather than a leader to be pursue what he says is his stated goal. That doesn't sound very enthusiastic. Particularly given that this isn't impossible and he has a wind at his back, a 57% majority of U.S. adults who believe that the federal government should ensure all Americans have healthcare coverage. So I said: What about your Father's "I ask about things that never were and ask why not? Jr's statement doesn't really distinguish himself from a politician who has no intention of doing anything about it. And, as I said. That response ends up being a very corporate double talk response, in essence professing good intentions (i believe in a single payer system)but maintains the status quo. (But I don't know how realistic that would be) But Roger, you're ignoring this: RFK JR.--"I believe climate crisis is an existential threat but I don't insist others believe that." and ends by saying, he's not going to be making climate change an issue in his campaign! I'm not sure if RFK's bloodline makes that acceptable to you, but it doesn't for me. So in closing I'll repeat. You have to figure out what you want, be aware of current issues, and demand your candidate wants that, not give in completely because of someone's family ties that you have compassion for.

As evidenced by the hysteric response of the last couple of weeks. For years, asking tough questions about JFK and now RFK Jr. have always been met with a rather cultish response here ignoring all substantive arguments and then blaming the mere asking of those questions on the "MSM Deep State" who of course are out to get the Kennedys! If you can't talk substance. Stop making villains of the people who can. Excuse me but although I don't agree much with Saagar, these people are not "Deep State"! You can tell both Saagar and Ball have great respect for the Kennedy family and the sacrifices they've made. You can also tell both Saagar who is to the right and Ball who is to the left are often left scratching their heads. They'd come back once and sometimes twice with their questions and were disappointed in Rfk Jr's responses. But we all think he's a sincere guy, but unfortunately he comes off as a corporate candidate masquerading as a populist, or with his climate stand, just outright corporate. But where is RFK Jr. really at? I don't think he knows. But he can easily be captivated by people he hangs around with and a few of them, are corporate billionaires. I can tell you even if Corporate America doesn't overwhelmingly endorse Elon Musk, they love the fact that RFK Jr. interviews both Elon Musk and Twitter founder and CEO of Square, Jack Dorsey and loves that RFK Jr said of Musk that he's "rescuing democracy and free speech in America".* Even if they don't especially agree with that statement. They take comfort that Jr's no Bernie Sanders, ( a remote killable prospect) and some of their ilk has power to the throne! You can see the same cycle over and over again in the interview. He enumerates many problems and wants you to know he understands all the them. But regarding policy, he appears looking for a consensus within himself and............. will end up saying................ I don't know. It is ok for a candidate involving very complex questions to sometimes say he doesn't know. But once you're running for President those issues should be at a minimum. But for example saying climate change will not be an issue in his campaign because he doesn't want to ruffle feathers is just abdication. *Yeah tell that to my twitter feed that was interrupted when Musk took over and I had to wade through about 2 weeks of Glenn Greenwald! Who I would only occasionally read previously!

Just to be clear W.. RFK Jr. thinks single payer health, (while allowing others to choose their insurance) is an impossible dream. But it's not at all impossible. That's what prompted me to invoke his Father. "I ask about things that never were and ask why not? He's just been listening to his insurance industry cronies. With RFK JR's 's thinking,, nothing will ever get done. W. _endorsing the scientific validity of the existential crisis of climate change. RFK JR.--"I believe climate crisis is an existential threat but I don't insist others believe that." and ends by saying, he's not going to be making climate change an issue in his campaign! So what good does it do to endlessly recite climate scientists if he doesn't have the courage to even make it an issue in his campaign! W. de-funding America's "forever wars," I'll go with you on that. But others will point out here ,we both disagree about his judgment concerning the Russian invasion of Ukraine. So even 2/3rds of the "good" premise is false. He will fight for neither single payer health care or the climate. But I completely agree with you about the "bad" and the "ugly" but in fairness, they didn't ask him about tax cuts and Social Security. But we know RFK's sort of milquetoast on Trump. He actually more recently called Trump a "great debater" and doubted Biden could hold a candle in a debate with Trump. What RFK Jr. actually seems to have forgot. Trump and Biden did debate ....in 2020. We know in the first debate when Trump was thrashing around like a child that he was coming on to covid infection, and possibly could have infected Biden! I honestly wondered how Biden would hold up in that debate, and Trump did exactly what I expected a bully to do. He tried from the onset to intimidate Biden and make him stutter and he failed. Chris Wallace couldn't keep any order, and Biden held his own, looked more mature and Presidential and won the debate. When RFK Jr. complemented Trump as a great debater, he said he'd be able to beat him in a debate. Obviously none of us want to pick on RFK's speech problem. But his voice already drops out in interviews like this. Imagine him being on a 10 month campaign giving stump speeches several times every day! But on the other hand, I was sort of impressed with the Fetterman phenomena, that people do have sympathy and will vote for people who have a disability. I would say RFK's manager Dennis Kucinich would probably be a much more hands on candidate than RFK Jr. but doesn't have the blood and the background story.

What I really want to do here is highlight RFK Jr. on the issues. We have to get out of personalities and bloodlines and evaluate candidates because of their stands on the issues of the day. You have to figure out what you want, be aware of current issues, and demand your candidate wants that, not give in completely because of someone's family ties that you have compassion for. This is a good interview with RFK Jr. on "Breaking Points" because the hosts are well versed politically and there's enough time to pin the candidate down. We''l leave the hot vaccine issue out. On the border issue RFK' Jrs characteristically vague on actual policy but I like his sentiments. But we'll focus on the topics given major emphasis here, health care,energy policy and environmental issues.. 14:00: Krystal Ball. Do you believe in universal healthcare, whether it's a Medicare for all program? RFK Jr.-My highest ambition is to have a single payer system where others can have private insurance, but I don't know how realistic that would be. What about your Father's "I ask about things that never were and ask why not? That response is so ill prepared and it ends up being corporate in that it professes good intentions but maintains the status quo. Has he not been listening for the last decade? or is he so entrenched with the people who would oppose it? He's down on the vaccine companies but actually favors pharma, he goes off on a long lament about how people in the U.S.take too many drugs, which I agree, but proposes no public option to big pharma prices. Bottom line, pharmacy profits in tact! . RFK---"I ask about things that never were and ask why not? RFK Jr. is really saying I can't imagine a system where there''s not rampant price gouging. I can't imagine a system without an unnecessary middleman who screws the whole system up. He doesn't offer a hint of imagination! But then he goes on to enumerate the nation's health problems, but he doesn't address any substantive solution despite being prodded to by Krystal Ball. Then this erroneous claim that there are so many more people with chronic diseases now because of big pharma, pushing drugs on us. But part of that is because more chronic disease that has always existed has now been diagnosed. You can disagree and say there's over diagnosis, but that's not what RFK Jr. is saying. Again, it's true, we're way over medicated. But what do you propose to do about it? 17:00--About Energy, he's reminded from Saagar that his family was into big public initiatives that never had the chance to bear fruit. Is there a place now for such initiatives with the energy market and investment into alternative energy? Rfk Jr. says no, let the government get out, it's too regulated. RFK Jr: "A true free market promotes efficiency and efficiency eliminates waste and pollution is waste!" What kind of corporate libertarian garbage is this? Pollution is the result of the unfettered free market! RFK Jr. "In a true energy market you can't get rich without making your neighbors rich". WTF is he talking about? Does he even know?.' 28:00 RFK JR on the environment: "I believe climate crisis is an existential threat but I don't insist others believe that." Then he goes on with a list to try to show he's aware of what "99% of climate scientists" believe. Then cites that Exon and major industry people back in the 70's did tests and proved to themselves that climate change, as result of burning fossil fuels was real. But ends by saying, he's not going to be making climate change an issue in his campaign! He's not going to do anything because evil totalitarian forces like the people at Davos have used climate for totalitarian purposes! But the translation is, he's not really going to do anything because he feels he doesn't have the right to ask industry to curtail their profits! Even though he'll always end up winding on a long litany of complaints to let you know he knows the problems. He doesn't propose solutions! He really doesn't want to compel anyone to do anything! He is the absolute opposite of his father. If you really want someone whose milquetoast and won't twist arms. I hate to say it, but you might as well keep someone, without any wacky views to damage his credibility, who has 30 years of negotiating skill , for piece meal change over time and wait for "28" and hopefully more younger voters.. I personally don't want that, but somebody better has got to come on the scene. This is why nobody whose anybody wants to kill RFK Jr. *I've been a good boy and called attention to the recent RFK Jr. spamming and with previous other topics, I always tried to respect the rules involving bringing up politics on the JFKA side. But when I've gotten involved it was to call attention to the political spamming and in some cases, as last resort to offer a counterbalance so the dominant narrative that was being repetitively pounded out might stop. But after so much abuse of the rules by others. I think I'm entitled to at least 24 hours with this thread. I plan to add to it.

Karl, again you obviously haven't read my posts. Nobody in government knows who killed JFK and even with a smoking gun, the world's major superpower is not going to gut their intelligence agencies, particularly now. I've asked this question before to stunned silence. So you tell me. What are they fearing? What is the worst that could possibly happen? I'm writing a thread to answer a broader question than you're asking involving more than just the U.S. government. I don't expect it to be too popular. Why nobody whose anybody wants to kill RFK Jr. Karl, I've always had the impression I've seen you before. Could it have been by any chance at the Sunset Strip in 67? When they were filming that episode of "Dragnet?" Sorry, it's just a a joke

No, you're back 60 years. It's much greater than just the war machine. Now what I'm about to say is real forum heresy. Nobody with any power worth a sh-t wants to kill RFK Jr. even if he were to get the nomination. If you're assuming it's the government after him. As I've said there's no one in government who knows who killed JFK period! Yes he could be murdered by any number of fanatics. And that's solely because of the availability of guns in the U.S His policies are absolutely no threat to the power establishment. He's almost as corporate as they come while dressing it in a modern populism. I'm not accusing him of being deceptive. He really doesn't have a clear idea of what he wants. Since this thread is allowed to go for 2 days. I'll explain why RFk Jr. is no threat to the power establishment tomorrow..

I saw it and commented on it Paul. Read my posts.

No you're the oracle John. What qualified you to open your mouth about Ukraine war military logistics? . As for as Prigozhin, he's definitely old, though not as old as you. He's spent months fighting in Ukraine. Any ideas why he endangers himself by exposing Putin's bogus historical claims?

??? Michael I think that's because you've spent this weekend in your Virginia bunker. That's cool. Whatever we can do to bring you up to speed on world events. But don't get too focused on domestic enemies!

Which speech Paul? Jim mentioned he has RFK mentioning nsam 263 here JIm: Bobby did mention it in his Foreign Policy Speech and he mentioned NSAM 263 and Johnson's reversal of that. That's Bobby, not RFK junior. I assume Jim, like Karl is referring to my statement about Bobby never specifically pinning down that his brother was trying to get out of Vietnam. Karl said Bobby didn't have enough time. Jim says he has record of Bobby saying that in his campaign, and I asked him for a quote and source.

Mentions NSAM 263? Interesting, how about a quote and a source? Maybe Karl, but that's almost 3 months. And he got a late start and that was an excellent way to separate himself from the sitting President of his own party, as well as Mc Carthy who first lead the anti war charge and had the most votes in the primaries. That would be a much more effective move than waiting to separate himself from Nixon in the general election, whose voters tended to be more pro war..

Egor Kotkin: "Reading the local channels of Moscow and the Moscow region, they are literally preparing for the battle of Moscow" June 24th, 7:14 AM Somebody was taking this very seriously. Of course the quintessential forum Ukraine war military strategists are Cotter and Di Eugenio. Cotter a few days ago goads those who are in favor of the Ukrainian resistance with his keen military insight into the war, essentially saying to us, "We're going to whup yur ass reeeal good!" (Something we, who are for the resistance have never stooped to!) and posts this article that leads with "Now that the Global West seems finally to understand that the war in Ukraine is going terminally badly for Kiev", Then goes on to say "I’m not going to say much about the current Ukrainian “offensive,” because I’m not a military specialist, and anyway it may already be mostly over by the time you read this." And Jim, eager to expand his "punditocracy" into Ukraine War strategist matters, chimes in approvingly. heh heh John: Thanks for that link, an insightful and objective appraisal of the status of the war on the ground. Round Two? There Is No Round Two. Where Aurelian says: "I’m not going to say much about the current Ukrainian “offensive,” because I’m not a military specialist, and anyway it may already be mostly over by the time you read this." And then goes into a lengthy treatise of military strategy where he does presume to know everything about military capability and strategy that got John and Jim so jacked up I assume they went down to the local surplus and bought the newest style camouflage battledress! We wait with bated breathe at further prognostication. So things going right according to schedule boys? Prigozhin:Ukraine has not bombed Donetsk for 8 years, only Russian positions. The armed forces of Ukraine were not going to attack Russia with Nato soldiers. The Russian Ministry of Defence is deceiving the public and the President. So what do you think of that quote boys? A statement you absolutely know to be false. Right? Is he just a vicious malcontent who won't fit into your system? heh heh

This is a very affirming interview. But we're trying to evaluate this film in regard to it's effect to get people who weren't otherwise curious to look into the JFKA, right? Of course this interview tells me nothing new, but then 98% of "JFK Revisted" told me nothing new outside of a couple of new witnesses. And neither did RFK's Jr's peace speech. I know the alternate media is impacted that a Kennedy has finally come out declaring his uncle's death is result of a conspiracy. But I think how would he really be more of an expert on the JFKA than any of us considering he was silent and no help to the research community for 50 years?*) I don't like Aaron Mate either, (but is it really worth writing about Jim?!) but the only question that's at all challenging in this entire interview is when he asks why no one in the years following JFK's death said anything about JFK wanting to get out of Vietnam. Particularly 5 years after JFK's death, when it was accepted the war had become such a debacle. Bobby never mentioned his brother wanted out when he was running. Can you imagine a politician whose greatest issue was to wind down the Vietnam war and bring peace, would act with such restraint on the campaign trail? What politician does that? And what about all the JFK cabinet members when they left the White House? This was their one shot at greatness. The pinnacle of their career. You don't think it furthers their legacy to portray the best job and the best boss they ever had in the best historical light? -------- *Now that would be a fascinating question to ask RFK Jr. Why the silence for 50 years? If any of his followers actually had the balls. I don't need an ultra compassionate explanation from David Talbot. I'd like to hear it from RFK Jr. about the 50 lost years and he's quite capable of talking about the family resistance without mentioning specific members. The assassination is 60 years old!

Prigozhin:Ukraine has not bombed Donetsk for 8 years, only Russian positions. The armed forces of Ukraine were not going to attack Russia with Nato soldiers. The Russian Ministry of Defence is deceiving the public and the President. "Prigozhin contradicted Putin’s main pretexts for invading Ukraine, declaring that "Russia has faced no extraordinary security threat from Ukraine, and that Russian military officials had deceived Putin into going to war." Oliver Stone should hold a press conference calling this treasonous propaganda. And state again his certainty that Ukraine was ethnically cleansing Russians from Donetsk because Putin told him so! heh heh But now Prigozhin is trying to portray Putin as a fall guy who just innocently believed his generals. Hyeahh ok! My guess is so he can give Putin a way out of the war, and buddy up with him to ensure he's the new Defense Minister? Call it a false flag, (which it could be). If Prigozhin can't get additional support. I think he's probably toast. But he's being given a general amnesty if he backs out before too long.. Some more: The war, Prigozhin claimed, was designed by Russian officials and oligarchs who had plundered two separatist regions in Donbas, eastern Ukraine, for years, but grew greedy and wanted to plunder all of Ukraine. Prigozhin’s claim went well beyond his frequent rants against top military officials and Russian oligarchs, because it undermined Putin’s frequent argument that Russia had “no choice” but to launch a preemptive invasion. Putin has argued, without evidence, that Ukraine was committing “genocide” against ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine and was planning a major attack with NATO’s support on Russian-controlled areas of Donbas." WAPO

Prigozhin:Ukraine has not bombed Donetsk for 8 years, only Russian positions. The armed forces of Ukraine were not going to attack Russia with Nato soldiers. The Russian Ministry of Defence is deceiving the public and the President. "Prigozhin contradicted Putin’s main pretexts for invading Ukraine, declaring that "Russia has faced no extraordinary security threat from Ukraine, and that Russian military officials had deceived Putin into going to war." Oliver Stone should hold a press conference calling this treasonous propaganda. And state again his certainty that Ukraine was ethnically cleansing Russians from Donetsk because Putin told him so! heh heh But now Prigozhin is trying to portray Putin as a fall guy who just innocently believed his generals. Hyeahh ok! My guess is so he can give Putin a way out of the war, and buddy up with him to ensure he's the new Defense Minister? Call it a false flag, (which it could be). If Prigozhin can't get additional support. I think he's probably toast. But he's being given a general amnesty if he backs out before too long.. Some more: The war, Prigozhin claimed, was designed by Russian officials and oligarchs who had plundered two separatist regions in Donbas, eastern Ukraine, for years, but grew greedy and wanted to plunder all of Ukraine. Prigozhin’s claim went well beyond his frequent rants against top military officials and Russian oligarchs, because it undermined Putin’s frequent argument that Russia had “no choice” but to launch a preemptive invasion. Putin has argued, without evidence, that Ukraine was committing “genocide” against ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine and was planning a major attack with NATO’s support on Russian-controlled areas of Donbas." WAPO

ADAM SCHIFF GRILLS DURHAM It all started when Durham tried to claim that the Justice Department’s investigation into Trump and Russia was a hoax. BREAKING: Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff humiliates John Durham, the author of Trump’s phony “Durham report,” during a hearing today by the House Judiciary Committee. It all started when Durham tried to claim that the Justice Department’s investigation into Trump and Russia was a hoax. That’s when Congressman Schiff expertly cut Durham off, declaring, SCHIFF:“Mr. Durham, just so people remember what this is all about, let me ask you. The Mueller investigation revealed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in a sweeping and systemic fashion, correct? This is when the fun began, because Durham had no choice it to respond, “Yes, that is correct.” But Schiff didn’t stop there, continuing to hammer Durham: SCHIFF: And Russia did so through a social media campaign that favored Trump and disparaged Hillary Clinton, correct? DURHAM: The report says yes. SCHIFF: Mueller found that a Russian intel service hacked computers associated with the Clinton campaign and then released the stolen documents publicly. Is that right? DURHAM: That report speaks for itself as well. SCHIFF: Mueller also reported that though he could not establish the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, he also said, quote, "a statement that the investigation did not establish certain facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts," and also appears in the report, doesn’t it? DURHAM: Yes. SCHIFF: In fact, you cited that very statement in your own report, did you not, as a way of distinguishing between proof beyond a reasonable doubt and evidence that falls short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt? DURHAM: Correct. SCHIFF: Both Mueller and congressional investigations found that Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort was secretly meeting with an operative linked to Russian intelligence named Konstantin Kilimnik, correct? DURHAM: Yes. SCHIFF: And that Manafort gave that Russian intel operative the campaign's internal polling data. Correct? DURHAM: Yes. SCHIFF: Is it true, Mr. Durham, that Mueller and congressional investigations also revealed that Don Jr. was informed that a Russian official was offering the Trump campaign, quote, "very high level and sensitive information," unquote, "that would be incriminating of Hillary Clinton was part of," quote, "Russia and its government support of Trump." Are you aware of that? DURHAM: Sure, people get phone calls all the time from individuals who claim to have information like that. SCHIFF: Really? The son of a presidential candidate gets calls all the time from a foreign government offering dirt on their important opponent. Is that what you’re saying? DURHAM: I don't think that’s so unique. SCHIFF: Are you really trying to diminish the significance of what happened here and the secret meeting that the president's son set up in Trump Tower to receive that incriminating information? DURHAM: I don’t think that that was a well-advised thing to do. SCHIFF: Oh, not well advised. All right. Well, that’s the understatement of the year. So you think it’s perfectly appropriate or maybe just ill-advised for a presidential campaign to secretly meet with a Russian delegation to get dirt on their opponent? You would merely say that’s inadvisable? DURHAM: I wouldn’t do it, but it wasn’t illegal, was it? It was stupid, foolish, ill advised. SCHIFF: Well, it’s illegal to conspire to get incriminating opposition research from a hostile government. Wouldn’t that violate campaign laws? At this point, all that Durham could respond with a was a shameless DURHAM:I don’t know.” Please retweet and to thank Schiff for setting Durham straight — and consider investing in Tribel, a “woke” new Twitter competitor that’s currently doing a round of equity crowdfunding and just blew past $1.8 million raised from 4,400 of its users. If you want to own a piece of the “next big thing” in social media, here is the link to do so, http://wefunder.com/Tribel. You can invest as little as $100 — or as much as you’d like. 12:46 PM · Jun 21, 2023 · 783.2K Views 3,791 Retweets 250 Quotes 12.2K Likes 318 Bookmarks

: So Jim's last sentence is; The Powers that Be will not abide by that notion. Jim's 's been saying that for 10 years and he's never been able to substantiate any of his claims. "The powers that be." That's just the kind of erroneous phrase that commits no one to specify. Tucker was total BS, there is no smoking gun in the files. It's been verified by others. Maybe some leads. There is no person in government who fears the files will get out. And there's nobody presently in government who knows who killed JFK. Think about it. Who would it be? They oppose opening because they can, until legally they're forced to open. As I've asked many times to stunned silence. What's the worst that could happen? The worlds major superpower will not dismantle it's intelligence. At the best, they'd just reconstitute it.. This has nothing to do with the JFKA or Operation Mockingbird! All the people, whether in government or in the media have been replaced a few generations over Jim was a the cult leader JFK fanboy for several years here. And it seems pretty cultish right now. Just overlooking one obvious RFK gaffe after another Just like the Magas did with Trump. Unless Biden has a health episode or the economy completely tanks. You're probably going to spend the next 9 months in utter frustration and exhaustion And the only meaningful thing you'll get out of it is another conspiracy feather in your cap. Can't we just agree he's a real bitchin' guy, but a lousy candidate? No we're way beyond that.

We can talk about real issues where RFK is very corporate. But we can also talk about crazy assertions he makes without any real evidence. Here, Wifi radiation opens up your blood brain barrier.

Honestly Larry,characterizing other people criticizing RFK Jr. is so "Fox". They started the "Trump Derangement Syndrone" Neither of you has addressed a single point in Baker's article about Rfk Jr. Tell me Larry , do you think bringing these quotes up from RFK Jr. in this Rogan interview that you are endorsing is an example of "RFK Jr. Derangement Syndrone?" RFK Jr. says here the U.S. has spent 8 trillion on the Ukraine War so far? This is just plain garbage! He pulled this figure completely out of his ass! It's more like a couple hundred billion. Though I can understand some might think we should pay nothing at all. It's been estimated that the entire cost of the War in Afghanistan over 20 years was 7 trillion! This is like his figure that 300,000 Ukrainians have died and 30,000 Russians. He also said here that the increase in food costs to Americans are being used to fund the war. These are 2 completely different phenomena. Inflation was first caused by natural factors but has been exacerbated by corporate greed mark ups. RfK Jr. and the Democrats should use the term "greedflation" and take them on, but this assertion is absurd!

RFK Jr. says here the U.S. has spent 8 trillion on the Ukraine War so far? This is just plain garbage! He pulled this figure completely out of his ass! It's more like a couple hundred billion. Though I can understand some might think we should pay nothing at all. It's been estimated that the entire cost of the War in Afghanistan over 20 years was 7 trillion! This is like his figure that 300,000 Ukrainians have died and 30,000 Russians. He also said here that the increase in food costs to Americans are being used to fund the war. These are 2 completely different phenomena. Inflation was first caused by natural factors but has been exacerbated by corporate greed mark ups. RfK Jr. and the Democrats should use the term "greedflation" and take them on, but this assertion is absurd!

Re: Russ Baker I thought this was an excellent piece. It starts out strong, he gets lost in the weeds a little when he's speculating who might be RFK' Jr's cabinet members. But I had the exact same impression as Baker of this interviews with RFK Jr. on Breaking Points, there's no doubt RFK Jr. is very corporate about at least, energy. This doesn't square with his declaration vow against "corporate feudalism" which I really liked..The big oils seem pretty feudal, among the biggest and most successful companies in the world. Philosophically, it's quite a gaffe, but mostly for philosophers. Then honestly sometimes I think he's not sure what he thinks. Sometimes I find a naivete. There's so many fair questions that can be asked. I wonder if he's at all prepared for what's he up for?

Oh, Hey welcome back Cotter!, Confirmation bias is somewhat rampant on this forum but Cotter takes it to the extreme. He wants to get back at W. Spends hours trying to make his "one flew over the cuckoo" case,finds authors to confirm his bias but inevitably shoots back the same old phrases like You apparently missed the Open Democracy article dated 28th February 2022 by Anthony Barnett titled, “Putin was shaped by US greed. His defeat must lead to change” You also apparently missed the Aljazeera article dated 30th March 2022 by Justin Bronkata. Like we'd all read the same garbage he reads. **** On another topic , I must say I do find curious the emotional proclivities from some of those across the pond, like Cotter. Here Cotter was so entrenched in his tribalism, he was blind and stood silent when a child member of his tribe was completely destroying the discourse of the 56 year thread and then is so outraged when it's finally dissolved! But later the he gushingly says WELCOME BACK MATTHEW.! Is Cotter? as a 69 year old man "grooming" Koch or is he Koch's groupie and sees Koch as a next generation Johnny Depp? heh heh Cliff you dared to soil some of Cotter's vision of the America's Deep State full spectrum dominance by reminding him of some of the U.S. policy failures. There's probably no example of America's full spectrum dominance that has ever been so successful and complete than our our deep state full spectrum indoctrination of American Exceptionalism has with Brits, Cotter, Rigby and Barnard. To them there's absolutely nothing the American Deep State can't do and get away with complete impunity. Stick a fork in all 3 of them. They are psychologically helpless before us, never to get out of the starting gate. The battle was won without ever firing a shot. We left them nothing, lives sterile of all value, wondering what happened, and condemned to just chirp away in conspiracy forums. heh heh again

Roger, I'm going to deal with just your first post now. I liked and agreed with your first post up to the paragraph below. The second one I think you went astray when you characterized W's questions to you as a "rant'. His questions to you were well thought out and very legitimate. Roger:That was 30 years ago. The rules based order and its twin idea of "American exceptionalism" are now crumbling before our eyes. In one sense the partnership of China and Russia, and BRICS and the more than 20 countries that want to join it, are now, on the 60th anniversary of the speech, taking up the gauntlet laid down by JFK to fashion a multipolar, peaceful world order. To end the economic and military dominance of the US. Well first off. We did have a multi polar world but the Soviet Union collapsed. Roger: taking up the gauntlet laid down by JFK to fashion a multipolar, peaceful world order. To end the dominance of the dollar in world trade. To replace war with peaceful interaction. I neither know why you assume the past was historically so brutal, or why you assume this collection of nations with greater economic instability will be any more peaceful. But I have no problem with those countries striking out on their own. With all the U.S. excesses that you and W. have noted, this period of western hegemony has produced the most quiet peaceful period in Europe perhaps ever. It's lasted almost 80 years, and my entire lifetime with nary a peep. A lot of blood has been spilled unnecessarily spilled by the U.S. in other places without a doubt. The era of super globalism is ending, China's unparalleled prosperity was really completely based on the U.S. consumer and Europe. We can pull out the rug from them, and I think they know it now and I'm among those people who would think it's probably pure foolishness for China to invade Taiwan. Let Xi rationalize the complete world instability that would ensue after China is just starting to get a taste of the good life. Again, why do you assume this group of nations will be peaceful?