Jump to content

Kamala Harris and the RFK assassination


Recommended Posts

As an Brit, I'm pretty surprised the members of this forum are so invested in this election. Don't most people on here believe JFK's death allowed for coup to take place in the US? Why would you have any faith in the system at all, whether it be Republicans or Democrats? Apart from a few good politicians such as Thomas Downing, Richard Schweiker, Gary Hart etc., most in the major parties have not looked to conduct a proper investigation or have actively blocked efforts to do so. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 278
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Kishan Dandiker said:

As an Brit, I'm pretty surprised the members of this forum are so invested in this election. Don't most people on here believe JFK's death allowed for coup to take place in the US? Why would you have any faith in the system at all, whether it be Republicans or Democrats? Apart from a few good politicians such as Thomas Downing, Richard Schweiker, Gary Hart etc., most in the major parties have not looked to conduct a proper investigation or have actively blocked efforts to do so. 

 

1) We still retain faith in the persistence of the Progressive domestic and foreign policies practiced and idealized by JFK.

2) We regard the Trump administration as an insult and a calamity.

Also, we'd like our postal system restored.

 

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Andrews said:

1) We still retain faith in the persistence of the Progressive domestic and foreign policies practiced and idealized by JFK.

2) We regard the Trump administration as an insult and a calamity.

Also, we'd like our postal system restored.

 

1) Me too David. I find it puzzling that there is faith that a vote either way will deliver anything other than continuity of something quite undemocratic at heart, in terms of rule. I believe the JFK assassination was something bigger than a mob grudge, something bigger than LBJ and something that removed a spanner in the works for those making wars for profit. It's easy for us to be ambivalent to a degree, even though it will undoubtably affect us on some level, whether Trump continues or Biden gets in. I understand being patriotic and passionate, so if it was in the UK, we may be more likely to back a horse that we least despise and go after the other. I don't like Boris one bit but, Britain wasn't spoilt for choice either at the last election. 
2) He (Trump) isn't statesmanlike, he is rude, brash, and is cringey to listen to, or even embarrassing at times but, we have to remember he ran against Hilary Clinton, that was the choice at the time. A better question might be is how out of 320m or whatever the population of the USA is, how do you whittle it down to those two? I would refer back to the point above about the system being corrupted. 
I am astonished that Biden is the highest calibre candidate the dems can come up with this year. 

Edited by Chris Barnard
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:


I am astonished that this is the highest caliber candidate the dems can come up with.

I will always feel that the Democratic party candidate with the best educational credentials, best government experience background, best debating and speaking skills, best energy and courage to stand her ethical government ground, offering the most promise for every American's interests regardless of economic level, best chance at beating Trump handily and with no great personal skeletons in the closet baggage was Elizabeth Warren.

I really feel she was the candidate the 1% controlled Repubs feared most, regarding a president who actually would try to change the long time status quo corrupt powers to be leadership and policies we have had since 11,22,1963.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of Kamala Harris, it's remarkable how Trump, in calling her nasty, mean, and angry, is describing himself. He seems to do this a lot, trying to insult somebody by describing himself. In psychology I believe this is called projection? In addition to being just laughably sick.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

On the subject of Kamala Harris, it's remarkable how Trump, in calling her nasty, mean, and angry, is describing himself. He seems to do this a lot, trying to insult somebody by describing himself. In psychology I believe this is called projection? In addition to being just laughably sick.

 

 

Trump is the biggest projector I've seen since my elementary school days, when they used to show large reel-to-reel films in the auditorium on snowy days.

Another Trump psychological trait is that he often says the exact opposite of the truth.

You need to flip what he says 180 degrees to understand what is really going on.

For example, when Trump repeatedly said, "No collusion," the reality was, "Yes, collusion."

When he says, "Sleepy Joe," he's referring to the fact that he, himself, has to take Adderall and drink twelve Diet Cokes a day to stay awake and alert.

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Kishan Dandiker said:

As an Brit, I'm pretty surprised the members of this forum are so invested in this election. Don't most people on here believe JFK's death allowed for coup to take place in the US? Why would you have any faith in the system at all, whether it be Republicans or Democrats? Apart from a few good politicians such as Thomas Downing, Richard Schweiker, Gary Hart etc., most in the major parties have not looked to conduct a proper investigation or have actively blocked efforts to do so. 

 

We still have a facade of democracy. We still have some voice in who governs us at least superficially. Trump would take that away. Or is taking it away. It is what it is. It's pretty ironic that the republic may be ended by a party called Republican. I guess fate has a sense of humor.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/21/2020 at 12:09 PM, Kishan Dandiker said:

As an Brit, I'm pretty surprised the members of this forum are so invested in this election. Don't most people on here believe JFK's death allowed for coup to take place in the US? Why would you have any faith in the system at all, whether it be Republicans or Democrats? Apart from a few good politicians such as Thomas Downing, Richard Schweiker, Gary Hart etc., most in the major parties have not looked to conduct a proper investigation or have actively blocked efforts to do so. 

 

Kishan,

     Interesting that you mentioned Gary Hart in this context.  I was present at Union Station here in Denver when he announced his 1984 bid for the U.S. Presidency, and donated to his campaign.

    I don't know if we've ever had a thread here about Gary Hart and the JFK assassination.

   He was involved in the Church Committee investigations, but never spilled the beans about the classified material on Oswald and the JFK assassination, other than saying that the Warren Commission had not been forthcoming about Oswald's history.

    Hart went to Yale, and I have often wondered about his possible relationship with the CIA.

    He published a spy novel in the 80s (co-written by Senator William Cohen) called The Double Man, which shed no light at all on Oswald or the JFK assassination.  (The villain was a rogue Russian military official who was sponsoring acts of international terrorism behind the Kremlin's back.)

    As for our American plutocracy, you are correct to point out that JFK was last American President who stood up to the CIA and the military-industrial complex.

    In my opinion, the biggest crisis for American democracy today is Orwellian-- mass media disinformation, and unlimited funding for false political advertising, in the aftermath of the 2014 Citizen's United SCOTUS ruling.

    Many people in the UK probably don't realize how utterly awash the United States is in mass media disinformation and false political advertising.  We don't have anything comparable to the BBC on television here-- at least based on my experiences watching the daily BBC news during my previous travels in the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

 

"In my opinion, the biggest crisis for American democracy today is Orwellian-- mass media disinformation, and unlimited funding for false political advertising, in the aftermath of the 2014 Citizen's United SCOTUS ruling.

    Many people in the UK probably don't realize how utterly awash the United States is in mass media disinformation and false political advertising.  We don't have anything comparable to the BBC on television here-- at least based on my experiences watching the daily BBC news during my previous travels in the UK."

 

It is interesting the overseas opinion of the BBC that I have picked up on, as if they are a paragon of virtue. In my opinion BBC still do nature documentaries really well, which I love, the sport coverage has faded due to Sky's bigger budget but, I spent most of my life using them as my goto news site. I don't find it neutral, impartial or without agenda, which a news site should be, particularly when funded by the electorate. It is an extension of government in my opinion and recent times have really highlighted that to me. I find Sky News almost identical in its output too. We instinctively, almost unquestioningly think of 'The News' as a definitive account of what happened in the world that day, in reality it's people like you or I choosing what is shown and how. In the UK I think it's much more subtle, whereas looking at US news it's so partisan, people are arranged on teams and facts don't matter, only damaging the opposition does. 

When you say Orwellian, I worry something more is going on that we actually realise, I feel like we are sleepwalking into authoritarian rule and that we have been gradually conditioned, in the same way you might re-engineer the minds of psychiatric patients. Some communist states did this to really good effect by breaking down the mindsets or the people through new propaganda, academia, fear and imprisoning any dissenters of the regime. In the modern era we are not putting people in hard labour camps or lining them up for firing squads, we are making them 'persona non grata' in society, and people are afraid to question anything on social media for fear they'll be cast out by society. Each move toward this authoritarian state is usually tied to something compassionate and anyone questioning that thing is immediately called names and cast out. The media propaganda and grasp on people has created this culture and anyone who has an understanding or marketing, PR, propaganda and human psychology will see how this ties in. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/21/2020 at 11:09 AM, Kishan Dandiker said:

As an Brit, I'm pretty surprised the members of this forum are so invested in this election. Don't most people on here believe JFK's death allowed for coup to take place in the US? Why would you have any faith in the system at all, whether it be Republicans or Democrats? Apart from a few good politicians such as Thomas Downing, Richard Schweiker, Gary Hart etc., most in the major parties have not looked to conduct a proper investigation or have actively blocked efforts to do so. 

 

Kishan, Of course, we all don't all think the same. We all have our different points of emphasis. And  there are greater issues at stake than if the government reopens an investigation into the JFKA assassination. There are just too many  other more pressing priorities for that to happen any time soon. There are some here that believe there's been an ongoing conspiracy for 50 years passed on secretly from generation to generation. So the JFKA assassination is attracting a lot of johnny -come- lately Trump "any conspiracy goes" theorists, with no knowledge of the JFKA conspiracy,  like Wheeler spamming the site with endless innuendos about skull and crossbones and upper crust family conspiracy. Still many people who have put a lot of research into the JFKA are  now decrying  how the movement is being lumped in with Wheeler's Q Anon and other crazy theories. But I've been telling them now for years this was bound to happen.
 
Di Eugenio and Jeff Carter have perpetuated this idea of a 60 year old Deep state MIC  with  a big media cabal that is to this day stonewalling the JFKA  conspiracy. And this position has a strong lure among many conspiracy theorists, including some here and I noticed particularly from new graduates who come on the forum from Jim's K&K website. For the first 20-30 years I think that was true. As far as William's assertion that there's so much disinformation in the media, the BBC would actually be a good improvement, but I think W, would agree that this has been taken to a whole other level now, and it's a false equivalency to assume the disinformation is equal on both sides. And there are numerous egregious examples in broadcast media that have cost a toll in human lives that I show in video clips in the "Journals in the Plague Year"thread.
 
You guys are younger, did any of your teachers or professors spent a lot of time in history classes teaching you their JFK conspiracy theories? I think not. Contrary to hopes, The subject is not approached with any fear by the MSM, as if they are protecting multi generational long held secrets. None of the people brought up in the schools and institutions of the last 30 years who are holding power or positions of influence are "threatened" by this discussion. They earnestly think the people advancing the theories are probably wackos.

But as I think you're saying,I always find it curious that the people who assume this  "deep state"  government conspiracy passed on through generations are sometimes the ones who espouse reopening a big government investigation into who killed JFK? Do you believe your government is as hopelessly sinister as you say or don't you?

I believe probably  all the 60's assassinations were conspiracies. And this is not to say that I don't believe there aren't more modern day conspiracies. But there will always be a ongoing struggle between intelligence and law enforcement agencies infringing on individual rights, particularly in the modern communication age where many people have now come to give up their privacy to an extent that 30 years ago, many of us would have thought to be a 1984 totalitarian surveillance state. Yes I think there's a greater danger of mass manipulation,  subtle or otherwise. But I hardly believe the MSM is "fair", whatever that subjectively means to any number of people here, who decry that MSM is covering up this valuable story they have, but never seem to realize that they got the story from the MSM!

Chris, yes it is a terrible choice. I personally thought Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would have been excellent candidates. But socialism is quite a bugaboo word in the rather unsophisticated American voter constituency. At a point along the way. After a lot of sort of hidden deliberation a majority of the opposition decided that maybe the urgency to get Trump out of office was so great, that it was no time for wishful thinking and they went with a milquetoast centrist candidate with some experience.

Of course keeping in mind in the UK, the response to the covid crisis has hardly been stellar, as your PM was very lax initially and your resultant death rate per 100k is fifth highest in the world among countries of any size, and higher than the U.S. Maybe it took your PM going to his deathbed to assign the priorities that you're in remarkably better shape now than the U.S.  I thought his tribute to the people who helped save him was very sincere and eloquent, so much more sincerity and eloquence than our President is capable of. I find it interesting that his last name is Johnson, as he looks like a member of a Swedish knock off Beatle band!

heh heh

 
 
 
 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:
 

Chris, yes it is a terrible choice. I personally thought Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would have been excellent candidates. But socialism is quite a bugaboo word in the rather unsophisticated American voter constituency. At a point along the way.

After a lot of sort of hidden deliberation a majority of the opposition decided that maybe the urgency to get Trump out of office was so great, that it was no time for wishful thinking and they went with a    milquetoast centrist   candidate with some experience.

 

Of course keeping in mind in the UK, the response to the covid crisis has hardly been stellar, as your PM was very lax initially and your resultant death rate per 100k is fifth highest in the world among countries of any size, and higher than the U.S. Maybe it took your PM going to his deathbed to assign the priorities that you're in remarkably better shape now than the U.S.  I thought his tribute to the people who helped save him was very sincere and eloquent, so much more sincerity and eloquence than our President is capable of. I find it interesting that his last name is Johnson, as he looks like a member of a Swedish knock off Beatle band!

heh heh

 
 
 
 
 
 

Biden's age truly "is" an important issue as well. He will be the oldest President in history if he wins. My common sense feeling when observing Biden is he looks fragile health wise ( more so than any other candidate, even Sanders ) as most anyone approaching 80 should look like.

I think those who are thrilled with Kamala Harris being chosen for the VP position feel Biden probably will be afflicted with some seriously bad health crisis before his term is up, there bye placing Harris into the Presidency.

Most of our main stream media is now owned by corporate interests. In other words "the most wealthy 1%"

These owners have final say in what their news companies report and how they report it.

I've said for years, that most of our media by far has given Trump a downplaying free pass his entire term. I think this downplaying is deliberate.

Trump has said, done and initiated so many constitution abusive actions and inflamed and divided this country to unprecedented degrees that should have resulted in front page outrage, condemnations and calls for his resignation 100 times imo. 

But, only a small handful of news media ( a few newspapers ) ever have.

Without this constant and consistent outrage in the main news all these years of Trump, the public in general takes this to mean Trump isn't that bad and hasn't really done things so damaging to our country and constitution imo.

If you don't read or hear how bad Trump truly is in his Presidential position in our main information gathering and processing way ( news media ), it just isn't a reality in too many American's minds.

The highest viewership of any televised news media venue is Fox News.

Their coverage of Trump the last few years conveys him as a really good president. His leadership failures and constitution violating actions aren't even talked about to any real truth informing degrees.

Fox News is one of our main corporate / 1% controlled right wing and Trump promoting societal brainwashing machines. A highly effective one.

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:
Kishan, Of course, we all don't all think the same. We all have our different points of emphasis. And  there are greater issues at stake than if the government reopens an investigation into the JFKA assassination. There are just too many  other more pressing priorities for that to happen any time soon. There are some here that believe there's been an ongoing conspiracy for 50 years passed on secretly from generation to generation. So the JFKA assassination is attracting a lot of johnny -come- lately Trump "any conspiracy goes" theorists, with no knowledge of the JFKA conspiracy,  like Wheeler spamming the site with endless innuendos about skull and crossbones and upper crust family conspiracy. Still many people who have put a lot of research into the JFKA are  now decrying  how the movement is being lumped in with Wheeler's Q Anon and other crazy theories. But I've been telling them now for years this was bound to happen.
 
Di Eugenio and Jeff Carter have perpetuated this idea of a 60 year old Deep state MIC  with  a big media cabal that is to this day stonewalling the JFKA  conspiracy. And this position has a strong lure among many conspiracy theorists, including some here and I noticed particularly from new graduates who come on the forum from Jim's K&K website. For the first 20-30 years I think that was true. As far as William's assertion that there's so much disinformation in the media, the BBC would actually be a good improvement, but I think W, would agree that this has been taken to a whole other level now, and it's a false equivalency to assume the disinformation is equal on both sides. And there are numerous egregious examples in broadcast media that have cost a toll in human lives that I show in video clips in the "Journals in the Plague Year"thread.
 
You guys are younger, did any of your teachers or professors spent a lot of time in history classes teaching you their JFK conspiracy theories? I think not. Contrary to hopes, The subject is not approached with any fear by the MSM, as if they are protecting multi generational long held secrets. None of the people brought up in the schools and institutions of the last 30 years who are holding power or positions of influence are "threatened" by this discussion. They earnestly think the people advancing the theories are probably wackos.

But as I think you're saying,I always find it curious that the people who assume this  "deep state"  government conspiracy passed on through generations are sometimes the ones who espouse reopening a big government investigation into who killed JFK? Do you believe your government is as hopelessly sinister as you say or don't you?

I believe probably  all the 60's assassinations were conspiracies. And this is not to say that I don't believe there aren't more modern day conspiracies. But there will always be a ongoing struggle between intelligence and law enforcement agencies infringing on individual rights, particularly in the modern communication age where many people have now come to give up their privacy to an extent that 30 years ago, many of us would have thought to be a 1984 totalitarian surveillance state. Yes I think there's a greater danger of mass manipulation,  subtle or otherwise. But I hardly believe the MSM is "fair", whatever that subjectively means to any number of people here, who decry that MSM is covering up this valuable story they have, but never seem to realize that they got the story from the MSM!

Chris, yes it is a terrible choice. I personally thought Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren would have been excellent candidates. But socialism is quite a bugaboo word in the rather unsophisticated American voter constituency. At a point along the way. After a lot of sort of hidden deliberation a majority of the opposition decided that maybe the urgency to get Trump out of office was so great, that it was no time for wishful thinking and they went with a milquetoast centrist candidate with some experience.

Of course keeping in mind in the UK, the response to the covid crisis has hardly been stellar, as your PM was very lax initially and your resultant death rate per 100k is fifth highest in the world among countries of any size, and higher than the U.S. Maybe it took your PM going to his deathbed to assign the priorities that you're in remarkably better shape now than the U.S.  I thought his tribute to the people who helped save him was very sincere and eloquent, so much more sincerity and eloquence than our President is capable of. I find it interesting that his last name is Johnson, as he looks like a member of a Swedish knock off Beatle band!

heh heh

 
 
 
 
 
 

Wasn't there some kind of fix that went on in the democrat party where Bernie was a more popular candidate than Hilary, yet she got the nod for the 2016 campaign as candidate. I watched Bernie on Joe Rogan in 2018 I think, he means well and seems a nice person but, he is showing the signs of age. Why do the candidates have to be 70+ now? When they have lost their energy?

That's how I read it, the moment the word socialism is used it means 'RED' in the Joe McCarthy sense. 🙂 
I actually liked Tulsi Gabbard just based on the way she spoke and conducted herself publicly in the interviews I saw, though I am sure some of you will pick at her policies. She was also on Joe Rogan, but she could never go far as she believes in the 'military industrial complex' right? 
What puzzles me is strategy of the dems, surely you put a rational, statesman like candidate, with centrist views who doesn't have a past mixed up in wars and corruption, or failed past administrations and the result would be all those voters sat on the fence between Trump's rudeness and AOC madness, might think, i'll go blue this time. Surely it's the moderates that will define the election, not the hardcore lot.

P.S. I'll leave the Covid topic alone on here, i'll only upset some people. I don't buy into the bungling governance in the UK. Was it Churchill who said 'Never let a good crisis go to waste'? It was someone like that. 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was for Bernie, Yes, Wasserman Schultz the DNC chair,tried to cheat Bernie.  A lot of people got upset. But Hilary was leading in delegates, unfortunately.

Yeah the candidates are too old, but Biden faced a lot of candidates who were younger. unfortunately, the millenials (in 2016 and 2018) have never showed up yet. 

As you can see with Joe's comment,there are many who think the press favors Trump, which Trump people would find laughable. In the 2016 campaign, Trump got hours and hours of free time in all major outlets as no candidate ha ever got before. The reason for that is simple. Trump is a novelty with big ratings.  Everyone wanted to talk about him. During the campaign none of the major networks really vetted him, because for many months, they never thought he could win. By the time he got the nomination when they started asking harder questions, it was too late, as Trump had gained so much momentum, there became a groundswell of Trump cultists.Trump then called their questions unfair, accused them of picking on him because he's not a mainstream candidate, called them fake news, and his followers embraced that attitude as well. He had won the battle, and was spared  accountability.

IMO, In essence the MSM are just like the campaigns themselves. Scurrying for the undecided voters or a few points in their ratings. The anti Trump press knows  now that there are certain types of anti Trump issues, such as emoluments and Trumps taxes that without hard proof, are like pushing a boulder up hill with the public opposition. So without any new revelations. They end up shutting up about it. Which of course is abnegating their responsibility.               

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I was for Bernie, Yes, Wasserman Schultz the DNC chair,tried to cheat Bernie.  A lot of people got upset. But Hilary was leading in delegates, unfortunately.

Yeah the candidates are too old, but Biden faced a lot of candidates who were younger. unfortunately, the millenials (in 2016 and 2018) have never showed up yet. 

As you can see with Joe's comment,there are many who think the press favors Trump, which Trump people would find laughable. In the 2016 campaign, Trump got hours and hours of free time in all major outlets as no candidate ha ever got before. The reason for that is simple. Trump is a novelty with big ratings.  Everyone wanted to talk about him. During the campaign none of the major networks really vetted him, because for many months, they never thought he could win. By the time he got the nomination when they started asking harder questions, it was too late, as Trump had gained so much momentum, there became a groundswell of Trump cultists.Trump then called their questions unfair, accused them of picking on him because he's not a mainstream candidate, called them fake news, and his followers embraced that attitude as well. He had won the battle, and was spared  accountability.

IMO, In essence the MSM are just like the campaigns themselves. Scurrying for the undecided voters or a few points in their ratings. The anti Trump press knows  now that there are certain types of anti Trump issues, such as emoluments and Trumps taxes that without hard proof, are like pushing a boulder up hill with the public opposition. So without any new revelations. They end up shutting up about it. Which of course is abnegating their responsibility.               

I am not very familiar with it but, is the delegate system flawed? I mean is it always going to favour the powerful as opposed to the virtuous in the party? Is it another area where the say is taken away from the public voter? You have something called super-delegates too don’t you, who have more sway? 
 

I wouldn’t hold your breath on millennials turning up, they are all waiting to be asked to be president, heaven forbid they’d have to fight for the right. 🙂 

From what I can see, I don’t agree with Joe’s comments in regard to the media (I am trying to be agreeable). If you look at White House press briefings, how many of the news networks are pro-Trump and how many are attacking Trump? It you say pick the top 10 networks, the majority are pro Dems at the moment? At least thats the way it looks. I understand Fox are most popular but, some of the others have fallen hard in ratings. What is the true reason for that? Perhaps its their output, what they are covering and how. 

I am not saying Britain is perfect, it probably has all the same flaws but, US politics has seemed utterly shameless for this 4 years, you can say Trump has dragged that level down but, it takes two to tango. I watched those Ukraine ‘quid pro quo’ hearings and it was embarrassing. It appears to me as an outsider that there have been various attempts to oust a sitting president, attempts that were doomed to failure and only carried out with this coming election in mind, a smear campaign. I understand any die hard Dem will say, Trump brought corruption to the White House. But, putting things in perspective, which president hasn’t performed ‘quid pro quo’s? Thats the way America has operated from inception. Were Obama’s people surveilling Trumps 2016 campaign?   
How many politicians out there in congress would be cleaner than Trump if a smear campaign were to take place on them? Truth doesn’t seem to matter, only winning at any cost. 
Before anyone bites my head off here with he said, she said, stop and think about JFK, the democrat we are all interested in here, look at the corruption that took place in the 60’s, its plain for us to see how democracy was subverted, do we think things have got better? With time things have improved? Or that things will be the same or worse? 

 


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...