Robert Kennedy jr. about to run for president

[Guest]

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Did anyone read his book?

Its like a thousand pages so I backed off.

Yes, I did. I would recommend it and do your utmost to disprove the allegations. Its a powerful book, calling out corruption. 

[Guest]

23 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I really wonder: why did he decide to do this?

I mean he has to know that the way he was manhandled  by the MSM on his vaccine policy is, fair or not, going to be like an albatross around his neck.  Sort of like George Romney and Vietnam in 1967.

I really wonder what. his planning is going to be on that.

He is already being macheted on it.  I mean what hatchet jobs.  Its like all the good he did on the environment is down the drain.

 

It’s idealism, James. If truth is your highest ideal, you are prepared to die on that hill. Nothing else matters. Its one of the reasons idealist candidates are almost irresistible. People like the underdog, the David fighting Goliath, courage and conviction. 

[Guest]

21 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I'd read a little about the autism aspect.  But I did not know vaccines have not been regulated for decades.  Why the hell not?  As a kid I got shots that left scars on my arm, being given a sugar cube to dissolve in my mouth.  My grandkids are vaccinated (not for covid).  No one has been making sure these are safe for decades?

The concept comes from China where they ground down small pox scabs into a dust and blew them up peoples noses and figured out it inoculated people. The modern birthplace of vaccines is in the military. They sought exemptions from proper testing, claiming that in a real world bio warfare situation, there is no time for testing programs, so they can try experimental vaccines on people immediately. The trouble is; big pharma cottoned onto this decades ago, realising they could not only profit from vaccines but, that they could release vaccines with very limited testing and in some cases have full immunity against prosecution. In short, pharma will do whatever they can get away with for profit. 

[Paul Brancato]

6 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I agree Paul, but what are politicians going to do? That will never gain momentum politically because people are lazy and don't want to change their eating habits and develop a healthier lifestyle, and any politician who would try to do that would just lose, and unfortunately that's called Democracy. By middle age , most people know of somebody who was given a choice to either quit an unhealthy habit or die, and has consciously chosen to die. 

Junk food is an American exported health crisis throughout the world. Getting rid of unhealthy food would be the answer. But everyone would squawk that it's their freedom to live the lifestyle they choose. The U.S, has made great strides in eliminating cigarette use, but in Europe, they still smoke like trains!

The closest thing I remember of someone banning junk food was New York Mayor Bloomberg trying to ban big size sugary drinks, and what of lasting value came of that?  Probably the best example of a candidate who emphasizes health is Marianne Williamson, who makes a lot of sense, but a majority of people will never accept the message..

In my opinion the reason this is true is that the media and government are beholding to the producers of junk food. Without them nothing can happen. I don’t think it’s because people are stupid or lazy. There’s of course some of that, but we get no support from the pundits and influencers. And of course people are undereducated and underpaid and undervalued. I think we need, and could have a change if people got behind it and presented the facts. 
my main point is that I don’t trust msm to examine anything in depth. They barely cover alternative voices, and add that to deliberate censorship what happens? 

[Paul Brancato]

26 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Yes, I did. I would recommend it and do your utmost to disprove the allegations. Its a powerful book, calling out corruption. 

Jim - second that. A thorough fact checking would be good. 

[Guest]

IMO opinion RFK Jr needs a running mate who is a selfless idealist, someone charming, charismatic, who has impeccable oratory skills. 
 

[Ron Bulman]

22 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

No, he teared up.

That is why we cut some  of it out.

 

Thanks for your response.  Good for you and Oliver.  This is a moving thought for me.  A compassionate move imho.

[Ron Bulman]

On 4/6/2023 at 6:19 PM, John Cotter said:

“The most courageous newscast in 60 years. The CIA’s murder of my uncle was a successful coup d'état from which our democracy has never recovered.”

https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1604139690629730304?s=20

This is why his candidacy is relevant to the JFK assassination debate.  Though I realize the subject is a mine field in some respects.  Which is why I'm bookmarking the topic, so when it disappears from the main page in 30 days I'll be able to find it.  As it is a subject worthy of following and discussion. 

[John Cotter]

28 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

This is why his candidacy is relevant to the JFK assassination debate.  Though I realize the subject is a mine field in some respects.  Which is why I'm bookmarking the topic, so when it disappears from the main page in 30 days I'll be able to find it.  As it is a subject worthy of following and discussion. 

I agree.

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Well, I'm not surprised that Michael Griffith is having trouble giving us any examples of "good Republican ideas."

There aren't any.

This is another case of the misleading false equivalence that we so often hear about from Benjamin Cole-- i.e., that there are no significant differences between Donks and 'Phants, etc.  It's bunk.

The examples of good Democratic ideas and achievements during the past century are legion-- the New Deal, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, etc.-- almost all of which Republicans bitterly opposed.

Meanwhile, what constructive policies have the post-Reagan Republicans ever offered to the American people or humanity?  Their policies have started multi-trillion dollar wars, damaged the middle class, widened the gulf between the very rich and the rest of society, and created our gargantuan national debt.

They are the party of "supply side" tax cuts for billionaires, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, bank and railroad de-regulation, and deference to Big Oil plutocrats who oppose environmental protection and climate change mitigation.

At present the GOP House can't even draft a budget-- their essential task.  Why?

Because they are suppose to follow Reagan's plutocratic plan of "Starving the Beast" by cutting Social Security, Medicare, etc., but they fear the blow back.

And, in the grand scheme of things, Republican dirty tricksters like Roger Stone and Steve Bannon are simply hoping that RFK, Jr.'s candidacy will function as another Republican dirty trick, allowing the GOP to regain control of the White House in 2024.

Well, this is depressing.

First another JFK forum thread gets exiled to the boondocks right after I posted some salient questions, then my attempt to follow up the aborted discussion gets leap-frogged by a series of non-sequiturs by people who don't really understand what is happening in U.S. politics today.

To wit, the same old Republican dirty tricksters who helped elect Donald Trump, and orchestrate his J6 coup attempt, are trying to use RFK, Jr. to put the GOP plutocrats back in power.

It amazes me that anyone with an IQ above room temperature can still believe that the GOP has any meaningful policy solutions for the critical problems facing the U.S. in the 21st century-- wealth inequality, the demise of the middle class, the Reaganomic national debt, climate change, and the conservative war on voting rights, women's rights, gay and lesbian rights, etc.

Perhaps our forum Republicans (and self-professed "non-partisans") can tell us when the modern GOP ceased functioning as the party of Reaganomic tax cuts for the rich and Starving-the-Beast.

Edited April 8, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[John Cotter]

22 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I have a 13 year-old son. I was horrified as I watched him receive 15 or so vaccinations by the time he was five. Many of these were mandatory. No shot/no public school. By the time he was three it was clear he was on the spectrum. Naturally, I was suspicious of a connection. The number of vaccines skyrocketed. The number of autism cases skyrocketed. The more I looked into it, and the more I observed the parents of other children on the spectrum, moreover, the more I came to realize that the "explosion" of autism was pretty much an illusion. Any child (particularly a boy child) who exhibited what we would have called "weird" or odd behavior when I was growing up, was now designated "autistic" or having ADHD or both. This was so the parents could explain their kids' behavior to others--"He's not poorly behaved--he's autistic!" But also for financial reasons. If your kid is weird and could use some help you are SOL. But if you can get him designated autistic, then you can get your insurance to cover all sorts of costs. As stated, my son's status is pretty obvious. And yet, even so, I have fielded numerous questions from parents of children whose status is far from obvious on how they can get a doctor or school district to sign off on their kid's status. (The school district provided free pre-school for autistic kids but "normal" kids had to pay an arm and a leg to go to a private pre-school.)

In short, then, I came to reject the vaccine/autism connection. I mean, I grew up with some mighty weird kids--I remember one fourth grader who insisted everyone call him "Danny Partridge"--but we didn't call them autistic back then. We just thought they were weird and hoped they would grow out of it. 

 

From a 2018 article by The Ethical Skeptic, “Vaccinials – The Betrayed Generation of Americans”:

We have created a new generation of Systemically Injured Kids (SIK): those born since 1994. 17 of 66 kids in a recent basketball tournament I attended, bore some variant of readily observable brain injury based disability. This was a random single observation and anecdote of course. But it is also science, and a part of the growing base of intelligence being assembled by the real scientists on this issue, parents.  Our clarion alarm grows louder with each month and with each new concurring study. Yes vaccines are preventing disease, but at what cost? We have not even asked this question as a society. We just closed our eyes, plugged our ears and hoped for the best…

Nonetheless, during my son’s recent basketball competition, this urge broached to take a sample count of player profiles. There of course was no way to skeptically deflect this idea – an habitual precaution I suppose; something integral to my nature. In observing all the players by profile/type/skill, I noted that of 66 kids who participated in the tournament, 17 of them bore some obvious (and I mean no doubt at all) disability related to cerebral injury. The gait, the stride, the imbalance, dyskinetics and core-to-extremities hypotonia. The habitually contracted, rather than fluid relaxed joint dispositions, the mid-line crossing issues, the hand to eye dysfunction, the struggle to break from dribble focus to teammate or basket. The facial/maxillary structural development issues, neck posture, ataxia and focal/awareness struggles. All the things which the specialists have shown us over the last 13 years of this daily PhD program. The difference being, that I am a trained professional observer. The players bore disability to such extent that, as an employer I would suspect that they might struggle to perform most complex job offerings. This was not a special needs recreation league mind you, rather just a normal community basketball league – albeit by rule, one which only allows a kid to play if they have not been tagged for one of the local high school varsity teams…

These kids were not goofy. We had plenty of goofy kids back in my elementary school days. Heck, I was one of them. By 17 I had grown out of that ilk of issues. This was problematically more than just being a bit young and uncoordinated. This was injury – these kids were struggling into adulthood. Back in my days of elementary school, our special needs class (combined in a classroom with other kids and including ‘stay at home’ kids in our small community – and including Down Syndrome and Cerebral Palsy) was 3 of 128 – or 2.3%. In fact, if we exclude CP and DS, this was 1 kid in reality, who bore this similar type of brain injury. Less than 1%.

“There are unanswered questions about vaccine safety… No one should be threatened by the pursuit of this knowledge. I think public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational without sufficient studies of causation.”

~ Dr Bernadine Healy, MD (Former Director, National Institute of Health and Former President, American Red Cross)

https://theethicalskeptic.com/2018/01/14/vaccinials-the-betrayed-generation-of-americans/

Edited April 8, 2023 by John Cotter

[W. Niederhut]

Terrific.  Another irrelevant non sequitur.

Edited April 8, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[John Cotter]

3 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Terrific.  Another non sequitur.

If you're referring to my post, in what way is it a non sequitur?

[Pat Speer]

11 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Terrific.  Another irrelevant non sequitur.

As stated, there will be no discussion of RFK Jr's presidency in which his stance on vaccines isn't brought up. I suppose you are correct in that we should discuss whether he is correct or not elsewhere, but any discussion of his candidacy would be remiss not to mention the elephant in the room. 

[Kirk Gallaway]

4 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

In my opinion the reason this is true is that the media and government are beholding to the producers of junk food. Without them nothing can happen. I don’t think it’s because people are stupid or lazy. There’s of course some of that, but we get no support from the pundits and influencers. And of course people are undereducated and underpaid and undervalued. I think we need, and could have a change if people got behind it and presented the facts. 
my main point is that I don’t trust msm to examine anything in depth. They barely cover alternative voices, and add that to deliberate censorship what happens? 

Paul: In my opinion the reason this is true is that the media and government are beholding to the producers of junk food. Without them nothing can happen.

I agree in that I think the MSM should actually undertake to really inform people about issues, rather than through little sound bytes. And in this case, with more "healthy living" programs. But the way it stands now. If people had an interest in healthy living programs, they would sell, but they simply don't sell. When I see those programs, I mostly don't watch them Paul. And I'm somewhat health oriented. And obviously if you tell, for example Gil or Joe or me that you're going to take away our 'guilty pleasures". We may resist you! Most people know when they're eating food that's not good for them.

Politicians, particularly in a Democracy don't gain support by telling people  what they don't want to hear. (start getting in shape, and eat right! Dammit!)They gain support  by telling people what they want to hear. People don't want to be told they have to make any sacrifice. And they blame a President or official who tells them they must sacrifice.

For example, despite current comments about the CIA removing Jimmy Carter from office, the economic problems that removed Jimmy Carter was  a runaway train of inflation that started 4 years before he even took office! The voting public is fickle. They'll get rid of Jimmy Carter for economic problems just as they got rid of George Bush Sr., who at one point got a 90% approval rating for his handling of  the Persian Gulf War. Only to watch it plummet in 18 months when the U.S. went into a minor recession. (Remember Carville, it's the economy stupid!) And out of nowhere, Bill Clinton was elected.

Having a basic understanding of human nature. And understanding that social engineering can only go so far does clear the picture of why we've come to where we are, quite a bit.