CNN Smears RFK Jr. as "Quack"--JFK Records Again?

[John Cotter]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I just got here and saw some guys revealing their political leanings, which I found to be interesting. I was about to suggest you guys move on (out of the politics) when I saw Michael Griffith say that both Republicans and Democrats have good ideas. That surprised me because Republicans'' ideas are usually awful.... that is, if your concerns are with average Americans who live paycheck to paycheck. Republicans mostly want to reduce taxes by giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy classes.

My asking Michael this question is not a trick.

 

Ok, Sandy. I didn’t mean that it was a trick.

Indeed, since I largely share your aversion to the overtly plutocratic bent of the Republican Party, I would also like Michael to answer your question – notwithstanding the complicity of the mainstream Democratic Party in the plutocratic duopoly which has tyrannised the US and the world for decades.

I was trying to highlight the difficulty of keeping threads which are supposed to be non-political free of politics by drawing attention to the fact that even a moderator is unable to adhere to that objective.

I still believe it was unwise of the moderators to have binned the “56 Years” thread and other threads, if for no other reason than they’ve made a lot of work for themselves in trying to police the politics-free environment they’ve tried to create.

[Michael Griffith]

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Sandy, are you not placing Michael in a double bind here?

Aren't we supposed to refrain from discussion of party politics per se in this section of the forum?

If you spend enough time here, you will realize that this subforum is dominated by ultra-liberals--and not just your average Kamala Harris or Liz Warren type of ultra-liberals but ultra-liberals who are 9/11 Truthers (i.e., who believe 9/11 was an inside job by the MIC-IC and that the WTC towers were brought down by pre-positioned explosives), and/or who think JFK may have been killed because he was gonna reveal UFO secrets, and/or who believe the Moon landings were faked, and/or who believe the Russians stole the 2016 election for Trump (if so, they must have been furious with what they got for their trouble when Trump slapped tariffs on Russian steel, shut down the Russian consulate in Seattle, expelled dozens of Russian diplomats, sold heavy weapons to Ukraine [which Obama had refused to do], pushed NATO nations to increase their defense spending, pulled us out of the Iran nuke deal [an act that Putin harshly condemned], and tried to get Germany to cancel its pipeline deal with Russia, etc.).

If you visit my JFK website and/or read my two JFK books, you will have little or no clue what my personal politics are, because I leave my politics out of my JFK writings. But many of the liberals here insist on injecting their politics into virtually everything they write about the JFK case.

Anthony Summers does the same thing I do. He is actually quite conservative in his politics, but you'd never guess this to read his writings on the assassination. Another prominent and highly regarded author on the JFK case is center-right, but they give no clue of this in their writings (I'm using the generic plural to avoid mentioning the person's gender). 

I don't mind telling people that I'm an eclectic centrist who holds liberal views on some issues, moderate views on some issues, and conservative views on some issues. I just don't think there's any reason to inject one's personal politics into the JFK case. 

The fact that so many liberal authors have injected their politics into the writings on the JFK case is the reason that so many people think that only liberals believe in a conspiracy in the assassination. 

Edited April 13, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

      Indeed, Sandy, I'm still waiting for MIchael Griffith to answer my original, non-rhetorical question-- instead of engaging in redundant, nonsensical slurs.

      

Meanwhile, it looks like Michael Griffith still hasn't figured out that he's standing near the first base line in right field, while his so-called "ultra liberals" on the forum are covering center field.

As for 9/11, since Griffith posted some bunk on the subject, I have two more, basic questions for him-- while we're all waiting for him to post some examples of "good Republican ideas."

1)  If skyscrapers falls to earth (and/or implode into pulverized ash) at approximately the acceleration of gravity, what is the resistance of the steel sub-structures to collapse?

2)  Who engaged in the short-selling of United and American Airlines stock just before 9/11?

Edited April 13, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Sandy Larsen]

Michael apparently couldn't think of a single Republican good idea... one that helps out average paycheck-to-paycheck Americans. Which isn't surprising at all to me. The only thing surprising is that he thought there was one.

Okay guys, I'm gonna ask you to be kind to Ben and quit talking politics lest yet another of his threads get moved over to Political Discussions.

I'd love to see you guys pick up where you left off over at the Mainstream vs MAGA Water 
Cooler.

 

[Michael Griffith]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

1)  If skyscrapers falls to earth (and/or implode into pulverized ash) at approximately the acceleration of gravity, what is the resistance of the steel sub-structures to collapse?

2)  Who engaged in the short-selling of United and American Airlines stock just before 9/11?

This is nutjob material. This craziness has been answered and explained ad nauseam, but you and your fellow radical true believers won't listen. You won't listen because you want to believe this stuff. I'm guessing it fills some emotional need and provides a paradigm that somehow gives meaning to your life. 

It's curious that you and Sandy don't want to know what good ideas I think the Democrats have, only the good ideas I think the Republicans have. It says something about your bias and about how far on the fringe you guys are that you don't think the Republicans have a single good idea. 

But, okay, I'll bite. Here are Republican ideas that I think have merit:

-- Preventing states from blocking municipalities and rural co-ops from building publicly owned broadband networks.

-- Negotiating strong and enforceable standards for workers in our trade deals. Future trade agreements should build on the pro-worker provisions in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which took effect in 2020.

-- In connection with the above, protecting American jobs by ensuring that American companies are not forced to compete against foreign companies that have a lower tax burden, that pay their workers lower salaries, that have lower safety standards, and that face less expensive regulatory compliance costs. 

-- Promoting charter schools that give parents more control over their children's education.

-- Tuition tax credits or vouchers to enable low-income and middle-income parents to send their kids to private schools (and, yes, there are many private schools that charge the same or less than public school districts in their areas spend per pupil). 

-- Reducing the tax and regulatory burden on small businesses. (My second-youngest son owns a restaurant and has plenty of surreal horror stories about ridiculous regulation and anti-business local inspectors.)

-- Expanding the items that Health Savings Accounts can pay for and repealing the Obama-era regulations that changed a number of OTC drugs into prescription drugs (this was one of Big Pharma's demands for securing their support for Obamacare).

-- Substantially increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) as an alternative to hiking the federal minimum wage, since the EITC targets adults 25 and over who are working in a career field that they will likely stay in for a long time, and since the EITC spreads the cost of the wage increase much more broadly than does the minimum wage, thus reducing the burden on employers.

-- Repealing the federal tax on Social Security benefits. 

-- Restoring the treaty system specified by the Constitution, whereby the president negotiates agreements and submits them to the Senate for a vote on ratification, with ratification requiring two-thirds of the senators present and voting. No more treaties or important international agreements being negotiated by the president but not submitted for proper review and ratification to the Senate, in violation of the Constitution. 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Michael apparently couldn't think of a single Republican good idea... one that helps out average paycheck-to-paycheck Americans. Which isn't surprising at all to me. The only thing surprising is that he thought there was one.

Okay guys, I'm gonna ask you to be kind to Ben and quit talking politics lest yet another of his threads get moved over to Political Discussions.

I'd love to see you guys pick up where you left off over at the Mainstream vs MAGA Water 
Cooler.

 

I thought you had the ability to leave a thread but remove the grandstanding. No?

Hope all is well...

[Paul Brancato]

16 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

This is nutjob material. This craziness has been answered and explained ad nauseam, but you and your fellow radical true believers won't listen. You won't listen because you want to believe this stuff. I'm guessing it fills some emotional need and provides a paradigm that somehow gives meaning to your life. 

It's curious that you and Sandy don't want to know what good ideas I think the Democrats have, only the good ideas I think the Republicans have. It says something about your bias and about how far on the fringe you guys are that you don't think the Republicans have a single good idea. 

But, okay, I'll bite. Here are Republican ideas that I think have merit:

-- Preventing states from blocking municipalities and rural co-ops from building publicly owned broadband networks.

-- Negotiating strong and enforceable standards for workers in our trade deals. Future trade agreements should build on the pro-worker provisions in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which took effect in 2020.

-- In connection with the above, protecting American jobs by ensuring that American companies are not forced to compete against foreign companies that have a lower tax burden, that pay their workers lower salaries, that have lower safety standards, and that face less expensive regulatory compliance costs. 

-- Promoting charter schools that give parents more control over their children's education.

-- Tuition tax credits or vouchers to enable low-income and middle-income parents to send their kids to private schools (and, yes, there are many private schools that charge the same or less than public school districts in their areas spend per pupil). 

-- Reducing the tax and regulatory burden on small businesses. (My second-youngest son owns a restaurant and has plenty of surreal horror stories about ridiculous regulation and anti-business local inspectors.)

-- Expanding the items that Health Savings Accounts can pay for and repealing the Obama-era regulations that changed a number of OTC drugs into prescription drugs (this was one of Big Pharma's demands for securing their support for Obamacare).

-- Substantially increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) as an alternative to hiking the federal minimum wage, since the EITC targets adults 25 and over who are working in a career field that they will likely stay in for a long time, and since the EITC spreads the cost of the wage increase much more broadly than does the minimum wage, thus reducing the burden on employers.

-- Repealing the federal tax on Social Security benefits. 

-- Restoring the treaty system specified by the Constitution, whereby the president negotiates agreements and submits them to the Senate for a vote on ratification, with ratification requiring two-thirds of the senators present and voting. No more treaties or important international agreements being negotiated by the president but not submitted for proper review and ratification to the Senate, in violation of the Constitution. 

 

 

Ok I’ll bite - list some Democratic Party good ideas with the same detail

[W. Niederhut]

57 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

This is nutjob material. This craziness has been answered and explained ad nauseam, but you and your fellow radical true believers won't listen.

 

 

Just answer the questions, Griffith, and spare us your deflective buzzwords, already.

If you can't come up with the answers, I'll help you out-- since this is the "Education" Forum.

1)  If skyscrapers falls to earth (and/or implode into pulverized ash) at approximately the acceleration of gravity, what is the resistance of the steel sub-structures to collapse?

2)  Who engaged in the short-selling of United and American Airlines stock just before 9/11?

[Michael Griffith]

13 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Just answer the questions, Griffith, and spare us your deflective buzzwords, already.

If you can't come up with the answers, I'll help you out-- since this is the "Education" Forum.

1)  If skyscrapers falls to earth (and/or implode into pulverized ash) at approximately the acceleration of gravity, what is the resistance of the steel sub-structures to collapse?

2)  Who engaged in the short-selling of United and American Airlines stock just before 9/11?

I repeat that this is nutcase material. These are not "deflective buzzwords"; they are factual descriptions of the garbage you are peddling here. I am amazed that the moderators are letting you taint the JFK case by posting this nutty stuff in this subforum.

The 9/11 inside-job conspiracy theories about the WTC towers, the Pentagon attack, etc., have been debunked to the satisfaction of 99% of the educated populace. 

And, the 9/11 Commission factually and logically explained the short selling of United and American Airlines stock shortly before 9/11. Again, as I've pointed out to you before, one of the major sellers of United stock on 9/6 also bought 115,000 shares of American Airlines stock on 9/10. Even mainstream liberal fact-checkers reject the theory that the selling was suspicious or indicative or foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. 

Edited April 14, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Michael Griffith]

15 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Ok I’ll bite - list some Democratic Party good ideas with the same detail

I decided I should answer your reply separately. Initially, I included my response to your reply in my response to Niederhut.

Well, first of all, I have a confession to make. The first two ideas in my list of "Republican" ideas came straight from the 2020 Democratic Party platform, virtually verbatim. I was baiting Niederhut to see if he would attack them. Anyway, here are Democratic Party ideas that I think have merit, including the two fake GOP ideas that I just mentioned:

-- Preventing states from blocking municipalities and rural co-ops from building publicly owned broadband networks.

-- Negotiating strong and enforceable standards for workers in our trade deals. Future trade agreements should build on the pro-worker provisions in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which took effect in 2020.

-- Expanding healthcare to everyone at either no cost or minimal cost. I actually don't think Obamacare went far enough. I thought it was a major step in the right direction, but I pretty much agree with Bernie Sanders when it comes to health care: I think it is a right and that it should be universal. 

-- Not requiring employment to qualify for Medicaid. Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, who's now running in the GOP primary, proudly reports how he removed 20,000 people from Medicaid by pushing through an employment requirement. I think this was wrong, if not immoral.

-- I agree with most of the Democrats' proposals for clean water and protecting wildlife areas. I think that too many Republicans are tone deaf when it comes to protecting our water and wildlife. I disagreed when Trump repealed key aspects of the Clean Water Act, and I'm glad that the Biden administration has undone that action.

-- I agree with those Democrats who, like many Republicans, believe it's unfair and unwise to force American companies to compete with foreign companies that have much lower labor and regulatory costs. I was glad that a large number of Democrats voted for the USMCA.

Let me add a few more:

-- I agree that abortion pills for use in the first week or two after conception should be legal. I don't agree with the GOP effort to ban them. I respect their motives, but I just disagree with their effort here. I am strongly pro-life, but I think banning morning-after or week/two weeks-after abortion pills is going too far. I do agree that once there is a heartbeat and there are brain waves, abortion should not be allowed, but I think women should have the option of using an abortion pill in the first week or two after conception.

-- Allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Some Republicans also support this, but many do not. Democrats deserve credit for finally making this happen (although it does not take effect until 2026).

-- Expanding Medicaid eligibility by raising the income threshold for qualification. Since I believe in universal health care, I support any interim effort to provide health insurance to more people.

-- I tend to lean toward the Democratic view when it comes to draconian work requirements for receiving welfare. I agree that able-bodied people should do some kind of valid community work if they're on welfare, but mothers with children, for example, should be exempted from this requirement. 

-- I agree that abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest. Here, too, many Republicans agree, but many, if not the majority, do not. Most Republican-controlled states that have passed abortion bans have not made exceptions for rape and incest. I disagree with that and agree with the Democrats that such exceptions should be made. 

-- I agree substantially with the Democrats when it comes to granting some kind of legal status to illegal immigrants and to "Dreamers." As long as illegal immigrants have not committed any serious crimes since their arrival, I think they should be granted some kind of legal status with an eventual pathway to citizenship. However, I think they should go to the "back of the line" so that legal immigrants receive priority, and that the border should be secured before any move toward citizenship is begun. I believe Dreamers should be granted citizenship immediately.

Edited April 14, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Paul Brancato]

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

I decided I should answer your reply separately. Initially, I included my response to your reply in my response to Niederhut.

Well, first of all, I have a confession to make. The first two ideas in my list of "Republican" ideas came straight from the 2020 Democratic Party platform, virtually verbatim. I was baiting Niederhut to see if he would attack them. Anyway, here are Democratic Party ideas that I think have merit, including the two fake GOP ideas that I just mentioned:

-- Preventing states from blocking municipalities and rural co-ops from building publicly owned broadband networks.

-- Negotiating strong and enforceable standards for workers in our trade deals. Future trade agreements should build on the pro-worker provisions in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which took effect in 2020.

-- Expanding healthcare to everyone at either no cost or minimal cost. I actually don't think Obamacare went far enough. I thought it was a major step in the right direction, but I pretty much agree with Bernie Sanders when it comes to health care: I think it is a right and that it should be universal. 

-- Not requiring employment to qualify for Medicaid. Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, who's now running in the GOP primary, proudly reports how he removed 20,000 people from Medicaid by pushing through an employment requirement. I think this was wrong, if not immoral.

-- I agree with most of the Democrats' proposals for clean water and protecting wildlife areas. I think that too many Republicans are tone deaf when it comes to protecting our water and wildlife. I disagreed when Trump repealed key aspects of the Clean Water Act, and I'm glad that the Biden administration has undone that action.

-- I agree with those Democrats who, like many Republicans, believe it's unfair and unwise to force American companies to compete with foreign companies that have much lower labor and regulatory costs. I was glad that a large number of Democrats voted for the USMCA.

Let me add a few more:

-- I agree that abortion pills for use in the first week or two after conception should be legal. I don't agree with the GOP effort to ban them. I respect their motives, but I just disagree with their effort here. I am strongly pro-life, but I think banning morning-after or week/two weeks-after abortion pills is going too far. I do agree that once there is a heartbeat and there are brain waves, abortion should not be allowed, but I think women should have the option of using an abortion pill in the first week or two after conception.

-- Allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Some Republicans also support this, but many do not. Democrats deserve credit for finally making this happen (although it does not take effect until 2026).

-- Expanding Medicaid eligibility by raising the income threshold for qualification. Since I believe in universal health care, I support any interim effort to provide health insurance to more people.

-- I tend to lean toward the Democratic view when it comes to draconian work requirements for receiving welfare. I agree that able-bodied people should do some kind of valid community work if they're on welfare, but mothers with children, for example, should be exempted from this requirement. 

-- I agree that abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest. Here, too, many Republicans agree, but many, if not the majority, do not. Most Republican-controlled states that have passed abortion bans have not made exceptions for rape and incest. I disagree with that and agree with the Democrats that such exceptions should be made. 

-- I agree substantially with the Democrats when it comes to granting some kind of legal status to illegal immigrants and to "Dreamers." As long as illegal immigrants have not committed any serious crimes since their arrival, I think they should be granted some kind of legal status with an eventual pathway to citizenship. However, I think they should go to the "back of the line" so that legal immigrants receive priority, and that the border should be secured before any move toward citizenship is begun. I believe Dreamers should be granted citizenship immediately.

Thanks for that Michael. 

[W. Niederhut]

19 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Just answer the questions, Griffith, and spare us your deflective buzzwords, already.

If you can't come up with the answers, I'll help you out-- since this is the "Education" Forum.

1)  If skyscrapers falls to earth (and/or implode into pulverized ash) at approximately the acceleration of gravity, what is the resistance of the steel sub-structures to collapse?

2)  Who engaged in the short-selling of United and American Airlines stock just before 9/11?

Michael Griffith, obviously, has a bad habit of refusing to answer questions, while accusing informed people who question official government narratives of being "nutjobs," "far left," "ultra liberal," etc.

At least Michael didn't call me a "kooky conspiracy theorist," eh, folks?  🙄

The correct answer to Question 1) is ZERO.  If a building (or any object) falls to earth at the acceleration of gravity, the resistance to collapse is zero.

In other words, the steel substructures of the WTC towers (and WTC7) had to be abruptly demolished by explosives, in order for the buildings to collapse at free fall acceleration.

Interestingly, the serial explosions that demolished WTC1 and WTC2 on 9/11-- pulverizing hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete into the atmosphere of lower Manhattan-- are clearly visible and audible on film.

Donald Trump, himself, correctly announced on television on 9/11 that, based on his knowledge of the steel girder/construction of the Twin Towers, the buildings could only have been demolished by "bombs" (i.e., explosives.)

The correct answer to Question 2) is Baltimore banking associates of Bush & Cheney's CIA Chief Operating Officer Alvin "Buzz" Krongard.   Krongard's associate(s) engaged in major short-selling of UAL stock shortly before 9/11.

[Paul Bacon]

21 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

The 9/11 inside-job conspiracy theories about the WTC towers, the Pentagon attack, etc., have been debunked to the satisfaction of 99% of the educated populace. 

This, of course, is nonsense.

Edited April 15, 2023 by Paul Bacon

[W. Niederhut]

4 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

This, of course, is nonsense.

True, Paul.

If people take the time to review Michael Griffith's verbose posts on this forum since July of 2022, they will discover that nonsense is Griffith's specialty.  He is a purveyor of U.S. government disinformation.

I noticed the problem this year while studying Griffith's gnarly debates with James DiEugenio on the subject of JFK and Vietnam, and, more recently, with his John McAdams style defamation of Col. L. Fletcher Prouty.

Griffith recently called James DiEugenio a "far left-ist" who is "out of his depth on Vietnam..."  

WTF?  Does anyone seriously doubt the historiography of James DiEugenio, John Newman, Peter Dale Scott, Fletcher Prouty, et.al., about NSAM 263 and JFK's 1963 decision to get out of Vietnam?

Needless to say, Griffith has also had no intelligible response to the facts that I posted for him about the physics of the WTC demolitions, or about CIA Chief Operating Officer Alvin "Buzz" Krongard's association with the short-sellers of UAL stock prior 9/11.

His response was to call me a "nutjob," "nutcase," etc.-- a variation on the CIA's old "kooky conspiracy theorist" trope to discredit Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, et.al.

So, sadly, Griffith is not here to join us in discovering and discussing the truth about America's "untold history."

He's here to prevent people from discovering the truth-- as we have all witnessed in the case of the U.S. mainstream media and the ubiquitous government-funded disinformation websites on the internet that surface at the top of Google searches about black ops like the JFKA and 9/11.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 4/13/2023 at 5:43 PM, Michael Griffith said:

But, okay, I'll bite. Here are Republican ideas that I think have merit:

 

Remember, I asked for Republican ideas that would benefit Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck, which constitute more than half of Americans.

 

On 4/13/2023 at 5:43 PM, Michael Griffith said:

-- Protect American jobs by ensuring that American companies are not forced to compete against foreign companies that have a lower tax burden, that pay their workers lower salaries, that have lower safety standards, and that face less expensive regulatory compliance costs. 

 

Republicans have reversed their position on free trade?

Anyway, we don't have a jobs problem to fix. If anything, we have too many jobs.

 

On 4/13/2023 at 5:43 PM, Michael Griffith said:

-- Promoting charter schools that give parents more control over their children's education.

 

Charter and private schools are just a way for Republicans to ultimately privatize public schools. Just like they want to privatize everything else, like Social Security and Medicare.

This wouldn't help those living paycheck-to-paycheck. They already have free public schooling.

 

On 4/13/2023 at 5:43 PM, Michael Griffith said:

-- Reducing the tax and regulatory burden on small businesses. (My second-youngest son owns a restaurant and has plenty of surreal horror stories about ridiculous regulation and anti-business local inspectors.)

 

I owned my own business, one where I designed, manufactured, and sold my own products. I even exported to several countries. And I can tell you that the burden from the federal government is nearly nothing. The only thing the federal government requires of businesses with no employees is tax form preparation.

Those "anti-business local inspectors" have nothing to do with the federal government. They are there to make sure it's safe to eat your son's food.

Regardless, this program wouldn't help those living paycheck-to-paycheck. If they own a business, it is probably a DBA ("doing business as") which has very simple tax forms.

 

On 4/13/2023 at 5:43 PM, Michael Griffith said:

-- Expanding the items that Health Savings Accounts can pay for and repealing the Obama-era regulations that changed a number of OTC drugs into prescription drugs (this was one of Big Pharma's demands for securing their support for Obamacare).

 

This is just Republicans trying to eliminate public healthcare.

Paycheck-to-paycheck Americans whose employers don't provide medical insurance would be devastated by this plan. 

Medical insurance was so expensive (same as my rent) when I turned 50 that I had to drop it. Thank goodness I had Obamacare five years ago when I ended up in intensive care. The total cost was $65,000, of which I had to pay only $2000. And my Obamacare premium was only $50 monthly.

 

On 4/13/2023 at 5:43 PM, Michael Griffith said:

-- Substantially increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) as an alternative to hiking the federal minimum wage, since the EITC targets adults 25 and over who are working in a career field that they will likely stay in for a long time, and since the EITC spreads the cost of the wage increase much more broadly than does the minimum wage, thus reducing the burden on employers.

 

The Democratic Party supports the Earned Income Tax Credit and certainly would vote for increasing it.  But  since the above plan was rejected seven years ago, this tells me that there must be something wrong in its details.

 

On 4/13/2023 at 5:43 PM, Michael Griffith said:

-- Repealing the federal tax on Social Security benefits. 

 

Paycheck-to-paycheck Americans pay little to no taxes on Social Security benefits. So this plan would  be of no help.

 

On 4/13/2023 at 5:43 PM, Michael Griffith said:

-- Restoring the treaty system specified by the Constitution, whereby the president negotiates agreements and submits them to the Senate for a vote on ratification, with ratification requiring two-thirds of the senators present and voting. No more treaties or important international agreements being negotiated by the president but not submitted for proper review and ratification to the Senate, in violation of the Constitution. 

 

This doesn't benefit paycheck-to-paycheck Americans.