RFK Jr discusses his candidacy, and talks about Operation Northwoods

[Michael Griffith]

15 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

If RFK Jr. is serious about being extremely anti-war, then I would expect him to speak out on Russia attacking a sovereign democracy, completely unprovoked.

Any links to such statements?

I can't imagine that RFK Jr. will whitewash or minimize Russia's attempted rape of Ukraine. 

I see John Cotter has posted some evidence that RFK Jr. condemns the invasion:

Quote

 

In that interview with Tucker Carlson that Matthew Koch linked upthread RFK Jr referred to the “illegal invasion” of Ukraine, and he referred approvingly to his son going to Ukraine to fight against the Russians.

That's good to hear. 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[W. Niederhut]

14 hours ago, John Cotter said:

In that interview with Tucker Carlson that Matthew Koch linked upthread RFK Jr referred to the “illegal invasion” of Ukraine, and he referred approvingly to his son going to Ukraine to fight against the Russians.

But the main thrust of what he said was concerned with the “corporate kleptocracy” which had supplanted democracy in the USA and which was robbing ordinary people in favour of the rich.

That’s the anti-democratic regime which the mainstream Democratic and Republican parties have been maintaining for decades with the indispensable aid of the mainstream media. These are the anti-democratic entities which are combining to lynch-mob RFK Jr.

There is really only one political decision to be made by the US electorate in the forthcoming presidential election: either vote for RFK Jr and democracy; or vote against him so as to maintain the current kleptocracy.

John,

     You really need to educate yourself about American history and politics, instead of endlessly re-posting your erroneous tropes about the alleged "anti-democratic," pro-corporate equivalence of America's two political parties.

      Here are a few questions to facilitate your remedial education.

1)  Which political party has been systematically trying to suppress voting in the U.S. during the past decade?

2)   Which political party has stacked the U.S. Supreme Court with judges who have blocked enforcement of the 1965 Voting Rights Act?

3)   Which party stacked the Supreme Court with judges who abolished a century of campaign finance reforms in the U.S.-- permitting billionaires and corporations to donate unlimited, unsourced "dark money" to political campaigns?

4)   Which party has repeatedly cut taxes for billionaires (and corporations in 2017) during the past 42 years?

5)   Which party has repeatedly blocked or rolled back enforcement of pollution controls on corporate industry?

6)   Which party has repeatedly attempted to roll back fraud and public safety regulations on corporate industry?

[Paul Brancato]

47 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

John,

     You really need to educate yourself about American history and politics, instead of endlessly re-posting your erroneous tropes about the alleged "anti-democratic," pro-corporate equivalence of America's two political parties.

      Here are a few questions to facilitate your remedial education.

1)  Which political party has been systematically trying to suppress voting in the U.S. during the past decade?

2)   Which political party has stacked the U.S. Supreme Court with judges who have blocked enforcement of the 1965 Voting Rights Act?

3)   Which party stacked the Supreme Court with judges who abolished a century of campaign finance reforms in the U.S.-- permitting billionaires and corporations to donate unlimited, unsourced "dark money" to political campaigns?

4)   Which party has repeatedly cut taxes for billionaires (and corporations in 2017) during the past 42 years?

5)   Which party has repeatedly blocked or rolled back enforcement of pollution controls on corporate industry?

6)   Which party has repeatedly attempted to roll back fraud and public safety regulations on corporate industry?

Yes - the Republican Party has been much worse for a long time. But people are not political parties. I’d like to find common ground with people who vote differently than I do. The deep divisions don’t really define the majority of Americans. On a host of important issues we are in agreement. And in service of American Empire there is little difference in DC. RFK Jr would like us to recall that 1968 was no picnic either, and that his father’s entry into the Presidential race was not welcomed by the Democratic Party, or the Corporate State. 

[W. Niederhut]

13 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Yes - the Republican Party has been much worse for a long time. But people are not political parties. I’d like to find common ground with people who vote differently than I do. The deep divisions don’t really define the majority of Americans. On a host of important issues we are in agreement. And in service of American Empire there is little difference in DC. RFK Jr would like us to recall that 1968 was no picnic either, and that his father’s entry into the Presidential race was not welcomed by the Democratic Party, or the Corporate State. 

Paul,

     I get the impression that some people here seem to think that RFK, Jr. is the only 21st century Democrat who has been critical of our corporate plutocracy and our military industrial complex.

    As a long-time Bernie Sanders (and Elizabeth Warren) supporter, I find this perplexing.

     The progressive half of the Democratic Party came very close to winning the Democratic Presidential nominations in 2016 and 2020, and 2016 polls showed that Bernie would have defeated the closet plutocrat, Donald Trump.

     For 2024, I also wonder about the viability of a Gavin Newsom Presidential campaign. 

     Meanwhile, I have a question for our local Fox/Tucker Carlson fans.

      Rupert Murdoch s a right wing corporate plutocrat and a major booster of our disastrous, multi-trillion dollar Neocon "War on Terror."

      Murdoch and Fox completely blacked out coverage of progressive Social Democrats Bernie Sanders (in 2016 and 2020) and Elizabeth Warren (in 2020.)

       So, why are Murdoch and his talking heads suddenly fluffing anti-vaxxer RFK, Jr.?

       Isn't that somewhat suspicious?

    

Edited April 21, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Paul Brancato]

13 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Paul,

     I get the impression that some people here seem to think that RFK, Jr. is the only 21st century Democrat who has been critical of our corporate plutocracy and our military industrial complex.

    As a long-time Bernie Sanders (and Elizabeth Warren) supporter, I find this perplexing.

     The progressive half of the Democratic Party came very close to winning the Democratic Presidential nominations in 2016 and 2020, and 2016 polls showed that Bernie would have defeated the closet plutocrat, Donald Trump.

     For 2024, I also wonder about the viability of a Gavin Newsom Presidential campaign. 

     Meanwhile, I have a question for our local Fox/Tucker Carlson fans.

      Rupert Murdoch s a right wing corporate plutocrat and a major booster of our disastrous, multi-trillion dollar Neocon "War on Terror."

      Murdoch and Fox completely blacked out coverage of progressive Social Democrats Bernie Sanders (in 2016 and 2020) and Elizabeth Warren (in 2020.)

       So, why are Murdoch and his talking heads suddenly fluffing anti-vaxxer RFK, Jr.?

       Isn't that somewhat suspicious?

    

That’s the question everyone is pondering. But recall that CNN and MSNBC are doing nothing, neither did they help Sanders and Warren, both of whom I support. The Democratic Party got in the way of that, with help from the biased liberal wing of the media. The reason given in 2020 was uniting in order to defeat Trump, and it appears that we agree Sanders would have as well. In 2016 the Machine was solidly behind Clinton. In 2024 it looks like they will do likewise with Biden, assuming he runs. So I think it’s the wrong question. I want a progressive candidate, and if we truly had a neutral msm I feel certain the country would move in that direction. This obstruction of progressives is a Democratic problem. So why should I fear the motives of FOX or Bannon and Stone? Maybe it’s the opposite of that you say. Maybe giving him a leg up is the best way to inject that fear into the public and the Democratic Party so they DON’T have to run against a progressive, and especially one like RFK Jr who will splinter off votes on the libertarian right. 

[W. Niederhut]

8 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

That’s the question everyone is pondering. But recall that CNN and MSNBC are doing nothing, neither did they help Sanders and Warren, both of whom I support. The Democratic Party got in the way of that, with help from the biased liberal wing of the media. The reason given in 2020 was uniting in order to defeat Trump, and it appears that we agree Sanders would have as well. In 2016 the Machine was solidly behind Clinton. In 2024 it looks like they will do likewise with Biden, assuming he runs. So I think it’s the wrong question. I want a progressive candidate, and if we truly had a neutral msm I feel certain the country would move in that direction. This obstruction of progressives is a Democratic problem. So why should I fear the motives of FOX or Bannon and Stone? Maybe it’s the opposite of that you say. Maybe giving him a leg up is the best way to inject that fear into the public and the Democratic Party so they DON’T have to run against a progressive, and especially one like RFK Jr who will splinter off votes on the libertarian right. 

Paul,

     I may be wrong on this one, but my hunch is that Rupert Murdoch is using RFK, Jr. to sabotage the Democratic Party and put the Koch/GOP plutocrats back in control of the White House and Congress.

      Murdoch is mainly interested in profits and low Koch/GOP tax rates.

      He couldn't care less about America and the American people.

Edited April 21, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, does anyone know where the phrase "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace". came from?

I think it was historian Charles Beard.

One of the early revisionist historians. 

When he came up with that phrase, in the twenties, he was ostracized.  Even though he was clearly correct.

One of the early examples of academics circling their wagons to be accepted by their benefactors: foundations and universities.

And I disagree with the above.  Carlson I think had him on because RFK Jr praised him for his stance on the JFK case.  Just remember what Mark Zaid said about Carlson on that one.

Edited April 21, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

FWIW, both xxxx Tuck and Bobby Jr. pushed Russian propaganda in that interview. They cited numbers from what they claimed was one of the recently leaked documents that indicated the Ukrainians were suffering more casualties than the Russians, when the document they cited was a faked version of the original document. Evidently, the Russians got ahold of these documents early on, and disseminated faked versions throughout the internet, to spread lies about the war and maximize U.S. embarrassment. (This story was broken I believe by Philip Bump of the Washington Post.)

In any event, RFK Jr. would do well to distance himself from Tucker and his fellow Russian suck-ups. 

 

 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

@Pat Speer
Doug Valentine on the recent Pentagon documents leak: 
 

"I have no doubt the documents are genuine, but I believe the leak was a function of the culture war that is tearing America apart. That a general loyal to Donald Trump and the MAGA movement leaked the documents in an attempt to undermine the Biden administration and promote the Trump policy of rapprochement with Russia. The Biden administration is attempting to spin the leak, but the political/cultural rift within the military and CIA, as well within federal law enforcement, is the real story. America is in the midst of a psychological civil war, as I say in my forthcoming book Pisces Moon: The Dark Arts of Empire.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XhSJZOrZCuyoUWHU0jUNeMERtxy7dAui/view?pli=1

[W. Niederhut]

21 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

FWIW, both xxxx Tuck and Bobby Jr. pushed Russian propaganda in that interview. They cited numbers from what they claimed was one of the recently leaked documents that indicated the Ukrainians were suffering more casualties than the Russians, when the document they cited was a faked version of the original document. Evidently, the Russians got ahold of these documents early on, and disseminated faked versions throughout the internet, to spread lies about the war and maximize U.S. embarrassment. (This story was broken I believe by Philip Bump of the Washington Post.)

In any event, RFK Jr. would do well to distance himself from Tucker and his fellow Russian suck-ups. 

 

Amen to that.

And, frankly, I'm amazed that anyone would still cite Tucker Carlson or Fox as credible sources, after Fox's recent $757.5 million dollar settlement for blatantly lying to promote Trump's Stop-the-Steal hoax.

Think of the damage Tucker Carlson and Fox did to the United States by promoting those Trump lies-- knowing all the while that they were untrue.

Edited April 21, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Benjamin Cole]

The Donks lost the thread during the Clinton Administration, although in general I think B Clinton was okay.

That is when the multi-nationalist funded Donk-media-intel state-foreign policy-trade policy blob was solidified. Wall Street, Silicon Valley, defense industry, media and the Donks. 

"Global engagement" is the hip term now. Very expensive proposition, but the multinationals have converted the US military into a global guard service. 

Defense and Wall Street today split their donations about evenly between the two parties. What does that tell you? 

The unpleasant, divisive ID politics and woke side of the Donks has been growing steadily since 1980 also. Gavin Newsom said he will appoint a US Senator of a specific sex and ethnicity if Feinstein should move on from this life. 

For many Americans, maybe most, this makes for two unpalatable parties.

And how different were Obama's proposed corporate tax cuts from Trump's? We are talking margins on the corporate tax rate, between the two. 

Look for a Niagara of feculent invective poured upon any candidate that is not an intel-state apparatchik. 

RFK Jr. is not a cure-all. But, maybe the US intel state could be held at bay during an RFK Jr. presidency.

And the JFK Records would be opened up.

We know, beyond any dispute, that Biden/Garland have done a snuff job on the JFK Records, and that is where they stand on transparency in government.  

How can anyone regard Biden/Garland as anything but intel-state apparatchiks? 

 

 

 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

Some commenters have said that there is no intel-state-establishment plan or plot to suffocate RFK Jr.'s candidacy in the crib. 

True, common citizens, such as I, do not have the subpoena or surveillance powers of the state, and cannot show you texts or phone calls proving collusion or plots of any sort.

But can anyone show single comment or op-ed on CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, CBS, NBC, ABC et al, in favor of RFK Jr.'s bid?

Even one? 

The polls vary (some polls are curious surveys of previous Biden voters), but for sake of argument, say RFK Jr. is polling round 14%, or about one out of seven voters.

That is now, before RFK Jr. has made his case to the American public. 

Should not the "balanced" and "objective" American media have at least some op-eds arguing for RFK Jr.? 

The media-blob against Trump was platformed on the premise that Trump was a uniquely bad and dangerous charlatan-demagogue, and a Russian stooge (and even worse, a populist). 

So, we saw very few, if any, M$M op-eds defending Trump. But there were some. 

RFK Jr. is faring about the same. And RFK Jr. is no Trump. 

You know, in some ways this is even a worse indictment against modern media, if strings are not being pulled by the intel-state.

The M$M is homogenized to the smallest particle, liked homogenized milk. 

That fits---as in, the American public is not red or blue, they are white: As in getting snowed. 

 

Edited April 22, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[Matt Allison]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

But can anyone show single comment or op-ed on CNN, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, CBS, NBC, ABC et al, in favor of RFK Jr.'s bid?

I think you're confused, Ben.

Why do you expect that? Here in the U.S. what is RFK Jr. most well known for?

And once again, please name the issues he disagrees with President Biden on.

[James DiEugenio]

You cannot be serious Matt.  Are you?

He wants to get out of Ukraine

And he will declassify every last page at NARA

Whew, talk about tyranny of the Democratic Establishment.

Edited April 22, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

To show you the kind of person Bobby Jr is.

Today, about 48 hours after he declared in Boston, he was in LA.

Not for a campaign event.  Far from it.

I was invited to the wake for the late Paul Schrade at RFK community school.

I walked in the doors to the library and who do I see?  RFK Jr.

I walked up to him and shook his hand and said: "Nice to see you Mr. President."