Did Anyone Else Watch It?

[Michael Griffith]

I notice he kept mispronouncing "nuclear" as "nu-cu-lar." One of his aides needs to get him to fix that. 

I recall that critics endlessly needled George W. Bush for mispronouncing the word.

 

[Joe Bauer]

The corporate/Republican machine hasn't even begun to turn on the MSM political attack heat on RFK Jr..

When they do ( if they really want to ) he's got enough baggage they will have a field day.

His personal life going back all the way to his youth.

Drug use. Heroin addiction.

Troubled marriages with one wife committing suicide?

His anti-vax stance will be a negative with the majority of Americans who got the Covid vaccines and feel it saved them from the horrors suffered by those who didn't.

RFK has some odd associations with right wing types. That's very confusing.

If Michael Bloomberg ( the real king of Wall Street ) even suspects RFK maybe a closeted progressive anti-Wall Street threat like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren he'd easily spend another BILLION to derail him like he did to Warren and Sanders.

And there's much more.

The only way RFK Jr. makes it into the general election would be by way of an independent/third party candidacy.

And that would be the biggest gift to the Corporate/Republicans they could ever hope for.

IMO anyways.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Michael Griffith]

20 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

 

 

The corporate/Republican machine hasn't even begun to turn on the MSM political attack heat on RFK Jr.

FYI, most of the MSM is controlled by liberal Democrats. Most of the harsh attacks and smears against RFK Jr. have come from liberals.

RFK has some odd associations with right wing types. That's very confusing.

It is not confusing at all--it is encouraging and refreshing. One of the main reasons I am intrigued by his candidacy is that I can tell he is not a rabid partisan or a rigid idealogue. In this regard, he is much like JFK was.

Edited June 22, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pat Speer]

14 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Verily. The Kennedys were the first TV PR-smart occupants of the White House, after the under-rated and prosaic Truman and Ike.

The Kennedys were glamorous and handsome, with gorgeous wives. Confident, witty (and very smart too). 

But times have changed. Tinseltown is ugly and the people in it too. 

RFK Jr. would do well to move on from Hollywood. 

The US has serious issues with housing costs, globalism in foreign, military and trade policies, and epidemics in diabetes and obesity. Long-term stagnant wages. An open border undercutting US labor.  Very expensive medial care. 

Not a situation for some hairdos from Hollywood. 

If you can get over your hatred you will realize that just about the only people caring about the issues you raise are those "hairdos" in Hollywood. 

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

 

The corporate/Republican machine hasn't even begun to turn on the MSM political attack heat on RFK Jr.

FYI, most of the MSM is controlled liberal Democrats. Most of the harsh attacks and smears against RFK Jr. have come from liberals.

RFK has some odd associations with right wing types. That's very confusing.

It is not confusing at all--it is encouraging and refreshing. One of the main reasons I am intrigued by his candidacy is that I can tell he is not a rabid partisan or a rigid idealogue. In this regard, he is much like JFK was.

Define "liberal." if you mean the Clinton, Obama, and Biden school of liberalism, then you are probably correct. If you mean the Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and AOC school of liberalism then you are quite wrong. The media being "liberal" has long been a rallying cry of the right, long before it was true. If I recall, the 1964 election marked a turn in direction to the Dems, and Watergate made it official. But it wasn't by much. If you go back through the papers from 76 to 88, for example, you will see that Carter received much worse press than Reagan. 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

29 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

If you can get over your hatred you will realize that just about the only people caring about the issues you raise are those "hairdos" in Hollywood. 

IMHO, the populist movement in America is a lot broader than the Hollywood hairdos. 

Real issues---like wages, working conditions, keeping America's labor markets tight---have been back-burnered, or even undercut by both parties for two generations. 

Tinseltown has been front and center on faddish issues, such as trans rights or automatic weapons. Even wrong on some issues, such a nuclear power.

And the number of films from Hollywood glorifying elements of the US military....egads. 

The CIA's best PR shop is at Hollywood and Vine (metaphorically speaking). 

 

[Joe Bauer]

17 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

The corporate/Republican machine hasn't even begun to turn on the MSM political attack heat on RFK Jr.

FYI, most of the MSM is controlled liberal Democrats. Most of the harsh attacks and smears against RFK Jr. have come from liberals.

Notice I said " if they want to?"

Right now it looks like they would love for RFK Jr. to split the Democratic party come election time.

Hence, they may never go after RFK Jr.

Edited June 22, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Michael Griffith]

13 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Define "liberal." if you mean the Clinton, Obama, and Biden school of liberalism, then you are probably correct. If you mean the Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and AOC school of liberalism then you are quite wrong. The media being "liberal" has long been a rallying cry of the right, long before it was true. If I recall, the 1964 election marked a turn in direction to the Dems, and Watergate made it official. But it wasn't by much. If you go back through the papers from 76 to 88, for example, you will see that Carter received much worse press than Reagan. 

I think this is erroneous. Most major newspapers endorsed Carter in 1980 and painted Reagan as a dangerous extremist who would lead us into WW III. Even in 1984, with a roaring economy and high public confidence, the majority of major newspapers endorsed the feckless Walter Mondale over Reagan. In the 2004, most major newspapers endorsed Kerry over Bush, and even the majority of non-major newspapers endorsed Kerry. The daily circulation of the newspapers that endorsed Kerry was nearly 50% larger than the circulation of the newspapers that endorsed Bush. In 2012, virtually every major newspaper and most non-major ones endorsed Obama, even with a sluggish economy, the recent debacle in Benghazi, and mediocre stock market performance.

As for the TV networks, MSNBC is far left. CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS are dominated by liberal commentators. CNBC is somewhere in the middle. And, Fox News, OANN, and Newsmax TV are conservative. 

I might add that no network has given RFK Jr. more coverage and more favorable coverage than Fox News. 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

I think this is erroneous. Most major newspapers endorsed Carter in 1980 and painted Reagan as a dangerous extremist who would lead us into WW III. Even in 1984, with a roaring economy and high public confidence, the majority of major newspapers endorsed the feckless Walter Mondale over Reagan. In the 2004, most major newspapers endorsed Kerry over Bush, and even the majority of non-major newspapers endorsed Kerry. The daily circulation of the newspapers that endorsed Kerry was nearly 50% larger than the circulation of the newspapers that endorsed Bush. In 2012, virtually every major newspaper and most non-major ones endorsed Obama, even with a sluggish economy, the recent debacle in Benghazi, and mediocre stock market performance.

As for the TV networks, MSNBC is far left. CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS are dominated by liberal commentators. CNBC is somewhere in the middle. And, Fox News, OANN, and Newsmax TV are conservative. 

I might add that no network has given RFK Jr. more coverage and more favorable coverage than Fox News. 

I think you are incorrect about the majority of papers endorsing Mondale over Reagan. I know for a fact they got behind Nixon over McGovern, and Nixon over Kennedy. As I recall, Carter suffered through minor scandal after minor scandal, while Reagan largely skated through Iran/Contra, in which he engaged in impeachable offenses. I think you are also being somewhat disingenuous by citing the circulation of papers over number of papers. No one disputes that Dems have been better for and stronger in large cities than Republicans, for decades and decades and decades. That's not a media bias, per se. I mean, you wouldn't expect a community that is largely black to have a morning paper endorsing the overthrow of civil rights legislation, right? 

It's also telling, IMO, that you call MSNBC "far left" but Fox, OAN, and Newsmax "conservative". That would appear to be a deliberate distortion designed to make MSNBC appear to be extreme, while the ones you name are not. Nothing could be further from the truth. 

If the average American is a 5, the views presented on MSNBC are a 7, with 10 being extreme left, woke, socialist, whatever. While Fox would be a 2, and Newsmax and OAN would be a 1 or lower. 

It's like you're comparing Adam Schiff and Marjorie Taylor-Greene, and making out that Schiff is the extremist. 

[James DiEugenio]

If you did not watch the speech, and there was clearly a blackout on it, you are really missing something.

He does not just talk about American University.  He also addresses: NSAM 263, Kennedy's fear of radioactivity in rain, King,  RFK, Johnson's escalation in Vietnam after JFK's murder, the letters exchanged by JFK and Nikita as a way of going around the hawks, Bolshakov, and get this:  Ike's Military Industrial Complex Speech.

Again, where do you get a candidate talking like this today?  No wonder Biden wants no part of a debate.

If you have trouble with Bobby's vocal chords, as I do sometimes, you can read the captions on this video.

 

Edited June 22, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Doudna]

MSNBC is “far left” Michael? Just for perspective, it was routine when I worked in Denmark to hear America (which was overall liked in large part out of gratitude for WW2) criticized politically today for not being very democratic by having only two major parties (Denmark had ten in its parliament).

The two American parties were routinely described as one center-right party and one far-right party, Democratic and Republican Party respectively. 

No left party at all in America comparable to European Labor or Social Democratic parties.

Bernie Sanders would be acknowledged as true moderate left (in actual policies, socialist self-labeling aside) but as you noticed the Democratic Party was not about to run him as the candidate, even though by all polling he was the most liked and most electable candidate in America on the map when he ran and consistently polled stronger against Trump than did Clinton. 

[Greg Doudna]

15 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

If you did not watch the speech, and there was clearly a blackout on it, you are really missing something.

He does not just talk about American University.  He also addresses: NSAM 263, Kennedy's fear of radioactivity in rain, King,  RFK, Johnson's escalation in Vietnam after JFK's murder, the letters exchanged by JFK and Nikita as a way of going around the hawks, Bolshakov, and get this:  Ike's Military Industrial Complex Speech.

Again, where do you get a candidate talking like this today?  No wonder Biden wants no part of a debate.

If you have trouble with Bobby's vocal chords, as I do sometimes, you can read the captions on this video.

 

Yes.

[Lawrence Schnapf]

RFK Jr has announced a healthcare forum for next week for those who want to learn more about his views: https://www.kennedy24.com/health-policy-roundtable?utm_campaign=health_policy_rountable_non_rs&utm_medium=email&utm_source=joinkennedy

i wonder if this post might not belong on this thread. I'm not sure wheret the other political forums are located. can someone point that location to me? 

Thanks 

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Yes.

Wow. I’m so touched.

[Paul Brancato]

On 6/21/2023 at 10:28 AM, Joe Bauer said:

The corporate/Republican machine hasn't even begun to turn on the MSM political attack heat on RFK Jr..

When they do ( if they really want to ) he's got enough baggage they will have a field day.

His personal life going back all the way to his youth.

Drug use. Heroin addiction.

Troubled marriages with one wife committing suicide?

His anti-vax stance will be a negative with the majority of Americans who got the Covid vaccines and feel it saved them from the horrors suffered by those who didn't.

RFK has some odd associations with right wing types. That's very confusing.

If Michael Bloomberg ( the real king of Wall Street ) even suspects RFK maybe a closeted progressive anti-Wall Street threat like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren he'd easily spend another BILLION to derail him like he did to Warren and Sanders.

And there's much more.

The only way RFK Jr. makes it into the general election would be by way of an independent/third party candidacy.

And that would be the biggest gift to the Corporate/Republicans they could ever hope for.

IMO anyways.

I hope you watch the speech.