Just Curious... Is it okay to let RFK Jr. have a thread?

[Sandy Larsen]

I'm sure you've all noticed that I have allowed an RFK Jr. thread to remain on the main JFK Assassination Debate board. Even though it's political.

 

Please Read This Before Commenting

My rational was that RFK is a member of our community, champions our cause, and even appeared in the Oliver Stone documentary. It seemed to me that we'd welcome any thread for a member whose experiences were of interest to some of us. For example, we have threads for community members who die.

The good news is that the rule I laid out to prevent political arguments seems to be working. The rule is that you cant say anything bad about any politician or any political party. If you do, you will be penalized.

The bad news is that when I read the thread, it just feels like the participants are campaigning for RFK.

I'm unsure of what to do.

So I decided to start this thread to see what the forum members think. Any thoughts, ideas, or suggestions?

Keep in mind that the most important thing for the mods is that there be no arguments. And that, as I said, seems to be working.

 

(Disclaimer: I have have been doing this completely on my own. Ultimately I will have to confer with the other administrators, who will vote on recommendation I put forth.)

 

[Paul Cummings]

No

[Sandy Larsen]

2 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

No

 

Paul,

I just changed the title of the thread. Please make sure that your answer fits it and not the old title.

 

[Paul Cummings]

NO

[Benjamin Cole]

1. RFK2's position of the JFK Records Act is very pertinent to the EF-JFKA.

2. RFK2's position on who conducted the JFKA (the CIA) is very pertinent to the EF-JFKA.

3. What appears to be Op Mock ops against RFK2 are pertinent to the EF-JFKA (I concede this one can be iffy, but I believe this is going on). 

I have refrained in my comments from addressing any part of the RFK2 that lies outside those areas---Is RFK2 right or wrong on Israel, vaccines, his Fortress America concept, his illegal immigration commentary.  Biden or Trump may be worse or better on any of those issues, but I say nothing. 

What could be more interesting to the EF-JFKA than a viable Presidential candidate (22% last poll) who will open up the JFK Records?

How can this not be one thread in the EF-JFKA? 

Some EF-JFKA'ers want RFK2 to be President so he will open up the JFK Records? This needs to be censored. Why? 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Some EF-JFKA'ers want RFK2 to be President so he will open up the JFK Records? This needs to be censored. Why?

 

Because others might not think it fair for some people to campaign for their candidate when they can't can't campaign for their own candidate?

Because others might consider RFK Jr. to be off topic?

 

[James DiEugenio]

RFK Jr. is the only candidate who can be trusted to release the last of the files.

What could be more relevant to this forum?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

24 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

RFK Jr. is the only candidate who can be trusted to release the last of the files.

What could be more relevant to this forum?

 

I don't think many of us are going to vote for RFK Jr. Third party candidates never win.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I don't think many of us are going to vote for RFK Jr. He's not going to win. Third party candidates never win.

 

SL--

You may be right.

But I am not "politicking" for RFK2, or declaring his greatness as a person, or his insights on a wide range of issues.  I am not saying he  is the "best candidate."

Indeed, that is subjective. 

I am noting RFK2's bid for presidency as the lone candidate who will open up the JFK Records, and what I consider to be the consequent "Op Mocking" of his bid. 

I support RFK2's bid, but almost entirely because he will open up the JFK Records, maybe even before I pass from this earth. 

Indeed, RFK2's positions of a variety of issues are a patchwork, and sometimes I agree and sometimes not. 

But on this one issue of prime and central importance to the EF-JFKA---the JFK Records Act---RFK2 towers above the field. 

Call a spade a spade: There are staunch partisans in the EF-JFKA club who would like RFK2 to disappear, for partisan reasons. It is feared RFK2 might hurt the Biden bid. The latest poll-figures seem to show RFK2 would hurt Trump more. 

It is the suppression of RFK2 bid as a EF-JFKA topic that is politics, and reflects partisanship. 

But the EF-JFKA is not, or at least should not be, a D-Party or R-Party forum. 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

If anybody wants to say something anonymously, just PM me. It can remain with me, or if you want I will post it here as anonymous under my name.

 

[James DiEugenio]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I don't think many of us are going to vote for RFK Jr. Third party candidates never win.

 

 

He is the one who will at least air the issue.

And he knows a lot about it.

Edited November 6, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[W. Niederhut]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If anybody wants to say something anonymously, just PM me. It can remain with me, or if you want I will post it here as anonymous under my name.

 

Sandy,

     As I said a few weeks ago, these redundant, "RFK. Jr.-Will-Release-the-Records," threads remind me of Dead Horse Point State Park in Utah.

     I have no objection to forum members beating a dead horse, but how many times do people need to repeat the same trope?

     It's an interesting topic, but the repetition starts to sound like a political campaign jingle.

     For single-issue voters, the JFK records may be a centrally important issue but, in reality, Presidential elections determine multiple, important policy issues-- Supreme Court appointments, tax policy, healthcare policy, climate change policy, EPA enforcement, public health policies, etc.

 

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

Yes. Definitely yes.

[Roger Odisio]

14 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

SL--

You may be right.

But I am not "politicking" for RFK2, or declaring his greatness as a person, or his insights on a wide range of issues.  I am not saying he  is the "best candidate."

Indeed, that is subjective. 

I am noting RFK2's bid for presidency as the lone candidate who will open up the JFK Records, and what I consider to be the consequent "Op Mocking" of his bid. 

I support RFK2's bid, but almost entirely because he will open up the JFK Records, maybe even before I pass from this earth. 

Indeed, RFK2's positions of a variety of issues are a patchwork, and sometimes I agree and sometimes not. 

But on this one issue of prime and central importance to the EF-JFKA---the JFK Records Act---RFK2 towers above the field. 

Call a spade a spade: There are staunch partisans in the EF-JFKA club who would like RFK2 to disappear, for partisan reasons. It is feared RFK2 might hurt the Biden bid. The latest poll-figures seem to show RFK2 would hurt Trump more. 

It is the suppression of RFK2 bid as a EF-JFKA topic that is politics, and reflects partisanship. 

But the EF-JFKA is not, or at least should not be, a D-Party or R-Party forum. 

 

RFK Jr's election seems remote at this point with the election a year away.  But the value and relevance of following his candidacy goes well beyond the possibility that he might reopen the JFKA case if he makes it.

 

LBJ ran for the 1960 Dem presidential nomination but lost to Kennedy.  The murder reversed that political decision without involving voters.  

 

JFK had been trying to block the foreign policy of the war machine in his own administration.  His peace speech in the spring of'63 was a direct, public challenge to them, which led a few months later to the limited test ban treaty that they despised.  "What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana, enforced by American weapons of war".

 

That's exactly what his enemies *did* want. And what they got once LBJ replaced Kennedy.  And what is still in place today, now called the "rules based international order", where the US makes the rules.

 

In this sense the JFKA was a profoundly *political* murder, played out over decades through the political system.

 

Anyone is free to believe that the political transformation was an unintended consequence of the JFKA. That the murder and "politics" are somehow separate; one has nothing to do with the other.  But some of us, myself included, think the political change goes to the heart of the murder. That the JFKA was designed to achieve a particular political result.

 

Enter RFK Jr. to take up the case.  Early on, he gave a speech (I think it was in New Hampshire) where he explicitly said he intended to take up the fight his uncle and father were pursuing when they were murdered.  He referenced the peace speech and in fact quoted from it in closing.  Do you remember how many people on social media had never heard of the speech, then read or watched it, and were intrigued?  Even some folks here, as I recall.

 

The antiwar path his father had pursued in '68 is wide open today for Junior.  Name a current politician who would be comfortable giving the peace speech?

 

Junior's travel down that path has been, let's say, mixed, a bit wobbly, but every time something he says causes someone to say, wait a minute, why was JFK murdered, is a step in the right direction.

 

David Talbot is scheduled to give a talk at the conference at Duquesne in a couple of week entitled "Why our side is winning/losing the media war".  I don't know what he is going to say, but following up his recent appearance on Glenn Greenwald, where he discussed what Junior has been saying (he has known him for many years), I suspect his (Junior's) statements  and  candidacy will be part of his presentation.  

 

The 60th anniversary is a particularly important time to follow Junior as one part of what looks to me like a rebirth of interest in the JFKA.

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

RFK Jr's election seems remote at this point with the election a year away.  But the value and relevance of following his candidacy goes well beyond the possibility that he might reopen the JFKA case if he makes it.

 

LBJ ran for the 1960 Dem presidential nomination but lost to Kennedy.  The murder reversed that political decision without involving voters.  

 

JFK had been trying to block the foreign policy of the war machine in his own administration.  His peace speech in the spring of'63 was a direct, public challenge to them, which led a few months later to the limited test ban treaty that they despised.  "What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana, enforced by American weapons of war".

 

That's exactly what his enemies *did* want. And what they got once LBJ replaced Kennedy.  And what is still in place today, now called the "rules based international order", where the US makes the rules.

 

In this sense the JFKA was a profoundly *political* murder, played out over decades through the political system.

 

Anyone is free to believe that the political transformation was an unintended consequence of the JFKA. That the murder and "politics" are somehow separate; one has nothing to do with the other.  But some of us, myself included, think the political change goes to the heart of the murder. That the JFKA was designed to achieve a particular political result.

 

Enter RFK Jr. to take up the case.  Early on, he gave a speech (I think it was in New Hampshire) where he explicitly said he intended to take up the fight his uncle and father were pursuing when they were murdered.  He referenced the peace speech and in fact quoted from it in closing.  Do you remember how many people on social media had never heard of the speech, then read or watched it, and were intrigued?  Even some folks here, as I recall.

 

The antiwar path his father had pursued in '68 is wide open today for Junior.  Name a current politician who would be comfortable giving the peace speech?

 

Junior's travel down that path has been, let's say, mixed, a bit wobbly, but every time something he says causes someone to say, wait a minute, why was JFK murdered, is a step in the right direction.

 

David Talbot is scheduled to give a talk at the conference at Duquesne in a couple of week entitled "Why our side is winning/losing the media war".  I don't know what he is going to say, but following up his recent appearance on Glenn Greenwald, where he discussed what Junior has been saying (he has known him for many years), I suspect his (Junior's) statements  and  candidacy will be part of his presentation.  

 

The 60th anniversary is a particularly important time to follow Junior as one part of what looks to me like a rebirth of interest in the JFKA.

RO-

RFK2 polled at 22% in latest poll. 

After tsunami of negative coverage. 

People say RFK2 has no chance...are they whistling in the dark? 

The two major political parties in 2024 promise to put forward the weakest candidates, perhaps in the entire postwar era. 

There is one thread on the EF-JFKA now reviewing the RFK2 bid and the possible Op Mock ops being run against him.

That is too much? 

Besides, who would bother "campaigning" on the EF-JFKA? How many votes could be switched, speaking through this forum?

Let's call a spade a spade: There are hardline partisans in the EF-JFKA, who dislike the topics of the Biden Administration's JFK Records Act snuff job, and of the outlook for RFK2. 

Suppressing threads on these topics reflects partisan animus. 

It is not partisan politics to cover these topics, it is partisan politics to snuff these topics out. 

 

Edited November 7, 2023 by Benjamin Cole