Jesse Ventura as VP-USA? The JFK Records Act?

[Kirk Gallaway]

15 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Back in the day, first Spiro Agnew had to be removed, and WC'er Ford inserted, before Nixon could be given the boot. Nixon, btw, had been demanding to see the "Bay of Pigs" papers and wondering to CIA chief Helms, "Who shot John?" (This is not a defense of Nixon. I am just noting the way DC works, especially when anyone touches the third rail, which is the JFKA). 

Right Ben, And what factual basis do you have to arrive that statement? How about Spiro Agnew was a crook and was found out and later Nixon was a crook and was found out. Nixon  ordered the burglary, whether you're sure he was set up or not.

Now follow me.  So Ford eventually appointed the ultimate NE establishment Nelson Rockefeller to be his interim VP and then the following year in 1976 Ford dumped him.

So they eventually accomplished what they wanted., with the conspirators ideal ticket in place. Why did Ford dump Rockefeller and and the pick super Republican establishment Bob Dole as his running mate in his place?

 

On 3/14/2024 at 5:13 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

Is the man who cannot be mentioned (i.e., the presidential candidate) buying "life insurance"? 

That is, what is the point in assassinating No. 1, if No. 2 would open up the JFK Records anyway?

Yes, RK would pick Ventura to cover his ass? Very clever Ben!

More pretentiousness. Do you really still think that someone would assassinate ardent Pro Israel status quo establishment RK simply because he wanted to open the JFKA files? Like they don't have a lot greater issues to worry about than a 60 year old assassination?

You're obviously still sucked into the Tucker Carlson narrative that intoxicated and sucked every ounce of common sense out of some    conspiracy super hero authors on the forum for 2 months last year? * So you have great hopes those files still has a smoking gun, and there are 3rd generation people who are shaking in their boots.? Get real

I've asked you now many times Ben, what is the worse that could happen.? What are you imagining would happen? Tell me your fantasy.!

 

Whatever you think of Jessie, why would RK pick such a terrible candidate that doesn't balance out the ticket at all,? Just to appeal to the  1% voting population that it could possibly entice, unless of course, he has no other good options? Releasing JFK files is not in the top 40 issues for any politician!

Do you read the current news at all and realize how hard it is to get a conviction? Are you so convinced that RK as President wouldn't run into a wall only embarrassing himself in what the public would come to see as an understandable but selfish indulgence taking taxpayer money? Have you ever given that consideration? All the while everybody here would be drawing connections from the ongoing investigation and in frustration lament  why the public at large just doesn't  get it, like we're  doing now anyway?

 

*It's worth noting, both Larry Hancock and Pat Speer expressed great skepticism at the Carlson  low hanging fruit.

[Denny Zartman]

https://nypost.com/2024/03/15/us-news/dirty-jobs-host-mike-rowe-confirms-rfk-jr-called-him-about-vp-role/

Looks like being VP is a dirty job.

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

My thanks to the moderators.  You are fair but firm.   For what it’s worth I think this particular topic was appropriate for the forum.  

Cory,

     With all due respect your comment is entirely specious.

     Let me explain why without violating the forum rules, if possible. (I'm already in the penalty box for speaking up about the latest RFK, Jr. fanboy thread here.)

     During the past year, we have seen dozens of RFK, Jr. promotional threads here on the JFKA board-- all carefully couched in reference to releasing the JFKA Records.

     So, while it's true that these redundant RFK, Jr. threads are superficially relevant to the JFKA, it is also true that they are mainly about contemporary politics-- i.e., about RFK, Jr.'s 2024 third party campaign against Joe Biden.

      BUT, is promoting RFK, Jr.'s 2024 candidacy necessarily partisan-- i.e., is a 2024 vote for RFK, Jr. necessarily a vote for Donald Trump?

      I don't know the precise answer to that question, but I do know that RFK, Jr.'s third party campaign is being funded by right wing billionaires, like Timothy Mellon, who are major supporters of Donald Trump.*  These guys want low tax rates, and they want to "starve the beast"-- i.e. to de-fund Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

      These Republican plutocrats are, evidently, financing RFK, Jr.'s third party campaign in order to put Trump back in the White House, IMO.

      So, if promotional JFKA threads about RFK, Jr.'s third party candidacy are inherently anti-Biden, (and pro-Trump) is it "fair" to penalize forum members for calling a spade a spade and talking about the implications for contemporary politics?

      You Republicans can't have it both ways-- calling RFK, Jr. fluffing threads "appropriate," while condemning those who put those threads in political context.

 

*  New York Times: “R.F.K.-Aligned Super PAC Draws Heavily From a Republican Megadonor.”

Financial Times: “Donald Trump donor pours cash into Robert Kennedy Jr’s White House run.”

Rolling Stone: “Half of that staggering cash haul [for RFK Jr. and American Values 2024] has come from two people. Timothy Mellon, a Republican megadonor who backed Donald Trump’s failed 2020 reelection campaign, has donated another $10 million to the pro-Kennedy super PAC, American Values 2024. Mellon, an heir to the Mellon banking fortune, has now given $15 million to the group so far.”

 

[Denny Zartman]

@W. Niederhut makes a good point, imho. The people funding RFK Jr, as well as those pitching him on this forum, are doing so with the hopes that he will be a spoiler in the current election. It's not about revealing the truth of the JFK assassination.

Ventura is a good man, but he's retired.

Now, let's get real: no serious candidate would consider Aaron Rodgers or Mike Rowe. At least for Ventura, it wouldn't be his entry level job in politics. But Rodgers or Rowe... forget about it.

[Paul Brancato]

20 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

@W. Niederhut makes a good point, imho. The people funding RFK Jr, as well as those pitching him on this forum, are doing so with the hopes that he will be a spoiler in the current election. It's not about revealing the truth of the JFK assassination.

Ventura is a good man, but he's retired.

Now, let's get real: no serious candidate would consider Aaron Rodgers or Mike Rowe. At least for Ventura, it wouldn't be his entry level job in politics. But Rodgers or Rowe... forget about it.

Agree with the last paragraph. As for donors, let’s be clear about a few things. The coffers of the two major candidates dwarf RFK Jr’s coffers, and if given enough scrutiny would be full of suspect donors with agendas. Second point - the goals of large right wing donations to RFK Jr’s campaign do not have to, and I’m sure aren’t the same as RFKJr’s goals. He is surely not running to spoil Biden. That’s an absurd point of view, and illogical. He is trying to break the two party duopoly. 
in the interests of keeping this at least partly on topic, if he became president we would finally have full document release, and if not, an all out ‘war’ against the keepers of the secrets would ensue. My opinion is that this single fact outweighs all objections to whatever else might accompany his presidency, because only an unwinding of the ‘60’s’ elitist attack on the body politic can put us back on course. The US is dying before our eyes, a withering semblance of democracy unable to fix the enormous problems facing us square on. 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Agree with the last paragraph. As for donors, let’s be clear about a few things. The coffers of the two major candidates dwarf RFK Jr’s coffers, and if given enough scrutiny would be full of suspect donors with agendas. Second point - the goals of large right wing donations to RFK Jr’s campaign do not have to, and I’m sure aren’t the same as RFKJr’s goals. He is surely not running to spoil Biden. That’s an absurd point of view, and illogical. He is trying to break the two party duopoly. 
in the interests of keeping this at least partly on topic, if he became president we would finally have full document release, and if not, an all out ‘war’ against the keepers of the secrets would ensue. My opinion is that this single fact outweighs all objections to whatever else might accompany his presidency, because only an unwinding of the ‘60’s’ elitist attack on the body politic can put us back on course. The US is dying before our eyes, a withering semblance of democracy unable to fix the enormous problems facing us square on. 

Which "enormous problems" are you referring to, Paul?

Climate change?  Pollution?

Our Reaganomic national debt?

The survival of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?

If you are concerned about our "withering semblance of democracy" solving these problems in 2025, and beyond, please read my initial (penalized) post on this thread (above.)

It appears that, contrary to Cory's argument, (above) political commentary is being permitted here, with the exception of evidenced-based critiques of Trumpism.

 

Addendum:  Oops, Paul.  I just noticed that my initial post on this thread was deleted.

It was a brief summary of Trump's putative 2025 platform, (on the above-mentioned issues) along with reference links about some Republican RFK, Jr. donors.

 

Edited March 16 by W. Niederhut

[Sandy Larsen]

14 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

It appears that, contrary to Cory's argument, (above) political commentary is being permitted here, with the exception of evidenced-based critiques of Trumpism.

 

Paul didn't use a pejorative against any particular (contemporary) party or politician, so no forum rule broken. But it's looking like a mod will have to move this thread to Political Discussions

 

[W. Niederhut]

48 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Paul didn't use a pejorative against any particular (contemporary) party or politician, so no forum rule broken. But it's looking like a mod will have to move this thread to Political Discussions

 

Sandy,

     The distinction, IMO, is between explicit and implicitly perjorative comments.

      Paul posted an implicitly perjorative comment about the current POTUS (and the Democratic Party) by suggesting that our "withering democracy" is incapable of solving our "enormous problems."

       I merely requested clarification about which "problems" Paul was referring to, in relation to competing policy platforms.

       And, incidentally, who has been "withering" our democracy-- rolling back voting rights, enabling dark money in campaigns, etc.?

Edited March 16 by W. Niederhut

[Cory Santos]

Deleted

Edited March 16 by Cory Santos

[W. Niederhut]

42 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

 

 

Delete

Edited March 16 by W. Niederhut

[Cory Santos]

5 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Cory,

   Do you understand the distinction between implicit and explicit endorsements (and critiques) of political candidates?

    I'd be happy to explain it to you, if necessary.

    And, incidentally, I never opined that Maestro Brancato was "offensive," as you implied.

    I merely asked for clarification of Paul's reference to our "enormous problems," in relation to competing policy platforms.

I deleted my post before you responded. I care not to debate this.  Sandy explained it.  I’m dealing with my own public embarrassment of Cliff exposing my seagars as fake.   Let me hide in shame.  

[W. Niederhut]

5 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

I deleted my post before you responded. I care not to debate this.  Sandy explained it.  I’m dealing with my own public embarrassment of Cliff exposing my seagars as fake.   Let me hide in shame.  

You have my sympathy.

I bought some fake Cohibas in Mexico several years ago (before it was legal to buy Cuban cigars in the U.S.)

Now Cuban cigars are too expensive for me, and my favorite Dominicans (Monte Christo Media Noches) have increased to $12!  They used to cost $4.

I recently bought some $17 Man O' War Ruination cigars (Nicaraguan) on sale for $3, and they're terrific.

When I light up a Ruination cigar on my patio, the whole neighborhood goes up in thick, black smoke, as if I had just sunk a Man O' War in close combat.

[Cory Santos]

34 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

You have my sympathy.

I bought some fake Cohibas in Mexico several years ago (before it was legal to buy Cuban cigars in the U.S.)

Now Cuban cigars are too expensive for me, and my favorite Dominicans (Monte Christo Media Noches) have increased to $12!  They used to cost $4.

I recently bought some $17 Man O' War Ruination cigars (Nicaraguan) on sale for $3, and they're terrific.

When I light up a Ruination cigar on my patio, the whole neighborhood goes up in thick, black smoke, as if I had just sunk a Man O' War in close combat.

See I don’t really smoke.  I just stock the cabana to impress Cliff.  He smokes.  He called me out!    When he realizes those eggs are not cage free oh snap.  

[Cliff Varnell]

36 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

See I don’t really smoke.

You don't??  Good to know.  Now I feel free to infuse the rest of them with the finest Hoopa Valley hash oil.

36 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

I just stock the cabana to impress Cliff.  He smokes.  He called me out!    When he realizes those eggs are not cage free oh snap.  

A prediction:  on April 20, 2024, the DEA will reschedule cannabis from Schedule I to 3 and the Prez race will be in the bag for Biden.

[Kirk Gallaway]

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Which "enormous problems" are you referring to, Paul?

Climate change?  Pollution?

Our Reaganomic national debt?

The survival of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?

If you are concerned about our "withering semblance of democracy" solving these problems in 2025, and beyond, please read my initial (penalized) post on this thread (above.)

It appears that, contrary to Cory's argument, (above) political commentary is being permitted here, with the exception of evidenced-based critiques of Trumpism.

 

Addendum:  Oops, Paul.  I just noticed that my initial post on this thread was deleted.

It was a brief summary of Trump's putative 2025 platform, (on the above-mentioned issues) along with reference links about some Republican RFK, Jr. donors.

 

This is an excellent post by W. asking relevant questions of Paul , who seems never concerned with issues concerning his life and others in the present, but whose overriding concern is to settle some score from 60 years ago, but  has no idea who, in the present, he  is striking out against or any idea how to go about it or how that could possibly happen, which is why IMO,  it's doomed to failure.

To be clear  I agree with most of Paul's opening sentences , even up to Rk's intention of  breaking of the duopoly of the 2 party system, though it's important to note that was not his original intention  at all, but is result of the general frustration of becoming one party's candidate.

4 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

the goals of large right wing donations to RFK Jr’s campaign do not have to, and I’m sure aren’t the same as RFKJr’s goals.

Paul's very confident that RK will double cross his donor's agenda. This is based on Paul's faith in RK. But the most powerful situation that RK could find himself in is to control some battleground states (which is where he's focused) to hold the balance of power and deny either Biden or Trump a  majority and use his delegates to be a pivotal factor in the election. In that case, I would agree that RK would throw a balance to Biden., if he was to throw that balance to Trump,  he would be hated forever and poison his family legacy in the Democratic party and destroy any possibility of a future generation Kennedy dynasty. But I think the idea is hypothetical because RK won't win one state.

 

4 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

My opinion is that this single fact outweighs all objections to whatever else might accompany his presidency, because only an unwinding of the ‘60’s’ elitist attack on the body politic can put us back on course.

So when is attacking people who in some cases died 50 years ago going to do anything concrete to answer the problems we face today Paul?

Are you going to go after their ancestors, whose best result would be to not deny the proof you,  in your certainty are convinced will happen, and simply say they regret that their ancestors were involved in the assassination of JFK. (Just like Roscoe White's son was it?)

Are you then going to after them? Do you think you'll get much public support for going after them?

Paul:The US is dying before our eyes, a withering semblance of democracy unable to fix the enormous problems facing us square on. 

Ok, and how will that change any present equation?

Paul: My opinion is that this single fact outweighs all objections to whatever else might accompany his presidency,

To me that sounds so selfish and omnipotent. That any consideration to problems that RK's Presidency could produce that could affect millions are subjugated to some "hunch" that Paul has that RK will settle some score from many years ago that will somehow transform our country,shows complete naivety to the scope of the problems we face and sounds so insulated. We'll just have faith in you Paul, that all your hunches are correct. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 16 by Kirk Gallaway