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

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

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

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.

Cliff,

     I know you're mainly a punk rock afficionado but, if you like good cigars, you might appreciate this 16th century English madrigal extolling the virtues of tobacco. 

     Not wild about the YouTube format here, but the King's Singers recorded the best version of this terrific song, Come, Sirrah Jack, Ho!

 

Edited March 16 by W. Niederhut

[Paul Brancato]

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

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.?

I placed our withering problems where they belong - with the political establishment on whose watch the idealism of the baby boomers was destroyed. You know, if it was the right, or far right, that killed our leaders and many others globally, the left did Jack about it. I look around today and all I see is an entrenched two party duopoly fiddling while we burn. I haven’t changed my basic political stance. I agree in most every instance in your enumeration of the vast problems we face, but not your analysis of how we got here. 

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

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.

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.

 

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. 

 

Kirk,

   This is quite a detailed critique of Paul's concepts.

   I also agree with Paul's general point about the corruption of American government by the military industrial complex, and plutocracy, during the past 60+ years.  It's a Leviathan.

    But, on a practical level, which party destroyed a century of campaign finance reforms with the Citizens United SCOTUS ruling?

    Which party crippled the Voting Rights Act with the Shelby v. Holder SCOTUS ruling?

     Which party has been passing laws on a state level to restrict voting?

     Which party attacked the U.S. Congress to overturn a U.S. election?

      I don't want to be too explicit, in violation of forum policies, but people who are truly concerned about the "withering of democracy," like Paul, should be especially concerned about one party, in particular.

[Benjamin Cole]

8 hours 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

 

SL--

If you move the discussion, then you do.

But I posted specifically and only about Ventura's stance on opening up the JFK Records, which would (I think anyway) totally back-up RFK2's stance. 

I think RFK2 is wise to select such a veep, if he does. 

If other EF-JFKA participants weigh in with their well-known partisan views and accusations...should not their comments be removed, but not the whole post? 

Paul B. makes a germane comment. We can be confident the two major parties will not open up the JFK Records. We can have a  reasonable level of confidence that RFK2 will. 

incredibly, conversations about prospects and possibilities of opening up the JFK Records Act get bumped off of the EF-JFKA, as some partisan sensibilities are affronted? Is that really a good outcome? 

This issue of the opening up the JFK Records should be very prominent in the EF-JFKA. 

Believe me, we will not tilt the national election come November, no matter what is debated herein. 

[Cliff Varnell]

22 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

SL--

If you move the discussion, then you do.

But I posted specifically and only about Ventura's stance on opening up the JFK Records, which would (I think anyway) totally back-up RFK2's stance. 

I think RFK2 is wise to select such a veep, if he does. 

If other EF-JFKA participants weigh in with their well-known partisan views and accusations...should not their comments be removed, but not the whole post? 

Paul B. makes a germane comment. We can be confident the two major parties will not open up the JFK Records. We can have a  reasonable level of confidence that RFK2 will. 

incredibly, conversations about prospects and possibilities of opening up the JFK Records Act get bumped off of the EF-JFKA, as some partisan sensibilities are affronted? Is that really a good outcome? 

This issue of the opening up the JFK Records should be very prominent in the EF-JFKA. 

Believe me, we will not tilt the national election come November, no matter what is debated herein. 

Ventura didn't get the VP nod.  RFKjr picked Nicole Shanahan, the vivacious ex-wife of Google founder Sergey Brinn.

 

Edited March 17 by Cliff Varnell

[Ron Bulman]

6 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

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

Hash oil?  I haven't heard that term in thirty something years.  From personal experience, if Cory should choose to smoke a cigar, that would be a good choice.

[Cliff Varnell]

38 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Hash oil?  I haven't heard that term in thirty something years.  From personal experience, if Cory should choose to smoke a cigar, that would be a good choice.

Nah, we're just funnin' ya.  I've never smoked a cigar in my life.

[Ron Bulman]

11 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Nah, we're just funnin' ya.  I've never smoked a cigar in my life.

Hash oil on a joint?

[Cory Santos]

6 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Hash oil on a joint?

No joints en la cabana in mi casa.  Cliff just comes out, works, drinks and repeats then goes back to San Francisco.   I will be sure to have him here on election night so he can watch with me lol.  

[Sandy Larsen]

I think that a multiparty system would be disastrous.

Suppose we had three parties. Isn't it obvious that if two of those parties are similar, they would split their vote, thereby allowing a minority to choose a candidate? That wouldn't be democratic.

I find it rather amazing that an individual can agree with almost everything given on a particular party's platform. But that is the case for me, and I'll bet it is for a large majority of people.

I'm a Democrat and I agree with almost everything the Democrats have legislated and signed into law. Admittedly, I wince at a few things that Biden has done unilaterally. For example, forgiven student debt for some people. There really should be a program legislated to help students across the board. And raised taxes to pay for it.

Having said all that, I'd be in favor of a multiple party system if we had runoff voting. That is, a candidate would need greater than 50% of the vote to win.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

14 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If other EF-JFKA participants weigh in with their well-known partisan views and accusations...should not their comments be removed, but not the whole post? 

 

The problem is, there is not much to be said about the topic of the thread. And so, instead, members talk about politics.

That's the problem with contemporary political threads.

BTW, the reason I haven't moved the thread is because members have been careful not to say negative things about the opposite party and their politicians. Also, admittedly, I find the comments interesting to read.

And -- as we all know -- the comments will stop being posted if the thread is moved to Political Discussions.

 

[W. Niederhut]

15 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

 

If other EF-JFKA participants weigh in with their well-known partisan views and accusations...should not their comments be removed, but not the whole post? 

Sandy,

     The other obvious problem with this comment (above) is that this forum member has always struggled to understand the important differences between facts and mere opinions-- i.e. "views."

     The latest example is his specious attempt to dismiss the facts posted about the platform and historic policies of a particular party (including historic SCOTUS rulings) as mere "views and accusations."

     This is simply inaccurate.  It erroneously frames facts about important policy issues as matters of opinion.  And, needless to say, this is an American history forum.  Historical facts should be welcome.

      As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, "People are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own 'facts.'"

Edited March 17 by W. Niederhut

[Paul Brancato]

I don’t think that whoever thought I wanted to punish the guilty didn’t understand my basic point. We need truth telling more than anything. There is a new series on one of the streaming services about the Lincoln assassination. It promises to be explosive. Nearly 160 years ago now, yet how many Americans know about Lincoln’s Secretary of State Stanton? What I want to see is a broad political acknowledgement of truth, and a genuine feeling of contrition. This goes for all crimes of state, for instance slavery. I was listening to a story on NPR of a child who grew up in a Japanese internment camp. She said that people theorize it can take 7 generations to undo crimes like that, unless there is a genuine attempt to heal the wounds. The Kennedy family is a long way from reaching that point, and so is the Nation. 

[Benjamin Cole]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The problem is, there is not much to be said about the topic of the thread. And so, instead, members talk about politics.

That's the problem with contemporary political threads.

BTW, the reason I haven't moved the thread is because members have been careful not to say negative things about the opposite party and their politicians. Also, admittedly, I find the comments interesting to read.

And -- as we all know -- the comments will stop being posted if the thread is moved to Political Discussions.

 

SL-

But imagine this: We have a serious candidate for the Presidency who says he believes the JFKA was a state action. Then, that candidate selects Jesse Ventura as his veep, also a reasonably knowledgable JFKA researcher. 

We can have solid hopes the JFK Records will be opened up from this pair of candidates. 

That is interesting and topical for the EF-JFKA.

But!... we cannot discuss this possible turn of events in the EF-JFKA, as some accuse this pair of candidates, and mere spectators as myself (I have zero political influence anywhere) of being "spoilers" for one of the major political parties. 

(In fact polling shows RFK2 drawing potential support from both parties, and polling lately has been unreliable anyway. BTW, like Paul Brancato, I have lost faith in both political parties.)

4

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

Enough promotion for Ventura and Rogers (who weren't selected).