Vote Trump for JFKA info?

[James DiEugenio]

Why would anyone think that Harris would do anything on the JFK case?

That woman did all she could to keep the RFK case from being reopened when the late Bill Pepper petitioned to have  it done so on new evidence.

According to Lisa Pease, Harris even consulted with Mel Ayton to prepare her reply.

Which is sort of like consulting with Gerald Posner or Gus Russo on the JFK case.

Harris had a golden opportunity to have Pepper do for the RFK case what he did in the King case.  

There was never any chance it was going to happen.

If she ever does an interview, I would hammer her on both counts.

 

[John Cotter]

5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Why would anyone think that Harris would do anything on the JFK case?

That woman did all she could to keep the RFK case from being reopened when the late Bill Pepper petitioned to have  it done so on new evidence.

According to Lisa Pease, Harris even consulted with Mel Ayton to prepare her reply.

Which is sort of like consulting with Gerald Posner or Gus Russo on the JFK case.

Harris had a golden opportunity to have Pepper do for the RFK case what he did in the King case.  

There was never any chance it was going to happen.

If she ever does an interview, I would hammer her on both counts.

 

Thanks for that much needed dose of reality, James.

[James DiEugenio]

Welcome, my series on her is going up soon at K and K.

[Larry Hancock]

Jim, for a little balance at this particular point before a seminal national election how about doing an article on Trump and his role in open government and transparency..? 

I mean what he actually does, not what he says he will do...

After all you should be willing to 'hammer' both candidates.

.....and yes, as I'm making it obvious I am very much an opponent of Trump and a supporter of Harris...full disclosure, total partisanship here and for reasons having nothing to do with either candidate's histories with assassinations and conspiracy.

....although, just to be annoying, having invested lots of time with the MLK case anyone who passes on Pepper is fine with me.

 

 

 

Edited August 25 by Larry Hancock

[John Cotter]

22 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Jim, for a little balance at this particular point before a seminal national election how about doing an article on Trump and his role in open government and transparency..? 

I mean what he actually does, not what he says he will do...

After all you should be willing to 'hammer' both candidates.

.....and yes, as I'm making it obvious I am very much an opponent of Trump and a supporter of Harris...full disclosure, total partisanship here and for reasons having nothing to do with either candidate's histories with assassinations and conspiracy.

 

 

 

Larry,

In view of the relentless Trump-bashing by most of the mainstream and social media during the past eight years or so, is there any need for anyone else to add to that particular din now?

[Larry Hancock]

That is a fair question John and I would like to say no there is not - and if I never heard of Trump's history or shortcoming again my life would be a great deal better. 

I live in locally in a world that refuses to acknowledge or engage with any of his true history so I also appreciate the futility of it.

However in this election there are a lot of people, young people, new voters, and even people who avoid politics in general that have understandably tried to ignore the chaos and furor (and bias, including my own) that surrounds him.

At this time they have to make a choice to either continue staying apart from the fray and avoiding it all or to engage in educating themselves. My belief is that if they engage they do need balance.  If anybody is going to hammer candidates they need to do so evenhandedly, that was simply my point to Jim. 

Actually I prefer the approach that K K Lane presented in another thread and if anyone has a connection to leverage the issue of openness in records to the Harris campaign I too would endorse reaching out and appealing that she take a stance on it (even though among all the other national priorities at the moment its hard to make that a headline priority, even for me).  Unfortunately I have no connections to do that.

 

 

 

[John Cotter]

19 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

That is a fair question John and I would like to say no there is not - and if I never heard of Trump's history or shortcoming again my life would be a great deal better. 

I live in locally in a world that refuses to acknowledge or engage with any of his true history so I also appreciate the futility of it.

However in this election there are a lot of people, young people, new voters, and even people who avoid politics in general that have understandably tried to ignore the chaos and furor (and bias, including my own) that surrounds him.

At this time they have to make a choice to either continue staying apart from the fray and avoiding it all or to engage in educating themselves. My belief is that if they engage they do need balance.  If anybody is going to hammer candidates they need to do so evenhandedly, that was simply my point to Jim. 

Actually I prefer the approach that K K Lane presented in another thread and if anyone has a connection to leverage the issue of openness in records to the Harris campaign I too would endorse reaching out and appealing that she take a stance on it (even though among all the other national priorities at the moment its hard to make that a headline priority, even for me).  Unfortunately I have no connections to do that.

 

 

 

Many thanks for that thoughtful reply, Larry.

[W. Niederhut]

55 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

That is a fair question John and I would like to say no there is not - and if I never heard of Trump's history or shortcoming again my life would be a great deal better. 

I live in locally in a world that refuses to acknowledge or engage with any of his true history so I also appreciate the futility of it.

However in this election there are a lot of people, young people, new voters, and even people who avoid politics in general that have understandably tried to ignore the chaos and furor (and bias, including my own) that surrounds him.

At this time they have to make a choice to either continue staying apart from the fray and avoiding it all or to engage in educating themselves. My belief is that if they engage they do need balance.  If anybody is going to hammer candidates they need to do so evenhandedly, that was simply my point to Jim. 

Actually I prefer the approach that K K Lane presented in another thread and if anyone has a connection to leverage the issue of openness in records to the Harris campaign I too would endorse reaching out and appealing that she take a stance on it (even though among all the other national priorities at the moment its hard to make that a headline priority, even for me).  Unfortunately I have no connections to do that.

 

Thoughtful, diplomatic comments, Larry.

But let's not pretend that there is any meaningful equivalence between the historic crimes, misconduct, and numerous Presidential policy blunders of Donald Trump and the conduct of Vice President Harris.

Anyone who believes as much is poorly informed about recent American history.

Informed Presidential scholars have accurately ranked Donald Trump with the worst Presidents in American history.

Secondly, to call honest, accurate coverage of Trump's habitual dishonesty and criminal conduct, "Trump bashing," is like calling accurate reporting about catastrophic climate change, "Big Oil bashing."

It isn't an issue of Democrats vs. Republicans, but of reality vs. illusions-- illusions engendered by disinformation.

Nor is there any meaningful equivalence between the proposed future policies of Trump and Harris, on a wide array of critically important issues-- tax policy, environmental policy, (including climate change mitigation) healthcare policy, Social Security, voting rights, reproductive rights, LGBT rights, etc.

 

Edited August 26 by W. Niederhut

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

Jim, for a little balance at this particular point before a seminal national election how about doing an article on Trump and his role in open government and transparency..? 

I mean what he actually does, not what he says he will do...

After all you should be willing to 'hammer' both candidates.

.....and yes, as I'm making it obvious I am very much an opponent of Trump and a supporter of Harris...full disclosure, total partisanship here and for reasons having nothing to do with either candidate's histories with assassinations and conspiracy.

....although, just to be annoying, having invested lots of time with the MLK case anyone who passes on Pepper is fine with me.

 

 

 

LH

"....and yes, as I'm making it obvious I am very much an opponent of Trump and a supporter of Harris...full disclosure, total partisanship here and for reasons having nothing to do with either candidate's histories with assassinations and conspiracy."--LH

Nothing but admiration here for you, but I do wonder about current-day partisans in the US. 

 

It reminds me of people who are raised---pick any religion, but say Muslim for example---to believe Mohammed was a true prophet of the creator. That's fine.

But as these people become adults, they come into contact with equally intelligent and decent people who believe Jesus was a true prophet or son of the Creator. Then the Jews, who believe the true prophet was not arrived yet. And then Buddhists and Hindus, and any number of other religions with their own interpretations of the creator.  

So...I do not begrudge anyone their sincere religious beliefs. Indeed, in many cases I think such beliefs are salutary (comforting) to the believer, and to society.  

This is how I view modern-day US politics.

If you side with either major party you must know there are equally intelligent and decent people who side with the other party. I do not agree with the Fox/CNN tack of declaring followers of the rival party to be morally or mentally deficient, or belonging to a cult. 

(BTW, I have spent 40 years, on/off as a financial reporter, reading about monetary policy. I can tell you there are PhDs economists from top schools that say "X," and then PhDs from top schools that not "Not X" about monetary policy. OK, and The Truth is...)

JD Vance, by all accounts, has a high IQ, is a decent fellow, and married to a Hindu. Yet he is a GOP'er. 

All to say, yes, I root for the L.A Dodgers, even though I know in the modern-world I am cheering for the properly-colored laundry. Mercenaries hired by equally avaricious owners. Not a bad analogy for the two major parties! 

So it goes. 

 

[Larry Hancock]

Ben that is also a fair concern, but note that I said I was partisan specifically in the Presidential race which, for me is a matter of ethics, morality and character in terms of the nation,s leadership - not necessarily in regard to specific policies (when I take a quiz on policies I show up as fitting with conservative, liberal, libertarian and green policies).

I am very much not in favor of tightly focused partisanship in general or in single issue politics - which I see as gravely dangerous.  I am very much in favor of compromise (which I should be given how I test).  Its an imperfect world and anyone who tries to make it otherwise is just unrealistic. 

I'm afraid the worst example of partisanship I see here is with the culture wars, which leads me to really like the slogan 'mind your own damn business'. 

Its amazing to me, from personal experience, to find that the people who shout for local control turn out to mean local control if you agree with me, otherwise they want the state to step in and mandate (my libertarian showing through I suppose).  On the other hand I belong to groups who are totally against federal or state intervention, except when they want tax breaks or laws to protect their activities and businesses.

So, do I support partisanship, not generally - unless it is down at the level of morality, ethics, and character.  That's where I make choices, in people and politics.

 

[W. Niederhut]

25 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Ben that is also a fair concern, but note that I said I was partisan specifically in the Presidential race which, for me is a matter of ethics, morality and character in terms of the nation,s leadership - not necessarily in regard to specific policies (when I take a quiz on policies I show up as fitting with conservative, liberal, libertarian and green policies).

I am very much not in favor of tightly focused partisanship in general or in single issue politics - which I see as gravely dangerous.  I am very much in favor of compromise (which I should be given how I test).  Its an imperfect world and anyone who tries to make it otherwise is just unrealistic. 

I'm afraid the worst example of partisanship I see here is with the culture wars, which leads me to really like the slogan 'mind your own damn business'. 

Its amazing to me, from personal experience, to find that the people who shout for local control turn out to mean local control if you agree with me, otherwise they want the state to step in and mandate (my libertarian showing through I suppose).  On the other hand I belong to groups who are totally against federal or state intervention, except when they want tax breaks or laws to protect their activities and businesses.

So, do I support partisanship, not generally - unless it is down at the level of morality, ethics, and character.  That's where I make choices, in people and politics.

 

Larry,

     Have you read Duke University historian Nancy MacLean's award-winning book, Democracy in Chains?

     She unearthed the archival James McGill Buchanan/UVA documents outlining the multi-decade Koch/CATO/Heritage Foundation/Federalist Society blueprint for hamstringing the Federal government and turning enforcement of individual Constitutional rights over to the states.

     We're seeing the results now, with the Koch's Federalist Society SCOTUS rulings blocking Federal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, (Shelby v. Holder) abrogating Roe v. Wade, and even nullifying the Chevron Doctrine.

Amazon.com: Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America: 9781101980972: MacLean, Nancy: Books

Edited August 26 by W. Niederhut

[Larry Hancock]

I have not read that work but having been around long enough to have observed the evolution of the racist ultra right and its states rights effort (the National States Right Party) into something far different but much more effective it was obvious that things were going.  You could see early indications of it with the Hunt empire and how it branched into media control. But that was only a small foretaste of what the really big guys were willing to so.

I kind of lost track of what was going on  until I began hearing everyday people start talking about what was really important in politics being to 'win' back the Supreme Court - that made it all perfectly clear. 

When I was growing up we were taught that separation of powers was good, the nations founders understood the risk of total control by any one faction or any single leader was to be avoided.  The same party that endorsed that sort of thinking (yeah, I did go to YAF meetings) now has a very different view.

 

[W. Niederhut]

18 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

I have not read that work but having been around long enough to have observed the evolution of the racist ultra right and its states rights effort (the National States Right Party) into something far different but much more effective it was obvious that things were going.  You could see early indications of it with the Hunt empire and how it branched into media control. But that was only a small foretaste of what the really big guys were willing to so.

I kind of lost track of what was going on  until I began hearing everyday people start talking about what was really important in politics being to 'win' back the Supreme Court - that made it all perfectly clear. 

When I was growing up we were taught that separation of powers was good, the nations founders understood the risk of total control by any one faction or any single leader was to be avoided.  The same party that endorsed that sort of thinking (yeah, I did go to YAF meetings) now has a very different view.

 

Larry,

     You're a scholarly guy, and you would probably appreciate Nancy MacLean's great book.

     What made me think of it here were your comments (above) about the conflicts between Federal, state, and local governments.

     MacLean explores that very subject in historical detail.  In Virginia, for example, the Buchanan agenda (later funded by the Koch brothers) was to use state government to block Federal enforcement of Brown v. Board of Education.  And many public schools were simply closed by the state-- to block desegregation mandates.

     But, interestingly, many communities tried to reverse the state-ordered closures of their local schools.  So the state legislature was at loggerheads with the Federal government and their own citizens!

     Today, 70 years later, the Koch/Federalist Society SCOTUS is hamstringing the Federal government, with the goal of enabling red state governments to revoke individual rights-- voting, abortion, and even Federal pollution controls on industry (e.g., by overturning the Chevron Doctrine.)

      This Koch/state's rights concept is also the basis for red state voter suppression and the Trump/GOP strategy of letting state legislatures overrule popular vote counts.

Edited August 26 by W. Niederhut

[Ron Bulman]

4 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

I live in locally in a world that refuses to acknowledge or engage with any of his true history so I also appreciate the futility of it.

I know that feeling firsthand.  As we're going this deep, I do recommend Democracy In Chains as I have before on here and may have to W.   Not just you but all here.  It gets down to the brass tacks.   In all your spare time writing your book, ha, maybe David has more time for such? 

[Larry Hancock]

That does sound like a really good book although as a ten year plus school board member and still very much involved with education in Okla I've seen a lot of it way too close for comfort.

The good news is that I'm off the hook on the book for the moment with the manuscript ready to go so I do have some free time....I was thinking something more uplifting though, maybe like rereading my collection of Walt Kelly's Pogo cartoons...now there was a man with some pretty cutting insight on politics and campaigns - I Go Pogo...