Vote Trump for JFKA info?

[Benjamin Cole]

10 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

Did you read Edward Curtin's "Epistle to RFK, Jr." about Gaza?

I posted it on the Political Discussion board when it was published.

Curtin was a long-time supporter of RFK, Jr., as described in his epistle.

An Epistle to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., by Edward Curtin - The Unz Review

As for "crackpots," did you read Bernie Sanders' profound response to Netanyahu's crackpot claim that people protesting against his IDF military ops in Gaza are "anti-Semites?"

It can't be said any more clearly and accurately than Sanders said it.

You really need to study Sanders' commentary on the subject.

NEWS: Sanders Responds to Netanyahu’s Claim that Criticism of the Israeli Government’s Policies is Antisemitic » Senator Bernie Sanders (senate.gov)

Lastly, disagreeing with someone's arguments isn't "denigration."

It's called "rebuttal."

There are "views," and there are facts.

My disagreements with your "views" are based on facts.

 

I might add, my disagreements with your "views" are based on facts. 

So it goes. 

 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

13 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I agree there are anti-Semitic crackpots populating the major political parties.

 

This "crackpot" term is total bunk, Ben, especially for a guy who repeatedly complains about "denigration" when people take the time to rebut his erroneous arguments.

Study Bernie Sanders letter to Netanyahu and educate yourself.

And, no, your disagreements with me have generally not been based on the facts.

The worst example was your persistent claim that Trump's J6 insurrection was a Deep State plot-- a "Patriot Purge."

At the time, you refused to learn the facts by listening to the sworn testimony of Trump's staff during the Congressional J6 hearings.

Edited August 28 by W. Niederhut

[Benjamin Cole]

6 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

This "crackpot" term is total bunk, Ben, especially for a guy who repeatedly complains about "denigration" when people take the time to rebut his erroneous arguments.

Study Bernie Sanders letter to Netanyahu and educate yourself.

And, no, your disagreements with me have generally not been based on the facts.

The worst example was your persistent claim that Trump's J6 insurrection was a Deep State plot-- a "Patriot Purge."

At the time, you refused to learn the facts by listening to the sworn testimony of Trump's staff during the Congressional J6 hearings.

We are on different pages, that is obvious. 

I believe my views are based on facts, as do you about your views. So it goes.  

I stand by my sentiments that anti-Semitic crackpots are active in both major political parties, especially on the "far right" and "far left" of both parties. 

I hold Putin, Kaka Sinwar and Tehran in very low regard. 

If you disagree, that's fine. That is what a forum is for. 

 

[Kevin Balch]

18 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I agree there are anti-Semitic crackpots populating the major political parties, and modern political discourse.

 

 

Could you define “antisemitic crackpot”? You use the term quite frequently.

[Benjamin Cole]

1 minute ago, Kevin Balch said:

Could you define “antisemitic crackpot”? You use the term quite frequently.

Are you a Brit? 

The short answer is, "a person biased against Jews." 

If you are a Brit, you might like this:

https://www.workersliberty.org/fight-left-antisemitism-pamphlet

Signing off for me on this thread.

Surely we are weary of each other's views (and we all base our views on hard facts, of course) on these matters. 

So it goes. 

[Ron Bulman]

I just reviewed this thread backwards through page 4.  Nothing about Trump releasing the JFK files, given a second chance.  Page 4 was Larry Hancock's last post about sacrificing the country for the chance of something possibly important in the files or them being released, if, Trump should be re-elected.  Really the most important aspect of the thread.

It's since become about Harris and Willie, now the Mideast.  Important topics.  Unfortunately, a political discussion not involving the JFK assassination.  

 

[Kevin Balch]

12 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

I just reviewed this thread backwards through page 4.  Nothing about Trump releasing the JFK files, given a second chance.  Page 4 was Larry Hancock's last post about sacrificing the country for the chance of something possibly important in the files or them being released, if, Trump should be re-elected.  Really the most important aspect of the thread.

It's since become about Harris and Willie, now the Mideast.  Important topics.  Unfortunately, a political discussion not involving the JFK assassination.  

 

The thread zig-zagged because deep-down, everybody knows neither of these “leaders” will do a damn thing about opening any JFK files, but seemed determined to justify in their own minds voting for one of them.

[John Cotter]

10 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Unfortunately, the Little Hitlers never go down easy.

How ironic. Demonizing those you wish to destroy, just like Hitler did, is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y2FuDY6Q4M

[John Cotter]

10 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I've expressed my opposition to the Gaza policy repeatedly.

I'm not a one-issue voter.  Why don't you ever back up your snarky little jabs with an actual specific argument, for once?

The question Morgan asked concerned Putin's brutality.  Sachs never answered.  Do you watch the videos you post?

You're posting nonsense again. There is a clear alternative to the Democratic Party option in the presidential election, Jill Stein.

Unlike the Democratic and Republican parties, she is unequivocally opposed to US imperialistic genocidal foreign policy, plutocracy and all the corruption it entails, and ecocide.

By not supporting and voting for her and instead voting for the Democratic Party candidate you are clearly complicit in the aforementioned crimes of the DemRep dictatorship.

 

Edited August 28 by John Cotter

[John Cotter]

9 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

If your point is coming out of genuine horror at what has happened in Gaza and desire to stop US arms sales when world courts are calling the ways those arms are being used genocidal, I don't dispute that. But you are spinning this in a way that appears to be weaponizing this issue out of a more fundamental desire to take down the Harris candidacy, and I will explain why.

I do not believe it is factually accurate when you say Harris "unequivocally support[s]" the materiel and arms sold to the Netanyahu regime behaving genocidally. So far as I can tell, Harris has (a) unequivocally supported US aid to Israel to defend itself; (b) has not spoken in opposition to president Biden's unconditional continuation of arms sales; but (c) in her own policy statement in her convention address, cited existing US law that aid and arms sales cannot be given in cases of human rights violations, and she cited that with reference to Gaza. That is NOT "unequivocal" in formal terms. That is formally a statement of conditionality or equivocation on the future aid policy issue. 

Just in the interests of accuracy. Of course, what that means in how it plays out is an unknown. But that is not the narrow point here, which is your claim that Harris personally "unequivocally support[s]" continued arms sales to the Netanyahu regime used genocidally. And that is not factually accurate in terms of her stated position.

When you say "they could put a stop to it at the drop of a hat", I do not believe it is factually accurate that Harris could "put a stop to it at the drop of a hat".

She is not president, you know.

Could a sitting vice president unilaterally "put a stop to it at the drop of a hat"? How? "At the drop of a hat"? Is there some order a vice president could issue that would override a president and just stop it tomorrow? Really??

When you say, "Voting for the Democratic Party in any shape or form is voting for the continuation of that genocide..." that sounds like the leap to the weaponized point that seems to be your real point, i.e. do not vote for Harris in the upcoming election. Taken literally, are you saying voting for a Democrat in a local school board election, or for a governor of a state, is "voting for the continuation of that genocide"? Well, maybe you meant "in a presidential election", OK, fair enough if that is what you meant.

Except it makes little sense. The fact is Harris is an unknown in terms of what she says she will do on this aid policy question. I understand she appears to be in sync with Biden's rhetorical criticism of the Netanyahu regime for overreach while continuing the arms deliveries unabated. But she is not in power either over those arms deliveries. I think the most objective description would be she has shown no sign of departing from the Biden policy, but at the same time is an unknown.

But in a two-party system if you don't vote to elect one party you get the other. And NOT voting for the Democratic presidential candidate, Harris, if that is the fundamental conclusion you wish to have, has the predictable consequence of assisting the election of the other candidate, Trump, and with Trump he is full-throated in support of the Netanyahu regime's scorched-earth and advocates in bloodthirsty language to just go for it and "finish the job", language that I have never heard Harris talk that way. So that's the alternative--a candidate who rhetorically talks full-throated support for what the Netanyahu regime is doing in Gaza, versus the actual unknown, Harris.

And second, I still get emails from Bernie Sanders, about once or twice a week. Bernie Sanders Democrats I would say are close to half of the grassroots base of the Party. And Bernie Sanders, though he is too old to ever be a presidential candidate himself again (he came close to winning the nomination twice previously), is right out there, front and center, right now, publicly, calling for "not one more dime" to the Netanyahu regime as long as the war crimes continue.

Whereas there is nothing comparable on the Republican side (that I can see). Where is a Bernie-like voice on the Republican side, once genuine anti-semites are taken out of consideration? Where is the non-anti-semitic opposition to "one more dime" of arms sales, and call for an immediate cease-fire, on the Republican side, comparable to Bernie?

That is, if one really cares about the Gaza human rights situation, if that is REALLY what is driving you, there is more hope, relatively speaking, for a better policy from the "formally unknown" Harris on this issue than in the other party. I realize that that is a judgment call. 

But I believe you have made factually untrue statements in the structure of your argument, and I wonder how your argument would run if you corrected your argument on those points. 

I intend to vote for Harris, and I care about Gaza, and I hope the Israeli people would remove the Natanyahu regime and choose a different direction on the Palestinian issue--even while there are few objective grounds for confidence that Harris will pursue a fundamentally different policy on the arms sales than Biden. It is like in a Hobson's two-party choice going for the party with 15% chance of a difference for the better versus the other with about 2% chance of a difference for the better--if one really cares about that issue as a key issue in deciding on the vote.

Gorbachev, the great reformer in the Soviet Union, rose through the ranks to power and then made breathtaking attempts at reform--replacing totalitarianism with Scandinavian style social democracy; reintegrating Russia into a common Europe; ending the empire and letting the small occupied republics go free which wanted to be free; working with a US presidential partner, Reagan, in ending nuclear arms on earth, not rhetorically but in a concrete four-stage doable plan to do so (Reykjavik 1986). 

I hope Kamala Harris may similarly become a reformer for good once in power, and be an improvement on US influence on what is going on in Gaza through the leverage of arms sales to allies conditionality on compliance with human rights.

Could you please specify "the factually untrue statements" which you claim I have made, Greg?

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Could you please specify "the factually untrue statements" which you claim I have made, Greg?

I was referring to your saying VP Harris advocated unconditional arms sales and that she could stop the arms sales right now (while Biden is president) if she chose, understanding your Biden and Harris referents to include reference to Harris, which I do not believe are factually true statements for Harris. Did you mean only the combined Biden-Harris administration collectively, but not Harris individually on her own herself? 

[Cliff Varnell]

4 hours ago, John Cotter said:

You're posting nonsense again.

And you're posting empty little jibes again.

4 hours ago, John Cotter said:

 

There is a clear alternative to the Democratic Party option in the presidential election, Jill Stein.

No, that's the equivalent of sitting it out.  You know nothing about the stakes in this election.  You're probably unaware of the recent Supreme Court decision granting the President the powers of a King who can commit any crime with impunity as long as it falls under ill-defined official duties.

Trump has declared he will use those powers like a dictator on Day 1.

Perhaps you might want to live under a Kim Jong Un style dictatorship, John.  Most do not.

4 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Unlike the Democratic and Republican parties, she is unequivocally opposed to US imperialistic genocidal foreign policy, plutocracy and all the corruption it entails, and ecocide.

I voted for her in 2012.

My vote is always one of protest.  I either vote to protest Republicans, or I vote against the corporate wing of the Democratic Party.  In '92 I wrote in Frank Zappa.  In '96 I voted for Ralph Nader.  I would have voted for Nader again in 2000 but he decided to campaign in Florida two days before the election -- a clear tilt to Bush.  I voted for Gore to protest Nader and Bush both.  In '04 I voted for Kerry, in '08 I almost voted for Cynthia McKinney but I didn't think the Obama vote was big enough due to Republican vote-suppression so I voted D.  Any election with Trump in it I vote D.

So I don't need any lectures from the likes of you, John Cotter.

4 hours ago, John Cotter said:

By not supporting and voting for her and instead voting for the Democratic Party candidate you are clearly complicit in the aforementioned crimes of the DemRep dictatorship.

 

That's rich coming from a cheerleader for Putin's genocide in Ukraine.

[John Cotter]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I was referring to your saying VP Harris advocated unconditional arms sales and that she could stop the arms sales right now (while Biden is president) if she chose, understanding your Biden and Harris referents to include reference to Harris, which I do not believe are factually true statements for Harris. Did you mean only the combined Biden-Harris administration collectively, but not Harris individually on her own herself? 

In order to avoid getting bogged down in debating the wording of my arguments as distinct from the substance of them, Greg, I think their import in relation to Kamala Harris is quite clear.

The Democratic Party is an integral part of the DemRep dictatorship. (You can quibble with the wording of this statement, but the gist of it is irrefutable.)

Kamala Harris is a creature of the Democratic Party, since it is in the nature of political parties and hierarchical (authoritarian in effect) organisations in general that it is not possible to wangle ones way into the upper echelons of these organisations without conforming to their culture and ideology.

You and others here seem to be suggesting that Kamala Harris is somehow an exception to these dynamics. You need to explain your reasoning in this respect.

Edited August 28 by John Cotter

[John Cotter]

3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

And you're posting empty little jibes again.

No, that's the equivalent of sitting it out.  You know nothing about the stakes in this election.  You're probably unaware of the recent Supreme Court decision granting the President the powers of a King who can commit any crime with impunity as long as it falls under ill-defined official duties.

Trump has declared he will use those powers like a dictator on Day 1.

Perhaps you might want to live under a Kim Jong Un style dictatorship, John.  Most do not.

I voted for her in 2012.

My vote is always one of protest.  I either vote to protest Republicans, or I vote against the corporate wing of the Democratic Party.  In '92 I wrote in Frank Zappa.  In '96 I voted for Ralph Nader.  I would have voted for Nader again in 2000 but he decided to campaign in Florida two days before the election -- a clear tilt to Bush.  I voted for Gore to protest Nader and Bush both.  In '04 I voted for Kerry, in '08 I almost voted for Cynthia McKinney but I didn't think the Obama vote was big enough due to Republican vote-suppression so I voted D.  Any election with Trump in it I vote D.

So I don't need any lectures from the likes of you, John Cotter.

That's rich coming from a cheerleader for Putin's genocide in Ukraine.

I commend you for your voting record, Cliff.

I'm not lecturing you: I'm debating you. In this respect, contrary to what you've alleged, there's a difference between rebutting and being "snarky".

As for your closing barb, this accusation is unfounded and perverse. Since "the burden of proof is always on the accuser", you would need to substantiate your accusation (for example by identifying flaws in my arguments and the arguments of geopolitical and other experts such as Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Professor John Mearsheimer and Professor Yanis Varoufakis which I have adduced) in order for it to have any credibility.

There's an Irish proverb, Is ionann barúil is bréag (An opinion is the same as a lie) which I take to refer to unfounded opinions, which unfortunately, as Wittgenstein suggested, most people spout most of the time.

It's something that we as a species of "bloody ignorant apes" (Samuel Beckett) need to always bear in mind.

[Cliff Varnell]

38 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

I commend you for your voting record, Cliff.

I'm not lecturing you: I'm debating you. In this respect, contrary to what you've alleged, there's a difference between rebutting and being "snarky".

You rarely respond to any specific point I make..  This is a treat!

38 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

As for your closing barb, this accusation is unfounded and perverse.

You accuse anyone voting for Harris as "complicit in the aforementioned crimes of the DemRep dictatorship".                 

How unfounded and perverse is that?