Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., : 2004 Election Stolen

[Brendan Slattery]

Of more pertinence to this thread, the 1960 election too may well have been stolen in Illinois with the assistance of - yes - the Mob...

Interesting, isn't it, how inconvenient and stubborn facts can be?

Mr. Cormier is a new member and apparently unfamiliar with certain facts that the rest of us have known for some time. If Mr. Cormier would care to search the forum, he will find that his ridiculous theory that the mob helped JFK win in Illinois has been thoroughly debunked.

I have posted about Mr. Slattery on another thread. The nicest thing I can say about him is that his contributions so far reveal him to be an idiot. He is like a poor man's version of Tim Gratz, who was kicked off this forum for wasting everybody's time.

It is obvious that, Like Tim Gratz, Mr. Slattery has not the slightest interest in seeking the truth about the JFK assassination.

Time to loosen the tinfoil hat, Ray. Sorry to spoil your pro-conspiracy echo chamber, but I'm here to stay. The Education Indoctrination Forum is a cesspool of left-wing, agit-prop nonsense that badly requires some disinfectant. When I see multiple threads on the preceived sins of Joseph McCarthy, but nary a thread on Soviet communism--the most murderous system ever devised by man--I can safely say that I'm in nutsville. Nothing on the Khmer Rouge, but plenty on HUAC. Nothing on Islamofascism (you do realize we're at war?), but plenty on Watergate. Nothing on Chinese or Arab suppression of human rights and civil liberties, but plenty on Gitmo, MLK, and the NSA. In short, you're little more than America-hating vermin. Scratch a buff, find a lefty. Same as it ever was.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

It is obvious that, Like Tim Gratz, Mr. Slattery has not the slightest interest in seeking the truth about the JFK assassination.

Time to loosen the tinfoil hat, Ray. Sorry to spoil your pro-conspiracy echo chamber, but I'm here to stay.

Well I don't know if you are a betting man, Brendan, but I would not bet the ranch on that if I were you. My time is valuable, and I refuse to waste it on a forum that allows the likes of you to waste it. This forum was established for the express purpose of genuine inquiry into the JFK assassination, something you have no interest in, quite obviously.

Either you go, or I go. I will leave it to John Simkin to decide.

[John Simkin]

It is obvious that, Like Tim Gratz, Mr. Slattery has not the slightest interest in seeking the truth about the JFK assassination.

Time to loosen the tinfoil hat, Ray. Sorry to spoil your pro-conspiracy echo chamber, but I'm here to stay.

Well I don't know if you are a betting man, Brendan, but I would not bet the ranch on that if I were you. My time is valuable, and I refuse to waste it on a forum that allows the likes of you to waste it. This forum was established for the express purpose of genuine inquiry into the JFK assassination, something you have no interest in, quite obviously.

Either you go, or I go. I will leave it to John Simkin to decide.

Ray, as much as I admire your posts and detest those of Brendan, I am unwilling to restrict his right to post. As I have said many times, I am fully committed to the idea of free speech. It is to be regretted that we do not have more right-wingers like Brendan willing to take us on in debate. I can understand why they don’t do it, but if they are daft enough to take us on, it is important that we allow them to say what they want. In doing so, we are playing an important role in educating the large number of visitors who view this Forum.

I reject the idea that you are forcing me to choose between Brendan and yourself. I am instead choosing to allow both of you to post. If you decide not to engage Brendan in debate, that is your choice, not mine.

[Pat Speer]

Of more pertinence to this thread, the 1960 election too may well have been stolen in Illinois with the assistance of - yes - the Mob...

Interesting, isn't it, how inconvenient and stubborn facts can be?

Mr. Cormier is a new member and apparently unfamiliar with certain facts that the rest of us have known for some time. If Mr. Cormier would care to search the forum, he will find that his ridiculous theory that the mob helped JFK win in Illinois has been thoroughly debunked.

I have posted about Mr. Slattery on another thread. The nicest thing I can say about him is that his contributions so far reveal him to be an idiot. He is like a poor man's version of Tim Gratz, who was kicked off this forum for wasting everybody's time.

It is obvious that, Like Tim Gratz, Mr. Slattery has not the slightest interest in seeking the truth about the JFK assassination.

Time to loosen the tinfoil hat, Ray. Sorry to spoil your pro-conspiracy echo chamber, but I'm here to stay. The Education Indoctrination Forum is a cesspool of left-wing, agit-prop nonsense that badly requires some disinfectant. When I see multiple threads on the preceived sins of Joseph McCarthy, but nary a thread on Soviet communism--the most murderous system ever devised by man--I can safely say that I'm in nutsville. Nothing on the Khmer Rouge, but plenty on HUAC. Nothing on Islamofascism (you do realize we're at war?), but plenty on Watergate. Nothing on Chinese or Arab suppression of human rights and civil liberties, but plenty on Gitmo, MLK, and the NSA. In short, you're little more than America-hating vermin. Scratch a buff, find a lefty. Same as it ever was.

Brandon, these words are not remotely helpful to anyone. If you read through the Forum carefully you will see that John Simkin, among others, has written extensively on the atrocities of the Soviet Union and the ongoing atrocities of former Soviet states, many of them now valued Western allies. While I agree with you that there are many outrageous opinions and pseudo-facts tossed about on this forum, your assumption that this means the people on this forum hate America is incorrect. The desire to discover hidden truths about the history of the United States does not require hatred, merely curiousity. The desire to go to a forum where others discuss things you find repulsive, and attempt to disrupt these discussions with insults, now that's HATRED. Rather than insult people here with your temper tantrums, why don't YOU create a thread on Islamo-fascism, and fill it chock full of facts, so that people can learn from your presumably vast knowledge on this subject? You might be surprised to find that most everyone here considers it a real problem that must be dealt with in an intelligent manner. Perhaps you can persuade a few of us just what methods will best accomplish this task.

As to why people write about things like Watergate, and Gitmo, and NSA, but not Chinese human rights violations? Well, maybe it's because we know a lot more about these things, and care a lot more about these things, because they have had and continue to have a direct influence on our lives. The atrocities of China and other nations are taken for granted...you will find few here who will debate these things. Your contention that our desire to carefully examine the mysteries and tragedies of American history amounts to overlooking the flaws of other countries is juvenile. The America I know and love welcomes self-examination and is in a constant state of trying to become the country it was meant to be. If you live in a different America, one which is satisfied with being nicer than China, one that makes excuses for its crimes and atrocities by crying "But Bluto, we're still better than the commies," then may I suggest you go back to your fall-out shelter and put on your army fatigues, because, brother, we're at war.

[Steven Tomlinson]

And, of course, the one undeniable fact is that the Kennedy family itself, and principally Robert Kennedy Sr., aided and abetted the Warren Commission fantasy. That's undeniable. As mere examples, Robert Sr.

1. Restricted JFK's autopsy;

2. At LBJ's bidding, unsuccessfully sought to enlist CJ Warren to head the Comm'n. He failed to persuade Earl Warren, and LBJ had to bludgeon the CJ into it ... We know what became of this misadventure;

3. Impeded Jim Garrison's investigation; and, most imporantly,

4. For 4 years after its publication, fully endorsed publicly the WC findings when he was privately telling others that they were utter fantasy. Ted, of course, has continued in this vein for 43 years.

If your brother was blown away, why proceed in this fashion? The answer is pretty simple -- protect his image, continue the myth. A full investigation would have unearthed a lot of ugliness.

It has been claimed that RFK was aware of?/part of?/in control of? a supposedly tightknit band of people who continued plans to kill Castro, after this endeavour had supposed to have ceased. This is a possibility, not an impossibility! I believe it claimed that were this type of action discovered by the Cubans, turned around (the practice, not the participants) and a US official was murdered instead, it was deemed necessary (desired) to scupper any investigation that could lead back to this (singular) 'Castro murdering' plan. The mind only needs one reason, however ridiculous, self-serving or self-protective to initially deny truth or seeking of the truth. This generally leads to farce.

This could be absolute rubbish, but if it isn't , it would answer why RFK publicly (maybe tricked into having to) would go along with the Warren abortion.

ST

Edited June 4, 2006 by Steven Tomlinson

[JL Allen]

When endorsing the findings of the Warren Commission, Bobby may have been doing that which was politically expedient - allowing him to continue to publicly campaign and "fly beneath the radar" with regard to the entrenched powers which may have lain behind a possible large conspiracy - until he might garner the type of power that would enable him to sincerely do something about reinvestigating the murder. Probably a foolish belief - but, it may have been all he had. If there was a conspiracy to take control of the U.S. government- it had succeeded - and Bobby was definitely on the outside looking in. In politics, unless under extreme conditions - it's usually about "gamesmanship" - Kennedys thought they played as well as anyone but may have been naive in believing that certain standards of civility and human decency described the playing field - up until 11/22.

Press Secretary Frank Mankiewicz said he was startled by RFK's answer, "Yes." (he would reinvestigate...) - and, that RFK may have finally "blurted out the truth". And then, only days later... he was dead.

Edited June 4, 2006 by JL Allen

[Shanet Clark]

Diebold new generation electoral devices.

Encryption keys easily hacked and poorly secured.

Less than 100,000 OHIO VOTES 2004 /

Bush re elected. Commander in chief during wartime, with

expansive views of executive prerogatives and a wire in his ear.

If Florida 2000 was fishy ,

then Ohio 2004 was rank catfish in an old junked refrigerator.

[Bruce Cormier]

And, of course, the one undeniable fact is that the Kennedy family itself, and principally Robert Kennedy Sr., aided and abetted the Warren Commission fantasy. That's undeniable. As mere examples, Robert Sr.

1. Restricted JFK's autopsy;

2. At LBJ's bidding, unsuccessfully sought to enlist CJ Warren to head the Comm'n. He failed to persuade Earl Warren, and LBJ had to bludgeon the CJ into it ... We know what became of this misadventure;

3. Impeded Jim Garrison's investigation; and, most imporantly,

4. For 4 years after its publication, fully endorsed publicly the WC findings when he was privately telling others that they were utter fantasy. Ted, of course, has continued in this vein for 43 years.

If your brother was blown away, why proceed in this fashion? The answer is pretty simple -- protect his image, continue the myth. A full investigation would have unearthed a lot of ugliness.

It has been claimed that RFK was aware of?/part of?/in control of? a supposedly tightknit band of people who continued plans to kill Castro, after this endeavour had supposed to have ceased. This is a possibility, not an impossibility! I believe it claimed that were this type of action discovered by the Cubans, turned around (the practice, not the participants) and a US official was murdered instead, it was deemed necessary (desired) to scupper any investigation that could lead back to this (singular) 'Castro murdering' plan. The mind only needs one reason, however ridiculous, self-serving or self-protective to initially deny truth or seeking of the truth. This generally leads to farce.

This could be absolute rubbish, but if it isn't , it would answer why RFK publicly (maybe tricked into having to) would go along with the Warren abortion.

ST

Steve, I believe you are referring to the meticulously researched "Ultimate Sacrifice", by Lamar Waldron with Thom Hartmann. Although I have a few issues with it, their thesis is intriguing and certainly plausible, IMO.

Some folks here don't much care for it because it marginalizes what they regard as the uber role played by the CIA in both the assassination and the cover-up. They also don't much like the notion that JFK and RFK were willing to stage a coup in Cuba. This complicates their effort to reconstitute both men as contemporary, Democrat doves (which they certainly weren't), as opposed to idealistic, but nonetheless pragmatic and tough-minded politicians and statesman (which they were).

You might want to check out stuff written by Ronald Goldfarb, former prosecutor under RFK, for a wider range of motives for RFK's acquiescence. But we're making progress since last night, when J and I were debating whether RFK publicly endorsed the WC findings. He plainly did. For 3 and 1/2 years. Until shortly before his death, when he said -- once -- that he would reopen the inquiry.

Imagine if RFK had taken another course. Imagine if he had said, in November 1964: "The Warren Commission findings make no sense. I cannot accept them. America deserves a fair, independent, exhaustive investigation. Also, I believe my life and others' lives are in danger by my calling for this investigation."

That might have been sufficient to galvanize a genuine contemporaneous inquiry. Indeed, it might have been the only thing capable of generating one.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Rather than insult people here with your temper tantrums, why don't YOU create a thread on Islamo-fascism, and fill it chock full of facts, so that people can learn from your presumably vast knowledge on this subject? You might be surprised to find that most everyone here considers it a real problem that must be dealt with in an intelligent manner. Perhaps you can persuade a few of us just what methods will best accomplish this task.

As we've seen thus far, Mr. Slattery's sole talent is the drive-by smear. He comes, he spits, he splits.

Dittoheads don't do the heavy lifting of actually citing factual or historical reasons for their beliefs; for them, it is enough to cough up some bile toward those who irritate them, then run away again. Why? Because they have no interest in solving any historical mysteries; their purpose is merely to disrupt those who do. Also, when those of Mr. Slattery's persuasion do post their historical interpretations, they are open to being challenged, something they prefer to avoid wherever possible, for obvious reasons.

Several Forum members have already prodded Mr. Slattery to post something substantive and enter into a reasoned debate about his JBS/Pro-Blue beliefs. He's managed to resist those challenges, but cannot resist the opportunity to toss about a few insults and then retreat.

Tim Gratz may have been wrong about much, but at least he did the yeoman's work of posting often-lengthy dispatches to buttress his arguments. To equate Mr. Slattery with Tim Gratz, despite the similarities in their political worldview, is a gross insult to Tim. He may have been just as misinformed as Mr. Slattery, but whatever Tim's faults, he was not that lazy or cowardly.

[Chuck Robbins]

Funny how the Dems never, you know, LOSE elections. They're always the victims of those dastardly, underhanded Republicans, this time masquerading as ordinary Ohio voters who didn't succumb to Corporal Kerry's bullxxxx.

Truth be told, election stealing in America knows no party boundaries -- evidencing our aphorism, "politics ain't beanbag." Given Bush-Cheney's very substantial margin in Ohio, and approximately 3.5 million vote margin nationwide, I for the most part had brushed off the notion that the 2004 election was heisted. Now I'm open to persuasion, as I'm quite convinced that this Adminstration, along with the Ayatollahs who constitute its "conservative" base, would respect no boundaries in their will to power. If they are willing to trash the truth and our Constitution -- as they demonstrably are -- then what's a little vote stealing among friends?

Of more pertinence to this thread, the 1960 election too may well have been stolen in Illinois with the assistance of - yes - the Mob. This fact greatly annoys our brothers and sisters who lay this murder and its cover up solely at the feet of right-wing thugs and their CIA enablers. It also causes angst among those who perpetuate a Camelot myth that rightly collapsed under the weight of disclosures now three decades old.

Interesting, isn't it, how inconvenient and stubborn facts can be?

This forum is for the discussion of the JFK assassination, is it not? The "Camelot myth, truth or fiction?" forum is down the hall. Please take it there.

Chuck

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Of more pertinence to this thread, the 1960 election too may well have been stolen in Illinois with the assistance of - yes - the Mob. This fact greatly annoys our brothers and sisters who lay this murder and its cover up solely at the feet of right-wing thugs and their CIA enablers. It also causes angst among those who perpetuate a Camelot myth that rightly collapsed under the weight of disclosures now three decades old.

Interesting, isn't it, how inconvenient and stubborn facts can be?

Yes, indeed. Those darned facts just keep getting in the way.

However, even if one assumes that the Mob worked overtime to stuff ballot boxes in Illinois and West Virginia to favor JFK in 1960 [which has been investigated and found lacking in statistical evidence], it was of no great import. JFK ended up with 303 Electoral College votes to Nixon's 219. Even if one subtracts the delegate totals for Illinois and West Virginia from the JFK column and places them in Nixon's column, the Whittier Quaker would still have lost the election.

http://presidentelect.org/e1960.html

When Al Gore sought to have the votes in Florida counted in 2000, it was because the Electoral College votes were so close that the results in that single state determined who won all the marbles. Republicans at the time insisted that Gore shouldn't be a "sore loser" and should gracefully concede, as Richard Nixon had done in 1960. To equate the two circumstances is to miss two very important points.

First, Nixon lost the election, irrespective of whatever happened in Illinois or elsewhere, whereas Gore did not. Second, Nixon didn't gracefully concede, as was made clear by, of all people, Gerald Posner:

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/...ixon/index.html

Those interested in a forensic analysis of the 1960 election results could begin by reading the results of Professor Edmund Kallina's work on the topic, "Courthouse Over White House: Chicago and the Presidential Election of 1960" [Gainesville: University Presses of Florida, 1988.]

More recent analyses of the 1960 election have likewise concluded that, whatever the anomalies in that electoral cycle, they were insufficient to reverse the final results. In some districts, Kennedy's vote count was artificially high, while in other districts the Nixon votes had been overcounted.

[Michael Hogan]

If I were holed up in a bunker, surrounded by enemy fire, and only the written word would save my life.....

I would want Robert Charles-Dunne there.

Mike Hogan

[Bruce Cormier]

Funny how the Dems never, you know, LOSE elections. They're always the victims of those dastardly, underhanded Republicans, this time masquerading as ordinary Ohio voters who didn't succumb to Corporal Kerry's bullxxxx.

Truth be told, election stealing in America knows no party boundaries -- evidencing our aphorism, "politics ain't beanbag." Given Bush-Cheney's very substantial margin in Ohio, and approximately 3.5 million vote margin nationwide, I for the most part had brushed off the notion that the 2004 election was heisted. Now I'm open to persuasion, as I'm quite convinced that this Adminstration, along with the Ayatollahs who constitute its "conservative" base, would respect no boundaries in their will to power. If they are willing to trash the truth and our Constitution -- as they demonstrably are -- then what's a little vote stealing among friends?

Of more pertinence to this thread, the 1960 election too may well have been stolen in Illinois with the assistance of - yes - the Mob. This fact greatly annoys our brothers and sisters who lay this murder and its cover up solely at the feet of right-wing thugs and their CIA enablers. It also causes angst among those who perpetuate a Camelot myth that rightly collapsed under the weight of disclosures now three decades old.

Interesting, isn't it, how inconvenient and stubborn facts can be?

This forum is for the discussion of the JFK assassination, is it not? The "Camelot myth, truth or fiction?" forum is down the hall. Please take it there.

Chuck

A few points.

First, you misconstrue my reference to West Virginia, which was important NOT so much in the general election, but in the primary against Hubert Humphrey. If Catholic Kennedy had not beaten Humphrey in this most Protestant of states, Kennedy would never have gotten the Democratic nomination.

Second, Illinois alone would not have been enough, but how would anyone stuffing the ballot boxes in Cook County with Major Daley's & perhaps others' help have known that when they were stuffing them? They wouldn't have, of course, and implicit in your point is the notion that vote stealing is objectionable only when outcome determinative.

Third and finally, Texas and Illlinois WOULD have been enough. And if you think the voting was on the up-and-up in the Lone Star state with LBJ on the ticket, think again. LBJ had raised election stealing in Texas to an art form.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

First, you misconstrue my reference to West Virginia, which was important NOT so much in the general election, but in the primary against Hubert Humphrey. If Catholic Kennedy had not beaten Humphrey in this most Protestant of states, Kennedy would never have gotten the Democratic nomination.

Since Kennedy had already beaten Humphrey in Wisconsin, which was in Humphrey's own backyard, Humphrey was a beaten man even before the West Virginia primary.

The people of West Virginia could care two figs about JFK's Catholicism, they wanted someone who offered hope to their impoverished lives. I believe it is in "Remembering America," by Richard Goodwin, that JFK's first official written order as President was to release food stocks to West Virginia. Most reasonable people would have to say that the West Viginians made the right choice in 1960.

But perhaps what Mr. Cormier is trying to tell us is that JFK was not really a legitimate President, and therefore we should not be making such a fuss about his asssassination.

[Bruce Cormier]

First, you misconstrue my reference to West Virginia, which was important NOT so much in the general election, but in the primary against Hubert Humphrey. If Catholic Kennedy had not beaten Humphrey in this most Protestant of states, Kennedy would never have gotten the Democratic nomination.

Since Kennedy had already beaten Humphrey in Wisconsin, which was in Humphrey's own backyard, Humphrey was a beaten man even before the West Virginia primary.

The people of West Virginia could care two figs about JFK's Catholicism, they wanted someone who offered hope to their impoverished lives. I believe it is in "Remembering America," by Richard Goodwin, that JFK's first official written order as President was to release food stocks to West Virginia. Most reasonable people would have to say that the West Viginians made the right choice in 1960.

But perhaps what Mr. Cormier is trying to tell us is that JFK was not really a legitimate President, and therefore we should not be making such a fuss about his asssassination.

Goodness no, J, that's the last thing I'd say. It's easily the worst public event that's happened in my country in my lifetime -- and that's saying a lot. I I even half believed the "official" version of what happened, I wouldn't be among you.

My point about W VA is that although Humphrey may have been wounded, perhaps fatally, Kennedy had to win there. Check Goodwin, check Theodore White, check Arthur Schlessinger.

But enough of this. I have nothing in the least against you or people who share your views on everything. And I suspect that our colleagues may be tiring of our back-and-forth. I'm going to enjoy a beautiful day.

Best wishes,

Bruce

First, you misconstrue my reference to West Virginia, which was important NOT so much in the general election, but in the primary against Hubert Humphrey. If Catholic Kennedy had not beaten Humphrey in this most Protestant of states, Kennedy would never have gotten the Democratic nomination.

Since Kennedy had already beaten Humphrey in Wisconsin, which was in Humphrey's own backyard, Humphrey was a beaten man even before the West Virginia primary.

The people of West Virginia could care two figs about JFK's Catholicism, they wanted someone who offered hope to their impoverished lives. I believe it is in "Remembering America," by Richard Goodwin, that JFK's first official written order as President was to release food stocks to West Virginia. Most reasonable people would have to say that the West Viginians made the right choice in 1960.

But perhaps what Mr. Cormier is trying to tell us is that JFK was not really a legitimate President, and therefore we should not be making such a fuss about his asssassination.

Goodness no, J, that's the last thing I'd say. It's easily the worst public event that's happened in my country in my lifetime -- and that's saying a lot. I I even half believed the "official" version of what happened, I wouldn't be among you.

My point about W VA is that although Humphrey may have been wounded, perhaps fatally, Kennedy had to win there. Check Goodwin, check Theodore White, check Arthur Schlessinger.

But enough of this. I have nothing in the least against you or people who share your views on everything. And I suspect that our colleagues may be tiring of our back-and-forth. I'm going to enjoy a beautiful day.

Best wishes,

Bruce

I meant to say, "If I even half believed" the "official" version -- which I don't.