Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Why Robert Kennedy would've hated Donald Trump

  1. #11

    Default

    Was surprised last night to see one of MLK's relatives, daughter? sister? can't recall now, giving her support for Trump. But there is one in every family.
    "I think it would be a good idea." Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization.

    The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
    Karl Marx.

    "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies, 1963, replied Ms Rice Davies when the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or having even met her.

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magda Hassan View Post
    Was surprised last night to see one of MLK's relatives, daughter? sister? can't recall now, giving her support for Trump. But there is one in every family.
    Ahhh, but the "apple" dosn't fall far from the "tree"​.
    [SIZE=1]Martin Luther King - "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
    Albert Camus - "The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion".
    Douglas MacArthur — "Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons."
    Albert Camus - "Nothing is more despicable than respect based on fear."[/SIZE]

  3. #13

    Default

    This has got to be the first time in Americas history when Americans are really confused as to who they should vote for. To bad there isn't some rule that allows for new candidates.

  4. Default

    Martin:

    From what I have seen of Trump, which is several debates and a couple of speeches, he thought the Bush invasion of Iraq was a mistake since it destabilized the Middle East.

    He wants to have better relations with Putin and Russia. Something which worked pretty well with Obama.

    Where he goes off the edge is his extension of an anti terrorist campaign inside the USA: the abandonment of civil liberties in pursuit of terror suspects, and also stop and frisk.

    But if you take a look at what Hillary Clinton's ideas about foreign policy are, and who she consults with, I mean it is very hard not to call her a neo conservative. In fact, Obama made a very bad mistake appointing her as Secretary of State.

    What she did in both Libya and Honduras was pretty bad. And what she wanted to do in Syria was, gratefully, reversed by Obama. Her views on the Middle East and Israel are pretty much AIPAC's down the line.

    Libya, I think is an object lesson in how short sighted, and shallow and neocon she really is. And Obama was really dumb to go along with it. Gaddafi almost had the rebel opposition defeated. And there was no such thing there as "mass slaughters and atrocities". That was all manufactured to demonize him. Then, the three witches out of MacBeth-- Clinton, Power and Rice-- bamboozled Obama into his NATO intervention. During which Gaddafi called Tony Blair twice and said, this is not what you think it is. These guys are part of Al Qaeda, you will have an extension of that in north Africa if they win.

    He was right. And we do. There could have been a settlement there in which Gaddafi stepped down, was offered safe harbor and his son be allowed to take over. But this was turned down, even though guys in the Africa military command were for it. But now, Libya is a disaster, a nightmare state.

    Her ideas about Russia and the Ukraine etc. that is all out of the neocon playbook. And BTW, she consults with jerks like Kagan and Kissinger. Who, IMO, JFK would have urinated on.

    So although Walinsky has a tendency to overwrite, he was like that with RFK also, generally speaking, I think he is correct here. Although I would not go as far as he does and vote for Trump. If I am in California, I vote for Stein. As a protest vote.

    That is all we have left in America, isn't it? Once Bernie Sanders lost the nomination we have nothing but futile protest.

  5. #15

    Default

    Libya was an extension of the Plan For A New American Century that 9-11 was pulled off for.


    The New York Times had an article a decade ago or so saying the US Government had sent a special citation to Muammar Gaddafi for his democratic progress in Libya and effort to bring Libya to world democratic standards. So what is the lesson the rest of the world is taught by the cowardly disproportionate surrounding of his nation by cruise-missile possessing military forces and his mob-like murder by those forces? What does it say to the world when the US murders leaders who they cited with positive democratic attributes?


    The citation the US gave Gaddafi was buried by the US media and disappeared while they are ganging up and attacking his small defenseless dusty nation like cowards. This is what the new US is and is also why we are subjected to choices like Trump and Hillary...


    If you don't realize it is exactly the plan to destabilize the Middle East's arab nations for Mossad and CIA then you don't understand the deep purpose of this neo-fascist PNAC policy. They are forces that deliberately destabilize and then offer their military solutions to solve the instability they created.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim DiEugenio View Post
    Martin:

    From what I have seen of Trump, which is several debates and a couple of speeches, he thought the Bush invasion of Iraq was a mistake since it destabilized the Middle East.

    He wants to have better relations with Putin and Russia. Something which worked pretty well with Obama.

    Where he goes off the edge is his extension of an anti terrorist campaign inside the USA: the abandonment of civil liberties in pursuit of terror suspects, and also stop and frisk.

    But if you take a look at what Hillary Clinton's ideas about foreign policy are, and who she consults with, I mean it is very hard not to call her a neo conservative. In fact, Obama made a very bad mistake appointing her as Secretary of State.

    What she did in both Libya and Honduras was pretty bad. And what she wanted to do in Syria was, gratefully, reversed by Obama. Her views on the Middle East and Israel are pretty much AIPAC's down the line.

    Libya, I think is an object lesson in how short sighted, and shallow and neocon she really is. And Obama was really dumb to go along with it. Gaddafi almost had the rebel opposition defeated. And there was no such thing there as "mass slaughters and atrocities". That was all manufactured to demonize him. Then, the three witches out of MacBeth-- Clinton, Power and Rice-- bamboozled Obama into his NATO intervention. During which Gaddafi called Tony Blair twice and said, this is not what you think it is. These guys are part of Al Qaeda, you will have an extension of that in north Africa if they win.

    He was right. And we do. There could have been a settlement there in which Gaddafi stepped down, was offered safe harbor and his son be allowed to take over. But this was turned down, even though guys in the Africa military command were for it. But now, Libya is a disaster, a nightmare state.

    Her ideas about Russia and the Ukraine etc. that is all out of the neocon playbook. And BTW, she consults with jerks like Kagan and Kissinger. Who, IMO, JFK would have urinated on.

    So although Walinsky has a tendency to overwrite, he was like that with RFK also, generally speaking, I think he is correct here. Although I would not go as far as he does and vote for Trump. If I am in California, I vote for Stein. As a protest vote.

    That is all we have left in America, isn't it? Once Bernie Sanders lost the nomination we have nothing but futile protest.
    Hi Jim,

    My objection to Trump is in no way an unconditional endorsement of Clinton. I don't trust her either. But I do think she is less likely to provoke a full scale war than Trump. Personally, (and this is from far away in the UK where anything outside Republicans and Democrats gets very little coverage) I actually liked Sanders. I still follow him on Twitter. I think the way that the Democratic party selected its candidate makes a mockery of the name of the party. I think Sanders would have made a great President, but it was clear that one way or another, that could not be allowed to happen.

    If Sanders is allowed to stand nationally, or any other independent candidates in any other state, all that does is split the vote especially on the left. I really do think it's the worst choice of candidates since before WW2, maybe even ever. I might even have preferred GWB for a third term over either of these two. It's that bad.

    In Britain, we can't believe it's even possible that Trump might be President. But then London elected Boris Johnson Mayor more than once, so they can't be too smug. :-)

    Martin

  7. Default

    If Sanders is allowed to stand nationally, or any other independent candidates in any other state, all that does is split the vote especially on the left.
    I find fault with this reasoning. It assumes that the Democratic Party represents the left. It doesn't. However, the Reaganites, neo-liberals and even neo-cons that have taken over the party still feel entitled to the votes of those on the left even though they will never give anything but tepid lips service to the concerns and agenda of the left while privately scorning them with contempt to the plutocrats and corporate titans who fund their campaigns.

    There will never not be some right-wing ogre that will serve as the perfect foil for the Democrats to employ their disingenuous fear-mongering campaign to sucker those whose stomachs turn when they think of what the Democratic Party actually represents into dutifully casting their votes in the Blue column anyway.

    Without an alternative party that actually represents and stands for the interests of the left the Democratic Party will continue to move rightward without concern for losing the votes of those who prefer a left agenda. They used to consider Reagan the devil but Reaganism is now a fair description of the Democratic Party agenda. Then Bush was the devil but the Clinton and Bush families are great friends now. How long before Bush-ism becomes the new standard of "opposition" to the Republicans? Until the Democrats have to compete for the votes of those on the left the support of those voters will always be taken for granted as a virtual entitlement by the party leaders.

    The Democratic Party is dead to me. I held my nose and voted for Obama in 2008 (literally a last-minute decision) but I'm done with the "Lesser Evil" thing. I supported and voted for Jill Stein in 2012 and will do so again this year. I don't consider it a protest vote but a positive vote for an agenda that I can agree with.

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Dagosto View Post
    If Sanders is allowed to stand nationally, or any other independent candidates in any other state, all that does is split the vote especially on the left.
    I find fault with this reasoning. It assumes that the Democratic Party represents the left. It doesn't. However, the Reaganites, neo-liberals and even neo-cons that have taken over the party still feel entitled to the votes of those on the left even though they will never give anything but tepid lips service to the concerns and agenda of the left while privately scorning them with contempt to the plutocrats and corporate titans who fund their campaigns.

    There will never not be some right-wing ogre that will serve as the perfect foil for the Democrats to employ their disingenuous fear-mongering campaign to sucker those whose stomachs turn when they think of what the Democratic Party actually represents into dutifully casting their votes in the Blue column anyway.

    Without an alternative party that actually represents and stands for the interests of the left the Democratic Party will continue to move rightward without concern for losing the votes of those who prefer a left agenda. They used to consider Reagan the devil but Reaganism is now a fair description of the Democratic Party agenda. Then Bush was the devil but the Clinton and Bush families are great friends now. How long before Bush-ism becomes the new standard of "opposition" to the Republicans? Until the Democrats have to compete for the votes of those on the left the support of those voters will always be taken for granted as a virtual entitlement by the party leaders.

    The Democratic Party is dead to me. I held my nose and voted for Obama in 2008 (literally a last-minute decision) but I'm done with the "Lesser Evil" thing. I supported and voted for Jill Stein in 2012 and will do so again this year. I don't consider it a protest vote but a positive vote for an agenda that I can agree with.
    Phil,

    All fair points. I guess what I meant was that the Democrats (for good or ill) are the only national party that those on the left can realistically choose especially in this election if they want to stop Trump.

    It may be that Trump surprises us all and turns out to be only as poor as GWB. He set the bar really low....

    Martin

  9. Default

    GWB was so bad that he killed any chance Jeb had.

    Even with a hundred million dollars.

    Which shows you how overrated Karl Rove was.

    If he couldn't steal an election, he was lost.

  10. Default

    Jim,

    Regarding Bush stealing the 2000 and 2004 elections, I have to admit I haven't read a great deal about that and what I did read wasn't the most reputable of sources. I understand though that Bugliosi wrote a good book on the 2000 election? Did you ever write anything about it?

    Martin

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •