Imagine for a moment that it’s January 2009. Bernie Madoff, America’s poster-child fraudster, has yet to be caught. The 2007-2008 financial crisis never happened. The markets didn’t tank to reveal the emptiness beneath his schemes. We still don’t know what’s lurking in his tax returns because he’s never released them, but we know that he’s a billionaire, at least on paper.
I have always admired Prins, read her books and posted many times on CD that she should be Treasury Secretary, however, this article delineates the the dark of Trump's legacy and the risks he poses without addressing the parallel and comparable (or worse) Clinton dark legacy and risks of Clinton.
Although we all agree that Madoff was the perfect distraction to prosecuting the banksters that did exponentially more damage than Madoff, what about killing Glass Steagall, Commodities and Futures Modernization and other Clinton milestones that negatively impacted exponentially more people and nations than Trump's evil deeds ?
When you read the laundry list of scams, and rip-offs, and other thefts attached to Trump, should he not have at least been placed in a jail! After all, if a person steals food from the grocery store, the person is quickly arrested, and quickly thrown in jail. Maybe Trump did not do what Madoff did, rip-off the wealthy?
The Hillary crowd once again telling us to "be afraid, be very afraid or the boogeyman Trump will get you."
Trump is a lunatic.
Jill Stein is the antidote to both Trump and Hillary, so vote Green.
There are none.
Arby, I read and respect many of your comments. But, imo, you are way off on JFK. Read: "The Unthinkable", see who JFK was fighting and why, read his speeches.
Hasn't he already been using the country as his piggy bank??
The promoting of JFK/Camelot by sources in the mainstream left, if mainstream left can even be used as an identification, for over a half century is a saga in itself.
I was in high school when Kennedy was president. I've seen them all on tv from Eisenhower up to Obama. The comment that Naomi Prims quoted about Ronald Reagan from a book by Trump: “He is so smooth and so effective a performer that he completely won over the American people. Only now, nearly seven years later, are people beginning to question whether there’s anything beneath that smile.”
When talking about a president being smooth, one thinks of Reagan, Bill Clinton, Obama. But the bench mark for not only being smooth but having a persona for using the bully pulpit with the perception of being direct yet with a poignant sense of purpose and honesty is still JFK. No one else is even close. He was so effective at this that not selling the JFK/Camelot myth would be an all time blunder in public relations.
To have that myth exposed was an eye opener. This was brought home to me when I 'discovered' Noam Chomsky in the latter half of the 1980's. It was akin to finally putting away one's toys and seeing the real world. To include Camelot. I recall the late Gore Vidal, whose politics were to the left, and who knew the Kennedy family, including John Kennedy, once saying that 'Jack Kennedy didn't have a liberal bone in his body'.
Myth making seems to have been around as long as human culture itself. But so has a quest for the truth and keeping one's eyes opened.
The propaganda against alternative candidates is growing. Friends continue sharing articles about why Jill Stein (and Gary Johnson) would make a terrible president, how we should be terrified of a Trump presidency, etc.
ok, but have you read that book? by way off, I mean it seems like you are not correct in your description of him.
Ok, but smooth doesn't mean bad, and I find many mainstream left sources have incorrect things to say about JFK, warmonger, started vietnam war, etc. Mainstream right of course hated JFK, and he was likely killed by the MIC/CIA. So, are these not conflcting opinions?
I respect Vidal, but I can't understand this quote: "I can think of practically everything he did that was basically disastrous and leading us closer to war." Sounds like he was wrong to me.
What is the assasination program based on? Also, why would he have a 2nd invasion of Cuba if he did not support the first and wanted to negotiate with Krushchev? I'm just looking for info.
You state: (I respect Vidal, but I can't understand this quote: "I can think of practically everything he did that was basically disastrous and leading us closer to war." Sounds like he was wrong to me.). That statement 'sounds' wrong only if you're predisposed to disagree with any criticisms of JFK.
When I brought up the JFK persona it was not to correlate that to 'good' or 'bad'. But to say that it facilitated favorable story telling. For example, the sinking of JFK's Pt109 boat was due to his own incompetence, something he admitted himself, believing a possible court martial could result. Yet what did happen was a fabrication, a Davy Crockett like saga, to include a pop tune, of heroism under fire. He even got an award/medal for rescuing a crew member. Joe Kennedy Sr was not a neophyte when it came to politics and public perception.
I don't look at JFK's personal peccadillos, or whatever euphemisms you want to call them. They're not relevant.
What I am referring to is the perception that the public had about JFK, myself included. Think of Obama in 2008 and multiply it tenfold. JFK created that perception. Big Time. The 1950s was McCarthyism and the Cold War, along with the exponential growth in nuclear weapons, the endless alarms thrust at the population, kids growing up with the 'duck and cover' messages, civil rights and other social movements demanding democracy and justice be heard. Then along comes JFK and his message implied that he was going to address these concerns and more. The feelings of hope and expectation were palpable. Even though during the 1960 presidential campaign and debates JFK out-hawked Nixon. Hope and expectation won out. And Camelot came into being. I can't overstate that enough and the effect it had on people then and what gets revised now. Including by historians.
A few years ago on the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination the Real News Network did a couple of shows on JFK and Vietnam with historian Peter Kuznick, (On Youtube Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erUJ9W_qR-0 and Part2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRJBJp6JQHE ). Kuznick has in recent times expounded on the position that JFK's true intentions were quite honorable and had he served 8 years as president it would have made for a strong possibility that a different world scene may well have happened. Kuznick naturally claims to have come to these more recent conclusions via straightforward academic efforts.
I'd like you to listen to the 2nd video form the 14:00 to 16:15 mark, in which Kuznick finishes with such comments as “...and that hope that we all felt in the 1960's...was extinguished and then we become more cynical about the world” “...that there were possibilities for change that were lost...that we didn't have to get involved in Vietnam...that we didn't have to go the path we went in terms of the Cold War...the nuclear arms race...the antagonism towards Cuba...” You and I can look at the past half century in hindsight. But so can Kuznick. How can anyone, knowing what the security state and corporate and financial power sources in place today and their path in getting there, say that JFK could have made a sea change of difference. That is nothing short of delusional. I thought the moderator would fall off his chair when Kuznick finished with the comments that JFK would have had an attenuating effect on the nuclear arms race, even if he wanted to, and with antagonisms towards Cuba! This is the Camelot illusion in action. Historical narrative writing. But the most egregious aspect to Kuznick's comments is the virtual dismissal of democracy. The idea that progress can only arise when some 'leader' makes it happen. That most definitely not how democracy functions. But it makes for terrific myths.
It's not that a single person has not made a difference. I recall Daniel Ellsberg talking about the 1962 Cuban Missle Crisis and referring to information released from Russian archives. The US navy took to using depth charges, devices that are dropped by ship or aircraft into the water which explode at some preset depth as an anti-submarine weapon. There were Russian submarines with nuclear tipped torpedoes. A tactical nuclear weapon. Try to wrap your head around that. For this to be used there had to be acquired the permission of three Soviet officers. Only one said no. That's probably why we're still around in 2016 to discuss the pros and cons of JFK. One no vote. The dissenter was Vasili Arkhipov. There's been a fair amount written about it since.
The real 'leaders' are those who encourage the public to participate. As does Jill Stein, for instance. There isn't any other way to make democracy work.