2024 US election: A Kennedy presidency? Trump again? Will it be rigged?

There's a good interview with RFK jr from Glen Greenwald on Rumble from 12 Jun 23:


The interview seems to have caused a bit of a stir, regarding RFK jr's comments on Israel.

It's about 90mins and covers:

  • Covid response
  • Kennedy family
  • Biden camp ignoring RFK jr candidacy
  • Same propaganda machine directed at Trump, covid, Russia etc.
  • His position on Israel (more on this below)
  • JFK documents to be made public
  • Russia should not be treated as the enemy
  • China is an adversary but it should be an economic one - competition is good
  • China does not want military confrontation with Taiwan and they should be left to settle differences without US interference
  • US interference led to Ukraine conflict, US is doing the same to China
  • Neocon domination by violence has been catastrophic
  • Vaccine-autism links (among many other health problems)
  • Would pardon Snowdon and Assange on day 1

About 36mins in Glen starts to ask about Israel policy and funding:

  • RFK jr praised Roger Waters on covid and other issues - but deleted his tweet because of Waters' views on Israel...
  • He disagrees "fiercely" with Waters views on Israel and agreeing with him on other issues meant RFK could be seen to be promoting views he sees as "abhorrent".
  • Those criticising Israel should not be termed 'anti-semitic' but he believes they have double standards in regards to criticism of other Middle-Eastern countries.
  • He 'continues to admire' Waters - but the Israel issue is too 'radioactive' and he has to distance himself from him as he is most well known for his opposition to Israel.
  • Palestinians are mistreated in Israel and the settlement situation is unfair. But he blames the Palestinian leadership for the two state solution failing.
  • States Israel is a flawed democracy - but it is easier to be a dissident Arab in Israel than other Arab countries...
  • He disagrees with the right-wing in Israel and wants a solution for Palestinians.
  • Israel is the only Middle-Eastern state that allows gay/trans/other views etc.
  • He states that Israel is "never going into the West Bank and killing children deliberately" (unlike other countries like Saudi Arabia where they do...)
  • He says the US is giving aid to Israel because it is the model democracy in Middle-East and the model for peace keeping. He believes it is important to have a democracy there because no democracy has ever warred with another... However, he did accept that US funding of Israel could be looked at since Israel is better able to look after itself now.

This interview was mentioned on UKColumn on 16 Jun 23. They were very much focused on RFK's explicit support for Israel from the interview. They both claim RFK did not seem his usual clear self while responding to questions about Israel. This resulted in quite an argument between Vanessa Beeley and Patrick Heningsen (it was on the members-only extra news, so I can't share here). It actually became pretty childish by the end.

Essentially Vanessa seems to believe RFK is simply another Zionist and always has been, who has sold himself out to the Israel lobby. On the other hand, Patrick's view was that the Israel lobby is so pervasive in US (and broader) politics that RFK would have no way to run without voicing support for Israel. His thinking was that RFK looked uncomfortable in this segment because these were not his views, but the points he has to put across as he will have been told to by the lobby. Vanessa's point was that, if Patrick is correct, RFK should come clean about what he had been told to say in order to run and then step out of the race...

Having watched the whole interview, I am also not so sure that RFK was that uncomfortable during the segment - out of context, maybe, but as part of the whole I didn't see too much difference in his demeanour. He was clearly being careful with his responses though (which makes sense given how 'radioactive' he sees the issue). Personally, I found myself more on Patrick's side of the argument here. We all know the power of various lobby groups and if RFK jr does want to get into power to do any good at all, he may have to work with some unsavoury types.

Vanessa Beeley has this short response to the interview on her SubStack:

 
Whenever I hear the name RFK jr I always associate it with Dr. Fuellmich.
That's because they both visited Poland shortly after the Covid 1984 pandemic was announced.
And Fuellmich discredited himself because he only made a lot of noise and nothing more.
This is just my subjective opinion.
 
There's a good interview with RFK jr from Glen Greenwald on Rumble from 12 Jun 23:


The interview seems to have caused a bit of a stir, regarding RFK jr's comments on Israel.


It's about 90mins and covers:
  • Covid response
  • Kennedy family
  • Biden camp ignoring RFK jr candidacy
  • Same propaganda machine directed at Trump, covid, Russia etc.
  • His position on Israel (more on this below)
  • JFK documents to be made public
  • Russia should not be treated as the enemy
  • China is an adversary but it should be an economic one - competition is good
  • China does not want military confrontation with Taiwan and they should be left to settle differences without US interference
  • US interference led to Ukraine conflict, US is doing the same to China
  • Neocon domination by violence has been catastrophic
  • Vaccine-autism links (among many other health problems)
  • Would pardon Snowdon and Assange on day 1

About 36mins in Glen starts to ask about Israel policy and funding:

  • RFK jr praised Roger Waters on covid and other issues - but deleted his tweet because of Waters' views on Israel...
  • He disagrees "fiercely" with Waters views on Israel and agreeing with him on other issues meant RFK could be seen to be promoting views he sees as "abhorrent".
  • Those criticising Israel should not be termed 'anti-semitic' but he believes they have double standards in regards to criticism of other Middle-Eastern countries.
  • He 'continues to admire' Waters - but the Israel issue is too 'radioactive' and he has to distance himself from him as he is most well known for his opposition to Israel.
  • Palestinians are mistreated in Israel and the settlement situation is unfair. But he blames the Palestinian leadership for the two state solution failing.
  • States Israel is a flawed democracy - but it is easier to be a dissident Arab in Israel than other Arab countries...
  • He disagrees with the right-wing in Israel and wants a solution for Palestinians.
  • Israel is the only Middle-Eastern state that allows gay/trans/other views etc.
  • He states that Israel is "never going into the West Bank and killing children deliberately" (unlike other countries like Saudi Arabia where they do...)
  • He says the US is giving aid to Israel because it is the model democracy in Middle-East and the model for peace keeping. He believes it is important to have a democracy there because no democracy has ever warred with another... However, he did accept that US funding of Israel could be looked at since Israel is better able to look after itself now.

This interview was mentioned on UKColumn on 16 Jun 23. They were very much focused on RFK's explicit support for Israel from the interview. They both claim RFK did not seem his usual clear self while responding to questions about Israel. This resulted in quite an argument between Vanessa Beeley and Patrick Heningsen (it was on the members-only extra news, so I can't share here). It actually became pretty childish by the end.

Essentially Vanessa seems to believe RFK is simply another Zionist and always has been, who has sold himself out to the Israel lobby. On the other hand, Patrick's view was that the Israel lobby is so pervasive in US (and broader) politics that RFK would have no way to run without voicing support for Israel. His thinking was that RFK looked uncomfortable in this segment because these were not his views, but the points he has to put across as he will have been told to by the lobby. Vanessa's point was that, if Patrick is correct, RFK should come clean about what he had been told to say in order to run and then step out of the race...

Having watched the whole interview, I am also not so sure that RFK was that uncomfortable during the segment - out of context, maybe, but as part of the whole I didn't see too much difference in his demeanour. He was clearly being careful with his responses though (which makes sense given how 'radioactive' he sees the issue). Personally, I found myself more on Patrick's side of the argument here. We all know the power of various lobby groups and if RFK jr does want to get into power to do any good at all, he may have to work with some unsavoury types.

Vanessa Beeley has this short response to the interview on her SubStack:

Great summary, Iain, thanks.

I tend to agree with Heningsen on this. On this issue, suddenly the 'hyper-intelligent 60s man' sounds woefully uniformed. Here's Richard Medhurst's take on it:

 
"Just to quell any speculation, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES will I join Donald Trump on an electoral ticket. Our positions on certain fundamental issues, our approaches to governance, and our philosophies of leadership could not be further apart."
Probably true, but worth keeping mind that he risks losing the "disaffected Dem who hates Trump" vote if he says anything else. Regardless, Trump would be smart to offer him a Cabinet position like HHS Director if he were to win.
 
Robert Barnes is going to be appearing on The Duran at 18:00 BST:


I know a lot of members on here are fans of his. For anyone who isn't aware of him, he's a high-level attorney in the US and has an incredible knowledge of US politics. He's also very funny.

It'll be well worth watching.
 
A bit of entertainment over the weekend as vaccine grifter Dr. Peter Hotez got called out for refusing to debate (or even have a conversation?) RFK Jr. on Rogan:

lol, I watched the Hotez clips and who can actually take that guy seriously? The bowtie and everything and then his "diss" of Joe Rogan, no backbone.

Kind of made the RFK Jr's case once again.
 
There is a possibility, I think, that presidential candidates will use a new tactic and openly call their voters to not go to vote during next election as its rigged and their honest votes will be lost. They might tell the people:
- We need to fix election integrity first and then at a later date you all can vote for real.
 
Probably true, but worth keeping mind that he risks losing the "disaffected Dem who hates Trump" vote if he says anything else. Regardless, Trump would be smart to offer him a Cabinet position like HHS Director if he were to win.

Right, whether he is aware of Trump's nature or not, the effect is that he holds a position—a life raft, so to speak, for disaffected liberals who have a chance to choose and align with the ideals of someone who is not as corrupt as others in his party. Liberals who'd otherwise not vote for Trump due to their programming. He even holds space for some on the Republican side who are also disaffected by Trump.

This may be a possibility for Kennedy too:

Session Date: December 9th 2017

[..]

(L) Okay, next question: Why did Trump recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital?

A: Buying powerful friends.

Q: (L) Is that it? He doesn't have some plan behind it?

A: Yes, but in the nature of blind cunning. The "Art of the Deal."

Q: (L) So in other words, he doesn't really have a logically formulated plan. He just acts on instinct and then each step reveals itself as he takes each step?

A: Yes

Q: (L) Well, sometimes that works, and sometimes it doesn't.

A: Yes

[..]

For those in the higher echelons, they no doubt get contacted by powerful Jews, which may sway their decisions. With the sort of rhetoric he has recently, a certain level of strategic enclosure and discretion is perhaps needed, whether conscious of it or not.
 
Good speech, imo.

Robert Kennedy Jr.: "We have one answer to all crises – war"

Robert Kennedy recorded an election video in which he condemned the current US policy. He is sure that for the last 60 years his country has been inexorably moving towards disaster:

"We are completely absorbed in the foreign policy of rivalry, threats, hostility and domination.

We see everything through the comics "good/evil", it becomes primitive and deprives us of understanding the legitimate concerns of other countries in the economic, legal and military spheres…

We have legitimized and introduced into our system an unconditional reflex of violence for everything. We have one answer to all crises - war. The war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on cancer, the war on climate change.

This way of thinking forces us to wage endless foreign wars, commit coups, bomb from drones, maintain proxy armies, create juntas and dictators.

Isn't it because America is spreading violence in the world that violence has now overtaken us at home?

After all, we have no invasion, violence originated from within. Neither the army, nor bombs, nor drones are able to stop armed violence on our streets and schools or domestic violence in our cities.

By unleashing endless wars abroad, we have missed the decline in our well-being. Our economy and infrastructure are collapsing. Our people are demoralized and have lost hope. The air, water and soil are contaminated with toxins, the mental and physical health of people is undermined.

These are the consequences of our wars. So how do you start sowing peace?"
Video:
 
Back
Top Bottom