@MaxBlumenthal: "A day after RFK Jr agreed to @jimmy_dore's proposal to publicly discuss his pledge of "unconditional support for Israel" with me, his comms director was dialing me up to offer a series of unbelievable excuses for why this could not happen in the foreseeable future."

submitted by Maniak🥃😾 from twitter.com

all 33 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun

[–]FThumbStay thirsty, my friends 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So he's not grabbing the Third Rail with both hands?

[–]BerryBoy1969It's not red vs. blue - It's capital vs. you 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

“[Kennedy’s] not debating Max Blumenthal," said RFK 2024 comms director Stefanie Spear. "He’s not gonna debate anyone. He’s running for president.”

Team Blue mentality is strong in this Democrat's campaign...

[–]unagisongsBurn down Reddit! 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He’s not gonna debate anyone. He’s running for president.

Not a serious candidate for president then.

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It's like they can't hear themselves.

[–]BerryBoy1969It's not red vs. blue - It's capital vs. you 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't think they care. They know their base will show up to keep the Circle D Corporation on life support, as the only viable alternative to the Republican party.

Winning isn't even on their radar. Biden did the job he was assigned as a replacement for Trump. Our owners have no need for him any longer, and Democrats Inc. will be sent back to the B Team bench until the electorate has been worn down by our owners red team, and need a little hope and change again.

Same as it ever was...

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The cartoon reminds me of one of Sir Humphrey's lines: "They need activity. It's their substitute for achievement."

He was talking about politicians, but it applies equally well to the hoping-for-hope electorate.

[–]BerryBoy1969It's not red vs. blue - It's capital vs. you 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"They need activity. It's their substitute for achievement."

Sir Humphrey's line sums up the Circle D Corporation's Progressive Movement, as well as the JusticeUs Democrats clown show.

If Democrats know anything at all, they know how to manage the expectations of their trained, pragmatic apologists intimately.

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Looks like a pattern.

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This is misguided and cowardly. If he can't engage in a discussion and explain his reasons for unconditionally supporting Israel, as he stated recently, then it's reasonable to conclude they aren't defensible reasons - though I can't actually think of any defensible reasons.

[–]prevail2020 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I can definitely think of reasons for supporting Israel, but I don't have the time or the inclination right now to carry that standard and, frankly, to suffer the slings and arrows that would go with it. I wouldn't convince anyone anyway, nor is it my mission to do so. Besides, my support is not at all unconditional as I understand that term, and I wasn't crazy about RFK's response when Dore pressed him the other day for several minutes to explain what RFK means by unconditional. I will say that RFK is one of the few public figures in the U.S. supporting Israel that tries to explain publicly and in detail the reasons for his support, which I find commendable. He took up the challenge to meet with Blumenthal (whom RFK said he "loves" on Dore's show this week), and he should do so. I understand if his advisers can't see a political upside for him to doing so, but that's too bad for them.

[–]Maniak🥃😾[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I can definitely think of reasons for supporting Israel

Outside of religious reasons and without invoking the holocaust as if it had anything to do with it? Good luck with that.

RFK is one of the few public figures in the U.S. supporting Israel that tries to explain publicly and in detail the reasons for his support, which I find commendable

He "explained" it by lying and repeating zionist talking points that are entirely based on gaslighting and reinventing history.

What you find commendable I find despicable.

He took up the challenge to meet with Blumenthal

Except he didn't. He said the words, then immediately walked then back. Just like when he told Glenn that he was open to revisiting his opinion on what Israel has been doing and immediately went even further in proclaiming his unconditional support for terrorism.

Or are you implying that RFK is so weak that he's just a puppet of his campaign managers? Because that doesn't help his case.

He went on Glenn's show, repeated his talking points, moved on as if he hadn't said anything specific, then had his campaign move further in the opposite direction.

He went on Jimmy's show, repeated his talking points, moved on as if he hadn't said anything specific, then had his campaign move further in the opposite direction.

He's being a standard politician. Worse, he's being a standard democrat. Worse, he's being a liar and a coward.

Way to throw his credibility out the window.

Putting the blame on "his campaign" is a deflection. RFK is the one running. What "his campaign" does is on him, 100%.

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A private citizen is under no obligation to explain the why of their opinions but the standard for a presidential candidate is different, that was my only point. It's especially important for him to clarify his position given the horrific situation in Palestine that has been ongoing for years now, and the fact that only in the last year or so has this been getting anywhere near the level of public attention it merits.

[–]Maniak🥃😾[S] 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

And of course, the unconditional defenders are already reusing the same non-arguments:

He won’t publicly debate you bc I think he agrees with most of what you say about Israel, etc. His public viewpoints on Israel are all political.

 

He's still by far the best candidate overall tho

 

4D chess and lesser evilism, that's the defense. Just gotta trust him bro!

Let's blindly believe that everything he says that we agree on are things he really thinks, and everything he says that we don't agree on are things he doesn't actually mean!!1!

[–]prevail2020 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

To my knowledge, FDR did not at all seek to end or even critique Jim Crow virtual apartheid in the solidly Democratic South (of course, both de jure and de facto segregation and race laws existed everywhere in the U.S.). FDR's toleration of such extreme injustice through more than three full terms could very reasonably have been a red line for some who otherwise supported him to say they cannot support someone who condones such a state of affairs when he is uniquely in a position to oppose and stop it. At best, they might have viewed such a person as the lesser evil, but evil nonetheless. Nevertheless, I think it was a good thing for this country that FDR was elected.

[–]Maniak🥃😾[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And if the country and the world were in the same state as way back then, you may have a point.

They're not though, so the argument "hey way back then it was fine" doesn't apply.

Repeating the past several decades is specifically what should not be done. What those decades ended up doing is what we're in now.

Not to mention that measures were taken back then to make sure that another FDR would not happen again within the duopoly, just like measures were taken after 2016 to make sure that another Bernie (pre-cuckification) would not happen again within the duopoly.

Bottom line: RFK ain't no FDR, whether in form, substance or opportunity.

[–]ageingrockstar 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

lesser evilism

I like your term here.

What's important to remember with 'lesser evilism' is that, if you are gaslit into picking between "the lesser of two evils", by definition, you're still getting evil.

[–]unagisongsBurn down Reddit! 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Lesser evilism is a massive gamble disguised as a wise political calculation. If the candidate is trash aka Hilary Clinton. The voters will reject that candidate.

[–]ageingrockstar 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

My argument would be that everything that we do carries moral weight and that includes voting. If you vote for a candidate that you understand will do evil things once in power, in at least some areas, you share in that evil and thus you shouldn't vote for them, even if you think they will do less evil than their main contender.

[–]EddieC 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

everything that we do carries moral weight and that includes voting.

 
The Real Votes that matter - i.e. that will result in actual change - are Our Mind, Time, Efforts and Money (MTEM)
Imagine if we put our MTEMs to discuss Direct Change ideas such as this
 

[–]ageingrockstar 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

I had a look at your linked write-up.

It seems we would both agree on the principle "Fix the money, fix the world" (at least fix it to some extent)

I'm sympathetic to local currency systems that are generated and which circulate locally.

However, the 'evil money' doesn't operate at this scale, it operates on the national and global scale. And while trusted issuers, as your system uses, may work (i.e. stay trustworthy) at a local level, history has shown us that trusted issuers do not work at the national level. Debasement of the currency always eventuates. And, while operating, unfairly favours those close to money issuance through the Cantillon Effect. We need a system of money that has no trusted issuers and requires no trusted third parties. For that, we need to look elsewhere I think (towards the work of the cypherpunks).

[–]EddieC 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It seems we would both agree on the principle "Fix the money, fix the world" (at least fix it to some extent)

 
The core of the problem is our own mindset
 

[–]ageingrockstar 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Chicken and egg ?

Sometimes, or perhaps, nearly always, exposure to a new technology or technology ecosystem changes your mindset.

So I don't think it's one or the other. We need ppl with more enlightened mindsets to implement better technologies. And exposure to those better technologies and the ecosystems that grow up around them can help develop more enlightened mindsets. So it can be positive reinforcement on both sides. Some ppl may just want to focus on developing their own mindset first, that's good, while others may want to build out the better technologies and create a living environment that fosters healthier mindsets, that's also good.

[–]EddieC 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The usurpers do not mind us debating each other in silos, at the branches
for that is one of their tactics: dissipate our energy over time
whilst their real source of power is kept intact, untouched as they proceed to tighten their grip over everyone.
 

[–]ageingrockstar 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm not debating you, I'm conversing with you

[–]EddieC 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Debasement of the currency always eventuates. ... We need a system of money that has no trusted issuers and requires no trusted third parties. For that, we need to look elsewhere I think (towards the work of the cypherpunks).

 
There is another way to address debasement of currency - a constant, non-debaseable unit of account - see Quanta - it will involve a mind shift
 

Here's a simple way to help make the transition
 

Then, there are Mutual Credit Exchanges - they are already in use for commercial settlement
 

The basic idea is that it is up to us to free our minds - to proliferate our own means of exchange - and not allow ourselves to be held ransom to usurping, Corporate-controlled Fiat Money, nor anything Corporate for that matter
 

The key to change is everyone engaging in Accretive Dialogue for/on Direct Change Solutions, not Idle Chatter.
 

[–]ageingrockstar 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I'll have a look at those further links, cheers

[–]EddieC 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Sure, take your time.
 

[–]EddieC 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

u/ageingrockstar

A quick update (links provided, click only if you are interested to know more):
 

I arrived at the idea of a Periodic Reckoning Currency
borne of the Reciprocity Paradigm - backed by nothing more than this:
the Promise of a Promising Future, with Periodic Reckoning

 
From there, the possibility of a basic income for everyone is but a logical extension.

 
Removing the hierarchical lens and
viewing through reciprocal lens, it becomes clear:
Money is our birth right, our life force:

  • no one should be denied, and
  • no one has any moral right to deny others

their access to.

 
The Wörgl currency of 1932 was one such example.
However, Hierarchy shut it down in 1933
Meaning:
Hierarchy will not allow the Reciprocity to co-exist with it
- it is an impossibility. Hierarchy will usurp Reciprocity

 
Hence:
If Hierarchy will not let us have the real solution
then we must shun Hierarchy for Reciprocity.

 

[–]Maniak🥃😾[S] 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Damn, I should have bet on it.

And another pile of red flags for the pile \o/