RFK Jr. Says He Will Pardon Assange and Snowden If Elected President

submitted by [deleted] from (triunetimes.org)

all 28 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

That right there tells me I’ll vote for him. 100% he has my vote. The shit they did to Assange. For reporting.

[–]IkeConn 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

The Democrats are going to try and Bernie Sanders his campaign.

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

The Clintons will suicide him.

[–]EternalSunset 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

The CIA and Mossad will JFK him.

[–]IkeConn 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Double tap to the back of the head no weapon found.

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

Ever since Bush Sr. made JFK go away nobody has even pretended to care about democracy. The confession was made in a public speech that was aired live on TV and can be seen on youtube. For anyone with basic human reading skills. Bush says something along the lines of crazy lone gunman laughs his ass off and looks at a co-conspirator in the audience. I think it even was at a funeral which makes him laughing his ass off even more despicable.

[–]satori-in-life 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I was already going to vote for him but this just seals the deal. I hope he runs as an independent.

[–]Skankhunter42 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

He'll get assassinated by the CIA like his father did.

[–]Alphix 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The media are doing the same thing to him that they did to Ron Paul when he ran.

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

It's like he's trying not to be elected. (The folks who would like this to happen don't usually vote, because aLl GoVErNmeNt iS BAd!)

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

Why would whistleblowing and reporting on crimes being committed against the American people by the government be bad, in a country with freedom of the press no less. You must be further gone than I realized, I can't even fathom the depths of your psychosis. Also have you considered moving to China, I think you might like it there

[–]cunt_esq 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I'd assume you understand my point, but it seems not.

I'd also pardon Assange and Snowden if I could, but it's political suicide to admit to that during a political campaign.

(There's obviously a big difference between what is right and what can get you elected; a big difference between what should be done after an election and what should be done in order to be elected. You can complain that politicians should not be dishonest about their plans after the election, which is correct, but if you want a politician to WIN the nomination and election, you have to admit that they must be skilled first and foremost in the art of persuasion and political strategy. Yes, understanding political strategy is like understanding a psychosis, because of the double-speak, but that's the realpolitik that's necessary, as opposed to the ideology you'd like to otherwise see ahead of the nomination or election.)

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I'd assume you understand my point, but it seems not.

I'd also pardon Assange and Snowden if I could, but it's political suicide to admit to that during a political campaign.

😬 Ah....yes I seem to have very badly misunderstood what you were getting at.

Yes, totally agree, this is not how to win, and even if it was, the DNC would not let him, I have no illusions about that. But I will still cheer the guy on for honestly representing his agenda and sticking to his ideals. If he manages to bring attention to this issue or make the DNC look bad, maybe some good can still come from his candidacy.

Sometimes the good guy just needs to fight the good fight, even if he isnt gonna win

[–]cunt_esq 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Yes - though let's hope the DNC already learned how they failed to manage the Hilary/Bernie debacle. In that case, Hilary failed miserably to connect with voters in the way Bernie and Trump had done. She was a dinosaur, ironically, for the first female nominee.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The other thing I will say here, is that while you are correct about winning, this particular paradigm is what has brought us such great candidates as Trump, Hillary and Biden, and in you guys case, Boris Johnson. I don't think this 'realpolitikking' is serving our interests. You cannot tell me those are the best people available out of 330 million Americans. I will leap at the chance to support a different type of candidate who is not psychopathic reptile for hire by the corporation with the most money. I am tired of electing the bestest liar

[–]cunt_esq 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Realpolitik I refer to is essentially political realism, dating back thousands of years. By contrast, political ideology is a relatively new and fundamental aspect of modern thought. It's essentially reactionary. Political support for reactionary movements is difficult to arrange in the US.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I see, I was less than familiar with this 'Realpolitik' concept, but yes, I imagine this dates back a ways.

Political support for reactionary movements is difficult to arrange in the US.

Seems strange doesn't it? The creation of the U.S. was itself a reactionary movement was it not? You'd think we would be more receptive to them, why do you think this is?

[–]cunt_esq 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The creation of the U.S. was itself a reactionary movement was it not?

US history books whitewash some of the motivations for those reactions. One of the whitewashed motivations was the interest of Washington and many others to expand their territories further West, which was prohibited by the crown. Wealthy groups wanted more opportunities for investment. The vast majority of those who lost their lives in the conflict - as often happens in war - were poor or lower middle-class. The politicla slogans used to recruit soldiers did not include the comment: we want wealthy landowners to expand Westward. Many knew that this was a motivation, but the key point was anger about taxation. Boston tea party: if you don't drink a lot of tea you shouldn't have been bothered by the tax, right? Yes, reactionary ideology is throughout our US history texts, but it's only part of the story, part of the rhetoric of revolution. Hannah Arendt's 'On Revolution' partially addresses this problem, particularly with regard to the French revolution, where the abuses of the crown were much more apparent. Anyhow: was there double-speak in the rallying cries for revolution in the US? Yes. Are we led to believe that the revolution was primarily ideological? Yes. Would we be wrong to assume that it was primarily idological? Yes. Documents for governance drafted after the revolution were themselves idoelogical, but confirmed in their own way that there would not be a 100% democracy. Upon the founding of the Electoral College around 1787, the wealthy politicians confirmed for themselves that they would continue to rule, while also expanding Westward. They ruled before 1776, and continued to rule thereafter. The - no taxation without representation - slogan they yelled before the revolution was a form of reactionary idology, but the result of that ideology was not 100% democracy. So, should we be receptive to this method of governance? Not necessarily. But if we'd want to improve the democratic representation (abolishing the Electoral college, for example), this could not happen as part of a campaign promise, because the wealthy still controll much of the political process and the associated information about campaigns.

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

You make good points about the double-speak and multiple motivations. I agree with some of what you're saying here, but I have a different impression of the ideology behind the French and US revolutions.

I don't see 'democracy' as the ideology that is representative of these movements. The U.S. in particular, I tend to associate with a liberal philosophical movement, of which democracy is a value, but the not the highest value. The philosophy of liberalism, historically, was more about rejecting arbitrary authority than democracy. I.E. they rejected the arbitrary authority of Kings and Church, for an impartial objective authority of the law (Most of the values remained intact in liberalism, equality before god became equality under the law for example), but not necessarily a direct democratic law. In direct democracy, people could theoretically vote for and enact decidedly unliberal policies. The founding fathers didnt want to ensure direct democracy, because what they really wanted to ensure was liberty, of which the right to vote is only part of, and didnt trust people not to vote for less liberty

Also, I think this ideology is dying, todays "liberalism" looks nothing like the liberalism of Locke and Hume.

The new 'liberalism' ideology is authoritarianism for the greater good of the group, a type of utilitarianism, which is adjacent to liberalism thanks to John Stuart Mill - but decidedly not the same thing as traditional liberalism which is defined by the principle of individual liberty. Even John Stuart Mill famously spoke out against against vaccine mandates (for smallpox, not covid obviously) despite being the co-creator of utilitarianism with Bentham. Because liberty.

RFK Jr. is part of this dying breed of 'individual liberty' liberal, and this is why I like him so much

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

Snowden, I get.

Assange, never. People died because he outed people helped the US Army, and their safety depended on those secrets. I want Assange dead.

[–]iamonlyoneman 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Maybe don't be the world police and you wont have that problem

[–]thatrightwinger 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's pretty heartless; the murders of those cooperating people who believed in liberty are acceptable because you think the US shouldn't have been in Afghanistan.

[–]iamonlyoneman 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

If you don't go into the next shithole and waste a few thousand lives and a few trillion dollars you don't have the problem again, n'est-ce pas?

Keep your secrets better, be less shady, or both. Those people are casualties of war, and they knew it would be possible on the way in.

More people extremely likely die routinely because of the secrets our government keeps.

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

My guy can promise literally anything hes not gonna be elected LOL