I know what you mean. I thought the saying - God helps those who help themselves- was a Bible verse until I was in my 30s and someone challenged me to find it in the Bible. That was a humbling experience because I was being pretty obnoxious and insisting it was in there.
Yeah, I realized after I read through that article that he never ran at all. It's crazy how things like that works its way into your head. Even though I remembered all that stuff from when it happened, I've seen so many people here say he ran for that office, it just got stuck in my head.
I still don't understand why anyone would think he would be a good VP for President Trump. I know there was that whole weird thing going around about him not really being dead and was going to come back and Trump was going to make him his VP.
Why would anyone want him as a VP? He was a liberal. I just don't get it.
I have to respectfully disagree with the consensus here. I don't think people should be cheering on this type of behavior. Especially if it is an 8 year old. There is just no need for that. I'm also sure that if it had been a story about an 8 year old girl saying Fuk Donald Trump in class everyone would be saying what bad role models her parents were and they were indoctrinating her to hate Trump. I think sometimes we lose sight of our priorities and get caught up in the strong emotions we have about this stuff. And I think one of our biggest priorities is to be good role models for our children. It seems like people have forgotten how to disagree with others in a civilized manner. I'm going to be blunt- this is just bad behavior. It's not doing that little girl any favors by encouraging that type of thing.
Pretty sure military destroyed all chances of nukes during Trumps first 4 years, you don't go into the end game with the enemy still having control over a nuke
Do you mean that Trump was able to disarm everyone else's nukes? Or our own? I don't know which enemy you're talking about. Foreign countries or Democrats.
It was difficult sitting through these people trying to be funny. It's obvious they spent a long time practicing these soundbites in front of a mirror. And they still were terrible.
This is what happens when someone tries to be charismatic or charming. You can't manufacture those qualities. If it doesn't come naturally, it turns into a cringe fest like that debate.
It really highlights how naturally charismatic Trump is. Even the liberals I know admit that he's charismatic.
Thanks for the link. That was a really cool article.
I don't think it made a convincing argument against a female president, though. Much of it was based on things that happened with monarchs 400-500 years ago. It really can't compare to modern day women in a democracy.
There are many countries with female rulers today that are not war prone. Anyway, looking at what male presidents have done, it's not like they went screaming away from war and conflict.
You know, I think you hit the nail on the head. All of this is kind of overwhelming to me, sometimes. It's a massive amount of information to try to take in. And it's like for every post that turns out to be credible, I go through 10 others that turned out to be bogus.
I wish I could find an honest version of snopes, like you said. And people in hell wish for ice water.
But I am most likely too critical. Just getting information out is an ongoing battle. I just get frustrated with everything sometimes because I don't have the time to dig as much as I need to in order to understand much of this.
But on the other hand, I think people who post here have the responsibility of doing at least the minimum amount of work to verify the info they spread.
It's really worrisome that there's such a backlash against someone wanting to see something more credible than "this person on Twitter says so", especially when the topics are typically something like this, the potential murder of a political rival. And I'm talking about your efforts not flying well. Not about anyone questioning my source here.
And it's even more important when new people are coming here. If their first impression is that so many people here will believe pretty much anything, what does that say about Q?
I'm still pretty new to all this myself and stuff like this really doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in me. Lots of stuff I see here I believe to be true. But that's because I worked hard to find info on it myself.
But there is also a lot of just flat out crap that should never be posted in the first place.
You talked earlier about the NYT being known liars and suggested that they should never be believed because of that. I don't think this forum is very different. Reputation is important, I think.
You're welcome.
If you're looking for more evidence, I'd just suggest that it's easier to prove a positive than it is to prove a negative. By this, I mean that it would be easier to find evidence that he was running for Senate before he died, if that was true.
To run for Senate as a Democrat, he would have to jump through all kinds of hoops with the DNC. They keep records of that sort of thing. So you can look there.
Or even do a web search for any news of him announcing he was going to run. That would 100% have made the news at the time, if it had happened.
You know as well as I do that I don't have a shot in hell of becoming a mod here.
Why can't I encourage people to aim higher when I see examples like this?
Surely I'm not the only one who thinks an "elite research site" like this shouldn't be using Twitter posts as evidence.
Perhaps if the Twitter post above had some compelling evidence like copies of JFK Jrs documentation for running in the DNC for Senate, that might be something. But no, it's just some random person saying it.
Perhaps we should all be striving for self improvement and encouraging others to be better as well.
Because this is just sad. You know, for an elite research site.
I'm not upset about that at all. But considering this is supposed to be a research board, perhaps we should have a higher standard of evidence than randos on Twitter just claiming something and it being taken as the truth?
Why is it that people are so ready to believe something just because a Twitter post is linked here? This is not the first time I've seen this happen. Or even the 50th.
My point was that what people deem as acceptable sources varies wildly here. Anonymous, badly pieced together video found on Twitter is enough to convince someone, while a DSCC official making a statement in a top newspaper is met with doubt.
And yes, I know it's the NYT, and most people here think they're liars....until the NYT says something they like, and only then are they deemed credible. But only for that one article.
It's ridiculous.
It might be a better use of your time looking for evidence he ever entered the race in the first place.
You could start with the DNC records concerning that election. It's an official process to enter as a candidate in a political party. And they keep records of that.
Well, perhaps I could find some random person on Twitter who just says it and post that for you.
That seems to work well enough as evidence here.
Do you think the Kennedy family, one of the most prestigious and powerful families in the US wouldn't have made it known that this NYT article was lying about JFK Jr not running for Senate if he had been?
Trump is an entertainer. And I don't mean that in a negative way. People want to hear him speak. And many of those people you see at his rallies follow him around the country, going to every rally he has. That increases his turnout. But no matter how many times someone goes to his rallies, they can only vote once.
Biden is a dull man. Even diehard Democrats wouldn't cross the road to hear him speak. But they still vote for him.
It really is that simple. Democrats don't care about rallies. At least, rallies involving Biden.
I think people forget that Democrats don't vote FOR Biden. They're voting AGAINST Trump. Many of them don't like Biden at all. But they don't care. They'd vote for a poodle as long as the poodle was running against Trump.
Exactly. Sometimes I wonder how young most Anons are and how long they've been following politics. Or even gossip.
I remember when all this happened. It was well known that Carolyn didn't want him to go into the Senate then because she was not happy with all the attention she was getting for marrying Jr. She didn't want any more attention, which is what would happen if he ran for Senate.
Or they could make such ballsy moves when they have control of both the House and the Senate, which they did the first two years of Trump's presidency.
But when they had the power to actually make real changes, they just stood around with their thumbs up their ass.
The Republicans have always been like this. They introduce bills that they know will have no chance in hell of passing, and then act like martyrs and blame Democrats when they don't pass.
But whenever they have control of both houses....crickets chirping.
I also remember when it happened. There was a lot of gossip about Carolyn not wanting him to go into the Senate right then. They had just gotten married and she was having a lot of trouble adjusting to being in the spotlight and their relationship was being strained because of that. She didn't want to become even more of a public figure, which is what would happen if Jr. had become a Senator.
But that's just my memory, sooo...
I think there might be a paywall to the article, so here it is:
"John F. Kennedy Jr. was sought out as a possible candidate for a Senate seat from New York but declined to run even before Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed interest in the race, according to a Senator who spoke with him.
Senator Robert G. Torricelli, the New Jersey Democrat who is chairman of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, said he called Mr. Kennedy after Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan announced last November that he would not seek re-election in 2000.
Senator Torricelli said Mr. Kennedy told him he might be interested later but the timing was not right and he would not seek the seat. This was more than a month before Mrs. Clinton's name emerged as a possibility.
''The speculation that John Kennedy was not a candidate for the U.S. Senate because of Hillary Clinton is not accurate,'' Senator Torricelli said in an interview today.
''John Kennedy was an obvious possible choice,'' said Senator Torricelli, who helps to recruit Senate candidates and raise money for them and who was among the first to mention Mrs. Clinton's name publicly in February. He said he also spoke with Mr. Kennedy's cousin, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an environmental lawyer in New York, as well as with Andrew M. Cuomo, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the son of former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo, and with H. Carl McCall, the State Comptroller, but they were cool to the idea.
Of John Kennedy, Mr. Torricelli said: ''He listened carefully, he was attentive to the suggestions, he approached it thoughtfully and seriously. But his response was, it might be an interest he had in his life but the timing wasn't right, that it was something to be approached again in a matter of years.''
Senator Torricelli said he called Mr. Kennedy twice about the matter, but then dropped it because he was clearly not interested. But the Senator also said that Mr. Kennedy appeared to be using his magazine, George, as a vehicle to become more familiar with public policy issues and that this was perhaps a way to lay the groundwork for a future run for office."
Not at all. There is no reason why children should be around drag queens at all.
Why did you assume that? Do you think because I disagree with the majority here on one thing that I must disagree with them on everything?