stevenkesslar

Russia to promote anti-Ukraine politicians ahead of US election: Report Absolutely no surprises here. It just confirms that Genocide Man will use the tools of democracy to promote the mass murder of children, women, and people who fight for freedom from the criminal thug and his criminal gang of rich cronies who profit off his genocide. Russia will fail. It's only a matter of time. All the murderous monsters from Lenin on bankrupted the Soviet Union morally, technologically, financially, and poitically. And it failed. Putin is well on his way to doing the same thing. Genocide has never won for long. And it never will. The failed Russian state is on its way to collapse. Desperate Genocide Man! No wonder raping lying felon Trump is good company for Putin. But all the evidence is that this is a reason for Republicans who don't want Putin, don't want authoritarianism, and don't want genocide to hold their nose and vote for Harris and Walz. Thanks, Vlad, for a twofer. You are pushing your failed state to become weaker, and you are pushing Republicans into the arms of Harris.

That's probably right. What obviously helps Republicans is they went from having equal registrations with Democrats in 2021 to now having a 1 million registered voter edge. One Florida politico said that, in effect, shifts Florida from a generic R+2 to an R+10. If true, that's pretty overwhelming. That said, what comes up may come down. DeSantis was definitely on a roll for a while. As far as I can tell from polls, he peaked after the hurricane, due to bipartisan support for the job he did cleaning up. But the Florida culture war show that led up to 2024 did not go so well for Ron - either in Florida, or nationally. So just because COVID and a hurricane led to a period of Republican dominance, I'm not sure I'd assume that is now long lasting. A lot of it depends on Hispanics, at least some of whom seem to be shifting to Harris. At the Presidential level, there are four recent Florida polls. RCP says the average is Trump +6.3 in Florida. But the two polls in July when Biden was the candidate average Trump +8.5, whereas the two polls with Harris running average Trump +4 The most recent one, just out by Florida Atlantic, says Trump +3. So it seems to be getting closer. There's an interesting comparison between two new polls by ActiVote, one of the nation and one of Florida. In the national vote, Harris leads by 5. In the Florida vote, Trump leads by 8. ActiVote spells out how they weighted the voting. Here's national: And here's Florida: So in both cases ActiVote says conservatives are stronger than the unweighted sample. But particularly in Florida they say conservatives just massively outnumber liberals. Again, if true, that is overwhelming. Right now ActiVote is saying Harris is doing better than her national average, which is +3, and worse than the Florida average, which as I said above is as low as Trump +3 in one recent poll. All of this does suggests that the math just ain't gonna work for Democrats in Florida. But if it close, Democrats could flip back some other seats. Which leads us back to the Senate. Rick Scott has never run anything other than a close race, for Guv or Senate. So maybe the Republican 1 million voter registration edge is his magic bullet. But I wouldn't rule it out as possible yet. In most recent polls, Harris is also doing slightly better than Trump with centrists and Independents. ActiVote fits with another trend. When Biden was running, slightly more Democrats were going to vote for Trump than Republicans voting for Biden. Presumably based on worries about Biden's age. Now it has flipped. Trump is losing more of his base to Harris than Harris is to Trump. That's what he gets for being a crook and a liar, I guess. 😉

That's the funny part. Tragic for MAGA world. But funny for me watching the losing raping lying felon just do his level best to lose. And lose big. I mean, they just don't normally make losers that lose so big. But the losing raping lying felon can't help himself. He loses, and he breaks law. Can't stay focused on issues or platforms or messages if his life depended on it. Which it kind of does, since soon he's headed to the slammer. This isn't me speculating about what a loser he is. Ed Rogers did it a few days ago to Mark Halperin. Alex Castellanos does it constantly. That's not even mentioning the Never Trumpers like Rick Wilson. Or the Republican donors. So we have all these Republican politicos who have won and won and won, all the way back to Reagan, saying Trump is a pathetic lying losing mess. And he's gone lose.

Agreed. Some of her bounce seems like it was based on the fact that she's not old, and she is inspiring. I think we now know for sure that Biden was a drag on teh ticket, as he seemed to be. Hopefully Joe gets it, and it will helps him forgive Nancy. And Harris closed some of the gap with Senate candidates. But there is still a pretty big difference, that in theory shows that she has room to grow Here's current polling averages on 538 for President. They don't have averages for Senate races, so I posted the range of recent polls: Wisconsin President; Harris + 3.5 Wisconsin Senate; Baldwin +5 to + 11 Pennsylvania President; Harris + 2.1 Pennsylvania Senate: Casey +5 to +14 Michigan President; Harris + 3.5 Michigan Senate: Slotkin +1 to +10 Arizona President; Harris + 0.7 Arizona Senate: Gallego -1 to +11 Nevada President; Trump +0.2 Nevada Senate: Rosen +2 to+12 In theory she has room to grow in every one of those states. Republican Ed Rogers was on Halperin's 2way a few days ago and said he thinks North Carolina is more likely to go Harris's way than Georgia. He said he has a bad feeling about NC, as a Republican. Roy Cooper is very popular, and the MAGA Republican Guv candidate is not. So that's another example of the difference. Democratic Guv candidate Klein is up between +4 and +10 in polls. Meanwhile Harris is one point behind Trump in NC when you average the six most recent polls. It's appropriate that she will now start to talk issues and agenda, as opposed to vibe. Now she needs to sell it.

A few points on this, which are part guessing and maybe part wishful thinking. John Della Volpe, who is considered the scholar of the "youth vote", was on MSNBC or CNN a few days ago on a polling segment. He commented on how Harris now has about 55 % of voters 18-29. He commented on how she has work to do, but she should be able to firm that up to 60 %. Which is what Biden won with that age group in the exit polls in 2020. He clearly thinks it's doable. The latest polls show Blacks voting in the high teens for Trump, compared to 12 % in 2020. So the shift that has already occurred from RFK or undecided to Harris puts Harris in a slight lead, both nationally and in swing states. If she can in fact solidify and expand and excite that base vote, getting Biden's 2020 numbers would give her a more substantial lead. And in terms of the persuadable vote, I think it's possible that there will be a big rejection of MAGA at the polls in November. It depends on Trump, I think. He should be hammering away at inflation and immigration. All the weird and deranged stuff he instead babbles about reminds people why they just really want to be free of the lies and division and weird creepy rapey cringe of the felon who loses and loses and loses. And, yeah, there are some flat earth Republicans. But that guy surprised me. He's the former Lieutenant Guv of Georgia, who won by about 3 points in 2018. He chose not to run again in 2022 because of all Trump's lies about the election. In May 2024 he wrote an article about why he was voting for Biden, and other Republicans should, too. And then there is this piece conservative David French just wrote. So who knows. The polls say the MAGA crowd is excited and highly motivated. But I can hear my Reagan Republican Dad in these conservatives voices. Like, let's just cut out the cancer now and be rid of it and grow back a party that is healthier and less cruel. I think part of it is a lot of Republicans, like these two, realize Trump is tying them to a movement that only looks backward. And mostly loses.

I'm starting to wonder whether Democrats can actually keep the Senate? The "Biden must go" campaign was partly based around Pelosi and the idea that, at the very least, Democrats MUST keep the House as a bulwark against the worst things Trump could do. The flip side is that now, if I go by the generic Congressional vote, Democrats have at least a 50/50 shot of keeping the House. But, to get anything done, they will need the Senate. Manchin's seat is already gone. So the 50/50 split scenario means Democrats must win in two red state: Brown in Ohio, Tester in Montana. That of course assumes that every Democrat in a swing state wins. But that actually seems like at least a 50/50 chance, too. They are all leading in the polls, by more than they were when Biden was running and losing in their states. Now Harris is winning or tied in their states. So the idea that we have at least 48, and Democrats win every swing state, seems realistic. The only example of Senators beating the tide, meaning a Republican won in a state that voted for Biden, is Collins in 2020 and Johnson in 2022. Of course, if you go back to 2018 Brown and Tester did both win in states that Trump won in 2016. So they have done it before. Maybe they can do it again. Right now Brown has a small lead in the polls, and Tester is a few points behind. I just read one alarming thing is Trump is internally several points behind where he was in 2020 in Ohio. More than enough to win by, but weaker than 2020. So native hillbilly venture capitalist JD ain't helping. But the other interesting one is Florida. Harris is now way ahead in polls in Dade County. It was Hispanics in and around Miami that helped turn Florida into what looks like a red state now. And there is no getting around the massive surge in Republican registration in the state since 2020. But it was only six years ago that DeSantis barely won Guv, and Rick Scott barely won his Senate race. The last three polls show Scott up by +4, +2, and +13. The +13 poll was from June, from The Tyson Group. The +2 was also from June, from Florida Atlantic University. The +4 poll was as recent as July 27, from University of North Florida. I checked in 2022. Back then, in October, University of Florida had Rubio at +11, and Florida Atlantic had Rubio at +6. There was no Tyson Group poll in 2022. But average the two polls from October 2022 and they suggested Rubio would win by something like 8.5 points. He won by 8.8 points. They were accurate. Right now, if the same two polls are accurate, Scott is only 3 points ahead, with the wind at the Democrats' back and a candidate that always barely wins. I've grown used to the idea that Florida is a waste of money. It certainly was in 2022, at least as far as the Senate race went. But maybe in 2024 that Senate race could be in play. And if Democrats could beat the odds and pick up a seat, it would be an insurance policy if Tester in particular loses. Plus, it would be a national symbol that all that magic of both Trump and DeSantis has peaked. DeSantis has one of the highest governor disapproval ratings, poll finds Those are not awful numbers. He has 44 % disapproval, but 51 % approval. It's a lot worse than 2022, when he was riding a wave of bipartisan approval after being seen as doing a good job after the hurricane. Then he squandered it all on his right wing agenda, which neither Florida nor America wanted. Which says something in itself. So it could be another cycle of close but not quite. But if the momentum keeps building maybe that Senate seat in Florida could be in play???

So I already gave my answer above, but I will surrogate for smart guys giving separate answers. My Sister In Cock Suckrates is right. Either Harris will win or lose. And all the fretting over polls doesn't mean squat. I will again add Lichtman's point: this is a referendum on governance, not campaigning or slogans. Most of what gets discussed day to day is bullshit by politicos and pollsters who think they are smart and get paid a lot of money to bullshit us. As if it really matters. I think that is in large part true. That said, here's an answer to your question from two former Republican Guvs, a Republican political consultant, and Trump's own former Press Secretary, all of whom say really smart things. Halperin's 2way format is always interesting. Because it's the kind of informed bipartisan discussion people are hungering for again. Which in itself hurts Trump, I think. Because he caused the divisiveness people are sick of. But there's a really fascinating discussion around 26:00 in that video, keyed off by Castellanos, that I think speaks to your question. Castellanos focuses on how Trump's superpower is theater. He's a showman to his fans, and a snake oil salesman to the rest of us. And there is this sense that perhaps history has left him behind. It is NOT his show anymore. He lost the show in 2020, and he ain't getting it back. A new show is beginning. Those are my words, not Castellanos. But it is consistent with his point, which everybody nods their head and agrees to. So if you buy that theory, let Trump flail. Most of that half hour discussion is about how Trump is flailing, because he has no clue what to do. Let the little losing mini-Donald wail like a baby about fake crowds or stolen elections or whatever his mini-Donald baby ego wants to wail about. Most people could give a shit. Meanwhile, Kamala should talk about the future, and what she will do. To this point about how politicos and pollsters are always interested in making themselves sound more important than they are, I think you can take what Castellanos says - which makes it sound like it is all about how you campaign - and easily fit it into a broader theory of history, like Lichtman does. And also add a dash of movement politics. Lichtman's main point about 2016 was that it was THUMBS DOWN on Democrats. Because too many things were against them. You could argue Trump won in 2016 because it was theater. I would argue it was theater laser focused on the Rust Belt. And a real problem that Democrats did not solve: the working class was losing, and all this NAFTA and globalization stuff Trump pinned on Clinton was largely why. Whether Trump just got lucky or it was a form of political genius on his part, who knows? But that is why he won. We know there were a lot of working class people who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 who voted for Trump in 2016 and have been with him ever since. I always have viewed 2016 as a kind of peasant's revolt against a system they don't trust, and they feel screwed them. And it was a powerful movement. As Castellanos says, it was powerful enough to take down not one but TWO political establishments: first Republicans (Jeb!) and then Democrats (Hillary!). And Trump did play to that masterfully, as theater. He is a show man. So the question now is whether Castellanos is right and history has just passed Trump by. My guess is he is right. Harris and Walz are trying to be the stars of The Future Show. They need to talk about the issues and values and leaders a majority of people want. They are well on their way to doing that. Lichtman later this month will likely argue that his Keys, and history, are on their side anyway. Why not make the most of it, and try to get some kind of mandate? If you view 2016 as a peasant's revolt, it kind of worked. Globalization is out. Reshoring is in. But I would add this: who got the infrastructure bill passed? Who got the CHIPs bill passed? Why are all these factories being built in Arizona and Georgia? It took a while. But Democrats did come up with a response to the revolt, more than Trump did. Lichtman would argue Democrats will get four more years because at the end of the day they earned it - at least by enough to win.

It's both/and rather than either/or. But I definitely think the former. I like Walz's thing, which is certainly not failing. This guy is a bully with a loud mouth who says weird shit. Shrink him. He's a loser and a pest and we all need to just shrink his lying felon ass. Little lying losing mini-Donald can bitch and moan all he wants. Harris is having a nice honeymoon, and the "vibes" and "values" thing is working. But if it seems like she is trying to avoid issues, at some point that will backfire. I assume they will focus on an issues agenda - this is what Democrats will fight for - at the DNC. It's hard to imagine that since Trump actually has good issues - resentment about inflation, immigration - he wouldn't be all over it. But, for the reasons you say, it actually isn't hard to imagine. I'll keep quoting Republican politico Alex Castellanos, who keeps saying Trump is the only Republican POTUS candidate he knows who can lose an election against himself. I went on at length with a lot of data in another thread on this final point. This campaign will likely be a test of a populist economic agenda that Clintonian pollster Stan Greenberg and liberal Data For Progress keep saying is wildly popular, on paper at lest: raise taxes on the rich, lower prescription drug costs, bolster Social Security, restore the 2021 child tax credit. My guess based on the data, or at least my hope, is that if Harris and Walz are talking about that, and Trump and Vance are talking about stolen elections and childless cat ladies, Trump is history.

So I know this thread is a data geek post and I am mostly debating myself. But here goes with more data. This is really good news for Harris and Walz. On a whole list of populist economic issues, Americans support the populist working class Democratic proposal. So, no, the Democratic/Harris/Walz agenda is NOT too radical. At least according to this poll. What it reinforces to me is that Republicans need to create hysteria about the border, and violent crime - which went up 30 % under Trump and down 20 % under Biden - and just plain LIE and LIE and LIE. Because they don't have voters on their side on a lot of bread and butter and working class issues. So three version of the same results. Here is the Data For Progress poll. Below that is an article in The Guardian and a video of Bernie on Velshi talking about how these ideas are wildly popular, even among Independents and Trump voters. To summarize, this is a list of policies that are supported by at least 2 in 3 Americans, including over 50 % of Independents and Trump voters: There are a lot of other policies in that poll that are supported by a majority of Americans, but not a majority of Independents and Trump voters. So my point is that if Harris and Walz want policies that are populist and broadly unifying, and that will help Americans in their pocketbooks, they can start and stop with the four above. That said, I will add the specific poll results for two other policies, since they say a lot about America and Trump's Republicans, I think: To be clear, this is about the refundable child tax credits of up to $3600 which cut child poverty in half for one year, 2021, until they expired because Manchin and all Republicans refused to go along with continuing them. Most Independents and even close to a majority of Trump voters support restoring these credits. In fact, some of those Trump voters are working class families with kids that might not be Trump voters if Democrats push policies that help them and their kids in their pocketbooks. The other reason this matters is that there are three groups that have been hit hardest by inflation. First, anybody poor, by definition. Inflation has not been hard for billionaires or Silicon Valley venture capitalists. Second, seniors, because they live on fixed incomes. Third, working class families with kids, because having kids costs money. So the top three policies above are, and should be, very popular with seniors. The child tax credits are overwhelmingly popular among working class families with kids. Including Trump voters. This is a way to help them, not demonize them. One final interesting poll result: It's noteworthy that this is the LEAST popular policy polled, largely because the party that supports the working class - Republicans??? - overwhelmingly opposes a law to help labor unions. By the way, most Americans support labor unions - 2 out of 3 - and a majority of labor union members vote Democratic. Wonder why? It's worse than that. In the video below, Bernie Sanders says Republican support in Congress is ZERO. ZERO Republicans support the Pro Act. Yet they want to claim they are the party of the working class. Here's an article in The Guardian and a video of Bernie being interviewed going over the same points and poll results: Democrats should run on a progressive economic agenda. Americans are ready A few partisan political points. I think maybe some or most MAGA folk, starting with Trump, genuinely believe Kamala Harris is just a dumb Black woman who is a DEI hire and is not ready. And can not even speak intelligently. Let's be compassionate and just stipulate that Trump is a slow learner with limited mental acuity, who is getting a bit up in years. I think the expectation is that when they debate Harris will get off her teleprompter prosecutor lines about fraud and rape and Trump being a lying felon, all of which are true. But what happens when she starts talking about corporate taxes, helping seniors, and helping working parents? Trump is horrible about talking about policy, or anything other than his own grievances. We're going to get some answers in 2024 to what I consider some of the mysteries of 2016 and 2020. Bernie was so popular in 2016 that it ended up splitting the party and hurting Hillary, with 20/20 hindsight. Then he came out roaring in 2020. Polls in both 2016 and 2020 showed consistently that in a head to head match up with Trump, Bernie would have won. Meanwhile, Rick Wilson of The Lincoln Project argued that you can forget the polls. Once Trump got done with Bernie he would have been toast. And a lot of Democrats agreed. Because for some reason - still kind of unknown - there was a massive and organic wave for Biden and against Bernie on Super Tuesday 2020. The conclusion I reached and still hold is that Bernie's policies were wildly popular. But Bernie himself came off as too much, too quickly. Once we get past the "vibes" and honeymoon phase, I think this will be a real election with a real debate. And I'm pretty sure this is the list of very popular policies Harris and Walz will talk about, in the context of helping the working class and middle class. So it will be a graduate level course in how this plays out in the real world.

I'll dispute that. Again, I am Lichtmanite. Which is to say I'm a pragmatist. If a guy predicts 10 times who will be elected, and gets its right 10 times, and says "Here's why" I want to listen. His point is simple and common sense. Americans vote thumbs up or down on the party in power. If that party did a good enough job, they get four more years. If they didn't, we get a political earthquake. So the issue in 2016 was not really Hillary. Or Biden, if he had run and lost, which Lichtman thinks he would have. It was that there just wasn't enough there in Obama's second term for four more years of "this". I agree with that analysis. We know from history that running for any President's third term is always difficult, but not impossible. (Bush 41 did, but after Reagan won in two landslides.) I think if the Republicans had instead nominated someone like John Kasich he would have won more decisively in 2016. And he probably would have been re-elected in 2020, because he would have governed better. (Kasich was elected overwhelmingly as Ohio Guv.) The fact that Trump is a racist autocrat helps explain why he lost in 2020 more than why he won in 2016, I think. And I'm 99 % sure later this month Lichtman will predict Harris will win. One way to think about it is that if Trump were Reagan, if he really inspired people, if he moved "Reagan Democrats" to his side like actually happened in 1980 and 1984, maybe Trump would beat Harris. But, no. As you say, he is a racist autocrat who actually turns people off. Republicans will hold their nose and vote for Harris because they don't want that racist autocrat cop beating woman raping business cheating lying felon back. Those are just the facts. And it makes complete common sense. He is a racist autocrat. He appeals to a narrow cult, many of whom like authoritarian bullies. He is a loser. He and his cult leaders lost in 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2023. He will lose again in 2024.

More light and more joy. An absolutely wonderful interview with Walz's #2 ,Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan. Two things I particularly like about this piece. You have a Black former Republican Lt. Gov, a Native American Democratic Lt. Gov., and two women, just warmly celebrating where we are as a nation. It's not a big deal anymore that you can have Black Republicans and Native American women in leadership positions. It just feels like it makes us stronger, and more interesting. This is why the love and joy that so many people are feeling is grounded in reality. The second thing I love about this is what it says about leadership., legacy, and light. When Paul Wellstone died it was a dark moment. The circumstances - a plane crash - were ugly. And it all happened in the middle of the Iraq War when things just seemed very dark. That all culminated in Obama's 2008 landslide. The guy who ran Wellstone's winning Senate campaigns and Wellstone's two surviving children (his wife and daughter died with him in the plane crash) founded Camp Wellstone, which continued to do what Paul did: inspire leaders, lift people up, raise voices. Flanagan was an early instructor there. Walz was an early and improbable student. At that time, in 2005, with W. and Iraq, the idea that Walz would win in the red 1st Congressional District did seem like a joke. But the country was reacting to the darkness, and lots of people like Walz were swept into power. So it it is true that Wellstone's legacy is more alive today than ever. That whole agenda they passed in Minnesota last year - for children, for women - is so Wellstone. And the leaders running it, both in front of the camera and behind the scenes, came up through his inspiration and encouragement and training. It's a lot of joy, and a lot of light, and a lot of positive legacy It is so NOT Donald Trump and JD Vance and Chris LaCivita.

And speaking of Hillary, that's so 2016!

Honestly, that's the thing. Who actually felt Hillary's campaign was joyful? I didn't. At worst, there were these bad moments where Blacks were saying they'll vote against her because she called them "superpredators", which became a meme. That's not really her fault, in my view. "Deplorables" was her fault, in my view. For that matter, Bernie's campaigns were not particularly joyful, in either 2016 or 2020. Bernie was like a sourpuss holding America to account. To me it was a sort of moral reckoning. Which arguably is why he could only take it so far. Hillary might have done better if she sold joy. I think it's a consensus that her "Bad Orange Man" ads from Fall 2016 just did not work. They were based on the assumption that people would vote against Trump because he's sexist or mean or even grabs women by the pussies. I did vote for her in the 2016 primary, even though my heart was with Bernie. And I certainly voted for her in the general. But I will call my vote for her dutiful. Definitely not joyful. Walz answered your question in the last part of that second video I posted above. To quote him, "I think what's happened is the spell [of Trump's] been broken. And now we need to step into it with some positive ideas." Damn right! I think the DNC has to be a convention about ideas about the future. Joy is not enough. Speaking of Hillary: I don't know why she didn't run more ads like that in 2016. I mean, "access to new markets" will only get you so far, I guess. But that's got a positive vibe. At the end of the day, I am a Lichtmanite. And he predicted Hillary would lose in 2016, through no fault of her own. And Biden would have lost in 2016, too. It was a thumbs down on Obama, Term Three, basically. Not a vote for Trump. He's almost certainly about to predict Harris will win, because people will basically vote for more of the same. Even though it feels new and fun. But at the very least, assuming Lichtman is right, why not give people a reason to feel joy about it? And why not run on some positive and unifying ideas so you can try to have a mandate? That's what I want. I think Walz has proven he is a master at that.

Good point. Context is everything. Two short clips. The first is the one minute clip where he talks about Trump laughing. The second is kind of a "Tim's greatest hits on weirdness" montage I found when I was looking for the first. One thing is for sure. To oversimplify, it is the first time ever someone was chosen to be Veep because they called someone powerful weird. 😲 I wanted to remind myself what it sounded like that I liked. In context, what works for me is he is calling Trump a bully, who laughs at people. And we should not give him that power. I think that works. Another thing that works tangents your point: far from judging what families do, Republicans who want to be in my closet should mind their own damn business. This could all be taken too far. "Weird" has pretty much run its course. But Trump trying to copycat similar words shows that it worked. The other thing that Walz has to be careful about, which I think he has been, is he is not talking about weird voters. He is talking about Trump, and Vance, and weird leaders. "Weird" is not the new "deplorables".

And to continue the theme of death, in a different but hopeful direction. Eddie Glaude Jr., who likes to take these deep dives that may or may not mean anything, said something interesting on Morning Joe this week. I could not find the recent clip. But this clip from years ago sets up what he said this week: So what he said this week is the opposite part: sad then, joy now. Dark then, light now. Night then, morning now. He was commenting on how the joy that seems to be manifesting itself at these Harris rallies is more than just partisans feeling happy that Kamala may win. He put it in the context of all the death, all the loss, all the grief, and the bile, all the division. And so now you have all these people who want a reason to feel better, to laugh, to feel joy. Not being a MAGA or Trump guy, I could see how Trump surviving a bullet could produce a similar feeling at the RNC. At the very least, it is survival. You could push that into a form of manifest destiny. God's will. The specific image, of some older White man ripping off his t-shirt off like some buff young Gay guy in a porn movie, wasn't really my cup of tea. (The porn movie is, I mean. Just not Hulk Hogan). Back to my brand of joy. Eddie Glaude was certainly describing how he feels: joyous. Listening to him, I felt that helps me to understand why I like watching these rallies. Do other people actually feel that way? Is this going to somehow be subtext in this election? It's happened before. Reagan and "Morning In America" come to mind. Or you could just say that was Michael Deaver's slick bullshit, and the 1984 election was really about the economy improving, stupid. Warnock did this in Georgia. I thought this "Morning" ad was very effective. (It's the first of two pieces in that video below.) Being a Rev, he of all people should know. I think it helped him relate, and win. Even though it says nothing about his politics. People talked about how he ran on joy. And he kept winning.

If it were me, there is something that sounds truly horrific about, "Took A Bullet For The Bottled Blonde." If we're being blunt, who would want that on their gravestone? I think what they did at the RNC was appropriate, and tasteful. Credit it to Susie Wiley and Chris (uncharacteristically) LaCivilaOne for once. No cruelty. No lies. Just humility and honor. Didn't last long. Another thought on sober subjects comes to mind. I think Walz gets traction by saying Donald Trump is weird, because he does not really laugh. Another thought. When does he cry? Whether it was politically effective or not, one moment that humanized Obama was when he was crying over the dead really young kids at the school shooting. To belabor the point, you could compare it in a negative way to Obama saying Trayvon could have been his son. The latter was awkward, because it made it about Obama and race. The former was just a genuine moving moment of the most powerful man in the world having to hold back tears because he could not stop young kids from being brutally and horribly killed at school. Hopefully none of that applies to the next three months. I want joy, joy, joy. And lots of it. Either the Harris or Walz version are fine with me. Maybe they will even make Joe look young and happy again, as opposed to old and confused and a bit tragic.

Well, not that I ever make it about me. 😲 But, if we are making it about me, I like Bugs Bunny better. But if we are gong to rabbits, I have to add this: It is one of my favorite organizing principles. Alinsky said a similar thing in a different way, "The action is in the reaction." Sometimes the best thing to do is to let people do the thing you know is actually going to help you, but they are too slow-witted to figure out. Trump is a master at being just such a dumb ass. As poor frustrated Republican Alex Castellanos keeps saying, Trump is the only Republican POTUS candidate who can lose in a race against himself. And now, here we go again. And there is a pretty good example mostly related to Trump's attempted assassination. I am actually curious why, right now, his disapproval rating (51.6 %, compared to 48.5 % for Harris) is lower than it has ever been. As long as over half of America does not disapprove of Harris, but does disapprove of Trump, that is good math for Democrats. I am assuming some of the reason Trump is less disliked than pretty much ever is the attempted assassination. Maybe it did give him this almost magical aura of dominance or invincibility. Or maybe it just humanized him to people who don't like him. So the Brer Rabbit principle here is "Please. Don't let Donald Trump go out there and play martyr. Don't let him go out there and talk for an hour - or over an hour and a half at the RNC - about how he came to save us. And of course we just recognize that intuitively. And we want to hear him tell us how his opponents are the most awful people ever, especially dumb women like Hillary and Kamala, and he came to save us from them." He had about 20 good minutes in his acceptance speech. And the rest of it proved that all this stuff about the new and improved and unifying Donald Trump who was changed by an assassin's bullet is just total bullshit. So, please, don't send Donald Trump out to press conferences at Mar A Lago or debates with Harris and let him tell us how he is an almost assassinated martyr that came to save us! That would be the worst thing ever! If he does what I think he will do and his disapproval ratings go back up to 53 or 54 or 55 % or so, who could have guessed?

I agree with Tim Hogan. He's the Democratic consultant who is the counterpoint to Sean Spicer on Mark Halperin's daily 2Way chats. Halperin asked Hogan whether Democrats would prefer that Trump has a press conference every day of the week. And Hogan immediately answered, "Yes. Please. Just give the guy a mike and let him ramble and lie and remind people why they don't want him to be POTUS again." That's not verbatim. But that was his point. When Trump is explaining, or even just rambling, he's losing. Proud Boys, stand by! 😉 It does go to Anita Dunn above. Implicit in what she said is that voters can just listen to Donald Trump and draw their own conclusions about the fact that he just lies and lies and lies. And the voters who don't want to see that, or simply can't, ain't watching O'Donnell, and won't be persuaded by him. I think there's something else going on here. It's becoming clearer by the day that another contrast Team Harris is trying to draw is that we ain't the people who are going to rant at you or bludgeon you. We are going to make you smile, and make politics civil again. You can argue that's a false promise. But I think it is the promise that is being made. And they are labeling Trump as the guy who brought us this ugliness in 2016, and we just don't want to go back to THAT. I think they are gambling right. I think there is this hunger in the middle to get past this ranting and bludgeoning. Halperin's 2Way forums are actually a good example, At least the people that come on it keep saying they love being able to have civil and informed discussions with people they mostly disagree with. So if Harris and Walz tonally push that while Trump bludgeons and lies,Team Harris is going to win that debate with the swing voters.

Well, lectures aside, I'll focus the Trump attempted assassination on one question: what would a conspiracy theory that makes any sense whatsoever even sound like in this case? Here's a nice summary written a few days afterward of the main conspiracy theories that were floating around. They boiled down to two options: left wing extreme, or right wing extreme. Left wing extreme requires believing that Trump would almost have himself killed, and kill and injure several of his most loyal supporters, because it was a publicity stunt. That's pretty far out there. I'm guessing nobody cares much about Trump's ear because they are just happy he survived. It makes no sense he would order his own fake assassination. And we all just want to move on and hope this never happens again. Right wing extreme makes more sense, in that you can at least plausibly argue Joe Biden and some anti-MAGA or anti-Trump left wing Deep State wanted to take their opposition out. So now, what? Instead of Texas oil men and anti-Commies taking out JFK, we have AOC and Bernie and the socialist Deep State taking out Trump? I suppose I could see how some of the most extremely fringe Proud Boys might actually believe that. But it is absurd. One thing that is kind of interesting about this, in a darkly conspiratorial way, is back in early 2021 there actually were some articles that pointed out, maybe correctly, that the kind of people who work in the Secret Service, law and order types, are naturally MAGA types. So they tend to like Trump. And the idea was that Biden maybe should watch his back, because he may be surrounded by Secret Service who really would rather see Trump be President. Joe Biden to have new Secret Service team amid concern about Trump loyalty There were actually articles written about that at the time, as you can see. Note that article was written about a week before January 6, 2021. Which only heightened concern about the willingness of some people to engage in political violence to get their way. Just reading articles like that was disturbing. I did spend hours yesterday reviewing videos about the JFK and RFK assassinations. It is just really icky to think about the possibility of some vast conspiracy where my own government is taking out our own leaders - whether that leader is a Republican or a Democrat. I hope the outcome of this is we all can all decide that is not what anyone wants. And that, is this case, that is not what actually happened. I know how I feel personally. Everything around that period just a few weeks ago was DEPRESSING. Trump playing martyr at his own convention. Biden looking old and losing. Oh, and now we are back to assassinations. So it could not be more different today. To quote Tim Walz, THANK YOU for bringing the joy back. It's actually good news that right now both Republicans and Democrats feel highly motivated to vote for leaders they like. That's the America I want to live in.

What's interesting about it is the Trump campaign has done a good job of lowering expectations for Harris. They have said she is dumb. And she can't speak to the press because she does not know how to form sentences without a teleprompter. Ironic, coming from Trump! So they are setting themselves up. Because whatever Harris is, she won't be the 2024 version of old Joe, as we saw him at his politically fatal debate. I'll use that as a segue to throw this in, which I'm not sure where to put and which I don't want to start a new thread about: Why Biden Was Really Forced out of the Race, According to Anita Dunn The longtime presidential adviser blames the press and her party That's a long and really interesting read that talks a lot about the first debate. I'm actually surprised she went public with what is mostly a bunch of gripes. But she might have figured my boss is out, and I'll at least take the chance to get it off my chest. Three points about what she said, one of which deals with the debates. First, I think Anita Dunn is right that the fact that Biden did so poorly obscured the fact that Trump did poorly, too. Specifically, she says, independents who were reacting on dials during the debate are just sick of Trump's lies, and reacting badly to them. And they liked Biden telling the truth. So if that is correct, and Trump does what he always does and spew lies, next time the lies and bile won't be obscured by a faltering old man on stage. Well, Trump will be the faltering old man with low mental acuity! 😲 Second, I can't recall a time when some political theory, when implemented, proved itself to be correct so quickly. The basic theory is that people didn't want either Trump or Biden. So if we replace one of them, that party wins. We now know without question that theory is true. Now we just need to see how true it is. It has helped that both Harris and Walz have completely smashed whatever expectations we had about them. They are doing incredibly well, so far. But the sense of relief is so deep and strong that it goes way beyond the specific talents of Harris or Walz. Third, this was the part of what Dunn said I found tragic: The tragedy about that statement is it seems to confirm that Dunn and Biden's closest advisers and family simply could not see what most of America saw. And now feels relieved about. You can talk all you want about how Joe Biden won his debate in 2008, or 2012, or 2020. But that is not the Joe Biden we see and hear today. And it does not mean he is senile. It sounds like they genuinely did not get that. And they did not get that, as long as Joe Biden was in the race, it was always going to be a referendum on Biden and his age. Even though it did not have to be. With 20/20 hindsight, that is what the debate helped crystallize. That this was going to be a referendum on Biden's age, and it just doesn't have to be. And now it isn't. Nothing personal, Joe. It's a bit funny. Because the Democratic Party was the political force that in 1968 and 1972 reacted strongly against smoke filled rooms and party insiders controlling decisions. And nobody wants to go back to 1968 and having Mayor Daley decide who gets to be the nominee inside while his cops beat up protesters outside. But this is obviously not 1968. Harris/Walz was not the kind of team Mayor Daley would have picked in 1968. So it shows a lot of growth on the part of the Democratic Party. And now I just have this sense of gratitude that a very different set of party leaders - Pelosi, Obama, Schumer, Jeffries - did something tough that needed to be done.

This guy Mike Bell who posted the model of the assassination attempt I posted above did this update after getting more information a few days later. There were more shots than he initially knew. Trump really was lucky. In JFK's case, since the alleged "lone nut" Oswald was using a rifle, there was only time to get off a few shots - if you believe the lone shooter theory. The RFK assassination allegedly was only Sirhan, whose gun could fire eight shots. And yet there was evidence of 13 bullets, which has never been explained. In Trump's case, at least so far, it appears that the number of bullets shot and the trajectory all line up with a loan shooter. The question is not how the guy managed to clip Trump's ear. It's how did Trump manage to survive when the number of bullets fired was more than adequate to kill JFK and RFK?

So fuck both of you guys to getting into bullet rabbit holes! You made me go down dark rabbits holes again. 😉 I think maybe five years ago I spent most of a weekend going down the JFK/RFK/MLK rabbit hole. It was not fun. First, it's about death and gore. Second, where it leads is the idea that we have this right wing secret government led by the CIA and FBI and built around the special interests of oil men or other corporate interests or right wing anti-Commie zealots. To me - and I think to a majority of Americans - these assassination theories are a little like the "Joe Biden is old" thing. It's hard to convince people not to believe what they can see and hear. So I think most people feel that way about the 60's assassinations. The official theories just don't add up. In large part because of obvious things you can see and hear yourselves. So today I went down the rabbit holes again to see if there is anything new. Especially after Biden released most, but not all, of the still secret CIA documents that were actually ALL supposed to be released in 2017, by law. (That law was passed after Stone's JFK created an uproar. So even after waiting another few decades, the CIA is still sabotaging public disclosure.) Trump delayed the release of many documents in 2017. And Biden also delayed the release of over 4,000 documents, and let the CIA decide whether they will ever release them. So this is a bipartisan Presidential defense of the CIA. My view for a long time has been -duh! - the CIA of course won't release documents, because they have something to hide. They were in on the conspiracies. Beyond that, even if somehow all the documents were released, I think we still would not know the truth. Because we also know for a fact that the CIA, among other agencies like the Secret Service, destroyed lots of documents from the assassinations. We're learning again on Trump that they don't like being looked into. I wouldn't mind if both Trump and Biden supporters went after the Deep State and demanded they disclose all their dirty secrets of the last half century or so. The only thing that the Trump debacle makes me think slightly differently about the CIA and Secret Service is that it seems obvious enough that they are hiding their involvement in a conspiracy, even half a century later. But it is possible that what they are hiding is less malevolent: that they are incompetent. Like I said above, it seems like their failure with Trump was incompetence, not a conspiracy. But in case anyone is interested I will sum up what I just relearned about JFK and RFK, 99 % of which I knew already. The most unbelievable thing about the JFK assassination to me is the idea that Oswald was not an employee or an asset of the CIA. There are way too many CIA connections with Oswald and his close friends and associates over way too long a period of years. This interview with a JFK conspiracy expert, Jefferson Morley, is done after Biden's release of most of the remaining documents. And he makes the point that most of what we learn from the ones Biden released is more about Oswald. Which is not the simple "lone nut" view of Oswald put forward by the Warren Commission. Morley states clearly that he (like Harry Truman, LBJ, Nixon, and Jackie Kennedy) thinks the evidence we have points to a conspiracy. And that Oswald was, as he claimed in the little time he had before he was silenced, "a patsy". But he also adds that it is quite possible the CIA is simply trying to cover up their incompetence in letting someone they were following closely for years kill JFK. That said, to me their is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that for years Oswald was close to all kinds of people that were CIA assets. Including, as I posted above, oil man Col. Byrd, who just happened to own the building Oswald happened to work in for a few weeks and from which he shot JFK. Unlike with Trump, this is where the bullet theory also just makes no sense. When I did my deep dive years ago, I watched a number of videos that asserted that a "magic bullet" could have shot Kennedy in the back, then Connally in the back, hand, and leg. That is basically what you have to believe to believe the "lone nut" theory that Hoover and LBJ told the Warren Commission upfront was the only conclusion that was possible to reach. The JFK Assassination made simple —using video evidence and doctors' testimony The only problem with the official theory, which I don't think people believed even in 1964, is that people believe what they see themselves - just like with Biden's age. This video is also a nice five minute summary. Because both Connally and his wife insisted that the Allen Dulles/Warren Commission one bullet theory was wrong. And you can see on video that Connally appears to be hit at the same time JFK was fatally wounded, when he slumped forward. As his wife, who was sitting next to him, said, it doesn't make sense that one magic bullet sat in the air for five seconds after it hits JFK before it entered her husband's body. There had to be another bullet, and another shooter. There's no way to prove this now, of course. Which I think was the point. There is plenty of evidence from witnesses who saw the Kennedy assassinations that the CIA, as well as local Dallas (JFK) and LA (RFK) cops bullied witnesses who did not agree with the official version of events to change their stories. I think what we have learned time and again since with the CIA is that they are perfectly wiling to lie to Congress and the public. Knowing that if they tell the lie long enough it will be the truth. Or at least anyone or any document that could prove them wrong will be long gone. Thane Eugene Cesar has passed away That thread, on a mixed martial arts forum of all places, is also an interesting treasure trove of YouTube videos and reports on the RFK assassination rabbit hole, if you want to go down it. I think part of what worked for the CIA with JFK, if you want to believe in a CIA conspiracy, is that they were at least able to alter or destroy evidence that could have confirmed something other than their official explanation. Starting with having one of the prime suspects, the CIA Director JFK fired, Allen Dulles, run the Warren Commission. You at least can argue their magic bullet theory is the only plausible explanation, if you don't want to believe in a conspiracy/ With RFK there is what appears to be a truly unsolvable problem. The forensics doctors said the fatal bullet was fired into his head from about 1 to 3 inches away, from behind. And Sirhan, the alleged assassin, was by the accounts of all witnesses at least a few feet away from RFK, and in front of him. Unlike the JFK magic bullet theory, there is no reasonable explanation for how Sirhan could have shot RFK from right behind him. A lot of the suspicious and unexplained things are the same as JFK. The guy the post is about, Cesar, was the security guard right behind RFK. Who, like Oswald, was working a job he had only worked at for a few weeks. Multiple witnesses said he was standing right behind RFK, and they saw him with his gun aimed. He told what were later determined to be multiple lies about the gun he was carrying, as is documented in that thread. Cesar was never investigated. The two cops who led the LAPD investigation were also connected to the CIA, and bullied multiple witnesses who did not agree with the "lone nut" theory, based on what they actually saw or heard, into going with the official version. Also documented in that thread, if you are interested. So over half of century later we're left with all kinds of magic bullets and loose ends. Including things like E. Howard Hunt's supposed confession to his sons that he was in fact part of the JFK assassination conspiracy. The MO, true or false, is always the same: maintain plausible deniability, wear people down, and run out the clock until everyone who could dispute what actually happened dies. And if someone comes forward (like Hunt, or Loyd Jowers, who says he was involved in a conspiracy to kill MLK) just say they must be crazy, too. I'll end my rabbit hole diatribe repeating what I started with. If the worst thing Americans have to deal with now is the incompetence of the CIA or Secret Service, that is almost a nice problem to have. I'd rather have them be incompetent than be a highly competent band of assassins who kill leaders around the world, including US Presidents and Presidential candidates and movement leaders, and then spend the rest of their lives denying it.

Exactly. You can see JFK's head being blown off on film. And, notwithstanding HIPPA, you can go online and also see JFK's naked body with the bullet hole in his back. I'm glad I don't have to see that in Trump's case, both for Trump's sake and mine. Had Trump not turned his head, or had the bullet been an inch more in one direction, I think we'd all have the misfortune of seeing the gore. So it's interesting that these days anyone curious can do this on a computer now. I'm guessing this amateur video is more precise than some of the work done by the Warren Commission, before we had computers. This explains some things. While this is just some amateur, it suggests Trump was grazed by a bullet, which then when right into that big yellow hydraulic lift. Which caused obvious and immediate impacts - oil shooting out where the bullet pierced it. To be blunt, thank God it was oil rather than Trump's brain gushing out. I assumed the guy killed and the guys injured were on that far right bleacher, and they were in the line of fire that would have hit Trump had he not gone down quickly. But, actually, they were not. As the video explains, the second two bullets were way off, if Trump was the target. The amateur's theory is by the time the second two bullets were fired the shooter had been hit by snipers. We'll probably all eventually know. There is something obviously wrong here, as is discussed briefly in this video. It sounds like there were a few minutes between when it was clear there was a guy with a gun on a roof, and when Trump was shot. So why wasn't the shooter taken out, or Trump removed? People looking for a conspiracy should and are going there. And one answer, which the amateur speculates, could be that Trump is the kind of guy who doesn't like to be told what to do. That said, if there is a guy with a gun on a roof, and the Secret Service knows it, there is no good explanation for why they let Trump go on for two minutes until he was almost killed. That said, from my perspective, there is also no good reason why this should not convince Congress to pass common sense gun restrictions, including an assault weapons ban, which most Americans support. But don't hold your breath for that, either. Sometimes even smart professionals just do dumb shit. The idea that this was somehow an inside job to help Trump by making him look like a martyr makes no sense. He is lucky not to be dead. And one other Trump supporter did die. It would make more sense to speculate that maybe the Deep State wanted Trump dead. But that makes no sense, either. The CIA was behind this? Why? How? I suppose I could come up with a theory for why that made sense, if I had to. But it would be really illogical and dumb. So my takeaway is that there is some good news here. And I'll say it this way. Whether the target was Trump or Harris, the good news is what seems obvious is that this was just one lone nut that should have been stopped, but wasn't. Because the Secret Service and local cops were incompetent. End of story. That's not good. But I can live with that better than I can live with the idea that for at least a decade or so, from 1963 to 1973, we actually did have a Deep State - the CIA, the FBI, working with the mafia - that actually did impact the course of history by taking out JFK, RFK, and MLK. I believe that. I believe they then used the "lone nut" theory to cover up a massive conspiracy. I think probably a majority of Americans do. I think the CIA got away with it in 1963, so they did it again when they saw RFK and MLK as threats. And I say 1963 to 1973 or so because the first thing that really shut the CIA show down was the Congressional investigations, including of those assassinations, after Watergate and all the dirty tricks of the CIA started to come out. Then there was a house cleaning. One final point, which I will continue in a second post. Part of the way to smell something is wrong is the stuff about the bullets. In the case of Trump, everything we know about the bullet makes sense. That video, albeit by an amateur, confirms the idea that one bullet grazed Trump's ear and then thankfully took out a truck, basically. In the case of JFK and RFK, after decades of debate and investigation, we're still left with the idea that bullets are magic, and did things they could not possibly do. I know this is about Trump, not the Kennedys. But I spent a few hours revisiting the JFK/RFK rabbit holes, to remind myself of what I thought I knew. And also to see if there is anything new that we did know before. So I will put that trip down nightmare lane in a separate post.

The trolls have been trying to nibble at the edges of "Coach Walz", too. Like I guess the idea is stolen championship, rather than stolen valor. It won't work. There is just way too much there. In fact, it seems pretty clear that it is fatal for Republicans to push any of this, for two reasons. One, they are asking people to look into why Tim Walz had character and decency. Two, by quiet comparison, they are making it clear they lack the same. From Newsweek: 'Tim Walz's Coaching Style: How He Led Suburban High School to State Championship I have to assume that there are former students who are telling somewhat exaggerated or biased stories about Walz, because they like him that much. But even that says something. That decades later there are people who you moved so much as a teacher or coach or scared Gay teen that they will come out of the woodwork to defend you. Where are the people who tell the uplifting stories about how Donald Trump believed in them? (Well, there's Jared of course.) There was a deceased client of mine who posted all the time on the other board. He was as hard core a conservative Republican as I am a liberal Democrat. But, at least before Trump, we could talk about anything. In fact, I spent the week Trump won in 2016 in Puerto Vallarta with this guy. And in some ways he was the best person to talk to. Since he could lay out what would likely happen from a savvy (if harsh) Republican perspective. He said this at the time, and got it right: "I want two, and three if that bitch dies." I knew immediately he was referring to SCOTUS vacancies, and not too lovingly referring to RBG. Well, he got what he wanted! My point in bringing him up is that he was a high school Spanish teacher who loved Mexican culture. One of his favorite movies was McFarland, USA, the Disneyfied version of the true story of working class Latinos who some motivated high school coach in the middle of nowhere turned into cross country state champions, despite them having everything going against them. We watched the movie together for the first time, in tears. I know he bought the DVD and watched it many times thereafter. There was nothing overtly political about it. Other than that these kind of stories, when true, are deeply inspiring and unifying. So I think the Republicans will have a big problem going after this guy.

Since we are going to conspiracy theory, I'll go. But before I do, let me spend one paragraph on reason and compassion. Kudos to Nancy Pelosi. I watched two interviews of her on YouTube yesterday. Because she is making the rounds on TV to promote her new book. In both she made a point to talk about how horrible the attack on Trump was. And to thank God he survived it. Pelosi is a known anti-Trumper, who will do whatever it takes - including getting Joe Biden to resign - in order to stop him. So she is setting the right tone. We don't want to be the place where politics is settled with bullets. I have not followed the hearings on the Secret Service closely. But two things seem clear. It is not the hardest thing in the world to kill a POTUS, if you really try. At the very least, the Secret Service makes it much harder. So the last two times it was a close call - Reagan and Trump - at least it was a near miss rather than a direct hit. The second thing that is clear is that this does feel like the Keystone Kops. Both political parties seem to feel the Secret Service screwed up. So the problem with any conspiracy theory is this: how could people who are this disorganized manage to pull off a conspiracy that would work? And, if they were able to pull off a conspiracy like that, wouldn't they have made sure the bullet actually hit where it was supposed to? I've read conspiracy theories about Reagan. The basic theory was that George H.W. Bush and the CIA were behind it. There was a sort of interesting idea about how there was something weird about the bullet that almost killed Reagan. And this idea that maybe it didn't even come out of Hinckley's gun. If you want to go down that rabbit hole, here's an article about the bullet - a "Devastator" - and the doctor who removed it. But the whole idea of that being a conspiracy pretty much never added up. And then there is JFK. Gallup says there has never been a time when the vast majority of Americans did NOT believe there was a conspiracy. I am in the majority on that one. There are so many ways to connect the dots of a conspiracy that it is very hard not to believe something weird was going on. Here's one nice summary of why the CIA and FBI may have had something to do with it. To the degree that there is a smoking gun, other than the actual gun. the whole thing about Col. Byrd is what seemed beyond possible coincidence to me. You have a right wing Texas oil man with ties to the CIA who just happens to own the building Oswald just happened to go to work in right before JFK is killed. I guess the equivalent would be that Nancy Pelosi owned the building the wannabe Trump assassin took the shots from, and that the assassin used to work in the Obama White House. The other thing about JFK is that the CIA and FBI, in that instance, were not like The Keystone Kops. There is a very plausible argument that not only were they capable of putting together a vast conspiracy. But that a conspiracy was actually the best explanation of so many weird coincidences. The part that is not talked about as much that I was drawn to was the Hotel del Charro in La Jolla. It was owned by Clint Murchison, another right wing Texas oil man. And J Edgar Hoover and his partner Clyde were there often, with their bills always comped. As well as various mafia types and Richard Nixon, among others. It proves absolutely nothing. Other than that you had this network of people, starting with the heads of the FBI and CIA (Dulles), who were perfectly capable of killing JFK and covering it up. And who potentially had motivations to do it. With the Trump attempted assassination, there is none of that. Just a bunch of clowns and Keystone Kops. Including ex-Clown In Chief Trump himself, and his so-called doctor whose name he could not even recall.