http://www.vulture.com/2017/09/the-kennedys-wont-like-the-gripping-chappaquiddick.html

Chappaquiddick, in a way, made way for Donald Trump by ending any possibility of having another Kennedy in the White House. “I feel like, if Ted hadn’t had this accident,” he said, “it’s very likely that Ted would [have] become president in ’72, the war would’ve ended early, the southern strategy of the Republicans wouldn’t have taken root, and there wouldn’t have been Watergate. Who knows how the political climate would’ve evolved in the last half of the last century? So I think the accident is definitely worth looking at and talking about.”

I don’t find the Kennedys tragic except probably for Bobby’s murder. JFK was strongly warned about the security of his Dallas procession plans. I saw a detailed forensic examination of John Jr’s airplane crash which resulted from extremely reckless decisions.

The other thing is the Vince Foster claim. I have read a few different accounts of the “facts” of the Foster suicide that are wildly contradictory. Which facts are the real facts?

A retired NYPD detective and a retired NYPD forensics guy also looked at the facts, and they concluded that the suicide scene was dramatically inconsistent with any gunshot suicide scene that they had ever seen. Hopefully their sources are more primary than mine.

The other big factor for me is that Hillary and Vince had hired the private investigator Jerry Parks to investigate the bimbo eruptions. Shortly after learning of the Foster suicide, Mr. Parks told his wife that he was a dead man. Within weeks, he had stopped his car at a red light, and a guy got out the car next to him and emptied a handgun into him. The shooter was never caught. What are the odds of an innocent explanation?

“AesopFan Says:
September 12th, 2017 at 6:10 pm

My perception of the Democratic Party, after a short flirtation in the early Seventies, was that it was a serial abuser: none of their favored politicians (or even the lesser lights) ever seemed to be disqualified for behavior that would have put a Republican out of office forever.

That principle held up through the final elections of Obama’s tenure (did any GOP candidate ever reach the levels of moral turpitude of any of the documented Dem criminals in Congress and Governorships, much less Kennedy or Clinton?), but was eventually cast aside by the voters.”

Yes, there is undoubtedly enough political corruption to go around, but the difference to which you allude is the Democrat/Progressive redefinition of morality as an activist commitment to or the advancement of an ostensibly progressive social agenda; whatever it happens to be at the moment.

I think this personal dispensation attitude they have, is in part attributable to the anthropological views held by most progressives who (at least the philosophers and critics) see human morals and moral action in terms of an almost exclusively collective-development stance context.

As the very definition of “moral” for most progressives is identical with assuming a “proper” stance on instituting a regime of politically enforced redistribution and altruism, “personal foibles” such as might be described by the “seven deadly sins” mean as little to to them as the concept of personal honor.

They simply do not see man as the kind of entity that conservatives see; nor the harmful activities they engage in as really wrong when viewed in the context of the class warfare mentality they have adopted.

Franklin Roosevelt is almost as good an example as the Kennedys. Lyndon Johnson, who got Roosevelt to quash an investigation into how his campaign was financed, at the same time Roosevelt was siccing the IRS on political opponents (something his own son said he virtually “invented”) who were clean as a whistle, was another example of the progressive Democrat moral sensibility.

The closer you look at their modes of operation, the more you know about what they have actually said and done and their personal motivations, the more utterly vile and morally vicious they look.

I don’t know much about this particular incident, but one can’t fail to notice that the family seems to have a higher than average number of incidents of men behaving badly, particularly when it comes to the treatment of women.

Money isn’t the only thing that motivates people. It just happens to be the least destructive motivator, and thus the first thing people assume when giving a criminal the benefit of the doubt.

Other things that can motivate people to do great and terrible things are ego, fanaticism, and mental illness (jokes about repeating myself are funny, but I’m using legal definitions here, because there are differences and mistaking one for another can cause tragic mistakes). In the case of liberals in general, and Hollywood in particular, fanaticism in pursuit of a Global Marxist Revolution is the primary driving force, with money being a secondary factor only so it can be converted into more radical propaganda.

“Socialism will work when the United States adopts it, because nobody will be able to escape it any more.” – my mother, who also believes you can fly by jumping off a cliff and putting so much faith in the authorities that they save you from hitting the ground

I didn’t get as far down the rabbit hole as you did, but when I noticed the writers were new and the director had only done a few, non-political films, I figured they thought it was a good story which hadn’t been told.

Since I like to talk about viewing primary sources…

Secondary sources and human “interpretations” are usually pretty much corrupt after the fact.

I’m neutral on the issue, so far. I do note that the entire concept of anti semitism is invalid as a concept, because the Jews are using the German definition of the term to fight the German ideology against the Jews. If people really wanted to fight the ideology, they wouldn’t adopt the enemy’s ideology and terminology. We see the same thing with Ctrl Left vs Alt Right.

The question ultimately revolves around who controls the world, the Deep State, the governments, or cabals.

But I look outside the restrictions on human imagination. These are all human organizations and have mortality that scales with human life spans.

The one question that does pop up which people can’t answer, is why if Wilson was part of the Jewish international cabal, did the Democrats then side with Palestine later on. Was it because the Jews of the state of Israel were no longer communists? Then that would make it a communist conspiracy, rather a Jewish one, right.

It looks more and more like the real puppet master is someone who has lived for more than 6000 years, and all the various human factions are playing to that string instead. To believe one dynasty or one set of humans, could manipulate world events like WW1, WW2, and the War on Terror, as well as Space Based Weapons, runs up against various razors.

To set the Demoncrats like Wilson and FDR up as for the Jewish state, then set them up as against the Jewish state… is a power nigh unfathomable to normal humans. The easier explanation is that there is no Deep State, there are no conspiracies like HRC exploding her servers with bleach bit. But the world, including America, is increasing going with the “Deep State” vibe of the Alt Right and the conspiracies that they used to make fun of, methodology.