president | Blue is Me

Opinions on JFK shooting: Do you think it was a lone shooting?

Yes. After watching probably tens of documentaries and conspiracy videos and reading tons of conspiracy books as well, I’ve come to the Occam’s Razer conclusion that the simplest explanation is probably the most likely explanation. And why wouldn’t it be? President Garfield and President McKinley were assassinated by lone nuts. Why is it so hard to believe that JFK was killed by a single man? Yes President Lincoln was assassinated as the result of a conspiracy but in that case there was overwhelming evidence to believe so.

In JFK’s case, there are simply too many confounding theories with no theory that is unanimously agreed on. The CIA did it. The FBI did it. The Mafia did it. The Cubans or Soviets did it. LBJ did it. The Dallas Police department/Secret Service/Bethesda hospital were in on it. It was some clone / mind controlled version of Oswald. Some guys on the grassy knoll. Some nefarious combination of those mentioned did it. I’ve even heard the theory that the limo driver did it. All sorts of crazy stuff. All these conspiracy books got something to sell to you to make their money.

And then there’s the other thing. So called a bunch of assassination related witnesses died in short following years after the JFK assassination John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories – Wikipedia but the problem with this assertion is that literally hundreds of people with even the slightest connection to the assassination was included, and especially back then, people die from random stuff all the time. A lot of the modern safety mechanisms today like seatbelts, airbags, appliance saftey, vaccines for certain diseases etc that we have today back in the 60s wasn’t that common.

The so called 3 shots in 8 seconds thing from that distance with a tree in the way with a Lee-enfield has been re-enacted many times by modern Marines and is on Youtube. Oswald wasn’t some super sniper or something. There’s also lots of computer CG re-enactments of the ballistics as well that show exactly how and why JFK’s head can move backwards from a shot from the back (contrary to popular physics belief that the head can only move backward from a front shot)

The Warren commission did a terrible job of convincing people of this. There were many holes and inconsistencies (the magic bullet theory especially) with the report, and it failed to gain the public’s trust. That’s the real problem. Oswald was indeed the lone shooter, but because of the inconsistent way the Report was put together, many people had suspicions. This would have happened if you took some big event like 9/11 or the moon landing (I don’t believe in those conspiracies either FYI) but chances are if you had a group of government officials write a confusing inconsistent explanation of how 9/11 was done and the moon landing you would definitely get a lot of doubters. (And we do btw, the 9/11 conspiracies are especially popular).

In the end, I think it’s just hard to believe for a lot of people. It’s hard for them to believe that such a powerful man like JFK could be killed like that in broad daylight. There must be some military-industrial-complex machinations going on right? But unfortunately powerful men do die to nutcases. Heck, it happened to RFK and MLK Jr just 5 years later. Lone nutcases. John Lennon. Lone nutcase. Reagan had the good fortune of surviving his encounter else we would have to deal with those John Hinckley conspiracy theories as well. Heck even FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Gerald Ford, and Andrew Jackson all had assassination attempts and survived. All lone nutcases there too.

The Secret Service was incompetent that day. Government officials should not have distributed Kennedy’s motorcade path beforehand like that. Kennedy, who was a giant risk taker, chose not to use the bubble top on his convertible that day, and also ignored warnings not to go to Dallas from Adlai Stevenson. What happened after the assassination was really confusing. Contradictory eyewitness accounts. Inconsistencies from Parkland/Bethesda hospital doctors. A really inconsistent and hole-filled report by the Warren Commission. ‘Doctored’ Zapruder film footage.

And yet I have to believe that its not that this is all because of some massive cover up, but rather just because a bunch of people were just incompetent in handling the aftermath of the assassination. Oswald was the lone assassin. That’s the most believable theory because its one that has the most believers despite all these hundreds of conspiracy theories. The government just handled the assassination and aftermath in a really terrible and inconsistent way that ended up confusing the public, and honestly what do you really expect from the US Government? How did they handle the Vietnam War? The Iraq War? The 9/11 Commission? Is it so hard to believe that the US government is just bad at explaining stuff to the public? Of course not! The US government has always been terrible at it! That’s unfortunately the main impetus for all these conspiracy theories to exist, is simply the fact that on 11/22/1963 the US government f*cked up at protecting its leader, and then failed to explain it properly to its residents, that’s all. Don’t let that distract you from the fact that Oswald was the lone gunman.

Why is Andrew Jackson so unfairly hated?

Was Ronald Reagan a good president?

No, I don’t think so. I think he was definitely a charismatic and inspirational leader, which is part of the reason why he won his two elections by a landslide, but as to his actual accomplishments, the recovery of the economy in the 1980s was mostly due to the work of Paul Volcker the Fed Reserve chairman who raised interest rates in order to curb inflation at the time. This ended the stagflation of the 1970s. But Volcker wasn’t in favor of deregulating enough, so Reagan canned him and appointed Alan Greenspan instead, who some would say is the architect of the Great Recession of the late 2000s.

To me the worst thing about Reagan is that he brainwashed people to believe that supply-side economics i.e Reagonomics or Trickle-down economics, worked. It doesn’t. Never have and never will. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you keep cutting taxes for the rich, it will increase the inequality gap between the rich and poor, which is still growing to this day, since taxes for the rich have remained low since the 1980s. It also increases the deficit, which is why you see the US national debt balloon tremendously since the 1980s. But the rich people obviously love this strategy, and so they love selling this hogwash to the general public that cutting taxes for the rich will somehow benefit the economy. Take a look at the 1950s and 1960s. Pretty good economic time. Marginal Tax rates for the rich? Try 90%. That didn’t seem to affect the economy back then though.