Lee Harvey Oswald's Bullets Miss JFK

I was going to let it ride because I'm at work on planning a timeline at the moment so I don't feel like replying. But, you're compelling me to do so. You are writing quite well, but your thesis is entirely wrong, and I am going to teach you.

Just give Norton a moment to collect his thoughts.
 
The Kennedy's would not divorce. Jackie did not like his womanizing, but had come to accept it, and both did actually love each other (in spite of Kennedy's extreme libido).
There is not going to be an investigation into his affairs, nor an impeach over them as a result. This is not the 70s with a media hellbent on muckraking and investigating the private lives of public figures. Not in America, at least. There was a level of respect and understanding between the media and politicians. There was also the fact that party strength (this is a pre-reform era) could mean if you did something distasteful, you get shut out. The media is therefore not going to dig up Kennedy's affairs and put them on public display.
There's also the issue that Kennedy's sex escapes are not anything special. Sex in Washington in this era is very, very prevalent. A major government investigation into a prostitution ring linked to East German (I think it was) spies was swept under the rug when it was discovered that the people in Congress investigating had called up on those call girls and that it would be linked to them. Lyndon Johnson was competing in Kennedy with how many women he'd bedded (behind his wife's back), and said he had many more under his belt than Kennedy. Everyone was fucking like rabbits in Washington. JFK is just the one everyone pays attention to. This is yet another reason why a sex investigation isn't going to happen.
Another point: Joe Kennedy didn't kill Marilyn, don't act like he is going to kill Jackie. Murder is not in the Kennedy repertoire.
 

JRScott

Banned
The Kennedy's would not divorce. Jackie did not like his womanizing, but had come to accept it, and both did actually love each other (in spite of Kennedy's extreme libido).
There is not going to be an investigation into his affairs, nor an impeach over them as a result. This is not the 70s with a media hellbent on muckraking and investigating the private lives of public figures. Not in America, at least. There was a level of respect and understanding between the media and politicians. There was also the fact that party strength (this is a pre-reform era) could mean if you did something distasteful, you get shut out. The media is therefore not going to dig up Kennedy's affairs and put them on public display.
There's also the issue that Kennedy's sex escapes are not anything special. Sex in Washington in this era is very, very prevalent. A major government investigation into a prostitution ring linked to East German (I think it was) spies was swept under the rug when it was discovered that the people in Congress investigating had called up on those call girls and that it would be linked to them. Lyndon Johnson was competing in Kennedy with how many women he'd bedded (behind his wife's back), and said he had many more under his belt than Kennedy. Everyone was fucking like rabbits in Washington. JFK is just the one everyone pays attention to. This is yet another reason why a sex investigation isn't going to happen.
Another point: Joe Kennedy didn't kill Marilyn, don't act like he is going to kill Jackie. Murder is not in the Kennedy repertoire.

Considering Joe had a stroke in 61 and was in a wheelchair then no he personally wouldn't do it, that doesn't mean he wouldn't have it done. As to who killed Marilyn, largely depends on which theory you believe leading to her death. The sad part is all of them are plausible and all those involved are dead today, so there is no real way to fully know 100% sure.

However my thesis is not incorrect in that if the American people find out about the overly sexed Washington there is no way they'd be reelected, as it is he barely won in 60. While Washington accepted it, it was not accepted behavior by the overall voting citizens (yes the late teens early 20s age group were sexually liberal to some extent, but not really even as nearly as much as often portrayed in media today, but they were far outweighed by their parents and grandparents in voting).
 
Considering Joe had a stroke in 61 and was in a wheelchair then no he personally wouldn't do it, that doesn't mean he wouldn't have it done.

No, the fact that he wouldn't have it done is why he wouldn't have had it done.

As to who killed Marilyn, largely depends on which theory you believe leading to her death. The sad part is all of them are plausible and all those involved are dead today, so there is no real way to fully know 100% sure.
It wasn't the government nor the Kennedy's.

However my thesis is not incorrect in that if the American people find out about the overly sexed Washington there is no way they'd be reelected, as it is he barely won in 60. While Washington accepted it, it was not accepted behavior by the overall voting citizens (yes the late teens early 20s age group were sexually liberal to some extent, but not really even as nearly as much as often portrayed in media today, but they were far outweighed by their parents and grandparents in voting).
They won't find out, because even with those people in the media that did know, it was an open secret and there was a gentleman's understanding to leave it alone. Point two, I have to put my foot down here. Kennedy in 60 won by a close margin because he was a non-incumbent going up against an incumbent of a popular President; on the flip side, Nixon lost 60 because he had a charismatic risen star in the Democratic party as his competition. Regardless, 1960 has nothing to do with this, because you're playing it on the assumption that it means only half the country liked Kennedy, and the other half didn't, which is not the case. He had very high approval ratings. 1964 is not going to be as close as '60, and I am frankly very tired of the idea that it would be, which is something popping up far to often lately which is flatly and annoyingly wrong. '64 was going to be a massive blow out; to think Goldwater would even come close is dead wrong. And a sex scandal isn't going to come into play because there is never going to be one.

People who do this with JFK do so because he the sexiest toy in the box of history here. It's not based on the merit of it. It's based on the fact that JFK is the one you know for doing it. LBJ didn't have a sex scandal come up, and LBJ was banging women left and right just as JFK was. And yet, no mention of a sex scandal ever comes up for LBJ. That's because LBJ wasn't going to have one, and JFK wasn't going to have one. It's an old game he was taking part in.
 

Flubber

Banned
People who do this with JFK do so because he the sexiest toy in the box of history here. It's not based on the merit of it. It's based on the fact that JFK is the one you know for doing it. LBJ didn't have a sex scandal come up, and LBJ was banging women left and right just as JFK was. And yet, no mention of a sex scandal ever comes up for LBJ. That's because LBJ wasn't going to have one, and JFK wasn't going to have one. It's an old game he was taking part in.


Have you ever seen that classic Farside cartoon What Dogs Hear/What Cats Hear?

In the first panel one of Larson's grotesque humans is berating a dog for some reason. The human is saying something like "Bad dog Ginger. You shouldn't have done that Ginger. Bad dog Ginger." while a "balloon" over the dog's head contains "Blah blah Ginger. Blah blah blah blah blah Ginger. Blah blah Ginger."

In the second panel, the same human is berating a cat and is saying "Bad cat Fluffy. You shouldn't have done that Fluffy. Bad cat Fluffy." The punchline in the panel is that the "balloon" over the cat's head is completely blank.

You're talking to that cat in this case, EN1, a willfully ignorant cat who does not care to understand what you are telling them.

Why waste any more of your time?
 

JRScott

Banned
If Kennedy's alive then there is a possibility Goldwater isn't the Republican nominee. It's difficult to say, most of the states didn't have a R primary in 1964. However if Rockefeller had won California instead of Goldwater he probably would have won the nomination, it was a relatively close race there. Kennedy being alive could flip California towards Rockefeller in the primaries. Ultimately barring scandal, death etc then yes JFK is likely to win in 64.

Joe was relatively ruthless, if he saw a danger to the family or legacy he would take steps to remove it. Though he primarily used wealth and greed to accomplish this. In looking at anyone who dies under mysterious circumstances you have to look at who had the most to lose and who had the most to gain. The people that had the most to lose and gain were the Kennedy's, but it could have been enemies of theirs that did it as well to cast suspicion on them.
 

JRScott

Banned
Have you ever seen that classic Farside cartoon What Dogs Hear/What Cats Hear?

In the first panel one of Larson's grotesque humans is berating a dog for some reason. The human is saying something like "Bad dog Ginger. You shouldn't have done that Ginger. Bad dog Ginger." while a "balloon" over the dog's head contains "Blah blah Ginger. Blah blah blah blah blah Ginger. Blah blah Ginger."

In the second panel, the same human is berating a cat and is saying "Bad cat Fluffy. You shouldn't have done that Fluffy. Bad cat Fluffy." The punchline in the panel is that the "balloon" over the cat's head is completely blank.

You're talking to that cat in this case, EN1, a willfully ignorant cat who does not care to understand what you are telling them.

Why waste any more of your time?

Ah yes the typical lets insult the other debaters intelligence to prove we are superior. Twice you've done that so far in this thread. At least Norton in his debating did use some facts to support his viewpoint.

Just because I don't buy into your viewpoint of the world or offer an alternative to it does not mean my viewpoint is any less valid. Nor does it mean I'm in ignorant, idiotic or foolish as you keep implying.
 
If Kennedy's alive then there is a possibility Goldwater isn't the Republican nominee. It's difficult to say, most of the states didn't have a R primary in 1964. However if Rockefeller had won California instead of Goldwater he probably would have won the nomination, it was a relatively close race there. Kennedy being alive could flip California towards Rockefeller in the primaries. Ultimately barring scandal, death etc then yes JFK is likely to win in 64.

It's 95% likely Goldwater wins the nomination. Rockefeller was the other major challenger, but he was taken out by his divorce in which he received a total political backlash that killed his chances at the nomination. In either case, Rockefeller would lose heavily, just not as much as Goldwater, but still by very, very much. Think Reagan vs. Mondale in '84; you are not going to get anyone to win against an exceedingly popular incumbent president, nor even come to the point of coming close in 1964.

Joe was relatively ruthless, if he saw a danger to the family or legacy he would take steps to remove it. Though he primarily used wealth and greed to accomplish this. In looking at anyone who dies under mysterious circumstances you have to look at who had the most to lose and who had the most to gain. The people that had the most to lose and gain were the Kennedy's, but it could have been enemies of theirs that did it as well to cast suspicion on them.
...He's not going to murder a lady.

And anyway, there wasn't going to be a divorce or separation.
 

Flubber

Banned
Just because I don't buy into your viewpoint of the world or offer an alternative to it does not mean my viewpoint is any less valid.


Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. You viewpoint is based on a faulty understanding of the facts and that makes your viewpoint invalid.

You have no understanding of the facts involved. You do not understand the people in question, you do not understand the cultural climate of the period, and you do not understand the political situation at the time.

You don't know what you're talking about and you will not listen to those people who do know what they're talking about.
 
What are you suggesting, then...? :eek:
Oh, not what you seem to be thinking! Basically, Oswald saved LBJ's political career. Without that he was a goner. LBJ didn't plan this or anything, as much as TR or Arthur or Johnson planned their successions.

And no one's going to care about JFK's sex life. C'mon, it's the '60s.
 
Put it this way: if ASBs had Hoover's treasure trove alt-Wikileaked those files would indict just about everyone who was anyone in DC with regards to sex. (Among many other things) Cultural mores were very different: Griswold was still 2 years out, as an example.

Economically the boom won't be quite as big without the tax cut but still there.
 

bguy

Donor
If Kennedy's alive then there is a possibility Goldwater isn't the Republican nominee. It's difficult to say, most of the states didn't have a R primary in 1964. However if Rockefeller had won California instead of Goldwater he probably would have won the nomination, it was a relatively close race there. Kennedy being alive could flip California towards Rockefeller in the primaries. Ultimately barring scandal, death etc then yes JFK is likely to win in 64.

Losing California might have cost Goldwater the nomination, but it wouldn't have won Rockefeller the nomination. Rocky was way behind Goldwater in total delegates and had no realistic way to catch up.

OTL a month before the convention Goldwater had at least 648 delegates compared to Rocky only having 139. Flipping California leaves Goldwater with 562 and Rocky with 225. Nor does Rocky have any real prospects to poach any of Goldwater's delegates. 274 of those delegates are from southern states, no way they vote for Rocky. Another 90 are from the western states, also unlikely to switch. Goldwater won the primaries in Illinois (which gives him at least 39 delegates) and Indiana (all 32), so that's another 71 Rocky can't touch. And those numbers are just Goldwater's solid delegates. They don't include leaners, or the delegates Goldwater had in Arkansas, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin who would have voted for favorite sons on the first ballot and switched to him on later ballots. That's too big of a lead for Rocky to overcome even with a California win.

Which is not to say that Goldwater losing California is meaningless. It might very well persuade him to drop out. (William F. Buckley allegedly had an editorial already to run in NR urging Goldwater to do precisely that if he lost the California primary). But if Goldwater drops out he is certainly going to throw his support to someone else, most likely William Scranton who Goldwater liked personally and regarded as sound on fiscal issues. With Goldwater's support and his own moderate credentials and strength in Pennsylvania, Scranton will easily win the Republican nomination. (Though of course he will lose the general election against Kennedy.)
 
Married people reach accommodations. Usually it involves things like who takes out the trash and feeds the cat. Sometimes, and the Kennedys are probably an example, there are more “understandings”. For whatever reason or reasons the Kennedys had an understanding about his womanizing. Remember that most 20th Century Presidents before JFK had their own marital affairs. I just don’t think this would have derailed JFK.
 
Top