Netflix to portray JFK as abusive drug addict in 'The Crown'

rturner76

Domine non-sum dignus
Supporter
May 10, 2011
10,483
3,582
Twin Cities
✟724,718.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
The Secret Service does not remain in presence of family within the private areas of the White House.
Oh ok, I thought they kind of hung around outside the door of whatever room they were in orin the hallways outside the dining rooms etc. I figured they would never want to be more than a doorways distance away from them but it makes sense that the White House is secure so they don't need to be lurking in the halls. So then that makes me wonder how were they privy to what sounds like very private moments, conversations, and actions? It seems as though they have a lot of information to work with
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,036
13,063
✟1,077,148.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
A is hardly historical fact.

I agree that President Kennedy's injuries incurred while serving in the Pacific in WWII, followed by a physical disability retirement, caused him to become dependent on a regimen to manage his pain. After he changed doctors and changed his regimen he became better able to cope with his responsibilities.

If someone is following medical instructions I do not call drug use "addiction." People were not as aware of the dangers of these meds in the 1960's. Nevertheless, he took steps to find a regimen with fewer side effects and was successful.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

Vylo

Stick with the King!
Aug 3, 2003
24,732
7,790
43
New Jersey
✟203,465.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The Camelot image manufactured by the mainstream press for political advantage does not stand up to scrutiny.
You might not want to know a lot about many of our presidents. Carter is the only one I can think of offhand without skeletons in his closet, maybe Ford or Eisenhower. Actually Obama doesn't rally have much now that think about it, lets see:

Even all the way back, Washington was foul mouthed, and committed genocide. By that times standards he was considered an alright guy, and whatever his flaws, he was a strong and effective president.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,137
20,166
US
✟1,440,740.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Oh ok, I thought they kind of hung around outside the door of whatever room they were in orin the hallways outside the dining rooms etc. I figured they would never want to be more than a doorways distance away from them but it makes sense that the White House is secure so they don't need to be lurking in the halls. So then that makes me wonder how were they privy to what sounds like very private moments, conversations, and actions? It seems as though they have a lot of information to work with

I don't know what the program will actually present, and I take breathless promotion with a grain of salt.

We've seen "Mad Men." There is your early 60s white male for you.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
The Camelot image manufactured by the mainstream press for political advantage does not stand up to scrutiny.

I see -- the mainstream press lies; Netflix entertainment is your preferred source of unvarnished truth.
 
Upvote 0

Rion

Annuit Cœptis
Supporter
Oct 26, 2006
21,868
6,275
Nebraska
✟419,198.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
It's been well known since the early 60s--not long after, if not during his presidency, that Kennedy was on constant high doses of pain medication. And we know that's addictive. But his back injury from WWII was also permanent.

They weren't from WWII:

Here is what she probably did not know: The president's lifelong recurrent diarrhea and "colitis" is now mostly seen as autoimmune, and is genetically related to the autoimmune cause of Addison's disease. His back pain was not due to a war injury; his spinal x-rays did not show major bony abnormalities, such as arthritis. (He did have the harmful evidence of prior, probably unncessary, spinal fusion). Most of his back pain was likely due to muscle spasm; this was the eventual conclusion of Kennedy's White House doctors and consultants, and, by 1963, Kennedy had improved with a conservative physical therapy treatment. Before 1962-1963, however, Kennedy's personal physician, Janet Travell, had been repeatedly injecting him with procaine (an analog of cocaine) for the muscle spasms, with probable long-term worsening due to increased muscle weakness from the repeated injections into the muscle mass.

What Jackie Kennedy Didn't Say—and Didn't Know
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
They weren't from WWII:

Here is what she probably did not know: The president's lifelong recurrent diarrhea and "colitis" is now mostly seen as autoimmune, and is genetically related to the autoimmune cause of Addison's disease. His back pain was not due to a war injury; his spinal x-rays did not show major bony abnormalities, such as arthritis. (He did have the harmful evidence of prior, probably unncessary, spinal fusion). Most of his back pain was likely due to muscle spasm; this was the eventual conclusion of Kennedy's White House doctors and consultants, and, by 1963, Kennedy had improved with a conservative physical therapy treatment. Before 1962-1963, however, Kennedy's personal physician, Janet Travell, had been repeatedly injecting him with procaine (an analog of cocaine) for the muscle spasms, with probable long-term worsening due to increased muscle weakness from the repeated injections into the muscle mass.

What Jackie Kennedy Didn't Say—and Didn't Know

Agree. Kennedy was really a very sick man and the kennedys went to great lengths, to keep his medical history quite. He was sick since youth and also had addisons disease.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Rion

Annuit Cœptis
Supporter
Oct 26, 2006
21,868
6,275
Nebraska
✟419,198.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Agree. Kennedy was really a very sick man and the kennedys went to great lengths, to keep his medical history quite. He was sick since youth and also had addisons disease.

His father was a monster.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
His father was a monster.

Yes, he was.

Also, since the hot topic of the year, is the thought that the 2016 election was stolen, if there ever was a President that stole an election, it was Kennedy.

The family, had quite a bit of help from the mob, to amass votes in Chicago and guess what, whoever won Illinois, was going to be the next president. I think Kennedy won by something like; 2,000 votes, in Illinois.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Basil the Great

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 9, 2009
4,766
4,085
✟721,243.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Green
Yes, he was.

Also, since the hot topic of the year, is the thought that the 2016 election was stolen, if there ever was a President that stole an election, it was Kennedy.

The family, had quite a bit of help from the mob, to amass votes in Chicago and guess what, whoever won Illinois, was going to be the next president. I think Kennedy won by something like; 2,000 votes, in Illinois.
I believe that the tally was a 8,800 vote margin in IL, but your point could still be valid. However, based upon what I have heard, I think you folks should look to the WV Primary, when Kennedy beat Humphrey by about a 60-40 margin. Back in 1960 not too many people voted in primaries and thus the union vote was critical. Word has it that it was Kennedy, Sr. who managed to get the unions to endorse his son. As to the general election, TX reportedly had vote fraud as well, especially in some of the counties along the Mexican border, where reportedly one county reported more total votes than the number of people who were registered. However, the TX margin was about 50,000 and it seems much less likely that vote fraud made the difference in TX, like it well could have in IL. Besides IL having a closer vote difference, it also had more total votes than TX, thus meaning that the percentage difference was even closer. KY reportedly had vote fraud in favor of Nixon, however, Nixon won KY by enough of a margin that such probably probably mattered little there.

Nixon probably erred by choosing Lodge. If he had picked Sen. Dirsken of IL, he would certainly have carried IL. However, he still would have come up short. There was no one in TX that he could have picked, to carry that state. If somehow he could have carried IL and TX, he would have won the election by just one Electoral Vote. He lost Hawaii by a few hundred and NV and NM by a few thousand each. More important, he lost MN and MO by 10,000 each, as well as SC for that matter. The 1960 Election will probably never be repeated in terms of the large number of states that were quite close or relatively close. I think NJ was only about a 20,000 vote difference. I suppose that if we forget TX, Nixon could have probably won by that one Electoral Vote if he could have carried NJ and either MN or MO, assuming IL as well. Many claim that the first debate made the difference, though those who heard it on the radio gave it to Nixon, while those who watched on tv thought Kennedy won. Many experts say that Nixon lost that first debate, mostly because he refused to wear makeup and that as a result, his appearance was not good. As close as the 1960 Election was, it is quite possible might have won if he had put on makeup in the first debate, though we cannot be certain. It does seem likely that he would have carried IL and maybe Hawaii, but uncertain about all the other close states. What does seem certain is that the 110,000-120,000 vote margin in the Popular Vote for Kennedy would probably have shrunk to a virtual tie or a slight Nixon lead.
 
Upvote 0

Blood Bought 1953

Ned Flander’s Buddy
Oct 21, 2017
2,278
1,471
71
Portsmouth
✟81,329.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Why do you insult Busey?


I apologize profusely to the esteemed Mr.Busey.....whatever planet he is on today
I deserve 20 lashes with a clump of trumps comb over
 
  • Haha
Reactions: cow451
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I believe that the tally was a 8,800 vote margin in IL, but your point could still be valid. However, based upon what I have heard, I think you folks should look to the WV Primary, when Kennedy beat Humphrey by about a 60-40 margin. Back in 1960 not too many people voted in primaries and thus the union vote was critical. Word has it that it was Kennedy, Sr. who managed to get the unions to endorse his son. As to the general election, TX reportedly had vote fraud as well, especially in some of the counties along the Mexican border, where reportedly one county reported more total votes than the number of people who were registered. However, the TX margin was about 50,000 and it seems much less likely that vote fraud made the difference in TX, like it well could have in IL. Besides IL having a closer vote difference, it also had more total votes than TX, thus meaning that the percentage difference was even closer. KY reportedly had vote fraud in favor of Nixon, however, Nixon won KY by enough of a margin that such probably probably mattered little there.

Nixon probably erred by choosing Lodge. If he had picked Sen. Dirsken of IL, he would certainly have carried IL. However, he still would have come up short. There was no one in TX that he could have picked, to carry that state. If somehow he could have carried IL and TX, he would have won the election by just one Electoral Vote. He lost Hawaii by a few hundred and NV and NM by a few thousand each. More important, he lost MN and MO by 10,000 each, as well as SC for that matter. The 1960 Election will probably never be repeated in terms of the large number of states that were quite close or relatively close. I think NJ was only about a 20,000 vote difference. I suppose that if we forget TX, Nixon could have probably won by that one Electoral Vote if he could have carried NJ and either MN or MO, assuming IL as well. Many claim that the first debate made the difference, though those who heard it on the radio gave it to Nixon, while those who watched on tv thought Kennedy won. Many experts say that Nixon lost that first debate, mostly because he refused to wear makeup and that as a result, his appearance was not good. As close as the 1960 Election was, it is quite possible might have won if he had put on makeup in the first debate, though we cannot be certain. It does seem likely that he would have carried IL and maybe Hawaii, but uncertain about all the other close states. What does seem certain is that the 110,000-120,000 vote margin in the Popular Vote for Kennedy would probably have shrunk to a virtual tie or a slight Nixon lead.

Yes you are correct. 5 million votes in illinois and kennedy won by 8k votes.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Basil the Great

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 9, 2009
4,766
4,085
✟721,243.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Green
As I recall, Kennedy's margin in the Popular Vote pretty much equaled the margin in Allegheny County, PA, of which the suburbs were even, thus meaning that the margin in the entire country = the difference in Pittsburgh. As to the race itself, I remember a tv interview I saw long ago with NY Gov Rockefeller. He felt that if Nixon had picked him for VP in 1960, that Nixon might well have won. I suppose that Rocky could have wiped out the 20,000 margin in NJ, but I really doubt that he would have carried NY or PA for the GOP. I could be wrong, however, For what it is worth, I just checked the map. NJ and NY were worth 16 and 45 votes respectively, while IL and TX were only worth 27 and 24. Hence, if Rocky could have switched NY and NJ, Nixon would have won. While I doubt Rocky could have carried NY, he would have had a decent chance at doing so.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0