From the Archives: John F. Kennedy on "Face the Nation," October 1960 

A candidate who actually answers questions.

Great President!!!

As americans, we need to demand those kennedy files. there is no way we let such an articulate advocate for peace be taken away from us 😊

Oh how we need Kennedy's intelligence and eloquence today !

He was 100% correct about the recession.

JFK was a brilliant man. May he rest in peace.

I wish I could turn back time 🙏 Conversation is art . JFK understood the Art of FREE SPEECH in a beautiful way . " Ich bin ein Berliner " JFK Languages are no barrier for understanding . Less words can express more if they are spoken by true believers .

JFK mentioning god, how far the democratic party has drifted!!

The last great Democratic president.

What a great reflection of similar current politics. Thank you FTN.

Original GOAT

A fascinating historical document on several levels. Thanks for posting ...

Excellent video to watch and highly interesting to hear JFK answering as a presidential candidate. In his first reply he brilliantly brushed aside the question of the interviewer by saying the comments published in the Soviet newspaper Pravda are of “no great significance”.

He was brilliant!

I miss him. 😢💙

Peace Was His Focus.JOHN F.KENNEDY TALKS ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL GOLD FLOW.😮😮😮😮😮😮😮

"Ask not what I can do for this country, ask what it is this country and you can do for me."

I miss this old Face the Nation. It’s a shame how they have become a total liberal lie.

A President

Bless You RFK 🇺🇸🕊 RFK Jr for PRESIDENT KENNEDY is the REMEDY ♥️🤍💙

Pravda doesn,t gell the truth.

Thanks @Face the Nation for posting this video about affirmative action / supreme court. Here are the viewpoints expressed by Supreme Court justices regarding affirmative action. 1) This case is about a group called Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) who sued Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC). They said that these schools were not fair in their admissions process because they were using race as a factor, which they believed was against the law. The law they referred to is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment*. 2) The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. The SFFA believed that by considering race in admissions, Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally. 3) The Court looked at the history of the Fourteenth Amendment and how it has been used in the past. They also looked at how other cases involving race and college admissions were handled. They found that while diversity in a student body can be a good thing, it must be handled in a way that treats all applicants fairly and equally. 4) The Court also looked at the idea of "strict scrutiny*". This is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional. 5) The Court found that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC did not pass strict scrutiny. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear or specific enough, and it resulted in fewer admissions for certain racial groups. They also said that the schools' use of race in admissions seemed to stereotype certain racial groups, which is not allowed. 6) The Court also said that the schools' admissions systems did not have a clear end point. This means that there was no clear plan for when the schools would stop using race as a factor in admissions. This was another reason why the Court said the schools' admissions systems were not fair. 7) The Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not clear, specific, or fair enough to be allowed. 8) However, the Court also said that schools can consider how race has affected an applicant's life. They can look at how an applicant's experiences with their race have shaped them and what they can bring to the school because of those experiences. 9) In the end, the Court decided that the admissions systems at Harvard and UNC were not fair and did not follow the law. They said that the schools' use of race in admissions was not allowed because it was not clear, specific, or fair enough. 10) So, the Court decided that the SFFA was right. They said that Harvard and UNC were not treating all applicants equally in their admissions process, which is against the law. They said that the schools needed to change their admissions systems to be fair to all applicants, no matter their race. *The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment that says that every person should be treated equally by the law, no matter their race, color, or nationality. *Strict scrutiny is a way for the courts to look at laws to see if they are fair and necessary. If a law or policy is found to be unfair or unnecessary, it may not pass strict scrutiny and could be considered unconstitutional.

The contrast with presidential leadership now is stark. Whether one believed in his politics, he was extremely intelligent and articulate. What a buffoon we have now. God help us.

He was the greatest Democratic President. R.I.P JFK

What a smart, articulate man. Only his nephew, RFK, Jr, who is running for president, is in his league of intelligence. Vote Kennedy 2024.

Any one know the video name of Kennedy and his face glitching out or looking “zombie like”

Politics Business and Religión

1001 Seven Churches

The big con.

Love that man Rooting for RFK Jr

RFK jr 2024!

He'd be 107 today. Still sharper than Biden at 81.

great hairline

The more I listen to this man, the less I'm convinced he was solely taken out by Lee H. Oswald, they say. Hell, Lee may not have pulled any triggers on that day, merely set up as a shielding red herring.

24:39, Great answer about not only the undecided voter but all voters. Pick one of the candidates from the Democratic or Republican party. You waste your vote on a third-party candidate. If you don't really like the candidate, pick from the candidate's and party's positions. For example, The Democratic party believes that woman in America should have the freedom to choose what to do with their own body, they also believe in Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, gun safety (without taking guns from law abiding citizens) and they believe in protecting the environment. The Republican party wants to eliminate ALL of that. So, what's your decision?