How To Find "Political Discussions"?

[Sandy Larsen]

23 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

RFK Jr., due to his ancestry and stance on the JFK Records, warrants similar thread?

 

Of the 18 threads on the first page of the Political Discussions forum, 14 are about RFK Jr.

14 out of 18 isn't enough for you Ben?

 

Poor ol' Joe Biden.... he's the president, and he still gets only one thread.

 

So, sorry Ben.... permission denied. Commence to mass producing RFK Jr. threads!

 

[Benjamin Cole]

20 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Of the 18 threads on the first page of the Political Discussions forum, 14 are about RFK Jr.

14 out of 18 isn't enough for you Ben?

 

Poor ol' Joe Biden.... he's the president, and he still gets only one thread.

 

So, sorry Ben.... permission denied. Commence to mass producing RFK Jr. threads!

 

But isn't the "Political discussions" thread not even a part of the EF-JFKA? 

When I want to discuss RFK Jr.'s stance on the JFK Records Act...I go off EF-JFKA? Is that logical? 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 8/4/2023 at 2:07 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

But isn't the "Political discussions" thread not even a part of the EF-JFKA? 

 

Political Discussions is not a thread, it's a forum that is entirely separate from the JFKA Debate forum.

 

On 8/4/2023 at 2:07 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

When I want to discuss RFK Jr.'s stance on the JFK Records Act...I go off EF-JFKA? Is that logical

 

Yes, because you always turn it into a political campaign thread for RFK Jr. against President Biden.

 

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Political Discussions is not a thread, it's a forum that is entirely separate from the JFKA Debate forum.

 

 

Yes, because you always turn it into a political campaign thread for RFK Jr. against President Biden.

 

Following the RFK campaign as he tries to revive the point of JFK's peace speech and reopen the JFKA is not about opposition to Joe Biden, Sandy. In other words to do so is not merely "political",  though of course politics has to be involved.  It's about the purpose of this forum.

Whether or not Junior makes it to the White House is not the point.  The interest in the JFKA that Junior has stirred up is obvious.  For one thing, people are actually discovering the peace speech and maybe even starting to connect the dots. 

Few things are more important to this forum than that.

[Kirk Gallaway]

12 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Following the RFK campaign as he tries to revive the point of JFK's peace speech and reopen the JFKA is not about opposition to Joe Biden, Sandy. In other words to do so is not merely "political",  though of course politics has to be involved.  It's about the purpose of this forum.

Whether or not Junior makes it to the White House is not the point.  The interest in the JFKA that Junior has stirred up is obvious.  For one thing, people are actually discovering the peace speech and maybe even starting to connect the dots. 

Few things are more important to this forum than that.

 

Oh come Roger , You were too lazy to even take the time to find out what this thread is about. This not remotely connected to JFK's speech. By that scrimpy criterion, the RK spamming would go on like it did a month ago on this forum.

  This is like a Ron de Santis journal burning Ben Cole diatribe against freelance writers who don't agree with him,  and painting all their actions as Operation Mockingbird and you were too lazy to even go there and see what was going on, and now you're just continuing your months long filibuster to the mods for front billing, because you want attention but are not prepared to give the commensurate substance. But if you are, go to "Political discussions". It's that simple!

 

How To Find "Political Discussions"?

 

 

That's not to mention that this is a silly needless thread that could have been done with a simple PM to the mods, but that wouldn't suck enough attention..

 

[Mark Knight]

It's obvious to anyone who will open their eyes that the candidacy of RFJ Jr. is not SOLELY about releasing the JFK assassination records. If that was the case, then his candidacy would be a topic for the JFK assassination discussion forum.

But he's not a single-issue candidate; nor should he be, if he expects to gain a wide swath of voter support. But as a candidate for the highest office in the USA, UNLESS he's directly discussing the JFK assassination, the discussion of his candidacy rightfully belongs in the Political Discussions forum area of The Education Forum. The Education Forum has areas to discuss many things, especially things important to teachers. The RFK Jr. candidacy is no more germain to the JFK assassination discussion than the discussions on teaching German or Spanish or French...which also have their own SEPARATE discussion forums on The Education Forum.

That's really not such a difficult concept to grasp.

For most of us.

[Roger Odisio]

On 8/5/2023 at 11:32 PM, Mark Knight said:

It's obvious to anyone who will open their eyes that the candidacy of RFJ Jr. is not SOLELY about releasing the JFK assassination records. If that was the case, then his candidacy would be a topic for the JFK assassination discussion forum.

But he's not a single-issue candidate; nor should he be, if he expects to gain a wide swath of voter support. But as a candidate for the highest office in the USA, UNLESS he's directly discussing the JFK assassination, the discussion of his candidacy rightfully belongs in the Political Discussions forum area of The Education Forum. The Education Forum has areas to discuss many things, especially things important to teachers. The RFK Jr. candidacy is no more germain to the JFK assassination discussion than the discussions on teaching German or Spanish or French...which also have their own SEPARATE discussion forums on The Education Forum.

That's really not such a difficult concept to grasp.

For most of us.

 

On June 20, the 60th anniversary of JFK's peace speech at AU, Bobby Junior gave the first major address of his campaign focusing on that speech. He closed it by quoting JFK's central point: "What kind of peace do we seek?  Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war."  It was a direct, public challenge to the CIA/war machine in his own administration. That was exactly what they *did* want. JFK followed up the speech by getting something like 80 votes in the Senate to ratify the limited test ban treaty he had worked out with Krushchev as a first step toward the peace he sought and better relations with the Soviet Union.

 

Have you seen Junior's speech? It begins at about the 13 minute mark.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz1T-mEnbPI. 

 

Junior's speech got some notice.  People actually started looking up JFK's speech.  Some may even have started to connect the dots.  It spawned some discussion in alternative media about the murder itself.

 

The relevance of this is obvious. There is no question in my mind (maybe you disagree) that JFK's speech, the treaty ratification indicating he was accumulating some support for his view of peace, to say nothing about this threat to break up the CIA in his second term, played a major role in his murder. 

 

The antiwar/peace lane to the Democratic nomination is wide open. Junior will return to that theme and to others his father and uncle cared about. In essence Junior is trying to take up where his father and uncle left off.  It all bears watching as it can lead to more people questioning why they were murdered, as they see what has happened since.

 

Yet when I started a thread, titled "the relevance of JFK's peace speech to the JFKA and to where we are today" (so there could be no doubt about its content), the mods removed it from this forum and sent it over to politics. Where it languishes today.  Because its also about politics.  While ignoring the real question: is such a discussion relevant to researchers of the JFKA here?

 

That's the problem with the approach you outline now.  I understand you have some interest in the flourishing of the politics forum.  But that's no reason to move information to politics without out first determining it is *not* relevant here.  

 

In all your moves you have never addressed this basic point.  Now is your chance.  Is the thread I mention in this note relevant to an understanding of the JFKA?

 

Twice I have offered a solution with no response from the mods:  Instead of removing threads and shipping them to politics why don't you cut and paste them to that forum, while allowing relevant threads to stay here?