MAINSTREAM vs MAGA COOLER - For those who want to challenge the other side.

[Kirk Gallaway]

Mark, You have my thoughts, for whatever they're worth, on what happened to the 56 year thread.

Still I'm not going to argue with your decision to close the thread from further posts.

But what is your thinking about denying access to this thread,  any more than any other thread that's been posted on this forum?

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Mark, You have my thoughts, for whatever they're worth, on what happened to the 56 year thread.

Still I'm not going to argue with your decision to close the thread from further posts.

But what is your thinking about denying access to this thread,  any more than any other thread that's been posted on this forum?

That thread had become of sewer of partisan and personal animosities. 

We can do better than that, and should show a better face to readers and prospective members. 

[Kirk Gallaway]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

That thread had become of sewer of partisan and personal animosities. 

We can do better than that, and should show a better face to readers and prospective members. 

This coming from "free speech Ben" who wants to hide the thread?  I didn't ask you Ben but nobody new is going to go to the thread because it will be placed off topic and most people who come here will search out topics according to names of JFKA subjects that they have an interest in. 

Actually there was a lot of good research that was sometimes inspired by correcting your often repeated   mistaken political notions, which were the standard  mistaken novice political notions developed in  the early 2020's period, and serve a useful historical perspective. Unfortunately you took personal offense from the very beginning with people simply challenging your notions, and you never  have really mentioned any specifics as to what your "sewer allegations" really were. And unfortunately, when a real problem developed,   I never saw you in the final months of the 3 year thread identify any growing problem outside of your general "butthurtness" of having people just challenging your ideas.

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

This coming from "free speech Ben" who wants to hide the thread?  I didn't ask you Ben but nobody new is going to go to the thread because it will be placed off topic and most people who come here will search out topics according to names of JFKA subjects that they have an interest in. 

Actually there was a lot of good research that was sometimes inspired by correcting your often repeated   mistaken political notions, which were the standard  mistaken novice political notions developed in  the early 2020's period, and serve a useful historical perspective. Unfortunately you took personal offense from the very beginning with people simply challenging your notions, and you never  have really mentioned any specifics as to what your "sewer allegations" really were. And unfortunately, when a real problem developed,   I never saw you in the final months of the 3 year thread identify any growing problem outside of your general "butthurtness" of having people just challenging your ideas.

 

 

Kirk--

It is better not to mention names, but there was a Niagara of name-calling and derogatory comments, and even offensive imagery, posted in that thread, and that is a most mild description.  

The EF-JFKA is among the best resources for the JFKA. If people look here and see offensive commentary...well then, sane and intelligent people will move on. 

I think the EF-JFKA site has radically improved in recent months, and is no longer is overtly hostile to the full political spectrum, although certain commenters sure seem to want to speak derisively of those with varying insights. 

I credit the moderators for at least trying to keep the door open to all comers---as the EF-JFKA should. 

I hope you and others take the attitude that, "Hey, we are worlds apart in in our views, but thanks for expressing how you see the situation." 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

6 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

This coming from "free speech Ben" who wants to hide the thread?  I didn't ask you Ben but nobody new is going to go to the thread because it will be placed off topic and most people who come here will search out topics according to names of JFKA subjects that they have an interest in. 

Actually there was a lot of good research that was sometimes inspired by correcting your often repeated   mistaken political notions, which were the standard  mistaken novice political notions developed in  the early 2020's period, and serve a useful historical perspective. Unfortunately you took personal offense from the very beginning with people simply challenging your notions, and you never  have really mentioned any specifics as to what your "sewer allegations" really were. And unfortunately, when a real problem developed,   I never saw you in the final months of the 3 year thread identify any growing problem outside of your general "butthurtness" of having people just challenging your ideas.

 

 

        Exactly.  Ben has often used terms like "sewer," "uncivil," "disrespectful," "ad hominem," etc., to criticize posts that fact-check and debunk his erroneous, redundant MAGA narratives-- "Russia-gate hoax," "patriot purge," etc.

       And he continues to insist that "rude," "abusive" people on the forum should be "respectful" of all opinions-- including those that are debunked by the facts-- lest we alienate potential forum members from the MAGA-verse.

        This is not a formula for informed, scholarly debates.

     

        

[Paul Brancato]

Allow me to suggest an alternative way of looking at this apparent divide. Can we put the Durham finding, the Russia hoax, and the obvious close ties between Trump and his team and Russia into a coherent and relevant narrative? First, the investigation was begun on flimsy evidence, the major finding of the report. Can we acknowledge that? Does that mean there was no collusion? No, of course not. The collusion was self evident. But did it result in meaningful election interference? Well, compared to Cambridge Analytica, and to Comey’s FBI bombshell on Hillary Clinton, no. It can be criminal behavior and still not be particularly relevant, unless your world view is that Russia and China are the source of all evil in the world. Which they are not. 
What was the long term result of FBI meddling, and bad election strategy by the Clinton campaign? Trump. And that has seriously divided the body politic, and the behavior here on forum, the narratives about the coming election, etc. Was Trump destined to be a continuing malignant force? No. Our entertainment news media put him there, with some considerable help from factions of the deep state, with maybe a smidgen of foreign help. But Clinton’s ‘deplorables’ comment is still resonating. It was a huge mistake. What RFK Jr is doing is trying to talk to those people, even if he disagrees with some or all of their positions. But try explaining to my friends why he appears on FOX, or in political rallies peopled by all manner of kooks (and by perfectly decent people as well). They don’t get it. Why? Trump, or rather the fear of another Trump presidency. We liberals and ‘coastal elites’ watch in horror as the Right declares war on women, on voting rights, on the debt ceiling, you name it. Whose fault is it? It’s us, who have become shamelessly divided by our own ignorant inability to identify the real enemy within. So let’s start by cutting out the Russia China Trump fear mongering and try focusing on all the things that have gone wrong here. And let’s not throw away our votes when we are manipulated into a hobson’s choice, a truism by the way in nearly every election in my lifetime. Our government has screwed us because they are not free agents, they are controlled by money. Nothing will change until that does. Could RFK Jr reverse course? Yeah, obviously, if he gets into office and lives through it. 

Edited May 20, 2023 by Paul Brancato

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Allow me to suggest an alternative way of looking at this apparent divide. Can we put the Durham finding, the Russia hoax, and the obvious close ties between Trump and his team and Russia into a coherent and relevant narrative? First, the investigation was begun on flimsy evidence, the major finding of the report. Can we acknowledge that? Does that mean there was no collusion? No, of course not. The collusion was self evident. But did it result in meaningful election interference? Well, compared to Cambridge Analytica, and to Comey’s FBI bombshell on Hillary Clinton, no. It can be criminal behavior and still not be particularly relevant, unless your world view is that Russia and China are the source of all evil in the world. Which they are not. 
What was the long term result of FBI meddling, and bad election strategy by the Clinton campaign? Trump. And that has seriously divided the body politic, and the behavior here on forum, the narratives about the coming election, etc. Was Trump destined to be a continuing malignant force? No. Our entertainment news media put him there, with some considerable help from factions of the deep state, with maybe a smidgen of foreign help. But Clinton’s ‘deplorables’ comment is still resonating. It was a huge mistake. What RFK Jr is doing is trying to talk to those people, even if he disagrees with some or all of their positions. But try explaining to my friends why he appears on FOX, or in political rallies peopled by all manner of kooks (and by perfectly decent people as well). They don’t get it. Why? Trump, or rather the fear of another Trump presidency. We liberals and ‘coastal elites’ watch in horror as the Right declares war on women, on voting rights, on the debt ceiling, you name it. Whose fault is it? It’s us, who have become shamelessly divided by our own ignorant inability to identify the real enemy within. So let’s start by cutting out the Russia China Trump fear mongering and try focusing on all the things that have gone wrong here. And let’s not throw away our votes when we are manipulated into a hobson’s choice, a truism by the way in nearly every election in my lifetime. Our government has screwed us because they are not free agents, they are controlled by money. Nothing will change until that does. Could RFK Jr reverse course? Yeah, obviously, if he gets into office and lives through it. 

PB-

Well, we are world's apart in our views. 

There is no evidence of collusion between the Trumpers and Moscow. Even deep-state apparatchik Mueller said so, and now the Durham Report. BTW, before his appointment, Durham was touted as "Mr. Independent, Apolitical, Incorruptible and Smart."  

So his report is essentially being buried. 

A few meetings is not evidence of collusion. 

Here is the worrisome aspect of this---- 

For decades, the JFKA community has been concerned not only with the assassination itself, but with what it means: the actions and growing influence of the Deep State. 

But now, since the Deep State turned on a deeply offensive and unpopular political opponent of the modern-day D Party....well, the D-Party adherents longer believe the Deep State can target a political figure. They, instead believe the D-Party-M$M-Deep State  version of events and characterizations. 

How unthinking have D-Party adherents become? They even believed COVID-19 came from nature and embraced censorship of stories that debated the issue. That was an anti-Trump position and so it became The Truth. 

I have even seen formerly leftish people ridicule the notion of a "Deep State" and say Biden is not deep-sixing the JFK Records, and so on. 

Some of this is the usual blinding partisanship, but some is due to Trump's polarizing nature, amplified by M$M. 

It is not too much to say the same people who torpedoed Trump installed Biden---and has Biden in any way defied Deep State imperatives? Including the snuff job on the JFK Records? 

Is there any question but that Biden is a Deep State puppet? 

None of this makes Trump a pleasant fellow. He has the character defects of any other dozen men put together. 

Notice how the M$M immediately and relentlessly conflates populism with racism, sexism and social backwardness. That allows lefties to feel morally and intellectually superior. 

As usual, just IMHO...

PS The GOP is just as bad....

 

 

 

[W. Niederhut]

10 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

PB-

Well, we are world's apart in our views. 

There is no evidence of collusion between the Trumpers and Moscow. Even deep-state apparatchik Mueller said so, and now the Durham Report. BTW, before his appointment, Durham was touted as "Mr. Independent, Apolitical, Incorruptible and Smart."  

So his report is essentially being buried. 

A few meetings is not evidence of collusion. 

Here is the worrisome aspect of this---- 

For decades, the JFKA community has been concerned not only with the assassination itself, but with what it means: the actions and growing influence of the Deep State. 

But now, since the Deep State turned on a deeply offensive and unpopular political opponent of the modern-day D Party....well, the D-Party adherents longer believe the Deep State can target a political figure. They, instead believe the D-Party-M$M-Deep State  version of events and characterizations. 

How unthinking have D-Party adherents become? They even believed COVID-19 came from nature and embraced censorship of stories that debated the issue. That was an anti-Trump position and so it became The Truth. 

I have even seen formerly leftish people ridicule the notion of a "Deep State" and say Biden is not deep-sixing the JFK Records, and so on. 

Some of this is the usual blinding partisanship, but some is due to Trump's polarizing nature, amplified by M$M. 

It is not too much to say the same people who torpedoed Trump installed Biden---and has Biden in any way defied Deep State imperatives? Including the snuff job on the JFK Records? 

Is there any question but that Biden is a Deep State puppet? 

None of this makes Trump a pleasant fellow. He has the character defects of any other dozen men put together. 

Notice how the M$M immediately and relentlessly conflates populism with racism, sexism and social backwardness. That allows lefties to feel morally and intellectually superior. 

As usual, just IMHO...

PS The GOP is just as bad....

 

 

 

Geez, Ben, please can your redundant BS already.

Where did Mueller (or Durham) ever claim, or prove, that there was no "collusion" between Trump and Moscow?

You, obviously, never understood the Mueller Report, or the four-year Durham nothing burger.

You're a good example of how mainstream media Trumpaganda fosters mass delusions.

[Benjamin Cole]

17 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Geez, Ben, please can your redundant BS already.

Where did Mueller (or Durham) ever claim, or prove, that there was no "collusion" between Trump and Moscow?

You, obviously, never understood the Mueller Report, or the four-year Durham nothing burger.

You're a good example of how mainstream media Trumpaganda fosters mass delusions.

https://www.justice.gov/storage/durhamreport.pdf

This is the Durham Report. 

Durham was, and is, regarded as an apolitical straight-shooter. 

The Durham Report is not propaganda.

It is a window into how the Deep State and long knives of Washington work.

Instructive. 

 

[W. Niederhut]

Ben,

      Harry Litman published a good summary of Durham's nothing burger this week (below.)

      What's truly "instructive" about the Durham investigation is observing the alternate reality coverage/spin about this Bill Barr/Durham nothing burger in much of our corporate M$M.

      There's no there there.

 

Why Special Counsel John Durham’s report takes so long to say so little

Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation has ended in an avalanche of verbiage.

(Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)

BY HARRY LITMAN

MAY 16, 2023 3:40 PM PT

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Show more sharing options

Rarely has a government report taken so long — in years and pages — to tell the public so little as Special Counsel John Durham’s report to the Department of Justice this week.

When then-Atty. Gen. Bill Barr appointed Durham to investigate the department’s probe of connections between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, Trump and his true believers looked forward to revealing a criminal conspiracy within the FBI. Trump tweeted at the time that Durham would uncover the “crime of the century.”

Instead, four years after Barr first ordered Durham to investigate the investigators, he produced a ponderous, 316-page tome that interminably chews over information that has long been in the public record.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

The bottom line awaiting the minuscule percentage of the country that has the time and patience to wade through the report is a handful of small and already familiar cavils about the procedural details of the FBI’s work.

Durham’s mission was always questionable. After the FBI received a tip from an Australian diplomat that the Trump campaign had advance knowledge of the Russia-linked hacking of Democratic Party emails, the bureau had no responsible choice but to investigate the matter. Moreover, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation proved itself by securing an impressive series of guilty pleas from high-profile Trump associates.

Barr nevertheless gave Durham a long leash on a dubious investigation by elevating him to special counsel status. And while the relevant regulations instruct the special counsel to “provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached,” Barr also directed that the report be suitable for public dissemination “to the maximum extent possible.”

 

The result is one more illustration of why prosecutors are not supposed to accompany their decisions with editorial broadsides about the people they aren’t charging. Rather than explain his limited prosecutorial decisions, Durham issues vague critiques of officials’ conduct, including that they lacked “analytical rigor.” Elsewhere he takes the FBI to task for its handling of the investigation of Trump campaign official Carter Page, which had nothing to do with the inception of Crossfire Hurricane, the Russia investigation.

Most of this is workaday stuff that does nothing to advance the suggestion that the FBI had it in for Trump. As to that central point, Durham acknowledges that “there is no question that the FBI had an affirmative obligation to closely examine” the tip that sparked the probe.

So what is Durham’s actual difference with the bureau’s decision to launch an investigation? He reveals his hand at page 295 of the report, where the exhausted reader learns he believes the FBI could have instead taken the “sensible step” of opening a preliminary investigation that could have later escalated into a full one.

This is a mighty thin reed on which to support Durham’s insinuations of FBI misconduct. It’s also highly debatable. Information from an ally suggesting our greatest foreign adversary might be collaborating with a presidential campaign required an immediate and thorough response.

Durham’s conclusion is exactly contrary to that of the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, whose 2019 report on substantially overlapping matters found that the Australian tip was sufficient to open a full counterintelligence inquiry. Horowitz found no evidence that the FBI had any improper political motive.

It’s tempting to dismiss Durham’s report as a long-winded attempt to justify his abysmal record as special counsel. Durham took twice as long as Mueller to bring three small cases that had next to nothing to do with his central task, yielding two acquittals and one guilty plea that resulted in no prison time. Moreover, his office was roiled by controversy: His respected deputy, Nora Dannehy, resigned in 2020, reportedly out of concern that Durham was politicizing the investigation.

Unfortunately, Durham’s handiwork might not be as benign as it is insubstantial. The report will serve — indeed, it looks designed to serve — the toxic, false, far-right narrative that deep-state law enforcement agencies were out to get Trump. It’s a sort of time bomb, set in 2019 to go off now, as the 2024 campaign gets started.

Immediately after the report was released Monday, Trump proclaimed that it showed “the American Public was scammed.” Even his chief rival for the Republican nomination, Ron DeSantis, fell in line, claiming the report “confirmed what we already knew: weaponized federal agencies manufactured a false conspiracy theory about Trump-Russia collusion.” And Trump henchman Jim Jordan announced plans to hold a hearing featuring Durham as the star witness.

All of which ensures new momentum for wild-eyed theories that misinform the public, aggravate our partisan divide and provide fodder for Trump’s effort to reprise our most dangerous presidency.

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

      Harry Litman published a good summary of Durham's nothing burger this week (below.)

      What's truly "instructive" about the Durham investigation is observing the alternate reality coverage/spin about this Bill Barr/Durham nothing burger in much of our corporate M$M.

      There's no there there.

 

Why Special Counsel John Durham’s report takes so long to say so little

Special Counsel John Durham’s investigation has ended in an avalanche of verbiage.

(Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)

BY HARRY LITMAN

MAY 16, 2023 3:40 PM PT

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Show more sharing options

Rarely has a government report taken so long — in years and pages — to tell the public so little as Special Counsel John Durham’s report to the Department of Justice this week.

When then-Atty. Gen. Bill Barr appointed Durham to investigate the department’s probe of connections between Russia and Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, Trump and his true believers looked forward to revealing a criminal conspiracy within the FBI. Trump tweeted at the time that Durham would uncover the “crime of the century.”

Instead, four years after Barr first ordered Durham to investigate the investigators, he produced a ponderous, 316-page tome that interminably chews over information that has long been in the public record.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

The bottom line awaiting the minuscule percentage of the country that has the time and patience to wade through the report is a handful of small and already familiar cavils about the procedural details of the FBI’s work.

Durham’s mission was always questionable. After the FBI received a tip from an Australian diplomat that the Trump campaign had advance knowledge of the Russia-linked hacking of Democratic Party emails, the bureau had no responsible choice but to investigate the matter. Moreover, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation proved itself by securing an impressive series of guilty pleas from high-profile Trump associates.

Barr nevertheless gave Durham a long leash on a dubious investigation by elevating him to special counsel status. And while the relevant regulations instruct the special counsel to “provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached,” Barr also directed that the report be suitable for public dissemination “to the maximum extent possible.”

 

The result is one more illustration of why prosecutors are not supposed to accompany their decisions with editorial broadsides about the people they aren’t charging. Rather than explain his limited prosecutorial decisions, Durham issues vague critiques of officials’ conduct, including that they lacked “analytical rigor.” Elsewhere he takes the FBI to task for its handling of the investigation of Trump campaign official Carter Page, which had nothing to do with the inception of Crossfire Hurricane, the Russia investigation.

Most of this is workaday stuff that does nothing to advance the suggestion that the FBI had it in for Trump. As to that central point, Durham acknowledges that “there is no question that the FBI had an affirmative obligation to closely examine” the tip that sparked the probe.

So what is Durham’s actual difference with the bureau’s decision to launch an investigation? He reveals his hand at page 295 of the report, where the exhausted reader learns he believes the FBI could have instead taken the “sensible step” of opening a preliminary investigation that could have later escalated into a full one.

This is a mighty thin reed on which to support Durham’s insinuations of FBI misconduct. It’s also highly debatable. Information from an ally suggesting our greatest foreign adversary might be collaborating with a presidential campaign required an immediate and thorough response.

Durham’s conclusion is exactly contrary to that of the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, whose 2019 report on substantially overlapping matters found that the Australian tip was sufficient to open a full counterintelligence inquiry. Horowitz found no evidence that the FBI had any improper political motive.

It’s tempting to dismiss Durham’s report as a long-winded attempt to justify his abysmal record as special counsel. Durham took twice as long as Mueller to bring three small cases that had next to nothing to do with his central task, yielding two acquittals and one guilty plea that resulted in no prison time. Moreover, his office was roiled by controversy: His respected deputy, Nora Dannehy, resigned in 2020, reportedly out of concern that Durham was politicizing the investigation.

Unfortunately, Durham’s handiwork might not be as benign as it is insubstantial. The report will serve — indeed, it looks designed to serve — the toxic, false, far-right narrative that deep-state law enforcement agencies were out to get Trump. It’s a sort of time bomb, set in 2019 to go off now, as the 2024 campaign gets started.

Immediately after the report was released Monday, Trump proclaimed that it showed “the American Public was scammed.” Even his chief rival for the Republican nomination, Ron DeSantis, fell in line, claiming the report “confirmed what we already knew: weaponized federal agencies manufactured a false conspiracy theory about Trump-Russia collusion.” And Trump henchman Jim Jordan announced plans to hold a hearing featuring Durham as the star witness.

All of which ensures new momentum for wild-eyed theories that misinform the public, aggravate our partisan divide and provide fodder for Trump’s effort to reprise our most dangerous presidency.

Littman is a made member of the D-Party establishment. 

Wikipedia---

"Litman served as Pennsylvania state counsel to the Kerry-Edwards campaign in 2004 and post-election counsel for Western Pennsylvania to the Obama-Biden presidential campaign in 2008.^{[citation needed]}

As of 2020 Litman was associated with the law firm Constantine Cannon in San Francisco, where he focuses on False Claims Act cases.^[17]

Other activities[edit]

Legal commentary[edit]

Litman is the legal affairs columnist for the Los Angeles Times.^[18] He previously wrote for The Washington Post.^[19] He has provided commentary for MSNBC, CNN and Fox News.^[19]

 

Litman served as Pennsylvania state counsel to the Kerry-Edwards campaign in 2004 and post-election counsel for Western Pennsylvania to the Obama-Biden presidential campaign in 2008.^{[citation needed]}

As of 2020 Litman was associated with the law firm Constantine Cannon in San Francisco, where he focuses on False Claims Act cases.^[17]

Litman lives in La Jolla with his wife Julie Roskies Litman and their three children.^[18] Litman's sister, Jessica Litman, is a lawyer and copyright scholar at the University of Michigan. His mother was attorney Roslyn Litman.^[23] He is a member of the Democratic Party.^[24]

Littman's law firm: "Our international practice includes counseling foreign governments and companies on U.S. law and defending them in U.S. courts. We have successfully represented major corporations in international civil and criminal investigations, international arbitrations and dealings with the United Nations."

---30---

Unfortunately, we live in age when extreme unthinking partisanship defines establishment members of D-Party. 

This paragraph below seems to be obvious dissembling (even more so than the whole): 

"Durham’s mission was always questionable. After the FBI received a tip from an Australian diplomat that the Trump campaign had advance knowledge of the Russia-linked hacking of Democratic Party emails, the bureau had no responsible choice but to investigate the matter. Moreover, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation proved itself by securing an impressive series of guilty pleas from high-profile Trump associates."--Littman

Really? The FBI must follow up on any tip it receives, by launching a full-blown investigation? The FBI must get many, many tips, maybe thousands. It receives tips about the Clinton Foundation. The FBI always has a choice on how seriously to take a tip. 

And Littman's "impressive series of guilty pleas" is insincere dissembling---the Trumpsters pled guilty to tax evasion, lying on loan applications, not registering as foreign agents (which led to rash of such registrations thereafter in DC), obstruction---in large, the typical grifting and lying one sees in DC, but nothing to do with spying or collusion. 

Mueller said there was no collusion, Peter Stzrock said no collusion, Durham said no collusion.

I think there was a great deal of collusion with the weaponized intel-prosecutorial state, the D Party and allied media to torpedo Trump.  Actually this is obviously so. 

Some of this was out in the open--CIA'er Michael Morell op-eds, or the 50 Deep Staters proclaiming the Hunter Biden laptop to be Russian disinformation. 

When one ponders the D-Party COVID-19 preferred narrative and related aggressive censorship---one understands how DC works. 

I am not a Trump supporter. As of now, I like RFK Jr. 

I am just saying what happened. 

 

 

[Paul Brancato]

Haven’t most elections been fixed even before Election Day? Partisanship to the extent of cancelling the other side is binary thinking. And that type of thinking is inevitable when two political parties rig the game. We think we only have a choice of lesser evils because we are told that you are throwing your vote away otherwise. 

[Paul Brancato]

Ben and Matt - are you equal opportunity critics on both Republican and Democratic establishments? 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

Ben and Matt - are you equal opportunity critics on both Republican and Democratic establishments? 

Paul,

     Bill Barr's specious Durham psy op can't be debunked more accurately and precisely than Litman has debunked it (above) in this week's L.A. Times.

      But notice that our two MAGA-verse denizens, Ben Cole and Mathew Koch, completely dodged the precise content of Litman's critique, while resorting to deflective ad hominem criticisms of me and Litman.

     It's not a case of mere partisanship, in which "both sides do it."

     It's about reality vs. "alternate reality."

    The Durham investigation was another GOP nothing burger-- like Benghazi and White Water.

Edited May 21, 2023 by W. Niederhut

[Roger Odisio]

On 5/19/2023 at 9:26 PM, Mark Knight said:

It's time someone mentioned an "inconvenient" truth, at least for some EF members.

The Political Discussions forum isn't a recent addition to the EF. It was a part of the EF that John Simkin and Andy [I can never remember his last name] set up when the EF was established.

And moderators moving threads to their appropriate topics isn't a new concept, either. Neither is merging or splitting discussion threads. It's just that, when the ownership of the EF changed, the new administrators and mods weren't immediately familiar with using the mechanisms that are at their disposal. As time has gone on, the admins and mods have begun using these tools, as the admins and mods who came before had done. But there was a period of several years in which the new admins and mods mostly tried not to "rock the boat."

Currently, there is a point system in play before a member loses their posting privileges. And points also expire. Admins and mods are trying to take an imperfect system and improve it.

BUT...it helps if EF members would recognize that the EF is a huge site. While the JFK Assassination Discussion Forum gets the most activity, it is FAR from the ONLY area of the EF. Check out the breadth and width of The Education Forum here: Forums - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

 

Thanks for the perspective, Mark.

 

To return to the topic of this thread.  I started it to try to spark a discussion of the specific standard being used to move a thread from this forum to another. 

 

The explanation offered by Sandy so far for moving the Durham thread to Politics is that political discussion, particularly about current politics, does not help understanding of the murder. It is irrelevant; it's off-topic to the JFKA.  As I said, I think that indicates a profound lack of understanding of the JFKA as a political murder, its purpose and effects. I won't repeat my arguments.  You can see them above.

 

It should be noted that moving a thread becomes an act of censorship to folks here who, for whatever reason, only use, or want to use, this forum.  Like me.  It follows that moving a thread should only be done based on clear standards, clearly enunciated. 

 

Referencing the Durham thread, I don't see that.

 

Mark, Sandy, or any mod:  want to take another crack and explaining the standards for moving a thread, the relevance, or lack of it, of politics in the JFKA, and in particular why the Durham thread was moved?