Bill Browder and the Magnitsky Act. Humanitarian Act or Big Scam?
nohero said:
nan said:Your advice "it would be helpful if you actually read this thread" is something you should take. We already talked about this last weekend on this thread. It's ridiculous to write that "the US installed a president, Boris Yeltzen". He became President of the Russian Federation while the Soviet Union was still in existence. When it broke up, he stayed President of independent Russia. The oligarchs were behind him and behind Putin when he ascended to the Presidency.
It would be helpful if you actually read this thread because then you would at least see that you have asked the same questions before. The 1990's in Russia were called the lost years, because the US installed a president, Boris Yeltzen and then US and other oligarchs began to loot the country, paying pennies on the dollar for assets while the Russian people starved to death.
With all due respect, this particular faulty part of your argument is just an example of why people are not buying the whole thing, no matter how many posts or pages you put on this thread.
It's true that Yeltsin "stayed President of independent Russia," but it was the result of Bill Clinton's support during his 1996 re-election campaign.
Yeltsin's last act as President was to appoint Vladimir Putin as his successor.
So Hillary's husband Bill, by helping Yeltsin "stay President of independent Russia," is responsible for Putin being President of Russia.
In nohero-talk that makes Bill Clinton pro-Trump and pro-Putin. And unless she opposed Bill's efforts in 1996, in nohero-talk, Hillary is also pro-Trump and pro-Putin.
The year was 1996. Russia was electing a president to succeed Boris Yeltsin, whose disastrous presidency, marked by the post-Soviet social collapse and a savage war in Chechnya, had brought his approval rating down to the single digits. President Bill Clinton decided that American interests would be best served by finding a way to re-elect Yeltsin despite his deep unpopularity. Yeltsin was ill, chronically alcoholic, and seen in Washington as easy to control. Clinton bonded with him. He was our “Manchurian Candidate.”
“I guess we’ve just got to pull up our socks and back ol’ Boris again,” Clinton told an aide. “I know the Russian people have to pick a president, and I know that means we’ve got to stop short of giving a nominating speech for the guy. But we’ve got to go all the way in helping in every other respect.” Later Clinton was even more categorical: “I want this guy to win so bad it hurts.” With that, the public and private resources of the United States were thrown behind a Russian presidential candidate.
Part of the American plan was public. Clinton began praising Yeltsin as a world-class statesman. He defended Yeltsin’s scorched-earth tactics in Chechnya, comparing him to Abraham Lincoln for his dedication to keeping a nation together. As for Yeltsin’s bombardment of the Russian Parliament in 1993, which cost 187 lives, Clinton insisted that his friend had “bent over backwards” to avoid it. He stopped mentioning his plan to extend NATO toward Russia’s borders, and never uttered a word about the ravaging of Russia’s formerly state-owned economy by kleptocrats connected to Yeltsin. Instead he gave them a spectacular gift.
Four months before the election, Clinton arranged for the International Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10.2 billion injection of cash. Yeltsin used some of it to pay for election-year raises and bonuses, but much quickly disappeared into the foreign bank accounts of Russian oligarchs. The message was clear: Yeltsin knows how to shake the Western money tree. In case anyone missed it, Clinton came to Moscow a few weeks later to celebrate with his Russian partner. Oligarchs flocked to Yeltsin’s side. American diplomats persuaded one of his rivals to drop out of the presidential race in order to improve his chances.
Four American political consultants moved to Moscow to help direct Yeltsin’s campaign. The campaign paid them $250,000 per month for advice on “sophisticated methods of polling, voter contact and campaign organization.” They organized focus groups and designed advertising messages aimed at stoking voters’ fears of civil unrest. When they saw a CNN report from Moscow saying that voters were gravitating toward Yeltsin because they feared unrest, one of the consultants shouted in triumph: “It worked! The whole strategy worked. They’re scared to death!”
jamie said:
ok, so you have zero evidence on why Magnitsky was arrested with supporting evidence.
He was put in prison related to possible tax evasion. Did you read my last post?
Also, just found this document related to the lawyer in the Trump Tower meeting:
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Veselnitskaya%20Exhibits_redacted.pdf
Veselnitskaya Exhibits_redacted.pdf
Due to the unpaid taxes, a criminal tax investigation started against Browder in 2006. (Document 281-3). That criminal investigation led to charges against Browder and Magnitsky. (Document 419-5; Magnitsky November 25, 2008 Interrogation Statement). Browder was eventually convicted ( although the charges against Magnitsky were dismissed, contrary to Browder's repeated public statements). (Document 422-16; Document 422-17).
Also found this from that document:
Browder's website, www.RussianUntouchables.com, contains intentionally misleading translations to justify Browder's story. The description on the website about Magnitsky's June 5, 2008 interrogation provides that "Sergei stated that he had discovered evidence of theft of Hermitage Fund companies (Rilend, Makhaon, and Parfenion) and violations of the law by officers Artem Kuznetsov and Pavel Karpov. ,,4 A proper translation shows that no accusations were made against these two officers. Magnitsky mentions Kuznetsov as the investigator who was looking into the Hermitage companies and their assets (which was done in pursuance of a legitimate tax investigation). (Magnitsky June 5, 2008 Interrogation Statement). Magnitsky also mentions Karpov and Kuznetsov a number of times in connection with providing a summons for an investigation and conducting questioning. (Magnitsky June 5, 2008 Interrogation Statement). In fact, Magnitsky actually states that ''unknown persons started actively destroying the evidence of their unlawful activities." (Magnitsky June 5, 2008 Interrogation Statement at 9) (emphasis added). But Magnitsky never made accusations against Kuznetsov or Karpov.
dave said:
Nekrosov needs to create doubt and useful idiots to market his crappy documentary and avoid becoming another Russian who committed suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head four times. Meanwhile the dead guy remains dead at the hands of Russia's brutal regime. And nan is here to tell us that saying 'I don't recall' to a creep on a fishing expedition to get names for Putin is evidence of something. b.s. Either you're being dense or pretending to be dense.
OK, if Putin is so murderous, why is Mikhail Khodorkovsky still alive? Cause that guy is actively plotting to take over and he bankrolled the Magnitsky Act. If I were Putin, I'd do something about him.
And if Nekrosov's evidence is crappy, where is the evidence to support Bill Browder? Sorry, but you can't just say I don't know, I don't remember in court. That does not hold up. They asked him if he asked Magnistsky to take the fall and about paying off a witness to change his story he said, "I don't remember." He could have said no to that one, right? Not like Magnitsky is going to get wacked and his family has moved to another country.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:It's true that Yeltsin "stayed President of independent Russia," but it was the result of Bill Clinton's support during his 1996 re-election campaign.
nan said:Your advice "it would be helpful if you actually read this thread" is something you should take. We already talked about this last weekend on this thread. It's ridiculous to write that "the US installed a president, Boris Yeltzen". He became President of the Russian Federation while the Soviet Union was still in existence. When it broke up, he stayed President of independent Russia. The oligarchs were behind him and behind Putin when he ascended to the Presidency.
It would be helpful if you actually read this thread because then you would at least see that you have asked the same questions before. The 1990's in Russia were called the lost years, because the US installed a president, Boris Yeltzen and then US and other oligarchs began to loot the country, paying pennies on the dollar for assets while the Russian people starved to death.
With all due respect, this particular faulty part of your argument is just an example of why people are not buying the whole thing, no matter how many posts or pages you put on this thread.
Yeltsin's last act as President was to appoint Vladimir Putin as his successor.
So Hillary's husband Bill, by helping Yeltsin "stay President of independent Russia," is responsible for Putin being President of Russia.
In nohero-talk that makes Bill Clinton pro-Trump and pro-Putin. And unless she opposed Bill's efforts in 1996, in nohero-talk, Hillary is also pro-Trump and pro-Putin.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/08/18/how-interfere-foreign-election/M4JZpgqpqiOsPXbTKPAu5L/story.html?event=event12
Ha! You make a good point there!
drummerboy said:
this thread grows like a fungus.
Maybe you should actually read it and participate more. Here is a catch-up guide:
Here is the first link I provided--you only have to watch the first 30 minutes:
Here is the link to the Andrei Nekrasov film:
https://off-guardian.org/2018/08/12/the-magnitsky-act-behind-the-scenes-available-on-vimeo/
Here is a link to the Alex Krainer book:
https://thirdalliance.ch/product/grand-deception-the-browder-hoax/
Here is a link to the Lucy Komisar Scoop page on the Browder Hoax:
Here is the senate testimony of Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who was at the Trump Tower meeting. https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000161-0605-da22-ad65-67efbb000001
She gives lots of details and provides lots of answers to questions about the meeting and Bill Browder. In this excerpt she gives a high level overview of the case, says Browder could have paid his taxes and gotten Magnitsky out of jail and mentions Hillary Clinton.
Magnitsky had never been a lawyer, nor had he ever investigated or reported a theft of $230 million
US from the Russian treasury; he had never been arrested for that, nor was he asked to rescind his
testimony; he was never beaten and he did not die of beatings and torture, including beatings and
torture for his alleged refusal to rescind the allegations that he had never made, at least not until after he was arrested. After 10 months in his court-imposed custody, Magnitsky (who had been interrogated 9 times and 12 times had appealed to the court regarding his detention (each two months before the court of first and second instances) had not mentioned anything of the kind that could resemble the wordings Browder repeatedly (more than 10 times) used in July 2017 at the meeting of the Senate Committee: “uncovered a USD 230 million tax fraud, testified against corrupt police officers who put him under arrest for that.”) on October 14, 20092 read to investigator Silchenko a previously concocted statement he had received electronically, which, four months prior to that, had been spoken about by his employer, William Browder, in New York, at the Senator Cardin’s Helsinki Commission meeting. One month later Magnitsky died. The criminal case concerning a theft of 5.4 billion roubles (which is about 217 not 230 million dollars) from the Russian treasury was not initiated based on reports submitted by Magnitsky or anyone else from among Browder’s employees, and it had been investigated by the Russian law-enforcement authorities before Magnitsky’s arrest. Magnitsky was never interrogated under that case nor was he prosecuted under that or any other criminal case other than the one under which both him and Browder were accused of conspiring, in 2001, to commit tax fraud involving false recruitment of people with disabilities and without appropriate education in the capacity of financial analysts of Hermitage Fund. And if Browder, who has been absconding from law enforcement authorities since 2008, and has been under investigation since 2004, had a real desire to get Magnitsky released from custody, nothing would have prevented him from paying his past due taxes in the amount of approximately $19 million USD that were detected by the tax authorities as early as 2003 and 2005 and were found to be fraudulent tax evasion by courts held with participation of Browder’s employees and the case would have been closed in compliance with the Russian laws. Browder, however, chose a different tactic – in May 2008, he hired a US lobbying firm of Jonathan Winer, a former assistant to the US Secretary of State, and went to Congress to lay down the groundwork required to obtain immunity for himself and attack the entire Russian system. And when Magnitsky, who was getting ready for trial, and after reading for the record the statement that was delivered to him on an electronic medium by an unknown person died in the pretrial detention facility, Browder and everyone behind him who had theretofore been silent about him acquired at least an opportunity to use Magnitsky’s death to turn him into a martyr and to create a picture of all-consuming corruption in Russia in case someone in the USA decides to start investigating the real facts of their illegal actions and crimes they may have committed against the American people. I have named these people before and I will name them again: William Browder, and a group of unidentified individuals from the American corporation ZIFF Brothers who in 2007 profited approximately US$1 billion from the criminal activities committed in the territory of the Russian Federation, including, as it became known later, 66 million shares of the Russian gas giant having concealed from the USA controlling authorities the entire story of the high yield investing in Russia. I sent this information to the investigation authorities and the Russian General Prosecutor’s Office5 in October 2015 and was prepared to provide this information, alongside all the details and supporting documents, to any US politician or journalist, including Mrs. Clinton, which I have always spoken about as well, including in all my written comments and video interviews and which was not broadly covered by mass media.
nan said:
drummerboy said:Maybe you should actually read it and participate more. ...
this thread grows like a fungus.
actually, I think an application of ointment would be more appropriate.
nan said:
paulsurovell said:Ha! You make a good point there!
nohero said:It's true that Yeltsin "stayed President of independent Russia," but it was the result of Bill Clinton's support during his 1996 re-election campaign.
nan said:Your advice "it would be helpful if you actually read this thread" is something you should take. We already talked about this last weekend on this thread. It's ridiculous to write that "the US installed a president, Boris Yeltzen". He became President of the Russian Federation while the Soviet Union was still in existence. When it broke up, he stayed President of independent Russia. The oligarchs were behind him and behind Putin when he ascended to the Presidency.
It would be helpful if you actually read this thread because then you would at least see that you have asked the same questions before. The 1990's in Russia were called the lost years, because the US installed a president, Boris Yeltzen and then US and other oligarchs began to loot the country, paying pennies on the dollar for assets while the Russian people starved to death.
With all due respect, this particular faulty part of your argument is just an example of why people are not buying the whole thing, no matter how many posts or pages you put on this thread.
Yeltsin's last act as President was to appoint Vladimir Putin as his successor.
So Hillary's husband Bill, by helping Yeltsin "stay President of independent Russia," is responsible for Putin being President of Russia.
In nohero-talk that makes Bill Clinton pro-Trump and pro-Putin. And unless she opposed Bill's efforts in 1996, in nohero-talk, Hillary is also pro-Trump and pro-Putin.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/08/18/how-interfere-foreign-election/M4JZpgqpqiOsPXbTKPAu5L/story.html?event=event12
No, it's a stupid "point", for two reasons.
He's quoting a recent opinion piece, written with an eye to equating what he describes the U.S. doing and what Russia did in 2016. Even as described by him, it's not even close to being similar. It would be similar if Putin made a public show of preferring Trump, and took foreign policy actions which helped Trump - not the sneaky business that's been outlined.
I'm not even going to address the merits of the thesis that it was Bill Clinton who made the difference for Yeltsin. As I wrote before, Yeltsin had the levers of power, including state media. He also had excessive campaign spending, and the support of the oligarchs against a candidate who represented a return to the Communist system that the oligarchs didn't want to see happen. There are contemporaneous studies which attribute that combination of business support and abuse of government power to Yeltsin's victory, not Bill Clinton. Some examples:
"Russian Election Watch" in "The Russian Elections Compendium"
"In pursuit of the Russian presidency: Why and how Yeltsin won the 1996 presidential election"
The last is just an abstract of an article behind an academic paywall, but the abstract sums it up:
"This article seeks to explain why Boris Yeltsin was able to win 1996 Russian presidential election despite prolonged economic crisis and the war in Chechnya. The paper advances the argument which emphasizes Yeltsin's ability to recreate political and social alliances which were crucial to his previous electoral successes, on the one hand, and poor electoral strategy and political beliefs of Yeltsin's main challenger, the head of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Gennady Zyuganov, on the other. In particular, the paper highlights Yeltsin's campaign strategy of turning the election into a referendum on communism rather on his own record and the success of his two candidates only strategy. The paper also argues that Zyuganov communist-nationalist, rather than social-democratic, world view determined his electoral strategy and played a major role in his electoral defeat."
So lots of people have their opinions. The experts and those who were on-the-ground aren't big on the "Bill Clinton did it" theory.
And second, his "point" invents what he says is my position, as a straw man to write what he thinks is clever. I don't call anyone "pro-Putin", for starters. I also wouldn't call anyone "pro-Putin" if something they said or did had unintended consequences.
But when someone pushes talking points that try to absolve or excuse or minimize or deliberately obscure obvious "bad acts", then that person is helping (even if they think they're not) to advance the interests of Putin.
Finally, even if for the sake of argument we accept the equating of U.S. and Russian actions, that's not a reason to ignore Russian actions, or stop looking into them. "That doesn’t mean alleged interference by the Russian regime shouldn’t be taken seriously. Putin heads a hard-right, kleptocratic, authoritarian government that persecutes LGBT people, waged a murderous war in Chechnya, and has committed terrible crimes in Syria in alliance with Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorship. It is a pin-up for populist rightwingers across the west, from Trump to Ukip, from France’s Front National to Austria’s Freedom party. Its undemocratic manoeuvres should be scrutinised and condemned."
nohero said:I'm not even going to address the merits of the thesis that it was Bill Clinton who made the difference for Yeltsin.
Of course you won't address Kinzer's thesis because it shows that Bill -- and likely Hillary -- are responsible for Putin being in power, which makes them, according to nohero-logic, pro-Putin and pro-Trump.
In particular, you won't address Kinzer's point that
Clinton arranged for the International Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10.2 billion injection of cash. Yeltsin used some of it to pay for election-year raises and bonuses, but much quickly disappeared into the foreign bank accounts of Russian oligarchs.
which shows the confluence of Clinton's support for Yeltsin and the support of the Russian oligarchy. A $10.2 billion bribe in Russia goes a long way.
You avoid that fact because it pops your infantile bubble that Bill and Hillary are blameless and that anyone who criticizes them is pro-Trump and pro-Putin, whereas in fact -- Bill (and likely Hillary) helped bring Putin into power, which by your logic makes them pro-Trump and pro-Putin.
paulsurovell said:
You avoid that fact because it pops your infantile bubble that Bill and Hillary are blameless and that anyone who criticizes them is pro-Trump and pro-Putin, whereas in fact -- Bill (and likely Hillary) helped bring Putin into power, which by your logic makes them pro-Trump and pro-Putin.
If A (Clinton) supports B (Yeltsin/Putin), and B leads to C (Putin/Trump), logic does not dictate that A supports C. And any logic that argues X supports C two decades later is separate.
That aside, I noted weeks ago that Yeltsin elevated Putin. Since one can only conclude the U.S. was on board with that, it follows that Putin is a U.S. stooge acting in concert with the Deep State toward some outcome that’s beyond our comprehension.
Where’s the evidence proving that wrong?
DaveSchmidt said:
paulsurovell said:If A (Clinton) supports B (Yeltsin/Putin), and B leads to C (Putin/Trump), logic does not dictate that A supports C. And any logic that argues X supports C two decades later is separate.
You avoid that fact because it pops your infantile bubble that Bill and Hillary are blameless and that anyone who criticizes them is pro-Trump and pro-Putin, whereas in fact -- Bill (and likely Hillary) helped bring Putin into power, which by your logic makes them pro-Trump and pro-Putin.
That aside, I noted weeks ago that Yeltsin elevated Putin. Since one can only conclude the U.S. was on board with that, it follows that Putin is a U.S. stooge acting in concert with the Deep State toward some outcome that’s beyond our comprehension.
Where’s the evidence proving that wrong?
Nobody in his right mind could argue with what you've proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, with geometric logic.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:Of course you won't address Kinzer's thesis because it shows that Bill -- and likely Hillary -- are responsible for Putin being in power, which makes them, according to nohero-logic, pro-Putin and pro-Trump.
I'm not even going to address the merits of the thesis that it was Bill Clinton who made the difference for Yeltsin.
In particular, you won't address Kinzer's point that
Clinton arranged for the International Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10.2 billion injection of cash. Yeltsin used some of it to pay for election-year raises and bonuses, but much quickly disappeared into the foreign bank accounts of Russian oligarchs.which shows the confluence of Clinton's support for Yeltsin and the support of the Russian oligarchy. A $10.2 billion bribe in Russia goes a long way.
You avoid that fact because it pops your infantile bubble that Bill and Hillary are blameless and that anyone who criticizes them is pro-Trump and pro-Putin, whereas in fact -- Bill (and likely Hillary) helped bring Putin into power, which by your logic makes them pro-Trump and pro-Putin.
I didn't address it, but I provided cites to contemporaneous sources that show the theory you're pushing is wrong. Obviously, you chose not to read them (hint, there's even a little gift to you in one of the reports, where they do discuss what the U.S. was doing at the time, although that's not a major factor in the analysis). They have the benefit of being written long before anyone wanted to equate Russian actions in 2016 with past U.S. actions.
I already responded to your "nohero-logic" nonsense. You repeated it, which means you're calling me a liar. Nice behavior that you've picked up from spending too much time aping the tweeter-in-chief.
I don't have an "infantile bubble", I have an informed worldview.
The Trump collusion subforum will be renamed Russian collusion subforum and this thread will be moving there tomorrow.
I read the whole senate testimony of Natalia Veselnitskaya, today and it goes into such detail about Browder and his crimes and how he abandoned Magnitskky and now uses him as a shield to save his butt. If you don't want to pay for the movie or the book, I would highly recommend reading this.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000161-0605-da22-ad65-67efbb000001
I read the Russian chapters of Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine book today and it was a real eye opener. She goes into detail about how the US propped up Yeltsin and helped loot the country and did not care about the Russian people who were starving. Middle class people were selling their stuff on card tables. Yeltsin disbanded democracy in the name of democracy. Over 100,000 people died, including the people of Chechnya. Whole industries were sold off for pennies on the dollar. Yeltsen started the war in Chechnya to help his popularity. His national security chief said, "We need a small, victorious war to raise the president's ratings." But, Yeltsin still did not have the numbers and they almost had to cancel the vote. Still, Bill Clinton called him, "genuinely committed to freedom and democracy, genuinely committed to reform." This was a guy who, with support from the west, abolished the constitution and dissolved parliament. Then he sent in troops and started shooting. So, you can see why the Russian people prefer Putin and why Klein says this:
In Russia, the Putin era is seen by many as a similar backlash against the shock therapy era. With tens of millions of impoverished citizens still excluded form the fast-growing economy, politicians have no difficulty riling up public sentiment about the events of the early nineties, which are frequently portrayed as a foreign conspiracy to bring the Soviet empire to its knees and put Russia "under external management." Despite the fact that Putin's legal moves against several oligarchs have mostly been symbolic--with a new breed of "state oligarch" rising around the Kremlin--the memory of the chaos of the nineties has made many Russians grateful for the order Putin has restored, even as growing numbers of journalists and other critics die mysteriously and the secret police enjoy seemingly total impunity.
What is clear is that the real reason the US hates Putin is because he's not in their pocket. They really don't give a crap about human rights. Yeltsin treated the Russian people worse than Putin, but the US thought he was great cause he was their guy.
jamie said:
The Trump collusion subforum will be renamed Russian collusion subforum and this thread will be moving there tomorrow.
So, basically, you are putting us in the sub-basement. Gee thanks for the censorship. Hopefully at least few people found this thread informative and realized, based on sound evidence, that Bill Browder is a fraud and the new Cold War is propaganda. Others will have something to think about and there are a few with very closed off minds that don't even want to discuss threatening ideas not covered on establishment news. I worked hard on this and did a lot of research and learned a lot.
sbenois said:
Probably best just to shut them both down.
So admirable. You must be so proud of yourself. A Democrat embracing censorship!
sbenois said:
Sounds like a great thing to do on a beautiful Sunday.
I was outside at the beach. It was very readable and through. I was surprised at the detailed explanations. She is very driven to get him. I'm on her side. I hope she does.
nan said:
jamie said:So, basically, you are putting us in the sub-basement. Gee thanks for the censorship. Hopefully at least few people found this thread informative and realized, based on sound evidence, that Bill Browder is a fraud and the new Cold War is propaganda. Others will have something to think about and there are a few with very closed off minds that don't even want to discuss threatening ideas not covered on establishment news. I worked hard on this and did a lot of research and learned a lot.
The Trump collusion subforum will be renamed Russian collusion subforum and this thread will be moving there tomorrow.
This is as accurate an example of censorship as your incessant complaints of personal attacks.
No censorship - just moving it - many of us who care about it will be checking and responding. It does not need to be front and center for everyone every 5 minutes on the main board.
I this the most revealing part of this thread is the infiltration of Russian media into the US.
jamie said:
No censorship - just moving it - many of us who care about it will be checking and responding. It does not need to be front and center for everyone every 5 minutes on the main board.
I this the most revealing part of this thread is the infiltration of Russian media into the US.
Moving it to where it will not be seen. So what if it is front and center for everyone to see? That means there is lots of activity and interest. You would not move a different topic to the sub-basement. Clearly you are afraid of "infiltration." It has done something to your critical thinking ability.
Yes - very afraid of infiltration affecting my critical thinking ability. Thanks for another insult!
nan said:
Moving it to where it will not be seen. So what if it is front and center for everyone to see? That means there is lots of activity and interest.
No, it doesn’t. I could create five discussions on my own and keep them at the top of the page even if I were the only one posting to them. Or just me and a small cadre of repliers intent on showing I’m wrong. It’d be no measure of general MOL interest or activity.
Personally, I find a Politics-free main queue where Smudgy Paint, Songs of the ’80s, Adirondack Chairs and Bee Relocation can find some breathing room refreshing.
ETA: Strike that last sentence. I still wouldn’t mind the consolidation, but I realize I misstated Jamie’s idea of renaming the subforum, not the thread.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:No, it doesn’t. I could create five discussions on my own and keep them at the top of the page even if I were the only one posting to them. Or just me and a small cadre of repliers intent on showing I’m wrong. It’d be no measure of general MOL interest or activity.
Moving it to where it will not be seen. So what if it is front and center for everyone to see? That means there is lots of activity and interest.
Personally, I find a Politics-free main queue where Smudgy Paint, Songs of the ’80s Adirondack Chairs and Bee Relocation can find some breathing room refreshing. I’d object to renaming Paul’s collusion thread, but wouldn’t mind if it were absorbed into the Politics subforum for one-stop perusing.
Whatever, it is soon to have zero interest. I'm fine with politics being put off to the side--but all topics should be included. And yes, Paul's thread should be included too. It gets very little attention stuck where it is and I guess that's the reason it was moved. There is nothing wrong with his topic. Neither Paul nor I have been infiltrated. The McCarthyism revival is frightening.
Nan - are you helping Dana to get re-elected - sounds like he shares similar stances to you:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/us/politics/dana-rohrabacher-russia-spies.html
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Free Items
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Advertisement
Nekrosov needs to create doubt and useful idiots to market his crappy documentary and avoid becoming another Russian who committed suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head four times. Meanwhile the dead guy remains dead at the hands of Russia's brutal regime. And nan is here to tell us that saying 'I don't recall' to a creep on a fishing expedition to get names for Putin is evidence of something. b.s. Either you're being dense or pretending to be dense.