Of course you do. If I chose to disregard the investigations of a Pulitzer-Prize winning reporter of more than 30 years, I’d have ample reason to ignore it myself.
Even the Slate article you bring up cited by jshore covers Hersh’s view of the matter. . . and doesn’t dispute it!
I’m sorry, I sincerely don’t follow you here.
I’ll start looking for that quote from the Almighty, though! Sweet mother of pearl. . .
Appeal to authority, anyone? I do not disregard Hersh automatically; the subject is disputed. Unless Hersh won his Pulitzer for this, I think I’m OK in doing so.
Yes, it makes reference to it. That’s not exactly proof that he’s right, now is it?
Your first post, the one I took issue with, made clear that you thought Joseph Kennedy rigged the election for John. Now you’re debating whether or not he fixed the Illinois election. Even if he did, JFK had enough electoral votes to win outright, so he did not “take care of the rest.”
Yes, I’m such a jerk for holding you to something you said.
Well, that is because that article doesn’t come to any definitive conclusion. It also doesn’t really dispute the views on the other side, such as:
What seems apparent is that there is considerable dispute about the election and no definitive conclusion has been reached.