Donald Trump

[thomas00]

Ummm, that's why I used the word "bizarre" to describe the recounts. Cause a forth place finisher never previously requested one.

I disagree with the idea that a "functioning democracy" means that recount should never be "controversial." Recounts cost money and time. There should certainly be a purpose to that time and investment. There certainly didn't seem to be in the recounts Stein was demanding. Also, what proof do you have that a recount is more accurate than the initial count?

If your argument against recounts rests on time and money I don't see what the problem is. Firstly, the person calling for the recount raised the money. It didn't cost every taxpayer, only those who wanted the recount. Secondly, it didn't cost anybody time except for those who's job description actually involves having to do recounts.

As for accuracy, I suggest googling 'recount finds irregularities' if you want a lifetime's worth of articles which evidence this.

Would you honestly feel like your country was more democratic if the authorities refused the requests of any citizens for a recount and the courts just appointed your Presidents ala W Bush?

Geez.

It amazes me you still deny the existence of Wikileaks. Here's a specific example- Re: sorry to bother... - WikiLeaks

Even if I accept for argument's sake that this evidence of 'active collusion', which I really don't, it is obviously so naive to think that this doesn't happen in every other media organisation with other politicians and corporate PR people. You seem to be utterly convinced this is something new and only occurs with one particular political party. It's ridiculous.

You now have a president who has declared the media the 'enemy of the people' and claims that the only trustworthy information comes from him. But you are getting your knickers in a twist over a single journalist corresponding with a political organizer for a story that probably only partisan Democrats would have read anyway.

So, what exactly where the protestors protesting? Do you know? I don't. I do think some were paid, and as with many protests, I think some of the people there were just joining in purely for social reasons. I saw plenty of marches and protests when I lived in Hollywood. I don't remember the message of any of them, nor did I think most of the protesters actually know what they were supporting or protesting.

Perhaps you just didn't want to listen, that's why you didn't hear them. It's blindingly obvious to most people what was being protested- the ban. I guess if you were pro-ban then you are unlikely to pay attention to what they wanted.

You say you 'think' some of them were paid. Suspicion and speculation is not evidence. It's not rational.

Trump's supporters are merely operating from a bunch of wild conspiratorial beliefs, and then sometimes marshalling (very weak) evidence to try and justify those beliefs. They're not letting the facts inform their views. It's the other way around.

As for your "Including from Conservatives," include the name of the conservative or conservatives you are referring too, and what their specific objection was.

Some conservatives chime in: Trump immigrant ban is not American
Many conservatives dismissive of appellate court's travel-ban ruling against Trump

That's not splitting hairs at all. Implying that "Scientists" are being gagged suggests that there is widespread censorship going on. Not the case here at all. Here is the first paragraph of the article-

"Pres. Donald Trump’s administration moved quickly this week to shore up its control over communications with the public and the press, as officials at the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture e-mailed staff to inform them that they may no longer discuss agency research or departmental restrictions with anyone outside of the agency—including news media. Both agencies also told their scientists and other staff that press releases and external communications about taxpayer-funded work would stop until further notice. It remains unclear if these will be temporary or long-term policies."

It's there in bold and you can't even admit it.

 

[thomas00]

That's not the truth of government run healthcare. Government run healthcare will never be as efficient, afforable or high quality as free-market healthcare, and the reason is not complicated- it comes down to competition. Without competition government run healthcare will always be more expensive to cover the rising costs of everyone involved in the government run industry, and the legislation will always be drafted by politicians and lawyers whose motives will forever be tainted by corruption.

Universal healthcare systems top the list of most efficient.

U.S. Health-Care System Ranks as One of the Least-Efficient

Obama care was nothing more that a con by the major healthcare companies.

Agreed

 

[thomas00]

Unfortunately even if I were to show you an unlimited amount of evidence proving my case you still would not be able to accept it.

I am sure it’s very comforting to you to ignore everything that contradicts your preconceived view of the world as a conspiracy theory or paranoia. This way you don’t have to investigate anything not spoon fed to you on the evening news and can dismiss anyone who says otherwise with personal insults. Unfortunately even if I were to show you an unlimited amount of evidence proving my case you still would not be able to accept it. You need to research it for yourself and even then, there is no guarantee that the truth would get through.

Condescending comments about we'll never know the 'truth' because we're all too brainwashed (unlike you) are not substitute for evidence rational conversation.

You are obviously afraid of having your beliefs scrutinised. I probably would be too if I were you.

 

[Ahanu]

Don't be ingenuous. You know what I'm saying. You are shifting the discussion on the quality of the Ninth's decisions to the negative partiality of the Supreme Court towards the Ninth. You are not missing a lot, you are deflecting the discussion. Of course the Supreme Court will pick the cases that have the highest chances to be reversed. To not do so would be pretty stupid of them.

I was just explaining you why you can not measure the quality of the ninth decisions taking just the cases the supreme Court pics. Too Small for a Sample etc.. you questioning the quality but with no proof or argument.

 

[x-ray peat]

Condescending comments about we'll never know the 'truth' because we're all too brainwashed (unlike you) are not substitute for evidence rational conversation.
You are obviously afraid of having your beliefs scrutinised. I probably would be too if I were you.

I am only saying that if you want to know the scary truth about how the world works, you have to go out and find it for yourself. I can’t do the work for you. It’s well known that any information that conflicts with a person’s most deeply held belief system will be rejected outright. The cognitive dissonance is too painful and its too easy to find fault in the person causing that pain. Plato wrote about this long ago with the Allegory of the Cave. The ex-KGB agent makes this point as well. And given your lack of reaction to what I find to be very compelling testimony only further proves that point.

But if you are interested in doing the work yourself I would suggest watching some of Walter Veith’s lectures online. He is a former tenured Professor who has put together 100s of hours of research backed lectures on the subject. Then you can check his research for yourself. Again I am not saying I am any smarter than you but only that it is impossible for me or anyone else to change your belief system. Only you can do that. I think Bob Marley wrote about this as well.

 

[Ahanu]

Unfortunately even if I were to show you an unlimited amount of evidence proving my case you still would not be able to accept it

the Problem is that there is no unlimited amount of evidence.

 

[sladerunner69]

Universal healthcare systems top the list of most efficient.

U.S. Health-Care System Ranks as One of the Least-Efficient



Agreed

I don't put a lot of stock in lsits like that, statisticians have all sorts of vague intentions.

 

[Ahanu]

I don't put a lot of stock in lsits like that, statisticians have all sorts of vague intentions.

haha, classic

 

[yerrag]

I was just explaining you why you can not measure the quality of the ninth decisions taking just the cases the supreme Court pics. Too Small for a Sample etc.. you questioning the quality but with no proof or argument.

I argue the percentage of cases the Supreme Court reverses as proof, and you say the sample size is not enough. I say that gives me basis for questioning the quality of the Ninth's decisions, and you argue that the Supreme Court has an eye for reversing the Ninth's rulings (at least you imply it). Sure, the first time I met fire it hurt me, I don't need a sample size to tell me not to mess with fire the next time around.

 

[x-ray peat]

the Problem is that there is no unlimited amount of evidence.

The problem is not with the amount of evidence. The problem is your "condemnation before investigation."

 

[Ahanu]

I argue the percentage of cases the Supreme Court reverses as proof, and you say the sample size is not enough. I say that gives me basis for questioning the quality of the Ninth's decisions, and you argue that the Supreme Court has an eye for reversing the Ninth's rulings (at least you imply it). Sure, the first time I met fire it hurt me, I don't need a sample size to tell me not to mess with fire the next time around.

my bad, i was assuming you know what an unbiased (representative) sample is. This you would need if you want to draw any valuable conclusion. But either you do not know that fact or you are willfully ignoring it just to be able to hold on to your argument. your fire analogy is beyond intelligence. maybe you are a genius? and i did not imply that the supreme court has an eye for reversing the ninth´s ruling. as i told you before the ninth´s is not even on the top.

 

[yerrag]

my bad, i was assuming you know what an unbiased (representative) sample is. This you would need if you want to draw any valuable conclusion. But either you do not know that fact or you are willfully ignoring it just to be able to hold on to your argument. your fire analogy is beyond intelligence. maybe you are a genius? and i did not imply that the supreme court has an eye for reversing the ninth´s ruling. as i told you before the ninth´s is not even on the top.

Perhaps you are too educated to realize not every observation needs the rigidity or rigor of sample sizing. Perhaps you also do focus groups on what you should eat for breakfast? My bad as well.

 

[x-ray peat]

Ray Peat actually believes it to be the reverse. That anticommunist groups like the Congress of cultural freedom were using CIA money to manipulate culture and science to control the population. Science and culture was shape by anticommunist groups and fronts during the cold war. So today, the current trends and ideas are still backwards in many ways scientifically. That video has no relation to reality. I would say that video is part of the brainwashing done to remove any realistically reflections of reality.

I stand corrected. Ray does actually talk about the CIA funding both sides, left and right and not just the right.
from another thread Ray Peat On Donald Trump

"The huge amount of money the CIA had from the Marshall Plan allowed them, starting around 1950, to shape the culture and political movements in the US, providing carrots to complement the FBI’s sticks. Their biggest achievement has probably been to obliterate coherent thinking about the meaning of “left” and “right” in politics. People with policies very much like Mussolini’s call themselves liberals, and promote war. ...“Identity politics” has been a powerful way to distract people from their economic interests. As soon as M.L. King made the issue class, rather than race, he was killed. Many prominent “leftists” have been agents of the FBI or CIA, in the promotion of that cultural confusion."
On culture, government, and social class

 

[thomas00]

The quotes indicate they were not leftists but agents provocateurs/posers. People who advocate non-leftists principles aren't leftist. They can still be democratic party voters though.

 

[thomas00]

I am only saying that if you want to know the scary truth about how the world works, you have to go out and find it for yourself. I can’t do the work for you. It’s well known that any information that conflicts with a person’s most deeply held belief system will be rejected outright. The cognitive dissonance is too painful and its too easy to find fault in the person causing that pain. Plato wrote about this long ago with the Allegory of the Cave. The ex-KGB agent makes this point as well. And given your lack of reaction to what I find to be very compelling testimony only further proves that point.

But if you are interested in doing the work yourself I would suggest watching some of Walter Veith’s lectures online. He is a former tenured Professor who has put together 100s of hours of research backed lectures on the subject. Then you can check his research for yourself. Again I am not saying I am any smarter than you but only that it is impossible for me or anyone else to change your belief system. Only you can do that. I think Bob Marley wrote about this as well.

Does your view of the world come from a single person?

 

[thomas00]

For the posters who think 'only the left' could engage in authoritarian and violent behaviour

So I'm watching an interview with Gavin McInness talking about his 'Proud Boys' organization. Apparently 'degrees' are obtained by the members, one of which involves spreading their view through violence or some kind of altercation. He relayed a story of some members 'ploughing' through a crowd of other protesters, presumably people holding views they don't agree with. A look on their reddit page tells us a bit more about their beliefs:

1. Abolish Prison
2. Legalize All Drugs
3. Pro-gun
4. No white guilt
5. We want to BUILD A WALL
6. We're traditionalists
7. We believe in eliminating the government except for The Military and The Police.
8. Free Market runs everything (venerate the entrepreneur
9. We know MOST women are happier at home.
10. We're not scared to ******* fight

What makes a Proud Boy? • r/proudboys

So we have a white pride, Pro-Trump group of right wingers who want to abolish the government but leave the military and police (obvious where that goes) and who are prepared to use violence, and apparently already have done, to spread their views.

And their loyalty is to a President who has sanctioned and encouraged foreign hacking into his political opponent's computers and branded all of the media 'the enemy'.


It all looks a bit familiar.

 

[x-ray peat]

The quotes indicate they were not leftists but agents provocateurs/posers. People who advocate non-leftists principles aren't leftist. They can still be democratic party voters though.

Does your view of the world come from a single person?

I bet you think that is a logical argument. But thank you for proving Bezmenov's point that no amount of proof could wake someone to the truth who doesn't want to be woken. I could give you a list of hundred's of authors to read and it wouldn't make a difference. Even when Ray, who I assume you respect, tells you that the the CIA and FBI funded "prominent" members of the left you still dismiss it without looking into it. If you did some research you could see that these prominent people are not agent provocateurs but the actual leaders of the movements. The honest leaders they can't control are forced out or assassinated. This is true for the right as well.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

I love Gavin.

So we have a white pride,

Hey Thomas, do you know what anti means when he writes anti-Nazi?

Also, at what age did you start to hate the west and wish Sharia law on everyone?

.

 

[jaguar43]

I bet you think that is a logical argument. But thank you for proving Bezmenov's point that no amount of proof could wake someone to the truth who doesn't want to be woken. I could give you a list of hundred's of authors to read and it wouldn't make a difference. Even when Ray, who I assume you respect, tells you that the the CIA and FBI funded "prominent" members of the left you still dismiss it without looking into it. If you did some research you could see that these prominent people are not agent provocateurs but the actual leaders of the movements. The honest leaders they can't control are forced out or assassinated. This is true for the right as well.

I don't think you understand what Peat meant. He was referring to how the CIA funded a leftist agenda that wasn't really leftist compared to the older times. But a variation cultural and racial issues, instead of economic issues. By redefining what it meant to be a leftist, they could divert it away from it's economic issues.

Since then, the meaning of “left” and “right” has been detached from class. “Identity politics” has been a powerful way to distract people from their economic interests. As soon as M.L. King made the issue class, rather than race, he was killed. Many prominent “leftists” have been agents of the FBI or CIA, in the promotion of that cultural confusion.- Ray Peat

On culture, government, and social class

 

[x-ray peat]

I don't think you understand what Peat meant. He was referring to how the CIA funded a leftist agenda that wasn't really leftist compared to the older times. But a variation cultural and racial issues, instead of economic issues. By redefining what it meant to be a leftist, they could divert it away from it's economic issues.

Since then, the meaning of “left” and “right” has been detached from class. “Identity politics” has been a powerful way to distract people from their economic interests. As soon as M.L. King made the issue class, rather than race, he was killed. Many prominent “leftists” have been agents of the FBI or CIA, in the promotion of that cultural confusion.- Ray Peat

On culture, government, and social class

This is exactly how I understand it as well. But do you think that this subversion has stopped and that today's liberal leaders are "the real left"? Ray is saying that there is no real left anymore just as there is no real right anymore. I am not sure there ever was one.

Here is a video by a famous movie producer Aaron Russo who became friends with Nick Rockefeller. Rockefeller explained to him why they funded the feminist movement. All of these movements are not what you think they are.