I just posted a comment on Bogey's site that inspired me to write this piece for those of you still clinging to mainstream media or deep in the mainstream bubble on social media. If so, there are two AMAZING presidential candidates you've like heard nothing about except establishment propaganda. Those are Vivek Ramaswamy on the Republican side and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the Democrat side. I'd be pleased if either of them got into power.
In my opinion, President Trump has nothing new to say. While I hugely admire his 2016 achievement in beating the machine, and his four-year presidency, where he accomplished an awful lot despite the attempted coup of Russiagate and Ukrainegate and all the hoaxes from the controlled media (accomplishments listed here). He woke us up to the deep state and the fake news. But he's a grandiose narcissist, is needlessly divisive on petty things, and now has the baggage of 8 years of the establishment throwing every dirty trick they could muster at him, and inducing an almost psychotic level of TDS in many of you. So, with deep gratefulness, time to move on.
RFKJr, is the nephew of the assassinated President, John F Kennedy, and the son of his Attorney General, his brother Robert Kennedy, assassinated while on the presidential campaign trail. Given records of the assassination are still being withheld despite a law requiring them all to have been released, it's safe to say the CIA was deeply involved in both (both brothers vowed to break up the CIA after they were lied to re. Cuba). Beyond the obvious, there is a lot of previously hidden compelling evidence that the CIA with the mob were behind it.
RFKJr is a lawyer who practiced environmental law, going after big polluters with class action lawsuits. He's almost single-handedly responsible for cleaning up New York's Hudson River after it had degenerated into a lifeless cesspool. He also went after Big Pharma and got multi-millions out of them to the victims. It was a result of this type of work that he was pulled into vaccines. He is NOT an "anti-vaxer" as is so frequently reported. He has taken vaccines himself, and his kids have as well. He represented the vaccine injured and argues that as safe as they are, they can be made much safer, but big Pharma is unwilling to forgo profits to do that, given they are immune to being held accountable for vaccine injuries under the current law.
He believes the path to unity is for the government to stop lying to the citizens, both directly and via their captive mainstream media mouthpieces. He's a strong free speech advocate, and is against pointless foreign wars. He's for unravelling the deep state.
RFJJr has appeared on numerous podcasts, getting the word out that way as he is heavily censored by the establishment controlled media. A good starting point is his 2 hour appearance on the All In podcast.
He's running for the Presdential nomination on the Democrat side against Biden, and is currently the leading alternative, polling at 15% versus Biden amongst Democrats. He also has a strong showing amongst independents and even Republicans. His favourability is 49% with 30% unfavourable, which beats both Biden and Trump. Were he the nominee, he would likely walk away with the win given his broad base extending outside of Democrats.
Another great candidate, this time on the Republican side, polling third and very close to DeSantis (some polls have him in second place behind Trump), is Vivek Ramaswamy.
He's the youngest by far in the field. He's the son of Indian immigrants and is independently wealthy, having made a fortune in biotech (selling innovative drugs, eg against prostate cancer, that Big Pharma chose not to pursue). He's written three books in the past 18 months laying out his vision.
Here he is on the same podcast:
Vivek is also anti-establishment and wants to curtail federal powers and break up the CIA, FBI, and Department of Education. He's also against foreign forever wars. His main positive vision forward is a renewal of American values for the 21st century.
I strongly endorse either of these candidates over both Biden and Trump and the rest of the field, declared and undeclared. Go check them out!
I do not have sufficient information regarding Robert F Kennedy to form an accurate opinion in regards to his qualifications as a candidate for my vote. I will do so via my sources and not standard media which is more propaganda than information.
ReplyDeleteHowever. In regards to Vivek, the answer is a solid "HELL NO!!!" from myself and all of Foundational Black America!
It would take me the larger part of my afternoon to bring up each and ever piece of examples, all from his own mouth, of how he has been running a good chunk of his campaign based on blatant anti-Black rhetoric. My People live rent free in his mind. And it is more than clear that not only does he support the systematic racism that is the foundation of this society, he is more than willing to reinforce it.
Understand that I do not follow the naïve view of politics that is still somewhat prevalent in The Black Community which states that "Democrats are good and Republicans are bad". I am glad that mindset is dying in My Community. So I am not stating my views based off of that fallacy.
Whether the candidate is Democrat or Republican is irrelevant. What they will do for me in order to obtain my vote is. With that continuing AFTER my vote is cast and said candidate is now in office. The Democrats are notorious for abusing Black America, come crying for our votes and once the vote is given kicks us to the curb to abuse us and start the cycle once again.
Vivek is not a viable candidate for Black America. Not in the least! I have seen his page and while he is painting a pretty picture for you he is dumping paint on My People.
And we have a large problem with that.
Well you can't leave it there. I've heard hours and hours from him on podcasts and have not picked up on anything anti black. Can you please point me at something he said that has offended you?
DeleteJulia.
DeleteTo answer your question regards to my reply to your post I really went to my Twitter page where I had bookmarked many of the examples covering Vivek's anti black stance and views.
Doing so I came across a very interesting occurrence. The bookmarks I have just mentioned have disappeared, with the only remaining one some two months ago regarding the Juneteenth holiday. And after going to his page and showing through his recent postings I am not surprised.
Being an openly anti-black racist candidate for president is rather detrimental for your campaign. That only worked for Biden and I have high hopes it will not work again.
Back to the matter at hand this unfortunately places me at a bit of a disadvantage as I like giving detailed responses in any situation like this and I'm now forced to cobble bits and pieces that I can dig up and hope it makes sense.
I am not sure if you have access to Twitter so I will describe the content of each link.
This one is in regards to Vivek taking a moment on Juneteenth to attempt to downplay what the day means for Black Americans who are the descendants of the American Chattel Slavery era by claiming it is time to go past such grievances.
https://twitter.com/IWashington/status/1689366689203499013?s=20
Another in regards to Juneteenth and his personal views of it which are hypocritical in comparison to his culture.
https://youtu.be/U6chB3N5mis
Here is Vivek trying to alter the reasons for the Civil War conflict in regards to Black People. Note it was not “to free the slaves’ as we were all taught to believe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5STPq18Bcc0
And this one also posted 3 months ago where he is speaking to a gathering where he is throwing subtle digs at Black Americans. The video's poster will explain during the video.
https://youtu.be/6qKj8uccY8E
Also while Vivek claimed the stand for meritocracy, in a system that is geared against Black Americans, working hard is virtually irrelevant when you're on an incline that's been greased and people at the top are throwing everything they can to make sure you stay at the bottom.
https://youtu.be/wpUDfpG6Iq4
Once again looking at his page I see why some of you may find Vivek appealing. He's speaking the words that you want to hear just like any other candidate. However when you dissect everything he is saying it is not a feasibility on his part.
Whether you or your fellows will admit this fact America is based on an anti-black racist system. A caste system that is based on Victorian England for the most part. Being that Vivek is from a society that also has a caste system in which those of darker skin at the bottom and those of lighter skin are at the top, he is Brahman you know, there is no evidence that he is going to overturn that system in this country if elected. But plenty of double talk that states he will support the system under the same conditions.
I do not see any evidence to the contrary. Ironically the only Republican that ever benefited Black America indirectly was Trump. Which is probably why they're trying to sink him to keep him from running again.
Once again my apologies for the lack of details that I'm used to giving. If that changes I will most certainly post again on this talk.
I looked at all those clips just now. I certainly do not see what you see.
DeleteI see a dark-skinned son of immigrant parents who made it via intelligence and hard work with two parents, not particularly rich, who loved and encouraged and pushed him and his brother. He experienced racism but pushed past it with a positive frame of mind.
He clearly believes in a colour-blind society which values folks based on the content of their character, not the colour of their skin.
You seem to be projecting a racist bogeyman where there is nothing but equality for all on display.
Julie as we are from two definitely different cultures in this country, I did not expect you to see what I see nor agree with me. Believe me when I say I'm not projecting anything and anti-black racist is not a boogeyman. It is very sadly real.
DeleteThe last video in my reply gave you a brief look into Vivek's past. I highly doubt that he experienced even half the racism that Foundational Black Americans experience, endure, and still fight to this day.n I will say again at his cultural background with his family has instilled in him makes him unable to relate to Foundational Black Americans because of the caste system he is familiar with. A system which was displayed during that last video.
Julie if Vivek believes in and attempting to establish a color blind society then he is definitely not a good candidate for presidency let alone being a president. Because when you consider that color blind by definition means you do not see color then logically you not see the culture of the people who have a different color other than yours. Which logically leads to that culture being devalued and labeled irrelevant. And if that is the case then which culture is a culture in a color blind society?
Additionally to dissect the Martin Luther King Jr phrase you posted here, Foundational Black Americans are always judged despite the content of our character. We are always guilty until proven innocent. We are always we can't even stand in groups of more than three or four without suspicion being aroused.
This is the society of America and how it relates to Foundational Black Americans. Systematic anti-black racism is not a boogeyman. It is a fact.
Vivek is incapable of giving this country equality because in his mind it doesn't exist despite all the pretty words he has been feeding his constituents.
Besides. Equality is a lie anyway.
I leave you the following post from a 60 year old black man on Twitter who acts Vivek a very interesting set of questions which I doubt he will answer. But it's good to read and contemplate in regards to him.
Oh and for the record, I will not be considering this man has a potential candidate for my vote. He has nothing to offer me.
https://twitter.com/IWashington/status/1692607043947966622?t=qGawzdkQP8xe8aSxrOehbQ&s=19
There are conservative black voices that disagree with the victimhood take you seem to be pushing. I agree with them.
DeleteTo correct you, Julie. The stance you wish to put on my shoulders is not victimhood. It is being victimized. There is a difference which I shall explain to you.
DeleteA person who wallows in victimhood does nothing to change his or her situation. In contrast a person who is victimized does everything in their power to end said victimization by all means necessary. And even creating new means along the way to do so
The latter is what I am pushing. Of course as you have mentioned there are those who while sharing my skin color do not agree with Black empowerment. I'm not aware of the ones in Canada but I'll attempt to clarify the ones you seem to be listening to here in the states.
Those conservative Black voices, as you call them, would be individuals such as Jim Clyburn or Larry Elders or Maxine Waters, to name a couple off top of my head, are black people who are put into positions of power as a means of control the Black populace will have support their party which in this case is the Democratic party.
The same can be said of the Congressional Black Caucus who have done absolutely nothing towards the betterment of the Black Community for all the years they have been in power. And many of them have said this openly with the whole focus goal is to farm the black community of America to get votes for the Democrats every couple years and keep the whole process going on over and over and over again with absolutely zero benefits for a Black America. And they are completely having issues with the fact that we are sick of it.
Julie, you are neither black and I'm not sure if you're even this country. I am a 56-year-old Black Man born and raised out of Harlem, New York City. That gives me more authority to speak on the issues which are either beneficial or detrimental to Foundational Black Americans then you.
When other races complain about unfair treatment to them they're hailed as heroes. Current example the Asian American community, who c claim to be victimized and then received an anti-asian hate crime bill as well as monetary gain as a result in a matter of months.
In contrast when Black Americans point out the anti-black racism costly hurled against us we're labeled as either as you say victims or troublemakers or both. And told to shut up and pull us up by our bootstraps while these previously mentioned conservative black voices go on TV nod their heads and do their best to maintain the status quo.
That is what you are agreeing to.
I was referring to Candace Owens, yes Larry Elder, Tim Scott, Ben Carson, and numerous conservative black voices on podcasts.
DeleteThere is "systemic racism" based on your definition. If it's racism practiced today, it's false. If it's past racism that has resulted in blacks being held back in various ways in the past, and thus starting at a disadvantaged position today, then it's obviously true.
But like my grandma did when she immigrated here, you don't complain about it, you just get on with it. Don't break the law, don't have kids before you're ready, finish school, and you'll climb up like everybody else. Have a strong community that instills those things into their kids, and the community will have success.
In regard to the ones you're referring to Julie, they are also on that list of black people who were placed in positions of power who do nothing for Black people except to actively suppress any and all avenues to Black empowerment and do so for their own selfish egotistical gain. And while I could easily post up examples for each and every one of them I doubt that you have space enough on your blog to read each and every account for the past several years alone.
DeleteNow I find it rather arrogant of you to tell a Foundational Black Man who has been born and raised in this country the definition of what racism is past and present. Even despite the fact that you are on the outside looking in. Whose sole source of information on the topic is given by people who wish to bury it to preserve the status quo.
Anti black racism is virtually a life form to itself. A lifeform that evolves as time progresses. The days of burning down our businesses neighborhoods and entire communities, the physical lynching of Black Men of status is no longer a viable strategy since such acts only serve to galvanize us into action against such acts. You can look to the recent August 5th battle in Montgomery Alabama as a result of what happens when you push us and then we push back.
Today's systematic racism is as the word says "system". Predominantly Black neighborhoods are gentrified out of existence with Black families losing their homes which reduces the chance of generational wealth, as well as reducing a cohesive Black political structure and economic structure.
Black owned and operated businesses are targeted with an arsenal of legal issues with the full intent to have those businesses shut down. I moved that further impacts the political and economic viability of a Black community
Black employment is problematic at best not because of any lack of experience on the part of Black men and women. But due to the fact that Black people are seldom paid their worth in a company nor promoted to a higher rank in favor of people of color or white people.
Black children are targeted with miseducation, self-deprecation, a complete devalue of everything it means to be a Foundational Black American in both present and historical aspects, psychology and spirituality. Call it a passive version of the term buck breaking, whose goal is to turn these children into malleable subservient little tools for the system in hand.
In fact it was brought to my attention that Arkansas governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders attempted to ban Black History studies in her state citing a pretense that such history will make children, especially Black Children, hate America. A move that parallels Ron DeSantos's Black History studies ban, only lacking the push for Asian American history that he did for Florida.
This is the face of modern day anti black racism. This is what foundational black Americans from coast to coast combat practically on a daily basis and I am leaving a lot out once again for space reasons. Not to ignore the fact that you don't want to believe it in the first place. Unless it appears in a podcast.
This is the last part of my previous reply which was too long to post in its entirety
DeleteNow I really wished that we lived in the same city. That way I would have the opportunity to say the following words directly to your face.
How dare you!
How dare you contemplate the words of that last paragraph of your reply to me, and then with either your phone or your laptop or whatever device you use post those words fully ignoring the implication that came with the paragraph.
While I would like to know the question is a moot point. You believe what you're implying in regards to Foundational Black Americans with that paragraph. Which makes what I am going to do to that paragraph, that belief all the more satisfying.
Now then…
*But like my grandma did when she immigrated here, you don't complain about it,*
Unlike your grandmother, as Foundational Black Americans not only were born here, we are subjected to issues that she has never encountered, which includes open violence up to and notwithstanding murder. As such it is mandatory to complain and combat this at each and every level. Not complaining is an open invitation towards the continuation of said abuse. Making the victimhood that you had attempted to place on my head earlier.
And for the record, we have been dealing with this before you were born, before your mother was born, before your grandmother immigrated here as well as before she was born.
*you just get on with it.*
Foundational Black Americans do “just get on with it.” However, since everyone is so concerned with what as Black People we are doing, thinking, reading, learning , watching, teaching, earning, screwing, etc. “Just get on with it” becomes extremely difficult under such scrutiny .
*Don't break the law, don't have kids before you're ready, finish school, and you'll climb up like everybody else.*
This is the most racist part of your paragraph! You are implying that Black Americans as a people predominantly break laws when we do not. The FBI Crime Database backs that up outside of common sense.
*don’t have kids before you’re ready*
If this is implying that only Black People at times will have kids before they are ready then you are not being realistic at all as well as believing the negative propaganda in regards to Black People with this while completely ignoring EVERY OTHER RACE that this occurs.
I can vouch for the fact that Black Communities even to this day have made it a point to inform our children to be careful and not have a child before they are ready to do so.
*Have a strong community that instills those things into their kids, and the community will have success.*
For your information, Julie. We Black People DO have a strong sense of community. We have always had and always will. For you to imply otherwise is very insulting.
History has shown how strong communities we've had in the past. So strong and successful that they had to be burned down or bombed or flooded out of existence.
These days gentrification, eminent domain and now illegal immigrants are the weapons of choice to destroy Black Communities. This is occurring Nationwide in almost every city. Chicago. Detroit. Los Angeles. my home city of New York. All of our black communities under attack because we have a strong sense of family value honor and desire to pass this on to our children. All that goes against the status quo of this country in which views Black Americans has a subservient species that are not slaves. But are just pets.
As for working hard towards our goals of success. We do that too. Far more successful than anyone on the globe. Thing is we refuse to do the one thing that others have done who come to the shores and that some of our own have done to be successful.
We will not turn our backs on each other in order to succeed.
Now these are the facts. Ones you want to believe but the ones that are true. These facts are what will be influencing the Black Vote. From what I have seen of Vivek, voting for him is a mistake. And if Kennedy does not add up to our satisfaction, he won't get the vote either!
My advice applies to everybody. There are many amazingly great black folks and families and communities. However there's an inner city crime problem in some black communities with both offenders and victims mainly black. Regardless of any historical grievances the way forward is positivity. If there are actual concrete examples of racism against blacks, let's call them out and fight against them. Nothing you've called out is anything like that.
Delete"Actual concrete evidence of anti-black racism."
DeleteJulie I just spent roughly 36 hours giving you an actual breakdown, summarized for space purposes, of systematic anti-black racism in this country that has been in place going back to even prior to this country's birth. A system that has been upgraded during the chattel slavery era. Reinforced during the Jim Crow era. And modified into a passive aggressive form ever since.
I am among many Black Men and Women who have lived with this and fought against this longer than you've been alive. And you are now saying that is not concrete enough for you to even contemplate.
I find myself curious as to what you consider concrete evidence from my side of this issue. And whether or not it would meet your own personal criteria of acceptance as evidence.
However I should not be surprised. After reading your recent comment, the one that mentions the inner city and 'black on black" crime in the same breath, shows me that you are basing everything on this topic, as well as on Black People alone, on whatever is presented to you from your local news affiliates.
I will take a moment on this topic to point out that because of your comment I highly doubt you have any knowledge in regards to what an alleged inner city is, who the inhabitants are, what percentage of what crime is done by what race and how these crimes are actually reported especially depending on election years.
For the record, there are good Black Families and neighborhoods within what you call the "inner city". I speak that from personal experience as I am living in one such neighborhood.
Such things are not limited to the suburbs alone, Julie.
I mean any law right now that discriminates against POC, or any institution (right now) that excludes POC only because of their skin colour. Point those out and we can denounce them together.
DeleteI get it you have past grievance. So do those wartime immigrants who leave everything they have behind and have to start entirely from scratch in a new country. Do they dwell on their past grievances, hole themselves up in communities of such people and dwell on them together, or do they just get on with it?
I think Julie is correct. It's truly unfair to expect me to correct for the deficiencies in your community. The truth is that educated black Americans get out of the poor neighborhoods as fast as they can. My great-grandparents did the same. The obligation to help the people left behind lies firmly in the hands of the people who got out. I don't owe you anything.
DeleteNo shade is intend I genuinely got lost: What do you mean by the term foundational black american ?
DeleteDescendants of slaves who founded and built America - see https://officialfba.com/
DeleteJulie, seriously.
DeleteAfter everything that I have posted here in the past 3 days in regards to systematic anti-black racism you are actually attempting to push this off as a past grievance. And a personal one for myself on top of that?
It is a shame that you could not see the look on my face when I read those words. I have to admit I don't know whether I should be amused or annoyed at your point and your blatant disregard for all of this. As it stands though, despite your disbelief, this is not a grievance personal or otherwise. This is a current up-to-date ongoing issue Foundational Black Americans face on a daily basis, Nationwide. An issue that I can only speculate that you are underestimating with the debate on whether or not that is intentional.
If you're looking for actual law that states where a Black Person can and can't go, can and can't do as an open target to point at you are going to be very disappointed.
That type of open anti black racial policy ended in the late sixties. Today's strategy is more covert and very similar to that of the Cold War, which weaponizes everything against Foundational Black Americans. To which you have just mentioned one of of those weapons recently.
You spoke of immigrants and asked me a question regarding if they bring their grievances when they come to this country. The answer to that question is a resounding yes.
All these immigrants legal and especially illegal bring not only their culture with them they also bring all of the issues prevalent in the countries they originate from. Many of those issues just happened to be a rather predatorial demeanor towards their new environment. Because of that, they view us as something to conquer and establish dominance over whenever applicable.
For example you have Mexican immigrants attacking Foundational Black Americans in Los Angeles for the past several years with even our children being targeted. Similar cases are now occurring even more in cities like Chicago and my home city of New York has the migrant population increases at an alarming rate.
Also, you may not be aware of this, but these immigrants are given all the various perks, grants to start businesses and gain homes, and are placed not in white neighborhoods or Hispanic neighborhoods or Jewish neighborhoods but dead center in Black neighborhoods. You should really consider as to why.
By the numbers. When immigrant businesses open in Black neighborhoods, they undercut the prices of the local Black businesses. Said Black businesses lose money and eventually are forced to close.
That becomes a domino effect with other Black owned businesses going under. And with each one the neighborhood becomes poorer and poorer until they're at the state you see propped up by the news media whenever it's needed to reinforce the negative stereotypes regarding Foundational Black Americans and our communities. Especially during election seasons.
Although very summarized, this is why you have poor Black neighborhoods. Sad thing is that since our communities are so welcoming, so looking for allies against systemic racism, that we didn't realize this was happening to us until decades later. Now we are forced to fight a war on three fronts just to reclaim everything that was lost.
I will take a moment to point out the one group of immigrants that were not placed in black neighborhoods due to their status in their Homeland. I of course am speaking of Vivek's own people, the Brahmin caste of India. A caste system that has their indigenous Black people at the bottom of the rung. A system which his parents brought over here and is alive and well inside his mentality as testament with his commentary on Juneteenth and his desire to erase the holiday from existence if elected, claiming that this country has too many unnecessary holidays. Oddly Juneteenth is the only holiday he has an issue with.
1) All right, Lion.
DeleteI was wondering when you were going to make an appearance here. Right let's get straight to it then.
First up, no Foundational Black American community in this country expects you or your brethren to fix our "deficiencies" except for the ones that have been inflicted on us by your brethren and the systematic racism that is both promoted and supported by said brethren.
Simply put if you break something you should have the common decency to admit the error and repair the damage that you have caused.
Our communities never needed your help. Quite the opposite actually. We just wanted to be left alone. To live. To have homes and Families and be able to pass down legacies as all people do. Historically speaking following the end of the chattel slavery era of this country, there were a number of established and prosperous Black communities done without the help of White society. The majority of them were destroyed due to White envy with the most famous names being that of Rosewood and Tulsa and Camden and Seneca.
I forget the name of the one that was buried under the waters of lake Lanier. But the dead there have been handling their own business up to this day.
History does give pause to the second part of your reply to me. The one claiming that educated black Americans get out of poor neighborhoods as fast as they can. Rather racist of you in a rather passive way I will point out.
For the first part our neighborhoods were never poor to begin with. They were made poor. At first through actual physical attacks. But has such acts were no longer viable due to the galvanizing effect it has on My People, namely you push us we will push back harder, Cold War tactics are now in place of the torch.
Negative propaganda. Economic sanctions, the occasional eminent domain seizures. The influx of immigrants into Black neighborhoods to siphon away at the internal economics of the neighborhood and a host of other quasi legal shenanigans, with the attack on our young through the manipulation of our educational system at the forefront.
Black schools with Black teachers have always excelled with a high GPA. So much that the schools were altered. Black principals and teachers were replaced with non black ones, usually White. Courses were altered if not absolutely deleted. Students were taught there was no value in their families, their communities, their history and themselves with the only pathway to success being as far away from their home as possible.
Oh but there's more.
These children were given perks each time they denounced our heritage. A smile here A word of encouragement there. The more the denunciation, the bigger the perk. You cannot deny this tactic as it has been used all throughout European history whenever colonization reared its ugly head. Depending on her country of origin, the same tactic may have been used on your previously mentioned great grandmother's country.
I'm going to tell you how a community becomes poor since you seem to lack this information.
A community becomes poor when you remove its resources. Not just food, medicine, employment but the most valuable resource of all. Children. If there is no generational wealth with no one to pass it on the community slowly dies.
It was not the educated who left our neighborhoods in our communities. It was the indoctrinated. Since they were taught there was no value in anything of their homes they felt no obligation to bring their skills back to their neighborhoods in order to save them from various things like gentrification.
For those who didn't leave, they're not as you are passively saying uneducated has you wish to believe. In fact it's very racist of you to assume that. No doubt based on the usual anti-black propaganda you see in TV and film. Not to mention very insulting not just to myself but to my wife, my family and my friends. But while I will let that slide, your thoughts have been noted.
(Part 2)
DeleteSystematic racism only exists to the compliance of the people under the governing society that has promoted this system from the very start. Those people could have ended this decades ago if they wanted to. But the truth is that this society is fueled by this system. People such as yourself benefit from this system. So despite all of your words and complaints regarding my people having issues with this system you have no intention of lifting a finger to dismantle it.
So yes, you owe me. And you will continue to owe me until you and your ilk decide to do away with this system.
Oh and by the way. I have a very interesting philosophical question for you which is relevant to this side conversation.
If a person sets fire to another person's house and the house is destroyed, who is at fault? The person who set fire to the house or the person who couldn't save it?
I think all of us likely agree on all the key points, and we're all vague on what to do about it.
DeleteIn regard to those key points I like to know which ones you agree with because I do not hold high hopes to you agreeing with everything I have said here.
DeleteAlso I must point out that those key points are subjective to different perspectives based on our two different cultures and more importantly the fact that you, myself and your husband are from three different time periods respectfully.
Your husband is from the time when being white meant that you are always right and being Black meant you never fight back.
I'm from the time in which Black people sick of that mentality fought back with a vengeance so hard they had to change tactics on us.
You are from the time in which Black people were intentionally made into the sole source of crime in the country and we have to either be contained or converted.
These perspectives not only shape all the point that I've stated in this posting but additionally shapes the solution to this entire issue.
Something to think about.
I think we agree on all the historical issues and the fact that whites (by the fact they were in power) created the problems in poor communities because of their policies (disproportionately impacting blacks as a result).
DeleteWhite never meant right. That's just a racist thing to say.
Black people are not the sole source of crime, though in the US they are responsible for a disproportionate amount of it, currently.
The question is what to do about it. Focus on the past and give more handouts to the black community? That never works.
Or focus on the future, concentrating on improving education across the board by breaking the hold of the teacher's unions and encouraging school choice.
An update in regards to the original topic of this post, that being Vivek or RFK has a choice for President should that come down to it. Hopefully not. The following link leads to the reaction / critique of Republican debate by members of the New Black media.
DeleteSince we are not as vulnerable to illusions has non black people, we can spot the things that people should be concerned about with their politicians.
Interesting how the "born in a log cabin" strategy to appear as "average folk who worked the ranks" is overused by these candidates, especially Vivek, to better appeal to the voters
https://www.youtube.com/live/o_iMFOhFy0U?si=dk2h2YkxzUhlUVZd
This occurred about the same time as your recent reply to me.
Deletehttps://abcnews.go.com/US/jacksonville-florida-shooting/story?id=102588769
Julie, sadly you have just fully proven my point. Hopefully there's space to break this down sufficiently.
My statement, "white is always right" it's not a racist statement. It is a matter of fact mentality that is prevalent to this day. It may be subtle or maybe in your face but it is definitely there. The examples of far too many posts here but it all breaks down to the same thing.
A white person can say they are right in all things, believe they're exempt from bringing any evidence to back it up and totally disregard any facts brought to them especially when presented by a Black Person. Which ironically you have been doing to me throughout this engagement by making claims that I am wrong while being incapable of proving it.
In fact your statement regarding us getting handouts and requiring education is in actuality rather racist of you. You seem to be forgetting that I am a Foundational Black American and live in a Black Community. So I would like to know what handouts you are speaking of that all of us are living high off the hog on. Maybe myself and others are working so hard at our jobs that we fail to notice.
Also while you're composing that list add on it what education that we uneducated people, whose school and academic achievements are so high that your people had to cripple our schools, is required and what the nature of said education is. So far we've been seeing an attempted retcon of American history especially in regards to the chattel slavery era and the Jim Crow era. If that is part of your educational program then we pass.
Time to face the truth Julie. You have neither suggestion or solution for the ills that have been plaguing Black America since before you, myself and your husband were born. Because both you and your husband are part of the problem.
Politically speaking you would support any candidate, any agenda, any initiative that can be used against Black Americans because you don't believe there's a problem. And if there is it's not as widespread has some people are reporting.
Well how about we flip your strategy on its ear by having White society accept its racially motivated past, ensure that the past is neither forgotten nor repeated, make economic reparations to Foundational Black Americans and establish a anti-black hate crime bill complete will full prosecution of offenders.
That is my solution and it's just the tip of the iceberg.
Crazy people are not representative. When there's a black mass murderer I don't tar all blacks with the association. That's racist.
DeleteAny statement with " is inherently " is usually racist.
Handouts are no good for anybody (unless they are truly in need). It's not a black thing.
Education is crap in poor neighbourhoods. Again, not a black thing.
I would argue YOU are a part of the problem as you insist on seeing everything in racist terms and playing the victim card. My husband and I have nothing to do with it.
I suppose you love what's happening in South Africa?
The video is almost 5 hours long. Please summarize.
So you want to argue that I am part of the problem.
DeleteWell, and this is based off both you and your husband's replies to me, if you define that problem has being Black People who stand up again this systematic anti-black racism that targeted Black America in every level of our lives, rather than rolling over and becoming the silent abuse victim that much of this society wishes to bring back into existence. Or worse, playing a dark-skinned parret to whatever thoughts and words your society wishes to hear from our lips just to make you feel better about yourselves. Then, yes. By that definition I am a problem.
And I have no problem with that. My only regret is that it took me three decades to reach this point. Well, better late than never.
Looking down your list, with that very poor judgment in using the word "tar" in the same sentence when referencing Black People, when it comes to mass shootings, Black People are not the top of that chart despite the propaganda you see in films and TV shows. Your folk hold that title. Especially when those shootings are racially motivated as demonstrated with Jacksonville this weekend past and Buffalo New York last year.
Since I doubt you're going to take my word for this, you can look at the data yourself. This is just one of many I came across
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/
Also since Palmeter had such a wonderful anti-black manifesto the fact that this attack occurred on the 60th anniversary of the I had a dream speech is not a coincidence not to forget that this is also retaliation for the August 5th beat down in Montgomery Alabama.
This is not a "lone wolf" or other such dismissive line as a disturbed individual. This is one of many past present and unfortunately the future as a result of the systematic racism supported by this country up to the highest level of the government. and that crosses party lines. Ironically the Democrats are more guilty of it than the Republicans.
FYI. The one black mass shooter which occurred several months ago in Philadelphia was a male to female transgender whose issues led him to go on a shooting spree. Which was not racially motivated in comparison to his white counterparts.
Also despite your claim, you do broad paint by association when it comes to my people. Your husband claimed that educated Black People leave their neighborhoods because of the poverty there. Your take was the education lacking in poor neighborhoods. Now we both know that this country's propaganda with associating the word poor with Black People. So you really can't sit there and say you don't consider any Black Person who are not like the Black People you may know as educated and is living on handouts.
Handouts what you have failed to describe in any detail. You can't even name any of these poor neighborhoods that are not Black. And since it is our neighborhoods that are constantly under active and passive attacks, yes this is a Black Issue. Come to think of it you also fail to mention what education you believe we need that we are lacking in your eyes.
Finally yes I know what's going on in South Africa as well as in Niger. Do I support African Nationals finally taking back the sovereignty of their own countries from people who do not originate from there and have no right to control those countries?
Hell Yeah!
I know you're too young to understand what was going on in South Africa during the '80s and '90s with apartheid. You should look it up and see all the atrocities inflicted by a minority white population that kept the indigenous population in the state of terrified poverty. And that was only trumped by France's economic mistreatment of Niger.
Just like what happened to Foundational Black Americans here.
Final note. If you're going to comment on your blog on political matters and issues, especially involving the upcoming presidential elections and the candidates that you will be selecting from, research should not be a hassle no matter the length of time required.
Yes, the problem of encouraging people to dwell on the past and engender an angry victimhood mentality rather than forge a positive path forward through hard work and commitment.
DeleteMass shootings aren't not all shootings or all violent crime. A disproportionate amount of violent crime is committed by blacks. FBI data shows 51% of murders in the US were committed by the 12% of blacks. (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43) You explain it. Even your mass shooting data shows blacks account for 20% while making up only 12% of the population.
"Hell yeah" to brutally murdering white farmers? Really? I can and do condemn the atrocities committed against all people. Can you condemn those committed against whites, or are you too filled with hatred?
The education that is lacking in many poor communities is just basic public school education. Reading, writing, arithmetic, and so on. The system is such that rich disctricts get more resources because the parents contribute financially and hold more sway. In my opinion, this is the biggest systemic issue impacting the poor.
Oh, and I meant to add. One of the short stories in my new book deals with racism. It's Story 11: A Bed Wetting Husband. Reparations are paid! I'd love to hear your comments on it.
Delete
DeletePart One
You know Julie I was going to just let this go having said what I said and knowing that you are set in your mindset when it comes to these matters. And then I read your recent reply.
To quote Dr. John Henry Clarke; "I only debate my equals. All others I teach." Consider School in session Julie.
This is the link that I had sent you first,
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race
It shows the number of mass shootings between 1982 to 7/23 with 76 for white and 26 for Black. The last time I checked I believe 76 is a greater figure than 26. Changing this into a statistic does not change that numerical fact. It just hides it.
To answer your question, population density is the factor. In a small population a small amount of crime can look rather large. Especially when each and every crime no matter how big or small is broadcasted on the news. While in contrast in a larger population a large amount of crime can be easily hidden, especially when there is a system in place to downgrade whatever crime has as much as humanly possible to maintain face. Hiding a tree in the forest and then claiming it is not a tree would be the best analogy.
Now about this.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21
I've had this chart for years. Anyone who actually takes a look at the chart in detail can pretty much understand how what you're saying is misleading at best. A flat out lie at worst. Everyone who looks at the chart and then compares your words to it can plainly see that. It is not difficult to look at the stats for white and Black alone, along with the percentages.
For example: Murder and Nonnegligent manslaughter: White 3,650 with a 45.8% distribution. Black 4,078 with a 51.2% distribution
Rape:White 11,588 with a 69.8% distribution
Black 4,427 with a 26.7% distribution
Robbery:White 25,143 with a 44.7 distribution Black 29,677 with a 52.7% distribution.
Notice this is the origin of that infamous 'Black People commit 51% of the crime' spiel always aimed at us. Most of the time never mentioning the chart and definitely not thinking, perhaps hoping, that the entire chart is never read. Because once it is that percentage listing becomes very interesting in regards to white people. They take the lead in virtually every other crime listed on the chart. And it is a very large lead as everyone can see.
In regards to South Africa you are forgetting or ignoring a very important fact regarding this whole issue. South Africa was under a foreign brutal dictatorship brought into and supported by colonizers gentrifiers choose a name it all means the same thing.
The Afrikaners stole the land from the Africans, installed a brutal regime that the world itself was appalled by, and now after the fall of that regime with the South Africans out to completely reclaim all of their stolen lands, which has unfortunately been leading to open conflict, in your eyes my compassion should be on the side of the white farmers. I find that course of thought very illogical.
Of course you were a child when this whole infamous part of history took place. Perhaps you're not aware of the full issues. Hence I'll add a series of links to websites and articles that should adequately fill in those missing piece of information.
https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/cspca/cspca.html#:~:text=These%20include%20murder%2C%20torture%2C%20inhuman,and%20cultural%20fields%3B%20measures%20that
https://www.thecollector.com/what-was-apartheid-south-africa-crime-against-humanity/
https://www.southernafricalitigationcentre.org/2020/02/21/south-africa-apartheid-crimes-against-humanity-and-the-rule-of-law-quo-vadis/
https://www-bbc-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-64941144.amp?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16937651499501&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com
https://www.csmonitor.com/1998/0703/070398.intl.intl.3.html
Part Two
DeleteThis should be sufficient to justify my views regarding the issue of South Africans reclaiming their lands. Of course from your perspective you probably believe that the South Africans should approach this in very hushed tones and ask ever so nicely for all their stolen lands back. And when that no answer comes they should just say oh well and forgive it all.
I always found it interesting that Black People especially here in The States are expected to forgive and forget no matter what is done to us past and present. I wonder if those who push this upon my people would have the same convictions towards doing this to let's say for example the Jewish community. Now that would be a very interesting experiment indeed.
Before I conclude this I feel it necessary to point out one of your more disturbing misconceptions that you promote and support. The one being this belief in the lacking of even basic education in schools in urban settings.
Being that the school year has just begun, by your belief all these children are being shipped into buildings to sit around for several hours and learn absolutely nothing! Which is both absurd and insulting.
Referring back to a question I asked you that you did not answer, the issue of education in Black schools was not the basics you mentioned but quite frankly Black students were being taught self-esteem for themselves and Our Community along with those basics and beyond.
What they were not taught was a curriculum that claimed they were lesser people whose only value came from working hard to be accepted as a third class citizen whose only goal was to leave behind everything, do for everyone who is not Black and be another mouthpiece against their community.
The evidence for this is overwhelming going on before the recent attempt to retcon America's Chattel Slavery era in which claims the Black slaves learned skills and were educated as a result of their enslavement. The attempt several years ago of the alteration of history books in regards to Egypt that had photos of children posing has members of Egyptian society with Black children representing the lower levels of that society and white children as the upper levels. The move was designed to subliminally indoctrinate Black Children to believe that this white/black hierarchy existed even back then.
In addition to this there is also the factor that you halfway mentioned. The comment regarding the rich districts that receive more resources towards education. You failed to mention, probably cause you were not aware, up exactly what generates those resources.
The revenue generated by home ownership and property taxes are reduced in Black neighborhoods due to the discouragement of us owning our own homes, the acquisition of homes of the Black elderly, through either legal or illegal means, as well as the decrease population has families are forced to leave our neighborhoods due to these issues regarding employment and our business being attacked.
All of this stems from the systematic anti-black racism that I have mentioned to you time and time again throughout this whole discussion. It is difficult to pull yourself up by your bootstraps if somebody keeps finding newer and more inventive ways to cut those bootstraps.
All of this, including your comments to me, culminates as counters against the two accusations against me. The one where you claim I am a victim and I have hatred in my heart.
By the actual definition of the word victim, yes along with every Black Man, Woman and Child in this country I am a victim of the systemic racism being hurled at us on a daily basis with the full intent of pounding us down into submission.
The evidence of this continued victimization can be seen virtually on a daily basis across all media platforms, which the News is included naturally. But while that is important more so is the fact that alongside these articles are the responses we have for said victimization. With the most recent and dramatic response being the August 5th Montgomery brawl. It was not the first nor the last.
Part Three
DeleteOf course this is not the narrative for Black victims of systematic racism favored by this society. It is preferred that we are supposed to be stoic, self blaming and forgiving. Well you know the saying that old habits die hard. While that may be true the fact of the matter is they do eventually die.
This brings us to the conclusion of this lengthy lecture. The part regarding the alleged hatred in my heart that you mentioned previously.
You are not qualified to even speculate on the content of my heart. Your replies here, which would be redundant to repeat verbatim, clearly points out that your belief that the only problem for Foundational Black Americans are those who refuse to surrender to the systematic racism we point out, with examples, and confront as this is a life and death struggle for our existence as a people. I suppose you also believe that we should just accept that abuse. That it is supposed to be our ordained station life in this country. Bugger that!
In contrast when comparing the content of one's heart, I believe I am accurate when I say that the contents of yours dwarfs whatever amount of hatred I have in my heart. That content being arrogance, hypocrisy, cowardice and fear. Each one is separate in their respective categories.
Arrogance for believing that you have the right to define what racism is to a Black Man. As well have to find what the response should be toward that racism.
Hypocrisy because Black People are the only people you would do this to and you wouldn't do this same line of reasoning you possess to anyone else, say the Jewish community for an example.
Cowardice because you feel safe and secure that you can say and believe things like this in regards to Foundational Black Americans and our community because of the systemic racism we are constantly fighting against.
Fear as you have concerns regarding what will occur to the society that you are accustomed to when Foundational Black Americans once again are economically independent, politically mature and reclaim each and everything taken from us in this land. Hopefully not in the same manner as what's going on in South Africa. But it will be a reclamation like this planet has never seen before.
Now I believe that I have spoken all that I wish to say on this topic. Anything else that I could add would be redundant to the already long list I have posted here. So I will leave you. But understand this fact. You do not have any viable solution for all of the ills plaguing Foundational Black Americans. So stay out of this.
We have our own solutions. And you still have to deal with this in your country.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOB4jQYh7ns
And as for the original topic of your post. I highly doubt Vivek will be a candidate for the Republican Party. He may talk about an amusing game. But he is not electable.
Additional:
In regards to the story you have written. Spanking a white man is not Reparations in any sense of the term.
Before seeking to "educate" you should seek to educate yourself on the notion of per capita crime rates.
DeleteI define racism as prejudice against a race of people, regardless of the race. It's an evil idea that you seem to delight in.
You think blacks were the only slaves? Research the origin of the word.
Part 1
DeleteI have to admit that a few years ago I would have found your arrogance and contempt of my intelligence extremely insulting. That you as a white woman are going to tell a 56-year-old Foundational Black Man about racism, slavery and the issue regarding crime stats as if I am absolutely ignorant of it all.
These days I'm just amused by such shenanigans taking it as it is. Validation of everything I've been speaking of. And I will say that my wife whom I have been sharing this with completely agrees.
In reverse order. Which slavery would you like me to mention? Babylonian? Sumerian? Egyptian? Any of the Asiatic empires? Or everyone's favorite standby, Rome. Or perhaps I should stay within our part of the hemisphere and time.
Or there is the topic of indentured servitude versus chattel slavery. To which the latter falls solely on Black people both the indigenous in America and those taken from Africa while the former belongs to those who were deported from Britain as an option against imprisonment and or execution.
Then you have the topic of the differences between slavery worldwide, past and present, and the American Chattel slavery era. With America the only nation to remove being Human from being a slave.
Julie, what you failed to understand is that slavery is a topic that is the very first thing presented to Foundational Black American children when they first enter the school system as a passive means of instilling a sense of devaluing the child's self-esteem in regards to our community, our culture and most importantly our people.
So, in regards to this conversation, I am well aware that other cultures on this planet have been enslaved. That is not an excuse to attempt to diminish the effects of the American chattel slavery system on Foundational Black Americans as well as the sustained systematic racism that evolved from that era and persists against my people to this very moment.
You're also applying the same logic to the very term racism. Your definition is the current attempt to retcon what racism is by diluting it to remove the political aspects of it. In this case, combined with the dilution of slavery, the whole goal is to preserve the anti black political aspects by hiding it among everybody else. I suppose the proper example would be hiding a tree in a forest.
I know that you're not going to take my word for it. So once again I bring receipts to back my statement up.
https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/race-discrimination/what-racism
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
This is the proper definition of the word racism. No debate. No deflection. No dilution. This is the system Foundational Black Americans have to combat in all its various forms be that passive, aggressive, directly or indirectly minor or major aggressions on a daily basis with the intentional misuse of criminal statistical data as a major anti-black propaganda piece.
I know what per capita means. The term has been used against Foundational Black Americans far longer than I've been alive. For the sake of argument we'll just call it the fancy way of saying per person in regards to a population.
It's very interesting how these stats are never used against white people. Let's say for example that 59% violent crimes are committed by white people per capita. Or 69% of the rape are committed by white people per capita. Or that nasty little fact that any crime committed by Black People are over represented while crimes by white people are downplayed. I have yet to see a reasonable explanation for that. You definitely have not provided one.
Julie, this whole exchange between you and I certainly proves to me that Dr John Henrik Clark was right when he stated that he debated on his equals and others he taught. Unfortunately he did not mention the fact that you can only teach people who wish to learn. And you do not wish to learn.
(Final Part)
DeleteIt is more than likely that I have given you information in regards to not only anti black racism but in regards to Foundational Black Americans that you have never heard of before or had even contemplated in contrast to the propaganda that you believe about us.
But rather than actually learning something that challenged those misconceptions you doubled down on them, attempted to gaslight everything I have said and made repeated insults to my intelligence along the way.
If your goal was to attempt to belittle me into some form of submission then you have completely failed. However you have succeeded in demonstrating how a person can passively support systematic anti-black racism without batting an eyelash.
Worse still is the fact that based upon everything you said here in regards to Foundational Black Americans you will show that support through your political choices for candidates to elect because of your belief that you are doing the right thing and that any Black Person who is not like whomever you associate with are a problem that needs to be suppressed.
This does of course make me curious as to the type of Black People you do associate with, both outside and within The Kink Community. Especially on what you think of each other behind each other's back.
At this point I think it's best that I end this conversation, one-sided as it is. You made it quite clear that you have no intention of believing any of the facts I presented to you on this matter which you were more than likely unaware of and are quite content to maintain your negative view of Foundational Black Americans. While I have no intention of altering these facts in any manner that makes you feel comfortable about yourself and your views.
And on a final note to clarify your "I have hatred in my heart" statement. The only hatred I possess in my heart are for those who believe that in order for this society to function it has to have Foundational Black Americans constantly suppressed economically, politically, physically, mentally and spiritually from the cradle to the grave and have the added audacity to say that it is our fault and our lot in life that we should accept.
I believe you can deduce where I consider your stand with me on that is. You can have the final word on this.
Your condescension continues to amuse me.
DeleteThe Merriam-Webster definition looks good to me.
"a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"
Don't see your point.
The hatred in your heart I referred to was your glee at the treatment of white farmers in South Africa. That's just vile.
The per capita crime stats cannot be washed away. They point to a deep problem in the black community. Many blacks acknowledge this and work to correct it. You claim it does not exist.
My point continues to be that a persistent fixation on the past that prevents one from moving forward is negative, and looking optimistically toward the future (while acknowledging the past but not letting it get in the way) is a better strategy that leads to success.
Your post would gain credibility if you would stop the silly references to some sort of controlled liberal media. I spent many years working for two of the major three network news departments. I witnessed a lot of the history you talk about. Political reporting is impossible to do without someone accusing bias. Tiny changes in adjectives can slant a piece. I've seen it happen in "The New York Times." Still, I haven't seen facts distorted or omitted. Your silly MAGA labels for the media just make you look like another right-wing cook. Let that crap go.
ReplyDeleteI was around when RFK was assassinated. At the time, I was the youngest member of a network news organization. I edited tape and heard all the uncut stuff. I never heard that RFK or JFK wanted to dismantle the CIA. JFK got us into Vietnam, and I never liked him as president. RFK was sort of "out there,"but his heart was in the right place.
You're right that RFK Jr. isn't getting much national press. I don't think it's a conspiracy of the evil liberal media. He just hasn't moved the needle yet. It's early in the game. If his message resonates, he will be heard from. I never heard of the Republican you mentioned. Again, it's early times.
At this poiint, it's very unlikely anyone will replace Biden on the Democratic ticket. Even with his low approval ratings he is the incumbent. That counts for a lot. We both agree that he isn't a good leader. He's moderate and not terribly offensive. If Trump manages to stay out of jail and run, Biden is the only sensible choice for his opponent.
I'm glad you are beginning to see how worthless Trump would be as president. I won't argue his policies. Most were nationalistic steps back for America. He wasn't a good president. He followed his base instead of rising to the challenge of leading a huge superpower.
I do agree with Biden's spending on infrastructure. Too bad the Republican House is against it. I also agreed with Trump's attempt to let Medicare negotiate drug prices. Unfortunately, that failed miserably. Trump's foreign policy set us back decades. Biden's lack of credibility and unwillingness to take strong stands hasn't helped. At least we are back supporting NATO and the Paris accords.
I think that you and the other MAGA zealots need to recognize that mainstream AMERICAN media aren't evil spreaders of lies. I know the folks who work there. They are honest people trying to report the facts. Social media has made it possible for people with absolutely no information to invent stories and disseminate them freely. Network editors and their reporters work very hard to get things right. I never saw a single case when a story was changed or killed to advance a political position.
Donald Trump wasn't railroaded. He is a man driven by his ego. He has a lifelong reputation of lying. I suppose most politicians do too. Trump's big sin was to try to thwart the AMERICAN (caps to remind you that your are Canadian and not part of our process) democracy. There was no significant cheating in the 2020 election. Our elections are clean and audited by both parties. There is one thing that is central to the American democracy: the orderly transfer of power. Donald Trump is the first president to make a serious attempt to install himself as king. That is unforgivable.
You're very naive about the CIA's manipulation of the news. See, for example, https://strategic-culture.org/news/2021/04/16/cia-used-infiltrate-media-now-cia-media/
DeleteIt is historical fact that the CIA and Kennedy were at odds with one another, especially regarding Cuba.
I think you'll eat your words when Biden is replaced.
I think Trump would be great for a second term as President. I just don't think he's electable and I would rather see a younger person in there with an 8 year run.
I think Americans see America with ridiculous rose coloured glasses. To the rest of the world they are seen as clumsy war mongers.
There's no doubt the 2020 election was rigged in countless ways, some illegal, some borderline, some just dirty tricks unworthy of a great democracy.
Trump did not seek to overthrow democracy, but to save it through all legal and constitutional means. You have not a shred of evidence to the contrary. Alternate slates of electors is a common practice (research it). There is an argument that the VP can reject electors for States to reconsider. Why else did they change the law to clarify he can no longer? Jan6 was not an "insurrection" by any remote possible interpretation of the term and you know it. And besides, Trump consistently discouraged and condemned the violence, even beforehand, and you know that too.
I agree with Lion:
DeleteYou could gain a lot of credibility if you would stop the silly references to some sort of controlled liberal media.
This is what you learned from Trump: If you don't like the message, just discredit the whole media. Pick up on nutty side people who you agree with.
This is the same BS that you try to sell us on EVERY topic. The climate one is the only one that I am knowledgeable about, and you are so out of your depth there. There, like here, you appeal to cranks, and you say the "mainstream" is all bought or something.
Always with the conspiracies when someone doesn't agree with you.
And your Trump achievements is such a load of crap. There is almost nothing on that list that survives any deep analysis.
I get it: You are rich and you like people who want low taxes for you. That's Trump. But he's a nightmare for the common people (in spite of their idiocy).
You're living in denial if you believe your mainstream news sources aren't lying to you for all manners of reasons. You lose all credibility when you claim that.
DeleteI have yet to see a knowledgable person challenge me on climate. You're welcome to try. The fact you don't raise any real point, just make up dumb word-salad meta-points disqualifies you.
You claim Trump achieved nothing while in the presidency? That's not credible and makes you a shill.
I'm happy to pay taxes. I'm not happy when they're wasted on idiotic projects. I oppose regressive taxes such as inflation including expensive energy.
This is one of your standard lines: when people disagree with you, you say something disqualifies them.
DeleteI made a real point: That there aren't any serious actual scientists that agree with you on climate. Again, find me 3 people at major universities, and then we can talk. You go to cranks in Alabama... the 263rd ranked university in the US according to US News; the 601 ranked in the world according to QS
find me 3 faculty members in the top 20 universities that agree with you. I will match that with 100 in the top 20 universities that say your analysis is crap.
You calling me a shill is totally rich. You are the biggest shill for the rich Republican causes. What a farce.
Oh, you again? Mister "I don't know any science but trust what the newspapers tell me without question."
DeleteJulie, my comments about the media don't come from random, questionable Internet sources. I was there! I was in the control rooms witnessing and editing the tapes that were broadcast. We all had our individual political leanings, but there was constant vigilance to broadcast the truth. I can never convince you and I'm not trying. All I'm saying is that I witnessed a lot of the history that you label as fake news. I knew and worked with the people you believe lied to the American people. They didn't.
DeleteAs far as the rest of the world thinking that we are ugly Americans. I have to agree.Our government has pursued endless, unjustified military interventions for political reasons. Your boy, Donald was no exception. I've been against those policies my entire life. You don't sell democracy with bombs and bullets. We agree there.
Despite your near-religious belief that our election was rigged, the evidence shows otherwise. Regardless of that, you never, ever preserve democracy by using any means to stay in office.
Trump's ego makes him a dangerous choice for leader. A doddering Biden isn't much of an alternative. Biden has been on the wrong side of issues for ages. However, he will not try to stay in office by any means. I will settle for that for now. RFK Jr. has a lot to explain (his dad did too before he was killed).
I'm not naive. I'm one of the people who was actually there.
I think things have changed over the years. There are now mainstream media leaving the profession to become independent complaining about the bias in the newsrooms. So I don't doubt your experience, I just think things have gone down rapidly in journalism.
DeleteTrump also erred in Syria, I believe, but did better than any other modern day president in that regard. No new wars under his watch, which you wouldn't think would be a high bar...
I think there is plenty of evidence it was "rigged": suppression of laptop, Zuckerbucks, bad voter rolls, mass mail-in voting and unrestricted ballot harvesting, lax signature checks, inability to audit. Plus Russiagate for 4 years which has now proven to be a Hillary/Dem op.
Trump did not try to stay in office by any means. He contested the election using only legal and constitutional means. You have zero evidence to the contrary. I invite you to present it.
Julie. Despite several exhaustive investigations into Trump's claims of election fraud, there has as yet to be ANY verifiable evidence produced, that suggests that the US 2020 election was contaminated by sufficient amounts of fraud, that it in any way could have influenced the ultimate outcome of the election. So unless your argument is that every single investigation into the matter was corrupt, bought etc., you keep harping on about fraud that has proven impossible to prove. If the election is supposed to have been rigged, have you considered just how many people across various US States, not to mention different governmental/state institutions would have needed to conspire, in order to make it happen, and subsequently conceal the existence of said fraud? "If two people knows a secret, it's not a secret". It's simply not plausible, by any stretch of a reasonable imagination.
DeleteAnd how many lawsuits did Trump and Co. try and launch after the election, in order to get the result overturned? 50+ as I recall hearing. The VAST VAST majority (if not all) of which got thrown out of court as baseless.
You are an intelligent woman, no doubt, but you have somehow gotten yourself enrolled into what is increasingly looking like a personality cult centered around Trump.
Trump's continued claims of voter fraud and a stolen election simply doesn't have a leg to stand on. EVERY single investigation has concluded that the election result was as it should be. Some investigations found evidence of some attempts at fraud, but NOTHING to an extend that could have influenced the eventual outcome of the election.
No one is objecting to Trump availing himself of the various legal means he's had to contest the election and its process. Other candidates before him has done so. But what makes Trump unique in that respect, is that ALL of the others, who have done so over the decades, have respected that when those means were exhausted, and the courts had ruled that the result should be, they conceded to those decisions, and accepted the result. Trump is the only one that has kept on pushing his own unsupported take on reality, most likely driven by his historical modus operandi of "if you keep saying something for long enough, it will eventually become the truth."
As for whether Trump conspired to try and change the election result in violation of the law, we'll see what the courts ultimately decide. I've no doubt that even if Trump is sent to jail in Georgia, you will continue to maintain his innocence, and claim that the court system was biased, and that it is all a massive conspiracy to prevent him from becoming President again. But I'll be crossing my fingers that you will accept if a court of law, after due process, concludes that Trump broke the law, and went to far with his attempts to overturn the election result.
Finally, if you argue that all media networks are so biased in their news coverage, that what they report simply can't be trusted any longer, who are you seriously going to look to for believable news? Random bloggers and youtubers that all have their own political opinions and biases, and who has far more limited resources and contacts than the various networks?
Being critical of what you are told is all good and well. But at some point you reach a place where said critical thinking cross over into paranoia and personal opinion, that isn't supported by the available evidence.
Interesting how you completely ignored the 8 things I mentioned that have been proven, then set up a strawman completely different from those, and knock it down. Some of the 8 are illegal, some not, all are unethical.
DeleteBut I'll "bite". We seem to agree my eight are valid, so let's discuss the more speculative.
Of course there was also very suspicious and illegal voting violations (I'm sure there always are, on both sides). I don't think there's definitive evidence they were in sufficient quantity to overturn (unlike my leading eight). The reason there is no court-vetted evidence is partly because courts refused to hear most based on jurisdictional and lack of remedy grounds, not on the evidence.
There have been 92 total court cases brought by Trump questioning the stolen 2020 election.
More than two-thirds were dismissed on technicalities—with lack of standing being among the most frequently cited.
𝗢𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 30 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘀, 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘃𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 22 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀 (73%).
Here's the list: https://election-integrity.info/2020_Election_Cases.htm
Sure, there was a bunch of bullshit thrown in there, but don't let it mask the actual violations because of your TDS.
On its face these indictments are political. Duh. The "finding 11,000 votes" in context was Trump claiming there were a lot more than those that were improper, and he only needs them to identify 11,000 to reverse the outcome. That is blindingly obvious to anybody not suffering from TDS.
Alternate slates of electors has been standard constitutional practice forever, practiced every election by both sides.
Jan6 was a protest where a small part of it became violent. Only the extreme TDS crowd and grifters make the ludicrous claim that it was an attempt to overthrow the government.
When all legal means we're exhausted, Trump left office, like everybody else ever has. Zero evidence that he tried to get military or police forces to keep him in power.
You need to suppress your TDS and use common sense, Kyrel.
Julie, a couple of simple question:
Delete1) Do you think Trump legally won or lost the 2020 election?
2) If you think he won, why haven't numerous investigations, re-counts etc. using established procedures for such, been able to find enough legally valid evidence to support the statement?
3) If you believe that orchestrated fraud was carried out on a level necessary to actually affect the outcome of the election, how many people do you think would have to have been involved, in order to pull it off?
You are arguing that I should apply common sense to my view of the matters. I am. That's why I can't agree with your arguments. Try and take some steps back from your own arguments, and apply the same common sense you ask me to apply, to what it sounds like you are claiming.
"On its face these indictments are political. Duh. The "finding 11,000 votes" in context was Trump claiming there were a lot more than those that were improper, and he only needs them to identify 11,000 to reverse the outcome. That is blindingly obvious to anybody not suffering from TDS."
Agreed, Trump claimed that there was enough fraud/irregularities in Georgia alone, that the result wasn't that he lost the state, but that he won it with hundreds of thousands of votes. It's not 2 hours ago I listened to a youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSwcBd7JPbc) of Brad Raffenperger being asked about what was done to investigate those claims, and according to him, the state followed up on ALL of those claims, and they found NOTHING along the lines of the number of votes Trump was claiming. They counted and re-counted those votes, and Trump lost the state in every instance. Trump pursued the legal means he had to contest the outcome within the state, his objections got processed, in accordance with the law, and the conclusion was that he lost the state.
If you want to contest that, come up with some evidence that would hold up in the legal system. And then send it to Donald Trump. He could probably use all the help he can get right now...
"More than two-thirds were dismissed on technicalities—with lack of standing being among the most frequently cited.
𝗢𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 30 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘀, 𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘃𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 22 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲𝘀 (73%)."
And so what? At the end of the day it amounted to absolutely NO change of the outcome, meaning that Trump legally lost the election. You can disagree with the court rulings, and you can say that a lot of his arguments got thrown out of court, because of technicalities. But at those technicalities matter. And don't you think that Trump would have tried re-filing those complaints in a different way, if it would have gotten them into a court, where they could be heard in full? At the end of the day all of his objections and actions to contest the election result, and his subsequent behaviour, has amounted to nothing. Except ultimately getting him indicted in four cases, facing 91 charges of various seriousness, and potentially facing decades of jail time, IF he gets convicted. And to loosely quote Chris Christie, let's stop pretending that this is normal.
"Legally" is a bit loaded. By definition, Trump "legally" lost, but that's not saying much. I think there were more than enough undemocratic dirty tricks by the Democrats (that I've listed) that changed the election result. As Nixon was told when he lost to Jack: "they cheated fair and square".
DeleteBeyond that, I think it's impossible to say as the margins were so very, very close, and there were loads of irregularities, and the system seems to be designed to be unauditable.
I don't believe there was any overarching centrally controlled "conspiracy". I believe that the players knew what to do without being told.
The fact that 51 ex-intelligence officials all signed a letter put forward by the CIA that the laptop was Russian disinformation that was then used by social media as a pretext to ban the story was some sort of conspiracy amongst the 51, yes.
I think 4 years of Russiagate has now been well explained as something launched by Hillary with zero merit where the Dems in leadership positions in the CIA and FBI knew exactly what to do next to cripple Trump.
The fact that folks on the Dem side are so sanguine about the above (seems like you included?) is ridiculous.
The Zuckerbucks thing seems like a quite illegal directed application of massive amounts of "get out the vote" money to heavily Dem areas. They have "plausible deniability" as it was, "no, no, we were just targeting inner cities where those poor, poor people don't vote enough". Yeah, right.
The changes of election procedures that favoured Dems by courts without State Legislature approval as required by the State Constitution was another quasi-illegal thing that Marc Elias and his giant team of lawyers openly bragged about.
As to Georgia, they never did the audit of the signatures. They tried everything to wriggle out of that. The establishment Republicans were just as eager to destroy Trump as the Democrats. If you believe Raffesnberger, that's on you.
Given the extraordinary level of TDS in the US, the calls of "he's literally worse than Hitler!", "It's the END OF DEMOCRACY!" if he gets in again, wouldn't you expect for those opposed to him to bend the rules a little, or even a lot? It's natural.
The media's assertion that it was "the fairest election ever" is farcical on its face.
Kyrel and similarly minded. Save your breath/keystrokes its like arguing (debating) a bot, No matter what you say it ends up in you dont understand you poor fool. Which drives frustration which drives clicks and back and forth.. which somehow drives - revenue, It cant be just driving books sales (and I did enjoy the book) and it wasnt hhat much $)
DeleteI admit I do not understand how this site monetizes, especially given the adult content ... but it must. Google isnt spending $ on servers, bandwidth etc.. out of its humanitarian interest to spread knowledge and human interaction.
Once your realize its a just a money making grift its easier to come for the porm you like and disregard the rest
Hm. Getting the message that my comment is too long. 1 of 2 then…
DeleteRepublicans and Democrats is IMO tantamount to attempted election fraud, but the US laws allow it. IMO, in terms of the US Presidential election, the popular vote across the entire country, should be what determines the Presidential election. Not the electoral votes.
I'm happy that you at least don't think there was an overarching active plot to try and corrupt the election. The fact that you believe that a large number of people, across multiple geographical locations and organizations, on their own, decided to try and conspire to get, and keep, Trump out of the Oval Office, is something we'll have to disagree on. It's simply not plausible to me. The US is roughly split 50/50 on whether or not to vote for Trump, so odds are IMO heavily in favor of at least some of the people, who would need to be involved in such a scheme for it to succeed, would favor Trump, rather than Biden.
Russiagate ties into my first comment above. I don't see a problem investigating if a suspicion that Trump had ties to Russia was true or not. But using a suspicion like that politically, once it becomes obvious that there's nothing to find, is unappealing to me. But just like Trumps accusations of voter fraud had to be investigated within the laws of the US, so an accusation that the US President had ties to Russia similarly had to be investigated IMO.
The laptop thing I quite simply can't recall what was about, so I don't really have any opinion on it. But if 51 ex-intelligence officers go out and state that a particular story doesn't have a leg to stand on, and is in fact an orchestrated intelligence operation by a foreign power's intelligence agency, then I'd probably take action to try and limit the story from being further propagated on my business platform.
The Zuckerbucks story I'm not familiar with. But honestly, if we are talking about a social media being used to target a particular demographic, in order to incite them to go vote at the election, I don't really see much of a problem. Trump build the foundation for his following on the use of social media. And letting people target specific demographics for particular messages is essentially what pays for the existence of social media. To be honest, I'm fairly certain that the use of targeted social media messages is used by both Republicans and Democrats, so I have a hard time getting my piss boiling on that account.
And 2 of 2…
DeleteChanges to election procedures is difficult for me to have an opinion on, without more concrete knowledge about just what was changed. But if we are talking about making it easier for people to vote by mail, you are not going to get me up in arms about it. I'm all for making it easier for US citizens to vote in their elections, and strongly opposed to any laws, which make it more difficult for people to vote. Especially if any such laws make it harder for specific demographics to cast their vote. IMO implementing such laws would be comparable to attempts at election fraud.
As to what and how Georgia has or has not investigated Trump's accusations of massive voting fraud, I can only refer to the video I linked earlier. It's my impression that Raffensperger was testifying (likely under oath), in some official relation, so I will give the man the benefit of the doubt, and believe when he says that Georgia thoroughly investigated Trumps claims of fraud, and found nothing to suggest that fraud to any meaningful extend, which could have affected the outcome of the election, had taken place.
I'm not quite sure what your "TDS" abbreviation means specifically, but I suspect I get the gist of the overall meaning. Is it likely that there are people across the US, who desire to keep Trump out of office? Absolutely. It's probably also likely that there are some, who are willing to skirt the lines of what legal interpretations can be used defensibly to do so. But here's the thing for me: Once you get into a courtroom, whatever judge presides over the case, has to be able to justify that the positions they take during the case, can be defended as being in accordance with both the law as written, and with any prevailing precedence related to the case. And in matters like this, where we are looking at decisions that can affect elections within the US, I'm fairly certain that most judges will elect to step with a bit more care, than if we were talking about a case with much smaller potential derived consequences.
As for whether I'm potentially biased towards Trump, or in favor of the US Democrats, I won't rule it out. I dislike the public persona Trump projects to the public, and personally I wish that he'd just conceded the 2020 election result, and had then retired to Mar-a-Largo to play golf with all the other rich seniors down there. But I do try to apply my common sense to what I hear, and I do try to remain critical towards news that I know is liable to be presented with a particular angle and possible/likely bias. But granted, Trump's verifiable history of misrepresenting verifiable truth works against him, when it comes to whether to believe his claims, or claims to the contrary, coming from a wide variety of people and US governmental/state institutions and legal professionals commenting on areas within their specialties. So yes, I'm more tempted to believe that the 2020 election was conducted with the same level of credibility in the outcome, as all the other "recent" US elections, rather than being subjected to an extend of voter fraud, that so far hasn't been proven, within the confines of what the law either permits in terms of investigation, or which the courts have deemed to be valid/reliable enough evidence to consider it true.
You need to expand your news sources, Kyrel.
DeleteThe laptop was the discovery of Hunter Biden's laptop which was left at a computer repair store. The New York Post reported on it in the weeks leading up to the election. It contains evidence of Joe Biden's involvement in an influence peddling scheme with his son as the bagman. Most were unaware of the story as it was brutally suppressed on social media until after the election. Polling has shown that had the story been allowed to spread it would have shifted the election. The point is the 51 had not a shred of evidence that it was Russian disinformation, and in fact it was not as is now universally agreed.
Zuckerbucks was the single largest monetary donation of its kind in history: $350M to "get out the vote" that targeted Dem districts in swing states.
TDS stands for Trump Derangement Syndrome and is a mental disorder associated with a pathologically strong hatred of Trump for reasons that seem out of proportion to it and is attributed to a constant barrage of media programming.
The TDS was so strong that it created an asymmetry where the sufferers would literally do anything to get Trump. Plenty of Republicans observed the election shenanigans. Over 40,000 affidavits have been gathered concerning election integrity issues favouring Dems in Georgia alone.
Changes to election procedures to allow remote voting was known to heavily skew the benefit toward Dems (young woman demo). There was insufficient preparation for the oldsters and the changes were done in a hurry and unconstitutionally. A group of Dem lawyers led by Marc Elias and funded by the DNC bragged about these dirty trucks in a Time article.
The acronym TDS was already explained, this did make me wonder if there is an similar acronym for people who support Trump without question? The acronym MAGA is used as views associated with Trump... but its slogan with no derogatory/negative words.
Delete...
I suppose you could use TDS for either "side".
1) Those that are anti Trump beyond rational thought (e,g, comparison to Hitler). This only helps to undercut rational criticism.
2) Those that are so pro Trump they ignore rational criticism of him.
It could have worked both ways but I think established meaning is too entrenched to try to change,
It's not symmetrical. TDS sufferers are truly deranged. Like the guy who burned the Trump sign the other day, or the woman who screamed at the sky. On the other side there are just normal fans.
DeleteWell, that's one of the disadvantages to living on the other side of the planet. You don't get to hear all the things happening. Just what the various media see as relevant.
DeleteI'll be honest and say that I'll reserve judgement on the laptop issue, until the official America makes an actual issue of it. Until then I'll consider it as as yet unproven accusations. And not that "what-about-ism" justifies anything, but how many politicians do you think have found a way to make some money off of either access to their person, or some of their knowledge or influence?
Zuckerbucks I really don't care about, nor have any particular problem with.
As for TDS, let's just agree that there are nuts on both sides of the divide. Some have developed a pathological hate towards Trump, some hold him up as a savior, and will defend everything he does, regardless of its legality or morality. As I understand the matter, the latter is commonly seen amongst members of a cult.
"Changes to election procedures to allow remote voting was known to heavily skew the benefit toward Dems (young woman demo). There was insufficient preparation for the oldsters and the changes were done in a hurry and unconstitutionally."
Can't say that I can get my panties in a twist over that. IMO every single legal US citizen ought to automatically get a physical voting card, so all they have to do, is either mail in their choice of candidate, or go to a physical voting booth on election day. Any other hoops than that is bull***t IMO.
Implementing things fast I can somewhat excuse, given the Covid situation. I'm with the crowd that do not think it was a great idea to gather large crowds of people during a pandemic of an airborne disease, that was killing thousands of people.
If it was unconstitutional, that's unfortunate. But if the problem was mostly procedural, rather than material, then I have less of an issue with it.
Making it easier to absentee vote does not make it harder for older people to vote, so I can't see that they lose anything from such a change.
I would Not "reserve judgment" on the laptop issue, as the DOJ has already proven they are avoiding and delaying and double-dealing on Hunter, the laptop, and allegations. There's a huge document that lays out the entire laptop contents and identifies over 400 crimes. Look at that. https://bidenlaptopreport.marcopolousa.org/
DeleteThe nexus to Joe Biden influence peddling has already been established by Congress.
I can give dozens examples of crazy TDS. Can you provide equivalent examples on the other side. Start with just one concrete one.
The problem with the sudden mass mail-in is that they were insufficiently prepared and it left the door wide open to unauditable cheating.
I agree proper registration, ID, and traceability is what is required. None of that existed.
Kyrel and similar minded, I would not waste the breath/keystrokes on trerying to argue(debate) these points.I can;t help but feel this is like some kind of bait to increase replies by making proviocative statements which somehow must drive $ (I admit that I dont not er this platformer's revenue model).
DeleteObviously, comparisons to Hitler
I would just leave it as if you enjoy the usual content enjoy it and ignore the chaff. If you feel its beyond line the pale that you dont want to implicitly help "fund" the spread of these comments ...bail.
Your are not the first or likely to be the last to make this kind of comment ( > 2 doesnt mean its true/correct).
Obviously the Trump is like Hitler and similar statements are assinine and undermine legitimate criticism of his polices or how you want to view him as a President...
Similarly, the fact that the US government (which is my government) has done some awful/"evil" things doesnt mean everything is "bad". It seems almost like some cops are corrupt/racist so all cops are racist etc...
Are you a paid troll or do you do this out of mental health issues?
DeleteYou new here, dude?
DeleteJulie's been going at it since 2011. The people she going back and forth with are longtime regulars. Never seen any attempt to monetize other than her books, which she write blogs about exactly how much she makes (not a lot, and apparently donates even that).
Julie, ignore ingrates like him. Thanks for all the awesome free content over the years, your cute little spanked ass (and other bits) all on display, and for the books (will get your latest).
Yeah, you're an attention whore, but keep posting that ass and I'll give you whatever attention you want.
Mmmmmm... now THAT's the kind of "insult" I like to hear. Take note, guys and gals!
DeleteJulie, the issue I've got with random internet sites is that the validity of the content can really be whatever. I did a quick skim over the laptop story on Wikipedia, and honestly, when I read the following:
Delete"Despite persistent allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption by Joe Biden, a joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees released in September 2020 did not find wrongdoing by him, nor did a Republican House Oversight committee investigation by July 2023.[12][13]"
I'm not really seeing much support for the accusations that Joe Biden should really have done anything wrong, with regards to that laptop, and what is supposedly on there.
With regards to the mail-in ballots, the relevant state/federal administrations would seem to disagree with your assessment.
As for "Trump Cultists", take a look around. I'd argue that anyone that completely disregards anything coming out of the media, which they disagree with, and consistently refuses to see anything wrong with Donald Trump's actions, statements, and behaviour, are evidende of what I'm talking about. I'm sorry, but Chris Christie is right when he says that Trump's behaviour isn't "normal" for an ex-President. The man has been indicted 4 times now, and is facing 91 charges, which can potentially send him to jail for decades. He kept top secret documents in his home, and took action to prevent their return to the government, and according to some of the lawyers tasked with helping him return the relevant documents, he tried to get them to cover up what documents he had. No matter what politics Trump might stand for, this shit simply isn't defensible. Nor is a load of other actions he's taken over the years.
Wikipedia is not a good source for anything remotely political.
DeleteI agree that nothing "strictly illegal" has yet been proven, but is that our standard? There is now documented evidence that about $50M was transferred to Biden family members from suspect foreign sources through a network of cutout companies. No apparent services were rendered. The laptop documents Hunter reserving "10% for the big guy" on a Chinese JV, and an eye witness has stated Joe Biden is "the big guy". Hunter also reveals in a message to his niece that his Dad takes 50% of his income. A further eye witness, Hunter's business partner, Devon Archer, has testified that Joe Biden met with Hunter's "business partners" on at least 20 occasions while VP, something Joe lied about repeatedly. I dont know if influence peddling is illegal, but it's certainly not moral.
Nobody disagrees that the signature checks were extraordinarily lax in many jurisdictions, with unprecedented low rejection rates.
I'll take accusations against Trump one at a time, not lump them as you have done.
The documents nonsense we can deal with now. Both Hillary and Joe Biden committed the same thing and are not being prosecuted. Trump has the Presidential Record Act that gives him far more powers to determine what to keep than either of them. It's a silly "process crime" where no actual wrongdoing (eg, selling them to Russia or China) is even remotely alleged.
You have this incredibly biased anti-Trump view and try to hide it behind an appearance of reasonableness, but there's nothing reasonable about excusing Biden's blatant influence peddling and 4 ridiculous political indictments agains Trump where you are hard pressed to identify anything immoral.
Wikipedia's probably not good for detailed political analysis, but referencing the existence an investigation into the laptop matter by two Republican Senate committees, and a Republican House Oversight committee investigation, and the conclusion that they didn't find any wrongdoing by Joe Biden, ought to be credible enough. We can argue about any moral issues there might be involved in potential influence peddling, and in that I'll agree with you that the story, as presented by people that dislike Joe Biden, doesn't sound "pretty". But so far, governmental investigations into the matter suggest that it has not been illegal.
DeleteI can't comment on whether the signature checks of mail-in ballots were sufficient or not, but as we haven't seen or heard of loads and loads of votes having been rejected, the most logical conclusion would, in my mind, seem to be that the official State opinions on that matter, has been that the verification procedures have been sufficient. We can argue about out own opinions on the matter, but the official verdict is that the election result was valid, and that the processes surrounding the election were good enough to provide a valid result.
As for the "document nonsense", the large difference would appear to be that Trump failed to return the documents he had stored in his home, when he was first asked to do so, then subsequently when he was subpoenaed to do so. I don't recall Hillery Clinton failing to return top secret governmental documents, when prompted to do so, and I seem to recall that when comparable documents were found not to have been returned correctly by Joe Biden, prior to his presidency, he immediately handed over said documents. Trump failed to do that. Had he done so, it's highly doubtful that he would be facing those charges.
But regardless of what you or I think of these charges, Trump will have his day in court, and if the charges are as bogus as you say they are, then he'll be acquitted. But if the various lawyers I've heard comment on the issue are right, it's not unlikely that Trump will end up getting convicted, in that case.
You are right that Trump, as President, had powers to declassify top secret documents, but I'll put money on there being set procedures for how such classification is supposed to be done. The President simply saying so, thinking about it, or implicitly doing it by removing the documents from governmental locations is very likely NOT how a declassification process is supposed to run.
As for what evidence of wrongdoing exists, let's see what the court says about it, when they are through seeing the available evidence, and hearing what the various witnesses have to say.
Continuing...
DeleteAs for being "incredibly biased" towards Donald Trump, I don't believe that I've ever denied that I dislike how he presents himself to the public, and that I disagree with how he behaves in many cases, nor that I disagree with some of his politics. I'm not going to conclude definitively that he is legally guilty of anything, until the courts have made their ruling. But as for my subjective opinion on Trump's moral behavior in relation to the indictment issues, I have little problem finding behavior that rubs against my own morals.
The Stormy Daniels case is an accounting problem. I don't care about that. I won't blame Trump for trying to keep an affair secret.
But failing to return classified government files when asked to do so, is a big no-no in my book. And he had PLENTY of time to find and remove whatever personal papers that might have gotten mixed up with the government ones. Morally I see zero excuse for him in that case.
As for the two cases pertaining to trying to interfere with the election process and transfer of power, I have a hard time finding a way to defend Trump's behavior. Failure to accept the election result. Failure to accept court rulings. Failing to accept the results of recounts and investigations of his claims. Failing to immediately respond to a mob of people trespassing into the Capitol. Etc.
Let me end with a question to you Julie:
If Trump is convicted in any of those 4 cases he's facing at this point, will you accept the result the court comes up with? Or will you continue to support Trump, and maintain that he's done nothing wrong? And if a court ruling won't change your mind on him, what do you think it will take?
You are free to disagree with me on all of this Julie, but as "morals" is a subjective thing, so neither of us can be objectively "right/wrong" on what we mean about Trump's behavior in a moral sense.
We can "argue about" the moral issue presented by blatant influence peddling? Really? I'd like to hear you make your case for how illicitly selling access to yourself to foreign powers is not immoral. I'll wait.
DeleteThe Presidential Records act allows for a negotiation between parties on what may be kept, with the outgoing president having wide latitude. Those discussions were actively underway.
You can't see your own "tell", clutching your pearls at an ex-President not returning a document requested by a librarian. What act of immorality!
His "interference" with an election was him protesting, legally and constitutionally in every way, the outcome. He did exactly what Democrats have done when they lost.
Assuming the best charges and best evidence against Trump has been presented in the charging documents, no I would not accept it, as that evidence is extraordinarily weak, the charges rely on novel (and ridiculous) legal theories, the prosecution (and judges and juries) are heavily biased in most cases, the prosecution was brought with malice and in an intentional manner so as to interfere with the 2024 election.
I would ask you to present a single immoral thing you believe Trump has done and is being charged for ("not returning documents", "challenging the election", and "fucking a porn star" does not meet the low bar).
I'm not defending "illicitly selling access", I'm saying that official investigations into the question hasn't found evidence of illegal behavior. Not the same thing.
DeleteThere might be a wide latitude for outgoing Presidents to negotiate what documents they may keep or not. But it would seem obvious that there were some documents that the government was pretty insistant on Trump NOT keeping. And a legal order to return documents can hardly be called "a librarian".
Noone disputes Trump's right to dispute the election result. But unlike his predacessors, who did similar things, Trump has kept on spewing the same narrative of a stolen election, even after the courts have ruled against him, and after the votes were recounted. Once he ran out of legal ways to challenge the result, he should have let it go. But that's the core of the issue here. He didn't accept the result.
Various legal professionals would seem to disagree strongly with you on the strength of the various cases...
Your arguments that the procesution is malicious is opinion, not verified fact.
Trump leaves many people biased either for or against him. The law is the law, however, and whatever ruling we get in these cases will have to be defensible, from a legal standpoint. So bias will go only that far.
And your accusation of intent to interfere with the election process is also your opinion, not objective fact. It would certainly had been better, if the charges could have been brought immediately, but investigations take time.
I've already told you what I find morally objectionable about Trump's behavior in relation to the indictments. However, you disagree with me on those acts being immoral. I'd point to other charcter traits I disagree with, but they don't directly relate to the indictments, so they are nor relevant to this.
We seem to be writing at cross-purposes. I'm not a child. I don't care one whit if somebody broke a rule. I care about moral versus immoral behaviour. Biden may not have broken a rule in influence peddling, but it's immoral. Trump may have broken a rule regarding document retention, but no immoral associated act is even alleged. I've identified several immoral ways in which the election was rigged, and perhaps no rule was broken.
DeleteThe prosecutors ran on a platform of "get Trump". The charges were held back for 2.5 years before releasing them, then they were released in a coordinated fashion to have the trials maximally interfere with the election.
People with your views are sleepwalking the US into tyranny.
OK, if you only want to discuss "morality" questions, then we can dispense with quotes and evidence of anything, because then we are down to "I feel" vs. "you feel".
DeleteYour statement that the charges were held back for 2½ years, in order to maximize their effect on the upcoming election, is your opinion, and likely based on Trump claiming that to be the case. Unless you have sources that worked in the various prosecution offices, that have been involved in the investigations leading up to the indictments, all you have is hearsay. And you are free to believe that you and Trump are right, and that this is a witch hunt. But I'm similarly free to believe that you are wrong, and that while I agree that the timing of the cases are somewhat problematic, as I wrote earlier, investigations of things like this take time. And a public prosecutor typically doesn't bring a case like this to trial, if they don't believe that they have a case they can win.
As for people with my views sleepwalking the US into tyranny, what views would that be, exactly? That in order for a nation to exist, there need to be some form of law, governing what can and cannot be done in society, for the good of the people and nation as a whole? And that said law applies to everyone, regardless of status and influence?
If you want to run on morality alone, you could probably find people who would feel perfectly justified in tying you up, burying you in the ground, up to the waist, put a bag over your head, and then throw rocks as your head, until you either died, or managed to escape from the ground. Or maybe behead you. All based on a moral interpretation of some of the stories of you and your husband's sex life, that you thrill us with.
You want to talk about sleepwalking the US into tyranny? What's more likely to make that scenario happen. The people that insist that the law applies to everyone, and that even if you are or were President, there are limits to what you are allowed to do? Regardless of how entitled you might feel to do it. Or the people that write off all news reports and possible evidence of wrong doing they disagree with, don't care if their "star" breaks the law, as long as it doesn't clash with their morals, and either find or believe in excuses for every potentially illegal act that their start has engaged in?
P.S.
For the record, I wouldn't want to vote for Biden/Harris either. But I'd pick them over Trump. But put Biden up against Chris Christie, and I'd probably go with Christie, despite disagreeing with some of his politics.
Nazis and Communists were following the laws when they butchered millions. Every two bit banana republic uses the law to jail political opponents. Putin is famous for using laws to persecute his opponents. That woman being stoned death is being punished according to the laws.
DeleteSorry, Kyrel, you have to do better than blindly following laws. It's not enough.
And there came the Nazi card. Seriously Julie. 1) You are better than that, and 2) do you seriously want to compare the US and its laws to banana republics, Nazi Germany, and Communist Russia/USSR, China etc.?
DeleteWe can agree that laws should be "just" and "reasonable", though those two terms are pretty subjective and flexible. We can also agree that laws can be used to suppress people and justify horrible acts, if the populace allows the government to move the laws to that point. But if the majority of the populace agrees with the laws of the country, regardless of how suppressive they are, can it then be argued that said laws are immoral? From the outside of the country, sure. But from the inside of the country?
Yes, unjust laws shouldn't be blindly followed. But we need laws in order for a modern society to function. The 10 Commandments and the common sense of judges aren't enough today. And changes to the law have to be brought about through commonly accepted processes, least we end up with unrest and civil war between factions that don't look at things in the same way.
We can exchange views on morals and how to view various actions, when looked at through our particular moral lens. But I'll argue that you are stretching, if you want to hold up the US laws and legal processes in general as being particularly immoral or unjust, or if you seriously want to hold up Donald Trump as an example of good moral behavior and good ethics, in general.
I'm not comparing anybody to Nazis, I'm using reductio ad absurdum to refute your dumb point that morality is irrelevant and only strictly following the letter of the law is relevant. I'm disappointed you could not recognize this rhetorical device, "you are better than that", Kyrel.
DeleteAs subjective and flexible as morality may be, there's no alternative but to figure it out. And it's only murky on the boundaries, there's also clear wrong and clear right.
Any system of laws can be abused. Stalin's chief of police said "show me the man and I'll show you the crime". Closer to home, "a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich" said a New York Court of Appeals judge.
and yes, I will hold up President Trump as an example of pretty good morals where it counts, as opposed to warmongers like Biden who glibly cause hundreds of thousands to die.
What do you think of DeSantis?
ReplyDeleteI liked him a lot before he seemed to have gotten in bed with the big donors and the Republican establishment who are backing him to take out Trump. Now his positions have become watered down. Also, did not appreciate his using State powers to go after Disney despite their provocation. It signalled he has a shallow understanding of free speach.
DeleteI don't like establishment candidates, be they Dems or Republicans. I liked Trump, Tulsy, Yang, and now RFKJr and Vivek.
Julie, I don’t blame you for not liking establishment candidates. Your weakness is your inability to see that a lot anti-establishment contrarianism is even worse than the establishment.
DeleteBy the way, as a fellow Canadian, I wonder why you are so emotionally invested in defending Trump.
Is that "my weakness", really? Provide a cogent argument that a non-establishment candidate says something you disagree with and why, and I'll respond. These generalities are not useful in advancing a discussion.
Delete"Also, did not appreciate his using State powers to go after Disney despite their provocation. It signalled he has a shallow understanding of free speach."
DeleteHey, see, even you and I can agree on something political!
I thought, btw, he fared pretty poorly in last night's debate. It seems literally to cause him pain to look in the camera and smile. He ends up contorting his face, like he's trying desperately to hold in a fart. On the substance, his answers vacillated between vague and flip. He didn't make any huge gaffes, but he needed a home run and didn't get anything remotely close. Though to be fair, in being scrupulously fair to 10 candidates and giving them all multiple questions, DeSantis didn't get a lot of individual air time to try to show why he deserves front-runner status. Though, some like Nikki Haley did far more with whatever time they got.
I thought Vivek was the clear winner. He certainly has all the takeaway clips, which is what these things are all about.
DeleteI don't know. He was animated for sure, but to me his act wears a little thin over time. He's like the overly earnest high school class president who thinks he's the coolest kid in school but gets beat up all the time by the actual cool kids and never gets invited to parties. I admit I judge candidates on how much I'd like to have a beer with them, and he'd been near the bottom of my list (right above Pence) on that factor.
DeleteI'm not sure there was a clear winner, but if I had to choose one, I'd probably go with Haley. She gives grown up answers to complicated questions (though that's not always a strength, particularly with a populist base), and she cleaned Vivek's clock with that line about how his lack of foreign policy experience shows.
I go less on feelz and more on policy positions. Anti climate scam, anti Ukraine war, pro free speech, anti intersectional, pro meritocracy, anti illegal immigration, pro legal merit based immigration, ...
DeleteIt gave me some glimmer of hope for the Republican party that the second biggest boos of the night were in response to Ramaswamy's comments on climate change.
DeleteNot sure if that was for climate change or because he called everybody else "bought and paid for". The whole audience was big donors, no grass roots.
DeleteListened to the two podcasts. Very interesting and a lot to say. Thank you. Did you hear the two Tucker on Twitter ones also?
ReplyDeleteOh, of course I did! I never miss an episode of Tucker on Twitter.
DeleteYou can find them all here: https://twitter.com/tuckercarlson
Wasn't Tucker Carlson they guy who helped to get his emplorer (FOX) sued with cloer to $1B USD settlements. For making what knowingly false statements about the election?? He the primary fall guy for this although there were others on Fox (which maybe you see as main stream media?? Why would anyone trust to be any more truthful becuase he is on his own.
DeleteI think he is another one is just likes to spew contrarian
comments to gain clicks/views/attention/ whic translates to $.
I guess he wasnt sued directly becuase Fox has deeper pockets?
No, Tucker was not sued. He counselled the other hosts not to run the most crazy Dominion allegations which were obvious Dem honey traps. (Convince your opponent to make a ridiculous claim by feeding them bad data so they can use that to dishonestly tar all claims with the same brush).
Delete“selling innovative drugs, eg against prostate cancer, that Big Pharma chose not to pursue” … you’re talking about relugolix, which is a type of drug that pharma already created originally in an injectable form. Primary difference is this one is in a pill form. Not groundbreaking or an unmet need. From the liberal snowflake guy you recently had stick a ginger root up his butt lol.
ReplyDeleteThe company has done more than that. See https://medcitynews.com/2021/05/roivants-move-to-go-public-reveals-just-how-much-its-drug-strategy-has-changed/
DeleteAt any rate, he certainly grew the worth of that company for its shareholders and cashed out big himself, which was my point. He's a self-made man.
Most of the newsmen who have resigned are from Fox. I haven't seen anyone from CBS (my old alma mater) or NBC leave in protest.
DeleteTrump did try to stay in office after he was defeated. That's why Georgia is charging him with multiple felonies. The president of the United States is not allowed to call a state attorney general and "ask" him to find votes for him. No president has done that before. It's the "let's make a deal" mentality of Trump.
I watched the January 6 hearings on TV. I paid particular attention to the testimony of Trump staffers and appointees including his attorney general. They made it clear what was going on in the White House.
I know that you are very smart. I also know that you can't vote here. I understand, I think, why you and I disagree so strongly. I'm not trying to change your mind. I am suggesting that you consider some simple facts.
First of all, Joe Biden doesn't excite any Democrats. He won in 2020 because Trump was so distasteful as president. That's a fact you have to accept. Trump's strategy has always been to appeal to his base. This worked in 2016. The problem with that is his base likes easy answers to hard questions.
I know that you hate this comparison, but I have to make it. In the 1930's Hitler rose in popularity because his simple, nationalistic positions resonated with many Germans. He reinforced their feeling of national superiority. He made his base feel good.
After he was in office and WW2 was hurting the average German's quality of life, he realized he needed to re-energize his base. I believe that this need was the main reason he began his campaign to kill Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals. His base liked being the master race.
I'm not saying that Trump is as evil as Hitler. He certainly isn't. But his ego drives him to win at any cost. Talk radio has proven that a lot of Americans can be transfixed by the same sort of rhetoric that the fuhrer used in Germany. Tell the people that they are the best and that problems like immigration can easily be solved by throwing foreigners out. China goes through periods of this sort of nationalistic rage on a regular basis.
Julie, it's easy to tell people what they want to hear. Politicians are all good at that. Trump's difference is is giant ego. I suspect that he knows the truth about the election and the challenges of immigration and other key issues he oversimplifies. He knew that building a silly wall on our southern border was not going to solve anything. But, he knew that his base would love him to do it.
I often wonder if those monsters of history were really as crazy as we imagine they are. Trump made it through Yale. He can read. He's articulate and when his emotions don't take over, can argue intelligently. That makes me wonder about others who have followed his path. Is it Putin and Hitler's pathological need for power that makes them act the way they do? I'm very sure that Donald Trump has that pathology. He's not stupid. He's ill. That's what I think.
Populism is not always a bad thing. See American Revolution. We'll agree to disagree on Trump.
DeleteInteresting perspective / fresh(er) take on Trump giving simple / answers people want to hear.... but I think its to nuance for the avg person (regardless of view) and bring up Hitler tunes people out.
DeleteBringing up Hitler reminded me of something I never understood. Maybe its because I dont speak German (or because I know how "the book ends") but every speech recorded of Hitler seems like he is screaming at the top of his lungs like a nut-job (including before have too much power to be stopped by good people). At one time I thought it was the 30's era radio/speakers at events to be heard .... but FDR, Churchill etc didnt have to shout like that .... I also saw a youtube video that claim to play one of the only recordings ever found of Hitler speaking in a normal tone voice. Whatever I can say about Trump or any other political person in the english speaking world of the modern era .. they may shout to rev up their crowd but they dont scream out of their minds for 10-15 mins straight. I struggle with how anyone listened to this and thought ... yeah this guy will work out OK.....
Hitler, via Goebels, was a master at propaganda. We unfortunately see echoes of this type of propaganda today. And I don't mean Trump.
DeleteNot going to vote for an Indian. Send them all back.
ReplyDeleteRacist much? Yuck.
DeleteWhat is the point of conservatism that hands the country over to the Patel family? The UK already made the mistake.
DeleteWho?
DeleteI can't get behind any republican because they have to be anti-abortion and pro-guns.
ReplyDeleteIt seems obvious to me that we should be pro-choice (pro-abortion if that's what the woman wants) and anti-gun. The fact that you and republicans in general are against these basic human rights positions baffles me.
So I have to be democrat here.
Most reasonable people, Dems and Republicans agree on abortion. Legal 1st trimester. Not allowed 3rd trimester (except for mother's health reasons). Open to compromise on 2nd. It's only extremists who argue for making it illegal from conception or legal for any reason until moment of birth.
DeleteYou are pro gun for criminals? Because that's what your policy implies.
I am anti-gun as much as is possible.
DeleteOf course, some criminals will get guns. That's a necessary evil / sadness of humans.
In order to protect by far the most lives, we need to ban most guns.
Seems obvious. And backed strongly by evidence (which you will attempt to distort, as always)
I acknowledge the costs of 2A. Facilitates suicides. Allows for accidental deaths when handled and stored carelessly.
DeleteDo you not acknowledge the upsides of personal self-defense? Especially with police shortages, surges in crime, some communities I'll served. The ability of a pistol to level the playing field for women? Or how about farming and hunting? And how about as a bulwark against government tyranny? None of those are advantages? Do you not acknowledge anything on the benefit side at all?
It's a pros versus cons issue, and your apparent extremist position with no discussion seems like you're the one distorting the argument, bringing it to an almost "religious" faith issue for you.
Doesnt this seem like another 0-60mph with no in between like a quantum particle changing energy state??? Surely there has to be some difference between the current state of US gun laws and "they wont let me have a gun to protect myself". Doesn't Canada have stricter gun laws and a lower per capita instance of gun related crimes? Can you get get a gun to protect yourself.
DeleteExtremely difficult in Canada. Practically impossible if you live in Toronto.
DeleteBut yes, there not a sane person in the world that would not want some compromise because of the pros and the cons.
Thank you. I posted above anonymously (I just have a concern about being outed viz kink) but that was a reasonable response You likely understood "what I said versus what I meant" but when I said "difference" I probably should have used "middle ground"......
DeleteI meant to put in my above post that I actually believe in the saying that if you outlaw guns only criminals will have guns. Obviously criminals don't care about laws - it is already illegal to hurt/kill someone, whether you use a knife, gun or a space laser. I feel it's the sheer volume of guns in the US that make it easier for criminals or mentally ill people to get them, it's a vexing problem.
DeleteMaybe I shouldn't ruin this by saying I am the "word salad " guy :) maybe it's just the specific language we use or the mood we are in at a specific time that divides us.
isv
I think the problem with a 100% focus on extreme gun control is that it blocks people from getting together and doing the sensible things most everybody can agree upon.
Delete"Word salad" is not a characteristic of a person. It's a symptom of the "cognitive dissonance" mental state a person gets into when their long held beliefs are challenged and they have no logical comeback. Their logic tells them to modify their views, but their emotions cannot allow themselves to. What results is often long sequences of words that don't make much sense: word salad.
I have seen several interviews of each of them. Regardless of their respective opinions on issues, it's refreshing to listen to people who can think on their feet and answer the questions that are being thrown at them.
ReplyDeleteIndeed!
DeleteAnytime someone mentions gun control to a far-right extremist, he/she says, "You are arming criminals." That's just dumb. What we are doing is DISarming children, mentally ill people, and abusive spouses. With or without gun control, the crooks will get guns. I live in a state that makes it extremely easy to own guns. Hell, our state constitution makes it illegal to pass any legislation that limits ownership of anything. If it weren't for the damn Feds, I could own a tank. Imagine that. Next time a porch pirate steals my packages, I could blow him and his car to smithereens.
DeleteThe sad truth is that the number one way people here successfully commit suicide is with guns. We are averaging about one mass shooting a day. Outlawing guns would go a long way to end those horrible problems. Criminals aren't involved, just sadly disturbed regular people.
The other truth is that even though we can own guns here (and many do), there are almost no civilian shooting of criminals. We still have burglaries, car-jacking, and robberies even though anyone over 18 can own a gun. I couldn't kills someone for stealing my Amazon package. Few could.
The point is that the standard arguments about the value of an armed citizenry are not borne out by the facts.
Your comments pop up in odd places, Lion! You're responding to points but seemingly on the wrong threads? No worries!
DeleteAs I mentioned, there are pros and cons to 2A. If a criminal is trying to do a home invasion and you have a gun to defend yourself, that's a pretty damned big pro! People should be careful securing their guns and aggressively charged if they don't and something bad happens. As for suicide, there's lots of things people can use to kill themselves.
I think that you are an excellent writer and I really enjoy your descriptions of human sexuality from both a male and female perspective.
ReplyDeleteI do wish, however, that you would steer away from politics. As a scientist, I am very disappointed in your disregard for our profession. Most of us really do seek the truth of what is happening in the world, much more so than politicians, religious leaders, and other “influencers”. All humans make mistakes and suffer from confirmation bias, but true scientists do their very best to avoid this.
I have high regard for scientists and the scientific method. I have low regard for those misrepresenting their findings to instil panic for political reasons or misrepresenting science to shill a drug.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYour understanding of what actual scientists say is very rudimentary. The ones who fuel the controversy are only those very few who do GCMs (Global Circulation Models). Once you understand the limitations of GCMs, the assumptions that go into how they are calibrated, the approximations used, how coarse they are, and the vast differences between one research group and others, you would actually be showing respect for the science. The scientists themselves have persistently complained about how the IPCC "Summary for Policy Makers" distort the science. No, you have an extremely low resolution, almost comically low, understanding of the science.
DeleteI hope that was some kind of F**** joke. Your not going to vote for someone based on race ? and presumably sex? Go ahead elect Trump, Biden, Trudue, Putin, Campbell, Mcguity, Stalin, Regan.
ReplyDeleteI Hope it was, but I suspect not.
DeleteCan we just not have some kindness? Disagree debate without anger clear reasoning. Make your case, I have been wrong...maybe you too.
DeleteAgree
DeleteI think it's very unlikely that anyone but Trump will be the Republican nominee. And it's near impossible for anyone but Biden on the Democrat side.
ReplyDeleteSo, it will be more realistic to focus on these two.
On the topic of the appeal of the two gentlemen you discussed, I fear that contrarianism and reactionary mindsets are doing far more damage to public discourse than realized.
I saw that when self-proclaimed Bernie Sanders fans became Trump fans without any ideological shift on their part -- it's just that they won't vote for another Bush or another Clinton!
Conservatives shouldn't find much in common with RFK Jr. Constitutional absolutist should find Vivek abhorrent (if only for his non-chalant "commitment" to raise the voting age to 25). Trump should have (and should have had) far less support from almost everyone for his dangerous narcissm (thank you for mentioning it as a negative trait, Julie, despite your support for him). And someone like Andrew Tate should be laughed out of any serious platform and not taken seriously -- yet, you see how conservatives like Tucker Carlson are praising and defending him and his brother.
The reason, I'd argue, for all of these anomalies is the burning hatred contrarians have for the establishment, the legacy institutions, the "normies," and the status "quo enjoyers." It only takes someone to say the buzz words and make the "identifying as a helicopter" joke for them to become his or her undying fan.
I find that very concerning. Putin has fanboys out of contrarianism now! Hell, even the Taliban does!!
That's misinformation about Vivek. He has stated that he wants to insist <25 pass a citizenship test before being allowed to vote (administered during high school civics mostly). He acknowledged it would require a change to the constitution to do it.
DeleteI think you downplay the importance of dismantling the administrative state for the sake of democracy. No establishment candidate would do that.
Wow, Julie, holding your own esp against that black "Race Hustler". Very impressive. As for Lion, I can't believe he thinks his experiences with one network 60 freaking years ago have any bearing at all concerning the news today. Ya know considering the 'consolidation' of publishers, the entire internet, mass surveillance devices everywhere (including in the common citizens hands in the form of a smartphone), the social media companies and how the "Twitter files" showed that the government (parts of the Administrative State and the Intelligence Agencies out of Trump's control and under the first two years of Biden) was downright curating Twitter of content it didn't like and etc. I get the idea that Lion, and those like him , are forever stuck in the 60's and 70's and Walter Cronkite plays on an endless loop in their heads and soothes them as they go to sleep that everything is the exact same as its always been and that any problems with the Federal Government were taken care of when they took care of that Evil Meanie , Nixon, and in addition, ran the Church Commission. It's rather sad, but then again really old people tend to live more in the past than the present.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, the Interwebs is a murky place chock'a'block with all manor of deliberate misinformation and uninformed views. Need to develop the skills to quickly cut through that and objectively identify what's false, what to remain open about, and what's most likely true (while still remaining open minded about maybe not). We used to "outsource" all that to the news, however they have definitely proven themselves to be dishonest brokers in modern day, so it's back onto us to do our own research (which is easier than ever now) and to seek out independent voices we can trust (eg, Glenn Greenwald, Scott Adams, Matt Taibbi, ...)
Delete"the Interwebs is a murky place chock'a'block with all manor of deliberate misinformation and uninformed views."
Deleteso true! this is a great example.
Brilliant self-own! That certainly proves you're bad at separating the one from the other.
DeleteI have more recent experience than 60 years ago. I also worked for two networks and have had long-term relationships with news people. I guess it is easier to just believe that whoever "reports" what you want to believe is right and that the others are black-ops CIA-driven plots to misinform the stupid public.
DeleteWhen there are issues that offer opportunities to one group over another, efforts will be made by each group to influence the great unwashed. We used to call that propaganda. Now it is fake news.
News departments get it wrong sometimes. So do scientists. Both correct themselves and advise people when they do. The Internet has given a megaphone to anyone who wants to espouse an opinion or "fact." You don't have to be hired by a news department manager who will verify your education and check your skills. You don''t have editors and fact-checkers to validate you write. You can just spew any crap you want without a single filter.
It's childish and stupid to imagine that there is some sort of media conspiracy to hide the truth. There isn't. It's true that the editorial pages of the "New York Times" and the "Wall Street Journal" write highly slanted editorials. Columnists write slanted pieces. Bloggers, like Julie and me do too. But whether your small, obviously-limited mind can comprehend it, the thousands of honest journalists and editors do their very best to get it right. They usually do. When they don't, they admit their mistakes. It's insane to believe that so many people who have spent their lives reporting the news are corrupted by some Kafkaesque plot to do evil.
I read our supposed neutral newspaper here in Toronto most days, The Globe and Mail. Far too many of the stories have a distinct left leaning bias which extends to framing things a certain way, using biased language, omitting key stories and key facts. Outfits like CNN aren't even trying anymore.
DeleteIt's not a conspiracy, it's left wing indoctrinated journalists who hire more left wing indoctrinated journalists and so on. You keep ascribing conspiracy theories to things that can easily be explained in a more mundane fashion.
"Black Race Hustler"
DeleteHow very amusing, Clarence. Whenever a Black Man or Woman points out the all that I have mentioned here we are labeled as troublemakers or "race hustlers".
Of course to this day no one has defined what a 'race hustler' is and what is being hustled. Unless of course Black People pointing out and combating Anti-Black Racism in and all aspects applicable is uncomfortable for you. Not apologizing if it is. The days of Black silence for your comfort are long since dead.
Also Julie has not been 'holding her own' against what I have been posting here. If anything she is stonewalling rather than bring up anything of substance to counter my information.
You cannot counter nor gaslight the truth.
Holy Moly, you really got them spun up with this post. What was the post about again? Sorry, I could not favor your candidates. My pipe dream is a non-pol with common sense.
ReplyDeleteYes. They love to bring it back to Trump even though he was one candidate I specifically DID NOT endorse in this post. He seems to live rent free in their brains.
DeleteThank you, Julie. I agree with all you say but disagree with our conclusion. There is a saying in live something like this, "in times of trouble bring in the SOBs". I believe the deep state would eat your candidates alive. Now there is no bigger SOB than Trump.
ReplyDeleteI can respect that position!
DeleteCertainly if Trump becomes the candidate, I'll be all in for him.
Thank You
DeleteJulie....Julie....Julie...well, well, well, que puis-je dire..... i did not know you were so (very so)... political... i mean frankly.... can any man on this (need I remind one-and-all) spanking-related web site seriously imagine a moment greater than having his ass reddened by a woman who is so politically on the ball?
ReplyDeleteJulie.. from a French admirer... even i were not a pervert who loves to be humiliated by "empowered" females, i would become one JUST FOR YOU.
I think that you should be in charge of peace talks between the two Vladimirs (and please do pretend not to hear when the Ukranian rat-faced con-man uses his safe word - he is responsible for the needless deaths of over 300,000 good Ukranian men - I despise him).
Trump will win the election. For sure, your analysis is totally correct, but Trump is by far the most likely option.
Merci de ton travail.
ça m’a fait plaisir!
DeleteWow, a lot of people chimed in on this. I actually think people that read your posts are more passionate about politics than they are about sex and kink.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, America seriously needs to fix its election process, there is still no integrity reform in many states, so who can trust the results any more than 2020.
Trump would definitely be my first choice for another four years. He proved last time that he is a great leader, despite his mean tweats.
I agree with you Julie, I'm not sure he can get elected under the situation we have going.
I like a great deal about Vivek, he would be my second choice and Larry Elder my third.
Ultimately, I want the most conservative person that can win. I want a Constitutional conservative leader that will shrink the size and control of Federal government and give more power to the states, education, welfare, forest management. We really need someone, or all three branches that will work to reduce spending, cut taxes, quit supporting endless wars.
We agree. Nice finding a rational person. It's amazing how unhinged the left are by comparison, isn't it?
DeleteAgreeing with you, that we don't want another four years with Biden, and we don't need Trump and all his legal problems, so what is left. I know that RFK Jr. is not a copy of his Dad, there are things he has said that I do not agree with. At this time, that is true with all who run for office. I'm tending towards RFK. Thank's for the information. Jack
ReplyDeleteyou're welcome!
DeleteThis post seems to be mostly about ideology. Governing, implementing ideology through encouraging legislation and/or authorized executive action, may be more important than the ideology itself.
ReplyDeleteMy fantasy of an inauguration speech is one of putting Congress to work - to come together on legislation in a dozen long neglected areas rather than quibble.
So much modernization and improvement is needed. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Immigration, entitlement reform, defense, healthcare, privacy, gun control, environment…
Rosco
It's what attracts me about both Vivek and RFKJr, they both have very concrete policy prescriptions.
DeleteAs much as I love the free speech, mister "word salad" "believe the science" guy who commented above wrote another giant comment rehashing things and then said he did not come to the blog for a while, came back to comment here, and won't be coming back again. Since he won't be back to read any response, I just deep-sixed it. Too bad. So sad. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
ReplyDeleteI am going to say that right off the bat I in no way agree with your political takes and in this instant neither of these two are viable or credible options for POTUS.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, outside of your oftentimes dismissive replies and the subsequent plie ons on people who disagree, the one thing I will give you credit for is that your reads come from your investigating your takes before committing them to the page.
In any reasoned discussion room must be made for both sides takes on any given topic. And any debate has to start with the space for both sides to be heard and given weight.
So while I have never agreed with your positions I applaud your research in giving a dissenter reference points to form their disent. There are other blogs that lean into the racist, homophobic and mysoginistic tones I don't find your political takes to be as overtly rigid in that way.
So I will only say to wrap up:
Je serais heureux d'avoir l'occasion d'avoir une discussion raisonnée avec vous sur mes genoux vous donnant la fessée de fond nu que vous méritez si richement. La politique et la fessée vont si bien ensemble et ce serait mon plaisir de montrer ce que Making America Great Again signifie VRAIMENT en tournant votre cul nu rouge vif et en expérimentant à quel point vous obtenez humide d'une éducation politique paternelle.
Merci bien!
DeleteEt encore pour la "discussion" sûr genoux.
Gladly.
Delete