Well, first, I’m unfamiliar with the “Qaddafi death cackle video,” but if someone was pleased by Qaddafi’s death, I don’t believe that indicates they are a sociopath. Who knows, perhaps that means I’m a sociopath myself.
You are saying, I believe, that you did not like the policies you thought Clinton had implemented and would implement, and that you did like the policies you thought the current President would implement.
I am saying that when you establish a voluntary relationship with someone who has a known history of lying, the only thing you can know with relative certainty is that they will lie to you. When you establish a voluntary relationship with someone who has done racist things (claim the nation’s first mixed race President was not a legal citizen, refuse to apologize for an ad which called for the death penalty for some black kids who were not just not guilty of a crime they were charged with, but clearly found to be undeniably innocent of that crime), you can be certain they will be racist. When you establish a voluntary relationship with someone who has done sexist things (yes, that will do), you can be certain they will be sexist.
There have been many, many candidates for high public office who have pushed policies that I find repugnant. That’s not what I’m talking about with respect to the present President. It’s not a matter of any particular policy. It’s a matter of not putting the nation that, until the last election, was the leader of the “free world” into the hands of a dishonest self-centered thug. It’s a matter of responsibility and citizenship.
I am not nearly as bothered by the current President as I am bothered by the idea that forty percent of the American electorate, having observed him for three and a half years, approve of him. That tells me that I’m not on the same page or in the same book as many of my neighbors, and that is what I find depressing, sad, and frightening.
That is the man who was hunted down and executed Saturday night in Portland by alleged shooter Michael Reinoehl, a self described 100% Antifa and BLM member. A thug who was present at many riots, bringing a loaded gun and his 11 year old daughter, who brought a bat: https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1300531077639892994
For the residents, business owners and taxpayers of New York City, Seattle, Portland, Kenosha, Chicago, Oakland and L.A. the rioting by these paid and trained “protestors” is very real.
Well, first, I'm unfamiliar with the "Qaddafi death cackle video," but if someone was pleased by Qaddafi's death, I don't believe that indicates they are a sociopath. Who knows, perhaps that means I'm a sociopath myself.OK here is the video for your edification. https://youtu.be/FmIRYvJQeHM Qaddafi's libya was a prosperous and an advanced nation for the MENA region. He used Libya's oil wealth for free health care for his citizens. He lived in a tent not a palace. After Hillary, and company started a NATO war at Israel's behest to overthrow him and to burnish her 'leadership credentials for her anticipated presidential campaign, his modern and prosperous country was bombed back to the stone age and turned into a shit hole failed state with mass casualties, and open slave markets! Qaddafi was sodomized to death with a sword by 'our rebels' which was captured live on video. So yeah, if your OK with that, you might just be a sociopath, and yes, you could say I don't like her policies.
You are saying, I believe, that you did not like the policies you thought Clinton had implemented and would implement, and that you did like the policies you thought the current President would implement.No, I was saying that one valid reason, for making the choice for trump was to avoid Hillary's stated pro war position that on it's face represented an extremely high risk of a kinetic confrontation with a Nuclear Armed power with all that implies for escalation and Armageddon. Arguably for a person that likes neither candidate, that one issues could transcend almost all other considerations from a purely logical or pragmatic standpoint. I have to agree about Trumps Racism, I was particularly galled when he called to bring those inner city Super Predators to heel! Oh wait, I'm confusing my racist politicians and policies You take as an article of faith that Trump is racist, Certainly that's been repeated ad nausem by our mocking bird media and you cite the Obama birther controversy among your rationals. That was a political controversy, not a racist one. I used to think that that was ludicrous right wing conspiracy as well. However because I looked and evaluated with an open mind I eventually changed my mind. I was convinced after looking at the independent analysis of two forensic labs that the birth certificate presented was indeed a composite forgery. Frankly the evidence is for the certificate being fraudulent is overwhelming. Look for yourself if you dare. But discussion of it is too far outside the Overton window of acceptable discourse. https://anonhq.com/obamas-birth-certificate-investigation-concludes-5-years-forensic-outcome-certificate-fake/ And finally for what it's worth, I wouldn't hang your hat on Hillary as some sort of truth teller. That is risible. Your description of putting a dishonest self-centered thug as a "leader of the free world" applies as much or more to HC as Trump. Also for what it's worth, the whole " leader of the free world" thing is past it's pull date. It functions as a reflexive if delusional sop to our collective exceptionalism. Maybe once, but lately we're a Bankrupt Bully who tramples on International law and sows death and destruction at the behest of our corrupt elites and Israeli handlers. mm
agitating.prop wrote: The 911 Truth movement was co-opted by the same people who co-opted the original tea party movement. Somehow the truth movement became this monster, this deranged angry beast. Some of the members became or are so unhinged they became involved with Q-anon, a feverishly retarded, cryptic mess of nonsense that openly supports the military. HTF did that happen?agitating.prop, I really don't know what you are talking about. As a professional engineer, I signed the AE911Truth.org petition to reinvestigate the events of 9/11. Why? Because the buildings could not have collapsed the way the official report suggests. Does that mean that I'm part and parcel of the co-opting you wrote about? Perhaps you think that I just got fooled. Could it be that you painted the group with a brush that is a wee bit too broad? There may be factions involved as you describe. Can you name any large group anywhere that only has people who have totally pure hearts? Does that mean that they are co-opted (and total crap as you implied) as well in your book? Also, can you provide any documentation that supports your charge? Make sure that the bad people you cite are actually in the organization decision structure; otherwise, they could just be plants sent in by someone who wants to discredit the movement. Oh, and please list the organizations who specifically have been co-opted so I can avoid those like Covid-19. Believe it or not, there are people who think the whole truck load of apples needs to be tossed just because of a few bad ones. Do you know any? In my book, the events surrounding 9/11 should be reinvestigated. Charges of treason should be levied against GWBush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others in the Bush II Administration. If they are found guilty, they should be ceremoniously hung by the neck until dead. It isn't until justice is felt by all that justice prevails. Will it ever happen? I seriously doubt it. There are too many in powerful positions who don't want any kerfuffle that might upset their premium position on the apple cart. Those powerful people may have a political party preference, but they are far too pragmatic to let that get in the way of gaining more power. They'll attempt to buy candidates from both sides. Why? So they can get political favors in return regardless of which political team wins. "Hey, include this loophole in legislation you are about to introduce ... better yet, I know you're busy. I wrote the legislation you should introduce (if you want my support during the next election.)" Have you wondered who benefits and who pays the cost? Look at the top of the apple cart for who benefits and look in the mirror for who pays the cost.
you also wrote: How did a profoundly anti-establishment and genuine search for truth morph into the hard right nightmare of the Trump cult?Did you really mean the "genuine search for truth" portion, or was that just a canard? I'm really not sure what to make of the question you wrote. Does that mean that all "truthers" are now in the Trump cult? Also, I wouldn't say the truth seeking groups were profoundly anti-establishment. Basically, AE911Truth.org is trying to use established systems to get the events reinvestigated. They are just trying to raise awareness so people will actually vote accordingly. How is that profoundly anti-establishment? Grover
Hello, It’s me, one of the moronic deplorables. If you call me names for taking the side that I do, it’s OK… I don’t mind. I have seen many calls to emotion here… suggesting that I and others are sullying the high integrity of this website… but what really is this website? It’s a place to explore what is true, that’s what it is. I have been here since before it was peak prosperity, if anyone remembers that far back. Chris was one of the few who correctly called the GFC and the resulting stock market crash… that caught my attention. I woke up to the 9/11 false flag through this community. I owe a lot to this community and I have made some real blood brothers and sisters through it.
There are many good hearted, idealist people who see the world differently than I do… and that is because they cannot grasp the degree to which the mass media is captured by, and acts as a mouthpiece of, the Globalist cabal. I know, I know… just by saying that your warning bells are going off in your head, “CONSPIRACY THEORIST, CONSPIRACY THEORIST”. That is your training kicking in… it’s Okay.
We are in a war right now. Prior to Trump the deep state had captured most politicians on both sides, through compromat, through bribery, through tapping their communications, etc. I have put enormous effort into a thread with over 500 posts called, “hydroxychloroquine vs. the Deep State” in order to give folks a guided tour of the deep state in action, in real time. Is this the work of a moron?
I think where people fail to comprehend is in their ability to use different sources, and in fact different kinds of data, to develop a picture or pattern. For instance, when you hear about something happening that has never happened before, your should ears should perk up. Before 9/11, no modern steel framed building had ever collapsed due to fire… on 9/11 three buildings did, one of which was not hit by a plane or too much else for that matter. During the Covid-19 Pandemic, for the first time ever, Doctors have been impeded from prescribing a safe, well understood drug for off label use. See how this works?
As George Soros has said, this election will determine the future of the world. Will the world go the way of Europe and continue moving toward one singular monetary system, technocratic (non-representative) rule, and the final removal of our gun rights? Or will a functioning majority of Americans wake up to what is true and re-elect an outsider who has stated in their faces, at Davos, that America will not bow to socialism? What will it be?
What is most ironic is that underneath it all, my heart is right with most of the posters here, even those on the so-called left side of the fence. I voted for Obama in 2008. I was always proud to work for IBM since it started hiring black people into important positions long before other US corporations. I hate racism and subscribe to MLK’s vision.
Like Herschel Walker, I reject as complete fabrication the very idea that Trump is racist. It doesn’t matter how many newcasters, celebrities, and writers you think you trust say it, it’s still a lie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXyohn9hDh0
https://millenium-state.com/blog/2019/05/03/the-dinar-gold-the-real-reason-for-gaddafis-murder/I wonder what happened to all of Gaddafi's gold? Who would have benefited by having him removed from power? Answer: Anyone benefiting from the worldwide fiat currency system. GroverThe gold dinar: a groundbreaking initiative
In 2009, Colonel Gaddafi, then President of the African Union, suggested to the States of the African continent to switch to a new currency, independent of the American dollar: the gold dinar. The objective of this new currency was to divert oil revenues towards state-controlled funds rather than American banks. In other words, to stop using the dollar for oil transactions. Countries such as Nigeria, Tunisia, Egypt and Angola were ready to change their currencies. Unfortunately in March 2011, the NATO-led coalition began a military intervention in Libya in the name of freedom…. Free water, almost free gasoline, free health system and free education were commonplace for Libyans under Gaddafi’s dictatorship. The leader, who has been in power for 41 years, has managed to gain the support of all the major tribes and buy social peace through radical measures and a policy of shared oil revenues. Jihadism, the number one enemy of the West, Gaddafi eliminated it with Napalm in the 1990s. Although he financed many armed groups in the Sahel, Libya itself was a stable country where the risk of being kidnapped or even murdered by an armed militia was non-existent. With an excellent management of oil revenues, the Libyan state had managed to store hundreds of tons of gold (143 tons according to WikiLeaks) and the same amount in silver. All these resources were going to make Libya the most influential country in Africa, supplanting France for example. Gaddafi wanted to avoid American influence in his oil transactions by using this gold. He launched the gold dinar project, and other major African governments were ready to support him in this project. It was both an African dream and a nightmare for the West’s financial system.The end of the African dream
This information was discovered through Hillary Clinton’s electronic mailbox. One of the 3000 emails showed NATO’s willingness to overthrow Gaddafi’s government. NATO mainly wanted to to neutralize the African gold currency supported by Libyan oil reserves. At the beginning of March, the Libyan army and the many militias loyal to the government had already crushed the rebellion, thanks to their numbers and equipment. However, with Western intervention, the dream of a unified monetary system based on gold and independent of the dollar perished…
Syria was to be the next Libya, no doubt. We discussed it here leading up to the 2016 election.
So let me get this straight. You think Counterpunch, The World Socialist Website or Democracy Now are mainstream media?
Also, you accused some here of being fanatics. Would you care to point out exactly who here you consider to be a fanatic and what are the specific criteria you use to label them as such?
As far as Wolff being a great orator, that would have to be in the ear of the beholder. Perhaps your standards are more relaxed than mine but I remain singularly unimpressed. Also, my impression is that he talks a lot (and likes to hear himself talk as many professorial types do) but actually says very little, especially when it comes to providing practical, real world solutions to problems. And then he made a statement that really woke me up from his soporific droning when he said, at 40:35, that Trump controls the media. That statement alone is truly delusional and flies in the face of all reality. Could you please tell me what media Trump controls?
Wolff is known as a Marxian economist. Here’s Wikipedia’s take on the subject.
“Marxian economics, or the Marxian school of economics, is a heterodox school of economic thought. Its foundations can be traced back to the critique of classical political economy in the research by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marxian economics comprises several different theories and includes multiple schools of thought, which are sometimes opposed to each other, and in many cases Marxian analysis is used to complement or supplement other economic approaches.[1] Because one does not necessarily have to be politically Marxist to be economically Marxian, the two adjectives coexist in usage rather than being synonymous. They share a semantic field while also allowing connotative and denotative differences.”
Quite frankly, the above strikes me as Orwellian newspeak liberally mixed with bovine excrement. But to cut to the chase, can you name me a country that has used his brand of Marxian economics and actually achieved economic and political success by doing so?
Now George Carlin, there was a great orator who had something to say about bovine excrement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkVe7arGLW0
AP-
Glad we have agreement on most things. I think that - honestly - most of America would agree on all this stuff if they stopped watching media. Most of America doesn’t want endless war, or their jobs outsourced, or a flood of immigrants coming in to debase their wages. Not if they thought about it for more than a minute. I mean - most of America isn’t stupid, right? Sickcare at 20% - they probably don’t want that either.
Ok, about Endless War. We have a record established right now. Trump has not gone to war at all - dodging this bullet under great pressure from both corporate left AND right - during his first term.
His opportunities: Iran (they shot down our drone!), and Syria. He tried pulling troops out of Syria, and there was huge opposition from both sides. Likewise, the push for war against Iran was massive. He fired Bolton too, which nets him points. (Hiring him in the first place? A blunder, certainly - a point for your side. But he did learn from his mistake.) There is also huge opposition to him declaring peace in Afghanistan and then leaving.
These are real actions he has taken in his first term.
Place this against the corporate left - the Obama/HRC group - who, if they came into power under a nominal Biden administration, would go right back to the Obama-era “destroy a few more middle eastern nations” policy.
I’ll take the actual record: “he didn’t start any new wars, while under great pressure to do so”, versus some sort of vague charge: “maybe the big scary thing will happen in term 2.”
And reshoring jobs, and stopping a wave of cheap immigrant labor are things he has actually done.
Who knows about sickcare, and he’s terrible on the deficit - as is everyone else.
But no more war? He’s got a track record now. Same statements as Obama before getting into power, but very different results. At great political cost to himself, too.
Remember when corporate media was oh so complimentary when he fired missiles at Syria? “Presidential”, it called him. That was a signal that I’m sure he didn’t miss.
As for China threatening something - I could go on for quite a while about what China (or rather, the CCP) threatens. If given a choice to live under a US world order, or a CCP-dominated world order, I’d take the US any day of the week.
Happy to go down that road with you if you like. We can start with Xinjiang.
In short, when you say:
You really have to wait until the second act of this tragic play to get a sense of where things will be goingI'll take Trump's demonstrated anti-war record over Biden bringing along the entire corporate Obama/HRC team back into power - which will have predictable results. Clapper, Brennan, Comey, will all return. If you liked FISA before, you'll really like FISA II. War in Iran will become certainty, not possibility. A surge in Afghanistan, a surge in Syria - that's what we'll get with the Obama/HRC team under a nominal Biden presidency. That's their record. Its the team I object to, not Biden himself. The team's record is that of total warmongering. Biden isn't strong enough to resist any of it. Even if he were mentally competent, which he's not.
QB said,
I too am dismayed by the level of vitriol, lack of empathy, and jumping to conclusions based on insufficient data on this thread.I am beyond dismayed to the point of disgust at the comments and personal attacks I've read here. Unfortunately, this is becoming the norm on PP and I expect that it will only continue to get worse as we get closer to US elections. Thereafter, I expect an even greater shit show, regardless of the election outcome. PP members who express opinions or present evidence that runs counter to those of the self-proclaimed "independent thinkers'" and "truth seekers'" (who obviously have ample time and motivation to engage in lengthy diatribes) are castigated as "brainwashed", under "MSM mind-control", acting as stealthy "representatives" of some nefarious counter offensive, and/or "cowards". On another thread, it was suggested that one of the more vocal "disagreeable" (with the prevailing narrative) members might just be running cover and/or otherwise complicit in an alleged child trafficking/sexual abuse ring. Good thing that the PP posting guidelines and rules proport to "...create a safe and welcoming place" for civil discussion! And I'm super-glad that the site administrators have a long-standing policy concerning ad hominem attacks and "Off-Limit Topics", including
It is painfully obvious that the PP posting guidelines and rules are selectively administered to favor an inner circle of members espousing an "acceptable", prevailing narrative. So much for promoting "independent" thinking and civil, respectful discourse and appreciative inquiry based on data-informed facts and evidence.... PP is fast becoming a cultish echo chamber "tribe" of "like-minded" "truth warriors" that is unwelcoming and at times openly hostile towards others expressing alternative views or evidence. IMO based on my own experience and on PP personal messages and forum postings, those dissenting current and past PP members who limit or no longer engage with the rest of the PP tribe are not defeated "cowards". They've simply concluded that such engagement is no longer productive, no longer "worth the trouble" or expense of time, effort and money. When assessing the often recommended "take the best and leave the rest" approach to PP, there's a point when "the best" is eclipsed by a very discouraging, all encompassing "the rest". I'm amazed that Doug, QB and a few others persevering stalwarts have apparently not yet reached that point. I am saddened, but not surprised that so many others with "minority" views who used to participate regularly in PP discussions now do so rarely or not at all (assuming they are still around). So yeah, "it didn't have to be this way" but in the final analysis, "it is what it is"--right? ***** (Side note: tbp & Co., Congrats on your exquisite timing and targeted efforts for a job well done! PP is well on its way to becoming Peak Natural News. Of course, this change was not solely the result of your very sophisticated and persistent shilling, but you certainly display great skill in profiling and ingratiating yourself with key PP senior members, mastering the "right" themes and language to trigger hot buttons designed to foment conflict and catalyze further the transformation and decline of PP.)These topics are not allowed, and any threads or posts containing them will be promptly removed. We wish it could be otherwise, but our hard-earned experience is that these topics are not worth the trouble."
- Politics (from a partisan standpoint or otherwise seen as pushing an agenda)
Sparky,
Your attempts at hall monitoring and censorship through safe space shaming would be more effective if you could resist the hypocritical urge to call out and attack posters who’s views you think are beyond the pale. Sort of defeats your tolerance argument.
mm
Sparky-
I think, but for the media, whose assigned task is to divide America, the level of vitriol in the country (which is reflected here at this site) would be orders of magnitude lower than it is right now.
The reason that the media is assigned to divide America, is to protect the ruling class. And that’s Bezos on one side, and Koch on the other, with Gates looking on from afar. I’m sure that group gets together for lunch and has a good laugh.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/bill-gates-bakes-warren-buffett-a-birthday-cake-sara-blakely-thanks-berkshire-billionaire-for-the-laughs-and-wisdom/articleshow/77851598.cms
The current social unrest probably - at its core - results from resentment at the vast divide between rich and poor. [Sickcare: 20% of GDP. Jobs outsourced. Wave of immigrants debasing wages further. Etc]. Corporate media redirects this latent anger into “systemic racism!” so we don’t accidentally blame Bezos, or Koch, or Gates. Or the Fed, or the banksters, or the corporate left or right.
We are all victims of this, to a greater or lesser extent, because we are either angered by the horror of “systemic racism!” or by the organized violence coming from Antifa/BLM. [Clearly - I’m on the “annoyed at organized violence from Antifa/BLM” side. I’m not immune either.]
All set up by corporate media, whose appointed task it is to divide us, either through action, or reaction.
Are we divided yet? What grade would you give them?
To the whiners:
In the event that the data is too definitive or the argument too compelling - be sure to clutch your pearls and express “shock” at the “vitriol” expressed by “insiders” etc. Please stop trying to elevate yourself above the various posters here (who actually have a well formed opinion). The pretension that you are somehow intellectually superior and won’t lower yourself to base arguments and “conspiracy” theories is evidence of your failure. It’s a lively and compelling discussion where people disagree about the content of arguments, exchange sharp words regarding the manner in which the argument is presented, and call out agendas and bias. In other words - an adult conversation in which people try to get to the truth and bullshit is rigorously attacked. Some possible solutions for your cognitive dissonance: change your mind, learn something new, reconsider your beliefs, agree to disagree, ignore. Grow up.
Rector
Mememonkey,
How predictable. You failed to address the issues I raised and instead responded with your dismissive and inaccurate characterization of my concerns as attempts at “hall monitoring”, “censorship” and “safe space shaming”. Although ineffective, I commend you for your use of stock trigger language, though.
Note that I followed but did not engage in the discussion or arguments set forth in this lengthy thread. IMO, people can believe what they want and respectfully express their PoV and present their rationale and evidence regardless of which side(s) of the arguments they land; then agree, or agree to disagree and move on.
Not so in this (and other) discussion(s). There were several instances in which opposing views and lack of agreement was met with derision and ad hominem attacks, for all appearances based largely along political lines in a highly charged political discussion.
As it seems that the PP moderator appears to be MIA during this thread, I posted and quoted directly from the PP guidelines and rules. To be clear: I’m not trying to impose any “safe space” designation to this site or discussions–it already exists, at least in policy per the PP principals. Perhaps I erred in not posting additional clarifying content from the “guidelines”. Here it is:
Through this website, we also seek to create a safe and welcoming place for people to discuss the implications of the “Three Es” in an intelligent and enlightened way. Together, we will continue to hold this site to a higher standard than is usually found elsewhere on the Internet. We will be civil with each other, respectful, thoughtful, and considerate. Anything that causes people to feel unwelcome or unsafe will be discouraged or removed, as will things that serve to detract from our high standard of intelligent discourse. Our mission is to engage, not to repel.Additionally, there were multiple, blatant ad hominem personal attacks (and a few possibly "bloviating" posts) on this thread that the PP principals may have considered ripe for editing or removal if they were in fact aware of them. Regarding "Off Limit Topics", here is the more detailed excerpt from the "guidelines":
Regretfully, through much trial and even more error, we’ve determined that there are several topics that seem to escape the ability of otherwise careful and considerate people to discuss pleasantly in an online forum:As a community, we've come up against this issue numerous times. It might be helpful during this very contentious US election year for Adam and Chris to revisit this guideline and provide further clarification for what they deem as acceptable vs. unacceptable content and discussions in the realm of political figures, formal and informal entities, and platforms. Relative to the current thread, it appears that this discussion is politically partisan in nature and polarizing and therefore contrary to PP guidelines and rules. Ironically, I think a very vocal majority here are not open to self-reflection of the type that calls into question detrimental aspects of PP tribal culture. (No doubt that there's some sociological or Myers-Briggs insights that could be gleaned here....) MM, I found your comment below to StephanC. to be even more ironic:These topics are not allowed, and any threads or posts containing them will be promptly removed. We wish it could be otherwise, but our hard-earned experience is that these topics are not worth the trouble.
- ...Politics (from a partisan standpoint or otherwise seen as pushing an agenda)
I can’t help but notice that you and other left leaning ideologues are always so shocked and offended that people on the ‘Wrong’ side of the spectrum have strong opinions and post here in this hallowed ground of intellectual inquiry. Your disdain and intolerance of opposing views to the orthodoxy that you subscribe to is reflective of the current zeitgeist of the left which by definition is anti intellectual. You will not advance your understanding of things, appreciate nuance and come closer to truths if you are not able to entertain opposing views.So disagreement with the prevailing (vocal) PoV of the PP community is akin to sullying this "...hallowed ground of intellectual inquiry" and to be "anti-intellectual"? You are clearly not alone in your PoV in this regard, but can you see that this is a belief system and not an argument? Regarding "Triggered Beliefs", again, quoting from the "guidelines":
A common pitfall we observe is that a triggered reader will insist that others not only respect — but share — their belief, and if that fails, will often demonize those holding a different perspective. Beliefs are subjective, and highly personal. You are absolutely entitled to hold whatever beliefs you want, but you are not permitted here to project them onto others.I've voiced my concerns enough regarding these issues to obviously no productive purpose. In the future, if I have a concern worth noting I'll send a PM alert to Adam and he'll address it as he and/or Chris see fit. Truly, not my problem (although it is distressing to witness, so I'll try caring less). Lastly, to address my comment regarding tbp & Co.: On numerous occasions tbp has posted full-length, very biased and often inflammatory articles (as is the norm) from NaturalNews.com. Among his many (370 ytd) posts since joining in April 2020, IMO tbp's posts are among the most contentious and divisive and often pull from the most shrill content from NaturalNews. To what purpose? I've observed tbp very skillfully and quickly align himself by addressing directly views and issues that clearly resonate with key well-respected senior members of PP, many of whom are fully engaged in this particular thread. So yes, I guess you could say I "called out" tbp for shilling for Natural News, whether or not in a formal or informal capacity. I don't come to this conclusion--my opinion--lightly, and only after months of observation. I disagree that I "attacked" him. But I did complement him for his skill and effectiveness in accomplishing his craft--unfortunately, much to the detriment of PP and the online community, IMO. Consider that it is not just those within the corporate/MSM that stand to gain from a divided America. There are those capitalizing on or within the "alt-media" sphere to do their part in the effort as well. I've stated my concerns on all of the above. Whether any one cares or acts upon them remains to be seen.
It's a lively and compelling discussion where people disagree about the content of arguments, exchange sharp words regarding the manner in which the argument is presented, and call out agendas and bias.@Rector: I was just thinking along the same lines this morning as I caught up on this thread. I value across-the-divide(s) conversations. I particularly like discovering common ground, rather than highlighting and headlining differences. Identified common ground is where local people can build toward a reinvigorated cultural worldview, identify shared concerns, and strategize more comprehensive solutions. IE, build functioning community. Since I believe that the cure for what ails us as a country (perhaps world) can only begin at the local level and percolate up, it seems to me that's the necessary place to start, and the most important level of emphasis. In the long run, what I most care about is that my local physical community be able to work together in times of crisis, regardless of social, economic, and political differences. That happens when we see each other as human beings, each of us sometimes quirky, all of us prone to our individual and shared frailties. It requires assuming that those who disagree with me are as intelligent as I, and are ethical, well-meaning persons genuinely concerned about the state of affairs under discussion. That assumption permits a conversation rather than confrontation. But it's an assumption too easily forgotten in overly-heated conversation, and such over-heating is much easier when we don't speak face-to-face, like here. Anonymity too often doesn't bring out the best. I abandoned Facebook conversation when the Covid camps appeared to devolve into versions of either "we're all gonna die and it's your fault for refusing to wear a mask anytime you step out the door" or "anyone who wears a mask, ever, is a mindless slave of the oligarchy." In my opinion, that's the platform where the real vitriol exists. (I don't even bother with Twitter.) I have two professional pages and one group page to administrate there, and they are the only reasons I log on any longer. FB interactions also tend to be short on evidence and sourcing. PP participants are much better at both providing supporting sources and asking for supports from each other. I really like that, it helps ground claims and arguments; it also makes it possible for those of different perception to challenge perceptions based on evidences rather than perceived personality, which helps keep conversation here civil, I think, even when parties strongly disagree. On PP I mostly see genuine engagement. I'd hate to see that die off because party A doesn't appreciate being challenged by party B. I prefer to hope party B would use the opportunity to both review assumptions by checking her/his data and/or refine, nuance, and strengthen his/her argument. Reconsidering and refining one's actual beliefs help us each update our beliefs and clarify the ground we stand on, and can lead to finding common ground, which leads to both better mutual understanding and shared solutions to pressing issues. It's not about winning the argument, it's about finding provisional truth - which, because provisional, can and should move as new evidence is found, vetted, and incorporated by each of us, talking to one another. It's also okay to apologize when we discover we've misread or misunderstood someone, or have unintentionally offended them, or have made a broad assumption because something said smacks us as fitting a pre-defined pattern. We all make patterns for data. We just need to remember that humans (and most situations) are considerably more complex than the over-simplified memes of contemporary public discourse present. It's in exploring the complexity of people and ideas that we find individuality and shared interests and agendas, along with the opportunity to incorporate new, vetted information approaching from some different vector. I'm all for that. It seems to me that this community is too, in the main. It's partly why I keep coming back.
When we go off the rails in this joint, we REALLY go off the rails.
Although the motives are good, I will have to make a little addendum to the title of this post: Fear of social unrest is not everywhere, it just seems that way because the little nooks and crannies like the one I inhabit aren’t really taken notice of. There’s a lot of them but they are only thought of as those pretty parts of the country you have to drive through on your way to some place important. We like it that way. 
The odds of any kind of social unrest in my neck of the woods is about the same as a Doomsday asteroid strike or a First Contact type event complete with little green aliens. But that’s probably not the case for a lot of us. So on a serious note, stay safe and stay engaged.
Will
Even in the supposed hotspots things aren’t all that hot:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/01/politics/fact-check-portland-ablaze-trump-fire-department/index.html?utm_term=15990420557254f37d1f770f1&utm_source=Five+Things+for+Wednesday%2C+September+2%2C+2020&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=240517_1599042055726&bt_ee=CoL3zN%2BJAFAZI%2FBdmDj%2FCIsVmQyY9ZPTRH6Zzvtp6E3j7UvaejhwnvajkttKUZlN&bt_ts=1599042055726
My understanding of the nuance and complexity involved has grown tremendously. My perspective has evolved. My ability to understand and empathize with different points of view has evolved. My understanding of the general mood of the nation has evolved by seeing where y’all stand (and I know the posters in this thread are by no means representative of the nation). This is a true asset as pointed out by VTGothic in post 134:
In the long run, what I most care about is that my local physical community be able to work together in times of crisis, regardless of social, economic, and political differences. That happens when we see each other as human beings, each of us sometimes quirky, all of us prone to our individual and shared frailties.Along this line, I am also in conversation with people I live near on both sides of the political divide. Earlier in the conversation, I saw people focusing on the law-and-order aspect of the riots (and yes there are still real protesters out there, but there is and has been a lot of rioting) without looking deeper. There were numerous long-time members respected by me who in my judgement were involved in this. I don't mean to call out davefairtex individually, but he is one I remember Recently, commenters, including Dave have gotten into how the rioters are being used and the underlying societal issues (wealth inequality being #1) behind them. People have even discussed how the issue might be more or at least as much about the plight of the poor of all races than one of racism. I tried in posts 50 and 107 to steer the conversation in this direction. Another point: we were talking about the Dems tacit support of the violence and why. See, for example, posts 70, 72, 73 and 81. But every explanation presented suggests the goal of those fomenting/supporting the violence was done to help get Biden into office. But we also agree that the violence is more likely to work in Trump's favor than Biden's. There's a contradiction in that. Can we revisit this and try to come up with a working theory that matches all of the data and likely impacts? Finally, I'll have to agree with sparky near the end of posts 129 and 133 about tbp. See tbp's post 101. The article he quotes in it's entirety goes way out on a limb given what is known so far about the shooting and then rants from an extreme right point of view about what it all means. I am calling out one particular post here. If there are other similar posts I haven't mentioned, I don't mean anything personal, I just don't have time to reread the entire thread. The same applies to any other posts or persons I have specifically mentioned. All in all, I think it is helpful to understand that overall, this group, as best I can tell (and correct me if I'm wrong) leans towards male, older, wealthier than average. I think we need to understand this in following the conversation. And I know that can be alienating to those who don't fit that mold and who have different political views Overall, I think we have done an excellent job of keeping things civil and productive, especially compared to other online venues. And of course, we could benefit more by having respectful conversations that involve a broader demographic (not that there are some representatives of other groups involved right now). The diversity of viewpoints in such a conversation would serve us all if each of us could approach the conversation openly and holding our own opinions and beliefs as lightly as we can. Even those who were less willing to look at data or let their perspective evolve would teach us something about where we are as a nation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEGm-ZXA6gM
Start around 5:00
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/us/politics/biden-condemns-racism-and-says-that-burning-down-communities-is-not-protest.html
Dr Bruce, I can only assume you are not an MD, or you would be able to find this info on your own. Or, at least learn how to use the google machine.
Doug
I live 20 miles, as the crow flies, from Portland. I was an East coaster like Doug for most of my adult life and then moved here two years ago for a job.
Portland may not be literally on fire every night… but we do have to face the truth that Portland is getting destroyed. The really insidious thing that is going on there, which many who don’t dig beneath the MSN surface layer may not recognize, is that the recently elected DA is prosecuting almost none of the rioters. Because of this, and because of the other constraints put on police by mayor Ted Wheeler and other city authorities, the local police have pulled back, leaving lawless zones in the city. It’s really a shame.
If anyone wants to see the reality of the “peaceful protests” in Portland, and elsewhere, I highly recommend the Twitter feed of independent journalist Andy Ngo;
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo
Another enlightening perspective on Portland comes from evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein, and his partner Heather Heying (also a professor of biology) who live there. They are both brilliant and interesting to listen to. Bret is an activist for good of the first order and he has started a movement called Unity 2020 that is very interesting in concept - it’s not a third party but instead a “party” that creates what in corporate speak we would call a, “two in a box” form of leadership, spanning both existing parties. Interestingly, within the last few days they chose their front runners; Tulsi Gabbard and Dan Crenshaw. I posted many times during the primary season pointing out how the deep state immune system was rejecting Tulsi Gabbard, likely because of her sincerity and incorruptibility. Hillary Clinton labelled her a likely Russian agent. I appreciate Bret’s effort and maybe something like this could work once we get deep state and their mass media enablers exposed, unseated, and replaced with honest journalists who seek truth, just like we try to here.
My point is that Bret and Heather spoke recently on their podcast lamenting the state of Portland and the fecklessness of it’s mayor. Bret and Heather are liberal leaning and hence shouldn’t offend anyone. At one point Heather laments the condition of Portland, stopping herself from calling it a war zone, she says it looks like a, “former City”. The clip is only 10 minutes. It is truly sad…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt1GxrrO8Kk