Ed Opperman, Trump, Epstein, Why Beliefs Don’t Change |399|

#41
Here is the video proof that when Trump uses this gesture, he is not mocking disabled people:
All that video has done, is prove that he uses ‘disability’ mocking gestures against people more often than I thought. I mean maybe that’d be ok among a small group of friends that you’re telling a joke to, but it’s simply unacceptable at a POTUS rally.
 
#42
Regarding Kavanaugh...

https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/05/brett-kavanaugh-due-process-false-rape

Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa), who has asked the Justice Department to investigate Judy Munri-Leighton, a left-leaning activist from Kentucky, for allegedly making false statements. According to Grassley, Munri-Leighton initially claimed in an email to the committee that Kavanaugh had raped her, and he was questioned on this point during the September 26 hearing regarding allegations made by Christine Blasey Ford and others.​
Subsequently, Munri-Leighton recanted her charge and admitted she had never met Kavanaugh. "I was angry, and I sent it out," she said.​
...​
Another accusation, made by Julie Swetnick and attorney Michael Avenatti, should be regarded as highly suspect, at the very least, given that the accuser has contradicted her story. (Both Swetnick and Avenatti were referred for investigation as well.) Avenatti supplied NBC News with a witness who supposedly could corroborate Swetnick's account; instead, the woman confessed she felt Avenatti had "twisted" her words. NBC felt cheated; Chuck Todd accused Avenatti of purposefully misleading reporters.​


https://pjmedia.com/trending/5-big-problems-with-christine-blasey-fords-testimony-at-the-kavanaugh-hearings/

"She [Christine Ford] can tell everyone definitively that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her, but she doesn’t know when, where, who took her there or picked her up (she was 15), or pretty much anything of significance. She has no facts, no corroboration, no medical report, no police report. There is nothing but a claim from a woman with a bad memory and a story contradicted by all her own witnesses. At this point, there is not even any evidence that there was a party at all, much less that Kavanaugh was there or that anything happened between Kavanaugh and Ford.​
...​
In her initial letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Ford claimed that four people besides her were at the party. That number seems to change by the day, but let’s go with her original claim. Those four people were Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge, who she says were both in the room along with PJ Smyth and her friend Leland Ingham Keyser. All of them have denied her story under the penalty of felony perjury, which begs an obvious question: whose house was the mystery party at? Are they all supposed to have been partying at someone else's house while they were gone? It makes no sense. It’s even more damning that her friend Leland Ingham Keyser says she has never even met Brett Kavanaugh. How do you square that circle? Keyser has never met Kavanaugh at all, but she was at the party where Kavanaugh did this? Also, her best friend saw her run out of the party but said nothing? She didn’t ask her about it the next day? This single issue in and of itself completely destroys the credibility of Ford's accusation."​
 
Last edited:
#43
All that video has done, is prove that he uses ‘disability’ mocking gestures against people more often than I thought. I mean maybe that’d be ok among a small group of friends that you’re telling a joke to, but it’s simply unacceptable at a POTUS rally.
If you think that gesture mimics disabled people and not people who are rattled and exasperated that is because of your own beliefs. It doesn't prove Trump or anyone else thinks the same way about disabled people that you do.
 
#44
There is a word that means miserly. It comes from a middle english word word meaning the same thing. People have been using this word for many hundreds of years, long before a new word that sounds similar came into our language which is a racial slur. The people who use the word know what it means and have no intention of using it as a racial slur. However people of the affected race don't like the word. The fact that they don't like the word does not mean the people who use it are racists. The word is niggardly.

Some disabled people might not like the gesture Trump uses but that doesn't mean he is mocking disabled people.
 
#45
Many of the the sexual misconduct accusations against Trump have been debunked. Why are there so many false accusation? Because money is paid to people who are willing to accuse Trump of sexual misconduct.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...roper-allegations-corrupt-media-donald-trump/
HERE IT IS=> List of Debunked Groper Allegations by Corrupt Media Against Donald Trump​
...​
"I have only met this accuser [Jessica Leeds] once and frankly cannot imagine why she is seeking to make out that Trump made sexual advances on her. Not only did he not do so (and I was present at all times) but it was she that was the one being flirtatious,"​
...​
Mindy McGillivray says Donald Trump nudged her at a concert at Mar-a-Lago at a concert on January 24, 2003. She went public with her story this week.​
There was no such concert at Mar-a-Lago on January 24, 2003.​
...​
Anthony Senecal said the so-called incident with the People magazine hack [Natasha Stoynoff] “never happened.”​
"​

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...wyer-sought-donor-cash-for-two-trump-accusers
A well-known women’s rights lawyer sought to arrange compensation from donors and tabloid media outlets for women who made or considered making sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trumpduring the final months of the 2016 presidential race, according to documents and interviews.​

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/31/us/politics/sexual-harassment-politics-partisanship.html
And a nonprofit group founded by the Democratic activist David Brock, which people familiar with the arrangements say secretly spent $200,000 on an unsuccessful effort to bring forward accusations of sexual misconduct against Mr. Trump before Election Day, is considering creating a fund to encourage victims to bring forward similar claims against Republican politicians.​

From the comments
1548341916925.png
 
#46
I love Ed Opperman (qualifiers: platonic ally...from afar); I have listened to Ed since his first appearance on C2C. He and Alex have a quality that is rare in radio-podcast-type hosts: a truly relentless interest in the subject at hand.
That being said, it is also true that Ed will take absolutely the most half-baked, hair-brained and far-fetched conspiracy stories at face value, hook, line and sinker, as long as it comports to his preconceived notions of absolute good and evil in the world.

The longer that "conspiracy" pod-casters are active, the more they seem to be convinced of an absolute good and evil operating in the world; and their own higher-ordained role in fitting the facts to their own chosen narrative. For instance, most of us would agree that abuse of children would be, if not absolute evil, then about as close as it gets. It therefore fits the absolutist preconceived narrative, and even in the absence of real evidence, lends credibility to mere rumours.

Other than that, I think Ed's Lefty world-view is refreshingly different from most others, which usually tend toward the Right.

Although I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of Ed's personal beliefs, as one of Ed's long-time listeners, I would take them all with about as much salt as is on the bottom of Lake Bonneville.
I agree. I have a lot of respect for some of the work that he's done. Great contributions. But as you point out we all have to check each other :)

one good thing about Ed's strange far-leftist-Christian worldview is that it's allowed him to explore important topics that others have a blind spot for. I think ritual satanic abuse is a great example. he's disclosed solid evidence that this occurs, and even more importantly that there's been an orchestrated effort to suppress and misinform about the reality of it. so leaving aside what "Satan" means and what "evil" means a good first step is to at least be able to identify what is happening. So if a group of people are getting together to worship Satan and engage in these horrible criminal activities well that's something to take note of. Was satanic Panic real?
 
#47
Alex, my own history with this issue is like what you said, except I haven’t yet given up hope about the whole Trump phenomenon. As I said, I just heard these things for the first time. What was your wake up moment? I’m like the poor guy who says about ufos, “If it was true, I would have known about it!”
I totally, totally understand where you're coming from. I mean this is what the show is really all about belief change... IE the exact process that you're going through right now... because it's the same process I went through. so I'd almost say that the conclusion you come to at the end of the day doesn't matter as much as your willingness to"go there."

regarding evidence I'd suggest you look everywhere and dig as far as you're willing to go... but keep coming back to Virginia Roberts. do you believe her? are there parts of her story that don't add up? what was her motivation to come forward? why did she go to Thailand? is she remorseful?

compare her story to Alan dershowitz who claims that the only time he ever got a massage at the Epstein compound was from some elderly Russian woman with strong arms and a deep voice. Here is an elite power broker who's lies are so transparent they are laughable. then come back to the Virginia Roberts interview. get into the head of Epstein. Get into the head of Maxwell. get into the head of all who were there who saw it who participated in it and told themselves whatever story they needed to tell themselves order to make them feel ok.
 
#50
I was, but wasn’t surprised that he found Kerry Cassidy and David Wilcock to be fos. I guess it’s not his thing.
ok, but that's not exactly what he said. he said he had investigated UFOs and come to the conclusion there isn't anything there.

I think we have to hold him is word/work. I'm pointing out that he's a very good investigative reporter on many topics and this stands in contrast to his claim that he's investigating UFOs but he doesn't know who Jacques Vallee?

this is similar to his claim that he's investigated Josephus but he doesn't understand that Josephus's writings seem to appear in the New Testament Gospels?
 
#51
ok, but that's not exactly what he said. he said he had investigated UFOs and come to the conclusion there isn't anything there.

I think we have to hold him is word/work. I'm pointing out that he's a very good investigative reporter on many topics and this stands in contrast to his claim that he's investigating UFOs but he doesn't know who Jacques Vallee?

this is similar to his claim that he's investigated Josephus but he doesn't understand that Josephus's writings seem to appear in the New Testament Gospels?
I don't see how you can square that with actually observing a large one, and then talking to someone else who corroborated the sighting! Also, as you say, how come he 'investigate' the subject and did not know Jacques Vallee (although to be fair, I suppose he may have imagined his name pronounced in a different way - so not recognised what you said.

David
 
#52
ok, but that's not exactly what he said. he said he had investigated UFOs and come to the conclusion there isn't anything there.

I think we have to hold him is word/work. I'm pointing out that he's a very good investigative reporter on many topics and this stands in contrast to his claim that he's investigating UFOs but he doesn't know who Jacques Vallee?

this is similar to his claim that he's investigated Josephus but he doesn't understand that Josephus's writings seem to appear in the New Testament Gospels?
Maybe he was never that interested until he saw one himself? Then when he decided that maybe he should investigate more closely he was unfortunate enough to find KC and DW instead of someone more solid such as Vallée. I’ve nothing against them, but having watched a few of their videos some years back I just feel the same way that Ed did. I do think that it’s slightly undermining in a way, that he didn’t know of JV.

His religious views possibly influenced him too? I know nothing about Josephus or the bible so I can’t comment at all.

Maybe he’s more at ease with being a believer in the material world, his strengths supporting this view? Preferring to leave the more supernatural/esoteric stuff alone, but having faith in Christianity.
 
#53
People who think humans are causing global warming think they are following the data. People who think humans are not causing global warming also think they are following the data.

Pick any controversy and you can say the same thing. Both sides think they are following the data. The best explanation for the evidence is an opinion.

Following the data doesn't mean what most people think it means.

Following the data means: I interpret this data according to my beliefs or inclinations, or I accept this data because it confirms my beliefs or inclinations.

This is what Scott Adams and Jonathan Haidt are talking about.
 
#54
People who think humans are causing global warming think they are following the data. People who think humans are not causing global warming also think they are following the data.

Pick any controversy and you can say the same thing. Both sides think they are following the data. The best explanation for the evidence is an opinion.

Following the data doesn't mean what most people think it means.

Following the data means: I interpret this data according to my beliefs or inclinations, or I accept this data because it confirms my beliefs or inclinations.

This is what Scott Adams and Jonathan Haidt are talking about.
Well said, Jim. With the greatest of respect, you don’t always present your views with those maxims at the forefront, but it’s reassuring to know you understand the foibles to which we are all prone.
 
#55
"so leaving aside what "Satan" means and what "evil" means a good first step is to at least be able to identify what is happening."

Not to belabor the point, but what is required is an examination of the premises through which we view all the evidence before we rush down a rabbit hole looking for evidence that supports these premises.
For me, there are few "tells" which give away the underlying belief system of most people. As I said before, expressing a belief in absolute evil is one such tell; but people who believe in absolutes are divided:
The spiritualist religious group will find satanic activity, covens, disreputable clergymen, everywhere - the spiritualist "tell".
Those who believe in the more materialist Darwinist Evolutionist model will see government cabals, programmed mind control, MK-ULTRA, everywhere - the materialist "tell".
The scientific materialist and the spiritualist model can even merge in people like David Ike, who sees satanic-looking reptilians behind a materialist conspiracy facade.

I do not mean for an instant to dismiss any such beliefs out-of-hand; but the absolutist nature that these beliefs can assume is problematical - and sometimes dangerous. What to bear in mind is that there are no such absolutes in nature - absolutes of good and evil exist entirely in our own minds. This could be why Rupert Sheldrake has demonstrated that there are no real absolute constants in nature - and that even the speed of light is variable.
 
Last edited:
#56
People who think humans are causing global warming think they are following the data. People who think humans are not causing global warming also think they are following the data.

Pick any controversy and you can say the same thing. Both sides think they are following the data. The best explanation for the evidence is an opinion.

Following the data doesn't mean what most people think it means.

Following the data means: I interpret this data according to my beliefs or inclinations, or I accept this data because it confirms my beliefs or inclinations.

This is what Scott Adams and Jonathan Haidt are talking about.
One of the things Jonathan Haidt has been speaking about and writing about is that the differences between liberals and conservatives are not very large. They both agree that certain things are important and, in fact, these priorities are common to all human cultures world wide. Where liberals and conservatives differ is on which of the priorities are more important.

These differences are easily settled by democratic processes. However the trouble starts when politicians, journalists and other professional provocateurs, who benefit from controversy get involved. It's like when there are two friends and a third person, a troublemaker, goes between them lying to each one about what the other said. Once they are fooled by the lies, the fake dispute takes on a life of its own because because now they think the other side is "bad" and they really do start saying nasty things about each other. It continues back and forth with the help of politicians and journalists continually fanning the flames.

This is what Trump means when he says the fake news media is the enemy of the people.

https://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2016/01/jonathan-haidts-constructive-approach.html


 
Last edited:
#57
I tend to agree with Scott Adams who believes that mass hysteria is a common everyday experience. I included previous posts of mine (below) because they explain the idea even though they are on a different topic. When you study what Adams has written on the subject and come to agree with him - it makes rational debate on subjects like politics seem to be pretty much useless. People don't use logic to determine their beliefs, they use logic to defend their beliefs. People believe what they want for emotional or other psychological reasons. People can be persuaded, but not through logic, they can be persuaded through

Sharing information can still serve a purpose. It can help people who already believe something, to maintain their beliefs against the psychological tricks like (ridicule) that might be used.
What is objective and rational is any opinion that I agree with. What is subjective and emotional is any opinion that I disagree with.
In actual reality, any "objectivity" must be postulated from a subjective point of view (there is no purely objective point of view). Similarly, both what is rational and what is emotional are purely subjective determinations.

I sort of half-agree with Scott Adams. We do use logic and reason to justify according to our internal preconceived biases. However, I disagree with his own materialist world-view which makes it seem that we are the products of our brain chemistry, and hence can be easily manipulated externally, kind of like Pavlov's poor dog.
 
Last edited:
#58
The Russia thing however is total insanity.
I have a question for people who don't like Trump but feel the same way as Steve about the "Russia thing".

Do you still trust or rely on the sources of information which consistently push(ed) that "insane" story?

When I discover a source of information is blatantly unreliable, I stop paying attention to it and I doubt everything else they had reported.
 
#59
I have a question for people who don't like Trump but feel the same way as Steve about the "Russia thing".

Do you still trust or rely on the sources of information which consistently push(ed) that "insane" story?

When I discover a source of information is blatantly unreliable, I stop paying attention to it and I doubt everything else they had reported.
Nowadays I’m sceptical of every source out there.
I have come to the position I have about Trump not through other sources, but rather making a judgement of things no one disputes is true. I see some of his tweets, and watch videos of him. That way I think I can get a general idea of Trump the man, just as I do with our PM Theresa May, or Putin. It’s just my opinion, how I see things. There are millions of people similar to Trump in this world, it’s not a matter of liking them or not, I accept them, I just prefer not to have anything to do with them. However, when it comes to putting such people in charge of countries, my opinion about Trump or anyone in a similar position will obviously come to the fore, as any such appointment will affect me and my family. Does my opinion make any difference? I’m not sure, possibly. (I’m from the UK.)

However, I have learned tons by him becoming President. Before I was barely interested in politics and social concerns and censorship and propaganda and how history may be nothing like what is taught and tons of other things that I now spend my days reading/watching/ listening to. I spent a few years becoming immersed in consciousness related topics, but for now it seems that more down to earth subjects have my attention. The spiritual side might appear to have been forgotten, it may appear that way, but not really. I think it has allowed me to form a worldview which allows me to be more of an observer without becoming so emotionally involved.

As I had a life changing stroke which brought about my change of thinking, by giving me lots of free time to spend researching this stuff. My old life to which much of my ego was strongly attached has slowly sailed off beyond the horizon, leaving me alone on the beach to investigate my new environment. Just maybe I have had some of the benefits of a near death experience without having an obvious white light to write about? :)
 
#60
I don’t see how we can make that decision without knowing more about the man? Do you see anyone in his ‘circle’ that may potentially be evil ?
The trouble is, you can never prove a negative. You can never prove that he didn't collude with Russia (whatever that actually means), or that he isn't evil!
David
 
Top