Trump Consciousness

I think you could usefully read the last few pages and take on board a little of what people are saying. I for one have lost all interest in your worldview - sorry.

David
David, I honestly couldn't care less. You're also not the one who posed a question directly to me; to which I responded.

Thanks for the contribution.
 
I answered you last response to me. Its your turn.

I don't know what you want in regard to my worldview. Pose a specific question and I'll try to answer. Don't feel like trying write an essay for you.
Just making sure we are talking about the same "last response." - see this post of yours

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/trump-consciousness.4080/page-128#post-147543

And so, if that response is what you are referring to with regards to answering my question of "What is your current cosmological metaphysical world view," then you didn't address the question.

I had assumed you had caught some of Alex's excellent interviews of Bernardo Kastrup which is the source for the specific term "cosmological metaphysical world view."

I describe the term to indicate one's fundamental view as to the foundation of reality. In the case of Bernardo Kastrop, he shares his cosmological metaphysical world view to be "monistic idealism."

Wikipedia does a decent job (in my opinion) of covering "idealism" and within the link, touches on "monistic idealism."

here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

But also... there is that which is known as "neutral monism" and the Wikipedia link does a good job of explaining what this world view entails but also provides alternative world views as related and contrasted world views -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monism

See this diagram - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monism#/media/File:Dualism-vs-Monism.png

Note that what the diagram shows is a world view called "physicalism" which often goes hand in hand with materialism and scientism.

So my question to you can be answered without the need for any "essay." That question is... what may best describe your own current cosmological metaphysical world view. Why this is important to me for me is because it depends on your world view as to how I can further engage with you on this forum. This is because this question (and answer) is the most important one to address. Why? Because if we do not share at least an open mindedness to one or the other's metaphysical cosmological world view, then any points we attempt to make to each other are wasting each other's time.
 
Just making sure we are talking about the same "last response." - see this post of yours

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/trump-consciousness.4080/page-128#post-147543

And so, if that response is what you are referring to with regards to answering my question of "What is your current cosmological metaphysical world view," then you didn't address the question.

I had assumed you had caught some of Alex's excellent interviews of Bernardo Kastrup which is the source for the specific term "cosmological metaphysical world view."

I describe the term to indicate one's fundamental view as to the foundation of reality. In the case of Bernardo Kastrop, he shares his cosmological metaphysical world view to be "monistic idealism."

Wikipedia does a decent job (in my opinion) of covering "idealism" and within the link, touches on "monistic idealism."

here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

But also... there is that which is known as "neutral monism" and the Wikipedia link does a good job of explaining what this world view entails but also provides alternative world views as related and contrasted world views -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monism

See this diagram - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monism#/media/File:Dualism-vs-Monism.png

Note that what the diagram shows is a world view called "physicalism" which often goes hand in hand with materialism and scientism.

So my question to you can be answered without the need for any "essay." That question is... what may best describe your own current cosmological metaphysical world view. Why this is important to me for me is because it depends on your world view as to how I can further engage with you on this forum. This is because this question (and answer) is the most important one to address. Why? Because if we do not share at least an open mindedness to one or the other's metaphysical cosmological world view, then any points we attempt to make to each other are wasting each other's time.
Got it.

I am most certainly not a scientific materialist. I find the promissory note aspect of science when it comes to things it can't explain as unsatisfying to downright dishonest/hypocritical (depending on how its presented). I believe there's more to reality than what is currently defined as "physical". I do believe in meaning. The fact that I use the word 'believe' reflects my as yet unsettled or unrefined worldview: still a seeker I guess.

Sorry, I don't feel like I can do as Kastrup and respond with "titled" worldview. Probably my own lack of knowledge to do so. Hopefully this still helps.
 
Got it.

I am most certainly not a scientific materialist. I find the promissory note aspect of science when it comes to things it can't explain as unsatisfying to downright dishonest/hypocritical (depending on how its presented). I believe there's more to reality than what is currently defined as "physical". I do believe in meaning. The fact that I use the word 'believe' reflects my as yet unsettled or unrefined worldview: still a seeker I guess.

Sorry, I don't feel like I can do as Kastrup and respond with "titled" worldview. Probably my own lack of knowledge to do so. Hopefully this still helps.
This is a great reply... thank you, Silence. We share much common ground at the place where, speaking for myself, everything matters the most.
 
Got it.

I am most certainly not a scientific materialist. I find the promissory note aspect of science when it comes to things it can't explain as unsatisfying to downright dishonest/hypocritical (depending on how its presented). I believe there's more to reality than what is currently defined as "physical". I do believe in meaning. The fact that I use the word 'believe' reflects my as yet unsettled or unrefined worldview: still a seeker I guess.

Sorry, I don't feel like I can do as Kastrup and respond with "titled" worldview. Probably my own lack of knowledge to do so. Hopefully this still helps.
OK, this is basically off-topic for this thread, but let's try to build on what you have written.

I would agree with just about everything you have written (I am not sure I understand your remark about Kastrup, but as you probably know, i am not too fond of his approach either).

The first thing I'd like to suggest to you, is that that "downright dishonesty" doesn't start or end with explicitly metaphysical matters suggest that science has acquired a social structure that allows it to lie. I blame the hierarchical structure of science institutions and the extreme level of competition (which breeds cheating) for what has gone wrong, but leaving aside that question, the fact as I see it is that modern science has become desperately unreliable.

Because I spent some years in science, and my subsequent career has had scientific connections, I have seen a lot of examples of this, but here is one you should appreciate.

Many years ago, I read a number of papers reporting successful ESP experiments. These were peer reviewed science, full stop. A little later, I watched a TV program about the subject of ESP, and it had a scientist who gave the audience the scientific position. I wish I remember who it was - it could well have been Wiseman - but near the end of the program, he said, "There is no scientific evidence that ESP is real". Given that he should have known that there were peer reviewed papers claiming the opposite, I was amazed that he didn't temper that statement to "I don't believe the published scientific evidence foe ESP", rather than telling his audience something that was a lie. I was also amazed that no other scientists seemed to object to this lie.

Thus when it comes to materialism, scientists are willing to lie for this 'cause'.

Now imagine an environment in which there is a class if immensely rich people like Gates and the pharmaceutical companies. Do you really believe that a science that will lie to maintain an abstract metaphysical concept, will be scrupulously honest when tempted by money on that scale?

David
 
The whole point of the Hunter Biden sex stuff is that it could be used to black mail him.
That's a side issue.

The real issue is Joe Biden's blatant and obvious crimes, the MSM covering them up, and the FBI refusing to investigate them.

"Boom" is an over-used term, but this 2-minute video from yesterday of some newsie talking head summarizing Biden's crimes, really is a "boom".

It's hilarious to watch the other talking heads sit there speechless at the end. I promise it's worth your two minutes...

https://www.bitchute.com/video/bqC8AH9nZh5Z

Speechless.
 
Last edited:
OK, this is basically off-topic for this thread, but let's try to build on what you have written.

I would agree with just about everything you have written (I am not sure I understand your remark about Kastrup, but as you probably know, i am not too fond of his approach either).

The first thing I'd like to suggest to you, is that that "downright dishonesty" doesn't start or end with explicitly metaphysical matters suggest that science has acquired a social structure that allows it to lie. I blame the hierarchical structure of science institutions and the extreme level of competition (which breeds cheating) for what has gone wrong, but leaving aside that question, the fact as I see it is that modern science has become desperately unreliable.

Because I spent some years in science, and my subsequent career has had scientific connections, I have seen a lot of examples of this, but here is one you should appreciate.

Many years ago, I read a number of papers reporting successful ESP experiments. These were peer reviewed science, full stop. A little later, I watched a TV program about the subject of ESP, and it had a scientist who gave the audience the scientific position. I wish I remember who it was - it could well have been Wiseman - but near the end of the program, he said, "There is no scientific evidence that ESP is real". Given that he should have known that there were peer reviewed papers claiming the opposite, I was amazed that he didn't temper that statement to "I don't believe the published scientific evidence foe ESP", rather than telling his audience something that was a lie. I was also amazed that no other scientists seemed to object to this lie.

Thus when it comes to materialism, scientists are willing to lie for this 'cause'.

Now imagine an environment in which there is a class if immensely rich people like Gates and the pharmaceutical companies. Do you really believe that a science that will lie to maintain an abstract metaphysical concept, will be scrupulously honest when tempted by money on that scale?

David
David,

I fully comprehend the "trust no one, everyone can be compromised" line of thinking. Its an infinite regress; an endless loop. It can apply to anyone thus Trump (the topic of this thread) is no more or less immune to this than anyone else. Hell, he's an "elite" by the loose definitions tossed about around here (i.e., anyone of immense wealth). Gates/Big Pharma may not be trustworthy, but using this logic who actually is? This philosophy leads ultimately to a "trust no one" worldview.

I absolutely accept that anyone can be compromised; a vast majority by money. What I don't accept is that Trump is somehow the working man's white knight via this very same lens. Let's not forget he's refused to fully disclose his finances including his taxes. Unprecedented and certainly not something that should engender faith in his inability to be "tempted" as you put it.

Then there is his constant discrediting of his own officials. When he is finished discrediting those he wishes to discredit, how is one to discern which of those were discredited on merit and which were discredited for personal gain (compromised or otherwise)? Trump offers no authoritative body to support most (all?) of his claims; rather its an appeal to his own charisma/authority with his minions. That's non-democratic to my view and the fundamental point I've been attempting to discuss in these most recent posts.
 
OK, this is basically off-topic for this thread, but let's try to build on what you have written.

I would agree with just about everything you have written (I am not sure I understand your remark about Kastrup, but as you probably know, i am not too fond of his approach either).

The first thing I'd like to suggest to you, is that that "downright dishonesty" doesn't start or end with explicitly metaphysical matters suggest that science has acquired a social structure that allows it to lie. I blame the hierarchical structure of science institutions and the extreme level of competition (which breeds cheating) for what has gone wrong, but leaving aside that question, the fact as I see it is that modern science has become desperately unreliable.

Because I spent some years in science, and my subsequent career has had scientific connections, I have seen a lot of examples of this, but here is one you should appreciate.

Many years ago, I read a number of papers reporting successful ESP experiments. These were peer reviewed science, full stop. A little later, I watched a TV program about the subject of ESP, and it had a scientist who gave the audience the scientific position. I wish I remember who it was - it could well have been Wiseman - but near the end of the program, he said, "There is no scientific evidence that ESP is real". Given that he should have known that there were peer reviewed papers claiming the opposite, I was amazed that he didn't temper that statement to "I don't believe the published scientific evidence foe ESP", rather than telling his audience something that was a lie. I was also amazed that no other scientists seemed to object to this lie.

Thus when it comes to materialism, scientists are willing to lie for this 'cause'.

Now imagine an environment in which there is a class if immensely rich people like Gates and the pharmaceutical companies. Do you really believe that a science that will lie to maintain an abstract metaphysical concept, will be scrupulously honest when tempted by money on that scale?

David
Thank you, David, for articulating in a clear way that which I tried to communicate to Silence with regards to blindly believing what "SCIENCE" is reported by an agenda driven media to say - (noting I am referring to the portion of the entire scientific community which aligns their "findings" and "recommendations" with what an authoritarian ruling class wants them to say so that they can say, "See... the experts, the scientists say...'xyz'... and we should listen to them and if we don't, we should make mandates").

What Silence seems to be missing is the obvious goals of an obvious collaboration of several overarching sub groups within what has emerged to be called various terms such as the elite, and the term I used above, the ruling class -
the left,
the political left,
the compromised political right,
the rest of the politicians who are compromised,
the "in the tank" career bureaucrats,
the university and overall education system whose funding comes from other representatives in this list,
the mainstream corporate media,
many of the massive social media corporations (and all of the most powerful ones),
the "celebrity mob" (with few standout exceptions) (includes film, TV, stage, sports figures, famous writers, etc.),
mega wealthy owners and/or controlling interest owners of large cap corporations,
Big Pharma,
the rest of the medical mafia
and more...

And what bothered me is that Silence was questioning me as to why I don't trust them, why I don't trust what the selectively cherry picked "science" is purported to be saying about the covid thing...

But the most critical aspect to this whole discussion boils down to the essence of my own rights and responsibility as a human being which is, in my opinion, at stake in five days (Nov 3). And thus, this post belongs exactly where it is because we are talking about two different "consciousnesses" - one that is clearly the will of this ruling elite - the one this ruling elite is desperately striving to impose on the rest of the planet, especially the vulnerable and the other one which is the consciousness emulated by Trump as measured by the executive role he has played and the actual results of his office and not the occasional lapse in self control via Twitter that, if ignored, like I do when he says or tweets something I don't like.

And so it is the latter consciousness that far more gives me hope, that if this prevails, that the future for all will be far, far better - certainly there won't be some "dark winter" as Biden just promised a few days ago if he is elected.

The contrast in these consciousnesses is so, so incredibly clear and it is so obvious that any form of meaningful life will disappear if the leftists obtain full power and we will be faced with a global Marxist fascist outcome for the entire planet which will become the reality for you, your children, their children and generations to come... and that is if you and they survive all the "death technology" which is created for the purpose of killing off as many of us as it can - examples are - "vaccinations," "manufactured/weaponized viruses" and chipping the human being/human brain (which will render an outcome where you no longer are capable of being in charge of your own mind.)

If you do not believe this is possible... or if you believe we are not headed that way (indeed at the brink) - that watch what Aaron Russo had to share about all this more than twenty years ago and then think about what we have seen happening over that same time frame and think about where we are at today. It is so clear, so obvious...

 
David,

I fully comprehend the "trust no one, everyone can be compromised" line of thinking. Its an infinite regress; an endless loop. It can apply to anyone thus Trump (the topic of this thread) is no more or less immune to this than anyone else. Hell, he's an "elite" by the loose definitions tossed about around here (i.e., anyone of immense wealth). Gates/Big Pharma may not be trustworthy, but using this logic who actually is? This philosophy leads ultimately to a "trust no one" worldview.
Let's stay off topic by not discussing Trump for a moment!

The real problem is not that some scientists claim things that are false - deliberately or otherwise - the problem is that they have found ways to shut down dissent in huge areas of science.

That is what has happened in the Coronavirus scandal, because there are named top scientists who have been so sidelined in the debate that they had to resort to using an obscure website that was set up to thwart censorship to get their message across:

https://off-guardian.org/2020/03/24/12-experts-questioning-the-coronavirus-panic/

Scientists like John P. A. Ioannidis, a Stanford Professor, have had to resort to using that site to try to get their message across. These are people who should be advising governments.

David
 
"See... the experts, the scientists say...'xyz'
It is a mistake to expect them to abide facts, reason, and logic.

Don't make that mistake. Here's a whole article on that...

----------------------

"One way to describe the great divide within mainstream politics is that one side is the partisans and the other side objectivists. The partisans are focused on their objectives and what they think is good for their side. They just want to win and don’t worry too much about how they win. The objectivists are focused on facts and think that truth will prevail eventually. The partisans are what we call the Left and the objectivists are what we call the Right in America.

The partisans are an ends justifies the means mode of thought. They are unconstrained by rules or convention. In fact, they are not limited by what they said last week, as last week was a different time with different goals. In a world where winning is the only thing that matters, everything else bends to serve that end. If being seen as on the science is useful in the moment, they love science. If treating science like magic is useful next week, then next week they will mock science.

Objectivists, of course, find this mind boggling. They look at these contradictions as the Achilles’s heel of their opponents. They spend a lot of time pointing out how the partisans are contradicting what they said last week. Often this is effective, as the public tends to side with the objectivists in most things. The climate change stuff is a good example of how the partisans harm their own cause. Their flexibility with the truth is a liability when asking the public to take their word on science.

For the most part, though, this willingness to transcend facts, and even reality in some cases, is a great advantage in a democracy. Politics in a democracy is immediate, rather than deliberative, so that first impression counts for a lot. If in the fullness of time those initial arguments are found to be full of lies or simply wrong, it does not matter as everyone is onto the next thing. It is rare in a democracy for the debate to circle back and address an old argument or have a do-over.

A good example of how this works is the term “gun show loophole.” This remains a popular catchphrase on the Left. They know gun control is wildly unpopular, so they talk about ending gun show loopholes. The fact that there is no such thing as a gun show loophole does not matter. It sounds good. People don’t like loopholes of any sort as they seem dishonest, so they support ending gun show loopholes. The Left can appear reasonable, despite perpetrating a fraud on the public.

Of course, this summer we got to experience another example of how the truth is no constraint to the partisan. The people burning, looting and attacking people in the streets have been labeled peaceful protesters. Just this week, as video comes out of massive looting and pillaging in Philadelphia, the governor of the state called it a mostly peaceful protest. That strikes the objectivists as insane, but from the point of view of the partisan, it helps their cause and that’s all that matters.

As violence spread around the country this summer, the chant from the rioters was often something like “silence is violence.” In other words, if you did not vocally support them, they could rightfully assume you were plotting violence or supported violence against them, so they were justified in using violence. In other words, to the partisan, their violence is speech, while your speech is violence. The objectivists are stymied by this sleight of hand, so they have remained dumbstruck by it.

This willingness to transcend the rules of language was on display this week as democrats threw a choreographed tantrum over Judge Barrett. They claimed that Trump was packing the court, a term that goes back a century to when FDR tried to increase the number of judges, so he could get his guys on the bench. The fact that Trump was not actually doing anything like that was not a constraint on the Democrats bleating about court packing all week.

Just as their violence is speech, while your speech is violence, the logic of the situation is being turned on its head. They now claim that their plans to pack the court are a justified response to Trump packing the court. You see, when their enemy scrupulously follows the rules it is a gross violation of procedure, but when they overturn procedure it is restoring order and balance. This is not mere hypocrisy. This is the natural detachment from objectivity that is a predicate for the partisan.

This is why the partisans tend to prevail in a democracy. They have a wider range of options because they are not limited by facts and reason. Additionally, the objectivists are self-limiting, often ceding the field because they think the rules require it. One side gets to play dirty, while the other side tries to talk them out of it. The truth is, there is no reasoning with a partisan. There is no way to reason with someone who will not stipulate to the basic facts of life. They exist beyond reason.

This is the story of the last 30 years. As the partisans have become increasingly partisan, which means less constrained by reality, the objectivists have become more certain that reality will step and do the job they refuse to do. They imagine a time when the partisan suddenly realizes the truth of his situation, throws down his weapons and embraces the objectivist as a brother in logic. For the objectivist, reason has become escapism in order to avoid what must be done.

A byproduct of this dynamic is that most people have no voice in the media, government or any other area of public life. The partisans advance their positions on behalf of their cause, while the objectivists fret about factual accuracy. In a democracy, objectivity is not a constituency, so the objectivists end up representing the interests of abstract concepts, rather than genuine people, which means the bulk of the people have no representative.

Another old saying relevant here is that in war, truth is the first casualty. The reason for this is war is a conflict between two sides, neither of which has a reason to see things from the point of view of the other side. It is the ultimate partisan conflict. If there is ever going to be a force to topple the current Left, their first task will be to eliminate those more concerned about truth and reason than the welfare of genuine people."
 
I fully comprehend the "trust no one, everyone can be compromised" line of thinking. Its an infinite regress; an endless loop. It can apply to anyone thus Trump (the topic of this thread) is no more or less immune to this than anyone else.
First, this is a false statement. I know all sorts of folks from all over the globe in a specific line of business I used to participate. There are folks I could trust and there were plenty I could not. In fact, there were certain people I dealt with for decades whose word alone was gold. But they were more of an exception, in fact, by far more... but they existed. And then there were a plethora of snakes. But also, in between the two extremes was an even greater plethora of folks who were, each to varying degrees, weak with regards to their word and/or their integrity. In fact, I was in this middle group from time to time until I made it my prime objective to solidify my integrity. So guess how that worked out? Because I had never achieved a top position in my industry, I was unable to accomplish the goal and have any success so... I left the industry.

Trump is involved in "an industry" (politics) that is far worse than the industry I left with regards to emulating perfect integrity and remaining a part of the industry. You, Silence, know this... we all know this. And what I see in so many of your posts regarding Trump is what appears to be the usage of straw man type tactics and yet you never seem to address "that which we are clearly headed for and sooner than later if Trump doesn't win" - and that is global Marxist fascism.

And so it is hard for me to not conclude that either, you don't "see this" or, if you see it is possible, don't believe it will happen or, not only see that this is possible, but wish that it would happen. None of the three are "good" IMO. And as to the first (that you don't "see this") my concern as to why you can't see this is the same thing I see in so many... they are dug in. There whole identity is wrapped up in "anti-Trumpism" that they cannot see the likely alternative.

So understand that fixation on identity at that level of one's being is a clear sign that integration work (shadow work) may very well be called for but that would be for each individual to consider, conclude (if true) and then to act upon and how.

And in my last statement is the key to my own view... it is your inalienable and inherent right to consider these things for yourself. It is your personal responsibility and no one else's. And this same right/responsibility applies to every aspect of your being, including who/what you trust with regards to information which, depending on how you allow that information to impact your decisions. You are in charge of YOU. If the left take over, your inalienable and inherent rights will become eroded until you have none. And this is what is at stake. And this, in my opinion, is at the core of Trump Consciousness, especially when contrasted with the alternative.

Hell, he's an "elite" by the loose definitions tossed about around here (i.e., anyone of immense wealth).
He may be reasonably wealthy among "the mega wealthy." But what is obvious is that he is not a willing "club member" and you know that, Silence. I feel it is disingenuous for you to state as a fact what members here determine as to what the criteria is for usage of that term. For example, when I use the term, I have in my mind "influencers" who have great impact upon the rest of humanity when they attempt to impose their views on the rest of us and this can be done by using their wealth but can also be done by expressing their views via mediums that assist them in getting those views out to the rest of us. And you don't have to be mega wealthy or even reasonably wealthy to be an influencer. An example is college professors who chose to indoctrinate, pontificate and virtue signal their students instead of playing a mentor role with regards to development on how to think for yourself.

It is this type of statement, Silence, that really makes it hard to feel we could have a fair discussion... because it is wrong and seems to strive to change the reality framework.

Gates/Big Pharma may not be trustworthy, but using this logic who actually is? This philosophy leads ultimately to a "trust no one" worldview.
Because I believe I have an inalienable and inherent right to decide which information sources should have the greatest influence upon my conclusions. I also live my life accepting full responsibility for my decisions.

The so-called "ruling class" (as I described in my post just above) do not allow me or anyone else, free and fair access to the various different information sources or, they manipulate and distort the validity and practicality surrounding particular information sources when what these information sources project does not align with the messaging desired by the elite.

A great example is how "The Front Line Doctors" have been treated. If you don't know about them... please, investigate.

I absolutely accept that anyone can be compromised; a vast majority by money.
But not everyone. Silence. I can state this as a fact because I chose not to be compromised by money on several occassions and which, because I wouldn't, led me to leaving my former industry. In addition, though I cannot be sure, regarding Trump - I conclude that he's not vulnerable to financial compromise. And I am speaking of Trump as of 2015 when he decided to run for the presidency. Joe Biden, if he becomes president, is guaranteed a multi-million dollar book deal (maybe many) and he's set for the rest of his life irregardless of whether his family has pissed off all the money they made (and may be holding, at least holding part of) for Joe. That's how it works and all the information that has come out, especially in the last few weeks, makes this 100% a fact.

What I don't accept is that Trump is somehow the working man's white knight via this very same lens.
The evidence by Trumps governance actions, the statistics (prior to the "covid operation") and the testimony of so many people who have worked for Trump and/or the Trump Organization make the case that there has never been a human being such as Donald Trump that has reached the position of president that has done more for the middle class and the overall working classes - EVER. It is stunning to me you don't see this. That you don't again points to one of the three reasons I previously listed as the most likely "whys."

Let's not forget he's refused to fully disclose his finances including his taxes. Unprecedented and certainly not something that should engender faith in his inability to be "tempted" as you put it.
This one is easy to understand for any fair minded individual. First, since you bring up "unprecedented" - Donald Trump was smart enough to realize that the press treatment he experienced was unprecedented. And because of this, it was easy for Donald Trump to understand that by releasing his tax returns... returns that included pre-paid estimated taxes and which showed what all wealthy people do who have any professional tax planning... distributions that come from entities which pay tax as entities where only a portion of those distributions are taxed as personal income to Donald Trump - that this same compromised media would massively misrepresent his financial information and tax. And guess what, Silence? When the returns were illegally leaked a month or so back, that is exactly what the media did!

Your argument has no basis...

Then there is his constant discrediting of his own officials. When he is finished discrediting those he wishes to discredit, how is one to discern which of those were discredited on merit and which were discredited for personal gain (compromised or otherwise)?
No single human does everything perfectly (or to the desired standard of each and every other human being ). Regarding this particular flaw that I would agree, sometimes arises... what is obvious about it is that what ultimately matters is his actions.

Because I am aware he is not a politician (well... he wasn't when he jumped in in 2015 and he hasn't ever become the typical politician) I weigh this against everything else regarding Trump... and then I weigh Trump as a whole against the alternative. Its a no-brainer for me what wins my support. Trump and the rising new Republican party.

Trump offers no authoritative body to support most (all?) of his claims; rather its an appeal to his own charisma/authority with his minions.
This is a disingenuous statement. Perhaps you only get your information from the left and left leaning media sources and/or information sources. I can't do your homework for you and won't start listing all the statistical facts that back my claim that Trump has done more for US Citizens and legal US Residents than any other president in decades... going back more than a century.

That's non-democratic to my view and the fundamental point I've been attempting to discuss in these most recent posts.
You have brought up "democratic" many times and yet you haven't ever admitted that the conservative judges are far more inclined to rule where the US Constitution supports their ruling as opposed to the rulings of left leaning judges legislate from the bench. The US Constitution was ratified (voted for). The judges are not voted for. A judge that uses the US Constitution as the basis for their rulings is in line with what has been voted for. The judges that violate their oath (as most of these radicalized leftist judges do) are doing so without rights so to do and have never been elected to legislate. Legislation from the bench is an all too often used tactic of the left. Be honest, Silence... why do you think the left is threatening to expand the court? So they can ensure they legislate at the highest level of government (by having radicals in charge of all three branches).

In closing, I know you, Silence, and the left have focused on one thing... laser focused. And that is - Donald Trump. Yet what is eminently clear is that this is the only tactic available besides all the fraud and all the manipulation of the minds of the vulnerable with regards to the covid operation and its real usage (and if it was intentional, then its intent) which the left won't advertise other than Joe Biden's statement last week about their wonderful Fraud division (haha).

All the left has done for 4 years is attack Donald Trump. They have nothing to offer anyone and so this is all they can do.
 
That's a side issue.

The real issue is Joe Biden's blatant and obvious crimes, the MSM covering them up, and the FBI refusing to investigate them.

"Boom" is an over-used term, but this 2-minute video from yesterday of some newsie talking head summarizing Biden's crimes, really is a "boom".

It's hilarious to watch the other talking heads sit there speechless at the end. I promise it's worth your two minutes...

https://www.bitchute.com/video/bqC8AH9nZh5Z

Speechless.
I agree that this is an even bigger issue to you and I and folks like us who wish for a fair justice system... but the issue I stated as most important has a better chance of being seen as a threat to everyone. See, when you are on a side and think you can get away with what you want or that those who are in power are on your side and think they can get away with what they want... then "justice" being massively compromised is considered a plus.

Note that the link you provided has already been taken down or was not the right link.
 
I almost started to think you could be reasoned with (in reading your reply with regards to world view). But if you think that stealing documents in transit with a delivery service is comical... documents that assist in building the case against the Biden family (including Joe Biden), then I have to accept that you are likely ethically and/or integrally compromised by TDS. And I truly do not intend to ad hominen at you and it is not meant that way... but TDS can bring forth that type of "thinking" that then results in one's post that such an act/crime is comical.
 
Scientists like John P. A. Ioannidis, a Stanford Professor, have had to resort to using that site to try to get their message across. These are people who should be advising governments.
I get it.

I also believe I get Chester's post as well.

I absolutely believe that scientists like Ioannidis should be part of the dialogue. But are you suggesting his voice is "better"? That he is somehow insulated or protected from the establishment? And if so, how are we to know this?

For example, Andrew Gelman (Director of Applied Statistics at Columbia) has questioned some of Ioannidis' statistical work. Is Gelman to be dismissed as just part of the scientific establishment? Should he be advising governments?

In summary, how am I to know which wear white hats and which wear black?
 
Top