Trump Consciousness

Michael Patterson said:
Don't. It is a harmful practise.
Click to expand...
You really would learn something if you did.

David
Vortex said:
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/1...unfolding-heres-why-no-ones-talking-about-it/

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/1...es-skeptics-of-establishment-syria-narrative/

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/11/25/surprise-msm-spins-opcw-leak-as-russian-disinfo/

https://www.globalresearch.ca/panel...n-alleged-chemical-attack-douma-syria/5693025

https://www.globalresearch.ca/syria...rding-alleged-chemical-weapons-attack/5694146

https://www.globalresearch.ca/opcw-...open-letter-to-states-representatives/5695506

https://www.globalresearch.ca/wikileaks-exposes-doctored-opcw-report-alleged-cw-attack-syria/5695752

I suppose Trump, the current American Emperor... sorry, President, never, ever knew what dirty things were happening behind the scenes, let alone participated in any way. Didn't he?! :eek:
Click to expand...
Oh he knew, which is why he didn't really attack Syria. Likewise Obama didn't attack after one of those attacks. The Neo Cons responsible are surely guilty of Treason.

David
 
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...the-us-president-shirtless-in-latest-protest/

EPIC! Hong Kong Democracy Protesters Honor President Trump by Carrying Photos of the US President – Shirtless – In Latest Protest!
...
On Wednesday President Trump signed S. 1838 and S. 2710 in support of a free Hong Kong.​
​
The bills support the democracy protesters in Hong Kong and threaten China with possible sanctions on human rights.​
​
On Thursday the Hong Kong Democracy protesters honored President Trump by carrying his picture — shirtless.​
​

trump-hong-kong-shirtless.jpg
 
David Bailey said:
You really would learn something if you did.
Click to expand...
You would learn something by hitting your head with a hammer too, but it is still not recommended.

If you recommended Fox as well as CNN et al I would take that as a suggestion that a balanced POV has merit. In this case i would counter that Fox is probably the least overall reliable source of information on 2 counts. The first is that its actual news seems to be pushed into a corner, and attacked by its opinion shows.The second is that unless you are especially disposed toward a singular conservative rightwing view of the world, watching the opinion shows is a waste of time.

I have watched Fox news from time to time. Its okay, but because I have a centre left bias its not as useful as the alternatives. Both report actual news - I just prefer other than Fox.

So I am not sure what you think I might learn. If you imagine watching the opinion shows might be a source of education I would suggest to you that making that argument has no merit unless you have watched CNN and MSNBC opinion shows and found them informative.

In any case I have watched the Fox opinion shows, and to be frank, my response has been a mixture of incredulity, scorn and nausea. Like hitting my head with a hammer I have quickly learned not to do it. That is why I caution others against doing the same. I am, to be open, completely biased here, and I do not pretend to be otherwise.
 
Michael Patterson said:
If you recommended Fox as well as CNN et al I would take that as a suggestion that a balanced POV has merit. In this case i would counter that Fox is probably the least overall reliable source of information on 2 counts.
Click to expand...
Do you balance your non-materialist views by reading Dawkins, or Daniel Dennett? In an era of fake/distorted news, the only possible way to consume information is to gradually focus on those people/organisations that seem to be telling the truth, and progressively ignore the others.

I suppose you do the same, but concentrate on CNN. However, that video is quite short and blows the story about the latest Syrian gas attack - the samples collected did not show any evidence of a gas attack. I don't think you like war mongering for the sake of it, and that is exactly what was going on here - fake a gas attack in the hopes that the president can be pressurised into performing a devastating 'retaliatory' raid. This is a tactic that goes right back to the initiating event of the Vietnam war.

Also you should realise that the Neo Cons have a foot in both camps - Republican and Democrat - so the significance of this report is not limited to President Trump, for example, President Obama was heavily criticised for not authorizing an attack after an earlier gas attack.

David
 
David Bailey said:
Do you balance your non-materialist views by reading Dawkins, or Daniel Dennett? In an era of fake/distorted news, the only possible way to consume information is to gradually focus on those people/organisations that seem to be telling the truth, and progressively ignore the others.

I suppose you do the same, but concentrate on CNN. However, that video is quite short and blows the story about the latest Syrian gas attack - the samples collected did not show any evidence of a gas attack. I don't think you like war mongering for the sake of it, and that is exactly what was going on here - fake a gas attack in the hopes that the president can be pressurised into performing a devastating 'retaliatory' raid. This is a tactic that goes right back to the initiating event of the Vietnam war.

Also you should realise that the Neo Cons have a foot in both camps - Republican and Democrat - so the significance of this report is not limited to President Trump, for example, President Obama was heavily criticised for not authorizing an attack after an earlier gas attack.

David
Click to expand...

Actually I have read Dawkins, Dennett and a host of other atheists. I listened to over 60 hours of debates between atheists and theists. I am very well read on atheism and materialism. I do pretty solid research David.

I don't "concentrate on CNN" or any outlet precisely because I am aware of my bias, and the news reporting biases. I try to source 'news' that can be reasonably trusted, pending further investigation. I do access 'right wing' sources too, because many are pretty damned good, and do get the better angle at times.

I am not pro Democrat and anti Republican, and I don't use slogans like 'Neo Cons'. I read in politics and history written by people who do not exhibit flagrant political biases. I don't need that video to tell me about these kinds of tactics. I am unsurprised. In any case I was aware of the story from other sources.
 
I have obviously read some of Dawkins, but my point is that I don't continue to consume his output because I do not think he contributes in a useful way.
Michael Patterson said:
I am not pro Democrat and anti Republican, and I don't use slogans like 'Neo Cons'. I read in politics and history written by people who do not exhibit flagrant political biases. I don't need that video to tell me about these kinds of tactics. I am unsurprised. In any case I was aware of the story from other sources.
Click to expand...

What I was trying to point out, is that while other media outlets have hidden this devastating conclusion about the 'gas attacks', the truth has actually emerged from Fox News. If CNN has discussed this, please show me!

David
 
to all from Sam -

There are amazing folks who post on this forum, many of who have posted for years. This forum is amazing and unique. To put forum members against each other is a bad thing and some of my posts have fanned that fire.

I am sorry... I mean this.

More - My most powerful core "belief" regarding all things political is best summarized by this single quote which was purportedly made by former Texas Governor John Connally and spoken to Gerald Celente as stated in this article here -

“Gerald, I read your book and it’s a fine piece of work,” he said. “And I know that your heart is in the right place, but you don’t have a clue of what’s going on in the government, and neither do the American people.

“Because if they did, there’d be a revolution in this country.”
Click to expand...


So earlier in this thread I mentioned my concerns characterizing them as "my fears" as to what would happen if... this or that. But that was "me" allowing myself to get caught up in that which my "better self" (smarter self?) knows is nothing but the distraction they want us to get caught up in. Here I am... seeing the trap (the trap I have been fully aware of long before Trump) and yet falling right into.

So I won't be posting more on this thread because, I sometimes cannot keep from falling back into the trap. But that's not the primary reason. The primary reason is because the folks here are outstanding and it is only in this thread where the trouble seems to be for me - and where I stir the pot instead of calming the waters. Again, with Connally's words in mind, I know better anyways.

I especially apologize to Laird. "I am sorry, Laird, that I quoted something of yours that I then used to stir this pot." I also read your reply twice and understand the points you made. I really am sorry.
 
Sam Hunter said:
So I won't be posting more on this thread because, I sometimes cannot keep from falling back into the trap. But that's not the primary reason. The primary reason is because the folks here are outstanding and it is only in this thread where the trouble seems to be for me - and where I stir the pot instead of calming the waters. Again, with Connally's words in mind, I know better anyways.
Click to expand...
Hey - I hope you do keep posting here. If the people with their heads screwed on straight stop saying the truth, that won't help anybody!

The well meaning anti-Trump folk should ask themselves if there is anything they believe about Trump that if proved false would cause them think again. I mean, my impression is that those who hate him because he is spoiling their war mongering plans, or spoiling their playgrounds like Epstein's island, etc simply use their vast wealth to spread huge numbers of vague assertions, and accusations that are quickly withdrawn. This leaves a shifting sense that be must be evil, and yet there is very little that is concrete behind it all.

David
 
Last edited:
Dear Sam,

I welcome your sentiments and apology. Like you, I prefer it when the unique members of this unique forum cooperate in a spirit of goodwill, and it is not just you for whom this thread does not serve that purpose. Politics is simply divisive - at least at the level of "Democrat versus Republican" or "left versus right" - and, as I've suggested in the past, I don't think Skeptiko is the better for allowing such political threads, which are not even within its remit, to exist.

My best wishes to you.

Laird
 
David Bailey said:
I have obviously read some of Dawkins, but my point is that I don't continue to consume his output because I do not think he contributes in a useful way.
Click to expand...

Precisely my response to Hannity et al.

What I was trying to point out, is that while other media outlets have hidden this devastating conclusion about the 'gas attacks', the truth has actually emerged from Fox News. If CNN has discussed this, please show me!

I don't know if CNN covered it.You seem surprised or impressed it was on Fox. I don't recall which of the multiple news outlets I check in on had the story. Do you think these stories are not covered on other channels? Why?

Okay I had look on Google and didn't find anything from CN after 10 pages. But I did find that the story was widely covered in mainstream media and picked up by a range of specialist political and fact checking sites. I made a quick selection of links and they are below.

It seems that some folk think the story about faking the gas attacks is fake. I haven't read the content in great detail - just scanned it. It seems that if you are Pro Russian you accept the claim the gas attacks were fakes perpetrated to give the UK and the US permission to attack Syria. I presume Fox was attacking this outrageous claim by the Russians? If you are anti-Russian you believe the Russians are lying. And if you are fair minded you go digging to figure out what was going on.

The story is/was very widely covered. I presume CNN didn't show up in the top ten pages because few people searched it. There were a whole bunch of US sites - cable and print and internet listed - so whether the story was given major coverage seems to depend what other stores were around - and how it was assessed. Probably the fair minded line could have been - this is what is claimed but it is complex and must be fact checked.

Was the gas attack faked? What is the basis for your assessment?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...r-furore-alleged-poison-gas-attack-Assad.html



https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2018...k-filmed-syria-russian-military-claims-a62849



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...atchdog-opcw-defends-syria-report-after-leaks



https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...5b76b6-b363-11e8-9a6a-565d92a3585d_story.html



https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-13/russia-says-syria-chemical-attack-staged/9657314



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-46490497



https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-accuses-uk-of-staging-fake-chemical-attack-syria/



https://www.militarytimes.com/flash...evidence-of-syria-chemical-attacks-was-faked/



https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/11/putin-says-expects-fake-gas-attacks-to-discredit-syrias-assad.html



https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-this-proof-white-helmets-staged-chemical-attack/



https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/chemical-attack-syria-sorting-truth-propaganda



https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...en-online-theories-doubting-syrian-gas-attac/



https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/russia-syria-fake-news/557660/



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v..._was_falsely_blamed_for_chemical_attacks.html
 
David Bailey said:
his is a tactic that goes right back to the initiating event of the Vietnam war.
Click to expand...


Gee, David, you are starting to sound like me. Yes the Americans did stage an 'incident' in 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin. Are you now saying the Americans staged the gas attack? This is what the Russians are claiming.
 

"At the recent Trump rally in Cincinnati, Ohio Millie Weaver challenges some of the protesters to walk with her over to see if Trump supporters are as bad as the mainstream media says. After several attempts, Millie meets Marcos, a black American, who takes her up on the challenge.

Marcos believes President Trump and his supporters are racist and that if he goes inside the event he will be attacked and told to leave. However, what ends up happening is amazing and will leave you speechless."
 
"I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to go play golf." --Donald J. Trump, August, 2016
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top