Exiled wrote:Do you think that it is possible to independently disagree with Hillary and/or the consensus of the donor class/war-mongers? Or is the russian influence/fox news influence so great that it is impossible to disagree with Hillary without being a putin puppet or conservative captive?
How would one know the difference, and at this point could there be such a person who could claim to be both informed and not have a significant amount of the evidence counter Russian interference not come from, well, Russian and Russian/Trump-friendly sources?
Yes, but this dovetails into the silly conclusion that no one can independently think about these issues, that either they are with Clinton or with the Russians. Is it still either cojcolds or the devil/anti-mormon camp? I thought the answer to that question was a resounding hell no, we are able to think for ourselves.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
I don't think such radical independence is authentic. Anyone who imagines they are is self-deceiving. The question stands. Where are the sources one relies on to come to the conclusion Russian interference is a hoax?
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
honorentheos wrote:I don't think such radical independence is authentic. Anyone who imagines they are is self-deceiving. The question stands. Where are the sources one relies on to come to the conclusion Russian interference is a hoax?
Here we revisit the religious debates on the other side of this site. It was never my theory that Russia invaded our elections and brought us Trump, and so it is not my burden to prove. My position is that there isn't sufficient proof that the Russians meddled to such an extent as to affect why Clinton lost. She did it on her own and Comey didn't help matters. Maybe he is a Russian asset?
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
If I like food and to breath air and Putin does too, then .....? This seems to be where the Clinton camp wants to take this, if they can get away with it.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
honorentheos wrote:I don't think such radical independence is authentic. Anyone who imagines they are is self-deceiving. The question stands. Where are the sources one relies on to come to the conclusion Russian interference is a hoax?
Here we revisit the religious debates on the other side of this site. It was never my theory that Russia invaded our elections and brought us Trump, and so it is not my burden to prove. My position is that there isn't sufficient proof that the Russians meddled to such an extent as to affect why Clinton lost. She did it on her own and Comey didn't help matters. Maybe he is a Russian asset?
From what sources did you arrive at this belief? What measures did you take to acknowledge your prior biases and include information that would challenge them knowing this is essential to critical thinking? How is you position clearly independent of either simply pursuing an prior anti-Clinton bias or favoring sources you found confirmed your initial views? It wasn't a theory that Russia was attempting to interfere. The Obama administration was working against it during the election. They screwed up in not making it a major public story because they worried it would look like they were trying to undermine Trump while thinking it could be dealt with after Clinton won. They didn't foresee Trump winning so they thought they had time to deal with it afterward. You talk about it in ways that don't align with the facts. So, where do you get your information and how did you work on acknowledging and confronting you biases via critical thinking?
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
To be fair, I just think Gabbard is positioning herself for a Senate run. I think she wants the seat where Senator Schatz* currently sits through 2022 (<-?). But I'm just, you know, trying to figure her out. Incidentally, she won the Congressional seat vacated (?) by Senator Hirono so who knows.
* I get the feeling Gabbard isn't super hot on Israel's influence in the world. I dunno. I have a sort of niggling feeling about her and the Jewish superinfluence in American politics. I don't know if this is a driving motivation to get Schatz out of office, but it's certainly something that's pinging on my radar.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
From what sources did you arrive at this belief? What measures did you take to acknowledge your prior biases and include information that would challenge them knowing this is essential to critical thinking? How is you position clearly independent of either simply pursuing an prior anti-Clinton bias or favoring sources you found confirmed your initial views? It wasn't a theory that Russia was attempting to interfere. The Obama administration was working against it during the election. They screwed up in not making it a major public story because they worried it would look like they were trying to undermine Trump while thinking it could be dealt with after Clinton won. They didn't foresee Trump winning so they thought they had time to deal with it afterward. You talk about it in ways that don't align with the facts. So, where do you get your information and how did you work on acknowledging and confronting you biases via critical thinking?
How does my disputing the russia cause theory not align with the facts?
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:To be fair, I just think Gabbard is positioning herself for a Senate run. I think she wants the seat where Senator Schatz* currently sits through 2022 (<-?). But I'm just, you know, trying to figure her out. Incidentally, she won the Congressional seat vacated (?) by Senator Hirono so who knows.
* I get the feeling Gabbard isn't super hot on Israel's influence in the world. I dunno. I have a sort of niggling feeling about her and the Jewish superinfluence in American politics. I don't know if this is a driving motivation to get Schatz out of office, but it's certainly something that's pinging on my radar.
- Doc
I read the last link you had shared about her religious upbringing and background. It was interesting, and one of the main takeaways I got from it was her public behavior does not follow an obvious script of any kind. She takes positions that hurt her appeal among demographics she also seems to be sending signals they would receive positively. She doesn't seem like someone who is a natural in front of a microphone but being attractive has a camera-ready appearance that works so long as she isn't saying something people don't want to hear. She could be a frontrunner if her campaign was being ran by professionals who were attempting to carve out a niche among a broad coalition of voters but instead she seems to be working with family and members of the cult she was raised in with an incomprehensible platform if one can call it that. It almost seems like her views are more like most peoples where they are a mix of right- and leftwing positions, often contradictory, and not the product of a think tank so much as the result of not having really thought out what it is one believes in so much as accepting each thing one believes independently but with conviction. She's an everywoman running for office in a country where looks win elections and anti-establishment appeal is a thing. So people like Joe Rogan can find the one or two things in her platform they can defend when asked, but those are more or less there to justify picking her because she's anti-establishment and easy on the eyes.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
What's my burden? We were talking about how a person would be able to differentiate between someone who independently came to the conclusion the Russian investigation was a hoax and someone who was being manipulated by Russian propaganda. And you are asserting things. I asked if you wouldn't mind showing how you took on any prior anti-Clinton biases you might have had in order to be the example of such a person, and you say it's my job to prove to you that there was Russian interference. Maybe if this were a discussion with someone who hasn't been debating this on this board and had all sorts of information shared with them. But that's not you.
How'd you address your biases to be sure you weren't just letting sources that confirmed your biases through and dismissing those that challenged them?
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa