Biden Crime Family

[Walker]

Now how do we accomplish "free and fair"?

The cause of your irritation is an internal conflict. The internal conflict is caused because what you believe is true, conflicts with reality.

Doing what you’ve been doing has led you to this point of confusion that so diverges from the way things actually are. One manifested symptom of this is that you are seeing orange men, that is, you are perceiving a simplistic and wrong view of causation.

So, you ask me what you should do.

Do what you have not been doing.

Begin by educating yourself in reality, not fantasy.

Sources abound. Here’s but one, a good one backed by facts.

viewtopic.php?t=40851

[Gary Childress]

How does a referee avoid being controlled by a football team?

For football (American or International), referees are not allowed to be paid by either football team. The job of a "referee" is to ensure that a football game is won by the player who plays football the best. However, referees are also human beings and are not perfectly impartial. Sometimes they make suspicious calls that don't seem fair when analyzed later by others when the documented event is observed later.

That is true. But their work is very much in public, where any unfairness can be plainly seen. They don't operate in secrecy. So one way to do that is to make everything open and manifest.

A second way is to have an impartial press, one that has an interest in providing the public with the information it wants, rather than shilling for a party. You don't have that, I admit. But a third way is to make partisanship balanced between those admittedly partisan to one side and those admittedly partisan to another, with equal strength maintained between the two. That can work, too, because they watch each other.

I realize that in America, things have become so partisan that it's unthinkable that anyone would actually value impartiality above partisanship. But it's not actually all that unusual. Some people can be loyal to democracy, to truth, to fairness rather than to a corrupt politlcal party. In short, there are such things as good, moral people. All you have to do is find a few. And then you've got your referees.

And if that's lost in America, then there's no hope for democracy there anyway.

If that's the way you (a Canadian) feel, then I'm sorry that we (Americans) have let you down. We're trying to figure out our own problems in our own way. If you don't like the way we're working out our own problems, then I'm not sure what to tell you. Maybe come to America and live here. Then at least you might be able to see closer what is going on and cast a vote on it yourself?

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Alexis Jacobi]

I agree with the statement highlighted in red.

The entire article (essay, exposé) clearly proposes why the last election was problematic to say the least.

What is interesting is that, at first, there were nutty, paranoid explanations (Sidney Powell, et al). Then, over time, and with research, what actually took place came into better view.

It takes (I guess) some courage to examine the facts or even to consider them when one’s own prejudice, like an automatic mechanism, intrudes and inhibits examination.

This is an odd trait I notice in you Gary. You have a mind capable of sound reasoning. But when you encounter a topic that is emotionally or ideologically off-limits, your reason falls to pieces. You revert to weird sentimentalism (or your disease kicks in).

What is you were to read and comment on each assertion in Walker’s article? Could you do it without psychological breakdown?

[Gary Childress]

Now how do we accomplish "free and fair"?

The cause of your irritation is an internal conflict. The internal conflict is caused because what you believe is true, conflicts with reality.

Doing what you’ve been doing has led you to this point of confusion that so diverges from the way things actually are. One manifested symptom of this is that you are seeing orange men, that is, you are perceiving a simplistic and wrong view of causation.

So, you ask me what you should do.

Do what you have not been doing.

Begin by educating yourself in reality, not fantasy.

Sources abound. Here’s but one, a good one backed by facts.

viewtopic.php?t=40851

As far as I can tell this "internal conflict" seems to arise after reading one of your posts. Not sure what to do about it, though. My usual coping skill is to seek to avoid the irritation. However, I think I've figured out that the best way to cope with it is to simply acknowledge the irritation and continue on.

[Gary Childress]

I agree with the statement highlighted in red.

The entire article (essay, exposé) clearly proposes why the last election was problematic to say the least.

What is interesting is that, at first, there were nutty, paranoid explanations (Sidney Powell, et al). Then, over time, and with research, what actually took place came into better view.

It takes (I guess) some courage to examine the facts or even to consider them when one’s own prejudice, like an automatic mechanism, intrudes and inhibits examination.

This is an odd trait I notice in you Gary. You have a mind capable of sound reasoning. But when you encounter a topic that is emotionally or ideologically off-limits, your reason falls to pieces. You revert to weird sentimentalism (or your disease kicks in).

What is you were to read and comment on each assertion in Walker’s article? Could you do it without psychological breakdown?

Apparently not.

[Lacewing]

The cause of your irritation is an internal conflict. The internal conflict is caused because what you believe is true, conflicts with reality.

As far as I can tell this "internal conflict" seems to arise after reading one of your posts.

Perhaps it's because you have good radar for skewed information, Gary!

Here's what the NY Times says about Walker's source...

'Real Clear Politics has been catering to campaign obsessives since 2000. It pitches itself as a “trusted, go-to source” for unbiased polling. The Trump era changed its tone, and funding sources.'

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/17/us/p ... itics.html

[Alexis Jacobi]

We're trying to figure out our own problems in our own way.

More accurately the larger body of people are struggling in darkness to understand the on-going power-struggles. So much information, true, false, half-true half-false, circulates that it is really hard to have clarity.

Also, if you are an example of a citizen “figuring out” things I think you illustrate my point. You seen benighted. You struggle to even begin to see clearly. Certain ideas seem to scare you from examining them. You are a jumble of confused impulses.

However, the proposition that the Nation is at a juncture of real and dangerous conflict — that is a good place to start our examination of “why” this has come about.

It’s huge really. And interconnected. And difficult as hell to decipher. And then interpretation is a zone of conflict and intense disagreement.

And all sorts of trouble lies immediately ahead. The game being played (enacted) is extremely serious for those with invested interest in it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Here's what the NY Times says about Walker's source...

However, it is hard these days to trust the ultra-partisan NYTs.

Though to date political bias has not yet invaded to food and cooking section!

So we turn from close examination of the arguments, to paranoia about the sources.

Note that this issue arises here in these discussions: we label someone whose ideas in one area we disagree with as unreliable in all areas. That’s a bad way to go about parsing arguments.

[Gary Childress]

We're trying to figure out our own problems in our own way.

More accurately the larger body of people are struggling in darkness to understand the on-going power-struggles. So much information, true, false, half-true half-false, circulates that it is really hard to have clarity.

Also, if you are an example of a citizen “figuring out” things I think you illustrate my point. You seen benighted. You struggle to even begin to see clearly. Certain ideas seem to scare you from examining them. You are a jumble of confused impulses.

However, the proposition that the Nation is at a juncture of real and dangerous conflict — that is a good place to start our examination of “why” this has come about.

It’s huge really. And interconnected. And difficult as hell to decipher. And then interpretation is a zone of conflict and intense disagreement.

And all sorts of trouble lies immediately ahead. The game being played (enacted) is extremely serious for those with invested interest in it.

The same goes for you, AJ. If you want to play doctor for America, then maybe come live here instead of living somewhere in the Caucasus (if that one post you made concerning your location is even true). I'm not sure if "replacement theory" has you on a constructive trajectory or not. Most of my education has been a "liberal" one. I don't fear "unrestrained humans" as you apparently do. I fear restrained ones.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Is it possible for you to deal with the ideas presented in a post Gary without going totally mushy?

[Gary Childress]

Is it possible for you to deal with the ideas presented in a post Gary without going totally mushy?

No. I've apparently been 'corrupted' by "sentimentality". Should I not be?

[Alexis Jacobi]

No. I've apparently been 'corrupted' by "sentimentality". Should I not be?

You should not be. So for example go back and carefully read Walker’s article, isolate its main contentions, and comment one by one on them.

Without drippy sentimentalism.

[Gary Childress]

No. I've apparently been 'corrupted' by "sentimentality". Should I not be?

You should not be. So for example go back and carefully read Walker’s article, isolate its main contentions, and comment one by one on them.

Without drippy sentimentalism.

No thanks. I don't feel the need to. I'd rather learn from what seem like enlightened sources to me. Having come from there, I try to avoid getting my education from the armpit of society. I'm sorry.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Alexis Jacobi]

What are those enlightened sources?

[Gary Childress]

What are those enlightened sources?

Mostly (but not exclusively) Noam Chomsky lately. However, my original sources were the faculty at Geoge Mason Univerisity from 1986 - ~1992 and then the University of Illinois in Springfield via online classes circa 2009 or so. I enjoy the "hands-on" approach to learning from others. At this point, I'm not as interested in what others have read as I am in what they think. Unfortunately, these days when I ask people things, I invariably get a litany of web links instead of their own opinions on things. Such is life, I guess.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯