Maturity over Mar-a-Lago 😆

“We will never compromise our principles. House Democrats will always put
American values over autocracy.
Benevolence over bigotry.
Constitution over the cult.
Democracy over demagogues.
Economic opportunity over extremism.
Freedom over fascism,
Governing over gaslighting.
Hopefulness over hatred.
Inclusion over isolation,
Justice over judicial overreach.
Knowledge over kangaroo courts,
Liberty over limitation.
Maturity over Mar-a-Lago.
Normalcy over negativity.
Opportunity over obstruction,
People over politics.
Quality of life issues over QAnon.
Reason over racism.
Substance over slander.
Triumph over tyranny.
Understanding over ugliness.
Voting rights over voter suppression.
Working families over the well connected.
Xenia* over xenophobia.
Yes, we can over you can’t do it, and
zealous representation over zero sum confrontation.”

dr peterson is a professor of psychology at university of toronto,and former harvard professor.

i like him but often disagree with some of his criticisms,but he does source all his claims on his website and his books.

though his book "maps of meaning" is a bit of a slog.

one thing i admire about peterson is his careful use of words,which is where the interviewer was getting tripped up.

she was not really listening,and was instead reacting based on assumptions,rather than his actual words.which is why she kept with the "so what you're saying.."

the extreme left has labeled peterson an "alt-right" demagogue and a "transphobe" but both of these allegations are patently ridiculous with even a tertiary examination of what peterson is saying.

you don't have to agree with him,but as this interviewer found out,presume at your own risk.

he will may you pay for your presumptions and arrogance.

i find both dr peterson and dr haidt invaluable in understanding the psychology of human societies.peterson is an evolutionary psychologist while haidt focuses on moral psychology.

but what do i know..i am just a ghetto white trash kid from the burbs.
still interesting.

Not that any of this is acceptable, but it's funny how your video omits the part where the armed and armored (clubs, helmets and full body pads) right wingers violently pushed into the counter protest crowd, starting the violence you now decry, and that this video edits to look one sided.

At this point, it's more than probable that nothing will get Trump reelected, but if the right is successful painting these anarchist asshats as liberals, and by extension liberals as these asshats, it could get another Trump like feculent demagogue elected.
That's why I think it's important to denounce them (antifa) at every opportunity. Fascists against fascism are still fascists, just incredibly stupid ones. They don't stand for what I think the left is about, and I certainly don't stand with them.

I agree, horrifyingly, this is apparently escalating towards gunplay. I'm not at all sure which side will shoot first. Don't fool yourself into thinking the left and the anarchists don't have guns too, though, or that totally non political citizens won't take up arms against rampaging Nazis and fascists (hopefully fascists left and right). Just something to consider when you're standing next to one hoping a gunfight breaks out.

Demagogues love followers too.
It goes both ways.
Fear mongering however, always was tied to lies.

i guess i am in a way.
i have seen bob break away from his ideologues to promote his own ideas.so i know he is capable of defying the monolithic demagogue machinery.

i mean,just the other day he posted a video from secular talk,which is a liberal talk show and is a founding member of justice democrats.

now the video he posted was most likely to promote his own criticism that democrats are greedy little big money addicts,which is not an inaccurate accusation,but i found it odd that he posted a video from a founding member of justice democrats and yet down voted a video---promoting justice democrats.

i want to know how he is reconciling this obvious disparity.

@newtboy

falling on deaf ears.
bob's comment is literally ripped from rush limbaugh,hugh hewitt and sean hannity.

they are his heroes.
you are not.

because we all know right wing demagogues not only use "alternative facts" but also reside in an "alternate reality".

@ChaosEngine

lol.i just deleted a massive ramblomatic that broke down the entire history of the ACA.

figured i better just stick to basics.

many of the early protests you saw were partisan diehards who had been riled up by their favorite demagogue.

socalism!!
communism!!

but really the two great things from the ACA,and were provisions obama fought very hard for were:
pre-existing conditions
and while the ACA did not allow negotiating pharmaceutical prices,they DID put a cap on them.

and while the ACA was not perfect,far from it,those two provisions did a lot of good for people who suffered from long term illnesses.

but when anericans are asked pointed questions,without being directed for a specific goal,the majority support a single payer system.even republicans.

because you are right.it is a no-brainer.
americans already pay into a system:medicare/medicaid.
which operates on a 3% overhead.
and if basic,preventative care is offered early in peoples lives,the resulting savings totals into the 100's of billions.

and when presented to the american people like that,the majority are all for it.

*note( in the first three weeks of debating the ACA,the big 3 health insurance companies(blue cross,humana and cigna) spent a whopping 300 BILLION!

by the end it was almost a trillion they had spent to combat the passing of the ACA.

ok,first off?
this is heritage foundation,a right wing think tank.
this by itself is not terribly damning.

however.

bridgette gabriel is a spokeswoman for the FRC:family research center.

the FRC,along with james dobson's "focus on the family" ,were both funded with seed money from the families of betsy devos and erik prince,the amway pyramid scheme dynasty.

so what enoch?
what's the big deal?

well,when you understand the underlying religious philosophies of the the devos/prince family.you know that they are christian supremacists who wish to install an amercian government that adheres to "christian" laws and "christian" values.

yeah..you know that whole "sharia" law that has rightwingers pissing themselves? same thing,but this is with JESUS,so it has to be good,right?

and what this gabriel woman does is utter revisionist history to fit her own narrative and agenda.i am talking fucking blatant,but since most americans don't even know their OWN history,never mind the history of a religion they profess to love and worship,they just lap this womans bullshit up as if it were spoken from god's own lips.

because let us be frank,and clear.

christian right wingers literally piss themselves at the thought of muslims.and this woman hand feeds that fear.

this woman is a fucking disgrace.
9/11!
benghazi!

this woman feeds on your ignorance.
stop being a fucking tool to demagogues like this fucking twat waffle.

No, being on RT does not negate his reputation, but it tarnishes it, imo. It doesn't make him a liar, it makes him SUSPECT....less trustworthy, not untrustworthy.
I think using the reporter's chosen organization's reputation as one piece of evidence to make that determination is proper, I think we may just disagree on the weight we give that piece of evidence.

I explained that he doesn't have to stoop to the level of demagogue to serve the propaganda machine by lending them his reputation, and that harm's his rep. He may be 100% honest and factual, but he still helps spread obvious propaganda just by his presence, and I think both he and they know it well, and that's a huge disappointment from him for me.

Yes Chomsky is a good example of how, even though he's correct in his assertions, he gives a skewed view by omitting a comparison with the only alternatives (in speeches).

Again, imo, all news is suspect, there is hardly an example of "hard hitting journalism" in main stream media today that's not tainted with bias either by the reporters or the news organization that employs them. I'm not special, I don't have access to good news, and I'm not sure I could recognize it if I did, at this point. I think most reporting done today is at least in part an echo chamber/bubble meant to reinforce bias, which is why it bothers me so much when one of the few decent reporters takes a job with a propaganda factory...choices matter, who you surround yourself with matters, and surrounding yourself with unapologetic liars should hurt anyone's rep, especially a reporter with a reputation for telling unbiased truth.

Being critical of power doesn't cut it for me if it's designed to hide or excuse other criticism of another power....that's why I need to see him be critical of Putin on RT to regain some trust...until then, bye Felicia.

@newtboy
you misunderstood.

respectable investigative journalists gain that respect by being consistent with their reporting.

chris hedges is such a journalist.

but,by your metric,him being on RT negates that respect.now this is an assumption on my part,but i am using your words to come to that assumed conclusion.you have yet to agree or disagree with what chris hedges is saying,choosing instead to attack the medium in which he is saying it.this is your right,i just happen to disagree with you on this matter.

i refer back to one of my original comments,and a point i tried (and i guess failed?) to reiterate:discernment is the key.

so in a sense..yes..it is our responsibility to do our due diligence to vette the veracity of an investigative reporter.

those "reporters" who shill for either the democrats or republicans reveal themselves as the whores they are fairly quickly.

demagogues can almost be instantly identified due to their constant appeals to emotion.(keith olbermans new youtube channel from GQ "the resistance" comes to mind).

and reporters who are simply bad or lazy are quickly revealed as well.by other reporters.

let's take @bcglorf review of chomsky,and how chomsky is singular in his constant criticism of american foreign policy and asks the question "why can't he,just for once,speak on the positives that america has done in the world,or speculate on what could have happened had american not intervened in third world country A or B".(paraphrased)

now this is not an entirely unfair question,and in chomsky's books..he does address the very specifics that bcglorf would like to see chomsky address,but in lectures you are lucky to get a sentence in regards to such subjects.

but notice that while bcglorf would like to see chomsky speak in more broad terms,he never once questions the veracity of the details chomsky is laying down.

do you know why?
because chomsky does his homework,and backs up everything he says.

bcglorf respects chomsky for this,while simultaneously wishing he changed the channel once in awhile.

bcglorf utilized discernment to come to the conclusion that chomsky is a worthy,if infuriating,read/listen.

i do not mean to be speaking for Bc,and maybe i am missing the mark by a long shot using him as an example (if i did,please forgive Bc).

but my basic point is that we ALL discriminate and discern using our own subjective tools,our experiences and ultimately our understandings.

the problem here,and it is the underlying message on this thread,is confirmation bias.

we all know about this,and this election cycle REALLY brought this up to the forefront.

what i find interesting,and always makes me giggle,is how people will point to the "mainstream media" as an outlet for:propaganda,fake news,biased and slanted news ..but..it is NEVER the news THEY consume.the news THEY consume is hard hitting journalism.

so when i see people dismiss a piece that may happen to be on a questionable outlet..i laugh..because MOST outlets are ALL questionable.

so yes my friend,it is up to us to discern what is valid and what is bullshit.secondary sources help.concrete,trackable sources help and discussing and talking with one another is probably the greatest help of all.

but if you reside in an echo chamber,and everybody is just smelling each other farts.then some information may come as a shock.

my faith dictates my politics.
i am a dissident,and a radical.
the dynamic is always "power vs powerlessness",and i am always on the side of the powerless.

so it should be no surprise that on my list are people such as chomsky or hedges.

because they criticize power.

@bcglorf

think we are talking about two separate issues,with a only a subtle overlap.

i totally agree that when it comes to russian politics,and/or state sanctioned military operations,RT tends to lean in favor of the russian state.

but in my opinion this does not detract from the works of hedges,or hartman or even abbey martin.who used to have a show "breaking the set" and "empire files".

we can view american corporate media through the same lens.

FOX=republican message of the day
MSNBC=democrat message of the day
CNN=the american state message of the day.

taken in aggregate,these corporate media outlets are all propaganda/misinformation machines.

but..taken singularly...

shep smith on FOX does some good work.
while personalities such as o'reilly,cavuto and carlson are simply demagogues.

or rachel maddow on MSNBC.
who does an excellent job of disseminating the politics behind a lot of republican shenanigans.sadly her show is incredibly biased and partisan.so while i LOVE her analysis..i realize that it is a tad bit biased and slanted.

i do not watch CNN.except when i want to know what bullshit excuse the american government may be focused on.

so i get where you are coming from,and i agree for the most part.
i simply refuse to outright ignore someone like hedges,with his credentials,because of the venue he has been relegated to in order to express his criticism.

is/does RT sometimes promote russian propaganda?
yes..of course.
does this equate to chris hedges being a russian propagandist?
no..it does not.

and i am also not necessarily disregarding your discernment and discrimination towards hedges.
we all have a metric we use when discriminating.
yours is simply different than mine.
this does not equate a moral right nor wrong,just different.

but you and i may disagree on some things,but i would like to think we have both earned each others respect.

so when you post a comment.i read it with that respect dictating the lens with which i view your words.i know that you consider your words carefully,and i think it polite to give those words the same consideration that you gave them when writing.

we can disagree,and have,but i always walk away with at least understanding WHY you may feel a certain way.

@bobknight33

"You just bent because you you team is finally getting called out for what they are. Biased and fake ."

have you met me?
or is your account used by multiple people,and this particular bob is one i have never engaged?

reread my comment.
GO..i'll wait.

notice anything?
that maybe i accused CNN of the very same partisan fuckery as FOX?

this is just a house negro who sold his integrity years ago for his own personal gain.who pretended faux outrage in order to appeal to the politically unsophisticated so he can buy a BIG house,and drive an expensive car and rub shoulders with the powerful.

but bob,you view things in such a binary and limited way that if i
criticize an opinion pundit,a cable celebrity,who makes his cookies by undermining journalism and promoting propaganda,and just happens to work at FOX.then i MUST,therefore,be rooting for the other "team".

there is no fucking TEAM bob.
there is simply the truth,and those who whore themselves for personal gain,while fucking the rest of us over.
neil cavuto is a dirty little whore slut.

does this mean that everyone on FOX is like slutty cavuto?
of course not.shep smith does some good work.
and the very same accusations can be leveled at CNN,or MSNBC,or CNBC.

the majority of cable news have all adopted the FOX model,because it makes money.a LOT of money,and as long as they are populated by dirty little whores like cavuto.who are willing to sell their integrity for safety and financial security.the amercian people will always suffer those fuckheads selfish hubris.

one of the greatest things to come out of this surreal and absurd election cycle is that the american people have begun to "get it".they have come to the slow (and infuriating to me) realization that cable news is not news at all.it is propaganda.it is opinion by way of presenting as "news".

and ALL the big players are guilty.
they all have their own celebrity demagogues.
pushing their own agendas to their own little,easily manipulated fiefdoms.

so stop projecting bob.
i have no interest is self righteous moralizing predicated on inadequate information and even worse politics.

i KNOW who the real enemy is,and cable news is the mechanism in which they spread their divisive and warped ideologies.

you appear to continue to buy into their bullshit.
that this is somehow a right vs left,or dem vs repub.
american liberals are not the problem.
american conservatives are not the problem.

no...bob...

the two party duopoly,the two party dictatorship.
THAT is the problem.
this is about power vs powerlessness.

and little whores like cavuto do NOT serve you!
he,and his ilk,serve power.

it is time for you to choose a side bob.
which side on you on?

*edit:oh shit,just realized you were talking to newtboy.
my bad bob.../chuckles...
sighs..guess i was looking to scrap a bit.
bad enoch..baaad.

so let me get this straight.

neil cavuto,a pandering,whoremongering demagogue who represents all that is diseased and corrupt from FOX news.is glibly and childishly deriding CNN for now being in the very boat that FOX was for years.

that somehow the criticism and sly accusations of FOX being biased and slanted were not warranted.that the REAL focus should be on the reactions of the executive branch,and not on the content of cable news.

when we consider that even as late as 2010,33% of FOX viewers STILL thought that iraq had connections to al qeada,and that they were hiding WMD's.this alone is enough to condemn FOX as a rapacious propaganda machine.

i am not letting CNN off the hook.who have also been caught fabricating conflict based on questionable sources to formulate political crisis when there was none.

but that is not even something cavuto is addressing.he is literally beaming with a smug condescension in this piece,self-righteously admonishing an entire network as if those networks are not populated by individuals.

as if they of one mind.
one message.
and the message is:"poor CNN is no longer the favorite and now has to sit in the back of the bus like we did for 8 years".

do you know what this is?
and i am POSITIVE cavuto is totally unaware of this comparison.

this is the new house negro ridiculing the OLD house negro.
who were lovingly called "house niggers" *dedicated to @gorillaman*and "uncle tom's" back in the day.

so house negro neil cavuto is just gushing with pride that his new master prefers his network to that old rust bucket CNN.

the new pimp in chief likes his cable news to bow and prostrate itself upon his moist loins,and no other network can whore itself quite like FOX news.

so good for you mr neil cavuto!
you are the presidents new,favorite whore.
so pucker up you precious little slut,trump has something for you,and say goodbye to your last vestige of moral integrity.

now go be a good house negro and go make a trump a sandwich.

this is too delicious not to *promote

I'm so angry this man is not my president elect right now.

Good work douchebags. You thought you were so clever with your fucked up voting strategies, bitching about "lesser of two evil" choices, refusing to vote and taking a stand against...whatever the fuck you thought you were doing. Now we have a thin skinned, narcissistic, ignorant, man-child for our president.

Stop trying to rationalize this. This is not a voter revolt, this is not a paradigm shift in politics, this is not Hillary Clinton's fault or Debbie Wasserman Schultz's doing; this is the result of the masses falling for decades of misinformation combined with an emotional appeal to our worst instincts by a demagogue. You fell for it while you patted yourself on the back for being so much smarter than everyone else. Now we're fucked.

So grow the fuck up and do something to fix this.

The best way to explain it is that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. basically predicted that someday there could be an outcome like the most recent election, where people voted based on their emotions (fear, anger, hatred--all the Dark Side stuff) and not on logic or reason.

The Founding Fathers didn't trust the common man to be educated enough to always make reasonable decisions and wanted to ensure that there was a brake in place to prevent "mob rule." That "brake" is the Electoral College, a collection of (ostensibly) politically-educated individuals who could prevent demagogues (like Trump) from taking power.

I think this is the first time in history where the Electoral College can do the job it was intended to do. If the Electors put aside political partisanship, they'll recognize how putting a completely inexperienced, hate-inducing liar into the White House is a terrible idea and ensure Trump doesn't get the Presidency.

Of course, Electors not voting along party lines is in actuality highly unlikely to happen as, in the end, Electors are all long-standing and high-ranking Democrat or Republican Party members. I mean, if you were a Republican Elector whose party had spent the last eight years without a Presidential win, watching time and again as legislation in a Republican controlled congress gets vetoed down by a Democratic president, even a man like Trump is going to start to look tempting. So the safe bet is that Trump gets elected anyway and the Elector College proves itself again to be a pointless institution for this and all the other reasons explained in the video.