no longer any question.. Biden cover-up in the Ukraine.
21 responses | 0 likes
Started by GunterK - May 24, 2020, 4:48 p.m.
Comments
By pj - May 24, 2020, 8:23 p.m.
Like Reply
By cutworm - May 25, 2020, 12:03 p.m.
Like Reply

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjXAxzddS4o

Take away the opinion of the host and look at the FACTS presented. Are there other facts? Well there is the boasting video. Also a taped phone call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lA3oOo1oZc

By metmike - May 25, 2020, 1:03 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks cutworm!

That 2nd link is pretty convincing. 


No conspiracy theory.  That was joe Biden talking and that was the ex-Ukraine President on the other end. 

Doesn't matter what the source was. A fact is a fact...........and were we expecting CNN or the NYT to break the story?

Sometimes far right and far left sources uncover truths, only because they are looking in places that nobody else will! They are definitely wrong more than unbiased sources...........but not always.

NY Post:



New York Post - Right Center Bias - Credible - Reliable - Conservative - RepublicanFactual Reporting: Mixed - Not always Credible or Reliable


RIGHT-CENTER BIAS

These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.

  • Overall we rate the New York Post on the far end of Right-Center Biased due to story selection that typically favors the Right and Mixed (borderline questionable) for factual reporting based on several failed fact checks.

Detailed Report

Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 48/180

History

Founded in 1801 by Alexander Hamilton (One of the Founding Fathers of the United States), the New York Post (NY Post) is a daily tabloid newspaper from New York City. According to an article published by the NY Times, titled “THE NEW YORK POST HAS A LONG HISTORY”, they describe how under Hamilton’s ownership the paper covered “shipping news, engaged in political crusades even if it meant the loss of advertising revenue.” Later owners were Poet William Cullen Bryant who kept the NY Post for 50 years, followed by railroad magnate Henry Villard (1878), Oswald Garrison Villard (1917), Thomas W. Lamond, and Cyrus H. K. Curtis (1920). Under Curtis’ ownership the NY Post followed a conservative editorial policy until 1936.

When David J.Stern acquired the paper in 1936, they became editorially more liberal. Dorothy Schiff bought the New York Post in 1939, which she controlled until 1976, and under her ownership, The Post was liberal as it supported the civil rights movement and opposed the Vietnam War. In 1942, Theodore Thackrey became editor and The Post switched from a broadsheet paper to a tabloid.

In 1976, Rupert Murdoch, the owner of News Corp, acquired The New York Post and in 1988, Murdoch sold the paper to Real estate developer Peter S. Kalikow. When Kalikow lost the paper to bankruptcy in 1993, Rupert Murdoch once again purchased the paper and continues to own it today. Since Murdoch took over the paper, The Post has been known for their over-the-top sensational headlines.

Read our profile on United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership

The New York Post is currently owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, which owns many conservative/sensational media outlets around the world. The paper is funded through advertising, subscriptions and newsstand sales.

Analysis / Bias

In review, the New York Post tends to publish stories utilizing sensationalized headlines with emotionally loaded wording such as “Cop cold-cocks unarmed man ‘acting irate’ at restaurant”, and “It’s time for Bill Clinton to take a walk in the Chappaqua woods.” The New York Post also republishes news from other sources such as the least biased Associated Press. In general, more stories favor the right, but the NY Post does not shy away from reporting negative coverage of the right, if it is a big story. They also tend to source their information properly, however many times the headline misleadingly exaggerates the actual story they are reporting.

Editorially, The Post has endorsed the Republican Presidential Candidate in every race since 1980. However, in 2016 they did not offer an endorsement for the Presidential election to either candidate.

According to an LA Times article, the New York Post was reported to be the preferred newspaper of U.S. President Donald Trump, who maintains frequent contact with its owner, Rupert Murdoch.

        


By pj - May 25, 2020, 2:37 p.m.
Like Reply

mm:"Doesn't matter what the source was. A fact is a fact.."

No Biden fan, but how do you conclude from the tape that it's any kind of "fact" that what Biden what was asking, was to stop the investigation of or otherwise benefit his son?




By WxFollower - May 25, 2020, 4:25 p.m.
Like Reply

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjXAxzddS4o

From this video:

"It is not true that Prosecutor Shokin was top prosecutor who was willing to investigate Burisma. Absolutely to the contrary, Prosecutor Shokin was dumping this investigation and I have evidence of that."

 As this says and as I emphasized in another thread, Shokin was fired not to protect Hunter Biden/Burisma, but because Shokin was not doing his job of investigating corruption. And it wasn't Biden's idea to do this. It was Obama admin. policy that Biden was spearheading and that many European countries wanted.

 Trump is just telling another one of his thousands of lies to hurt someone else to help himself. As  a result, he has zero credibility. He's all about falsely blaming others to cover up his own mistakes and/or to help his own standing at the other's expense. Donald Trump cares about Donald Trump first and foremost even if others are hurt.

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

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump-twists-facts-on-biden-and-ukraine/

 From this: "Trump Twists Facts on Biden and Ukraine"

"Shokin served as prosecutor general under Viktor Yanukovych, the former president of Ukraine who fled to Russia after he was removed from power in 2014 and was later found guilty of treason. Shokin remained in power after Yanukovych’s ouster, but he failed 'to indict any major figures from the Yanukovych administration for corruption,' according to testimonyJohn E. Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine under President George W. Bush, gave in March 2016 to a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

'By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin’s removal as the start of an overall reform of the Procurator General’s Office,' Herbst testified. “U.S. Vice President Joe Biden spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv; but Mr. Shokin remained in place.

"Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia under President Barack Obama, on Sept. 20 tweeted that the 'Obama administration policy (not just ‘Biden policy’) to push for this Ukrainian general prosecutor to go' was “a shared view in many capitals, multilateral lending institutions, and pro-democratic Ukrainian civil society.”

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

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/oct/11/donald-trump/trump-ad-misleads-about-biden-ukraine-and-prosecut/


From this: "Donald Trump ad misleads about Joe Biden, Ukraine and the prosecutor"

"• Biden did want Shokin fired, but western leaders had widely criticized the prosecutor general as corrupt and ineffective. Biden was leading a widespread consensus in asking for removal.

A former Ukrainian official said the investigation into Burisma was dormant under Shokin."

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


 I'm not going to sit back and let this Trump lie be spread on here without refuting it. Also, I don't want this forum to turn into a pusher of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. But it is heading in that direction. I haven't had a lot of help previously but it is great to see pj's posts in here. There's only so much I can do, alone, and my patience is wearing thin.


 

 



  





By pj - May 25, 2020, 4:35 p.m.
Like Reply

wx, glad to read you here.

"my patience is wearing thin." 

So is mine.

By metmike - May 25, 2020, 6:06 p.m.
Like Reply

"mm:"Doesn't matter what the source was. A fact is a fact.."

No Biden fan, but how do you conclude from the tape that it's any kind of "fact" that what Biden what was asking, was to stop the investigation of or otherwise benefit his son?"

Please show me where I stated that pj?

All I said was that was Biden and that was the head of the Ukraine on the other end and I figured all you needed to do was listen to what was said. It's pretty clear. 

Which was Biden telling the guy the billion dollars was contingent on his doing the political favor(firing the guy as he bragged in public), then the response is clear that despite them having NO EVIDENCE of corruption with this guy and no charges against him, he will fire the prosecutor to get the billion dollars..........as a favor to VP Biden.

We can all speculate about the complicating circumstances involving Hunter, who we know only had that position because of his dad being VP which you can treat as an entirely different incident and only conclude some sort of corruption that time but  like I said previous about this case, if this were a legal case, Joe should have recused himself because of clear personal interests.

But let's throw out Hunter, pretend he was never born. What's the deal with Joe telling the president of the Ukraine, who insists there is no evidence of corruption and no charges that the prosecutor must be fired to get the billion dollars?

The president of Ukraine DISAGREED with him about any evidence of corruption in his own country but was bribed to fire him to get $1,000,000,000. from the United States.

The justification has been that others wanted him fired and he was corrupt. So what. The guy he bribed insisted that he was innocent and was going to do it anyway to get the billion dollars Joe told him he would get for doing it.

This is a quintessential example of an illegal Quin Pro Quo by any definition.


Forget about Hunter.  

Don't you agree?


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


By pj - May 25, 2020, 6:27 p.m.
Like Reply

mm: "This is a quintessential example of an illegal Quin Pro Quo by any definition."

Illegal? Funny, I don't remember your taking that position when it was Trump who was using the withholding of the military aid to get the "favor" done for him. Oh wait, Trump said there was "no quid pro quo", so there couldn't have been one.


By WxFollower - May 25, 2020, 6:29 p.m.
Like Reply

Mike,

 As I have provided evidence for, Biden spearheaded trying to get Shokin fired as requested by the Obama Administration. This wasn't for a personal favor/to help Biden personally, which would have been a QPQ. OTOH, what Schiff and company claimed Trump did (trying to get Ukraine to investigate Biden) was a QPQ because its aim was to hurt Biden, who was then rising in the polls to become Trump's top potential opponent, politically. Hurting Biden politically would help Trump politically/personally.

By metmike - May 25, 2020, 7:07 p.m.
Like Reply

"mm: "This is a quintessential example of an illegal Quin Pro Quo by any definition."

Illegal? I don't remember your taking that position when it was Trump who was using the withholding of the military aid to get the "favor" done for him."


pj,

Exactly. For it to be ILLEGAL, by definition both parties must get something. What did Trump get and what did the Ukraine do and get for it?

Trump did not get an investigation from the Ukraine so a legal Quid Pro Quo never happened, in addition to the fact that he released the money within the time frame it was expected.............a bit late but the money came WITHOUT an investigation.

This is why they dems changed the term from Quid Pro Quo after they realized that it did not meet the requirements.

I can go back and bring up several of my emails, that have been repeated on this to remind you of my opinion.  Trump absolutely wanted an investigation of Biden for political reasons. If this was a republican, instead of Biden,  he would not have been interested in what happened.

However, he sees the likely corruption that took place and wanted it investigated because it is a political opponent that he will run against. 100% chance of that.

We can ask the question, are investigations into real corruption illegal if they are of a political opponent? If that was the case, we could only investigate people from our own party. It's clear that it works completely the opposite...........more investigations into this president by the opposing party in history.

He was just doing exactly whats been done to him for 3 years.

I honestly wrote off this prosecutor being fired nonsense as going nowhere..being a dead end street a long time ago.......until the phone call came up. 

Pretty convincing to me. 

There was real corruption and there should be an investigation. 

There never was a Quid Pro Quo by any legal definition by Trump and I would like to hear how you think it was.

And how this is not.


This billion dollars was tied directly to the firing of the prosecutor. Both ends of the Quid Pro Quo were clearly satisfied. 

By metmike - May 25, 2020, 7:20 p.m.
Like Reply

"As I have provided evidence for, Biden spearheaded trying to get Shokin fired as requested by the Obama Administration. This wasn't for a personal favor/to help Biden personally, which would have been a QPQ."


So it's perfectly ok for the US to bribe other countries with a billion dollars to get them to replace people of authority that they don't like, especially when that country insists that person is innocent.

And it really wasn't Biden's fault because he was just doing the dirty work of Obama and others that wanted the same thing? 

But it really wasn't dirty work because Obama and the others KNEW what was best for the Ukraine and that gave them the right to use 1 billion dollars to dictate political policies in the Ukraine to their president.

OK, you are not seeing this.

Pretend that, instead it was Donald Trump that did the same exact thing.

What happened last Fall never resulted in any actions by either party. A legal Quid Pro Quo must result in both parties doing something for the other. But why keep bringing that up. 

Pretend that Donald Trump and Hunter Biden had never been born and ask yourself if bribing the president of another country with 1 billion dollars, insisting its not coming........until they make a political decision they disagree with(firing a person they say is not corrupt AND HAS ZERO CORRUPTION CHARGES AGAINST HIM)  is ok?

Who should be held accountable for doing this?


By WxFollower - May 25, 2020, 7:34 p.m.
Like Reply

Mike,

 Whether or not what the Obama Admin had done with Biden's help is a violation of some kind I can't say as I'm not an expert. But what I do know is that even if it was, Biden still wasn't guilty of a QPQ. He was acting on behalf of the US POTUS. It wasn't him doing this on his own. Regardless, the firing didn't help him personally because it didn't help Hunter/Burisma.


 Regarding Trump and the QPQ he was accused of, I realize that Trump ended up not withholding aid and Biden wasn't investigated after all. You're saying it couldn't have been a QPQ because of that reason. Maybe you're right. If so, then technically no QPQ occurred. The intent was for a QPQ though from all I can tell. Isn't that still a bad thing? What is that called (just the threat to withhold aid if Biden wasn't investigated) since you're saying it wasn't an actual QPQ? What is the threat called?

By pj - May 25, 2020, 9:25 p.m.
Like Reply

mm: "There was real corruption and there should be an investigation. "

Yes, let's spend more $ on investigation (no doubt by pro-Trump pubs) of something that probably has no bearing on the present, unless it somehow uncovers something (else) that puts Biden in a bad light. So we can begin to even the score with all the unfair (in your view) treatment poor Trump has endured.

By metmike - May 25, 2020, 9:33 p.m.
Like Reply

I guess you would call it political pressure.

Again, he applied political pressure and got nothing in return, then gave them the money but Trump never said the money was tied to an investigation. He just said we do alot of things for them.


Biden made it clear the billion dollars was being tied to the guy getting fired and the president of the Ukraine confirmed it loud and clear what he was to do for the money,  even though he stated the prosecutor was innocent. So he agreed to fire a guy that he said he thought was innocent and that had no charges against him.


By metmike - May 25, 2020, 10:13 p.m.
Like Reply

"So we can begin to even the score with all the unfair (in your view) treatment poor Trump has endured."

I know that you think that this is all about Trump for me and you think that because he pulled out of the climate accord that I am biased in defending him but I am not defending him on this. 

My opinion on the phone call has ZERO to do with Trump's  involvement. 

I asked you to pretend Donald Trump and Hunter Biden were not born, which is how I view the phone call. The phone call is actually what changed my mind about the firing, which previously, I said was not going to amount to anything and it just looks bad because of Joe bragging about doing that and Hunter getting the job from nepotism. 

Until this phone call, I just assumed it was a waste of time to try to connect the firing with Hunter and it still is in my opinion. That is NOT what my position is. 

Again, I have made zero ties to the phone call and Hunter Biden. They should be looked at as separate incidents in their own right.........the corruption that got Hunter hired, then later the Quid Pro Quo that got the prosecutor fired. You must keep thinking that what  I think is that  Joe got protection for his son for the billion dollars.


I realize that other people are trying to make the connection and its confusing you about my position. 

It's very possible that Biden was influenced by his son being on the board and it sure looks bad(which is why I said he should have recused himself being involved here to avoid this bad appearance) but I am not making that case other than it looks bad.

My case is completely separate to Hunter Biden even being alive and is based on what the phone call tells us happened exactly.

As far as evening the score for Trump, I treat each event independently based on the facts of that event. The Mueller investigation and other investigations were clearly biased and unfair but they have zero to do with this phone call.

Neither does the impeachment and Trump asking for a favor to have his political opponent investigated. Rather than rehash that scenario, even though it led up to uncovering this phone call.......which is what investigations do, please just stop adding all these other non relevant issues(to me) which have nothing to do with the deal they made in that phone conversation. 

Again,  pretend there is no Trump or Hunter Biden.

Or pretend it was Trump on that recorded phone call and tell me with a straight face that you would be defending  HIM to paying the Ukraine 1 billion dollars to get somebody in another country fired.

For sure there is more to it..............which is why you have investigations. Maybe an investigation would clear Biden of being the person that decided to get the prosecutor fired for a billion dollars........but he carried out the illegal Quid Pro Quo for the other person or entities. He was the one that made the deal. We heard him do it.

Who decided that a billion dollars of tax payer money would be used to get a person in Ukraine fired for political reasons?

Congress surely didn't authorize the money to be used that way. They are supposed to authorize spending money and for what reason/circumstances. 

Why did the president of Ukraine insist the guy was innocent and had no charges against him but agreed to fire him to get the 1 billion. Maybe Biden had a ton of evidence that we don't know about?

Even so, does the US have the right to use tax payer money to affect foreign politics?

I know that we've done it for decades in the Middle East and other places, overthrowing regimes that we don't like and meddling in other countries affairs and I have always been very much against this.

So this might be just another example of that (corrupt) policy that our government has used in trying to control other countries for decades so they do what we want them to do and somebody just got busted making the actual deal. 

After hearing this taped phone call, I certainly would like to know more about the circumstances that justified Joe's position, that the prosecutor in Ukraine be fired, against the wishes of the Ukraine president, to get the 1 billion dollars.

Wouldn't you like to know more?

Or are you happy with the explanations from one side that tell us that the firing was justified..........end of story. 

Until I listened to  the phone call that Gunter linked us too, I had accepted that explanation. 


By pj - May 26, 2020, 1:58 a.m.
Like Reply

"Congress surely didn't authorize the money to be used that way. "

And they surely didn't authorize the way Trump attempted to use the military appropriation $ for his personal benefit. Somehow you seem to see Trump's failure to get wanted, absolving him from any wrongdoing.

But, OK let's spend the $ for an investigation and HOPE we get some "facts", rather supposition, insinuation, and partisan concoction. Though unless there's a smoking gun that the "bribe" was to help Hunter, I can't see that it can ever me more than opinion whether the Obama administration thought it was worth it to try to get rid of corruption in Ukraine.

BTW, as you you know, I was no big fan of Obama.


By metmike - May 26, 2020, 3:42 a.m.
Like Reply

Thanks much pj!

I wish everything didn’t always have to be about trump for so many people today but it’s a reality.

I feel like we have a solid friendship,  You  are a brilliant guy and wonderful contributor that brings needed skepticism and I have probably already pushed my points too far for too long  for our own good.

People should come here to have their points recognized to some extent.

With that being said, I do sincerely believe that nothing will come of the phone call, regardless of whether I think that it was unethical or not. So we agree on that. It’s very possible, maybe likely that it was nothing more than what I suggested before....a continuation of US foreign policy to intervene in other countries politics that goes back to before I was born.

We were all greatly upset to hear that Russia tried to influence our politics but can you imagine the outrage if we found out that Russia bribed our president, regardless of what president, with money or something else to have them fire somebody or do something else to appease them? Especially if it was against what our president believed.

They would be accused of treason for one thing.

This is exactly what happened  here but the US never sees itself as the bad guy when it’s us doing it because we somehow know what’s best for other countries.

This could have been Iran and Obama’s very bad, unauthorized deal or it could have been Much worse.....Bush and his fake WMD’s to impose our will on Iraq’s politics to an extreme.

Same theme, just different objectives and different administrations/people. Always the US supposedly knowing what is best for other country’s and because we have money and power to go with  that, it supposedly gives us the right to impose our will on other country’s  with impunity at times.

This is not ethical or fair in my opinion.

I can understand there being situations where applying this principle is good if we are doing it to assist other country’s that want our help but this and most cases was not them asking for our help. We were interfering for our own reasons, being justified as always and imposed with a monetary bribe.

If we were actually assisting the Ukraine, then we would have doing them a favor, correct?

When does somebody have to bribe you with money to get them to agree to let you do them a favor?  Never, and in this case, they were doing us the favor not us doing them a favor which is why the money went from us to them for the favor they did for us.

By TimNew - May 26, 2020, 7:11 a.m.
Like Reply

Reading this thread,  it appears that people are accepting as a given that Trump withheld funds in lieu of some sort of favor.   That certainly was the charge the dems tried to prove,  but they failed to do so.   The testimony was all second hand hearsay and presumption.  Their star witness, Sondland was eviscrated  by Turner.   The press pretty much buried that,  but here is the exchange for those interested.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/11/20/gop_rep_mike_turner_grils_sondland_no_one_on_this_planet_told_you_aid_was_tied_to_investigations.html


By TimNew - May 26, 2020, 8:26 a.m.
Like Reply

Further,  Articles of impeachment typically contain the actual statutes, from written law, that were violated. This was the case In the articles submitted by the house to the senate in the impeachment of Bill Clinton.  

No such statutes were included in the Articles in the case of Trump.  The charges were an undefined "Abuse of Power" and a nebulous "Obstruction of Congress".   Honest Historians will be giggling over this one.

By pj - May 26, 2020, 2:38 p.m.
Like Reply

mm: "Same theme, just different objectives and different administrations/people. Always the US supposedly knowing what is best for other country’s and because we have money and power to go with  that, it supposedly gives us the right to impose our will on other country’s  with impunity at times.

This is not ethical or fair in my opinion."

I agree. Life isn't fair and most often not ethical, particularly between countries with different sets of standards, philosophies, morals, economic and military power. And, I also agree a lot of the US meddling has gone terribly wrong, like in Vietnam and Iraq. But I think for the most part the US was,, more often than not, trying to be on the "right" side of things. Still believe that there are a lot of people in a lot of places, living better with more freedom than if some other power had been the big dog. Consider how the world might be, if we'd lost the cold war.

That's why it bothers me so much that we now have a leader who is utterly morally bankrupt. Enthusiastically embraces anyone who flatters him, no matter how nasty their track record. Denigrates or fires everyone who disagrees with him, without regard to their credentials and credibility. All with one primary objective, aggrandizing himself and feeding his insatiable ego.

I think his labeling as "fake news" (creating and constantly pushing the concept in one way or another), everything that is at odds with his agenda or claims, no matter how nonsensical they may be, has been very damaging to the prospects of the public ever again believing anything to be the truth, based on facts. Facts? He has "alternative facts".

And, I'm afraid for a lot of people that's a nasty virus for which there may be no vaccine nor treatment.

In continues to amaze me that a moral and fair person, someone who so strongly believes in “authentic facts”, who I’m certain would find someone like Trump absolutely detestable, were he encountered in real life, can go on at such length and with such fervor, defending him.

By metmike - May 26, 2020, 4:48 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks pj!

I completely understand why you think that way. You have decided that the despicable character and the very many negative traits of this president.........that I agree 100% with you on and have stated this here numerous times that he is that way big time,  makes him unqualified to be president and can't understand how I would not feel the same way.

I have also mentioned that it would have been great to have Trump impeached and then Pence take over with the same agenda but unfortunately, the character and agenda don't go together and I have had to make a tough choice in voting.

With regards to me defending Trump, I only defend facts that are not being brought out in what are relentless attacks on Trump, when the facts are wrong.

I just as readily acknowledge things like his intention to get the Ukraine to investigate Biden because he is a political foe. I spent time defending Obama several times too.

But let me explain why I will be voting for Trump in November and please don't hold it against me.

1. If my daughter had a massive heart defect that was going to prematurely end her life soon and but there was only 1 doctor that had the skills to do the surgical repair..........that would be the one for me. Even if I knew the guy cheated on his wife, was a child abuser and I knew him personally as a scum bag...... and reports were that he often operated on patients while he was drunk or high.  If there he was the only person that had the skills to do the life saving job, he would be our surgeon. 

But character is part of being president right? Yep, it is and I have to weigh this very negative part(just like if I knew our heart surgeon did operations when he had been drinking) with the parts that represent agendas running this country that nobody else offers but Donald Trump........nobody.

2. I have totally eliminated hatred from my being. 30 years ago, I would have hated Donald Trump too much to ever support him. We hear that love is blind but hate is even more blind in a negative way. It's the most destructive emotion of all. When you are feeling hatred, your emotions dominate your decisions and you can't rationalize or use facts to make the right decisions.

3. As a scientist, I believe in the science, not the scientist that represents or presents it.  Like with the doctor above, if the worlds biggest arsehole discovered a new universal law, even if that guy had an affair with my wife, I am not going to reject the truth of his science. 

4. Funny how I can completely understand why people hate Trump so much. He is the easiest politician in history to hate.  But those that hate him intensely are completely baffled on how an ethical, loving and person with high standards like me could possibly even consider voting for another person that isn't more like me. But that's the thing. I would love to have such a person who shares my character traits but I am not making it a requirement, that to be the person with the best policies for this country must also be like me. 

The strangest thing, is that 45 years ago, I had some very negative personality traits that got me into alot of trouble. I was in jail 3 different times for drinking offenses and used to get into bar fights all the time. I am certain, that I would have hated Donald Trumps guts and been a never Trumper. 

I evolved quickly and for the past 3 decades, have devoted my life to making the world a better place. I always act with honor and spend a great deal of time working with youth(developing minds with chess) and non profit organizations. I have extremely high standards for my own behavior but ironically, it frees me from the hatred and other cognitive bias's that interfere with my objective view of what Trump brings to the table for America.

I am also a PRACTICING environmentalist and actively promote civil rights and the LGBT movement. How can that be?

According to what we are told about President Trump and his supporters, it's almost impossible for somebody like me to exist.

Well, that's part of the reason that I spend time here for free. So that others can see truths out there that they would not see elsewhere. As you know, I'm devoted to exposing the fake climate crisis. 

But this is a forum and ideally, you guys should play a more significant role here and this not be a site that is more like a metmike blog site at times.  None of us know everything (especially not me) and there are many things that we think that we know which are just false assumptions that keep getting reinforced by our cognitive bias and the gatekeepers of news/information who push narratives on us so that we will agree with their view of the world. 

Gunter is a good example of somebody that has  had some really crazy stuff that I called him out on. But I have learned more authentic things from Gunter than anybody else. 

How can a conspiracy theorist possibly teach an objective scientist of 38 years anything?

Because I never, ever look at the conspiracy theory stuff. Most of it is bunk...........but not all of it. Every once in a while(several times a year) a site that specialized in bunk will uncover a monstrous, authentic revelation that  all the inside the box thinkers will write off because of the source and how crazy it sounds. But its very true. It happens because it has to me and thanks to Gunter. Instead of my expectation of busting the crazy sounding theory...........I learn something.

Hopefully, we can all learn things from others and not judge them because they don't think just like us. 

If everybody that came here thought the same way, and said the same things, we couldn't learn a thing from anybody else.

I'm not talking about attacks or trying to win arguments but an objective, generous sharing of information with an open and respectful mind to what others think. Which includes me trying to be more open minded.