The 2020 Presidential Election Tournament

[merjet]

Yesterday I emailed a very good friend this URL.

His reply, lightly edited, follows.

"Really depressing. Just watched a Tucker Carlson episode that covered the media trying to suppress the Hunter Biden scandal.

Many years ago Ayn Rand wrote an essay "The Argument from Intimidation," which is the modus operandi for advocates of this nuttiness.

I've heard America has experienced 4 religious revivals, which could manifest as an obsession with sin. We might be in a "secular religious revival" obsessed with the one big sin of racism, and imposed on the rest of the country by intellectual elites.

How did intellectuals get so powerful? Guess they got their true believers in the political, academic, and business elite."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 9/30/2020 at 1:34 PM, william.scherk said:

What do you mean by "home recording" (and of what)? PVR?

When I was looking at the "fake news" silliness about Kamala Harris's supposed facelift, I discovered that the most re-posted video "evidence" was a cellphone recording of the Al Sharpton interview live on MSNBC, which meant that the video-derived images were second-generation -- which adequately explained the still/screen-capture image compression artifacts.

Pixels!

When assessing a still/screenshot/single from a video, it's necessary to correctly identify its provenance. Is the video a first-generation High Definition offering from debate live feeds? Correct identification and a general understanding of compression artifacts serves discussion well.

Speculation is fun. How about "Biden used remote neural monitoring technology to access rehearsed responses"?

This is a little bit older, but what the hell.

Time for a smile.

The New Face of Kamala

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 10/2/2020 at 5:49 PM, KorbenDallas said:

I believe Trump will be fine, high recovery rate especially when caught early, and access to the best medical professionals and treatments available to him.  My first thought when I read the news was, "Wow, the left is really going to like this."  I don't wish anything on the president, but the news will be in a frenzy for while.  Considering if he recovers before the election...

Once again, a bit older (was it only about two and a half weeks?), but really cute.

Trump vs. COVID-19

Michael

[Dglgmut]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It was a simple question.

I assume the question was about this:

Quote

Everybody thinks in stories, but some people don't think?

How does that work? (Hint, it doesn't.  )

"Some people" falls under "people," meaning everybody.

Thinking is an activity of the brain.

All humans have brains.

All people who are conscious think.

But this is all based on a misinterpretation. The original quote was "My point is that people think in stories, sure, but what you have on the left is not thinking."

 

People think in stories. That could mean a lot of things, but what I meant is that when people think, they often think in stories. Like if I say, "People like popcorn at the movies." People may like to go to movies without getting popcorn, and other people may not even like going to movies.

 

That part of the quote was just me agreeing with how you look at the way people often think, but the second part, "what you have on the left is not thinking," was me saying that the actions of the left are not motivated by thought. Am I saying these people don't think? Ever? No. They are even capable of reasoning when it isn't in that aspect of their life corrupted by repressed emotion.

 

Here, I'll rephrase the quote from a different angle: Narrative is not the only way to explain people's behavior. Just like you can't think your way out of a psychological problem, people do not always think themselves into one. Do you have some hierarchical discrepancy to point out here?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The black community is changing.

I keep hearing other black people talking like this woman, who is not only talking, she's running for the US House from California.

It's not just this lady. How about another famous rapper?

50 Cent calls on followers to vote for Trump citing Biden tax rate plan

President Trump is the lightening rod making this happen.

Michael

[Dglgmut]

3 hours ago, merjet said:

I've heard America has experienced 4 religious revivals, which could manifest as an obsession with sin. We might be in a "secular religious revival" obsessed with the one big sin of racism, and imposed on the rest of the country by intellectual elites.

The Middle Ages were characterized largely by an obsession with sin. The Reformation played a large role in ending that, not through a change in philosophy but by disempowering the church. People's relationship became between them and God, rather than having ecclesiastical intermediates. It seems the people did not care so much about sin when they were not being judged by authority figures. (I may have got something wrong here, but I think this is roughly what happened.)

 

Perhaps that's the change that is making us more obsessed with sin again? We have a more rigid structure of authority? It may be that the public school system has shaped modern generation's mindset in a way that past generations were not. Perhaps it is the way parents started looking at school as the most important predictor of their child's future well being, while in the past school was less important (making the approval/authority of teachers less important to the children).

Quote

How did intellectuals get so powerful? Guess they got their true believers in the political, academic, and business elite."

The intellectuals became so powerful through results. They proved their worth, and in that they gave value to the intellectual identity. Being an intellectual took a back seat to being identified as an intellectual.

[william.scherk]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Time for a smile.

[Ellen Stuttle]

1 hour ago, Dglgmut said:

But this is all based on a misinterpretation. The original quote was "My point is that people think in stories, sure, but what you have on the left is not thinking."

 

People think in stories. That could mean a lot of things, but what I meant is that when people think, they often think in stories. Like if I say, "People like popcorn at the movies." People may like to go to movies without getting popcorn, and other people may not even like going to movies.

 

That part of the quote was just me agreeing with how you look at the way people often think, but the second part, "what you have on the left is not thinking," was me saying that the actions of the left are not motivated by thought. Am I saying these people don't think? Ever? No. They are even capable of reasoning when it isn't in that aspect of their life corrupted by repressed emotion.

 

Here, I'll rephrase the quote from a different angle: Narrative is not the only way to explain people's behavior. Just like you can't think your way out of a psychological problem, people do not always think themselves into one. Do you have some hierarchical discrepancy to point out here?

I think that I understand what you're getting at.

Let me rephrase and see if this helps communication:

Leftists aren't actually motivated by "the narrative" they propound.  "The narrative" is used as a rationalization to disguise the actual motives.

If that's what you're saying, I agree as regards a great many leftists.  Maybe some of them believe "the narrative," but with most the motives range from seeking power and/or money, to being accepted by elitist cliques, to (in the case of the rioters and looters) simply stealing stuff and/or engaging in mayhem - smashing and burning and maybe bashing some persons while they're at it.

I.e., the explanation for the behavior is psychological not ideational.  "The narrative" is merely a pretext used to put a veneer on the real desires.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

"The narrative" is merely a pretext used to put a veneer on the real desires.

Ellen,

He should take to heart your clarity. Incidentally, I already got that was what he was saying, but I like that you put it in clearer words.

My objection is his manner of constantly changing horses in midstream and blanking out what is right in front of him. I think if he trained his brain better, he will become a decent persuader, or even a good one. But the way he goes about it right now, he just doesn't persuade. Or even communicate well to those who more or less agree with him. (Maybe if we take out communicating with words   .)

We're talking shoe sizes, and suddenly he comes in and starts talking about how bad is sugar is for you, but prefaces it with, "Your wrong about shoe sizes", or "Shoe sizes don't count," or something like that, then continues with: "Shoe wearers consume sugar in a manner that is so bad..." and off he goes.

 

But I got tickled about your last line. In creative writing, putting a narrative veneer on real desires is called subtext. And subtext is nothing more than a parallel story (or stories) running that is not on the surface.

I doubt you would ever call expressing something with subtext, or even lying to yourself, as "not thinking." After all, thinking incorrectly is still thinking.

When someone digs in on doing things like that and continues talking past the people he or she is talking to, people tend to move on. I don't want that for him.

As an aside, I forgot where, but I recall reading an interesting description of psychology before modern neuroscience kicked in, including pharmaceuticals, and started informing experiments. The person said psychology was the study of the stories we tell ourselves. I like that.

Anyway, I'm trying to reflect back to him (without putting on airs) how his message lands and why it doesn't work. Then if he wants to fix it and learn, and actually does so, people won't move on when he talks. They'll listen to him.

But it's his choice.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Madam President.

Anyone want that?

 

I just has a thought.

Doesn't that look like one could use it in a sequel to Oscar Wilde's novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray?

 

Michael

[Dglgmut]

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Leftists aren't actually motivated by "the narrative" they propound.  "The narrative" is used as a rationalization to disguise the actual motives.

Yes, but I'd add that they don't even know what their motives are. By "they," I don't mean all leftists, I mean the ones who are doing the real damage.

Quote

If that's what you're saying, I agree as regards a great many leftists.  Maybe some of them believe "the narrative,"

I think the ones who believe the narrative are clever, rather than gullible, as one might assume. They actually have to figure out a way to make sense of the all of the rationalizations and justifications. They have to contradict the narrative in certain points, budgeting the dubiousness of the whole thing. These clever leftists are not the ones creating the stories. They are just trying to keep up, as even though they are intellectually capable, they are cowards and are only want to stay with the crowd.

 

The ones at the helm are the leftists I'm concerned with, and they are not an exclusive/static group. They are a fluid group that anyone can join simply by adding to the fire. The way to contribute is to further justify anti-social behavior. Notice that the left doesn't seem too concerned with pedophilia. Is this because they are pedophiles themselves? No, it's because pedophiles are a bad target for them. If they stand against pedophilia they are standing against anti-social behavior.

Quote

but with most the motives range from seeking power and/or money, to being accepted by elitist cliques, to (in the case of the rioters and looters) simply stealing stuff and/or engaging in mayhem - smashing and burning and maybe bashing some persons while they're at it.

I.e., the explanation for the behavior is psychological not ideational.  "The narrative" is merely a pretext used to put a veneer on the real desires.

Why do they want power/acceptance? They want impunity. Stealing stuff and engaging in mayhem is not a means to an end, it's the end. Why are they so inconsistent in their defense of so-called victims? Why do they showcase some "victims" and sweep others under the rug? It 100% depends on what the victim can justify. A white victim of black violence could hardly be used as a justification for anti-social behavior.

 

Like you said, their goals are not arrived at ideationally. Thought is used only as a way to create that impunity. Again I have to point out what we have all seen, they are never satisfied. The more they are appeased the angrier they get--because with appeasement comes the expectation that the anti-social behavior will cease. Their impunity exists only while they have a cause.

[Ellen Stuttle]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I doubt you would ever call expressing something with subtext, or even lying to yourself, as "not thinking." After all, thinking incorrectly is still thinking.

Michael,

U..m..mm...  Can of worms time.  I don't want to get deflected into varying meanings of "thinking," but what I think of (ha) as being "thinking" is a narrower meaning than yours.  I don't mean just having thoughts - verbal or other symbolic content parading through one's mental world.  I mean actively, and honestly, making an effort to understand something.
 

—

Re my line which you quoted, "'The narrative' is merely a pretext used to put a veneer on the real desires," I thought of another succinct way of expressing that. 

"The narrative" isn't the motivation.  It's the (faux) justification.

It's an excuse, in short.  Buzzwords (as Corbett said numerous times in his podcast you recently transcribed about The Great Reset).

—-

I agree that "Dglgmut" has learning to do about how to communicate effectively.

(DG, that's said in a spirit of helpfulness, not of censure.)

Ellen

 

 

[Ellen Stuttle]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Madam President.

Anyone want that?

As I've said a couple times, I shudder at the thought.  Literally, the thought of Kamala Harris as "Madam President" produces an instantaneous whole body horror reaction in me.

I think that William wants her to be the US President.

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Doesn't that look like one could use it in a sequel to Oscar Wilde's novel, The Picture of Dorian Gray?

Yes, that picture could be used in a sequel to The Picture of Dorian Gray.  Or a picture of some ghastly writhing snake creature.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I don't mean just having thoughts - verbal or other symbolic content parading through one's mental world.  I mean actively, and honestly, making an effort to understand something.

Ellen,

Three things.

First. If you would not call the first thinking because you don't use that meaning, then what would you call it? In your view, can't a person "think" dishonestly and with little to no effort at all? I, for one, see people do that all the time. To put it in cognitive before normative terms, don't you have to have thinking before you can have good and bad thinking?

Second. If someone (like me  ) frames a statement about thinking by saying, "all humans are primates who learn mostly by imitation and all humans have brains," then follows with a statement about thinking, which of the two meanings of thinking do you find more suitable in that context? The one about employing best efforts? Or the one describing mental activity?

Third. If a person has made it clear he is building out a concept from the foundation and is using the first meaning for thinking, doesn't it make sense to discuss his own thoughts when restating them in terms of that meaning rather than using the second meaning, then claiming his argument is invalid? (This is D's form. He switches meanings without even acknowledging the meaning meant, then charges forth saying, "You believe XXX," and debunking and instructing.   I love the spunk, but that's misidentification. In fact, it's a perfect example of what I mean when I say the normative before cognitive process.)  

I'm not playing gotcha. This is important.

 

Rand's error at times

This pertains to an error Rand makes at times and you and I have even discussed it. For example, she will proclaim that art is a selective recreation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments, then give the forms of expression she holds suitable for art (which do not include photography  ), then when she discusses schools of art she despises like, say, modern painting, she will say that that isn't art. It's junk.

In other words, she makes a category in the first and identifies what goes into that category, and she makes a value judgment in the second, but then replaces the category with her value judgement by using the same word: art. And she will tend to use the second from that point on for everything--even getting nasty about it at times--unless she refers specifically to her original writing about the first.

That switcheroonie is happening with "thinking" right now. It's OK to use more than one meaning for a term, but those meanings have to be clear in context. It's an error to choose one for all contexts and exclude the other. But that is creeping in.

 

Normative before cognitive

To be fair, it is counter-intuitive for humans to identify something correctly before they judge it. Our brains are built to do the contrary most of the time. We need the short cuts. The normal way when coming across a fact or term is to automatically peg it to a core story for identification and then judge it according to that story. We all do this. If we did the contrary for everything, we would have time for nothing. (Even Kahneman hinted at this in the title of his book, Thinking Fast and Slow.)

The problem is when two core stories collide, you have to put in some serious slow thinking on certain core terminology in order for people to understand each other. The best way I have found is to build the concept from the ground up in almost elementary school words, then say, "That is what I mean" with that word, and see if the other guy with the other core story agrees that this is a suitable meaning he can use.

 

Using this with lefties

To illustrate this in the context of this discussion right now, when that gets ignored and D goes off, say, to argue with lefties, his premise gleaned from his core story will be that lefties don't think, they only feel, and they, in their own core story, will think he's a brainwashed sucker for Orange Man Bad and a racist to boot.

Both will be making the same fundamental error. They are both stuck in their core stories as a fundamental premise to judge the other and they are not looking at reality first (nor, for that matter, second or third or fourth, and so on). 

Who the hell can persuade anyone that way? You can entertain your own group that way, but you can't persuade anyone outside of your group. 

Anyone who looks can see that lefties think and anyone who looks can see that a normal person is not racist. Anyone who looks and sees these things will not be persuaded by either side. And one side will certainly not persuade the other.

 

A larger scale

To go to the black community, Candace Owens converts a hell of a lot more black people than Herman Cain ever did (and I loved Herman Cain). Candace takes a typical situation all blacks on all sides live everyday and see with their own eyes, uses that as a premise, then expands from there.

Herman Cain liked to tell the blacks on the other side they were flat-out wrong and then tell them what their defects were.  Candace pegged her words to facts all can see before she goes into the abstract stuff. Herman Cain started with a conservative ideology and then deduced the mentality of the other side from that, then told them they were that way. 

Candace gets oodles of liberal blacks to flip to conservative. If some blacks were already conservative or conservative-leaning, they would resonate with Herman Cain and become part of his audience. Otherwise, if they were liberal, HC was poor at converting them.

This is because Candace uses the cognitive before normative process. She pegs a term to reality and does it in a manner all agree on, then goes on from there and ends up judging. She wins some and loses some, but she gets lots of converts from the other side.

Herman Cain did the contrary. He started out by judging and identifying according to an ideology (full of core stories), and only after he did that did he try to identify according to reality. He only converted the already converted. With one exception.

He was a hell of a role model for young males. I bet he converted a few from the other side just by being him. In other words, by showing himself as reality based on what he did before the blah blah blah of his judgments.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Yes, that picture could be used in a sequel to The Picture of Dorian Gray.  Or a picture of some ghastly writhing snake creature.

 

[Dglgmut]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

when that gets ignored and D goes off, say, to argue with lefties, his premise gleaned from his core story will be that lefties don't think

You're making my argument into this reflexive thing that it's not. I have tried to see things from the leftist perspective. I am surrounded by leftists and talk to them all the time. A lot of them are filled with anger. It would be upsetting to me when I would find this out, and of course you've seen this even if only on the Internet. Seemingly normal people will have some disturbing expressions that are supposedly rooted in compassion, but expose themselves as pretty sadistic.

Quote

Both will be making the same fundamental error. They are both stuck in their core stories as a fundamental premise to judge the other and they are not looking at reality first

This is what I mean by each side not being a mirror image of the other. In your model each side is doing the same thing but in opposite directions. You are so sure that "core story" explains everything, always. If that were true, "core story" would just be a synonym for psychology, and include the subconscious. But if you were consistent and used it that way you would have to talk about more than just narrative. I doubt many psychologists talk excessively about "core stories" or narrative, but even if they do, they have to leave room for things like trauma.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Dglgmut said:

In your model each side is doing the same thing but in opposite directions.

D,

Exactly.

Except I wouldn't say opposite directions since, in my view of epistemology, mental abstractions need to be pegged as hard and as accurately as one can to observable reality in order to use one's brain to its best.

Neither you nor the Orange Man Bad people let go of your story long enough to look and wonder if those people you point the finger at really are as you say. Instead, you look from within your core story out at the world and cherry-pick the items in the behavior of your targets that reinforce your core story.

In other words, epistemologically, you both go in the same direction. Like with different kinds of religion, you just choose a different story to follow. But it's always based on seeing the world from within the story. Another way to say it is you don't look at reality, then induce principles, then test them. Instead, you set a a principle in place, then deduce whatever you can from it and favor anything in reality you find that reinforces this. (btw - Principles don't exist without narrative.)

 

Example in practice

Here's a great example. You think lefties are not moved by ideas, but instead by feelings. That's what you have said. In the core story you follow, they have to. Nobody who thinks with ideas would be able to support Antifa, BLM and so on. Right?

How about all those lefties in Silicon Valley who supposedly don't think based on ideas? How much coding would their feelings accomplish without thinking based on ideas? These are people who have produced technical products that are threatening freedom itself. Of course, they only did that with their feelings...

Right?...

 

Believe that, and I've got a few bridges to sell you. Cheap, too.

(btw - Some lefties, especially the followers, do replace cognitive thought with feelings about specific issues. But look deeper at them and you will start to discover very intelligent people who otherwise think in ideas.)

 

The subconscious

1 hour ago, Dglgmut said:

If that were true, "core story" would just be a synonym for psychology, and include the subconscious.

Core story is almost is a synonym for psychology. I even said that, but I bet you don't know where. Still, you're getting close. Finally you are starting to look at what story means without first telling everyone what they believe it is. But I know you don't realize that yet since, from your expression, you did not mean your quote as looking for knowledge, but instead as a refutation. And I seriously doubt you know anything at all about the subconscious. So let's look a bit about the subconscious.

Do you know the addiction algorithms used by Silicon Valley and do you know they are the same used on gamblers in casinos? Do you know what neurochemicals they release and at what point in the algorithms? I do.

Do you know anything about evolutionary biology/psychology, which practically explains why the brain is divided into a general triune brain form? And do you know what each part governs re brain functions? Or why there are two hemispheres and what each does? All this operates the subconscious and I know a lot about that.

Do you know why and how myths, legends, fairy tales, archetypes and so on resonate in the subconscious? I do.

Do you know that one of the main ways story unites the different segments of the brain is through trance? I do. And do you know what brain activity the main story trance is made of? I know that, too. (It's tracking and there are a few others.)

I could go on, but I'm not selling my credentials.

I've read enough of you to know you are not very familiar with any of that. 

 

Combat cores story

Sometimes it's good to have a combat core story like you use for discussing things. In your combat core story, no matter what the issue is, you, the protagonist, must confront an adversary and beat him or her in some form involving what you perceive the issue to be. Either as an individual or as a member of a side. And that's how you almost always play on almost every issue I've seen so far. That's the plot and subtext of your discussions. That will get you a little attention, and it's a useful core story, it but will not get you far.

Incidentally, my core story in our discussion is not combative. I'm not competing with you to see who wins. It's more a mentor archetype using a tough love storyline. The only thing from my end that is keeping that story alive is I believe you are worth it. The moment that stops, the story ends. Then I stop.

 

Stock up core story

But back to you, there's another core story that will take you much, much further than combat. You, the protagonist, need to fill your storehouse with knowledge. And it's mostly empty. That's not as sexy as verbal battle, but it becomes sexy when you realize that there are those out there who do not want you to have knowledge on your own. They will use every trick known to humankind to get you to give up unless they can control you with the knowledge you gain. You would not believe the psychological tricks they have in their arsenal.

Why do they want to keep knowledge from you? I believe one reason is they think knowledge is power and they want the power, but who cares? There are probably many reasons. The one constant they all have is they want you to stay stupid unless you adopt their propaganda. You have to defeat those people if you want to be a powerful protagonist. That's the sexy part.

But then you have to do the donkeywork to finish the job of becoming a powerful protagonist--in story and in reality. You have to get that knowledge into your storehouse. You can't approach that task as if you already know everything and will use it to trounce someone or some group. Reality just doesn't work that way with learning. You have to look at what you don't know without preconception, without any core story other than your job is to fill up the storehouse with some kind of understanding about it. You have to seek knowledge itself, not just opinions.

That requires reading books, watching lectures, doing a shitload of research, and so on. Then it requires using that knowledge in tasks that go way beyond competition. You have to produce things with it. All this takes long hours and fighting your most powerful enemy of all: boredom. Passion will get you to the knowledge, but it won't get that knowledge into your brain. Only you can do that by volition and a big-ass boredom monster is standing in your way. Passion will help you deal with boredom during the donkeywork, though, once you learn how to harness it. But it won't work automatically like it does in getting you to knowledge. Still, it's doable. 

And the rewards are glorious. 

 

The prerequisite

But before you can even fight that fight, repeat after me:

Identify first, then evaluate.
And stay on topic.

Identify first, then evaluate.
And stay on topic.

Identify first, then evaluate.
And stay on topic.

You know the drill.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael,

Repeat, "I don't want to get deflected into varying meanings of 'thinking.'"

I'll make that stronger.  I won't get deflected into the subject now.  I have things to do, and it's two weeks before a colossally important election.

 

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Three things.

First. If you would not call the first thinking because you don't use that meaning, then what would you call it? In your view, can't a person "think" dishonestly and with little to no effort at all?

Re the first question, I - briefly - already said:  

 "I don't mean just having thoughts - verbal or other symbolic content parading through one's mental world."

Re the second question, a person can rationalize, i.e., try to give him/herself justificatory "reasons," and rationalizing might need effort, even considerable effort, but in my view of "thinking," no, rationalizing doesn't qualify.

I haven't read the rest of your post, just taken a quick glance through it.  I'll probably read it later.  I agree that the subject is important, but I haven't the time for being drawn into discussing it now.

Ellen 

[Peter]

How will Trump handle the issue of Biden corruption during the debate? Any new suggestions? I definitely see another ruined, Watergate type of presidency if Biden is elected. Peter

Interesting fact. From MSN.  Seinfeld is best known for playing himself in the sitcom ‘Seinfeld’, which was written by Larry David and himself. He’s had an incredibly successful career as a stand-up comedian; and in 2020, Jerry Seinfeld’s net worth is estimated to be $950 million.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Re the first question, I - briefly - already said:  

 "I don't mean just having thoughts - verbal or other symbolic content parading through one's mental world."

Ellen,

Just to keep it simple, that tells me what you don't mean by what I call thinking in the first sense. That doesn't tell me the name you would use for it, what label you would put on it, what you would call it, which was the question.

I still call it thinking: the activity of thinking as opposed to, say, walking or eating.

If you don't want to think about it  right now, that's fine.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Check this out.

A vote for Biden/Harris is a vote for thug culture. Not thug as in gangsta rap. Thug as in Nazi Brown Shirts.

And they are literally coming for you--you the reader, you as an individual if you dare to put a Trump sign in your yard. They are coming even before the election is over and they are calling it "fair warning." 

Here's the image just in case Twitter goes funky.

James Woods says this is appearing all over America.

I believe him.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

14 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I think that William wants her to be the US President.

Ellen,

I believe this, too.

But I believe William would change his mind if Harris got in power and started throwing gays in jail left and right over bullshit like she did to blacks in California. People who abuse power like she did get off on it and it's a high they won't be denied later once they get power again.

The gay community is outspoken. Should Kamala Harris get federal power, I can easily see a clash between them once she tells them to shut their goddam mouths when they irritate her and they get louder. And I can easily see what she would do about it once she got pissed. Impertinent bastards. She would put them in their goddam place. And she would goddam make sure they knew who did it and why and wept bitter tears. 

Supporting a person like Kamala Harris is like keeping a pet rattlesnake and petting it on the head once in a while just to show everyone you can. That never ends well.

Michael

[Dglgmut]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Check this out.

A vote for Biden/Harris is a vote for thug culture. Not thug as in gangsta rap. Thug as in Nazi Brown Shirts.

And they are literally coming for you--you the reader, you as an individual if you dare to put a Trump sign in your yard. They are coming even before the election is over and they are calling it "fair warning." 

Here's the image just in case Twitter goes funky.

James Woods says this is appearing all over America.

I believe him.

Michael

LOL

As much as I see the value in the letter as a threat to influence people's vote, I don't know if the people writing/delivering the letter realize how well it serves as a warning to prepare (even though "warning" is right on the page)...

There will be no civil "war." There are only so many leftists willing to put themselves in danger. If Trump is elected and they attempt a pogrom, I predict they get massacred and Trump helps to protect the patriots from the legal repercussions.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am double posting this since some readers might not be following the other thread and, I believe (for real), this probably is the end of the Biden campaign. There will be death throes, of course, and an enormous shit-show, but I believe this is a fatal blow.

22 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Woah...

Lee Stranahan worked with Andrew Breitbart on the Anthony Weiner case.

He later worked with Steve Bannon, but they got into spats, and now they are not friendly. But Lee just said that, despite their differences, he has never seen Steve Bannon bluff. And his ears perked up when Steve Bannon told the entire world there is some wicked shit on Hunter Biden's laptop and it is going to come out shortly.

Then Rudy took the laptop to the Delaware police and registered it for endangering a child.

So now Lee thinks this is a complete parallel to the Weiner story. He said the media were impenetrable about Weiner's sexting in the early days because Weiner was about as close as one can get to the Clintons. But once an underage girl became part of the story, the Democrat press wall around him rallied for a bit, then collapsed as the rats all ran for cover.

Lee thinks this is what is going to happen with Biden.

Here is what I think to add to that. People are saying Hunter is not Joe, etc. etc. etc., but it's quite a stretch to think the American heartleand will elect a president who has a pedophile son and this was covered up by Joe for ages. I don't see how this happens in the reality we live in.

Lee even speculated about Hillary Clinton being appointed to step in at the last minute and run in Joe Biden's place, but that's complicated because it's way too late to get her on the ballot.

Lee isn't sure that Biden is going to drop out, but he thinks it likely, and that regardless, based on what happened with Anthony Weiner, this just sank Biden's campaign beyond repair.

Lee is hard to understand and can get real petty with people on his side, but I have not seen him be wrong about this kind of stuff yet. For example, I knew ages ago about the Ukrainian story that is now exploding, including all the names in the press right now--even before Rudy went over there--because I watched Lee. 

So I believe the press is going to get nasty as all hell in the next few days, then it will crash and burn big-time as the rats jump ship on Joe Biden.

Let's see if this happens. If I were a betting man, I would bet on what Lee said and make some money.

Lee has been one of my secret sources--hiding in plain sight--for insider stuff for ages.

This story certainly explains why the tech giants took the gloves off an outright banned the story about Hunter Biden's laptop. In my opinion, they all know he had underage sex stuff going on...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

One of the Dem October surprises just surfaced.

President Trump has a "secret" bank account in China.

Ho hum...

No matter how they spin it, the story will come down to the Trump Organization had an office in China to explore potential business (like building hotels, etc.) and this office in China opened a bank account in China.

Normal Americans are going to look at that and scratch their heads and wonder what all the fuss is about.

I, myself, had several bank accounts in Brazilian banks when I lived there.

So?

What was I going to do, pay international transfer fees to get paid for my work and buy groceries?  

I almost feel sorry for them, poor things.

This October surprise doesn't even merit a link to an article. 

Michael