Alex Tsakiris, host of Skeptiko, interview by Gayle Kimball

#21
Also, does imperfection negate the message? For example, JFK and Martin Luther King, Jr. were womanizers, which probably made the liars, but we should dismiss the good they did? Steinem has contributed greatly to gender equality.
Valid point.

Our focus should be ethics, not morality - and in helping foster an understanding of the difference in the mind of the public.
 
#22
Also, does imperfection negate the message? For example, JFK and Martin Luther King, Jr. were womanizers, which probably made the liars, but we should dismiss the good they did? Steinem has contributed greatly to gender equality.
Perhaps we should ask the same about Donald Trump. I certainly credit President Trump with having dodged the 'opportunity' to enter a large war in Syria - for what? Hillary stated that that was her plan.
That is true even if he was a womaniser - and I suspect every president in modern times except perhaps Jimmy Carter, was a womaniser. Frankly the temptation when you are in that job must be almost irresistible!

David
 
#23
Gayle,

I obviously heard your discussion with Alex about 'climate change'. I wonder if you have heard how Venus is an extreme example of what co2-induced climate change can do to a planet?

(OK you have probably guessed there is a catch to that question - but it is something you should realise.)

David
 
Last edited:
#24
Perhaps we should ask the same about Donald Trump. I certainly credit President Trump with having dodged the 'opportunity' to enter a large war in Syria - for what? Hillary stated that that was her plan.
That is true even if he was a womaniser - and I suspect every president in modern times except perhaps Jimmy Carter, was a womaniser. Frankly the temptation when you are in that job must be almost irresistible!

David
David, you seem to be a highly intelligent person, why do you subscribe to the cult of Trump? Womanizer aside, even all the horrible things Alex accused him of, just look at his policies. He allowed the coal company to dump coal dust into the river and poson everything along the way. He said asbestos is good for construction. His tax cut only lines the pockets of the richest 1%, and increases our national debt by two trillion dollars. I tend to believe the opposite of everything he says. Give him the money for his wall, just reverse the tax cut and use the money for infrastructure.
 
#25
David, you seem to be a highly intelligent person, why do you subscribe to the cult of Trump? Womanizer aside, even all the horrible things Alex accused him of, just look at his policies. He allowed the coal company to dump coal dust into the river and poson everything along the way. He said asbestos is good for construction. His tax cut only lines the pockets of the richest 1%, and increases our national debt by two trillion dollars. I tend to believe the opposite of everything he says. Give him the money for his wall, just reverse the tax cut and use the money for infrastructure.
Well you are looking at some things that he has done, that I don't know about, but I find it a relief to have a man in the White House who doesn't seem to want to start another war. His economic policy does seem to be helping the less well off - and remember, they are the people who voted for him. You do need that wall - otherwise drug traffickers, people traffickers and terrorists will cross that border. If I want to travel to the states, I have to fill in a form on the internet in advance of going so they can check me out - if you are going to leave one border wide open, why not give up on controlling who is in your country?

I am pretty sure he is right about climate change, and I like the fact that he seems to be doing his best to defuse the NK problem.

I tend not to believe he abuses children, if only because people have accused him of absolutely everything, and none of it seems to stick - at the moment people will throw everything at him, and totally forget that he is your duly elected president. If the mob pushes him out, you can kiss your democracy goodbye!

David
 
#26
Well you are looking at some things that he has done, that I don't know about, but I find it a relief to have a man in the White House who doesn't seem to want to start another war. His economic policy does seem to be helping the less well off - and remember, they are the people who voted for him. You do need that wall - otherwise drug traffickers, people traffickers and terrorists will cross that border. If I want to travel to the states, I have to fill in a form on the internet in advance of going so they can check me out - if you are going to leave one border wide open, why not give up on controlling who is in your country?

I am pretty sure he is right about climate change, and I like the fact that he seems to be doing his best to defuse the NK problem.

I tend not to believe he abuses children, if only because people have accused him of absolutely everything, and none of it seems to stick - at the moment people will throw everything at him, and totally forget that he is your duly elected president. If the mob pushes him out, you can kiss your democracy goodbye!

David
i am not against walls at various strategic areas along the border for reasons that you had mentioned. But I don't believe there's a mob here trying to push Trump out. If Obama had said or done just a hundredth of what Trump had, he would had been impeached a long time ago, mind you, I am an independent. Can you just entertain the idea that there are shadowy people with secret agendas trying to influence our public opinions by spreading "Fake News" and stir up passions and animosities among us? Yes, our MSM are also biased, tedious, repetitive and with agendas of their own, but the reputable ones do try very hard to verify the veracity of their news sources, I don't even know where to begin with the "alternative" news. Right now, I am watching closely the unfolding story of Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi, the relationship between Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, the late Roy Cohn and Trump, and their interconnection with Mike Flynn, Carter Page, David Pecker, Steve Bannon, Erik Prince, George Nader ........, hum, a real life conspiracy here? I am just a newbie, I am sure my opinion had been expressed many times over by various members of this forum, it's just my two cents.
 
#27
i am not against walls at various strategic areas along the border for reasons that you had mentioned. But I don't believe there's a mob here trying to push Trump out. If Obama had said or done just a hundredth of what Trump had, he would had been impeached a long time ago, mind you, I am an independent.
Strangely, I'd be hard put to find one thing he has done as president that could possibly justify impeachment!
Can you just entertain the idea that there are shadowy people with secret agendas trying to influence our public opinions by spreading "Fake News" and stir up passions and animosities among us?
Indeed I can, and I think those people did not want Trump to win, because they wanted a big war in Syria - which Clinton had basically said she would order! Maybe that helped to make people vote for Trump - many Americans must be sick of one war after another.
Yes, our MSM are also biased, tedious, repetitive and with agendas of their own, but the reputable ones do try very hard to verify the veracity of their news sources, I don't even know where to begin with the "alternative" news. Right now, I am watching closely the unfolding story of Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi, the relationship between Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, the late Roy Cohn and Trump, and their interconnection with Mike Flynn, Carter Page, David Pecker, Steve Bannon, Erik Prince, George Nader ........, hum, a real life conspiracy here?
Well the trouble is that it is easy to make people sound shady if nothing needs to be proved. They have been investigating Trump for over two years - with nothing really to show for it.
I am just a newbie, I am sure my opinion had been expressed many times over by various members of this forum, it's just my two cents.
Certainly not everyone on the forum is pro-Trump! I can tell you on election night I kept waking up and checking my computer - hoping for a Trump victory, but never sure until the morning (we are 5 hours ahead of the US). Above all, I felt a lot safer with him in the White House, rather than Hillary.

I want him to get on and do some sort of deal with President Putin that will make the world a lot safer. He is hopefully achieving something with NK. When I was a young man, being Left Wing meant above all being anti-war. Somehow the very meaning of 'Left' in politics has shifted.

I am still 'Left' in that old sense.

David
 
#28
Strangely, I'd be hard put to find one thing he has done as president that could possibly justify impeachment!
I had not mentioned anything about impreaching Trump.
Indeed I can, and I think those people did not want Trump to win, because they wanted a big war in Syria - which Clinton had basically said she would order! Maybe that helped to make people vote for Trump - many Americans must be sick of one war after another.
Yet, there were people who didn't want Clinton to win also, and they sullied her reputation overtly and covertly with any means they could. I am not a fan of Clinton myself, but all those devil worshipping things are just too hard to swallow. Yes, I believe Hillary is unnecessarily pro war, and Libya had certainly not taught her a lesson. But most Americans had not voted for Trump because they're sick of wars, they just worried about their livelihood or guns. And some just wanted to blow up the whole system because they're tired of business as usual, yet they didn't know how close they're of destroying our democracy.
Well the trouble is that it is easy to make people sound shady if nothing needs to be proved. They have been investigating Trump for over two years - with nothing really to show for it.
We shall see.
I want him to get on and do some sort of deal with President Putin that will make the world a lot safer. He is hopefully achieving something with NK.
I want America to make deals with Russia on our own terms, and not dictated by Putin.
When I was a young man, being Left Wing meant above all being anti-war. Somehow the very meaning of 'Left' in politics has shifted.
I am just as anti-war as you are, all isms change over time, everything changes over time.
I am still 'Left' in that old sense.
Good for you.
 
#30
Ps: NK will never give up their nuclear weapons because it's their only bargaining chip.
Well maybe the answer is to remove the need for bargaining. As I understand it, after Trumps intervention the two halves of Korea are holding talks about something like reunification. In the past, I suspect the US wanted to maintain this problem bubbling, and used enough military posturing to make sure it was never settled. Trump seems to want to settle conflicts, but without bloodshed.

David
 
#31
Well maybe the answer is to remove the need for bargaining. As I understand it, after Trumps intervention the two halves of Korea are holding talks about something like reunification. In the past, I suspect the US wanted to maintain this problem bubbling, and used enough military posturing to make sure it was never settled. Trump seems to want to settle conflicts, but without bloodshed.

David
Please David, please look at my previous posting also, I had my answers intermingled with your statements, I just don't know how to highlight your words. I am internet naive here, had never been a member of Facebook or Twitter or any other social media group, this forum is the first one I joined. I am also for peace and reunification, but I am afraid if the two Koreas do join, North Korea will still lord over South Korea because Kim Jong-un will never give up His nuclear weapons, some said he's regarded as God in NK, just imagine this, when you had that much power, will you give it up? I am afraid he might use SK wealth to further his ambitions.
 
Last edited:
#32
... the creators of the non-materialist paradigm.... I'd like your suggestions for who else to include in the new book.
I did interview him but he doesn't want the YouTube video made public. I'd appreciate other suggestions for who should be included in my Visionary Scientists book-in-progress.
Are you interested in scientists who support the theory of intelligent design?

Stephen Meyer
http://www.stephencmeyer.org

Guillermo Gonzalez

James M. Tour
https://www.jmtour.com
Tour is not exactly a proponent of intelligent design but he is interesting because he has taken a lot of criticism because he expressed his religious beliefs and his doubt about Darwinism. Tour is a synthetic chemist, he understands how organic molecules can be produced and he doesn't believe any natural explanations can account for the origin of biological molecules.


Ann Gauger
Douglas Axe
https://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1
and others at the Biologic Institute
http://www.biologicinstitute.org/people


More information on intelligent design and on scientists who support the theory at my blog:
http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/articles-and-links-arranged-by-subject.html#articles_by_subject_id
 
Last edited:
#33
Strangely, I'd be hard put to find one thing he has done as president that could possibly justify impeachment!

Indeed I can, and I think those people did not want Trump to win, because they wanted a big war in Syria - which Clinton had basically said she would order! Maybe that helped to make people vote for Trump - many Americans must be sick of one war after another.

Well the trouble is that it is easy to make people sound shady if nothing needs to be proved. They have been investigating Trump for over two years - with nothing really to show for it.

Certainly not everyone on the forum is pro-Trump! I can tell you on election night I kept waking up and checking my computer - hoping for a Trump victory, but never sure until the morning (we are 5 hours ahead of the US). Above all, I felt a lot safer with him in the White House, rather than Hillary.

I want him to get on and do some sort of deal with President Putin that will make the world a lot safer. He is hopefully achieving something with NK. When I was a young man, being Left Wing meant above all being anti-war. Somehow the very meaning of 'Left' in politics has shifted.

I am still 'Left' in that old sense.

David
to support what you're saying, I thought it was interesting that Ed Opperman (Skeptiko #399) who describes himself as left-of-left, said that even though he really dislikes Trump he was still a way better/less-evil than Hillary
 
#34
to support what you're saying, I thought it was interesting that Ed Opperman (Skeptiko #399) who describes himself as left-of-left, said that even though he really dislikes Trump he was still a way better/less-evil than Hillary
Guess I just can't buy Pizzagate, it reminds me too much of Pakistan's anti-Blastphamy law. If you don't like someone, you can just accuse him/her of child pornography or devil worship or anyother hideous evil crime, then his/her reputation will be on the chopping block.
 
#35
Guess I just can't buy Pizzagate, it reminds me too much of Pakistan's anti-Blastphamy law. If you don't like someone, you can just accuse him/her of child pornography or devil worship or anyother hideous evil crime, then his/her reputation will be on the chopping block.
Where did Pizzagate enter this discussion?

The number one reason to hate Hillary, is that as secretary of state, she initiated several wars - none of which could be said to have helped anyone. Furthermore, she had announced her intention as president to step up the war in Syria. What was the war in Syria for? Supposedly it was to help noble pro-democracy forces overthrow Assad's regime - which supports a far milder form of Islam, that is, for example much less oppressive towards women. The word 'hate' is strong, but nothing else seems appropriate for her.

US support consisted in funnelling weapons to the opposition forces, and I seem to remember that back when Obama was in power there was a congressional report that stated that much of this support (i.e. weapons) had ended up in ISIS hands.

President Trump seems to have done his best (constrained by the fact that he doesn't (yet?) have total control over US foreign policy, to ensure that the Russians succeed in returning a peaceful Syria to Assad.

Whether or not Assad could be bettered in theory is not the point. When you remove a tyrant in the Middle East you get an extended period of turmoil because so much of politics is about the various variants of Islam.

David
 
#36
Where did Pizzagate enter this discussion?

The number one reason to hate Hillary, is that as secretary of state, she initiated several wars - none of which could be said to have helped anyone. Furthermore, she had announced her intention as president to step up the war in Syria. What was the war in Syria for? Supposedly it was to help noble pro-democracy forces overthrow Assad's regime - which supports a far milder form of Islam, that is, for example much less oppressive towards women. The word 'hate' is strong, but nothing else seems appropriate for her.

US support consisted in funnelling weapons to the opposition forces, and I seem to remember that back when Obama was in power there was a congressional report that stated that much of this support (i.e. weapons) had ended up in ISIS hands.

President Trump seems to have done his best (constrained by the fact that he doesn't (yet?) have total control over US foreign policy, to ensure that the Russians succeed in returning a peaceful Syria to Assad.

Whether or not Assad could be bettered in theory is not the point. When you remove a tyrant in the Middle East you get an extended period of turmoil because so much of politics is about the various variants of Islam.

David
I don't like US's involvement in Syria either, too many shifting in sides. You could be "risistant fighter " one day and ISIS fighter another day. I believe Hilary wanted to appear she's pro-war because she's a woman, that went with her FPs also when she's Secretary of State. She didn't want people to accuse her of being squimish about war because she's female, she's very ambitious, she wanted to be the president.
 
#37
I don't like US's involvement in Syria either, too many shifting in sides. You could be "risistant fighter " one day and ISIS fighter another day. I believe Hilary wanted to appear she's pro-war because she's a woman, that went with her FPs also when she's Secretary of State. She didn't want people to accuse her of being squimish about war because she's female, she's very ambitious, she wanted to be the president.
Well remember that she already had form in the form of many deaths and maimed bodies - in Lybia, Syria, and the Ukraine - I don't think she was pretending.

Somehow I feel working class people (the deplorables) often have a greater political awareness than the 'middle class' because they are more down to earth, and actually feel the practical consequences of what is done.

David
 
#38
Well remember that she already had form in the form of many deaths and maimed bodies - in Lybia, Syria, and the Ukraine - I don't think she was pretending.

Somehow I feel working class people (the deplorables) often have a greater political awareness than the 'middle class' because they are more down to earth, and actually feel the practical consequences of what is done.

David
I know you're a Russophile, I have no animosity towards Russia, but I think when you talk about death and destructions, both sides should take the responsibilities for the bloodshed. I am no FP expert, but I feel we are all pawns in this chess game. American working class people do not have a greater political awareness than the "middle class", they are easily led. I am from the reddest part of a red state(Ohio), I know. Through Facebook or Twitter or whatever, a whisper of child pornopraphy or devil worship, or worse yet, Hillary will take your guns away, will swing their votes. Russian trolls saturated their social media, that's what made me so mad. Talk about policy differences, not rumors and innuendos, have a fair fight. I can assure you that the working class people do not vote based on FPs, they're not necessarily pro-peace either, unfortunately, it is mostly their sons and daughters who were sent to the battlefield. Actually, it's the middle class people who's more cautious about getting into wars.
 
#39
I know you're a Russophile, I have no animosity towards Russia, but I think when you talk about death and destructions, both sides should take the responsibilities for the bloodshed. I am no FP expert, but I feel we are all pawns in this chess game.
Well here is a map of US vs Russian bases around the world. The picture says it all, I think.
https://www.rferl.org/a/where-are-us-and-russian-military-bases-in-the-world/28890842.html
[/QUOTE]

American working class people do not have a greater political awareness than the "middle class", they are easily led. I am from the reddest part of a red state(Ohio), I know.
[/QUOTE]
Well I am from the UK, where working people voted to get out of the EU. I think they knew exactly why they wanted out.
Through Facebook or Twitter or whatever, a whisper of child pornopraphy or devil worship, or worse yet, Hillary will take your guns away, will swing their votes.
Well you might know - did Trump actually say Hillary would take away their guns?
Russian trolls saturated their social media, that's what made me so mad.
The whole talk about Russian interference in the election seems total nonsense to me. I mean any number of groups - state run or otherwise - might put false information on the internet. Some would probably accuse Skeptiko of doing just that.
Talk about policy differences, not rumors and innuendos, have a fair fight. I can assure you that the working class people do not vote based on FPs, they're not necessarily pro-peace either, unfortunately, it is mostly their sons and daughters who were sent to the battlefield. Actually, it's the middle class people who's more cautious about getting into wars.
Well that middle class should not have given Hillary the primary votes to make her the candidate. I mean, support for Trump is obviously relative. Could I imagine someone else who would have even better policies - probably yes, though he/she would be unlikely to become president because of the MSM. The amazing thing about President Trump, is that he has pretty good policies, and has actually managed to become president.

I mean you only have to look at 'The Green Deal' to realise that the Democrats have evolved into a party that is unfit for government.

In a way, I can sympathise with you. Obama started out well with his nuclear deal with Russia, but somehow he changed in his second term. He put Hillary into power as Secretary of State, and she seemed to open up one area of conflict after another. I don't think the US should attack any other country unless:

A) They can do the whole job - not just oust the head of state.

and

B) Demonstrate that the country in question is threatening the safety and security of US citizens.

Trump prefers the application of economic sanctions, and while they can be painful to the citizens of the country concerned, are infinitely less damaging than military force.

David
 
Last edited:
Top