The Realities of the "Trials" Surrounding President Trump

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Major headlines and CNN is all a-titter!  Trump's ex-attorney brings nothing new, except for testimony that he never saw anything that he could relate to "Russian collusion".

Michael Cohen’s opening statement makes no sense

(Excerpt)

CNN is naturally on fire ahead of the testimony, calling Cohen’s opener “damaging,” “stunning” and “shocking.” Perhaps it would be those things, if the public hadn’t already heard almost all of Cohen’s claims before, or if those claims weren’t in some cases just explicitly stupid. ( @Rodent should read at least the first paragraph at that link  )

Cohen is expected to say at the start, “Never in a million years did I imagine, when I accepted a job in 2007 to work for Donald Trump, that he would one day run for President, launch a campaign on a platform of hate and intolerance, and actually win.”

And yet later on, he calls Trump “a man who ran for office to make his brand great …”

Yes, of course! marketing executives around the globe must be saying right now. Let’s make our brand “great” by emphasizing “hate and intolerance!"

Cohen, Trump’s former gofer, is supposed to admit in his remarks that he never saw any proof or even evidence that the president’s 2016 campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the election. But he will at least keep hope alive in hearts at CNN by saying he has “suspicions.”

He’ll also call Trump a “racist,” a “con man,” and a “cheat,” summarizing Mitt Romney’s scorching 2016 speech that sank the Trump campaign. No, wait a second -- I'm being told that it didn't work, and that Trump went on to win the election. Never mind.

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Dan Warnick

[Illurion + 894]

None of it interests me.........

[TXPower + 643]

My favorite part is bringing a guy in for testimony who lied to the IRS, financiers to gain credit and to Congress last time he was in front of them to give testimony.  So what, this time he’s going to speak truth? Circus side-show act.  I would think what’s going on in Vietnam this week is more important.  SMH.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

7 hours ago, Illurion said:

None of it interests me.........

David Attenborough is the familiar voice of the narrator.  Twitter already censored this, so here is the Nature / DC Politics mashup video:

Planet Earth - The Swamp

 

[Rodent + 1,424]

11 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Major headlines and CNN is all a-titter!  Trump's ex-attorney brings nothing new, except for testimony that he never saw anything that he could relate to "Russian collusion".

Michael Cohen’s opening statement makes no sense

(Excerpt)

CNN is naturally on fire ahead of the testimony, calling Cohen’s opener “damaging,” “stunning” and “shocking.” Perhaps it would be those things, if the public hadn’t already heard almost all of Cohen’s claims before, or if those claims weren’t in some cases just explicitly stupid. ( @Rodent should read at least the first paragraph at that link  )

Cohen is expected to say at the start, “Never in a million years did I imagine, when I accepted a job in 2007 to work for Donald Trump, that he would one day run for President, launch a campaign on a platform of hate and intolerance, and actually win.”

And yet later on, he calls Trump “a man who ran for office to make his brand great …”

Yes, of course! marketing executives around the globe must be saying right now. Let’s make our brand “great” by emphasizing “hate and intolerance!"

Cohen, Trump’s former gofer, is supposed to admit in his remarks that he never saw any proof or even evidence that the president’s 2016 campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the election. But he will at least keep hope alive in hearts at CNN by saying he has “suspicions.”

He’ll also call Trump a “racist,” a “con man,” and a “cheat,” summarizing Mitt Romney’s scorching 2016 speech that sank the Trump campaign. No, wait a second -- I'm being told that it didn't work, and that Trump went on to win the election. Never mind.

 

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh.... may we never speak of this again.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

David Attenborough is the familiar voice of the narrator.  Twitter already censored this, so here is the Nature / DC Politics mashup video:

Planet Earth - The Swamp

 

Excellent no-doubt peer reviewed video documentary.     

Which makes this a good time to give descriptive text for you, my fellow debaters, to quote in your next debate of skepticism when faced with the "peer reviewed" experts of re-stating the infallible peer reviewed "facts" (dammit, listen to me!).  Feel free to refer back to the linked article in your efforts to counter the religion of renewables, for example.

WHY SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW IS A SHAM

(Excerpts)

The notion of peer review has long occupied special territory in the world of science. However, investigation of suppressed innovations, inventions, treatments, cures, and so on, rapidly reveals that the peer review system is arguably better at one thing above all others: censorship. This can mean censorship of everything from contrarian viewpoints to innovations that render favored dogmas, products, or services obsolete (economic threats).

The problem is endemic, as many scientists have learned the hard way.

In truth, the systemic failure of peer review is one of science’s major, embarrassing open secrets.

As Dr David Kaplan tells us, “[P]eer review is known to engender bias, incompetence, excessive expense, ineffectiveness, and corruption. A surfeit of publications has documented the deficiencies of this system.”[1]

Australian physicist Brian Martin elaborates in his excellent article Strategies for Dissenting Scientists:

Certain sorts of innovation are welcome in science, when they fall within established frameworks and do not threaten vested interests. But aside from this sort of routine innovation, science has many similarities to systems of dogma. Dissenters are not welcome. They are ignored, rejected, and sometimes attacked.[2]

Electric universe researcher and Big Bang critic Wal Thornhill (a REAL scientist) stated plainly in our GFM Media interview that the peer review system amounts to censorship. Fellow independent scientist Gary Novak agrees scathingly:

“Peer review is a form of censorship, which is tyranny over the mind. Censorship does not purify; it corrupts…There is a lot of junk science and trash that goes through the peer review process.”[3]

Brian Martin asks us rhetorically:

What do [scientists] have to gain by spending time helping an outsider? Most likely, the alleged discovery will turn out to be pointless or wrong from the standard point of view. If the outsider has made a genuine discovery, that means the outsider would win rewards at the expense of those already in the field who have invested years of effort in the conventional ideas.[4]

Herein lies the problem in moving science forward and shifting paradigms. A paradigm is only as malleable (or mutable) as the minds and egos invested in it.

---

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding…We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.[6]

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Dan Warnick

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

21 minutes ago, Rodent said:

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh.... may we never speak of this again.

All day I hear the noise of Waters 
Making moan, 
Sad as the sea-bird is when, going 
Forth alone, 
She hears the winds cry to the Water's 
Monotone. 

The grey winds, the cold winds are blowing 
Where I go. 
I hear the noise of many Waters 
Far below. 
All day, all night, I hear them flowing 
To and fro. 

All Day I Hear The Noise Of Waters

James Joyce

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

13 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Cohen, Trump’s former gofer, is supposed to admit in his remarks that he never saw any proof or even evidence that the president’s 2016 campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the election. But he will at least keep hope alive in hearts at CNN by saying he has “suspicions.”

He’ll also call Trump a “racist,” a “con man,” and a “cheat,” summarizing Mitt Romney’s scorching 2016 speech that sank the Trump campaign. No, wait a second -- I'm being told that it didn't work, and that Trump went on to win the election. Never mind.

Cohen tweets a few years ago.  The internet never forgets.

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Just now, Tom Kirkman said:

Cohen tweets a few years ago.  The internet never forgets.