Does anyone else here feel not just a little bit disturbed, but kind of in a Twightlight Zone of sorts.......Or George Orwell novel.....with regard to

Jun 2013
Living in an era where so much lying going on, there is a need to have people investigating facts and serving "the people" with what their research/investigations have found in an effort to try to keep records straight?

It is well known and many prominent people and sages in world history have noted the importance of trust, in any society. So who are all these people sowing the seeds of mistrust about many things, including long trusted (because their information can be verified) institutions? "Right" or "left" political bias means nothing with relation to the truth, unless one can, with their own verifiable sources, show how there is some sort of systematic effort to distort or work against truth, by any entire "group". People may be politically biased in one direction or another because they also happen to care about the truth and their attachment to it also coincides with other characteristics such as political leanings. What some call "liberal bias" may also include a bias of the same people, for what are mostly verifiable truths as opposed to information that comes out of the blue and is difficult or impossible to corroborate from more than just a few sources all of which prominently proclaim their allegiance to a political side, rather than the truth. Certainly no source of information is going to get every story absolutely correct every time and no "group" is without individuals who seem to think they can cheat to get ahead, but in the overall weighing of what is verifiable and what is not, where is there the most credibility, by all the factors anyone uses to determine any source of information is credible?

If some stranger came up to you on the street with a story about something or someone else that was disturbing, would you believe them or would you seek verification of the story from other sources and from people you knew and felt you could trust. If no one else could verify the story and no one knew the person who told you the story, would you still believe the story?

What do you use as criteria to believe and trust information and the information source (knowing con artists are going to pretend to be on your "side") and who do you think, foreign and domestic, would be trying as hard as they could, to not only float a lot of false stories and sow the seeds of mistrust among the people of any nation, but divide the people of that nation and put the nation into disarray based on people fighting internally and simply not trusting anyone, to tell the truth?

Retired KGB Maj. Gen. Oleg Kalugin, former Director of Foreign Intelligence for the KGB, described active measures as "the heart and soul of Soviet intelligence": "Not intelligence collection, but subversion: active measures to weaken the West, to drive wedges in the Western community alliances of all sorts, particularly NATO, to sow discord among allies, to weaken the United States in the eyes of the people of Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America, and thus to prepare ground in case the war really occurs."[3]

"Active measures was a system of special courses taught in the Andropov Institute of the KGB situated at SVR headquarters in Yasenevo, near Moscow. The head of the "active measures department" was Yuri Modin, former controller of the Cambridge Five spy ring.[1]"

"Active measures have continued in the post-Soviet era in Russia. In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on the US policy response to Russian interference in the 2016 elections, Victoria Nuland, former US Ambassador to NATO referred to herself as "a regular target of Russian active measures."[4]
Active measures - Wikipedia

There are conspiracy theories that continue to live, only because they float the idea that if someone cannot disprove the theory, it is deemed by the theorists, to be true, but the reality is, that not being able to disprove a conspiracy theory does not automatically prove it.

"Active Measures" is NOT a theory, but actions that are backed up by evidence. How effective they were or continue to be, is perhaps the harder to prove, but certainly there is evidence that wedges have been and are being driven in this nation, if not others and there are stories being floated that are not verifiable or have no basis in truth, but serve to affect actions, before they are revealed to be untrue.

Elections are very expensive to hold based on the many logistics and dependencies in order to ensure they are as accurate and fair as is possible. This expense is one part of why they are not held annually. The other part is to allow those elected a chance to do their work and the people who are governed to find some consistency in their government. If an election is held and the outcome based on the floating of a last minute lie about something or a candidate and that lie is not debunked until after the election, the lie has done the work it was intended to do, even if it is found later to be untrue and that later revelation is buried by other controversies brought up to intentionally bury the revelation of the initial untruth. As well, a determination has to be made as to whether the untruth affected any election enough to cause what amounts to an election based on fraudulent influencing factors, which are different, than voter fraud, but if one shouts "voter fraud" loud enough, that might work to distract people from the real fraud, which is fraudulent information intentionally floated at the last minute to affect an election, knowing that the truth would later be revealed, but the election results would stand.

The 2000 Presidential election was just too fishy in my mind to pass the smell test, with consideration of the "winning" candidates brother being governor of the one state out of 50, there was a dispute about the count and a vote that was verified by the then Secretary of State who had also been co-chair of the Bush for President campaign, in that state. Further, that the SCOTUS (a conservative majority court at the time) made a decision, by a single vote majority, to hand the vote to the candidate that had the most votes (by a controversial count) at the time the decision was made, based on there NOT being enough time to establish an equal standard for the recount, before Inauguration Day, 2001. Thus it would seem, America got a President based on what appears to be quite the slight of hand, yet the election stood. In 2016, we had a popular vote that gave some 2.8 MILLION MORE votes to the person who did NOT win the Electoral College votes and the person who one the Electoral College votes, not only claiming the election HE WON as being "rigged" (was it rigged in HIS direction?), but that he won the EC, by a "landslide", something that was easily shown to be a total lie and not even close in comparison to past elections, including his predecessor.

In addition, what track record of credibility with the truth does Trump have as opposed to others?

Pseudonyms of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

How businessman Trump turned exaggeration into his brand | PBS NewsHour

Con artists are "MASTER SELLERS"!!! Bernie Madoff was a "MASTER SELLER/EXAGGERATOR" too, UNTIL his sons, turned him in!!!

Trump the con artist sold people that he's an "outsider"........What BS!!!

What New Yorker's (those in Donald's hometown) felt about Donald Trump in 2016

How each NYC borough voted (hint: Clinton didn't win them all)

Not exactly what one would call a vote of confidence for "Honest" Don, the "Master seller/exaggerator" from people who would know him best.

Yes, to all those who got to know Donald Trump from tabloid magazines and "The Apprentice" ("Reality" TV) he was from "outside" their knowledge zone about how big of a con artist he was/is. His neighbors in NYC knew/know better. Donald Trump is an "outsider" because he's a fraud.
  • Like
Reactions: labrea