All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Tami]

Can this level of stupidity be outlawed?

Trump rallygoer sans mask: “We had a friend who died from Covid, and his son was on a ventilator, he almost died. So we know it’s real, but then at the same time you don’t know what the facts are, you feel like maybe one side plays it one way and the other side plays it another.”

Twitter Link with Video

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

At the Trump rally, Brian Clothier, 61, is wearing an adult diaper over his pants that reads “Scientists say [farts] spread the virus. I COVID my ass to stop the spread.”

Twitter Link

[Mister Mets]

Ditto, obviously confederate statues and flags should be removed. "I'm talking to you State of Mississippi!", but the founding fathers are a completely different story.

First, it should be noted that moderates (regular responsible people) do not engage in acts of property crime and vandalism, that is what radicals do. Normal people start a petition to have the statue removed, and abide by the law no matter what the outcome (whether they succeed or not)

Second, you cannot judge people who lived over 200 years ago to the standards of today's morality, it was a completely different society back then, that is so foreign and divorced from our reality today. I mean child brides were common place back then for gods sake.

I imagine that most of the people doing the statue topping in Portland, are people who have been indoctrinated by studies rooted in the Western Marxism tradition, (Ie Post colonial studies, critical legal theory, critical race theory, whiteness ect) which often also incorporates post modernist methods. Although these studies provide a good critical analyses of society, they are ultimately politically motivated in that they provide a pseudo scientific view of history, that only sees the history of the west as a colonial genocidal machine. History should be studied like a science fully & empirically without political intent. After all, one could make the argument that if it wasn't for George Washington and the founding fathers, no one in the United States would likely be enjoying the freedom and standard of living they have today.

At the end of the day statue toppling just helps the far right with their recruitment, if you want a statue removed, do it legally, start a petition.

They're not just tearing down the founders, but Ulysses S Grant as well.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...grant-national

Protesters in San Francisco on Friday toppled the statue of former President Grant, who led the Union Army during the Civil War, in Golden Gate Park.

San Francisco police said that approximately 400 people gathered around 8 p.m. to take down the statue, though no arrests were made, according to NBC Bay Area.

Also torn down in the park on Friday were the statues of St. Junipero Serra and Francis Scott Key, who wrote the lyrics to "The Star-Spangled Banner."

#BREAKING: Demonstrators topple statues in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park. @hurd_hurd will have details on our News at 11. https://t.co/RvmlMqu73s pic.twitter.com/iUZE28AvdD

— NBC Bay Area (@nbcbayarea) June 20, 2020
Friday was Juneteenth, a national celebration commemorating the last slaves being freed in Texas on June 19, 1865 — nearly two years after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued.

While Grant is widely celebrated as being one of the leading forces who helped the Union win the Civil War, bringing an end to slavery in the U.S., some historians have pointed to his complicated relationship with slavery.

"Grant did in fact own a man named William Jones for about a year on the eve of the Civil War," Sean Kane, interpretations and programs specialist at the American Civil War Museum, said in an article. "In 1859, Grant either bought or was given the 35-year-old Jones, who was in Grant’s service until he freed him before the start of the War."

Kane also noted that Grant married into a slaveholding family that owned dozens of slaves.

After Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter, Grant wrote his father, an abolitionist, saying, “My inclination is to whip the rebellion into submission, preserving all Constitutional rights. If it cannot be whipped any other way than through a war against slavery, let it come to that legitimately. If it is necessary that slavery should fall that the Republic may continue its existence, let slavery go.”

Many on Twitter pushed back against the toppling of Grant's statue in San Francisco.

Grant did briefly own one slave he freed years before the war; but as a general he smashed the Confederacy, and as president he crushed the Klan. He presided over the ratification of the 15th Amendment. People going after Grant probably just want to break things. https://t.co/rVtPOcvyAN

— Adam Serwer (@AdamSerwer) June 20, 2020
He was a “slave owner” in that he was gifted a slave, hated the idea, and freed him within a year. Then won the Civil War, prosecuted the KKK, and appointed African Americans to prominent roles in government.

This might have gotten out of hand. https://t.co/5HdEDgodzm

— Matt Whitlock (@mattdizwhitlock) June 20, 2020

[PwrdOn]

That is not what I am arguing. History should be read historically as a science, not as a political narrative. History departments for the most part do this, departments in sociology and social anthropology that utilize critical theory, unfortunately do not, they narrow politics down to a political narrative for their own purposes. These are usually done by politically charged professors who abandon scientific objectivity for subjectivism, to match their own political credo. As noted before, studies rooted in the Western Marxist tradition provide a good critical analyst of capitalist society but they are not very objective, and are usually politically motivated. The historical cannon today covers a wide variety of topics. One could easily argue that the study of race and gender inequality in history gets primacy over other topics, which is not a bad thing, I however would argue that all fields should get equal coverage to ensure a more holistic picture.

It's not some politically charged conspiracy that is responsible for the re-evaluation of history we've been seeing in recent decades, it's more just a recognition that our understanding of the past was fundamentally flawed and needed to be corrected. The traditional view of history focused almost entirely on the lives of the rich and powerful and tended to exaggerate the importance of "great men" while largely ignoring the perspectives of ordinary people, and thus tended to overrate the impact of political events and shifts in power while ignoring seemingly minor societal and cultural shifts that had much greater effects on daily life. So it's easy to have this conception that Washington was this charismatic general uniting the people in this glorious struggle against British tyranny, because that's exactly how he and people like him would have seen it, and if you focus exclusively on those perspectives as historians did for centuries, you end up with quite a warped view of reality. The truth is that for the vast majority of Americans, there was little practical difference between life under the British Empire and life in the early United States, and if you happened to be a slave or a native, things would take a dramatic turn for the worse upon independence as the westward expansion began in earnest, clearing out the remaining pockets of native land to make room for massive cotton plantations. The cumulative effect of this re-evaluation of course will cast early American history in a much different light than before, but this is a necessary process and if you want to dispute this you need to come up with a better narrative of your own, not just dismiss the whole idea of historical narratives.

[The no face guy]

It's not some politically charged conspiracy that is responsible for the re-evaluation of history we've been seeing in recent decades, it's more just a recognition that our understanding of the past was fundamentally flawed and needed to be corrected. The traditional view of history focused almost entirely on the lives of the rich and powerful and tended to exaggerate the importance of "great men" while largely ignoring the perspectives of ordinary people, and thus tended to overrate the impact of political events and shifts in power while ignoring seemingly minor societal and cultural shifts that had much greater effects on daily life. So it's easy to have this conception that Washington was this charismatic general uniting the people in this glorious struggle against British tyranny, because that's exactly how he and people like him would have seen it, and if you focus exclusively on those perspectives as historians did for centuries, you end up with quite a warped view of reality. The truth is that for the vast majority of Americans, there was little practical difference between life under the British Empire and life in the early United States, and if you happened to be a slave or a native, things would take a dramatic turn for the worse upon independence as the westward expansion began in earnest, clearing out the remaining pockets of native land to make room for massive cotton plantations. The cumulative effect of this re-evaluation of course will cast early American history in a much different light than before, but this is a necessary process and if you want to dispute this you need to come up with a better narrative of your own, not just dismiss the whole idea of historical narratives.

Honestly, you are so wrapped up in political ideology I really find it's hopeless arguing with you. I have already stated that past history was biased and glorified colonization, but the cannon has been expanded in history now, and as I have said it covers issues of gender and race inequality more so than the great man theory, or scientific and technical innovations, which once again is a not a bad thing. Last I checked it wasn't the 1950's.

The problem is not with the History Departments which for the most part, Hobsbawmism influence aside, act like an empirical science. The problem is with sociology and social anthropology courses that utilize critical theory, and politicize history to present western civilization in wholly negative light, through subjective methods of deconstruction and interrogation.

There is no political conspiracy, it's well known that western marxism and post modernism has had a huge impact on the humanities departments, and they tend to be overtly political and subjective. Interrogating rock bands like AC/DC and Led Zeppelin to uncover their implicit whiteness to see how they uphold white patriarchal values is both highly subjective and political. Analyzing western civilization soley through the lens of seeing it as negatively genocidal and colonial is also subjective and political.

Listen to what I am saying clearly. History should not be utilized for political ends or indoctrination on the right or the left, it should soley be an empirical science!. It should not be used to glorify Davy Crockett past colonial endeavors of the past on the right, and on the flip side it should not be used to paint western civilization as primarily a genocidal machine on the left. When you cherry pick from history for political ends you damage it as a science. You however do not want to agree with this, because you desire to use history as a political weapon to back your ideology.

[Malvolio]

Can this level of stupidity be outlawed?

Twitter Link with Video

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

Twitter Link

That first quote is only half right. The other half is that one side plays it one way, with facts, and the other side plays it another way, with bullshit. What I don't understand is how someone can have the facts presented right in his face, and still side with the bullshit.

[PwrdOn]

Honestly, you are so wrapped up in political ideology I really find it's hopeless arguing with you. I have already stated that past history was biased and glorified colonization, but the cannon has been expanded in history now, and as I have said it covers issues of gender and race inequality more so than the great man theory, or scientific and technical innovations, which once again is a not a bad thing. Last I checked it wasn't the 1950's.

The problem is not with the History Departments which for the most part, Hobsbawmism influence aside, act like an empirical science. The problem is with sociology and social anthropology courses that utilize critical theory, and politicize history to present western civilization in wholly negative light, through subjective methods of deconstruction and interrogation.

There is no political conspiracy, it's well known that western marxism and post modernism has had a huge impact on the humanities departments, and they tend to be overtly political and subjective. Interrogating rock bands like AC/DC and Led Zeppelin to uncover their implicit whiteness to see how they uphold white patriarchal values is both highly subjective and political. Analyzing western civilization soley through the lens of seeing it as negatively genocidal and colonial is also subjective and political.

Listen to what I am saying clearly. History should not be utilized for political ends or indoctrination on the right or the left, it should soley be an empirical science!. It should not be used to glorify Davy Crockett past colonial endeavors of the past on the right, and on the flip side it should not be used to paint western civilization as primarily a genocidal machine on the left. When you cherry pick from history for political ends you damage it as a science. You however do not want to agree with this, because you desire to use history as a political weapon to back your ideology.

It's not really "Western Marxists" that are responsible for Western civilization being seen as this genocidal force of evil, it's primarily coming from people living in the global south, who were largely ignored when the traditional historical canon was being written but who now make up an increasing share of academics working in the historical field, and nearly every other field for that matter. And while there might be some semblance of a balanced debate among white scholars over whether Western civilization was good or bad for the world, for just about everyone else it's nearly universally seen as this great calamity that ruined whatever progress they had been making and set their societies back for centuries. So now that white historians no longer have a monopoly in setting the narrative, and more diverse groups of people are now having their voices heard, the general assessment of the value of Western civilization has obviously shifted dramatically.

[aja_christopher]

There is no political conspiracy, it's well known that western marxism and post modernism has had a huge impact on the humanities departments, and they tend to be overtly political and subjective. Interrogating rock bands like AC/DC and Led Zeppelin to uncover their implicit whiteness to see how they uphold white patriarchal values is both highly subjective and political. Analyzing western civilization soley through the lens of seeing it as negatively genocidal and colonial is also subjective and political.

What school did you go to -- that is not a common discussion in most classrooms and definitely not as common as glossing over Washington and Jefferson's history of slave ownership or the Tusla race riots that killed hundreds of innocent black people.

No one here is arguing about collegiate level "humanities departments" many of which specialize in both "left-wing" and "right-wing" coursework depending on where you go -- many religious and private schools are notorious for advocating right-wing fundamentalist education over science and historical fact. Likewise, there's absolutely nothing wrong with an educational institution pointing out that art forms such as jazz and rock were originally pioneered by African-American artists -- even the "white" bands themselves would admit to this.

If you want to focus solely on African-American history, or German history, or Russian history in college then that is purely up to the individual given that said individual is paying for their degree -- that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

What is being criticized is the grade and high school level with respect to the the lionization of white supremacy and the erasure of the history of non-whites -- not the inherent "whiteness" of Led Zeppelin, a band that based their music on African-American blues riffs.

[Iron Maiden]

There is absolutely no reason why the public shouldn't have access to this information.

But we don't because Republicans are blocking the truth from the public.

------
"The Justice Department on Friday released a new, less redacted version of the former special counsel Robert Mueller's report on his investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 US election.

The document was released in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit from BuzzFeed News and CNN.

The department originally redacted significant portions of the Mueller report that relate to Roger Stone, the longtime former Republican strategist who was an informal adviser to the Trump campaign in 2016. Stone was convicted last year of seven felony counts of obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and false statements.

The DOJ said it redacted information pertaining to Stone to protect the criminal proceedings surrounding his prosecution. But when the department still didn't release a less redacted version of the Mueller report even after Stone's sentencing in February, which effectively closed his case, BuzzFeed News filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to compel the DOJ to release the information.

Here are the most explosive new details from the less redacted report:

Multiple top Trump campaign aides told investigators that Trump himself, then the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, knew WikiLeaks had damaging information on the Clinton campaign.

Former chairman Paul Manafort, former deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates, and former personal attorney Michael Cohen told investigators that Stone told Trump and several advisers in July 2016 that he had spoken with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and that the website would begin dumping documents in just a few days.

Mueller's team "established that the Trump Campaign displayed interest in the WikiLeaks releases, and that former Campaign member Roger Stone was in contact with the Campaign about those releases, claiming advance knowledge of more to come," the report said.

Mueller concluded that Trump may have lied to investigators in his written answers to questions in the investigation.

"Cohen recalled a conversation in which Roger Stone told Trump that WikiLeaks planned to release information soon, and Manafort recalled that Trump had asked him to stay in touch with Stone about WikiLeaks," the report said.

"It is possible that, by the time the President submitted his written answers two years after the relevant events had occurred, he no longer had clear recollections of his discussions with Stone or his knowledge of Stone's asserted communications with WikiLeaks," the report said. "But the President's conduct could also be viewed as reflecting his awareness that Stone could provide evidence that would run counter to the President's denials and would link the President to Stone's efforts to reach out to WikiLeaks."

Stone "indicated he had knowledge" of Trump's written answers to Mueller.

Mueller's report noted that Stone went on Fox News on the evening of January 25, 2019, the day he made his first court appearance after being indicted.

"That evening, Stone appeared on Fox News and indicated he had knowledge of the President's answers to this Office's written questions," the report said. "When asked if he had spoken to the President about the allegation that he had lied to Congress, Stone said, 'I have not' and added, 'When the President answered the written interrogatories, he correctly and honestly said, 'Roger Stone and I never discussed this and we never did.'"

Multiple top Trump campaign aides told investigators that Trump himself, then the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, knew WikiLeaks had information that would hurt the Clinton campaign, the report said.

Mueller also believed that Trump may have lied to him in his written answers to questions from investigators.

Prosecutors also suspected that Trump may have discussed his answers with Roger Stone, the longtime former Republican strategist who was convicted on seven felony counts of obstruction, false statements, and witness tampering."

https://www.businessinsider.com/new-...kileaks-2020-6

How naive can they be? Of course the talked about all of this. Trump and Stone had been doing their shenanigans together for decades.

[Iron Maiden]

What school did you go to -- that is not a common discussion in most classrooms and definitely not as common as glossing over Washington and Jefferson's history of slaver ownership or the Tusla race riots that killed hundreds of innocent black people.

No one here is arguing about collegiate level "humanities departments" many of which specialize in both "left-wing" and "right-wing" (religious and private schools) though depending on where you go. If you want to learn black history, or German history, or Russian history in college then that is purely up to the individual given that said individual is paying for their degree.

What is being criticized in grade and high school level is the lionization of white supremacy and the erasure of the history of non-whites -- not the inherent "whiteness" of Led Zeppelin, a band that based their music on African-American blues riffs.

I guess my situation was out of the norm I suppose. I lived in a city that experienced the "White Flight" of the 1970s" Besides my brother, who was promoted to my same grade, we were the only white kids in class. So we never heard the sanitized stuff about the good ol' "Dixie". But on the other hand, they didn't get into the horrific details of slavery either, probably because they felt we were all too young

[aja_christopher]

I guess my situation was out of the norm I suppose. I lived in a city that experienced the "White Flight" of the 1970s" Besides my brother, who was promoted to my same grade, we were the only white kids in class. So we never heard the sanitized stuff about the good ol' "Dixie". But on the other hand, they didn't get into the horrific details of slavery either, probably because they felt we were all too young

As someone who was sometimes the only black kid in the class I know a lot of it depends on where you go to school and who your teachers are.

And as someone who has likewise pointed out that Republicans continually argue against increasing education spending and have representatives and voters who still openly promote segregation, minority voter suppression, and white supremacy, it's clear to me where the problem lies.

Regardless, there's no reason why you shouldn't have learned the "ugly" facts about American history in class when you were older.

It's beyond redundant at this point for me to keep pointing out that those who don't learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat it.

How naive can they be? Of course the talked about all of this. Trump and Stone had been doing their shenanigans together for decades.

Comey basically said in interviews that he'd rather see Trump voted out than removed from office.

I don't doubt Mueller shares the same perspective.

Yet another case of Republicans expecting Democrats to clean up the mess that they created.

[The no face guy]

It's not really "Western Marxists" that are responsible for Western civilization being seen as this genocidal force of evil, it's primarily coming from people living in the global south, who were largely ignored when the traditional historical canon was being written but who now make up an increasing share of academics working in the historical field, and nearly every other field for that matter. And while there might be some semblance of a balanced debate among white scholars over whether Western civilization was good or bad for the world, for just about everyone else it's nearly universally seen as this great calamity that ruined whatever progress they had been making and set their societies back for centuries. So now that white historians no longer have a monopoly in setting the narrative, and more diverse groups of people are now having their voices heard, the general assessment of the value of Western civilization has obviously shifted dramatically.

You seem to think that the history departments are somehow stuck in the 1950's, and have not evolved much. I majored in history and had many non white professors, but they did not treat western civilization as a genocidal force of evil, they approached history like scientists relying on empirical evidence, and as stated again and again, like a broken record, history as a large cannon now, and focuses more on gender and race inequality than great man theory and technological innovations, which I have said three times now is not a bad thing.

If you leave the history department in venture into sociology and social anthropology & literary departments, history is often applied selectively for political ends. Critical theory and whiteness studies are rooted in Western Marxist and post modernist thought, which once again, offers a great critical analysis of capitalism and colonialism, but it is overtly political and subjective, which is why I own a book by Bell Hooks with a nifty looking red & green Chinese Communist star on the front cover. It's not a political conspiracy it's just what her influences are, (though in fairness it should be noted, Western Marxism has nothing to do with Soviet or Maoist thought...at least to my knowledge).

I am just going to repeat the last line.... History should not be utilized for political ends or indoctrination on the right or the left, it should soley be an empirical science!. It should not be used to glorify Davy Crockett past colonial endeavors of the past on the right, and on the flip side it should not be used to paint western civilization as primarily a genocidal machine on the left. When you cherry pick from history for political ends you damage it as a science.

You do not want to admit that history largely operates as a empirical science today, because it takes your power away to politicize it. You view western history as one old reactionary narrative (glorifying white heroes and the colonialism of the past) to be replaced by a new narrative, (Uncovering the truth of its evil colonialism and genocide) and I am saying to you, no meta narratives. History should strictly be viewed non politically with all the empirical evidence taken into account, it is a science, not a political indoctrination tool.

[godisawesome]

Honestly, you are so wrapped up in political ideology I really find it's hopeless arguing with you. I have already stated that past history was biased and glorified colonization, but the cannon has been expanded in history now, and as I have said it covers issues of gender and race inequality more so than the great man theory, or scientific and technical innovations, which once again is a not a bad thing. Last I checked it wasn't the 1950's.

The problem is not with the History Departments which for the most part, Hobsbawmism influence aside, act like an empirical science. The problem is with sociology and social anthropology courses that utilize critical theory, and politicize history to present western civilization in wholly negative light, through subjective methods of deconstruction and interrogation.

There is no political conspiracy, it's well known that western marxism and post modernism has had a huge impact on the humanities departments, and they tend to be overtly political and subjective. Interrogating rock bands like AC/DC and Led Zeppelin to uncover their implicit whiteness to see how they uphold white patriarchal values is both highly subjective and political. Analyzing western civilization soley through the lens of seeing it as negatively genocidal and colonial is also subjective and political.

Listen to what I am saying clearly. History should not be utilized for political ends or indoctrination on the right or the left, it should soley be an empirical science!. It should not be used to glorify Davy Crockett past colonial endeavors of the past on the right, and on the flip side it should not be used to paint western civilization as primarily a genocidal machine on the left. When you cherry pick from history for political ends you damage it as a science. You however do not want to agree with this, because you desire to use history as a political weapon to back your ideology.

History can’t be made an empirical science; it’s subject matter is humanity, with all our flaws, arbitrary decisions, and limited viewpoint, and the bulk of its information is data collected from human beings living in the moment with their own flawed views, propaganda, ignorance, and forgetfulness.

Even archaeology, which at least deals with solid physical evidence, requires conjecture as applied by a human being analyzing long after its use, often without access to first hand testimony that can be questioned and interviewed in a personal basis.

History is *going* to have a narrative of some sort; the best thing you can do is be aware of that, and try to compensate for it in teaching. You have to admit that there’s a Rashmon effect even on something in comparatively recent history, like the Gunfight at the OK Corral - you’ve got multiple witnesses with explicitly contracting statements, and limited forensic evidence, in a politically charged that expanded into a statewide feud.

Teaching is very much a matter of critical thinking on information sources that at times line up... and at other times don’t.

[PwrdOn]

You seem to think that the history departments are somehow stuck in the 1950's, and have not evolved much. I majored in history and had many non white professors, but they did not treat western civilization as a genocidal force of evil, they approached history like scientists relying on empirical evidence, and as stated again and again, like a broken record, history as a large cannon now, and focuses more on gender and race inequality than great man theory and technological innovations, which I have said three times now is not a bad thing.

If you leave the history department in venture into sociology and social anthropology & literary departments, history is often applied selectively for political ends. Critical theory and whiteness studies are rooted in Western Marxist and post modernist thought, which once again, offers a great critical analysis of capitalism and colonialism, but it is overtly political and subjective, which is why I own a book by Bell Hooks with a nifty looking red & green Chinese Communist star on the front cover. It's not a political conspiracy it's just what her influences are, (though in fairness it should be noted, Western Marxism has nothing to do with Soviet or Maoist thought...at least to my knowledge).

I am just going to repeat the last line.... History should not be utilized for political ends or indoctrination on the right or the left, it should soley be an empirical science!. It should not be used to glorify Davy Crockett past colonial endeavors of the past on the right, and on the flip side it should not be used to paint western civilization as primarily a genocidal machine on the left. When you cherry pick from history for political ends you damage it as a science.

You do not want to admit that history largely operates as a empirical science today, because it takes your power away to politicize it. You view western history as one old reactionary narrative (glorifying white heroes and the colonialism of the past) to be replaced by a new narrative, (Uncovering the truth of its evil colonialism and genocide) and I am saying to you, no meta narratives. History should strictly be viewed non politically with all the empirical evidence taken into account, it is a science, not a political indoctrination tool.

I don't know why you keep insisting that simply stating the facts is somehow political indoctrination. That America was founded on genocide and slavery is indisputable truth, all that other stuff about about freedom and democracy is, as you say, a narrative invented for political ends.

[Iron Maiden]

Bill Barr is trying to get rid of the head of the SDNY Office. He tried by telling the news that Berman was voluntarily stepping down. Berman put out a state saying 'this was the first I heard of it, and no, I'm not stepping down. Also all investigations will continue as normal, without any interruptions.'

Then someone pointed out on twitter that Berman can't be fired. He is an 'Acting' head, and according to the rules, he can't be fired until his permanent replacement approved by Congress.

Inept and corrupt is a dangerous combination for this country. Fortunately Barr ended up shooting himself in the foot. He can nurse that wound while he's kissing Trump's ass.


For years the SDNY office has had a lot of things on the back burner dealing with Trump going back to his suspicious rise back into being a big player in real estate after his most disastrous billion dollar bankruptcy. After that one he couldn't secure any loans at his usual spots like Goldman Sachs and started using Deutsche Bank. So did Jared. This is a bank that has been cited for Russian money laundering and Trump has some big loans that are coming due, about half a billion's worth, some due to Deutsche Bank and the other to Ladder Capitol, an institution that is a lender of last resort for companies that have difficulties getting loans from the usual sources .

Another thing that I wonder about is the claim that Lawrence O'Donnell made last year about an unrevealed source that alleged that Russian oligarchs with close ties to Putin are the co-signers on Trump's loans to Deutsche Bank Even though he had to retract the story, it wouldn't surprise me that it is true. There's always that suspicious sale of an again Florida estate that Trump sold to a Russian oligarch for an inflated price. I have to bring up the old adage "where there's smoke there's fire ". I think Trump and Barr are getting skittish because the SDNY may be getting close to breaking something wide open on Trump, maybe something that shows how deeply he is beholden to Putin....because all the oligarchs are part of his circle. And could there be some truth to the tale of a compromising tape of Trump in that Russian hotel? Or something as yet unrevealed?

[The no face guy]

I don't know why you keep insisting that simply stating the facts is somehow political indoctrination. That America was founded on genocide and slavery is indisputable truth, all that other stuff about about freedom and democracy is, as you say, a narrative invented for political ends.

Amazing! You just made my case and point. You just made two overtly political claims, that American history is one of genocide and slavery, but that stuff about freedom and democracy has been invented for political ends. That is not how history works!!! You don't get to cherry pick to utilize it for political ends as you are doing. History has to be studied as an empirical science in all it's parts holistically, the good and the bad, and judged in the evolutionary time period it existed in, not by today's moral standards. From there we can make judgements. (Ie; African Americans and Native Americans should be granted reparations for the crimes of the past) (Confederate flags and monuments) should be removed, as I am sure you agree both should happen.