Skip to content

Biweekly Discussion - Political Pseudoscience & Conservatism

Photo of Brian B.
Hosted By
Brian B.
Biweekly Discussion - Political Pseudoscience & Conservatism

Details

This is going to be an online meetup using Zoom. If you've never used Zoom before, don't worry — it's easy to use and free to join.

Here's the link to the event: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86112463622?pwd=VXY3ZDRFeUIySGNvQXNneW54WHZkdz09

Meeting ID: 861 1246 3622
Passcode: 785297

----------------------------------------------
POLITICAL SCIENCE VS POLITICAL PSEUDOSCIENCE, PART 1:

HOW SHOULD WE UNDERSTAND THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT IN AMERICA?

INTRODUCTION:

In this meetup and the next, we'll look at some common criticisms of the conservative & progressive political movements in the U.S. that border on conspiracy theories, and we'll do our best to separate fact from fiction and objective scholarly analysis from biased punditry. This is a difficult task for two major reasons:

(1) Political science topics typically fall outside the purview of the scientific skepticism movement, but this has left many skeptics without the tools to debunk amateur political analysis that essentially amount to "political pseudoscience". In addition, many skeptics (in my experience) are dubious of the rigor of political science and consider it a "soft science", but they often hold strong views about politics based on anecdotal evidence & half-remembered news stories.

(2) While, many of the celebrities of the skeptic & atheist movement like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Steven Pinker, Jerry Coyne, Michael Shermer, Penn Jillette, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay have proven equally adept at critiquing the political left and the political right, many average members of skeptic groups tend to be much more left-leaning and focus most of their skepticism on the right. (This is supported by a Pew Research poll of atheists & agnostics about their political beliefs - about 73% say they lean towards the Democrats.) This leftward lean means that many members of local skeptic groups are often (in my experience) more prone to falling for conspiracy theories & moral panics about conservative groups than about their counterparts on the political left.

The 1st Problem can be addressed by referring to a meetup the Philly Political Agnostics had back in 2018 entitled "Political Science & Political Myths" - https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/xvbrznyxdbxb/

In that meetup, they covered some major points of expert consensus within political science that run counter to popular beliefs about politics. They also looked at the way political scientists are frustrated by the way many laypeople refuse to update their beliefs about the political system when presented with new evidence. Jason Brennan pointed out that even if political science isn't rigorous enough to establish scientific laws for politics, this only justifies agnosticism not defaulting to the rumors you've heard or intuitions you've developed by watching political coverage in the news & talking politics with friends.

But complete agnosticism about political science topics is unappealing, and I don't think it's warranted. The economist Adam Ozimek pointed out the logical repercussions for those who think economics research isn't rigorous enough to trust its findings, and I think the same implications would apply to those who are highly critical of political science. Ozimek said: "If you’re going to hold economics research [My note: or political science research] to an extremely high burden of proof, then you should be prepared to subject all of your beliefs to such standards. What this will leave you with is mostly weak beliefs about the world for a lot of stuff that matters to you, whether it be about medicine, history, biology, psychology, criminal justice, climate science, or economics. Maybe widespread weak beliefs are a better approximation of the truth, I don’t know, but I do know very few people do or are willing to reason like that consistently. Maybe they should. But even here the vast majority of humanity has more belief changing to do than economists."
https://modeledbehavior.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/is-economics-a-science/

The 2nd Problem can be addressing the elephant in the room, i.e. the idea — common among progressives — that conservative movement is dysfunctional because conservatives are inherently less rational, less intelligent and/or less educated than progressives. Science journalist Chris Mooney popularized this view with his 2012 book "The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science — and Reality".

Back in December of 2019, we looked at the evidence for this belief in a meetup entitled "Who's More Rational - Liberals or Conservatives?" where we looked at the which political orientation is worse in terms of science denial, conspiracy theorizing, voting against their own interests, and dysfunctional psychological traits like psychoticism & authoritarianism.
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/fllzgrybccbzb/

In that meetup, we looked at a study by the political scientist Joseph Uscinski that found that Democrats, Republicans, and independents showed a roughly equal disposition towards thinking conspiratorially. We also looked at an article by the psychologist Keith Stanovich who pointed out that while conservatives are likely to deny evolution & climate change, progressives are more likely to deny other points of scientific consensus (e.g. IQ, the biological basis of sex differences, GMO safety). Stanovich also pointed out that Thomas Frank's central argument from his book "What's The Matter With Kansas?" - i.e. that Republicans trick poor whites into voting against their own economic self-interest - isn't supported by voting data. (The political scientists Andrew Gelman & Larry Bartels refuted Frank's theory by showing that poor whites tend to vote for Democrats, and the blue-collar Republican voters Frank stereotyped as clueless rednecks were actually middle class based on their income and thus favored lower taxes over welfare programs.). Perhaps the most convincing evidence that people on both sides of the political spectrum are roughly equal in terms of overall rationality is Peter Ditto's meta-analysis of a large number of studies that showed that information processing biases are fairly bipartisan.

Once we've got past the 2 problems I listed above, we need to identify some common types of "political pseudo-science" to look out for. In past discussions, we've identified 3 basic types:

(1) Conspiracy Theories: poorly-evidenced but often intricate rumors about a "threat from above" (i.e. elite groups) - in politics, these rumors sometime focus on well-known political actors but often they involve allegations of shadowy groups that act as "puppetmasters" controlling our leaders & subverting our democracy from the background. Conspiracy theories often involve the "cui bono fallacy" - i.e. people assume that if something bad happens, they can determine who caused it by looking for who benefits from the problem. Conspiracy theorizing typically involves paranoid "dot connecting" and "anomaly hunting" that feeds into confirmation bias, and the resultant theory is often unfalsifiable because any disconfirming evidence can be explained retroactively as disinformation spread by "shills" or evidence that the perpetrators are very skilled at covering their tracks. The term "conspiracy theories" is usually pejorative and so it's helpful to distinguish "conspiracy theories" from what might be called "verified conspiracies". "Verified conspiracies" typically originate with insiders who become whistleblowers, leaking information to journalists or law enforcement which prompts a formal investigations that uncovers enough evidence to prove to the satisfaction of a court of law (or to scholars, in retrospect) that the accused was guilty. "Conspiracy theories", in contrast, typically originate with political outsiders who aren't in a position to know what's really going on and they usually stay confined to obscure rumor mills & the followers of eccentric political agitators. If a conspiracy theory gets picked up by the mainstream media & becomes widely believed, it essentially shifts into a type of moral panic or pseudo-scandal, described below.

(2) Moral Panics (a.k.a. Witch Hunts): an atmosphere of exaggerated fear among the general public, bordering on mass hysteria, about a relatively minor or non-existent threat. Typically, moral panics differ from conspiracy theories in positing a "threat from below" involving some form of social deviance or criminal activity among "folk devils", and this doesn't have to involve conscious conspiracies so much as a general loosening of morals. Small-scale fearmongering about deviance only becomes a "moral panic" when it attracts enough attention from the news media that it generates a "media circus" which results in what sociologists calls a "deviance amplification spiral" (i.e. the news media falls prey to confirmation bias as they search for & discover more examples of an ostensibly "new" form of deviance). Moral panics are typically created & driven by "moral entrepreneurs" - i.e. individuals or groups that seeks to influence society to adopt or maintain a norm by taking the lead in labeling a particular behavior as deviant and spreading or popularizing this label throughout society. Since moral panics are, by definition, based on fears that a substantial portion of society believes for a while, they only come to be generally acknowledged as "moral panics" in retrospect. When society is in the midst of a moral panic, anyone who argues that the threat is non-existent to exaggerated will often be condemned as a "denialist" or "apologist".

(3) Pseudo-scandals: an accusation that a political actor committed some sort of unethical behavior or criminal wrongdoing which receives heavy coverage from the news media heavily covers the accusations, only to find later on that the allegations were baseless or heavily exaggerated. "Scandals" and "conspiracy theories" typically allege similar things - i.e. that an elite individual or group did something morally wrong and/or illegal - but "scandals" typically denote an allegation that's received a lot of mainstream media attention whereas, as noted above, "conspiracy theories" typically denote allegations confined to the eccentric fringes. Scandals are also similar to "moral panics" in that both attract heavy & sometimes excessive news coverage (a "media circus") and involve lots of moral grandstanding & scapegoating by political pundits. For politicians, the point of a scandal is not merely to push for legal action against those accused of wrongdoing. Even if no one is criminally charged, politicians often seek to convict their opponents in the "court of public opinion" and damage their political prospects in the next election, and they also seek to rally their own supporters by showcasing their leadership & advocacy skills. However, if the general public comes to believe that someone was the victim of a pseudo-scandal, this can sometimes lead to a backfire effect (sometimes known as a "succès de scandale") where the targeted person or group becomes even more popular once vindicated.

In this discussion, we'll look at 4 common criticisms of the conservative movement in America to see whether they're credible or are one of the 3 types of political pseudo-science described above.

RELEVANT MATERIAL FROM PAST MEETUPS:

In the 1st section of this meetup, we'll look at the debates over the political influence of the Koch brothers. As mentioned above, the Philly Political Agnostics had a meetup back in February of 2018 entitled "Political Science & Political Myths". In the 3rd section, they looked at why many political scientists don't think that campaign contributions buy the votes of the general public through campaign ads, since savvy donors may just donate to candidates who will win in the hopes of influencing them. Many political scientists are also skeptical that campaign contributions or money spent on lobbying buys the votes of elected legislators, since it may be that savvy donors just donate to candidates who will vote the way they would like, and not to those who would not. We looked at studies that show that, in general, wealthy donors spend much less money on campaign contributions than lobbying, suggesting they see the latter as more effective. Also, lobbyists tend to target legislators that are already friendly to their interests rather than trying to "flip" legislators who have been opposing them, which suggests lobbyists influence politics by helping to craft legislation in a way that's favorable to their interests rather than directly "buying off" legislators.
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/xvbrznyxdbxb/

In the 2nd section of this meetup, we'll look at the threat posed by "Christian nationalist" groups. This overlaps with some material we covered back in September in a meetup entitled "Has Christianity Made America Dysfunctional?" In that discussion, we looked at criticisms of Southern Protestant denominations, Catholics, and Mormon sects for promoting views that could be characterized as racist, sexist, violent & anti-democratic. In general, we found that while certain traditionalist or fundamentalist sects had reactionary political views, mainstream denominations of these religions grew more liberal over the 20th century, growing more accepting of interfaith meetings, civil rights, inter-racial marriage, women's rights, and more recently on gay rights, although still being resistant to same-sex marriage.
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/djzwsrybcmbjb/

In the 3rd section of this meetup, we'll look at the idea that Trump's election was inspired by an increase in white racism & right-wing authoritarianism, and in turn caused an upsurge of hate crimes in 2017. Back in March of 2018, the Philly Political Agnostics had a meetup entitled "What Can We Learn From The 2016 Election?" and in the 4th section they looked at the study that suggested it was racial resentment rather than economic anxiety that drove whites to vote for Trump. We'll reviews that material in more detail in this discussion, since additional studies of Trump voters have been published over the past 2 years.
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/xvbrznyxfbgb/

In the 4th section of this meetup, we'll look at the idea that Russia "hacked the election" in 2016, allowing Putin to install Trump in the White House as his "puppet". Back in March of 2018, we had a meetup entitled "Russiagate or a New Red Scare?" In this 1st section, we looked at allegations that Russian intelligence agents hacked John Podesta & the DNC server. In the 2nd section, we looked at arguments that Russia's Internet Research Agency swayed significant numbers of American voters with social media propaganda, and this was not something that most political scientists agreed with. In the 3rd section, we looked at the claim that Russian hackers may have removed Democratic voters from voter rolls or toggled votes on electronic voting machines, but this appears to be a rumor that wasn't confirmed. In the 4th section, we looked at early allegations that the Trump administration collaborated with Russians to get opposition research on Hillary Clinton. We'll review the "Russian collusion" allegations in more detail in this discussion, since we now have more evidence from the Mueller investigation & Senate hearings.
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/248230435/

Although we won't talk about the neoconservatives or AIPAC in this meetup, we covered their influence on U.S. foreign policy in a meetup entitled "Neoliberals, Neocons, and NWO 2.0". In the 3rd & 4th sections of the discussion, we looked at how the group of conservative intellectuals known as the "neocons" certainly had a lot of influence during the Bush administration and enthusiastically backed the 2003 Iraq invasion, as did the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, but as we discussed there were also a significant amount of support for the war among Democrats. U.S. foreign policy didn't change drastically under Obama, suggesting there's a much broader & bipartisan foreign policy consensus at work. Similarly, while Israel certainly has a strong lobby in the U.S. and plays a key role in helping shape U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, other allies like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait & Turkey play a major role, and the lobbies of the oil & defense industries do as well. Those who see U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East as a product of a neocon or Zionist conspiracy ignore a lot of other influences.
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/nfbkqqyzhbjc/

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

DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR OUR DISCUSSION:

The videos & articles you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of some of the major debates over ideological trends within the conservative movement & the Republican Party. As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles & watch all the videos prior to attending our discussion. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just watch the numbered videos linked under each section - the videos come to about about 48 minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the topics in the order presented here. As usual, I've listed some question under each topic to stimulate discussion. We'll try to answer most of them. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section.

----------------------------------------------
I. THE "KOCHTOPUS" AS THE MASTER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

  • SINCE KOCH INDUSTRIES BEGAN AS AN OIL COMPANY, IS IT ACCURATE TO REFER TO THEM AS "BIG OIL" OR DOES THIS NEGLECT THE POLITICAL CLOUT OF MUCH LARGER OIL COMPANIES?

  • DO THE KOCH BROTHERS' OPPOSE CARBON TAXES, RENEWABLE ENERGY & MASS TRANSIT PROJECTS TO KEEP OIL CONSUMPTION HIGH SINCE IT BENEFITS THEM?

  • HOW DOES THE POLITICAL SPENDING OF THE KOCH BROTHERS COMPARE TO LIBERAL MEGA-DONORS LIKE GEORGE SOROS & TOM STEYER, & MICHAEL BLOOMBERG? IS THE KOCH'S INFLUENCE MORE NEFARIOUS BECAUSE IT'S "DARK MONEY" (FUNNELED THRU NONPROFITS THAT DON'T DISCLOSE THEIR DONORS)?

  • IN GENERAL, DO DEMOCRATS TEND TO RECEIVE LESS CAMPAIGN FUNDING THAN REPUBLICANS, SO THAT VOTERS HEAR ABOUT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES LESS & ARE LESS LIKELY TO VOTE FOR THEM? OR IF THERE'S ROUGHLY EQUAL CAMPAIGN FUNDING ON BOTH SIDES, ARE THE KOCH BROTHERS' DONATIONS REALLY TIPPING ELECTIONS, AS THEIR CRITICS ALLEGE?

  • DO CRITICS OF KOCH INDUSTRIES' LOBBYISTS THINK THAT, IF NOT FOR THEIR EFFORTS, REPUBLICANS WOULD BE LESS FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE OR MORE AMENABLE TO CLIMATE LEGISLATION? IF SO, WHAT'S THE EVIDENCE THAT THEIR LOBBYING HAS THIS EFFECT?

  • IN GENERAL, DO PROGRESSIVE THINK TANKS RECEIVE LESS CAMPAIGN FUNDING THAN CONSERVATIVE THINK TANKS, SO THAT CONSERVATIVE IDEAS HAVE SOME SORT OF ADVANTAGE? OR IF THERE'S ROUGHLY EQUAL FUNDING ON BOTH SIDES, ARE THE KOCH BROTHERS' DONATIONS REALLY SKEWING THE "OVERTON WINDOW" (I.E. RANGE OF ACCEPTABLE POLICY IDEAS), AS THEIR CRITICS ALLEGE?

  • DOES THE KOCH'S COLLABORATION WITH GEORGE SOROS IN FOUNDING THE QUINCY INSTITUTE TO PROMOTE A LESS INTERVENTIONIST FOREIGN POLICY HAVE SOME SINISTER IMPLICATIONS, LIKE GETTING THE U.S. TO WITHDRAW SO RUSSIA & CHINA CAN EXPAND THEIR INFLUENCE, OR IS THIS A WELCOME COUNTER-BALANCE TO THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX? DO THEY EMPLOY SCHOLARS WHO PROMOTE ANTI-SEMITISM, AS TOM COTTON ALLEGED, OR MERELY CRITICS OF ISRAEL?

  • IF THE "KOCHTOPUS" CONTROLS THE G.O.P., WHY HASN'T THE PARTY MOVED TOWARDS THE MORE LIBERTARIAN POSITION THE KOCHS HAVE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, FREE TRADE, IMMIGRATION, FOREIGN WARS? WHY WEREN'T THEY ABLE TO PREVENT TRUMP'S ELECTION?

  • IS THE POLITICAL FEUD BETWEEN THE KOCH BROTHERS & TRUMP REAL, OR IS THERE SOME KIND OF SECRET COLLABORATION GOING ON - LIKE SETTING THEMSELVES UP TO CONTROL A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, AS NANCY MACLEAN ARGUES?

1a) NowThis World, "Who Are The Koch Brothers & How Much Power Do They Have?" (video - 3:25 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrDvW1Te2XY

1b) CNBC, "Why Trump And The Koch Brothers Are At Odds" (video - 2:38 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU2ydKjIKzI

1c) Bill Maher w/ Nancy MacLean, "The GOP's Long Game" (video - 4:49 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMHPH96Z3ic

.
II. "CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM" AND THE "CULT OF TRUMP"

  • ARE WHITE CHRISTIANS IN THE U.S. BECOMING MORE RADICAL IN THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS, EVEN AS THEY'RE DECLINING AS A TOTAL % OF THE POPULATION? CAN COUNTING EVANGELICALS GIVE US AN IDEA OF HOW MANY CHRISTIANS ARE "FUNDAMENTALISTS", OR IS THIS A FALSE EQUIVALENCE?

  • WHAT SHOULD WE MAKE OF THE 2015 PUBLIC POLICY POLLING SURVEY THAT SHOWED THAT 57% OF REPUBLICANS FAVOR MAKING CHRISTIANITY THE "NATIONAL RELIGION"? DOES THIS MEAN THEY WANT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST NON-CHRISTIANS?

  • IS "DOMINIONISM" A MOVEMENT TO EVANGELIZE AMERICA OR TO INSTALL A THEOCRACY? WAS IT ACCURATE FOR CRITICS TO CHARACTERIZE TEA PARTY REPUBLICANS LIKE RICK PERRY, MICHELLE BACHMANN & TED CRUZ AS "DOMINIONISTS"?

  • HOW IMPORTANT IS THE NATIONAL PRAYER BREAKFAST FOR G.O.P. POLITICS? DOES DOUGLAS COE'S SMALL CHRISTIAN MEN'S GROUP "THE FAMILY" WIELD MAJOR POLITICAL INFLUENCE IN D.C., OR ARE THEY JUST A MINOR PLAYER IN A SEA OF ACTIVISTS & LOBBYISTS?

  • WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT EVANGELICAL SUPPORT FOR TRUMP? IS IT BASED MORE ON POLITICAL PRAGMATISM OR BELIEF THAT TRUMP WAS SELECTED BY GOD?

  • ARE WE SEEING THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW IDEOLOGY OF "CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM", OR IS RELIGIOSITY A LESS IMPORTANT FACTOR IN THE GROWTH OF RIGHT-WING POPULISM?

  • IS IT ACCURATE TO CHARACTERIZE MOST CHRISTIANS WHO SUPPORT TRUMP AS BEING IN A "CULT" (ACCORDING TO STEVE HASSAN'S B.I.T.E. MODEL), OR DOES THIS TERM ONLY FIT FRINGE GROUPS THAT ISOLATE THEIR MEMBERS FROM THEIR FAMILIES & BROADER SOCIETY?

  • IS AMY CONEY BARRETT A FAR-RIGHT CATHOLIC, OR DOES SHE HAVE FAIRLY MAINSTREAM CONSERVATIVE VIEWS LIKE BEING PRO-LIFE? CONSIDERING SHE'S A SUCCESSFUL CAREER WOMAN, WHY DID SOME CRITICS ALLEGE SHE BELONGED TO A GROUP THAT INSPIRED MARGARET ATWOOD'S DYSTOPIAN NOVEL "THE HANDMAID'S TALE" ABOUT SEXUAL SLAVERY?

2a) Stuff They Don't Want You to Know, "The Family" (video - 4:53 min, listen to 4:16)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWowAiSy354&t=19s

2b) David Pakman w/ Rachel Tabachnick, "Dominionism Theocracy, New Apostolic Reformation & Rick Perry" (video - 9:47 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHlQteTp5c8

2b) The Damage Report w/ Steven Hassan, "The Cult of Donald Trump" (video - 7:21 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uPzbL_l_v8

.
III. THE REPUBLICANS AS A "CRYPTO-FASCIST" PARTY & TRUMP AS AN "EVIL MASTERMIND":

  • WERE THERE SIGNS THAT WHITE CONSERVATIVES WERE BECOMING MORE RACIST, ANTI-IMMIGRANT OR PRONE TO CONSPIRACY THEORIES UNDER OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY? WERE THE TEA PARTY MEMBERS THAT VOTED FOR TRUMP ACTUALLY AUTHORITARIANS DESPITE THEIR LIBERTARIAN-ISH RHETORIC? HOW ABOUT THE OBAMA-TRUMP VOTERS?

  • WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT TRUMP'S POLITICAL VIEWS (E.G. ON TRADE, IMMIGRATION, POLICING, RACIAL EQUALITY, SOCIAL SPENDING, MILITARY) PRIOR TO SWITCHING FROM DEMOCRAT TO REPUBLICAN IN 2012? DOES HE NOW APPEAR "FAR RIGHT" TO SOME BECAUSE HE MOVED RIGHT AFTER THE SWITCH, OR DID THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY MOVE LEFT - OR BOTH?

  • DID TRUMP CHARACTERIZE MEXICANS AS "RAPISTS" AND REFER TO WHITE SUPREMACISTS AT THE UNITE THE RIGHT RALLY IN 2017 AS "VERY FINE PEOPLE", OR ARE THESE DISTORTIONS OF WHAT HE SAID?

  • DOES THE STUDY THAT FOUND THAT GOP PRIMARY VOTERS IN 2016 WHO HELD STRICT CHILD-REARING BELIEFS TENDED TO SUPPORT TRUMP SUGGEST THAT HIS SUPPORTERS ARE "AUTHORITARIANS"?

  • WAS VOTING FOR TRUMP IN 2016 MORE CORRELATED WITH RACIAL RESENTMENT OR MERELY "JUST WORLD BELIEF" & ANTI-P.C. SENTIMENTS? WAS VOTING FOR TRUMP ASSOCIATED WITH "ECONOMIC ANXIETY" EVEN IF MOST TRUMP VOTERS WEREN'T POOR?

  • WAS TRUMP'S ELECTION FOLLOWED BY A SPIKE IN HATE CRIMES IN 2017, OR WERE THE FBI & WATCHDOG GROUPS MERELY LOOKING HARDER?

  • DOES THE CONSTANT TURMOIL WITHIN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, AND QUICK OUSTER OF STEVEN BANNON, SUGGEST THAT THE "EVIL MASTERMIND" THEORY OF TRUMP IS IMPLAUSIBLE NOW? IS HE MORE AKIN TO RIGHT-WING POPULISTS LIKE ITALY'S SILVIO BERLUSCONI OR UK'S BORIS JOHNSON?

  • SHOULD NEW RIGHT-WING GROUP'S LIKE THE PROUD BOYS, PATRIOT PRAYER & BOOGALOO BOYS BE CHARACTERIZED AS "WHITE SUPREMACISTS" OR DO NON-WHITE MEMBERS DISPROVE THIS? DO THEY ADVOCATE "FASCISM", OR ARE THEIR VIEWS MORE OFTEN A MIX OF RIGHT-WING POPULISM & LIBERTARIANISM?

3a) The Atlantic, "Is Trump a Populist Authoritarian?" (video - 4:03 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02aXvBUMHkM

3b) AJ+, "Did racism Trump economic anxiety in US election?" (video - 2:59 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4YfbGi70IA

.
III. RUSSIAGATE & TRUMP AS PUTIN'S "MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE"

  • DOES THE FACT THAT TRUMP BEGAN MAKING ISOLATIONIST STATEMENTS ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY & DISCUSSING A POSSIBLE PRESIDENTIAL RUN SHORTLY AFTER RETURNING FROM HIS FIRST TRIP TO RUSSIA IN 1987 SUGGEST THE KGB RECRUITED HIM AS AN ASSET, AS SOME OF HIS CRITICS ALLEGED?

  • WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT TRUMP'S BUSINESS INTERESTS IN RUSSIA? IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT HE OWES MASSIVE DEBTS TO RUSSIANS THAT COULD BE USED BY PUTIN FOR LEVERAGE, AS SOME CRITICS SUGGESTED?

  • DOES RECEIVING OPPOSITION RESEARCH ON A POLITICAL OPPONENT COUNT AS A "THING OF VALUE" UNDER CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS THAT PROHIBIT DONATIONS FROM FOREIGN AGENTS, OR WOULD THAT ABRIDGE 1st AMENDMENT RIGHTS?

  • WAS IT ILLEGAL FOR THE HILLARY CAMPAIGN TO PAY FUSION GPS FOR OPPOSITION RESEARCH ON TRUMP, CONSIDERING SOME INFO IN THE STEELE DOSSIER CAME FROM FOREIGNERS (E.G. CHRISTOPHER STEELE & IGOR DACHENKO)?

  • EVEN THOUGH THE STEELE NEVER GOT A HOLD OF THE SUPPOSED "PEE TAPE" FEATURING TRUMP CAVORTING WITH RUSSIAN PROSTITUTES AT THE MOSCOW RITZ CARLTON, IS IT PLAUSIBLE SIMPLY DUE TO LOTS OF RUSSIANS TELLING STEELE IT EXISTS?

  • WHY DIDN'T MUELLER CHARGE DONALD TRUMP JR., JARED KUSHNER OR PAUL MANAFORT FOR THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING IN JUNE 2016 WITH THE RUSSIAN LAWYER NATALIA VESLNITSKAYA, CONSIDERING TRUMP JR. ADMITTED HE WENT HOPING THEY MIGHT HAVE DIRT ON CLINTON?

  • WAS CARTER PAGE'S 2016 TRIP TO RUSSIA TO DELIVER A COMMENCEMENT SPEECH ACTUALLY INNOCUOUS? WAS THE FBI WRONG TO WITHHOLD EVIDENCE IN ITS SURVEILLANCE WARRANT REQUEST TO THE FISA COURT THAT SUGGESTED CARTER PAGE WAS INNOCENT?

  • DID PAUL MANAFORT MEET WITH JULIAN ASSANGE IN THE ECUADORIAN EMBASSY IN 2016 TO OBTAIN HACKED EMAILS, AS THE GUARDIAN ALLEGED? OR DOES THE LACK OF VIDEO OR OTHER EVIDENCE (OTHER THAN THEIR ANONYMOUS SOURCES) SUGGEST THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN?

  • WHY WAS ROGER STONE PROSECUTED FOR LYING, OBSTRUCTION & WITNESS TAMPERING BUT NOT THE UNDERLYING CRIME, DESCRIBED IN THE INDICTMENT, OR TRAFFICKING IN MATERIALS ILLEGALLY OBTAINED (I.E. HACKED) BY A FOREIGN POWER?

  • WAS THE PROSECUTION OF MICHAEL FLYNN FOR CALLING THE RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR IN NOV. 2016 TO ASK THEM NOT TO REACT TO OBAMA'S SANCTIONS, ASSURING THEY'D SOON BE LIFTED, ILLEGAL? WHY DIDN'T THE FBI AGENTS WHO QUESTIONED FLYNN TAPE THEIR DISCUSSION SO THAT HIS EXACT WORDS COULD BE PROVEN IN COURT?

  • IN RETROSPECT, WERE LEFT-WING "RUSSIAGATE" SKEPTICS LIKE GLENN GREENWALD, MATT TAIBBI & AARON MATE RIGHT TO CALL IT A HOAX, OR WERE THEY OVERLY DISMISSIVE OF THE EVIDENCE GATHERED BY U.S. INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID IT MIGHT GET DEMOCRATS TO WARM UP TO THE SURVEILLANCE STATE & RATCHET UP TENSIONS WITH RUSSIA?

4a) Vox, "What Mueller has already revealed about Trump and Russia" (video - 4:43 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCp0oJlrzyE

4b) Democracy Now w/ Glenn Greenwald, "Media 'tragically vindicated' Trump by overhyping Russiagate" (video - 3:47 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdYw6jk3TTA

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Events in
Photo of Skeptics In The Pub - Philly group
Skeptics In The Pub - Philly
See more events
Skeptics In The Pub - Philly
Photo of Skeptics In The Pub - Philly group
Online event
This event has passed
Photo of Skeptics In The Pub - Philly group
Skeptics In The Pub - Philly
public group