Biweekly Discussion - Political Pseudoscience & Progressivism

Name: Biweekly Discussion - Political Pseudoscience & Progressivism
Start: 2020-10-18T13:00:00-04:00
End: 2020-10-18T15:00:00-04:00

Hosted By

Brian B.

Biweekly Discussion - Political Pseudoscience & Progressivism

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/82611211687?pwd=THF3Rm1vK0xBdGFtSW9tRmc3M090Zz09

Meeting ID: 826 1121 1687
Passcode: 551085

----------------------------------------------
POLITICAL SCIENCE VS POLITICAL PSEUDOSCIENCE, PART 2:

HOW SHOULD WE UNDERSTAND THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT IN AMERICA?

INTRODUCTION:

Our last meetup focused on some some criticisms of conservative political groups in the U.S. that could be seen as somewhat suspicious, so in this discussion we'll look at some suspicious criticisms of progressive political groups. As before, 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 amounts 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 also 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) too quick to dismiss any allegations of wrongdoing on the political left as partisan hackery. On the other hand, many fans of some of the skeptic & atheist celebrities listed above have discovered the "Intellectual Dark Web" - an online community that is quite critical of left-wing "Social Justice Warriors" (SJWs) - and this can sometimes lead them to fall for conspiracy theories & moral panics about progressive groups.

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 how 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 to most people, 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 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 progressive 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 George Soros through his donations to various left-wing groups. As mentioned above, the Philly Political Agnostics had a meetup back in February of 2018 entitled "Political Science & Political Myths" and in the 1st section they looked at a widely reference paper by Hans Noel entitled "Ten Things That Political Scientists Know That You Don't." Point #9 in that paper was that the dividing line between "grass roots" organizations and "astroturf" is mostly fictitious. Noel argued that if a movement is "astroturf" if some outside force is organizing it, then all movements are astroturf, since people don't spontaneously wake up and go to rallies - someone hosts the rally and invites them to come. Noel said: "Researchers on social movements and political protests know that movements require organization. Such organization is often decentralized, and it is often open to ordinary citizens rather than powerful elected officials. And yet, elected officials and other powerful figures are also deeply involved, so there is always a question about how much the leaders represent the people who are protesting, or how well the interests of the protestors mesh with the interests of the leaders of the movement. Who mobilizes matters, both for legitimacy and tactics, so transparency matters. If the groups behind the movement are secretive, that is a very different situation. But the mere fact that someone is doing the organizing is neither surprising nor damning."
https://www.meetup.com/Philadelphia-Political-Agnostics/events/xvbrznyxdbxb/

In the 3rd section of this meetup, we'll look at the debates over Antifa's role in the recent protests in the wake of George Floyd's death. Back in July we had a meetup entitled "Hypervigilance and 'Protest Panics'" and in the 2nd section we looked at the debates over whether "Antifa" or the "Boogaloo Boys" were behind the violence at recent protests that devolved into riots.
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/djzwsrybckbqb/

In the 4th section of this meetup, we'll look at the concept of the "deep state". In a meetup back in September of 2017, we had a meetup where we addressed the concept of the "deep state" in political science and how it differs from the "shadow government" imagined by conspiracy theorists. We also discussed the military's influence on US politics via the "military-industrial complex", domestic spying by our intelligence agencies and growth of the "surveillance state", and allegations of corruption within the federal bureaucracy that prompted Trump's claim that he would "drain the swamp".
https://www.meetup.com/Philly-Skeptics/events/240273022/

Although we won't talk about the Third Way Democrats or Davos in this meetup, we covered their influence on U.S. economic policy in a meetup entitled "Neoliberals, Neocons, and NWO 2.0". In the 1st & 2nd sections of the discussion, we discussed how many left-wing activists think that Bill Clinton betrayed the progressive economic platform of the Democratic Party by trying to create a "Third Way" between Reagonomics & traditional Democratic economic policies based on the FDR's New Deal & LBJ's Great Society. We also talked about how some left-wing activists think that more centrist Democrats - especially those that get campaign donations from major banks & corporations - are held in thrall to the "transnational capitalist class" that organizes events like the World Economic Forum held annually in Davos, Switzerland.
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 the development of the progressive movement in the U.S. 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 51 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. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section.

----------------------------------------------
I. IS GEORGE SOROS SPONSORING LEFT-WING ACTIVIST GROUPS TO FOMENT PROTESTS & DESTABILIZE THE U.S. - OR MERELY TRYING TO PUSH FOR PROGRESSIVE REFORMS?

SECTION 1, QUESTION 1: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SECTION 1, QUESTION 2: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SECTION 1, QUESTION 3: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SECTION 1, QUESTION 4: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SECTION 1, QUESTION 5: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

1a) Brian Dunning, "George Soros Conspiracy Theories" (video - 14:03 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI4wNU8Ob2A

1b) Politifact, "George Soros isn't funding protests" (video - 2:36 min.) https://youtu.be/4kn16TP-cCA

1c) Vice News w/ John Pfaff, "Billionaire George Soros Puts Big Money Into Local [DA] Races" (video - 3:25 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9c4aHGG_kI

Avi Selk, "George Soros wasn't a Nazi, he was a 14-year-old Jew who hid from them"
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/george-soros-nazi-jew-conspiracy-theory-roseanne-barr-twitter-rant-a8377301.html
Emily Tamkin, "Five Myths About George Soros: He’s not actually plotting a revolution or paying people to protest."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-george-soros/2020/08/06/ad195582-d1e9-11ea-8d32-1ebf4e9d8e0d_story.html
Jim Geraghty, "The Truth about George Soros Is Damning Enough"
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/the-truth-about-george-soros-is-damning-enough/
Spencer Ackerman, "There’s Been a George Soros for Every Era of Anti-Semitic Panic: From Russia to Hungary to, now, Donald Trump’s America, a rising authoritarianism plays on an atavistic European hatred. We live in the Soros Age of Anti-Semitism."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/theres-been-a-george-soros-for-every-era-of-antisemitic-panic
Emily Stewart, "There are many reasons to be mad at Sheryl Sandberg. Asking about Soros’s Facebook interests isn’t one of them."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/30/18119616/sheryl-sandberg-soros-freedom-from-facebook
Cheryl K. Chumley, "Kavanaugh's accuser and the curious George Soros links"
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/18/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-and-links-ge/
Salvador Rizzo, "No, George Soros isn't paying Kavanaugh protesters"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/05/no-george-soros-isnt-paying-kavanaugh-protesters/
Bethania Palma, "Does Kavanaugh Accuser Deborah Ramirez Have ‘Ties to George Soros’?" [Rating: False]
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kavanaugh-accuser-soros-ties/
Emily Venevsky, "No, George Soros and his foundations do not pay people to protest"
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jun/01/candace-owens/no-soros-and-foundation-do-not-pay-people-protest/
Rioters Rented to Holly Zoller of Soros-Connected Louisville Bail Project"
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/u-haul-seen-distributing-shields-weapons-louisville-rioters-rented-holly-zoller-louisville-bail-project/
Eric Kleefeld, "Right-wing media see conspiracy in a $30 rented U-Haul handing out protest signs and homemade shields - Apparently, that needs George Soros money"
https://www.mediamatters.org/black-lives-matter/right-wing-media-see-conspiracy-30-rented-u-haul-handing-out-protest-signs-and
Scott Bland, "George Soros' quiet overhaul of the U.S. justice system: Progressives have zeroed in on electing prosecutors as an avenue for criminal justice reform, and the billionaire financier is providing the cash to make it happen."
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/george-soros-criminal-justice-reform-227519

.
II. DID THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL & IT INTELLECTUAL HEIRS INTRODUCE "CULTURAL MARXISM" & "POST-MODERN NEO-MARXISM" INTO ACADEMIA & "CRITICAL RACE THEORY" INTO H.R. DEPARTMENTS TO UNDERMINE CULTURAL COHESION - OR IS THIS JUST A REHASHED VERSION OF NAZI CLAIMS ABOUT "CULTURAL BOLSHEVISM" & A WAY TO DERAIL CRITIQUES OF SYSTEMIC RACISM & THE PATRIARCHY?

SECTION 2, QUESTION 1: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SECTION 2, QUESTION 2: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SECTION 2, QUESTION 3: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SECTION 2, QUESTION 4: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SECTION 2, QUESTION 5: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

2a) Jordan B. Cooper, "Is Cultural Marxism Just a Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory?" (video - 9:17 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_vbWG6H57M

2b) Helen Pluckrose, "What is the thesis of Cynical Theories?" (video - 4:13 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjP9smycBeA

2c) Buck Sexton, "Is Systemic Racism A Conspiracy Theory?" (video - 3:36 min, listen to 3:13)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np4kPsZpjNE

Michael Minnicino, "The Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness'" (1992)
https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_91-96/921_frankfurt.html
Brian Doherty, "Don't Blame Karl Marx for 'Cultural Marxism' - Political correctness isn't a communist plot."
https://reason.com/2018/10/14/dont-blame-karl-marx-for-cultu/
Alexander Zubatov, "Just Because Anti-Semites Talk About ‘Cultural Marxism’ Doesn’t Mean It Isn’t Real
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/just-because-anti-semites-talk-about-cultural-marxism-doesnt-mean-it-isnt-real
Jonathan Church, "Jordan Peterson Is Not Entirely Wrong about 'Postmodern Neo-Marxism'"
https://areomagazine.com/2020/01/09/jordan-peterson-is-not-entirely-wrong-about-postmodern-neo-marxism/
Matt McManus, "The Frankfurt School and Postmodern Philosophy"
https://quillette.com/2019/01/03/the-frankfurt-school-and-postmodern-philosophy/
James Lindsay, "The Complex Relationship between Marxism and Wokeness"
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/07/complex-relationship-between-marxism-wokeness/
Helen Pluckrose, "Is Critical Race Theory racist? Trump has condemned the controversial teaching as 'un-American' and 'divisive'"
https://unherd.com/2020/10/is-critical-race-theory-racist/
Dan Sanchez, et al., "President Trump’s Ban on Critical Race Theory, Explained: Does Critical Race Theory promote racial harmony or does it "sow division" as the Trump administration claims? And what is its relation, if any, to Marxism?"
https://fee.org/articles/president-trump-s-ban-on-critical-race-theory-explained/
Matthew J. Franck, "Racism Is Real. But Is 'Systemic Racism'?"
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/09/71461/

.
III. HAVE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY & THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA BECOME "USEFUL IDIOTS" FOR ANARCHIST & MARXIST GROUPS BEHIND THE RECENT PROTESTS - OR ARE THEY MERELY TRYING TO PREVENT CONSERVATIVES FROM DERAILING POLICING REFORM BY HARPING ON THE RADICAL FRINGE?

SECTION 3, QUESTION 1: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SECTION 3, QUESTION 2: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SECTION 3, QUESTION 3: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SECTION 3, QUESTION 4: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SECTION 3, QUESTION 5: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

3a) National Review, "Biden Says Antifa Is ‘An Idea, Not An Organization’ during Presidential Debate" (video - 1:24 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaWsYjBOXdg

3b) KCENNews, "VERIFY: Does antifa.com take you to Joe Biden's official website?" (video - 1:56 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwqrOIvnrWE

3c) Matt Kibbe w/ Brad Polumbo, "Is BLM Marxist? NO and Yes." (video - 6:36 min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1LmjO2dgJA

Tom Keltischer, "Is Black Lives Matter a Marxist movement?" [Rating: Needs Context]
https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/jul/21/black-lives-matter-marxist-movement/
Brad Palumbo, "Is Black Lives Matter Marxist? No and Yes. What the left and the right are both getting wrong about Black Lives Matter."
https://fee.org/articles/is-black-lives-matter-marxist-no-and-yes/
Madison Depcevich, "Did Biden Staffers Contribute to a Protester-Bailout Fund?" [Rating: True]
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-staffers-bailout-fund/

Samantha Putterman, "No, Joe Biden’s campaign didn’t donate $20 million to bail out protesters"
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jun/03/facebook-posts/no-joe-bidens-campaign-didnt-donate-20-million-bai/

Dan MacGuill, "FACT CHECK: Has Biden Failed to Condemn Antifa? 'The problem is on the Left. And Biden refuses to talk about it,' President Trump claimed in September 2020. Was he right?" [Rating: False]
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/biden-fail-condemn-antifa/
Brittany Bernstein, "Biden Says Antifa Is ‘An Idea, Not An Organization’ during Presidential Debate"
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biden-says-antifa-is-an-idea-not-an-organization-during-presidential-debate/
Libby Emmons & Barrett Wilson, "The Associated Press tries to change the definition of 'riot' to protect their rioting friends"
https://thepostmillennial.com/the-associated-press-tries-to-change-the-definition-of-riot-to-protect-their-rioting-friends
Danielle Kilgo, "Riot or resistance? The way the media frames the unrest in Minneapolis will shape the public’s view of protest. Research finds that protests about anti-black racism and indigenous people’s rights receives the least legitimizing coverage."
https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/05/riot-or-resistance-the-way-the-media-frames-the-unrest-in-minneapolis-will-shape-the-publics-view-of-protest/
Kelly McBride, "In Choosing The Wrong Photo [for 'Vehicle Attacks'], NPR Editors Paved The Way For Partisan Attack"
https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2020/06/25/882829255/in-choosing-the-wrong-photo-npr-editors-paved-the-way-for-partisan-attack
Joe Concha, "CNN ridiculed for 'Fiery But Mostly Peaceful' caption with video of burning building in Kenosha"
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/513902-cnn-ridiculed-for-fiery-but-mostly-peaceful-caption-with-video-of-burning
Meme Policeman, "The claim that 93% of protests this summer have been peaceful has been spread all over in the media in the last few days. But this is highly misleading without understanding the methodology and context of the data."
https://www.facebook.com/memepoliceman/posts/2426570994303516

.
IV. ARE DEMOCRATIC ELITES IN LEAGUE WITH THE "DEEP STATE" AND TRYING TO LAUNCH A "COUP" TO OUST PRESIDENT TRUMP - OR HAS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION MERELY FACED CHECKS & BALANCES FROM THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY & FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS DUE TO REAL CORRUPTION?

SECTION 4, QUESTION 1: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SECTION 4, QUESTION 2: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SECTION 4, QUESTION 3: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SECTION 4, QUESTION 4: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SECTION 4, QUESTION 5: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

4a) Newsy, "What is the 'deep state'?" (video - 2:21 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbLAz5V3SYI

4b) NowThis, "Trump's 'Obamagate' Conspiracy Theory Explained" (video - 3:42 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjzhDiR0NZo

Marc Ambinder, "Five Myths About the Deep State"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-deep-state/2017/03/10/ddb09b54-04da-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html
Sean Illing w/ David Rohde, "The 'deep state' is real. But it’s not what Trump thinks it is."
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/5/13/21219164/trump-deep-state-fbi-cia-david-rohde
Jessica Lee, "Fact Check: Did Obama Get Caught ‘Spying’ on Trump’s 2016 Campaign? U.S. President Donald Trump claimed his predecessor, or unidentified political opponents, 'spied on our campaign illegally' numerous times." [Rating: Mostly False]
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-spying-trump-campaign/
Michelle Ye Hee Lee, "Is President Trump vindicated on his claim of ‘wires tapped’ by Obama [by revelations about Paul Manafort wiretaps]?"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/09/22/is-president-trump-vindicated-on-his-claim-of-wires-tapped-by-obama/
Alec Dent, "Fact Check: Is a ‘Shadow Government’ Seeking a Coup Against President Trump? That is just one outlandish claim in a new documentary from an InfoWars correspondent."
https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/is-a-shadow-government-seeking-a
Daniel Funcke, "What is QAnon, the baseless conspiracy spilling into US politics?"
https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/aug/27/what-qanon-baseless-conspiracy-spilling-us-politic/
Jefferson Morley, "The “Deep State” Is a Political Party: As an impeachment crisis looms, CIA and FBI veterans are taking a troubling lead in opposing Trump at the ballot box."
https://newrepublic.com/article/155629/deep-state-political-party
Glenn Greenwald, "New Documents From the Sham Prosecution of Gen. Michael Flynn Also Reveal Broad Corruption in the Russiagate Investigations"
https://theintercept.com/2020/05/14/new-documents-from-the-sham-prosecution-of-gen-michael-flynn-also-reveal-broad-corruption-in-the-russiagate-investigations/

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

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Events in

Skeptics In The Pub - Philly

See more events

Skeptics In The Pub - Philly

Online event

This event has passed

Skeptics In The Pub - Philly

public group

Biweekly Discussion - Political Pseudoscience & Progressivism