Do We Ignore Trolls and Globalist-Socialists or do we Engage Them....

[Stratovarious]

All else being equal, the absence of war would be desirable.

...unless you're John Bolton (Presidential advisor).

All else being equal, the absence of; Cultural integrity, Competition, would be desirable?

Selective genocide/democide, one 'science is in' government silencing opposition 'to the Crown' ,
this is also desirable ?

The mindset of Open Borders and One Government rule over all has already shown us how
quickly a prosperous Nation can devolve into another 3rd world shthle , so lets just
take this world wide?


: )

[timosman]

[Stratovarious]

All else being equal, the absence of war would be desirable.

...unless you're John Bolton (Presidential advisor).

A New World Order will not end wars, they just won't be
Country against Country.
The military industrial complex will be redirected
to mass killing of non compliant citizenry, a tool and business used to
quell uprisings, a means to exterminate enemies of
the state, and depopulate .

[Superfluous Man]

For me, the question of whether or not to engage someone involves more than just what their positions are. There's no position I'm unwilling to engage. But it depends on other factors with the person espousing it and how they go about it sometimes.

Also, with a word like globalism, there's a need for precision of just what we're against. Globalism can be statist, with a goal of a one-world government. Another kind of globalism is what would emerge from libertarian policies. Ron Paul has always advocated the latter. For example, here he remarks, "There is nothing to fear from globalism, free trade, and a single worldwide currency." Of course, the currency to which he is referring is whatever commodity-based or other free-market, non-fiat, currencies free people would adopt as their media of exchange with one another around the world in the absence of the governmental monopolies on currency.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dH3_Lcfeac

Also, the determination of whether or not a view represents this site's mission needs to be determined by evaluating it in light of that mission, not by what someone's site reputation score is. Reputation scores are not based on the site mission, but on other people clicking to add or subtract reputation from a person, and often people who disagree with the site mission rally around one another to boost their scores or to subtract from someone else's for things that have nothing to do with the site mission.

[ATruepatriot]

Also, the determination of whether or not a view represents this site's mission needs to be determined by evaluating it in light of that mission, not by what someone's site reputation score is. Reputation scores are not based on the site mission, but on other people clicking to add or subtract reputation from a person, and often people who disagree with the site mission rally around one another to boost their scores or to subtract from someone else's for things that have nothing to do with the site mission.

Although I have not seen any arguments here about the up/down ratings, I absolutely agree with you on this. There may have been some at one time but I haven't seen any since I have been recently participating here again. But you make a very real point with this because I have seen it become a very extreme unproductive distraction and tool for retaliation in many other forums that ate up tons of bandwidth with completely unnecessary animosity. In fact... I saw it coming and warned Nystrom against implementing this years ago on the DP. As soon as he did 80% of the bandwidth was being used up with arguments concerning downvotes that went on for days and days. I still to this day think it had quite a bit to do with the end of the DP. It became nothing but a huge free for all bar fight because of it.

I learned something from that example. While "likes" or up votes only can be beneficial and maintain an overall feeling of positivity, downvotes just cause animosity and unnecessary conflict. It feeds on it's self and creates an environment of chaos and disruption. Downvoting can be compared to the "reporting" feature which is a huge problem at Twitter because it is dishonestly used as a tool for persecution. This is what happened at the DP, there ended up being clan feuds and whole campaigns against each other using the down vote as a weapon to do harm. After that I vowed that any site of my own would never incorporate a negative vote, only a positive vote if you approve and like it. A number of positive votes can be used just as well to gauge someone's approval rating without the negativity and conflict.

But like I say it doesn't seem to be a big problem here. Just for the record... I have never once in my life downvoted anyone on any forum, upvotes if they deserve it but never a negative downvote. Everyone has the right to express themselves as far as I am concerned, But I have never felt the need to inflict sadistic negative harm against someone for doing so.

[acptulsa]

But like I say it doesn't seem to be a big problem here.

Yeah, there's a thread rating system for this software. And it had to be turned off/removed because it was being abused.

[ATruepatriot]

Yeah, there's a thread rating system for this software. And it had to be turned off/removed because it was being abused.

I believe it and it was probably a good move. I was always perplexed by why so many get off on stabbing someone in the back or kicking them while they are down. It's an unintelligent sadistic lack of personal dignity.

[TheTexan]

Yeah, there's a thread rating system for this software. And it had to be turned off/removed because it was being abused.

I only 1-starred threads that deserved it. e.g. cop hater threads, anti-trump threads, anarchist threads, etc.

[TheTexan]

I learned something from that example. While "likes" or up votes only can be beneficial and maintain an overall feeling of positivity, downvotes just cause animosity and unnecessary conflict.

-rep

[ATruepatriot]

Yeah, there's a thread rating system for this software. And it had to be turned off/removed because it was being abused.

Let me correct myself here...

"I believe it and it was probably a good move. I was always perplexed by why so many get off on stabbing someone in the back or kicking them while they are down. (in stealth because they don't have the intestinal fortitude to engage face to face) It's an unintelligent sadistic lack of personal dignity.

[ATruepatriot]

-rep

Lol... And from what I have observed in your postings and replies, I don't believe it. I think you have more integrity than that from what I see.

[acptulsa]

Lol... And from what I have observed in your postings and replies, I don't believe it. I think you have more integrity than that from what I see.

If he had actually done it, you'd have been notified.

[TheTexan]

If he had actually done it, you'd have been notified.

I may have pressed the wrong button. I'll try again.

[Superfluous Man]

Lol... And from what I have observed in your postings and replies, I don't believe it. I think you have more integrity than that from what I see.

If he had actually done it, you'd have been notified.

So he sometimes fakes it? That sucks, because he really did it to me the time I said Whataburger was overrated.

[acptulsa]

So he sometimes fakes it? That sucks, because he really did it to me the time I said Whataburger was overrated.

You said Whataburger was overrated?

-rep

[TheTexan]

You said Whataburger was overrated?

-rep

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again."

[ATruepatriot]

I may have pressed the wrong button. I'll try again.

Hope I didn't inadvertently ruin your reputation around here by giving you the benefit of the doubt you deserve? Didn't mean to mess up the program, just calling it as I see it.

[Zippyjuan]

Political wheeling and dealing.

https://publicintegrity.org/federal-...dge-analytica/

JOHN BOLTON — EYED FOR TRUMP POST — LEADS SUPER PAC THAT EMPLOYED CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA


If President Donald Trump taps John Bolton as his next national security adviser, the former U.N. ambassador will be forced to reckon with the fate of his political empire, which includes a super PAC that has spent heavily on the services of embattled voter profiling company Cambridge Analytica.

Bolton’s super PAC has paid Cambridge Analytica more than $1.1 million since 2014 for “research” and “survey research,” a Center for Public Integrity analysis of campaign finance filings shows.

So far during the 2018 election season, Bolton has announced his super PAC will spend $1 million boosting Republican Senate candidate Kevin Nicholson in Wisconsin. Nicholson is challenging incumbent Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat.

Bolton’s super PAC spent roughly $2.5 million during the 2016 election cycle to support the bids of Republican U.S. Senate candidates, according to Federal Election Commission filings. The press release announcing support for Nicholson said that “Ambassador Bolton looks to increase those contributions for the 2018 midterm elections.”

Bolton — eyed to replace Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster as national security adviser should McMaster step down or be fired — would be the latest in a string of Trump administration insiders with strong links to big-spending, conservative political groups largely funded by an elite group of megadonors. It’s a list that includes Kellyanne Conway, a counselor to the president; White House Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short; and Nick Ayers, the vice president’s chief of staff.

Bolton’s super PAC was among the first political committees to report paying Cambridge Analytica, the voter profiling company in which Mercer is an investor.

Last week, the New York Times and The Observer of London jointly reported that Cambridge Analytica had misused data gleaned from the profiles of tens of millions of Facebook users.

Facebook suspended Cambridge Analytica and its parent company, citing concerns that it had failed to delete improperly obtained data. Cambridge Analytica said the data was improperly obtained by a contractor and has been deleted. It also said none of that data “was used by Cambridge Analytica as part of the services it provided to the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign.”