Religions/cults that suppress free speech

[YoursTrue]

I'm not aware of research to that effect (and I'm a cancer survivor, so I'm surprised I haven't encountered it). Can you give me a reference to it?

This may be one, but please do not take my word for it. We all must make decisions about these things under regular (not coerced or ignorant) circumstances. I hope you are doing well. I am so glad to believe (have faith) that God knows what each one of us is going through, and can help us cope and we can look forward to the future that He (not mankind via evolution) promises.
There are two discussions, one report about a doctor doing a study some years ago, another from cancer.org that can help figure things out as far as what treatment may do or not do. I remember the report speaking about a National Nursing Association doing the long study, but couldn't find it. The following two may help: Not saying how accurate the first one really is, though. We each must decide for ourselves if possible.

The Untreated Live LongerBy FACT - Rethinking Cancer
Managing Cancer as a Chronic Illness

 

[Altfish]

If you mean with shunning the act of social rejection, I have heard of it. However, I think all should also have right to not be with people they don’t like. I don’t think that is necessarily about freedom of speech, or limiting it. As I understand the shunning, it is more about selecting the group where person wants to be. Similarly, as if I say something that communists don’t like, I think they are free to not be my friends anymore.

I think you need to read up on it. Especially how it is done by the JWs....

Start here ..

 

[blü 2]

This may be one, but please do not take my word for it. We all must make decisions about these things under regular (not coerced or ignorant) circumstances. I hope you are doing well. I am so glad to believe (have faith) that God knows what each one of us is going through, and can help us cope and we can look forward to the future that He (not mankind via evolution) promises.
There are two discussions, one report about a doctor doing a study some years ago, another from cancer.org that can help figure things out as far as what treatment may do or not do. I remember the report speaking about a National Nursing Association doing the long study, but couldn't find it. The following two may help: Not saying how accurate the first one really is, though. We each must decide for ourselves if possible.

The Untreated Live LongerBy FACT - Rethinking Cancer
Managing Cancer as a Chronic Illness

Ah, thank you for those.

I had a quite advanced cancer at the back of my throat, diagnosed and treated in 2004, which is a long time after 1969. My surgeon took me through the treatment options and the survival rates after five years with each. I took the conservative option, surgery followed by radiotherapy ─ I was shown some evidence that radiotherapy on its own might be sufficient ─ and here I am, still alive, and still able to talk, eat, taste, and so on.

I have not the slightest doubt that the increasing symptoms which persuaded me to seek medical advice in the first place would have killed me within two years, and if untreated would on the way through have deprived me of the use of my tongue and my vocal chords.

So it may be the case that Dr Jones had a point in 1969 ─ I don't know ─ but I'm very confident that in 2004 his view was untenable and that without treatment I'd be long dead by now.

 

[YoursTrue]

Ah, thank you for those.

I had a quite advanced cancer at the back of my throat, diagnosed and treated in 2004, which is a long time after 1969. My surgeon took me through the treatment options and the survival rates after five years with each. I took the conservative option, surgery followed by radiotherapy ─ I was shown some evidence that radiotherapy on its own might be sufficient ─ and here I am, still alive, and still able to talk, eat, taste, and so on.

I have not the slightest doubt that the increasing symptoms which persuaded me to seek medical advice in the first place would have killed me within two years, and if untreated would on the way through have deprived me of the use of my tongue and my vocal chords.

So it may be the case that Dr Jones had a point in 1969 ─ I don't know ─ but I'm very confident that in 2004 his view was untenable and that without treatment I'd be long dead by now.

I am glad to hear you are better.

 

[1213]

Yes, that's exactly what I mean ─ there's nothing absolute about freedom of speech as such.

And I find the idea of an inalienable right to spread lies knowing them to be lies is morally absurd.

I think this could be compared to right to own a gun. Owning a gun is basically the same as owning the right to speak. If you do something bad with the gun, like kill someone, you can be judged for the murder. If you kill someone softly with your words, then you can be held guilty for murder also. People are not judged for murder just for owning a gun. Similarly people with freedom of speech should not be judged just for owning the right. There should really be a proof that person has killed someone with his words. Only after that the judgment can be valid.

And I think this works both ways, if government denies people to speak about possible cure for deadly disease and people die because of that, the government is guilty for a murder and should be judged accordingly.

 

[1213]

So instead of preventing a child's death, you think it would be better to just go ahead and let the child die but punish the person responsible afterwards.

Punishing people in advance for hypothetical crimes is wrong in my opinion. Also, taking freedom of speech away would not prevent that crime. The person could say it anyway to kids and it is possible he would not get caught of it anyway. Criminalizing speech is only useful for tyrants that can’t defend their thoughts with logic and reason, because that way they can control people for their benefit and keep them ignorant of better.

I think it should be the role of people in charge of basically anything to protect as well as punish.

I think that is tyrannical and fascistic. In my opinion people in charge should only protect the freedoms and rights of the people.

In most cases I would say yes, but then how is the government going to keep people from knowing about it?

For example by forcing "platforms" like twitter to remove all information that government doesn't like.

For instance: if someone were claiming that cocaine cured cancer, I think it should make a difference whether or not these claims were coming from studies done by research institutions like say, the Mayo clinic; John Hopkins; Duke University, or coming from Colombian drug cartels trying to drum up business.

If the claims are coming from the latter, and some government succeeded in suppressing the information (although I still can't see how they would go about doing that), then I don't believe the government is culpable even if later on by some insane coincidence it was found that cocaine actually does cure cancer.

I think only thing that should matter is, who has the best arguments, best reasons, not by the name of the speaker. And I think all arguments should be visible so that people can decide what they think is true. Then the responsibility is on the listeners. Now it is on those who don't really care do the people die. And they can't be held accountable, even if millions of people die because of their decision.

As I showed in my previous post, which you probably didn't read, because it was too long, governments have been wrong many times in issues like this. And it is no wonder, because they can benefit from keeping people ignorant. Governments can't be trusted, that is why they should not in any case limit freedom of speech.

 

[blü 2]

I think this could be compared to right to own a gun. Owning a gun is basically the same as owning the right to speak. If you do something bad with the gun, like kill someone, you can be judged for the murder. If you kill someone softly with your words, then you can be held guilty for murder also. People are not judged for murder just for owning a gun. Similarly people with freedom of speech should not be judged just for owning the right. There should really be a proof that person has killed someone with his words. Only after that the judgment can be valid.

And I think this works both ways, if government denies people to speak about possible cure for deadly disease and people die because of that, the government is guilty for a murder and should be judged accordingly.

Back in #72 I said ─

I find the idea of an inalienable right to spread lies knowing them to be lies is morally absurd.​

In other words, there should be legal consequences for such conduct.

Do you agree?

 

[Quagmire]

Punishing people in advance for hypothetical crimes is wrong in my opinion.

Interesting that you would view not being allowed to spread dangerous lies as "punishment".

Also, taking freedom of speech away would not prevent that crime.

It's not about preventing a crime it's about preventing a tragedy.

Someone going around on the Internet telling children that sticking a fork in a light socket is going to save their parents on their electric bill is obviously either a sadist or a lunatic.

Do you think somebody like that is entitled to free speech?

Do you think that guaranteeing free speech to someone who's obviously going to abuse it is more important than protecting the people he could potentially victimize?

The could say it anyway to kids and it is possible he would not get caught of it anyway.

So it seems like you're saying if somebodies posting dangerous misinformation, say, here on RF, might as well just leave it there because if you take it down they're just going to go post it someplace else.

That sounds a bit defeatist to me. It's true that keeping somebody from advising kids to stick forks in light sockets here on RF doesn't mean they won't go ahead and do it someplace else, there's no way for us to prevent that, but it does at least mean that we've done our part, which is all we can do.

Criminalizing speech is only useful for tyrants that can’t defend their thoughts with logic and reason,

No, it's also useful for dealing with people who can't recognize and/or don't respond to reason and logic.

because that way they can control people for their benefit and keep them ignorant of better.

Lol! So you really think that the reason we don't allow people to spread misinformation about covid here in RF is because its somehow to our personal benefit or because we got our jollies by "controlling people and keeping people ignorant".

That's a very comic book like assessment of the situation.

I think that is tyrannical and fascistic.

Well it would be considering that the staff is obviously some sort of diabolical cartel with no other goals in life other to impose mind control on all you poor, unsuspecting members.

In my opinion people in charge should only protect the freedoms and rights of the people.

Now you're doing a complete 180°. A few panels back you were suggesting we should routinely waive protection altogether in favor of punishment.

For example by forcing "platforms" like twitter to remove all information that government doesn't like.

When or where did this ever happen? Social media platforms like YouTube, Twitter or Facebook didn't ban misinformation about the pandemic because the government told them to. I can assure you that no government agency ever contacted us and told us to.

Nobody had to.

I think only thing that should matter is, who has the best arguments, best reasons, not by the name of the speaker.

And by "best" you probably mean the ones that you agree with personally.

Given that most of us don't have advanced degrees in the requisite sciences, I think it's useful to take the source into consideration when we're deciding where to got our information from.

That is, I think we should give more credence to information coming from the top medical research institutes in the world then we should to, say, some proctologist in some backwater town in Idaho looking to grab his 15 minutes of internet fame by suggesting something that nobody else has come up with yet.

And I think all arguments should be visible so that people can decide what they think is true.

All arguments are visible somewhere on the internet. But I think it's important to keep the nonsense on sites that are basically there to spread nonsense. That way people who want to be fooled have somewhere to go, and people who want to be informed have less nonsense to sort through.

Then the responsibility is on the listeners. Now it is on those who don't really care do the people die. And they can't be held accountable, even if millions of people die because of their decision.

As I showed in my previous post, which you probably didn't read, because it was too long, governments have been wrong many times in issues like this. And it is no wonder, because they can benefit from keeping people ignorant. Governments can't be trusted, that is why they should not in any case limit freedom of speech.

I read it. So let me ask you something: do you think forcing the tobacco companies to put warning labels on their products is a violation of their freedom of speech?

Should Philip Morris be able to create ads telling people that smoking is good for them?

Should McDonald's be able to tell people that eating Big Macs will lower their cholesterol and help control high blood pressure?

I'll say it again: rights come with responsibilities. Rights are part of a social contract, and they come with obligations. If someone's not willing to meet those obligations, are they still entitled to those rights?

 

[1213]

Interesting that you would view not being allowed to spread dangerous lies as "punishment".

Taking basic humans rights, like freedom of speech away, is in my opinion a punishment.

…Someone going around on the Internet telling children that sticking a fork in a light socket is going to save their parents on their electric bill is obviously either a sadist or a lunatic….

That would not even be a lie, they would save in electric bills. I think the problem is not what people say, but what they don’t say. the person should say, don’t do it, because you probably die, if you do so”.

I don’t think there is any good reason to limit freedom of speech, because the problem is not the possible wrong information, but the lack of information. Also, I think all children should be taught to think critically and independently and not believe everything people say, without good reasons.

Do you think somebody like that is entitled to free speech?

I think all people should have free speech.

Do you think that guaranteeing free speech to someone who's obviously going to abuse it is more important than protecting the people he could potentially victimize?

One of the biggest problems with this is how would we know who will abuse the right. Also, the person who decides who is allowed to speak can be equally bad and cause lot of bad things by his policies. I think the responsibility to decide who is speaking truth, should be left to listeners. Governments have shown they are not good at it and random internet guys have no responsibility or accountability, if people die because they prevent people to know truth. The accountability is always left for listeners, because it is their life that is on the line, if there is false information, or if important information is hidden.

So it seems like you're saying if somebodies posting dangerous misinformation, say, here on RF, might as well just leave it there because if you take it down they're just going to go post it someplace else…

If someone would post dangerous information, I think right thing would be to show it and explain why it is wrong.

Lol! So you really think that the reason we don't allow people to spread misinformation about covid here in RF is because its somehow to our personal benefit or because we got our jollies by "controlling people and keeping people ignorant".

More probably it would be because the owner can’t afford to allow people to know things that are not beneficial for the regime and for example medical companies. The owner gives the rules and staff does what the owner requires. Staffs personal benefit is to keep the job. And for that it can be necessary to do as the owner says. And for many it can be ok, if they don’t know much and believe authorities easily.

When or where did this ever happen? Social media platforms like YouTube, Twitter or Facebook didn't ban misinformation about the pandemic because the government told them to. I can assure you that no government agency ever contacted us and told us to.

I have not seen any proof that there really even has been any misinformation about the pandemic, except maybe from the officials. But here is one example of the regime trying to limit freedom of speech, which I think is tyrannical.

On Thursday, Psaki was asked a question regarding the Biden administration’s request for tech companies to be more "aggressive" when policing what they referred to as "misinformation." Psaki revealed that the White House is "in regular touch with social media platforms" to handle it.

Critics slam the White House after Psaki reveals it's consulting with Facebook to 'flag misinformation'

That is, I think we should give more credence to information coming from the top medical research institutes in the world then we should to, say, some proctologist in some backwater town in Idaho looking to grab his 15 minutes of internet fame by suggesting something that nobody else has come up with yet.

Top sources have been many times wrong, that is why I am only interested on who has best arguments and proof, not about is the source accepted by rulers.

I read it. So let me ask you something: do you think forcing the tobacco companies to put warning labels on their products is a violation of their freedom of speech?

I think it is not violation of freedom of speech, because it doesn’t limit what is said, it forces to say more than they would like to say.

Should Philip Morris be able to create ads telling people that smoking is good for them?

Should McDonald's be able to tell people that eating Big Macs will lower their cholesterol and help control high blood pressure?

I would not have any problem with that. I think the bad thing would be if it would not be said that “don’t believe anything salesmen say without proof, that includes also medical companies”. There really is no good reason to limit freedom of speech, unless you are a tyrant who want to keep people ignorant and stupid.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
George Orwell

"If the freedom of Speech may be taken away. . . dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter."
George Washington

I'll say it again: rights come with responsibilities. Rights are part of a social contract, and they come with obligations. If someone's not willing to meet those obligations, are they still entitled to those rights?

I think all should have freedom of speech, because the accountability is always on the listener. If someone else decides on his behalf, he doesn’t have the accountability. If for example you would deny person to know about possible cure and person dies because of that, you would not have any accountability, but the other person would have died because of you. He would lose everything, you would lose nothing. That is why the decision must be for all listeners to decide what they believe.

If you worry that someone lies, the correct solution is to tell that you think it is not true. And if you want to convince the other, you should explain well why you are correct.

 

[1213]

Back in #72 I said ─

I find the idea of an inalienable right to spread lies knowing them to be lies is morally absurd.​

In other words, there should be legal consequences for such conduct.

Do you agree?

No. I think the problem is not the lies, but that the person didn't tell the truth. Also, in any case, I think everyone should think, is what they hear true and reasonable and not just believe everything they hear without good reasons. It has been shown many times that even governments and doctors lie, or don’t know well. Therefore, listener should always be critical and not gullible.

 

[blü 2]

No. I think the problem is not the lies, but that the person didn't tell the truth. Also, in any case, I think everyone should think, is what they hear true and reasonable and not just believe everything they hear without good reasons. It has been shown many times that even governments and doctors lie, or don’t know well. Therefore, listener should always be critical and not gullible.

I'm thinking of the people who stormed the Capitol as a result of a solid diet of what I'll politely call nonsense; and their manipulators who are still out there peddling false statements while knowing they're false.

I'm surprised you don't find that morally offensive.

 

[1213]

I'm thinking of the people who stormed the Capitol as a result of a solid diet of what I'll politely call nonsense; and their manipulators who are still out there peddling false statements while knowing they're false.

I'm surprised you don't find that morally offensive.

I think lying is wrong. However, I don’t think freedom of speech should be limited because of some people may lie. If we would do so, we probably should take first the freedom of speech from politicians, because they seem to be often dishonest and it can be really harmful for all. But no, I don’t think freedom of speech should be limited.

How do you know why people went in to the capitol that day? Have they told what was the reasons? What were the lies that made them to do so? What proof do you have that they were lies?

I think the whole “storming capitol” is artificially made to look worse than what it really was. Yes, there were some people, maybe FBI agents in disguises, expect the unfortunate Ashli Babbitt, who was murdered. But I would not call it storming, no good evidence for that, especially when it looks that the people were let in. It seems to me that it was fake event for to end all questions about the legitimacy of the elections.

 

[blü 2]

I think lying is wrong. However, I don’t think freedom of speech should be limited because of some people may lie. If we would do so, we probably should take first the freedom of speech from politicians, because they seem to be often dishonest and it can be really harmful for all. But no, I don’t think freedom of speech should be limited.

Yes, why don't we do exactly that? Why should it not be the case that an elected representative forfeits his or her office for, say, ten years, if he or she tells purposeful lies knowing them to be lies?

How do you know why people went in to the capitol that day? Have they told what was the reasons? What were the lies that made them to do so? What proof do you have that they were lies?

You're not seriously saying that Biden was elected through voter fraud, are you? You're not supporting Trump, who did more damage to the US and to its standing in the world through his narcissism, stupidity, arrogance and ignorance than any other president in history, are you? Trump, the archetype of the public liar?

Is it your view that the more than fifty ─ seventy? ─ applications to US state and federal courts all failed because though they were well founded they were defeated by a huge conspiracy of judges, whether appointed by Democrat or Republican administrations?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

How do you know why people went in to the capitol that day? Have they told what was the reasons? What were the lies that made them to do so? What proof do you have that they were lies?

Those that were there INSIDE the capitol have been pretty free in stating why they were there -- to prevent through violence if necessary the certification of Biden as President. IOW their objective was the violent prevention of the American process of transition of power from one president to the next.

I'm sure you followed the Arizona recount and voter investigation. All that money was spent, and in the end, Biden was still rightly elected, and even had more votes than previously believed, while Trump had less. What a waste of money, simply because some republicans can't admit to themselves that they lost.

The BIG LIE that Trump was actually elected, and massive voter fraud was committed, has undermined the faith of half the nation in the electoral process. In this way, Trump has done lasting harm to our democracy.

 

[1213]

Those that were there INSIDE the capitol have been pretty free in stating why they were there -- to prevent through violence if necessary the certification of Biden as President. IOW their objective was the violent prevention of the American process of transition of power from one president to the next.

Do you have a video where they explain why they did it?

I'm sure you followed the Arizona recount and voter investigation. ...

The BIG LIE that Trump was actually elected, and massive voter fraud was committed, has undermined the faith of half the nation in the electoral process. In this way, Trump has done lasting harm to our democracy.

By what I see, it is the democrats and their minions who have undermined the faith of half the nation in the electoral process. There were many irregularities in many parts of the election process and also in the audit process. I think here is good list of some of the problems that undermines the faith to the electoral process:
Arizona Senate Hears Of Multiple Inconsistencies Found By Election Audit | ZeroHedge

Also, that the counting was stopped in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Nevada looks very suspicious, only good reason for that would be to buy more time to print more votes for Biden. But all those are small when compared to that is just not believable result at all. I could believe 20 % of Americans like the cultish democratic party, but it is very difficult to believe that record number of people would vote Biden, who is very much against the constitution and freedom of the people.

 

[1213]

Yes, why don't we do exactly that? Why should it not be the case that an elected representative forfeits his or her office for, say, ten years, if he or she tells purposeful lies knowing them to be lies?

Maybe, if it could really be proven that someone has lied. The problem is often that there are many “truths”, and many people can accuse others of lying, even though it is not true. But I would like also if those who lied about Trump-Russian collusion would be fired. And the MSM that spread those lies constantly, deserves to lose all followers.

You're not seriously saying that Biden was elected through voter fraud, are you?

It looks that to me. I don't believe the election result, especially in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina.

You're not supporting Trump, who did more damage to the US and to its standing in the world through his narcissism, stupidity, arrogance and ignorance than any other president in history, are you? Trump, the archetype of the public liar?

I think you are making false accusations that can't be shown to be true. And all though I think Trump has said and done stuff that I don’t think are good, I think he was one of the best president elects of USA. I don’t know can he really be called president, because it seems to me that he was president only namely and the government acted on its own mostly.

 

[blü 2]

Maybe, if it could really be proven that someone has lied. The problem is often that there are many “truths”, and many people can accuse others of lying, even though it is not true. But I would like also if those who lied about Trump-Russian collusion would be fired. And the MSM that spread those lies constantly, deserves to lose all followers.

I don't care which party, which individual, is involved. I want a consequence for lying and misrepresenting to be part of every polity.

It looks that to me. I don't believe the election result, especially in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina.

How do you account for the failure of every single approach to the courts, maybe seventy of them, to achieve anything for him?

And since Trump knows he's a liar, why isn't he refunding the money to all his supporters who donated to those absurd and baseless causes.

I think you are making false accusations that can't be shown to be true. And all though I think Trump has said and done stuff that I don’t think are good, I think he was one of the best president elects of USA. I don’t know can he really be called president, because it seems to me that he was president only namely and the government acted on its own mostly.

The US government under Trump often looked like a headless fowl indeed.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Do you have a video where they explain why they did it?

I'm referring to their testimonies, what they said to the police and stuff. Haven't you been following it?

By what I see, it is the democrats and their minions who have undermined the faith of half the nation in the electoral process.

Which party said the election was valid? The democrats. Which party said it was riddled with fraud? The republicans. Thus, it is the republicans taht have undermined faith in the electoral system.


{quote]There were many irregularities in many parts of the election process and also in the audit process. I think here is good list of some of the problems that undermines the faith to the electoral process:
Arizona Senate Hears Of Multiple Inconsistencies Found By Election Audit | ZeroHedge[/quote]The Arizona recount found that not only did Biden win, but he won by a slightly higher margin. That's pretty much the end of it. Fact check: Arizona audit affirms Biden win, doesn't prove voter fraud

Also, that the counting was stopped in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Nevada looks very suspicious, only good reason for that would be to buy more time to print more votes for Biden. But all those are small when compared to that is just not believable result at all. I could believe 20 % of Americans like the cultish democratic party, but it is very difficult to believe that record number of people would vote Biden, who is very much against the constitution and freedom of the people.

Trump claimed that everything everyhwere looked suspicious, but he focused in on those states where the results were close, and massive fraud was never proven anywhere, no evidence of massive fraud at all. Trump filed scads of lawsuits challenging the election results, and they were ALL of them, every single last one, thrown out because there was NO FOUNDATION to the accusations.

Dude, you need to let go of this. Trump legitimately lost.

 

[1213]

I'm referring to their testimonies, what they said to the police and stuff. Haven't you been following it?

I have not heard from any of them about the reasons and goals.

Which party said the election was valid? The democrats. Which party said it was riddled with fraud? The republicans. Thus, it is the republicans that have undermined faith in the electoral system.

I don’t think saying “election was not valid” matters at all. For me, how the election was handled and how was the questions answered matters. And by what I see, it was handled so poorly that I don’t trust to any elections anymore. Also, it was Hillary Clinton, a “democrat” who said:

“Biden should not concede under any circumstance”.

Was that not undermining faith in electoral system? Why should anyone else concede, if “democrats” should not?

The Arizona recount found that not only did Biden win, but he won by a slightly higher margin. That's pretty much the end of it. Fact check: Arizona audit affirms Biden win, doesn't prove voter fraud

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...iden-win-doesnt-prove-voter-fraud/5846640001/
The audit that I was referring to was not really about changing the result, but about restoring trust to the system, finding possible problems so that they could be fixed.

And it was said for example:

“According to the Cyber Ninjas’ final report, 23,344 mail-in ballots were received from voters’ previous addresses.”
“9,041 More Ballots Returned by Voter Than Received”
“Cyber Ninjas noted that some 5,295 ballots were affected by voters who potentially voted in multiple counties.”
“The Ballot Impacted was calculated by the total number of votes (10,342) and subtracting the number of maximum number of potential unique people (5,047). This yielded 5,295,”
“Of the 1,929,242 return envelopes provided by the Senate, 17,322 duplicates were found”
“The deletion of these files significantly slowed down much of the analysis.”

That kind of findings are for me the reason not to trust to the elections, not what Hillary Clinton says. And that there are those makes one wonder how many other issues there were that are not found.

Dude, you need to let go of this. Trump legitimately lost.

Sorry, I don’t believe that, but I understand that at this point it is does not matter. Even if the fraud would be proven, I don’t believe it would change anything. And it seems to me that the US system is utterly corrupted and it would never in any case handle this issue properly.

 

[1213]

...
How do you account for the failure of every single approach to the courts, maybe seventy of them, to achieve anything for him?

Would be nice to know was there really seventy of them. But, I think that is a good question. I think the judges didn’t act in a right way. And that itself undermines for me the faith in the whole system.

...And since Trump knows he's a liar, ...

How do you know that? And please show one example of his lie?

...The US government under Trump often looked like a headless fowl indeed.

What is surprising is that under Harris regime it looks even more so.