Now is a Time to Heal

The events of January 6 can be seen as a wake-up call from the universe telling us now is the time heal. It is a time for both sides but especially us on the left to look at ourselves in the mirror and see the role we played in us getting here. The question is: Are we being fair, rational, or reasonable.?

I think we need a Broken Bran versus a Daenerys for all you Game of Thrones fans, not only in leadership but in our own daily actions.

I want to provide a backdrop. At least 74 million people voted for Trump. The vast vast majority are appalled at the events of January 6th. The vast vast majority of those who attended the protest are appalled at the events. Most Trump supporters are for law and order. It is possible much of the violent activity was conducted or instigated by other groups posing as Trump supporters and or by fringe supporters who are ( I know the FBI says there is no evidence of this but the videos don't lie). Nothing justifies the actions of January 6th conducted by any Trump supporter or anyone else.

One of, if not the major reason, Trump was elected in 2016 was the fact that millions and millions of Americans felt disenfranchised by the government and the media ( If you really want us to heal and come together does it matter why or if they should or should not have felt this way?). Another four years, after he was elected, being called names and demonized, having their morals questioned, they felt even more disenfranchised by concerns over the validity of the election ( again should it matter if their feeling on the election were in fact justified?)

What has been our response: Name calling, placing degrading labels on them, questioning their morals, blaming tweets about January 6th, silencing them and limiting their free speech, and trying to stack the deck in the future so their needs and opinions can never again be addressed, In effect we are doubling down on the way we ignored them prior to 2016 instead of learning and we who preach inclusiveness actually being inclusive, Why is it we try to cancel them and not communicate and talk to them?

I sometimes feel our definition of inclusion is that everyone agrees with us. We seem more about the tyranny of democracy than we are about unity. However, In order for there to be inclusion we have to include differences. We are richer and have more depth as a people when we do so, not just in rhetoric around immigration, but also between those who already are here. Inclusion would mean more to me if we included difference of opinion and not just differences in skin color and origin. I would ask we remember and embrace that a difference of opinion or view does not equate to a difference of primary principles.

We can not control what happens to us, but we can control our reaction. From the initial campaign in 2016 to today, when I look at how we have reacted I have no wonder why we face such division and understand how the little prodding by third parties and some fringe extremists on both sides helped create the events of January 6th, Could it be our heightened division could have as a major cause our reaction to Trump, perhaps more so than anything he himself has done?

I ask that we remember that as far as energy in the universe goes hate is hate no matter what you are hating, If you hate and demonize in the name of inclusion and harmony, you are still hating, you are not making the world better as is your intention,

If we are not creating unity and harmony, but instead division and hate, why would we do that? One of the answers lies in the human nature to be a part of something bigger, to make the world better. to be on the right side of history. But history is usually written by those who have won. We fight to be right, to affix blame and not to fix the problem.

There are three areas that this desire to belong to something bigger leads us to do actions that result in the opposite of our goals.

*The first is we tend to rely on leaders and unify under them and their narrative on the world instead of our own sovereignty

* The second is we get focused on the way we want the world to be and see this bigger something as the only way to get there. (IE: we see the world as we want it to be, not for how it is).

* As a product of the above we do not realize that, as Thomas Sowell once said, 'there are no simple solutions, there are only trade offs.'

Reliance on leaders:

When we become part of something bigger, we often give over our critical thinking to the rhetoric of the group we belong to, We generally want to be a part of creating a better world. Those we see as leaders of the group come to represent all that the group stands for. We embode the leaders with the values we see in the group's stated purpose. They are not people, they are symbols. As such we can not allow ourselves to see their flaws and must justify their wrongs, or bury them from our minds. We see this at its extreme over and over in cults. Members believe deeply in the cause of the cult (The goal of Nvxem that lead people to join was creating a better world) they can allow the leader to commit atrocities toward the members. It was the same with Hitler's Nazis. We can use what seems to be illogic to protect the cult or group such as Heaven's Gate believing their telescope was faulty when it did not show a spaceship behind the comet. Our emotions and self worth become tied to the group and its leader(s) instead of our own critical thinking. In a lesser example, it is why, as demonstrated in Hacking Your Mind discussed in an earlier blog, people who like Pepsi much better that Coke in a blind taste test, still choose to purchase Coke. Our decisions are primarily based on emotions and not logic or facts, no matter how much we claim that we follow the science or facts. We chose the groups we join and its leaders more by advertising than by a deep analysis.

How can we know that the group or leader we follow is in truth what they purport to be? One thing a group does to protect itself from a truthful analysis is shield its members from information that may be damaging to its grip on members. In politics that grip is measured by votes. One thing you will see in cults, as well as in tyrannical governments is control of information. The more tyrannical the more control. Rather than counter another opinion with a logical factual answer, or perhaps even learn from it, the leaders seek to silence it through the restricted flow of information. Another means of silencing that which threatens their grip is to distort the information all the way from creating false evidence such as .editing of videos, to half truths. and even outright lies and creating false evidence. A third way to restrict the flow of information is to simply repeat a lie enough times that the followers will believe it is truth, even in the face of hard evidence to the contrary. A fourth way is to demean anyone whose exposes information or opinions by associating them to groups or ideologies almost anyone would agreed are bad such as racists or fascist even when that association has little or even no logical link... And, in reality, usually those making such associations turn 0ut to be more closely tied to those negative associations than those they are accusing. Another way to use the legal system to drain the financial resources and energy of the opposition. Even the threat of legal action can be used to debunk the position of the opposition. Even if the legal action becomes a reality, it can be used as a vehicle to apply all of the above. On method that concerns me greatly is in the politics of other countries, Tyrants who become cult like leaders manipulate elections and stay in power by demonizing, canceling, or prosecuting anyone who questions the results (It does not matter if there are election issues or not. If you stop the questioning you will not know if there was or was not fraud) of an election.

All of the above are designed to keep the grip on the group. The truth is not important. Control and manipulation of the members is the goal. But the greatest of all tools is the way the members choose or give their allegiance to the leaders. Many of us tend not to look at the truth behind what the leader stands for, we tend not to compare their actions to their words, or consider the trade-offs to their proposals. Instead their charisma and charm seems to be the number one priority. Of course we have to believe they are striving for a better world and will accept us as part of their group. We tend not to dig deeper than the surface. We allow ourselves to be used.

So how can we take this scenario and turn it into a means for getting to purple. The first thing is we can unite around truth and not political leaders or MSM narratives. When you hear something from your main source of information. question it. See what the other side has to say and use your own critical thinking to form your individual opinion. Listen for the tricks to manipulate you such as outright false evidence via things like altered emails, or edited videos or audio recordings. Listen to the whole statement to see if the conclusion is based on questionable or false assumptions. Be as suspicious of what you hear from your leaders as you are about the opposition. When you find they are manipulating you call them out no matter what the consequences are to your standing in the group or your narrative of the world. The most effective thing you can do is focus on your interactions with real people versus the play taking place on your TV or other media. Are you willing to listen to all people and treat them all with respect and kindness regardless of their opinions? Can you stand by the concept that a differences of opinion does not equate to a difference in core principles? When you speak with someone who at first appears to have different opinions than ours try asking them what is the goal of their opinion, how do they want to world to be. How do they see it as being now and what do they think we need to do to get to what they want it to be? I believe you will find we have much in common when we express how we want the world to be but less so on how it is currently which then defines what we need to do.

There was an article I read not too long ago that shows how ones beliefs can be changed. A college student, male, who was was an up and comer in the white supremacy movement, was ousted and criticized openly. and called names by his fellow students. Of course this only served to make him more staunce in his beliefs. Then a young woman, who was sympathetic of the social justice movement, asked him why he held his beliefs. He stated personal and family experiences with people of color. He had stacks on information and statistics to support his beliefs. They spent many nights sharing thoughts and things that supported their beliefs. She never called him names or put him down. She instead praised his ability to research his beliefs which left him open to understanding hers. Eventually he came to see his beliefs were based on cultural issues and certain acts he was against. not race related, but related to understanding how society led to certain reactions he was against and that it was a dynamic. He is now a strong supporter for social justice and against white supremacy.

I also read an article about another white supremacist who fell on tough times. Depsite his racist beliefs, the local black community took him in during his time of need, They fed him and provided shelter. He is no an outspoken voice against white supremacy.

Seek to change hearts if needed versus cancelling opinions. No one ever changed a heart by name calling or suppression. Be cautious of great speeches or clever marketing sayings that serve to rally people for a cause they already believe in while getting those who oppose to dig their heels in deeper. Be cautious of any movement that seeks to raise up those excluded by bringing another segment of society down. examine all your beliefs and leaders by actively seeking hypocrisy. Then call it out and stand up for truth. Refuse to give up your power as an individual relating to people as an individual to any movement, group, or government leader or party.

Find the good and common ground instead of focusing on the negative. It is easy to find the negative in anything. Give up your outrage for your hope and compassion. Give up you arrogant certainty for respectful humbleness for that which you have not seen.

When Thomas Sowell, who was a staunch Marxist for years even after being educated and taught some of the greatest free market minds in the world, was asked why he eventually turned away from marxism, simple said, "The facts. Marxism simply does not work and this has been proven time and time again." The point that view is applicable here. Whatever you believe about the world, be open to change if the facts lead you elsewhere.

How we see the world

I opined above that most of us can find a common ground in our view of how we want the world to be, but our different views of how the world currently is leads us to differences of how to get from where we are to where we want to be. Lets use the recent election as an example.Around 50% of America feels there was no significant fraud during the election. The other half feels there was. Both sides want free and transparent elections in which we can trust the results.

Those who feel there was no significant fraud see anyone who feels there was fraud as dangerous immoral people who will do anything to get their way. Those who feel there was fraud see anyone who does not as either uninformed or willing to cheat to get their way. Both sides can point to evidence to support their claim of fraud or lack of fraud and neither is willing to listen to the other.

Both sides want us to get to a place where everyone with the right to vote has their vote counted, The problem is the differences in what each side thinks needs to be done to get us there. This difference stem from their different views in where we are. I think one of the biggest problems is that the view of where we are is very complex and individual viewpoints are shaded by the individual's lens. No one view is the truth. The truth is a combination of all the viewpoints. Instead of learning from each other and blending our views, as we would to get to purple, we fight and divide ourselves trying to prove we are right and the other is wrong, often without investigation but based solely on who we get our information from and whether or not it fits the big picture narrative our group has painted for us.

On the election example, one side's view of potential fraud is based on a dislike of Trump and an opinion of him as someone whose ego is so big he will not admit defeat. A second side loves Trump and thinks the Democrats will do anything to get rid of him. A third and smaller side does not care who won the election and disregards their own feelings about Trump and thinks both of the sides above have some elements of truth. Let's look at some of the indications of abnormalities in the election and see how each side views them.

_____________________________________________________________________

An independent truck driver for USPS is detained at a pick-up and has to see a supervisor before he can leave with his load. It is extremely rare he has to see someone so high up. He is kept there for a period in length several times the norm. He looks into the trailer he will take and sees it is filled with ballots. When he is ok to leave he is refused the paperwork that shows he was there there and how long he was therefore.

He transports the trailer across state lines (this is against the law if it indedd has ballots). He leaves the trailer at a warehouse where he usually ends his route. He unhitches from the trailer and goes to sleep where he usually spends the night.

He wakes up and when he goes to hitch up to his trailer it is missing which has never happened before. No one will give him and explanation.

What is the response from those who feel there was no fraud:

The driver thinks his house is haunted so he can't be believed. It shows how desperate are those who think there was fraud. Any social media that refers to his story is banned.

What do those think there was fraud say:

He is telling the truth and those who won the election are trying to cover it up.

What do those who seek the truth say:

This should be thoroughly investigated.

1) Give the driver a lie detector test.

2) Get the GPS information on the trailer which will tell us where it was that day as well as the day after and for how long it was there.

3) Interrogate the supervisor at the first warehouse ( lie detector if he will take one), as well as those who loaded the truck.

4) Interrogate anyone who may have touched the trailer at the warehouse the driver took it to ( lie detector if possible).

5) Find out where it went and interrogate those who unloaded it as well as at any stops in between (Lie detector if possible).

6) See whose story matches up with the GPS information.

7) Persecute anyone whose story does not match up.

8) Make the findings public and detailed.

____________________________________________________________________

Observers arrive at 8:00 AM and are told the voting center will be open in 30 minutes. When it opens a draped table appears that was not there at 8:00. Latter that night the observers and everyone is told to leave as they are going to stop counting. The working mill around and check to make all the observers have left. They then pull suitcases of ballots from under the draped table and begin counting. It appears they maye be counting each ballot multiple times. Hours latter the observers hear that ballots are being counted and return. All this is captured on video. Days later a supervisor is asked to look at the video. He says there is nothing illegal, they were just sloppy with the chain of custody and handling of the ballots. Also the workers say they never asked the observers to leave, they just decided to leave on their own, Of course the observers all say they were told to leave and that counting was over for the night. Investigation is considered complete with no fraud involved.

What is the response from those who feel there was no fraud:

This has been thoroughly investigated and is yet another example of the falsehoods promoted by Trump and his supporters.

What do those think there was fraud say:

They are just trying to cover it up. All those ballots were for Biden.

What do those who seek the truth say:

This should be thoroughly investigated. Just the word of someone you may have skin in the game is not enough. First we need to find out if the observers were told to leave. They would probably take a lie detector test. If they pass we know the workers are not being truthful. Next we need to see the thumb nail from that time frame and see if the ballots were for Biden. Next we need a forensic evaluation done on the ballots to see if they were legitimate ballots, if they were filled out by machines or if by hand were they filled out with individual pens. The truth will give us confidence in the election.

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

There are many more. Thousands of military ballots in batches 100% for Biden and only the Presidential vote filled out, Places where number of votes cast is more than the number of registered voters ( sorry, someone with skin in the game saying the numbers that suggest this is wrong is not enough. Since the numbers came from the source that says they were wrong we need to know what the right numbers are and why those are right and the others are wrong). Places that said their voter roles were updated and correct now cutting huge numbers from those same rolls in a clean up. It is claimed counting machines were not tied to the internet, yet issues were solved remotely. The machines use a percentage of batches rather than vote counts, yet a batch on 1 vote showed a clear bias toward Biden. If we thoroughly investigate potential issues we can quiet the divisiveness between the sides. Besides, voter integrity is such that it is not innocent until proven guilty. It is more along the lines of a need to prove innocence.

_____________________________________________________________________

The broader point is both those who say there was no fraud, and those who say there was fraud have a view of where we are and that view is based on the group they affiliate there sense of self worth with. Their starting point is there was no fraud or there was fraud. They have given up their individual sovereignty and alliance with truth.

Now, how do these sides view what is needed to be done to get to transparent elections (everyone eligible to vote is able to vote and have their vote count) which both sides want? (Remember we can not say the same for all politicians or bureaucrats. Many have their own political agenda)

There was no fraud:The claims of possible fraud are all false and must be silenced in order to gain confidence. Anyone who suggests fraud must be discredited (even if Democrats did the same thing in 2016) and seen as racist, or insurrectionists etc. We need to stop deep investigation in the bud. Our focus on free and fair elections must be on making it easy for everyone to vote

There was fraud: Any attempt to discredit or debunk possible fraud is a cover-up and we must take back our country. Our focus needs to be making it as difficult as possible to get away with cheating.

Those who put truth first: The central point is not whether there was fraud or not. The point is the truth. We simply must have confidence in elections and politics aside we need to investigate and find the truth and find ways to stop fraud in any election in the future. The focus needs to be on making it easy to vote regardless of race, religion, party, or sex, while not making it easier to cheat and in fact preventing and/or exposing fraud. We can do both.

_____________________________________________________________________

Hopefully you can see how our allegiance to the group that gives us our sense of changing the world clouds how we see the world and most importantly how that influences what we think is needed to make the world better. It also changes how we view each other and divides us. All the while wanting the same outcome.

There are no solutions, only trade-offs ( Thomas Sowell):

Another thing that keeps us divided is a lack of understanding of the trade offs of our proposed solutions. When we look at solutions from the point of view of our "something bigger group" we tend to simplify the trade-offs so they fit the narrative. Also the more we rely on media and its tendency to put things into smart marketing phrases and repeat them over and over the less we can see the trade-offs: This tendency to simplify is magnified.

Let's look at one example. The issue over whether or not to build the Keystone Pipeline. All that seems to ever be discussed is the environment versus jobs. No one discusses what the alternative is to the pipeline. We still need oil, so how does it get from point A to point B and what is the environmental impact of that transport. If we get oil from the mideast to make up for that, what are the political ramifications (many of our recent military conflicts can find their seeds in "the politics of oil".) If we eventually get Green, what are the impacts on disposal of batteries on the environment as well as the energy needs to charge the batteries. Are other sources of energy for households and businesses as reliable in catastrophic weather? With jobs and job loss we need to understand how the flow of money works in the economy. If a person earns one dollar, lets say 1/3 goes to taxes and 70 cents goes to buy something. So the next person pays 1/3 of 70 cents to taxes and spends roughly 45 cents. The third person sends 1/3 of 45 cents to taxes etc. The question is what good can be done with these tax dollars that now will not be received by the government? Now this is an oversimplification but the basic principle holds true. Adding or deleting a job does not simply equal the income of that job. In this case it is 1 +.7+.45 etc.. And taxes are not just the tax on that job. It is .3+21+.15 etc. Beyond the financial impact we have to look at the mental health impact and how that effects the quality of life of the workers effected. Just calling an inanimate job does not eliminate the human being behind it.Of course we also need to look at both the quality of life and financial impact on harming to environment over both a short term and long term view. It is not a simple evaluation of good or bad based on what group you belong to.

Let's look at another example... lockdowns due to Coronavirus. Of course we are all aware of the "side-effects" of lock downs: suicides, mental health, kids education, change in diets, financial crisis, etc. What we may not understand is the effect on the supply chain. If say one part is made up of 4 parts, and one part is behind in its MFG or gone all together, the part does not get made. Lack of semi-conductors as an example may effect the rate at which vaccines can be made. The WHO reported this summer that stated further lockdowns in the US would reduce the flow of medicine to third world countries resulting in one million addition deaths.

If we stretch the logic to put a label on things as racists or white supremacy, We may lose credibility needed to get the people we want to listen to instead close their minds.

If we bring down the successful as a way to make things more equal and/or exchange free market incentives for government control, we may stifle ingenuity and lower the quality of life.

The point is, everything has a sort of butterfly effect, so before we get righteous and outraged, if we really want to change the world, we might want to consider the trade-offs and find ways to accomplish what is needed while minimizing negative trade-offs.

Exercise: Think outside the box. What are the trade-offs besides energy prices to losing energy independence especially in terms of the relationship with other countries especially the midieast.

_____________________________________________________________________

So how do we get to Purple? Let's look at the big picture. Overall, don't give up your individual critical thinking over "group think". Have a healthy skepticism of anything a politician or newscaster says no matter who they are. Even be skeptical of fact checkers. Research who they are. You might be surprised of their bais. Be especially skeptical of celebrities. Actors and performers create artificial and simplye( black and white) worlds to create narratives and while we look at them as characters they portray, their grasp of the complexities is usually not great, probably not better than yours, even if the power of their platform makes their opinion seem more powerful.

I always ask if what I hear on the news or from a politician, what might be the motive especially if it is a political one. Let's take an example. Nancy Pelosi blamed Republicans for blocking a Covid relief bill and said they did not care about the people. So I looked into the main objections the Republicans had and found they revolved mostly around the "pork" in the bill and that the pork was the vast majority of the bill ( this was true both of the bill in late 2020 and the one in early 2021). I then thought back to the first relief bill and remembered her saying, "I am all about the people. They were about business. We got what we wanted for the people." At the time I did not like what she said mostly on the grounds that you can not separate people from their livelihood. I also have come to see that if she was about unification and not positioning Democrats from Republicans she might have said, " Some of us focused on the short term need for money immediately, others leaned more toward the long term goal of keeping businesses alive so the people could keep an ongoing stream of income down the road. We all worked together to come up with this solution that addresses both needs." I can support s0mething like one-payor healthcare if done right, and not support the actions an manipulations of the politicians who also support it.

The political purpose does not have to be proven to me, but I allow its possibility to make me not accept what politician says on face value. Cuomo said for months that we needed the lock down and refused to address the trade-offs or address the concept of strategic application ( treating some segments differently than others). He blasted, especially Trump, who said we needed to end the lock-downs or at some point we will have nothing left to open up. I heard in the summer that his policy of returning positive patients back to their nursing home ( same with disabled people) may have contributed to many deaths. He also avoided using the increased hospital beds Trump provided. This policy is the opposite of strategic application which would have the most vulnerable the better protected. When a federal agency asked to see the records of nursing homes so they could investigate they were told they could not get them to them until basically after the election because they could not find them. After the election Cumeo said," We have to roll back the lock-downs or we will have nothing to open up to." The same thing he demonized prior to the election. We also found out he had manipulated nursing home deaths to avoid federal investigation. Two things are triggered for me. First is the relatively muted response from the left partially due to the diverted focus to his treatment of women. The second trigger for me is a possibility, maybe probability, his lock-downs and lack or consideration of a more strategic approach was do to the optics and how it gave tools to negatively reflect on Trump. I wonder how much his non0use of the extra beds Trump provided was influenced by not wanting to give any positive attributes to Trump. Did his political agenda cost lives and livelihoods? I don't know the answer, but that it is possible with some supporting evidence, heightens my alertness toward him.

Look closely at the words used.Currently there is a tendency to label things or people racist or examples of white supremacy. When I hear this label my first response is to ask first if in its majority is to true or is it a stretch, and secondly, what does its use provide politically. When AOC says that because of the use of the word surge ( the same word Biden used during the preliminaries calling for a surge at the border) and invasion to describe what is happening at the border, correlates somehow to white supremacy I get skeptical. Could relating being concerned by what is happening at the border ( Young kids being dropped over the wall, thrown into the Rio Grande, cartels making millions at the expense of poor people wanting to immigrate, Covid issues, criminal issues) to white supremacy be a way to distract us from what is happening? Does calling what is happening a challenge rather than a crisis change the reality? We give words their power which can be abused when that power is transferred in a context where it does not match reality.

Rather than justify our leaders and sources of information, we can start to demand the truth from them and realize that calling them out on their manipulations does not mean we are violating our principles. We can evaluate a great speech from them, as an example, not by how it raised our emotions, but rather how it might impact those who disagree. Did it only raise us up and get those with a different view to dig their feet in deeper. Did it seek to enlightened one group while canceling another. If we have harmony as a goal, did their speech promote harmony. See them as perhaps a source of information and opinion not as a source of answers.

Once we detach from our groups, and especially its leaders, we can start to relate to each other as people. In the song Imagine we are asked to imagine a world with no religion or country. I do not think of that literally. Spirituality is what you believe of the world, religion is how you live those beliefs. I would not want to live in a world where no one has beliefs or lives those beliefs. But, when we allow those beliefs to be manipulated and they way we live them dictated, then I think we become divided and lose. When we place our own research as a priority, and consider the opinions of others with equal value, we live in harmony and as One despite our differences. When we place our one on one relationships above belonging to something bigger, we truly become part of something bigger.

Once detached from the group and seeking truth in our own sovereignty, we can begin to expand our view of the world beyond a limiting narrative. Once we give up the ties to our narrative, we can begin to explore with others and broaden our view. The truth is not a thing, enlightenment is not a thing, it is a process of openness. Instead of trying convince someone of your view, ask them what is their's and how they came to that view.Instead of trying to shoot down their rationale, ask questions. Then when you share listen to their questions openly and honestly. Be aware when you are simply repeating what you have heard on the news. Understand the goal is an expansion of truth. And always ask what they see as the end or goal and what they feel is needed to get there. Find the common ground. Ask why they think that will work and if they see it as creating harmony versus winning.

Now we can can look at the actions others suggest in the context a common ground and better understand our differences. We can now more clearly see the trade-offs from a perspective we once did not consider. Instead of being activists for our way, we can become ambassadors for the common ground.

Let's look at one small issue on the new Georgia voting law: A person can not supply water or food to someone standing in line to vote.

One side says it is archaic and inhuman. The other wants to protect the value of all legitimate votes cast. Both sides want free and fair elections ( at least people do, maybe not politicians).Now if the first side were to see and understand how a person's vote can be stolen by the offer of favors while standing in line, ( there are people who claim many votes in 2018 were cast because of offers of money from a third entity organization) or minds changed without the voter having the opportunity to research the information provided, they might see the risk. If you were for Biden, and knowing that a significant percentage of Biden voters say they would not have voted for him had they known the content and third party verifications of Hunter's laptop, would you want to have had people approaching people in voting lines with videos of the contents and the third party testimony saying Joe Biden knew and was a part of it. Now the truth is, but not posted on MSM, this requirement was in place in prior elections. In the new law it is only valid 150 feet from the entrance and allows for self service stations to provide water and food so it is hard to see it as barbaric. A research of the truth and understanding the needs of both sides might not stop the rhetoric of politicians ( unless we demanded it) but we might stop our own outrage. One can say I see the risk of people trying to influence votes or stealing ballots is so low that it does not outweigh the inconvenience of a self-serve station to get water within 150 feet but at least it would be viewed as a difference of opinion and not a difference of ethics.

The first step is to hold politicians accountable for divisive half truths and political spins. We need to hold the media accountable. We can not accept either taking things out of context or ignoring history and twisting the order of occurrences. We can not allow the creation of false documents and/or edited videos to justify a narrative. We have to put an end to double standards. None of these organizations will do it on their own. We need to do it together in solidarity behind truth. The end can not justify the means or we will be forever divided.

____________________________________________________________________

I am going to ask some questions below. I ask you to pretend you are an alien viewing from space. Put aside your potential bias against Trump and view with a clear lens. Yes these questions only look at one side but since it is about what we can do to fix a problem (divisiveness) and not appointing blame it feels appropriate to me.

Question 1:

1) Trump supporters are called either racist or just plain dumb on national TV by a member of congress.

Does this create:

Healing and unity with the "other" half of America ____

or

Divisiveness from and frustration in that "other" half _____

Question 2:

Trump claims Mexican criminals are illegally coming over the border and wants to build a wall (Actually continue to build a wall Bush started and Obama had expressed a desire to continue) to stop it. It is claimed he is biased against all Mexican's and this is a racist policy. The wall is partially built and crime in border areas goes down. Instead of simply disagreeing with the wall, Trump and his followers are called racists over it. This despite the fact Obama was for extending the wall Bush had started PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: I think the American people, they appreciate and believe in immigration. But they can't have a situation where you just have half a million people pouring over the border without any kind of mechanism to control it.

Does this create:

Healing and unity with the "other" half of America ____

or

Divisiveness from and frustration in that "other" half _____

Question 3:

At a time when terrorist's activates are frequent in the U.S. and most are conducted by a very small percentage of Muslim immigrants from countries that are in part anti-American, situations arise in these countries that create a potential influx of Muslim immigrants that is huge in numbers. Trump, while admitting the vast majority pose no threat, still is concerned about the risk of the minority and temporally bans these immigrants until there is a way to vet them. The countries that welcomes them experience an increase in terrorist acts. Terrorist acts by immigrants from these countries in the US goes down. Trump honors new citizens from around the world, including Muslims, who went through the US citizen process on TV. Trump and his supporters are called racists.

Does this create:

Healing and unity with the "other" half of America ____

or

Divisiveness from and frustration in that "other" half ____

Question 4:

Trump lowers the unemployment rate for people of color to its lowest rate ever, record dollars of private money is invested in communities of color, a record amount of long term funding is given to Black Historical Colleges, He champions school choice especially in under served areas. The Reverend Jessie Jackson and the family of Martin Luther King praise Trump in the past for helping with various projects of theirs, Women and people of color are promoted within his organization, and while he is not perfect, he and his followers are denounced as racists with no consideration for the above.

Does this create:

Healing and unity with the "other" half of America ____

or

Divisiveness and frustration in that "other" half ____

Question 5:

Pelosi who claims she is for the people and unity calls Trump supporters deplorables.

Does this create:

Healing and unity with the "other" half of America ____

or

Divisiveness and frustration in that "other" half ____

Question 6:

AOC says Republicans have not worked at difficult jobs such as waitressing and all sit in leather chairs making large salaries. This was somewhat true decades ago. Most Trump supporters today are hard working blue collar people who felt offended at her remarks.

(The longest-serving woman in Congress, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), told The Hill in a recent interview that she struggles with a growing sense of alienation within the Democratic party as she fights for the interests of her largely working-class Midwest constituents while the Democrat party is increasingly dominated by representatives from wealthy, often coastal districts.

“They just can’t understand,” Kaptur told the outlet, referring to the difficulty some of her Democrat colleagues have in relating to the concerns of blue-collar constituents like hers.

“They can’t understand a family that sticks together because that’s what they have. Their loved ones are what they have, their little town, their home, as humble as it is—that’s what they have,” she added.

Kaptur told the outlet that she worries that the voices of congressional Democrats who represent wealthy districts are increasingly drowning out those who represent heartland districts.

“It’s been very hard for regions like mine, which have had great economic attrition, to get fair standing, in my opinion,” Kaptur said, adding that, as a Democrat who represents a working-class district, she feels like a minority within her party.

In the interview, Kaptur touched on congressional district data, which showed that 19 out 20 of the nation’s wealthiest districts are represented by Democrats.

In his first remarks following the November election, in which the GOP defied expectations and made gains in the House, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the House Minority Leader, declared, “This election cycle has made one thing clear: The Republican Party is now the party of the American worker.”)

Does AOCs comments seem to be based on fact or does it create:

Healing and unity with the "other" half of America ____

or

Divisiveness and frustration in that "other" half ____

Question 7:

A Wisconsin state congress woman sends out a video asking her soldiers to rise up and make Trump supporters pay. She receives a slap on the wrist.

Does this create:

Healing and unity with the "other" half of America ____

or

Divisiveness and frustration in that "other" half ____

Question 8:

A CNN host says now is the time to come together then asks how can you come together with people who don't follow science, believe in facts etc.. While we can argue what he means by the science and if he means scientists that say what enforces his narrative and not others or the full picture, and the same for facts... my response is if that is your outlook on those you disagree with:

Does his perspective promote healing?

Yes ____

No ____

Question 9:

Trump says Hydroxychloroquine may be beneficial in the treatment of Covid. A report that comes out says it is dangerous. CNN has several stories that says it will kill you. Within days the report that it is dangerous is found to have several flaws and false data and is taken down. CNN does not report on the problems with the report at least not to the degree n which they promoted it. Through the months several doctors from around the world report that is indeed effective. They are called quacks by MSM. Now a report from a major US health organization says it is indeed effective. It gets little to no play on MSM which does not admit it may have been wrong.

Does this create:

Healing and unity with the "other" half of America ____

or

Divisiveness and frustration in that "other" half ____

Question 10;

A major CNN host equates Trump supporters to Nazis. Saying they are racists, promote things such as detention camps etc.. ( personally I see the opposite when it comes to the Nazi perspective), Yes Trumpers are very nationalistic, but they do not promote the take over and invasion of other countries nor genocide of any race. Trump in fact was the first president in decades to keep us from new military conflicts and has reduced our troops over seas, He supported a change in the justice system to reduce sentences, he is for free speech and freedom of the press even if he calls some of it "fake" as a few examples where he differs from Nazis).

Does this demonization create:

Healing and unity with the "other" half of America ____

or

Divisiveness and frustration in that "other" half ____

Question 11:

Knowing there was concern about mass mail-in voting, instead of maximizing transparency we resist observation, reduce signature checking and updating of voter roles, and stop counting mid count. I looked at that and did not feel it was to commit fraud, but we were telling the "other half" your concerns don't matter, we are going to do it our way.

Does this demonization create:

Healing and unity with the "other" half of America ____

or

Divisiveness and frustration in that "other" half ____

Question 12:

A former CIA officer wrote that he left the Democratic Party due to the second impeachment of former President Donald Trump, saying that it only serves to exacerbate the political divide.

“For years, Democrats like me have watched with increasing alarm as our own political leaders and activists … have used an endless stream of hateful, violent and ultimately un-American rhetoric that has resulted in billions of dollars in economic damage and given birth to a violent national movement,” wrote Bryan Dean Wright, the former intelligence officer, for the Daily Caller. Wright said the “modern Left” is infused with “systemic hatred” that has “inflamed profound political divisions and the predictable outcomes that come with them, most especially violence and destruction.”

“The most egregious example came in the summer of 2020, with Leftist race riots that cost upwards of $2 billion in damages,” he said, adding that Democratic leaders didn’t offer condemnations when “fires raged,” property was vandalized, and lives were destroyed.

Wright pointed out that democratically elected officials incited violence in 2020.

“A woman in New York City threw a Molotov cocktail at four police officers sitting in their vehicle during a riot” and “were unharmed only because the gas bomb failed to ignite,” he said.

“Next, a group of rioters in Seattle tried to seal up the doors of a police precinct and ignite the building on fire, burning cops alive.

“In all, over 700 federal, state, and local law enforcement officers sustained injuries in violence perpetrated by Leftist rioters. That includes retired St. Louis police Captain David Dorn, who died defending the city he loved from those encouraged by the Democrat Party’s incitement.”

Wright went on to cite rhetoric from mainstream media pundits such as CNN’s Chris Cuomo, who told viewers last year, “Show me where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful,” and NPR’s statement that “looting is a powerful tool to bring about real, lasting change in society.”

Such statements, he argued, served to gaslight people into committing acts of violence. At the same time, he suggested that it’s hypocritical to impeach Trump for allegedly inciting an insurrection when Democratic leaders and left-leaning media outlets emboldened rioters and anarchists last year.

House Democrats have argued that Trump’s speech incited supporters on Jan. 6 to carry out the Capitol breach, which left several people—including an officer—dead. This is especially true of his use of the word fight ( even though he followed up with peacefully and within the law) while Shurmer and others used the same word in their own speeches and literature.

Do you assign any hypocrisy to the left conceming Trump?

Question 13:

Trumps expressed goal of January 6 was to get senators to not accept the certified votes of certain swing states. By doing this a debate would take place. This debate would be broadcast with a wide dispersion and overcome what he perceived as biased reporting by MSM. Best case possible those debates would trigger some swing states to have their results overturned or not accepted so that Biden would not have enough electoral votes and could not be elected. Most likely the debates would trigger a thorough investigative audit. The breaching of the capital undermined that process. The results of the breaching was the worse case scenario for Trump.

Some people say yes, but he is crazy so he probably did not realize it would have a negative impact. Others say he wanted to overtake the government ( a true insurrection) and have himself declared the leader. We know that a few of the very small percentage of demonstrators were armed with guns. None drew them during the breach. Most of the armed demonstrators were armed with broom sticks and the like. So if we take the scenario that Trump wanted a true insurrection he believed this rag tagged group could overthrow the US government. Even if you take that to be true you'd have to ask why he suggested and offered the national guard to control any violence ( I have seen the DC mayor's memo and others saying they refuse any federal support).

The FBI says there is no evidence of non Trump supports posing as Trump supporters and helping to stir up the crowd. I don't have to be a world class investigator to see this is not true. I have seen the video of an anti Trump person inside the capitol building with a MAGA hat on and a camera on his shoulder telling another person who is video taping, he is posing as a journalist so not to get into trouble and saying his goal was to egg on the demonstrators and cause trouble and then cheering "we did it" as more people breeched the building. The fact he was interviewed days latter on CNN as someone there just trying to prevent people from getting hurt is very disconcerting. I have seen the people dressed black changing into the clothing of Trump supporters and telling the person videoing them to get rid of the video. While other extreme groups that support Trump are the vast majority of those who breeched the building, to say there is no evidence of anti-Trump supporters playing a role is very misleading at best.

Now the left is branding anyone who attended the rally even if they took no part in the breech, an insurrectionist and terrorists at best and a white supremist or racist. Many who attended but took no part in the breach lost their jobs or had threatening protestors show up at their houses. It was suggested that senators who voted to not accept the results be label as terrorists and put on no fly lists. This despite fact some Democratic Senators, even two who led the impeachment proceedings, did the same in 2016. Some congress people say Trump tried to have them killed.

Do you feel that positioning by the left of the events on January 6 are a fair representation, or are they at least in part a political spin designed to benefit them? Does their rhetoric create unity or push the right even further away?

The movement since January 6 has been to silence any voice questioning the 2020 election. If we silence those voices today, what happens if down the road there is significant fraud in an election and no one speaks up?

Question 14:

While there is much difference of opinion on whether or not there was wide spread fraud in the 2020 election, there is now much rhetoric around new voting laws, from the federal government trying to take away the states right to assign their own laws to states passing new laws. Most of the states' new laws seem to focus on security issues. The left is more concerned with ease and accessibility. One side is racing to get their law enacted before any true fraud is proven, the other to get new laws in place to fight the federal law. The left is saying the new state laws are barbaric. racists, etc. The right is saying the left's position welcomes fraud and is designed to get them illegitimate votes and make it more difficult for the opposition to get elected.

Every individual person I talk to wants every legal and valid vote counted and as high a turn out as possible. No one wants the manipulation by politicians and MSM taking place today as evidenced by the link below.

https://www.oann.com/atlanta-based-news-outlet-retracts-false-claims-about-new-ga-elections-law-limiting-times-and-voter-access

Don't worry about the source. Read it, verify if it is true or not and ask yourself if it is OK with you.

Above are only a few examples of how the left might be a large part of divisiveness and hate. To me they represent an organized philosophy and strategy. If you only see a couple as troublesome, than I encourage you to tell our representatives to stop. They work for us not us for them. Work with people one on one and you might learn we have more in common then you believe and that can be our starting point to heal.