Who would win in war between Liberals and Conservatives?

1234579

Comments

  • I'm a bit late, but I figured I'd provide some input being that there is a lot of misinformation on this thread. First, PawNStaR, the Democrats of the civil war were more conservative, the Republicans more liberal in values. They later flip-flopped.

    To address the question, in the short run, potentially Conservatives, especially given the current president.

    The army is pretty evenly split, despite outdated and inaccurate reports often cited. About 32% of army personnel lean conservative, as opposed to 23% liberal based on more randomized sampling. http://andrewgelman.com/2009/05/05/how_soldiers_re/

    Conservatives have more guns. A lot more. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/05/09/gun-ownership-used-to-be-bipartisan-not-anymore/?utm_term=.d3f68f447a1e&wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1

    In the short term, conservatives. However, in the long term, liberals have the vast majority of scientists, and thus the vast majority of new weaponry or advanced technologies. http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

    Liberals also have the majority of the more educated. http://www.people-press.org/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/

    I could see liberals winning in the end, although I doubt there could be a divide large enough to cause a civil war.
  • The so called "switched platform" never happened. Has been debunked many times. Liberals used it to hide the fact that they started the KKK or were the party of racists and still is the party of racists.

    As for military is easy, more conservs join military than libs.
    image

    image

    As for liberals have the fasr majority of scientists that is false. Science and vast majority of scientists don't agree with global warming or people who think they are the wrong gender two of the major things liberals are for.

    "Liberals are more educated" according to liberals that is. Haha

    Democrats lost once to conservatives and if it goes down again they will lose yet again. Its all about firepower and experience. The Marine Corps alone, the most conservative branch military followed by the Army can handle liberals by itself in a civil war if it happened without the Army stepping in. Not to mention the millions of conservs who own 2/3 of the guns in America.

    Antifa is a liberal group and it said that 3 days ago it would stage a uprising all over america and kill every conservatives, that day came and the so called Army of the liberals never didn't have the guts to follow through. Conservatives all over america were lock stocked and ready, even to a point where conservatives went out and look for antifa and found only a few 100 people with signs.

    I even flew to California on oct 28 and met up with a 30 guys that i used to serve with and we waited for a week and that liberal revolution never came. Just got back yesterday. We even had Trump T shirts on but antifas revolution never game. All of us were amped and stoked and locked and loaded yet the liberals never followed through with their promise of killing every conservs on November 4th. Wasted close to 3,000 dollars on plane tickets and a new rifle and few thousand bullets. That's how i know liberals will never win any war.
  • Debunked? And yet no sources? Review the values of the Southern Democrats and tell me they were liberal.

    Military Times does not take random samples, instead favoring rank weighting, which does not accurately describe the entire military. I suggest you read the sources I provided for more information. It addressed this claim already, so I highly suggest you read my sources before providing claims I've already responded to.

    To say that the majority of scientists are liberal is false is rather amusing, considering I cited sources, and you did not. On man-driven global warming, 97% of scientists support it.

    ""Liberals are more educated" according to liberals that is. Haha"

    Hahahahaha-want to provide some sources? According to you, a bloke online, that's false. Now that's something to laugh about. Again, see my sources.


    "I even flew to California on oct 28 and met up with a 30 guys that i used to serve with and we waited for a week and that liberal revolution never came. Just got back yesterday. We even had Trump T shirts on but antifas revolution never game. All of us were amped and stoked and locked and loaded yet the liberals never followed through with their promise of killing every conservs on November 4th. Wasted close to 3,000 dollars on plane tickets and a new rifle and few thousand bullets. "

    You're a very odd individual.
  • Debunked? And yet no sources? Review the values of the Southern Democrats and tell me they were liberal.

    Its misinformation by liberals, spread liberals to hide their rscist pasts. If the switch happened then why did the Democrat Party passed the Jim Crow Laws?

    " In the antebellum era, the Democratic Party had been united on slavery, conservatism, and Southern power. ... War Democrats labored to establish differences between themselves and the Republicans, often trying to shift focus away from Union and onto civil liberties and fiscal policies ".
    http://essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/union-and-confederate-politics.html

    * http://classroom.synonym.com/civil-warera-political-parties-north-vs-south-8901.html

    * http://newsblaze.com/usnews/politics/why-democrats-avoid-confederate-history-while-republicans-embrace-it_13243/

    Again the switched platform has been debunked many times. The KKK was created by democrats a 100 years ago to intimidate republicans. Now lets look at the present, antifa a Democrat inspired group is the modern arm wing of the Democratic party. Antifa is intimidating republicans in this age.

    Platform switch theory Debunked on video

    1.

    2.

    There is no truth whatsoever in the liberal so called switched. Spread by democrats and their misinformed followers to demonize the republicans the party that was founded to free the slaves. Slavery is still carried out by the Democrats. The cotton fields are gone but welfare is the new slavery.
  • Military Times does not take random samples, instead favoring rank weighting, which does not accurately describe the entire military. I suggest you read the sources I provided for more information. It addressed this claim already, so I highly suggest you read my sources before providing claims I've already responded to.

    Liberals always bring up polls and statistics but when those two are against their argument they claim those statistics and polls are inaccurate. Sorry but it is what it is. More republicans join the military at a higher percentage than democrats. Men and women lie but Numbers don't! And the numbers says fast majority of military is republican.
    https://freebird.is/t/conservative-and-liberal-participation-rates-in-the-us-military/565

    And they are as does

    image
  • b>To say that the majority of scientists are liberal is false is rather amusing, considering I cited sources, and you did not. On man-driven global warming, 97% of scientists support it.

    The "97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/97-percent-solution-ian-tuttle

  • 99.95% of scientists disagree with global warming, only 0.05% scientists agree with global warming. The 99.95% amount to 31,487 while the 0.05 amounts to 18, 3 of that 18 are still students. /b>

    Video/Press image to play


    So where did the 97% consensus came from? How can it be 97% agreement when only 18 or 0.05% agree with it?

    How did it get to 97% agreement when the majority of scientists disagree with it?
    http://www.petitionproject.org/seitz_letter.php
  • How can one claim liberals have more educated numbers when majority scientists disagree with liberal hoax such as global warming? Or gender fluid? If it was true then all scientists would agree on these 2 majort lineral policies. Science and scientist say there are 2 genders, liberals say there are more than 10 genders. Science and scientists say global warming is not true while liberals say it is. Claim liberals are more educated yet the majority of their degree is in liberal arts. Haha
    Claim liberals more educated yet liberals don't believe science 2 gender fact.
  • None of your sources tackle their political values, which were conservative, not liberal, regardless of what they were called. Either way, this is irrelevant.
    http://factmyth.com/factoids/democrats-and-republicans-switched-platforms/

    "Sorry but it is what it is. "

    I've already explained they weren't taking random sampling. Find evidence they have and we'll talk.

    I don't have the time now, but I'll look into the 97% statistic. It should be noted, when a scientific paper is thought to be flawed by other scientists, they publish a rebuttal paper showing its errors. No one has yet managed that, which is telling, and I'd ask if there is error in methodology someone publish that as soon as possible.

    "How can one claim liberals have more educated numbers when majority scientists disagree with liberal hoax such as global warming? Or gender fluid? "

    A fundamental misunderstanding of science. Science doesn't affirm political opinions. A liberal scientist isn't working to find evidence supporting their position, but rather evidence of what is true. Science works to find the truth.
    In regard to gender fluidity, I think the community is more divided than you think, based on what I've read. Even disregarding the 97% consensus every consensus done on the issue of climate change has come up with a large majority supporting it.
    Regardless, this has no impact on anything we're discussing. Most scientists lean liberal. Most educated people tend to be liberal. This is a fact, I've already cited sources. If you disagree please avoid the whining and get to the heart of the matter; cite me some poles on scientists that show a conservative majority.
  • I don't entirely understand what the National Review is trying to imply when saying "Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent!"
    That's entirely rational. They treat it as if that's a methodological error of some sort.

    Looking at Legates et al. which was cited in your counter, there are a few clear attempts to contort the methodology of Cook et al. 2013. Rather than recreate the study, as the author of your National Review article said, he did no such thing. In Legates et al 2013, all papers, even those which do not mention any endorsement of anthropogenic climate change, were included, which, of course, makes no sense. Papers that don't mention a cause of climate change should not be included, plain and simple. Another error is Legates et al.'s methodology was only counting papers which supported warming from the 1950's until now. A large number of papers predict future warming trends, which too endorse the IPCC's model. Legates et al. discounts these papers, for some reason. It is strangely suspicious and very evident that the author of your cited National Review article is a political journalist and not a scientific one. My suggestion for the National Review is that they stop deliberately posing scientific questions to political journalists.

    Since this is not place to debate anthropogenic climate change, maybe we should start wrapping this section of the debate up (you're welcome to respond of course, but note I may avoid another lengthy response which distracts from the real debate). If you're interested we can continue this elsewhere.

    Oh, and I misspoke earlier in saying 97% of scientists support global warming. It's 97% of scientific research, which makes this topic entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
  • “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,”

    41 out of all 11,944 abstract or 1.0% of 4,014 expressed an opinion in agreement with global warming. So again how can 41 out of 11,944 papers become 97%? What happened to the other 11,903 abstracts that didn't voiced a opinion in agreement with global warming? How did 41 studies out 11,944 became the 97%? Isn't 41 less than 11,903? How did 41 papers which equate to 1.0% become 97%?

    " Science doesn't affirm political opinions".

    Yet you claim 97% of scientists are in agreement with the liberal global warming agenda. Science isn't a consensus. Its based on data and hard evidence and both are not in agreement with your global warming liberal agenda.

    It's 97% of scientific research, which makes this topic entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

    Its not 97% when on 41 papers out of 11,944 scientific research or 1.0% 4,014 express opinion in agreement with global warming. How can 1.0% equate to 97% in agreement? Claim liberals are more educated yet the math in this so called "97%" is should i say Bravo Sierra. @redsnapper must have been the guys math teacher. Lol
  • "41 out of all 11,944 abstract or 1.0% of 4,014 expressed an opinion in agreement with global warming. So again how can 41 out of 11,944 papers become 97%? What happened to the other 11,903 abstracts that didn't voiced a opinion in agreement with global warming? How did 41 studies out 11,944 became the 97%? Isn't 41 less than 11,903? How did 41 papers which equate to 1.0% become 97%?"

    I'm entirely confused. Where are you getting these figures? The study found 34% of papers expressed opinion on anthropogenic global warming. 33% supported it.

    "Yet you claim 97% of scientists are in agreement with the liberal global warming agenda."

    No, liberals agree with 97% of research. You have it backwards. Global warming was discovered before any political party stated opinion on it.

    "Science isn't a consensus."

    You'll note I said earlier: "Oh, and I misspoke earlier in saying 97% of scientists support global warming. It's 97% of scientific research..."

    Science isn't a consensus among scientists, but among research, which is what this is.

    "Its based on data and hard evidence and both are not in agreement with your global warming liberal agenda."

    97% of research support anthropogenic climate change.
  • " im entirely confused. Where are you getting these figures? The study found 34% of papers expressed opinion on anthropogenic global warming. 33% supported it".

    The study was done in 2013. And 11,944 papers/studies were compiled out of 11,944, 41 out of 11,944 were in agreement with global warming. 11,903 studies were of the opposite opinion. Lol.... If what you claim which is 33% support it how did it turn out to ne 97%? Lol

    "Science isn't a consensus among scientists, but among research, which is what this is".

    So how did 41 papers out of 11,944 turn out to be 97%? Majority of the studies and research papers were of the opposite. Thats 11,903. 11,903 disagreed only 41 agreed yet you keep peddling that 97% bs.

    "97% of research support anthropogenic climate change".

    11,903 anthropogenic research disagree and only 41 agreed so again how did 41 papers became 97%? Entire 97% claim is based off 41 papers out of 11,944. Can you tell us that? Lets not forget 95% of scientists disagreed with it only 0.05% agreed with it. Its not 97% when you just stated that 33% supported it. What about the other 67%? 41 out of 11,944 equals 97% according to you. 33% equal 97% according to you. The majority disagree 11,903 disagreed yet its 97%. Majority 67% disagreed yet is 97%. Yup liberals are more educated.lol

  • Bill Nye the so called science guy is not a scientist. He does not even have a doctorate. He is also pushing this BS 97%. Lol
  • "If what you claim which is 33% support it how did it turn out to ne 97%? Lol"

    For your own sake I suggest you read the study (or for that matter the National Review article, in the very quote you cited, which explains it). 34% of the papers expressed any opinion on anthropogenic climate change (the majority being measurements and such, and did not posit a position whatsoever). Out of all of the papers, 33% were found to support anthropogenic climate change. Divid 34 by 33 and you have your answer.

    "So how did 41 papers out of 11,944 turn out to be 97%? "

    Where are you getting 41 papers?

    " Thats 11,903. 11,903 disagreed only 41 agreed yet you keep peddling that 97% bs. "

    What are you talking about? No study found 41 agreed, it found 33% agreed out of 34% who voiced an opinion either way. I'm trying to fathom what you're saying. If you go to the original study and search for the number "41" nothing comes up. The number is mentioned nowhere in the study (found here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024).
  • I agree Bill Nye is not an accurate source. I think his heart is in the right place, but he should leave these topics to the people who know what they're talking about (as should the politicians and Fox News hosts). Having watched him when I was young, it saddens me to see him so blatantly misrepresenting facts.
  • You bring up the 33% yet the national review breaks it down to 41 out of 11,944.

    If you go to the original study and search for the number "41" nothing comes up. The number is mentioned nowhere in the study

    They recreated the study that claimed 97% and found out 41 out 11,000+ support the 97%. Can you read? The guy got 33 so he devided it by 34 and he came up with 97%. Again how does 33% out of 67= 97%? Lol

    What about the 67% of the research that disagreed with him?
  • I don't watch fox news or any news but is nice to that you think that i do. I go to the source, and guess what majority of scientists disagree with the 97%. Liberals push it disregarded the facts especially CNN and the mainstream media. The mainstream media which is liberal oriented. And you are also misrepresenting facts like that guy you used to watch.
  • And as per the topic of this discussion the answer is conservatives. There are more conservatives in America then there are liberals.
    http://news.gallup.com/poll/201152/conservative-liberal-gap-continues-narrow-tuesday.aspx

    Conservs have more people and own majority of the guns in the US. Majority of the veterans and combat veterans are conservs.

    Let this be a reminder.
    image

    The heartland of America is dominated by conservatives. The blues/liberal states are isolated. Majority of the railway and highways and roads lead to and from the heartland. Majority of the military bases and weapons depot are in the heartland. Lets not forget militias!
  • "You bring up the 33% yet the national review breaks it down to 41 out of 11,944. "

    According to Legates et al. 2013, and I've already explained in depth the errors in his methodology. I would ask that you read my posts thoroughly, because this is the third or fourth time you've brought up something I've already addressed.

    I suggest you read this article: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/watt-about-monckton-and-the-97/

    "They recreated the study that claimed 97% and found out 41 out 11,000+ support the 97%. Can you read? "

    On the contrary, can you, my dear friend, read? Legates et al. 2013 did not recreate Cook et al. 2013. Cook had a series of endorsement criteria, which, if you read, I think you will find very reasonable. Legates did not use these criteria, instead creating his own less reasonable (as explained in an above post) criteria, and thus did not recreate the study to any stretch of the imagination.

    "Again how does 33% out of 67= 97%? "


    In Cook et al. 2013, 34% presented any opinion, and 67% stated no opinion, so it's 33% of the total papers endorsed climate change, but only 34% of the papers expressed any opinion. 34/33=97.

    "What about the 67% of the research that disagreed with him?"

    67% stated no opinion. 0.3% disagreed. Most papers aren't addressing the question of anthropogenic climate change. Maybe the papers are reporting on temperature measurements of the Atlantic, or following a storm off of New Zealand, not every single paper addresses endorsement or no endorsement.

    "The heartland of America is dominated by conservatives. The blues/liberal states are isolated. Majority of the railway and highways and roads lead to and from the heartland. Majority of the military bases and weapons depot are in the heartland. Lets not forget militias!"


    I agree, however I feel in the log run it'll be brain over brawn.
  • only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,”

    Hahahahaha 0.3 expressed an "agreement" opinion for global warming. Hahaha

    Like i said before can you read. The national review breakdown the 2013 study and show us all that its false. Hahaha

    " I agree, however I feel in the log run it'll be brain over brawn".

    Liberals don't have a monopoly on education. Hahaha. They claim to do but has we can see fast majority of liberals think that science is racists for stating there are only 2 sex.

    As for brain over brawn.
    image

    Germany had the brain and was technologically ahead of the allies in ww2 but in the end brute strength hammered it into unconditional surrender.
  • "Hahahahaha 0.3 expressed an "agreement" opinion for global warming. Hahaha "

    My my, you aren't a fan of listening? Already rebutted this point twice, please review.

    "Liberals don't have a monopoly on education. Hahaha. They claim to do but has we can see fast majority of liberals think that science is racists for stating there are only 2 sex. "

    And yet pole after pole after study show liberals tend to have higher education, and scientists tend to lean liberal. What does that tell you about conservatives, that they tend to be less educated than the people who think these scientists are racist?

    "As for brain over brawn."

    And who do you think invented those weapons?
  • Since you're a fan of swallowing what Legates has so fruitfully, shall we say, expelled down your throat, let us access other studies on the issue.

    First, Bedford and Cook 2013 was published in rebuttal of Legates et al. 2013 (Found here: https://www.weber.edu/wsuimages/geography/Bedford_and_Cook_2013_Response_to_Legates.pdf)

    Second, as far as consensus among scientists, several studies have been conducted. Doran and Zimmerman 2009 found 82% said there was a consensus among scientists about anthropogenic climate change (Found here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/epdf). Anderegg et al. 2010 found 97-98% (http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract). Bray 2010 also found a consensus. Bray and von Storch 2007, Verheggen et al. 2014, Rosenberg et al. 2010, Farnsworth and Lichter 2012, Stenhouse et al. 2014, Carlton et al. 2015 and Bray 2010 all find a consensus among scientists. The consensus among scientists is pretty clear. Those are the consensus among scientists (which is what you were initially arguing, despite later attempts to switch positions).

    Thus, at least half of your claim "Science and scientists say global warming is not true while liberals say it is." is proven wrong right there. Now for the other half...

    As far as a consensus among peer reviewed papers, you have one paper, Legates et al. 2013, which was responded to by Bedford and Cook 2013. Shall we review other studies on consensus? Oreskes 2004 found a consensus among papers. Shwed and Bearman 2010 found the same level of consensus as there was about the link between cigarets and cancer among papers. Anderegg et al. 2010 found a consensus among scientists as well as peer-reviewed research. And, obviously, Cook et al. 2013 found a consensus. It seems, in a rather humorous turn of events, there is at least an 80% consensus among scientific papers that the vast majority of peer-reviewed papers support climate change (see Cook et al. 2016 for more information on that).
  • I hope and pray that in the end, this whole thing does not end up in a civil war. Nobody wins if America is physically damaged by a civil war. The America that we admire and look up to as a beacon of freedom and goodwill; and military strength; and a stabilizing force in the world; and a defender of the weak; and provides opportunities for all to achieve economic benefits and personal wealth--all are possible in America that we know today.

    The US, yes, is fracturing along societal and racial divides that we've never seen or heard before; for those of us who lived in the west coast as well as the east coast. The racial tensions that we thought were improving over the last decade or two is flaring up again. These tensions probably were always there but are now able to flare up because of instant access information thru widespread access to communication technologies including Facebook, Twitter, etc., etc.

    So I guess that is the new world--the new America-- that we are facing. I hope it will eventually settle down; and all of us can live and work and interact moving forward. I hope the talk of a new revolution to overthrow the current leadership will die down; and people can go back to the ballots in order to change the government--not thru force or illegal actions. Just some thoughts on this nice day from Kolonia.
  • And who do you think invented those weapons?

    Not liberals. Lol.... Nazi germany was a nationalist goverment. The far end of the right movement. The epitome of the alt right. You said brain will win out yet it was brute strength that knocked them out of the war.

    And again science is not in agreement with the 97% consensus. Only 0.3% of the research papers agreed with it. What happened to the other 99.7% of the research? The 2013 study took 0.3% of the papers and perpetuated that it was 97%. 0.3% of the research speak in favor of globals warming yet the 0.3 somehow became 97%.
  • The US, yes, is fracturing along societal and racial divides that we've never seen or heard before

    All thanks goes to the liberals controlled mainstream media. Is all because a entitled party and its gang of crybabies can't accept the constitution which says the electoral select the POTUS and not the popular vote. The liberals media praises violence from within its ranks and are silent when its own memebers commits violence acts but when its groups who are from the right the mainstream media keep replaying it for weeks. The media is the reason why america is so divided now. Its what happens when the media aligned itself with the party of the slave owners and the party that created the KKK.
  • Its not republicans or their followers that are pushing for a civil war its the left. Thats why republicans are so strong in protecting the second amendment. Its what will protect them from a oppressive government and the liberal mob. On November 4th the liberal aligned antifa circulated memos on the web that it will stage a uprising all over america and will bring about the end of conservatives. That's why i flew to the liberal capital of america, California.

    When republicans lost viriginia last week you didn't see us rioting and blocking streets. We accepted it.
  • "Only 0.3% of the research papers agreed with it. "

    PawNStaR oh PawNStaR, what're we to do with you? I cited 5 studies, 4 of which found that the vast majority of papers on global warming confirmed it, and one disagreed. The only one that didn't agree is the only one you're paying attention to. Biased much, Mr. PawNStaR? I'd say most certainly.

    "Nazi germany was a nationalist goverment"

    You think Nazis invented automatic weapons?
  • If I may add my two cents, here’s a different perspective

    LOOKING AT THE BIGGER PICTURE – THE REAL WINNERS

    I) THE POLITICIZATION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE

    Although an overwhelming majority of scientists agree that global warming is happening and human activity is the primary cause, many prominent global warming skeptic organizations/scientists/lobbyists are actively working to sow doubt about the facts of global warming. The result is a clouding of the reality of global warming problem and conflicting studies & reports on global warming. That particular petition project was signed by 31, 487 American scientists which include 9, 029 with PhD degrees

    These organizations/lobbyists play a key role in the fossil fuel industry's "disinformation playbook," a strategy designed to confuse the public about global warming and delay action on climate change.

    Why? Because the energy/fossil fuel industry wants to sell more coal, oil, and gas — even though the science clearly shows that the resulting carbon emissions threaten our planet.

    The result - US first withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol & more recently the Paris Agreement on Climate Change
    .
    For as Pacific Islanders, we don’t need these conflicting studies or reports to convince us whether to believe in them or not. The effects of global warming is real & it’s already happening in front of our eyes in our back yard or maybe in front of our houses.

    On the surface, many people will be quick to say, the oil companies are the winners which is true in a way ? But who’s behind the oil companies? Let’s take a look.

    The first oil company that monopolized the US was founded by the Rockefeller family which was funded by banks owned by the Rothschild family. Standard Oil was then broken up in 1911 into 34 different companies which include Exxon, Chevron, the Virginia Railway, the Florida East Coast Railway to name a few.

    The 4 US biggest banks - Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup & Wells Fargo in tandem with Deutsche Bank, BNP (Banque Nationale de Paris), Barclays & other European old money behemoths own 4 of the biggest oil companies (if not the biggest) - Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP & Chevron Texaco or Corp.

    Who are the top or largest shareholders of these banks – State Street Corp, Vanguard Group, Fidelity (FMR) & Black Rock. These Big 4 are also the owners/top shareholders of Goldman Sachs & Morgan Stanley. These not-so well-known Big 4 have reps in all of the 12 Federal Reserve banks.

    Consider the following:

    • Was it a coincidence that Dr. Frederick Seitz, a big supporter of the petition project, was the past President of the US National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University?

    • Is it a coincidence that President Trump’s current Secretary of State is the former CEO of Exxon Mobil oil company, Rex Tillerson?

    • Is it a coincidence that President Trump’s head of EPA is Scott Pruitt? Who is Scott Pruitt?

    Mr. Pruitt was the former Oklahoma attorney general, who has led or taken part in 14 lawsuits aimed at blocking E.P.A. regulations, including Obama administration policies trying to tackle climate change.

    • Is it a coincidence that President Trump’s pick to chair the White House’s Council on Environment Quality is Kathleen Hartnett White? Who is Kathleen H. White?
    Kathleen Hartnett-White is the distinguished senior fellow-in-residence and director of the Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment at the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF). She was a director of the TPPF's Fueling Freedom project, which seeks to “Explain the forgotten moral case for fossil fuels” while “building a multi-state coalition to push back against the EPA's unconstitutional efforts to take over the electric power sector by regulating CO2 via the Clean Power Plan.”

    Rolling Stone described Fueling Freedom project as “a hymnal to all things fossil fuels, the dirty-energy, non-satirical equivalent of Thank You for Smoking.”
    Interestingly, TPPF has been funded by ExxonMobil, Chevron, the Koch network, & a few other organizations that many describe as the “Who's Who of Texas polluters”.

    • Is it also a coincidence that President Trump’s Secretary of the Treasury is Steven T Mnuchin, former Chief Info Officer at Goldman Sachs?

    • Is it a coincidence that President Trump’s former White House Chief Strategist is Steve Bannon, another former Goldman Sachs executive?

    In 2005, the Deutsch bank approved a $640 million construction loan so Trump could build his name-sake tower in Chicago. Who's owns the Deutsch bank? Same top shareholder or owner of Goldman Sachs - Rothschild family.

    All of the above are not coincidences. They’ epitomize how powerful this small, elite group are, who are generally unknown to the general public & whose own media arm always try to discredit any info or news reported on them. Which media they own?

    The Top(#1), 3rd & 4th biggest shareholders of Time Warner, which owns CNN is Vanguard.

    The 4th, 6th, 7th, 9th & 11th biggest shareholders of Fox Entertainment which owns Fox News is Vanguard. Fidelity is #19.

Sign In or Register to comment.