US Presidential Election 2020

[mentalgongfu2]

What is a bigger threat, the potential censorship of future truth, or the current promulgation of today's lies?

Real question, but here is probably not the right place for it. In the context of the 2020 US Presidential Election, I would argue that today's lies are the immediate concern. How we regulate the technocracy to prevent future abuse is open, and in our hands. But only one of the two is directly related to the recent storming of the Capitol by groups aligned with and including White Supremacists.

[stickdog99]

"This, I feel sure, was a theatrical performance, designed by the power consensus for one aim, to achieve the next round of consolidation of both power and resources following Covid and 9/11."

In this scenario, we'd have to assume a power consensus gave a collective order to understaff Capitol security. That it wasn't a unilateral decision by one faction or another. So it's an argument that jockeying for Pentagon power is also a theatrical performance. You may feel sure of your position, but I think it's a point that is up for debate.

Sure, it's up for debate. But my point is that (just as with the US non-response on 9/11) is THIS SHIOLD BE THE WHOLE FUCKING DEBATE!

Beyond the obvious bad actor aping Hitler, who the fuck organized this Made-for-TV cuckcoup? Who else signed off on it and who just let it happen? Why aren't these the first and foremost questions being asked? Why instead is showing support for Trump (something 70+ millions of Americans just did) being criminalized?

It's not as if chains of command are not known. It's not as if there is no way to assign responsibility The NSA has full access to every single piece of communication associated with this entire event.

We can start by arresting the actor and threatening him with 20 years in prison unless he reveals who hired him to play the role. We can proceed by questioning the police and threatening unemployment unless they reveal who told them to orll out the red carpet. It is not as if Congress and the Biden administration are powerless.

[DrEvil]

.

Harvey, your post on any other thread would have nothing but truth in it.

Here? What are you telling any of us that we don't already know, and what is the meaning as an intervention in the current discussion here?

What was the rally called by Trump on January 6th?

What was its purpose? What did it do? Are you also going to avoid this subject?

Was it not an effort by the actual president to shut down Congress so as to reverse the result of an election that he lost?

Hmm. Really? So what was the supposed endgame of this supposed master plan? Was it supposed to go down like the Bay of Pigs or the recent paramilitary operation in Venezuela? If so, why did this master plan fail so spectacularly despite no observable physical resistance whatsoever?

The endgame was what they said it was, loudly, publicly and repeatedly: to overthrow the election. The actual planning was on par with a dog chasing a car.

Why it didn't work: They're incompetent morons living in a fantasy land where up is down and Biden is a communist traitor and everything is possible if you just believe hard enough. Turns out echo chambers don't map well to reality.

[Harvey]

You should take a side. Against fascism, or "movement fascism" if you prefer, acknowledging that to be against it is not the same as being any less against the established regime of capitalism and imperialism.

You're either with us or against us? Okay, but before I subscribe to your declaration, how is it substantially different from 'Russiagate' in the sense that both are founded in distractionary theatre?

I believe you're being led smoothly in the direction of continued fascism in order to 'fight fascism.' I can't make it any plainer.

[stickdog99]

What should be done? Not much. We're discussing it.

As for what about this person or that gatekeeper, as I said to Henry, I don't think these questions prove that there is an overarching design, but belong at the start of a discussion about organizational power dynamics. Matters of honor and loyalty in conflict with one another within the groups, within individuals. It may well be that the same forces acting on the surface of things are also playing out right through to the Pentagon, and beyond.

The question about new domestic terrorism laws, I don't know. I guess the idea is to break up the brownshirts before things get any more serious. You may think that's just the stated idea, I won't try to change your mind on it.

And what of the Antifa-shirts, Anonymous-shirts, BLM-shirts, don't-inject-that-crap-into-me-shirts, collective-bargaining-shirts. eat-the-rich-shirts, give-me-food-and-shelter-shirts, election-integrity-shirts, anti-war-shirts, and where-are-our-fucking-$2000-checks-shirts?

[stickdog99]

Rhetorical question, BTW, before any of our resident experts decide to weigh in on how right-wing fascists are actually the downtrodden there to help me out if only I would join their cause.

No 1984 Orwellian Doublethink is required to acknowledge serious systemic problems in our society and governmental structure while also calling bullshit on Trump's antics. What is really sad is that so many of his followers are simply weak-minded individuals who believe whatever he says; that so many are convinced this proven liar is a beacon of truth. This cannot rightfully be blamed on a "liberal biased media." It is in fact the exact opposite. Twenty plus years of Fox news and their talk radio echo chamber has built an impenetrable wall of disinformation fed to an audience that won't ever consider any source that doesn't conform, while convincing followers that they are the free thinkers. It is obscene.

Sure. You are 100% right about all of this, IMHO. But who did this to us? Not the yahoos who watch and believe Fox News. They are not our true enemies. IMHO, our true enemies wish us to believe that other generally well-meaning (albeit obviously misled and seemingly semi-moronic) regular people are our worst enemies and we theirs simply because they root for a different color team than we do.

And we have been fully conditioned to cheer for anyone and anything, including BushCo war criminals, authoritarianism, Big Tech, Big Pharma, billionaires, the military-intelligence complex, a never-ending, uncompensated quarantine of perfectly healthy individuals, censorship, cancel culture, political speed censorship, and red baiting, just as long at we perceive these entities are aligned with us against our neighbors.

Without thinking too hard, I can think of two groups to blame. One, the people who did it. I feel bad for the weak-willed and weak-minded who have succumbed to the siren song of Trump and his ilk, but being those pitiful things does not give them excuse or license. Two, those who have done the brainwashing of said people. The Trumps and Hannitys and Glen Becks and Alex Joneses. Brainwashing might not be the right term, but they are leading the charge.

I'm not worried about people who "root for a different team." I can deal with reasonable people who see the world opposite to me. What I cannot deal with are unreasonable people who follow their cheerleaders who say that people like me should be killed because we're enemies of the state. This is literally what they have said and continue to say. I am in many ways thankful that I quit my journalism career just before the Trump era, because I would be doing much less well mentally were I directly subject to the very upfront and in many instances actual physical attacks against people who's only job is to write down what happened, despite whatever fantasy these right wing nutters have about them controlling the world.

You spew a long list of reasonable enemies, then throw in uncompensated quarantine, censorship and cancel culture. So disingenuous.

Who is it who has stood against compensation during quarantine? The Republican Majority, the very same people contesting the election.

Who promotes censorship? On one hand you have a long-coming twitter ban after YEARS of allowing Trump hate speech, and on the other you have Republicans who literally passed a law through AIPAC that means you can't sell goods to most states if you dare to support criticism of Israel as a nation.

Who cancels who? Roseanne Bar loses her TV show revival because she calls a black administration official a monkey, but Roseanne is the real victim?

But no, let us pretend all things are equal, and the grievances of the white majority with a Republican president and a majority Republican congress are the real people being trampled on. Obama is going to take your guns, Hillary's emails, Bill Clinton's blow job. 20 plus years watching this shit as an adult. I'm approaching 40 years old. I've been following politics since I was 8. I did G.W. Bush and Perot impressions in my elementary talent show approaching 92. But my entire adult lifetime, watching it turn, and now you want me to act as if all things are equal? Fuck that.

As Jack has so clearly stated, this is not an either/or proposition. I oppose BushCo war criminals, authoritarianism, Big Tech, Big Pharma, billionaires, the military-intelligence complex, but to pretend these are equivalent to "uncompensated quarantine of perfectly healthy individuals, censorship, cancel culture, political speed censorship, and red baiting," means either you're deluded or trying to delude people. And if you're bright enough to write that sentence, you're bright enough to know what you're doing when you stop at MIC and move to quarantine and pretend as if it's all one big family of evils and not the lumping together of many potentially unrelated things. There are important qualitative and quantitative differences in the two segments of this claim. To pretend otherwise IS to align yourself with our enemies.

Nazi's DESERVE to be canceled. How about that for a start.

How about bad political speech should be defeated rather than criminalized? You know, the "start" of the Bill of Rights?

[stickdog99]

What is a bigger threat, the potential censorship of future truth, or the current promulgation of today's lies?

I guess that depends on how you feel about the authorities you demand more authoritarianism from. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem fine with these authorities just as long as they pretend to ascribe to the exact same cultural orthodoxies as you do. But if your list of "reasonable enemies" steps out of line, the men come to take you away.

[mentalgongfu2]

What should be done? Not much. We're discussing it.

As for what about this person or that gatekeeper, as I said to Henry, I don't think these questions prove that there is an overarching design, but belong at the start of a discussion about organizational power dynamics. Matters of honor and loyalty in conflict with one another within the groups, within individuals. It may well be that the same forces acting on the surface of things are also playing out right through to the Pentagon, and beyond.

The question about new domestic terrorism laws, I don't know. I guess the idea is to break up the brownshirts before things get any more serious. You may think that's just the stated idea, I won't try to change your mind on it.

And what of the Antifa-shirts, Anonymous-shirts, BLM-shirts, don't-inject-that-crap-into-me-shirts, collective-bargaining-shirts. eat-the-rich-shirts, give-me-food-and-shelter-shirts, election-integrity-shirts, anti-war-shirts, and where-are-our-fucking-$2000-checks-shirts?

more false equivalency. can't even be bothered to respond to the last 2 pages of posts as you keep dumping here.
You think protests against a cop effectively suffocating Michael Brown to death in Minneapolis is the same as white supremacists demanding a stop to the counting of the electoral college votes?

If you're attempting to say something more nuanced, relevant or interesting, you are not hitting the mark.

[stickdog99]

.

Harvey, your post on any other thread would have nothing but truth in it.

Here? What are you telling any of us that we don't already know, and what is the meaning as an intervention in the current discussion here?

What was the rally called by Trump on January 6th?

What was its purpose? What did it do? Are you also going to avoid this subject?

Was it not an effort by the actual president to shut down Congress so as to reverse the result of an election that he lost?

Hmm. Really? So what was the supposed endgame of this supposed master plan? Was it supposed to go down like the Bay of Pigs or the recent paramilitary operation in Venezuela? If so, why did this master plan fail so spectacularly despite no observable physical resistance whatsoever?

The endgame was what they said it was, loudly, publicly and repeatedly: to overthrow the election. The actual planning was on par with a dog chasing a car.

Why it didn't work: They're incompetent morons living in a fantasy land where up is down and Biden is a communist traitor and everything is possible if you just believe hard enough. Turns out echo chambers don't map well to reality.

So it's just ostriches all the way to the up?

[stickdog99]

You should take a side. Against fascism, or "movement fascism" if you prefer, acknowledging that to be against it is not the same as being any less against the established regime of capitalism and imperialism.

You're either with us or against us? Okay, but before I subscribe to your declaration, how is it substantially different from 'Russiagate' in the sense that both are founded in distractionary theatre?

I believe you're being led smoothly in the direction of continued fascism in order to 'fight fascism.' I can't make it any plainer.

Pretty much. And this little bit of political theater is having the exact same effect on everyone I know, just as 9/11 did. Let's Roll!

[mentalgongfu2]

How about bad political speech should be defeated rather than criminalized? You know, the "start" of the Bill of Rights?

When someone attempts to criminalize political speech, your point will have merit. When "cancel culture" which has nothing to do with political speech being criminalized is used as an excuse to justify people attacking the Capitol, it's just bullshit.

[stickdog99]

What should be done? Not much. We're discussing it.

As for what about this person or that gatekeeper, as I said to Henry, I don't think these questions prove that there is an overarching design, but belong at the start of a discussion about organizational power dynamics. Matters of honor and loyalty in conflict with one another within the groups, within individuals. It may well be that the same forces acting on the surface of things are also playing out right through to the Pentagon, and beyond.

The question about new domestic terrorism laws, I don't know. I guess the idea is to break up the brownshirts before things get any more serious. You may think that's just the stated idea, I won't try to change your mind on it.

And what of the Antifa-shirts, Anonymous-shirts, BLM-shirts, don't-inject-that-crap-into-me-shirts, collective-bargaining-shirts. eat-the-rich-shirts, give-me-food-and-shelter-shirts, election-integrity-shirts, anti-war-shirts, and where-are-our-fucking-$2000-checks-shirts?

more false equivalency. can't even be bothered to respond to the last 2 pages of posts as you keep dumping here.
You think protests against a cop effectively suffocating Michael Brown to death in Minneapolis is the same as white supremacists demanding a stop to the counting of the electoral college votes?

If you're attempting to say something more nuanced, relevant or interesting, you are not hitting the mark.

Yep. It's totally different when we do it.

[mentalgongfu2]

What is a bigger threat, the potential censorship of future truth, or the current promulgation of today's lies?

I guess that depends on how you feel about the authorities you demand more authoritarianism from. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem fine with these authorities just as long as they pretend to ascribe to the exact same cultural orthodoxies as you do. But if your list of "reasonable enemies" steps out of line, the men come to take you away.

That is so insulting and patronizing to not even deserve a response, so none beyond this will be forthcoming.

[JackRiddler]

.

I have to agree. One doesn't have to posit what endgame these people were aiming for. Maybe they were hoping to get 10 times as many people, in which case they might have held the Capitol. Maybe they were hoping to turn Pence their way. Regardless, what happened was in front of you. A public event was announced and promoted. A crowd gathered. The president spoke. The crowd marched to the Capitol with a specific demand, broke in and conducted a riot. Some of the police invited them in, others fought them.

You should take a side. Against fascism, or "movement fascism" if you prefer, acknowledging that to be against it is not the same as being any less against the established regime of capitalism and imperialism.

You're either with us or against us? Okay, but before I subscribe to your declaration, how is it substantially different from 'Russiagate' in the sense that both are founded in distractionary theatre?

I believe you're being led smoothly in the direction of continued fascism in order to 'fight fascism.' I can't make it any plainer.

Russiagate was made up.

Trump - the President - inviting a fascist mob to storm the Capitol actually happened. It is not only real, but a live, pre-announced event that went according to plan (up to the "endgame", perhaps).

Please don't pretend again that you do not understand the difference. It's insulting.

I do not expect you to make a declaration. It is not "with us or against us." That is also a false interpretation and unworthy of someone as smart as you.

This is a question of what we shall take to be the facts. If we are to have a discussion, we should know what facts we are working with, whether we agree on them.

Do you see what happened on January 6 as described above -- Trump invited a fascist mob to storm the Capitol so as to undo the election results -- or do you wish to join with an interpretation in which the "downtrodden" expressed an inchoate but understandable "frustration," in however a misguided way?

That was where this discussion was, when you entered.

It is predictable and likely that the repressive state is going to continue to get worse, on the same track that we've been seeing. That is not a reason to suggest that the president did not call upon a fascist mob to storm the Capitol so as to overturn the election results, or to pretend that this is not something that in any world requires a response. Not new laws, not greater repression, not censorship, not reforms to make the security state more powerful, but a prosecution of the perpetrators for the crimes they committed under the existing laws.

A prosecution that especially includes the police elements who enabled this riot, and investigates the background, and does not shy away from the possible implications (which would be nothing new in U.S. history) of white supremacy in the police.

Regardless of the facts of January 6th, you may think the whole thing is trivial. But again, if so, why are you bothering with this thread?

I submit that not prosecuting the perpetrators not only invites more and worse of the same, but also will result in a much worse world on the whole, and accelerate all the other bigger badder things that you invoke. I submit that the possibility (small or not) of exposing the white supremacism within a police department might serve actually to make things better.

Whereas, with this conflation that you are engaging in, basically NOTHING remains as an issue other than the larger "fascism" as you have defined it, an entity that cannot be fought in any way since, if it is never approached in its specifics, it is going to remain invisible and invincible.

.

[Harvey]

How about bad political speech should be defeated rather than criminalized? You know, the "start" of the Bill of Rights?

When someone attempts to criminalize political speech, your point will have merit. When "cancel culture" which has nothing to do with political speech being criminalized is used as an excuse to justify people attacking the Capitol, it's just bullshit.

As I observed, a similar 'crisis' to 'Russiagate'. Drive new divisions among the divided: "OH MY GOD!! He's a covidiot, a transphobe and supports the coop!?"

Anyone who does not read enthusiastically enough from the patriot script is now magically transformed into the enemy, somehow 'justifying' an event, the very nature of which is itself highly contested.