American Politics

[Golfinho]

Anyone old enough (and not yet senescent, paulie) recollects how in the late 60's, it was the Left that entrenched power had to suppress in order to maintain their hegemony. Fast forward to now, and it's the Right that is being targeted.

It has everything to do with the suppression of Free Speech.

That 'the US Constitution doesn't touch private companies' is the means whereby your civil liberties will be taken away from you. Pay attention.

[ScatManDoo]

Yeah, Congress is telling the public a guy who won a presidential election and got 70 million votes is not allowed to run again?

Yes, if Trump is impeached for high crimes.

There is no due process, no hearing, no witnesses,

Accused criminal Trump gets a trial in the Senate.

just Trump is obviously guilty by the House, and the Senate is going to say that is fine with us.

I think so. The evidence is clear that he invited and incited a riot at the capital to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.

And you are excited about that?

I am looking forward to it. Lock him up by June.

What do you think those 70 million Trump voters are going to think?

Trump lost and lied to us about it. His lies cost lives.

Say sounds good to us?

Should sound good to the nearly 82 million Americans that voted for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. That's should count more, because their count was more. Millions more!

Maybe you Dimocrats will figure out one day that the reason Trump got elected was

By lying constantly when he ran in 2016 to bunch of midwestern suckers.

[Paulie97]

Here's the bottom line.

Go find yourself a nice quiet corner. Then man up and look to the midterms. The people have spoken and chosen a different path, which commences tomorrow.

[Run Mann]

What do you think those 70 million Trump voters are going to think? Say sounds good to us?

What do you think those 80 million plus Biden voters are going to think and say?

[Golfinho]

This whole oxymoronic idea of "liberal Fascism" is a joke that serious historians and political scientists give no credibility to. It was put forth in 2008 by a conservative journalist, Jonah Goldberg in his book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Golfinho is obsessed with the idea, but like with most any subject, he lacks a grip of even the basics. He's not worth investing much time with. Here are some reviews of the book and it's novel, non-hi.

What irreverence are you cutting-and-pasting now?

If you ever get yourself able to comprehend the meaning and original context of classical liberalism you might be able to get a grip on the basics of the current system: 'neoliberalism'. Of course that would be wishful thinking: the 'political science' you reference has been rebranded as 'political economy' decades ago, long since evidently you had a book open in front of you.

[Golfinho]

Like most people, you don't have a clue what fascism is. Or isn't. I suggest that you read the following Britanica article (remember to access the links on the left side). When you are done, you'll see how much of the definition applies to DJT. https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism.

Encyclopedia Britannica? What is this: your homework assignment to get your 7th grade equivalency? Like most people educated in the language of their oppressors, you wouldn't know fascism from 'a bundle of elm or birch rods'.

And of course, Britannica references their two go-to bogeymen as fascism personified. I'd suggest for you Democracy Incorporated by Sheldon Wolin.

Repeat: Donald Trump is a symptom, not the problem.

[Elvis 2008]

Mitch has finally grown a pair and is calling out Trump. Even though he is out of office tomorrow it appears that he may still be convicted in the Senate which would prevent him from running again.

Yeah, Congress is telling the public a guy who won a presidential election and got 70 million votes is not allowed to run again? There is no due process, no hearing, no witnesses, just Trump is obviously guilty by the House, and the Senate is going to say that is fine with us. And you are excited about that?

What do you think those 70 million Trump voters are going to think? Say sounds good to us?

Maybe you Dimocrats will figure out one day that the reason Trump got elected was how many of us were disenfranchised with the government, being told our votes do not matter, too big to fail meant too big to jail. I love how you dummies are cheering on how your vote counts less and less. Congress should not pick the president. We should. How much of an idiot do you have to be not to get that?

[Paulie97]

Mitch has finally grown a pair and is calling out Trump. Even though he is out of office tomorrow it appears that he may still be convicted in the Senate which would prevent him from running again.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcc...eachment-trial

McConnell addressed the insurrection during a floor speech Tuesday afternoon and said Trump "provoked" the mob that tried to use "fear and violence" to stop the Joint Session of Congress from certifying President-elect Joe Biden's win.

Whatever his motives he's speaking the pure truth. One can watch the videos, listen to what the rioters were saying to each other and it's crystal clear what their motivations and aims were. And it's also very clear by tweet and speech that Trump had been egging them on with incendiary lies.

[Run Mann]

Mitch has finally grown a pair and is calling out Trump. Even though he is out of office tomorrow it appears that he may still be convicted in the Senate which would prevent him from running again.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcc...eachment-trial

McConnell addressed the insurrection during a floor speech Tuesday afternoon and said Trump "provoked" the mob that tried to use "fear and violence" to stop the Joint Session of Congress from certifying President-elect Joe Biden's win.

[Travv]

"Washington, D. C. —President-elect Joe Biden will be inaugurated this week, and due to his incredible popularity with the American people, he will be inaugurated in a top-secret location behind a massive 12-foot wall guarded by 30,000 soldiers.

"The reason President-elect Biden has to do this is that he's just so incredibly popular," said Don Lemon on CNN. "he has so many rabid fans that they might try to rush the stage as they're overcome with enthusiasm and love for Biden who is by far the most beloved candidate who has ever run for President."

In addition to the 12-foot electric fence topped with razor wire and the 30,000 heavily armed soldiers who have been vetted as loyal Democrats, there will be flying drones programmed to target MAGA hats, a platoon of ninjas, and a moat filled with crocodiles dug all the way around the Capitol Building and White House.

Biden will then be escorted to a secret underground bunker patrolled by attack choppers where he will give the oath of office in a dark concrete room with all the recording equipment turned off.

"This is a slight break in tradition but it's necessary because Biden is just so incredibly popular and loved by the people," said Nancy Pelosi.

Sources say that Biden will be brought to an undisclosed basement location after the inauguration to live out his remaining days peacefully until Kamala Harris's inauguration next week. . . '

Babylonbee Semisatire.

[Paulie97]

Tech monopolists Amazon, Apple & Google have removed Parler, a competitor to Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.'

It has nothing to do with "monopolies," and everything to do with the fact that Parler is a rogue service that facilitated violent speech and planning that proceeded an attack on the US Capital, not to mention the stolen election lies that more mainstream platforms finally had enough of. Free speech isn't absolute, plus the US Constitution doesn't touch private companies in this matter. And since you list several different and independent social media and tech entities you cut against the concept of "monopoly. " I suppose behind this is supposed to be yet another unproven, diabolical conspiracy theory.

Successful, well managed companies tend to grow. That's called capitalism, the best of all the imperfect systems. If you think anti-trust laws are being violated then by all means make your case and promote implementation. Squawking half-baked ideas and conspiracy theories in a monger forum won't get you far.

That said, the fact that you stick up for scum like Parler betrays your sense of community with the wingnuts who can't get enough feasting on lies.

[Spidy]

The point I would like to make once and for all is that the election was free and fair as state authorities declared and courts confirmed over and over again. The irony is that Trump could have won the election if he hadn't lied like there was no tomorrow and swept the pandemic under the carpet, if he had reached out to people instead of pandering to his supporters' basic instincts and making enemies everywhere because he can't stand being criticised, out of a inferiority complex he was apparently born with.

Yep, I thought the same thing too, right before COVID-19, came on the scene. "Agent Orange" and the Republicans had a very good chance to repeat.

But COVID-19 was IMHO, their "Achilles' heel". The onslaught of COVID-19, turned out to be serendipitous stroke of political irony for the Democrats. In the wake of COVID-19, record number of voters, in the 10's of millions, turned to MAIL-IN voting.

COVID-19 and MAIL-IN voters (and a heavy dose of presidential hubris), in one swift stroke, took down the Republicans and their gerrymandering, voter suppression and voter redistricting schemes. 7+ million more votes, for the win.

[Elvis 2008]

Of course the democratic primaries were not rigged to deny Bernie Sanders the nomination. It is impossible to rig an election.

LOL. Yeah Golinho, I was thinking the same thing. This is actually the Democratic establishment's 3rd go around. OTOH, Trump won even though the Republican establishment hated him.

What was funny was how open everyone was so open about what happened in 2020 with Bernie and how he got screwed.

I just want to show you something that cracked me up from the NY Times. Start of quote:

Early in the pandemic, many health experts — in the USA And around the world — decided that the public could not be trusted to hear the truth about masks. Instead, the experts spread a misleading message, discouraging the use of masks.

Their motivation was mostly good. It sprung from a concern that people would rush to buy high-grade medical masks, leaving too few for doctors and nurses. The experts were also unsure how much ordinary masks would help.

But the message was still a mistake.

It confused people. (If masks weren't effective, why did doctors and nurses need them?) It delayed the widespread use of masks (even though there was good reason to believe they could help). And it damaged the credibility of public health experts.

"When people feel as though they may not be getting the full truth from the authorities, snake-oil sellers and price gougers have an easier time," the sociologist Zeynep Tufekci wrote early last year.

Now a version of the mask story is repeating itself — this time involving the vaccines. Once again, the experts don't seem to trust the public to hear the full truth.

Right now, public discussion of the vaccines is full of warnings about their limitations: They're not 100 percent effective. Even vaccinated people may be able to spread the virus. And people shouldn't change their behavior once they get their shots.

These warnings have a basis in truth, just as it's true that masks are imperfect. But the sum total of the warnings is misleading, as I heard from multiple doctors and epidemiologists last week.

"We're underselling the vaccine," Dr. Aaron Richterman, an infectious-disease specialist at the University of Pennsylvania, said.

"It's going to save your life — that's where the emphasis has to be right now," Dr. Peter Hotez of the Baylor College of Medicine said.

The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are "essentially 100 percent effective against serious disease," Dr. Paul Offit, the director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, said. "It's ridiculously encouraging."

End of quote.

Can you believe this was from the New York Times? That they actually printed an article and Trump was not to blame for Covid? That others in government may have made a mistake?

If you work in government, it must be a scary time. Blaming all your screwups on Trump looks like it is now no longer fashionable.

[Elvis 2008]

The point I would like to make once and for all is that the election was free and fair as state authorities declared and courts confirmed over and over again.

You mean this court system? In a landmark case, the United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States.

Blowing off thousands of affidavits of people who allege possible fraud is hardly reassuring. Those people needed to be deposed and then the people could decide if there was fraud.

I never said Trump won. What I have said is that all the electoral votes from Georgia could have easily gone to Trump. Then you look at the same pattern of kicking out Republican observers in all the other close states which just so happen to all go for Biden save for North Carolina and something stinks.

But it is what it is.

So here is my question to you Tavares: what do you think is going to happen in the next time? This asshole Barron in Georgia has already kicked out a neutral Republican observer before this election. What happens next time he tries this stunt? I think it is going to be a blood bath.

[Paulie97]

Like most people, you don't have a clue what fascism is. Or isn't. I suggest that you read the following Britanica article (remember to access the links on the left side). When you are done, you'll see how much of the definition applies to DJT. https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism.

This whole oxymoronic idea of "liberal Fascism" is a joke that serious historians and political scientists give no credibility to. It was put forth in 2008 by a conservative journalist, Jonah Goldberg in his book Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning. Golfinho is obsessed with the idea, but like with most any subject, he lacks a grip of even the basics. He's not worth investing much time with. Here are some reviews of the book and it's novel, non-historical arguments.

Austin W. Bramwell wrote in The American Conservative:

Repeatedly, Goldberg fails to recognize a reduction ad absurdum. In no case does Goldberg uncover anything more ominous than a coincidence. In elaborating liberalism's similarities to fascism, Goldberg shows a near superstitious belief in the power of taxonomy. Goldberg falsely saddles liberalism not just with relativism but with all manner of alleged errors having nothing to do with liberalism. Not only does Goldberg misunderstand liberalism, but he refuses to see it simply as liberalism. Liberal Fascism reads less like an extended argument than as a catalogue of conservative intellectual clichés, often irrelevant to the supposed point of the book. Liberal Fascism completes Goldberg's transformation from chipper humorist into humorless ideologue.

Curtis Yarvin wrote about the book:

One reason the Jonah Goldbergs of the world have such trouble telling their right from their left is that they expect some morphological feature of the State to answer the question for them. For anyone other than Goldberg, Stalin was on the left and Hitler was on the right. The difference is not a function of discrepancies in administrative procedure between the KZs and the Gulag. It's a function of social networks. Stalin was a real socialist, Hitler was a fake one. Stalin was part of the international socialist movement, and Hitler wasn't.

In The Nation, Eric Alterman wrote:

The book reads like a Google search gone gaga. Some Fascists were vegetarians; some liberals are vegetarians; ergo some Fascists were gay; some liberals are gay. Fascists cared about educating children; Hillary Clinton cares about educating children. Aha! Like Coulter, he's got a bunch of footnotes. And for all I know, they check out. But they are put in the service of an argument that no one with any knowledge of the topic would take seriously.

In The American Prospect, journalist David Neiwert wrote:

In his new book, Goldberg has drawn a kind of history in absurdly broad and comically wrongheaded strokes. It is not just history done badly, or mere revisionism. It's a caricature of reality, like something from a comic-book alternative universe: Bizarro history. Goldberg isn't content to simply create an oxymoron; this entire enterprise, in fact, is classic Newspeak. Along the way, he grotesquely misrepresents the state of academia regarding the study of fascism.

David Oshinsky of The New York Times wrote:

Liberal Fascism is less an exposé of left-wing hypocrisy than a chance to exact political revenge. Yet the title of his book aside, what distinguishes Goldberg from the Sean Hannitys and Michael Savages is a witty intelligence that deals in ideas as well as insults—no mean feat in the nasty world of the culture wars.

Michael Tomasky wrote in The New Republic:

So I can report with a clear conscience that Liberal Fascism is one of the most tedious and inane—and ultimately self-negating—books that I have ever read. Liberal Fascism is a document of a deeply frivolous culture, or sub-culture. However much or little Goldberg knows about fascism, he knows next to nothing about liberalism.

Philip Coupland, whose paper "H. G. Wells's 'Liberal Fascism'" was used as a source for Liberal Fascism, criticized Goldberg's understanding of the term:

Wells did not label his 'entire philosophy' liberal fascism, not in fact and not by implication. Liberal fascism was the name which he (and I) gave to his theory of praxis, that is his method of achieving his utopian goal, not the goal itself. Wells hoped for activists who would use what he considered to be 'fascist' means (technocratic authoritarianism and force) to achieve a liberal social end. In contrast, a 'liberal fascist' would pursue fascist ends but in a 'liberal' or at least more 'liberal' way.