Insisting on factual accuracy does not make one an apologist for the protesters. False reporting is never justified, especially to inflate threat and fear levels.
The bigger issue at hand is the wildly differing ways in which the media covered Jan 6th vs. the "protesting" all summer long. For months, protest was healthy and American and should be encouraged. Now it's deadly insurrection that threatens America herself.
Those of us with brains in our heads see exactly what's happening.
More to your point, the obvious conclusion is that it is perfectly legitimate to burn down minority neighborhoods, low-income housing, police stations, police vehicles, and to shoot police officers, attempt for months to seize a Federal courthouse in Portland, deface and destroy historic statues and monuments, and engage in looting free-for-alls so long as a claim of "social justice" can be laughably uttered. Nothing says "Justice for George" like a little smash and grab, right? Even better, a LOT of smash and grab.
But when Fancy Nancy's podium is taken and the sacred inner sanctum of our so-called democracy is occupied by a handful of those governed, well that's insurrection and heads must roll.
Watching liberals cackle with glee at the death of an unarmed protestor in the Capitol while defending violence and arson all summer was a red pill, for sure.
No, because Portland has job sprawl. The press likes to write about how land use planning reined in housing sprawl, but there is little written about how the agricultural land around Portland is now growing industrial parks. The movement of businesses out of the urban core has been going on for several decades now, the riots have just been the final blow. Portland is not the green and transit oriented city the press likes to write about.
There is also the issue that wealthy people are still moving here. They tear down the modest older homes and replace them with McMansions. So Portland has more in common with San Francisco than Detroit. Many of our new residents are from California.
Its not those of us with brains they care about. When 4 states were won with under 100000 votes combined, they are playing a numbers game. They are running 40+ funnels to bring people into their voting group. One of them is Anti-trump funnel, one of them is the Lincoln Project funnel, every single one of these little things was an ad campaign designed to do one thing. Funnel voters into the DNC on election day. The quality of that voter is irrelevant when you need so few votes to swing the election. You can throw money at UA even if the returns are horrible.
I don't believe the election was stolen because I like Trump.
I believe it was stolen because I saw how easily the primary was taken from Bernie, both in phony vote totals in Iowa and establishment conspiracy after South Carolina.
Yep. Bernie got the "Ron Paul" treatment during the primaries, and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it since the primaries are a "private event" and not an actual election. The "leaders" can change the rules anytime they want with no (legal) repercussions.
Yes, but they do a good job of exposing the establishment to the, ahem, power base, if the "informed' voter IS paying attention. (i.e. NOT just watching the joke of an MicroSoftNationalBitchingCorporation)
I already believed it was stolen based on what I saw with my own eyes election night, the statistical evidence, the testimony presented in the hearings of the various state legislatures, and the behavior of Democrats and the Pravda media.
And then the Time article came out, which confirmed it beyond any doubt. Anyone who hasn't read it yet should do so immediately:
I should clarify, "Perfect summary by M. James B, perfect chutzpah (sp, my jewish friends?) by Time, Inc." Do they think they are actually going to get away with it?
The conspirators got their meat-puppet, senile old Joe Biden in the White House and are manipulating every moce made by the new illegitimate Biden regime.
If you do really have the courage to read/listen to Peter Navarro's 3 part WRITTEN account of the evidence presented to the various legislatures contesting the election.
The following link is absolute proof that a cabal of corporatist oligarchs conspired to rig the 2020 Presidential election to put their own meat-puppet in the White House:
Yep. I am a fan of neither, have never voted for either, having noted at times good and bad about both. But it is pretty clear that neither were treated fairly, that our system as whole "has issues", and that somewhere we seem to have misplaced the Haynes manual.
The thing to be said about or broken system - the once late great Democrat Party has consistently abandoned our republican form of representative democracy -(small D) - particularly federalism.
Consistently Anti-Democratic and globalist - and - corruption top to middle (with the lower tier eagerly tying to claw up the ladder.)
Besides Glenn and Matt Taibbi on the left - Peter Schweizer and Lee Smith - on the right have done a fantastic job revealing the depraved money train Washington has represented since Bush the First years.
And it has NOT JUST BEEN THESE GOD-AWFUL WARS.
McConnell and Pelosi - besides the Clintons and the Obama/Biden's - have engorged themselves via sweetheart contracting and insider trading. All while the Bush's family corruption literally dates back a century....
I am sympathetic to Bernie supporters - and think I understand part of his appeal - like em' (or like us suspect him) HE HAS BEEN CONSISTENT since his mayoral days - and despite the conservative attempts to portray him and his wife as just grifters - it's not true.
So he owns more than 1 house and his wife can shop at Sprouts comfortably. He passes the smell test because - frankly - he's never really been about the moola. His lifestyle more befits an IRS middle manager - rather than this era of conspicuous political consumption.
What befuddles me is how after such blatant deception and humiliation - he still wants to be 'secretary of labor' - as close to a dog catcher pensioner cabinet position as any that exists (just look at Tom Perez - from Sec of Labor - with nothing of merit to show - to DNC chair squeaking out a victory over - drum roll - KEITH ELLISON - mr personality disorder himself)
And his supporters don't seem to be even mildly butt hurt. Wow.
Yeah his supporters are very hurt and some like Jimmy Dore are really angry. I know many on Twitter who see him as weak but I think he’s too much a part of the system to reject the Dems and still weirdly believes that he can work some magic on the inside. He’s also old and it’s hard to keep pushing up against so much acrimony in liberals who treated him like total shite.
I don’t begrudge a 78 year old who has been a fighter for underdogs his whole political career. The hysteria over Bernie Bros and other insane gaslighting about his white male privilege and sexist gestures toward HRC in 2016 by the blue wave faux intelligentsia on The View, MSM, NYT, Chris Matthews etc. really hobbled him and made him a weaker candidate in 2020 even though he was a front runner at the beginning.
Bernis Sanders is a socialist. Socialism has never worked any time it has been attempted, it is a failed system of government which must be rejected by patriotic Americans at any cost.
Now we have this maniacal New-Marxist Biden regime in power. they are in favor of the Great Reset agenda of the Davos Gang. The illegitimate Biden regime is buslily terring the USA to shreds with its insane policies sure to cripple the US to the point that there will be no "choice" but to meld with the global neofeudal goreancs of the technocrats of Davos.
All Americans must wake up to the crisis and resist it, even to the point of rebellion as a last resort.
John Kerry reveals Biden's devotion to radical 'Great Reset' movement
My SO is pretty hardcore liberal, and she and I went to bed on election night agreeing that by tomorrow morning the DNC would "find" enough votes to overtake Trump's lead. The same thing happened exactly in the GA senate races as well. Same as it ever was'd.
Same as it ever will be unless someone does something.
And just the way the night played out was suspect. They wouldn't call obvious Trump wins until it was impossible for Biden to win, but called states for Biden immediately.
Then when Trump only needs a couple more states he's well ahead in, THEY ALL JUST STOP FOR THE NIGHT. But somehow even though they stopped for the night, in the morning the totals were different. It's incredibly clumsy, and it's no wonder the DNC needs to cancel anybody who brings it up.
If one reads the Time piece, look at recent history, what one comes to see is that the operatives in the parties see pretty much any tactic, no matter how manipulative and dishonest- as just part of the game. It’s how “big boys” play. As long as they get away with any scam, fake leak, propaganda story, they actually regard it with a level of admiration. There is *no* honor among thieves. Honor is for suckers to these people.
Most Americans are naive to what state actors and their media lackeys are capable of. We have been spoiled by far less every day corruption than other parts of the world, and because we have generally trusted the government, we are being taken to the cleaners by it. They are laughing at us, they have contempt for us. The idea that they would somehow voluntarily clean up their act is a joke.
“ Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them”
Here is a video compulation from the State Farm Arena surveillance cameras , showing Shay Moss, and her mother Ruby Freeman sending the poll monitors and the media to leave because counting was done for the night. Then after everybody else left they continued counting an pulled out hidden ballot containers to count...
It was totally foreshadowed in the media that the election would be fixed - firstly the obvious fix for Biden in the Democratic primary (Black people are mad about Biden "he was Obama's Vice President"), the Biden will get more postal votes and that he will of course get late votes idea framed in advance, the idea that the stakes are so high that whatever it takes 'must be done to save democracy', the idea framed that Trump will dispute the outcome of the election "because he is a dictator".
It is a complex organizational problem that if expanded to down ticket elections would be too complex to achieve in the time they had. As it is they were dealing with hundreds of thousand ot ballots that had to be adjudicated in those Dominion and Smartmatic machines.
I've been watching election night results since 1956; I skipped 2020 because the outcome was known well in advance, as Time Magazine documented proudly. I'm surprised that Biden didn't win with more than 100% of the vote.
Once again, the real story will be buried and a false narrative created and cemented. Journalists are simply abandoning their obligation to historians to report first and foremost facts. I'm astounded that historians are not holding mock trials and burning Rachel Maddow in effigy.
They aren’t journalists. They serve the government establishment and their actual job is to prop up the state and eliminate threats to the state’s power
But yeah, it was only Trump filling your head with conspiracy theories.
It's not as if anyone would have noticed it if he hadn't drawn attention to it, right? And no one would have noticed that 18 of the 19 bellwether counties picked the loser, which is unprecedented in like 50 years. It's not like counties joined at the hip voted completely differently from each other.
And it's not as if the counties where election irregularities were alleged did everything in their power to avoid a full, independent forensic audit, including violating court orders...
Anyone here notice the difference between PA 2016 and PA 2020? In 2016, when Hillary had litigation pending (yes, she contested the results), PA waited until Dec 12 before certifying. That's 4 days after the supposedly hard deadline of Safe Harbor Day.
In 2020 (when everyone knew it would take longer, because of all the mail in ballots, which require more processing) PA certified on Nov 24.
Then the state argued in court that rescinding their certification was just too big an ask. I mean, we've certified. It's written in stone now.
The judge agreed, and said that since he couldn't (wouldn't) grant the plaintiff their requested remedy, there was just no point in hearing any of the arguments or evidence. It's moot, case dismissed.
And now we have 20k National Guard troops in DC to protect the most popular president in US history.
Exactly. And the most important loss is perfectly illustrated by the halting of one wall, and the erecting of another (you know, the one topped with concertina wire, lest the people actually own their State).
I dont necessarily disagree but how is that any different than any other election? Why do we all of a sudden care this election? Same shit happened with Truman's racist ass exactly.
Hmm... I did not vote for Trump, and as a libertarian-leaning limited-government Republican activist, I have definitely seen dirty politics... been on the receiving end often enough. But, yes, this election +was+ worse even than usual, and although there are certainly parallels-- including that we are unlikely to ever know much of the truth-- on a greater level than Nixon's loss (I surmise).
One lesson I think we should pay attention to with Nixon, however, is I think Nixon was too quick to let it go, just as Trump's over-the-top allegations went too far the other direction. Nixon dropped many of his election complaints seemingly in part out of a don't-get-mad-get-even strategy. In an appearance of conciliation, the issue merely festered. I believe that did a great deal of long-term harm.
It would be nice to find a middle road: no matter one's political affiliation or who one voted for, I believe we should be concerned about the very deep problems in this election (as well as what was done against Bernie or Ron Paul, etc) because it affects us all if we ever intend to have a different opinion from the one +issued to us+ by the establishment. We ought not let it go. We ought not simply let it fester. Not attempting real fixes and another faction (however the factions realign in the next four years) simply getting even could end our nation. Yet escalation is +very+ dangerous and would likely just end our nation differently. Wholesale giving up on fair elections would lead to yet another catastrophic failure. We need to try to pick our path boldly, unapologetically, yet PRUDENTLY across partisan lines. I see very few even trying to do that (left or right) "out there", a bit more so "in here".
I, for one, knew that protesting would do no good, and accepted that Biden won. Then I asked for investigations to determine where fraud could enter the election process. The answer is obvious, but still needs to be the result of an open and fair investigation: fraud can enter the election process wherever the audit trail is compromised. The primary obstacle to getting to investigations was Trump himself.
He insisted that he had won and made the issue all about himself, as we had come to expect. That allowed the miscreants to claim that any examination of process was sour grapes, trying to overturn the result of the election. Which meant first overcoming that lie to get to an attempt to overcome the big lie, that there was no fraud. That is my problem with Trump. He did a disservice to the country by making the issue about him rather than about election integrity. We're left with two consecutive elections in which half the country disputes the integrity of processes.
We got rid of a disliked and vile personality that actually accomplished good as president in favor of an easily-liked image of a non-existent personality, an empty suit, who is setting out to undo everything accomplished by the vile one. That cannot stand without causing America to fall.
How can you possibly complain about Trump protesting a rigged election that we all now know was actually rigged? That is absurd!
It's like those asshole virology experts that didn't speak out on the absurdity of the Wuhan bat story because they didn't want to be seen as agreeing with Trump. The thiking is Kafkaesque!
Some ATTORNEY suggested there could be a "re-vote?" Under what law?? Anyone who suggests that a "re-vote" would be constitutional, or that it could be "forced" in some way, is not someone you should listen to, for any legal advice, or whose judgment you should trust in general.
I'm sorry, but how do you not know this? I seriously don't get it.
Election re-votes have happened in the US as recently as 2019. According to Ballotpedia, there are provisions in 47 states wherein the courts can order an election in a given electoral area to be conducted again.
As for what the constitution provides for if an election is fraudulent, it is as follows:
1) electors have the right under the US constitution to be "faithless" and vote for a different candidate. (Democrats aggressively campaigned for this in 2016.)
2) congress can reject the electoral votes of states they believe held fraudulent elections. This requires an objection signed by at least one member of the House and one member of the Senate. (House Democrats tried this in the 2000, 2004 and 2016 elections, but couldn't get any Senate signatories. This is what was planned for Jan 6 2020, and there were Senators on board to object to 6 states' votes, with 2 hours of debate slated for each objection.)
3) congress can reject the election in its entirety, at which point, as in the event of a tie, the President is appointed by House delegation (1 state, 1 vote), and the Vice President by a simple majority in the Senate.
So yeah. There's laws, and constitutional provisions. You really should bone up on your legal acumen.
Also, re-votes are sometimes written into how things are done. The Georgia run-offs were a re-vote, because more than two candidates ran, and none received more than 50% of the votes.
So they had a re-do, because that's how it's automatically done there if a candidate for US Senate doesn't get at least 50.01% of the votes.
Why do I, as a Canadian, have to tell you these things?
Does anyone recall the storming of the Wisconsin Capitol back in 2011 or something? To prevent the passage of an austerity bill, thousands of left wing protesters stormed the Capitol and occupied the building for weeks. I'd say that was an attempt to "subvert the government", no?
Compare with the "storming of the Michigan Capitol" by armed, right wing, anti lockdown "terrorists". Who were legally open carrying, went through security, submitted to temperature checks, and then stood lawfully and silently in the public gallery. The only injury was to an unarmed woman Governor Whitmer ordered removed from the gallery, where she was standing alone. Whitmer simply declared from on high that now, only press were allowed in the public gallery, "to allow for social distancing".
That woman ended up in hospital, and the iconic photo of a protester "screaming in the faces of police" was actually (when you look at the photo closely) him standing between two cops and shouting at someone behind them. He said he was shouting at one of the officers who'd injured the woman.
Whitmer then went on the news and talked about how there were "swastikas" on display at the protest. The protesters were neo-nazis, the gullible audience was left to presume. Except the only swastika there's any record of at the anti-Whitmer protests was on a placard next to the words "Heil Whitmer". That puts a different spin on things, doesn't it?
The siege of the federal courthouse in Portland is the same. The media and left wing politicians described the actual, really and for true insurrectionists (attempting to subvert the government by destroying a federal courthouse) as mostly peaceful protesters, and the federal officers tasked with preventing them from burning it down as "storm troopers".
Where is the tally in the mainstream press of all the federal officers injured in those incidents? Officers permanently blinded by industrial lasers. Where were all the stories about the officer who took a commercial grade firework to the chest, where it embedded in his flak jacket and couldn't be removed before it had severely burned his torso? The officers taken to hospital with wounds from axes and hammers because they had the audacity to leave the (relative) safety of the building to put out fires?
I honestly care less about them lying about Sicknick's death than I do about how all of a sudden, after a year of anti-cop sentiment and apologism for lawless and violent anti-cop riots, this is the one occasion when they decide to do a complete 180 and act all outraged over the treatment of cops and government property by rioters with a political axe to grind.
My sister fell for the narrative of the anti-lockdown protests in MI. "They stormed the Capitol!" she told me. I was like, "by filing in an orderly fashion through security and submitting to temperature checks?" She says, "okay, by the were ARMED!" I was like, "it's perfectly legal to open carry, even in the Capitol building." "They had their guns pointing down at the politicians!" "Uh, no. They were holding their rifles the way you do when you don't intend to use them." "But there were white supremacists there! There were swastikas!" I sighed. "There was one swastika on a placard that compared the person they whose actions they were protesting to Hitler. Does that sound like someone who supports Hitler?" A long pause. "But it had to have been scary for the politicians! It was still meant to intimidate." I told her, "A government should have a healthy fear of its citizens, particularly when they've decided it's "necessary" to suspend the constitutional rights of the governed."
I'm almost positive she thinks I'm the crazy one.
I'm glad to see Greenwald sticking to principle. Glad I subscribed.
Well, I wasn't subscribed to Greenwald until today. I came here from a Real Clear Investigations link roundup and subscribed so I could comment. It sucks when you arrive late to an article, but that shouldn't be a problem now. :)
Sorry, should I say "those who use their brains?" or "those who question the narrative" or some other phrase that will make you feel better but probably insult somebody else?
If you can't see what's happening in front of your face, I'm not going to be shy about telling you that's your fault. You clearly have an internet connection and some time.
If you want to disagree with what I said, then do that. Don't complain about the manner in which I say it.
Hearted for truth, but M. Tom Worster is right about the phrase in question. In Logic (Philosophy), it is an example of a certain type of "logical fallacy" the name of which escapes me. Perhaps a younger, more learned poster can help me out. My feeling is it is poor writing and does no service to your argument, being utterly non-objective.
I had a conversation very similar to this with Tom Woods. I suggested that backing off the sarcasm might help win converts. He said the only converts worth having were the ones who could see through the sarcasm and grasp the underlying point.
I have yet for anybody to explain to me in rational terms why the coverage should be so different. Mostly they just call me names. (Luckily, heralding from the "I'm rubber/you're glue" days, I'm impervious)
So true. Juxtapose the media treatment of the death of the cop in the Capitol, which may not have been a homicide at all, with the murder of the retired black cop defending his friend's pawn shop last summer (in St. Louis, I think). Yes, the latter was covered, but nowhere near as extensively or intensely.
Absolutely well said, Commander ! All summer, in every city, the *names used to describe the crowds out after curfews *wildly varied.
Most Americans are aware that peaceful protests are protected by the Constitution. As is the right to peaceful assembly, as is the right to redress our Government for grievances. That said, tho, the minute someone breaks a window, lights a fire, begins looting businesses,
or commits unprovoked violence against police, that person, or persons, can no longer be *accurately described as "protestors".
Committing criminal activity transmutes said people *into *criminals guilty of looting, vandalism, rioting, assault, etc, et alii.
For literal months, especially during the coverage of Portland and Seattle, newscasters were calling ALL people not in official uniforms
"protestors", rather than distinguishing *some as obvious rioters who went so far as to *abuse actual protestors, some of whom were attempting to prevent the actions of the agents provocateur.
The long term danger here is conflating the SIGHT of people committing obvious CRIMES even *as one hears news media personnel sanguinely, and often "protectively" describing these violent actors as "protestors".
As J. Edgar Hoover did with the Anti-War movement, and with the Womens Movement of the 1970s, you can rest assured that *many of the violent "protestors" were actually agents provocateur hired to be there to ensure that the protestors looked like criminals.
This was taken to a bizarrely frightening height with the unmarked "troops" DJT sent to Portland, Ore, who then actually beat, abused, and arrested protestors with literally *no probable cause for the "police" actions. And the "police" were comfortable in having these crimes actually recorded on news cameras even as they were committed.
It takes no genius to understand that repetition of this constant cognitive discord eventually supports the subconscious of the viewer in the *entirely logical conclusion that "protest *IS criminal activity".
Since this was carried on by TV newscasters all over the U.S. with only slight regional variations, it is an almost impossible "stretch" to believe that it was *not a coordinated effort at subliminal cognitive "seed planting". Subliminal Operations in military planning are just another arrow in the propaganda quiver.
Subliminal operations are also *very tempting to use in the context of Advertizing, except that it is *illegal to use it in advertizing due to the fact that a person needs to be *trained in order to resist the effects of subliminal advertizing. Sadly, it works *THAT well.
Unfortunately pointing out double standards doesn't work. It's not persuasive. It just becomes a back and forth of "but this side did this". "Can we agree that they are all hypocrites and get to the damn issues themselves?" is the point I've reached lately.
I know I'm super late in reading this comment, but I'm old enough to remember "Armed Gays Don't Get Bashed", and my parents are old enough to remember "Armed Blacks Don't Get Lynched".
No you actually don’t see what’s happening. The capitol riot was an attempt to overthrow a legitimate election. The protests and riots last summer were an attempt to stop police from murdering unarmed black suspects but nice try trying to conflate the two very different events 💩🧠.
How many unarmed black citizens were killed in Chicago this weekend by gang bangers? How draconian are the gun laws there?
Why isn't the DNC going on TV and protesting every single day about the epidemic of black on black violence in the inner cities, which is robbing children of their fathers and mothers of their sons?
Oh right because the DNC cannot use that behavior to manipulate voters.
Black on black crime is a racist construct used to blame blacks for their own oppression. The same percentage of white murder victims are murdered by other whites and you never hear dumb asses like you talk about white on white crime. Why? Because you are racist AF!
You mean like when for four years the DNC said Trump only won because Russia 'hacked the election" even though that has been proven demonstrably false?
Every poster on this forum sees through your attempt to astroturf.
Exactly. They are talking as if DC is some scared place and HOW DARE THEY come into DC and make a mess of things!
But we remember that DC was literally on fire over the summer. They boarded up windows on election night, and it wasn't because they were afraid of Trump supporters.
So true. If BLM had the opportunity to trash the White House they would have done so. The difference is that Capitol security failed. Whose fault was that?
Mitch McConnell gave a post acquittal speech on the floor saying that Trump was morally and practically responsible for the attack on the Capitol because he should have known how his rhetoric and his spreading of "conspiracy theories" about the election would have whipped up his supporters into a state where they'd to do something drastic.
Let's say for the sake of argument that Trump should have been able to foresee what would happen. Certainly Pelosi and McConnell should have ALSO been able to predict it, no? And as leaders of the House and Senate, both with authority over security decisions, they could have ensured the Capitol was adequately prepared to deal with the (according to him) 100% predictable outcome of Trump's irresponsible speech.
So why weren't they?
Well, see, Mitch McConnell didn't want any objections or debates, either. He pressured Senate Republicans to not sign onto any objections from House Republicans.
And just to put things in perspective. Trump has always been vocal about how his supporters are predominantly decent, law abiding, hard working citizens. He's held rally after rally after rally without any riots breaking out. The Million MAGA March on Nov 14 went off without any violence (other than antifa picking off stragglers as they walked to their cars/hotels), even though most, if not all, of the rallygoers believed the election was, or was probably, stolen.
On top of that, Trump supporters lobbied hard to have their Senators join House members in the objections, because they WANTED the debates. Why would they want to do anything that would interrupt or kill that process?
Now look at how the left portrays Trump supporters. Radical, fascist, racist, white supremacist, cultists and conspiracy theorists. Bad people who are dangerous.
Which of these two people (Trump or Pelosi) was more likely to predict a violent riot at the Capitol that day? And which of them was in charge of security decisions?
McConnell is as swampy as they come. I bet he was either in on Pelosi's decisions, or knows about them and is happy to let them slide. Trump was an ally of his only when convenient (to put judges on federal courts, for instance), but that doesn't mean McConnell wanted him around for a second term. The second term is when the really daring shit gets done, because there's no reelection to worry about.
That's the last thing McConnell wanted, and Trump 2024 is the last thing he wants.
McConnell is part of the traitorous RINO faction of the Republican Party that actually voted to find Trump guilty in the burlesque in the Senate called an "impeachment". One of the worst examples of injustice in American history.
Nancy Pelosi is, in effect, the "mayor" of the Capitol building and grounds.
The FBI and NYPD warned officials that right and left wing radicals were planning to storm the Capitol on the 6th, and everyone knew there'd be tens or even hundreds of thousands of "deplorables" in DC that day.
Federal law enforcement offered security assistance in anticipation of trouble. The offer was declined. The House Sergeant at Arms asked for additional resources to protect the chamber. Request denied. And Capitol Police (2300 officers strong) only had about 500 on duty that day, none in riot gear.
Now look at who gained from what happened. Republican senators who'd planned to object to the electoral votes and force a debate on election irregularities have been lambasted. Trump supporters are being smeared as dangerous cultists and terrorists. The planned objections and 12 hours of debate were cancelled 20 minutes in. And Pelosi got another shot at impeaching Trump.
Why, it's almost as if Pelosi wanted what happened to happen, and did everything in her power to ensure it did.
The impeachment teams decided at the outset that there would be no witnesses called. Then, after defence finished presenting its case, and the senators had gone home thinking there'd be closing arguments and a vote the next morning, all of a sudden, the house managers decided they wanted a witness.
Ted Cruz went on camera and said he was fine with that. But their side would want witnesses too. They had more than a hundred witnesses they'd like to depose, but if they could only have one, it would be Nancy Pelosi. Because they were all very curious to know why there was virtually no security at the Capitol that day, and as someone with authority over those decisions, she could probably shed some light on that.
Wouldn't you know it? All of a sudden, the house managers didn't want any witnesses after all.
Capitol security didn't "fail". They were sacrificed.
What kills me is that the social media was supposed to break this gatekeeping of information by the elites. Instead it tightened its grip. I don't know why I am surprised, tbh. Power never gives itself up willingly.
Just got done re-watching 'INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS' ... now that was a time for the Folk Song Army....never was able (despite priming via the Punks of the 70's to 'tolerate' Rage against the Machine...')
One is never too old for this. Rage is not expressed in the same way but keep on plodding to support causes that you value in your own way. Like supporting Bernie.
Even this is messed up. Am I surprised the poster didn't get the title of the song correct? No...This song was penned by Stephen Stills and is titled "For What It's Worth"
The new rules of engagement are everywhere you don't want them to be, too. We need them as a society. When China attacks your ships, its war. When it attacks your servers, the Geneva Convention doesn't cover that.
With d-list 'instructors' like DavidH - can one even call it 'attacks' - considering the instructive reporting sites like National Pulse have uncovered just concerning Harvard the Confucius Institute. The magnitude of intertwined corruption and self-dealing is astounding. It is everywhere in the Democrat Academic Wing of the Prog Fascist party.
I have a perfect tit-for-tat conservative response - CONFISCATE THEIR ENDOWMENTS - and let the Roberts Supremes opine on it - a al - Kelo.
YES. And then, sever the arts/humanities/social sciences schools from the STEM schools, and let them stand on their on merits, based upon the actual value they provide to society.
that was Harvard AND the Confucius Institute... Absolutely. We need to kick the spineless Uniparty Republicans out - and devote the restoration of American First to the kind of lasting projects that will better the lives and opportunities of the next generation - a generational 'contract with America - just like in '94 - only but we need 10 New Deal like in scope - and kicking out the slumming Cheaters (not Teachers) Union along with such funding as you mention....
My #1 - a constitutional amendment TO BOOT CALIFORNIA FROM THE UNION (with a provisional option for Oregon & Washington to leave voluntarily should there citizens choose - given geographical and historical connection)
.... what about the libertarians and conservatives in CA? CA has the highest number of Republican voters out of any state and some of us (like myself) are trying to spread awareness of libertarianism.
I was thinking more along these lines: Do what you can via traditional methods, voting, boycotts, and so on, but also start considering these items copied from some random guy on Twitter : "Most of my big life decisions right now account for a belief there's a significant chance that the US ceases to be functional in the next 20 years as a federation, and ceases even in name to exist in my lifetime, and how to hedge against that. How do I distribute my time, energy, and assets to deal with different types of breakdown?
* Rule of law
* Monopoly on violence
* Travel within the continental US
* Financial systems
So given that, how do I prepare my life, my children's life, and my grandchildren's lives to succeed as much as possible with a changing order? How can I take advantage of new opportunities, maximize upsides, and minimize risks?"
Try 10 years. I like the random guy on twitters take. Mine is get transferable/professional skills, be flexible, pay attention to geo-political events-- re investments etc.,and other things. To an American I would add, don't read, watch or listen to any MSM in your country--you never get half the story, read watch etc. a variety of info from outside the US info only-- specialize in the areas you are interested in-- finance, health, food, etc.
To me minimizing risk is to learn how to sew, grow food, basic repairs etc. become more self-reliant.
Totally agree, and yet I am not able to be as "gentle" in describing so many present day people as "journalists". Where you might say "irresponsible journalism", I am more likely to go with "Liar for Hire".
People like you are a *much more pleasant contributors to a polite society ! ;-D
The media love their "hands up don't shoot" propaganda, but they apparently hate investigative journalism. Why hasn't Sicknick's' autopsy been released? Why don't we know the name of the police officer who shot an unarmed woman? Why was there video of police allowing people into the Capitol Building. Regarding intel received prior to Jan. 6 about possible attacks, what did Nancy Pelosi know and when did she know it? Same goes for Mitch McConnell and FBI Director Christopher Wray.
How come Congress never got back to talking about election irregularities that were rather conveniently disrupted--never to be brought up again?
A cynic might see this whole thing as an orchestrated operation perpetrated by those who
know they could sucker enough Trump supporters into the Capitol to give Democrats and the media a patina of legitimacy to forever kill a nationalist movement and make clear to anyone who would dare to run on a nationalist platform going forward that they can expect the same treatment.
But the globalists would never do that--would they?
I refuse to believe that these ̶j̶o̶u̶r̶n̶a̶l̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ media hacks are good but misguided people. What Glenn describes here is without question a concerted effort by their bosses to smear and inflame for political ends, and they are very enthusiastic team players to this end. There is clearly a conspiracy to defraud and disenfranchise the American people.
This started happening really overtly when the media was patting itself on the back after Obama got elected. Since then they don't even pretend to be unbiased.
They do very much care about their reputation within their group. They've worked hard to gain admission. The new comrade-journos know that the truth is what they say it is. Quite the head trip and hard to give up, I would say.
It is cleat that propaganda has replaced journalism. The narratives get codified so quickly. The term insurrection was spread so quickly on January 6th that the fact that the legislators completed their work was an after thought. I find my liberal friends totally bought in on it; just as they have never really given up on the Russian hoax. They truly believe that they are armed with facts, and it is me who is mistaken. I feel I have an honest assessment of Trump, he is a jerk, egomaniac, and selfish at a world class level. He is not Hitler, as well as all the "ists" he has been call. Amoral, sure; dictator no. Trump broke media by telling something very true amongst many half truths; the elite do not care for middle America not because they supported Trump, but because they can't imagine holding the values they hold. They supported Trump because he didn't hate them. Trump is the symbol for all those people the elite do not understand, nor care to. The crisis of domestic terror is a made up tail to scare those people silent. The "journalists" pay no price for the disinformation they project the accusation on anyone who calls them out.
What made Trump so popular (although he lost the popular vote twice) is that he’s an outsider. He didn’t want to be but the elites would never let him into their club. He got rich and they wouldn’t let him in. He got a prime time tv show and they wouldn’t let him in. He got elected president, for Christ’s sake, and they still wouldn’t let him in so he proceeded to do his best to burn the building down and cause as much chaos as he could. Curiously enough, that’s kind of like what I would like to see too. But to stay rich he couldn’t completely annihilate the establishment, he only had to convince his followers that’s what he was going to do.
What makes Trump so popular is his anti-elitism. One can grow up in an elite environment and despise elitism just as one can grow up in a racist environment and despise racism. Trump was accepted by the elite -- even chummy with the Clintons -- as long as he played their game, and he played it well, until he stopped playing it. The elite didn't reject Trump until Trump rejected the elite. Trump has always had a strong affinity for ordinary people, and has become the voice of the ordinary protesting against the elite. He became president by thumbing his nose at the elite. Of course they hate him. To say his purpose is to burn down buildings, and to cause chaos, completely misses the point of who Trump is. Trump has a serious edifice complex. His instincts are to build things up, the higher the better, not to tear them down, though sometimes the first step in construction is demolition.
Fun fact- read up history on his grand father and father. People might think trump was a moronic buffoon but it’s actually quite interesting how trump is getting the same treatment from the elites as his grandfather and father when he returned to Germany.
This is all your own fantasy, projecting nonsense on a six-time bankruptcy filer who destroyed countless lives, of "ordinary people," in the process. You don't have to go to any American news source. You can consult other sources. They exist. This guy loved only himself.
He helped countless lives of Americans who still believe in this country's magic, who still love this country as much as DJT does, and in case you still don't get it, that's saying a lot!
I think your analysis is unfair to DJT, but you are spot on about the outsider threat to the control-freak elitists in the major party establishments, the Deep State (yes, Deep State IS a perfect descriptor), and the corporatist media.
While I am very critical of trump for not pardoning Assange and Snowden, I don’t think your statement about “But to stay rich he couldn’t completely annihilate the establishment” is based on any actual fact or logic. It’s the exact opposite of what’s happened to him. Forbes reported back in 2019 how he had lost $3 billion in net worth. And he got cancelled everywhere and all Platforms have banned him.
His biggest flaw was his poor hiring choices - he didn’t realize he was hiring back stabbers.
Trump is popular because despite all his flaws, he genuinely loves his country and he doesn’t hate the voters. He hates the politicians. A politician who doesn’t hate his voter base was refreshing to his voters who have been left behind for decades (both political sides).
We all know the truth folks, Sicnick died defending AOC from a hail of heavily armed fire extinguishers sent by Ted Cruz.
In all seriousness, the capitol riot was pretty nuts, but Glenn is right, it was just that, a riot by a bunch of naïve yahoos and it should be condemned. What makes me roll my eyes even more than people calling it an insurrection are the folks that sincerely believe we were close to a fascist coup, as if Andrews Airforce Base was the next to fall. Coming from a family who has actually lived through coups that the U.S. supported no less, this is a bit rich.
Many here feel depressed and to some extent I think Covid is talking, but if you know all the horrible things America has done, not only after 9/11, but before, you kind of take this in stride, like what else is new?
Not just Ted. JEFF FLAKE WAS THERE - SPITTING SKITTLES THROUGH THE STRAW LEFT OVER FROM HIS LATEST STRAW MAN OP-ED PIECE! Com'on Sean McT - please 'report' the entirety of the cartoon version!
You are my type of flamethrower, M. rick laney. There was never any "conspiracy," secret or Time-boasted, to steal an election, but there was an obviously hella amount of "collusion" to do so. It doesn't come from organized subterfuge. It comes from what is in the hearts of Statists. Their cooperation with each other follows "naturally."
For why - the media because it sells. Politicians because it gets them power. What do you think the 'why' is in this particular case?
I think it is because the imagery of an attack on the Capitol is such a golden opportunity to build up the domestic security apparatus, redefine what is acceptable dissent vs not, and then wield that power against political opponents
Politics is a broken god. Remain neutral, have kids, teach them how to recognize truth. Or not. But do what you can to find happiness on this broken earth. We've lied to ourselves thinking our freedom lies in how connected we are to the latest information. That information is lies, it's bankrupt. Be connected to people you trust and love. Make a life. That's how you win this. I'm honestly at a loss to how people can't do simple math and make connections...of why things are terrible these days, why their kids are depressed and not in school, why some people have been going to work, seeing their friends sending their kids to school and they're still locked away in fear, why their cities are burning, why the wealth gap is the way it is, the psychological warfare wrought on them day after day - can't they see it? Like why purposely sabotage yourself? I woke up in the aftermath of the BLM riots. What else will it take? After all this.
some "acquaintances" of mine, went to Washington....semi-retired and true believers in old style small business, fair taxes, love-thy-brother and 2nd Amendment rights...good folks, but exasperated by their perceptions of vote fraud and disingenuous political rants....no way did they riot..Politics is broken, but they still believed in honesty, integrity...Now? I've never seen them so distrustful and withdrawn..almost clannish...connections made, math done. Regrouping and hope is, for now, still an option, I think.
they should just shut off the news and try to live life on their own terms. Happiness is a state of mind, but only if you wake up - from the forces that make you think happiness isn't in your own hands. I feel for them - but worse than the lies being peddled is the effect it has on people. better to be illiterate than to have ever gone on twitter. There's a few levels here: 1. believing the lies youre told. 2. waking up to the fact that you've been lied to and being mad enough about it for it to keep you up at night 3. knowing your truth and still deciding to have hope in your future and in the common humanity that binds us all. reaching level 3 is the goal
Yes, well stated emotions, and perfectly righteous, but.....
Don't tune out! Hear and take in all the news, even while trying to make your, and your famliy's and friends', lives as good as possible. The day will come when our lives will depend on knowing exactly when to take more urgent action.
I've become increasingly suspicious that the way they win is by making life unbearable for those opposed by gaslighting them, and through the psychological warfare of having everything sane in this world turn insane, while your sanity is still intact - meaning a sane person in an insane world thinks they're the insane one. But we know it isn't true. Our destiny and reality isn't determined by truth czars. I agree - stay in the know. But if it comes down to your mental wellbeing vs being informed - choose the former. Don't capitulate - never agree to their madness - remain a separate entity, your own being. But strive to be happy! It's possible. To mentally engage with all the corruption ongoing in this world puts that negativity and hatred in you, and it changes you into someone cynical and bitter and hypersensitive. It's a very destructive force. So I oppose that, and believe that mutual uplifting up fellow man, creating something NEW rather than just saying 'I refuse', and staying connected to good people - even if you don't agree with them on everything, at least know you trust them - is what will save us in the end and make us stronger, and at least make this brief life a little more bearable.
This is excellent advice I’ve tried to live by for a couple years, but it’s been frustrated (if not made impossible) by the aggressive use of police state powers and fear-mongering to force people to check with their mayor/governor for permission to leave their homes and associate with people outside their household, a decision based on up-to-the-minute hospital bed availability and other cutting edge data. If you don’t check to see what the Germ Terror Alert threat level is each day and react accordingly, you’re an irresponsible citizen jeopardizing everybody’s lives.
Sadly it’s been increasingly codified that you have to stay plugged in to all of the Information Age’s idiotic fits if you want to live life in this modern wonderland, and you live through the same screens that bring crippling depression because this Unprecedented Moment means you “can’t” just be with people for real. And there’s no shortage of hate coming in your direction if you resist this kind of “progress”.
I'm sorry. I have no answers, you're right in many ways, but I do believe it's possible to find happiness amongst increasing sterility and intolerance of diversity in this world. But it's hard. I'm sending good wishes and prayers towards everyone willing to take a stand for their freedom and sanity, which includes myself. Good luck my friend
Nice brave piece. Hope this sub stack gig continues to work for you. I’m afraid you will be persona non grata in the liberal establishment. Besides being inveterate liars, they are VERY unforgiving!!
My admiration for Glenn fuels and informs my hope for a better future - just look what Bolsonaro put him and his family through in his adopted Brazil - and you realize his international not just US stature...
i am still ignorant and uninformed (working to correct that!) considering Mr. Bolsonaro (sp?) of Brazil. Is he a Statist or a Capitalist? (I know "shades of grey," but let's start with the big picture.)
---What took place at the Capitol on January 6 was undoubtedly a politically motivated riot. ---
The question for me is *what* political faction orchestrated this "riot" and attempted to use it to incriminate Donald Trump. I'm no fan of Trump, and I did not vote for him (nor did I vote for Biden) but the motivation here just seems too obvious to ignore. It is clear to see who benefited, and not hard to connect the dots.
Establishment media and corrupt government always use people to further what ever their interests might be. This is true everywhere in this world that is no longer harmonious , sadly so.
I did not vote Clinton , have voted Jill Stein nor I voted Biden as I hesitated to have third time Obama presidency.
Political motivations of trump to violate constitution has nothing to do with thousands of people there and millions out everywhere who are angry and forgotten.
That is why trump could use such anger throughout his ominous presidency . He as well also relied on corrupt reps. and senators who are busy with collecting from corrupt corporations.
No, it’s not easy for those forgotten to connect the dots or we didn’t need journalists such as Glenn.
I think they are using the age old tactic of divide and conquer to keep people distracted with meaningless and stupid identity politics so people forget the reality enemy - uni party war machine.
What is the hard place? Why do you find it impossible to consume news other than from the liberal rags. Is it because the liberal rags tell you conservative media is fake? Maybe give Tucker a try...you may be surprised. Everything deserves a healthy dose of skepticism, but if you're looking solely to NYT and WaPo for truth, you're not even reaching the starting line in the race toward understanding half of your country.
I am more right leaning but I don’t watch fox. In fact I would tell you to stay away from all establishment media all together and support independent creators instead.
For those who want to make up their own minds, here is a 12 minute video from a New York Magazine reporter from inside the "capitol siege" It is a must watch.
To my eye, there was less violence and disorder than at a Black Friday shopping spree. Indeed the "rioters" were singularly respectful.
2:39 "Hey Let us through, We are peaceful citizens"
4:27 "Hey, get out of that chair"
"No, its our chair."
"I agree with you brothers but its not ours. It belongs to the Vice President of the United States, but he isn't here. Look, I love you guys, you're brothers, but we cant be disrespectful"
5:36 ( To the guy with the horns, who became the face of the "siege") :"Quit acting a fool!
Camera shot of the guy with horns with the only news photographer in sight taking nonstop photos only of the horned guy.
7:08 A police officer calmly waiting while the guy in the horns gets a selfie taken, then says, "Now that you have done that, can I get you guys to walk out of that room, please?"
Most of the brutal fighting was in the tunnel late in the day (4pm or so?). I assume that is after people were forced out? Even that was bizarre as you had people trying to push in and some trying to do legit harm. However, at one point there was an officer getting crushed against a wall or beam. The guy trying to push in, stopped, got people to let up, and signaled to the police that the guy needed help and removed from the front.
Likewise there were people beating the crap out of cops, but then also people helping them up and trying to get them to safety. It was strange to watch.
It now seems like they are blaming "bear spray" and a specific person that sprayed it. If it was in the tunnel fighting, will be interesting to see how that plays out given that both cops and protestors were covering the people fighting in the middle with chemical irritants.
There’s another video where you see hundreds of cops just standing still while the people just walk in without anyone stopping them. A cop even says on video “I don’t agree with it but I respect it”.
It is bad enough that media lying and distortion is commonplace. The fact that they shrug with indifference when called out demonstrates a level of cynical evil that’s hard to define, it almost requires its own word that hasn’t evolved in the language yet.
But an even lower rung on the ladder of evil goes to liberals who know the media is lying and distorting, shrug, and secretly wish they had gotten away with it. These are the same people who were upset when GG, among others, were questioning the suppression of the Hunter Biden story. They genuinely want to suppress truth to meet their ends. Whatever it takes.
We have reached a point at which a majority of liberals believe the ends justify the means to an extent that includes just about anything. If that’s what it takes for their guys to get or keep power, they are all for it.
The term you are looking for is state sponsored Propaganda. First, you need to accept that this isn't really a Democratic Republic anymore, it's a Technofascist Oligarchy, then realize that they aren't sorry the journalistic integrity wasn't up to par, their sorry the Propaganda failed.
Red pills taste disgusting, they are hard to swallow. I totally understand the reluctance.
I think it’s always been this way. Orange man simply helped expose the utter lunacy of the media and “liberals”. I used to be a liberal before- I still am but not the current day type of liberal. I believe in things like freedom of speech, freedom of right to bear arms, anti war etc. All things foreign to the modern “liberal”. Now I am apparently a Nazi.
The MSM/tech companies/Wall Street/DC elites are all channeling their inner George Costanza. They obviously think if they continually repeat the same lies through the various media and social media platforms/channels, eventually we "prols" will believe them!
Who knew George Costanza had such wisdom! Honestly, it feels like the MSM and congressional Dems are actively coordinating the narrative (and I'm anything but a conspiracy theorist). To quote another propaganda guru: "Never let a crisis go to waste." Rahm Emanuel, although Winston Churchill may have said it first. Leaving DC an armed camp, albeit without ammunition, is pure cynical political theater. Unfortunately, this kind of crap too often works.
And because it's inconsistent with the narrative, I'm wondering if we will EVER learn anything more about the death of Ashli Babbitt. Her shooting may, or may not, have been justified. I don't know, and I'm wondering if any of us will ever know. Normally the media falls all over themselves to report on police shootings.
It might have been appropriate, IF the person who murdered her actually WAS a legal law enforcement officer (we still don’t know who he/she is but only that it was decided there be no charges), and he/she ordered Babbitt to “freeze” or “hands above your head or I’ll shoot!!”.
As I believe Glenn pointed out, there probably isn’t one square inch of The Capitol that doesn’t have continuous CCTV.
I would like to see a video of her shooting with audio. As a young military veteran and mother, I seriously doubt she realized she would be shot that day and killed.
Yes, your point is well taken. For anyone interested in understanding the source of the original Costanza quote there are classic Seinfeld episodes running on cable almost 24/7 as well as numerous clips/outtakes on Youtube.
If there is a re-education camp in our futures - smuggling in as much of the greatest sitcom ever 'about nothing' is a sure fire way to start the counter-revolution.
Although I suggest we ban the soup-nazi guy (too sensitive a character topic for such an encampment) and KRAMER must get top billing as the new CHE.
[but only if he smokes AMERICAN CIGARS - like Alec Bradley]
Glenn, you know I've been a fan of your writing for over a decade. I read you at Unclaimed Territory, Salon, the Guardian, the Intercept and now here. I brought you to speak on the campus where I teach. I've generally supported your journalism and your consistency (we still disagree on the legal merits of Citizens United). But take a look at your comments section! They have become filled with right wing blowhards that have zero interest in investigative reporting or truth. They have latched onto you because some of your reporting favors their narrative ("The Capitol riot wasn't so bad" or "Russiagate didn't happen"). Yes, your reporting is still solid, that's not what's at issue here, and there is legitimacy to your take on these stories. But it does no good if people run from a poorly sourced, lack of evidence Democratic accounts of the Capitol riot, to even more poorly sourced, lack of evidence responses of "aha! this was all a deep state plot by Biden and AOC and the folks that invented climate change and Covid, which is fake!"). People are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, ignoring reality because a piece of the mainstream news narrative can be proven false. I want the NYT to report better too, but just because they mislead about the dead cop doesn't mean they're wrong when they say it's snowing in NYC. By allowing so much inaccurate and false info to be propagated unresponded to in your comments, you are becoming a journalistic outlet that spreads false information. Whether you like it or not, you are ultimately ethically responsible for your site, including the comments. No, one racist comment wouldn't mean you are a bigot, but when the overwhelming content of your comments section has become a sewer of right-wing bias and misinformation, you may want to figure out how to course correct. I hope you're willing to hear this from a longtime supporter and friend.
Since the replies to your comment have been so negative, I want to say that I understand your concerns about Glenn's comments. As a leftist, when I see so many right wing comments here it does make me uncomfortable. It makes me wonder why more people on the left don't read Glenn. But I don't think it's Glenn's fault. I think too many people on the left are content with reading the NYT, watching MSNBC and listening to NPR, and they don't want to read anything that challenges their world view. Glenn challenges everyone's world view, which is why I find him so interesting. Yes, for some reason he seems to be attracting more right wing readers right now. But again, I don't think that's his fault, and I wouldn't want to see him censor himself in order to attract a certain type of audience.
I subscribed to Glenn because he's one of the few honest liberal journalists still around. And I support him standing up for Snowden and Assange. One could call me right wing but we share more in common than what the politicians would have us believe. Politicians retain power by keeping us divided and fighting each other instead of looking at the common enemy - the establishment uniparty (both dems and republicans).
Spot on and I agree on all points and also why I respect Glenn. Most of the right, the center, and the center left probably agree on 70% of things and if we can coalesce the ruling elites would be terrified. That is why they divide us.
Yes, but here's a bit of history that's about to change for the better:
Democrats "compromise" by throwing a bone.
Republicans are required to give away the store.
Nope. Not anymore. Either the Republican Party follows the DJT lead in changing this "compromising," or we libertarians AND Conservatives are killing the Republican Party. Period. End of story.
I don't believe Glenn needs to take ownership or responsibility for the responses posted. The dialogue it generates is as meaningful as the article. I love reading the the different impressions shared by both the left and right and open dialogue is truly appreciated by this subscriber.
Perhaps because "right wing readers" feel under attack, and Mr. Greenwald comes to their defense?
Gee, I wonder why WE find him a breath of fresh air, eh, M. Elizabeth Vincent?
FOR SOME REASON, indeed.
Oh, and this pipebomb: "But again, I don't think that's his fault, and I wouldn't want to see him censor himself in order to attract a certain type of audience."
How magnanimous of Your Royal Highness.
You drip of condescension, and have the gall to point fingers at us.
Well, I also find Glenn to be a breath of fresh air, so we have something in common anyway. Sorry I offended you. It's very difficult to word any comment here in a way where it doesn't offend someone. I only said "for some reason" because I didn't know the reason. Lulu gave a good explanation above, and it makes sense.
Apology accepted, but I am someone who doesn't mind being offended, just as I don't mind it when others disagree with my opinions.
And let me apologize if I misread your sentiment, but I stand by my objections to your post, and 4 hearts in 2 hours on a days old comment stream would seem to indicate a good level of agreement with my indignation at your ignorance and obtusement concerning the motivations of right-wing readers. We of the true right love GG because he is a CLASSICAL Liberal, a political animal once known as an Individual-freedom-loving, free-market Capitalist.
Stop looking at us and wondering what we are. We are your countrymen, too.
I think all of us coming from differing sides will need some time to adjust to conversing with each other. There are going to be some growing pains, but it makes my heart happy to see progress being made. :-)
They don't really bother me. It's more that I wish it was possible to have discussions about Glenn's articles in this space without everyone getting completely hostile toward each other. It's depressing. We all like Glenn and his ideas, so why are we all so angry at each other?
I don't see much hostility, but then again I have learned the to most people on the left disagreeing with them is being hostile. And I am no longer going to give any ground for the sake of "peace". Because the left doesn't want peace. If a compromise can be found I'm all for that. But from what I've seen of today's left compromise only means: you give, we'll take then bludgeon you in the press for not giving us enough.
I have read 4 books in the last 6 weeks on various faces of the current political climate in the US. One author from the left, one from the center, one center-right and one agnostic. All four shared the same theme: the left in the US today does not want debate, compromise, or civility. They want their way and will do whatever they can to get it. It's not the left from even 12 years ago. It is a very different, malevolent, beast.
I think that's how Trump drove the left insane: he fought back. For decades, Dems have been used to getting everything they want, maybe not as fast as they wanted it, without giving up a thing. The Repubs wanted civility, the left wanted blood sport.
I will always keep one hand open. But the other I will keep clenched in a fist.
I am the new right. I give what I get, and I am forever rid of compromising with cheaters, liers, thieves, cons, and charlatans.
Skepticism of the State is more American than anything the left has to offer. That is my libertarian opinion, and guess what?: I MIGHT BE WRONG!!! So, hostile fanatics of the left, get your rotten, stinking, terrorist labels and targets off of this free thinking, open-minded American of the new right. I will listen to and consider all your persuasive arguments, and I will continuously revisit my deepest convictions that I may find my errors and become ever closer to perfection, but mark my words: Either you agree that I am as American as you, or we will fight, and you will lose.
Because we (generally) are free-thinkers and NOT psychophants (sp?).
Why would be bothered by vociferous disagreement, anyway?
You don't want emotional reaction to deeply-held convictions, then stick to your sewing circles (although those seamstresses can get mighty opinionated I've heard!).
Thanks. I’d say most of the replies demonstrate the mindsets I was referring to. And clearly don’t understand my concern. I wouldn’t want to see Glenn self censor either, but I do wish he’d write a piece along the lines of “fanboys in the comments, you really don’t get where I’m coming from.” Being a gay expat, antiestablishment and antiMIC writer, he’s no MAGA. He’s much closer to where the ACLU used to be. In any case, the NYT being wrong doesn’t mean Alex Jones is right.
You've completely misinterpreted 'our mindset'. Most of these commentators aren't right wing, or they wouldn't be reading the anti-corporate musings of a married Brazilian gay man.
Personally, I'm a Glenn enthusiast because I was a Bernie donor and volunteer who has personally witnessed Democrats be completely unable to do anything except when it comes to stabbing milquetoast reformists like Bernie in the back. All he wanted was to actually do M4A and $15 instead of just talk about it, and every establishment Dem lackey in the media conspired to character assassinate him at every turn.
We are here because traitors are worse than enemies.
I vote GOP, I voted for Trump twice, and I agree with most everything you've said. I don't view you as a traitor or an enemy...but I do view the current assault on freedom of thought...let alone freedom of speech, as our true existential threat. Perhaps we have more in common then the corporatist news media would like us to believe.
Yes same. Never voted GOP. Anti imperialist to my bones, I’ve also volunteered in numerous capacities that were left oriented and am committed to global human rights. I also supported Bernie through two primaries and volunteered.
Something is very wrong with the censorial liberal left and it makes me feel I have more in common with libertarians sans free market economics.
free markets have gotten us where we are, little to no safety net and widening income disparity. It may work in countries with national health service and good pensions but even those have been decimated. Why do you think people around the world are so angry? It’s not just corrupt governments. It’s government at the beck and call of corporations. Still I do like listening to Reason and 5th Column both of which have quality journos.
Then maybe you jumped too quickly to condemn me? Because everything you just wrote resonates with me. Bernie supporter. Anti-war activist. Critical of the Clintons and Biden and Neo-liberals from the left. Yet you jumped to put me in some DNC/MSM box because I was concerned about right-wing conspiracies in the comments? Maybe we should learn more about one another before we criticize specific people.
1) It's not all about you. 2) You're obviously new to the process of recognizing that you've been uncritically accepting claims and underlying ideologies that fetishize "criticality" while in fact pushing and enforcing orthodoxies. I've been there, but it's hilarious that you come here with your "I'm in academic and old friend of Glenn and these people are "right-wing" and I need to talk down to all of you and explain what you're doing wrong." What's happening is that you're slowly realizing that all of these issues that "resonate" with you in fact resonate with many on what you call "the Right." Yet you're brainwashed into demonizing code words and cues register to you as right = evil. You came here, realized you were dangerously close to deeply questioning yourself, and wanted to virtue signal--mostly to yourself--because you sense something shifting in your decades of unquestioned suppositions. Many of us have been there...but we mercifully shut up at the beginning, which I recommend you try for a little bit. Why don't you go to Spiked, Critic, New Discourses, Independent UK, Quillette, American Conservative, Telegraph, Feminist Current...for starters...and then come back in a few weeks. Best of luck.
I embrace open dialogue and you’re more willing to shame Glenn about who reads his columns and dictate what he should do. I say, who cares? And if you dislike the comments, engage with them. It’s not Glenn’s responsibility to curate his followers. I just pass them over. It’s not worth it
That's me too. I was a Bernie delegate in 2016. I authored a textbook critical of neoliberalism. I've read Glenn for years, but have been a bit absent the last 12 months or so. Of course "not all commenters" but a larger number than I remember seem to be inhabiting a right wing, conspiratorial space rather than a critical thinking, anti-authoritarian, and media skepticism space.
That is *literally* what Glenn is doing above. Asking 'what actually happened to Sicknick and why is his death being used to push Patriot Act 2.0' is showing critical thinking, anti-authoritarianism, and media skepticism - without a whiff of conspiracy.
I'm not accusing Glen of conspiratorial thinking, only some of the commenters here. That's why my comment went to lengths to say it wasn't about his writing but about some of the commenters he has more. recently attracted.
LOL decades ago, liberals were supposed to be the anti-establishment, anti-intelligence agencies, skeptical of government, pro-free speech, anti-war, skeptics of media. Now a days they have deep trust in the intelligence agencies, pro war, pro government authoritarianism, pro establishment, pro censorship, have full trust in media.
And you thinking that the rich and powerful elites won't conspire together to retain and gain power make you the real conspiracy theorist while you claim to be "critical thinker" and "anti-authoritarian". There's no way you could have been a Bernie delegate in 2016. And if you were and still don't think the same way Bernie got cheated in 2016 and again in 2020 happened to Trump too, then you are just being willfully blind.
Btw, this is not just me making up stuff, this is a hard fact as shown by Gallup. Dems' trust in media is at an all time high at 76% and it has just kept growing despite things like the WMD lies:
Perhaps you can find someone else to read then? I don't agree with all posters here, but I would NEVER sterotype them or make a point about how more right wing etc. types are here. Who cares, if you don't want to read them don't. Geez if you are looking for a bunch of people all like you--good luck-- like the echo?. Right and left are false constructs, this is 2021 not 1990.
I think the disconnect might be that you may be assuming that conservative readers don’t know anything about Glenn. I learn more from Glenn than any other journalist right now. I know he and I have differing opinions on all kinds of things but I deeply respect him because he holds everyone accountable. That’s all I want any journalist to do because that creates trust.
I would also add - Glenn also opens minds. By having the courage to go to FoxNews when the opinions DO agree, it opens up avenues and allows those "non-critical" thinkers to give an ear to Glenn's ideas.
I used to be staunchly against the idea of letting Snowden off the hook. Now, I would like to see him free. (I have worked in ...shall we say, restricted government facilities before. I have more reason than most to want to protect the US' secrets.)
So, if someone like ME can be convinced of...if not the rightness or virtue of Snowden, (nor his actions) -at least, I can see that the end result has brought some much needed attention to the wrongdoing of our government. And, the man has served a de facto prison sentence far longer than Hillary did (for her breaking of many security restrictions with the email server and getting off scott-free with it) or Private Manning did with their data breach.
But I digress. My point to DavidH is that not all conservatives are here because we secretly think Glenn is going to start going to bat for us on every issue, and we secretly hate that he's a gay man living in Brazil.
First, hello? it's 2021. And unbeknownst to many on the Left, alternative lifestyles have been welcome on the Right for a LONG time. Go google "log cabin republicans". Second, in going to bat for *himself* he's already going to bat for us.
And M. JakeD for the win! You give me a big ol' :D!
An aquaintance on the left (trying to "commiserate"?) said to me, "Well, I guess the Lincoln Project is going to reflect badly on the Log Cabin Republicans, eh, Tim?"
OMG
Meanwhile, RICHARD GRENELL FOR CA GOV!!!!!!!!!! Hell, YEAH.
I don't care about fanboys, ACLU, MAGA, Alex Jones, gay, etc.. I just want to read investigative journalism (supported by facts) that calls out hypocrisy, government misdeeds and and other wrongs.
Yeah, I think a lot of us would, hence my "fix." But, I think I would trust GG. If GG lost my trust, I would just continue casting my free-market vote with my "feet." (Just laugh at my mixed metaphors, will ya?)
I don't care that they're right wing. I care that they are nuttier than the New York Times crowd. When a story doesn't hold up to scrutiny, they take it as a challenge to concoct a more elaborate story.
Instead of panicking and wanting to purge these people, why not try and form a practical coalition with them on issues we have in common? That's politics 101.
If this comment was meant for me, I really don't understand why you are interpreting what I said this way. I never said I wanted to purge anyone, and I thought I was saying the opposite. Apparently I wasn't clear. I do NOT believe in censorship. I also agree with you about forming coalitions on issues we have in common.
I didn't mean this as an assertion, and I didn't mean to make a value judgement. My comment was worded the way it was because it was a reply to what David H said. I was just giving my impression, not claiming to be an authority on the subject.
I think that it is partially because many on the center right are trying to find a place where they fit in. Right-wing media is crazy and most of the other media has become servants of the Democrats. So, even though they may be a little more right leaning than you would prefer, they are not nearly as crazy as what is out there.
Instead of questioning why they are here, take it as a great opportunity to engage with them and understand what is leading them to their conclusions. Overall our society needs to stop judging people based on their political opinions and start finding our common ground. You may learn that you agree with some of their positions.
Exactly-- freedom of speech and sorry if that freedom isn't precious enough for people. If I had to agree with every poster I would never find a place for good discussions. Perhaps this style of discourse doesn't work for some people.
David, thank you for posting this. Thanks in particular for bravely standing up to the white supremacist double-nazi flyover-country conservatives who are taking refuge here: we should give them no quarter. (*Those* people like to beat up on strawmen! We're not like that, are we Dave?)
Good job on the baby/bathwater analogy. The "baby" in this case is the NYT's weather reporting, and the "bathwater" is... misrepresentation of the death of an officer during a political demonstration, used to mischaracterize a disorganized political protest as an "insurrection", thereby justifying further crackdowns against political opposition, and quietly correcting the record once the utility of the deception had fully played itself out?
Solid point, Dave. It is a real pleasure observing the intellectual workings of scholar like yourself. The NYT's weather reporting is totes legit.
Here we go. Those who have no actual arguments to offer- other than insulting people as “white supremacists” and juvenile ad hominem fallacious drivel and all the rest. The logic would not pass a philo 101 class yet you genuinely believe you are enlightened.
You are not going to silence anyone here. Your mindless insults will not go anywhere. Say what you wish, but one thing that is not going to happen is you silencing anyone. And no one takes your infantile “white supremacist” insults seriously.
Honestly, I thought DaveH's original comment was sarcasm. Reading through more of the comments, turns out he was dead serious. Which I find baffling and fascinating in a way.
It's entirely possible the dude is a troll. If so, my hat is off, because his impression of a pompous, insecure, elite-fascist-wannabe college prof is spot on. Poe's law abides.
Dangerously true! Careful with that sarcasm-in-print, so easy to understand your own, so hard to detect in others without that all-important vocal inflection.
It’s terribly difficult to perform well in print - and mad kudos to Johnathon for this one.
What concerns me the most is that the divide and conquer strategy employed by TPTB has made it even more difficult to pull off. They’ve successfully put us on the razor’s edge making it so easy to choose a side reflexively, without thinking.
It happens to all of us. I’ve little doubt Messrs. Chris and Johnathon are simpatico on much.
So ... Jonathan ... in your world the white supremacist double-Nazi flyover-country conservative, not being entitled to be part of humanity, should be cancelled out in a Glenn Greenwald commentary section? Where is your first amendment idealism?
Did you stop reading after the first sentence? The sarcasm is obvious. Jonathan wasted DavidH. Don't validate DavidH by being a right-wing snowflake who can't read and/or take a joke.
You're right. Jonathan my bad. However, keep in mind that sarcasm is cancel cultured just as much as straight anger! Just look at the litigation between the Babylon Bee and other MSM fact checkers.
I think you are confusing MAGA types (of whom there are a number here) with people who want nothing to do with Trump but are completely over being lied to by media outlets who somehow justify their behavior by a "higher purpose."
The bulk of what I read here is from the latter group...I worry you cannot tell the difference.
Do you think the NYT would run a story from two sources "close to the investigation" that claimed that Pelosi declined National Guard support on 1/6? You are surely wise enough to know that they would not.
Glenn and I would disagree no doubt on a number of political issues but I read him because he seems to be one of a very few people who are genuinely trying to hold the media to account, not from a gotcha my side is better than your side (aka the right wing media machine) but because he actually believes in the nobility of reporting as a profession.
People are not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Nobody is denying that the NYT can accurately report when it snows in NYC. But you are sticking your head in the sand and denying the herd mentality and blatant bias of the vast majority of the legacy media.
What would you suggest Glenn do to manage the comment section? Should he delete comments he doesn't agree with? Comments you don't agree with? Comments I don't agree with?
I agree there is plenty to be critical of in the MSM. My only point is that you don't throw out the NYT only to replace it with a steady diet of Youtube cranks, conjecture, and Alex Jones's. People who take media skepticism and critical thinking from Greenwald's writing have gotten something useful. People who see it as scoring partisan points against the left are misunderstanding him. He may want to clarify that. That's it. And yes, not everyone here is a MAGA/conspiratorial/low information/low critical thinking sort. But he's attracted far more in recent years than he had historically. As a professional and the creator of this space, that warrants his attention. I don't claim to have a perfect solution for it, just an acknowledgment of the reality.
Perhaps not enough. Unfortunately good reporting has grown very hard to find across the entire spectrum. And of course we are here reading in the first place because good journalists have been driven to niche platforms. But that doesn't mean we should +not+ toss the NYT to the curb, baby and bathwater; that is more or less a prerequisite to seeing something new and better grow or the Times (et al) doing the in-depth housecleaning it so richly needs. But the very fact that we +are+ all here-- people with such differing viewpoints-- is itself rather hopeful, even when we get frustrated with each other.
I don't, after all, I would fall into that category. My gripe here is not with this that reject the NYT but those who embrace Alex Jones (both being used as metaphors for particular media ecosystems). If you do not fall into that category, then I wasn't talking about you.
What is with this obsession with Alex Jones, DavidH, if that’s your real name. All I hear your ilk screaming about “white nationalists” “Infowars” “Qanon” and “insurrectionists.” Tell me why you believe such fringe right wingers, if they really exist, are worth so much of your hot air? Please name those on this comments section who need to be silenced.
Thank-you! so so true. My sister in law is a high up admin at a University and yes she is one of the " 2 out of 3 democrats..." And she is Canadian. Go figure!
I teach at the college level and work with people like this. It’s sad times for higher ed that having the ability to see various sides is now a detriment and even a reason to be expunged. See what happened to Marc Crispin Miller at NYU.
I'm in the middle of reading Matt Taibbi's article on Herbert Marcuse, probably the guy DavidH has built a shrine to, whether or not he knows it.
I read everything from Marx to Marcuse to Hitler in college many years ago. My professors were brilliant, and breathed so much life into these works, as we examined and analyzed them from all angles. I walked away with a rich, vibrant education, exposed to a vast spectrum of political thought. Not once could I detect my professors' political leanings. They just guided us through group discussions and helped us piece together a coherent portrait of political theories from the mosaic of writings from a variety of authors, across the decades. Marx and Hitler got the exact same treatment. Not all views got the same treatment, but the authors themselves did, as did every student.
DavidH doesn't know that screaming into his bullhorn about correct thought and lavishly peppering his shrill panic with "sewer of right-wing bias" labels directed at massive swaths of this country only undermine his utility as a teacher and that of the institution that employs him. He is not cut from the same cloth as my professors decades ago.
Well said! I think that style of teaching is now viewed as silence equals complicity. Universities are running scared now bc they are trying to make up for decades of neglected equity issues and that has the unfortunate consequence of ruining faculty’s lives. I always make my very left politics transparent but with the caveat that I also want students who disagree not to be silenced. However after Trump got into office I have become less interested in bringing up electoral politics unless it’s to examine a speech or analyze campaign images or discuss issues such as cancel culture which students seem to really want to discuss.
Again, weird how similar our views are on this given how evil and pigeonholed I am. Transparent leftist? Check. Fair to conservative students (and they say so). Check. Critical of cancel culture and identity politics? Check again. I think I'm not who you have accused me of being.
Professor, read your posts here and identify all the places where you have made so many assumptions about people commenting here. Let's see if your straw man detector works when pointed at you.
It's a shame you don't realize how off-putting it is when a teacher's (sorry, we hold you people to a higher standard) only comment about Glenn's article is complaining about the overabundance of commenters (people you know nothing about) labeled unworthy of occupying this space, to *comment*. You don't even see what's wrong with that.
Fair enough. I'm new to commenting here (but not at all new to Glenn or his comments threads). I may have misread the room, though I still contend there is a lot of faulty reasoning and unsupported assertions in the comments. I had hoped for better. That said, clearly it is not universally true, or anything close to it. Yes, I may have set up some straw man myself.
Where did I advocate silencing anyone? But I reject sloppy thinking, straw men, unevidenced assertions, and claims made on ideology and narrative rather than empirical observation. I don't like it when the Times does it, and I don't like it when a subset of the commenters do it. I'm no more calling for them to be silenced than Glenn is for the NYT to be.
Exactly. He's managed to make 80? comments in an extremely important discussion, with one of the few dissident reporters out there, about HIM. Please, let's everyone try to make HIM feel better. Let's try to get HIM to understand. He writes this as if he's this oracle on high. How many of us have PhDs, are published activists, and have been in DC inner circles? Plenty. He's virtue-splaining to everyone here--when he needs to go through the minimally year-long experience most of us have of realizing that the DNC, MSM, "progressive" identitarians, etc., are as or more full of shit than the supposed horrible Fox News he's treated as the Great Satan for the past 15 years.
This is a ridiculous and nascent authoritarian response. Why is Glenn responsible for those comments you find repugnant? It’s irresponsible for major news outlets to get clicks through demonizing large sections of the population by rushing through reports that haven’t been thoroughly investigated. Glenn has the sorry task of doing mop up bc newsrooms won’t do their jobs. Go back to your blue MAGA bubble.
He's not legally responsible, but he is ethically so if he wishes for truth to spread and misinformation not to spread. It's not that he has to, it's that he may want to. After al, he's not responsible for the NYT either, but he attempts to correct that record. Pointing out some fo the misinformation in the comments might also be a productive use of time. In fact he used to do so regularly.
Why don't we focus on the so-called 'ethics' of the (former) paper of record tripling down on false narratives in their actual CONTENT before thought-policing Glenn's commenters? You are equating deliberate misinformation by a 'respected' 'newspaper' with allowing free speech in a comments section, which is probably the most deficient analogy I've seen all year.
Spot on. Love the perfect use of scare quotes, speaking of which, it sure seems to me the need for them is exponentially increasing. That can't be a good sign, or maybe it signals a real (as opposed to "woke") awakening!
So comments are now equal to journalists writing for major newspapers? Come on, man 🤣 Glenn doesn’t have time for that. It was the same argument Neera Tanden and those msm hacks made to Bernie.
Maybe you're right. I'm admittedly new to this medium (Substack). I do know Glenn used to regularly interact with the comments, and that there was a regular group of "marketplace of ideas" types who "moderated" not with official power but by pointing out sloppy thinking and misinformation. Today, looking at his comments for the first time in months, I saw more sloppy thinking and misinformation than I'd ever seen before. And it got my attention. And so I attempted to bring it to his. In all seriousness, what's the prevailing thinking here on how to combat misinformation when it spreads so easily via social media?
Yes now I understand and that makes sense. I'm inured to those comments lacking any basis for anything resembling accuracy. I just don't read them. I think it's just a battle you can't win at this point. I'd rather place the blame on institutions of power such as media corporations for not trying to meet standards that seem so obvious rather than some randos with terrible takes who in some ways are reacting to the media climate.
Thanks. I can get behind that. I think I perhaps overly generalized in my initial comment, and a lot of folks thought I was talking about them when really I wasn't. As a result, we all put each other into straw man boxes and make assumptions about who we are talking to.
You'd be mistaken if you assumed that's what I'm not doing already. I absolutely was the one that agreed with, and have spoken in favor of, that particular ACLU case (and similar ones, such as the Westborough Baptist case). But being a free speech absolutist doesn't mean I'm not interested in truth. I'd never ask Glenn to censor his commenters. But I don't think it's unreasonable to 1. critique those who are wrong and 2. ask the same from him.
News flash - we’re not here for the comments section. Only an academic would take them as seriously as you do. Undoubtedly, Glenn will be calling out some right wing nonsense someday and the comments will be filled with equally clueless liberals. My guess is you’ll be silent about that.
This is fascism dressed up as concern. You want the NYT to report better or report what you want to hear? You obviously do not want to hear from your fellow Americans who have a different take than you do.
I want to know what Qanon are thinking, what MAGA are thinking, what BLM are thinking--I want the info, I don't want it sanitized because of 'feelings'. I've seen a few decades. Seen war. I think I'm adult enough to make my own decisions on what people think, thank you, Mr. Nanny.
DavidH, can you tell us how many errors or biased stories do you need to read before you begin to consider even their statements about snow are incorrect? I read the NY times for roughly 20 years after I graduated college. I used to take hours to read the sunday times and all of its sections. I stopped reading that dishonest publication well over 10 years ago. The bias was over the top back then and it's clear they have moved on from biased reporting to outright fabrication. But the orange man was bad so it doesn't matter, correct?
No, incorrect. Be skeptical of the NYT, WAPO, whatever. Just don't replace that Neo-liberal propaganda with equally unfounded conjecture, conspiracy, and Alex Jones. Just because the Times is wrong doesn't mean OANN or Newsmax is right.
I don't read all the comments but I'd bet very few mention OAN or newsmax. Now perhaps that's what you loyal times readers want to think to stay in your safe bubble.
And it's not just "a piece of the mainstream media" that can be proven false. As Glenn pointed out just about the whole damn narrative regarding the capitol riot was wrong. It matters quite a bit because we continue to have troops stationed in
DC due to this narrative and probably will for quite a bit of time.
Having allegiance to any corporate media source is the worst sort of tribalism these days. It takes a little more effort to find honest sources of information but it's worth it.
David wants everyone to shut up and eat the media we are fed. He is a fascist. This comment section is far from “a sewer of right-wing bias.” To most rational people it is a discussion of the issues raised by the media’s complicity in perpetuating false narratives. One has to wonder whether David has even allowed himself to examine all aspects of the false BLM versions of police shootings. I bet not.
The evidence is plain to an obviously large number of those who read your initial post. I was a reporter for major metro dailies for 40 years. Yes, the more you learn about all sides of a subject, the more accurate the reportage and the closer you get to the truth.
"evidence is plain" doesn't equal evidence. It was possible I was wrong in my initial assessment (not having done a statistical content analysis of the comments), but your reply above is hyperbolic and inaccurate. You've made assumptions about me to put me into a preformed box in your mind, a straw man, and no amount of evidence to the contrary would seem to refute that. THAT is the type of thinking I'm critical of.
Davey the wokester - Substack is a real threat to you folks - .
"But take a look at your comments section! They have become filled with right wing blowhards that have zero interest in investigative reporting or truth. They have latched onto you because some of your reporting favors their narrative ("The Capitol riot wasn't so bad" or "Russiagate didn't happen"). "
" I want the NYT to report better too..." Then take you're head out your ARSE AND RE-READ THIS ONE GREENWALD ARTICLE - SLOWLY - word for word. Grow and be an adult.
The transparent arrogance of you're certitude is just as raw as if you're short pant's were stripped in a level 5 hurricane - to show your ass.
How dare Glenn Report on a 'unmoderated' forum - Substack - where people can still go and read and discuss FREELY. And from the onset is you're evidence for you're unimpeachable credentials for declaring us deplorables - not unlike Orwell did using Winston in 1985 - subhuman and thus in need of supervision (at your discretion and at you're authoritarian perscribing!)
You are hardly the first goofball to show up and whine about Glenn making such a disappointing choice.
YO! Yo! are the first to my knowledge [and to come off soundin' SO WHITE DOING SO - YO!] to openly claim {seemingly as a BOAST} to {even...invite Glenn} " to speak on the campus where I teach."
By you're own foul and diseased post you clearly are not fit to babysit 5-YEAR-OLDS - nor decide what they can be read or watch between nappy time and juicies for constipation.
But hey 'poster who has to hide his name' David H. --- thanks for Sharing.
There is a reason I used the word ethically, rather than legally or financially. If Glenn wants to spread truth, he may prefer there be a greater portion of it in his comment thread. After all, he felt an ethical compulsion to speak out highlighting the NYT's lack of evidence for their assertions. There is a similar lack of evidence in many the comments. I appreciate Glenn's perspective, and usually agree with it, and do in this case, but I also was turned off by both the tone and the quick assumptions in many of the comments. I guess I was just hoping for a higher level of discussion.
Some of the claims that the election was stolen do qualify as "misinformation." I don't call them "misinformation" because I think I know for certain that there were no material irregularities (of course I don't know that), but because the reasons they are giving for insisting that it was stolen are nonsense.
The current election wasn't statistically anomalous because of early voting and voting by mail, all due to the pandemic? Oh that's interesting. Trump didn't call up the governor of Georgia and ask him to scare up some more votes? I could swear we all heard an authenticated tape. Every court challenge was rejected because Giuliani isn't a good lawyer?? And if we had listened to Sidney Powell, we could have gotten a do-over!! What magical reality do these people live in?
My suggestion to anyone who believes this stuff: follow the defamation suits filed due to these allegations of election fraud. See what happens when people are placed under oath, as opposed to in front of a microphone.
"The current election wasn't statistically anomalous because of early voting and voting by mail, all due to the pandemic?"
"all" The statistical anomalies abound. Perhaps the most alarming is that 18 of the 19 bellwether counties (counties that for decades have had a nearly flawless record of voting for the winner) got it wrong this time around.
It's possible that this election broke many longstanding and reliable metrics solely because of mail in and early voting. But I will say, Jimmy Carter warned in the Carter-Baker Report that, out of all voting methods, mail in voting was the most vulnerable to fraud. Last i checked, he was a Democrat.
"Trump didn't call up the governor of Georgia and ask him to scare up some more votes? I could swear we all heard an authenticated tape."
I heard the tape, yes. Do you know the context? It was an excerpt from an hour long settlement negotiation of a lawsuit where Trump was demanding access to the ballots for the purpose of an independent audit. It's relatively clear from Trump and his team's statements that they believed the votes were there. "The votes", not being a bunch of phoney Trump ballots printed off and handed to him, but fraudulently cast ballots in sufficient number to cast the election into doubt. All he needed to find was 11,780 (the margin of victory) fraudulent ballots, and he said he already knew he had them "in spades".
He gives the example of people who moved out of state and still voted. Raffensperger's team said (paraphrasing from memory), "we looked into that. Most of those are people who moved away and then moved back." Trump expressed skepticism. At that point, Trump's attorney basically said (again, paraphrasing), "that's the problem. All we have is your word for that. We don't have access to all the information you guys have."
Ethical questions surrounding the release of confidential settlement negotiations aside, you might ask yourself why the much listened to excerpt was lifted out of the full context of the call, and the broader context of the lawsuit itself was mostly glossed over.
If you knew before listening to the clip that:
1) the lawsuit was seeking access to the ballots and other evidence/information in the possession of the state of Georgia
2) so an independent auditor could (mainly via scanning technology and records comparisons) determine how many, if any, votes were fraudulent
3) and that Trump only needed to find 11,780 fraudulent ballots to (potentially) have a court invalidate the election, and he was confident there were at least that many
you might have come away from that clip with a different impression of what was being asked for. For me, it all boiled down to: "Let's make a deal. You find me the 11,780 fraudulent votes I need, which I know I have in spades, and we can forget about the independent audit."
I know I listened first (to the excerpt) and it seemed, if not damning (because as with most things that come out of Trump's mouth, his statements could be read two (or more) ways), certainly worrying.
Then I discovered the surrounding context, and a few things became clear. Trump genuinely believed there were more than enough fraudulent votes to invalidate the election. He pressured Raffensperger not to "scare up some more votes" (as in, manufacture them), but to find the fraudulent votes he genuinely believed existed.
While you may believe he was incorrect in his belief, and even that his request was improper, what you took away from the conversation is different from what I did. Having been part of several settlement negotiations in the past, I know they can get pretty nasty. Pressure and threats of, "if you don't take our (shitty, insulting) offer, WHEN we win, we'll be demanding costs and you're going to lose your house." You wouldn't believe some of the shit people have pulled during negotiations.
Understanding the conversation in that context, I actually found it to be pretty tame.
And suddenly I had a number of questions.
Why would Raffensperger spend taxpayer dollars fighting in court to prevent an independent audit?
Why would he expect Trump's team to take his word as to how many voters moved away and then moved back? Why not provide some receipts? Because at that point, the only (partial) audits of the Georgia election were done by the state of Georgia. "We investigated ourselves, and found that everything we did was perfect." Try telling that to the IRS.
And of course, why would the media aggressively promote the excerpt, and present only one possible interpretation of what was said--that Trump pressured Raffensperger to manufacture votes?
"Every court challenge was rejected because Giuliani isn't a good lawyer??"
I don't know that anyone on my side of the conversation (election skepticism) believes that. Most of us believe that judges were either biased against Trump, or scared to touch the radioactive poop of declaring this particular election invalid. Business owners in cities across the US weren't boarding up their storefronts the morning of Nov 3 in anticipation of a Biden win, after all. And true to form, leftists rioted the night of Nov 3, when it looked as if Trump was going to win. Trump lawyers were doxxed and threatened, and the notion of doxxing their other clients was being tossed around on social media.
What judge would want to even tiptoe close to the idea of snatching a Biden victory away from people who behave that way? Best to leverage standing or laches or some other procedural technicality at the outset as an excuse to not even look at the evidence and consider the merits.
"And if we had listened to Sidney Powell, we could have gotten a do-over!!"
There was an election do-over for a US Congressional seat in 2019, after "hundreds" of votes in North Carolina's 9th district were found to be "potentially" affected by fraud. It's rare, but not unprecedented.
And by definition, runoffs are a modified but 100% automatic version of an election do-over. So spare me your incredulity.
"My suggestion to anyone who believes this stuff: follow the defamation suits filed due to these allegations of election fraud."
Oh, I will. Discovery can be a bitch (just ask the news organizations that settled the Nick Sandmann lawsuits before they had to hand over all their internal emails to his lawyers), and SLAPP lawsuits generally involve a lot of sound and fury ("I demand ONE... BILLION... DOLLARS!!!!") designed to intimidate rather than compensate.
"See what happens when people are placed under oath, as opposed to in front of a microphone."
Do you even affidavit, bro? The witnesses supporting Trump's lawsuits swore their affidavits under penalty of perjury. Raffensperger has never been put under oath. Neither has Governor Kemp.
But you know, despite never being put under oath, and despite their leaking of a settlement negotiation to the press (intentionally or otherwise, tainting a judge/jury in an ongoing lawsuit), we should really take their (unsworn) testimony for it that they investigated themselves and found zero problems with themselves.
The 2020 Presidential Election was rigged by a cabal of corporate oligarchs to install their own meat-puppet into the White House as a titular figure so they could rule behind the curtain of Oz.
And I didn't suggest censoring such claims. But to say an election was "stolen" through a misleading campaign is ridiculous. Who had a better platform to convey his message than the sitting President? You think someone stopped him? Delusional.
There is no doubt there are right wing posters here who fit your description. There are also a great many on the right and right-libertarians who post here who do not engage in this trolling. I include myself in the right-libertarian mold. In terms of political philosophy I am nowhere near Glenn's view, but I have not regretted one day having subscribed to his substack. I value Glenn's take on journalism, intellectual honesty, and civil liberties (especially 1st amendment freedoms). Unfortunately, I think there are some high propensity posters of the right wing trolling type, but many more on the right who use reason and enjoy the dialogs as I do. It doesn't take long to figure out which posters should be ignored and skipped over. I do wish substack had an "ignore" function so I wouldn't even have to see their crap. I get your frustration, but know there are plenty here who want to have lively, intelligent discourse.
Oh no, don’t report the facts or hold esteemed journalistic sources accountable because MAGA people might be attracted to your message. Ok, that sounds logical... I swear, even the smart people are stupid these days... Be thankful someone is speaking truth to power, no matter who possesses that power. Left, right, up, down - makes no difference.
So do you think Glenn should start censoring the comment section? Sounds familiar. Keep out alternative opinions and ideas, shame the opposition, call them stupid and insist on conformity. And you are an educator? Wow.
David, I'm a liberal who doesn't have a problem with a vigorous debate among differing viewpoints. When did liberals stop tolerating any kind of debate? Can you highlight the comments below that you find so dangerous? Given the nature of the way these comments appear, it's unlikely they're going to gain any traction. But as to Elizabeth's comment, I do think that liberals are even more resistant to having their moral superiority challenged than are conservatives these days. I've said this before, but liberals have become the mirror image of the sanctimonious conservative Christians they despise.
The bigger issue at hand is the wildly differing ways in which the media covered Jan 6th vs. the "protesting" all summer long. For months, protest was healthy and American and should be encouraged. Now it's deadly insurrection that threatens America herself.
Those of us with brains in our heads see exactly what's happening.
More to your point, the obvious conclusion is that it is perfectly legitimate to burn down minority neighborhoods, low-income housing, police stations, police vehicles, and to shoot police officers, attempt for months to seize a Federal courthouse in Portland, deface and destroy historic statues and monuments, and engage in looting free-for-alls so long as a claim of "social justice" can be laughably uttered. Nothing says "Justice for George" like a little smash and grab, right? Even better, a LOT of smash and grab.
But when Fancy Nancy's podium is taken and the sacred inner sanctum of our so-called democracy is occupied by a handful of those governed, well that's insurrection and heads must roll.
Watching liberals cackle with glee at the death of an unarmed protestor in the Capitol while defending violence and arson all summer was a red pill, for sure.
I live in Portland and our downtown has been devastated. Our main business district has been shut down.
I'd be interested to know if you think Portland will decline like Detroit did after the riots in 1968?
No, because Portland has job sprawl. The press likes to write about how land use planning reined in housing sprawl, but there is little written about how the agricultural land around Portland is now growing industrial parks. The movement of businesses out of the urban core has been going on for several decades now, the riots have just been the final blow. Portland is not the green and transit oriented city the press likes to write about.
There is also the issue that wealthy people are still moving here. They tear down the modest older homes and replace them with McMansions. So Portland has more in common with San Francisco than Detroit. Many of our new residents are from California.
Its not those of us with brains they care about. When 4 states were won with under 100000 votes combined, they are playing a numbers game. They are running 40+ funnels to bring people into their voting group. One of them is Anti-trump funnel, one of them is the Lincoln Project funnel, every single one of these little things was an ad campaign designed to do one thing. Funnel voters into the DNC on election day. The quality of that voter is irrelevant when you need so few votes to swing the election. You can throw money at UA even if the returns are horrible.
I don't believe the election was stolen because I like Trump.
I believe it was stolen because I saw how easily the primary was taken from Bernie, both in phony vote totals in Iowa and establishment conspiracy after South Carolina.
Yep. Bernie got the "Ron Paul" treatment during the primaries, and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it since the primaries are a "private event" and not an actual election. The "leaders" can change the rules anytime they want with no (legal) repercussions.
Thats democracy how?
The primaries aren't democracy, that's just the lie the party told you over and over until you thought it was true.
Yes, but they do a good job of exposing the establishment to the, ahem, power base, if the "informed' voter IS paying attention. (i.e. NOT just watching the joke of an MicroSoftNationalBitchingCorporation)
Dude, you out-bitter me! Well said and I am here to commiserate.
The United States was established aa s Republic, not a democracy. Remember your history people!
\\][//
I already believed it was stolen based on what I saw with my own eyes election night, the statistical evidence, the testimony presented in the hearings of the various state legislatures, and the behavior of Democrats and the Pravda media.
And then the Time article came out, which confirmed it beyond any doubt. Anyone who hasn't read it yet should do so immediately:
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
Perfect summary of the essential events.
I should clarify, "Perfect summary by M. James B, perfect chutzpah (sp, my jewish friends?) by Time, Inc." Do they think they are actually going to get away with it?
They did get away with it Timothy.
The conspirators got their meat-puppet, senile old Joe Biden in the White House and are manipulating every moce made by the new illegitimate Biden regime.
It is called 'impunity' -- look it up.
\\][//
Indeed James B,
I have reprodused that article with additional proofs on my ownblog at this link:
https://thedissedent.page/2021/07/01/2020-presidential-election-fraud/
\\][//
If you do really have the courage to read/listen to Peter Navarro's 3 part WRITTEN account of the evidence presented to the various legislatures contesting the election.
Oh, boy, do I second this motion, chairman. EVERYBODY needs to read that in its entirety.
I too concur that Navorro's account is critical knowledge to be had by all patriotic Americans! It is available on PDF for free on the web.
\\][//
Spinmaster,
The following link is absolute proof that a cabal of corporatist oligarchs conspired to rig the 2020 Presidential election to put their own meat-puppet in the White House:
https://thedissedent.page/2021/07/01/2020-presidential-election-fraud/
\\][//
This is why I love Glenn's comment section. I'm not a Trump fan, you're not a Bernie fan, yet we can both recognize who's f*cking us.
"...yet we can both recognize..."
Yep. I am a fan of neither, have never voted for either, having noted at times good and bad about both. But it is pretty clear that neither were treated fairly, that our system as whole "has issues", and that somewhere we seem to have misplaced the Haynes manual.
Since time immemorial, the fucking Statists at heart, non-thinking bastards.
The thing to be said about or broken system - the once late great Democrat Party has consistently abandoned our republican form of representative democracy -(small D) - particularly federalism.
Consistently Anti-Democratic and globalist - and - corruption top to middle (with the lower tier eagerly tying to claw up the ladder.)
Besides Glenn and Matt Taibbi on the left - Peter Schweizer and Lee Smith - on the right have done a fantastic job revealing the depraved money train Washington has represented since Bush the First years.
And it has NOT JUST BEEN THESE GOD-AWFUL WARS.
McConnell and Pelosi - besides the Clintons and the Obama/Biden's - have engorged themselves via sweetheart contracting and insider trading. All while the Bush's family corruption literally dates back a century....
I am sympathetic to Bernie supporters - and think I understand part of his appeal - like em' (or like us suspect him) HE HAS BEEN CONSISTENT since his mayoral days - and despite the conservative attempts to portray him and his wife as just grifters - it's not true.
So he owns more than 1 house and his wife can shop at Sprouts comfortably. He passes the smell test because - frankly - he's never really been about the moola. His lifestyle more befits an IRS middle manager - rather than this era of conspicuous political consumption.
What befuddles me is how after such blatant deception and humiliation - he still wants to be 'secretary of labor' - as close to a dog catcher pensioner cabinet position as any that exists (just look at Tom Perez - from Sec of Labor - with nothing of merit to show - to DNC chair squeaking out a victory over - drum roll - KEITH ELLISON - mr personality disorder himself)
And his supporters don't seem to be even mildly butt hurt. Wow.
Yeah his supporters are very hurt and some like Jimmy Dore are really angry. I know many on Twitter who see him as weak but I think he’s too much a part of the system to reject the Dems and still weirdly believes that he can work some magic on the inside. He’s also old and it’s hard to keep pushing up against so much acrimony in liberals who treated him like total shite.
I don’t begrudge a 78 year old who has been a fighter for underdogs his whole political career. The hysteria over Bernie Bros and other insane gaslighting about his white male privilege and sexist gestures toward HRC in 2016 by the blue wave faux intelligentsia on The View, MSM, NYT, Chris Matthews etc. really hobbled him and made him a weaker candidate in 2020 even though he was a front runner at the beginning.
Bernis Sanders is a socialist. Socialism has never worked any time it has been attempted, it is a failed system of government which must be rejected by patriotic Americans at any cost.
Now we have this maniacal New-Marxist Biden regime in power. they are in favor of the Great Reset agenda of the Davos Gang. The illegitimate Biden regime is buslily terring the USA to shreds with its insane policies sure to cripple the US to the point that there will be no "choice" but to meld with the global neofeudal goreancs of the technocrats of Davos.
All Americans must wake up to the crisis and resist it, even to the point of rebellion as a last resort.
John Kerry reveals Biden's devotion to radical 'Great Reset' movement
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/528482-john-kerry-reveals-bidens-devotion-to-radical-great-reset-movement
\\][//
Now this is my kind of rant! Thank you, M. rick laney.
Don't forget those states simply stop counting, which I can never ever remember. Election night itself smelled.
My SO is pretty hardcore liberal, and she and I went to bed on election night agreeing that by tomorrow morning the DNC would "find" enough votes to overtake Trump's lead. The same thing happened exactly in the GA senate races as well. Same as it ever was'd.
Same as it ever will be unless someone does something.
And just the way the night played out was suspect. They wouldn't call obvious Trump wins until it was impossible for Biden to win, but called states for Biden immediately.
Then when Trump only needs a couple more states he's well ahead in, THEY ALL JUST STOP FOR THE NIGHT. But somehow even though they stopped for the night, in the morning the totals were different. It's incredibly clumsy, and it's no wonder the DNC needs to cancel anybody who brings it up.
If one reads the Time piece, look at recent history, what one comes to see is that the operatives in the parties see pretty much any tactic, no matter how manipulative and dishonest- as just part of the game. It’s how “big boys” play. As long as they get away with any scam, fake leak, propaganda story, they actually regard it with a level of admiration. There is *no* honor among thieves. Honor is for suckers to these people.
Most Americans are naive to what state actors and their media lackeys are capable of. We have been spoiled by far less every day corruption than other parts of the world, and because we have generally trusted the government, we are being taken to the cleaners by it. They are laughing at us, they have contempt for us. The idea that they would somehow voluntarily clean up their act is a joke.
“ Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them”
- Frederick Douglas
Here is a video compulation from the State Farm Arena surveillance cameras , showing Shay Moss, and her mother Ruby Freeman sending the poll monitors and the media to leave because counting was done for the night. Then after everybody else left they continued counting an pulled out hidden ballot containers to count...
The video is narrated. A must see:
https://tv.gab.com/channel/somebitchiknow/view/composite-video-state-farm-arena-60be3103e03b8c0eaf22587c
\\][//
It was totally foreshadowed in the media that the election would be fixed - firstly the obvious fix for Biden in the Democratic primary (Black people are mad about Biden "he was Obama's Vice President"), the Biden will get more postal votes and that he will of course get late votes idea framed in advance, the idea that the stakes are so high that whatever it takes 'must be done to save democracy', the idea framed that Trump will dispute the outcome of the election "because he is a dictator".
Foreshadowed? More like PLANNED.
I don't get it, why not steal the down ticket elections too? How could they have only falsified part of a ballot?
It is a complex organizational problem that if expanded to down ticket elections would be too complex to achieve in the time they had. As it is they were dealing with hundreds of thousand ot ballots that had to be adjudicated in those Dominion and Smartmatic machines.
See: Dominion adjudication function explained:
https://youtu.be/z4HvTEbpd48
\\][//
Plausible deniability?
How many of us have reached, "My God, what have I done?"
Looking around here, I see more and more... no matter what your beliefs are.
2am-5am, Wednesday, November 3rd
The numbers for 1 (one) race and 1 (one) race only flipped. Shhh! (Riiiiiiiight)
It was just a little fabrication of evidence!
Just a little malarkey! It's fine!
Ha! "malarkey," one of my favorite words (origin unknown, sometime in the 1920's) until its overuse by the current usurper-in-chief.
I've been watching election night results since 1956; I skipped 2020 because the outcome was known well in advance, as Time Magazine documented proudly. I'm surprised that Biden didn't win with more than 100% of the vote.
Once again, the real story will be buried and a false narrative created and cemented. Journalists are simply abandoning their obligation to historians to report first and foremost facts. I'm astounded that historians are not holding mock trials and burning Rachel Maddow in effigy.
They aren’t journalists. They serve the government establishment and their actual job is to prop up the state and eliminate threats to the state’s power
true apparatchiks
But yeah, it was only Trump filling your head with conspiracy theories.
It's not as if anyone would have noticed it if he hadn't drawn attention to it, right? And no one would have noticed that 18 of the 19 bellwether counties picked the loser, which is unprecedented in like 50 years. It's not like counties joined at the hip voted completely differently from each other.
And it's not as if the counties where election irregularities were alleged did everything in their power to avoid a full, independent forensic audit, including violating court orders...
Anyone here notice the difference between PA 2016 and PA 2020? In 2016, when Hillary had litigation pending (yes, she contested the results), PA waited until Dec 12 before certifying. That's 4 days after the supposedly hard deadline of Safe Harbor Day.
In 2020 (when everyone knew it would take longer, because of all the mail in ballots, which require more processing) PA certified on Nov 24.
Then the state argued in court that rescinding their certification was just too big an ask. I mean, we've certified. It's written in stone now.
The judge agreed, and said that since he couldn't (wouldn't) grant the plaintiff their requested remedy, there was just no point in hearing any of the arguments or evidence. It's moot, case dismissed.
And now we have 20k National Guard troops in DC to protect the most popular president in US history.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here.
The election was stolen. I will not “get over it.” I will not shut up.
Way more has been stolen than that!
Exactly. And the most important loss is perfectly illustrated by the halting of one wall, and the erecting of another (you know, the one topped with concertina wire, lest the people actually own their State).
I dont necessarily disagree but how is that any different than any other election? Why do we all of a sudden care this election? Same shit happened with Truman's racist ass exactly.
Hmm... I did not vote for Trump, and as a libertarian-leaning limited-government Republican activist, I have definitely seen dirty politics... been on the receiving end often enough. But, yes, this election +was+ worse even than usual, and although there are certainly parallels-- including that we are unlikely to ever know much of the truth-- on a greater level than Nixon's loss (I surmise).
One lesson I think we should pay attention to with Nixon, however, is I think Nixon was too quick to let it go, just as Trump's over-the-top allegations went too far the other direction. Nixon dropped many of his election complaints seemingly in part out of a don't-get-mad-get-even strategy. In an appearance of conciliation, the issue merely festered. I believe that did a great deal of long-term harm.
It would be nice to find a middle road: no matter one's political affiliation or who one voted for, I believe we should be concerned about the very deep problems in this election (as well as what was done against Bernie or Ron Paul, etc) because it affects us all if we ever intend to have a different opinion from the one +issued to us+ by the establishment. We ought not let it go. We ought not simply let it fester. Not attempting real fixes and another faction (however the factions realign in the next four years) simply getting even could end our nation. Yet escalation is +very+ dangerous and would likely just end our nation differently. Wholesale giving up on fair elections would lead to yet another catastrophic failure. We need to try to pick our path boldly, unapologetically, yet PRUDENTLY across partisan lines. I see very few even trying to do that (left or right) "out there", a bit more so "in here".
I, for one, knew that protesting would do no good, and accepted that Biden won. Then I asked for investigations to determine where fraud could enter the election process. The answer is obvious, but still needs to be the result of an open and fair investigation: fraud can enter the election process wherever the audit trail is compromised. The primary obstacle to getting to investigations was Trump himself.
He insisted that he had won and made the issue all about himself, as we had come to expect. That allowed the miscreants to claim that any examination of process was sour grapes, trying to overturn the result of the election. Which meant first overcoming that lie to get to an attempt to overcome the big lie, that there was no fraud. That is my problem with Trump. He did a disservice to the country by making the issue about him rather than about election integrity. We're left with two consecutive elections in which half the country disputes the integrity of processes.
We got rid of a disliked and vile personality that actually accomplished good as president in favor of an easily-liked image of a non-existent personality, an empty suit, who is setting out to undo everything accomplished by the vile one. That cannot stand without causing America to fall.
How can you possibly complain about Trump protesting a rigged election that we all now know was actually rigged? That is absurd!
It's like those asshole virology experts that didn't speak out on the absurdity of the Wuhan bat story because they didn't want to be seen as agreeing with Trump. The thiking is Kafkaesque!
\\][//
Some ATTORNEY suggested there could be a "re-vote?" Under what law?? Anyone who suggests that a "re-vote" would be constitutional, or that it could be "forced" in some way, is not someone you should listen to, for any legal advice, or whose judgment you should trust in general.
I'm sorry, but how do you not know this? I seriously don't get it.
Election re-votes have happened in the US as recently as 2019. According to Ballotpedia, there are provisions in 47 states wherein the courts can order an election in a given electoral area to be conducted again.
As for what the constitution provides for if an election is fraudulent, it is as follows:
1) electors have the right under the US constitution to be "faithless" and vote for a different candidate. (Democrats aggressively campaigned for this in 2016.)
2) congress can reject the electoral votes of states they believe held fraudulent elections. This requires an objection signed by at least one member of the House and one member of the Senate. (House Democrats tried this in the 2000, 2004 and 2016 elections, but couldn't get any Senate signatories. This is what was planned for Jan 6 2020, and there were Senators on board to object to 6 states' votes, with 2 hours of debate slated for each objection.)
3) congress can reject the election in its entirety, at which point, as in the event of a tie, the President is appointed by House delegation (1 state, 1 vote), and the Vice President by a simple majority in the Senate.
So yeah. There's laws, and constitutional provisions. You really should bone up on your legal acumen.
You have cited no source for you spurious claims jbirdmenj.
Your empty opinions are worthless.
\\][//
I think your opinions are wrong, M. jbirdmenj. And you don't fool me, 'cause
"We won't be fooled again..."
Also, re-votes are sometimes written into how things are done. The Georgia run-offs were a re-vote, because more than two candidates ran, and none received more than 50% of the votes.
So they had a re-do, because that's how it's automatically done there if a candidate for US Senate doesn't get at least 50.01% of the votes.
Why do I, as a Canadian, have to tell you these things?
Is it? I thought us Canadians were the politest people on the planet.
"Nuanced."
Attack, attack, ad hominem attack after attack.
What the hell is wrong with YOU, M. Sonja?
Does anyone recall the storming of the Wisconsin Capitol back in 2011 or something? To prevent the passage of an austerity bill, thousands of left wing protesters stormed the Capitol and occupied the building for weeks. I'd say that was an attempt to "subvert the government", no?
Compare with the "storming of the Michigan Capitol" by armed, right wing, anti lockdown "terrorists". Who were legally open carrying, went through security, submitted to temperature checks, and then stood lawfully and silently in the public gallery. The only injury was to an unarmed woman Governor Whitmer ordered removed from the gallery, where she was standing alone. Whitmer simply declared from on high that now, only press were allowed in the public gallery, "to allow for social distancing".
That woman ended up in hospital, and the iconic photo of a protester "screaming in the faces of police" was actually (when you look at the photo closely) him standing between two cops and shouting at someone behind them. He said he was shouting at one of the officers who'd injured the woman.
Whitmer then went on the news and talked about how there were "swastikas" on display at the protest. The protesters were neo-nazis, the gullible audience was left to presume. Except the only swastika there's any record of at the anti-Whitmer protests was on a placard next to the words "Heil Whitmer". That puts a different spin on things, doesn't it?
The siege of the federal courthouse in Portland is the same. The media and left wing politicians described the actual, really and for true insurrectionists (attempting to subvert the government by destroying a federal courthouse) as mostly peaceful protesters, and the federal officers tasked with preventing them from burning it down as "storm troopers".
Where is the tally in the mainstream press of all the federal officers injured in those incidents? Officers permanently blinded by industrial lasers. Where were all the stories about the officer who took a commercial grade firework to the chest, where it embedded in his flak jacket and couldn't be removed before it had severely burned his torso? The officers taken to hospital with wounds from axes and hammers because they had the audacity to leave the (relative) safety of the building to put out fires?
I honestly care less about them lying about Sicknick's death than I do about how all of a sudden, after a year of anti-cop sentiment and apologism for lawless and violent anti-cop riots, this is the one occasion when they decide to do a complete 180 and act all outraged over the treatment of cops and government property by rioters with a political axe to grind.
My sister fell for the narrative of the anti-lockdown protests in MI. "They stormed the Capitol!" she told me. I was like, "by filing in an orderly fashion through security and submitting to temperature checks?" She says, "okay, by the were ARMED!" I was like, "it's perfectly legal to open carry, even in the Capitol building." "They had their guns pointing down at the politicians!" "Uh, no. They were holding their rifles the way you do when you don't intend to use them." "But there were white supremacists there! There were swastikas!" I sighed. "There was one swastika on a placard that compared the person they whose actions they were protesting to Hitler. Does that sound like someone who supports Hitler?" A long pause. "But it had to have been scary for the politicians! It was still meant to intimidate." I told her, "A government should have a healthy fear of its citizens, particularly when they've decided it's "necessary" to suspend the constitutional rights of the governed."
I'm almost positive she thinks I'm the crazy one.
I'm glad to see Greenwald sticking to principle. Glad I subscribed.
Well said.
3 hearts in 5 hrs of a days old comment stream. Please post sooner next time, M. Karen Straughan. I want more people to hear what you have to say.
Well, I wasn't subscribed to Greenwald until today. I came here from a Real Clear Investigations link roundup and subscribed so I could comment. It sucks when you arrive late to an article, but that shouldn't be a problem now. :)
"Those of us with brains ..."
I hate that kind of sneering rhetoric.
Sorry, should I say "those who use their brains?" or "those who question the narrative" or some other phrase that will make you feel better but probably insult somebody else?
That's up to you. I'm just telling you how I feel about your condescention to whoever doesn't share the view.
If you can't see what's happening in front of your face, I'm not going to be shy about telling you that's your fault. You clearly have an internet connection and some time.
If you want to disagree with what I said, then do that. Don't complain about the manner in which I say it.
I've nothing to disagree with about what you said.
I think the manner of discourse in comments is important and a valid topic for discussion.
You had a perfectly good first paragraph and then added that extra statement. It doesn't make your point more persuasive so what's it for?
Hearted for truth, but M. Tom Worster is right about the phrase in question. In Logic (Philosophy), it is an example of a certain type of "logical fallacy" the name of which escapes me. Perhaps a younger, more learned poster can help me out. My feeling is it is poor writing and does no service to your argument, being utterly non-objective.
I had a conversation very similar to this with Tom Woods. I suggested that backing off the sarcasm might help win converts. He said the only converts worth having were the ones who could see through the sarcasm and grasp the underlying point.
I have yet for anybody to explain to me in rational terms why the coverage should be so different. Mostly they just call me names. (Luckily, heralding from the "I'm rubber/you're glue" days, I'm impervious)
And, by granting M. Tom Worster his victory in style, you beg his question on substance: I'll bet he's got nothing on that.
herp derp brane badz
ur racist
So true. Juxtapose the media treatment of the death of the cop in the Capitol, which may not have been a homicide at all, with the murder of the retired black cop defending his friend's pawn shop last summer (in St. Louis, I think). Yes, the latter was covered, but nowhere near as extensively or intensely.
Absolutely well said, Commander ! All summer, in every city, the *names used to describe the crowds out after curfews *wildly varied.
Most Americans are aware that peaceful protests are protected by the Constitution. As is the right to peaceful assembly, as is the right to redress our Government for grievances. That said, tho, the minute someone breaks a window, lights a fire, begins looting businesses,
or commits unprovoked violence against police, that person, or persons, can no longer be *accurately described as "protestors".
Committing criminal activity transmutes said people *into *criminals guilty of looting, vandalism, rioting, assault, etc, et alii.
For literal months, especially during the coverage of Portland and Seattle, newscasters were calling ALL people not in official uniforms
"protestors", rather than distinguishing *some as obvious rioters who went so far as to *abuse actual protestors, some of whom were attempting to prevent the actions of the agents provocateur.
The long term danger here is conflating the SIGHT of people committing obvious CRIMES even *as one hears news media personnel sanguinely, and often "protectively" describing these violent actors as "protestors".
As J. Edgar Hoover did with the Anti-War movement, and with the Womens Movement of the 1970s, you can rest assured that *many of the violent "protestors" were actually agents provocateur hired to be there to ensure that the protestors looked like criminals.
This was taken to a bizarrely frightening height with the unmarked "troops" DJT sent to Portland, Ore, who then actually beat, abused, and arrested protestors with literally *no probable cause for the "police" actions. And the "police" were comfortable in having these crimes actually recorded on news cameras even as they were committed.
It takes no genius to understand that repetition of this constant cognitive discord eventually supports the subconscious of the viewer in the *entirely logical conclusion that "protest *IS criminal activity".
Since this was carried on by TV newscasters all over the U.S. with only slight regional variations, it is an almost impossible "stretch" to believe that it was *not a coordinated effort at subliminal cognitive "seed planting". Subliminal Operations in military planning are just another arrow in the propaganda quiver.
Subliminal operations are also *very tempting to use in the context of Advertizing, except that it is *illegal to use it in advertizing due to the fact that a person needs to be *trained in order to resist the effects of subliminal advertizing. Sadly, it works *THAT well.
Unfortunately pointing out double standards doesn't work. It's not persuasive. It just becomes a back and forth of "but this side did this". "Can we agree that they are all hypocrites and get to the damn issues themselves?" is the point I've reached lately.
Similar situation in California under Ronnie Raygun...when the NRA and Republicans suddenly liked the idea of gun control... https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-support-mulford-act
I know I'm super late in reading this comment, but I'm old enough to remember "Armed Gays Don't Get Bashed", and my parents are old enough to remember "Armed Blacks Don't Get Lynched".
Gun rights are MOST important for the disfavored.
Yep. "Armed Women Don't Get Raped."
The Great Equalizer, The third greatest invention by humankind.
No you actually don’t see what’s happening. The capitol riot was an attempt to overthrow a legitimate election. The protests and riots last summer were an attempt to stop police from murdering unarmed black suspects but nice try trying to conflate the two very different events 💩🧠.
How many unarmed black citizens were killed in Chicago this weekend by gang bangers? How draconian are the gun laws there?
Why isn't the DNC going on TV and protesting every single day about the epidemic of black on black violence in the inner cities, which is robbing children of their fathers and mothers of their sons?
Oh right because the DNC cannot use that behavior to manipulate voters.
Black on black crime is a racist construct used to blame blacks for their own oppression. The same percentage of white murder victims are murdered by other whites and you never hear dumb asses like you talk about white on white crime. Why? Because you are racist AF!
You mean like when for four years the DNC said Trump only won because Russia 'hacked the election" even though that has been proven demonstrably false?
Every poster on this forum sees through your attempt to astroturf.
Yes if only the "rioters" had been able to call congress into session, they would have taken over! That's how America works!
Exactly. They are talking as if DC is some scared place and HOW DARE THEY come into DC and make a mess of things!
But we remember that DC was literally on fire over the summer. They boarded up windows on election night, and it wasn't because they were afraid of Trump supporters.
So true. If BLM had the opportunity to trash the White House they would have done so. The difference is that Capitol security failed. Whose fault was that?
During the summer Trump was forced "into the bunker." Remember what the reaction was? THEY LAUGHED AT HIM FOR BEING FORCED INTO THE BUNKER.
Mitch McConnell gave a post acquittal speech on the floor saying that Trump was morally and practically responsible for the attack on the Capitol because he should have known how his rhetoric and his spreading of "conspiracy theories" about the election would have whipped up his supporters into a state where they'd to do something drastic.
Let's say for the sake of argument that Trump should have been able to foresee what would happen. Certainly Pelosi and McConnell should have ALSO been able to predict it, no? And as leaders of the House and Senate, both with authority over security decisions, they could have ensured the Capitol was adequately prepared to deal with the (according to him) 100% predictable outcome of Trump's irresponsible speech.
So why weren't they?
Well, see, Mitch McConnell didn't want any objections or debates, either. He pressured Senate Republicans to not sign onto any objections from House Republicans.
And just to put things in perspective. Trump has always been vocal about how his supporters are predominantly decent, law abiding, hard working citizens. He's held rally after rally after rally without any riots breaking out. The Million MAGA March on Nov 14 went off without any violence (other than antifa picking off stragglers as they walked to their cars/hotels), even though most, if not all, of the rallygoers believed the election was, or was probably, stolen.
On top of that, Trump supporters lobbied hard to have their Senators join House members in the objections, because they WANTED the debates. Why would they want to do anything that would interrupt or kill that process?
Now look at how the left portrays Trump supporters. Radical, fascist, racist, white supremacist, cultists and conspiracy theorists. Bad people who are dangerous.
Which of these two people (Trump or Pelosi) was more likely to predict a violent riot at the Capitol that day? And which of them was in charge of security decisions?
McConnell is as swampy as they come. I bet he was either in on Pelosi's decisions, or knows about them and is happy to let them slide. Trump was an ally of his only when convenient (to put judges on federal courts, for instance), but that doesn't mean McConnell wanted him around for a second term. The second term is when the really daring shit gets done, because there's no reelection to worry about.
That's the last thing McConnell wanted, and Trump 2024 is the last thing he wants.
God, politics is gross.
Excellent points Ms. Straughan.
McConnell is part of the traitorous RINO faction of the Republican Party that actually voted to find Trump guilty in the burlesque in the Senate called an "impeachment". One of the worst examples of injustice in American history.
https://thedissedent.page/2021/07/01/2020-presidential-election-fraud/
\\][//
Nancy Pelosi is, in effect, the "mayor" of the Capitol building and grounds.
The FBI and NYPD warned officials that right and left wing radicals were planning to storm the Capitol on the 6th, and everyone knew there'd be tens or even hundreds of thousands of "deplorables" in DC that day.
Federal law enforcement offered security assistance in anticipation of trouble. The offer was declined. The House Sergeant at Arms asked for additional resources to protect the chamber. Request denied. And Capitol Police (2300 officers strong) only had about 500 on duty that day, none in riot gear.
Now look at who gained from what happened. Republican senators who'd planned to object to the electoral votes and force a debate on election irregularities have been lambasted. Trump supporters are being smeared as dangerous cultists and terrorists. The planned objections and 12 hours of debate were cancelled 20 minutes in. And Pelosi got another shot at impeaching Trump.
Why, it's almost as if Pelosi wanted what happened to happen, and did everything in her power to ensure it did.
The impeachment teams decided at the outset that there would be no witnesses called. Then, after defence finished presenting its case, and the senators had gone home thinking there'd be closing arguments and a vote the next morning, all of a sudden, the house managers decided they wanted a witness.
Ted Cruz went on camera and said he was fine with that. But their side would want witnesses too. They had more than a hundred witnesses they'd like to depose, but if they could only have one, it would be Nancy Pelosi. Because they were all very curious to know why there was virtually no security at the Capitol that day, and as someone with authority over those decisions, she could probably shed some light on that.
Wouldn't you know it? All of a sudden, the house managers didn't want any witnesses after all.
Capitol security didn't "fail". They were sacrificed.
BLM has demonstrated in places where murders have occurred.
You can be sure that murders occur where Black Lies Matter demonstrates.
“ If BLM had the opportunity to trash the White House they would have done so.”
Learned that in Sunday School, didyah?
What kills me is that the social media was supposed to break this gatekeeping of information by the elites. Instead it tightened its grip. I don't know why I am surprised, tbh. Power never gives itself up willingly.
AP told the reporters not to say “riot”...because in a lot of cases the POLICE were the rioters.
Great reporting, Glenn. I don't know how we survive this moment with such irresponsible journalism.
There are new rules of engagement, and the battle lines are drawn. Please believe this is happening and adjust accordingly.
There’s battle lines being drawn, nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong...
Not enough protest music these days
True. I always enjoy your comments.
Just got done re-watching 'INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS' ... now that was a time for the Folk Song Army....never was able (despite priming via the Punks of the 70's to 'tolerate' Rage against the Machine...')
Rage was fine for the time, but they (like me) are old at this point.
One is never too old for this. Rage is not expressed in the same way but keep on plodding to support causes that you value in your own way. Like supporting Bernie.
Time for a musical number: https://youtu.be/bjSpO2B6G4s
Even this is messed up. Am I surprised the poster didn't get the title of the song correct? No...This song was penned by Stephen Stills and is titled "For What It's Worth"
1966. 55 years ago!
The "Young people speaki" their minds/A-gettin' so much resistance from behind" are us 60+ Trumpites.
Such a masterpiece.
Perfect!
Great song!
The new rules of engagement are everywhere you don't want them to be, too. We need them as a society. When China attacks your ships, its war. When it attacks your servers, the Geneva Convention doesn't cover that.
With d-list 'instructors' like DavidH - can one even call it 'attacks' - considering the instructive reporting sites like National Pulse have uncovered just concerning Harvard the Confucius Institute. The magnitude of intertwined corruption and self-dealing is astounding. It is everywhere in the Democrat Academic Wing of the Prog Fascist party.
I have a perfect tit-for-tat conservative response - CONFISCATE THEIR ENDOWMENTS - and let the Roberts Supremes opine on it - a al - Kelo.
>CONFISCATE THEIR ENDOWMENTS
YES. And then, sever the arts/humanities/social sciences schools from the STEM schools, and let them stand on their on merits, based upon the actual value they provide to society.
that was Harvard AND the Confucius Institute... Absolutely. We need to kick the spineless Uniparty Republicans out - and devote the restoration of American First to the kind of lasting projects that will better the lives and opportunities of the next generation - a generational 'contract with America - just like in '94 - only but we need 10 New Deal like in scope - and kicking out the slumming Cheaters (not Teachers) Union along with such funding as you mention....
My #1 - a constitutional amendment TO BOOT CALIFORNIA FROM THE UNION (with a provisional option for Oregon & Washington to leave voluntarily should there citizens choose - given geographical and historical connection)
.... what about the libertarians and conservatives in CA? CA has the highest number of Republican voters out of any state and some of us (like myself) are trying to spread awareness of libertarianism.
[their...sorry...for all the dweeb lefty obsessives with 'correct' grammar...
I was thinking more along these lines: Do what you can via traditional methods, voting, boycotts, and so on, but also start considering these items copied from some random guy on Twitter : "Most of my big life decisions right now account for a belief there's a significant chance that the US ceases to be functional in the next 20 years as a federation, and ceases even in name to exist in my lifetime, and how to hedge against that. How do I distribute my time, energy, and assets to deal with different types of breakdown?
* Rule of law
* Monopoly on violence
* Travel within the continental US
* Financial systems
So given that, how do I prepare my life, my children's life, and my grandchildren's lives to succeed as much as possible with a changing order? How can I take advantage of new opportunities, maximize upsides, and minimize risks?"
Try 10 years. I like the random guy on twitters take. Mine is get transferable/professional skills, be flexible, pay attention to geo-political events-- re investments etc.,and other things. To an American I would add, don't read, watch or listen to any MSM in your country--you never get half the story, read watch etc. a variety of info from outside the US info only-- specialize in the areas you are interested in-- finance, health, food, etc.
To me minimizing risk is to learn how to sew, grow food, basic repairs etc. become more self-reliant.
I've been inventive decades. "If you want it done right, do it yourself."
Totally agree, and yet I am not able to be as "gentle" in describing so many present day people as "journalists". Where you might say "irresponsible journalism", I am more likely to go with "Liar for Hire".
People like you are a *much more pleasant contributors to a polite society ! ;-D
The media love their "hands up don't shoot" propaganda, but they apparently hate investigative journalism. Why hasn't Sicknick's' autopsy been released? Why don't we know the name of the police officer who shot an unarmed woman? Why was there video of police allowing people into the Capitol Building. Regarding intel received prior to Jan. 6 about possible attacks, what did Nancy Pelosi know and when did she know it? Same goes for Mitch McConnell and FBI Director Christopher Wray.
How come Congress never got back to talking about election irregularities that were rather conveniently disrupted--never to be brought up again?
A cynic might see this whole thing as an orchestrated operation perpetrated by those who
know they could sucker enough Trump supporters into the Capitol to give Democrats and the media a patina of legitimacy to forever kill a nationalist movement and make clear to anyone who would dare to run on a nationalist platform going forward that they can expect the same treatment.
But the globalists would never do that--would they?
Ha! That they would? That they DO is not even a conspiracy anymore, but boldly proclaimed from State apparachiks across the communal land.
Thank you, M. ata777. I, too, will have answers to the questions you pose.
I refuse to believe that these ̶j̶o̶u̶r̶n̶a̶l̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ media hacks are good but misguided people. What Glenn describes here is without question a concerted effort by their bosses to smear and inflame for political ends, and they are very enthusiastic team players to this end. There is clearly a conspiracy to defraud and disenfranchise the American people.
This started happening really overtly when the media was patting itself on the back after Obama got elected. Since then they don't even pretend to be unbiased.
They do very much care about their reputation within their group. They've worked hard to gain admission. The new comrade-journos know that the truth is what they say it is. Quite the head trip and hard to give up, I would say.
It is cleat that propaganda has replaced journalism. The narratives get codified so quickly. The term insurrection was spread so quickly on January 6th that the fact that the legislators completed their work was an after thought. I find my liberal friends totally bought in on it; just as they have never really given up on the Russian hoax. They truly believe that they are armed with facts, and it is me who is mistaken. I feel I have an honest assessment of Trump, he is a jerk, egomaniac, and selfish at a world class level. He is not Hitler, as well as all the "ists" he has been call. Amoral, sure; dictator no. Trump broke media by telling something very true amongst many half truths; the elite do not care for middle America not because they supported Trump, but because they can't imagine holding the values they hold. They supported Trump because he didn't hate them. Trump is the symbol for all those people the elite do not understand, nor care to. The crisis of domestic terror is a made up tail to scare those people silent. The "journalists" pay no price for the disinformation they project the accusation on anyone who calls them out.
What made Trump so popular (although he lost the popular vote twice) is that he’s an outsider. He didn’t want to be but the elites would never let him into their club. He got rich and they wouldn’t let him in. He got a prime time tv show and they wouldn’t let him in. He got elected president, for Christ’s sake, and they still wouldn’t let him in so he proceeded to do his best to burn the building down and cause as much chaos as he could. Curiously enough, that’s kind of like what I would like to see too. But to stay rich he couldn’t completely annihilate the establishment, he only had to convince his followers that’s what he was going to do.
What makes Trump so popular is his anti-elitism. One can grow up in an elite environment and despise elitism just as one can grow up in a racist environment and despise racism. Trump was accepted by the elite -- even chummy with the Clintons -- as long as he played their game, and he played it well, until he stopped playing it. The elite didn't reject Trump until Trump rejected the elite. Trump has always had a strong affinity for ordinary people, and has become the voice of the ordinary protesting against the elite. He became president by thumbing his nose at the elite. Of course they hate him. To say his purpose is to burn down buildings, and to cause chaos, completely misses the point of who Trump is. Trump has a serious edifice complex. His instincts are to build things up, the higher the better, not to tear them down, though sometimes the first step in construction is demolition.
Fun fact- read up history on his grand father and father. People might think trump was a moronic buffoon but it’s actually quite interesting how trump is getting the same treatment from the elites as his grandfather and father when he returned to Germany.
This is all your own fantasy, projecting nonsense on a six-time bankruptcy filer who destroyed countless lives, of "ordinary people," in the process. You don't have to go to any American news source. You can consult other sources. They exist. This guy loved only himself.
He helped countless lives of Americans who still believe in this country's magic, who still love this country as much as DJT does, and in case you still don't get it, that's saying a lot!
I love myself, too. You?
I think your analysis is unfair to DJT, but you are spot on about the outsider threat to the control-freak elitists in the major party establishments, the Deep State (yes, Deep State IS a perfect descriptor), and the corporatist media.
While I am very critical of trump for not pardoning Assange and Snowden, I don’t think your statement about “But to stay rich he couldn’t completely annihilate the establishment” is based on any actual fact or logic. It’s the exact opposite of what’s happened to him. Forbes reported back in 2019 how he had lost $3 billion in net worth. And he got cancelled everywhere and all Platforms have banned him.
His biggest flaw was his poor hiring choices - he didn’t realize he was hiring back stabbers.
Trump is popular because despite all his flaws, he genuinely loves his country and he doesn’t hate the voters. He hates the politicians. A politician who doesn’t hate his voter base was refreshing to his voters who have been left behind for decades (both political sides).
We all know the truth folks, Sicnick died defending AOC from a hail of heavily armed fire extinguishers sent by Ted Cruz.
In all seriousness, the capitol riot was pretty nuts, but Glenn is right, it was just that, a riot by a bunch of naïve yahoos and it should be condemned. What makes me roll my eyes even more than people calling it an insurrection are the folks that sincerely believe we were close to a fascist coup, as if Andrews Airforce Base was the next to fall. Coming from a family who has actually lived through coups that the U.S. supported no less, this is a bit rich.
Many here feel depressed and to some extent I think Covid is talking, but if you know all the horrible things America has done, not only after 9/11, but before, you kind of take this in stride, like what else is new?
Exactly.
Because all those folks that have been stockpiling arms and ammo for decades would storm the Capitol just to take selfies.
Excellent to hear our stockpiles remain.
"Walk boldly and calmly, and carry a big stick." (with apologies for changes to original)
"Walk softly and carry a big stick"--Theodore Roosevelt
\\][//
Not just Ted. JEFF FLAKE WAS THERE - SPITTING SKITTLES THROUGH THE STRAW LEFT OVER FROM HIS LATEST STRAW MAN OP-ED PIECE! Com'on Sean McT - please 'report' the entirety of the cartoon version!
You are my type of flamethrower, M. rick laney. There was never any "conspiracy," secret or Time-boasted, to steal an election, but there was an obviously hella amount of "collusion" to do so. It doesn't come from organized subterfuge. It comes from what is in the hearts of Statists. Their cooperation with each other follows "naturally."
'have you no shame...'
Thanks for the LOL
Yeah. As if the Secret Service was ever going to let live role-players close to their charges.
I've recently been reading any and all news stories with the lens of "what are they trying to scare me about and why?"
Been doing that for a while. You can usually tell what the lie is just by reading the headline and the “news source”.
Ha, ha! Remember when they tried to scare the bejesus out of everyone with one story after the other about....bedbugs!?
For why - the media because it sells. Politicians because it gets them power. What do you think the 'why' is in this particular case?
I think it is because the imagery of an attack on the Capitol is such a golden opportunity to build up the domestic security apparatus, redefine what is acceptable dissent vs not, and then wield that power against political opponents
https://butseriously.substack.com/p/let-us-protect-you
Make everyone afraid, get emergency powers to deal with it, manufacture permanent crises to maintain control. Chancellor Palpatine showed the way
This.
How did I miss THIS gem? Thank you, M. KJN.
Recently? (What took you so long?)
That's not fair of me. I should say, "Welcome to the REAL woke."
Politics is a broken god. Remain neutral, have kids, teach them how to recognize truth. Or not. But do what you can to find happiness on this broken earth. We've lied to ourselves thinking our freedom lies in how connected we are to the latest information. That information is lies, it's bankrupt. Be connected to people you trust and love. Make a life. That's how you win this. I'm honestly at a loss to how people can't do simple math and make connections...of why things are terrible these days, why their kids are depressed and not in school, why some people have been going to work, seeing their friends sending their kids to school and they're still locked away in fear, why their cities are burning, why the wealth gap is the way it is, the psychological warfare wrought on them day after day - can't they see it? Like why purposely sabotage yourself? I woke up in the aftermath of the BLM riots. What else will it take? After all this.
some "acquaintances" of mine, went to Washington....semi-retired and true believers in old style small business, fair taxes, love-thy-brother and 2nd Amendment rights...good folks, but exasperated by their perceptions of vote fraud and disingenuous political rants....no way did they riot..Politics is broken, but they still believed in honesty, integrity...Now? I've never seen them so distrustful and withdrawn..almost clannish...connections made, math done. Regrouping and hope is, for now, still an option, I think.
they should just shut off the news and try to live life on their own terms. Happiness is a state of mind, but only if you wake up - from the forces that make you think happiness isn't in your own hands. I feel for them - but worse than the lies being peddled is the effect it has on people. better to be illiterate than to have ever gone on twitter. There's a few levels here: 1. believing the lies youre told. 2. waking up to the fact that you've been lied to and being mad enough about it for it to keep you up at night 3. knowing your truth and still deciding to have hope in your future and in the common humanity that binds us all. reaching level 3 is the goal
totally agreed
Beautiful comments💗. I totally agree.
Yes, well stated emotions, and perfectly righteous, but.....
Don't tune out! Hear and take in all the news, even while trying to make your, and your famliy's and friends', lives as good as possible. The day will come when our lives will depend on knowing exactly when to take more urgent action.
I've become increasingly suspicious that the way they win is by making life unbearable for those opposed by gaslighting them, and through the psychological warfare of having everything sane in this world turn insane, while your sanity is still intact - meaning a sane person in an insane world thinks they're the insane one. But we know it isn't true. Our destiny and reality isn't determined by truth czars. I agree - stay in the know. But if it comes down to your mental wellbeing vs being informed - choose the former. Don't capitulate - never agree to their madness - remain a separate entity, your own being. But strive to be happy! It's possible. To mentally engage with all the corruption ongoing in this world puts that negativity and hatred in you, and it changes you into someone cynical and bitter and hypersensitive. It's a very destructive force. So I oppose that, and believe that mutual uplifting up fellow man, creating something NEW rather than just saying 'I refuse', and staying connected to good people - even if you don't agree with them on everything, at least know you trust them - is what will save us in the end and make us stronger, and at least make this brief life a little more bearable.
So well stated-- I am going to print your comment out and look at it on my wavering days-- thank-you 🥰
Of course stay plugged in, but stay above the bs and focus on the things that matter😊
This is excellent advice I’ve tried to live by for a couple years, but it’s been frustrated (if not made impossible) by the aggressive use of police state powers and fear-mongering to force people to check with their mayor/governor for permission to leave their homes and associate with people outside their household, a decision based on up-to-the-minute hospital bed availability and other cutting edge data. If you don’t check to see what the Germ Terror Alert threat level is each day and react accordingly, you’re an irresponsible citizen jeopardizing everybody’s lives.
Sadly it’s been increasingly codified that you have to stay plugged in to all of the Information Age’s idiotic fits if you want to live life in this modern wonderland, and you live through the same screens that bring crippling depression because this Unprecedented Moment means you “can’t” just be with people for real. And there’s no shortage of hate coming in your direction if you resist this kind of “progress”.
I'm sorry. I have no answers, you're right in many ways, but I do believe it's possible to find happiness amongst increasing sterility and intolerance of diversity in this world. But it's hard. I'm sending good wishes and prayers towards everyone willing to take a stand for their freedom and sanity, which includes myself. Good luck my friend
💗🥰
Nice brave piece. Hope this sub stack gig continues to work for you. I’m afraid you will be persona non grata in the liberal establishment. Besides being inveterate liars, they are VERY unforgiving!!
Just jealous of Glenn-- they are total stooges for state
Amen.
That's how cults brainwash you, they separate you from everyone who tells you anything contrary. It's a proven technique.
To the establishment [anything] I'd consider it a badge of honor to be persona non grata!
My admiration for Glenn fuels and informs my hope for a better future - just look what Bolsonaro put him and his family through in his adopted Brazil - and you realize his international not just US stature...
i am still ignorant and uninformed (working to correct that!) considering Mr. Bolsonaro (sp?) of Brazil. Is he a Statist or a Capitalist? (I know "shades of grey," but let's start with the big picture.)
---What took place at the Capitol on January 6 was undoubtedly a politically motivated riot. ---
The question for me is *what* political faction orchestrated this "riot" and attempted to use it to incriminate Donald Trump. I'm no fan of Trump, and I did not vote for him (nor did I vote for Biden) but the motivation here just seems too obvious to ignore. It is clear to see who benefited, and not hard to connect the dots.
Establishment media and corrupt government always use people to further what ever their interests might be. This is true everywhere in this world that is no longer harmonious , sadly so.
I did not vote Clinton , have voted Jill Stein nor I voted Biden as I hesitated to have third time Obama presidency.
Political motivations of trump to violate constitution has nothing to do with thousands of people there and millions out everywhere who are angry and forgotten.
That is why trump could use such anger throughout his ominous presidency . He as well also relied on corrupt reps. and senators who are busy with collecting from corrupt corporations.
No, it’s not easy for those forgotten to connect the dots or we didn’t need journalists such as Glenn.
Newsflash: the corrupt corporations have switched to the democrats and the identity politics crowd.
I think they are using the age old tactic of divide and conquer to keep people distracted with meaningless and stupid identity politics so people forget the reality enemy - uni party war machine.
Truth is the first casualty in war. And make no mistake, politicians and their media lapdogs are at war with both the people and the truth.
Concise and correct observation.
Yes...
This leaves me between a rock and a hard place. I read the NYT and WaPo among other things I've never watched Fox News.
But the Times in particular seems guilty of inflammatory writing based on shaky evidence that fueled similar stories. And was used as legal evidence.
When proven wrong, its correction was minimal.
And Tucker Carlson appears to be the voice of truth and caution--at least regarding this.
Rock and hard place.
What is the hard place? Why do you find it impossible to consume news other than from the liberal rags. Is it because the liberal rags tell you conservative media is fake? Maybe give Tucker a try...you may be surprised. Everything deserves a healthy dose of skepticism, but if you're looking solely to NYT and WaPo for truth, you're not even reaching the starting line in the race toward understanding half of your country.
"Now that you've come this far, perhaps you'd like to go a little farther." - Andy Dufresne.
I am more right leaning but I don’t watch fox. In fact I would tell you to stay away from all establishment media all together and support independent creators instead.
Thats why you are here!
Rock and hard place indeed.
Every self-respecting conservative knows Fox is controlled opposition. Their mask came off in 2020.
For those who want to make up their own minds, here is a 12 minute video from a New York Magazine reporter from inside the "capitol siege" It is a must watch.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/video-dept/a-reporters-footage-from-inside-the-capitol-siege
To my eye, there was less violence and disorder than at a Black Friday shopping spree. Indeed the "rioters" were singularly respectful.
2:39 "Hey Let us through, We are peaceful citizens"
4:27 "Hey, get out of that chair"
"No, its our chair."
"I agree with you brothers but its not ours. It belongs to the Vice President of the United States, but he isn't here. Look, I love you guys, you're brothers, but we cant be disrespectful"
5:36 ( To the guy with the horns, who became the face of the "siege") :"Quit acting a fool!
Camera shot of the guy with horns with the only news photographer in sight taking nonstop photos only of the horned guy.
7:08 A police officer calmly waiting while the guy in the horns gets a selfie taken, then says, "Now that you have done that, can I get you guys to walk out of that room, please?"
"Yeah, Yes sir."
Very different than the media presentation!
Most of the greatest battles of history probably never happened. A great story trumps the truth every time.
"You Provide the Pictures and I’ll Provide the War"
- William Randolph Hearst
With all due respect to your shrugs, M. NoSuchCommentator and M. Brad Karrfalt, today is your yesterdays on steroids.
Exactly! Just what Howard Zinn has always said, and others, victors write the stories/history
Most of the brutal fighting was in the tunnel late in the day (4pm or so?). I assume that is after people were forced out? Even that was bizarre as you had people trying to push in and some trying to do legit harm. However, at one point there was an officer getting crushed against a wall or beam. The guy trying to push in, stopped, got people to let up, and signaled to the police that the guy needed help and removed from the front.
Likewise there were people beating the crap out of cops, but then also people helping them up and trying to get them to safety. It was strange to watch.
Thank you, M. HudsonJ!
And the truth continues to slowly come out.....
It now seems like they are blaming "bear spray" and a specific person that sprayed it. If it was in the tunnel fighting, will be interesting to see how that plays out given that both cops and protestors were covering the people fighting in the middle with chemical irritants.
There’s another video where you see hundreds of cops just standing still while the people just walk in without anyone stopping them. A cop even says on video “I don’t agree with it but I respect it”.
It is bad enough that media lying and distortion is commonplace. The fact that they shrug with indifference when called out demonstrates a level of cynical evil that’s hard to define, it almost requires its own word that hasn’t evolved in the language yet.
But an even lower rung on the ladder of evil goes to liberals who know the media is lying and distorting, shrug, and secretly wish they had gotten away with it. These are the same people who were upset when GG, among others, were questioning the suppression of the Hunter Biden story. They genuinely want to suppress truth to meet their ends. Whatever it takes.
We have reached a point at which a majority of liberals believe the ends justify the means to an extent that includes just about anything. If that’s what it takes for their guys to get or keep power, they are all for it.
The term you are looking for is state sponsored Propaganda. First, you need to accept that this isn't really a Democratic Republic anymore, it's a Technofascist Oligarchy, then realize that they aren't sorry the journalistic integrity wasn't up to par, their sorry the Propaganda failed.
Red pills taste disgusting, they are hard to swallow. I totally understand the reluctance.
Yup because they have a lot to loose -- as all apparatchiks do
I think it’s always been this way. Orange man simply helped expose the utter lunacy of the media and “liberals”. I used to be a liberal before- I still am but not the current day type of liberal. I believe in things like freedom of speech, freedom of right to bear arms, anti war etc. All things foreign to the modern “liberal”. Now I am apparently a Nazi.
Preach!!!!
"Just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it"
- George Costanza
The MSM/tech companies/Wall Street/DC elites are all channeling their inner George Costanza. They obviously think if they continually repeat the same lies through the various media and social media platforms/channels, eventually we "prols" will believe them!
Who knew George Costanza had such wisdom! Honestly, it feels like the MSM and congressional Dems are actively coordinating the narrative (and I'm anything but a conspiracy theorist). To quote another propaganda guru: "Never let a crisis go to waste." Rahm Emanuel, although Winston Churchill may have said it first. Leaving DC an armed camp, albeit without ammunition, is pure cynical political theater. Unfortunately, this kind of crap too often works.
And because it's inconsistent with the narrative, I'm wondering if we will EVER learn anything more about the death of Ashli Babbitt. Her shooting may, or may not, have been justified. I don't know, and I'm wondering if any of us will ever know. Normally the media falls all over themselves to report on police shootings.
It might have been appropriate, IF the person who murdered her actually WAS a legal law enforcement officer (we still don’t know who he/she is but only that it was decided there be no charges), and he/she ordered Babbitt to “freeze” or “hands above your head or I’ll shoot!!”.
As I believe Glenn pointed out, there probably isn’t one square inch of The Capitol that doesn’t have continuous CCTV.
I would like to see a video of her shooting with audio. As a young military veteran and mother, I seriously doubt she realized she would be shot that day and killed.
I need way more facts on this one.
The truth seems to be slowly coming out, as it "wills," so to speak.
You do realize that this reference - as delicious as I find it - may predate THE BIRTH of some posters here?
Yes, your point is well taken. For anyone interested in understanding the source of the original Costanza quote there are classic Seinfeld episodes running on cable almost 24/7 as well as numerous clips/outtakes on Youtube.
If there is a re-education camp in our futures - smuggling in as much of the greatest sitcom ever 'about nothing' is a sure fire way to start the counter-revolution.
Although I suggest we ban the soup-nazi guy (too sensitive a character topic for such an encampment) and KRAMER must get top billing as the new CHE.
[but only if he smokes AMERICAN CIGARS - like Alec Bradley]
Like 60's protest songs?
Yeah...my favorite is Tom Lehrer - THE FOLK SONG ARMY - youtubi it...
Les McCann, Compared to What?
Trumps favorite episode
Why, because it informed him as to the true nature of Democrats?
Glenn, you know I've been a fan of your writing for over a decade. I read you at Unclaimed Territory, Salon, the Guardian, the Intercept and now here. I brought you to speak on the campus where I teach. I've generally supported your journalism and your consistency (we still disagree on the legal merits of Citizens United). But take a look at your comments section! They have become filled with right wing blowhards that have zero interest in investigative reporting or truth. They have latched onto you because some of your reporting favors their narrative ("The Capitol riot wasn't so bad" or "Russiagate didn't happen"). Yes, your reporting is still solid, that's not what's at issue here, and there is legitimacy to your take on these stories. But it does no good if people run from a poorly sourced, lack of evidence Democratic accounts of the Capitol riot, to even more poorly sourced, lack of evidence responses of "aha! this was all a deep state plot by Biden and AOC and the folks that invented climate change and Covid, which is fake!"). People are throwing out the baby with the bathwater, ignoring reality because a piece of the mainstream news narrative can be proven false. I want the NYT to report better too, but just because they mislead about the dead cop doesn't mean they're wrong when they say it's snowing in NYC. By allowing so much inaccurate and false info to be propagated unresponded to in your comments, you are becoming a journalistic outlet that spreads false information. Whether you like it or not, you are ultimately ethically responsible for your site, including the comments. No, one racist comment wouldn't mean you are a bigot, but when the overwhelming content of your comments section has become a sewer of right-wing bias and misinformation, you may want to figure out how to course correct. I hope you're willing to hear this from a longtime supporter and friend.
Since the replies to your comment have been so negative, I want to say that I understand your concerns about Glenn's comments. As a leftist, when I see so many right wing comments here it does make me uncomfortable. It makes me wonder why more people on the left don't read Glenn. But I don't think it's Glenn's fault. I think too many people on the left are content with reading the NYT, watching MSNBC and listening to NPR, and they don't want to read anything that challenges their world view. Glenn challenges everyone's world view, which is why I find him so interesting. Yes, for some reason he seems to be attracting more right wing readers right now. But again, I don't think that's his fault, and I wouldn't want to see him censor himself in order to attract a certain type of audience.
I subscribed to Glenn because he's one of the few honest liberal journalists still around. And I support him standing up for Snowden and Assange. One could call me right wing but we share more in common than what the politicians would have us believe. Politicians retain power by keeping us divided and fighting each other instead of looking at the common enemy - the establishment uniparty (both dems and republicans).
Spot on and I agree on all points and also why I respect Glenn. Most of the right, the center, and the center left probably agree on 70% of things and if we can coalesce the ruling elites would be terrified. That is why they divide us.
Yes, but here's a bit of history that's about to change for the better:
Democrats "compromise" by throwing a bone.
Republicans are required to give away the store.
Nope. Not anymore. Either the Republican Party follows the DJT lead in changing this "compromising," or we libertarians AND Conservatives are killing the Republican Party. Period. End of story.
I don't believe Glenn needs to take ownership or responsibility for the responses posted. The dialogue it generates is as meaningful as the article. I love reading the the different impressions shared by both the left and right and open dialogue is truly appreciated by this subscriber.
Perhaps because "right wing readers" feel under attack, and Mr. Greenwald comes to their defense?
Gee, I wonder why WE find him a breath of fresh air, eh, M. Elizabeth Vincent?
FOR SOME REASON, indeed.
Oh, and this pipebomb: "But again, I don't think that's his fault, and I wouldn't want to see him censor himself in order to attract a certain type of audience."
How magnanimous of Your Royal Highness.
You drip of condescension, and have the gall to point fingers at us.
Well, I also find Glenn to be a breath of fresh air, so we have something in common anyway. Sorry I offended you. It's very difficult to word any comment here in a way where it doesn't offend someone. I only said "for some reason" because I didn't know the reason. Lulu gave a good explanation above, and it makes sense.
Apology accepted, but I am someone who doesn't mind being offended, just as I don't mind it when others disagree with my opinions.
And let me apologize if I misread your sentiment, but I stand by my objections to your post, and 4 hearts in 2 hours on a days old comment stream would seem to indicate a good level of agreement with my indignation at your ignorance and obtusement concerning the motivations of right-wing readers. We of the true right love GG because he is a CLASSICAL Liberal, a political animal once known as an Individual-freedom-loving, free-market Capitalist.
Stop looking at us and wondering what we are. We are your countrymen, too.
I think all of us coming from differing sides will need some time to adjust to conversing with each other. There are going to be some growing pains, but it makes my heart happy to see progress being made. :-)
Or not.
Why do comments from people on the right side of the political spectrum bother you?
They don't really bother me. It's more that I wish it was possible to have discussions about Glenn's articles in this space without everyone getting completely hostile toward each other. It's depressing. We all like Glenn and his ideas, so why are we all so angry at each other?
I don't see much hostility, but then again I have learned the to most people on the left disagreeing with them is being hostile. And I am no longer going to give any ground for the sake of "peace". Because the left doesn't want peace. If a compromise can be found I'm all for that. But from what I've seen of today's left compromise only means: you give, we'll take then bludgeon you in the press for not giving us enough.
I have read 4 books in the last 6 weeks on various faces of the current political climate in the US. One author from the left, one from the center, one center-right and one agnostic. All four shared the same theme: the left in the US today does not want debate, compromise, or civility. They want their way and will do whatever they can to get it. It's not the left from even 12 years ago. It is a very different, malevolent, beast.
I think that's how Trump drove the left insane: he fought back. For decades, Dems have been used to getting everything they want, maybe not as fast as they wanted it, without giving up a thing. The Repubs wanted civility, the left wanted blood sport.
I will always keep one hand open. But the other I will keep clenched in a fist.
Spot on.
I am the new right. I give what I get, and I am forever rid of compromising with cheaters, liers, thieves, cons, and charlatans.
Skepticism of the State is more American than anything the left has to offer. That is my libertarian opinion, and guess what?: I MIGHT BE WRONG!!! So, hostile fanatics of the left, get your rotten, stinking, terrorist labels and targets off of this free thinking, open-minded American of the new right. I will listen to and consider all your persuasive arguments, and I will continuously revisit my deepest convictions that I may find my errors and become ever closer to perfection, but mark my words: Either you agree that I am as American as you, or we will fight, and you will lose.
i agree! Tribalism is scummy, wherever it comes from. Seeing the common humanity in each other the way, no matter what opinions we hold
Because we (generally) are free-thinkers and NOT psychophants (sp?).
Why would be bothered by vociferous disagreement, anyway?
You don't want emotional reaction to deeply-held convictions, then stick to your sewing circles (although those seamstresses can get mighty opinionated I've heard!).
I, pop122, have been delighted at this truth. I am living proof!
Thanks. I’d say most of the replies demonstrate the mindsets I was referring to. And clearly don’t understand my concern. I wouldn’t want to see Glenn self censor either, but I do wish he’d write a piece along the lines of “fanboys in the comments, you really don’t get where I’m coming from.” Being a gay expat, antiestablishment and antiMIC writer, he’s no MAGA. He’s much closer to where the ACLU used to be. In any case, the NYT being wrong doesn’t mean Alex Jones is right.
You've completely misinterpreted 'our mindset'. Most of these commentators aren't right wing, or they wouldn't be reading the anti-corporate musings of a married Brazilian gay man.
Personally, I'm a Glenn enthusiast because I was a Bernie donor and volunteer who has personally witnessed Democrats be completely unable to do anything except when it comes to stabbing milquetoast reformists like Bernie in the back. All he wanted was to actually do M4A and $15 instead of just talk about it, and every establishment Dem lackey in the media conspired to character assassinate him at every turn.
We are here because traitors are worse than enemies.
I vote GOP, I voted for Trump twice, and I agree with most everything you've said. I don't view you as a traitor or an enemy...but I do view the current assault on freedom of thought...let alone freedom of speech, as our true existential threat. Perhaps we have more in common then the corporatist news media would like us to believe.
Yes same. Never voted GOP. Anti imperialist to my bones, I’ve also volunteered in numerous capacities that were left oriented and am committed to global human rights. I also supported Bernie through two primaries and volunteered.
Something is very wrong with the censorial liberal left and it makes me feel I have more in common with libertarians sans free market economics.
You know this libertarian has to ask:
Maybe the libertarians are right about free markets, also?
free markets have gotten us where we are, little to no safety net and widening income disparity. It may work in countries with national health service and good pensions but even those have been decimated. Why do you think people around the world are so angry? It’s not just corrupt governments. It’s government at the beck and call of corporations. Still I do like listening to Reason and 5th Column both of which have quality journos.
Dont push it
Then maybe you jumped too quickly to condemn me? Because everything you just wrote resonates with me. Bernie supporter. Anti-war activist. Critical of the Clintons and Biden and Neo-liberals from the left. Yet you jumped to put me in some DNC/MSM box because I was concerned about right-wing conspiracies in the comments? Maybe we should learn more about one another before we criticize specific people.
1) It's not all about you. 2) You're obviously new to the process of recognizing that you've been uncritically accepting claims and underlying ideologies that fetishize "criticality" while in fact pushing and enforcing orthodoxies. I've been there, but it's hilarious that you come here with your "I'm in academic and old friend of Glenn and these people are "right-wing" and I need to talk down to all of you and explain what you're doing wrong." What's happening is that you're slowly realizing that all of these issues that "resonate" with you in fact resonate with many on what you call "the Right." Yet you're brainwashed into demonizing code words and cues register to you as right = evil. You came here, realized you were dangerously close to deeply questioning yourself, and wanted to virtue signal--mostly to yourself--because you sense something shifting in your decades of unquestioned suppositions. Many of us have been there...but we mercifully shut up at the beginning, which I recommend you try for a little bit. Why don't you go to Spiked, Critic, New Discourses, Independent UK, Quillette, American Conservative, Telegraph, Feminist Current...for starters...and then come back in a few weeks. Best of luck.
I embrace open dialogue and you’re more willing to shame Glenn about who reads his columns and dictate what he should do. I say, who cares? And if you dislike the comments, engage with them. It’s not Glenn’s responsibility to curate his followers. I just pass them over. It’s not worth it
"We are here because traitors are worse than enemies."
I mine old comments for jewels.
Euraka!
*Eureka!
That's me too. I was a Bernie delegate in 2016. I authored a textbook critical of neoliberalism. I've read Glenn for years, but have been a bit absent the last 12 months or so. Of course "not all commenters" but a larger number than I remember seem to be inhabiting a right wing, conspiratorial space rather than a critical thinking, anti-authoritarian, and media skepticism space.
That is *literally* what Glenn is doing above. Asking 'what actually happened to Sicknick and why is his death being used to push Patriot Act 2.0' is showing critical thinking, anti-authoritarianism, and media skepticism - without a whiff of conspiracy.
I'm not accusing Glen of conspiratorial thinking, only some of the commenters here. That's why my comment went to lengths to say it wasn't about his writing but about some of the commenters he has more. recently attracted.
LOL decades ago, liberals were supposed to be the anti-establishment, anti-intelligence agencies, skeptical of government, pro-free speech, anti-war, skeptics of media. Now a days they have deep trust in the intelligence agencies, pro war, pro government authoritarianism, pro establishment, pro censorship, have full trust in media.
And you thinking that the rich and powerful elites won't conspire together to retain and gain power make you the real conspiracy theorist while you claim to be "critical thinker" and "anti-authoritarian". There's no way you could have been a Bernie delegate in 2016. And if you were and still don't think the same way Bernie got cheated in 2016 and again in 2020 happened to Trump too, then you are just being willfully blind.
Btw, this is not just me making up stuff, this is a hard fact as shown by Gallup. Dems' trust in media is at an all time high at 76% and it has just kept growing despite things like the WMD lies:
https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/x3qix28kk06n7trrie-vja.png
Perhaps you can find someone else to read then? I don't agree with all posters here, but I would NEVER sterotype them or make a point about how more right wing etc. types are here. Who cares, if you don't want to read them don't. Geez if you are looking for a bunch of people all like you--good luck-- like the echo?. Right and left are false constructs, this is 2021 not 1990.
I think the disconnect might be that you may be assuming that conservative readers don’t know anything about Glenn. I learn more from Glenn than any other journalist right now. I know he and I have differing opinions on all kinds of things but I deeply respect him because he holds everyone accountable. That’s all I want any journalist to do because that creates trust.
I would also add - Glenn also opens minds. By having the courage to go to FoxNews when the opinions DO agree, it opens up avenues and allows those "non-critical" thinkers to give an ear to Glenn's ideas.
I used to be staunchly against the idea of letting Snowden off the hook. Now, I would like to see him free. (I have worked in ...shall we say, restricted government facilities before. I have more reason than most to want to protect the US' secrets.)
So, if someone like ME can be convinced of...if not the rightness or virtue of Snowden, (nor his actions) -at least, I can see that the end result has brought some much needed attention to the wrongdoing of our government. And, the man has served a de facto prison sentence far longer than Hillary did (for her breaking of many security restrictions with the email server and getting off scott-free with it) or Private Manning did with their data breach.
But I digress. My point to DavidH is that not all conservatives are here because we secretly think Glenn is going to start going to bat for us on every issue, and we secretly hate that he's a gay man living in Brazil.
First, hello? it's 2021. And unbeknownst to many on the Left, alternative lifestyles have been welcome on the Right for a LONG time. Go google "log cabin republicans". Second, in going to bat for *himself* he's already going to bat for us.
Free speech, FTW.
And M. JakeD for the win! You give me a big ol' :D!
An aquaintance on the left (trying to "commiserate"?) said to me, "Well, I guess the Lincoln Project is going to reflect badly on the Log Cabin Republicans, eh, Tim?"
OMG
Meanwhile, RICHARD GRENELL FOR CA GOV!!!!!!!!!! Hell, YEAH.
Grenell, the anti-Schwartzenegger!
I don't care about fanboys, ACLU, MAGA, Alex Jones, gay, etc.. I just want to read investigative journalism (supported by facts) that calls out hypocrisy, government misdeeds and and other wrongs.
ewwwwww I love being sterotyped. Check your attitude
LOL!!!! just a FEW
Your powers of observation, analysis, and summation are garbage.
Do that and I'll start posting, "russian_bot can eat shit."
Yeah, I think a lot of us would, hence my "fix." But, I think I would trust GG. If GG lost my trust, I would just continue casting my free-market vote with my "feet." (Just laugh at my mixed metaphors, will ya?)
"I'm also proposing for it to pop up as a warning every time a 'certain' commenter here attempts to post."
(fify)
I don't care that they're right wing. I care that they are nuttier than the New York Times crowd. When a story doesn't hold up to scrutiny, they take it as a challenge to concoct a more elaborate story.
Please push back and challenge comments you don't agree with. Embrace being uncomfortable!
Instead of panicking and wanting to purge these people, why not try and form a practical coalition with them on issues we have in common? That's politics 101.
If this comment was meant for me, I really don't understand why you are interpreting what I said this way. I never said I wanted to purge anyone, and I thought I was saying the opposite. Apparently I wasn't clear. I do NOT believe in censorship. I also agree with you about forming coalitions on issues we have in common.
Not meant for you - meant for the person to whom you're replying. Imagine that my comment begins with "Yes, you're right, and..."
Thanks for clarifying.
Recommend an honest and sane conservative, that sheds light on right wing propaganda and abuses. I’ll happily read that as well.
Clearly it wasn’t the Lincoln project
You might appreciate the National Review.
You mean, the NR which teed off vs. N. Sandmann?
Looks like they memory holed that story, similar to NYT behaviour.
https://mb.ntd.com/national-review-unpublishes-article-attacking-covington-students_279093.html
I didn't mean this as an assertion, and I didn't mean to make a value judgement. My comment was worded the way it was because it was a reply to what David H said. I was just giving my impression, not claiming to be an authority on the subject.
I think that it is partially because many on the center right are trying to find a place where they fit in. Right-wing media is crazy and most of the other media has become servants of the Democrats. So, even though they may be a little more right leaning than you would prefer, they are not nearly as crazy as what is out there.
Instead of questioning why they are here, take it as a great opportunity to engage with them and understand what is leading them to their conclusions. Overall our society needs to stop judging people based on their political opinions and start finding our common ground. You may learn that you agree with some of their positions.
Good point. Not everyone falls neatly into "right" or "left" on every issue, myself included.
But if you don't, who the hell are you?
Are we equals in the rights department, or not?
Your answer will determine whether or not we will fight.
So, you are "tone deaf."
exactly-- WTF??
Exactly-- freedom of speech and sorry if that freedom isn't precious enough for people. If I had to agree with every poster I would never find a place for good discussions. Perhaps this style of discourse doesn't work for some people.
No one is forcing them to listen/read.
David, thank you for posting this. Thanks in particular for bravely standing up to the white supremacist double-nazi flyover-country conservatives who are taking refuge here: we should give them no quarter. (*Those* people like to beat up on strawmen! We're not like that, are we Dave?)
Good job on the baby/bathwater analogy. The "baby" in this case is the NYT's weather reporting, and the "bathwater" is... misrepresentation of the death of an officer during a political demonstration, used to mischaracterize a disorganized political protest as an "insurrection", thereby justifying further crackdowns against political opposition, and quietly correcting the record once the utility of the deception had fully played itself out?
Solid point, Dave. It is a real pleasure observing the intellectual workings of scholar like yourself. The NYT's weather reporting is totes legit.
Here we go. Those who have no actual arguments to offer- other than insulting people as “white supremacists” and juvenile ad hominem fallacious drivel and all the rest. The logic would not pass a philo 101 class yet you genuinely believe you are enlightened.
You are not going to silence anyone here. Your mindless insults will not go anywhere. Say what you wish, but one thing that is not going to happen is you silencing anyone. And no one takes your infantile “white supremacist” insults seriously.
It's sarcasm
Honestly, I thought DaveH's original comment was sarcasm. Reading through more of the comments, turns out he was dead serious. Which I find baffling and fascinating in a way.
It's entirely possible the dude is a troll. If so, my hat is off, because his impression of a pompous, insecure, elite-fascist-wannabe college prof is spot on. Poe's law abides.
Hadn't occurred to me until you pointed it out. If true, my balding pate also exposed, and I'll be off to recalibrate my skepticism.
Thank you for my laugh of the day!
Ha, well that means Jonathan’s post was convincing. Mea culpa!
Dangerously true! Careful with that sarcasm-in-print, so easy to understand your own, so hard to detect in others without that all-important vocal inflection.
Thank you, Chris, for your grace.
It’s terribly difficult to perform well in print - and mad kudos to Johnathon for this one.
What concerns me the most is that the divide and conquer strategy employed by TPTB has made it even more difficult to pull off. They’ve successfully put us on the razor’s edge making it so easy to choose a side reflexively, without thinking.
It happens to all of us. I’ve little doubt Messrs. Chris and Johnathon are simpatico on much.
With ya 100%.
We may never see a Python type again.
"Sarcasm is a risk worth taking!"
This, but......it better be obvious, or someone is bound to be embarrassed!
I sense sarcasm! Nicely done.
So ... Jonathan ... in your world the white supremacist double-Nazi flyover-country conservative, not being entitled to be part of humanity, should be cancelled out in a Glenn Greenwald commentary section? Where is your first amendment idealism?
Did you stop reading after the first sentence? The sarcasm is obvious. Jonathan wasted DavidH. Don't validate DavidH by being a right-wing snowflake who can't read and/or take a joke.
its sarcasm-- read it again
You're right. Jonathan my bad. However, keep in mind that sarcasm is cancel cultured just as much as straight anger! Just look at the litigation between the Babylon Bee and other MSM fact checkers.
Nice riposte.
Jonathan? Jonathan....Swift?
[smiley face emoji here]
You can still make them with your keyboard.
;) :) :( :P :S :3
#IsThisWhatGettingOldFeelsLike?
Ha! Touche!
I actually consider it part of my "schtick" to type an emoji description.
It's ok to ask me to stop, I've been asked before, I can take it!
[embarrassed wide eyed emoji here]
We've clearly come full circly.
Laugh out loud becomes lol become [laughing out loud emoji face]
The future of the human species is bright, indeed.
;)
Whether or not you will stop upon request is conspicuously absent in your reply! Sneaky devil.
I think you are confusing MAGA types (of whom there are a number here) with people who want nothing to do with Trump but are completely over being lied to by media outlets who somehow justify their behavior by a "higher purpose."
The bulk of what I read here is from the latter group...I worry you cannot tell the difference.
Do you think the NYT would run a story from two sources "close to the investigation" that claimed that Pelosi declined National Guard support on 1/6? You are surely wise enough to know that they would not.
Glenn and I would disagree no doubt on a number of political issues but I read him because he seems to be one of a very few people who are genuinely trying to hold the media to account, not from a gotcha my side is better than your side (aka the right wing media machine) but because he actually believes in the nobility of reporting as a profession.
People are not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Nobody is denying that the NYT can accurately report when it snows in NYC. But you are sticking your head in the sand and denying the herd mentality and blatant bias of the vast majority of the legacy media.
What would you suggest Glenn do to manage the comment section? Should he delete comments he doesn't agree with? Comments you don't agree with? Comments I don't agree with?
I agree there is plenty to be critical of in the MSM. My only point is that you don't throw out the NYT only to replace it with a steady diet of Youtube cranks, conjecture, and Alex Jones's. People who take media skepticism and critical thinking from Greenwald's writing have gotten something useful. People who see it as scoring partisan points against the left are misunderstanding him. He may want to clarify that. That's it. And yes, not everyone here is a MAGA/conspiratorial/low information/low critical thinking sort. But he's attracted far more in recent years than he had historically. As a professional and the creator of this space, that warrants his attention. I don't claim to have a perfect solution for it, just an acknowledgment of the reality.
It seems there are more choices than on the one hand the NYT and on the other, a steady diet of Youtube cranks, conjecture, and Alex Joneses.
It speaks to your perspective that you see anyone who rejects the NYT as a political news source (as I do) as a consumer of such nonsense.
Perhaps that warrants your attention.
"...it seems there are more choices..."
Perhaps not enough. Unfortunately good reporting has grown very hard to find across the entire spectrum. And of course we are here reading in the first place because good journalists have been driven to niche platforms. But that doesn't mean we should +not+ toss the NYT to the curb, baby and bathwater; that is more or less a prerequisite to seeing something new and better grow or the Times (et al) doing the in-depth housecleaning it so richly needs. But the very fact that we +are+ all here-- people with such differing viewpoints-- is itself rather hopeful, even when we get frustrated with each other.
I don't, after all, I would fall into that category. My gripe here is not with this that reject the NYT but those who embrace Alex Jones (both being used as metaphors for particular media ecosystems). If you do not fall into that category, then I wasn't talking about you.
No but you were assuming that the vast majority of those who reject the first also embrace the second, something that seems quite unlikely to be true.
I wasn't, but I can see how my comment could be read that way. Me culpa for lack of clarity.
What is with this obsession with Alex Jones, DavidH, if that’s your real name. All I hear your ilk screaming about “white nationalists” “Infowars” “Qanon” and “insurrectionists.” Tell me why you believe such fringe right wingers, if they really exist, are worth so much of your hot air? Please name those on this comments section who need to be silenced.
Weigh the lies of Alex Jones against the lies of the New York Times.
Has Alex Jones lied us into wars like Vietnam or Iraq?
Acoording to a yougov survey, 2 out of 3 Democrats believe Russians altered vote tallies in Trump's favor in 2016. There is no evidence of that. Zero.
Low information conspiracy fans are not limited to Maga fans. And I am a Democrat.
Thank-you! so so true. My sister in law is a high up admin at a University and yes she is one of the " 2 out of 3 democrats..." And she is Canadian. Go figure!
What!! Canadians can vote for (Democrat, wink, wink) POTUS now?!?!
She married an American (shudder ;) and yup can vote now-- traitor
I shudder to think you teach.
I teach at the college level and work with people like this. It’s sad times for higher ed that having the ability to see various sides is now a detriment and even a reason to be expunged. See what happened to Marc Crispin Miller at NYU.
I'm in the middle of reading Matt Taibbi's article on Herbert Marcuse, probably the guy DavidH has built a shrine to, whether or not he knows it.
I read everything from Marx to Marcuse to Hitler in college many years ago. My professors were brilliant, and breathed so much life into these works, as we examined and analyzed them from all angles. I walked away with a rich, vibrant education, exposed to a vast spectrum of political thought. Not once could I detect my professors' political leanings. They just guided us through group discussions and helped us piece together a coherent portrait of political theories from the mosaic of writings from a variety of authors, across the decades. Marx and Hitler got the exact same treatment. Not all views got the same treatment, but the authors themselves did, as did every student.
DavidH doesn't know that screaming into his bullhorn about correct thought and lavishly peppering his shrill panic with "sewer of right-wing bias" labels directed at massive swaths of this country only undermine his utility as a teacher and that of the institution that employs him. He is not cut from the same cloth as my professors decades ago.
Well said! I think that style of teaching is now viewed as silence equals complicity. Universities are running scared now bc they are trying to make up for decades of neglected equity issues and that has the unfortunate consequence of ruining faculty’s lives. I always make my very left politics transparent but with the caveat that I also want students who disagree not to be silenced. However after Trump got into office I have become less interested in bringing up electoral politics unless it’s to examine a speech or analyze campaign images or discuss issues such as cancel culture which students seem to really want to discuss.
Again, weird how similar our views are on this given how evil and pigeonholed I am. Transparent leftist? Check. Fair to conservative students (and they say so). Check. Critical of cancel culture and identity politics? Check again. I think I'm not who you have accused me of being.
I think you will find most of us a forgiving lot, with open minds to boot!
I, too, think my college education in the 1970s with good profs in the midst of the Weathermen and Black Panther terrorism was far better than today.
Yeah, it's almost like the profs of today ARE the equivalent of yesterday's Weathermen and Black Panthers.
You might want to also look at what James Lindsay has written about Marcuse:
https://newdiscourses.com/2021/01/red-pill-blue-pill-herbert-marcuse-administered-society/
Thanks for this. Will definitely look at this.
So many assumptions, placing me in a box, when you know so little about me. Are you familiar with the term "straw man?"
Professor, read your posts here and identify all the places where you have made so many assumptions about people commenting here. Let's see if your straw man detector works when pointed at you.
It's a shame you don't realize how off-putting it is when a teacher's (sorry, we hold you people to a higher standard) only comment about Glenn's article is complaining about the overabundance of commenters (people you know nothing about) labeled unworthy of occupying this space, to *comment*. You don't even see what's wrong with that.
Fair enough. I'm new to commenting here (but not at all new to Glenn or his comments threads). I may have misread the room, though I still contend there is a lot of faulty reasoning and unsupported assertions in the comments. I had hoped for better. That said, clearly it is not universally true, or anything close to it. Yes, I may have set up some straw man myself.
Thank-you I almost thought am I delusional, the only person who sees this arrogant poster telling other posters they are not worthy and less than?
OMG-- you set a million assumptions with your first post-- go back and read it. And frankly insulted many of the posters here.
Ha, ha, M. David H!
I actually thought you were responding M. Deco, but your self-response is much more a propos.
Where did I advocate silencing anyone? But I reject sloppy thinking, straw men, unevidenced assertions, and claims made on ideology and narrative rather than empirical observation. I don't like it when the Times does it, and I don't like it when a subset of the commenters do it. I'm no more calling for them to be silenced than Glenn is for the NYT to be.
More assumptions based on insufficient information.
Explains what I see.
Aren’t you sweet
The Truth, according to David. Do you not realize that you are the type of person Glenn and Matt are warning us about?
Exactly. He's managed to make 80? comments in an extremely important discussion, with one of the few dissident reporters out there, about HIM. Please, let's everyone try to make HIM feel better. Let's try to get HIM to understand. He writes this as if he's this oracle on high. How many of us have PhDs, are published activists, and have been in DC inner circles? Plenty. He's virtue-splaining to everyone here--when he needs to go through the minimally year-long experience most of us have of realizing that the DNC, MSM, "progressive" identitarians, etc., are as or more full of shit than the supposed horrible Fox News he's treated as the Great Satan for the past 15 years.
BOOM! Thank you, M. Leculdesac.
Thank you. Direct and on target - even at the subatomic level.
This is a ridiculous and nascent authoritarian response. Why is Glenn responsible for those comments you find repugnant? It’s irresponsible for major news outlets to get clicks through demonizing large sections of the population by rushing through reports that haven’t been thoroughly investigated. Glenn has the sorry task of doing mop up bc newsrooms won’t do their jobs. Go back to your blue MAGA bubble.
Right on, Glenn is not responsible for his readers comment
He's not legally responsible, but he is ethically so if he wishes for truth to spread and misinformation not to spread. It's not that he has to, it's that he may want to. After al, he's not responsible for the NYT either, but he attempts to correct that record. Pointing out some fo the misinformation in the comments might also be a productive use of time. In fact he used to do so regularly.
Why don't we focus on the so-called 'ethics' of the (former) paper of record tripling down on false narratives in their actual CONTENT before thought-policing Glenn's commenters? You are equating deliberate misinformation by a 'respected' 'newspaper' with allowing free speech in a comments section, which is probably the most deficient analogy I've seen all year.
Spot on. Love the perfect use of scare quotes, speaking of which, it sure seems to me the need for them is exponentially increasing. That can't be a good sign, or maybe it signals a real (as opposed to "woke") awakening!
So comments are now equal to journalists writing for major newspapers? Come on, man 🤣 Glenn doesn’t have time for that. It was the same argument Neera Tanden and those msm hacks made to Bernie.
Maybe you're right. I'm admittedly new to this medium (Substack). I do know Glenn used to regularly interact with the comments, and that there was a regular group of "marketplace of ideas" types who "moderated" not with official power but by pointing out sloppy thinking and misinformation. Today, looking at his comments for the first time in months, I saw more sloppy thinking and misinformation than I'd ever seen before. And it got my attention. And so I attempted to bring it to his. In all seriousness, what's the prevailing thinking here on how to combat misinformation when it spreads so easily via social media?
Yes now I understand and that makes sense. I'm inured to those comments lacking any basis for anything resembling accuracy. I just don't read them. I think it's just a battle you can't win at this point. I'd rather place the blame on institutions of power such as media corporations for not trying to meet standards that seem so obvious rather than some randos with terrible takes who in some ways are reacting to the media climate.
Thanks. I can get behind that. I think I perhaps overly generalized in my initial comment, and a lot of folks thought I was talking about them when really I wasn't. As a result, we all put each other into straw man boxes and make assumptions about who we are talking to.
You'd be mistaken if you assumed that's what I'm not doing already. I absolutely was the one that agreed with, and have spoken in favor of, that particular ACLU case (and similar ones, such as the Westborough Baptist case). But being a free speech absolutist doesn't mean I'm not interested in truth. I'd never ask Glenn to censor his commenters. But I don't think it's unreasonable to 1. critique those who are wrong and 2. ask the same from him.
Glenn is not responsible for your emotional reactions. Not legally, not morally, not ethically. Those are yours, and yours alone.
News flash - we’re not here for the comments section. Only an academic would take them as seriously as you do. Undoubtedly, Glenn will be calling out some right wing nonsense someday and the comments will be filled with equally clueless liberals. My guess is you’ll be silent about that.
This is fascism dressed up as concern. You want the NYT to report better or report what you want to hear? You obviously do not want to hear from your fellow Americans who have a different take than you do.
I want to know what Qanon are thinking, what MAGA are thinking, what BLM are thinking--I want the info, I don't want it sanitized because of 'feelings'. I've seen a few decades. Seen war. I think I'm adult enough to make my own decisions on what people think, thank you, Mr. Nanny.
The Left does not trust the individual.
The Right does.
Some things are eternal, and some things really are eternally simple.
DavidH, can you tell us how many errors or biased stories do you need to read before you begin to consider even their statements about snow are incorrect? I read the NY times for roughly 20 years after I graduated college. I used to take hours to read the sunday times and all of its sections. I stopped reading that dishonest publication well over 10 years ago. The bias was over the top back then and it's clear they have moved on from biased reporting to outright fabrication. But the orange man was bad so it doesn't matter, correct?
No, incorrect. Be skeptical of the NYT, WAPO, whatever. Just don't replace that Neo-liberal propaganda with equally unfounded conjecture, conspiracy, and Alex Jones. Just because the Times is wrong doesn't mean OANN or Newsmax is right.
I don't read all the comments but I'd bet very few mention OAN or newsmax. Now perhaps that's what you loyal times readers want to think to stay in your safe bubble.
And it's not just "a piece of the mainstream media" that can be proven false. As Glenn pointed out just about the whole damn narrative regarding the capitol riot was wrong. It matters quite a bit because we continue to have troops stationed in
DC due to this narrative and probably will for quite a bit of time.
Having allegiance to any corporate media source is the worst sort of tribalism these days. It takes a little more effort to find honest sources of information but it's worth it.
"Just don't replace that Neo-liberal propaganda with equally unfounded conjecture, conspiracy, and Alex Jones."
Jayzuz, fella, who in these comments has suggested that?
Didn’t someone say “straw man?” Hmm.
David wants everyone to shut up and eat the media we are fed. He is a fascist. This comment section is far from “a sewer of right-wing bias.” To most rational people it is a discussion of the issues raised by the media’s complicity in perpetuating false narratives. One has to wonder whether David has even allowed himself to examine all aspects of the false BLM versions of police shootings. I bet not.
There's a lot of assumptions there without evidence. Is that what you've learned makes for accuracy?
The evidence is plain to an obviously large number of those who read your initial post. I was a reporter for major metro dailies for 40 years. Yes, the more you learn about all sides of a subject, the more accurate the reportage and the closer you get to the truth.
"evidence is plain" doesn't equal evidence. It was possible I was wrong in my initial assessment (not having done a statistical content analysis of the comments), but your reply above is hyperbolic and inaccurate. You've made assumptions about me to put me into a preformed box in your mind, a straw man, and no amount of evidence to the contrary would seem to refute that. THAT is the type of thinking I'm critical of.
I have made no assumptions. I take you at your word. The fact that you object to such examination is your problem, not mine.
Davey the wokester - Substack is a real threat to you folks - .
"But take a look at your comments section! They have become filled with right wing blowhards that have zero interest in investigative reporting or truth. They have latched onto you because some of your reporting favors their narrative ("The Capitol riot wasn't so bad" or "Russiagate didn't happen"). "
" I want the NYT to report better too..." Then take you're head out your ARSE AND RE-READ THIS ONE GREENWALD ARTICLE - SLOWLY - word for word. Grow and be an adult.
The transparent arrogance of you're certitude is just as raw as if you're short pant's were stripped in a level 5 hurricane - to show your ass.
How dare Glenn Report on a 'unmoderated' forum - Substack - where people can still go and read and discuss FREELY. And from the onset is you're evidence for you're unimpeachable credentials for declaring us deplorables - not unlike Orwell did using Winston in 1985 - subhuman and thus in need of supervision (at your discretion and at you're authoritarian perscribing!)
You are hardly the first goofball to show up and whine about Glenn making such a disappointing choice.
YO! Yo! are the first to my knowledge [and to come off soundin' SO WHITE DOING SO - YO!] to openly claim {seemingly as a BOAST} to {even...invite Glenn} " to speak on the campus where I teach."
By you're own foul and diseased post you clearly are not fit to babysit 5-YEAR-OLDS - nor decide what they can be read or watch between nappy time and juicies for constipation.
But hey 'poster who has to hide his name' David H. --- thanks for Sharing.
An out fuckin standing comment! I salute you, sir.
idk. At this point, I kinda feel like I'm in line to slap that passenger in "Airplane."
"Whether you like it or not, you are ultimately ethically responsible for your site, including the comments. "
Why should Glenn be when Facebook is not, nor Twitter, nor any other social platform (well, except Parler of course)
There is a reason I used the word ethically, rather than legally or financially. If Glenn wants to spread truth, he may prefer there be a greater portion of it in his comment thread. After all, he felt an ethical compulsion to speak out highlighting the NYT's lack of evidence for their assertions. There is a similar lack of evidence in many the comments. I appreciate Glenn's perspective, and usually agree with it, and do in this case, but I also was turned off by both the tone and the quick assumptions in many of the comments. I guess I was just hoping for a higher level of discussion.
Well, internet comment sections are mostly cesspools. Believe it or not, this one is far better than most.
That's why I found myself so surprised this morning (after a long absence). It really used to be better.
I suspect it used to be worse (from my perspective that is). No true scotsman debates between people on the left don't really appeal to me.
"No true Scotsman ... " James Taranto - you read this shit? LOL
Do you get the difference between the NYT articles and the drivel that is the subscriber comment? Really, don't be such a tool.
Some of the claims that the election was stolen do qualify as "misinformation." I don't call them "misinformation" because I think I know for certain that there were no material irregularities (of course I don't know that), but because the reasons they are giving for insisting that it was stolen are nonsense.
The current election wasn't statistically anomalous because of early voting and voting by mail, all due to the pandemic? Oh that's interesting. Trump didn't call up the governor of Georgia and ask him to scare up some more votes? I could swear we all heard an authenticated tape. Every court challenge was rejected because Giuliani isn't a good lawyer?? And if we had listened to Sidney Powell, we could have gotten a do-over!! What magical reality do these people live in?
My suggestion to anyone who believes this stuff: follow the defamation suits filed due to these allegations of election fraud. See what happens when people are placed under oath, as opposed to in front of a microphone.
"The current election wasn't statistically anomalous because of early voting and voting by mail, all due to the pandemic?"
"all" The statistical anomalies abound. Perhaps the most alarming is that 18 of the 19 bellwether counties (counties that for decades have had a nearly flawless record of voting for the winner) got it wrong this time around.
It's possible that this election broke many longstanding and reliable metrics solely because of mail in and early voting. But I will say, Jimmy Carter warned in the Carter-Baker Report that, out of all voting methods, mail in voting was the most vulnerable to fraud. Last i checked, he was a Democrat.
"Trump didn't call up the governor of Georgia and ask him to scare up some more votes? I could swear we all heard an authenticated tape."
I heard the tape, yes. Do you know the context? It was an excerpt from an hour long settlement negotiation of a lawsuit where Trump was demanding access to the ballots for the purpose of an independent audit. It's relatively clear from Trump and his team's statements that they believed the votes were there. "The votes", not being a bunch of phoney Trump ballots printed off and handed to him, but fraudulently cast ballots in sufficient number to cast the election into doubt. All he needed to find was 11,780 (the margin of victory) fraudulent ballots, and he said he already knew he had them "in spades".
He gives the example of people who moved out of state and still voted. Raffensperger's team said (paraphrasing from memory), "we looked into that. Most of those are people who moved away and then moved back." Trump expressed skepticism. At that point, Trump's attorney basically said (again, paraphrasing), "that's the problem. All we have is your word for that. We don't have access to all the information you guys have."
Ethical questions surrounding the release of confidential settlement negotiations aside, you might ask yourself why the much listened to excerpt was lifted out of the full context of the call, and the broader context of the lawsuit itself was mostly glossed over.
If you knew before listening to the clip that:
1) the lawsuit was seeking access to the ballots and other evidence/information in the possession of the state of Georgia
2) so an independent auditor could (mainly via scanning technology and records comparisons) determine how many, if any, votes were fraudulent
3) and that Trump only needed to find 11,780 fraudulent ballots to (potentially) have a court invalidate the election, and he was confident there were at least that many
you might have come away from that clip with a different impression of what was being asked for. For me, it all boiled down to: "Let's make a deal. You find me the 11,780 fraudulent votes I need, which I know I have in spades, and we can forget about the independent audit."
I know I listened first (to the excerpt) and it seemed, if not damning (because as with most things that come out of Trump's mouth, his statements could be read two (or more) ways), certainly worrying.
Then I discovered the surrounding context, and a few things became clear. Trump genuinely believed there were more than enough fraudulent votes to invalidate the election. He pressured Raffensperger not to "scare up some more votes" (as in, manufacture them), but to find the fraudulent votes he genuinely believed existed.
While you may believe he was incorrect in his belief, and even that his request was improper, what you took away from the conversation is different from what I did. Having been part of several settlement negotiations in the past, I know they can get pretty nasty. Pressure and threats of, "if you don't take our (shitty, insulting) offer, WHEN we win, we'll be demanding costs and you're going to lose your house." You wouldn't believe some of the shit people have pulled during negotiations.
Understanding the conversation in that context, I actually found it to be pretty tame.
And suddenly I had a number of questions.
Why would Raffensperger spend taxpayer dollars fighting in court to prevent an independent audit?
Why would he expect Trump's team to take his word as to how many voters moved away and then moved back? Why not provide some receipts? Because at that point, the only (partial) audits of the Georgia election were done by the state of Georgia. "We investigated ourselves, and found that everything we did was perfect." Try telling that to the IRS.
And of course, why would the media aggressively promote the excerpt, and present only one possible interpretation of what was said--that Trump pressured Raffensperger to manufacture votes?
"Every court challenge was rejected because Giuliani isn't a good lawyer??"
I don't know that anyone on my side of the conversation (election skepticism) believes that. Most of us believe that judges were either biased against Trump, or scared to touch the radioactive poop of declaring this particular election invalid. Business owners in cities across the US weren't boarding up their storefronts the morning of Nov 3 in anticipation of a Biden win, after all. And true to form, leftists rioted the night of Nov 3, when it looked as if Trump was going to win. Trump lawyers were doxxed and threatened, and the notion of doxxing their other clients was being tossed around on social media.
What judge would want to even tiptoe close to the idea of snatching a Biden victory away from people who behave that way? Best to leverage standing or laches or some other procedural technicality at the outset as an excuse to not even look at the evidence and consider the merits.
"And if we had listened to Sidney Powell, we could have gotten a do-over!!"
There was an election do-over for a US Congressional seat in 2019, after "hundreds" of votes in North Carolina's 9th district were found to be "potentially" affected by fraud. It's rare, but not unprecedented.
And by definition, runoffs are a modified but 100% automatic version of an election do-over. So spare me your incredulity.
"My suggestion to anyone who believes this stuff: follow the defamation suits filed due to these allegations of election fraud."
Oh, I will. Discovery can be a bitch (just ask the news organizations that settled the Nick Sandmann lawsuits before they had to hand over all their internal emails to his lawyers), and SLAPP lawsuits generally involve a lot of sound and fury ("I demand ONE... BILLION... DOLLARS!!!!") designed to intimidate rather than compensate.
"See what happens when people are placed under oath, as opposed to in front of a microphone."
Do you even affidavit, bro? The witnesses supporting Trump's lawsuits swore their affidavits under penalty of perjury. Raffensperger has never been put under oath. Neither has Governor Kemp.
But you know, despite never being put under oath, and despite their leaking of a settlement negotiation to the press (intentionally or otherwise, tainting a judge/jury in an ongoing lawsuit), we should really take their (unsworn) testimony for it that they investigated themselves and found zero problems with themselves.
Ah, what a magical reality we live in!
2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FRAUD
William Whitten -- 4:14 AM — 6/5/2021
The 2020 Presidential Election was rigged by a cabal of corporate oligarchs to install their own meat-puppet into the White House as a titular figure so they could rule behind the curtain of Oz.
https://thedissedent.page/2021/07/01/2020-presidential-election-fraud/
\\][//
And I didn't suggest censoring such claims. But to say an election was "stolen" through a misleading campaign is ridiculous. Who had a better platform to convey his message than the sitting President? You think someone stopped him? Delusional.
Hear hear! I believe "Reality Czar" is the term in vogue though. That 73 year old name for it must take too long to tweet or something.
There is no doubt there are right wing posters here who fit your description. There are also a great many on the right and right-libertarians who post here who do not engage in this trolling. I include myself in the right-libertarian mold. In terms of political philosophy I am nowhere near Glenn's view, but I have not regretted one day having subscribed to his substack. I value Glenn's take on journalism, intellectual honesty, and civil liberties (especially 1st amendment freedoms). Unfortunately, I think there are some high propensity posters of the right wing trolling type, but many more on the right who use reason and enjoy the dialogs as I do. It doesn't take long to figure out which posters should be ignored and skipped over. I do wish substack had an "ignore" function so I wouldn't even have to see their crap. I get your frustration, but know there are plenty here who want to have lively, intelligent discourse.
I agree on the idea of having an “ignore” function here.
Reminds me of “Pivot” over at The Intercept. Much more pleasant reading comments once he was muted. Some commenters really know how to hijack threads!
No fur hat. But I looook marrrveellllous in my Stetson
Oh no, don’t report the facts or hold esteemed journalistic sources accountable because MAGA people might be attracted to your message. Ok, that sounds logical... I swear, even the smart people are stupid these days... Be thankful someone is speaking truth to power, no matter who possesses that power. Left, right, up, down - makes no difference.
>I swear, even the smart people are stupid these days...
Many teachers are just good at brown-nosing and paper pushing. The job does not correlate with intelligence.
So do you think Glenn should start censoring the comment section? Sounds familiar. Keep out alternative opinions and ideas, shame the opposition, call them stupid and insist on conformity. And you are an educator? Wow.
Explains the state of "educators(sic)" today doesn't it? Perfect for the nanny state right?
David, I'm a liberal who doesn't have a problem with a vigorous debate among differing viewpoints. When did liberals stop tolerating any kind of debate? Can you highlight the comments below that you find so dangerous? Given the nature of the way these comments appear, it's unlikely they're going to gain any traction. But as to Elizabeth's comment, I do think that liberals are even more resistant to having their moral superiority challenged than are conservatives these days. I've said this before, but liberals have become the mirror image of the sanctimonious conservative Christians they despise.
Greenwald is not responsible for comments. Thinking anything else is infantile, and representative of the left's attitudes toward free speech.