Nations far poorer and less technologically advanced have no problem holding quick, efficient elections. Distrust in U.S. outcomes is dangerous but rational.
Greenwald is correct, and thus the question becomes, who benefits most from delegitimizing the election process? If you guessed it's those who seek to "fundamentally transform the United States of America" into a Marxist/ socialist state controlled by globalist oligarchs who disdain the very concept of the nation state itself, go to the head of the class.
lol. marxist? have you ever read book? the US is a Neoliberal (extreme libertarian) bastion. that is without question. TRILLION at the drop of a hat, for wall st billionaires, corporations that already pay NO TAXES, no concerns ever for "how you going to pay for that", which was a repeat of the bush - obama trillions in 08. shinola for the people. it is conservatively estimated that there is more than $50 trillion stashed in offshore accounts. and yet, these billionaires are ALWAYS the first to receive TRILLIONS in government handouts. and you're worried about marx?
this is a danish (vpro) documentary. you should take a frew and expose yourself to something other hannity and limp bag
Communists/Socialists like Castro, Chavez, Maduro, CCP and Soviet elites had no qualms in amassing stunning great wealth while leaving their citizens impoverished. The difference between the two systems is that Left provides no benefits to the masses while the Right does provide some benefits. On the right, money might get skimmed off but the infrastructure does get built. For a present day example of the left, look to California's bullet train boondoggle or NYC's $1B Thrive scam. You cannot deny that the best golden age of technical innovation in the US was done under a more conservative society decades ago. It had a more can do mentality, now there are never solutions to problems because the bureaucracy needs to maintain itself and, in fact, expand itself by creating more "problems". Notice that organizations like the ACLU and SPLC who did great work in the past are now shells of themselves, corrupted and devolved to grifting. New organizations like BLM go straight to the grifting part.
You pull the typical straw man "[Scadanavia] out of the hat" trick all left dreamer idealists try to scam others by, while never noting the Norse have been communal for millennia while the rest of the world -- with the possible of exception of ultra-disciplined Japanese nationalists -- are tight (to some degree) family capitalists not inclined to share much beyond family (of varying extension).
Although kat100 and others greatly overstate it, the socialist and many semi-socialist systems typically crash and burn while they become ever more draconian. That's because they are stratospheric ideals just sounding lovely but don't work far down in the dust of the real world of non-ideal people. They decay because their economies are typically drained and consumed, while most workers get away with doing no more than they must because the system doesn't strive for a profit. Then the "whips" come out to force them to produce more, and often on to prisons if the whips don't work. Of course you will say capitalism has whips, but they aren't almost literal as in socialism and the workers have other places to there but socialism has only one employer, or drains the others.
Capitalism may not be a "better" system but it works better because it forces most of the very non-ideal people, including the little greedy capitalist workers if not the big elite greedy capitalist owners, to put in more than they take out. That is a requirement for any economic system to survive because not everyone can contribute enough to cover themselves so the rest must cover for them and extra beyond that for social and technical progress.
Socialism fails everywhere except with special people like the Norse with a very long tradition of cooperation and commity spirit. That might fade more now that they foolishly invited in, before they learned better and slammed their borders shut, opposite cultures.
Also, in capitalism the big elite greedy capitalists typically reinvest most of what they skim to make more profit and that advances at least the economy. Many are also inclined, if only from quilt or "bragging rights," to be philanthropists.
Too often socialist leaders drain so much or more (for their own families) and none goes back into the economy. So goes stratospheric dream economic systems when jammed in far down below in the mud on earth.
"You cannot deny that the best golden age of technical innovation in the US was done under a more conservative society decades ago. It had a more can do mentality, now there are never solutions to problems because the bureaucracy needs to maintain itself and, in fact, expand itself by creating more "problems".
Yes, I can and will deny that. When Trump says "Make America Great Again", which years do you think he's referring to? I would guess the 40s, 50s and 60s. Do you know what those years had in common? That's when most of the technological breakthroughs and achievements that were the foundation for the ones today were achieved. That's also when the tax code was MUCH more progressive, the social safety net was MUCH stronger, and there was a sense of national unity. Trump stands for literally the exact opposite of every single one of those things. Back then Bernie Sanders would have been considered a centrist Democrat.
There was increasing technological innovation for at least 500 years before that, which was partly as a result of genetic changes in the NW European gene pool that selected for "liberal" personality traits.
A tipping point from mythic-communion values to modern-rationalism happened around 1492, and became settled in by the late 1700s.
Modernism had two "sides".
One was political centralization into colonial-imperial powers (Spanish empire)
The other was medieval "liberalism" (of which the British Parliamentary system and US Constitution are the remnants), which was technically pre-modern in its origins, but adapted to modern Enlightenment conditions, values and ideas.
The "golden age" was liberal and tolerant, not leftist.
Some other factors include more public-private partnerships enabling long-term and/or risky r&d and more competitive markets, less corporate consolidation.
Can't emphasize that last point enough. There was a lot more competition between firms which not only spurred technological and productivity gains, but also improved labor bargaining power.
I'll vote for a democratic socialist every chance I get. The biggest problem the Left is faced with today is the fear of being labelled a socialist. O my, cringe!!! Puhleeze. Your facts are not facts btw so much as they are featured details of a much bigger picture that you apparently can't see. Try stepping back a little further. That may help. Meanwhile, every time you hear 'failed socialism' please remember to add 'due to interference and hostility from a threatened capitalism.'
Socialism is already in play all across the world in places where people have safety nets, health care, education and freedom of creativity. Its results beat the hell out of what capitalism has to offer (work as a slave for 40+ years and die in poverty).
1. the irony is that, as per Marx, socialism can't exist without capitalism
capitalism co-emerged with modern rationalism in cultural evolution as the next stage of psychological development after medieval-mythic culture.
to get rid of capitalism you have to also get rid of modern-rationalism, a process that ALWAYS results into regression to tribal warfare and authoritarianism.
2. the biggest problem the left has is that it is morphing into Rainbow Totalitarianism: postmodern deconstructive nihilism (neomarxism, cultural marxism, neoStalinism, neoMaoism).
I believe (from an about 45 year old memory) Marx referred to a continuum from feudalism, to bourgeois capitalism, to socialism (I think), to communist "dictatorship of the proletariat," then the "withering away of the state" bringing in anarchic communism nirvana.
The older socialist systems have crashed and burned and newer ones are ever more bled by all large and small "greedy capitalist" citizens taking out more than they put in. Stratospheric ideal economic systems cannot survive indefinitely far down on earth with non-ideal people (nearly all of them) draining them.
The elite greedy capitalists at least put most of what they skim back in to get more gains. Little also "greedy capitalist" citizens and leaders drain and consume socialist economies. Our semi-socialist one is being drained for the socialist programs (70% of the federal budget). All governments together here confiscate about a third of the county's total income ($21 trillion per year).
Libertarians don't promote or endorse corporate socialism any more than they do individual socialism. I'm not denying that the USA is a corrupt oligarchy but the idea of blaming people who poll consistently about .12% is ... well, it's kind of tangential at best.
wait, what? I never accused libertarian friends of promoting anything. I pointed out the simple fact, that the US is not "too left". it is, by definition, neoliberal, which is simply a newer way to describe ayn rand like, libertarianism. privatization of everything. as if the rise of new feudal lords and kings would be somehow better than government tyranny. we had a revolution to escape kings, yet today, we have already recreated them.
Who does that, the government? So do you think if you get a "good daddy," instead of the "bad daddy," that will change? Do you know the "big brothers/sisters" in the House determine what's bled from whom and the whole congress determines where it's squandered? The president only gets to say yes or no and can be overridden by congress.
What I think is that a corrupt culture produces corrupt politicians who further corrupt the culture, in a downward spiral of disaster. The US appears to be past the point of no return.
No, sorry. You need to look farther than next-door (the real one). The country is populist or progressive mostly now (progressive with the coastal ivory tower elite and populist with the hinterlands down-to-earth people).
Socialists are reproducing rapidly from K-college indoctrination now and will be taking over in a few generations. They will crash and burn this country as they have everywhere they jam their fairy tale ideals down the throats of a world full of non-ideal people.
My libertarianism is another stratospheric ivory tower fairy tale ideal unsuitable for the non-ideal people far down in the dust of the earth's surface. I only fight for it to retain some freedom from the tyrants, like socialists or worse, who must force everyone to adhere to their "beautiful, dream society," of course just for the good of the people they will dominate.
Anti-federalists demanded our Bill of Rights, including our right to military weapons (yes it specifically does!) to keep Federalist bankers, merchants, and lawyers, controlling the federal government then and now, from oppressing and exploiting all of us. Those weapons can also serve to stop socialist tyrants too.
"Socialists are reproducing rapidly from K-college indoctrination now and will be taking over in a few generations. They will crash and burn this country as they have everywhere they jam their fairy tale ideals down the throats of a world full of non-ideal people."
What a laughable mess that is. Could you go into exactly what curricula in the K-12 part of public education is indoctrinating kids into becoming, well, what exactly? You can't even be specific. What is being indoctrinated, and how, in your own words? I need legitimate examples.
Read Howard Zinn's "A people's history ... ", which is widely used in schools and colleges to find out how that is happening. Or the "1619 Project", widely used by a number of school systems to indoctrinate against the U.S.
Listen to the rhetoric from students coming out of public schools today then compare it to the rhetoric from their left wing bigoted teachers, and from the teachers' left wing bigoted professors at the teachers' colleges.
"Neoliberal" does not mean libertarian. Libertarian is at the right wing (least amount) of government control, liberal is in the middle, and socialist/communist on the left wing.
Every one of the items you state is anti-libertarian. "Wall St billionaires" are overwhelmingly Democrats and hence opposed to libertarian policies: Michael Bloomberg, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, all of the "Silicon Valley" billionaires, Tom Steyer, ... .
The 2017 Tax Reform law greatly reduced the amount of money in offshore accounts. It also INCREASED the amount of federal income tax paid by the wealthy, due to the $10,000 limit placed on deduction of state and local taxes (SALT deduction). Households in the middle income range (median $60,000) saved an average of more than $1000 in federal taxes each year, while most of those with $1 million incomes and up paid more in income taxes.
Also, you forgot that corporations pay out their profits to shareholders, and the biggest beneficiaries of the increased dividends by far are government employees, especially teachers, whose pensions are underfunded. The Tax Reform Law decreased the top tax rate for corporations to the average rate of developed countries, allowing for larger dividends into pension funds. So these non-billionaires were big beneficiaries.
There is more that can be said, but please don't ever say that any of the policies you mention are libertarian.
Sir, I can't find anything in my comments that relates to history. It is all about economics. I may or may not know about history, but that is not relevant to my comment!
If you think neoliberism is a political ideology then you don't know anything about economics, either. Neoliberal economics is exactly what a true-blue Libertarian embraces, as do both legacy major parties. They have done for most of their histories, although it wasn't formalized as policy until the 1970s when they adopted Friedman et al.
"Libertarian is at the right wing (least amount) of government control, liberal is in the middle, and socialist/communist on the left wing."
LOL - If you think that the "right wing" stands for least amount of government control, then you need to take a remedial world history course or something. That's just laughable. Are you saying that Hitler was all about giving up government control, then? (cue up the inevitable easy to debunk nonsense that the Nazis were SOSHULIST!! iT'S In thEir NaMe!!)
Hitler was not "right wing" He did not stand for any right wing policies. He never said "Our government is spending too much money, and I will cut the budget by 25% in five years." or "Our military is too big and I will cut the size by one third in five years." or "Our economists are too much in favor of government control over everything and so I am asking Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek to set our policies." Of course, he said and did the exact opposites. And I have plenty of first-hand knowledge of Germany history, since my parents grew up there, came to the US in the 1930s, and had many contacts with German leaders after the war.
Of course Hitler was right wing and "far right." The right wing in terms of government is widely accepted as totalitarian, authoritarian, nationalistic, anti-communist/anti-socialist, and believing in a sort of social darwinism and natural law where society is stratified into a "rightful order" according to varying traits or membership in certain ethnic or economic groups. You're confusing "right wing" in the sense in which it applies to Hitler with a much more modern definition of "right wing" laissez faire economics. NOBODY was asking Freidrich Hayek about monetary policies until the mid 1960s. The Nazi economy was anti-laissez faire capitalism, and against global free markets, but contained elements of both and was mostly corporatist. You're talking about the so-called "new right" which wasn't even a thing during the time the Nazis controlled Germany.
How interesting! The National Socialist German Workers Party was NOT SOCIALIST! EVERY left-wing government has insisted on strong control of everything the people might do.
The Soviet Union was doing exactly what the Nazis were doing. "Stratified into a 'rightful order'": totally Soviet policy. Kulaks, anyone?
The right wing is not "the least amount oaf government." They have long been "law and order" advocates. Their tradition is also for protected markets not free markets.
Libertarians are the true liberals (long defined by free markets and individual autonomy). I hope you aren't one of the farther left progressives or socialists who try to bounce long held liberal moderate left philosophies over to the right just because you want to steal the word liberal you like better than the label belonging to you.
"I hope you aren't one of the farther left progressives or socialists who try to bounce long held liberal moderate left philosophies over to the right just because you want to steal the word liberal you like better than the label belonging to you."
Please expound and name some of these philosophies that you believe are being ascribed to the right by these "farther left progressives" and "socialists."
They are the original liberal philosophies of free markets and individual autonomy. Apparently the Orwellian "new speakers" have redefined these as either "classic liberal" or "neoliberal," ironically mutually exclusive terms.
However that doesn't seem to bother them while they transplant progressive policies into the word "liberal" only because, I believe, they prefer the sound of that word to the one, progressive, that actually belongs to them.
I don't think right middle or left wing are good analogies for economics, voting patterns or levels of govt. control. They are much abused monikers that conflate too many single issue positions. For example, Schwarzenegger was a Republican Gov of CA. What does that mean? Is he left wing? Right wing? On what? A Republican in CA is a Democrat in Georgia. Until they get enough pork barrel to sway their party line vote ("you get 3 bridges and shovel ready jobs if you vote on drone strikes").
Maybe, maybe not. They are just groupings for similar attitudes. One of the problems, mostly from the left, is relegating what they don't like and elevating what they do like, regardless of the presence, or not, of common attitudes or values.
The right does it some also but not to the degree of the more emoting, less reasoning left. You could say the right is "colder" but that's OK with me. I prefer cold reasoning to irrational emoting. That's why I see the right as a (very) little less unacceptable than the left.
George Lakoff's model of cognitive-linguistic framing is useful in making crucial distinctions.
Traditional mythic culture is based on the Strict-father model (hierarchy), originally clans, and low social trust. As modern, democratic culture evolved, the Strict-father model was dragged screaming and kicking along and it had to adapt to (be integrated into) high social trust culture (post-clan nation state govt), not all that happily.
Modern liberalism-progressivism is based on the Nurturing Mommy model. Literally the nanny state. High social trust.
Low social trust cultures genetically map into particular populations of origin in Europe, such as Celts, English Border Reivers, Slavs and Romans.
High social trust culture maps into Frankish (western German, Dutch, N. French, and including Anglo-Saxon) gene pools.
Frankish culture was more successful because of a broad range of innovations in tech, weapons, economics, and govt structures (liberal Constitutionalism).
The non-Frankish cultures were generally subsumed into the Frankish system, in some cases very violently via civil wars (English Civil War, Cromwellian horrors).
The USA is based on that system, Celts and other non-Frankish cultures of origin are subservient and when they got uppity, they were brutally crushed back into subservience to the liberal order (US Civil War).
The current failure of the USA system is that "liberals" have become lazy, stupid and spineless, unwilling to do the dirty work of brutally crushing the rebellions of (1) cultural illiberals, such as intolerant neomarxist vermin ("leftists") and (2) the Trumpist-Celt barbarians that are storming the gates of the crumbling imperial city (DC).
Your historic rendition seems roughly accurate for the most part as parallel to what might have happened. The problem with history texts and claims is a lot of it isn't. The farther back you go the worse that is. When you examine who commissioned historical renditions you can see why it shows what it does.
That is even worse now. Look at how history is being revised at this moment. Orwellian "new speakers," who have already switched the traditional standard political red and blue designations, along with many other "corrected" labels, are now "cancelling" prior US honored philosophers and contributors while installing more "politically correct" ones.
We can't legitimately, in a democratic republic, eject people supported by votes unless they are/become criminals violating even more blatantly than they do now the laws (the Constitution and Bill of Rights) they must obey. When they do we should invoke the Second Amendment intended exactly for the purpose -- yes it was according to the people authoring and demanding it for protection against the Constitutional, particularly federal, powers -- of arresting those criminals in our government.
Only we citizens have an interest in policing our government. All governments always want citizens to shut up and pay whatever taxes they want to drain from us while we sit quietly sucking our thumbs as they have finally conditioned many of us to do now.
The US Constitution and the preceding documents in anglo-american law (British Parliamentary system, Magna Carta and other "liberal" foundational legal documents across Europe such provided for medieval Fueros, Communas, Cortes, etc.) don't define what to do in the case of Civil Wars (as far as I know).
The US Constitution does attempt to ban "insurrection" and so forth (to the dismay of 2A kooks, "militias" are not allowed outside the political establishment), but there is no legal process for stopping wars once the national unity myth dis-integrates and massive economic and techno disruption sets in.
Thus for the survival of the cultural foundation that the Constitution is built on, during a Civil War, the rule of law is variously suspended in order to cut out the diseased social tissue tissue and throw it in a vat of battery acid.
So, in the 1600s, Cromwell (liberal Parliamentarian) smashed the Border Reivers and the backward elements in the British Nobility, and subjugated the Celts.
The American Revolutionary war was a repeat of those conflicts.
The US Civil War was a repeat of those conflicts.
So what basic historical facts tell us is that (Classical) Liberal social order (Constitutional law, market economic systems, etc.) can only be maintained by a process of brutal, ruthless subjugation of the backward, unevolved gene pools and ideologies that seek to destroy liberal order.
Other systems (mostly utopian nonsense) have of course been proposed that might or might not make sense, but they are not as well proven under real historical conditions over 400 years.
Neomarxism, cultural marxism/leftism (critical race theory, etc) is directly descended from classical marxism.
1. classical marxism sought to destroy capitalism via international class revolution. when that failed:
2. neomarxism seeks to infect the corporate-state with managerial intellectual rot such as identity politics, radical feminism (to destroy the nuclear family), critical race theory, "diversity" narratives, victim narratives, and postmodern deconstructive nihilism.
you are either incredibly ignorant, or you are a troll
in either case you have not fvcking idea what you are talking about
BTW, your avatar looks completely retarded, trollish
JFC that this comment got 38 "likes" is a sad indication of where the average American's intellect is in 2020. Do you think Joe Biden will convert America into a "Marxist/socialist state" and on top of that one somehow controlled by (capitalist) oligarchs? There's a reason that the DNC screwed Bernie Sanders TWICE - wanna know it? The Democrats would rather see Trump win another 4 years than for anything remotely resembling socialism (much less Marxism - that's laughable) implemented in the USA.
It is an indication that there are people that see through the ignorant leftists narratives that you and low IQ imbeciles like "Art" mindlessly spout.
Leftist cultural totalitarianism is perfectly compatible with the agenda of the corporate-state, specifically with neomarxist/cultural marxist "woke" cancel culture zombies.
As Eric Weinstein's wife told him, it is very simple:
1. corporations can cheaply pay some shitty diversity consults off to try to brainwash their workers off with discredited and debunked ideas such as critical race theory, implicit bias, white privilege, etc. (while hiring cheap foreign labor that work 80 hours/week), or
2. corporations can negotiate in good faith with citizen workers for decent wages, benefits and working conditions, which would cost vastly more.
The "left" is now elite-managerial, arrogant, smug, totalitarian, professional and corporate.
Ah, come on "e." Art is neither an "imbecile" nor a Moron." Please stop that. I don't agree with many of his philosophies either but that doesn't mean they are "wrong." I believe they can't work in the real world, but neither can my favorite also ivory tower ones.
Did he reply to your critique of that egregiously shitty history article? I don't see anything. His intellectual incompetence is appalling (Dunning-Krugar).
He is obsessed on one narrative, and is incapable of seeing anything else. His comments on practical issues like IT stuff are mundane and obvious.
Go back and look at all of his cowardly bullying and the ridiculous insults he has made, and then find out how many times:
1. he was completely wrong, and
2. how many times he apologized for his ridiculously stupid insults
I suspected some personal grudge. Please let that go too. You don't need to war over words. You should see by now it isn't changing anything.
I wasn't bitter but I was annoyed enough to give repetitive sarcastic "back hands" but I shouldn't have done even that. I noted it didn't do anybody any good and it made them worse not better.
Fact: "Art" repeated posted slime and sleaze that was grossly stupidity at a profound level, over and over.
Again, you exposed that "Art" as a gross intellectual incompetent.
Here is what actually happened:
When confronted with unvarnished truth, most of the leftist vermin will scurry away like the cockroaches they are, hiding in dark corners, enjoying their lunches of garbage and toilet bowl leftist ideology within their irrelevant little bubbles of ingrown protest subculture.
I've been around these kinds of nitwits since the 1960s, they are easy to spot, their smugness and arrogance is just a cover for their mental illnesses and/or cognitive incompetence. Many are literally brain damaged, autistic, drug addicted, etc.
Their cowardly, idiotic, regressive antics, blabberings and blubberings are a great disservice to the few partial truths and insights of the left (such as critiques of mythic ideology and the limits of capitalism and rationalism).
"JFC that this comment got 38 "likes" is a sad indication of where the average American's intellect is in 2020."
Actually, it's an indication that there are at least 38 right-wingers commenting here who are major propaganda victims and / or who are used to pile-on Fox News / breitbart style.
It doesn't say much of anything about the "average American's intellect," though do of course note that an IQ of 100 is defined as median intellect.... Draw from that what inferences you will.
Also, please expound - if you are calling BLM "marxists" you should read their page first. Literally every plank in their so-called platform relates to the relationship between blacks and the POLICE state. Nothing marxist at all nor do they claim to be. You're confusing them with fringe elements who call themselves marxists and join these protests, but who have no idea what marxism really is. Either way, conflating BLM with marxism/socialism is misrepresenting the movement in its 'official' capacity.
The media loves the prolonged chaos. The punditry and professional on air teleprompter readers are in heaven. Every click on their sensationalist websites is $.
I’m a conservative (vote libertarian and GOP usually) and am sharing Greenwald’s blog with my buddies. Truth doesn’t have a party or stripe. It’s hard to find good journalism.
I pray to the Lord that Americans will value truth and justice over party. That they will concern themselves with serving others more than themselves and in the process serve our Lord. Politics is fleeting, your soul’s fate is eternal.
Agree. I just wrote to Fox News on the contact page that their gleeful reporting of various scenarios this morning is unwelcome. But all of the media people seem to love the chance to insert themselves into the process right now. Nobody cares about any more analysis or opinions from the media. We all just want to know who won. I think we all just want to see this entire travesty end as soon as possible. If the media and the elites didn’t already know that Trump probably won, they wouldn’t have halted everything in the middle of the night but rather orgasmically announced Biden won already.
After reading all that it looks to me like one would have to be deranged to not be a conspiracy theorist. My current best theory is that the powers that be want to set Americans against each other and this is just another method they have chosen.
#CorruptionExplainsConspiracy - Corruption today is so plainly EVIDENT, so widespread, there is little debate. Powerful forces naturally, and predictably, share common incentives to collaborate with one another to accomplish shared interests, even when outwardly, they would appear to be in opposition. Conspiracy MUST be anticipated, not mocked.
I am inclined to suspect that it was nurtured and shepherded through the system, with intent. I have not researched that. but given the inputs brought out by Senator S. Whitehouse in the Barrett confirmation regarding Federalist Society, etc dark money pools, sponsored briefs, etc. i would tend to imagine so, yes. watch Senator Whitehouse's testimony. https://www.c-span.org/video/?476316-4/barrett-confirmation-hearing-day-2-part-2
Would you like to share with us what you think Soros might have or could have done to contribute to the US election mess? Please also tell us what his goal might have been for doing so.
The goal is to undermine the US as the global hegemon and institute a globalist political authority that every country is subject to. Soros contributed to the election mess by 1) funding the open borders movement to swamp the US with non-citizens that throw off the census so that blue states get a greater % of representation in the congress (and electoral college) and 2) funding hundreds of candidates nationwide who otherwise would not be able to afford to run for office because nobody agrees with them.
In short, Soros is funding the anti-Nationalist movement throughout the anglophone world.
Of course there are more things attributable to Soros but those are the main ones people like to talk about on in the conspiracy chans. If you don’t believe those two points, you probably aren’t going to be persuaded by the evidence that he is the supreme wizard of an inter dimensional satanic cult of pedophiles who wants to enslave white children and sell them as sex slaves in Dubai either. LOL.
Well obviously it’s ancient Sumerian monarchs who were really aliens. DUH. It’s like you have never even looked at YouTube Recommended Videos before. :)
they are spoon fed "soros" boogeyman narratives, but willfully ignore, Kock bros, Adelson, etc.
In the end, soros, kock bros, etc, share martinis and laughs, in the Hamptons. these billionaires care little about political ideology, their shared primary goal: Economic Control.
The Koch brothers just want to undermine the minimum wage but other than that they are full-on right wing capitalists. I think that’s why nobody gets all that upset by their shenanigans.
The anti-Russia narrative can be weaponized for domestic political purposes either from a D party administration (Bosnian war), or when the D party not in power in the executive branch (faux Impeachment).
LeftCarthyism can be used when the D party neolibs are in control of the White House or when not in control.
Assuming that Biden wins and is able to take office, the Soros sponsored anti-Russia hysteria will become "official" by definition and the CIA can go back to bugging the computers of Senate committees, etc.
There will be a tremendous flood of Clinton-Obama foreign policy vermin, rats, and cockroaches that will re-invade the Imperial City (DC)
2020 is the definite year that the US state with help from the media, social media worked to subvert/brainwash a huge majority of the population, its methods and players naked for all to see.
What has happened is beyond Orwellian. Here are the undisputed facts:
- the media has been ramping up anti-Trump hysteria for more than 4 years chief among them Russiagate which was not only unsubstantiated when it was first reported but has subsequently been thoroughly debunked with various participants in stoking Russiagate outed from the shadows over the past year.
- the media has consistently portrayed Trump as “authoritarian” though by any neutral measure the Governors of Dem states have shown to be more authoritarian than Trump who actually gave them a lot of power to decide on how to handle COVID-19 as well as not pulled triggers available to him as POTUS to order the National Guard in against violence in Dem controlled states
- the media alternately suppressed the undisputed Hunter Biden emails and peddled the unsubstantiated lie that they were part of Russian Disinfo. While there are still many questions about the implications of the contents of the emails/photos from personal wrongdoings to illegal activities to corruption by a POTUS candidates, as big a scandal is the media role in protecting Biden.
- the media has been spectacularly wrong about the polling in key states
So to expect the media to report on any Dem irregularities - all the disputed states are Democratic held and Georgia is held by a RINO - is too much to ask.
What has happened is the kind of regime change that the US state has engineered worldwide: media disinformation, demonization, election interference. Except this time the target was a sitting POTUS.
I notice that people who use “lol” “lmao” etc are generally illiterate and poor with basic logic and other educational skills and so it proves with your comment.
I literally did not mention “libs” or that all corruption is by “libs”.
The biggest trick that has been perpetrated in the insular jungle that is the US is that there are only two versions of truth: the “libs” or “conservatives”. Ergo you are for one of the other.
The far deeper battle is between the power structure of the elites - both “libs” and “conservatives” - emanating out of DC along with servile media and the vast funding by Big Tech and the bulk of Americans outside this bubble.
The elites are only two happy to play “libs” vs “conservatives” while shielding their corruption from the masses.
While Trump is personally an odious braggart and narcissist, he was the first politician since Obama in 2008 to tap into the deep seated discomfort the masses have for the elites who rule them. Obama in 2008 beat Clinton and McCain, a “lib” and a “conservatives” but in truth part of the same DC-based corruption.
Obama got corrupted and ended up trying to cement his “legacy” by promoting Clinton and now Biden - two of the most corrupt elites in the last few decades. (If the media did its job instead of play favorites the corruption of these two people would be far clearer than now).
Part of the damage down by Clintonites and other neoliberals is that paleo-liberalism - the one that believed in non violence/anti-war, rationalism, free speech, compassion etc - has been subsumed by irrational, dumbed down, censorious, righteous-anger promoting cult-like behavior formerly associated with conservatism.
RE: lol - come on, that's nonsense. Everyone uses it.
You lose the scent when you say "Obama got corrupted..." as though it happened AFTER he was elected President. That's absolutely not true. Go back and find some of Glenn Greenwald's work when he was at UT and Salon regarding the fact that Obama had ALREADY been corrupted when he was a Senator (with Presidential ambitions). He flip flopped on telecom immunity and refused to ever put single payer healthcare on the table. His corruption was cemented with "We will look forward, not backward" in refusing to INVESTIGATE Bush/Cheney era war crimes. Obama was already owned by TPTB from the moment he stepped into the Oval Office.
When I read a troll post with Lol, Lmao versus any attempt to serious rebut a commentary - as you attempted to do for example - I usually find these people have nothing much of note to add. So I disagree with your assessment about it being “nonsense”.
Re Obama being corrupt even before he stepped into office: yes he was already signalling various compromises he would make with DC like agreeing not to prosecute Bush/Cheney and having a corrupt insider like Biden as his VP. OTH, as Greenwald/Chomsky have also pointed out, by any uniform standards applied to any other country, Obama - like every POTUS - is also responsible for warcrimes: that comes with the office. What was done to Libya, the various regime change operations worldwide etc under Obama that he either instigated or tolerated would fall under that.
But my point was that Obama was seen by many as at least an anti-dote to the deep corruption of DC regardless of party. And Trump - hardly someone I’d personally praise as an individual - was also seen as someone fighting against the DC-based corruption (which Obama’s people called the Blob and Trump called the Swamp)
I rarely look at at twitter, so I don't know anything about that.
These kinds of Sockpuppet/troll accounts tend to completely toxify Substack discussions and drive off intelligent discussion, at least this makes them pay a price for their bullshit.
If you want to see something funny about left wing protest subcultures, there are a bunch of Frank Chu videos on YouTube. I usually post those toward the end of the counter-troll script, after the trolls have exposed themselves as being either psycho or a paid external agent.
I would add that a significant number of observers believe the press and the campaign is hiding cognitive decline. Most of us probably would not be a bit surprised to see Kamala inform us in the spring of 2021 (assuming a Biden win) that, unfortunately, devastating and unforeseen cognitive difficulties require her to 25th (or whatever it is) Poor President Joe.
re: Queen of the War Mongers (Hillary) vs "Russian Asset" (Tulsi)
There is a very old pattern of the D party establishment (now neolibs) seducing the "far left" (Bernie, suburban socialists, cancel culture creeps, etc.) during the primaries and then stabbing them in the back during the general election campaign.
In the case that the D party establishment wins an election and gains office, they continue to spout "leftist" rhetoric while stabbing the "far left" in the back behind closed doors.
As a point of comparison, FDR had actual communists (or close) in his first Cabinet.
"So to expect the media to report on any Dem irregularities - all the disputed states are Democratic held and Georgia is held by a RINO - is too much to ask."
So in other words the same thing but reversed from 2000?
The media did its part to smear and slander Al Gore for about 2 years leading up to that race as well, and the Republican party successfully used the courts to overturn a loss along 5-4 party lines, but with god awful judicial logic from the majority side.
This isn't something new is my point. The Democrats have allowed themselves to be subsumed or completely taken over by the neocons, the "intelligence" community and their mass media megaphones, just like the Republicans did back in 1999. What happened to "compassionate conservative" (Bush's 'brand' going in)? What happened to "hope and change" (Oblamblam's 'brand') and what happened to "make america great again" (Trump)? In literally every instance we got the OPPOSITE.
Speaking of those emails, is there a good unbiased source where I can read them online? I can't decide what to make of them, and my views on that kind of built-in corruption are jaded. Everyone does it, even Trump. https://yasha.substack.com/p/yes-hunter-biden-is-corrupt-its-one?
I woke up this morning to the reality that there is no media source I can go to for a quick, unbiased, non-moronic, overview of where we stand in the election. The sources I trust (such as Glenn) either do not have the resources to have meaningful analysis at the moment or it’s not really in their main areas of reporting to facilitate them quickly producing a substantive report. What does that tell us about the U.S.?
It reminds me of when the last (or one of “the last”) reports on Russiagate came out: the MSM had “analysis” of what was in the report within hours all the while telling the reader the report was a thousand pages long so the reader should trust their outstanding speed reading skills! Four days later Aaron Mate reports on it with the caveat that it’s a thousand pages long so he still hasn’t been able to fully digest it, yet he could provide key points for his listener/reader to check for themselves unlike the mainstream repeaters who’s substance could be predicted before reading what they said - or even before the report was released.
This comment should be amplified to the moon. I too have wished all morning that there was any website with accurate, non-biased information reporting on the results. I don't even trust 538 anymore. Fox, CNN, NYT... all compromised beyond any credibility. Seems like they are giving all of their star reporters a chance to chime in with dramatic monologues so that when the documentary comes out everyone has a speaking role. Everything just seems completely manipulated.
"I woke up this morning to the reality that there is no media source I can go to for a quick, unbiased, non-moronic, overview of where we stand in the election."
It's simple. History show that the United States of America, that pretends to "spread democracy" to the rest of the world (apparently supporting oppressive dictatorships counts as "spreading democracy") does not know, and never has known, how to hold an election. I live abroad, and where I live there is never any problem in holding an election. Ballot boxes are not stuffed. We never discover thousands of ballots in a trash dumpster. Only people who are alive get to vote, but live people are never allowed to vote more than once in the same election. Every legal resident (and we must register our legal residence) aged 18 or older is automatically registered to vote and notified of the appropriate polling place. There is rarely a wait of more than 15 minutes to vote at a polling place. One may vote early, but only by going to the designated polling place. It's virtually impossible to invalidate a ballot unless it is deliberately made invalid by the voter (for example, by leaving it empty or writing in someone not on the official ballot.) Results are known within a few hours of the closing of the polling places. I daresay that what I have just described has never happened in, say, Chicago, and rarely in any machine-run city (which is most of the big cities in the USA). Perhaps a few states can approach this kind of performance, but apparently not most of them. But I find it likely that late reporting is almost always associated with nefarious vote juggling. Counting votes is not rocket science—obviously, since Americans are reasonably good at rocket science, but hopeless at running an election. Is that a "national disgrace"? Yes.
This is one reason why the US cannot get rid of the Electoral College. The voting process is too corrupted in many states, we can't trust them. We should have a standardized system across the US to ensure voter data integrity. Ballot harvesting shouldn't be allowed by partisan hacks. This isn't rocket science but parties are wedded, for whatever reason, to want the option of manipulation.
Agree. If you combine the fact that elections are rigged to be confusing, the media lies to promote a particular candidate, and the US will support pretty much any dictator worldwide that agrees to allow Military bases on their territory and the moral authority of the US government to lecture any country about anything is completely undermined. We really do have a government that is imposing an arbitrary foreign power on every other country and we can’t even run an election or report a fact accurately in the news.
The Republic is dead. Both sides needs to find leaders who can help us dissolve this disgraced “Union” and then we can all vote with our feet to live in the new countries that emerge whose values we can agree with. We can avoid the civil war and just agree that this nation is fractured beyond repair. The oligarchs have thwarted the clear will of the people.
Your statement agrees fully with the policies of President Trump. He has strongly opposed dictators and supported freedom around the world.
He is the first President who was educated about Communist China before taking office, and he has repeatedly called them out on their suppression of freedom, concentration camps, theft of intellectual property, etc.
He is ranked by historians as the 3rd strongest opponent of the Soviet Union/Russia (after Truman and Reagan) and has taken several major actions against them just in the last 4 months.
And he has stood up to Iran, the worst oppressor of human rights, after the Obama/Biden administration provided them with billions of dollars to expand their oppression of women, LGBTQ people, and religion. Just 2 weeks ago, he negotiated another big win for freedom, when Sudan and Israel ended their 50 years of war and Sudan agreed to recognize Israel, and end its oppression of women.
Lastly, he has been withdrawing our troops from distant lands.
Thank you, What you say is all true. I wonder what the result would have been if there had been a pre-election in which people would vote "yes" or "no" to the question: Is the present choice offered by the two major parities the sort of choice you would have liked and wanted to have to been confronted with on November 3rd, 2020?
After two major elections where the polls have been completely wrong towards the same party, I am starting to think that they are a form of disinformation and election interference. For months, the so-called top polls predicted a landslide win by Mr. Biden. Didn't happen. But for these same months, American voters were told over and over again that it would. This does effect voter behavior through the desire to win complex that is often human nature. I think polling should be now outlawed as part of US election law. It serves no useful purpose other than to gin up views and clicks.
"For months, the so-called top polls predicted a landslide win by Mr. Biden."
No, they didn't. *That's* what didn't happen. There were clearly significant polling misses this time around, but what you claim happened simply did not.
Indeed, winning by 8 to 10 percentage points as many of the polls were predicting would have an EXTREMELY tight race. A prediction of a landslide would have to have been at a VERY minimum a 40% lead for Biden.
"I think polling should be now outlawed as part of US election law. It serves no useful purpose other than to gin up views and clicks" - I am afraid the public is too addicted to this kind of entertainment. Wishing it away by legal fiat is not going to work. I recommend reading Neil Postman's classic "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business". It may seem a bit outdated as its original edition appeared during the years in which TV began to be omnipresent and IT was still in its infancy. Yet Postman's insights are relevant today as well.
When the US was a primitive, agrarian society, States simply counted the votes, announced the result and everyone went to bed. As Democracy became more sophisticated, election coverage turned into an all night extravaganza. However, Florida in 2000 demonstrated that an election could be drawn out for weeks, and the cable news networks broke ratings records and raked in advertising cash. Since then, other States have pursued the cachet of becoming a swing state and introduced increasingly dubious voting processes to ensure the results are contested and therefore newsworthy. This is all part of the natural evolution of Democracy.
A few farsighted TV executives are already plotting the next step to increase viewership - an election followed by a civil war. Whether they can achieve this in 2020 is uncertain, but they are making progress.
I agree. This isn't a fiasco by incompetence but by design. I've often heard that the media is controlled by the political parties, but I think it's the opposite. The media controls the political parties, whether by carrot or stick. The more wrangling, discord, confusion, and chaos there is, the more eyes are glued to their content, bringing greater profits.
The more closely you look at the 'inefficiencies', the more you find that each one just *happens* to undermine the authority of the people, and give elites more leeway. Depend on it.
agreed. the inefficiencies and politicization of the vote COUNTING is a global embarassment led by the pollsters and the MSM. imagine an election with a truly unbiased media.
GG, there's a election story I've seen very little coverage of--Democratic legal efforts to throw Green Party off the ballot. Perhaps most noticeably Wisconsin but other states as well? Particularly relevant given the razor-thin margins we're seeing.
Greg Palast is a bit of an authority on the comedy gold shenanigans, of the bogus US election process. his short 20 mins on Dore yesterday explained it very well.
#CorruptionExplainsConspiracy - Corruption today is so plainly EVIDENT, so widespread, there is little debate. Powerful forces naturally, and predictably, share common incentives to collaborate with one another to accomplish shared interests, even when outwardly, they would appear to be in opposition. Conspiracy MUST be anticipated, not mocked.
Never been more ashamed and embarrassed to be an American. This should have been a resounding rejection of Trumpublican fascism, but instead shows how confused or misinformed or apathetic the voting public is. As for the ridiculous vote tallying, why isn't there a federal, paper-based standard for all citizens? Because chaos plays into the rightwing narrative...they will make it a selective 'states rights' issue.
The Democratic party abandoned working class politics by supporting NAFTA and TPP and replaced it with identity politics. Trump gained the support of the disenfranchised working class (blue collar) voter with his anti- NAFTA and TPP positions. To those disinfranchised workers, Trump's MAGA (nationalism) meant rebuilding manufacturing in the USA, and explains his tough on the China (trade imbalance.) Hillary referred to the abandoned workers from the "rust belt" states as "deplorables." Then the Democratic Party insulted the black vote by running "top cop" prosecutor Harris and Crime Bill Biden.
Uh, do you think many of the blue collar workers you mention ever knew any details of the NAFTA and TPP agreements, pro or con? Voting republican has zero benefit for anyone not of the 1%. To claim that Trump 'rebuilt manufacturing in the USA' is another myth. Support for Trump by the 'working class' is due to his demagoguery.
Isn't it surprising that more republicans supported the business-friendly NAFTA deal than dems? It was never about the working stiff, for Trump or anyone who supported it.
"Trumpublican fascism" is a huge clue that Barry Stuart is a psycho leftist, possibly not even a US citizen.
Wars in the middle east have a long history, from tribal conflicts 10,000s of years ago to Roman and Muslim conquest to Ottoman colonialism to western imperialism.
There was a UN weapons inspector named Ritter that explained that the Bush WMD narrative was total bullshit in the lead up to the war.
Don't forget that Obama came for your guns, put you in front of death panels when you got sick and moved a homeless Muslim into your basement before handing the keys to the country over to Kenya.
Greenwald is correct, and thus the question becomes, who benefits most from delegitimizing the election process? If you guessed it's those who seek to "fundamentally transform the United States of America" into a Marxist/ socialist state controlled by globalist oligarchs who disdain the very concept of the nation state itself, go to the head of the class.
lol. marxist? have you ever read book? the US is a Neoliberal (extreme libertarian) bastion. that is without question. TRILLION at the drop of a hat, for wall st billionaires, corporations that already pay NO TAXES, no concerns ever for "how you going to pay for that", which was a repeat of the bush - obama trillions in 08. shinola for the people. it is conservatively estimated that there is more than $50 trillion stashed in offshore accounts. and yet, these billionaires are ALWAYS the first to receive TRILLIONS in government handouts. and you're worried about marx?
this is a danish (vpro) documentary. you should take a frew and expose yourself to something other hannity and limp bag
https://youtu.be/np_ylvc8Zj8
Communists/Socialists like Castro, Chavez, Maduro, CCP and Soviet elites had no qualms in amassing stunning great wealth while leaving their citizens impoverished. The difference between the two systems is that Left provides no benefits to the masses while the Right does provide some benefits. On the right, money might get skimmed off but the infrastructure does get built. For a present day example of the left, look to California's bullet train boondoggle or NYC's $1B Thrive scam. You cannot deny that the best golden age of technical innovation in the US was done under a more conservative society decades ago. It had a more can do mentality, now there are never solutions to problems because the bureaucracy needs to maintain itself and, in fact, expand itself by creating more "problems". Notice that organizations like the ACLU and SPLC who did great work in the past are now shells of themselves, corrupted and devolved to grifting. New organizations like BLM go straight to the grifting part.
you cant be serious? do you actually believe what you wrote? good luck. you might want to get your dosage checked though.
Great argument XBarbarian
thank you <3
You pull the typical straw man "[Scadanavia] out of the hat" trick all left dreamer idealists try to scam others by, while never noting the Norse have been communal for millennia while the rest of the world -- with the possible of exception of ultra-disciplined Japanese nationalists -- are tight (to some degree) family capitalists not inclined to share much beyond family (of varying extension).
Although kat100 and others greatly overstate it, the socialist and many semi-socialist systems typically crash and burn while they become ever more draconian. That's because they are stratospheric ideals just sounding lovely but don't work far down in the dust of the real world of non-ideal people. They decay because their economies are typically drained and consumed, while most workers get away with doing no more than they must because the system doesn't strive for a profit. Then the "whips" come out to force them to produce more, and often on to prisons if the whips don't work. Of course you will say capitalism has whips, but they aren't almost literal as in socialism and the workers have other places to there but socialism has only one employer, or drains the others.
Capitalism may not be a "better" system but it works better because it forces most of the very non-ideal people, including the little greedy capitalist workers if not the big elite greedy capitalist owners, to put in more than they take out. That is a requirement for any economic system to survive because not everyone can contribute enough to cover themselves so the rest must cover for them and extra beyond that for social and technical progress.
Socialism fails everywhere except with special people like the Norse with a very long tradition of cooperation and commity spirit. That might fade more now that they foolishly invited in, before they learned better and slammed their borders shut, opposite cultures.
Also, in capitalism the big elite greedy capitalists typically reinvest most of what they skim to make more profit and that advances at least the economy. Many are also inclined, if only from quilt or "bragging rights," to be philanthropists.
Too often socialist leaders drain so much or more (for their own families) and none goes back into the economy. So goes stratospheric dream economic systems when jammed in far down below in the mud on earth.
"You cannot deny that the best golden age of technical innovation in the US was done under a more conservative society decades ago. It had a more can do mentality, now there are never solutions to problems because the bureaucracy needs to maintain itself and, in fact, expand itself by creating more "problems".
Yes, I can and will deny that. When Trump says "Make America Great Again", which years do you think he's referring to? I would guess the 40s, 50s and 60s. Do you know what those years had in common? That's when most of the technological breakthroughs and achievements that were the foundation for the ones today were achieved. That's also when the tax code was MUCH more progressive, the social safety net was MUCH stronger, and there was a sense of national unity. Trump stands for literally the exact opposite of every single one of those things. Back then Bernie Sanders would have been considered a centrist Democrat.
This all very scrambled and incoherent.
The industrial revolution was in the 1800s.
There was increasing technological innovation for at least 500 years before that, which was partly as a result of genetic changes in the NW European gene pool that selected for "liberal" personality traits.
A tipping point from mythic-communion values to modern-rationalism happened around 1492, and became settled in by the late 1700s.
Modernism had two "sides".
One was political centralization into colonial-imperial powers (Spanish empire)
The other was medieval "liberalism" (of which the British Parliamentary system and US Constitution are the remnants), which was technically pre-modern in its origins, but adapted to modern Enlightenment conditions, values and ideas.
The "golden age" was liberal and tolerant, not leftist.
The left is intolerant and illiberal.
Some other factors include more public-private partnerships enabling long-term and/or risky r&d and more competitive markets, less corporate consolidation.
Can't emphasize that last point enough. There was a lot more competition between firms which not only spurred technological and productivity gains, but also improved labor bargaining power.
I'll vote for a democratic socialist every chance I get. The biggest problem the Left is faced with today is the fear of being labelled a socialist. O my, cringe!!! Puhleeze. Your facts are not facts btw so much as they are featured details of a much bigger picture that you apparently can't see. Try stepping back a little further. That may help. Meanwhile, every time you hear 'failed socialism' please remember to add 'due to interference and hostility from a threatened capitalism.'
Socialism is already in play all across the world in places where people have safety nets, health care, education and freedom of creativity. Its results beat the hell out of what capitalism has to offer (work as a slave for 40+ years and die in poverty).
1. the irony is that, as per Marx, socialism can't exist without capitalism
capitalism co-emerged with modern rationalism in cultural evolution as the next stage of psychological development after medieval-mythic culture.
to get rid of capitalism you have to also get rid of modern-rationalism, a process that ALWAYS results into regression to tribal warfare and authoritarianism.
2. the biggest problem the left has is that it is morphing into Rainbow Totalitarianism: postmodern deconstructive nihilism (neomarxism, cultural marxism, neoStalinism, neoMaoism).
I believe (from an about 45 year old memory) Marx referred to a continuum from feudalism, to bourgeois capitalism, to socialism (I think), to communist "dictatorship of the proletariat," then the "withering away of the state" bringing in anarchic communism nirvana.
I also believe he claimed that progression was natural and inevitable.
The older socialist systems have crashed and burned and newer ones are ever more bled by all large and small "greedy capitalist" citizens taking out more than they put in. Stratospheric ideal economic systems cannot survive indefinitely far down on earth with non-ideal people (nearly all of them) draining them.
The elite greedy capitalists at least put most of what they skim back in to get more gains. Little also "greedy capitalist" citizens and leaders drain and consume socialist economies. Our semi-socialist one is being drained for the socialist programs (70% of the federal budget). All governments together here confiscate about a third of the county's total income ($21 trillion per year).
Ahh...an avid consumer of Voice of America pablum.
Libertarians don't promote or endorse corporate socialism any more than they do individual socialism. I'm not denying that the USA is a corrupt oligarchy but the idea of blaming people who poll consistently about .12% is ... well, it's kind of tangential at best.
wait, what? I never accused libertarian friends of promoting anything. I pointed out the simple fact, that the US is not "too left". it is, by definition, neoliberal, which is simply a newer way to describe ayn rand like, libertarianism. privatization of everything. as if the rise of new feudal lords and kings would be somehow better than government tyranny. we had a revolution to escape kings, yet today, we have already recreated them.
neo-definitions aside, there's nothing liberal about stealing trillions from the poor and middle class to give to the rich. Not in any sense.
exactly
Who does that, the government? So do you think if you get a "good daddy," instead of the "bad daddy," that will change? Do you know the "big brothers/sisters" in the House determine what's bled from whom and the whole congress determines where it's squandered? The president only gets to say yes or no and can be overridden by congress.
What I think is that a corrupt culture produces corrupt politicians who further corrupt the culture, in a downward spiral of disaster. The US appears to be past the point of no return.
No, sorry. You need to look farther than next-door (the real one). The country is populist or progressive mostly now (progressive with the coastal ivory tower elite and populist with the hinterlands down-to-earth people).
Socialists are reproducing rapidly from K-college indoctrination now and will be taking over in a few generations. They will crash and burn this country as they have everywhere they jam their fairy tale ideals down the throats of a world full of non-ideal people.
My libertarianism is another stratospheric ivory tower fairy tale ideal unsuitable for the non-ideal people far down in the dust of the earth's surface. I only fight for it to retain some freedom from the tyrants, like socialists or worse, who must force everyone to adhere to their "beautiful, dream society," of course just for the good of the people they will dominate.
Anti-federalists demanded our Bill of Rights, including our right to military weapons (yes it specifically does!) to keep Federalist bankers, merchants, and lawyers, controlling the federal government then and now, from oppressing and exploiting all of us. Those weapons can also serve to stop socialist tyrants too.
"Socialists are reproducing rapidly from K-college indoctrination now and will be taking over in a few generations. They will crash and burn this country as they have everywhere they jam their fairy tale ideals down the throats of a world full of non-ideal people."
What a laughable mess that is. Could you go into exactly what curricula in the K-12 part of public education is indoctrinating kids into becoming, well, what exactly? You can't even be specific. What is being indoctrinated, and how, in your own words? I need legitimate examples.
Read Howard Zinn's "A people's history ... ", which is widely used in schools and colleges to find out how that is happening. Or the "1619 Project", widely used by a number of school systems to indoctrinate against the U.S.
See Wilfred Reilly's book on Race Hoaxes for a start
or newdiscourses.com
Listen to the rhetoric from students coming out of public schools today then compare it to the rhetoric from their left wing bigoted teachers, and from the teachers' left wing bigoted professors at the teachers' colleges.
"Neoliberal" does not mean libertarian. Libertarian is at the right wing (least amount) of government control, liberal is in the middle, and socialist/communist on the left wing.
Every one of the items you state is anti-libertarian. "Wall St billionaires" are overwhelmingly Democrats and hence opposed to libertarian policies: Michael Bloomberg, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, all of the "Silicon Valley" billionaires, Tom Steyer, ... .
The 2017 Tax Reform law greatly reduced the amount of money in offshore accounts. It also INCREASED the amount of federal income tax paid by the wealthy, due to the $10,000 limit placed on deduction of state and local taxes (SALT deduction). Households in the middle income range (median $60,000) saved an average of more than $1000 in federal taxes each year, while most of those with $1 million incomes and up paid more in income taxes.
Also, you forgot that corporations pay out their profits to shareholders, and the biggest beneficiaries of the increased dividends by far are government employees, especially teachers, whose pensions are underfunded. The Tax Reform Law decreased the top tax rate for corporations to the average rate of developed countries, allowing for larger dividends into pension funds. So these non-billionaires were big beneficiaries.
There is more that can be said, but please don't ever say that any of the policies you mention are libertarian.
your lack of understanding and knowledge of history is disturbing.
Sir, I can't find anything in my comments that relates to history. It is all about economics. I may or may not know about history, but that is not relevant to my comment!
Saying that the far right stands for the least amount of government control tells us that you have no idea about world history.
You're also doing a bad job of spinning the Republican tax cuts as though they were favorable to regular people rather than the filthy rich who were already committing crimes by dodging taxes. https://aflcio.org/2017/4/24/trumps-tax-plan-massive-giveaway-wealthy-few
Thank you for pointing to a reliable, totally non-partisan source of information!
If you think neoliberism is a political ideology then you don't know anything about economics, either. Neoliberal economics is exactly what a true-blue Libertarian embraces, as do both legacy major parties. They have done for most of their histories, although it wasn't formalized as policy until the 1970s when they adopted Friedman et al.
"Libertarian is at the right wing (least amount) of government control, liberal is in the middle, and socialist/communist on the left wing."
LOL - If you think that the "right wing" stands for least amount of government control, then you need to take a remedial world history course or something. That's just laughable. Are you saying that Hitler was all about giving up government control, then? (cue up the inevitable easy to debunk nonsense that the Nazis were SOSHULIST!! iT'S In thEir NaMe!!)
Hitler was not "right wing" He did not stand for any right wing policies. He never said "Our government is spending too much money, and I will cut the budget by 25% in five years." or "Our military is too big and I will cut the size by one third in five years." or "Our economists are too much in favor of government control over everything and so I am asking Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek to set our policies." Of course, he said and did the exact opposites. And I have plenty of first-hand knowledge of Germany history, since my parents grew up there, came to the US in the 1930s, and had many contacts with German leaders after the war.
Of course Hitler was right wing and "far right." The right wing in terms of government is widely accepted as totalitarian, authoritarian, nationalistic, anti-communist/anti-socialist, and believing in a sort of social darwinism and natural law where society is stratified into a "rightful order" according to varying traits or membership in certain ethnic or economic groups. You're confusing "right wing" in the sense in which it applies to Hitler with a much more modern definition of "right wing" laissez faire economics. NOBODY was asking Freidrich Hayek about monetary policies until the mid 1960s. The Nazi economy was anti-laissez faire capitalism, and against global free markets, but contained elements of both and was mostly corporatist. You're talking about the so-called "new right" which wasn't even a thing during the time the Nazis controlled Germany.
Again, look up the Hatemi research scandal about "psychoticism".
The genetic evidence is that the "left" is inherently authoritarian.
Also see Jonathon Haidt's work on moral politics: the left is morally imbalanced in comparison to traditional "conservative" religious culture.
Both fascists and communists were/are opposed to liberalism.
Both fascists and communists were/are opposed to "alter and crown" conservatism.
Both fascism and communism are rooted in the historical anxiety over the "death of god" (Nietzsche) and loss of social order.
How interesting! The National Socialist German Workers Party was NOT SOCIALIST! EVERY left-wing government has insisted on strong control of everything the people might do.
The Soviet Union was doing exactly what the Nazis were doing. "Stratified into a 'rightful order'": totally Soviet policy. Kulaks, anyone?
Fascism was regression to (premodern) tribal-nationalist hero myth
Fascism was a revolution against both the "left" (liberalism) and the "right" (alter and crown)
The core archetype of fascism has little or nothing to do with historical reality of "left" or "right" (French National Assembly, 1789)
The right wing is not "the least amount oaf government." They have long been "law and order" advocates. Their tradition is also for protected markets not free markets.
Libertarians are the true liberals (long defined by free markets and individual autonomy). I hope you aren't one of the farther left progressives or socialists who try to bounce long held liberal moderate left philosophies over to the right just because you want to steal the word liberal you like better than the label belonging to you.
"I hope you aren't one of the farther left progressives or socialists who try to bounce long held liberal moderate left philosophies over to the right just because you want to steal the word liberal you like better than the label belonging to you."
Please expound and name some of these philosophies that you believe are being ascribed to the right by these "farther left progressives" and "socialists."
They are the original liberal philosophies of free markets and individual autonomy. Apparently the Orwellian "new speakers" have redefined these as either "classic liberal" or "neoliberal," ironically mutually exclusive terms.
However that doesn't seem to bother them while they transplant progressive policies into the word "liberal" only because, I believe, they prefer the sound of that word to the one, progressive, that actually belongs to them.
I don't think right middle or left wing are good analogies for economics, voting patterns or levels of govt. control. They are much abused monikers that conflate too many single issue positions. For example, Schwarzenegger was a Republican Gov of CA. What does that mean? Is he left wing? Right wing? On what? A Republican in CA is a Democrat in Georgia. Until they get enough pork barrel to sway their party line vote ("you get 3 bridges and shovel ready jobs if you vote on drone strikes").
Maybe, maybe not. They are just groupings for similar attitudes. One of the problems, mostly from the left, is relegating what they don't like and elevating what they do like, regardless of the presence, or not, of common attitudes or values.
The right does it some also but not to the degree of the more emoting, less reasoning left. You could say the right is "colder" but that's OK with me. I prefer cold reasoning to irrational emoting. That's why I see the right as a (very) little less unacceptable than the left.
re: Beans 'n' Wienies
George Lakoff's model of cognitive-linguistic framing is useful in making crucial distinctions.
Traditional mythic culture is based on the Strict-father model (hierarchy), originally clans, and low social trust. As modern, democratic culture evolved, the Strict-father model was dragged screaming and kicking along and it had to adapt to (be integrated into) high social trust culture (post-clan nation state govt), not all that happily.
Modern liberalism-progressivism is based on the Nurturing Mommy model. Literally the nanny state. High social trust.
Low social trust cultures genetically map into particular populations of origin in Europe, such as Celts, English Border Reivers, Slavs and Romans.
High social trust culture maps into Frankish (western German, Dutch, N. French, and including Anglo-Saxon) gene pools.
Frankish culture was more successful because of a broad range of innovations in tech, weapons, economics, and govt structures (liberal Constitutionalism).
The non-Frankish cultures were generally subsumed into the Frankish system, in some cases very violently via civil wars (English Civil War, Cromwellian horrors).
The USA is based on that system, Celts and other non-Frankish cultures of origin are subservient and when they got uppity, they were brutally crushed back into subservience to the liberal order (US Civil War).
The current failure of the USA system is that "liberals" have become lazy, stupid and spineless, unwilling to do the dirty work of brutally crushing the rebellions of (1) cultural illiberals, such as intolerant neomarxist vermin ("leftists") and (2) the Trumpist-Celt barbarians that are storming the gates of the crumbling imperial city (DC).
Your historic rendition seems roughly accurate for the most part as parallel to what might have happened. The problem with history texts and claims is a lot of it isn't. The farther back you go the worse that is. When you examine who commissioned historical renditions you can see why it shows what it does.
That is even worse now. Look at how history is being revised at this moment. Orwellian "new speakers," who have already switched the traditional standard political red and blue designations, along with many other "corrected" labels, are now "cancelling" prior US honored philosophers and contributors while installing more "politically correct" ones.
We can't legitimately, in a democratic republic, eject people supported by votes unless they are/become criminals violating even more blatantly than they do now the laws (the Constitution and Bill of Rights) they must obey. When they do we should invoke the Second Amendment intended exactly for the purpose -- yes it was according to the people authoring and demanding it for protection against the Constitutional, particularly federal, powers -- of arresting those criminals in our government.
Only we citizens have an interest in policing our government. All governments always want citizens to shut up and pay whatever taxes they want to drain from us while we sit quietly sucking our thumbs as they have finally conditioned many of us to do now.
The US Constitution and the preceding documents in anglo-american law (British Parliamentary system, Magna Carta and other "liberal" foundational legal documents across Europe such provided for medieval Fueros, Communas, Cortes, etc.) don't define what to do in the case of Civil Wars (as far as I know).
The US Constitution does attempt to ban "insurrection" and so forth (to the dismay of 2A kooks, "militias" are not allowed outside the political establishment), but there is no legal process for stopping wars once the national unity myth dis-integrates and massive economic and techno disruption sets in.
Thus for the survival of the cultural foundation that the Constitution is built on, during a Civil War, the rule of law is variously suspended in order to cut out the diseased social tissue tissue and throw it in a vat of battery acid.
So, in the 1600s, Cromwell (liberal Parliamentarian) smashed the Border Reivers and the backward elements in the British Nobility, and subjugated the Celts.
The American Revolutionary war was a repeat of those conflicts.
The US Civil War was a repeat of those conflicts.
So what basic historical facts tell us is that (Classical) Liberal social order (Constitutional law, market economic systems, etc.) can only be maintained by a process of brutal, ruthless subjugation of the backward, unevolved gene pools and ideologies that seek to destroy liberal order.
Other systems (mostly utopian nonsense) have of course been proposed that might or might not make sense, but they are not as well proven under real historical conditions over 400 years.
I meant to claim: "... arresting those criminals in government [when they attack us for rejecting their crimes against us]."
Neomarxism, cultural marxism/leftism (critical race theory, etc) is directly descended from classical marxism.
1. classical marxism sought to destroy capitalism via international class revolution. when that failed:
2. neomarxism seeks to infect the corporate-state with managerial intellectual rot such as identity politics, radical feminism (to destroy the nuclear family), critical race theory, "diversity" narratives, victim narratives, and postmodern deconstructive nihilism.
you are either incredibly ignorant, or you are a troll
in either case you have not fvcking idea what you are talking about
BTW, your avatar looks completely retarded, trollish
JFC that this comment got 38 "likes" is a sad indication of where the average American's intellect is in 2020. Do you think Joe Biden will convert America into a "Marxist/socialist state" and on top of that one somehow controlled by (capitalist) oligarchs? There's a reason that the DNC screwed Bernie Sanders TWICE - wanna know it? The Democrats would rather see Trump win another 4 years than for anything remotely resembling socialism (much less Marxism - that's laughable) implemented in the USA.
It is an indication that there are people that see through the ignorant leftists narratives that you and low IQ imbeciles like "Art" mindlessly spout.
Leftist cultural totalitarianism is perfectly compatible with the agenda of the corporate-state, specifically with neomarxist/cultural marxist "woke" cancel culture zombies.
As Eric Weinstein's wife told him, it is very simple:
1. corporations can cheaply pay some shitty diversity consults off to try to brainwash their workers off with discredited and debunked ideas such as critical race theory, implicit bias, white privilege, etc. (while hiring cheap foreign labor that work 80 hours/week), or
2. corporations can negotiate in good faith with citizen workers for decent wages, benefits and working conditions, which would cost vastly more.
The "left" is now elite-managerial, arrogant, smug, totalitarian, professional and corporate.
AS INTENDED
Ah, come on "e." Art is neither an "imbecile" nor a Moron." Please stop that. I don't agree with many of his philosophies either but that doesn't mean they are "wrong." I believe they can't work in the real world, but neither can my favorite also ivory tower ones.
Did he reply to your critique of that egregiously shitty history article? I don't see anything. His intellectual incompetence is appalling (Dunning-Krugar).
He is obsessed on one narrative, and is incapable of seeing anything else. His comments on practical issues like IT stuff are mundane and obvious.
Go back and look at all of his cowardly bullying and the ridiculous insults he has made, and then find out how many times:
1. he was completely wrong, and
2. how many times he apologized for his ridiculously stupid insults
My guess:
1) 95%
2) 5% or less
I suspected some personal grudge. Please let that go too. You don't need to war over words. You should see by now it isn't changing anything.
I wasn't bitter but I was annoyed enough to give repetitive sarcastic "back hands" but I shouldn't have done even that. I noted it didn't do anybody any good and it made them worse not better.
Fact: "Art" repeated posted slime and sleaze that was grossly stupidity at a profound level, over and over.
Again, you exposed that "Art" as a gross intellectual incompetent.
Here is what actually happened:
When confronted with unvarnished truth, most of the leftist vermin will scurry away like the cockroaches they are, hiding in dark corners, enjoying their lunches of garbage and toilet bowl leftist ideology within their irrelevant little bubbles of ingrown protest subculture.
I've been around these kinds of nitwits since the 1960s, they are easy to spot, their smugness and arrogance is just a cover for their mental illnesses and/or cognitive incompetence. Many are literally brain damaged, autistic, drug addicted, etc.
Their cowardly, idiotic, regressive antics, blabberings and blubberings are a great disservice to the few partial truths and insights of the left (such as critiques of mythic ideology and the limits of capitalism and rationalism).
Eric Weinstein's wife, Pia Malaney:
https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/mortality-crisis-redux-the-economics-of-despair
"JFC that this comment got 38 "likes" is a sad indication of where the average American's intellect is in 2020."
Actually, it's an indication that there are at least 38 right-wingers commenting here who are major propaganda victims and / or who are used to pile-on Fox News / breitbart style.
It doesn't say much of anything about the "average American's intellect," though do of course note that an IQ of 100 is defined as median intellect.... Draw from that what inferences you will.
you are a toxic, ignorant, brainwashed imbecile
The USA is an inverted totalitarian state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Yes, and it has both a left and a right wing
Th left wing are the coastal, professional, cosmopolitan, managerial-elites, neomarxists
HUH?
Also, please expound - if you are calling BLM "marxists" you should read their page first. Literally every plank in their so-called platform relates to the relationship between blacks and the POLICE state. Nothing marxist at all nor do they claim to be. You're confusing them with fringe elements who call themselves marxists and join these protests, but who have no idea what marxism really is. Either way, conflating BLM with marxism/socialism is misrepresenting the movement in its 'official' capacity.
Too late. It's already an inverted totalitarian corporatist state.
That’d be the corporate world.
The media loves the prolonged chaos. The punditry and professional on air teleprompter readers are in heaven. Every click on their sensationalist websites is $.
I’m a conservative (vote libertarian and GOP usually) and am sharing Greenwald’s blog with my buddies. Truth doesn’t have a party or stripe. It’s hard to find good journalism.
I pray to the Lord that Americans will value truth and justice over party. That they will concern themselves with serving others more than themselves and in the process serve our Lord. Politics is fleeting, your soul’s fate is eternal.
Best wishes,
Frank
Agree. I just wrote to Fox News on the contact page that their gleeful reporting of various scenarios this morning is unwelcome. But all of the media people seem to love the chance to insert themselves into the process right now. Nobody cares about any more analysis or opinions from the media. We all just want to know who won. I think we all just want to see this entire travesty end as soon as possible. If the media and the elites didn’t already know that Trump probably won, they wouldn’t have halted everything in the middle of the night but rather orgasmically announced Biden won already.
...and as of Nov 7 - there is no new 'President-Elect' as much as FOX and the other media outlets insist. Votes are still being counted and recounted.
After reading all that it looks to me like one would have to be deranged to not be a conspiracy theorist. My current best theory is that the powers that be want to set Americans against each other and this is just another method they have chosen.
#CorruptionExplainsConspiracy - Corruption today is so plainly EVIDENT, so widespread, there is little debate. Powerful forces naturally, and predictably, share common incentives to collaborate with one another to accomplish shared interests, even when outwardly, they would appear to be in opposition. Conspiracy MUST be anticipated, not mocked.
I am inclined to suspect that it was nurtured and shepherded through the system, with intent. I have not researched that. but given the inputs brought out by Senator S. Whitehouse in the Barrett confirmation regarding Federalist Society, etc dark money pools, sponsored briefs, etc. i would tend to imagine so, yes. watch Senator Whitehouse's testimony. https://www.c-span.org/video/?476316-4/barrett-confirmation-hearing-day-2-part-2
Soros?
Would you like to share with us what you think Soros might have or could have done to contribute to the US election mess? Please also tell us what his goal might have been for doing so.
The goal is to undermine the US as the global hegemon and institute a globalist political authority that every country is subject to. Soros contributed to the election mess by 1) funding the open borders movement to swamp the US with non-citizens that throw off the census so that blue states get a greater % of representation in the congress (and electoral college) and 2) funding hundreds of candidates nationwide who otherwise would not be able to afford to run for office because nobody agrees with them.
In short, Soros is funding the anti-Nationalist movement throughout the anglophone world.
Of course there are more things attributable to Soros but those are the main ones people like to talk about on in the conspiracy chans. If you don’t believe those two points, you probably aren’t going to be persuaded by the evidence that he is the supreme wizard of an inter dimensional satanic cult of pedophiles who wants to enslave white children and sell them as sex slaves in Dubai either. LOL.
Thanks, that helps a lot. Do you happen to know who *is* in charge of those satanic pedophiles in the Gulf?
Well obviously it’s ancient Sumerian monarchs who were really aliens. DUH. It’s like you have never even looked at YouTube Recommended Videos before. :)
A good laugh this morning was much needed and appreciated.
Frank Chu already explained this in his protest signs over and over and over.
12 Galaxies vs One Billion Galaxies, focus on the populations!
https://s.hdnux.com/photos/30/66/36/6514589/3/950x0.jpg
they are spoon fed "soros" boogeyman narratives, but willfully ignore, Kock bros, Adelson, etc.
In the end, soros, kock bros, etc, share martinis and laughs, in the Hamptons. these billionaires care little about political ideology, their shared primary goal: Economic Control.
The Koch brothers just want to undermine the minimum wage but other than that they are full-on right wing capitalists. I think that’s why nobody gets all that upset by their shenanigans.
oh, you know their minds? share martinis with them? lolwut?
I heard that David has stopped drinking.
Soros wants the Hillary zombies to resume their anti-Russia narrative
LeftCarthyism
The 1950s are back, baby!
Gee, don't you think permitting another Trump victory would have done that more than adequately? And been easier and cheaper?
Not sure what you are getting at.
The anti-Russia narrative can be weaponized for domestic political purposes either from a D party administration (Bosnian war), or when the D party not in power in the executive branch (faux Impeachment).
LeftCarthyism can be used when the D party neolibs are in control of the White House or when not in control.
Assuming that Biden wins and is able to take office, the Soros sponsored anti-Russia hysteria will become "official" by definition and the CIA can go back to bugging the computers of Senate committees, etc.
There will be a tremendous flood of Clinton-Obama foreign policy vermin, rats, and cockroaches that will re-invade the Imperial City (DC)
2020 is the definite year that the US state with help from the media, social media worked to subvert/brainwash a huge majority of the population, its methods and players naked for all to see.
What has happened is beyond Orwellian. Here are the undisputed facts:
- the media has been ramping up anti-Trump hysteria for more than 4 years chief among them Russiagate which was not only unsubstantiated when it was first reported but has subsequently been thoroughly debunked with various participants in stoking Russiagate outed from the shadows over the past year.
- the media has consistently portrayed Trump as “authoritarian” though by any neutral measure the Governors of Dem states have shown to be more authoritarian than Trump who actually gave them a lot of power to decide on how to handle COVID-19 as well as not pulled triggers available to him as POTUS to order the National Guard in against violence in Dem controlled states
- the media alternately suppressed the undisputed Hunter Biden emails and peddled the unsubstantiated lie that they were part of Russian Disinfo. While there are still many questions about the implications of the contents of the emails/photos from personal wrongdoings to illegal activities to corruption by a POTUS candidates, as big a scandal is the media role in protecting Biden.
- the media has been spectacularly wrong about the polling in key states
So to expect the media to report on any Dem irregularities - all the disputed states are Democratic held and Georgia is held by a RINO - is too much to ask.
What has happened is the kind of regime change that the US state has engineered worldwide: media disinformation, demonization, election interference. Except this time the target was a sitting POTUS.
lol. you start with accurately pointing out the brainwashing in the US.. but then characterize all corruption as "libs". lmao. thanks for playing.
I notice that people who use “lol” “lmao” etc are generally illiterate and poor with basic logic and other educational skills and so it proves with your comment.
I literally did not mention “libs” or that all corruption is by “libs”.
The biggest trick that has been perpetrated in the insular jungle that is the US is that there are only two versions of truth: the “libs” or “conservatives”. Ergo you are for one of the other.
The far deeper battle is between the power structure of the elites - both “libs” and “conservatives” - emanating out of DC along with servile media and the vast funding by Big Tech and the bulk of Americans outside this bubble.
The elites are only two happy to play “libs” vs “conservatives” while shielding their corruption from the masses.
While Trump is personally an odious braggart and narcissist, he was the first politician since Obama in 2008 to tap into the deep seated discomfort the masses have for the elites who rule them. Obama in 2008 beat Clinton and McCain, a “lib” and a “conservatives” but in truth part of the same DC-based corruption.
Obama got corrupted and ended up trying to cement his “legacy” by promoting Clinton and now Biden - two of the most corrupt elites in the last few decades. (If the media did its job instead of play favorites the corruption of these two people would be far clearer than now).
Part of the damage down by Clintonites and other neoliberals is that paleo-liberalism - the one that believed in non violence/anti-war, rationalism, free speech, compassion etc - has been subsumed by irrational, dumbed down, censorious, righteous-anger promoting cult-like behavior formerly associated with conservatism.
And so it goes.
RE: lol - come on, that's nonsense. Everyone uses it.
You lose the scent when you say "Obama got corrupted..." as though it happened AFTER he was elected President. That's absolutely not true. Go back and find some of Glenn Greenwald's work when he was at UT and Salon regarding the fact that Obama had ALREADY been corrupted when he was a Senator (with Presidential ambitions). He flip flopped on telecom immunity and refused to ever put single payer healthcare on the table. His corruption was cemented with "We will look forward, not backward" in refusing to INVESTIGATE Bush/Cheney era war crimes. Obama was already owned by TPTB from the moment he stepped into the Oval Office.
When I read a troll post with Lol, Lmao versus any attempt to serious rebut a commentary - as you attempted to do for example - I usually find these people have nothing much of note to add. So I disagree with your assessment about it being “nonsense”.
Re Obama being corrupt even before he stepped into office: yes he was already signalling various compromises he would make with DC like agreeing not to prosecute Bush/Cheney and having a corrupt insider like Biden as his VP. OTH, as Greenwald/Chomsky have also pointed out, by any uniform standards applied to any other country, Obama - like every POTUS - is also responsible for warcrimes: that comes with the office. What was done to Libya, the various regime change operations worldwide etc under Obama that he either instigated or tolerated would fall under that.
But my point was that Obama was seen by many as at least an anti-dote to the deep corruption of DC regardless of party. And Trump - hardly someone I’d personally praise as an individual - was also seen as someone fighting against the DC-based corruption (which Obama’s people called the Blob and Trump called the Swamp)
TR0LL. SMUG. GLIB. ASSHOLE
Come on now, where is your sense of humor? You take yourself way to seriously. Do you really want to outdo Glenn in his worst Twitter outbursts?
I rarely look at at twitter, so I don't know anything about that.
These kinds of Sockpuppet/troll accounts tend to completely toxify Substack discussions and drive off intelligent discussion, at least this makes them pay a price for their bullshit.
If you want to see something funny about left wing protest subcultures, there are a bunch of Frank Chu videos on YouTube. I usually post those toward the end of the counter-troll script, after the trolls have exposed themselves as being either psycho or a paid external agent.
https://s.hdnux.com/photos/30/66/36/6514589/3/950x0.jpg
I would add that a significant number of observers believe the press and the campaign is hiding cognitive decline. Most of us probably would not be a bit surprised to see Kamala inform us in the spring of 2021 (assuming a Biden win) that, unfortunately, devastating and unforeseen cognitive difficulties require her to 25th (or whatever it is) Poor President Joe.
Last I checked, the cognitive decline was first pointed out by the press...and then hushed up once the Biden coalition was formed.
re: Queen of the War Mongers (Hillary) vs "Russian Asset" (Tulsi)
There is a very old pattern of the D party establishment (now neolibs) seducing the "far left" (Bernie, suburban socialists, cancel culture creeps, etc.) during the primaries and then stabbing them in the back during the general election campaign.
In the case that the D party establishment wins an election and gains office, they continue to spout "leftist" rhetoric while stabbing the "far left" in the back behind closed doors.
As a point of comparison, FDR had actual communists (or close) in his first Cabinet.
"So to expect the media to report on any Dem irregularities - all the disputed states are Democratic held and Georgia is held by a RINO - is too much to ask."
So in other words the same thing but reversed from 2000?
The media did its part to smear and slander Al Gore for about 2 years leading up to that race as well, and the Republican party successfully used the courts to overturn a loss along 5-4 party lines, but with god awful judicial logic from the majority side.
This isn't something new is my point. The Democrats have allowed themselves to be subsumed or completely taken over by the neocons, the "intelligence" community and their mass media megaphones, just like the Republicans did back in 1999. What happened to "compassionate conservative" (Bush's 'brand' going in)? What happened to "hope and change" (Oblamblam's 'brand') and what happened to "make america great again" (Trump)? In literally every instance we got the OPPOSITE.
Speaking of those emails, is there a good unbiased source where I can read them online? I can't decide what to make of them, and my views on that kind of built-in corruption are jaded. Everyone does it, even Trump. https://yasha.substack.com/p/yes-hunter-biden-is-corrupt-its-one?
I woke up this morning to the reality that there is no media source I can go to for a quick, unbiased, non-moronic, overview of where we stand in the election. The sources I trust (such as Glenn) either do not have the resources to have meaningful analysis at the moment or it’s not really in their main areas of reporting to facilitate them quickly producing a substantive report. What does that tell us about the U.S.?
It reminds me of when the last (or one of “the last”) reports on Russiagate came out: the MSM had “analysis” of what was in the report within hours all the while telling the reader the report was a thousand pages long so the reader should trust their outstanding speed reading skills! Four days later Aaron Mate reports on it with the caveat that it’s a thousand pages long so he still hasn’t been able to fully digest it, yet he could provide key points for his listener/reader to check for themselves unlike the mainstream repeaters who’s substance could be predicted before reading what they said - or even before the report was released.
This comment should be amplified to the moon. I too have wished all morning that there was any website with accurate, non-biased information reporting on the results. I don't even trust 538 anymore. Fox, CNN, NYT... all compromised beyond any credibility. Seems like they are giving all of their star reporters a chance to chime in with dramatic monologues so that when the documentary comes out everyone has a speaking role. Everything just seems completely manipulated.
"so that when the documentary comes out everyone has a speaking role". lolololllllololololol
"I woke up this morning to the reality that there is no media source I can go to for a quick, unbiased, non-moronic, overview of where we stand in the election."
Me too. I've asked friends and so far, nada.
If anyone has a good source, please post it!
I have not watched their election coverage, but NewsNation (WGN Chicago) is advertising themselves as an old school national news program.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/2020-election-results/
It's simple. History show that the United States of America, that pretends to "spread democracy" to the rest of the world (apparently supporting oppressive dictatorships counts as "spreading democracy") does not know, and never has known, how to hold an election. I live abroad, and where I live there is never any problem in holding an election. Ballot boxes are not stuffed. We never discover thousands of ballots in a trash dumpster. Only people who are alive get to vote, but live people are never allowed to vote more than once in the same election. Every legal resident (and we must register our legal residence) aged 18 or older is automatically registered to vote and notified of the appropriate polling place. There is rarely a wait of more than 15 minutes to vote at a polling place. One may vote early, but only by going to the designated polling place. It's virtually impossible to invalidate a ballot unless it is deliberately made invalid by the voter (for example, by leaving it empty or writing in someone not on the official ballot.) Results are known within a few hours of the closing of the polling places. I daresay that what I have just described has never happened in, say, Chicago, and rarely in any machine-run city (which is most of the big cities in the USA). Perhaps a few states can approach this kind of performance, but apparently not most of them. But I find it likely that late reporting is almost always associated with nefarious vote juggling. Counting votes is not rocket science—obviously, since Americans are reasonably good at rocket science, but hopeless at running an election. Is that a "national disgrace"? Yes.
This is one reason why the US cannot get rid of the Electoral College. The voting process is too corrupted in many states, we can't trust them. We should have a standardized system across the US to ensure voter data integrity. Ballot harvesting shouldn't be allowed by partisan hacks. This isn't rocket science but parties are wedded, for whatever reason, to want the option of manipulation.
Agree. If you combine the fact that elections are rigged to be confusing, the media lies to promote a particular candidate, and the US will support pretty much any dictator worldwide that agrees to allow Military bases on their territory and the moral authority of the US government to lecture any country about anything is completely undermined. We really do have a government that is imposing an arbitrary foreign power on every other country and we can’t even run an election or report a fact accurately in the news.
The Republic is dead. Both sides needs to find leaders who can help us dissolve this disgraced “Union” and then we can all vote with our feet to live in the new countries that emerge whose values we can agree with. We can avoid the civil war and just agree that this nation is fractured beyond repair. The oligarchs have thwarted the clear will of the people.
Your statement agrees fully with the policies of President Trump. He has strongly opposed dictators and supported freedom around the world.
He is the first President who was educated about Communist China before taking office, and he has repeatedly called them out on their suppression of freedom, concentration camps, theft of intellectual property, etc.
He is ranked by historians as the 3rd strongest opponent of the Soviet Union/Russia (after Truman and Reagan) and has taken several major actions against them just in the last 4 months.
And he has stood up to Iran, the worst oppressor of human rights, after the Obama/Biden administration provided them with billions of dollars to expand their oppression of women, LGBTQ people, and religion. Just 2 weeks ago, he negotiated another big win for freedom, when Sudan and Israel ended their 50 years of war and Sudan agreed to recognize Israel, and end its oppression of women.
Lastly, he has been withdrawing our troops from distant lands.
Thank you, What you say is all true. I wonder what the result would have been if there had been a pre-election in which people would vote "yes" or "no" to the question: Is the present choice offered by the two major parities the sort of choice you would have liked and wanted to have to been confronted with on November 3rd, 2020?
Its works this way because it is intended to work this way;)
After two major elections where the polls have been completely wrong towards the same party, I am starting to think that they are a form of disinformation and election interference. For months, the so-called top polls predicted a landslide win by Mr. Biden. Didn't happen. But for these same months, American voters were told over and over again that it would. This does effect voter behavior through the desire to win complex that is often human nature. I think polling should be now outlawed as part of US election law. It serves no useful purpose other than to gin up views and clicks.
"For months, the so-called top polls predicted a landslide win by Mr. Biden."
No, they didn't. *That's* what didn't happen. There were clearly significant polling misses this time around, but what you claim happened simply did not.
Indeed, winning by 8 to 10 percentage points as many of the polls were predicting would have an EXTREMELY tight race. A prediction of a landslide would have to have been at a VERY minimum a 40% lead for Biden.
"I think polling should be now outlawed as part of US election law. It serves no useful purpose other than to gin up views and clicks" - I am afraid the public is too addicted to this kind of entertainment. Wishing it away by legal fiat is not going to work. I recommend reading Neil Postman's classic "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business". It may seem a bit outdated as its original edition appeared during the years in which TV began to be omnipresent and IT was still in its infancy. Yet Postman's insights are relevant today as well.
When the US was a primitive, agrarian society, States simply counted the votes, announced the result and everyone went to bed. As Democracy became more sophisticated, election coverage turned into an all night extravaganza. However, Florida in 2000 demonstrated that an election could be drawn out for weeks, and the cable news networks broke ratings records and raked in advertising cash. Since then, other States have pursued the cachet of becoming a swing state and introduced increasingly dubious voting processes to ensure the results are contested and therefore newsworthy. This is all part of the natural evolution of Democracy.
A few farsighted TV executives are already plotting the next step to increase viewership - an election followed by a civil war. Whether they can achieve this in 2020 is uncertain, but they are making progress.
I agree. This isn't a fiasco by incompetence but by design. I've often heard that the media is controlled by the political parties, but I think it's the opposite. The media controls the political parties, whether by carrot or stick. The more wrangling, discord, confusion, and chaos there is, the more eyes are glued to their content, bringing greater profits.
It seems like there are incentives for the vote counting process to be inefficient since this problem of delay and doubt happens on the regular.
The more closely you look at the 'inefficiencies', the more you find that each one just *happens* to undermine the authority of the people, and give elites more leeway. Depend on it.
agreed. the inefficiencies and politicization of the vote COUNTING is a global embarassment led by the pollsters and the MSM. imagine an election with a truly unbiased media.
Bernie would have fucking won. Trump and Biden are losers. The media is fucked.
Just signed up for Glenn. I do not use any social media except parler. twitter facebook instagram google alphabet etc can drop dead asap.
GG, there's a election story I've seen very little coverage of--Democratic legal efforts to throw Green Party off the ballot. Perhaps most noticeably Wisconsin but other states as well? Particularly relevant given the razor-thin margins we're seeing.
Greg Palast is a bit of an authority on the comedy gold shenanigans, of the bogus US election process. his short 20 mins on Dore yesterday explained it very well.
https://youtu.be/aoY-oLDrtk0
many folks just don't know, or even want to know, the US is near the bottom, when it comes to election integrity, and getting worse with each cycle.
https://www.electoralintegrityproject.com/
bad theater, all around.
#CorruptionExplainsConspiracy - Corruption today is so plainly EVIDENT, so widespread, there is little debate. Powerful forces naturally, and predictably, share common incentives to collaborate with one another to accomplish shared interests, even when outwardly, they would appear to be in opposition. Conspiracy MUST be anticipated, not mocked.
Never been more ashamed and embarrassed to be an American. This should have been a resounding rejection of Trumpublican fascism, but instead shows how confused or misinformed or apathetic the voting public is. As for the ridiculous vote tallying, why isn't there a federal, paper-based standard for all citizens? Because chaos plays into the rightwing narrative...they will make it a selective 'states rights' issue.
The Democratic party abandoned working class politics by supporting NAFTA and TPP and replaced it with identity politics. Trump gained the support of the disenfranchised working class (blue collar) voter with his anti- NAFTA and TPP positions. To those disinfranchised workers, Trump's MAGA (nationalism) meant rebuilding manufacturing in the USA, and explains his tough on the China (trade imbalance.) Hillary referred to the abandoned workers from the "rust belt" states as "deplorables." Then the Democratic Party insulted the black vote by running "top cop" prosecutor Harris and Crime Bill Biden.
Uh, do you think many of the blue collar workers you mention ever knew any details of the NAFTA and TPP agreements, pro or con? Voting republican has zero benefit for anyone not of the 1%. To claim that Trump 'rebuilt manufacturing in the USA' is another myth. Support for Trump by the 'working class' is due to his demagoguery.
Thank you for perfectly exemplifying the condescension towards the 'working class.'
One of the benefits was not having to listen to arrogant, smug (but uninformed), leftist assholes all the time.
You probably have no idea how valuable that is to 1/2 the voters.
Isn't it surprising that more republicans supported the business-friendly NAFTA deal than dems? It was never about the working stiff, for Trump or anyone who supported it.
Trump tried to rebuild manufacturing and informed us as we went year by year of what he was doing.
vs
learn to code!
"do you think the blue collar workers knew the details"
you're comment insulting the intelligence of the laborer is just as condescending as Hillary's "deplorables."
https://www.industryweek.com/talent/article/22028380/the-abandonment-of-small-cities-in-the-rust-belt
Trump vs. Hillary re NAFTA
https://youtu.be/COF98BXrftI
Ross Perot vs. Gore and Clinton re NAFTA
https://youtu.be/W3LvZAZ-HV4
re: "Never been more ashamed and embarrassed to be an American"
You apparently haven't been paying attention.
Clintons 1990s. Obama's "hope and change" was really "lies and bullshit".
Nixon / Watergate
etc.
Don’t forget Bush weapons of mass destruction.
Pre-emptive war!
"Trumpublican fascism" is a huge clue that Barry Stuart is a psycho leftist, possibly not even a US citizen.
Wars in the middle east have a long history, from tribal conflicts 10,000s of years ago to Roman and Muslim conquest to Ottoman colonialism to western imperialism.
There was a UN weapons inspector named Ritter that explained that the Bush WMD narrative was total bullshit in the lead up to the war.
How many times did you vote for Bush/Cheney?
How many times have you had to pull your head out of your ass when you realized that your thinking stinks?
re: Mosaddegh coup, 1953
Don't forget the CIA soup of a democratically elected govt in Iran !
The US govt even apologized for the CIA blunder, lol
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/the-cia-finally-admitted-it-orchestrated-the-iranian-coup-of-1953-179889/
typo: not soup, coup! lol
Bush v Gore decided by SCOTUS was pretty egregious too as far as separation of powers.
Don't forget that Obama came for your guns, put you in front of death panels when you got sick and moved a homeless Muslim into your basement before handing the keys to the country over to Kenya.