Printable View
Here's an article documenting all the times Trump has encouraged violence, which has occurred many times at his rallies. And what exactly do you suggest Rudi Giuliani had in mind when he called for 'trial by combat'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
https://www.vox.com/21506029/trump-v...st-hate-speech
Where is your evidence that the Democrat Party of mainstream media have encouraged violence? Put up or shut the fuck up.
Trump has refused to condemn white supremacists numerous times, most notably at the first presidential debate, or only condemned them in half-hearted terms. Typically he only reads out words (written by someone else) condemning them belatedly after there has been a backlash. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/t...20-9?r=US&IR=TQuote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
It's pretty clear the white supremacists perceive the message and see him as someone who's on their side. They are not just doing it because there is nowhere else to go - they love Trump far more than they do any conventional Republican politician.
Just in case anyone needed a refresher on Trump's history with White supremacists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5juf1RkWnpM
And Nick Danger's response?
Attachment 1297871
You make me shudder a little, Flighty. I guess...I suppose this is...I reckon this is how most Democrats are living now - in their own private Idaho where they didn't do nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Here's the video you want, Flighty:
https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/s...violence-riots
Took me about 30 seconds to find a video of dozens and dozens of high-profile Democratic politicians, "news" broadcasters, and celebrities calling for violence (up to and including murder, sedition, and uprising in the streets) against the duly-elected administration.
Not sure if you live in another dimension or you're just ignorant, Flighty. I won't completely rule out the "different dimension" theory, because what do we really know about the structure of reality in light of recent advances in Quantum Field Theory, right?
Attachment 1297878
Or an aircraft carrier. I mean, as a citizen, what am I supposed to do if I want to attack Iran? You can't just show up with a pistol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laphroaig
Bronco, I would like to see you illustrate the "Circle of Death" in which Marjorie Taylor Greene's ramblings led to hate crime murders.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I'm not going to defend that woman. Here in the world of conspiracy theorists, we have our standards. For example, while I do believe the Sandy Hook Massacre was staged, I don't think the Parkland shooting was. I don't believe in Bigfoot or UFO's, but I have seen some evidence that there was, at some point, an extremely large fish in Loch Ness. And I believe we did put two men on the Moon on July 20, 1969 - frankly that doesn't seem too difficult as long as you get the math right.
In truth, 11 Republicans DID vote MTG off her committees. The rest probably just made a black-and-white choice not to vote against a fellow Republican. I have yet to see a single Republican speak favorably on her behalf though.
She is a racist, and she was voted into office by racists in a very racist section of the country. It's not much more complicated than that.
I didn't say they did. In most cases where someone's rhetoric is dangerous it's not possible to show a direct link. I'm not suggesting every racist remark then has something to do with subsequent hate crimes but I also don't think you need a direct link when the advocacy is that extreme. One of the theories she promoted is great replacement theory which is basically the essence of modern white supremacist thinking. It states that the biggest threat to white people is having kids with non-white people and that Jews are facilitating it somehow. It also wasn't just a mistake or a careless moment but a commitment to the kind of overt hatred that motivates killers. 11 Republicans out of 210 voted to remove her from committees. It should have been unanimous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
Was that Nicole Wallace in the video you included about Democrats above? That would be odd since she was the white house communications director for GW Bush.
I fail to see how Robert De Niro saying he wants to punch Trump in the face is the equivalent of Trump saying he wants people to be punched at his rallies while he's running for President. I fail to see how someone saying we need to be out in the streets is the same as saying an election was stolen, of layering lie on top of lie to give people that impression, and engaging in all sorts of maneuvers to try to overturn the election including by trying to bully the vice president into not certify the electoral college vote. On the day that the vote was being certified he was putting public pressure on Pence not to certify the votes while speaking to a mob of mostly white supremacists. But you don't want to take my word for it, let's hear what that other famous Democrat Mitch McConnell said "They were provoked by the president and other powerful people, and they tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government."
What I think you fail to acknowledge the gravity of is that we have a form of government that is spelled out in our constitution. We have rules governing how we have elections and we have laws. Trying to overturn a free and fair election by making dozens of completely implausible accusations and encouraging other Republicans to interfere with the will of the people is about the most dangerous thing a politician can do, besides advocate killing other politicians (see Marjorie Taylor Greene), or promoting a literal race war (see MTG).
This is just rubbish -if the USA has been 'nearly...brought to its knees' in the last year it has been due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the refusal of idiot Governors in Florida, Texas and South Dakota to take the measures necessary to mitigate its worst effects, and the economic cost of Covid is greater than BLM/Liberal protests by far. You also know that various armed militias took advantage of the BLM protests to cause trouble in Portland, as did the vigilante Kyle Rittencourt who seems to have disappeared when he should be in prison (which he would be were he Black).Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
Overall, your depiction of the USA as a hell on earth of violent, hateful, selfish, greedy, armed-to-the-teeth morons is closer to some extravaganty funded hoakum on Netflix than it is to real life. Yes, I have an apartment full of books, I have the flat-screen tv, computers, iPads, cell phones -but they are not signs of wealth, as collectively they are not worth much, and how many of the neighbours you have are rich, or bought their 60" Smart TV with a credit card because in fact they can't afford to buy one?
Covid-19 has also demonstrated the common phrase 'the kindness of strangers' is common because it is real. Volunteers working in food banks are real, they exist, as do millions of Americans who don't own guns, don't want to, and far from hating anyone get along with their neighbours, go to the same churches on Sunday, organize football and baseball and other sports in their spare times for themeselves and their children. It may not all be Apple Pie and baskets in the yard, but the USA is not as soulless and bleak as your present it. Or maybe that's just Utah, the irony being that the home of Mormons is the home of morons, what one assumes to be a citadel of Reigious fellowship just a sewer or envy and conflict. Funny old world, innit? Oh, and leave Kevin Bacon out of it. He is one of the good guys
I think you're engaging in some very selective information processing there, Bronco. I see that you have elected to respond to Bob DeNiro's desire to punch the President in the face, but NOT to respond to Nancy Pelosi (the de facto leader of this nation's adult juveniles) encouraging "uprisings all over the country."Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
And let me ask you something - is it illegal to challenge the results of an election? "Unconstitutional?" Because factually, there have been EIGHT contested Presidential elections in this country's history, and COUNTLESS contested elections for various other offices.
Trump thought he won. Perhaps in hindsight it could be said he was somewhat delusional about it, but he certainly isn't the first and won't be the last American politician to fiercely protest the results of an election.
Now, what I believe is that Trump has an ego the size of a small planet, and he simply couldn't accept the defeat. But if I didn't know what I know about Donald Trump, I could just as easily say contesting the election results was one of the most savvy moves in modern political history. Pulls the teeth from the Democratic victory. Democrats WILL ruin the economy if given the chance, they have no economic plan whatsoever - their plan is literally to give every minority and special interest everything they want until they don't have any more money. But because Trump contested the election, there's no true public mandate for that kind of economic recklessness - a lot of Americans will go to their graves believing the Democrats lost in 2020.
It's interesting to me that you're taking what Mitch McConnell says at face value right now. Of course he's going to bend with the prevailing winds, he's a goddamn politician, and a pretty darn good one actually. All Republicans are currently in the process of distancing themselves from the Trump administration. Either that or they're preparing for a cancellation shitstorm from the liberal media.
There are 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, Bronco. How dangerous do you REALLY think Marjorie Taylor Greene is? Or are you just cherry-picking Republican dipshits to put on display. Because if that's the case, I can start cherry-picking Democratic dipshits and I really wouldn't have to brush many cherries aside. I'd start with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who actually wants to spend 93 TRILLION dollars - an amount greater than the entire value of the nation's GDP, real estate, and household assets combined - to kill the oil industry. Or how about Ilhan Omar, a corrupt Muslim politician who funneled 80% of her campaign contributions into her husband's consulting firm, is currently under investigation by the FBI for marrying her own brother, and has flatly stated that her political goal is to dismantle the entire oppressive system.
I mean yes, pot calls kettle black, it's the oldest trope in politics. Still, I don't see ANY Republican support for Marjorie Taylor Greene. I see quite a lot of Democratic support, though, for its collection of congressional fruit loops.
You didn't put the video together but you posted it. The video wouldn't be long enough and needed people who aren't Democrats and actors. A video with Trump alone would have included as many legitimate instances. It wouldn't have to include someone saying something innocuous like that the majority of terrorists are right-wing and white. Samantha Bee said Ivanka was a "feckless cunt" which is rude and uncivil. How long would a video of Republican media personalities saying far worse things be? Imagine a video with Republicans who pitched snake oil for a deadly disease, who lied about the deadliness of disease, or the like?
A person has a right to use reasonable means to challenge a close vote. Requesting a recount is not unreasonable. Pursuing a claim of systematic voter fraud in good faith if there's any factual foundation is reasonable.
What Trump did was spend two months filing 60 lawsuits that in other circumstances probably would have gotten his attorneys sanctioned. The lawsuits were dismissed because they had no evidentiary foundation and/or the plaintiffs did not have standing which is a Constitutional requirement. In some cases the attorneys were afraid to repeat the claims in court for fear of sanctions. He had meetings where advisors of his were requesting a declaration of martial law to commandeer voting machines.
He was trying to stop legal votes from being counted while they were being counted. He was calling on Republican state level officials to go against the popular votes of their states. He called Brad Raffensperger on the phone and tried to get him to make him the winner of Georgia. If he had a legitimate theory for how he won the vote he didn't state it. In fact his theories were all over the place and when one was shot down he would raise another one just as implausible. That's not "smart". It's dangerous and destructive.
I haven't heard AOC or Ilhan Omar say or do anything that is anywhere close to advocating the death of other politicians which Greene did or support white supremacism or every conspiracy theory under the sun. Your bogeymen aren't actually advocating violence or warning people about "miscegenation".
That is because Trump told dozens of lies, promoted idiocy, and they believed him. You want standing for a set of fictions because one person repeated them over and over again and people believed him? If only there were precedent for that. Trump merely contested the election in the same way that people engaged in insurrection at the capitol merely rioted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
But...you DID watch it, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I want you to know that I understand your predicament, Bronco. If someone posted a video of President Trump calling for nationwide riots, and on that same video was Bobcat Goldthwaite saying he wanted to give the President a noogie, I'd probably choose to respond to the noogie. Of course, no such video exists.
I'll tell you what does exist though - a video of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the highest-ranking Democrat in the USA, encouraging "uprisings all over the country."
I wouldn't worry. The video will eventually disappear from YouTube, Twitter, and all mainstream formats, just like the video "We Need To Talk About Sandy Hook" did. It's amazing what politicians can accomplish when they have a nation's media in their pockets.
Just hold out for a few more years, Bronco, and history will be completely rewritten to accomodate your posts.
So you chose to post a clip where 99% of the content was irrelevant? Imagine if buried in the hundreds of election fraud claims Trump had proof of millions of votes being changed. I might get through 90 totally made up claims and think, "why would someone provide so many lies if they have something incriminating?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
Did you know that Nancy Pelosi's statement had nothing to do with the Black Lives Matter protests and riots and that she wasn't even talking about them in that clip?
It didn't have anything to do with police brutality and to my knowledge no "uprisings" occurred based on this speech. You seem to think a pipe bomb that didn't explode is irrelevant and don't consider the potential harm so why isn't that the standard here? Well Nancy Pelosi's irresponsible language was about the family separation policy and did not result in "uprisings" or violence. And btw she used the word uprising incorrectly. If it meant overthrow the government, which is what was incited at the capitol by the President, how could it be plural?
It was incendiary and stupid and had she spent months trying to stoke violence and making clear she wanted our government to be overthrown AND people tried to do that she'd be just as culpable as Trump.
And not only was she talking about a different subject completely the statement was made more than two years before the rioting in Kenosha. The statement in that clip was made on June 14 2018 by the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
The important first step in your recovery from liberalism is to recognize that she DID say it. IIRC it was in response to Trump's immigration policy, which I happen to agree with but that's a whole different post. Do you agree, Bronco? Do you agree that there should be "uprisings all over the country" over Trump's refusal to admit Muslim refugees?Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Also, "99%" of that content is not "irrelevant." Maxine Waters is on there calling for violence at BLM protests specifically. Kamala Harris is on there threatening the administration directly with riots. "Everyone, beware!" she says with a smile on her face, as if she is secretly conducting the riots from behind the scenes. "They're not gonna stop, not before Election Day." All of those liberal newscasts calling for non-peaceful protests are post-George Floyd.
So you know, yeah Bronco, it happened. Your party tore up the country over a counterfeiter who died of a fentanyl overdose. Your leaders encouraged it, drew the roadmap for it really, and it happened. I'd be the first to admit, the George Floyd video was absolutely incendiary. I wanted to choke that officer out myself before it was over with. But it turns out, Officer Chauvin was acting within policy, a lot of video of George Floyd FIGHTING the police was redacted, and the final medical determination was that the guy was a junkie who swallowed his whole stash as he was being arrested. Not EXACTLY as advertised eh?
Still, I get it. If I were black I'd probably have picked up a sign and protested myself, and maybe some of that protesting might get out of control, it happens.
But we're talking months and months here. Even after it was determined that the incident wasn't what it seemed, the Democratic machine kept pushing for violence. Because they knew that was the only thing that was going to get them into office in 2020. It worked. I stand in awe of the power of a political party that owns the media. Even though they have absolutely zero good ideas on how to move forward from the crises of 2020 (other than to simply cave in to every special interest that holds out a cup), they won the White House and the Senate. Incredible really. If I were a Democrat I'd be on here crowing about our amazing powers of political skullduggery.
But since I'm a Republican, all I can do is point out that they won it like a bunch of criminals.
Here's a thought. This is supposed to be the 'thought for the day' thread, not one endless argument. Your persistence n trying to rebut our resident post-truth wingnut is commendable bronco, but you must realise it is pointless.
How about we cancel the Nick Danger show by not responding any further, as least in this thread? If he wants to start another thread let him do so, but we should stop the hijacking of this thread.
To help the process along I've created a new thread on political violence and copied Nick Danger's last comment, so people can continue the discussion if they want without hijacking this thread.
[QUOTE=Nick Danger;1957970]
And let me ask you something - is it illegal to challenge the results of an election? "Unconstitutional?" Because factually, there have been EIGHT contested Presidential elections in this country's history, and COUNTLESS contested elections for various other offices.
Trump thought he won. Perhaps in hindsight it could be said he was somewhat delusional about it, but he certainly isn't the first and won't be the last American politician to fiercely protest the results of an election.
-"Somewhat"? Trump said in 2016 he would accept the result of the elecion 'if I win', and said it again last year, indeed, declared the election was rigged before anyone had cast a vote. That makes him more than "somewhat" deusional, and in the past there were legitimate grounds for contesting elections, not the bruised ego of a loser.
Democrats WILL ruin the economy if given the chance, they have no economic plan whatsoever - their plan is literally to give every minority and special interest everything they want until they don't have any more money.
-If Biden is comparable to other Democrat Presidents, he is unlikely to 'ruin' the economy, as the evidence show that Democrats are better stewards of the economy than Republicans. Biden was put in charge of the recovery programme in 2009 so for all the eye-watering sums being spent now, one has to believe he knows what he is doing, and more importantly, has the team to get it donee. The US has developed a diverse economy that can weather shocks easier, if not without pain, compared to others -right now, Brexit Britain is a speeding (and empty) truck headed for a brick wall, but I think this time it may take the full first term for the US to get out of the Pandemic mess it is in right now.
These studies will show you why Democrats do better than Republicans with the economy-
https://www.thebalance.com/democrats...conomy-4771839
https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/inves...r-the-economy/
https://evonomics.com/economists-agr...eight-reasons/
Is that your Thought For The Day, Flighty?Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
I understand. I'd rather lose a testicle than debate me on politics. Or geez, I dunno, maybe I could win, it'd be damn close though. The key would be to catch myself spouting off some statistical bullshit as if it were factual then cramming the evidence that I'm wrong right down my throat. But damn, it's hard to know when I'm full of shit or actually kicking your ass.
Anyway, MY Thought For The Day is, that was a shitty Super Bowl. But it does show us that Republican quarterbacks are better than Democratic quarterbacks.
If you guys want to preserve this thread for...I don't know, whatever it is you think is going to happen here...I'll be glad to accommodate. Now, don't REPLY to me and then expect me to disappear into the ether - YOU'RE going to have to STFU if you want me to. But really, don't act as if you don't enjoy the abuse. If you didn't love it, you'd have STFU a long, long time ago.
BTW Flighty I enjoyed "resident post-truth wingnut," it's got a flow.
My thought of the day:
When I saw filghy's post my first thought was maybe I haven't been as considerate as I should be and someone is requesting that I allow this thread to be used for the reason it was created. Nick's first thought is that it was to keep him from spreading the "gospel of Nick" even though a thread was created specifically for his self-aggrandizing ramblings. I'd be happy to discuss whatever subject you want there and certainly didn't direct filghy to request I avoid having a long meandering argument here. It does happen and often it's hard to keep a debate to one subject but I did notice Sukumvit Boy and Stavros were having a conversation that was crowded out maybe. So apologies for that.
There are numerous rebuttals of the Sandy Hook hoax on the web, indeed, I wonder why people continue to insist it was a hoax when all of their claims are simply, and verifiably rubbish. In a collection of films We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook, prepared by the Tyranny News Network (a go-to site fore conspiracy theories), allegations are made about the mother of one of the chidren that can be easily verified as false. In another a well-publicized photo of children being led away from the school, it is claimed to be fake because video taken shortly after 10.00 am does not show them, yet a comparison of the two shows they happened at different times of the day- overcast in the video, sunny in the photo. And so on. It is deeply depressing and to me a form of Holocaust Denial which begs the question, what is being denied and for what reason?
It is one thing to argue the Federal Government doesn't always tell the truth, all governments massage the facts or try to cover up embarrassing events or policy details. But to leap from that to accuse government of crimes such as Sandy Hook is perverse, its demonization of the victims simply wicked. There are many problems in the US but it isn't Syria or North Korea.
More serious has been the decision of a Court in Poland that two historians apologize for -according to the judgment of the Court- defaming a Polish relative of a Mayor accused of helping the Nazis round up Jews in the town that were sent to their death in Treblinka. It is a controversial case because there is evidence the man concerned helped some Jews escape, while condemning others. Here we are dealng with a real Holocaust where 80 years after the event the tangled testimony begs questions, but surely ought to be left open for more debate and research, rather than be shut down as part of a campaign by a Nationalist Party in Government to 'resurrect' the reputation of Poland from accusations it was complicit in the Holocaust -which it was, indeed, violence against Jews was common even before 1933; but where there is also evidence of anti-Nazi activity, of heroic deeds and sacrifices on behalf of Jews, thus making an either/or account of history a travesty of what happened.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ered-apologise
If you haven't seen it, there is a rebuttal of the Sandy Hook hoax here
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sandy-hook-exposed/
Conspiracy theories are just an extreme example of the common phenomenon of motivated reasoning - people believing what it suits them to believe. Conspiracies appeal to some people because they offer a ready-made story into which everything can be fitted, in which anything they don't like can be attributed to plots by evil people. It also allows any inconsistent evidence to be dismissed as being as part of the conspiracy, while anything that can be portrayed as supporting the conspiracy is accepted, so matter how dubious, ambiguous or inconsistent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
https://www.livescience.com/26314-sa...-theories.html
We can see this easily in previous comments by our resident persona non grata, with their continual references to the liberal-media complex allegedly manipulating the American public. His enthusiastic support for the Sandy Hook conspiracy claim is hardly an outlier, given that his entire political worldview centres on one big conspiracy.
Conspiracy theories are like a warm blanket to some believers...if they cast it away it will leave them cold and uncomfortable..lol. Their altered reality allows them to belong to groups with their own ‘special’ beliefs. The more absurd the belief...the more ‘special’ they feel they are - clearly superior to an un believer, because only they can see reality for what it is. In many ways like religious fundamentalists. There are times though, that I think some folks post conspiracy theories for the troll thrills it gives them.
Proposals are emerging for a tunnel to link Scotland with Northern Ireland. It is being seen as an alternative to a bridge, which is something Boris Johnson thought of. Some have already called it 'Boris's Burrow' which is surely too obscure for the internet generation, unless the word Burrow appears in a video game. The Channel Tunnel linking the UK to France was nicknamed the 'Chunnel', but I am not sure what this new one, if it happens, could be called.
My initial thought was to called it the ScotNir, but that slipped into SnotNir. Then there was Irnal, but this rapidly deteriorated from Urinal into Anal, and as I don't think that matches the brief, perhaps a more erudite member of HA can toss out an alternative?
The historical reference might be too obscure for most people, but how about the Dal Riata Dig? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A1l_RiataQuote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Alternatively, the Celtic Connection, or CeltCon.
Or maybe the Sculster Subway?
You can just call it “The Pipe” in deference to the pipes...the playing of which is a shared tradition between the two countries. That, and because a tunnel is a pipe. I hope this makes sense in the morning because I wrote it slightly drunk.
Erudition indeed! Had never heard of Dal Riata before. Sculster Subway sounds too rude, but see my response to Fred below.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Quote:
Originally Posted by fred41
It makes sense, Fred, not just if you are drunk, but French, though not in the way you may intend 'la Pipe' to mean...
https://context.reverso.net/translat...faire+une+pipe
I sort of understand the conflict between Facebook and the Australian Government, but then maybe I don't. How did the Government, as appears to be the case, become dependent on Facebook as a source of news and advice on policies over which it has total control and indeed, which presents its policies on its own websites. Has the public chosen Facebook over the Government? And what if Facebook did not exist? It cannot mean Australians being ignorant of their own Government's policies and advice- or can it?
Facebook -nice to have, not need to have. I don't use it and I am reasonably well informed. What's the big deal? Looks to me like the Australian Govt is whining like a spoiled brat. Get a grip, Bruce.
The Funnel, obviously. That's how you connect one alcoholic society to another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
The issue is not that the Government chose to depend on Facebook: it's that so many of its citizens have chosen to rely on it as a convenient information source, which has given Facebook and a few other tech giants so much power. Most people don't want to spend hours researching like you do. They just want to get a quick news summary while they are eating breakfast or riding the train or bus to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Most people have never got government information directly from government sources: they've always relied on media reports. Facebook has just taken this step further in aggregating those reports in one place. No doubt people will find other ways to get their news, and some of them may find that they don't need Facebook so much, which is the risk the company is taking.
You make a good point, as usual. I don't really know what these 'news bites' or 'news on the go' look like, they are probably more influential than I realise. I was persuaded to create a Facebook page some years ago but have never used it, so I don't know what the news feed looks like. I wonder if they are neutral or have a bias. I do believe Facebook and similar sites are an important part of civil society and that they are essential in an open democracy, but as with all forms of publishing, there is no unimited freedom of speech, and the question is thus focused on content and whether or not is is illegal, which may be easy to determine, or immoral, which is harder to define. Without any proper regulation I suspect a lot of offensive material gets through, but how does one define 'offensive' which may be obvious to me, but not to you.
In addition, there was Kevin Rudd's attack on the Murdoch press in Australia and his claim that politicians are scared of Rupert and Lachlan, which is astonishing, even if true, given that they are not even Australians and I don't think have lived in the country for years. These days Rupert, that outstanding American, lives in the UK -why?
Murdoch become a US citizen in 1985 only in order to purchase a TV network, which became the basis for Fox News (foreigners were limited to 25% shareholding).Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...rdoch.business
The Murdoch press accounts for more than half of all newspaper readership in Australia. It's among the most concentrated media markets of any democratic country.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/dat...d-in-the-world
There's data here on the impact of Facebook's move on traffic to Australian news sites. There's been a significant fall, so people haven't just shifted to other platforms as yet, though there might be more movement over time.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-...nberg/13171568
I have been puzzled to see some of the headlinees that refer to the recently deceased Rush Limbaugh as a 'Conservative'. I admit I don't know much about Limbaugh other than what I have read, and the snippets of his radio show I have seen, such as the one from about a year ago in which he sneers at anyone taking Covid-19 seriously- 'its just the common cold, folks' or words to that effect. Judged from what I have read, I don't consider him to be a Conservative, but the problem is deep enough now, because as more and more people like him and Trump form the centre ground of the Republican Party, it can no longer be considered a Conservative Party. I woud suggest Limbaugh was an anarchist, or a Libertarian, and definitely not a Conservative.
Fundamental to Conservatism, as its name implies, is hostility to, or suspicion of change. On that basis, there hasn't been a Conservative President since Eisenhower, but on one level, a refusal to change Wall St and the power of Capital does suggest a lingering Conservatism when it comes to the 'heights of Capitalism in the USA' -but Democrat Presidents have made a pact with Wall St and Corporate Finance not to rock their boat, and Obama rescued 'them' from the mess they created without addressing in a serious way the causes of the 2008 crash. So Conservatism on a policy by policy basis might endure, but doesn't need a self-proclaimed Conservative to practice it.
It is plainly stupid to claim any President or Party believes in Fiscal Responsibility, that has not been part of American Government since, again, Eisenhower. In fact, Republican Presidents and the Republican Party have presided over profligate spending, have created debt mountains and liabilities and have thus been shown to be poor stewards of the US economy compared to Democrats- so anyone who says Democrats are bad for the economy is talking verfiable rubbish.
But the key now, is the extent to which there is a cult of personality around Donald Trump, because if there is one thing that a Conservative Party is not, it is a slave to idolatry. And yet we read that a majority of Republican voters willl not support a candidate for their party if he or she has voted against or is opposed to Trump, and Trump has been persuaded not to create a separate party even though a majority of his supporters say they would vote for it. And none of this has anything to do with Conservative policies, just the realization that if he creates a third party, Trump cannot challenge incumbent Senators and Congressional Reps in their primaries, thus creating a division among Republican voters on election day that splits the vote and lets in the Democrat.
Roger Scruton was opposed to Margaret Thatcher's liberal economics of the 1980s because, as an English Conservative, he did not believe freedom was expressed in free markets, and he was right. It is true that there has been a division in the party over the role of the State and Markets since the 19th century, and is also true that Thatcher was in the end, a little bit Liberal, and a lot of State Power Conservative, but here the differences with the US diverge owing to the role that Monarchy has played here. Moreover, the two most serious splits in the Conservative Party occurred over the Corn Laws in the 1840s, and Tariff Reform in the early 1900s -arguments about ideas and policy, not individuals.
But in the end, the question in the US, What is a Conservative? doesn't seem to me to have a coherent answer. If the Republican Party is the party of Rush Limbaugh and Trump why does it engage in the manipulation of State laws on elections to make them more 'efficient' when in reality, it should declare its belief that Black Americans must be denied the right to vote? To oppose Abortion is to oppose a Constitutional Right -how can any Conservative claim to be one if they adopt a policy that not only opposes the Constitution, but takes away the Rights of citizens that the Constitution is supposed to guarantee?
A personality cult rather than a rational party. Debt mountains rather than Fiscal Responsibility. Attacks on, and defiance of the Constitution, rather than its protection. The language of hatred and division targeted at American citizens, rather than the simple acceptance that all citizens are equal. The demands for change, from a party historically opposed to it. (Was Abraham Lincoln a Conservative? Or, when did the Republican Party claim to be a party of Conservatives?).
-who, now, in the USA at the level of State and Federal politics, is a Conservative? And that private army of liars such as Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and Donald Trump Jr -are they Conservatives?
I think in the US a 'çonservative' is defined mainly by being against whatever 'liberals' are for. However, given the Americans have also managed to screw up the meaning of liberalism that may not be too enlightening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
'Authoritarian populist-nationalist' is probably a more fitting descriptor than 'conservative'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Just FYI you guys didn't have to admit to me that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
But I'm always here to help.
Liberal: 1. A person who believes in reliance on the state for sustenance and protection. 2. A simple-minded and/or unskilled individual who's most comfortable when his fate rests in the hands of others. 3. A "simp" or "beta."
Conservative: 1. A person who believes in reliance on himself for sustenance and protection. 2. An abstract thinker who understands that the structure of society reflects his actions, not vice versa. 3. A "boss" or "alpha."
Conservative: 1. A man who rails against homosexuality and also gets railed.... against his kitchen counter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
You have to admit that kind of duality has become a notable conservative feature. Doing it from the pulpit is an even bigger hallmark. Denounces homosexuality then has sex with a man in a bathroom stall. I only mind the hypocrisy.
It is not difficult to find out how Conservatives define their politics, but where for years the definitions were made by people like William F. Buckley, and Bill and Irving Kristol, and based in part on their reading of the Constitution, and their alternative to the State-Economy relations as they were shaped first, by the New Deal Administration of FDR, and its 'last gasp' in the policies of LBJ, so you should be able to trace the descent into incoherence since Reagan's first term. Famously, in his first inauguration speech he said 'Government is not the solution to the problem, Government IS the problem' -and then proceeded to expand Government and its costs leaving office with the highest public debt in US history.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Now fast forward to two of today's news items- a) as more Repubicans de-register, the remaining cohort being loyal Trumpits make it easier for him to either get the nomination for 2024 and/or 'primary' candidates not part of the Cult. B) It has been stated today, and it is a truly remarkable statement in American history, if that is not too pompous-
"Jason Miller, said: “Trump effectively is the Republican party. The only chasm is between Beltway insiders and grass-roots Republicans around the country. When you attack President Trump, you’re attacking the Republican grass roots.” "
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...e-2024-nominee
There is no Conservatism here, it is pure idolatry, the transformation of American politics into a clash of civilizations, those who believe in the America of 1776 -civilization-. and those who believe only in Donald Trump, a man who is uncivilized and rejects all that it represents in order to line his pockets and hear the crowd roar.
How such a man came to literally embody the Republican Party will be the subject of many histories, assuming they live to tell the tale. "'Authoritarian populist-nationalist'" -? Not even close. As Brecht once put it, albeit in another context, 'Truly, I live in dark times'.
It is not difficult to find out how Conservatives define their politics, but where for years the definitions were made by people like William F. Buckley, and Bill and Irving Kristol, and based in part on their reading of the Constitution, and their alternative to the State-Economy relations as they were shaped first, by the New Deal Administration of FDR, and its 'last gasp' in the policies of LBJ, so you should be able to trace the descent into incoherence since Reagan's first term. Famously, in his first inauguration speech he said 'Government is not the solution to the problem, Government IS the problem' -and then proceeded to expand Government and its costs leaving office with the highest public debt in US history.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Now fast forward to two of today's news items- a) as more Republicans de-register, the remaining cohort being loyal Trumpits make it easier for him to either get the nomination for 2024 and/or 'primary' candidates not part of the Cult. B) It has been stated today, and it is a truly remarkable statement in American history, if that is not too pompous-
"Jason Miller, said: “Trump effectively is the Republican party. The only chasm is between Beltway insiders and grass-roots Republicans around the country. When you attack President Trump, you’re attacking the Republican grass roots.” "
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...e-2024-nominee
There is no Conservatism here, it is pure idolatry, the transformation of American politics into a clash of civilizations, those who believe in the America of 1776 -civilization-. and those who believe only in Donald Trump, a man who is uncivilized and rejects all that it represents in order to line his pockets and hear the crowd roar.
How such a man came to literally embody the Republican Party will be the subject of many histories, assuming they live to tell the tale. "'Authoritarian populist-nationalist'" -? Not even close. As Brecht once put it, albeit in another context, 'Truly, I live in dark times'.
I assume you're talking about Senator Larry "Wide Stance" Craig? Oh he's not the worst of American hypocrisy but that was pretty fun to watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Americans are a pretty cynical lot, and also totally unforgiving. If you're a politician and you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar or your cock in the wrong honeypot, you're canceled, period, and that's not based on "cancel culture," it's always been that way.
There are exceptions. Bill Clinton rivals John Gotti when it comes to being made of Teflon. My personal opinion is, to escape America's wrath behind any public scandal, you've got to be EXTREMELY likable. People continued to like John Gotti even after being 100% convinced he was a murderous thug, because he was exactly our idea of what a murderous thug should be - unrepentant, cocky, and just plain dangerous to know. And people continued to like Bill Clinton even after being 100% convinced he was a serial adulterer because anyone could easily understand why someone would cheat on Hillary.
Larry Craig? Not so likable.
Attachment 1301686