I think the DailyMash called this right: All this fuss over one dickhead: THE world cannot believe that all this fuss is being caused over one mumbling, egotistical, incoherent dickhead. Of course, that means I too have fallen into the trap, for which I apologise. But! I have my own iconoclastic take on this, which few others are saying, so my words are so worth it.The reaction is all overblown. In some vague sense this was indeed a coup attempt, but in such a pathetic weak disorganised and always utterly hopeless way that it doesn't really deserve the name. Better said, it was a riot, with (as many have commented) laughably weak policing in stark contrast to how BLM was handled. But - as is evident from the pix and vidz - the rioters had no plan, and no idea what to do when they got in. And they could not have had a plan, because what could it have been? Seize the building and hold it? Why: what use would that be: none at all. The only plan that would make sense would be: seize-and-hold and then wait for the national insurrection, which you've just inspired. But, there was none, and their could not have been, cos all the nutters they could dredge up were in the riot.
This brings me to part B, the twilight of the Trump. Various folks have said that Trump will remain dominating the Repubs; might even run in 2024, and so on. I don't believe it. He has not the patience, or the staying power. He will just fuck off and ghost-write his memoirs, or retreat to playing golf, or some other stupid thing.
Other commentary
Which I'll update as interesting things come in. Do I agree with "Don’t exaggerate the threat of the Capitol rioters" from Spiked? Mostly. Certainly the initial stuff. But he disappoints with his But I’m more worried about the anti-democratic elites - which he mostly targets at fb and Twatter for blocking the Mango Mussolini. I think fb and Twatter are being reasonable; even restrained. But I do hope this small episode isn't used to push for yet more securitisation of pols.
Update: impeach?
Effort to impeach Trump again gathers pace after 'attempted coup' at Capitol says the Graun, and plenty of others (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would move forward with impeachment if Mr Trump did not resign immediately). Mostly this is rather unattractive you-lost-we-won-now-we're-going-to-grind-your-face-in-the-dust kind of stuff, which is the antithesis of democracy. Remember, part of making transitions violence-free is the assurance that the losers will not be punished - just look at all those African (or Syria) strongmen hanging grimly onto power because if they lose it, they'll be strung up.
At this stage, impeachment seems symbolic, perhaps even nakedly political: there seems little prospect of it going through in time, and perhaps the only real Dem aim is to be able to say later "but Repub X refused to join in". The Dems are spinning the symbolism as "no bad deed should go unpunished" but I don't agree. Lots of bad deed should go unpunished. The best thing to do with Trump is to forget him, not martyr him.
Update: there is unclarity on this. For example, Mitch McConnell: Senate can’t consider Trump impeachment until after term is up would make the impeachment moot; and I think the Dems know this, but they still want to go ahead. So all the twatting about nuclear codes is so much drivel. Is it even possible to impeach someone once they've left office? This tells me that “shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” which makes me doubtful that it is possible (though the linked article convinces itself otherwise).
Update: Twatter and Free Speech
Twitter permanently suspends Trump's account says Aunty. I have mixed feelings about this. As so often happens (I've seen this on wiki too) after a long period of trouble the actual words cited as outrageous appear rather if not totally innocuous then as rather thin grounds for a ban. The hyperbolic responses that this is the death of free speech are foolish, with proponents of that view unable to see the contradiction in Trump's widely-reported comments on the attempt to silence him.
The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" and that is good; but that says nothing about the decisions privately made by private entities. Wiki's FoS page says Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. and the only difficult word there, for these purposes, is "censorship", which it defines as the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies. I consider the inclusion of private entities dubious.
Anyway, my mixed feelings: shutting Trump's account may calm things down, at a time when some calm would be valuable; it also sends a signal concerning what are the limits of tolerable behaviour. But it seems terribly late to be doing this, and in not-very-long it will be irrelevant. This kind of political censorship should only be done if necessary, and I am very doubtful that it was necessary.
Refs
* It was all a waste of time: Congress confirms Joe Biden's victory - Beeb.
* Editorial: Another call for the justices to speak to the country - SCOTUS blog: an examle of the kind of thing that won't happen.
* IS TRUMP READING BREITBART OR THE GUARDIAN? - though I preferred the original title.
* Capitol riot: Recriminations and arrests after Washington violence - Beeb - for all those saying "why hasn't X been arrested?"
* Social Censorship: The First Offender Model - SSC
* Quotation of the Day… nationalism, socialism, liberalism.
* SCOTUSblog: Justices issue more orders from Friday’s conference, decline to fast-track election-related cases. The Supreme Court on Monday morning issued more orders from the justices’ private conference last week. After adding 14 new cases to their docket for the term on Friday afternoon, the justices were not expected to grant review in additional cases on Monday – and they did not. Monday’s order list was nonetheless noteworthy because the justices turned down a group of requests to expedite the consideration of petitions for review in cases seeking to undo the results of the 2020 presidential election. The denial confirms that the justices will not consider the petitions until after the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden, effectively rendering the disputes moot.
* Parler sues Amazon for kicking it off the internet.
* The Economist explains: Can the Senate hold an impeachment trial after a president leaves office? The constitution does not forbid it, but it is uncharted territory.
* Sedition Charges Are Almost Always a Terrible Idea: Laws against sedition have historically been used by insecure officials to punish critics. J.D. TUCCILLE
* YouTube suspends Donald Trump's channel - Beeb. It kinda looks like his power is ebbing away.
* Biden's Endearing but Collectivist Speech
* [2021/04] Justices throw out Trump Twitter case.
* Mantic Monday: Grading My Trump Predictions - SSC / ACT
* The Supreme Court, for Now, Is Playing a Central Role in Discrediting Donald Trump - New Yorker, 2022 - so much for that Trump-dominated court.
78 comments:
I'm pretty sure the only thing Trump has enjoyed about becoming president is all the rallies and the crowds of adoring fans. I don't see him giving that up.
I don't actually think he will run for president again, but I think he'll talk about it a lot over the next few years, and essentially heckle Biden from the sidelines. I think he'll raise a whole lot of money, much of which will somehow find its way into the pockets of his friends and family.
I guess time will tell
So you're reading Spuked. The Koch brothers money was/is well spent.
Came up in my fb feed. Looks like they have my number.
Reading my comments on social media from distant family, this was one of the following:
1) A riot by Trump supporters.
2) BLM in white-face pretending to be Trump supporters.
3) Anti fascists pretending to be Trump supporters.
4) Lizard people shapeshifted into Trump supporters.
As I said long ago, it isn't Trump that scares me. It is the people that support Trump. Even now, even after this riot.
Yes, the fourth item is slightly exaggerated. But only slightly.
Yes, I have at least one family member firmly in the "rioters were really antifa" camp. The 70+ million Trump voters still live and vote in the US, and are there for the taking for the next demagogue... and if that demagogue is halfway competent (unlike Trump), we might actually be in trouble. The 120 House representatives and 6-12 Senators who wanted to vote against certifying the vote show that the craziness is not limited to the hoi polloi.
Also, wow, the Capitol police were embarrassingly incompetent.
-MMM
I have a feeling this will age poorly.
The problem with your theory that this is all overblown, is that it was predictable and nothing was done to prevent it.
Why?
Also, this is largely meaningless "The reaction is all overblown."
Whose reaction?
The reaction has varied across the board... Is there something specific you are talking about?
And don't forget.
This is a DH with command over enough nuclear weapons to revert the world to the stone age.
My prediction is that the Trump base, once they understand they have lost, will turn to religion and we will have yet another once-in-a-generation wave of born agains bothering us all.
Is the reaction to this overblown?
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/01/09/officer-crushed-in-door-capitol-riots-lemon-reaction-ctn-vpx.cnn
If you mean stuff like https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55589230, then I'd say yes, but mildly.
Separate incident.
What is overblown about that? That the FBI are investigating a murder? The things the pollies said?
Funny story, apparently one of the rioters tasered themselves to death (they kept tasering themselves accidentally in the 'lower abdomen')
" In some vague sense this was indeed a coup attempt,"
Absent an agenda or a shadow cabinet, very vague indeed-
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/01/ceci-nest-ci-pas-un-coup.html
Rumor is that Trump is trying again. Perhaps on the 17th of January.
A private company suspending Trump's use of a private platform, Twitter, is the same as Communism.
> What is overblown about that?
Flags lowered; perhaps "no resources would be spared" is a touch too enthusiastic.
> Separate incident
Oops yes. I'd say the news anchor forgot his job, which is to present the news, and allowed too much of his personal opinions to be displayed.
The Spiked screed is ok, , since it's easy to distinguish a coup de main from a coup de theatre:
please fix this link if you wish to see why :
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/01/ceci-nest-ci-pas-un-coup.html
But as to :
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" and that is good; but that says nothing about the decisions privately made by private entities. "
I am not happy see Zuckerberg , Apple and Alphabet becoming the triumvirs of a censorship cartel bent on inflicting curbs on civil liberty explicitly forbidden by the Bill of Rights.
Why? Because while corporations owe no allegiance to the First Amendment, a hell of a lot of their officers have at sworn to defend and uphold it, and we are presently seeing those oaths foresworn.
"I am not happy see Zuckerberg , Apple and Alphabet becoming the triumvirs of a censorship cartel bent on inflicting curbs on civil liberty explicitly forbidden by the Bill of Rights."
Ok I call bullshit on this.
If you borrow someone's megaphone, them demanding it back and preventing you from using it is neither censorship, nor abridging freedom of speech.
"Oops yes. I'd say the news anchor forgot his job, which is to present the news, and allowed too much of his personal opinions to be displayed."
All news nowadays includes opinion, and most times it is prefaced with a title of 'opinion'.
I don't see this as much different from any other news reporting.
If you borrow someone's megaphone, them demanding it back and preventing you from using it is neither censorship, nor abridging freedom of speech.
Holy Focaultian discourse analysis , Nathan, can't you see the structural parallels between empowered cops kneeling on necks and self-appointed internet censors premptively gagging half the electorate?
The object of this political exercise is deny paid public access to the toolos necessary to use a public medium- platform operators don't own the internet.
TCW is actually calling for the Socialism Of The Internet?
The websites owned by private companies are actually "public mediums"?
The Internet is a pile of IP switches and routers. Trump not being prevented from getting an IP address and sending/receiving packets.
Trump is being prevented from using a private companies computers. Private companies computers are not the Internet, even if connected to it.
Phil is wildly off base in eliding a call for Voltarian laissez-faire on internet speech with "Socialism of the Internet "
Those paragons of liberty and property , Apple & Google have just banned downloads of Parler,
"Holy Focaultian discourse analysis , Nathan, can't you see the structural parallels between empowered cops kneeling on necks and self-appointed internet censors premptively gagging half the electorate?"
No, I cannot.
It's also very weird to bring up someone who died at the hands of police, with someone who broke the rules of Twitter.
Recall that there is an agreement between Twitter and the User. Trump broke that agreement.
Trump is still free to say whatever he wants... Just not on Twitter. There is no right to Twit.
The Freedom of Speech enshrined in the US Constitution is solely about Government
See, here's your problem
"laissez-faire on internet speech" is incompatible with " laissez-faire economics"
" Apple & Google have just banned downloads of Parler"
No, they banned it from their 'stores' which is different.
People can probably get it somewhere else if they really want it.
Shops are under no obligation to stock every product you want.
> I am not happy [to] see
I am not *happy* to see it either, but be careful what you wish for: the alternative is govt compelling them, which is worse. And new anti-big-tech drivel is likely coming from the Dems in the near future.
And if you didn't like those three, you'll love Amazon removing Parler from AWS.
Still, at least no-one can validly twat on about monopolistic behaviour when all four competing tech dislike them.
as someone said somewhere, if Trump wants a megaphone, he could... call a press conference and invite the press. Why doesn't he do that?
I caught a brief Rush Limbaugh segment. Barack Obama and the deep state are to blame. Does he believe this rubbish? Doesn't matter, he knows what drives ratings. We have met the enemy and he is us.
Where is the line on this? I don't see the incompetence of a very real attempt to overturn the US election and sow dissent excuses anything. What Trump did should not be excusable, if only in order to maintain the illusion of a nation based on free and fair elections and the rule of law. What about a next time? Is the line redrawn now, that it is now legitimate to try and delegitimise any US election when a (Republican) Presidential candidate loses both the popular and Electoral College votes?
I always thought consistency in not enabling or excusing bad behavior is key to preventing future bad behavior - and the inverse, that failing to call it out encourages it. Consistency of absolute, law ignoring loyalty to your side, as demonstrated by too many elected representatives, sworn to uphold the Constitution and knowing better enabling Donald Trump, is not a virtue.
Phil.a little ellipsis is a dangerous thing;
"See, here's your problem "laissez-faire on internet speech" is incompatible with " laissez-faire economics"
'Voltarian laissez-faire on internet speech' is an explict reference to the his famous
1770 reply to one of his critics, generally quoted as
"I hate what you write , but will defend with my life your right to write it"
(Monsieur l’abbé, je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire.)
Your problem is that while 'Voltarian laissez-faire on internet speech' is a thing- nothing less than the status quo ante until cancel culture came along,
the elision of 'Voltaire' and " laissez faire economics" is something you just made up out of thin air.
TCW:
I didn't write this: "See, here's your problem "laissez-faire on internet speech" is incompatible with " laissez-faire economics"
So Twitter should be free to publish or not publish, as they please?
Or Twitter must be compelled to publish everything? Or just compelled to publish DT?
Sorry for the thread beak- Phil.
Do ask Nathan to explain why ,Twitter is compelled to suppress the freedom of the press.?
As S 230, renders Blog Platforms with 'PUBLISH' buttons immune to censorious legal action, they are presently under no legal compulsion to suppress anything-- unless they awake cheerfully disposed to embace that Authoritarian beau ideal, the idea of censorship.
My point is that Twitter is a business and that to use it they have terms and conditions.
They are free to trade according to those terms; the quip about economics.
Thus, they also don't need to (or be required to) subscribe to the Voltairian free speech stuff. And to demand that they do is not reconcilable with free markets economics
It's also irrelevant as others have pointed out as he can say what he wants by other means.
It's basically what Phil said.
"embace that Authoritarian beau ideal"
This is hyperbole.
If you don't like Twitter, don't use it, but they don't have to operate according to rules that you think are good.
And what that consumate Anti-Voltairian Foucault teaches is that postmodern discourse is distinctly material in effect, producing what he calls ‘practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak’.
To Wikify : " Discourse is, thus, a way of organising knowledge that structures the constitution of social (and progressively global) relations through the collective understanding of the discursive logic and the acceptance of the discourse as social fact."
And as a matter of fact, the majority of ordinary internet users have just been denied access to uncensored platforms by the four most dominant players.
First they came for....
If you don't like Twitter, don't use it,
As a matter of fact I don't except as a comment login shortcut.
If you do twitter , do you ever tweet about their constraint of your discourse ?
Or anybody else's , , Monsigneur Nathan - ??
> Where is the line on this? ... What Trump did should not be excusable
I don't many other than the wacko far right "excusing" him; indeed, there's pretty widespread condemnation.
RS: I'm confused. Are you saying that (a) of course Twitter (being a private entity) has the *right* to refuse their platform to whoever they like, but that you think it would be better if they didn't; or (b) something else?
> First they came for... have just been denied access to uncensored platforms...
Well, first they came for the child pornographers and the ISIS beheading videos and so on,so no this is not new and "just" is wrong. Are you arguing that Youtube shouldn't be taking that down? If not, then the argument isn't about principle, it is only about where you draw the line, which will inevitably be inexact.
TCW
Writing in the way you do, is not advancing your argument.
Do you think that businesses should be forced to allow ANY AND ALL speech on their platforms and be disallowed from making terms and conditions.
That's not exactly free is it?
"If you do twitter , do you ever tweet about their constraint of your discourse ?"
Why would I? Never been constrained.
HOWEVER, I have been 'blocked' by people. Are individuals denying me my freedom of speech by blocking me?
"would make the impeachment moot"
impeachment means he can't run again, which is the goal. He also loses his pension and loses his right to fly anywhere, anytime paid for.
Also loses his security detail.
> which is the goal
You speak as though everyone had an unified goal, which I don't think is true. Many people appear to speak of impeach-to-rm-access-to-nuke codes, though that is drivel. I think preventing a run in 2024 is of minor importance. Taking away the pension looks to me like petty vengeance, which would be ironically Trump-like.
TCW: "And as a matter of fact, the majority of ordinary internet users have just been denied access to uncensored platforms by the four most dominant players."
You want it both ways.
The freedom of the owner of the press to publish and not publish as the owner decides.
AND
The majority of people access to publish as they please.
When there is one owner of the press these are in conflict. Either the monopolist press is free or the people are free. Not both.
Pick which is more important.
W. The conflict I see is between the rhetoric of endangerment and the danger it poses to civil liberty.
The constitution is certainly not a suicide pact , but I'm prepared to p[ay a high civil price to sustain the First Amendment against the incursions of authoritarian ideologies left right and center, While their place in the hierarchy of the obscne and pernicious is debateable, I view those incursions as belonging to the same continuum of Bad Things as snuff films and kiddie porn. The cultural question of how we got from the ACLU affirming the right of wannabe Nazis and Maoists to march waving their banners to preemptive speech constraint less precsautionary than Orwellian in under a century is a disturbing one.
I think corporate attempts to monopolize behaviorally engineer the conversation as more rather than less deserving of antitrust scrutiny than economic coercion by cartels, but I do not despair of public indignation contributing to better corporate behavior.
Even though he went on to suspend Habeas Corpus in the face of civil war, I think what Lincoln said as a 28 year old Whig of relevance to where we are now:
"[By] the operation of this mobocratic spirit... now abroad in the land, the strongest bulwark of any Government... constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed—I mean the attachment of the People.
Whenever this effect shall be produced among us... the vicious portion of population shall... gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage provision stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot editors and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure.
And with impunity..."
Now as then, numbers signify, and we should be thankful that present nutters are numbered in platoons rather than divisions. Alphabet, Apple & Amazon OTOH, add up to one very scary army of the like minded.
"Alphabet, Apple & Amazon OTOH, add up to one very scary army of the like minded"
Not in favour of the free market? Do you want Government intervention? Regulation?
Is that depriving Alphabet, Apple & Amazon of their rights?
Nathan, a confederacy of dunces is less cary than a confederacy of high intelligence.
Are you calling AA&A one?
"Are you calling AA&A one?"
No
Nathan, a confederacy of dunces is less scary than a confederacy of high intelligence.
Are you calling AA&A one?
As noted earlier, though corporation incapable of allegiance, are subject to the law, antitrust law included.
Go argue with either President Roosevelt.
I have read the novel, it was one of the funniest books I have read.
No idea what you mean, TCW.
Not sure the above is shorthand for something?
"You speak as though everyone had an unified goal, which I don't think is true. "
Pelosi said as much, and it doesn't really matter if it's unified.
The point was that the impeachment (if the Senate convicts) is more than 'moot'
Looks like I was wrong.
The ONLY impact (other than removal from office) is the potential for disqualification of holding office. Although they can then try him in a normal court according to law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#:~:text=In%20impeachment%20proceedings%2C%20the%20defendant,federal%20office%20in%20the%20future.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see you come down on the "Nothing to see here, just move along" crowd. The principal point of punishment is deterrence, and we have a political Party full of would be authoritarian leaders, including guys like Hawley and Cruz who a lot smarter than Trump. Deterrence is urgent.
"No idea what you mean, TCW.
Not sure the above is shorthand for something?"
Sorry two words were dropped in haste- it should read thus:
"As noted earlier, though corporations are incapable of allegiance, they are subject to the law, antitrust law included."
Take a look at WC's latest ref, and pass the popcorn-
Parler just filed an antitrust suit against Amazon.
> antitrust law
Earlier, you were vague about whether the problem with Twitter etc was First Amendment or something else. I think you've now dropped FA - which clearly wasn't in play - and are switching to antitrust. But I think this too is dubious. Antitrust is a weapon of pols which they use for their own purposes which are likely not to be for the good of all. In the case of Parler, I think the claim is spurious, and is just thrown in to make a court case. But beware of what you wish for: the Dem pols are quite capable of picking up the antitrust stick and flailing around without thinking. In this case, though, it is clearly inappropriate: three competitors (Google, Facebook and Twitter) all provide platforms. No-one is dominant, and therefore no-one is abusing a dominant position. Antitrust doesn't allow you to say "all these people disagree with me therefore all these people must be forced to publish me".
> The principal point of punishment is deterrence
I'm not sure I agree, but granting you that, the punishment should come from the correct place. In the case of pols, the correct place is voting: if pols behave badly, then people should not want to vote for them. Having pols police each other - impeachment would be nakedly partisan - is difficult.
> Deterrence is urgent
And we must do this thing without thinking it through carefully. Fortunately, you're not going to get your wish: while the Dems may pass their motion it won't get considered until well after the inauguration.
> Pelosi said...
Pelosi said "The president represents an imminent threat to our constitution, our country and the American people, and he must be removed from office immediately". So if that's her justification, doing it once he's out of office is pointless. Face it: Pelosi is a pol, and is acting and speaking for her personal, and her party, advantage.
" In this case, though, it is clearly inappropriate: three competitors (Google, Facebook and Twitter) all provide platforms. No-one is dominant, and therefore no-one is abusing a dominant position."
I so love the British sense of humor. Completely blind to the issue one way, and completely describing it in another way, in the same sentence.
"Having pols police each other - impeachment would be nakedly partisan - is difficult."
Removal from office is difficult, requires a 2/3s vote. Only if the issue isn't nakedly partisan will it pass.
Nixon resigned because he was told not only would he be impeached, but he would also be likely removed from office.
Trump wouldn't resign in any case, as that would be to admit failure, and the Republicans are so partisan that they would never vote to remove him.
Which is too bad for the Republicans, as Pence might have done well responding to the pandemic, and been re-elected once, maybe even twice.
"Trump’s social media exile represents, in some ways, a libertarian dream of a wholly privatized public sphere, in which corporations, not government, get to define the bounds of permissible speech."
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/opinion/twitter-facebook-trump-ban.html
The problem with breaking up tech giants is the network effect. Broken up networks are much less useful than full networks. Some sort of socialized aka public "road" is needed. As cities have had since the beginning.
The NYT is a competitor to Twitter. They'd love it if Twitter were broken up, obvs. Why are you quoting them as if they were neutral and honest?
If you can't comment on the message, attack the messenger.
Incidentally, Shelley v. Kraemer is an interesting distinction of private vs state. h/t Don Boudreaux / Dan Polsby.
Still not a comment on the libertarian dream of completely private public sphere.
Private street ownership would make cities impossible.
Network effect meaning that a larger network is more valuable than a smaller network. In time, the smaller networks will fail. Leading to a single network.
That means that the head of Facebook (or whatever network wins) will be more powerful than the President of the United States. And you are fine with that.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9132321/Nancy-Pelosi-says-wants-Donald-Trump-impeached-stop-running-president-again.html
It is bizarre to read progressives channeling David Frum and Newt Gingrich, but as can be seen, a lot of post-9-11 unfreedom of speech rhetoric is being recycled or repurposed in the service of the Great Deplatforming:
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/violence-in-the-capitol-dangers-in-67f
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-show-of-monopolistic
PS, Phil:
"Phil said: 4) Lizard people shapeshifted into Trump supporters."
You forgot the polar bear impersonators:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2020/11/blog-post.html
"unfreedom of speech"
Maybe the point is that you don't know what 'Freedom of Speech' is.
We do not have the freedom to say whatever we went, when we want, wherever we want, using other people's megaphones.
Freedom of Speech is a different thing.
First they came for other peoples megaphones, but I was an I-phone user...
Back to the drawing board Phil- there are always people who want to control discourse, and we are watching them use existential threat inflation as a tool for the erosion of liberty in real time.
"... and the Republicans are so partisan that they would never vote to remove {Trump}."
This actually might not be true. Liz Cheney is the third. And the third ranking Republican in the House. Compared with none the first time.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/12/liz-cheney-house-republicans-say-theyll-vote-impeach-trump/6647030002/
Conviction and baring from future office might be useful for the Republicans to stop Trump from making more trouble. About a third of the Republicans need to vote for conviction, assuming all Democratic votes are for conviction.
TCW: Talking to me? Or Nathan? Or Stoat?
https://mailchi.mp/mail.house.gov/i-will-vote-to-impeach-the-president
The Republican House leadership is NOT formally lobbying members on this vote.
RS: Violence in the Capitol, Dangers in the Aftermath seems to be largely true, but How Silicon Valley, in a Show of Monopolistic Force, Destroyed Parler largely false. Based on a sample of two, I can't tell if your Greenwald is anything better than random.
TCW has no idea what Free Speech is...
https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrection-at-the-capitol/2021/01/15/957201436/u-s-says-rioters-at-capitol-aimed-to-capture-and-assassinate-elected-officials
Not just one dickhead. There's lots to investigate and I'm betting that there's plenty more that will come out.
This was a joint session of congress, with the VP there. The fact alone that security was unprepared for that is a big deal.
This is a Free Speech issue
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/woman-43-year-prison-sentence-insulting-thailand-monarchy/
RS: Violence in the Capitol, Dangers in the Aftermath seems to be largely true,
but How Silicon Valley, in a Show of Monopolistic Force, Destroyed Parler largely false
Based on a sample of two, I can't tell if your Greenwald is anything better than random.
Quite so.
I should have read Greenwald's Silicon Valley screed through to the end before punching the combined forward link.
As news comes out of Donald Trump's funding of the Capitol insurrectionists, I just wonder if it will change anybody's opinion. Kinda doubt it.
You mean stuff like Trump campaign had paid $2.7M to organizers of rally ahead of Capitol riot? There seems to be rather less to that than meets the eye. Notice how that's designed to mislead: your "Trump funded" was implausible - can you imagine him wasting his own money on this stuff - and not so. It's campaign donations funding this. Not is it funding of the rally or the riot: its just total funding to various bods and orgs over the past n years.
Sometime the MSM is going to have to give up its relationship with the cheap-n-easy-headline-generating Mango Mussolini.
People often get the media that they deserve.
Same with the government.
Almost half of the USA deserves Donald Trump. That should scare you. And us all.
Your continued defense of the mango Mussolini is mystifying.
The very article you linked starts with the title and opening sentence mentioning the "Trump campaign" paying things, not Trump himself like you dismiss. But if the money came from the campaign that is still important! Trump has been trying to say he had nothing to do with the Jan 6 rally, but in fact his campaign money and personnel made it happen. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/01/trump-tied-to-dc-protests-dark-money-and-shell-companies/ (This is the article your Hill article points to.)
Trump installed loyalists at the Pentagon in Dec. Everyone wondered why. Now we know.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/dc-guard-capitol-riots-william-walker-pentagon/2021/01/26/98879f44-5f69-11eb-ac8f-4ae05557196e_story.html
Pipe bombs were placed in the Capitol the night before - perhaps to draw police away from the Capitol. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/29/politics/washington-pipe-bombs-dnc-rnc/index.html
https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-the-capitol-riot-what-the-parler-videos-reveal
You can watch videos made by the people there - you can hear them talking about getting "the traitors" and wanting to stop the electoral vote counting.
This was targeted at the Capitol building exactly when the VP and joint congress were in attendance. This was exactly an attempt to subvert the election.
This is not just one dickhead.
> is mystifying
If I was defending him, it would be. But I'm not. I am however defending Truth.
> Trump has been trying to say he had nothing to do with the Jan 6 rally
I haven't seen that, but I haven't been following, so he could well be lying about that.
> Pipe bombs
People seem to get terribly excited about bombs. When we had the IRA the authorities regularly panicked about bomb threats, even though bombs rarely did much. In this case, they did nothing.
> hear them talking about getting "the traitors"
Sure. There were loadsa nutters. That isn't disputed, is it?
> This is not just one dickhead.
Ah, I see what you men. In the sense that MM would be nothing without supporters an enablers, no. In the sense that he is tapping into a wellspring of pre-existing angst, no. But in the sense that it will all fizzle out and return to pols-as-normal in his absence, yes.
The Republican Party has been getting far more ... interesting ... for years. Trump isn't the cause of this, he was just surfing the wave, and the absence of Trump will not solve the issues.
The death of Hitler didn't end Nazism.
Trump is certainly the symptom, not the disease. But rather than surfing the wave, he's the snowboarder that started an avalanche that will continue in his absence.
"MM would be nothing without supporters an enablers"
The Kabuki Arturo Ui's invasion force included enough Anime fans to earn him an epithet upgrade:
Make than the Manga Mussolini
"I am defending Truth" and then basically saying over and over "nothing to see here." Interesting hot take the day after the event and then poo-pooing any information that comes out afterwards. Keep defending that Truth.
Post a Comment