GOP Gaslighting: If January 6 Was An Insurrection Then Someone Would Be Convicted ... Never Mind

They have to get Trump out of there NOW!  He's a madman and has 14 days left to do unimaginable harm. I think Pence will go along with it - if there are enough Cabinet members left. There's talk that a lot of them are resigning. 


meanwhile...


drummerboy said:

terp said:

I never said violence is fine.  What I said is that at least today the rage was targeted at the people with whom they have a gripe.  

And I never compared the motivations.  People on all sides of the political spectrum are pissed and they have good reason for feeling that way.

Yeah, but you['re saying that people who believed the election was stolen have good reason.

They don't have good reason. They have, actually, no reason, other than that they believe Trump.

So you had a mob of people out there behaving completely irrationally. There grievances were imaginary. There only grievance was that Trump lost.

ETA: which, btw, was PVW's "strawman" point.

 First, it doesn't matter if they're right or not.  Just like it didn't matter that the center all the way left believed the Russiagate nonsense and thought that Tump was Cheeto Hitler.

Even though there was no evidence of this, many many people behaved as though it was true.  And using the Cathedrals rubric, this was used to undermine democracy.   If Russia subverted the election by making some social media posts as was the narrative, then what of Mueller holding back what he certainly must have known prior to the midterm elections.  Namely, that our president was not an agent of Russia.  And what of the slanted reporting going into this election and the silencing of the Hunter Biden story?  Twitter banned the second largest newspaper in the country for reporting on Hunter Biden.

Now we had an election where there seemed to be some irregularities.   Like any election, I'm sure there were shenanigans.  Was there enough to overturn the election?  Who knows.  But, unlike the 2016 election,  the corporate press clutches their Pearl's whenever anyone dare question the sanctity of our elections.  This after years of reporting how vulnerable our elections are of being hacked.  Things that make 70 million+ people go hmmmm.


terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

I never said violence is fine.  What I said is that at least today the rage was targeted at the people with whom they have a gripe.  

And I never compared the motivations.  People on all sides of the political spectrum are pissed and they have good reason for feeling that way.

Yeah, but you['re saying that people who believed the election was stolen have good reason.

They don't have good reason. They have, actually, no reason, other than that they believe Trump.

So you had a mob of people out there behaving completely irrationally. There grievances were imaginary. There only grievance was that Trump lost.

ETA: which, btw, was PVW's "strawman" point.

 First, it doesn't matter if they're right or not.  Just like it didn't matter that the center all the way left believed the Russiagate nonsense and thought that Tump was Cheeto Hitler.

Even though there was no evidence of this, many many people behaved as though it was true.  And using the Cathedrals rubric, this was used to undermine democracy.   If Russia subverted the election by making some social media posts as was the narrative, then what of Mueller holding back what he certainly must have known prior to the midterm elections.  Namely, that our president was not an agent of Russia.  And what of the slanted reporting going into this election and the silencing of the Hunter Biden story?  Twitter banned the second largest newspaper in the country for reporting on Hunter Biden.

Now we had an election where there seemed to be some irregularities.   Like any election, I'm sure there were shenanigans.  Was there enough to overturn the election?  Who knows.  But, unlike the 2016 election,  the corporate press clutches their Pearl's whenever anyone dare question the sanctity of our elections.  This after years of reporting how vulnerable our elections are of being hacked.  Things that make 70 million+ people go hmmmm.

 I must have missed the part where Clinton supporters tried to violently overturn the election.


cramer said:

They have to get Trump out of there NOW!  He's a madman and has 14 days left to do unimaginable harm. I think Pence will go along with it - if there are enough Cabinet members left. There's talk that a lot of them are resigning. 

 If you think they're angry now....


PVW said:

drummerboy said:

also, I don't think anyone here is complaining about property damage to the Capitol as the reason they're upset at today's events.

 I might even say that was a strawman.

It was a goad. No. 3, by my count.


drummerboy said:

meanwhile...

Defund the police? I don't think the police did very much today other than take selfies with the trumpers. They only come out in force during BLM protests. Today was a collective personal day.


I guess, more than anything, I'm just a bit shocked that you're so blase about an attempt to overturn an election at the point of a gun. I knew you were deeply cynical about democracy, and see most government fundamentally illegitimate, but I didn't realize we were so far apart that armed insurrection merits a LMFAO from you.

I'm probably not going to say anything constructive if I stay on longer tonight. It's been revelatory, even if quite dispiriting.


PVW said:

terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

I never said violence is fine.  What I said is that at least today the rage was targeted at the people with whom they have a gripe.  

And I never compared the motivations.  People on all sides of the political spectrum are pissed and they have good reason for feeling that way.

Yeah, but you['re saying that people who believed the election was stolen have good reason.

They don't have good reason. They have, actually, no reason, other than that they believe Trump.

So you had a mob of people out there behaving completely irrationally. There grievances were imaginary. There only grievance was that Trump lost.

ETA: which, btw, was PVW's "strawman" point.

 First, it doesn't matter if they're right or not.  Just like it didn't matter that the center all the way left believed the Russiagate nonsense and thought that Tump was Cheeto Hitler.

Even though there was no evidence of this, many many people behaved as though it was true.  And using the Cathedrals rubric, this was used to undermine democracy.   If Russia subverted the election by making some social media posts as was the narrative, then what of Mueller holding back what he certainly must have known prior to the midterm elections.  Namely, that our president was not an agent of Russia.  And what of the slanted reporting going into this election and the silencing of the Hunter Biden story?  Twitter banned the second largest newspaper in the country for reporting on Hunter Biden.

Now we had an election where there seemed to be some irregularities.   Like any election, I'm sure there were shenanigans.  Was there enough to overturn the election?  Who knows.  But, unlike the 2016 election,  the corporate press clutches their Pearl's whenever anyone dare question the sanctity of our elections.  This after years of reporting how vulnerable our elections are of being hacked.  Things that make 70 million+ people go hmmmm.

 I must have missed the part where Clinton supporters tried to violently overturn the election.

 First, if this is going to overturn the election we've got some big problems.  And you're right.   The rank and file Clinton supporter just turned into CNN and/or MSNBC every night and would tell anyone who would listen that "we're this close to getting him!"  Violently annoying maybe, but not violent.

Again, it was the Cathedral that focused on effectively overturning the election.  And they were successful in many ways.  Oddly, one of their motivations was the fear that Trumps Foreign Policy would not be as violent as they would like.


terp said:

PVW said:

terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

I never said violence is fine.  What I said is that at least today the rage was targeted at the people with whom they have a gripe.  

And I never compared the motivations.  People on all sides of the political spectrum are pissed and they have good reason for feeling that way.

Yeah, but you['re saying that people who believed the election was stolen have good reason.

They don't have good reason. They have, actually, no reason, other than that they believe Trump.

So you had a mob of people out there behaving completely irrationally. There grievances were imaginary. There only grievance was that Trump lost.

ETA: which, btw, was PVW's "strawman" point.

 First, it doesn't matter if they're right or not.  Just like it didn't matter that the center all the way left believed the Russiagate nonsense and thought that Tump was Cheeto Hitler.

Even though there was no evidence of this, many many people behaved as though it was true.  And using the Cathedrals rubric, this was used to undermine democracy.   If Russia subverted the election by making some social media posts as was the narrative, then what of Mueller holding back what he certainly must have known prior to the midterm elections.  Namely, that our president was not an agent of Russia.  And what of the slanted reporting going into this election and the silencing of the Hunter Biden story?  Twitter banned the second largest newspaper in the country for reporting on Hunter Biden.

Now we had an election where there seemed to be some irregularities.   Like any election, I'm sure there were shenanigans.  Was there enough to overturn the election?  Who knows.  But, unlike the 2016 election,  the corporate press clutches their Pearl's whenever anyone dare question the sanctity of our elections.  This after years of reporting how vulnerable our elections are of being hacked.  Things that make 70 million+ people go hmmmm.

 I must have missed the part where Clinton supporters tried to violently overturn the election.

 First, if this is going to overturn the election we've got some big problems.  And you're right.   The rank and file Clinton supporter just turned into CNN and/or MSNBC every night and would tell anyone who would listen that "we're this close to getting him!"  Violently annoying maybe, but not violent.

Again, it was the Cathedral that focused on effectively overturning the election.  And they were successful in many ways.  Oddly, one of their motivations was the fear that Trumps Foreign Policy would not be as violent as they would like.

OMG, can't you take all this quasi intellectual libertarian conspiracy nonsense somewhere else?


terp said:

 In 2016 many people freaked out because they could not imagine Trump being president.  This group includes what is commonly known as the Cathedral.  The Cathedral is made up of many of our institutional powers in this country.  These include the beaurocratic state, the corporate press, academia, big tech, the military industrial complex, etc.

Where in the world does this "what is commonly known as the Cathedral" come from? 


Are we going to just let this Cathedral thing go by without comment?

ETA: oops, too late.


basil said:

terp said:

First, if this is going to overturn the election we've got some big problems.  And you're right.   The rank and file Clinton supporter just turned into CNN and/or MSNBC every night and would tell anyone who would listen that "we're this close to getting him!"  Violently annoying maybe, but not violent.

Again, it was the Cathedral that focused on effectively overturning the election.  And they were successful in many ways.  Oddly, one of their motivations was the fear that Trumps Foreign Policy would not be as violent as they would like.

OMG, can't you take all this quasi intellectual libertarian conspiracy nonsense somewhere else?

Is that where all the "Cathedral rubric" stuff comes from? 


PVW said:

I guess, more than anything, I'm just a bit shocked that you're so blase about an attempt to overturn an election at the point of a gun. I knew you were deeply cynical about democracy, and see most government fundamentally illegitimate, but I didn't realize we were so far apart that armed insurrection merits a LMFAO from you.

I'm probably not going to say anything constructive if I stay on longer tonight. It's been revelatory, even if quite dispiriting.

 Were there shots fired by the protesters?   

Heres the thing.  No matter what kind of government we have, a small number of governing elite will rule.  Democracy just provides the illusion that you have some control.  I guarantee that nothing meaningful changes during the Biden administration.   Odds are that we will be rattling Sabres in a year or 2 and people here will be saying what a. awful person some dictator is in some country that we want to invade.  Politics are about power.  Elections just determine who gets to rule.


Apologies if I can't get too worked up about our election.  I'm sure as **** not going to protest.  Heck, I don't even vote.
  



Here's a start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin


Dark Enlightenment

Yarvin believes that the real seat of political power in the United States is an amalgam of established universities and the mainstream press, an entity he calls "the Cathedral."[31] According to him, a so-called "Brahmin" social class dominates the American society, preaching democratic and progressive values to the masses. The basic assumption of Yarvin and the Dark Enlightenment movement is that humans desire power, which is uselessly fragmented by the Cathedral's commitment to equality and justice, eroding at the same time order in society.[32]


drummerboy said:

Here's a start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin


Dark Enlightenment

Yarvin believes that the real seat of political power in the United States is an amalgam of established universities and the mainstream press, an entity he calls "the Cathedral."[31] According to him, a so-called "Brahmin" social class dominates the American society, preaching democratic and progressive values to the masses. The basic assumption of Yarvin and the Dark Enlightenment movement is that humans desire power, which is uselessly fragmented by the Cathedral's commitment to equality and justice, eroding at the same time order in society.[32]

 Now I'm just confused, unless there's a fine line between "Libertarian" and Fascist.


nohero said:

basil said:

terp said:

First, if this is going to overturn the election we've got some big problems.  And you're right.   The rank and file Clinton supporter just turned into CNN and/or MSNBC every night and would tell anyone who would listen that "we're this close to getting him!"  Violently annoying maybe, but not violent.

Again, it was the Cathedral that focused on effectively overturning the election.  And they were successful in many ways.  Oddly, one of their motivations was the fear that Trumps Foreign Policy would not be as violent as they would like.

OMG, can't you take all this quasi intellectual libertarian conspiracy nonsense somewhere else?

Is that where all the "Cathedral rubric" stuff comes from? 

 It is not a libertarian term.  It is a term coined by Curtis Yarvin who will tell you he is decidedly not a libertarian.    It was originally coined in An Open Letter to Open Minded Progressives.  It's a really good term in that it captures a lot in one word.  

Yarvin is radical, but super smart and knows his history quite well.  Always a thought provoking and sometimes hilarious read even when you disagree.


nohero said:

drummerboy said:

Here's a start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin


Dark Enlightenment

Yarvin believes that the real seat of political power in the United States is an amalgam of established universities and the mainstream press, an entity he calls "the Cathedral."[31] According to him, a so-called "Brahmin" social class dominates the American society, preaching democratic and progressive values to the masses. The basic assumption of Yarvin and the Dark Enlightenment movement is that humans desire power, which is uselessly fragmented by the Cathedral's commitment to equality and justice, eroding at the same time order in society.[32]

 Now I'm just confused, unless there's a fine line between "Libertarian" and Fascist.

 Anyone who thinks Yarvin is a fascist is either lying, doesn't know Yarvin, or doesn't understand what fascism is.


terp said:

 It is not a libertarian term.  It is a term coined by Curtis Yarvin who will tell you he is decidedly not a libertarian.    It was originally coined in An Open Letter to Open Minded Progressives.  It's a really good term in that it captures a lot in one word.  

Yarvin is radical, but super smart and knows his history quite well.  Always a thought provoking and sometimes hilarious read even when you disagree.

If you say so.  It sounds like an artificial label concocted to prove its own existence.


nohero said:

terp said:

 It is not a libertarian term.  It is a term coined by Curtis Yarvin who will tell you he is decidedly not a libertarian.    It was originally coined in An Open Letter to Open Minded Progressives.  It's a really good term in that it captures a lot in one word.  

Yarvin is radical, but super smart and knows his history quite well.  Always a thought provoking and sometimes hilarious read even when you disagree.

If you say so.  It sounds like an artificial label concocted to prove its own existence.

 That literally makes no sense.


terp said:

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

Here's a start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin


Dark Enlightenment

Yarvin believes that the real seat of political power in the United States is an amalgam of established universities and the mainstream press, an entity he calls "the Cathedral."[31] According to him, a so-called "Brahmin" social class dominates the American society, preaching democratic and progressive values to the masses. The basic assumption of Yarvin and the Dark Enlightenment movement is that humans desire power, which is uselessly fragmented by the Cathedral's commitment to equality and justice, eroding at the same time order in society.[32]

 Now I'm just confused, unless there's a fine line between "Libertarian" and Fascist.

 Anyone who thinks Yarvin is a fascist is either lying, doesn't know Yarvin, or doesn't understand what fascism is.

I don't know anything about Yarvin except what you folks have pointed out - he has a problem with a "commitment to equality and justice".  You tell me what to label that.


terp said:

 That literally makes no sense.

I should have just written that it was pseudointellectual claptrap, then.


terp said:

 What is wrong with everyone here?  Stores are burnt down and everyone here is like "what, don't the stores have insurance".  Now a protest that is much smaller doing a small fraction of the damage we saw earlier is perpetrated on an organization who will just print the money to repair any damage.  Not to mention that this organization perpetuates needless suffering and death across the globe as standard operating procedure.

And now you're apoplectic? 

 I'm offended by your absolute lack of a sense of humor. 


nohero said:

I don't know anything about Yarvin except what you folks have pointed out - he has a problem with a "commitment to equality and justice".  You tell me what to label that.

 This is a good example of my earlier point.


terp said:

nohero said:

I don't know anything about Yarvin except what you folks have pointed out - he has a problem with a "commitment to equality and justice".  You tell me what to label that.

 This is a good example of my earlier point.

So how should he be described, if he doesn't like a "commitment to equality and justice"?


ml1 said:

terp said:

 What is wrong with everyone here?  Stores are burnt down and everyone here is like "what, don't the stores have insurance".  Now a protest that is much smaller doing a small fraction of the damage we saw earlier is perpetrated on an organization who will just print the money to repair any damage.  Not to mention that this organization perpetuates needless suffering and death across the globe as standard operating procedure.

And now you're apoplectic? 

 I'm offended by your absolute lack of a sense of humor. 

 What a truly odd comment


terp said:

 What a truly odd comment

 you think today's events are funny. 

That's what's odd. And pretty sick. 


ml1 said:

terp said:

 What a truly odd comment

 you think today's events are funny. 

That's what's odd. And pretty sick. 

 I can see why, from your perspective, that you think that way.  Yet I'm here answering questions and explaining myself while most just hurl names.  If your perspective was so correct, you'd think people would be able to defend it.  


terp said:

 I can see why, from your perspective, that you think that way.  Yet I'm here answering questions and explaining myself while most just hurl names.  If your perspective was so correct, you'd think people would be able to defend it.  

 congratulations for explaining yourself. 


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.