With fascism coming, America responds: LOL who cares? Let's Netflix and chill
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In America (and around the world) the year 2021 was one of great sadness and frustration. By many indications, 2022 may be even worse.
America's democracy crisis continues to escalate. The alarm is blaring but the American people, for the most part, continue to ignore it. Last Jan. 6, Donald Trump and his regime attempted a coup with the goal of nullifying the results of the 2020 presidential election and, in effect, ending American democracy. In many respects, Trump's coup attempt was atypical, if not wholly unique.
It was publicly announced by Donald Trump and his agents months or even years in advance. Despite those warnings, law enforcement officials and national security leaders did little to prepare for it. Most of the mainstream news media and pundit class did not take the threat seriously, instead choosing to mock those truth-tellers who kept sounding the alarm.
Nearly a year after the attack, Donald Trump and the other high-level planners and conspirators have not been punished, and remain free to continue plotting the overthrow of American democracy. As has been widely observed, the Trump regime's coup attempt may be the least-punished such high crime in recent history.
Even Trump's foot soldiers have not been punished to the full extent of the law for their participation in the Capitol attack. While some have faced prosecution, the Justice Department has acted with great restraint.
Some "good news": Donald Trump's coup attempt was an example of what experts on authoritarianism and democracy describe as an attempt at an "autocratic breakthrough." Most democracies quickly fall before such assaults. This one was repelled, which is something of a unique accomplishment.
In other ways, the Trump regime's coup attempt was not so unusual. As in other places and times in history, Trump's loyalists are continuing with their efforts, both through more or less legal means and otherwise. When a coup fails the first time, the second attempt is usually successful. All of this is happening in real time and in plain sight, with minimal attempt at deception. For the American people and their responsible leaders to ignore such threats is a willful choice.
What warnings should we be heeding now? In a recent op-ed for the Washington Post, retired U.S. Army generals Paul D. Eaton, Antonio M. Taguba and Steven M. Anderson are sounding the alarm about the possibility of a second civil war in the aftermath of a future presidential election, if Donald Trump or another Republican refuses to accept the results:
We — all of us former senior military officials — are increasingly concerned about the aftermath of the 2024 presidential election and the potential for lethal chaos inside our military, which would put all Americans at severe risk….
Imagine competing commanders in chief — a newly reelected Biden giving orders, versus Trump (or another Trumpian figure) issuing orders as the head of a shadow government. Worse, imagine politicians at the state and federal levels illegally installing a losing candidate as president.
All service members take an oath to protect the U.S. Constitution. But in a contested election, with loyalties split, some might follow orders from the rightful commander in chief, while others might follow the Trumpian loser. Arms might not be secured depending on who was overseeing them. Under such a scenario, it is not outlandish to say a military breakdown could lead to civil war.
In this context, with our military hobbled and divided, U.S. security would be crippled. Any one of our enemies could take advantage by launching an all-out assault on our assets or our allies.
This is but the most recent in a series of public warnings by America's senior national security leadership, both before and after Jan. 6, about the spiraling danger of a new civil war, a right-wing insurgency and other forms of terrorism and political violence. Such warnings are without precedent in modern American history and highlight the extreme peril the country now faces from the Republican fascist movement.
It has also been reported that military leaders were seriously concerned that Trump might order the National Guard to intervene on his behalf on or around Jan. 6 by invoking the Insurrection Act. If he had given such an order, the country would have come dangerously closer to an authoritarian takeover and perhaps widespread violence, with elements of the military battling one another. Experts on civil war have warned that the U.S. is well along such a path.
Domestic terrorism experts have also warned that right-wing extremists and paramilitary groups are organizing on the local and state level to intimidate, harass and target "liberals," Black and brown people, Muslims, Jews, immigrant communities and others deemed to be their enemies. This is part of a nationwide campaign by Republican fascists and the larger white right to attack American democracy on the local and state level in order to facilitate Trump's return to power (or the "election" of his designated successor).
It is reasonable to feel angry about the American people's apparent passivity in the face of these obvious threats against democracy. But the more important question is why they are responding that way, and what that tells us about the health of American democracy and political culture? In essence, why do so many people simply not care?
There are many explanations. Most Americans do not follow politics closely. They also do not understand it very well. As we approach the one-year anniversary of Jan. 6, opinion polls show that fewer people are paying attention to the investigation into those events.
This is not, in itself, surprising. A large percentage of Americans, if not a majority, do not closely follow the news. At least half the population cannot read at a sixth-grade level. The average American's understanding of politics also ebbs and flows, most obviously in response to shared crises or calamities, but also in response to those events that the news media and leading political figures focus on most intensely. In this case, if the Democrats and others who support democracy do not consistently highlight the existential threat posed by the Republican-fascist movement, then most Americans will not pay attention.
American voters are also strikingly poor at attributing responsibility to the correct political leaders or parties for their policy failures. Most people receive information about current events from a trusted network that may include friends, relatives, community leaders, clergy members, favored politicians and media voices and, increasingly, social media such as Facebook or Instagram. Such a network is likely to be insular and inaccurate, serving as a type of echo chamber — especially for Republicans and "conservatives."
In an era of extreme right-wing asymmetrical polarization and negative partisanship, disinformation and a coordinated assault on truth and reality, as well as an overall culture of spectacle, unrestrained consumerism, cruelty and endless distraction, many Americans lack the capacity to make informed and responsible political and social decisions.
A large percentage of Americans believe (quite correctly) that the country's political elites and other leaders have failed in their responsibilities to society and are increasingly detached from the experiences of everyday Americans. This reflects a 60-year trend of declining faith and trust in the country's leaders and the legitimacy of "the system."
There is also a worrisome decline in the American people's faith in democracy itself, especially among younger people. A recent poll by Grinnell College offers additional context about the deep political and cultural divides that are driving the country's democracy crisis:
The poll shows incredibly few Americans (7%) have high trust in the federal government to offer good ideas to solve problems facing their communities. Even among Democrats, whose party currently holds the White House and the majority in both houses of Congress, only 14% say they have high trust in the federal government. Americans were somewhat more likely to have high trust in state governors (25%) and city or county elected leaders (19%) to offer good ideas to solve problems in their communities. In both cases, only a minority of Americans had high trust in elected officials.
"Trust in political institutions is the glue that holds democracies together and allows them to weather crises over time," said Grinnell political scientist Danielle Lussier. "While there will always be some skepticism toward the government, when a majority of people express distrust in elected officials, the legitimacy of the constitutional order is called into question."
Further analysis reveals the depth of partisan division: While doctors, scientists and teachers are highly trusted by Democratic voters, "among Republicans, doctors are highly trusted by only 48%, scientists by 28%, and teachers by 31%. Republicans place high trust in police officers (65%) but only 22% of Democrats have that same level of trust."
"Americans lack a collective sense of whom to trust," Lussier said, which "helps to explain why it is so hard to build a consensus for solving the country's problems."
Perhaps most important of all, for at least the last 50 years right-wing libertarians and other extremists have advanced a strategy to undermine faith in American democracy and the idea of government itself. This has created a space for right-wing political entrepreneurs to expand their power and influence by convincing large portions of the white American public that democratic government is illegitimate if it does not secure continued white supremacy.
In total, Americans are collectively experiencing a moment of social and political alienation, in which many of their fellow citizens are willingly surrendering to the forces of demobilization and authoritarianism.
Philosopher and political theorist Sheldon Wolin described such a moment in his book "Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism":
Antidemocracy does not take the form of overt attacks upon the idea of government by the people. Instead, politically it means encouraging what I have earlier dubbed "civic demobilization," conditioning an electorate to being aroused for a brief spell, controlling its attention span, and then encouraging distraction or apathy. The intense pace of work and the extended working day, combined with job insecurity, is a formula for political demobilization, for privatizing the citizenry. It works indirectly. Citizens are encouraged to distrust their government and politicians; to concentrate upon their own interests; to begrudge their taxes; and to exchange active involvement for symbolic gratifications of patriotism, collective self-righteousness, and military prowess. Above all, depoliticization is promoted through society's being enveloped in an atmosphere of collective fear and of individual powerlessness: fear of terrorists, loss of jobs, the uncertainties of pension plans, soaring health costs, and rising educational expenses.
Ultimately, who is to blame for the American public's passivity in the face of an escalating neofascist threat? Of course Republicans and other members of the "conservative" movement are the most clearly guilty. President Biden and the other leaders of the Democratic Party and the "liberal" or "centrist" leadership class are also responsible, to the degree they did not rapidly identify the threat and respond accordingly.
Right-wing libertarians and neoliberal gangster capitalists, who for years have longed to destroy the commons and social democracy in order to create a society where profits rule over people in all areas of life, are also responsible. They weakened the social fabric to such an extent that it was much easier for neofascism to take root.
However this dark chapter in American history concludes, and whatever the next chapter may hold, there will be many Americans (largely white people in the privileged classes) who will exclaim in all sincerity: How could such a thing have happened? Are we not better than this?
The answer to such questions will stare back at them from the mirror every morning -- and even then they will deny responsibility.
Tags
Who is online
102 visitors
A republic, if you can keep it...
1/6/21 = sloppy dress rehearsal and a what have we got to lose, it might work. it wouldn't shock me to learn that trump probably hindered the efforts of all militia mental cases to actually breach the capitol first and get to the congress by shooting off his mouth prematurely and urging the gathered legion of magatards to take a walk down the street and storm the US capitol. at any rate, the insurrectionist supporters are tying up all the voting loose ends in state legislatures now that align with their fascist ideals of judicial prudence, straight from their teabag constitution.
Has Mr. Trump conceded yet?
I think back in January he acknowledged that Biden would be the next president, but to my knowledge he's never actually conceded the election. He has to keep the Big Lie alive, you know.
I had family cheering on the insurrection. They (my paternal aunts) just about broke my dad's heart. Those same family members pay lip service to democracy, but when it comes to actually respecting the will of the people - nope, they support overturning the election.
it's veterans and current service members that took an oath to defend the constitution and then still support trump after the 1/6 attempt, is what pisses me off most. their loyalties are now misplaced and forever disgraced.
Dad's a veteran, and that's what hurt him the most. They support the destruction of what he fought for.
And the ones that say they would refuse service if they were called under Biden.
those words being said should bring an immediate dishonorable discharge to anyone active.
Any veterans who participated should be recalled to active duty and court martialed. I am a retired vet, but my oath isn't. It applies until the day I die.
Yep, I feel his pain.
I've known people my whole life who pride themselves on being self-declared "patriots", but are in truth anything but. A few family members as well, so you're not alone.
The logical disconnect is astonishing at times. Just flabbergasting.
On a related note, I have a neighbor down the road who's been turning his place into some kind of survivalist homestead or something. Lots of crappy, hastily-made animal shelters for chickens, geese and goats, totally trashing his property in the process. Says he's "getting ready."
For what? Larger animals to come eat whatever he decides to put in a makeshift pen?
I swear, people are nuts.
Well, he put up a rather loose woven wire fence around it all, with what look like green, untreated logs cut from the woods for corner posts. I think he's turned a dog or two loose in there as well, presumably to keep predators away. Poor things. I hope it doesn't get too cold this winter. It's been really warm so far, but you never know.
Oh, you have no idea. There's no shortage of nuts around here. It's like some kind of Fox News-watching, right wing radio-listening mass psychosis or something.
I decided to reach out to relatives I have not seen in decades. I found out they are anti vax, anti mask, magats. Fuck them.
Good article, Dig.
There are members on here who pretend as though there is no authoritarian threat coming from Trump and other reactionary extremists and neo-fascists. That may be attributed to their willful ignorance, or, perhaps, they support it. Some of them prefer to use idiotic, immature "emojis" rather than engage on a serious effort to gain any knowledge on the subject.
Prep work for a rebellion against the republic is already underway (as I'm sure you know), with Republicans in several states altering their election regs to make it easier for them to throw out results they don't like, even stripping at least 2 Secretaries of State of their election duties (Brad Raffensperger (R) in Georgia, and Kaite Hobbs (D) in Arizona) and transferring them to pro-Trumpers. Not to mention the changes aimed at making it harder for certain people in certain places to vote.
The Republican Party is openly anti-republic now, and Trump is STILL going around claiming the election was stolen. For Pete's sake, the Jan 6 committee needs to recommend charges against him (and others) for the federal crime of seeking to interfere with an election, and also pass a resolution formally declaring him a tyrant and an enemy of the republic. They already have enough evidence.
But with so many people still supporting him (Americans actually supporting a tyrant!!), I'm having a hard time seeing how this ends well.
How do you (or anyone else) think this is going to turn out?
The left wingers are just more subtle and sneaky in their attempts to overthrow our representative republic
Sneaky? IMO the left is open in trying to install a Totalitarianism government
Insanity.
Really? What the left does is emotionalize everything. Nothing is based on logic or reason. They simply appeal to emotion. And the lemmings follow. I get that the far right wants to resurrect Hitler. But they are nowhere near numerous or the mainstream. If fascism comes, it will come from the left. The party of tolerance is the most intolerant entity in our country. What the left does is attempt to associate anything left of center left as fascism. It doesn't matter that an ounce of thought shows it to be false because the left owns education. They are turning out functional idiots who will believe anything the left puts out. That's today's education system.
"Functional idiot"--I like that term. Apt description.
They run around going all Chicken Little about coups and insurrections and fascism. It is tiring and getting old.
another political science degree on display.
luckily there's faith based educational alternatives available. /s
Agreed...
Yeah, when they really really don't have a clue as to what one actually is... It's funny in a way... a very sad way...
traitor flag alongside traitor hats...
It doesn't require a degree. All it takes is even the simplest understanding of post-modernism. You know, where there is no such thing as truth or other absolutes. What used to be opinion is now speaking "truth' to power. But you do bring up an interesting point. Only the lofty "educated" can lead us into Utopia. What's right or wrong is beyond the simplistic masses.
Lucky indeed. I know you are attempting sarcasm, although I doubt you really consider it such. Young minds are impressionable and I have not the least doubt that those minds are being poisoned on both sides of the isle, but it is my hope that most in what you call the "faith based alternative" systems are being taught to think critically. That post-modernism is a destructive ideology. That there is such a thing as objective truth.
He got his from Trump U.
Faith-based thinking is substantially different from critical thinking. Faith is not objective. While there is nothing stopping a person who routinely thinks critically to be a person of faith, the faith side of the intellect is certainly not based on critical thinking.
According to what or who? You? Is there some natural law that says that the faith side of the intellect cannot be critical thinking or is that just your imposition? The answer is obvious. Faith doesn't impede critical thinking in the least. Your error is thinking that critical thinking necessarily involves objective evidence. It doesn't. Not at all.
Can we try avoiding the ugly attitude and tone?
The faith component itself is, by definition, NOT objective. Believing something to be true on faith is arguably the opposite of concluding something true (or likely true) based on objective analysis. Faith (itself) is not critical thinking.
One logically could, however, use faith to designate something they consider truth. Then, given that perceived truth, engage in critical thinking from that point on. So someone could have a very well conceived notion (a valid argument) based on critical thinking but with premises based on faith.
An extremely common example of faith-designated-truth is that God exists. That is, simply taking 'God exists' to be true†. Given that perceived truth, one can construct all sorts of well conceived thoughts based purely on critical analysis (objectivity, logic, etc.) The foundation of this thinking is faith but the balance is critical thinking.
Your error is that you presumed that. I intentionally said nothing whatsoever about evidence. I stated the single word 'objective'.
† I recognize that one can also create a critical thinking argument that concludes God exists by including different premises taken on faith as true. This is just an example for illustration.
Faith = religion
Objective science was impeded & delayed for centuries by the fears of being declared a heretic
by Rome. Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Michael Servitus et al.
Islam still impedes modern science by threatening heretics with death.
If the smartest person ever born believes by faith that the earth is only 6,000 years old,
he is handicapped by that faith.
There is no ugly attitude or tone. There is only the legitimate question.
We aren't speaking of objectivity but, rather, critical thinking.
Correct. Faith isn't critical thinking. That is, faith is not a part of the definition of what constitutes critical thinking. However, empirical evidence is not a part of the definition of critical thinking, either.
Yes, one could do that. It is also true that one can arrive at faith by employing critical thinking first, not later. That is, critical thinking can just as easily precede faith.
Same thing again. One does not need to begin from a position of faith to employ critical thinking. One can begin with critical thinking and arrive at faith. For instance, one can think critically about the nature of our universe and arrive at the faith that it is inherently rational. One doesn't begin with the universe being rational as a matter of faith. One employs critical thinking first and then arrives at such a faith.
It is no different with God. One can examine the universe and, through critical thinking, arrive at the truth that there must be a God.
Critical thinking is not a conclusion. It is a method. That is, critical thinking doesn't demand a specific outcome. Nor does it demand that only certain things can be considered fact. For instance, critical thinking doesn't demand that a conclusion must be based on empirical evidence. That is an external imposition. A product of individual bias rather than critical thinking. Critical thinking may lead an individual to that particular bias but the bias itself is not a part of critical thinking.
What relevance does your comment have concerning critical thinking?
Repeating myself: I never said a word about evidence.
I suspect ancient men did just that. They looked around at what they could sense and drew logical inferences which concluded that there must be something that explains what they cannot explain. From that, which could very well have been critical thinking, they then introduced (leaped to) notions based on faith. But, of course, they took the faith path quite long. They did not stop at 'there must be a creator' but developed entire religions with stories, attributes, etc. all based on faith. I just described religions.
So we agree (we shall see) that religions can include critical thinking in parts that are glued together with faith. What we likely will not agree on (although you should) is that the entire package is weakened (in terms of soundness) by the faith parts.
Where do you see me arguing that one does??
I think I just gave an example of this.
Pretty close to the example I just gave.
Yes, who said otherwise? Critical thinking produces conclusions.
Yet again, I have explicitly stated that empirical evidence is not necessary for critical thinking. I never mentioned evidence. Not part of the discussion. We can make it part (you seem to want to).
So how does any of this counter my point? ⇡
Faith still is not objective and still is not based on critical thinking. Critical thinking (e.g. per my example) could have preceded faith-based notions, but the faith-based notions themselves are not the result of critical thinking. They are a result of a leap from a conclusion derived by thinking critically. Being crystal clear:
As soon as the leap of faith occurred, the soundness of the argument was degraded. The leap of faith is not critical thinking but faith and critical thinking obviously can be interspersed (routinely done). Surely we can agree on at least that.
Yes, actually, you did.
Objective what? You could not be speaking of anything else other than objective evidence. If that is incorrect, enlighten me without redefining the word "objective".
But nothing has changed. We know mass attracts mass but we don't know why that should be. We only know that it does. We can explain its attributes well enough to send a probe to the farthest reaches of our solar system but we can't explain why it exists in the first place. We can only say that it does and how it behaves. One can say that, if I take this apple seed and stick it in the ground, giving it proper attention, then an apple tree will result. But that says nothing about why such a system exists in the first place. The idea that we understand orbital mechanics doesn't diminish the need for God in the slightest. Whether ancient or modern, the question is still there and hasn't changed at all.
Unless you understand that your worldview is based on the same faith mine is, then no, we are not in agreement. We can both explain why the earth orbits the Sun. Why that system exists is simply a matter of faith. I can't prove empirically that it is because God designed it that way, nor can you prove that He didn't.
Concerning critical thinking, there aren't any faith parts. That is true of both of us. Take the fine tuning argument, for instance. Critical thinking doesn't deny that the universe appears to be designed to support life as we know it. There are too many factors that need to be met for it to be otherwise. What is different are the explanations given to account for it. That is the point in which faith comes in. On your part and mine, whether or not you admit it.
The rest of your post is simply avoiding the implications of what you said, so I won't bother with it.
Is this something you consider a legitimate argument?
I stated my case quite clearly if you can see without faith...
Critical thinking has been discouraged by religions for 6 to 10 thousand years at least
under penalty of death from different religious orders.
10 Original Thinkers Persecuted As Heretics - Listverse
List of people burned as heretics - Wikipedia
Faith requires an abstinence from critical thinking.
You must believe without questioning
or if you insist on questioning, arrive at the Church's conclusion.
There is much truth in Jesus being the shepherd of his flock. IMHO
Now I bid you a happy New Year.
That is completely untrue. It is simply a view of someone who objects to faith. The links you give, which I didn't bother to examine, are only examples of an individual's reactions, not an examination of what the Bible actually says. If that isn't clear enough for you, what you present as an explanation is simply a portrayal of human behavior, not what Christianity actually stands for.
Critical thinking is why Christians as a whole aren't running around like Isis.
In your faith based 'reality' I am sure you believe that. I do not.
I have no objection to faith. Be misled.
Be an alcoholic but don't try to make me drink the wine.
Be a pilot for all I care, but don't expect me to fly with you.
Thank you for admitting that you are not here to debate or argue your stubborn belief system honestly.
The links aren't opinions. They are the meticulous records of the Churches of Europe who executed or burnt alive people they deemed to be heretics for violating acceptable faiths
As far as the Bible, the Koran and the Assyrian cuneiform tablets they are based on, it's all undocumented
oral history from beyond 7,000 years ago.
Whatever...
Totally different topic if you can stop preaching for any length of time.
I am not here to participate in some high school debate ad nauseum
Religions evolve over time. Memories apparently (like CRT) are extremely limited.
ISIS variants may be the current assholes of faith, but your Christians sanctioned cult warfare
throughout the history of Europe and
pogroms against the Jews has been 2,000 years in the making...and the Holocaust
was only 75 years ago, remember?
Remember the slaves brought here under the guise of the Bible?
Remember the millions of native South and North American Indians slaughtered in God's name?
THAT is what is clear to me.
The subject, Split Personality, is critical thinking. It isn't the behavior of people. You can come up with a list as long as history about the atrocities humans have committed without addressing the subject of critical thinking.
IMO the left is open in trying to install a Totalitarianism government
Yes... in your opinion!
Just look it up:
The belief that the creator of everything is a sentient male-figure entity who loves us and wants us to exist eternally with him in Heaven, etc., for example, is a product of wishful thinking (feelings).
Yes, Drakk, what ancient men observed is still observable. I was speaking of how they explained what they saw.
I made no indication that it did. Nobody knows the intended purpose of all that we can observe. Religions are used to 'answer' such questions but their 'answers' are ultimately speculation / imagination. Why are we going on this tangent?
No surprise.
No disagreement here. Why do you make this statement? I have never even hinted that anyone knows why anything exists.
I think we agree, but let's see if you come back and say we do not.
Critical thinking would not leap to sentient designer. Critical thinking would conclude that our universe is one of many that might have been and that ultimately one of those many had to manifest (consider void as one of the possibilities). The fact that our universe is the one that manifested does not suggest it was directed any more than the winner of a lottery from a drawing was directed. But, even though there is nothing that suggests the necessity of a sentient designer, critical thinking does not preclude the possibility of same. Note, however, deeming the universe most likely to be the product of a sentient designer necessarily includes the likelihood of such a designer existing in the first place. To wit, the never-answered question:
If a complex sentient designer exists (by whatever means) without itself having a designer then why would the universe need a designer?
The faith side introduces conditions not present in the scenario. It infers a sentient designer because obviously that correlates well with the belief in God. But the reality is that we do not know what caused our universe to exist as it does.
Where am I using faith? Be specific.
Your implications have not affected the position I posted. You have stated that critical thinking does not have faith parts. I certainly agree.
I think you agree that: @ 4.1.11 ☞ " Faith-based thinking is substantially different from critical thinking. "
You disagree that: @ 4.1.11 ☞ " Faith is not objective. " but continue to dwell on evidence (which I never mentioned) rather than show how faith, in your view, is objective (per Oxford).
You likely agree that: @ 4.1.11 ☞ " While there is nothing stopping a person who routinely thinks critically to be a person of faith, .... "
But likely disagree that: @ 4.1.11 ☞ " ... the faith side of the intellect is certainly not based on critical thinking ." And we have broken this down for clarity to the point of showing that a belief can be the result of critical thinking glued together with leaps of faith. And that a belief also can be the result of critical thinking that uses faith-based premises. But, ultimately, inserting even one premise or transition based on faith breaks the chain of critical thinking. As you note: " Concerning critical thinking, there aren't any faith parts. ".
How is faith objective? How is faith " not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts"?
No, the seed isn't about CT at all, you Want the topic of the thread to be CT.
I posited that true believers in any Christian faith are incapable of
objective critical thinking because of their faith.
They are fooling themselves if they believe otherwise.
So let's all continue the rinse and repeat
of this off topic thread.
Drakk will get very specific about your language, SP. If you mean that Christian beliefs are themselves not a result of pure critical thinking then that is one thing. But Drakk is very likely to interpret your comment as saying that Christians are incapable of critical thinking simply because they are Christians.
Just a little more and I'm sure you can trap that stationary ball and declare victory with your ever moving goalposts...
This is a perfect example of why you do not appear to understand what critical thinking is. Critical thinking doesn't conclude anything because it isn't a sentient entity capable of doing such a thing. It is a method a sentient entity uses to think about a subject and, hopefully, arrive at something like truth. Because of that, critical thinking would not conclude that our universe is one of many. You would, based on your biases, preconceptions and other such things.
So, really, what you're saying here isn't that critical thinking would lead any reasonable person to your conclusion but, instead, that anyone who doesn't reach your conclusion isn't thinking critically. That's pretty much the definition of hubris.
No, actually, it doesn't. It is a conclusion reached by critical thinking, not a part of the evidence used in the process of critical thinking. It is the same with the belief that this universe must be one of many and this one just happens to have won the lottery. Both of our conclusions are positions of faith, since there is no objective evidence for either, but that doesn't mean we didn't employ critical thinking to reach our positions. Once again, critical thinking doesn't demand a specific conclusion. What conclusion one will come up with will be affected by one's biases, preconceptions and the rest of the baggage we can't escape.
See preceding paragraph.
Yes, I've stated that but, thinking about it, it may be a pointless thing to say. We would like to believe it doesn't have faith parts but that's probably impossible to achieve. That is because we all have things we hold to be true on faith alone. For instance, I can look at the world and say it is evidence of God. You can look at the same world and say there is no evidence of God there. Neither one of us can empirically prove our position but we believe it none the less. Such beliefs held simply by faith cannot fail to influence the critical thinking process. That is, our biases, assumptions and preconceptions that are always present will affect the critical thinking process.
Actually, I couldn't say without knowing what you consider to be "faith based" thinking. Faith based thinking certainly isn't what you and Gordy have claimed it is in the past, for instance. Something believed without evidence or reason. Something believed because it's comforting or some such nonsense.
But again, you speak of critical thinking as if it guarantees specific conclusions, one's that would necessarily be different from what you call faith based thinking. This isn't so. Critical thinking is a tool concerning how to go about thinking about a subject. It isn't pre loaded (or shouldn't be) with the desired conclusion. Rather, it seeks to examine what it is we think is true and why do we think it. There's no barrier to employing critical thinking in one's faith.
So, I'd guess I wouldn't agree with your statement but can't say for sure without knowing what you consider faith based thinking. My guess is anything anyone believes without objective evidence to support it, but that isn't necessary for critical thinking.
I don't recall having stated a disagreement concerning this. I mean, one could objectively observe that another person has faith in something but I don't think that is what you mean. What a person has faith in would not be objective because then it wouldn't be faith. We don't have faith that 2+2=4 for instance.
That would be correct because it isn't true in any sense.
Really? I must have missed it, then.
This is untrue. Not only is there nothing wrong with inserting premises but it is almost certainly impossible to avoid. Critical thinking, once again isn't about reaching conclusions as it is a method of how to think about something. Its purpose is to expose biases, premises, presuppositions and all the rest of that baggage to see if we are reaching a valid conclusion concerning a subject. Critical thinking doesn't demand premises, regardless of where they come from, be removed from what is being thought about. It examines whether that premise is justified or not.
For instance, I can begin with the premise of God to critically think about the subject "What attributes would God necessarily have to have to be God?" Assuming God exists doesn't impede critical thinking concerning what His attributes may be in the slightest. Assuming that other universes beyond ours exist doesn't prevent one from thinking critically about them and what they might be like or figuring out a way to detect them.
Since I haven't said it was (that I can see), I'm not sure why you are asking me. I'm not even sure what you are asking. Near as I can tell, what you are actually asking is "how is what is held in faith objective." Whatever you meant, the obvious answer is that faith isn't objective or faith wouldn't be necessary.
Who said that they weren't? Maybe you should ask that person?
Of course I understand that critical thinking is done by a human being. I spoke of critical thinking as the process but of course a human being would execute the process. Good grief, Drakk.
This is what happens every time. You (not me) poison the discussion by inserting an invented 'fact' (in this case you invent that my position is that anyone who does not reach my conclusion means they are not thinking critically) and then engage in a personal attack (in this case you accuse me of hubris).
This is as far as I am reading your comment at the moment. Given how you started, I strongly suspect the rest of it is going to be more of the same crap and right now I am not inclined to even read it.
Blame me, if you must, but you are the one who constantly attempts to portray "faith based thinking" as something different than critical thinking. You simply put it down to nothing more than wishful thinking. No matter how often it is explained to you what the reasons are for what we believe you simply ignore it and put it down to wishful thinking, while you look down on us from the heights of critical thinking, reason and logic, at least as you see those things. If that isn't hubris then it doesn't exist.
Nor is it invented fact. Anyone who has followed you for any length of time knows this.
Then I suggest you don't. I go into work tonight and three days from now I won't have an interest in responding further, so there's probably no point.
Wishful thinking? More like magical thinking...
It is hard to take the belief in ghosts seriously.
Well it is different, Drakk. I went into substantial detail illustrating this.
The actual leap-of-faith component! I explained that a general faith-based thought process could include leaps-of-faith as well as critical thinking. But the leap-of-faith part is simply not critical thinking. Where do you find critical thinking in going from 'there must be something greater than us that created what we observe' to 'a sentient creator exists who is male and whose likeness we have assumed who created the universe in 6 days, etc. etc. etc., and who loves us and wants us to live eternally with Him in heaven, etc. etc. etc. and who engineered a human sacrifice of Himself (Son hypostasis) so as to be able to forgive our sins.'? That is not critical thinking, that is imagination.
But, as I noted, one certainly can accept leaps-of-faith (imagination) as truth and then use them as premises for subsequent critical thinking. And one can have an overall thought process that connects leaps-of-faith together using critical thinking. It is not sound, but the thought process could be valid. And the entire thought process cannot be seen as pure critical thinking since parts of it are based on leaps-of-faith. (Just a summary of what I expressed in some detail earlier.)
Again with the presumption that you know my thought process and again you go personal. Do I look down on my family and friends, Drakk? Do I look down on my own wife? People can hold/conclude that a position is wrong without looking down on those who hold the position.
Seriously, think about that. Do you look down on everyone who holds a position different from yours? If not, why presume that of others?
Try harder to not make things personal and go hostile.
For the love of truth, TiG, can you not see that you have no objective, undisputable evidence that proves it is imagination? It is merely opinion on your part because critical thinking can't take you there. Since you have no evidence to support your claim, you are taking the leap of faith in saying it is just imagination because you can't prove that it is.
From my perspective, Christianity is rational from beginning to end. That doesn't make it true, however and that is where my faith comes into it. I can either believe it or not. I choose to believe it because I think it is the best explanation as to why anything exists at all and what it is all about. It explains who and why we are the way we are better than anything else I know of. All of that was reached by critical thinking. What wasn't was deciding to believe in Someone who I can't prove exists, but critical thinking informs that choice to do so.
Where do I claim there is proof or indisputable evidence that it is imagination? When I say it is imagination I am basing that on the fact that there is nothing that indicates that it is anything other than imagination.
For example, I consider the Greek gods to be imagination. Same with Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, little green martians inhabiting the bodies of human beings, etc. I have no proof of this, but surely you comprehend my statements and surely you would not challenge them. You only challenge when I substitute one of your beliefs in the above pattern.
Before a truth is verified it is mere imagination. To go from imagination towards truth requires some form of validation.
Show me how ancient men going from 'there must be something greater than us that created what we observe' to 'a sentient creator exists who is male and whose likeness we have assumed who created the universe in 6 days, etc. etc. etc., and who loves us and wants us to live eternally with Him in heaven, etc. etc. etc. and who engineered a human sacrifice of Himself (Son hypostasis) so as to be able to forgive our sins.' is anything more than their imaginations.
It could be more than mere imagination, but has anyone ever shown that it actually is more than human imagination? Until that occurs, why would anyone elevate it to something greater than imagination?
And I would say that's fine, more power to you, go out and do good works to demonstrate your beliefs,
maybe my wife and I will donate to your favorite charity but it doesn't take a belief in Christ
to do good works.
Indeed we donate to many non Abrahamic charities that uplift humanity
without proselytizing and derailing a seed that was obviously political in nature.
and now
since its the 2nd day of 2022
still wishing you a prosperous New Year though,
Are you implying they are one and the same?
The reasons are subjective and likely emotionally based. The exact opposite of objectivity.
On the flip side, you have no objective, undisputable evidence that proves it's anything but, especially since it is the believer that often makes the claim of certainty.
That sums up belief nicely.
Insanity.
I urge anyone who has any doubts about where this political propaganda on steroids comes from is to tune in to rwnj talk radio. hewitt, prager, gorka, kirk, levin, etc, etc. take the time to listen to any of those assholes and you will know exactly what kind of mental cases america is dealing with. rightwing extremism is real.
How about Peter Boyles? 710KNUS Denver
Left wing extremism is real and getting worse
There is only one time I admired Levine. He wrote a tribute book to his dog Spot and gave the entire proceeds to charity.
peter boyles is an admitted birther and a local yokel teabag loser on a 5K watt thumper AM talk radio station. zero credibility.
That focuses on the wrong problem, IMO, as long as the GOP continues to hold Trump as their leader. And I doubt I need to explain this to anyone.
The Republican party, as a whole, doesn't
recent polls and statistics prove otherwise.
Except for a couple of loony tunes on social media sites ...
(But it won't do any good...)
I wish that were true, Greg, but Trump remains the defacto leader / voice of the party. I am aware that not every R follows Trump, but the party as a whole clearly does. It is this bizarre reality that continues to disappoint and concern me.
If you can point me to a source that shows the GOP has distanced itself from Trump and that a new leader / voice for the GOP has emerged, I will happily change my position. Because that would mean that Trump endorsements and Trump candidacy notions would not be part of the political mindshare. It would also mean we would not see people trying to defend the indefensible regarding Trump, his Big Lie con job, etc.
How are lefties trying to overthrow the republic?
Please give three examples.
1.)
2.)
3.)
1.) They turned me into a newt!
2.) I got better.
Just look at the State of Washington, the test subject of how to subjugate a population to find your totalitarianisms and the authoritarians implementing them...
Voted into office to cheering throngs who haven't a clue on what they are giving up and won't until the take over is complete...
Your absolutely right a republic, if we can keep it...
If you think the capital was an insurrection, you do not know what an insurrection is...
But keep going the way your going, and I'm 100% positively sure you WILL find out what an insurrection is, IN SPADES... It's the reason the founders were so forthright in putting the means to correct the ship of state forever in the citizens hands... and ALL of them, in their private papers and correspondence said it... AND MEANT IT...
whoa, deja vu...
I can tell you this, if the Republican Party thinks it can just "fix" things so it can toss out election results and install a government of "their choosing", then this experiment in self government is OVER, and yeah, you'll get something in SPADES alright.
Too much blood has been shed over the years for the right to vote, so don't expect people to just roll over and accept authoritarian minority rule if it's taken away.
Very true, we are are not going to accept authoritarian minority rule... and it isn't republicans... In reality, it is about who the majority is, one side claims it is the majority and has the right to decide how it is going to be for the rest of us... and use governmental power to enforce such edicts...
And we all know who those people are... don't we... yes too much blood has been shed in the past, but it is becoming readily apparent that the shedding of even more will be needed in the future as our Founders foresaw...
Which is what the failed insurrection attempted to establish. Trump got the minority of the vote, but some violent dumbasses still wanted him to rule. Nope.
a recent decade plus stretch in the senate ring any bells?
Your guy lost. Because the majority voted him out. Real Americans recognize that. The insurrectionists aren't getting nearly the sentences they deserve. They attacked police officers, threatened VPOTUS, and attempted to establish minority rule, in opposition to the Constitution of the United States. They're traitors to their country, as are those who support them.
Why in the world would I think antifa is going to save me? I have nothing from which I need to be saved. The incompetence of the insurrectionists assured me of that.
The way they were yelling for Pelosi I thought was threatening as well.
Oh, yeah, forgot about that.
Just tourists, right?
And there you go, anything contrary to group think is against the ToS, CoC, and the sensibilities of any open thinking individual...
this board is a controlled venue where a certain political philosophy reigns...
thank you for proving it...
Speak your mind, is that a joke?
What you wrote was against the TOS and the CoC. Those are the rules we are abide by. No one forces anyone to comment but if they do, they must do so by these rules.
those 11 molotov cocktails they found were just center pieces for the proud boys banquet later that evening...
To start off the patriotic fireworks show, of course.
Anyone who tries to do that bs again, will find out what lock and load really means.
Sounds like a veiled threat of violence to me. In response to democracy. Because that worked out so well a year ago. Such threats are anti-American.
[deleted]
[Please stop making everything very personal]
They weren't carrying firearms. They armed themselves with flagpoles, fire extinguishers, and a few planted explosives. They were not unarmed.
Autocracies don't push for voting rights, NWM, so your claim is nonsensical.
The incompetent attempt at an insurrection was an attempt to undo our constitutional republic, and to keep a would-be usurper in office in opposition to the expressed will of the people. Real patriots uphold fair elections.
ok, go on believing that... doesn't bother me in the least... autocracies do push for open voting for everyone, no matter if your a citizen or not, even the dead... (and sometimes the fictitious people)
With paper balloting, it will be extremely difficult for anyone other than democrats to win office, that is the way of such elections, it is why paper balloting is favored in all democratic autocracies... we just haven't found out how they are doing it yet... but everything comes out in the wash to speak..
Good luck, democrats think they have the upper hand, I guess over the next few election cycles we will see if they do, and if they do then it is clear that voting is not worth the effort to move the pen...
was... real americans stopped it in it's tracks on 1/6/21 and made it official 1/20/21, or don't you have a problem with a mob trying to obstruct a constitutionally mandated peaceful transfer of power?
Jeezus, what an oxymoron.
WTF?
Well, it's a bit unhinged, but it seems to be some paranoia justifying threats of violent insurrection.
meh, unlike the majority of rwnj simpletons, at least you have the balls to admit you think trump really won, despite all proof, bogus partisan audits, and 50-60 fruitless lawsuits later...
Nice to see that...
Maybe you should tell Columbia University Poli-Sci department they got it wrong... (and are oxymoronic in what they teach)
FALL 2021 AUTOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY, 3 pts, UN3534
did I say that or are you assuming again as usual... show me where I said that...
I think it's been 60 lawsuits. Maybe more, if you count suits by Dominion against Fox, Lindell, and company. Dominion refuses to settle out of court, I hear.
I know this is meta but I'm going to say it anyway...
Here comes the bias police... Happy?
Sorry, but I was reading that whole exchange and you did assign a side to Sandy. You did the same thing with Buzz. You might not agree with their POV, but you don't get to tell them who they support or who they are.
Bias would be if your POV was removed, as a POV, but you do not get to make your POV about someone else.
And please note that I am letting your meta stand, as I want you to understand what the problem is.
What's biased? they can do the EXACT same thing to me and get away with it...
Oh I understand the problem FULLY, that's why I posted the way I did, to highlight it...
Thank you... they seem to think I'm some moron that hasn't a clue, at least you don't...
It is basically saying...we know there is fraud, we can't see it or prove it but we know it is there....
Q
$1.6 billion would really be a fun starting point in any settlement negotiation, with most of the evidence already documented in the public domain.
No, they can't. They to a political movement which is what you did to Sandy when you assigned her as a blackshirt. For goodness sake, she isn't even a democrat, and that was assigned to her.
From what I understand, they don't intend to settle, because settling wouldn't fix the damage to their reputation brought about by the Big Lie supported by the incompetent insurrectionists. They want it to play out in public.
show me where I said that...
voting for everyone, no matter if your a citizen or not, even the dead... (and sometimes the fictitious people)
With paper balloting, it will be extremely difficult for anyone other than democrats to win office, that is the way of such elections, it is why paper balloting is favored in all democratic autocracies... we just haven't found out how they are doing it yet... but everything comes out in the wash to speak..
it is clear that voting is not worth the effort to move the pen...
a perfect political storm for the 2022 republican primaries is forecast. investigations, lawsuits, and trials, should make for some great TV.
Listen to them they are surrounding us importing their beliefs in what we are without a care in the world, they are JUSTIFIED...
I equated what clearly happened on the streets of WA DC with what happened in Nazi Germany, where did I impute that to her? please point it out...
Buzz want to denigrate Americans who own guns and tout his adopted nation as superior? and it's all good...
Hate is hate in all it's forms... And the current liberal thinking is nothing but hate.. Long ago I learned to not listen to what a person tells you they are, but read and listen to what they say and support... much like actions speak louder than words... I am very good at it and made a living doing it...
But here calling them out, exposing the hate, hell even speaking about the founders and what they built this nation upon is against the ToS...
You tell me what is happening...
What a load of whiny bullshit.
You minimized an attempt to overthrown an election.
You called our courts "kangaroo courts" for dispensing justice - fairly lenient justice, considering the assaults some of the participants committed, and their motive.
You asked, regarding me:
The hate is not coming from me, NWM. I oppose armed insurrection. I support government of the people, by the people, for the people. I oppose would-be kings who attempt to retain office when the people have shown their disdain. Presidents are elected, and those who lose election should leave office gracefully, as the founders planned. Do not invoke the founders while minimizing that which attempts to undermine their intent.
This is a place where people's beliefs are discussed. You might not agree with them or vice versa, but I would hardly call either side hate or hateful.
And no, talking about what our founding fathers is fine but remember they are not alive to talk for themselves. Everything else is up to interpretation as our SCOTUS would validate.
Nothing is happening here but not following the rules.
I'm only speaking to Perrie at this point in time... you are entitled to your opinions, but I am not., conservatives are not
THAT is the issue...
Not forcing an answer, she is entitled to her opinions as well, and she is the board owner.... I don't minimize anything...
She doesn't have to answer, but then she is intelligent enough to know that on the level I speak, no answer at this point is an answer as well...
So please, allow us to have a frank and honest conversation, Thank you..
I am, at least in part, the subject of your conversation. I will not sit idly by and let you talk about me without responding.
Then all is lost here... if the interpretation of the rules restricts one side of the discussion then indeed all is lost...
You were at one point, but if you cannot see that the conversation has moved on to bigger issues than you, then that's a serious shame...
Your not helping...
All of 6 posts ahead of this one, you made an accusation.
That was an accusation made against me. I will not ignore it on request.
No, what has happened here is this is all META and we are ruining someone else's article. I am locking this thread.
FYI - be careful, some knuckle dragging moron called me an internet badass here this week when I was talking about defending the constitution.
[deleted]
As usual more hot air.
balloon juice.
Good article, Dig and spot on.
The left's relentless attempts to overturn Trump's fairly won election amounted to a de facto insurrection.
What happened on January 6th was an unorganized demonstration that led to a half assed riot that got out of hand.
The left's pathetic attempts to make it more than it was is failing with the public at large...
it will get a lot more interesting after the wheels fall off all their judicial stalling tactics.
8 million votes? WTF?
There, fixed it so we could agree on something.
Another unsubstantiated opinion, how refreshing. /s
Try the 2016 election. The Democrats never accepted that Trump won. That is what he is referring to. Care to argue differently? We have 5 and half years of evidence and still counting on that issue.
So you agree that it was a riot and not an insurrection? Great. Now tell the Democrats, morons on the left, MSM, and the AG/DOJ that is making the US into a two tier justice system.
Just read the comments on this board. Check the number of times that the rioters are referred to as insurrectionist and domestic terrorists. Take a really good look at the TDS driven Jan 6th commission. Think they are looking at this objectively. Do you really need me to do a search and post every last damn article that refers to the rioters as insurrectionists? Hell, you can start with this one.
I can only imagine the outrage had Biden lost and the left attacked the capital in an attempt to stop the electoral vote count, or told the VP to, "just over turn the election".
But yea, go with TDS. It's always someone else's fault.
Ok
Sorry Ronin2 but the majority of people of all stripes accepted the election results.
I never questioned that election.
Nor did any of too many family members to count.
Nor did my GOP relatives gloat.
Well since it came from Greg and you chose to answer, no.
I'm sorry, you appear to be on the wrong seed or at least in the wrong echo chamber nation.
Ciao.
While I appreciate why someone would want to pretend the Ds behaved as irrationally as the Rs still do, that is simply not reality.
There is no equal (not even remotely close) to Trump’s Big Lie con-job and thus no equal to a political party prostituting itself for a malignant narcissist and pathological liar who demonstrably would do harm to the nation just to spare his ego the pain of losing.
Rather than continue conflicted and be forced into laughable arguments to try to defend the GOP, the GOP members could simply distance themselves from Trump and rally around a new leader who is at least a halfway decent human being.
But they refuse to do so. Thus they deserve the criticism.
And yet, Hillary conceded the morning after the election. Democrats accepted that he won. They couldn't friggin' BELIEVE that such a garbage human being won, but they accepted the technical electoral victory.
And rightly so for many of them. Traitors, too. That's what you are if you violently attack Congress to prevent the certification of a free and fair election.
Take a good look at yourself instead. Trump is a tyrant and a traitor. If there's truly any justice in the world, then he is going down for criminal interference in an election.
They just didn't tell Nicole Wallace.
One can only imagine the amount of lack of caring on the left as our two tier justice system releases leftist brown shirts guilty of far more than the Jan 6th rioters w/o charges.
The very premise of the article that the DOJ is somehow soft on the Jan 6th rioters is shear and utter bullshit.
Great restraint.
Only the truly TDS driven believe that.
Really. Ignoring a shitload of comments on this website. Ignoring Democrats calling for Trump's impeachment even before he took office. Hillary never believed; and still doesn't; that she lost the election- it has been, and always will be, "stolen from her" in her mind.
I am not even going to bother with the Democrats two faux impeachments of Trump. It is just a continuation of the bullshit they were pulling before he even took office.
Forget the screaming pink pussy hat protests organized by Russian bots no less. Think any of them accepted that Trump was President?
Thank you for making me restate history that anyone that was paying any sort of attention would already know.
Read post 7.2.8 and then get back to me on how rational Democrats are.
I am aware of the nonsense in both parties. I would simply repeat my comment:
Sad...
Let's not sugar coat it, many if not most on the right would be demanding the execution of any of antifa, BLM or other leftists who had beaten capital police with flag police, mace'd officers, vandalized the capital, chanted "Hang Mike Pence!" while searching for the legislators with zip ties in hand in an attempt to stop them from certifying the election for Donald Trump.
Do you think their failure to overturn the election would have made ANY difference as to what the charges and severity of punishment would have been? Hell no. But of course today, because it was their fellow right wing conservative Christian fascists that attacked the capital and failed somehow that means it wasn't an attempted insurrection at all and everyone is just blowing a "tour of the capital" out of proportion...
They injured hundreds of police officers throughout 2020 and attacked the White House. There were no overwhelming calls for mass executions
the right just wanted them to be punished, not treated as heroes by Democrats.
Ah, so Democrats discussing using a legal constitutional method of removing a President is the exact same as thousands of right wing extremists attacking capital police officers, breaking doors and windows, breaking and entering, vandalizing the capital, looting legislators offices while chasing elected officials with zip ties in hand in an attempt to force them to overturn a free and fair election. I suppose that's what masquerades as rational thinking nowadays in right wing conservative circles.
When Trump was elected some of the facts found in the Republican Senate investigation were already starting to come out.
So right wing nut jobs claiming that Democrats were trying to supposedly subvert the 2016 election and thus claiming that justifies their fellow right wing extremists attacking the capital on January 6th are out of their FUCKING minds. What Democrats were doing was following the facts from the beginning of Trumps presidency which had Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort passing intel to Russian operatives, Russian hackers releasing damaging Democrat emails in an effort to aid Trump in the election, Trumps National Security Advisor telling the Russian Ambassador not to worry about the Obama sanctions before Trump was even inaugurated and promising to remove those sanctions as soon as Trump was in office who then lied to the FBI about his conversations and half a dozen other Trump campaign officials being caught in lies.
Of course Democrats were discussing impeachment! Trump is, was and always will be a fucking crook whether proven to have criminally conspired with Putin or not. If "proven criminal conspiracy" is now the bar, what exactly is their complaint about Biden? I don't recall him every being proven to have criminally conspired with a foreign government. But still the right scream about "Hunters laptop" and "Let's Go Brandon" as if that proves Biden is unfit for the office.
And even with all the actual evidence of Trump connections to Russia, with a tape of him essentially trying to extort a foreign government to give him dirt on Biden, Democrats didn't storm the capital, beat officers, chant slogans about hanging the vice President, chase legislators with zip ties and attempt to overturn a free and fair election. No, they used a legal constitutional method for removing a President and the majority in the congress found him guilty TWICE which is double the amount of times Clinton was impeached, and while, just like Clinton, the Senate acquitted him, Democrats did nothing wrong, they followed the law unlike these right wing extremists who attacked our capital and all those sick sycophant apologists trying to defend and deflect for them.
Oh, and another point those on the right never seem to want to admit, if Trump had been impeached by Democrats and the conviction upheld by the Senate, guess who would have become President? Would it have been Hillary? Of course not! It would have been Republican President Mike Pence. So this whole bullshit narrative about Democrats trying to overturn the Trump election through impeachment because Hillary never really admitted defeat and was still somehow trying to take the Presidency is beyond silly, it's the fucking height of stupidity.
93% of the BLM/George Floyd protests were peaceful, so the vast majority of protests had no police injured. There was no "attack on the white house", this is total right wing fiction. There were protests outside the white house, but there was no mass crowd attempting to break through the barricade onto the white house grounds, that simply did not happen.
In the 7% of protests that did turn violent many were found to have right wing instigators like the Boogaloo boys who shot two security officers in Oakland and others arrested for planning to plant explosives and others who shot at a police station.
" A member of the far-right Boogaloo Boys had admitted he traveled from Texas to Minneapolis in the wake of George Floyd’s death and purported to be a Black Lives Matter supporter while wreaking havoc on the city. Ivan Harrison Hunter , 24, pleaded guilty Thursday to a single count of rioting. He admitted to firing 13 rounds from an AK-47-style rifle into the 3rd Precinct police station as rioters set the building alight in May 2020 . He was then filmed yelling “Justice for Floyd!”.
As protests gripped Oakland on May 29, a white van pulled up outside a federal courthouse. A door slid open, and a man peppered the two security officers outside with bullets, killing one and wounding the other." "The man, identified as Air Force Staff Sgt. Steven Carrillo, 32, was an adherent of the “boogaloo boys,” a growing online extremist movement that has sought to use peaceful protests against police brutality to spread fringe views and ignite a race war ."
No one in any sort of leadership position with BLM (and there is no organized leadership of ANTIFA) have been found guilty of inciting violence, vandalism or looting. Were there some individuals who attended some of those protests who used violence and vandalism ort some opportunists who started looting amidst the chaos? Of course there were, and those people, as virtually every Democrat/liberal/progressive I've heard express themselves on the subject have said, should be arrested and held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.
Please cite just one single example of someone on the left who was caught using violence or vandalism or attacked police at any of the protests being treated as "heroes by Democrats". If you can't find one then perhaps you'd like to apologize and admit that your baseless comment was full of shit.
That's one of the most unintentionally funny talking points the left wing parrots without thinking through. For starters, imagine trying to justify political violence in any number.
Moreover, an even greater percentage of "election protests" didn't cause any injuries. You don't see anyone trying to excuse the capitol riot on those grounds. That would be insanely stupid.
rrowd attempting to break through the barricade onto the white house grounds, that simply did not happen.
So the 50 secret service officer protecting the White House were injured by who, then? Out of town right wing agitators, I'm sure.
n violent many were found to have right wing instigators like the Boogaloo
No they weren't. It shows how desperate you are that you cite examples that weren't even part of the riots. You should read your own sources.
Besides that, imagine thinking one guy firing a gun into an empty police station somehow excuses the RIOTERS who were setting the police station on fire.
o was caught using violence or vandalism or attacked police at any of the protests being treated as "heroes by Democrats".
Were you not paying attention, did you miss all the Democrats like Harris paying to get them out of jail? Or Joe Biden showing support by visiting the the family of the man who attacked police officers armed with a knife?
How many court cases did the left have? Oh, zero.
Do you have even a shred of proof of this? Would love to see it.
Link?
I think that is a large part of the problem.
Another part of the problem is the propensity towards a tribalistic mindset that has been increasing over the past several decades. The creation of fictitious bug-a-boos such as the "Moral Majority" and "Welfare Queens" gave places to hang your hatreds on, all while feeling morally superior. As far as I can tell, when we fast forward to the present, we have much of the same story, only the names have changed to "MAGA" and "BLM" and "CRT".
Same bullshit, only more of it.
I find it curious that the same people that cried about President Obama wearing a tan suit for MONTHS on end, will literally defend an attack on the Capital of The USA. It truly is mind boggling.
"...with loyalties split, some might follow orders from the rightful commander in chief, while others might follow the Trumpian loser. Arms might not be secured..."
I can't imagine all that happening on the same day an asteroid was approaching Earth, when the last polar bear drowns. We need to have those generals in charge.
"...and whatever the next chapter may hold, there will be many Americans (largely white people in the privileged classes)..."
Obviously.
It's going to be hard to bring reasonable people together when assholes like this chum the water.
Ultimately, who is to blame for the American public's passivity in the face of an escalating neofascist threat?
Ultimately it is the individuals themselves who are to blame. Ignorance is not bliss, it is ignorance, and in this case, it is self imposed. Authoritarianism can come from any direction. And what is fascism other than a type of authoritarianism?