17 ms·

I read things like this and it really makes me sad. I don’t agree with Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani on a lot of things. I also don’t agree with their equivalen

by S_A_P 6y ago

I read things like this and it really makes me sad. I don’t agree with Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani on a lot of things. I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. In fact I am skeptical of most “career politicians”. I really wish we could switch what politics is about. Currently we (meaning news channels and Twitter/internet folk) want to dunk on the other tribe and show them how wrong and stupid they are. Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise? I know that I personally don’t have enough knowledge and experience to know what’s right for all people at all times. Life can be complicated. Let’s have some compassion folks.

sumedh 6y ago
> I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. Just out of curiosity who is their equivalent person on the left? > Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise? What consensus and compromise do you want when the President of the US wants to "find" the votes or when calls the rioters good people and we love you?
- S_A_P 6y ago
  That’s just it. A lot of people of all political persuasions are reasonable and rational. I don’t think the current administration is at all. I’m a generally middle of the road guy that has a general viewpoint of live and let live. The problem is we are letting fringe opinions dictate the narrative.
  - wtfiswiththis 6y ago
    Can't help but notice you didn't answer this: >Just out of curiosity who is their equivalent person on the left?
    - avs733 6y ago
      It’s funny how that never gets answered... I really am befuddled at the inability of people to avoid beng taken in by bad faith arguments like this.
      - tanseydavid 6y ago
        Choose any person who is placed in position where they speak on behalf of the Democrat side of the aisle. It is exceedingly difficult to understand your position that this represent a 'bad faith argument'. The comparison is one comparing the role played. It not a comparison of one's opinion of the person playing the role.
        wtfiswiththis 6y ago
        Yea well, name a person. This is a subject with concrete incidents and figures involved. The question is who on the left would be comparable to Bannon. The subject is not generic nonsense. Talking about generic nonsense is only another non-answer that evades the very specific question. A question that should have names as an answer and nothing else.
    - avs733 6y ago
      It’s funny how that never gets answered... I really am befuddled at the inability of people to be taken in by bad faith arguments like this.
- thepasswordis 6y ago
  Keith Olbermann perhaps? https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1314674750858297344 https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1314674750858297344
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    When's Keith urged assault on Congress? Oh yeah, he hasn't. You'd have to go considerably further out.
  - loopz 6y ago
    I don't see the reason not to be outraged after having been at receiving end of gaslighting for 4-5 years and now consequences start accellerating?
  - ribosometronome 6y ago
    In that clip, Olbermann is saying that people who have broken the law should be prosecuted for it. Steve Bannon was arrested for fraud and, while on bond, used his podcast to call for beheading Fauci and FBI director Wray and putting their heads up on pikes. The both sides-ism doesn't work when one person is suggesting upholding the law and the other routinely suggests killing people who they disagree with politically. >“Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci. Now I actually want to go a step farther, but I realize the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man... I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes, right, I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you’re gone – time to stop playing games.”” https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/05/steve-bannon-makes-beheading-comment-about-fauci-on-war-room-podcast-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/05/steve-bannon-makes-beheading... It's also hard to compare the two as Olbermann is a sports presenter turned Political Opinion show host while Bannon was the head of a news organization, became head of a party's Presidential campaign and then served in the White House. I'm not sure there's any insider who has made anything close to the kind of unsubstantiated rhetoric Bannon has or used their journalistic positions (rather than Opinion show) in the way he has. There are a few podcasts by former Obama staffers but I can't recall any of them ever calling for murder.
- casefields 6y ago
  If we rewind back to 9/11 there were plenty of Truthers on the left spreading nonsense. I remember the internet at the time used to feel like there were tons of Truthers that would argue and argue on all sorts of forums. Where did all those people go anyway?
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    What about if we don't rewind to 9/11 and talk about today's platforms? I'm for banning anyone who's inciting violence like what we saw at the capital regardless of political leaning, so it's not a rhetorical question I want to know who to report
  - sumedh 6y ago
    Not sure what do you mean by Truthers, were there any elected officials or high profile people like Bannon saying that?
    - 3131s 6y ago
      Bob Graham is the highest elected official that has challenged the government's narrative on 9/11. He was a US senator, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and he led the joint congressional investigation into 9/11. In these interviews, he indicates that there are reasons to believe that Bush administration had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. These statements came long before the "28 pages", which removed any doubt that there was a cover-up after the fact and provided more evidence that Bush and his terrorist friends organized the whole thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRNti8P_o-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRNti8P_o-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=656b7n9--ps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=656b7n9--ps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Graham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Graham
      - sumedh 6y ago
        Can please give a direct link to the time stamp, not everyone has the time to watch almost 40 mins of video.
    - 6y ago
- marcusverus 6y ago
  How about Adam Schiff, whose lie that he had seen "more than circumstantial evidence" of Trump-Russia collusion was the cornerstone of the case for a Special Council?[0] We got a two year investigation into the question of collusion... which found no such evidence: "The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.""[1] And yet, even after Barr released his summary of the report, 84% of Democrats and 41% of Independents believed that Trump had colluded with the Russians.[2] Many of you in this thread likely still believe the lie that Trump colluded with the Russians. If the past is any guide, many of you will attempt to defend the lie by replying with distracting "whataboutisms" regarding Paul Manafort, or obstruction, or what have you, willfully ignoring the fact that that *the overwhelming majority of Democrats* were, less than two years ago, convinced of a lie that is eerily similar to right's lie-de-jour regarding the results of the 2016 election. [0]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/schiff-there-is-more-than-circumstantial-evidence-now/520509/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/schiff-... [1]https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/ https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2... [2]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-poll/despite-report-findings-almost-half-of-americans-think-trump-colluded-with-russia-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1R72S0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-poll/des...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - sumedh 6y ago
    > We got a two year investigation into the question of collusion... which found no such evidence: No that is wrong. "The investigation found there were over 100 contacts between Trump campaign advisors and individuals affiliated with the Russian government, before and after the election, but the evidence was insufficient to show an illegal conspiracy" > Many of you in this thread likely still believe the lie that Trump colluded with the Russians. Many of you also believed that Hillary was responsible for Benghazi and Republicans wasted millions of dollars and time on that investigation and yet she was not guilty. > replying with distracting "whataboutisms" regarding Paul Manafort So he and many other broke the law and went to jail for that, why is that a bad thing. Why did Trump pardon them though? How many people in the US went to jail because of the Benghazi investigations? Mueller did not say that Trump was innocent, why didnt he say that?
- sholdery 6y ago
  There is lots of evidence of fraud but people wouldn’t know about it as it’s censored on big tech and mainstream news.
  - sumedh 6y ago
    Then why wasn't all this evidence shown to the courts. Guliani even said in a court that this not a fraud case, that is what the Trump admin does they lie to people on TV but since they cannot lie in courts they lost the cases. Even Trump appointed Supreme court judges rejected these cases.
    - sholdery 6y ago
      The courts have refused to accept the case. It didn’t have the opportunity to be shown in court.
      - sumedh 6y ago
        Many cases did end up in the lower courts and Trump lost. Guliani even said in court that this is not a fraud case even though on TV he says its fraud. Even Trump appointed Supreme court judges rejected the case because there is nothing there.
- ghthor 6y ago
  Sen Cortez, Sen Warren, Sen Sanders, Rep Pelosi are a good start.
  - reducesuffering 6y ago
    AOC, Cortez, is a house representative, not a senator.
  - sumedh 6y ago
    Can you give any specific examples?
txru 6y ago
To me, this sounds a lot like "both sides, both sides". Politics is going to be messy. There's a lot of fait-accompli-as-fiat. But while there are two parties, there is no inherent need for the parties to be symmetrical. There is no equivalent person on the left to Giuliani, because he's meaningfully facilitated illegal insurrection against a peaceful transition, while in power. I hear things like this, and I think it would be great if corporate policy in general were appeal-able to the government the banned person resides in. People get put into corporate jails and excluded from service wrongly all the time. That's a conversation I'm willing to have. But the like of Bannon and Giuliani have just been fleeing from platform to platform as their detestable ideas and statements finally catch up with the strong stomachs of advertisers. The government shouldn't be overriding private corporations who make an ethical objection in the face of boycott, without a very clearly laid out due-process.
- S_A_P 6y ago
  Maybe there isnt. You could be right, but I was speaking in broad strokes. You cant say there arent bad faith actors on the left. I honestly dont care if there is someone on the left that is equivalently 'bad'. And trying to find those people illustrates my point. Again, I think Rudy G and Steve B are generally wrong and myopic. The point Im trying to make is that just because we differ in political leaning/opinion we cant let media/twitter/social media/ state actors amplify this. I have 5 kids(3 step and 2 natural) and I cant even get them to agree so how the ** do we expect the population in general to get there? We are all different, and not only is that ok its awesome.
  - txru 6y ago
    There are bad-faith actors on the left. This isn't just kids disagreeing though, this is one of your boys helping push the mom out of the house so the boys get preferential treatment. It is acceptable in times like these for people to make an ethical stand.
    - S_A_P 6y ago
      This is also the kind of thing we need to be able to talk about without getting caught in our feelings. I generally am just lamenting that this is where we are.
russdpale 6y ago
Yes, let us have compassion for fascists and neo-nazis. I mean, do you even hear yourself? If you want to go down the paradox of tolerance, be my guest, but don't ever expect me or others to go with you.
renewiltord 6y ago
Sometimes I, too, wonder why we didn't just compromise with Hirohito. Was it necessary to fight them? Maybe we could have just talked to Unit 731 and just reached some consensus.
- refurb 6y ago
  Are you accusing Bannon of war crimes?
- henry_bone 6y ago
  Are you seriously suggesting that Trump & co are in that league?? If so, can you lay out the case for me? Even just a few links for me to check out would be good. Comments like yours, here on HN, would lead me to the conclusion that Trump is the most dangerous leader to come along since the bad old days of the 20th century. And I just don't see it.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Hardly, but once you admit that there are those with whom compromise is impossible and suppression permissible then the discussion becomes a matter of degree.
  - zanellato19 6y ago
    > Comments like yours, here on HN, would lead me to the conclusion that Trump is the most dangerous leader to come along since the bad old days of the 20th century. And I just don't see it. He just incited followers to do a coup. How come don't you see that as him being the most dangerous leader of the modern era?
    - bavell 6y ago
      I guess you forgot about North Korea? Or Iran? Russia? China? Trump only had 4 years in office, these others are dictators for life and have far more influence to spread evil throughout the world. The "coup" was a joke by any standard, the only reason it became such a big deal is because DC cops allowed the rioters into the Capitol instead of doing their job. I for one would've liked to see tear gas and rubber bullets but those were worryingly absent.
S_A_P 6y ago
Let me say for the record that I dont have compassion for the current administration. My 'sadness' is for the people we all live with and interact with. I am not a right wing person, but I dont have any problem with them. I actually would be interested in why they feel that way. Im also not a left wing guy. Same interest in their perspective. I am curious in general about people but Im also very introverted. I have a lot of questions for folks that go unanswered since Im a bit shy. Some of that comes from seeing social media posts where anyone who even questions a viewpoint is a target...
- nicky0 6y ago
  Unfortunately you don't get upvotes for being thoughtful and sensitive. You're being a "both sideser", you see. Apparently, this is bad. Pick your tribe then agree and attack, hate and defend. These are the only options that will win you attention and approval. Seeking to understand more deeply, and take a broader view? You're part of the problem!
maroonblazer 6y ago
Professional organizations, uncontroversially, regularly set limits on what kinds of topics can be considered for discussion. If I pitch a talk on homeopathy to the American Medical Association's next conference I fully expect them to reject me. Even if I was a fully credentialed M.D. - much less someone with just an undergraduate degree - I wouldn't expect them to compromise with me. Why do we not treat our general discourse similarly? Why don't we demand a minimum threshold based on, say, the same criteria we use in a court of law: internal consistency, causal-based, preponderance of evidence, etc. If one can't meet this minimum threshold then the others incur a penalty: being robbed the time and attention for those ideas that meet and exceed the threshold.
fogihujy 6y ago
> Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise? I know that I personally don’t have enough knowledge and experience to know what’s right for all people at all times. Life can be complicated. Let’s have some compassion folks. As an EU citizen, I feel this is pretty much a no-brainer. Politics based on compromises between parties, rather than single-party majorities, slows the political process down and it definitely opens the door for a whole lot of different issues, but it kinda works. Switching from extreme to extreme every 4/8 years feels like it's just going to increase political polarization until societal cohesion breaks and something bad happens. Yes, we Europeans whine a lot about the EU and there's a shitload of things that need to be improved about it, but the last few years' circus on the other side of the Pond has convinced me that the alternative isn't that much better.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
  The US is also the global hegemon right now so any and all problems it has are at the forefront of most news. What an outsider may see as troubling, the average american isn't really batting an eyelash.
- tanseydavid 6y ago
  Thank you for mentioning that this situation 'slows the political process down' while also speaking of the end-result as one that 'kinda works'. When viewed from a dispassionate distance I feel that the desire for 'political expedience' is a major factor in the extreme polarization of US politics today.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
You know, this whole not liking career politicians thing... isn't it kinda like not liking career doctors or lawyers? Why would we not want people who have spent their careers learning the ins and outs of the political landscape to represent us? Would we really rather have an amateur? How well did that work out when we elected one president?
- trident5000 6y ago
  Because they do anything to cling to power and make sure their side of the isle wins and therefore their own seat. Career politicians are why Washington is so dirty.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    While it is difficult to believe that power-seeking is entirely orthogonal to choosing a career in politics, just how do you envision things will go with politicians who are not experienced at actual politics? Again, wanting a representative who is not experienced at politics to represent you is kinda like wanting a lawyer who isn't experienced at practicing law to represent you. Or a doctor who isn't experienced at medicine to treat you. What I'm saying is, I think you've latched on to the wrong quality as a focus of your ire. People being career politicians is not the problem, it's people being corrupt power-seeking assholes. That's a difficult problem to solve, I know, which is why it is so tempting to blame the problem on something easier to solve, but I think that sentiment is one pushed largely by career pundits to manipulate people.
- throwaway316943 6y ago
  I don’t think that’s a good comparison. You’re comparing professions that people interact directly with and which compete in an open market. Except for local politicians, most people will never have the chance to directly speak with career politicians and their choice is very limited when it comes time to choose one after which you are locked in to their services. It’s hard to think of a good comparison because anything comparable is usually political in some way. I would like to see more transparency and sortition applied to government. It’s probably impossible to do away with the career politicians since they are specialists but I think we should do more to keep them accountable like selecting a group of people whose task is to both directly observe and petition elected officials. Basically solving the problem of politicians being so far removed from the people by bringing a sample of the people to the politician. Sort of like a jury during a trial.
snarfy 6y ago
Steve Bannon called for the beheading of Dr Fauci. I'm not sure where you find consensus and compromise there.
- sholdery 6y ago
  Just like Kathy Griffin posed for a photo with a beheaded Trump mask?
  - complexmango 6y ago
    Somehow that doesn’t count in the lefty HN echo chamber.
    - perl4ever 6y ago
      Fauci presumably doesn't have Secret Service protection, does he?
- trident5000 6y ago
  In a literal or figurative sense? Asking because pretty much everything is blown out of proportion today.
  - daemoens 6y ago
    In the literal sense.
    - trident5000 6y ago
      Is there a source on this?
      - ortusdux 6y ago
        https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/05/steve-bannon-makes-beheading-comment-about-fauci-on-war-room-podcast-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/05/steve-bannon-makes-beheading...
rodgerd 6y ago
> Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise? Can you explain the compromise possible between "fighting the COVID 19 death toll should be based on science" and "Fauci should be beheaded"?
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > Can you explain the compromise possible between "fighting the COVID 19 death toll should be based on science" and "Fauci should be beheaded"? Replacing Fauci with someone more scientific and less political would probably qualify.
  - LarvaFX 6y ago
    So this is just an example where this ridiculous "meet in the middle" between far-right extremists and center-right democrates leads to. Fauci is one of the most qualified and well respected scientist in the field - who had worked for democrat and republican presidents alike. Which scientist who is both "more scientific" and "less political" would qualify in your view? How would you assess this?
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > Fauci is one of the most qualified and well respected scientist in the field - who had worked for democrat and republican presidents alike. Right, and he politicized the response to COVID-19 and we don't care if he used to be awesome, we want someone who will put evidence over politics. > Which scientist who is both "more scientific" and "less political" would qualify in your view? Probably someone who would be more evidence oriented. I don't have a short list. > How would you assess this? By comparing their public statements and actions with those of other physicians, immunologists, and the evidence.
  - PenguinCoder 6y ago
    How in the hell do you get "someone more scientific" than Dr. Fauci, "an American physician and immunologist who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984"[0] . Seriously, do you even pay attention to what you regurgitate? [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci
boc 6y ago
This isn't an episode of West Wing. Thousands of radicalized Trump supporters tried to overthrow American democracy through a violent attack on Congress and the Vice President. These people aren't going to listen to you or me, they are in a cult where they worship the President and his rotating cast of confidants. Going after those specific people is the only way to turn down the temperature and prevent future acts of violence.
yalogin 6y ago
Out of curiosity what do you agree on with Bannon and Guiliqni? Can you elaborate please?
- hellgas00 6y ago
  Watch speech Bannon gave at The Oxford Union Society if you want to genuinely understand the arguments he makes. I think you'd be hard pressed not to find some of the points he makes compelling.
  - yalogin 6y ago
    He probably agrees that the sun rises in the east that doesn’t mean we should say he and t are the same aren’t seditious. False equivalency will normalize the coup attempt.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    Bannon’s system of beliefs is well published. And it is nightmarish and frightening. Not compelling in any form. He is pushing a modern Helter Skelter and is the worst kind of accelerationist.
djeiasbsbo 6y ago
As an outsider, I've always understood it like this. The conservatives and right leaning people value individual rights and freedom. For example, they are against something like mandatory healthcare, because they might be perfectly healthy yet would have to pay to carry those who are not. Democrats and left leaning people on the other hand value a more general sense of freedom and health. They want to carry the weakest people because they believe that they could at some point be in the same situation, where they would have to rely on others. (Bare with me, English isn't my first language) So, when you say "Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise?", in my opinion that already goes against what conservatives and right leaning people value. An individual having to compromise for "the greater good" goes against their core values. Now, I do think that life is more complex than simply choosing one side. Because life isn't necessarily copatible with "human rationality". Sometimes there are situations where it is more rational to be hypocritical or sometimes it is more rational to let conflicting opinions exist. I think it comes down to what humans learn at a young age and in school. If we were able to focus more on ethics and helping people find a purpose to live at a young age already, it would make a big difference.
- nicky0 6y ago
  The left champions the weak and downtrodden even if it means chaos. The right values order and stability even if at the expense of those at the bottom. I don't think either side is against compromise but first each side has to see where each other is coming from and that there is some value in the opposite view. Demonizing and miscaracterizing the opposite view, and failing to actually see why they think how they do, is a big problem right now.
- lovelearning 6y ago
  > The conservatives and right leaning people value individual rights and freedom. As another outsider, I get the impression US conservatives are selective about the groups they consider worthy of those rights and freedoms. They oppose women's choice to abort. They oppose rights and freedoms for immigrants. They came out in support of cops who had violated rights of their own african-american citizens.
  - 6y ago
raxxorrax 6y ago
When you dance with Trump, Trump doesn't change, Trump changes you. That is certainly true for the "left". In quotes because I am not from the US, but the effect he had is very obvious. I am curious how the next term plays out. What would they even complain about?
- nicky0 6y ago
  It's good point. Now that the dems have the exec, house and senate, who are they going to blame for everything?
  - adnzzzzZ 6y ago
    Pretty obviously "domestic terrorists" https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/status/1348497645531226112 https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/status/1348497645531226112, who seeing what's happening will likely actually engage in some domestic terrorism, and thus the cycle will continue.
    - trident5000 6y ago
      Sounds like a great way to turn people into actual terrorists. The US never learns abroad or domestically.
musha68k 6y ago
Fascism can’t be the answer to the broken political system though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
TameAntelope 6y ago
It's totally reasonable to be sad about this. It pattern matches to a loss of free speech, and when society sees free speech being violated, it should evoke strong emotions (hopefully even more severe than sadness). This is not, however, a violation of free speech, even if you believe in the general concept that a private company should allow dissenting opinions on its platform. This user has violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" exception to free speech, which even the most ardent supporters of the concept admit is important to protect. These private institutions aren't perfect, and judging if speech breaks the one exception to the moral concept of "free speech" is hard. We'll get it wrong. The alternative, however, is to let the panic incited to occur unabated, which seems substantially worse.
- sneak 6y ago
  I don't agree. I think that the harm caused by these loud demagogues (is that redundant?) is massively overblown. The US president, perhaps the one with the most platform and audience and reach, couldn't even summon a properly armed militia, it was only a small group of mostly unarmed rioters. Their best efforts achieved precisely nothing: they did not seize any power, they did not hold any territory. It wasn't even a battle. Far from an insurrection, it was just some smashed windows and an instagram moment and now they're all in jail. Calling what happened an armed insurrection is factually inaccurate, even if a few of the rioters brought weapons. If platform and reach are proportional to messaging effectiveness (the presumption that this sort of censorship makes) then everyone else's efforts along these lines (who isn't the president of the United States) will be substantially less effective than even this massively ineffective display in DC. Let them squawk. Misinformation and lies simply aren't that dangerous, otherwise we would have had to ban the church centuries ago. Americans are inundated constantly with bullshit messaging from large, powerful organizations. They aren't nearly as malleable as the pro-censorship people seem to think they are.
  - TameAntelope 6y ago
    To take it away from this political moment for a second, do you believe it's acceptable to allow someone to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or do you think these people aren't actually yelling, "Fire!", and when we determine someone is yelling, "Fire!", those private institutions should still stop them?
uniqueid 6y ago
I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. Are there many, if any, equivalent people to Bannon on the left? My theory is that the core of Bannon is neoconfederacy: under all the nonsense he talks is the desire to see the North burn. In fact I am skeptical of most “career politicians”. Bannon is not a 'career politician' dunk on the other tribe Yes, the Democrats are corrupt, but to focus on that, at the present-day, ignores the gravity of what the Republican party has become: the 'other tribe' is, really and truly, fascist and seditionist.
- sgregnt 6y ago
  I wonder how accurate is your statement and does it contributes to an informed conversation? Anecdotal. There are tens of millions of GOP voters, I have many friends that support GOP, non of them is a fasict.
  - baq 6y ago
    but do they know who they vote for? (same question to the democratic voters) i'm not from US - we've got a multiparty system that seems to kind of work - but I've done one of those political alignment tests for parties, got a result, and then proceeded to do a political alignment test for politicians. None of the folks I was supposedly aligned with were members of the party I was aligned with best. make of that what you will.
  - uniqueid 6y ago
    It's harder to characterize voters. For example, Democratic leadership is full of corporatocrats. So, strictly speaking, Democratic voters support corporatocracy. But it's more accurate to say that most Democratic voters support corporatocracy unwittingly, or collaterally. That is what I would say about Republican voters and fascism, also.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Democratic leadership is full of corporatists. No, its full of corporatocrats [0]. Corporatism [1] is a political position (Wikipedia calls it an “ideology”, but it may be better to be viewed as a facet of ideology found in lots of very different ideologies; e.g., fascism includes corporatism as a component), but its not one that is particularly popular among Democrats, either in leadership or the base, neoliberal or progressive (though there definitely is a progressive corporatism that has some support.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
emmanueloga_ 6y ago
Relevant: https://www.kasiababis.com/comics/ghqk79ww9r3ttpw6u2pzntpqow2ii1 https://www.kasiababis.com/comics/ghqk79ww9r3ttpw6u2pzntpqow...
stjohnswarts 6y ago
Do you believe in their right to incite violence like beheadings from Steve Bannon and ransacking the Capitol by Giuliani? Because that's what they've been doing. Maybe these were all "symbolic" pronouncements by them, but I sort of doubt it, I think they just didn't have the cajones for it and preferred to see some poor dupes go execute on it so they could disavow them later.

by S_A_P 6y ago

sumedh 6y ago

> I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. Just out of curiosity who is their equivalent person on the left? > Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise? What consensus and compromise do you want when the President of the US wants to "find" the votes or when calls the rioters good people and we love you?

S_A_P 6y ago
That’s just it. A lot of people of all political persuasions are reasonable and rational. I don’t think the current administration is at all. I’m a generally middle of the road guy that has a general viewpoint of live and let live. The problem is we are letting fringe opinions dictate the narrative.
- wtfiswiththis 6y ago
  Can't help but notice you didn't answer this: >Just out of curiosity who is their equivalent person on the left?
  - avs733 6y ago
    It’s funny how that never gets answered... I really am befuddled at the inability of people to avoid beng taken in by bad faith arguments like this.
    - tanseydavid 6y ago
      Choose any person who is placed in position where they speak on behalf of the Democrat side of the aisle. It is exceedingly difficult to understand your position that this represent a 'bad faith argument'. The comparison is one comparing the role played. It not a comparison of one's opinion of the person playing the role.
      - wtfiswiththis 6y ago
        Yea well, name a person. This is a subject with concrete incidents and figures involved. The question is who on the left would be comparable to Bannon. The subject is not generic nonsense. Talking about generic nonsense is only another non-answer that evades the very specific question. A question that should have names as an answer and nothing else.
  - avs733 6y ago
    It’s funny how that never gets answered... I really am befuddled at the inability of people to be taken in by bad faith arguments like this.
thepasswordis 6y ago
Keith Olbermann perhaps? https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1314674750858297344 https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1314674750858297344
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  When's Keith urged assault on Congress? Oh yeah, he hasn't. You'd have to go considerably further out.
- loopz 6y ago
  I don't see the reason not to be outraged after having been at receiving end of gaslighting for 4-5 years and now consequences start accellerating?
- ribosometronome 6y ago
  In that clip, Olbermann is saying that people who have broken the law should be prosecuted for it. Steve Bannon was arrested for fraud and, while on bond, used his podcast to call for beheading Fauci and FBI director Wray and putting their heads up on pikes. The both sides-ism doesn't work when one person is suggesting upholding the law and the other routinely suggests killing people who they disagree with politically. >“Second term kicks off with firing Wray, firing Fauci. Now I actually want to go a step farther, but I realize the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man... I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes, right, I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you’re gone – time to stop playing games.”” https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/05/steve-bannon-makes-beheading-comment-about-fauci-on-war-room-podcast-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/05/steve-bannon-makes-beheading... It's also hard to compare the two as Olbermann is a sports presenter turned Political Opinion show host while Bannon was the head of a news organization, became head of a party's Presidential campaign and then served in the White House. I'm not sure there's any insider who has made anything close to the kind of unsubstantiated rhetoric Bannon has or used their journalistic positions (rather than Opinion show) in the way he has. There are a few podcasts by former Obama staffers but I can't recall any of them ever calling for murder.
casefields 6y ago
If we rewind back to 9/11 there were plenty of Truthers on the left spreading nonsense. I remember the internet at the time used to feel like there were tons of Truthers that would argue and argue on all sorts of forums. Where did all those people go anyway?
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  What about if we don't rewind to 9/11 and talk about today's platforms? I'm for banning anyone who's inciting violence like what we saw at the capital regardless of political leaning, so it's not a rhetorical question I want to know who to report
- sumedh 6y ago
  Not sure what do you mean by Truthers, were there any elected officials or high profile people like Bannon saying that?
  - 3131s 6y ago
    Bob Graham is the highest elected official that has challenged the government's narrative on 9/11. He was a US senator, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and he led the joint congressional investigation into 9/11. In these interviews, he indicates that there are reasons to believe that Bush administration had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. These statements came long before the "28 pages", which removed any doubt that there was a cover-up after the fact and provided more evidence that Bush and his terrorist friends organized the whole thing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRNti8P_o-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRNti8P_o-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=656b7n9--ps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=656b7n9--ps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Graham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Graham
    - sumedh 6y ago
      Can please give a direct link to the time stamp, not everyone has the time to watch almost 40 mins of video.
  - 6y ago
marcusverus 6y ago
How about Adam Schiff, whose lie that he had seen "more than circumstantial evidence" of Trump-Russia collusion was the cornerstone of the case for a Special Council?[0] We got a two year investigation into the question of collusion... which found no such evidence: "The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.""[1] And yet, even after Barr released his summary of the report, 84% of Democrats and 41% of Independents believed that Trump had colluded with the Russians.[2] Many of you in this thread likely still believe the lie that Trump colluded with the Russians. If the past is any guide, many of you will attempt to defend the lie by replying with distracting "whataboutisms" regarding Paul Manafort, or obstruction, or what have you, willfully ignoring the fact that that *the overwhelming majority of Democrats* were, less than two years ago, convinced of a lie that is eerily similar to right's lie-de-jour regarding the results of the 2016 election. [0]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/schiff-there-is-more-than-circumstantial-evidence-now/520509/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/schiff-... [1]https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/ https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2... [2]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-poll/despite-report-findings-almost-half-of-americans-think-trump-colluded-with-russia-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKCN1R72S0 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-poll/des...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sumedh 6y ago
  > We got a two year investigation into the question of collusion... which found no such evidence: No that is wrong. "The investigation found there were over 100 contacts between Trump campaign advisors and individuals affiliated with the Russian government, before and after the election, but the evidence was insufficient to show an illegal conspiracy" > Many of you in this thread likely still believe the lie that Trump colluded with the Russians. Many of you also believed that Hillary was responsible for Benghazi and Republicans wasted millions of dollars and time on that investigation and yet she was not guilty. > replying with distracting "whataboutisms" regarding Paul Manafort So he and many other broke the law and went to jail for that, why is that a bad thing. Why did Trump pardon them though? How many people in the US went to jail because of the Benghazi investigations? Mueller did not say that Trump was innocent, why didnt he say that?
sholdery 6y ago
There is lots of evidence of fraud but people wouldn’t know about it as it’s censored on big tech and mainstream news.
- sumedh 6y ago
  Then why wasn't all this evidence shown to the courts. Guliani even said in a court that this not a fraud case, that is what the Trump admin does they lie to people on TV but since they cannot lie in courts they lost the cases. Even Trump appointed Supreme court judges rejected these cases.
  - sholdery 6y ago
    The courts have refused to accept the case. It didn’t have the opportunity to be shown in court.
    - sumedh 6y ago
      Many cases did end up in the lower courts and Trump lost. Guliani even said in court that this is not a fraud case even though on TV he says its fraud. Even Trump appointed Supreme court judges rejected the case because there is nothing there.
ghthor 6y ago
Sen Cortez, Sen Warren, Sen Sanders, Rep Pelosi are a good start.
- reducesuffering 6y ago
  AOC, Cortez, is a house representative, not a senator.
- sumedh 6y ago
  Can you give any specific examples?

txru 6y ago

To me, this sounds a lot like "both sides, both sides". Politics is going to be messy. There's a lot of fait-accompli-as-fiat. But while there are two parties, there is no inherent need for the parties to be symmetrical. There is no equivalent person on the left to Giuliani, because he's meaningfully facilitated illegal insurrection against a peaceful transition, while in power. I hear things like this, and I think it would be great if corporate policy in general were appeal-able to the government the banned person resides in. People get put into corporate jails and excluded from service wrongly all the time. That's a conversation I'm willing to have. But the like of Bannon and Giuliani have just been fleeing from platform to platform as their detestable ideas and statements finally catch up with the strong stomachs of advertisers. The government shouldn't be overriding private corporations who make an ethical objection in the face of boycott, without a very clearly laid out due-process.

S_A_P 6y ago
Maybe there isnt. You could be right, but I was speaking in broad strokes. You cant say there arent bad faith actors on the left. I honestly dont care if there is someone on the left that is equivalently 'bad'. And trying to find those people illustrates my point. Again, I think Rudy G and Steve B are generally wrong and myopic. The point Im trying to make is that just because we differ in political leaning/opinion we cant let media/twitter/social media/ state actors amplify this. I have 5 kids(3 step and 2 natural) and I cant even get them to agree so how the ** do we expect the population in general to get there? We are all different, and not only is that ok its awesome.
- txru 6y ago
  There are bad-faith actors on the left. This isn't just kids disagreeing though, this is one of your boys helping push the mom out of the house so the boys get preferential treatment. It is acceptable in times like these for people to make an ethical stand.
  - S_A_P 6y ago
    This is also the kind of thing we need to be able to talk about without getting caught in our feelings. I generally am just lamenting that this is where we are.

russdpale 6y ago

Yes, let us have compassion for fascists and neo-nazis. I mean, do you even hear yourself? If you want to go down the paradox of tolerance, be my guest, but don't ever expect me or others to go with you.

renewiltord 6y ago

Sometimes I, too, wonder why we didn't just compromise with Hirohito. Was it necessary to fight them? Maybe we could have just talked to Unit 731 and just reached some consensus.

refurb 6y ago
Are you accusing Bannon of war crimes?
henry_bone 6y ago
Are you seriously suggesting that Trump & co are in that league?? If so, can you lay out the case for me? Even just a few links for me to check out would be good. Comments like yours, here on HN, would lead me to the conclusion that Trump is the most dangerous leader to come along since the bad old days of the 20th century. And I just don't see it.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Hardly, but once you admit that there are those with whom compromise is impossible and suppression permissible then the discussion becomes a matter of degree.
- zanellato19 6y ago
  > Comments like yours, here on HN, would lead me to the conclusion that Trump is the most dangerous leader to come along since the bad old days of the 20th century. And I just don't see it. He just incited followers to do a coup. How come don't you see that as him being the most dangerous leader of the modern era?
  - bavell 6y ago
    I guess you forgot about North Korea? Or Iran? Russia? China? Trump only had 4 years in office, these others are dictators for life and have far more influence to spread evil throughout the world. The "coup" was a joke by any standard, the only reason it became such a big deal is because DC cops allowed the rioters into the Capitol instead of doing their job. I for one would've liked to see tear gas and rubber bullets but those were worryingly absent.

S_A_P 6y ago

Let me say for the record that I dont have compassion for the current administration. My 'sadness' is for the people we all live with and interact with. I am not a right wing person, but I dont have any problem with them. I actually would be interested in why they feel that way. Im also not a left wing guy. Same interest in their perspective. I am curious in general about people but Im also very introverted. I have a lot of questions for folks that go unanswered since Im a bit shy. Some of that comes from seeing social media posts where anyone who even questions a viewpoint is a target...

nicky0 6y ago
Unfortunately you don't get upvotes for being thoughtful and sensitive. You're being a "both sideser", you see. Apparently, this is bad. Pick your tribe then agree and attack, hate and defend. These are the only options that will win you attention and approval. Seeking to understand more deeply, and take a broader view? You're part of the problem!

maroonblazer 6y ago

Professional organizations, uncontroversially, regularly set limits on what kinds of topics can be considered for discussion. If I pitch a talk on homeopathy to the American Medical Association's next conference I fully expect them to reject me. Even if I was a fully credentialed M.D. - much less someone with just an undergraduate degree - I wouldn't expect them to compromise with me. Why do we not treat our general discourse similarly? Why don't we demand a minimum threshold based on, say, the same criteria we use in a court of law: internal consistency, causal-based, preponderance of evidence, etc. If one can't meet this minimum threshold then the others incur a penalty: being robbed the time and attention for those ideas that meet and exceed the threshold.

fogihujy 6y ago

> Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise? I know that I personally don’t have enough knowledge and experience to know what’s right for all people at all times. Life can be complicated. Let’s have some compassion folks. As an EU citizen, I feel this is pretty much a no-brainer. Politics based on compromises between parties, rather than single-party majorities, slows the political process down and it definitely opens the door for a whole lot of different issues, but it kinda works. Switching from extreme to extreme every 4/8 years feels like it's just going to increase political polarization until societal cohesion breaks and something bad happens. Yes, we Europeans whine a lot about the EU and there's a shitload of things that need to be improved about it, but the last few years' circus on the other side of the Pond has convinced me that the alternative isn't that much better.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
MeinBlutIstBlau 6y ago
The US is also the global hegemon right now so any and all problems it has are at the forefront of most news. What an outsider may see as troubling, the average american isn't really batting an eyelash.
tanseydavid 6y ago
Thank you for mentioning that this situation 'slows the political process down' while also speaking of the end-result as one that 'kinda works'. When viewed from a dispassionate distance I feel that the desire for 'political expedience' is a major factor in the extreme polarization of US politics today.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

You know, this whole not liking career politicians thing... isn't it kinda like not liking career doctors or lawyers? Why would we not want people who have spent their careers learning the ins and outs of the political landscape to represent us? Would we really rather have an amateur? How well did that work out when we elected one president?

trident5000 6y ago
Because they do anything to cling to power and make sure their side of the isle wins and therefore their own seat. Career politicians are why Washington is so dirty.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  While it is difficult to believe that power-seeking is entirely orthogonal to choosing a career in politics, just how do you envision things will go with politicians who are not experienced at actual politics? Again, wanting a representative who is not experienced at politics to represent you is kinda like wanting a lawyer who isn't experienced at practicing law to represent you. Or a doctor who isn't experienced at medicine to treat you. What I'm saying is, I think you've latched on to the wrong quality as a focus of your ire. People being career politicians is not the problem, it's people being corrupt power-seeking assholes. That's a difficult problem to solve, I know, which is why it is so tempting to blame the problem on something easier to solve, but I think that sentiment is one pushed largely by career pundits to manipulate people.
throwaway316943 6y ago
I don’t think that’s a good comparison. You’re comparing professions that people interact directly with and which compete in an open market. Except for local politicians, most people will never have the chance to directly speak with career politicians and their choice is very limited when it comes time to choose one after which you are locked in to their services. It’s hard to think of a good comparison because anything comparable is usually political in some way. I would like to see more transparency and sortition applied to government. It’s probably impossible to do away with the career politicians since they are specialists but I think we should do more to keep them accountable like selecting a group of people whose task is to both directly observe and petition elected officials. Basically solving the problem of politicians being so far removed from the people by bringing a sample of the people to the politician. Sort of like a jury during a trial.

snarfy 6y ago

Steve Bannon called for the beheading of Dr Fauci. I'm not sure where you find consensus and compromise there.

sholdery 6y ago
Just like Kathy Griffin posed for a photo with a beheaded Trump mask?
- complexmango 6y ago
  Somehow that doesn’t count in the lefty HN echo chamber.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    Fauci presumably doesn't have Secret Service protection, does he?
trident5000 6y ago
In a literal or figurative sense? Asking because pretty much everything is blown out of proportion today.
- daemoens 6y ago
  In the literal sense.
  - trident5000 6y ago
    Is there a source on this?
    - ortusdux 6y ago
      https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/05/steve-bannon-makes-beheading-comment-about-fauci-on-war-room-podcast-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/05/steve-bannon-makes-beheading...

rodgerd 6y ago

> Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise? Can you explain the compromise possible between "fighting the COVID 19 death toll should be based on science" and "Fauci should be beheaded"?

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Can you explain the compromise possible between "fighting the COVID 19 death toll should be based on science" and "Fauci should be beheaded"? Replacing Fauci with someone more scientific and less political would probably qualify.
- LarvaFX 6y ago
  So this is just an example where this ridiculous "meet in the middle" between far-right extremists and center-right democrates leads to. Fauci is one of the most qualified and well respected scientist in the field - who had worked for democrat and republican presidents alike. Which scientist who is both "more scientific" and "less political" would qualify in your view? How would you assess this?
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > Fauci is one of the most qualified and well respected scientist in the field - who had worked for democrat and republican presidents alike. Right, and he politicized the response to COVID-19 and we don't care if he used to be awesome, we want someone who will put evidence over politics. > Which scientist who is both "more scientific" and "less political" would qualify in your view? Probably someone who would be more evidence oriented. I don't have a short list. > How would you assess this? By comparing their public statements and actions with those of other physicians, immunologists, and the evidence.
- PenguinCoder 6y ago
  How in the hell do you get "someone more scientific" than Dr. Fauci, "an American physician and immunologist who has served as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since 1984"[0] . Seriously, do you even pay attention to what you regurgitate? [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Fauci

boc 6y ago

This isn't an episode of West Wing. Thousands of radicalized Trump supporters tried to overthrow American democracy through a violent attack on Congress and the Vice President. These people aren't going to listen to you or me, they are in a cult where they worship the President and his rotating cast of confidants. Going after those specific people is the only way to turn down the temperature and prevent future acts of violence.

yalogin 6y ago

Out of curiosity what do you agree on with Bannon and Guiliqni? Can you elaborate please?

hellgas00 6y ago
Watch speech Bannon gave at The Oxford Union Society if you want to genuinely understand the arguments he makes. I think you'd be hard pressed not to find some of the points he makes compelling.
- yalogin 6y ago
  He probably agrees that the sun rises in the east that doesn’t mean we should say he and t are the same aren’t seditious. False equivalency will normalize the coup attempt.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  Bannon’s system of beliefs is well published. And it is nightmarish and frightening. Not compelling in any form. He is pushing a modern Helter Skelter and is the worst kind of accelerationist.

djeiasbsbo 6y ago

As an outsider, I've always understood it like this. The conservatives and right leaning people value individual rights and freedom. For example, they are against something like mandatory healthcare, because they might be perfectly healthy yet would have to pay to carry those who are not. Democrats and left leaning people on the other hand value a more general sense of freedom and health. They want to carry the weakest people because they believe that they could at some point be in the same situation, where they would have to rely on others. (Bare with me, English isn't my first language) So, when you say "Can’t we all try to find consensus and compromise?", in my opinion that already goes against what conservatives and right leaning people value. An individual having to compromise for "the greater good" goes against their core values. Now, I do think that life is more complex than simply choosing one side. Because life isn't necessarily copatible with "human rationality". Sometimes there are situations where it is more rational to be hypocritical or sometimes it is more rational to let conflicting opinions exist. I think it comes down to what humans learn at a young age and in school. If we were able to focus more on ethics and helping people find a purpose to live at a young age already, it would make a big difference.

nicky0 6y ago
The left champions the weak and downtrodden even if it means chaos. The right values order and stability even if at the expense of those at the bottom. I don't think either side is against compromise but first each side has to see where each other is coming from and that there is some value in the opposite view. Demonizing and miscaracterizing the opposite view, and failing to actually see why they think how they do, is a big problem right now.
lovelearning 6y ago
> The conservatives and right leaning people value individual rights and freedom. As another outsider, I get the impression US conservatives are selective about the groups they consider worthy of those rights and freedoms. They oppose women's choice to abort. They oppose rights and freedoms for immigrants. They came out in support of cops who had violated rights of their own african-american citizens.
- 6y ago

raxxorrax 6y ago

When you dance with Trump, Trump doesn't change, Trump changes you. That is certainly true for the "left". In quotes because I am not from the US, but the effect he had is very obvious. I am curious how the next term plays out. What would they even complain about?

nicky0 6y ago
It's good point. Now that the dems have the exec, house and senate, who are they going to blame for everything?
- adnzzzzZ 6y ago
  Pretty obviously "domestic terrorists" https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/status/1348497645531226112 https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/status/1348497645531226112, who seeing what's happening will likely actually engage in some domestic terrorism, and thus the cycle will continue.
  - trident5000 6y ago
    Sounds like a great way to turn people into actual terrorists. The US never learns abroad or domestically.

musha68k 6y ago

Fascism can’t be the answer to the broken political system though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

TameAntelope 6y ago

It's totally reasonable to be sad about this. It pattern matches to a loss of free speech, and when society sees free speech being violated, it should evoke strong emotions (hopefully even more severe than sadness). This is not, however, a violation of free speech, even if you believe in the general concept that a private company should allow dissenting opinions on its platform. This user has violated the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" exception to free speech, which even the most ardent supporters of the concept admit is important to protect. These private institutions aren't perfect, and judging if speech breaks the one exception to the moral concept of "free speech" is hard. We'll get it wrong. The alternative, however, is to let the panic incited to occur unabated, which seems substantially worse.

sneak 6y ago
I don't agree. I think that the harm caused by these loud demagogues (is that redundant?) is massively overblown. The US president, perhaps the one with the most platform and audience and reach, couldn't even summon a properly armed militia, it was only a small group of mostly unarmed rioters. Their best efforts achieved precisely nothing: they did not seize any power, they did not hold any territory. It wasn't even a battle. Far from an insurrection, it was just some smashed windows and an instagram moment and now they're all in jail. Calling what happened an armed insurrection is factually inaccurate, even if a few of the rioters brought weapons. If platform and reach are proportional to messaging effectiveness (the presumption that this sort of censorship makes) then everyone else's efforts along these lines (who isn't the president of the United States) will be substantially less effective than even this massively ineffective display in DC. Let them squawk. Misinformation and lies simply aren't that dangerous, otherwise we would have had to ban the church centuries ago. Americans are inundated constantly with bullshit messaging from large, powerful organizations. They aren't nearly as malleable as the pro-censorship people seem to think they are.
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  To take it away from this political moment for a second, do you believe it's acceptable to allow someone to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or do you think these people aren't actually yelling, "Fire!", and when we determine someone is yelling, "Fire!", those private institutions should still stop them?

uniqueid 6y ago

I also don’t agree with their equivalent person on the left. Are there many, if any, equivalent people to Bannon on the left? My theory is that the core of Bannon is neoconfederacy: under all the nonsense he talks is the desire to see the North burn. In fact I am skeptical of most “career politicians”. Bannon is not a 'career politician' dunk on the other tribe Yes, the Democrats are corrupt, but to focus on that, at the present-day, ignores the gravity of what the Republican party has become: the 'other tribe' is, really and truly, fascist and seditionist.

sgregnt 6y ago
I wonder how accurate is your statement and does it contributes to an informed conversation? Anecdotal. There are tens of millions of GOP voters, I have many friends that support GOP, non of them is a fasict.
- baq 6y ago
  but do they know who they vote for? (same question to the democratic voters) i'm not from US - we've got a multiparty system that seems to kind of work - but I've done one of those political alignment tests for parties, got a result, and then proceeded to do a political alignment test for politicians. None of the folks I was supposedly aligned with were members of the party I was aligned with best. make of that what you will.
- uniqueid 6y ago
  It's harder to characterize voters. For example, Democratic leadership is full of corporatocrats. So, strictly speaking, Democratic voters support corporatocracy. But it's more accurate to say that most Democratic voters support corporatocracy unwittingly, or collaterally. That is what I would say about Republican voters and fascism, also.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Democratic leadership is full of corporatists. No, its full of corporatocrats [0]. Corporatism [1] is a political position (Wikipedia calls it an “ideology”, but it may be better to be viewed as a facet of ideology found in lots of very different ideologies; e.g., fascism includes corporatism as a component), but its not one that is particularly popular among Democrats, either in leadership or the base, neoliberal or progressive (though there definitely is a progressive corporatism that has some support.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

emmanueloga_ 6y ago

Relevant: https://www.kasiababis.com/comics/ghqk79ww9r3ttpw6u2pzntpqow2ii1 https://www.kasiababis.com/comics/ghqk79ww9r3ttpw6u2pzntpqow...

stjohnswarts 6y ago

Do you believe in their right to incite violence like beheadings from Steve Bannon and ransacking the Capitol by Giuliani? Because that's what they've been doing. Maybe these were all "symbolic" pronouncements by them, but I sort of doubt it, I think they just didn't have the cajones for it and preferred to see some poor dupes go execute on it so they could disavow them later.