Consider: The failure and loss of "White's Only Democracy" has been, for over fifty years, driving the increasingly violent movement to "repeal and replace" it with a White Nationalist Autocracy, which is now the overt agenda of the Republican Party. The Counter-"Revolution" Is Being Televised, comrades, and hyper-partisan paralysis-by-design of the Federal and State governments is bringing Murica's paramilitarized populist gumbo to a boil. The organizing principle and driver is post-Civil Rights "white grievance" (no doubt catalyzed – not, however, caused – by the ravages of rapacious neoliberal policies that most of these MAGAs (and too many fucking Dems) still support). — 180 Proof

I don't disagree with any of this. Other than to add this trajectory is still one that you're on, and one that democrats are largely A-OK with, even as they like making loud noises about how not OK they are about this. So 81 million people voted for a war criminal and corporate sponsored creator of poverty and international misery. Not sure how that's supposed to be a counter-point anyway.

To be fair, I don't blame any of these people. Insofar as America is not a democracy and its voting rituals are efforts to pick the PR wing of unchanging corporate lawmaking, these choices were always going to be depraved to begin with. If you have not been the direct cause of mass and ideally global immseration, you're not allowed to be a candidate to begin with.

...this commission. Another chance for ratings... — Xtrix

It's quite disheartening for me to see Americans have such an attitude about such an important proceeding.

There were a group of elected officials and their allies who deliberately plotted and carefully planned a complex quasi-legal method for overturning a free and fair election. These people also set out to convince all their supporters that it needed to be done as a result of the election being stolen. Neither of those things were true, because the election was not stolen. They all knew the election was not stolen.



Do you understand the seriousness and the future implications of all that?

Conspiracy to defraud The United States(the big lie). Seditious conspiracy(based upon the big lie). The big lie also has been used to foment the idea that our elections are not secure enough, and thus that something needs to be done to ensure free and fair elections. That's yet another conspiracy to defraud The United States. The 2020 election was the most secure closely monitored election in our history. Those elected officials peddling the falsehood already know that. Voting laws have been under constant attack and decimated since, making it much harder for less privileged people to vote. They've used the big lie as support for those changes, and continue to do so.

No.

We are facing very serious novel threats from within the government itself. The president of the United States did nothing to protect the capital building and it's inhabitants!!! The planned insurrection involved congresspeople as well!!! Many, if not most of those still hold office!!! Allowing the public to know this information is not about ratings. It's about putting a stop to this shit while we still can!!!

It's about shedding light on a topic(Jan.6) that the involved parties were trying to ignore and basically sweep under the rug immediately afterwards. From my vantage point, there are quite a few elected officials and citizens involved, and not just those who breached the building. It is a crime to know about a planned attempt at an insurrection and not report it to the proper authorities. There was a concerted effort to foment doubt about the integrity of the election, and there is now a concerted effort to convince the public that the commission is a partisan witch hunt about ratings. This narrative is being fostered by those who are guilty of seditious conspiracy, fraud, and doing everything based upon ratings.

:angry:

It's quite disheartening for me to see Americans have such an attitude about such an important proceeding. — creativesoul

Agree. How corrupt has our nation become if a violent coup cannot wake them from their slumber.

:100:

So 81 million people voted for a war criminal and corporate sponsored creator of poverty and international misery. Not sure how that's supposed to be a counter-point anyway. — Streetlight

This thread topic concerns the "clear and present danger" of the Republican Party (with and without the complicity of Dems or Libs). As far as voting in the last US presidential election, it stands repeating what I'd replied to you back in 2020:

Like Angela Davis, Noam Chomsky, et al anti-fascist leftists (& progressives), I don't see how one can disagree with the electoral position that

'An anti-fascist vote is not an endorsement of the Democratic Party.'
— Cornel West

... unless you're too disingenuous, or your head is too far up your own anus, to tell the difference between a neoliberal disaster and a neofascist catastrophe. — 180 Proof

Eighty-one million votes to kick tr45h out of office – Biden was the only electoral means to that end. Apparently, you wouldn't have had the balls to do the same had you had any skin in the game. Talk shit from the cheap seats, Street, if that tickles your sack.

important proceeding. — creativesoul

seriousness and the future implications of all that? — creativesoul

How corrupt has our nation become if a violent coup cannot wake them from their slumber. — Jackson

Yes, and what exactly have you two done about it? Beyond being outraged from what you’re reading/seeing?

Sorry— but there are better things for me to do than passively consume the latest media spectacle. Even picking up trash in the neighborhood accomplishes more.

but there are better things for me to do than passively consume the latest media spectacle — Xtrix

Clearly you support Trump's coup attempt.

Clearly you support Trump's coup attempt. — Jackson

:roll:

Grow up.

Grow up. — Xtrix

I am all grown up.

Biden was the only electoral means to that end. — 180 Proof

Then you're already in a fascist state and you just haven't clued in yet.

-

I've been thinking that when right-wing nut jobs accuse liberals and the left of being Anti-American, they are fundamentally correct. Tump and his like are the American dream - they are the essence of 'what it is to be American', distilled to a tee. Those who oppose them, are, in fact, anti-American. To be American means exactly what the right-wing understands by the term: to be nasty, self-centered, infused with racial hatred and a utter contempt for those worse off. Trump is American as apple pie, the most American thing to have been produced since its cowboys genocided Indians all across the plain.

If you oppose this, you are anti-American:

The clear and present danger to the USofA are those who do not recognize that the above just is the USofA. Jan 6 hearings? Anti-American AF. And the Republicans, insofar as they are the embodiment of everything America stands for, were correct to boycott them.

The interesting question in the OP is not who or what is 'the clear and present danger'. It's what this entity 'The United State of America' is. Because if it is not in "clear and present danger", then it's in trouble.

You can't be as stupid as these posts. :sweat:

Yeah that level of response is what I would expect from an American. It tracks.

:roll:

That’s not nothing. That’s not an endorsement of Clinton, of course, but it’s true nevertheless— I think we can all agree? — Xtrix

As @Streetlight has already suggested, these are campaign promises, not policies. I don't know the ins and outs of the specific manifestos (I'm English, though I follow American politics in the English press), but the political situation is much the same as in any two party state, each knows which section of the electorate are they need to sway to get elected and campaign promises are directed at them. Actual policies, however, are influenced by corporate sponsors and can be stalled, repealed or rendered toothless as required.

Not only do the left-ish parties have a whole raft of tools at their disposal to render their campaign promises non-functional once elected, but they also form part of a political neutering of actual left-wing politics which means that when (inevitably) the right-wing parties return to power, the stage is well set for them to make further their immiserating agenda, free of any real opposition.

I sympathise with the pragmatic intent behind "we'd better choose the least worst, lest the most worst gets in", but I think that the people who are genuinely concerned about positive change are too small a group to make a difference voting (possible in some constituencies, but unlikely). As such there's more political power in a loud vociferous rejection of both than there is in a reluctant acceptance of the least worst.

I am not uniquely able to define what is and is not part of the 'democratic process,' but I am able to.
Why would YOU need me to or want me to, if you already think it's 'a weaselly fudge?' — universeness

The point I was really trying to make was about policies. Even if we include campaign promises (rather than actual enacted policy), we have this fundamental dissonance between the way policies are devised and the way they're received. The policies of any governmental political body are not designed for the betterment of humanity. That's not a political statement, it's just a statement of fact, there's no cybernetic mechanism in place to carry out that guidance. They are designed to secure power. Again, not with any nasty conspiracy theory in mind, as simple statement of the mechanism by which policies are devised - the cybernetics of the system are about the effect the policy will have on securing power, not on human betterment. As in any essentially chaotic system, network pathways emerge that were not designed by which nonetheless influence data flow. The actual nuts and bolts of an electoral system is one such. There end up being pathway opportunities to the objective (getting into power) which emerge from the mechanisms which form the system that were not part of any human-design of that system (the opportunities - not the taking of them - taking them up is distinctly intentional). In democracy, these are features such as filibustering, flood-advertising, psychological manipulation, swing constituencies, balances of power (where there are, for example two houses of government), the mechanisms of voting (block votes, vetoes, session limits, amendments...), and finally whatever civil service enact and police the policy. All these mechanisms take up on opportunities opened up by emergent pathways which those who are aware of them can exploit. None of them have the least bit to do with the democratic notion of simply asking your populace what policies they prefer.

What you're describing as 'the democratic process' is a complex mechanism which has virtually nothing to do with any means by which people can promote the betterment of their communities. I'd just as sooner have nothing to do with it, and anyone who thinks it's going to save them is seriously misguided as to it's functions.

The "current" Republican party wants to establish a Christian Theocracy in the USA - Americanistan guys & gals, Americanistan! :snicker: Good luck my fellow American brothers & sisters, we'll need it!

...there are better things for me to do than passively consume the latest media spectacle. Even picking up trash in the neighborhood accomplishes more. — Xtrix

Do you know what the hearings have shed light upon thus far?

Actual policies, however, are influenced by corporate sponsors and can be stalled, repealed or rendered toothless as required. — Isaac

Yup.

Antitrust laws - toothless. IRS enforcement capabilities - toothless. Conflict of interest concerns - toothless. Consumer protection agency - toothless. EPA - toothless. Etc.

In The States there are policies that are actually written by those who are working on the behalf of such corporations. That is to have tremendous power over a people that have not consented and whose interest is in direct conflict with the aims of the parties involved. That power has been usurped from the people and sold to those who do not act with the people's best interest in mind!


The monetary corruption pervading American government has reached levels of unsustainability.

These are some of the things that paved the way for Jan.6 to even be able to happen. These sorts of things are what underwrite the common belief that politicians cannot be trusted, or that the government is the problem, etc. Justified distrust in the government to do the right thing for the American people! In a representative form of government, that's a big problem!

...'the democratic process' is a complex mechanism which has virtually nothing to do with any means by which people can promote the betterment of their communities... — Isaac

A system is only as good as it's implementation. It's not the system that's broken. It's the implemenation.

First rule of public service:Provide a service to the public. What the US government has managed to provide to those with the ability to pledge huge sums of money to elected officials is nothing short of legalized government bribery. That bribe buys a transfer of the power over American citizens that elected officials bear to individuals who are not elected and whose interests are in direct conflict with the peoples'. That is a horrible public disservice.

No one cares about my suggestions for improving things — schopenhauer1

I care about what you think and what you suggest, especially when it supports MY socialist/humanist agenda or when your thoughts/suggestions conflict with that same agenda.
I think it's foolish to ignore you, and such as you, especially when you are in reality, many millions, more and more are also becoming politically aware and even organised.

There were profound differences of opinion between Republicans and Democrats during the civil war. The conflict was over whether the South should be part of the USA — Tate

But Lincoln was a republican president!
The republican party was a new party in the run up to the American civil war.
Lincoln started as a member of the whig party.
Most of those who supported slavery were democrats. U. S. Grant writes about the political situation quite well in his memoirs. The democrats were a completely different group compared to today. They were founded more based on those involved with the American revolution.

It's quite disheartening for me to see Americans have such an attitude about such an important proceeding.
— creativesoul

Agree. How corrupt has our nation become if a violent coup cannot wake them from their slumber — Jackson

I am not an American but I think you are both soooooooooo correct here.
Trump and the rest of those directly responsible for what happened on Jan 6th should do jail time.
It was an attempted coup! I wonder what would have happened if Trump was more than the physical coward he is. If he had actually shown up and supported his 'mob.' What if Pence had also backed him? Could they actually have produced the military support to complete their attempted coup?

Yes, and what exactly have you two done about it? Beyond being outraged from what your reading/seeing? — Xtrix

I would take a look at someone like Jane McAlevey. I think she describes one solution very well. It involves organizing. Not lecturing others, but listening and helping them identify and solve problems. — Xtrix

I think we could all do more but we all justify what we do or why we don't do more, including me!
General and personal apathy is a major concern.
I agree with the majority of the content of your posts Xtrix but some stuff you post, I don't understand.
You seem to think that the current efforts to make Trump and his main power brokers face justice for their nefarious actions are a waste of time. I don't understand your reasons. Avoidance of the inevitable 'media circus' seems a limited reason to me.
I remember your post on another thread that seemed to assign value to 'aristocratic' rule as well.
I felt that also contradicted your generally 'humanist/socialist,' viewpoints.
Perhaps I just don't yet see your 'big picture.'

The policies of any governmental political body are not designed for the betterment of humanity. That's not a political statement, it's just a statement of fact, there's no cybernetic mechanism in place to carry out that guidance. They are designed to secure power. — Isaac

I understand many of the apathetic points you raise. You type with the same frustrations of many many others. You seem to be politically fatigued and de-energised towards those who are working so hard to change the human experience for the better.
No one ever ever suggested that creating a human society that is benevolent to the vast majority and to the ecology it exists within, would be easy.
I learned a long time ago to dissociate the labels that an individual claims and uses with what they actually do and demonstrate on a day to day basis.
I accept that sometimes you have to dance with the devil to learn its moves and counter them.
Democracy is an essential imo. I don't care how many times you can exemplify:

All these mechanisms take up on opportunities opened up by emergent pathways which those who are aware of them can exploit. None of them have the least bit to do with the democratic notion of simply asking your populace what policies they prefer. — Isaac

Your examples will probably be quite accurate and your alarm raising, is completely valid and necessary and I would even say, 'is a service to the democratic process.' Each one of the abuses/loopholes etc identified must be laboriously realised, analysed, understood, countered and finally defeated.
Socialists have been trying since and before the days of Spartacus!
Through 10,000 years of tears, if you like.
In the cosmic calendar however, that's just a splash in the time ocean.
So I think my 'give us a f****** chance mate,' complaint, remains valid.
I think global socialism/humanism is and always has been, inevitable. The only question that remains is 'how long can the nefarious hold it back?' I don't know that answer but I fight any apathetic feelings that rise in me.
When the clear differences between those who claim to be socialist in the UK and those who are tories become hard to see, I remember that this is not a failure of any socialist tenet, it's a failure or revelation of the individual(s) who abuse the label. I also don't blame god (even though I am very confident that no such nasty creature exists) for the actions of some theists.

What you're describing as 'the democratic process' is a complex mechanism which has virtually nothing to do with any means by which people can promote the betterment of their communities. I'd just as sooner have nothing to do with it, and anyone who thinks it's going to save them is seriously misguided as to it's functions. — Isaac

I can use a hammer to help build a shelter for a human or I can beat the human to death with it.
A hammer, like the democratic process, is a tool that can be used benevolently or nefariously.
I don't blame or abandon the very useful hammer due to the way some choose to use and abuse it.

The "current" Republican party wants to establish a Christian Theocracy in the USA — Agent Smith

:clap: Absafragginlutely! :death: :flower:

:ok:

Just a 'quirky' aside. I think in places like Italy, the :ok: symbol is a compliment normally directed towards food. But, is it not places like Mexico/Spain where :ok: is taken as an insult? You are basically making the shape of an anus so 'are you called me an asshole agent smith?' :lol:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Just a 'quirky' aside. I think in places like Italy, the :ok: symbol is a compliment normally directed towards food. But, is it not places like Mexico/Spain where :ok: is taken as an insult? You are basically making the shape of an anus so 'are you called me an asshole agent smith?' :lol: — universeness

:gasp:

I gotta be more careful! Merci for the heads up! I wouldn't call anyone an asshole, not my style you see!

Do you advocate for a Christian Theocracy? Speaking for myself, not a good idea. Theocracies have a poor track record!

“ineptness”. — ArielAssante

The tradition has been to favour the theory of cockup over conspiracy. But times have changed, and although partly we are seeing the shit that has always been going down but we didn't know it, because internet, we are also subject to voodoo economics and voodoo politics. It used to be that 'divide and rule' was the rule, but now it's become 'divide and exploit chaos'. The social capital of the last couple of millennia is being squandered for a momentary advantage in the coming total collapse of civilisation. The masses are no longer needed because robots are cheaper, so they are being scrapped.
They're all going to fight for freedom until they're all dead.

I gotta be more careful! Merci for the heads up! I wouldn't call anyone an asshole, not my style you see! — Agent Smith

:scream: I wouldn't worry about it too much :cool: Almost every hand gesture you can make can be problematic. Even raising your hand to greet someone or indicate your wish to ask or answer a question or indicate where you are in a pub can be misunderstood. Traditionally it comes from leaders of waring tribes showing that they had no weapons in their hands so it was safe for them to approach each other.
So you are actually indicating to your friends that you have no weapons in your hand to kill them with but if you get the angle wrong or the shape you make with your fingers, it can be anything from a Roman or Nazi salute to a power fist threat towards your opposition.
I am sure the American republican party members have their own full-arm-raised salute for their orange-faced god.

I am an atheist Agent Smith, I would be ejected from a theocracy or killed in it before I could utter the words 'There are no f****** go....... aaaaarrrggggghhhh!' :death: