Politics The Hangar Politics Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

BrunoV said:
See, words do actually matter because when they're stretched beyond meaning people lose the vocabulary to describe and understand what is happening
Click to expand...
This. It
GUMBLETRON said:
No state in which the military retains an explicit constitutional veto and an implicit threat of coup can really be deemed democratic.

The broader point though is democracy/non-democracy isn't an either/or prospect, but rather a sliding scale of stability, protections and so on. There's a vast grey area in the middle and the erosion of democratic norms, institutions and protections slowly but steadily shifts states that way.
Click to expand...
That's a fair point and maybe Myanmar was a bad example then.

I stand by the idea that democracy as we know it was never in imminent danger of collapse (in the most literal sense) in the US under Trump. It may have been subverted or undermined....but that's not the question at hand.
 
Vander18 said:
I stand by the idea that democracy as we know it was never in imminent danger of collapse (in the most literal sense) in the US under Trump. It may have been subverted or undermined....but that's not the question at hand.
Click to expand...
The visible collapse tends not to happen until very late in the piece, by which point most of the key characteristics of a healthy democracy have long since been eroded - or in the case of Myanmar, were never established.
 
Vander18 said:
I stand by the idea that democracy as we know it was never in imminent danger of collapse (in the most literal sense) in the US under Trump.
Click to expand...

gotta start somewhere
 

Log in to remove this ad.

GUMBLETRON said:
No state in which the military retains an explicit constitutional veto, control over key arms of government and an implicit threat of coup can really be deemed democratic.

The broader point though is democracy/non-democracy isn't an either/or prospect, but rather a sliding scale of institutions, stability and so on. There's a vast grey area in the middle and the erosion of democratic norms, institutions and protections slowly but steadily shifts states that way.
Click to expand...
Interesting that there are scales that are used to model relative positions in that grey area.

en.wikipedia.org

Polity data series - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Has the UK and the US as democracies, but they only get an 8 for democracy (0 for autocracy), so not a 'full democracy' under Polity V (the latest version).

The Commonwealth countries (or most of them..?) are listed as 'full democracies' and get a 10 for democracy and 0 for autocracy.

They helpfully put the previous version (Polity IV) on a map in 2017...

Polity_IV_2017.png
 
BrunoV said:
Is that the same Mueller investigation premised on the Steele dossier which was DNC funded research and which was not only unverified but fabricated?

You know my favourite part about it, no its not even that the saintly James Comes blackmailed Trump with it as a way of helping the media launder it into publication, it's that house and senate intel (controlled by the GOP), the FBI and Mueller all knew the Steele dossier was bullshit as early as summer 2017.

This is what people don't understand. Trump is the RINO. He has been betrayed by the GOP establishment at every turn.

Some of the knowledge allegations are detailed in the summary of the Horowitz report by Matt Taibi below:

www.rollingstone.com

'Corroboration Zero': An Inspector General's Report Reveals the Steele Dossier Was Always a Joke

The reports throws water on one “deep state” conspiracy theory of the Russia investigation, but validates complaints about “fake news”
www.rollingstone.com www.rollingstone.com

Below is an article by John Solomon addressing how early on Comey knew:

justthenews.com

Smoking gun: Comey told Clapper FBI unable to 'sufficiently corroborate' Steele — then signed FISA

In January 2017 email to intel chief coughed up under court order, the former FBI director contradicted sworn avowal to FISA court that Steele dossier was verified.
justthenews.com justthenews.com

I've got to find something more definitive on Mueller's knowledge. By that I mean Andrew Weisemann. Mueller was Joe Biden levels of demented the whole time.

You know what will come out in time, the Steele dossier isn't even the Steele dossier. It was the second run of the same rubbish Clinton confidant Cody Shearer put together months earlier.


This is what I was talking about in terms of vocabulary. Law and order is not authoritarian in the sense of the tropes run out about Trump. Authoritarian is used interchangeably with dictator and fascist.

Do you consider the EU countries authoritarian? Australia, NZ? If so, why is it even necessary to point out Trump is authoritarian if that's just the status quo in the west. It's not unless authoritarian has another meaning.

How does the Western authoritarian compare to someone like Duterte or the Iranian government, Erdogan, Lukashenko and a number or other "strong men" running countries which are not dictatorships you find in China, North Korea or Iraq, etc prior to the US liberation of the Middle East and Saudi Arabia?


In relation to Brennan, the libertarians you are referring to are covered by the other categories mentioned by Brennan, hence "and even libertarians".
Click to expand...

I was going to respond to this in detail but it seemed a little... off so I did some digging and found this post full of nonsense complete with a youtube vid that got taken down for spreading bullshit about the election lol https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/the-hangar-politics-thread.1066353/post-68493176


Also anyone bad enough at history to support libertarianism probably deserves the long nightstick of the law up the clacker.
 
Old Campaigner said:
I was going to respond to this in detail but it seemed a little... off so I did some digging and found this post full of nonsense complete with a youtube vid that got taken down for spreading bullshit about the election lol https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/the-hangar-politics-thread.1066353/post-68493176


Also anyone bad enough at history to support libertarianism probably deserves the long nightstick of the law up the clacker.
Click to expand...


And another one bites the dust.


While I am at it, https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/.

Gee, so many of the claims in the Times article mirror those made by Navarro. I guess Molly Ball is a secret alt right troll funded by the Russians, or something.
 
Last edited:
The Chasers don't seem impressed with their Facebook page being blocked as 'news'...

They are now impersonating Zuckerburg on twitter 😅







 
Old Campaigner said:
I was going to respond to this in detail but it seemed a little... off so I did some digging and found this post full of nonsense complete with a youtube vid that got taken down for spreading bullshit about the election lol https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/the-hangar-politics-thread.1066353/post-68493176


Also anyone bad enough at history to support libertarianism probably deserves the long nightstick of the law up the clacker.
Click to expand...
Serious question....as someone who doesn't have an intelligent view on the election theft (or not) can you explain why you think its nonsense? Genuinely interested to hear.

The only view I have is that I don't rule it out as possible. I am sufficiently cynical of both sides to believe they are capable of just about anything and I assume any and all news I consume is tainted by bias, whether that be to the right or left.
 
Last edited:
Lore said:
The Chasers don't seem impressed with their Facebook page being blocked as 'news'...

They are now impersonating Zuckerburg on twitter 😅







Click to expand...

Better yet, Facebook has removed the chaser but it left the shot’s page up 😂😂
 
Vander18 said:
I stand by the idea that democracy as we know it was never in imminent danger of collapse (in the most literal sense) in the US under Trump. It may have been subverted or undermined....but that's not the question at hand.
Click to expand...

It was possible that the stacked Supreme Court MAY have heard the utterly absurd cases brought and ruled in their favour.

I'm glad it didn't mind you, but it could have.

147 Reps and Sens voted to refuse to certify the Presidential election results that we KNOW were not fraudulent.
 
Jade said:
It was possible that the stacked Supreme Court MAY have heard the utterly absurd cases brought and ruled in their favour.

I'm glad it didn't mind you, but it could have.

147 Reps and Sens voted to refuse to certify the Presidential election results that we KNOW were not fraudulent.
Click to expand...



Read this article, https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/, in Time.

What you will see is that Molly Ball is essentially bragging about all of the changes to voting and vote counting procedure that were being implemented to "protect" election integrity. Much of it pre-dated Covid, the supposed reason for the changes. The changes mainly concern altering procedure to loosen scrutiny of postal votes and to make it harder to challenge votes and subject precincts and polling places to audits . The changes were largely effected through what I will describe as back channels to distinguish from the proper procedure of putting the proposed changes to votes in the state houses (which is where election law is supposed to be changed).

Doesn't it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy when you hear about "secret cabals" of saintly crusaders who are protecting elections? Isn't this exactly how you'd expect people concerned with election integrity to behave? It doesn't trip my bullshit metre at all, especially not once fact checkers enter the picture. They say everything is fine. Big tech too, not that Zurckerberg sank $300m to $400m into "election integrity".

Of course, Ball is blind or stupid enough to brag about all of this in the context of election integrity. Peter Navarro, on the other hand, uses the facts relating to the changes in electoral procedure which, as far as I am concerned are now admitted even if the motivation underpinning the circumstances in question is not, to argue that it provided the structure within which the election theft occurred.

His 3 reports can be found here: https://navarroreport.com/

He is far from the only person raising questions about the election but he provides the neatest summary of the arguments and summary of the evidence supporting the claims that the election was stolen (without descending into the mire of the voting machines issue).

I'll also add that you do not have to believe Navarro or any individual. This could have been solved by conducting full audits. At every turn full audits were resisted and opposed. Must have been because of "election integrity". Trump said at least in early December that all he wanted was a full audit of the precincts in issue.

If there was any honesty in the system, audits would have been conducted. By early December, at the absolute latest, we would have known exactly what went on. Hell, if I was Biden with my 80,000,000 votes, I would have been super confident that there was absolutely nothing untoward and I would have welcomed the audits.

What exactly is the reason for refusing the audits? The welfare of the country? That worked well.

Let us be clear about 1 thing. We know next to nothing when it comes to the matters raised by Navarro. The only way to know anything is to have the votes audited. That does not mean Navarro has to be accepted as correct but I thought we were all better sceptics than accepting the accused when he says he didn't do it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Loonerty said:
www.forbes.com

White House Advisor Peter Navarro Releases Dubious Voter Fraud Report

The report, which White House advisor Peter Navarro claimed to write “in his capacity as a private citizen,” consists largely of debunked claims and arguments rejected in court.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
Click to expand...


Have you read the Forbes article or is it just the first thing Google linked you to?

Just conceptually, so I can understand, how do a few throw away lines provide any real retort to reports that probably raise in excess of 100 claims?
 
Last edited:
BrunoV said:
Have you read the Forbes article or is it just the first thing Google linked you to?

Just conceptually, so I can understand, how do a few throw away lines provide any real retort of reports that probably raise in excess of 100 claims?
Click to expand...
I did read it last time I linked it.
Just as a caveat for this:
BrunoV said:
We know next to nothing when it comes to the matters raised by Navarro.
Click to expand...
 
The senate hearing for Rudd's media diversity petition is today, they're live-streaming it. Interesting
 
BrunoV said:
Read this article, https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/, in Time.

What you will see is that Molly Ball is essentially bragging about all of the changes to voting and vote counting procedure that were being implemented to "protect" election integrity. Much of it pre-dated Covid, the supposed reason for the changes. The changes mainly concern altering procedure to loosen scrutiny of postal votes and to make it harder to challenge votes and subject precincts and polling places to audits . The changes were largely effected through what I will describe as back channels to distinguish from the proper procedure of putting the proposed changes to votes in the state houses (which is where election law is supposed to be changed).

Doesn't it just make you feel all warm and fuzzy when you hear about "secret cabals" of saintly crusaders who are protecting elections? Isn't this exactly how you'd expect people concerned with election integrity to behave? It doesn't trip my bullshit metre at all, especially not once fact checkers enter the picture. They say everything is fine. Big tech too, not that Zurckerberg sank $300m to $400m into "election integrity".

Of course, Ball is blind or stupid enough to brag about all of this in the context of election integrity. Peter Navarro, on the other hand, uses the facts relating to the changes in electoral procedure which, as far as I am concerned are now admitted even if the motivation underpinning the circumstances in question is not, to argue that it provided the structure within which the election theft occurred.

His 3 reports can be found here: https://navarroreport.com/

He is far from the only person raising questions about the election but he provides the neatest summary of the arguments and summary of the evidence supporting the claims that the election was stolen (without descending into the mire of the voting machines issue).

I'll also add that you do not have to believe Navarro or any individual. This could have been solved by conducting full audits. At every turn full audits were resisted and opposed. Must have been because of "election integrity". Trump said at least in early December that all he wanted was a full audit of the precincts in issue.

If there was any honesty in the system, audits would have been conducted. By early December, at the absolute latest, we would have known exactly what went on. Hell, if I was Biden with my 80,000,000 votes, I would have been super confident that there was absolutely nothing untoward and I would have welcomed the audits.

What exactly is the reason for refusing the audits? The welfare of the country? That worked well.

Let us be clear about 1 thing. We know next to nothing when it comes to the matters raised by Navarro. The only way to know anything is to have the votes audited. That does not mean Navarro has to be accepted as correct but I thought we were all better sceptics than accepting the accused when he says he didn't do it.
Click to expand...

Ah yes.

I'd been told during my absence you'd gone, well... *gestures broadly*
 
Outstanding headline 😂
 
"A key member of the legal team that sought to steal the 2020 election for Donald Trump is defending herself against a billion-dollar defamation lawsuit by arguing that “no reasonable person” could have mistaken her wild claims about election fraud last November as statements of fact.

In a motion to dismiss a complaint by the large US-based voting machine company Dominion, lawyers for Sidney Powell argued that elaborate conspiracies she laid out on television and radio last November while simultaneously suing to overturn election results in four states constituted legally protected first amendment speech."

www.theguardian.com

Pro-Trump lawyer says ‘no reasonable person’ would believe her election lies

Lawyers for Sidney Powell argued conspiracies she laid out constituted legally protected first amendment speech
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

:think:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top