I agree. You can probably find evidence of it throughout history, but I think the tea party accelerated it under Obama, and Trump was able to ride that wave to office.
Democratic fascism
- Thread starter Crazyhole
- Start date
I agree. You can probably find evidence of it throughout history, but I think the tea party accelerated it under Obama, and Trump was able to ride that wave to office.
I don’t think Trump intended violence at the Capitol. There were people going to do just that who had planned for a week. Trump did get everyone all excited and the people that were there to do no good lit the match.
I believe it was similar to Trump. I dont think everyone who supported the tea party was racist, but I certainly believe it pulled the racists out of the woodwork.
Maybe. It sure looked like that when some media providers decided to make sure that any of those people present were centered in every shot. The people I knew that rallied with the Tea Party had plenty of pictures that didn’t show any of that. The movement certainly wasn’t about that, much like BLM isn’t about the PLO even though the Palestinian flag has flown at many BLM rallies.
Yea man but you know it’s one propaganda machine vs the other. I’m sure Fox News did not portray the tea party in a negative light.
It is and I have no idea because Fox News is painful to watch. The thing is that you have Fox News standing largely alone against almost all of the traditional media outlets and now the social media giants as well. So it’s not really an even playing field as far as access to ears and eyeballs.
Can’t deny that. Is it because of peoples viewing habits or powerful people controlling media to espouse their views on you? I would say it’s viewing habits because TV networks are profitable businesses. If they don’t have viewers they don’t survive. I agree not only that fox is painful to watch but pretty much anything these days as far as news goes...can’t get a straight answer on anything.
I might have given them the benefit of the doubt and said it was natural market forces, even through the way the covered Obama and then Trump, but the video of the CNN director taking credit for intentionally swaying the 2020 election and thus confirming all of the people leaving MSM stalwarts and complaining about intentional bias sealed the deal. Their staff got into the business to change the world and they all hold a common vision of what type of people should be in power to do that. That they make more money sowing strife and division is ancillary.
Pretty much this.
CNN will never have any credibility again in my eyes. Hearing straight from a fairly high level employee that it was all very intentional and that they were reporting news with an agenda beyond informing; that they had actual political goals that they were using their ability to propagandize for... just wholly unacceptable.
Most of the stuff Biden is pushing the hardest is pretty popular. Infrastructure plan polling is near 70%. American Familes plan is was 64/34 in a poll I saw. The higher tax rates on wealthy and corporations poll really high. Politically speaking, I don't know how you can criticize that. If Biden can't pursue things that popular, what is he supposed to do?
I'm not going to defend to CNN. But it's clear that we are in a race to the bottom. Sean Hannity and Trump spoke on the phone multiple times per week - not as reporter/POTUS but as Chief Propogandist / POTUS. The very existence of Fox News is basically a response to Nixon's forced resignation.
If you're on the right, you're convinced that the left is such a fundamental threat to America that you're going to rationalize Sean Hannity acting as Chief Propogandist. If you're on the left, you're going to argue that Trump's brand of nationalism is such a dire threat to democracy that CNN's staffer is a patriot helping to defend the nation. It's that whole "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" kind of dilemma.
Not trying to be an ass - but will you hold right-wing media establishments to the same standard?
Sean Hannity has no credibility to me. But FoxNews.com employs good journalists trying to make careers by reporting the news. Chris Wallace is fantastic and holds everyone's feet to the fire.
In other words, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. What you just said - that CNN has zero credibility with you - is exactly the goal of the propogandist. Now, when a legitimate journalist at CNN breaks a story about Trump or whatever, you've conditioned yourself to say "fake news" and not have to process the story on it's merits.
The reverse applies. When Chris Wallace legitimately criticizes the Biden admin over something, a bunch of lefties are going to ignore the criticism because they've discounted Fox completely. I wish it wasn't like this. But if you actually want to absorb news and opinion from reasonable people who have different views, you have to be a bit more discerning than this.
Promising people money and shiny things is always going to be popular in a poll. Might be careful about those, though, because the sampling diversity has been suspect in a lot of the media-sponsored polls lately. Regardless, Biden is full-on pandering because they realize that there’s an opportunity here to have people voting Democrat nationally for generations.
He was sold to the moderates as an experienced, unifying presence who would do what was right in contrast to the populist Trump. Now you’re saying that he’s running populist policies through as quickly as possible?
I don’t take Sean Hannity seriously as a source of news because he’s very clear on where his bias is. He’s a commentator. He’s upfront about it.
But CNN did all of that shit while calling themselves “the most trusted name in news.”
It isn’t me conditioning myself to say fake news... it’s them destroying their own credibility by willfully turning themselves into a propaganda organization masquerading as legitimate “trustworthy” news.
I can take partisan cheerleading from Fox News or MSNBC. They are what they are and they don’t try to hide it. But CNN tells you they’re not on a side and just want to tell you the truth, while secretly they’re cheering just as hard as MSNBC and willing to do whatever it takes to make you think what they want you to think.
Biden's tone and tactics are the polar opposite of Trump. And yes that was absolutely part of his broad appeal. But in no way was he elected to somehow counter Trump's economic populism. Cultural populism? Sure. But these are all issues he ran on that have broad support.
I've said on here that I think we're in a populist era. I didn't think Joe was cutout for this. But it turns out he might have just the right mix of old-school-establishment in the front, populist-party in the back to navigate this.
He's not the polar opposite to Trump, though. He was always bombastic and rude to people and a plain-spoken hard-line negotiator that leveraged strength and stubbornness. He read a couple of pretty speeches written by other people and all-of-a-sudden he's some mild-mannered uniter that is going to bring us together through patience and understanding. That was never Joe Biden in his 47 years of public service.
Establishment he is, which is actually a link back to authoritarian democracy. He is definitely a part of the elite in this country and is doing exactly what it takes today to not only keep that group deeply seated but also expand their influence.
Biden has a temper yes, but he is nowhere near as bombastic as Trump. And every politician, certainly at the serious presidential candidate level, is part of the elite.
To be fair, Trump is the polar opposite to what "Presidential" has mean during my lifetime. He's the outlier. If Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr, or Obama had followed Trump, I think the "polar opposite" label would still apply. It's more a statement of how unique Trump was in the context of the presidency than a statement about Biden.
I'm personally still torn over the "elite" aspect of general grievances against the government. Of course Biden, Pelosi, McConnel are part of the political elite. But so what? That's not unique.
The idea that the "elites" uniquely control the levers of power is some overdramatic hollywood style fiction. The reality is that a bunch of huge egos, funded by huge egos, are duking it out for power. From there, people construct all sorts of narratives to match what they see against their world-view.
The "elite" moniker always drives me a little nuts. Not that there isnt valid criticism, because there is certainly plenty to criticize, but for one, what do people expect? The president is looked at as the most powerful person in the world, anyone who can obtain that office, is by definition "elite". ANd two, and this isnt directed at Sk8, but people always seem to think the other side is the "elite" side. Josh Hawley for example, has talked about the elite. Josh Hawley was born with a silver spoon up his ass, went to elite private schools growing up, went to Stanford and Yale, and is now a senator, but somehow he doesnt consider himself to be part of the "elite".
Spend some time working in Washington, DC, on federal things and you'll know exactly what it means.
I can agree with your first paragraph.
As for the elite, it's the consolidation of power around the few while exploiting every opportunity to sow division among the many for their gain that is so concerning. The "never let a crisis go to waste" comment isn't just idle pratter; it's a very effective and well-utilized tool. Now we see journalist media and social media (which is the new public square) aligning with one political party and it only reinforces the belief that there is a ruling class coalescing in America now.
Biden had to win the popular vote by 3.5% to overcome the EC advantage currently enjoyed by Democrats. Republicans hold half the senate with seats representing 43% of the population.
The Republicans are becoming a minority party, maintaining power via the urban/rural sorting bias they enjoy along with some good gerrymandering. The response isn't to broaden their coalition, it's to entrench their ability to rule from the minority.
Republicans have maintained the Michigan state house 5 straight election cycles where democrats won the overall vote in 4 of those. Wisconsin was gerrymandered so well, that in 2016 Republicans won 161k more votes statewide and controlled the assy by 29 seats. In 2018, the Democrats won 205k more votes statewide yet Republicans controlled 27 more seats.
There's no "ruling class" coalescing in America. There's a wide range of views that are forced into a 2 party system with a massive urban/rural political divide. The majority of mainstream thought - education, media, business - originates on the urban side of that divide.
In other words, if the urban/rural polarization provides republicans a net benefit electorally in the senate, it's also going to provide democrats a net benefit in urban centered institutions like media, education, and corporate board rooms.
Gerrymandering is a nefarious plot. Urban/rural sorting is "luck" for Republicans, but the "media bias" is the cost.
