Visualizza Versione Completa : Ma quindi è praticamente certo che Trump [non] diventerà presidente of USA
È una domanda retorica? Boh nel dubbio rispondo come se non lo fosse: la teoria dei brogli e #stopthestealMolti qua non hanno il coraggio di dirlo, ma ai brogli ci credono davvero:asd: almeno marmist/doomer lo ammettono candidamente
È una domanda retorica? Boh nel dubbio rispondo come se non lo fosse: la teoria dei brogli e #stopthesteal
Quello è il risultato diretto del casino che hanno i vari stati nei conteggi, esempio:
https://eu.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/06/antrim-county-vote-glitch-software-update/6194745002/
Molti qua non hanno il coraggio di dirlo, ma ai brogli ci credono davvero:asd: almeno marmist/doomer lo ammettono candidamentesì, infatti. il punto è che chi minimizza o giustifica l'assalto al campidoglio è convinto che le elezioni siano state falsificate dai dem.
Kemper Boyd
12-01-21, 13:19
Ah beh, il detroit free press :asd:
Kraven VanHelsing
12-01-21, 13:21
Hostile journalists and lawmakers have suggested Mr. Trump incited the riot when he told a rally that Republicans need to “fight much harder.” Mr. Trump suggested the crowd walk to the Capitol: “We’re going to cheer on brave senators and congressmen and -women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.”
In the District of Columbia, it’s a crime to “intentionally or recklessly act in such a manner to cause another person to be in reasonable fear” and to “incite or provoke violence where there is a likelihood that such violence will ensue.” This language is based on Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), in which the Supreme Court set the standard for speech that could be prosecuted without violating the First Amendment. The justices held that a Ku Klux Klan leader’s calls for violence against blacks and Jews were protected speech. The court found that Clarence Brandenburg’s comments were “mere advocacy” of violence, not “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action . . . likely to incite or produce such action.”
The president didn’t mention violence on Wednesday, much less provoke or incite it. He said, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
District law defines a riot as “a public disturbance . . . which by tumultuous and violent conduct or the threat thereof creates grave danger of damage or injury to property or persons.” When Mr. Trump spoke, there was no “public disturbance,” only a rally. The “disturbance” came later at the Capitol by a small minority who entered the perimeter and broke the law. They should be prosecuted.
The president’s critics want him charged for inflaming the emotions of angry Americans. That alone does not satisfy the elements of any criminal offense, and therefore his speech is protected by the Constitution that members of Congress are sworn to support and defend.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-trump-isnt-guilty-of-incitement-11610303966
A me di Parler non interessa, nello specifico. Non l'ho mai usato né ci ho creato un account.
Che abbia dei "backer" con i soldi dietro non significa che i soldi siano sufficienti a superare le barriere all'ingresso di cui stiamo parlando.Pensavo fosse comprensibile: "se solo avessero un MILIARDARIO che li appoggiasse".
sì, infatti. il punto è che chi minimizza o giustifica l'assalto al campidoglio è convinto che le elezioni siano state falsificate dai dem.
No, l'unica cosa di cui sono convinto è che media, sistema politico e giganti della tecnologia, soprattutto nell'ultimo anno, hanno fatto di tutto per distruggere la propria credibilità e di conseguenza un grosso numero di persone non si fida del risultato delle elezioni.
Non riesco a capire il benaltrismo del tipo Hitler è ok che tanto Stalin ha fatto peggio :asd:
Per usare un esempio di facile comprensione.
No, l'unica cosa di cui sono convinto è che media, sistema politico e giganti della tecnologia, soprattutto nell'ultimo anno, hanno fatto di tutto per distruggere la propria credibilità e di conseguenza un grosso numero di persone non si fida del risultato delle elezioni.
Basterà fare lo step e ri-definire gli elettori REP da "bifolchi" a "terroristi" ed il gioco è fatto :fag:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsODRfCMRoM
No, l'unica cosa di cui sono convinto è che media, sistema politico e giganti della tecnologia, soprattutto nell'ultimo anno, hanno fatto di tutto per distruggere la propria credibilità e di conseguenza un grosso numero di persone non si fida del risultato delle elezioni.
non sono i media a stabilire chi vince, è il conteggio delle schede lelettorali e dei grandi elettori poi.
No, l'unica cosa di cui sono convinto è che media, sistema politico e giganti della tecnologia, soprattutto nell'ultimo anno, hanno fatto di tutto per distruggere la propria credibilità e di conseguenza un grosso numero di persone non si fida del risultato delle elezioni.Ah beh si colpa dei media, non del presidente uscente che da mesi mette in giro falsità
Kraven VanHelsing
12-01-21, 13:34
Pensavo fosse comprensibile: "se solo avessero un MILIARDARIO che li appoggiasse".
Pensavo fosse comprensibile che non bastano i miliardi di un hedge fund (come se fossero tutti a disposizione, peraltro, per fare impresa) a fare tutto quello che ho elencato.
Gli ordini di grandezza sono differenti.
Doomer Caesar
12-01-21, 13:43
Ah beh si colpa dei media, non del presidente uscente che da mesi mette in giro falsità
Diciamo per amor di discussione che sono falsità, perchè non possono essere entrambe cause?
Ah beh si colpa dei media, non del presidente uscente che da mesi mette in giro falsità
l'uovo e la gallina
Incolpare Trump del Campidoglio equivale a incolpare Salvini dei fatti di Macerata un paio d'anni fa. Trump non ha mai detto di invadere il Congresso, e questi tentativi di impeachment con gli applausi dei media sono davvero patetici
Kemper Boyd
12-01-21, 13:52
No, l'unica cosa di cui sono convinto è che media, sistema politico e giganti della tecnologia, soprattutto nell'ultimo anno, hanno fatto di tutto per distruggere la propria credibilità e di conseguenza un grosso numero di persone non si fida del risultato delle elezioni.
Mi sfugge il nesso tra credibilità di media e giganti tech, e affidabilità del sistema elettorale. Nessuna di quelle due entità governa il funzionamento del sistema di voto.
Mi piace come in molti siano convinti che così, senza nessun motivo, i media si siano messi a fare fake news su Trump. Non le facevano su Obama, ma le fanno su Trump. Perché? Boh. Probabilmente vi siete inventati qualche motivo per darvi ragione. È anche agghiacciante che non vediate le differenze tra il modo di fare, di parlare, di porsi ecc. di Trump rispetto a tutti i precedenti presidenti. Il fatto che venisse deriso per dietro da tutti gli altri leader mondiali non è stata per colpa delle fake news. Ma perché ha un modo di parlare, di muoversi, di ragionare ridicolo e imbarazzante. Il fatto che NONOSTANTE tutto questo, palese per chiunque, comunque in molti qui dentro credano alle vere fake news, che fondamentalmente è tutto quello che dice Trump, Fox, Newsmax ecc. è davvero triste. Parliamo tanto dei 50enni su Facebook, ma a quanto pare dei 25-30-40enni nei forum sono lo stesso.
GenghisKhan
12-01-21, 13:56
Incolpare Trump del Campidoglio equivale a incolpare Salvini dei fatti di Macerata un paio d'anni fa. Trump non ha mai detto di invadere il Congresso, e questi tentativi di impeachment con gli applausi dei media sono davvero patetici
:snob:
https://media-cdn.factba.se/realdonaldtrump-twitter/1345095714687377418.jpg
:snob:
https://media-cdn.factba.se/realdonaldtrump-twitter/1346578706437963777.jpg
E' chiaramente un invito ad un aperitivo sul prato :snob:
:snob:
https://media-cdn.factba.se/realdonaldtrump-twitter/1345095714687377418.jpg
:snob:
https://media-cdn.factba.se/realdonaldtrump-twitter/1346578706437963777.jpg
E' chiaramente un invito ad un aperitivo sul prato :snob:
Quindi se Salvini organizza un comizio a piazza del Popolo contro il governo Conte e alla fine i partecipanti irrompono a Montecitorio è colpa di Salvini?
comunque il problema su cui nessuno si è ancora interrogato è se sul pc di nancy pelosi ci gira Cyberpunk 2077
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics/fbi-bulletin-armed-protests-state-us-capitol/index.html
lo shutdown dei social avrà qualcosa a che farci?
strano che quando aizzi la folla ad agire contro qualcuno poi la folla agisca. in effetti non c'e' alcun nesso tra le due cose.
stendendo un velo pietoso su giuliani che ha pure tirato fuori il "trial by combat" :asd:
Kraven VanHelsing
12-01-21, 14:06
comunque il problema su cui nessuno si è ancora interrogato è se sul pc di nancy pelosi ci gira Cyberpunk 2077
Se ci gioca tramite stadia, allora sì :teach:
Infatti son andati tutti lì per Trump e non son 4 gatti coi capelli colorati e qualche black block ma l'america vera, quella che ti fa il post boomer sull'internet e poi ti lavora nei campi. Ma non avete un monitor con definizione abbastanza elevata per vederlo, correte a comprarne uno nuovo
Kemper Boyd
12-01-21, 14:11
L'AMERICA VERA
Io non ho visto tutti sti negri donne obese colorate portare l'america a dominare il mondo, né l'Inghilterra o altri.
No spe che su Netflix c'è Napoleone negro, pardon ricordavo male io
be', l'impero più vasto del mondo era fatto da asiatici. la polvere da sparo tanto cara alle potenze coloniali è una invenzione asiatica. gli stati più popolosi del mondo sono asiatici. la prossima grande potenza mondiale è asiatica.
poi non so voi ma se come metro di paragone per stabilire i meriti è quanto hai invaso il resto del mondo mi farei due domande :asd:
GenghisKhan
12-01-21, 14:22
Quindi se Salvini organizza un comizio a piazza del Popolo contro il governo Conte e alla fine i partecipanti irrompono a Montecitorio è colpa di Salvini?
Stop the steal!
Sicuramente stava suggerendo di andare davanti al Congresso a chiedere gentilmente :lol:
Ehi dem, per favore lasciate la poltrona a Ciuffodoro anche se ha perso le lezioni, siate carini, pace! :lol:
Stop the steal!
Sicuramente stava suggerendo di andare davanti al Congresso a chiedere gentilmente :lol:
Ehi dem, per favore lasciate la poltrona a Ciuffodoro anche se ha perso le lezioni, siate carini, pace! :lol:
Quindi se Salvini in piazza dice "In questo momento alla Camera stanno votando la fiducia al governo Conte, che il popolo non ha mai votato!" e quelli irrompono è sempre colpa sua?
Dov'è che Trump ha scritto di andare davanti al Congresso? Il comizio mica era lì.
Quindi se Salvini organizza un comizio a piazza del Popolo contro il governo Conte e alla fine i partecipanti irrompono a Montecitorio è colpa di Salvini?se sai che palesemente una buona parte dei tuoi sostenitori sono redneck psicolabili di estrema destra inclini alla violenza che spesso fanno parte di gruppi armati che amano partecipare a fiere delle armi e poligoni di tiro direi che la probabilità che succedesse qualcosa era alta,quindi si una parte di responsabilità che l'ha
eh caro mio, lei non mi considera la RESPONSABILITA' MORALE.
Doomer Caesar
12-01-21, 14:30
Si ma deve esserci un minimo di evidente connessione logica fra l'incitazione e il gesto, altrimenti virtualmente qualsiasi cosa può costituire incitazione alla violenza
se sai che palesemente una buona parte dei tuoi sostenitori sono redneck psicolabili di estrema destra inclini alla violenza che spesso fanno parte di gruppi armati che amano partecipare a fiere delle armi e poligoni di tiro direi che la probabilità che succedesse qualcosa era alta,quindi si una parte di responsabilità che l'ha
Strano a sentire la Gruber pare la fotografia degli elettori della Lega, eppure nessuno sano di mente ha mai preso in considerazione di denunciare Salvini perché Traini aveva sparato ai neri
Strano a sentire la Gruber pare la fotografia degli elettori della Lega, eppure nessuno sano di mente ha mai preso in considerazione di denunciare Salvini perché Traini aveva sparato ai nerinon mi pare che salvini abbia chiesto ai maceratesi di scendere in piazza a manifestare contro i diversamente colorati e ci fosse la possibilità che in mezzo a loro ci fosse uno mentalmente instabile, quella di traini è stata un'iniziativa di un singolo che sarebbe potuta succedere salvini o meno o ideologicamente di destra o di sinistra cambia una sega destra o meno e chi per lui, tempo fa stavo io stesso per fare un gesto sconsiderato contro un nero sudamericano che stava strarompendo il cazzo da tempo e non sono di certo un salviniano,
mentre una non irrilevante parte dei sostenitori di trump è gente sicuramente violenta o portata alla violenza e pelo di gatto soriano in testa ben lo sa
Kraven VanHelsing
12-01-21, 14:40
Stop the steal!
Sicuramente stava suggerendo di andare davanti al Congresso a chiedere gentilmente :lol:
Ehi dem, per favore lasciate la poltrona a Ciuffodoro anche se ha perso le lezioni, siate carini, pace! :lol:
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
GenghisKhan
12-01-21, 14:43
Quindi se Salvini organizza una PROTESTA a piazza del Popolo contro il governo Conte DOPO AVERGLI DETTO PER MESI CHE HANNO IMBROGLIATO LE ELEZIONI e alla fine i partecipanti irrompono a Montecitorio è colpa di Salvini?
:sisi:
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
INCITAMENTO ALLA VIOLENZA!!!11!1!11!!!1
megalomaniac
12-01-21, 15:09
In america esiste il reato di circonvenzione di incapace?
In caso si potrebbe accusare Trump di quello :fag:
Sandro Storti
12-01-21, 16:13
In US non mancano certo le armi, se vuoi fare un colpo di stato, ci vai a mani nude?
Ma va a cagare và :asd:
Mi piace come in molti siano convinti che così, senza nessun motivo, i media si siano messi a fare fake news su Trump. Non le facevano su Obama, ma le fanno su Trump. Perché? Boh. Probabilmente vi siete inventati qualche motivo per darvi ragione. È anche agghiacciante che non vediate le differenze tra il modo di fare, di parlare, di porsi ecc. di Trump rispetto a tutti i precedenti presidenti. Il fatto che venisse deriso per dietro da tutti gli altri leader mondiali non è stata per colpa delle fake news. Ma perché ha un modo di parlare, di muoversi, di ragionare ridicolo e imbarazzante. Il fatto che NONOSTANTE tutto questo, palese per chiunque, comunque in molti qui dentro credano alle vere fake news, che fondamentalmente è tutto quello che dice Trump, Fox, Newsmax ecc. è davvero triste. Parliamo tanto dei 50enni su Facebook, ma a quanto pare dei 25-30-40enni nei forum sono lo stesso.
Obama è stato fatto nobel per la pace. Elegantissimo e super cool per carità, ma anche un po' stronzo per quello che ha combinato in medio oriente. I media sembrano dimenticarlo.
Trump non è un campione di eleganza ma non ha mosso guerra contro nessuno. Per i media invece era un pericoloso guerrafondaio che avrebbe messo in pericolo la pace del mondo. :asd:
Vedi, quando basi le tue opinioni sul "modo di fare, di parlare, di porsi" finisci col fare un po' la figura del gonzo :fag:
Sono quattro anni che rompono i coglioni alla gente con sta valigetta per il lancio delle famose bombe nucleari che Trump avrebbe usato un giorno si e un giorno no. :asd:
Ma infatti alla sinistra interessa solo che sta valigetta sia di uno di loro, poi può anche incularsi i bambini.
rotfl
https://www.lastampa.it/la-zampa/altri-animali/2021/01/12/news/orrore-in-florida-avvistato-un-lamantino-con-la-scritta-trump-incisa-sulla-schiena-taglia-di-5000-dollari-sui-vandali-1.39763658?ref=fbpp&fbclid=IwAR2qbKQFVljoUNFdVrjc9KSZL2HG1hQrTxqbIhzTv Z4i4g7iUUQmq5eGDV4
megalomaniac
12-01-21, 16:57
Che paese di bestie
Obama è stato fatto nobel per la pace. Elegantissimo e super cool per carità, ma anche un po' stronzo per quello che ha combinato in medio oriente. I media sembrano dimenticarlo.
Trump non è un campione di eleganza ma non ha mosso guerra contro nessuno. Per i media invece era un pericoloso guerrafondaio che avrebbe messo in pericolo la pace del mondo. :asd:
Vedi, quando basi le tue opinioni sul "modo di fare, di parlare, di porsi" finisci col fare un po' la figura del gonzo :fag:
Ma cosa c'entra chi ha fatto la guerra :asd: secondo ai presidenti piace fare guerre e buttare soldi? I problemi capitano quando capitano e vanno risolti, a volte con la guerra. Trump è stato fortunato che non gli è servito e voi qua a spompinarvi. Che manca poco che faccia casino con l'Iran solo per ripicca. Ma por favor
Poi fa anche tenerezza vedervi tirare fuori solo Twitter di Trump, chiedendo dove avesse mai detto di assaltare il Campidoglio, quando alla fine è da mesi che notizie false venivano diffuse dai vari media, dai vari social network, da vari outlet di notizie false orchestrare dai repubblicani (come fa Salvini da noi), dai suoi discorsi dei rally ecc.ecc. Magari è stato abbastanza sveglio da non dirlo esplicitamente, ma è ovvio che gli ha fatto piacere, come gli ha fatto fatica fare il video dove gli dice di andare a casa (we love you rotfl).
Mi state facendo diventare SJW. Solitamente sono indifferente alla negrezza e alla frocità ma ora sto ardentemente desiderando Lupin non solo NEGRO ma anche FROCIO e possibilmente TRANS
Ma cosa c'entra chi ha fatto la guerra :asd: secondo ai presidenti piace fare guerre e buttare soldi? I problemi capitano quando capitano e vanno risolti, a volte con la guerra. Trump è stato fortunato che non gli è servito e voi qua a spompinarvi. Che manca poco che faccia casino con l'Iran solo per ripicca. Ma por favor
Poi fa anche tenerezza vedervi tirare fuori solo Twitter di Trump, chiedendo dove avesse mai detto di assaltare il Campidoglio, quando alla fine è da mesi che notizie false venivano diffuse dai vari media, dai vari social network, da vari outlet di notizie false orchestrare dai repubblicani (come fa Salvini da noi), dai suoi discorsi dei rally ecc.ecc. Magari è stato abbastanza sveglio da non dirlo esplicitamente, ma è ovvio che gli ha fatto piacere, come gli ha fatto fatica fare il video dove gli dice di andare a casa (we love you rotfl).
Mi state facendo diventare SJW. Solitamente sono indifferente alla negrezza e alla frocità ma ora sto ardentemente desiderando Lupin non solo NEGRO ma anche FROCIO e possibilmente TRANS
Para guarda che il punto è che nessuno ti fermerà mai dal succhiare la minchia negra, in questo sei peggio di Trump, fatti non parole
Sandro Storti
12-01-21, 17:02
Sono quattro anni che rompono i coglioni alla gente con sta valigetta per il lancio delle famose bombe nucleari che Trump avrebbe usato un giorno si e un giorno no. :asd:
Avessero capito subito che era un mezzo idiota... nel senso che non è capace di aprirla quella valigetta.
Cmq se una cosa è certa è come son venuti fuori tutti i sinistri, mi chiedevo dove erano, bellissimo.
Ma cosa c'entra chi ha fatto la guerra :asd: secondo ai presidenti piace fare guerre e buttare soldi?
Devo ricordarti davvero che gli US sono probabilmente il paese che ha partecipato nel maggior numero di conflitti dell'ultimo secolo ed hanno un'industria militare gigantesca?
Credo anche Trump sia stato l'unico presidente a non iniziare una guerra almeno negli ultimi 36 anni ed i media lo hanno dipinto come il più grande pericolo di sempre per la pace nel mondo, prima ancora di iniziare il suo mandato. :asd:
megalomaniac
12-01-21, 17:19
Cmq se una cosa è certa è come son venuti fuori tutti i sinistri, mi chiedevo dove erano, bellissimo.
Tu sei un "destro" Decay?
Cosa voti qua in Italia? :fag:
Ridateci i presidenti USA guerrafondai.
Bush jr non ha un nipote? :look:
Doomer Caesar
12-01-21, 17:24
Trump dal punto di vista della politica estera è stato quasi un santo. Osceno che non abbia vinto il nobel per la pace.
Dal punto di vista interno ha buttato 2 anni in cui aveva sia house che senato, questo problema dei social media era risolvibile nel 2017.
Borgo di Dio
12-01-21, 17:36
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gne8v9aj45w/maxresdefault.jpg
sembrava... :asd:
Anche un po'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHFc7NGp5Hk
Cmq se una cosa è certa è come son venuti fuori tutti i sinistri, mi chiedevo dove erano, bellissimo.
Ma noi siamo sempre stati tronfi e in bella vista, siete tu e i tuoi amici che vi rifugiate su Facebook, Parler e il topic SJW per spompinarvi :smug: e d'ora in poi sarà sempre peggio. Oh, ora realizzo il fascino del fascismo :timido:
Devo ricordarti davvero che gli US sono probabilmente il paese che ha partecipato nel maggior numero di conflitti dell'ultimo secolo ed hanno un'industria militare gigantesca?
Credo anche Trump sia stato l'unico presidente a non iniziare una guerra almeno negli ultimi 36 anni ed i media lo hanno dipinto come il più grande pericolo di sempre per la pace nel mondo, prima ancora di iniziare il suo mandato. :asd:
Ma perché ormai ci sono le macchine elettriche, il petrolio non serve più
Trump dal punto di vista della politica estera è stato quasi un santo. Osceno che non abbia vinto il nobel per la pace.
Record 7,423 US bombs dropped in Afghanistan in 2019: Report
The US has ramped up air bombings since Donald Trump was elected president in 2016.
Non riesci a stare cinque secondi senza umiliarti?
Maybeshewill
12-01-21, 18:07
Non lo sai che nel 2021 i colpi di stato si fanno disarmati? :tsk:
- - - Updated - - -
Protesta con irruzione :sisi: i colpi di stato si fanno con le armi in pugno e questi non hanno tirato neppure una molotov, hai mai visto un colpo di stato a suon di selfie... a Monte Citorio si menano già da soli :fag:
I colpi di stato si fanno con l'esercito, senza di quello ti attacchi al cazzo
Doomer Caesar
12-01-21, 18:09
Non riesci a stare cinque secondi senza umiliarti?
Per gli standard dei presidenti americani confermo che è quasi un santo.
Se vuoi riformulo: osceno che non abbia vinto il nobel per la pace, mentre Obama l'ha vinto
Tu sei un "destro" Decay?
Cosa voti qua in Italia? :fag:
Prossimo giro salvini
- - - Aggiornato - - -
Non riesci a stare cinque secondi senza umiliarti?
E tutte personalmente
Nightgaunt
12-01-21, 18:14
Trump e la valigetta dei bottoni secondo gli squilibrati:
https://media0.giphy.com/media/SEO7ub2q1fORa/giphy.gif
Doomer Caesar
12-01-21, 18:15
Ma più che altro la cosa veramente buona è il non aver iniziato nuovi conflitti, a parte qualche schermaglia con l'Iran che è praticamente finita in niente.
Poi i vari trattati fra nazioni medio orientali. E alla fine i rapporti con il cantante k-pop obeso e dispotico sembravano abbastanza buoni
Ma noi siamo sempre stati tronfi e in bella vista, siete tu e i tuoi amici che vi rifugiate su Facebook, Parler e il topic SJW per spompinarvi :smug: e d'ora in poi sarà sempre peggio. Oh, ora realizzo il fascino del fascismo :timido:
Ma perché ormai ci sono le macchine elettriche, il petrolio non serve più
No guarda sul forum sto rumore di fondo non c'era ma mi va benissimo, uno deve essere gay pride
Cento Blobfish
12-01-21, 18:16
Per gli standard dei presidenti americani confermo che è quasi un santo.
Se vuoi riformulo: osceno che non abbia vinto il nobel per la pace, mentre Obama l'ha vinto
Te lo riformulo ancora: osceno che Obama abbia vinto il nobel per la pace.
Punto.
Ma non deve essere il motivo per darne uno altrettanto se non più inopportuno a Trump.
Doomer Caesar
12-01-21, 18:19
Te lo riformulo ancora: osceno che Obama abbia vinto il nobel per la pace.
Punto.
Ma non deve essere il motivo per darne uno altrettanto se non più inopportuno a Trump.
Guarda, in realtà hai perfettamente ragione. Non è premio da dare a chi comanda una nazione che a livello di spirito è praticamente un misto fra Peter Griffin e John Wayne. Dicevo solo che se lo standard per vincerlo è Obama allora Trump doveva vincerne 12. Tutto qui :asd:
The Party of Trump stands ready to repudiate not the MAGA marauders who dared to vandalize the Capitol but a woman who dared to speak ill of President Donald Trump. (https://eu.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2021/01/10/after-sacking-capitol-arizona-gop-wants-censure-cindy-mccain/6615754002/)
Il nobel è na cagata come tutti i premi, lo hanno vinto dei grandi ma non lo sono per aver vinto il nobel lo sono per quello che han fatto.
Prendete il medio oriente il primo giorno della presidenza colorata e l'ultimo è vedrete quanto é peggiorato in 8 anni. Idem il cespuglio del Texas.
Posso capire i terzomondisti oltreoceano, ma visto che siam i portinai d'Europa giusto giusto non spararsi nei coglioni?
Maybeshewill
12-01-21, 18:31
Quello è il risultato diretto del casino che hanno i vari stati nei conteggi, esempio:
https://eu.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/06/antrim-county-vote-glitch-software-update/6194745002/
Elezioni regolarissime (cit.)
megalomaniac
12-01-21, 18:32
Prossimo giro salvini
Ottimo, vieni a trovarci qua più spesso:
https://www.thegamesmachine.it/forum/just-4-spam-/54400-il-thread-dei-tradimenti-della-lega-nord-selfini-capitone-del-popolo-431.html
Maybeshewill
12-01-21, 18:35
be', l'impero più vasto del mondo era fatto da asiatici. la polvere da sparo tanto cara alle potenze coloniali è una invenzione asiatica. gli stati più popolosi del mondo sono asiatici. la prossima grande potenza mondiale è asiatica.
poi non so voi ma se come metro di paragone per stabilire i meriti è quanto hai invaso il resto del mondo mi farei due domande :asd:
Gli asiatici sono negri? :o
Ottimo, vieni a trovarci qua più spesso:
https://www.thegamesmachine.it/forum/just-4-spam-/54400-il-thread-dei-tradimenti-della-lega-nord-selfini-capitone-del-popolo-431.html
Senza I dpi adeguati a voi non mi avvicino
Doomer Caesar
12-01-21, 18:58
https://youtu.be/eZ5fM4zC3b0
Elezioni regolarissime (cit.)
Chissà cosa vorranno dire quel "2020/11/06" nella URL e questo pezzo:
The revised numbers — arrived at after manually entering the results from printed tabulated tapes for all 16 precincts — show the northern Michigan county is still red, just not as dark a shade as it was in 2016.
https://youtu.be/eZ5fM4zC3b0
è una battuta ma mi ha fatto sorridere la casualità della facciata del video con Trump che parla davanti alla White House e le scritte sotto che passano proprio dicendo "State Sponsor of Terrorism, undoing 2015 Obama era decision".
neanche farlo apposta.
Maybeshewill
12-01-21, 19:32
Chissà cosa vorranno dire quel "2020/11/06" nella URL e questo pezzo:
Questi hanno usato un programma che per un "glitch" cambiava i voti repubblicani in dem, e ancora c’è chi li difende
è un mondo strano
Questi hanno usato un programma che per un "glitch" cambiava i voti repubblicani in dem, e ancora c’è chi li difende
è un mondo stranoNon credi che sarebbe il caso di smettere di sniffare la Coccoina?
E fa il traduttore signori
GenghisKhan
12-01-21, 19:49
https://i.imgur.com/JoX4ZHn.jpg
- - - Aggiornato - - -
Questi hanno usato un programma che per un "glitch" cambiava i voti repubblicani in dem, e ancora c’è chi li difende
è un mondo strano
Non credi che sarebbe il caso di smettere di sniffare la Coccoina?
Cocoon, parlaci della tua letterina a Babbo Natale
Maybeshewill
12-01-21, 19:57
E fa il traduttore signori
"A failure to properly update software was the reason for a computer glitch that caused massive errors in unofficial election results reported from Antrim county, the Michigan Department of State said late Friday."
"Since the scanners ... used slightly different election definitions, some of the positions didn't line up properly," Halderman said. "As a result, when the results were read by the election management system, some of them were initially assigned to the wrong candidates."
Traducimelo te dall'alto della tua laurea in gender studies
i dem hanno manomesso il risultato delle elezioni, gli organi di controllo dei voti sono tutti corrotti, l'apparato giurisdizionale è connivente con l'inganno elettorale della sinistra, i loro stessi rappresentati che hanno testinomiato l'assenza di brogli sono dei venduti... praticamente la congiura di tutto il mondo :asd:
Kemper Boyd
12-01-21, 20:00
i dem hanno manomesso il risultato delle elezioni, gli organi di controllo dei voti sono tutti corrotti, l'apparato giurisdizionale è connivente con l'inganno elettorale della sinistra, i loro stessi rappresentati che hanno testinomiato l'assenza di brogli sono dei venduti... praticamente la congiura di tutto il mondo :asd:
E di tutto questo la prova più schiacciante è un articolo del Detroit Free Press
La prova più schiacciante siete voi
"A failure to properly update software was the reason for a computer glitch that caused massive errors in unofficial election results reported from Antrim county, the Michigan Department of State said late Friday."
"Since the scanners ... used slightly different election definitions, some of the positions didn't line up properly," Halderman said. "As a result, when the results were read by the election management system, some of them were initially assigned to the wrong candidates."
Traducimelo te dall'alto della tua laurea in gender studies
Chissà cosa vorranno mai dire "unofficial" e "initially assigned".
GenghisKhan
12-01-21, 20:11
https://i.imgur.com/gdAcNf9.jpg
Bastava scrivere Fascista per brevità :lol:
Kemper Boyd
12-01-21, 20:13
Non è forse la ricerca di una prova essa stessa una prova?
i loro avvocati che davanti ai giudici dopo aver giurato ammettono di non avere in mano nulla. dettagli ^^
Maybeshewill
12-01-21, 20:48
Chissà cosa vorranno mai dire "unofficial" e "initially assigned".
Qui li hanno beccati perché è un'area dove i repubblicani vincono sempre con percentuali bulgare, chissà quanti altri casi come questo ci sono sono stati
Se poi per voi è tutto nella norma alzo le mani
cocoon comprensione del testo non pervenuta ^^
in quell'articolo si dice che i problemi hanno riguardato solo i dati non ufficiali e che sono stati risolti in quelli ufficiali perché appunto si fanno i dovuti controlli prima dell'ufficialità.
megalomaniac
12-01-21, 20:54
Qui li hanno beccati perché è un'area dove i repubblicani vincono sempre con percentuali bulgare, chissà quanti altri casi come questo ci sono sono stati
Se poi per voi è tutto nella norma alzo le mani
Perché gerrymandering e voter suppression sono nella norma allora? Noi persone normali con quel paese le mani le abbiamo alzate da tempo, siete voi che continuate a idolatrarlo
Kronos The Mad
12-01-21, 20:58
https://www.huffingtonpost.it/entry/lex-moglie-lo-riconosce-in-foto-e-chiama-lfbi-il-manifestante-di-capitol-hill-viene-arrestato_it_5ffd83cbc5b656719888e6a9
Rotfl
c'è un pò di confusione. Il Gerrymandering viene praticato da entrambi i partiti. è una cosa considerata normale, se ne lamentano i repubblicani quando lo fanno i democratici e i democratici quando lo fanno i repubblicani.
Il voter suppression invece è il richiedere un ID (carta d'identità) con foto al momento del voto. Tipo come in Italia. Carta d'identità che viene richiesta per ogni altro genere di attività, dal biglietto aereo all'acquisto di alcolici. La ragione per cui gli Stati in cui non è richiesta per il voto siano quasi tutti democratici non mi è nota.
ah, e non era un glitch del software (ennesima balla, nel caso qualcuno ci credesse), ma un errore umano.
Maybeshewill
12-01-21, 21:20
cocoon comprensione del testo non pervenuta ^^
in quell'articolo si dice che i problemi hanno riguardato solo i dati non ufficiali e che sono stati risolti in quelli ufficiali perché appunto si fanno i dovuti controlli prima dell'ufficialità.
Se leggi l'articolo capisci che qualcuno si è accorto che i risultati erano sbagliati perché stava vincendo Biden in una città tradizionalmente ultra-repubblicana, per quello sono "non ufficiali", perché poi li hanno corretti. La domanda è in quante altre città è successo e se è sempre stato corretto successivamente. Se in una città Biden ha vinto di 15 invece che di 5 per questo errore compromette il risultato generale dello stato.
GenghisKhan
12-01-21, 21:28
Torniamo sulle cose serie :smugdance:
https://i.imgur.com/H0A446o.jpg
Mi sborro nelle mutande :smugdance:
Nightgaunt
12-01-21, 21:40
ROTFL :asd:
https://www.huffingtonpost.it/entry/lex-moglie-lo-riconosce-in-foto-e-chiama-lfbi-il-manifestante-di-capitol-hill-viene-arrestato_it_5ffd83cbc5b656719888e6a9
RotflMa tutti dell'aeronautica erano? :asd:
"A failure to properly update software was the reason for a computer glitch that caused massive errors in unofficial election results reported from Antrim county, the Michigan Department of State said late Friday."
"Since the scanners ... used slightly different election definitions, some of the positions didn't line up properly," Halderman said. "As a result, when the results were read by the election management system, some of them were initially assigned to the wrong candidates."
Traducimelo te dall'alto della tua laurea in gender studies
Questi hanno usato un programma che per un "glitch" cambiava i voti repubblicani in dem
nessun programma ha cambiato voti, i dati sono stati raccolti correttamente. i report su quei dati, fatti con "election definitions" diverse, per un errore umano, hanno dato delle poll iniziali. una volta aggregati e consolidati i dati per ufficializzarli si sono accorti che le poll iniziali, non i voti, non corrispondevano coi risultati
ti copypasto cose a caso anch'io
County officials correctly loaded the new version onto the scanners for the affected precincts, but left the old version on scanners for precincts where the ballot was not affected by the late change, Halderman said.
So although the scanners in the tabulators counted all the votes in each precinct correctly, the different versions of the ballot resulted in problems and erroneous vote totals when the precinct results were combined in the election management system,
But they said any such errors in any county would be caught during the canvassing process, before results are declared official, when boards composed of two Democrats and two Republicans compare the numbers on the tapes printed from the tabulators to the unofficial results that were reported to the state.
County Clerk Sheryl Guy told the Free Press Wednesday that officials sent the initial results to the state without checking them.
Fortunately, even if the county hadn't noticed, this would have been caught and corrected during Michigan's normal canvassing procedures, when they compare the results to the paper tapes from the machines."
Kemper Boyd
12-01-21, 22:00
Torniamo sulle cose serie :smugdance:
https://i.imgur.com/H0A446o.jpg
Mi sborro nelle mutande :smugdance:
:rotfl:
nessun programma ha cambiato voti, i dati sono stati raccolti correttamente. i report su quei dati, fatti con "election definitions" diverse, per un errore umano, hanno dato delle poll iniziali. una volta aggregati e consolidati i dati per ufficializzarli si sono accorti che le poll iniziali, non i voti, non corrispondevano coi risultati
vi ricordo che cocoon è grillino, il suo funzionamento è questo:
a) spara la notizia sensazionalistica/fake news/gombloddo (in questo caso = "macchine hackerate per far vincere i dem!!!11!!")
b) la ripete finchè non c'è smentita
c) quanto viene smentita o dimostrata palesemente inverosimile,
d) inizia a ignorarla e
e) torna al punto a) con una nuova "notizia"
https://i.imgur.com/NJ6mFfd.png
Sorry :asd:
Torniamo sulle cose serie :smugdance:
https://i.imgur.com/H0A446o.jpg
Mi sborro nelle mutande :smugdance:
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Se leggi l'articolo capisci che qualcuno si è accorto che i risultati erano sbagliati perché stava vincendo Biden in una città tradizionalmente ultra-repubblicana, per quello sono "non ufficiali", perché poi li hanno corretti. La domanda è in quante altre città è successo e se è sempre stato corretto successivamente. Se in una città Biden ha vinto di 15 invece che di 5 per questo errore compromette il risultato generale dello stato.
queste cose sono un buono spunto per un romanzo o un film. in pratica credete nell'immane complotto di chi raccoglie i voti, di chi controlla i voti, delle varie sedi giudiziarie per i ricorsi, dei rep che hanno certificato il risultato nonostante gli sproloqui di briscola, degli avvocati assunti dal partito che sotto giuramento dicono al giudice di non avere niente in mano. in pratica credete nelle teorie complottiste stile qanon. e tutto perché la narrazione coincide con le cose che vorreste. non una buona cosa per una democrazia perché senza prova alcuna viene attaccata la stessa struttura democratica dello stato
per ora le uniche prove sono trump che ha cercato di sovvertire in ogni modo l'esito del voto a favore dei dem nei vari stati, trump che surriscalda gli animi dei maga anche a ridosso del campidoglio, trump che fino a poche ore fa rifiutava di concedere la vittoria a biden e giuliani che chiedeva il trial by combat. giuliani. il trial by combat. (è una incitazione a combattere o sbaglio? ^^)
Dai, avete ragione, Trump il colpo di Stato non poteva farlo neanche volendo:
“US military ‘issues rare statement denouncing Capitol riot and confirming Biden as next commander-in-chief’”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/us-military-biden-trump-capitol-riot-jcs-b1786319.html
E ora Gaspare che fa?
Maybeshewill
13-01-21, 02:41
E chi ha detto che Trump il colpo di Stato non poteva farlo neanche volendo?
Con le forze armate volendo poteva farlo
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210113/9fbfe13e5e193c79a481bd3cf531b6d4.jpg
Kemper Boyd
13-01-21, 07:55
Minchia il cibo biologico, ma quindi i soyboy non sono tutti dem
E chi ha detto che Trump il colpo di Stato non poteva farlo neanche volendo?
Con le forze armate volendo poteva farlo
>post di Para in cui indica che i militari riconoscono Biden come vincitore, quindi Dolan non poteva fare un colpo di stato
>Cocoon: "pOtEvA fArE iL cOlPo CoN lE fOrZe ArMaTe"
Kemper Boyd
13-01-21, 08:00
Beh poteva sempre fornire fucili biologici allo sciamano & company
GenghisKhan
13-01-21, 08:25
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210113/9fbfe13e5e193c79a481bd3cf531b6d4.jpg
E' bellissima questa cosa
Spero che in carcere gli facciano assaggiare del salame biologico :smug:
Mi sfugge il nesso tra credibilità di media e giganti tech, e affidabilità del sistema elettorale. Nessuna di quelle due entità governa il funzionamento del sistema di voto.
Il nocciolo della questione è che molta gente non crede al risultato del voto, è un problema di comunicazione:
nelle puntate precedenti abbiamo avuto: domino machine glitch e conteggi di durata ridicola + big tech che usa due pesi e due misure censurando una ben precisa parte politica, media e politici che hanno inneggiato alle rivolte violente e parlato di manifestazioni pacifiche con palazzi in fiamme alle proprie spalle, politici della parte vincente che invitano a stilare liste di proscrizione per espellere dalla società chiunque abbia supportato briscola, il new york times che si imbarca nella riscrittura della storia su basi non scientifiche pur di supportare una tesi politica, ecc...
Quindi tra credere a quelli qui sopra e credere al proprio partito, cosa potranno mai scegliere?
strano che quando aizzi la folla ad agire contro qualcuno poi la folla agisca. in effetti non c'e' alcun nesso tra le due cose.
stendendo un velo pietoso su giuliani che ha pure tirato fuori il "trial by combat" :asd:
Così si fanno contenti pure i fan di Black Panther, mi pare un'ottima idea :snob:
- - - Updated - - -
Elezioni regolarissime (cit.)
Più che di regolarità, il grosso problema è di trasparenza. Hanno un sistema raffazzolato ed in una situazione tesa come questa, non ha retto.
Kemper Boyd
13-01-21, 08:54
Il nocciolo della questione è che molta gente non crede al risultato del voto, è un problema di comunicazione:
nelle puntate precedenti abbiamo avuto: domino machine glitch e conteggi di durata ridicola + big tech che usa due pesi e due misure censurando una ben precisa parte politica, media e politici che hanno inneggiato alle rivolte violente e parlato di manifestazioni pacifiche con palazzi in fiamme alle proprie spalle, politici della parte vincente che invitano a stilare liste di proscrizione per espellere dalla società chiunque abbia supportato briscola, il new york times che si imbarca nella riscrittura della storia su basi non scientifiche pur di supportare una tesi politica, ecc...
Quindi tra credere a quelli qui sopra e credere al proprio partito, cosa potranno mai scegliere?
Non sto contestando il bias dell'informazione, sto dicendo che non c'entra niente con l'integrità del processo elettorale. La validità del risultato in che modo è influenzata dall'eventuale censura di twitter? O dalle violenze degli antifa? O da quello che scrive il NY Times?
Ripeto, se parli dell'ipocrisia di una parte dei dem sono d'accordissimo, ma il fatto che ci sia stata una cospirazione nazionale per truffare centinaia di migliaia - se non milioni - di voti non può essere una cosa a cui credi solo perché al NY Times piacciono i negri trans senza glutine.
Uno non dovrebbe credere o non credere al risultato del voto, non è una questione di fede: o ci sono prove di brogli (e vista la scala della supposta operazione di furto dovrebbe essere facile trovarne a dozzine) o non hai nessuna base su cui "credere" a parte la propaganda di Trump.
Tutto quello che dici giustifica il sentimento "non credo a una parola di quello che dicono i dem e i media che li appoggiano" il che è perfettamente legittimo, ma non c'entra niente. Il risultato del voto non lo dicono i dem.
Doomer Caesar
13-01-21, 08:56
Forse:
Media riporta risultati elezioni => Media sono credibili => Allora ci credo
Media riporta risultati elezioni => Media non sono credibili => Non ho ragione di crederci
Ma chiedi a Lux perchè ho seguito un po' a caso la discussione
Non sto contestando il bias dell'informazione, sto dicendo che non c'entra niente con l'integrità del processo elettorale. La validità del risultato in che modo è influenzata dall'eventuale censura di twitter? O dalle violenze degli antifa? O da quello che scrive il NY Times?
Ripeto, se parli dell'ipocrisia di una parte dei dem sono d'accordissimo, ma il fatto che ci sia stata una cospirazione nazionale per truffare centinaia di migliaia - se non milioni - di voti non può essere una cosa a cui credi solo perché al NY Times piacciono i negri trans senza glutine.
Uno non dovrebbe credere o non credere al risultato del voto, non è una questione di fede: o ci sono prove di brogli (e vista la scala della supposta operazione di furto dovrebbe essere facile trovarne a dozzine) o non hai nessuna base su cui "credere" a parte la propaganda di Trump.
Tutto quello che dici giustifica il sentimento "non credo a una parola di quello che dicono i dem e i media che li appoggiano" il che è perfettamente legittimo, ma non c'entra niente. Il risultato del voto non lo dicono i dem.
Il risultato del voto lo sai, non perchè hai contato tutti i voti, ma perchè le fonti affidabili te lo hanno riportato; tra le procedure di voto e la convinzione popolare, c'è un anello della catena che riguarda la comunicazione, è quell'anello ha completamente distrutto la propria credibilità. Non basta che Briscola non sia riuscito a dimostrare quello che afferma, perchè senza fonti affidabili, è diventata una questione di fede.
Kemper Boyd
13-01-21, 09:07
Il risultato del voto lo sai, non perchè hai contato tutti i voti, ma perchè le fonti affidabili te lo hanno riportato; tra le procedure di voto e la convinzione popolare, c'è un anello della catena che riguarda la comunicazione, è quell'anello ha completamente distrutto la propria credibilità. Non basta che Briscola non sia riuscito a dimostrare quello che afferma, perchè senza fonti affidabili, è diventata una questione di fede.
Ma la fonte affidabile è il processo di certificazione ufficiale del voto, non i media. Per quello non capisco cosa c'entri la fiducia nei media.
Ma la fonte affidabile è il processo di certificazione ufficiale del voto, non i media. Per quello non capisco cosa c'entri la fiducia nei media.
Proprio per questa elezioni, causa covid (ma in alcuni casi persino prima), le regole dei voti per posta sono state cambiate + gli enormi ritardi nei conteggi. Se ti ricordi già durante il conteggio il mantra dei due partiti era: count every vote Vs count every legal vote. E sul piano legale, c'è ancora maretta (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-11/supreme-court-rejects-trump-bid-to-expedite-election-appeals)
megalomaniac
13-01-21, 09:29
Incredibile che Trump non abbia fatto niente negli ultimi 4 anni per provare a riformare o migliorare il sistema elettorale
Se è risaputo che solo i DEM fanno brogli perchè non intervenire preventivamente?
Kemper Boyd
13-01-21, 09:30
Proprio per questa elezioni, causa covid (ma in alcuni casi persino prima), le regole dei voti per posta sono state cambiate + gli enormi ritardi nei conteggi. Se ti ricordi già durante il conteggio il mantra dei due partiti era: count every vote Vs count every legal vote. E sul piano legale, c'è ancora maretta (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-11/supreme-court-rejects-trump-bid-to-expedite-election-appeals)
Sarà, ma basare le proprie certezze sul sospetto si chiama complottismo. Per una roba di questa portata, non mi accontento di "non mi fido dei media" come motivazione. Fintanto che non ci sono prove concrete, è e rimane propaganda basata sul nulla.
perchè la pandemiaaah (moriremo tuttiiih) ha cambiato le carte in tavola
non si è votato come al solito
Usa: YouTube sospende il canale di Trump per una settimana
Kraven VanHelsing
13-01-21, 10:12
https://i.ibb.co/LvPtd4v/Erjh7-E4-Uc-AEw4-Vd-format-jpg-name-large.jpg
megalomaniac
13-01-21, 10:20
Sempre detto che siete come il terzo mondo :fag:
How do we “deprogram” Trump supporters? (https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1348977634047389696)
Kraven VanHelsing
13-01-21, 10:43
"We write to express our strong concern about Apple's censorship of apps" -AOC with six others, Oct. 2019.
"Good to see this development from Apple" -AOC, Jan. 2021, after Apple censored an app
:asd: Alexandria Ocasio Cortez non finisce mai di dare soddisfazione :asd:
Tanto tutta la questione social alla fine è nata dalla bruciata di culo di Trump perchè è riuscito a farsi cacciare pure da lì, quando uscirà il prossimo fenomeno ce ne saremo dimenticati tutti :asd:
Kemper Boyd
13-01-21, 11:07
"We write to express our strong concern about Apple's censorship of apps" -AOC with six others, Oct. 2019.
"Good to see this development from Apple" -AOC, Jan. 2021, after Apple censored an app
:asd: Alexandria Ocasio Cortez non finisce mai di dare soddisfazione :asd:
Sarebbe bello se sta gente ogni tanto rispondesse a domande tipo "si ma la finiamo di andare avanti a bipensiero e fare due pesi e due misure?". Prendi una posizione e mantienila.
Preferirei un politico che dicesse "sono a favore del ban di quello che non mi piace e contrario al ban di quello che mi piace", almeno apprezzerei l'onestà.
devi pensarla come loro, così hai la certezza di essere nel giusto :smug:
Kemper Boyd
13-01-21, 11:23
devi pensarla come loro, così hai la certezza di essere nel giusto :smug:
È dura, io non cambio idea ogni 5 minuti :asd:
È dura, io non cambio idea ogni 5 minuti :asd:
Il trucco è cambiare idea anche sul "da quanto tempo", hai la nuova idea :snob:
megalomaniac
13-01-21, 11:36
devi pensarla come loro, così hai la certezza di essere nel giusto :smug:
Intendi pensare che le elezioni sono state rubate dai dem?
loro sono quelli che hanno la verità :smug:
Io adoro come la AOC blasta tutti su Twitter. Se a qualcuno sta antipatica deve rodere davvero il culo.
Il commento sulla censura delle app riguardava Apple e l'aver tolto l'app per sapere dov'era la polizia a Hong Kong. Ma c'era comunque il sito con le medesime informazioni, quindi non era un grosso problema per i manifestanti, e rischiare di far chiudere l'intero App Store era peggio.
La censura è sempre brutta ma in questo caso stiamo parlando di terroristi :nod:
Kraven VanHelsing
13-01-21, 11:53
Terroristi che facevano le dirette su FB, Instagram e twitter mentre erano dentro il Congresso.
Com'è che non sono state bannate queste app? Va' che strano...
- - - Aggiornato - - -
Io adoro come la AOC blasta tutti su Twitter. Se a qualcuno sta antipatica deve rodere davvero il culo.
No, no il culo lo fa solo ridere e per evidenti motivi.
Terroristi che facevano le dirette su FB, Instagram e twitter mentre erano dentro il Congresso.
Com'è che non sono state bannate queste app? Va' che strano...
Credo sia un discorso di percentuale. Parler è finanziato da giri strani che rimandano ai repubblicani, e al 99% è usato da repubblicani, conservatori ma soprattutto potenziali terroristi. Hai visto un po' dei post che c'erano dentro? Be my guest: https://www.reddit.com/r/parlerwatch
Tra l'altro Parler banna tutti quelli che sono diversamente di destra :spy: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200627/23551144803/as-predicted-parler-is-banning-users-it-doesnt-like.shtml
Facebook anche, ma in misura minore (50%?). Twitter pure. Ma almeno questi stanno procedendo a cancellare gli account degli anti-antifa. Se l'avesse fatto anche Parler avrebbe dovuto cancellare praticamente tutti i profili :smug:
https://i.imgur.com/nkcDKcP.png
Kraven VanHelsing
13-01-21, 12:12
E come fanno twitter, facebook, apple o amazon a sapere in percentuale quanti siano i post tipo quelli sul subreddit che hai linkato (se ne potrebbero trovare altrettanti e anzi multipli di quelli se si facesse la stessa cosa su twitter, visto che si tratta sempre di cherrypicking e i deficienti di ogni sorta sono milioni) dato che non hanno accesso ai dati di traffico né hanno accesso alla moderazione di un concorrente.
almeno questi stanno procedendo a cancellare gli account degli anti-antifa
Chiamami quando inizieranno a segare quelli degli antifa o degli islamisti che minacciano di morte gli "apostati"
Doomer Caesar
13-01-21, 12:15
Ricordo di aver letto che ci sono i terroristi anche su Twitter, soprattutto islamisti.
Quando hanno decapitato l'insegnante francese mi pare il terrorista abbia postato su Twitter l'immagine. È mai successo qualcosa del genere su Parler?
Gprime85 (vignettista di destra alla Ghisberto che Lux ha pure postato qui ogni tanto) ha provato a spostarsi su Gab, altro social Trump/alt-right
L'hanno bannato non appena ha postato qualche vignetta osè :rotfl:
https://i.imgur.com/9NBDdP7.png
Questi "social alternativi" sono solo echo chamber conservatori, sono molto meno tolleranti di twitter e co. verso chi non ha opinioni allineate :asd:
Doomer Caesar
13-01-21, 12:23
Questi "social alternativi" sono solo echo chamber conservatori, sono molto meno tolleranti di twitter e co. verso chi non ha opinioni allineate :asd:
Purtroppo quando si parla di Gab ho anche io questa impressione. Per Parler non saprei. Ma per curiosità, quali sono le vignette in questione?
Kraven VanHelsing
13-01-21, 12:25
Purtroppo quando si parla di Gab ho anche io questa impressione. Per Parler non saprei. Ma per curiosità, quali sono le vignette in questione?
Non le ho trovate ma non mi stupisce una no-nudity policy (anche se non la condivido)
Del resto anche IG non approva il nudo mentre su twitter c'è il mondo della pornografia che fa promozione. Forse il tizio si aspettava un clone 1:1 di twitter.
Purtroppo quando si parla di Gab ho anche io questa impressione. Per Parler non saprei. Ma per curiosità, quali sono le vignette in questione?
Boh, non ho cercato ma non mi sembra le metta su twitter (che comunque non banna i contenuti pornografici)
È più che altro l'accusa DEGENERATE da parte del mod che fa ridere, rivolta a uno che fa propaganda alt-right da anni :asd:
Gprime85 (vignettista di destra alla Ghisberto che Lux ha pure postato qui ogni tanto) ha provato a spostarsi su Gab, altro social Trump/alt-right
L'hanno bannato non appena ha postato qualche vignetta osè :rotfl:
https://i.imgur.com/9NBDdP7.png
Questi "social alternativi" sono solo echo chamber conservatori, sono molto meno tolleranti di twitter e co. verso chi non ha opinioni allineate :asd:
Quello del famoso fumetto "allora tu non sei nera" :snob:
E come fanno twitter, facebook, apple o amazon a sapere in percentuale quanti siano i post tipo quelli sul subreddit che hai linkato (se ne potrebbero trovare altrettanti e anzi multipli di quelli se si facesse la stessa cosa su twitter, visto che si tratta sempre di cherrypicking e i deficienti di ogni sorta sono milioni) dato che non hanno accesso ai dati di traffico né hanno accesso alla moderazione di un concorrente.
almeno questi stanno procedendo a cancellare gli account degli anti-antifa
Chiamami quando inizieranno a segare quelli degli antifa o degli islamisti che minacciano di morte gli "apostati"
Non lo so ma l'hanno fatto. Non hai visto alcuni politici repubblicani lamentarsi di aver perso 50k e più follower? Erano tutti i neonazi bannati da Twitter nell'ultima tornata.
E comunque stai paragonando social nati in maniera "neutra" con un social come Parler che come già dimostrato è nato solo per fare propaganda di estrema destra
Our election was hijacked. There is no question. (https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/864522009048494080)
personcina a modo :asd:
The Trump Files: When Donald Took Revenge by Cutting Off Health Coverage for a Sick Infant (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/09/trump-files-donald-sick-infant-medical-care/)
personcina a modo :asd:
The Trump Files: When Donald Took Revenge by Cutting Off Health Coverage for a Sick Infant (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/09/trump-files-donald-sick-infant-medical-care/)
quando tempo hai perso a cercare sta cagata? non potevi andare a perdere tempo su reddit?
ah, è una cagata? ok :asd:
manco hai letto l'articolo
Kraven VanHelsing
13-01-21, 13:32
Non lo so ma l'hanno fatto. Non hai visto alcuni politici repubblicani lamentarsi di aver perso 50k e più follower? Erano tutti i neonazi bannati da Twitter nell'ultima tornata.
neonazi secondo twitter
E comunque stai paragonando social nati in maniera "neutra" con un social come Parler che come già dimostrato è nato solo per fare propaganda di estrema destra
Ne è passata di acqua sotto i ponti dal 2004 e 2006 quando sono nati FB e Twitter. Sono diventati progressivamente meno neutrali negli ultimi 6 o 7 anni ed è questo di cui è interessante parlare.
I social alternativi sono nati proprio grazie all'apertura di mercato che questa pressione sull'area politica di destra ha creato in un mercato precedentemente monopolizzato del tutto.
Stai tranquillo che se non ci fosse stata l'azione di cartello dei giorni scorsi, i social alternativi avrebbero raccolto molte più persone e il grado di disagio si sarebbe diluito progressivamente.
manco hai letto l'articolo
menomale che ci stai te a leggerlo, senno' pensa chi l'ha scritto che avrebbe fatto tutta quella fatica per niente ^^
menomale che ci stai te a leggerlo, senno' pensa chi l'ha scritto che avrebbe fatto tutta quella fatica per niente ^^
per cui manco l'hai letto, leggilo così capisci la figura di merda
per cui manco l'hai letto, leggilo così capisci la figura di merda
che stai facendo te? cmq l'ho letto, non preoccuparti ^^
che stai facendo te? cmq l'ho letto, non preoccuparti ^^
Sto cagando
neonazi secondo twitter
:roll:
Ne è passata di acqua sotto i ponti dal 2004 e 2006 quando sono nati FB e Twitter. Sono diventati progressivamente meno neutrali negli ultimi 6 o 7 anni ed è questo di cui è interessante parlare.
I social alternativi sono nati proprio grazie all'apertura di mercato che questa pressione sull'area politica di destra ha creato in un mercato precedentemente monopolizzato del tutto.
Stai tranquillo che se non ci fosse stata l'azione di cartello dei giorni scorsi, i social alternativi avrebbero raccolto molte più persone e il grado di disagio si sarebbe diluito progressivamente.
Cosa vuol dire che sono diventano meno neutrali? Censure che io sappia non ce ne sono state. Se la tua percezione è che ci siano più progressisti che conservatori forse perché è così, o forse perché per caso Twitter è diventata la piattaforma preferita da certi orientamenti politici. Quindi?
A me fotteuncazzo della censura. Finché non arriva dal governo mi sta bene. Ogni azienda privata deve aver diritto di decidere con chi avere a che fare, sia lato clienti che lato fornitori.
Kraven VanHelsing
13-01-21, 14:10
:roll:
Cosa vuol dire che sono diventano meno neutrali? Censure che io sappia non ce ne sono state. Se la tua percezione è che ci siano più progressisti che conservatori forse perché è così, o forse perché per caso Twitter è diventata la piattaforma preferita da certi orientamenti politici. Quindi?
A me fotteuncazzo della censura. Finché non arriva dal governo mi sta bene. Ogni azienda privata deve aver diritto di decidere con chi avere a che fare, sia lato clienti che lato fornitori.
Sei willfully ignorant (non lo dico in senso denigratorio o polemico, è una constatazione) quando scrivi "che io sappia censure non ce ne sono state".
La realtà è diversa. Se vuoi, ti metti qualche ora di buzzo buono e ti informi, altrimenti non ha senso andare avanti a discutere su questo.
Quanto alla tua opinione sulla censura by big tech, forse dovresti considerare quanti soldi donano e a chi, sia in termini assoluti sia percentuali, per capire che la collusione non è solo tra aziende ma anche tra aziende e politici (sia D che R).
Capisco il disinteresse per il tema ma se non hai intenzione di andare oltre al primo livello di lettura e indagine, a che pro continuare a intervenire? Trolling e shitposting? Ok.
meno neutrali tipo zuckemberg che a ottobre 2019 ha incontrato trump alla casa bianca e la notizia dell'incontro è stata data dalla cnn un mese dopo?
Kraven VanHelsing
13-01-21, 14:39
meno neutrali tipo zuckemberg che a ottobre 2019 ha incontrato trump alla casa bianca e la notizia dell'incontro è stata data dalla cnn un mese dopo?
Parli di questo?
https://www.axios.com/mark-zuckerberg-trump-meeting-washington-c163cff7-7eea-4f18-97a0-09fc94d24f41.html
CNN ne ha parlato appena la notizia è uscita
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/19/politics/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-washington-election-security-data-privacy/index.html
edit: no, parlavi di questo
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-21/facebook-s-zuckerberg-met-again-privately-with-trump-nbc-says
Dato che nessuna delle parti ha dichiarato nulla sui contenuti dell'incontro, secondo te che cosa proverebbe questo?
https://www.ilpost.it/2021/01/13/perche-impeachment-trump/
un po' di chiarezza sull'impeachment, seguite sempre Francesco Costa che è tanto bravo
bonus https://www.raiplayradio.it/audio/2021/01/Parliamo-di-Usa-con-Antonella-Di-Lazzaro-e-Francesco-Costa-99e1af17-8312-442b-92b4-68d12d695c39.html?wt_mc=2.social.tw.radio1_forrest .&wt
Kraven VanHelsing
13-01-21, 14:59
«Dobbiamo provare a dare ai più deboli tra i nostri politici Repubblicani l’orgoglio e la forza che serve per riprenderci il nostro paese». Poco dopo è iniziato l’attacco.
L'attacco è iniziato venti minuti prima della fine del discorso di Trump che era dall'altra parte di Pennsylvania Avenue e che si percorre in una quarantina di minuti di cammino. Il discorso è durato 73 minuti. E la frase quotata dal giornalista è tra le ultime.
Tanto bravo. E onesto.
povero Costa
ma quindi mi puoi definire quanto è "poco dopo", cioè se stava sotto i 20 minuti è poco dopo? o era già troppo?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49PGO3HIQ4I
https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/worldwide-threats-to-the-homeland-091720
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/11/politics/fbi-bulletin-armed-protests-state-us-capitol/index.html
la censura
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=christopher+wray&sp=CAI%253D
l'odio per wray mette d'accordo sia antifa che suprematisti, che curioso miracolo :asd:
Non glie la voglio mandare, sia chiaro.
Ma è qualche giorno che ho la sensazione che Biden a fine mandato non ci arriverà.
A me fotteuncazzo della censura. Finché non arriva dal governo mi sta bene. Ogni azienda privata deve aver diritto di decidere con chi avere a che fare, sia lato clienti che lato fornitori.
Cioè che enormi entità private abbiano il potere di censurare chiunque gli garbi, arbitrariamente, senza alcun controllo per te è normale MA sei contrario quando a censurare è un governo eletto dal popolo e che deve sottostare a legislazione, processi, appelli, etc.
:rotfl:
Kemper Boyd
13-01-21, 15:38
Cioè che enormi entità private abbiano il potere di censurare chiunque gli garbi, arbitrariamente, senza alcun controllo per te è normale MA sei contrario quando a censurare è un governo eletto dal popolo e che deve sottostare a legislazione, processi, appelli, etc.
:rotfl:
Beh, ma è oggettivamente molto più grave. Una cosa è non poter parlare bene di maschi bianchi eterosessuali su twitter, un'altra cosa è non poter parlare bene di maschi bianchi eterosessuali tout court perché è illegale. Il primo caso si applica solo all'azienda, che sarà grande quanto vuoi ma comunque non riguarda la libertà di espressione di tutte le persone.
Anche per quanto riguarda le conseguenze: essere bannati da un social è un filo meno grave che infrangere la legge.
Det. Bullock
13-01-21, 15:43
Ma tutti dell'aeronautica erano? :asd:
Avevo letto un articolo un anno fa circa che parlava di come l'aeronautica americana per diverse ragioni era terreno più fertile per il reclutamento dell'estrema destra rispetto ad altre branche mainstream dell'esercito. All'epoca non ci pensai troppo ma vedendo tuttì stì tizi che vengono da lì tra i rivoltosi mi sa che c'era qualcosa di fondato.
Cioè che enormi entità private abbiano il potere di censurare chiunque gli garbi, arbitrariamente, senza alcun controllo per te è normale MA sei contrario quando a censurare è un governo eletto dal popolo e che deve sottostare a legislazione, processi, appelli, etc.
:rotfl:
ad esempio: il forum può decidere arbitrariamente chi tenere e chi cacciare, però come singola persona :uhm:
anche un privato non credo possa cacciare una categoria di persone :uhm:
legumi del forum, che ci dite in questi casi?
dove 'arbitrariamente' è stabilito dai claim del cacciato :svapo:
Beh, ma è oggettivamente molto più grave. Una cosa è non poter parlare bene di maschi bianchi eterosessuali su twitter, un'altra cosa è non poter parlare bene di maschi bianchi eterosessuali tout court perché è illegale. Il primo caso si applica solo all'azienda, che sarà grande quanto vuoi ma comunque non riguarda la libertà di espressione di tutte le persone.
Anche per quanto riguarda le conseguenze: essere bannati da un social è un filo meno grave che infrangere la legge.
Il problema è che quello che abbiamo visto è molto più grave che un mero ban temporaneo su facebook. :asd:
Kemper Boyd
13-01-21, 15:54
Il problema è che quello che abbiamo visto è molto più grave che un mero ban temporaneo su facebook. :asd:
Ok, ma qui il discorso era la comparazione con il ban a livello governativo. È proprio un ordine di grandezza completamente diverso, un po' come paragonare il capezzoloban di TGM all'obbligo di indossare il burqa.
Sei willfully ignorant (non lo dico in senso denigratorio o polemico, è una constatazione) quando scrivi "che io sappia censure non ce ne sono state".
La realtà è diversa. Se vuoi, ti metti qualche ora di buzzo buono e ti informi, altrimenti non ha senso andare avanti a discutere su questo.
Quanto alla tua opinione sulla censura by big tech, forse dovresti considerare quanti soldi donano e a chi, sia in termini assoluti sia percentuali, per capire che la collusione non è solo tra aziende ma anche tra aziende e politici (sia D che R).
Capisco il disinteresse per il tema ma se non hai intenzione di andare oltre al primo livello di lettura e indagine, a che pro continuare a intervenire? Trolling e shitposting? Ok.
Comunque sì sul tema sono disinteressato, infatti la mia è la constatazione che potrebbe fare chiunque che non sta tanto ad approfondire. Di censure famose come quella di Trump adesso non si era sentito, poi magari ci sono state.
Sul resto non ho dubbi, sono io che ho detto che Parler come anche Fox ecc. sono finanziate dai repubblicani :asd: sarà uguale per i dem. Non tirarmi fuori Soros però :asd:
Ma confermo che fottesego.
Cioè che enormi entità private abbiano il potere di censurare chiunque gli garbi, arbitrariamente, senza alcun controllo per te è normale MA sei contrario quando a censurare è un governo eletto dal popolo e che deve sottostare a legislazione, processi, appelli, etc.
:rotfl:
Ma porca troia OVVIO. Se Parler censura i democratici nella sua piattaforma a me che cazzo me ne frega? Se invece è lo stato a censurare la libertà di pensiero come fa la Cina allora abbiamo tutti un problema GROSSO. Ma sul serio mi fai questa domanda? Cioè siete fuori di testa?
Ma porca troia OVVIO. Se Parler censura i democratici nella sua piattaforma a me che cazzo me ne frega? Se invece è lo stato a censurare la libertà di pensiero come fa la Cina allora abbiamo tutti un problema GROSSO. Ma sul serio mi fai questa domanda? Cioè siete fuori di testa?
Una censura di stato è ovviamente più pesante della censura di un'azienda privata, ma siamo sicuri che aziende così grandi che gestiscono servizi al giorno dóggi essenziali, debbano avere il diritto di censurare arbitrariamente ciò che non gli garba?
E se twitter censurasse i democratici nella sua piattaforma?
E se oltre twitter, google, facebook, amazon e mastercard facessero lo stesso? :fag:
La società occidentale ha impiegato secoli per darsi delle regole che garantiscano parità di trattamento a prescindere da razza, orientamento sessuale, credo religioso e fede politica. Proprio per questo la censura è presa molto seriamente e la si applica solo in casi molto seri dopo essersi consultati ed avendo a disposizione giudici a cui appellarsi.
Tu invece sei contento che delle aziende private scavalchino le leggi dello Stato e facciano un po' quel che gli pare con la censura solo perché possono permetterselo.
Tu, un democratico, di sinistra, sjw d'accordo con l'idea che con i suoi soldi un privato può fare quel che vuole. :rotfl:
oook. :asd:
La società occidentale ha impiegato secoli per darsi delle regole che garantiscano parità di trattamento a prescindere da razza, orientamento sessuale, credo religioso e fede politica. Proprio per questo la censura è presa molto seriamente e la si applica solo in casi molto seri dopo essersi consultati ed avendo a disposizione giudici a cui appellarsi.
not exactly :fag:
Nyarlathotep
13-01-21, 18:18
Secondo me discutete sul nulla.
Trump, secondo le regole di twitter, doveva già essere bannato anni fa quando accusava di omicidio Joe Scarborough. Ha sempre avuto l'escamotage che siccome era presidente Twitter chiudeva un occhio su tutte le cose che avrebbero permabannato un utente normale.
Al massimo si può discutere sul perchè un capo di stato invece di essere sottoposto a standard più stringenti sia invece lasciato fare un po' come cazzo gli pare.
È come se sul forum di TGM uno che bestemmia e posta goatse in continuazione non fosse mai bannato per qualche motivo (in questo caso essere presidente) ma gli altri invece vengono bannati per molto meno.
Poi se dite che Twitter non deve bannare allora non deve bannare NESSUNO ma da tanto ormai banna per pochissimo, Trump era un'anomalia
Maybeshewill
13-01-21, 18:23
Il punto è proprio che anche gli altri postano goatse ma non vengono bannati
GenghisKhan
13-01-21, 18:24
Secondo me discutete sul nulla.
Trump, secondo le regole di twitter, doveva già essere bannato anni fa quando accusava di omicidio Joe Scarborough. Ha sempre avuto l'escamotage che siccome era presidente Twitter chiudeva un occhio su tutte le cose che avrebbero permabannato un utente normale.
Al massimo si può discutere sul perchè un capo di stato invece di essere sottoposto a standard più stringenti sia invece lasciato fare un po' come cazzo gli pare.
È come se sul forum di TGM uno che bestemmia e posta goatse in continuazione non fosse mai bannato per qualche motivo (in questo caso essere presidente) ma gli altri invece vengono bannati per molto meno.
Poi se dite che Twitter non deve bannare allora non deve bannare NESSUNO ma da tanto ormai banna per pochissimo, Trump era un'anomalia
Libfag detected!
Una censura di stato è ovviamente più pesante della censura di un'azienda privata, ma siamo sicuri che aziende così grandi che gestiscono servizi al giorno dóggi essenziali, debbano avere il diritto di censurare arbitrariamente ciò che non gli garba?
E se twitter censurasse i democratici nella sua piattaforma?
E se oltre twitter, google, facebook, amazon e mastercard facessero lo stesso? :fag:
La società occidentale ha impiegato secoli per darsi delle regole che garantiscano parità di trattamento a prescindere da razza, orientamento sessuale, credo religioso e fede politica. Proprio per questo la censura è presa molto seriamente e la si applica solo in casi molto seri dopo essersi consultati ed avendo a disposizione giudici a cui appellarsi.
Tu invece sei contento che delle aziende private scavalchino le leggi dello Stato e facciano un po' quel che gli pare con la censura solo perché possono permetterselo.
Tu, un democratico, di sinistra, sjw d'accordo con l'idea che con i suoi soldi un privato può fare quel che vuole. :rotfl:
oook. :asd:
Arbitrariamente lo dici tu. La censura di Trump è stata più che giustificata da motivi di ordine nazionale secondo me, e mi sta benissimo.
Il resto che uno di sinistra dev'essere per forza comunista sjw e contrario al capitalismo ecc. è una delle vostre fantasie alt-right :asd:
House Dem Ayanna Pressley’s chief of staff Sarah Groh now tells the Boston Globe that every panic button in her office — “the whole unit” — had inexplicably been removed ahead of the attack on the Capitol. (https://twitter.com/hugolowell/status/1349353128588668928)
- - - Updated - - -
Airbnb to Block and Cancel D.C. Reservations During Inauguration (https://news.airbnb.com/airbnb-to-block-and-cancel-d-c-reservations-during-inauguration/)
Secondo me discutete sul nulla.
Trump, secondo le regole di twitter, doveva già essere bannato anni fa quando accusava di omicidio Joe Scarborough. Ha sempre avuto l'escamotage che siccome era presidente Twitter chiudeva un occhio su tutte le cose che avrebbero permabannato un utente normale.
Al massimo si può discutere sul perchè un capo di stato invece di essere sottoposto a standard più stringenti sia invece lasciato fare un po' come cazzo gli pare.
È come se sul forum di TGM uno che bestemmia e posta goatse in continuazione non fosse mai bannato per qualche motivo (in questo caso essere presidente) ma gli altri invece vengono bannati per molto meno.
Poi se dite che Twitter non deve bannare allora non deve bannare NESSUNO ma da tanto ormai banna per pochissimo, Trump era un'anomalia
Uno spammino ha il diritto di decidere arbitrariamente se un'azienda privata banna arbitrariamente i suoi utenti
Cmq Biden aveva detto che appena eletto avrebbe risolto tutto e il covid sarebbe scomparso.
Vedo, bella merda, bravo :smugplauso:
Kraven VanHelsing
13-01-21, 19:04
Cmq Biden aveva detto che appena eletto avrebbe risolto tutto e il covid sarebbe scomparso.
Vedo, bella merda, bravo :smugplauso:
Porta ancora un po' di pazienza: il giuramento è mercoledì 20.
Il nocciolo della questione è che molta gente non crede al risultato del voto, è un problema di comunicazione delle loro sinapsiFixed
Kraven VanHelsing
13-01-21, 19:14
https://i.ibb.co/8dgHSZK/Ero-Xm-S4-XIAANS9-G-format-jpg-name-large.jpg
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1349416989568196609
https://twitter.com/Olivia_Beavers/status/1349100343985123329
Cmq Biden aveva detto che appena eletto avrebbe risolto tutto e il covid sarebbe scomparso.
Vedo, bella merda, bravo :smugplauso:
Sì coi poteri magici della carica di Preside di Hogwarts che ha ottenuto tramite i voti recapitati dai gufi :asd:
se se tutte scuse qua, già che si ritratta la campagna elettorale :caffe:
https://i.ibb.co/8dgHSZK/Ero-Xm-S4-XIAANS9-G-format-jpg-name-large.jpg
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1349416989568196609
È una di quelle che spiegava 'come si vota' ai latinos naturalizzati? :asd:
Kraven VanHelsing
13-01-21, 19:54
Master trolling e i giornalisti di pura luce abboccano entusiasti:
https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/1349422596463456256
Kraven VanHelsing
13-01-21, 20:02
Maxine Waters (D-CA) who urged a mob to hound and confront political opponents is now speaking on behalf of impeachment.
https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status/1349426514186612736
GenghisKhan
13-01-21, 20:13
https://i.imgur.com/O5a5IfF.png
:snob:
Secondo me discutete sul nulla.
Trump, secondo le regole di twitter, doveva già essere bannato anni fa quando accusava di omicidio Joe Scarborough. Ha sempre avuto l'escamotage che siccome era presidente Twitter chiudeva un occhio su tutte le cose che avrebbero permabannato un utente normale.
Al massimo si può discutere sul perchè un capo di stato invece di essere sottoposto a standard più stringenti sia invece lasciato fare un po' come cazzo gli pare.
È come se sul forum di TGM uno che bestemmia e posta goatse in continuazione non fosse mai bannato per qualche motivo (in questo caso essere presidente) ma gli altri invece vengono bannati per molto meno.
Poi se dite che Twitter non deve bannare allora non deve bannare NESSUNO ma da tanto ormai banna per pochissimo, Trump era un'anomalia
Nancy Pelosi ha detto in pubblico che si chiede come mai non ci siano rivolte in tutta la nazione. Uno o due anni fa.
Maxine Waters ha esplicitamente incoraggiato i suoi supporters ad aggredire verbalmente repubblicani ovunque li incontrassero.
Un membro del congresso repubblicano è stato sparato poco dopo che Bernie Sanders ha fatto un discorso infuocato ai suoi supporters.
Kamala Harris ha detto davanti a Stephen Colbert che "le rivolte continueranno e non smetteranno", quest'estate.
Nessuno di questi è stato bannato.
Un giudice ha imposto a Trump di non bloccare dai suoi contatti Twitter chi lo insultava perchè il presidente non ha il diritto di bannare utenti dal suo profilo ma nessuno ha detto nulla a twitter o molto semplicemente ogni social network che banna Trump mentre è ancora Presidente.
Ma non conta nulla, non siete qui per essere convinti, se è per una parte è giusto, se è per l'altra è sbagliato. Senza motivazioni di alcun genere. Questa è la realtà, in onestà molto divisiva.
Intanto...
https://i.imgur.com/DUSmEt5.jpg
è un fumetto vero :look:
- - - Updated - - -
Nancy Pelosi ha detto in pubblico che si chiede come mai non ci siano rivolte in tutta la nazione. Uno o due anni fa.
Maxine Waters ha esplicitamente incoraggiato i suoi supporters ad aggredire verbalmente repubblicani ovunque li incontrassero.
Un membro del congresso repubblicano è stato sparato poco dopo che Bernie Sanders ha fatto un discorso infuocato ai suoi supporters.
Kamala Harris ha detto davanti a Stephen Colbert che "le rivolte continueranno e non smetteranno", quest'estate.
Nessuno di questi è stato bannato.
Un giudice ha imposto a Trump di non bloccare dai suoi contatti Twitter chi lo insultava perchè il presidente non ha il diritto di bannare utenti dal suo profilo ma nessuno ha detto nulla a twitter o molto semplicemente ogni social network che banna Trump mentre è ancora Presidente.
Ma non conta nulla, non siete qui per essere convinti, se è per una parte è giusto, se è per l'altra è sbagliato. Senza motivazioni di alcun genere. Questa è la realtà, in onestà molto divisiva.
Aggiungi pure i 4 anni di: Russian Hacking and Influence in the U.S. Election
Bellissimo articolo che nessuno leggerà
The American Abyss
A historian of fascism and political atrocity on Trump, the mob and what comes next.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/magazine/trump-coup.html
GenghisKhan
13-01-21, 20:56
Dai, giochiamo a individua lo spammer :smugdance:
https://i.imgur.com/MOw0tFo.jpg
Maybeshewill
13-01-21, 20:58
Ma genshis si rende conto che posta le stesse cosa che posta una qualche lesbica femminista con i cappelli rosa con un qi di 70 in America?
Chiedo
IlGrandeBaBomba
13-01-21, 21:08
Scoperto che anche il matto con la faccia dipinta e le corna è un ex militare. È stato per due anni in Marina, congedato per non essersi voluto vaccinare contro l'antrace.
GenghisKhan
13-01-21, 21:11
Ma genshis si rende conto che posta le stesse cosa che posta una qualche lesbica femminista con i cappelli rosa con un qi di 70 in America?
Chiedo
E tu ti rendi conto che rientri in almeno 5 di quelle descrizioni? :smugdance:
Maybeshewill
13-01-21, 21:22
Descrizioni fatte da una lesbica femminista con i cappelli rosa con un qi di 70 americana, valgono zero
genshiscoso ci tengo veramente a capire il tuo disagio, come hai fatto a diventare così, quale trauma ti ha scosso
Eppure quando non parli di politica sei quasi simpatico
Spiegami che voglio capire il tuo caso clinico
Bellissimo articolo che nessuno leggerà
The American Abyss
A historian of fascism and political atrocity on Trump, the mob and what comes next.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/magazine/trump-coup.html
fai un copia incolla sotto spoiler please, chiede di registrarsi per leggere
fai un copia incolla sotto spoiler please, chiede di registrarsi per leggere
:uhm: a me non chiede di registrarmi
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/m...rump-coup.html
comq
"The American Abyss
A historian of fascism and political atrocity on Trump, the mob and what comes next.
When Donald Trump stood before his followers on Jan. 6 and urged them to march on the United States Capitol, he was doing what he had always done. He never took electoral democracy seriously nor accepted the legitimacy of its American version.
Even when he won, in 2016, he insisted that the election was fraudulent — that millions of false votes were cast for his opponent. In 2020, in the knowledge that he was trailing Joseph R. Biden in the polls, he spent months claiming that the presidential election would be rigged and signaling that he would not accept the results if they did not favor him. He wrongly claimed on Election Day that he had won and then steadily hardened his rhetoric: With time, his victory became a historic landslide and the various conspiracies that denied it ever more sophisticated and implausible.
People believed him, which is not at all surprising. It takes a tremendous amount of work to educate citizens to resist the powerful pull of believing what they already believe, or what others around them believe, or what would make sense of their own previous choices. Plato noted a particular risk for tyrants: that they would be surrounded in the end by yes-men and enablers. Aristotle worried that, in a democracy, a wealthy and talented demagogue could all too easily master the minds of the populace. Aware of these risks and others, the framers of the Constitution instituted a system of checks and balances. The point was not simply to ensure that no one branch of government dominated the others but also to anchor in institutions different points of view.
In this sense, the responsibility for Trump’s push to overturn an election must be shared by a very large number of Republican members of Congress. Rather than contradict Trump from the beginning, they allowed his electoral fiction to flourish. They had different reasons for doing so. One group of Republicans is concerned above all with gaming the system to maintain power, taking full advantage of constitutional obscurities, gerrymandering and dark money to win elections with a minority of motivated voters. They have no interest in the collapse of the peculiar form of representation that allows their minority party disproportionate control of government. The most important among them, Mitch McConnell, indulged Trump’s lie while making no comment on its consequences.
Yet other Republicans saw the situation differently: They might actually break the system and have power without democracy. The split between these two groups, the gamers and the breakers, became sharply visible on Dec. 30, when Senator Josh Hawley announced that he would support Trump’s challenge by questioning the validity of the electoral votes on Jan. 6. Ted Cruz then promised his own support, joined by about 10 other senators. More than a hundred Republican representatives took the same position. For many, this seemed like nothing more than a show: challenges to states’ electoral votes would force delays and floor votes but would not affect the outcome.
Pro-Trump extremists tried to scale the walls of the Capitol building in Washington to bypass barriers and get inside, 2:09 p.m.
Pro-Trump extremists tried to scale the walls of the Capitol building in Washington to bypass barriers and get inside, 2:09 p.m.Ashley Gilbertson/VII, for The New York Times
Yet for Congress to traduce its basic functions had a price. An elected institution that opposes elections is inviting its own overthrow. Members of Congress who sustained the president’s lie, despite the available and unambiguous evidence, betrayed their constitutional mission. Making his fictions the basis of congressional action gave them flesh. Now Trump could demand that senators and congressmen bow to his will. He could place personal responsibility upon Mike Pence, in charge of the formal proceedings, to pervert them. And on Jan. 6, he directed his followers to exert pressure on these elected representatives, which they proceeded to do: storming the Capitol building, searching for people to punish, ransacking the place.
Of course this did make a kind of sense: If the election really had been stolen, as senators and congressmen were themselves suggesting, then how could Congress be allowed to move forward? For some Republicans, the invasion of the Capitol must have been a shock, or even a lesson. For the breakers, however, it may have been a taste of the future. Afterward, eight senators and more than 100 representatives voted for the lie that had forced them to flee their chambers.
Rioters threatened and chased Officer Eugene Goodman inside the Capitol, 2:13 p.m.Ashley Gilbertson/VII, for The New York Times
Post-truth is pre-fascism, and Trump has been our post-truth president. When we give up on truth, we concede power to those with the wealth and charisma to create spectacle in its place. Without agreement about some basic facts, citizens cannot form the civil society that would allow them to defend themselves. If we lose the institutions that produce facts that are pertinent to us, then we tend to wallow in attractive abstractions and fictions. Truth defends itself particularly poorly when there is not very much of it around, and the era of Trump — like the era of Vladimir Putin in Russia — is one of the decline of local news. Social media is no substitute: It supercharges the mental habits by which we seek emotional stimulation and comfort, which means losing the distinction between what feels true and what actually is true.
Post-truth wears away the rule of law and invites a regime of myth. These last four years, scholars have discussed the legitimacy and value of invoking fascism in reference to Trumpian propaganda. One comfortable position has been to label any such effort as a direct comparison and then to treat such comparisons as taboo. More productively, the philosopher Jason Stanley has treated fascism as a phenomenon, as a series of patterns that can be observed not only in interwar Europe but beyond it.
My own view is that greater knowledge of the past, fascist or otherwise, allows us to notice and conceptualize elements of the present that we might otherwise disregard and to think more broadly about future possibilities. It was clear to me in October that Trump’s behavior presaged a coup, and I said so in print; this is not because the present repeats the past, but because the past enlightens the present.
An angry mob confronted the police as it tried to gain entry into the Capitol, 2 p.m.Ashley Gilbertson/VII, for The New York Times
Like historical fascist leaders, Trump has presented himself as the single source of truth. His use of the term “fake news” echoed the Nazi smear Lügenpresse (“lying press”); like the Nazis, he referred to reporters as “enemies of the people.” Like Adolf Hitler, he came to power at a moment when the conventional press had taken a beating; the financial crisis of 2008 did to American newspapers what the Great Depression did to German ones. The Nazis thought that they could use radio to replace the old pluralism of the newspaper; Trump tried to do the same with Twitter.
Thanks to technological capacity and personal talent, Donald Trump lied at a pace perhaps unmatched by any other leader in history. For the most part these were small lies, and their main effect was cumulative. To believe in all of them was to accept the authority of a single man, because to believe in all of them was to disbelieve everything else. Once such personal authority was established, the president could treat everyone else as the liars; he even had the power to turn someone from a trusted adviser into a dishonest scoundrel with a single tweet. Yet so long as he was unable to enforce some truly big lie, some fantasy that created an alternative reality where people could live and die, his pre-fascism fell short of the thing itself.
A bust of George Washington had a Trump hat placed on it, as intruders charged through the building, 2:34 p.m.Ashley Gilbertson for The New York Times
Some of his lies were, admittedly, medium-size: that he was a successful businessman; that Russia did not support him in 2016; that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Such medium-size lies were the standard fare of aspiring authoritarians in the 21st century. In Poland the right-wing party built a martyrdom cult around assigning blame to political rivals for an airplane crash that killed the nation’s president. Hungary’s Viktor Orban blames a vanishingly small number of Muslim refugees for his country’s problems. But such claims were not quite big lies; they stretched but did not rend what Hannah Arendt called “the fabric of factuality.”
Debatable: The sharpest arguments on the most pressing issues of the week.
One historical big lie discussed by Arendt is Joseph Stalin’s explanation of starvation in Soviet Ukraine in 1932-33. The state had collectivized agriculture, then applied a series of punitive measures to Ukraine that ensured millions would die. Yet the official line was that the starving were provocateurs, agents of Western powers who hated socialism so much they were killing themselves. A still grander fiction, in Arendt’s account, is Hitlerian anti-Semitism: the claims that Jews ran the world, Jews were responsible for ideas that poisoned German minds, Jews stabbed Germany in the back during the First World War. Intriguingly, Arendt thought big lies work only in lonely minds; their coherence substitutes for experience and companionship.
In November 2020, reaching millions of lonely minds through social media, Trump told a lie that was dangerously ambitious: that he had won an election that in fact he had lost. This lie was big in every pertinent respect: not as big as “Jews run the world,” but big enough. The significance of the matter at hand was great: the right to rule the most powerful country in the world and the efficacy and trustworthiness of its succession procedures. The level of mendacity was profound. The claim was not only wrong, but it was also made in bad faith, amid unreliable sources. It challenged not just evidence but logic: Just how could (and why would) an election have been rigged against a Republican president but not against Republican senators and representatives? Trump had to speak, absurdly, of a “Rigged (for President) Election.”
Outside the Capitol, the crowd cheered as rioters stampeded into the building, 2:10 p.m.Ashley Gilbertson/VII, for The New York Times
The force of a big lie resides in its demand that many other things must be believed or disbelieved. To make sense of a world in which the 2020 presidential election was stolen requires distrust not only of reporters and of experts but also of local, state and federal government institutions, from poll workers to elected officials, Homeland Security and all the way to the Supreme Court. It brings with it, of necessity, a conspiracy theory: Imagine all the people who must have been in on such a plot and all the people who would have had to work on the cover-up.
Trump’s electoral fiction floats free of verifiable reality. It is defended not so much by facts as by claims that someone else has made some claims. The sensibility is that something must be wrong because I feel it to be wrong, and I know others feel the same way. When political leaders such as Ted Cruz or Jim Jordan spoke like this, what they meant was: You believe my lies, which compels me to repeat them. Social media provides an infinity of apparent evidence for any conviction, especially one seemingly held by a president.
On the surface, a conspiracy theory makes its victim look strong: It sees Trump as resisting the Democrats, the Republicans, the Deep State, the pedophiles, the Satanists. More profoundly, however, it inverts the position of the strong and the weak. Trump’s focus on alleged “irregularities” and “contested states” comes down to cities where Black people live and vote. At bottom, the fantasy of fraud is that of a crime committed by Black people against white people.
It’s not just that electoral fraud by African-Americans against Donald Trump never happened. It is that it is the very opposite of what happened, in 2020 and in every American election. As always, Black people waited longer than others to vote and were more likely to have their votes challenged. They were more likely to be suffering or dying from Covid-19, and less likely to be able to take time away from work. The historical protection of their right to vote has been removed by the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, and states have rushed to pass measures of a kind that historically reduce voting by the poor and communities of color.
The claim that Trump was denied a win by fraud is a big lie not just because it mauls logic, misdescribes the present and demands belief in a conspiracy. It is a big lie, fundamentally, because it reverses the moral field of American politics and the basic structure of American history.
When Senator Ted Cruz announced his intention to challenge the Electoral College vote, he invoked the Compromise of 1877, which resolved the presidential election of 1876. Commentators pointed out that this was no relevant precedent, since back then there really were serious voter irregularities and there really was a stalemate in Congress. For African-Americans, however, the seemingly gratuitous reference led somewhere else. The Compromise of 1877 — in which Rutherford B. Hayes would have the presidency, provided that he withdrew federal power from the South — was the very arrangement whereby African-Americans were driven from voting booths for the better part of a century. It was effectively the end of Reconstruction, the beginning of segregation, legal discrimination and Jim Crow. It is the original sin of American history in the post-slavery era, our closest brush with fascism so far.
If the reference seemed distant when Ted Cruz and 10 senatorial colleagues released their statement on Jan. 2, it was brought very close four days later, when Confederate flags were paraded through the Capitol.
A videographer for The Daily Caller, a right-wing website, after being pepper-sprayed during the mayhem at the Capitol, 3:45 p.m.Ashley Gilbertson/VII, for The New York Times
Some things have changed since 1877, of course. Back then, it was the Republicans, or many of them, who supported racial equality; it was the Democrats, the party of the South, who wanted apartheid. It was the Democrats, back then, who called African-Americans’ votes fraudulent, and the Republicans who wanted them counted. This is now reversed. In the past half century, since the Civil Rights Act, Republicans have become a predominantly white party interested — as Trump openly declared — in keeping the number of voters, and particularly the number of Black voters, as low as possible. Yet the common thread remains. Watching white supremacists among the people storming the Capitol, it was easy to yield to the feeling that something pure had been violated. It might be better to see the episode as part of a long American argument about who deserves representation.
The Democrats, today, have become a coalition, one that does better than Republicans with female and nonwhite voters and collects votes from both labor unions and the college-educated. Yet it’s not quite right to contrast this coalition with a monolithic Republican Party. Right now, the Republican Party is a coalition of two types of people: those who would game the system (most of the politicians, some of the voters) and those who dream of breaking it (a few of the politicians, many of the voters). In January 2021, this was visible as the difference between those Republicans who defended the present system on the grounds that it favored them and those who tried to upend it.
In the four decades since the election of Ronald Reagan, Republicans have overcome the tension between the gamers and the breakers by governing in opposition to government, or by calling elections a revolution (the Tea Party), or by claiming to oppose elites. The breakers, in this arrangement, provide cover for the gamers, putting forth an ideology that distracts from the basic reality that government under Republicans is not made smaller but simply diverted to serve a handful of interests.
At first, Trump seemed like a threat to this balance. His lack of experience in politics and his open racism made him a very uncomfortable figure for the party; his habit of continually telling lies was initially found by prominent Republicans to be uncouth. Yet after he won the presidency, his particular skills as a breaker seemed to create a tremendous opportunity for the gamers. Led by the gamer in chief, McConnell, they secured hundreds of federal judges and tax cuts for the rich.
Trump was unlike other breakers in that he seemed to have no ideology. His objection to institutions was that they might constrain him personally. He intended to break the system to serve himself — and this is partly why he has failed. Trump is a charismatic politician and inspires devotion not only among voters but among a surprising number of lawmakers, but he has no vision that is greater than himself or what his admirers project upon him. In this respect his pre-fascism fell short of fascism: His vision never went further than a mirror. He arrived at a truly big lie not from any view of the world but from the reality that he might lose something.
Yet Trump never prepared a decisive blow. He lacked the support of the military, some of whose leaders he had alienated. (No true fascist would have made the mistake he did there, which was to openly love foreign dictators; supporters convinced that the enemy was at home might not mind, but those sworn to protect from enemies abroad did.) Trump’s secret police force, the men carrying out snatch operations in Portland, was violent but also small and ludicrous. Social media proved to be a blunt weapon: Trump could announce his intentions on Twitter, and white supremacists could plan their invasion of the Capitol on Facebook or Gab. But the president, for all his lawsuits and entreaties and threats to public officials, could not engineer a situation that ended with the right people doing the wrong thing. Trump could make some voters believe that he had won the 2020 election, but he was unable to bring institutions along with his big lie. And he could bring his supporters to Washington and send them on a rampage in the Capitol, but none appeared to have any very clear idea of how this was to work or what their presence would accomplish. It is hard to think of a comparable insurrectionary moment, when a building of great significance was seized, that involved so much milling around.
A woman who had been pepper-sprayed leaned on the eastern door to the Capitol’s rotunda, 3:47 p.m.Ashley Gilbertson/VII, for The New York Times
The lie outlasts the liar. The idea that Germany lost the First World War in 1918 because of a Jewish “stab in the back” was 15 years old when Hitler came to power. How will Trump’s myth of victimhood function in American life 15 years from now? And to whose benefit?
On Jan. 7, Trump called for a peaceful transition of power, implicitly conceding that his putsch had failed. Even then, though, he repeated and even amplified his electoral fiction: It was now a sacred cause for which people had sacrificed. Trump’s imagined stab in the back will live on chiefly thanks to its endorsement by members of Congress. In November and December 2020, Republicans repeated it, giving it a life it would not otherwise have had. In retrospect, it now seems as though the last shaky compromise between the gamers and the breakers was the idea that Trump should have every chance to prove that wrong had been done to him. That position implicitly endorsed the big lie for Trump supporters who were inclined to believe it. It failed to restrain Trump, whose big lie only grew bigger.
The breakers and the gamers then saw a different world ahead, where the big lie was either a treasure to be had or a danger to be avoided. The breakers had no choice but to rush to be first to claim to believe in it. Because the breakers Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz must compete to claim the brimstone and bile, the gamers were forced to reveal their own hand, and the division within the Republican coalition became visible on Jan. 6. The invasion of the Capitol only reinforced this division. To be sure, a few senators withdrew their objections, but Cruz and Hawley moved forward anyway, along with six other senators. More than 100 representatives doubled down on the big lie. Some, like Matt Gaetz, even added their own flourishes, such as the claim that the mob was led not by Trump’s supporters but by his opponents.
Trump is, for now, the martyr in chief, the high priest of the big lie. He is the leader of the breakers, at least in the minds of his supporters. By now, the gamers do not want Trump around. Discredited in his last weeks, he is useless; shorn of the obligations of the presidency, he will become embarrassing again, much as he was in 2015. Unable to provide cover for their gamesmanship, he will be irrelevant to their daily purposes. But the breakers have an even stronger reason to see Trump disappear: It is impossible to inherit from someone who is still around. Seizing Trump’s big lie might appear to be a gesture of support. In fact it expresses a wish for his political death. Transforming the myth from one about Trump to one about the nation will be easier when he is out of the way.
As Cruz and Hawley may learn, to tell the big lie is to be owned by it. Just because you have sold your soul does not mean that you have driven a hard bargain. Hawley shies from no level of hypocrisy; the son of a banker, educated at Stanford University and Yale Law School, he denounces elites. Insofar as Cruz was thought to have a principle, it was that of states’ rights, which Trump’s calls to action brazenly violated. A joint statement Cruz issued about the senators’ challenge to the vote nicely captured the post-truth aspect of the whole: It never alleged that there was fraud, only that there were allegations of fraud. Allegations of allegations, allegations all the way down.
A mixture of tear gas discharged by police and fire-extinguisher residue discharged by pro-Trump extremists hung in the air of the Rotunda as the crowd milled about, 2:38 p.m.Ashley Gilbertson/VII, for The New York Times
The big lie requires commitment. When Republican gamers do not exhibit enough of that, Republican breakers call them “RINOs”: Republicans in name only. This term once suggested a lack of ideological commitment. It now means an unwillingness to throw away an election. The gamers, in response, close ranks around the Constitution and speak of principles and traditions. The breakers must all know (with the possible exception of the Alabama senator Tommy Tuberville) that they are participating in a sham, but they will have an audience of tens of millions who do not.
If Trump remains present in American political life, he will surely repeat his big lie incessantly. Hawley and Cruz and the other breakers share responsibility for where this leads. Cruz and Hawley seem to be running for president. Yet what does it mean to be a candidate for office and denounce voting? If you claim that the other side has cheated, and your supporters believe you, they will expect you to cheat yourself. By defending Trump’s big lie on Jan. 6, they set a precedent: A Republican presidential candidate who loses an election should be appointed anyway by Congress. Republicans in the future, at least breaker candidates for president, will presumably have a Plan A, to win and win, and a Plan B, to lose and win. No fraud is necessary; only allegations that there are allegations of fraud. Truth is to be replaced by spectacle, facts by faith.
Trump’s coup attempt of 2020-21, like other failed coup attempts, is a warning for those who care about the rule of law and a lesson for those who do not. His pre-fascism revealed a possibility for American politics. For a coup to work in 2024, the breakers will require something that Trump never quite had: an angry minority, organized for nationwide violence, ready to add intimidation to an election. Four years of amplifying a big lie just might get them this. To claim that the other side stole an election is to promise to steal one yourself. It is also to claim that the other side deserves to be punished.
Informed observers inside and outside government agree that right-wing white supremacism is the greatest terrorist threat to the United States. Gun sales in 2020 hit an astonishing high. History shows that political violence follows when prominent leaders of major political parties openly embrace paranoia.
Our big lie is typically American, wrapped in our odd electoral system, depending upon our particular traditions of racism. Yet our big lie is also structurally fascist, with its extreme mendacity, its conspiratorial thinking, its reversal of perpetrators and victims and its implication that the world is divided into us and them. To keep it going for four years courts terrorism and assassination.
When that violence comes, the breakers will have to react. If they embrace it, they become the fascist faction. The Republican Party will be divided, at least for a time. One can of course imagine a dismal reunification: A breaker candidate loses a narrow presidential election in November 2024 and cries fraud, the Republicans win both houses of Congress and rioters in the street, educated by four years of the big lie, demand what they see as justice. Would the gamers stand on principle if those were the circumstances of Jan. 6, 2025?
To be sure, this moment is also a chance. It is possible that a divided Republican Party might better serve American democracy; that the gamers, separated from the breakers, might start to think of policy as a way to win elections. It is very likely that the Biden-Harris administration will have an easier first few months than expected; perhaps obstructionism will give way, at least among a few Republicans and for a short time, to a moment of self-questioning. Politicians who want Trumpism to end have a simple way forward: Tell the truth about the election.
America will not survive the big lie just because a liar is separated from power. It will need a thoughtful repluralization of media and a commitment to facts as a public good. The racism structured into every aspect of the coup attempt is a call to heed our own history. Serious attention to the past helps us to see risks but also suggests future possibility. We cannot be a democratic republic if we tell lies about race, big or small. Democracy is not about minimizing the vote nor ignoring it, neither a matter of gaming nor of breaking a system, but of accepting the equality of others, heeding their voices and counting their votes.
Timothy Snyder is the Levin professor of history at Yale University and the author of histories of political atrocity including “Bloodlands” and “Black Earth,” as well as the book “On Tyranny,” on America’s turn toward authoritarianism. His most recent book is “Our Malady,” a memoir of his own near-fatal illness reflecting on the relationship between health and freedom. Ashley Gilbertson is an Australian photojournalist with the VII Photo Agency living in New York. Gilbertson has covered migration and conflict internationally for over 20 years."
Kraven VanHelsing
13-01-21, 22:09
fai un copia incolla sotto spoiler please, chiede di registrarsi per leggere
Mettiti comodo, sarà lunga:
When Donald Trump stood before his followers on Jan. 6 and urged them to march on the United States Capitol, (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/trump-speech-capitol.html) he was doing what he had always done. He never took electoral democracy seriously nor accepted the legitimacy of its American version.
Even when he won, in 2016, he insisted that the election was fraudulent (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/us/politics/donald-trump-congress-democrats.html) — that millions of false votes were cast for his opponent. In 2020, in the knowledge that he was trailing Joseph R. Biden in the polls, he spent months claiming (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/30/magazine/trump-voter-fraud.html) that the presidential election would be rigged and signaling that he would not accept the results if they did not favor him. He wrongly claimed on Election Day that he had won and then steadily hardened his rhetoric: With time, his victory became a historic landslide and the various conspiracies that denied it ever more sophisticated and implausible.
People believed him, which is not at all surprising. It takes a tremendous amount of work to educate citizens to resist the powerful pull of believing what they already believe, or what others around them believe, or what would make sense of their own previous choices. Plato noted a particular risk for tyrants: that they would be surrounded in the end by yes-men and enablers. Aristotle worried that, in a democracy, a wealthy and talented demagogue could all too easily master the minds of the populace. Aware of these risks and others, the framers of the Constitution instituted a system of checks and balances. The point was not simply to ensure that no one branch of government dominated the others but also to anchor in institutions different points of view.
In this sense, the responsibility for Trump’s push to overturn an election must be shared by a very large number of Republican members of Congress. Rather than contradict Trump from the beginning, they allowed his electoral fiction to flourish. They had different reasons for doing so. One group of Republicans is concerned above all with gaming the system to maintain power, taking full advantage of constitutional obscurities, gerrymandering and dark money to win elections with a minority of motivated voters. They have no interest in the collapse of the peculiar form of representation that allows their minority party disproportionate control of government. The most important among them, Mitch McConnell (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/us/politics/mcconnell-backs-trump-impeachment.html), indulged Trump’s lie while making no comment on its consequences.
Yet other Republicans saw the situation differently: They might actually break the system and have power without democracy. The split between these two groups, the gamers and the breakers, became sharply visible on Dec. 30, when Senator Josh Hawley announced (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/30/us/politics/josh-hawley-trump-election-challenge.html) that he would support Trump’s challenge by questioning the validity of the electoral votes on Jan. 6. Ted Cruz then promised his own support, (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/03/us/politics/trump-cruz-election-fraud.html) joined by about 10 other senators. More than a hundred Republican representatives took the same position. For many, this seemed like nothing more than a show: challenges to states’ electoral votes would force delays and floor votes but would not affect the outcome.
Yet for Congress to traduce its basic functions had a price. An elected institution that opposes elections is inviting its own overthrow. Members of Congress who sustained the president’s lie, despite the available and unambiguous evidence, betrayed their constitutional mission. Making his fictions the basis of congressional action gave them flesh. Now Trump could demand that senators and congressmen bow to his will. He could place personal responsibility upon Mike Pence, in charge of the formal proceedings, to pervert them. And on Jan. 6, he directed his followers to exert pressure on these elected representatives, which they proceeded to do: storming the Capitol building, (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/06/us/trump-mob-capitol-building.html) searching for people to punish, ransacking the place.
Of course this did make a kind of sense: If the election really had been stolen, as senators and congressmen were themselves suggesting, then how could Congress be allowed to move forward? For some Republicans, the invasion of the Capitol must have been a shock, or even a lesson. For the breakers, however, it may have been a taste of the future. Afterward, eight senators and more than 100 representatives voted for the lie that had forced them to flee their chambers.
Post-truth is pre-fascism, and Trump has been our post-truth president. When we give up on truth, we concede power to those with the wealth and charisma to create spectacle in its place. Without agreement about some basic facts, citizens cannot form the civil society that would allow them to defend themselves. If we lose the institutions that produce facts that are pertinent to us, then we tend to wallow in attractive abstractions and fictions. Truth defends itself particularly poorly when there is not very much of it around, and the era of Trump — like the era of Vladimir Putin in Russia — is one of the decline of local news. Social media is no substitute: It supercharges the mental habits by which we seek emotional stimulation and comfort, which means losing the distinction between what feels true and what actually is true.
Post-truth wears away the rule of law and invites a regime of myth. These last four years, scholars have discussed the legitimacy and value of invoking fascism in reference to Trumpian propaganda. One comfortable position has been to label any such effort as a direct comparison and then to treat such comparisons as taboo. More productively, the philosopher Jason Stanley has treated fascism as a phenomenon, as a series of patterns that can be observed not only in interwar Europe but beyond it.
My own view is that greater knowledge of the past, fascist or otherwise, allows us to notice and conceptualize elements of the present that we might otherwise disregard and to think more broadly about future possibilities. It was clear to me in October that Trump’s behavior presaged a coup, and I said so in print; this is not because the present repeats the past, but because the past enlightens the present.
Like historical fascist leaders, Trump has presented himself as the single source of truth. His use of the term “fake news” echoed the Nazi smear Lügenpresse (“lying press”); like the Nazis, he referred to reporters as “enemies of the people.” Like Adolf Hitler, he came to power at a moment when the conventional press had taken a beating; the financial crisis of 2008 did to American newspapers what the Great Depression did to German ones. The Nazis thought that they could use radio to replace the old pluralism of the newspaper; Trump tried to do the same with Twitter.
Thanks to technological capacity and personal talent, Donald Trump lied at a pace perhaps unmatched by any other leader in history. For the most part these were small lies, and their main effect was cumulative. To believe in all of them was to accept the authority of a single man, because to believe in all of them was to disbelieve everything else. Once such personal authority was established, the president could treat everyone else as the liars; he even had the power to turn someone from a trusted adviser into a dishonest scoundrel with a single tweet. Yet so long as he was unable to enforce some truly big lie, some fantasy that created an alternative reality where people could live and die, his pre-fascism fell short of the thing itself.
Some of his lies were, admittedly, medium-size: that he was a successful businessman; that Russia did not support him in 2016; that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Such medium-size lies were the standard fare of aspiring authoritarians in the 21st century. In Poland the right-wing party built a martyrdom cult around assigning blame to political rivals for an airplane crash that killed the nation’s president. Hungary’s Viktor Orban blames a vanishingly small number of Muslim refugees for his country’s problems (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/world/europe/hungarian-leader-rebuked-for-saying-muslim-migrants-must-be-blocked-to-keep-europe-christian.html). But such claims were not quite big lies; they stretched but did not rend what Hannah Arendt called “the fabric of factuality.”
One historical big lie discussed by Arendt is Joseph Stalin’s explanation of starvation in Soviet Ukraine in 1932-33. The state had collectivized agriculture, then applied a series of punitive measures to Ukraine that ensured millions would die. Yet the official line was that the starving were provocateurs, agents of Western powers who hated socialism so much they were killing themselves. A still grander fiction, in Arendt’s account, is Hitlerian anti-Semitism: the claims that Jews ran the world, Jews were responsible for ideas that poisoned German minds, Jews stabbed Germany in the back during the First World War. Intriguingly, Arendt thought big lies work only in lonely minds; their coherence substitutes for experience and companionship.
In November 2020, reaching millions of lonely minds through social media, Trump told a lie that was dangerously ambitious: that he had won an election (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/14/us/trump-voters-stolen-election.html) that in fact he had lost. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/14/us/politics/biden-electoral-college.html) This lie was big in every pertinent respect: not as big as “Jews run the world,” but big enough. The significance of the matter at hand was great: the right to rule the most powerful country in the world and the efficacy and trustworthiness of its succession procedures. The level of mendacity was profound. The claim was not only wrong, but it was also made in bad faith, amid unreliable sources. It challenged not just evidence but logic: Just how could (and why would) an election have been rigged against a Republican president but not against Republican senators and representatives? Trump had to speak, absurdly, of a “Rigged (for President) Election.”
The force of a big lie resides in its demand that many other things must be believed or disbelieved. To make sense of a world in which the 2020 presidential election was stolen requires distrust not only of reporters and of experts but also of local, state and federal government institutions, from poll workers to elected officials, Homeland Security and all the way to the Supreme Court. It brings with it, of necessity, a conspiracy theory: Imagine all the people who must have been in on such a plot and all the people who would have had to work on the cover-up.
Trump’s electoral fiction floats free of verifiable reality. It is defended not so much by facts as by claims that someone else has made some claims. The sensibility is that something must be wrong because I feel it to be wrong, and I know others feel the same way. When political leaders such as Ted Cruz or Jim Jordan spoke like this, what they meant was: You believe my lies, which compels me to repeat them. Social media provides an infinity of apparent evidence for any conviction, especially one seemingly held by a president.
On the surface, a conspiracy theory makes its victim look strong: It sees Trump as resisting the Democrats, the Republicans, the Deep State, the pedophiles, the Satanists. More profoundly, however, it inverts the position of the strong and the weak. Trump’s focus on alleged “irregularities” and “contested states” comes down to cities where Black people live and vote. At bottom, the fantasy of fraud is that of a crime committed by Black people against white people.
It’s not just that electoral fraud by African-Americans against Donald Trump never happened. It is that it is the very opposite of what happened, in 2020 and in every American election. As always, Black people waited longer (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/04/upshot/voting-wait-times.html) than others to vote and were more likely to have their votes challenged. They were more likely to be suffering or dying from Covid-19, (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/05/us/coronavirus-latinos-african-americans-cdc-data.html) and less likely to be able to take time away from work. The historical protection of their right to vote has been removed by the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/magazine/voting-rights-act-dream-undone.html) and states have rushed to pass measures of a kind that historically reduce voting by the poor and communities of color.
The claim that Trump was denied a win by fraud is a big lie not just because it mauls logic, misdescribes the present and demands belief in a conspiracy. It is a big lie, fundamentally, because it reverses the moral field of American politics and the basic structure of American history.
When Senator Ted Cruz announced his intention to challenge the Electoral College vote, he invoked the Compromise of 1877, which resolved the presidential election of 1876. Commentators pointed out that this was no relevant precedent, since back then there really were serious voter irregularities and there really was a stalemate in Congress. For African-Americans, however, the seemingly gratuitous reference led somewhere else. The Compromise of 1877 — in which Rutherford B. Hayes would have the presidency, provided that he withdrew federal power from the South — was the very arrangement whereby African-Americans were driven from voting booths for the better part of a century. It was effectively the end of Reconstruction, the beginning of segregation, legal discrimination and Jim Crow. It is the original sin of American history in the post-slavery era, our closest brush with fascism so far.
If the reference seemed distant when Ted Cruz and 10 senatorial colleagues released their statement on Jan. 2, it was brought very close four days later, when Confederate flags were paraded through the Capitol.
Some things have changed since 1877, of course. Back then, it was the Republicans, or many of them, who supported racial equality; it was the Democrats, the party of the South, who wanted apartheid. It was the Democrats, back then, who called African-Americans’ votes fraudulent, and the Republicans who wanted them counted. This is now reversed. In the past half century, since the Civil Rights Act, Republicans have become a predominantly white party interested — as Trump openly declared — in keeping the number of voters, and particularly the number of Black voters, as low as possible. Yet the common thread remains. Watching white supremacists among the people storming the Capitol, it was easy to yield to the feeling that something pure had been violated. It might be better to see the episode as part of a long American argument about who deserves representation.
The Democrats, today, have become a coalition, one that does better than Republicans with female and nonwhite voters and collects votes from both labor unions and the college-educated. Yet it’s not quite right to contrast this coalition with a monolithic Republican Party. Right now, the Republican Party is a coalition of two types of people: those who would game the system (most of the politicians, some of the voters) and those who dream of breaking it (a few of the politicians, many of the voters). In January 2021, this was visible as the difference between those Republicans who defended the present system on the grounds that it favored them and those who tried to upend it.
In the four decades since the election of Ronald Reagan, Republicans have overcome the tension between the gamers and the breakers by governing in opposition to government, or by calling elections a revolution (the Tea Party), or by claiming to oppose elites. The breakers, in this arrangement, provide cover for the gamers, putting forth an ideology that distracts from the basic reality that government under Republicans is not made smaller but simply diverted to serve a handful of interests.
At first, Trump seemed like a threat to this balance. His lack of experience in politics and his open racism made him a very uncomfortable figure for the party; his habit of continually telling lies was initially found by prominent Republicans to be uncouth. Yet after he won the presidency, his particular skills as a breaker seemed to create a tremendous opportunity for the gamers. Led by the gamer in chief, McConnell, they secured hundreds of federal judges and tax cuts for the rich.
Trump was unlike other breakers in that he seemed to have no ideology. His objection to institutions was that they might constrain him personally. He intended to break the system to serve himself — and this is partly why he has failed. Trump is a charismatic politician and inspires devotion not only among voters but among a surprising number of lawmakers, but he has no vision that is greater than himself or what his admirers project upon him. In this respect his pre-fascism fell short of fascism: His vision never went further than a mirror. He arrived at a truly big lie not from any view of the world but from the reality that he might lose something.
Yet Trump never prepared a decisive blow. He lacked the support of the military, some of whose leaders he had alienated. (No true fascist would have made the mistake he did there, which was to openly love foreign dictators; supporters convinced that the enemy was at home might not mind, but those sworn to protect from enemies abroad did.) Trump’s secret police force, the men carrying out snatch operations in Portland, (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/20/opinion/portland-protests-trump.html) was violent but also small and ludicrous. Social media proved to be a blunt weapon: Trump could announce his intentions on Twitter, and white supremacists could plan their invasion of the Capitol on Facebook or Gab. But the president, for all his lawsuits and entreaties and threats to public officials, could not engineer a situation that ended with the right people doing the wrong thing. Trump could make some voters believe that he had won the 2020 election, but he was unable to bring institutions along with his big lie. And he could bring his supporters to Washington and send them on a rampage in the Capitol, but none appeared to have any very clear idea of how this was to work or what their presence would accomplish. It is hard to think of a comparable insurrectionary moment, when a building of great significance was seized, that involved so much milling around.
The lie outlasts the liar. The idea that Germany lost the First World War in 1918 because of a Jewish “stab in the back” was 15 years old when Hitler came to power. How will Trump’s myth of victimhood function in American life 15 years from now? And to whose benefit?
On Jan. 7, Trump called for a peaceful transition of power, implicitly conceding that his putsch had failed. Even then, though, he repeated and even amplified his electoral fiction: It was now a sacred cause for which people had sacrificed. Trump’s imagined stab in the back will live on chiefly thanks to its endorsement by members of Congress. In November and December 2020, Republicans repeated it, giving it a life it would not otherwise have had. In retrospect, it now seems as though the last shaky compromise between the gamers and the breakers was the idea that Trump should have every chance to prove that wrong had been done to him. That position implicitly endorsed the big lie for Trump supporters who were inclined to believe it. It failed to restrain Trump, whose big lie only grew bigger.
The breakers and the gamers then saw a different world ahead, where the big lie was either a treasure to be had or a danger to be avoided. The breakers had no choice but to rush to be first to claim to believe in it. Because the breakers Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz must compete to claim the brimstone and bile, the gamers were forced to reveal their own hand, and the division within the Republican coalition became visible on Jan. 6. The invasion of the Capitol only reinforced this division. To be sure, a few senators withdrew their objections, but Cruz and Hawley moved forward anyway, along with six other senators. More than 100 representatives doubled down on the big lie. Some, like Matt Gaetz, even added their own flourishes, such as the claim that the mob was led not by Trump’s supporters but by his opponents.
Trump is, for now, the martyr in chief, the high priest of the big lie. He is the leader of the breakers, at least in the minds of his supporters. By now, the gamers do not want Trump around. Discredited in his last weeks, he is useless; shorn of the obligations of the presidency, he will become embarrassing again, much as he was in 2015. Unable to provide cover for their gamesmanship, he will be irrelevant to their daily purposes. But the breakers have an even stronger reason to see Trump disappear: It is impossible to inherit from someone who is still around. Seizing Trump’s big lie might appear to be a gesture of support. In fact it expresses a wish for his political death. Transforming the myth from one about Trump to one about the nation will be easier when he is out of the way.
As Cruz and Hawley may learn, to tell the big lie is to be owned by it. Just because you have sold your soul does not mean that you have driven a hard bargain. Hawley shies from no level of hypocrisy; the son of a banker, educated at Stanford University and Yale Law School, he denounces elites. Insofar as Cruz was thought to have a principle, it was that of states’ rights, which Trump’s calls to action brazenly violated. A joint statement Cruz issued about the senators’ challenge to the vote nicely captured the post-truth aspect of the whole: It never alleged that there was fraud, only that there were allegations of fraud. Allegations of allegations, allegations all the way down.
The big lie requires commitment. When Republican gamers do not exhibit enough of that, Republican breakers call them “RINOs”: Republicans in name only. This term once suggested a lack of ideological commitment. It now means an unwillingness to throw away an election. The gamers, in response, close ranks around the Constitution and speak of principles and traditions. The breakers must all know (with the possible exception of the Alabama senator Tommy Tuberville) that they are participating in a sham, but they will have an audience of tens of millions who do not.
If Trump remains present in American political life, he will surely repeat his big lie incessantly. Hawley and Cruz and the other breakers share responsibility for where this leads. Cruz and Hawley seem to be running for president. Yet what does it mean to be a candidate for office and denounce voting? If you claim that the other side has cheated, and your supporters believe you, they will expect you to cheat yourself. By defending Trump’s big lie on Jan. 6, they set a precedent: A Republican presidential candidate who loses an election should be appointed anyway by Congress. Republicans in the future, at least breaker candidates for president, will presumably have a Plan A, to win and win, and a Plan B, to lose and win. No fraud is necessary; only allegations that there are allegations of fraud. Truth is to be replaced by spectacle, facts by faith.
Trump’s coup attempt of 2020-21, like other failed coup attempts, is a warning for those who care about the rule of law and a lesson for those who do not. His pre-fascism revealed a possibility for American politics. For a coup to work in 2024, the breakers will require something that Trump never quite had: an angry minority, organized for nationwide violence, ready to add intimidation to an election. Four years of amplifying a big lie just might get them this. To claim that the other side stole an election is to promise to steal one yourself. It is also to claim that the other side deserves to be punished.
Informed observers inside and outside government agree that right-wing white supremacism is the greatest terrorist threat to the United States. Gun sales in 2020 hit an astonishing high. History shows that political violence follows when prominent leaders of major political parties openly embrace paranoia.
Our big lie is typically American, wrapped in our odd electoral system, depending upon our particular traditions of racism. Yet our big lie is also structurally fascist, with its extreme mendacity, its conspiratorial thinking, its reversal of perpetrators and victims and its implication that the world is divided into us and them. To keep it going for four years courts terrorism and assassination.
When that violence comes, the breakers will have to react. If they embrace it, they become the fascist faction. The Republican Party will be divided, at least for a time. One can of course imagine a dismal reunification: A breaker candidate loses a narrow presidential election in November 2024 and cries fraud, the Republicans win both houses of Congress and rioters in the street, educated by four years of the big lie, demand what they see as justice. Would the gamers stand on principle if those were the circumstances of Jan. 6, 2025?
To be sure, this moment is also a chance. It is possible that a divided Republican Party might better serve American democracy; that the gamers, separated from the breakers, might start to think of policy as a way to win elections. It is very likely that the Biden-Harris administration will have an easier first few months than expected; perhaps obstructionism will give way, at least among a few Republicans and for a short time, to a moment of self-questioning. Politicians who want Trumpism to end have a simple way forward: Tell the truth about the election.
America will not survive the big lie just because a liar is separated from power. It will need a thoughtful repluralization of media and a commitment to facts as a public good. The racism structured into every aspect of the coup attempt is a call to heed our own history. Serious attention to the past helps us to see risks but also suggests future possibility. We cannot be a democratic republic if we tell lies about race, big or small. Democracy is not about minimizing the vote nor ignoring it, neither a matter of gaming nor of breaking a system, but of accepting the equality of others, heeding their voices and counting their votes.
Spero ti sia utile ecco
When Donald Trump stood before his followers on Jan. 6 and urged them to march on the United States Capitol, he was doing what he had always done. He never took electoral democracy seriously nor accepted the legitimacy of its American version.
Even when he won, in 2016, he insisted that the election was fraudulent — that millions of false votes were cast for his opponent. In 2020, in the knowledge that he was trailing Joseph R. Biden in the polls, he spent months claiming that the presidential election would be rigged and signaling that he would not accept the results if they did not favor him. He wrongly claimed on Election Day that he had won and then steadily hardened his rhetoric: With time, his victory became a historic landslide and the various conspiracies that denied it ever more sophisticated and implausible.
People believed him, which is not at all surprising. It takes a tremendous amount of work to educate citizens to resist the powerful pull of believing what they already believe, or what others around them believe, or what would make sense of their own previous choices. Plato noted a particular risk for tyrants: that they would be surrounded in the end by yes-men and enablers. Aristotle worried that, in a democracy, a wealthy and talented demagogue could all too easily master the minds of the populace. Aware of these risks and others, the framers of the Constitution instituted a system of checks and balances. The point was not simply to ensure that no one branch of government dominated the others but also to anchor in institutions different points of view.
In this sense, the responsibility for Trump’s push to overturn an election must be shared by a very large number of Republican members of Congress. Rather than contradict Trump from the beginning, they allowed his electoral fiction to flourish. They had different reasons for doing so. One group of Republicans is concerned above all with gaming the system to maintain power, taking full advantage of constitutional obscurities, gerrymandering and dark money to win elections with a minority of motivated voters. They have no interest in the collapse of the peculiar form of representation that allows their minority party disproportionate control of government. The most important among them, Mitch McConnell, indulged Trump’s lie while making no comment on its consequences.
Yet other Republicans saw the situation differently: They might actually break the system and have power without democracy. The split between these two groups, the gamers and the breakers, became sharply visible on Dec. 30, when Senator Josh Hawley announced that he would support Trump’s challenge by questioning the validity of the electoral votes on Jan. 6. Ted Cruz then promised his own support, joined by about 10 other senators. More than a hundred Republican representatives took the same position. For many, this seemed like nothing more than a show: challenges to states’ electoral votes would force delays and floor votes but would not affect the outcome.
Yet for Congress to traduce its basic functions had a price. An elected institution that opposes elections is inviting its own overthrow. Members of Congress who sustained the president’s lie, despite the available and unambiguous evidence, betrayed their constitutional mission. Making his fictions the basis of congressional action gave them flesh. Now Trump could demand that senators and congressmen bow to his will. He could place personal responsibility upon Mike Pence, in charge of the formal proceedings, to pervert them. And on Jan. 6, he directed his followers to exert pressure on these elected representatives, which they proceeded to do: storming the Capitol building, searching for people to punish, ransacking the place.
Of course this did make a kind of sense: If the election really had been stolen, as senators and congressmen were themselves suggesting, then how could Congress be allowed to move forward? For some Republicans, the invasion of the Capitol must have been a shock, or even a lesson. For the breakers, however, it may have been a taste of the future. Afterward, eight senators and more than 100 representatives voted for the lie that had forced them to flee their chambers.
Post-truth is pre-fascism, and Trump has been our post-truth president. When we give up on truth, we concede power to those with the wealth and charisma to create spectacle in its place. Without agreement about some basic facts, citizens cannot form the civil society that would allow them to defend themselves. If we lose the institutions that produce facts that are pertinent to us, then we tend to wallow in attractive abstractions and fictions. Truth defends itself particularly poorly when there is not very much of it around, and the era of Trump — like the era of Vladimir Putin in Russia — is one of the decline of local news. Social media is no substitute: It supercharges the mental habits by which we seek emotional stimulation and comfort, which means losing the distinction between what feels true and what actually is true.
Post-truth wears away the rule of law and invites a regime of myth. These last four years, scholars have discussed the legitimacy and value of invoking fascism in reference to Trumpian propaganda. One comfortable position has been to label any such effort as a direct comparison and then to treat such comparisons as taboo. More productively, the philosopher Jason Stanley has treated fascism as a phenomenon, as a series of patterns that can be observed not only in interwar Europe but beyond it.
My own view is that greater knowledge of the past, fascist or otherwise, allows us to notice and conceptualize elements of the present that we might otherwise disregard and to think more broadly about future possibilities. It was clear to me in October that Trump’s behavior presaged a coup, and I said so in print; this is not because the present repeats the past, but because the past enlightens the present.
Like historical fascist leaders, Trump has presented himself as the single source of truth. His use of the term “fake news” echoed the Nazi smear Lügenpresse (“lying press”); like the Nazis, he referred to reporters as “enemies of the people.” Like Adolf Hitler, he came to power at a moment when the conventional press had taken a beating; the financial crisis of 2008 did to American newspapers what the Great Depression did to German ones. The Nazis thought that they could use radio to replace the old pluralism of the newspaper; Trump tried to do the same with Twitter.
Thanks to technological capacity and personal talent, Donald Trump lied at a pace perhaps unmatched by any other leader in history. For the most part these were small lies, and their main effect was cumulative. To believe in all of them was to accept the authority of a single man, because to believe in all of them was to disbelieve everything else. Once such personal authority was established, the president could treat everyone else as the liars; he even had the power to turn someone from a trusted adviser into a dishonest scoundrel with a single tweet. Yet so long as he was unable to enforce some truly big lie, some fantasy that created an alternative reality where people could live and die, his pre-fascism fell short of the thing itself.
Some of his lies were, admittedly, medium-size: that he was a successful businessman; that Russia did not support him in 2016; that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Such medium-size lies were the standard fare of aspiring authoritarians in the 21st century. In Poland the right-wing party built a martyrdom cult around assigning blame to political rivals for an airplane crash that killed the nation’s president. Hungary’s Viktor Orban blames a vanishingly small number of Muslim refugees for his country’s problems. But such claims were not quite big lies; they stretched but did not rend what Hannah Arendt called “the fabric of factuality.”
One historical big lie discussed by Arendt is Joseph Stalin’s explanation of starvation in Soviet Ukraine in 1932-33. The state had collectivized agriculture, then applied a series of punitive measures to Ukraine that ensured millions would die. Yet the official line was that the starving were provocateurs, agents of Western powers who hated socialism so much they were killing themselves. A still grander fiction, in Arendt’s account, is Hitlerian anti-Semitism: the claims that Jews ran the world, Jews were responsible for ideas that poisoned German minds, Jews stabbed Germany in the back during the First World War. Intriguingly, Arendt thought big lies work only in lonely minds; their coherence substitutes for experience and companionship.
In November 2020, reaching millions of lonely minds through social media, Trump told a lie that was dangerously ambitious: that he had won an election that in fact he had lost. This lie was big in every pertinent respect: not as big as “Jews run the world,” but big enough. The significance of the matter at hand was great: the right to rule the most powerful country in the world and the efficacy and trustworthiness of its succession procedures. The level of mendacity was profound. The claim was not only wrong, but it was also made in bad faith, amid unreliable sources. It challenged not just evidence but logic: Just how could (and why would) an election have been rigged against a Republican president but not against Republican senators and representatives? Trump had to speak, absurdly, of a “Rigged (for President) Election.”
The force of a big lie resides in its demand that many other things must be believed or disbelieved. To make sense of a world in which the 2020 presidential election was stolen requires distrust not only of reporters and of experts but also of local, state and federal government institutions, from poll workers to elected officials, Homeland Security and all the way to the Supreme Court. It brings with it, of necessity, a conspiracy theory: Imagine all the people who must have been in on such a plot and all the people who would have had to work on the cover-up.
Trump’s electoral fiction floats free of verifiable reality. It is defended not so much by facts as by claims that someone else has made some claims. The sensibility is that something must be wrong because I feel it to be wrong, and I know others feel the same way. When political leaders such as Ted Cruz or Jim Jordan spoke like this, what they meant was: You believe my lies, which compels me to repeat them. Social media provides an infinity of apparent evidence for any conviction, especially one seemingly held by a president.
On the surface, a conspiracy theory makes its victim look strong: It sees Trump as resisting the Democrats, the Republicans, the Deep State, the pedophiles, the Satanists. More profoundly, however, it inverts the position of the strong and the weak. Trump’s focus on alleged “irregularities” and “contested states” comes down to cities where Black people live and vote. At bottom, the fantasy of fraud is that of a crime committed by Black people against white people.
It’s not just that electoral fraud by African-Americans against Donald Trump never happened. It is that it is the very opposite of what happened, in 2020 and in every American election. As always, Black people waited longer than others to vote and were more likely to have their votes challenged. They were more likely to be suffering or dying from Covid-19, and less likely to be able to take time away from work. The historical protection of their right to vote has been removed by the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, and states have rushed to pass measures of a kind that historically reduce voting by the poor and communities of color.
The claim that Trump was denied a win by fraud is a big lie not just because it mauls logic, misdescribes the present and demands belief in a conspiracy. It is a big lie, fundamentally, because it reverses the moral field of American politics and the basic structure of American history.
When Senator Ted Cruz announced his intention to challenge the Electoral College vote, he invoked the Compromise of 1877, which resolved the presidential election of 1876. Commentators pointed out that this was no relevant precedent, since back then there really were serious voter irregularities and there really was a stalemate in Congress. For African-Americans, however, the seemingly gratuitous reference led somewhere else. The Compromise of 1877 — in which Rutherford B. Hayes would have the presidency, provided that he withdrew federal power from the South — was the very arrangement whereby African-Americans were driven from voting booths for the better part of a century. It was effectively the end of Reconstruction, the beginning of segregation, legal discrimination and Jim Crow. It is the original sin of American history in the post-slavery era, our closest brush with fascism so far.
If the reference seemed distant when Ted Cruz and 10 senatorial colleagues released their statement on Jan. 2, it was brought very close four days later, when Confederate flags were paraded through the Capitol.
Some things have changed since 1877, of course. Back then, it was the Republicans, or many of them, who supported racial equality; it was the Democrats, the party of the South, who wanted apartheid. It was the Democrats, back then, who called African-Americans’ votes fraudulent, and the Republicans who wanted them counted. This is now reversed. In the past half century, since the Civil Rights Act, Republicans have become a predominantly white party interested — as Trump openly declared — in keeping the number of voters, and particularly the number of Black voters, as low as possible. Yet the common thread remains. Watching white supremacists among the people storming the Capitol, it was easy to yield to the feeling that something pure had been violated. It might be better to see the episode as part of a long American argument about who deserves representation.
The Democrats, today, have become a coalition, one that does better than Republicans with female and nonwhite voters and collects votes from both labor unions and the college-educated. Yet it’s not quite right to contrast this coalition with a monolithic Republican Party. Right now, the Republican Party is a coalition of two types of people: those who would game the system (most of the politicians, some of the voters) and those who dream of breaking it (a few of the politicians, many of the voters). In January 2021, this was visible as the difference between those Republicans who defended the present system on the grounds that it favored them and those who tried to upend it.
In the four decades since the election of Ronald Reagan, Republicans have overcome the tension between the gamers and the breakers by governing in opposition to government, or by calling elections a revolution (the Tea Party), or by claiming to oppose elites. The breakers, in this arrangement, provide cover for the gamers, putting forth an ideology that distracts from the basic reality that government under Republicans is not made smaller but simply diverted to serve a handful of interests.
At first, Trump seemed like a threat to this balance. His lack of experience in politics and his open racism made him a very uncomfortable figure for the party; his habit of continually telling lies was initially found by prominent Republicans to be uncouth. Yet after he won the presidency, his particular skills as a breaker seemed to create a tremendous opportunity for the gamers. Led by the gamer in chief, McConnell, they secured hundreds of federal judges and tax cuts for the rich.
Trump was unlike other breakers in that he seemed to have no ideology. His objection to institutions was that they might constrain him personally. He intended to break the system to serve himself — and this is partly why he has failed. Trump is a charismatic politician and inspires devotion not only among voters but among a surprising number of lawmakers, but he has no vision that is greater than himself or what his admirers project upon him. In this respect his pre-fascism fell short of fascism: His vision never went further than a mirror. He arrived at a truly big lie not from any view of the world but from the reality that he might lose something.
Yet Trump never prepared a decisive blow. He lacked the support of the military, some of whose leaders he had alienated. (No true fascist would have made the mistake he did there, which was to openly love foreign dictators; supporters convinced that the enemy was at home might not mind, but those sworn to protect from enemies abroad did.) Trump’s secret police force, the men carrying out snatch operations in Portland, was violent but also small and ludicrous. Social media proved to be a blunt weapon: Trump could announce his intentions on Twitter, and white supremacists could plan their invasion of the Capitol on Facebook or Gab. But the president, for all his lawsuits and entreaties and threats to public officials, could not engineer a situation that ended with the right people doing the wrong thing. Trump could make some voters believe that he had won the 2020 election, but he was unable to bring institutions along with his big lie. And he could bring his supporters to Washington and send them on a rampage in the Capitol, but none appeared to have any very clear idea of how this was to work or what their presence would accomplish. It is hard to think of a comparable insurrectionary moment, when a building of great significance was seized, that involved so much milling around.
The lie outlasts the liar. The idea that Germany lost the First World War in 1918 because of a Jewish “stab in the back” was 15 years old when Hitler came to power. How will Trump’s myth of victimhood function in American life 15 years from now? And to whose benefit?
On Jan. 7, Trump called for a peaceful transition of power, implicitly conceding that his putsch had failed. Even then, though, he repeated and even amplified his electoral fiction: It was now a sacred cause for which people had sacrificed. Trump’s imagined stab in the back will live on chiefly thanks to its endorsement by members of Congress. In November and December 2020, Republicans repeated it, giving it a life it would not otherwise have had. In retrospect, it now seems as though the last shaky compromise between the gamers and the breakers was the idea that Trump should have every chance to prove that wrong had been done to him. That position implicitly endorsed the big lie for Trump supporters who were inclined to believe it. It failed to restrain Trump, whose big lie only grew bigger.
The breakers and the gamers then saw a different world ahead, where the big lie was either a treasure to be had or a danger to be avoided. The breakers had no choice but to rush to be first to claim to believe in it. Because the breakers Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz must compete to claim the brimstone and bile, the gamers were forced to reveal their own hand, and the division within the Republican coalition became visible on Jan. 6. The invasion of the Capitol only reinforced this division. To be sure, a few senators withdrew their objections, but Cruz and Hawley moved forward anyway, along with six other senators. More than 100 representatives doubled down on the big lie. Some, like Matt Gaetz, even added their own flourishes, such as the claim that the mob was led not by Trump’s supporters but by his opponents.
Trump is, for now, the martyr in chief, the high priest of the big lie. He is the leader of the breakers, at least in the minds of his supporters. By now, the gamers do not want Trump around. Discredited in his last weeks, he is useless; shorn of the obligations of the presidency, he will become embarrassing again, much as he was in 2015. Unable to provide cover for their gamesmanship, he will be irrelevant to their daily purposes. But the breakers have an even stronger reason to see Trump disappear: It is impossible to inherit from someone who is still around. Seizing Trump’s big lie might appear to be a gesture of support. In fact it expresses a wish for his political death. Transforming the myth from one about Trump to one about the nation will be easier when he is out of the way.
As Cruz and Hawley may learn, to tell the big lie is to be owned by it. Just because you have sold your soul does not mean that you have driven a hard bargain. Hawley shies from no level of hypocrisy; the son of a banker, educated at Stanford University and Yale Law School, he denounces elites. Insofar as Cruz was thought to have a principle, it was that of states’ rights, which Trump’s calls to action brazenly violated. A joint statement Cruz issued about the senators’ challenge to the vote nicely captured the post-truth aspect of the whole: It never alleged that there was fraud, only that there were allegations of fraud. Allegations of allegations, allegations all the way down.
The big lie requires commitment. When Republican gamers do not exhibit enough of that, Republican breakers call them “RINOs”: Republicans in name only. This term once suggested a lack of ideological commitment. It now means an unwillingness to throw away an election. The gamers, in response, close ranks around the Constitution and speak of principles and traditions. The breakers must all know (with the possible exception of the Alabama senator Tommy Tuberville) that they are participating in a sham, but they will have an audience of tens of millions who do not.
If Trump remains present in American political life, he will surely repeat his big lie incessantly. Hawley and Cruz and the other breakers share responsibility for where this leads. Cruz and Hawley seem to be running for president. Yet what does it mean to be a candidate for office and denounce voting? If you claim that the other side has cheated, and your supporters believe you, they will expect you to cheat yourself. By defending Trump’s big lie on Jan. 6, they set a precedent: A Republican presidential candidate who loses an election should be appointed anyway by Congress. Republicans in the future, at least breaker candidates for president, will presumably have a Plan A, to win and win, and a Plan B, to lose and win. No fraud is necessary; only allegations that there are allegations of fraud. Truth is to be replaced by spectacle, facts by faith.
Trump’s coup attempt of 2020-21, like other failed coup attempts, is a warning for those who care about the rule of law and a lesson for those who do not. His pre-fascism revealed a possibility for American politics. For a coup to work in 2024, the breakers will require something that Trump never quite had: an angry minority, organized for nationwide violence, ready to add intimidation to an election. Four years of amplifying a big lie just might get them this. To claim that the other side stole an election is to promise to steal one yourself. It is also to claim that the other side deserves to be punished.
Informed observers inside and outside government agree that right-wing white supremacism is the greatest terrorist threat to the United States. Gun sales in 2020 hit an astonishing high. History shows that political violence follows when prominent leaders of major political parties openly embrace paranoia.
Our big lie is typically American, wrapped in our odd electoral system, depending upon our particular traditions of racism. Yet our big lie is also structurally fascist, with its extreme mendacity, its conspiratorial thinking, its reversal of perpetrators and victims and its implication that the world is divided into us and them. To keep it going for four years courts terrorism and assassination.
When that violence comes, the breakers will have to react. If they embrace it, they become the fascist faction. The Republican Party will be divided, at least for a time. One can of course imagine a dismal reunification: A breaker candidate loses a narrow presidential election in November 2024 and cries fraud, the Republicans win both houses of Congress and rioters in the street, educated by four years of the big lie, demand what they see as justice. Would the gamers stand on principle if those were the circumstances of Jan. 6, 2025?
To be sure, this moment is also a chance. It is possible that a divided Republican Party might better serve American democracy; that the gamers, separated from the breakers, might start to think of policy as a way to win elections. It is very likely that the Biden-Harris administration will have an easier first few months than expected; perhaps obstructionism will give way, at least among a few Republicans and for a short time, to a moment of self-questioning. Politicians who want Trumpism to end have a simple way forward: Tell the truth about the election.
America will not survive the big lie just because a liar is separated from power. It will need a thoughtful repluralization of media and a commitment to facts as a public good. The racism structured into every aspect of the coup attempt is a call to heed our own history. Serious attention to the past helps us to see risks but also suggests future possibility. We cannot be a democratic republic if we tell lies about race, big or small. Democracy is not about minimizing the vote nor ignoring it, neither a matter of gaming nor of breaking a system, but of accepting the equality of others, heeding their voices and counting their votes.
GenghisKhan
13-01-21, 22:19
Descrizioni fatte da una lesbica femminista con i cappelli rosa con un qi di 70 americana, valgono zero
genshiscoso ci tengo veramente a capire il tuo disagio, come hai fatto a diventare così, quale trauma ti ha scosso
Eppure quando non parli di politica sei quasi simpatico
Spiegami che voglio capire il tuo caso clinico
È che mi diverto troppo a trollare i cerebrolesi :asd:
Comunque, se i democratici pensano che rimosso Trump i prossimi 4 anni saranno una passeggiata, si sbagliano.
Noi speriamo solo di poterci gustare i popcorn e che questo baraccone di imbarazzo non arrivi anche qui. :bua:
Comunque, se i democratici pensano che rimosso Trump i prossimi 4 anni saranno una passeggiata, si sbagliano.
Noi speriamo solo di poterci gustare i popcorn e che questo baraccone di imbarazzo non arrivi anche qui. :bua:
https://static.fanpage.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Matteo-Salvini-citofono-Bologna-spacciatori.jpg
Mental Ray
13-01-21, 23:30
Trump è stato silurato, secondo impeachment, approvato.
:uhm: a me non chiede di registrarmi
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/09/m...rump-coup.html
comq
"The American Abyss
A historian of fascism and political atrocity on Trump, the mob and what comes next.
When Donald Trump stood before his followers on Jan. 6 and urged them to march on the United States Capitol, he was doing what he had always done. He never took electoral democracy seriously nor accepted the legitimacy of its American version.
Even when he won, in 2016, he insisted that the election was fraudulent — that millions of false votes were cast for his opponent. In 2020, in the knowledge that he was trailing Joseph R. Biden in the polls, he spent months claiming that the presidential election would be rigged and signaling that he would not accept the results if they did not favor him. He wrongly claimed on Election Day that he had won and then steadily hardened his rhetoric: With time, his victory became a historic landslide and the various conspiracies that denied it ever more sophisticated and implausible.
People believed him, which is not at all surprising. It takes a tremendous amount of work to educate citizens to resist the powerful pull of believing what they already believe, or what others around them believe, or what would make sense of their own previous choices. Plato noted a particular risk for tyrants: that they would be surrounded in the end by yes-men and enablers. Aristotle worried that, in a democracy, a wealthy and talented demagogue could all too easily master the minds of the populace. Aware of these risks and others, the framers of the Constitution instituted a system of checks and balances. The point was not simply to ensure that no one branch of government dominated the others but also to anchor in institutions different points of view.
In this sense, the responsibility for Trump’s push to overturn an election must be shared by a very large number of Republican members of Congress. Rather than contradict Trump from the beginning, they allowed his electoral fiction to flourish. They had different reasons for doing so. One group of Republicans is concerned above all with gaming the system to maintain power, taking full advantage of constitutional obscurities, gerrymandering and dark money to win elections with a minority of motivated voters. They have no interest in the collapse of the peculiar form of representation that allows their minority party disproportionate control of government. The most important among them, Mitch McConnell, indulged Trump’s lie while making no comment on its consequences.
Yet other Republicans saw the situation differently: They might actually break the system and have power without democracy. The split between these two groups, the gamers and the breakers, became sharply visible on Dec. 30, when Senator Josh Hawley announced that he would support Trump’s challenge by questioning the validity of the electoral votes on Jan. 6. Ted Cruz then promised his own support, joined by about 10 other senators. More than a hundred Republican representatives took the same position. For many, this seemed like nothing more than a show: challenges to states’ electoral votes would force delays and floor votes but would not affect the outcome.
Pro-Trump extremists tried to scale the walls of the Capitol building in Washington to bypass barriers and get inside, 2:09 p.m.
Pro-Trump extremists tried to scale the walls of the Capitol building in Washington to bypass barriers and get inside, 2:09 p.m.Ashley Gilbertson/VII, for The New York Times
Yet for Congress to traduce its basic functions had a price. An elected institution that opposes elections is inviting its own overthrow. Members of Congress who sustained the president’s lie, despite the available and unambiguous evidence, betrayed their constitutional mission. Making his fictions the basis of congressional action gave them flesh. Now Trump could demand that senators and congressmen bow to his will. He could place personal responsibility upon Mike Pence, in charge of the formal proceedings, to pervert them. And on Jan. 6, he directed his followers to exert pressure on these elected representatives, which they proceeded to do: storming the Capitol building, searching for people to punish, ransacking the place.
Of course this did make a kind of sense: If the election really had been stolen, as senators and congressmen were themselves suggesting, then how could Congress be allowed to move forward? For some Republicans, the invasion of the Capitol must have been a shock, or even a lesson. For the breakers, however, it may have been a taste of the future. Afterward, eight senators and more than 100 representatives voted for the lie that had forced them to flee their chambers.
Rioters threatened and chased Officer Eugene Goodman inside the Capitol, 2:13 p.m.Ashley Gilbertson/VII, for The New York Times
Post-truth is pre-fascism, and Trump has been our post-truth president. When we give up on truth, we concede power to those with the wealth and charisma to create spectacle in its place. Without agreement about some basic facts, citizens cannot form the civil society that would allow them to defend themselves. If we lose the institutions that produce facts that are pertinent to us, then we tend to wallow in attractive abstractions and fictions. Truth defends itself particularly poorly when there is not very much of it around, and the era of Trump — like the era of Vladimir Putin in Russia — is one of the decline of local news. Social media is no substitute: It supercharges the mental habits by which we seek emotional stimulation and comfort, which means losing the distinction between what feels true and what actually is true.
Post-truth wears away the rule of law and invites a regime of myth. These last four years, scholars have discussed the legitimacy and value of invoking fascism in reference to Trumpian propaganda. One comfortable position has been to label any such effort as a direct comparison and then to treat such comparisons as taboo. More productively, the philosopher Jason Stanley has treated fascism as a phenomenon, as a series of patterns that can be observed not only in interwar Europe but beyond it.
My own view is that greater knowledge of the past, fascist or otherwise, allows us to notice and conceptualize elements of the present that we might otherwise disregard and to think more broadly about future possibilities. It was clear to me in October that Trump’s behavior presaged a coup, and I said so in print; this is not because the present repeats the past, but because the past enlightens the present.
An angry mob confronted the police as it tried to gain entry into the Capitol, 2 p.m.Ashley Gilbertson/VII, for The New York Times
Like historical fascist leaders, Trump has presented himself as the single source of truth. His use of the term “fake news” echoed the Nazi smear Lügenpresse (“lying press”); like the Nazis, he referred to reporters as “enemies of the people.” Like Adolf Hitler, he came to power at a moment when the conventional press had taken a beating; the financial crisis of 2008 did to American newspapers what the Great Depression did to German ones. The Nazis thought that they could use radio to replace the old pluralism of the newspaper; Trump tried to do the same with Twitter.
Thanks to technological capacity and personal talent, Donald Trump lied at a pace perhaps unmatched by any other leader in history. For the most part these were small lies, and their main effect was cumulative. To believe in all of them was to accept the authority of a single man, because to believe in all of them was to disbelieve everything else. Once such personal authority was established, the president could treat everyone else as the liars; he even had the power to turn someone from a trusted adviser into a dishonest scoundrel with a single tweet. Yet so long as he was unable to enforce some truly big lie, some fantasy that created an alternative reality where people could live and die, his pre-fascism fell short of the thing itself.
A bust of George Washington had a Trump hat placed on it, as intruders charged through the building, 2:34 p.m.Ashley Gilbertson for The New York Times
Some of his lies were, admittedly, medium-size: that he was a successful businessman; that Russia did not support him in 2016; that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. Such medium-size lies were the standard fare of aspiring authoritarians in the 21st century. In Poland the right-wing party built a martyrdom cult around assigning blame to political rivals for an airplane crash that killed the nation’s president. Hungary’s Viktor Orban blames a vanishingly small number of Muslim refugees for his country’s problems. But such claims were not quite big lies; they stretched but did not rend what Hannah Arendt called “the fabric of factuality.”
Debatable: The sharpest arguments on the most pressing issues of the week.
One historical big lie discussed by Arendt is Joseph Stalin’s explanation of starvation in Soviet Ukraine in 1932-33. The state had collectivized agriculture, then applied a series of punitive measures to Ukraine that ensured millions would die. Yet the official line was that the starving were provocateurs, agents of Western powers who hated socialism so much they were killing themselves. A still grander fiction, in Arendt’s account, is Hitlerian anti-Semitism: the claims that Jews ran the world, Jews were responsible for ideas that poisoned German minds, Jews stabbed Germany in the back during the First World War. Intriguingly, Arendt thought big lies work only in lonely minds; their coherence substitutes for experience and companionship.
In November 2020, reaching millions of lonely minds through social media, Trump told a lie that was dangerously ambitious: that he had won an election that in fact he had lost. This lie was big in every pertinent respect: not as big as “Jews run the world,” but big enough. The significance of the matter at hand was great: the right to rule the most powerful country in the world and the efficacy and trustworthiness of its succession procedures. The level of mendacity was profound. The claim was not only wrong, but it was also made in bad faith, amid unreliable sources. It challenged not just evidence but logic: Just how could (and why would) an election have been rigged against a Republican president but not against Republican senators and representatives? Trump had to speak, absurdly, of a “Rigged (for President) Election.”
Outside the Capitol, the crowd cheered as rioters stampeded into the building, 2:10 p.m.Ashley Gilbertson/VII, for The New York Times
The force of a big lie resides in its demand that many other things must be believed or disbelieved. To make sense of a world in which the 2020 presidential election was stolen requires distrust not only of reporters and of experts but also of local, state and federal government institutions, from poll workers to elected officials, Homeland Security and all the way to the Supreme Court. It brings with it, of necessity, a conspiracy theory: Imagine all the people who must have been in on such a plot and all the people who would have had to work on the cover-up.
Trump’s electoral fiction floats free of verifiable reality. It is defended not so much by facts as by claims that someone else has made some claims. The sensibility is that something must be wrong because I feel it to be wrong, and I know others feel the same way. When political leaders such as Ted Cruz or Jim Jordan spoke like this, what they meant was: You believe my lies, which compels me to repeat them. Social media provides an infinity of apparent evidence for any conviction, especially one seemingly held by a president.
On the surface, a conspiracy theory makes its victim look strong: It sees Trump as resisting the Democrats, the Republicans, the Deep State, the pedophiles, the Satanists. More profoundly, however, it inverts the position of the strong and the weak. Trump’s focus on alleged “irregularities” and “contested states” comes down to cities where Black people live and vote. At bottom, the fantasy of fraud is that of a crime committed by Black people against white people.
It’s not just that electoral fraud by African-Americans against Donald Trump never happened. It is that it is the very opposite of what happened, in 2020 and in every American election. As always, Black people waited longer than others to vote and were more likely to have their votes challenged. They were more likely to be suffering or dying from Covid-19, and less likely to be able to take time away from work. The historical protection of their right to vote has been removed by the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder, and states have rushed to pass measures of a kind that historically reduce voting by the poor and communities of color.
The claim that Trump was denied a win by fraud is a big lie not just because it mauls logic, misdescribes the present and demands belief in a conspiracy. It is a big lie, fundamentally, because it reverses the moral field of American politics and the basic structure of American history.
When Senator Ted Cruz announced his intention to challenge the Electoral College vote, he invoked the Compromise of 1877, which resolved the presidential election of 1876. Commentators pointed out that this was no relevant precedent, since back then there really were serious voter irregularities and there really was a stalemate in Congress. For African-Americans, however, the seemingly gratuitous reference led somewhere else. The Compromise of 1877 — in which Rutherford B. Hayes would have the presidency, provided that he withdrew federal power from the South — was the very arrangement whereby African-Americans were driven from voting booths for the better part of a century. It was effectively the end of Reconstruction, the beginning of segregation, legal discrimination and Jim Crow. It is the original sin of American history in the post-slavery era, our closest brush with fascism so far.
If the reference seemed distant when Ted Cruz and 10 senatorial colleagues released their statement on Jan. 2, it was brought very close four days later, when Confederate flags were paraded through the Capitol.
A videographer for The Daily Caller, a right-wing website, after being pepper-sprayed during the mayhem at the Capitol, 3:45 p.m.Ashley Gilbertson/VII, for The New York Times
Some things have changed since 1877, of course. Back then, it was the Republicans, or many of them, who supported racial equality; it was the Democrats, the party of the South, who wanted apartheid. It was the Democrats, back then, who called African-Americans’ votes fraudulent, and the Republicans who wanted them counted. This is now reversed. In the past half century, since the Civil Rights Act, Republicans have become a predominantly white party interested — as Trump openly declared — in keeping the number of voters, and particularly the number of Black voters, as low as possible. Yet the common thread remains. Watching white supremacists among the people storming the Capitol, it was easy to yield to the feeling that something pure had been violated. It might be better to see the episode as part of a long American argument about who deserves representation.
The Democrats, today, have become a coalition, one that does better than Republicans with female and nonwhite voters and collects votes from both labor unions and the college-educated. Yet it’s not quite right to contrast this coalition with a monolithic Republican Party. Right now, the Republican Party is a coalition of two types of people: those who would game the system (most of the politicians, some of the voters) and those who dream of breaking it (a few of the politicians, many of the voters). In January 2021, this was visible as the difference between those Republicans who defended the present system on the grounds that it favored them and those who tried to upend it.
In the four decades since the election of Ronald Reagan, Republicans have overcome the tension between the gamers and the breakers by governing in opposition to government, or by calling elections a revolution (the Tea Party), or by claiming to oppose elites. The breakers, in this arrangement, provide cover for the gamers, putting forth an ideology that distracts from the basic reality that government under Republicans is not made smaller but simply diverted to serve a handful of interests.
At first, Trump seemed like a threat to this balance. His lack of experience in politics and his open racism made him a very uncomfortable figure for the party; his habit of continually telling lies was initially found by prominent Republicans to be uncouth. Yet after he won the presidency, his particular skills as a breaker seemed to create a tremendous opportunity for the gamers. Led by the gamer in chief, McConnell, they secured hundreds of federal judges and tax cuts for the rich.
Trump was unlike other breakers in that he seemed to have no ideology. His objection to institutions was that they might constrain him personally. He intended to break the system to serve himself — and this is partly why he has failed. Trump is a charismatic politician and inspires devotion not only among voters but among a surprising number of lawmakers, but he has no vision that is greater than himself or what his admirers project upon him. In this respect his pre-fascism fell short of fascism: His vision never went further than a mirror. He arrived at a truly big lie not from any view of the world but from the reality that he might lose something.
Yet Trump never prepared a decisive blow. He lacked the support of the military, some of whose leaders he had alienated. (No true fascist would have made the mistake he did there, which was to openly love foreign dictators; supporters convinced that the enemy was at home might not mind, but those sworn to protect from enemies abroad did.) Trump’s secret police force, the men carrying out snatch operations in Portland, was violent but also small and ludicrous. Social media proved to be a blunt weapon: Trump could announce his intentions on Twitter, and white supremacists could plan their invasion of the Capitol on Facebook or Gab. But the president, for all his lawsuits and entreaties and threats to public officials, could not engineer a situation that ended with the right people doing the wrong thing. Trump could make some voters believe that he had won the 2020 election, but he was unable to bring institutions along with his big lie. And he could bring his supporters to Washington and send them on a rampage in the Capitol, but none appeared to have any very clear idea of how this was to work or what their presence would accomplish. It is hard to think of a comparable insurrectionary moment, when a building of great significance was seized, that involved so much milling around.
A woman who had been pepper-sprayed leaned on the eastern door to the Capitol’s rotunda, 3:47 p.m.Ashley Gilbertson/VII, for The New York Times
The lie outlasts the liar. The idea that Germany lost the First World War in 1918 because of a Jewish “stab in the back” was 15 years old when Hitler came to power. How will Trump’s myth of victimhood function in American life 15 years from now? And to whose benefit?
On Jan. 7, Trump called for a peaceful transition of power, implicitly conceding that his putsch had failed. Even then, though, he repeated and even amplified his electoral fiction: It was now a sacred cause for which people had sacrificed. Trump’s imagined stab in the back will live on chiefly thanks to its endorsement by members of Congress. In November and December 2020, Republicans repeated it, giving it a life it would not otherwise have had. In retrospect, it now seems as though the last shaky compromise between the gamers and the breakers was the idea that Trump should have every chance to prove that wrong had been done to him. That position implicitly endorsed the big lie for Trump supporters who were inclined to believe it. It failed to restrain Trump, whose big lie only grew bigger.
The breakers and the gamers then saw a different world ahead, where the big lie was either a treasure to be had or a danger to be avoided. The breakers had no choice but to rush to be first to claim to believe in it. Because the breakers Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz must compete to claim the brimstone and bile, the gamers were forced to reveal their own hand, and the division within the Republican coalition became visible on Jan. 6. The invasion of the Capitol only reinforced this division. To be sure, a few senators withdrew their objections, but Cruz and Hawley moved forward anyway, along with six other senators. More than 100 representatives doubled down on the big lie. Some, like Matt Gaetz, even added their own flourishes, such as the claim that the mob was led not by Trump’s supporters but by his opponents.
Trump is, for now, the martyr in chief, the high priest of the big lie. He is the leader of the breakers, at least in the minds of his supporters. By now, the gamers do not want Trump around. Discredited in his last weeks, he is useless; shorn of the obligations of the presidency, he will become embarrassing again, much as he was in 2015. Unable to provide cover for their gamesmanship, he will be irrelevant to their daily purposes. But the breakers have an even stronger reason to see Trump disappear: It is impossible to inherit from someone who is still around. Seizing Trump’s big lie might appear to be a gesture of support. In fact it expresses a wish for his political death. Transforming the myth from one about Trump to one about the nation will be easier when he is out of the way.
As Cruz and Hawley may learn, to tell the big lie is to be owned by it. Just because you have sold your soul does not mean that you have driven a hard bargain. Hawley shies from no level of hypocrisy; the son of a banker, educated at Stanford University and Yale Law School, he denounces elites. Insofar as Cruz was thought to have a principle, it was that of states’ rights, which Trump’s calls to action brazenly violated. A joint statement Cruz issued about the senators’ challenge to the vote nicely captured the post-truth aspect of the whole: It never alleged that there was fraud, only that there were allegations of fraud. Allegations of allegations, allegations all the way down.
A mixture of tear gas discharged by police and fire-extinguisher residue discharged by pro-Trump extremists hung in the air of the Rotunda as the crowd milled about, 2:38 p.m.Ashley Gilbertson/VII, for The New York Times
The big lie requires commitment. When Republican gamers do not exhibit enough of that, Republican breakers call them “RINOs”: Republicans in name only. This term once suggested a lack of ideological commitment. It now means an unwillingness to throw away an election. The gamers, in response, close ranks around the Constitution and speak of principles and traditions. The breakers must all know (with the possible exception of the Alabama senator Tommy Tuberville) that they are participating in a sham, but they will have an audience of tens of millions who do not.
If Trump remains present in American political life, he will surely repeat his big lie incessantly. Hawley and Cruz and the other breakers share responsibility for where this leads. Cruz and Hawley seem to be running for president. Yet what does it mean to be a candidate for office and denounce voting? If you claim that the other side has cheated, and your supporters believe you, they will expect you to cheat yourself. By defending Trump’s big lie on Jan. 6, they set a precedent: A Republican presidential candidate who loses an election should be appointed anyway by Congress. Republicans in the future, at least breaker candidates for president, will presumably have a Plan A, to win and win, and a Plan B, to lose and win. No fraud is necessary; only allegations that there are allegations of fraud. Truth is to be replaced by spectacle, facts by faith.
Trump’s coup attempt of 2020-21, like other failed coup attempts, is a warning for those who care about the rule of law and a lesson for those who do not. His pre-fascism revealed a possibility for American politics. For a coup to work in 2024, the breakers will require something that Trump never quite had: an angry minority, organized for nationwide violence, ready to add intimidation to an election. Four years of amplifying a big lie just might get them this. To claim that the other side stole an election is to promise to steal one yourself. It is also to claim that the other side deserves to be punished.
Informed observers inside and outside government agree that right-wing white supremacism is the greatest terrorist threat to the United States. Gun sales in 2020 hit an astonishing high. History shows that political violence follows when prominent leaders of major political parties openly embrace paranoia.
Our big lie is typically American, wrapped in our odd electoral system, depending upon our particular traditions of racism. Yet our big lie is also structurally fascist, with its extreme mendacity, its conspiratorial thinking, its reversal of perpetrators and victims and its implication that the world is divided into us and them. To keep it going for four years courts terrorism and assassination.
When that violence comes, the breakers will have to react. If they embrace it, they become the fascist faction. The Republican Party will be divided, at least for a time. One can of course imagine a dismal reunification: A breaker candidate loses a narrow presidential election in November 2024 and cries fraud, the Republicans win both houses of Congress and rioters in the street, educated by four years of the big lie, demand what they see as justice. Would the gamers stand on principle if those were the circumstances of Jan. 6, 2025?
To be sure, this moment is also a chance. It is possible that a divided Republican Party might better serve American democracy; that the gamers, separated from the breakers, might start to think of policy as a way to win elections. It is very likely that the Biden-Harris administration will have an easier first few months than expected; perhaps obstructionism will give way, at least among a few Republicans and for a short time, to a moment of self-questioning. Politicians who want Trumpism to end have a simple way forward: Tell the truth about the election.
America will not survive the big lie just because a liar is separated from power. It will need a thoughtful repluralization of media and a commitment to facts as a public good. The racism structured into every aspect of the coup attempt is a call to heed our own history. Serious attention to the past helps us to see risks but also suggests future possibility. We cannot be a democratic republic if we tell lies about race, big or small. Democracy is not about minimizing the vote nor ignoring it, neither a matter of gaming nor of breaking a system, but of accepting the equality of others, heeding their voices and counting their votes.
Timothy Snyder is the Levin professor of history at Yale University and the author of histories of political atrocity including “Bloodlands” and “Black Earth,” as well as the book “On Tyranny,” on America’s turn toward authoritarianism. His most recent book is “Our Malady,” a memoir of his own near-fatal illness reflecting on the relationship between health and freedom. Ashley Gilbertson is an Australian photojournalist with the VII Photo Agency living in New York. Gilbertson has covered migration and conflict internationally for over 20 years."
Rispondo ai punti salienti :
Trump ha detto più volte, in tweets che dicevano di protestare in DC, di essere pacifici, di non creare casini e di non fare rivolte. Per la cronaca, sono a favore di punizioni per quelli che sono entrati, ben vengano. Ricordo che UNA MAREA di congressman, senatori e membri del governo hanno invocato molestie e in certi casi violenza verso i supporters di Trump o Trump stesso, in maniera più o meno velata o, in molti casi, esplicita. La retorica accesa è stata molto presente in questi 4 anni.
Parla del sistema di checks and balances ma non menziona il fatto che Trump ha obbedito, in questi 4 anni, ad ogni SINGOLO ordine dei tribunali che ha ricevuto e non ha mai violato suddetto sistema. A meno che abbiano prove contrarie a parte il chiamare fascista e tiranno il presidente più insultato dai demo della Storia a parte Lincoln che non ha mai perseguitato nè giornalisti nè night show hosts nè nessuno.
Dice che è stato taboo pe questi 4 anni il chiamare Trump fascista quando TUTTI i media lo hanno fatto incessantemente.
Dice che Trump è stato il Presidente della "post-truth". Un professore al quale sarei curioso di chiedere se un uomo mutilato è una donna o se bianco significa malvagio o se la Russia ha hackato le elezioni del 2016 o se il comunismo è bello.
Parla di un coup riferendosi alla riot in DC quando per 2 anni hanno cercato di rimuoverlo tramite investigazioni.
Dopodichè paragona Trump che parla di fake news a Stalin che chiama provocatori quelli che parlavano di fame durante gli anni 30 o a Hitler che odiava gli ebrei (evidentemente qualcuno deve ricordare al professore che Trump ha un'intera località a suo nome in Israele.
Ovviamente poi deve da contratto dire che le accuse di brogli sono fondamentalmente la frase "i neri hanno commesso un crimine contro i bianchi". Che Biden abbia detto "se non votate per me non siete neri" gli deve essere volato sopra la testa.
Segue un altro paragrafo in cui dice che i repubblicani sono il partito dei bianchi ignorando che i democratici avevano ben più di un candidato nero all'inizio e sono stati tutti spazzati via dai loro stessi votanti in favore di Biden e Sanders, finalisti bianchissimi. Immagino a questo punto, dato che Biden ha preso più voti di Obama, che nel 2008 e 2012 i democratici abbiano votato Obama perchè c'era Biden :asd: (sono ironico)
Qualcuno deve ricordare al professore quanti bianchi c'erano nelle rivolte durante l'estate, che sono durate mesi e hanno fatto oltre 30 morti, non qualche ora.
Sono d'accordo con la sua tesi che i repubblicani siano spaccati tra quelli che vogliono restare nel "sistema" (immagino quello bipartitico) per convenienza personale (money) e quelli che invece detestano il cosiddetto "establishment".
Lo stesso problema c'è, però, anche nei democratici, che hanno dalla loro i "progressisti".
Ancora menziona Trump come razzista quando qualcuno gli dovrebbe ricordare che Obama ha deportato più illegali di Bush e di Trump (non combinati) e bombardato neri e marroni in Africa e Medio Oriente come non ci fosse un domani. Però parlava benissimo.
Menziona che Trump non è molto amato nelle alte sfere militari e non mi stupisce, primo Presidente da Carter a non cominciare una guerra e ha bombardato MOLTO meno di Obama, oltre a fondamentalmente terminare l'impegno in Siria, non ho alcun dubbio sia che questo ai militari non sia piaciuto sia che di questo non gliene freghi nulla alla gente che DICE di esser di sinistra.
Ancora dice che Trump ha fallito il coup quando mi deve spiegare in che maniera lui pensa che Trump volesse prendere il potere con la forza quando per gli ultimi due mesi altro non ha fatto che seguire il processo nelle corti e lamentarsi quando i casi venivano chiusi. Sì, proprio l'archetipo del Mussolini.
Dice che se un repubblicano perde nel 2024 ci saranno rivolte nelle strade e mi domando dove sia stato nell'ultimo anno, se non ha causato rivolte nelle strade Trump le causerà Cruz ?
Dice che per andare avanti servirà "repluralization of media (???) and a commitment to facts as a public good". Frullano in mente le parole di Biden che dice "we choose truth over facts", ma soprattutto dice che una repubblica democratica non può mentire sulla razza. Non capisco la cosa, dato che se dico che mi identifico come un nero lo divento automaticamente, non ha seguito l'evoluzione degli ultimi due anni ?
Non conta nulla, comunque, ognuno ha la sua realtà apparentemente. Alla fine dei conti ha ragione su una cosa, lui lo dice dei repubblicani ma io lo aggiungo anche dei democratici, il sistema fa troppi soldi perchè vinca la parte, o di sinistra o di destra, che lo vuole smantellare.
Saranno anni interessanti.
PS : aggiungo che è stato Chuck Schumer a dire ai suppporters democratici in Georgia prima delle ultime elezioni senatoriali "NOW WE TAKE GEORGIA THEN WE CHANGE THE WORLD". Immagina se una frase del genere l'avesse detta Trump.
No ma è chiaramente Trump il dittatore cattivo, perchè l'ha detto la TV.
- - - Aggiornato - - -
Trump è stato silurato, secondo impeachment, approvato.
La prima parte del tuo nick è corretta.
Il Congresso vota per approvare l'impeachment, il Senato richiede i 2/3 per rimuovere.
Anche il primo impeachment è stato approvato dal Congresso heh, è a semplice maggioranza e sia allora che ora i democratici ce l'hanno.
Il voto sarebbe tipo proprio l'ultimo giorno della sua Presidenza. Heh, se i repubblicani "establishment" hanno deciso di rimuoverlo definitivamente, ipoteticamente, potrebbe avvenire.
Sandro Storti
14-01-21, 00:12
https://static.fanpage.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Matteo-Salvini-citofono-Bologna-spacciatori.jpg
:perche:
:rotfl:
https://i.imgur.com/iEs73O9.mp4
Impeachment a Biden :rotfl:
Impeachment a Biden :rotfl:
Così abbiamo la prima presidente donna :vendetta:
è la stessa che parlando in diretta tv dal parlamento indossava la mascherina con la scritta "censurata"
https://i.imgur.com/a4k8Zoc.jpeg
GenghisKhan
14-01-21, 13:46
https://i.imgur.com/f9MLiZ9.jpg
Incredibile! :o
Polizia fascista coinvolta nel tentato colpo di stato :o
Chi avrebbe mai potuto sospettarlo :o
be', potrebbero essere infiltrati antifa :asd:
Trump Italia, [14.01.21 09:48]
[Inoltrato da Gianmarco Landi-CANALE-]
AGGIORNAMENTO DELLA NOTTE
Trump ha fatto un comunicato di grande forza, perché ha perorato law and order dimostrando di avere il controllo. Nessuna scusa è stata espressa, e sarebbe stata un’ammissione ingiusta di colpevolezza, perciò non date retta ai media mainstream.
Si profilano colpi di scena clamorosi ed eclatanti perché il Presidente ha firmato una sfilza di executive order atti a dispiegare l’Esercito ovunque, nonché a rendere oggettivo lo scontro con la Cina. Tutti possono capire che stanno succedendo cose forti. L’Italia ad esempio, porta d’Oriente dell’Occidente anche questa volta, è centrale in questo caos, infatti la crisi del governo aperta da Renzi per i fatti di Leonardo e la posizione filo Pompeo assunta improvvisamente da Di Maio, è la cartina al tornasole di un capitombolo globalista in arrivo. Se Renzi non prende delega Servizi segreti oppure diventa lui ministro di peso, non avrà difese personali. L’Obamagate è stato attuato qui, ci hanno detto i collaboratori di Trump come Papadopulos.
Ieri Trump ha fatto molte altre cose forti e, ad esempio, ha comunicato a Pelosi e Pence che nessun americano può più detenere posizioni e/o interessi con società cinesi ai sensi di un E.O. appositamente da lui firmato, e questa cosa presuppone in implicito la resa oggettiva dell’interferenza straniera nelle elezioni. La chiave per vincere po-li-ti-ca-men-te è questa, e Trump deve vincere politicamente non in tribunale. Lo stralcio dei documenti NSA sui brogli (mionpost precedente), un atto volto alla diffusione al grande pubblico essendo di sole 37 pagine, spiega il ruolo della dittatura comunista della Cina in questa supposta elezione di Biden. Sempre ieri sono stati firmati in serie gli executive order per dichiarare l’emergenza nazionale, cosa fatta non con un unico atto, ma stato per stato, con ciò sviscerando che la legge marziale è stata prevista di fatto da tempo (senza usare questa parola) e sarà attagliata nella concreta attuazione di volta in volta in ragione dei comportamenti assunti dallo stato considerato.
Il Texas ieri ha arrestato la responsabile elettorale dello staff di Biden in Texas, e ciò significa che lo stato con più tradizione militare sostiene fortemente Trump, come si era capito da tempo. Non è irrilevante ai fini di capire chi ha peso nell’Esercito. Il documento con la firma degli 8 generali capi di stato maggiore che sta circolando, è fuffa perché ognuno di loro non è nella catena di comando dei militari a Washington e la sortita non è ortodossa nè sensata. La transizione a Biden si deve bloccare con la Legge non con la forza, e su questi tutti sono concordi.
Non datevi pena alcuna per la votazione di impeachment della House, perché è altra fuffa politicante, e in realtà fa capire che i Dem sono disperati. Perché fare impeachment se Trump tra sei giorni scade?
Membri dell’intelligence vicinissimi a Trump fanno sapere stanotte, con i soliti nick anonimi ( tipo JoeM), che nel computer della Pelosi ci sono le prove che l’incursione e gli atti di violenza del 6 gennaio sarebbero stati orchestrati dai Dem. Ritengo ciò plausibile e infatti tutti possiamo ricordare le immagini dei poliziotti o di Rino (finti politici repubblicani) che fanno entrare supposti sostenitori di Trump nello stabile del Congresso, e del resto è morta quel giorno solo una veterana dell’Esercito effettivamente pro Trump. Tutte le altre vittime sono poliziotti morti in circostanze sospette dopo, anche di ‘malattia’, non di violenza, e appaiono evidentemente persone usate dai Dem per far inscenare violenza e attribuirla a Trump. Penso che siano stati eliminati perché bocche pericolose dopo che i cappelli bianchi avevano preso il computer della Pelosi, e Pence ha poi fatto un voltafaccia ai Dem, bloccando impeachment o attuazione XXV Emendamento.
Con chi sta Pence? Me lo chiedo ancora. 1/2
Trump Italia, [14.01.21 09:48]
[Inoltrato da Gianmarco Landi-CANALE-]
2/2
Sempre ieri è morto in una pozza di sangue il militante politico georgiano che si era seduto sulla scrivania di Pelosi il giorno della Befana, e tutti abbiamo capito come l’establishment politico repubblicano della Georgia abbia appoggiato le truffe e il colpo di stato elettorale Dem ai danni di Trump, quindi questa persona avrebbe potuto cantare come un usignolo sulle motivazioni per le quali era seduto alla scrivania della Speaker Dem della Camera.
Non la vedo bene, la vedo benissimo.
I nodi arriveranno al pettine e dobbiamo avere fiducia. È stato un piano per capovolgere il verso del Mondo con una capriola acrobatica, difficile da concepire, da realizzare e da far comprendere a tutti noi.
GenghisKhan
14-01-21, 15:03
Ieri Trump ha fatto molte altre cose forti
Me lo immagino tipo Verdone "Forteeeeh" :rotfl:
(per chi se lo chiede, no, il tipo della foto alla scrivania di Nancy Pelosi non è morto e non è nemmeno della Georgia)
(per chi se lo chiede, no, il tipo della foto alla scrivania di Nancy Pelosi non è morto e non è nemmeno della Georgia)
incredibile
megalomaniac
14-01-21, 15:21
Non la vedo bene, la vedo benissimo.
Il Generale David Berger respinge la richiesta di Nancy Pelosi di mandare ulteriori truppe a Washington:"rispondo solo al presidente e il comandante in capo è ancora Donald Trump." Sembra che il mondialismo abbia un grosso problema. Le forze armate sono dalla parte di Trump.
https://realrawnews.com/2021/01/marine-corps-rebukes-pelosi-we-dont-work-for-you/
L’Italia ad esempio, porta d’Oriente dell’Occidente anche questa volta, è centrale in questo caos, infatti la crisi del governo aperta da Renzi per i fatti di Leonardo e la posizione filo Pompeo assunta improvvisamente da Di Maio, è la cartina al tornasole di un capitombolo globalista in arrivo
E io che pensavo che fosse uno stronzone proprio come l'ultima volta
se non sbaglio qualche tempo fa trump aveva sostituito parecchi nomi nei vertici delle forze armate mettendo nomi di suo gradimento, no? ^^ a questo punto, se facessi come quelli di qanon, dovrei dire che lo ha fatto con uno scopo ben preciso :asd:
Ma per cui dar 20 gennaio I bambini Devon camminare col tappo al culo?
NoNickName
14-01-21, 16:33
Non c'è lo vedo Trump che ha il coraggio di ordinare all'esercito di fare un colpo di stato. Certo, mi piacerebbe sbagliarmi
megalomaniac
14-01-21, 16:35
Non c'è lo vedo Trump che ha il coraggio di ordinare all'esercito di fare un colpo di stato. Certo, mi piacerebbe sbagliarmi
:eek:
Vabbè NNN vota adinolfi e crede al complotto ordito da renzie:asd:
Kemper Boyd
14-01-21, 17:18
Parole dure
Oltre che sgrammaticate
Mental Ray
14-01-21, 17:21
Oltre che sgrammaticate
:asd:
Vabbè NNN vota adinolfi e crede al complotto ordito da renzie:asd:beh ma l'ha scritto che gli piace sbagliarsi
metal4dummies
14-01-21, 17:52
Parole dure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak8_T7MFIFs
megalomaniac
14-01-21, 18:03
https://comments.bot/thread/70fNODvaX
Sono tutti belli a modo loro, e non ho voglia di copiare o screenshottare
megalomaniac
14-01-21, 18:10
Inviterei tutti, anche qui in Italia, a boicottare le ditte/industrie/banche/media/social che stanno cercando di far terra bruciata attorno a Trump ed ai suoi. Se riescono in questo intento criminale, lo riproporranno anche in Italia e nel resto del mondo. È importante quindi far fallire da subito queste schifezze. Vi inviterri a chiudere eventuali conti presdo la Deutsche Bank e le carte di credito Visa. A non utilizzare google, Facebook, whattapp e you tube e ad affittare immobili con airbandb... Se qualcuno conosce altre società che stanno discriminando trump può scriverlo qui... Come l uccellino della favola, facciamo ogniuno la sua parte! Un caro saluto a tutti!
Vabbè NNN vota adinolfi e crede al complotto ordito da renzie:asd:
Avevo intuito un certo disagio, ma qui si vola >9000 :asd:
Sofa vigilantes (https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/1349739502433087489)
il piano di trump era un colpo di stato e lo ha preparato da tempo: 1) fatto di tutto per radicalizzare la sua base elettorale con false affermazioni di complotti ai suoi danni, ai danni dell'america patriottica e millantando brogli elettorali diffusi 2) ha sostituito molti alti gradi dell'esercito per averne l'appoggio nel momento finale del colpo di mano 3) dietro di lui ci sono lobby come la nra che rifiuta le politiche anti armamenti dei dem, in grado di danneggiarne gli affari 4) rifiuto di schierare la guardia nazionale per fare in modo che l'assalto al campidoglio fosse il segnale della rivolta dei maga in tutti gli stati col supporto dell'esercito.
ora immaginate che questa teoria sia di un ipotetico qanondem e che milioni di elettori democratici la dessero per vera convinti dalla continua propaganda. secondo il ragionamento di trump e soci dovrebbe essere vera perché... milioni di cittadini non possono sbagliarsi nel loro sentire comune :asd:
Quindi ci sono davvero tati che fanno referendum per secessione?
Nightgaunt
14-01-21, 19:38
Comunque è troppo bello come queste teorie prevedano sempre che questa gente tipo Trump/Renzi sia super-intellligente e 10 mosse davanti agli avversari :asd:
magari sono gli altri a essere dieci mosse indietro :asd3:
il piano di trump era un colpo di stato e lo ha preparato da tempo: 1) fatto di tutto per radicalizzare la sua base elettorale con false affermazioni di complotti ai suoi danni, ai danni dell'america patriottica e millantando brogli elettorali diffusi 2) ha sostituito molti alti gradi dell'esercito per averne l'appoggio nel momento finale del colpo di mano 3) dietro di lui ci sono lobby come la nra che rifiuta le politiche anti armamenti dei dem, in grado di danneggiarne gli affari 4) rifiuto di schierare la guardia nazionale per fare in modo che l'assalto al campidoglio fosse il segnale della rivolta dei maga in tutti gli stati col supporto dell'esercito.
ora immaginate che questa teoria sia di un ipotetico qanondem e che milioni di elettori democratici la dessero per vera convinti dalla continua propaganda. secondo il ragionamento di trump e soci dovrebbe essere vera perché... milioni di cittadini non possono sbagliarsi nel loro sentire comune :asd:
Non è compito del Governatore? :uhm:
��ULTIMA^ORA: Space Force continua a interferire e causare blackout in tutto il mondo. Global Broadcast Satellite è pronto per un monumentale indirizzo mondiale. Le persone del mondo saranno liberate da tutti i governanti oppressivi, compreso il cosiddetto presidente eletto.
��Trump ha bisogno di cullare i criminali in un falso senso di sicurezza per gli arresti di massa del 20 gennaio. Ci ha anche fatto l'occhiolino con "nessuna violazione della legge". Naturalmente, annuncerà la vera fine della "violazione della legge" da parte dei partecipanti, usando il GBS della Space Force per raccontare al mondo.
3
CR86
18:35
��L '"inaugurazione" di Biden sarà un evento di arresto di massa. Fonti dicono che Space Force taglierà il feed dall'inaugurazione e avvierà GBS, consentendo a Trump di annunciare i crimini contro l'umanità commessi dai partecipanti al mondo. Senza una storia di copertura, la palude sarebbe fuggita dopo il primo arresto.
Kemper Boyd
14-01-21, 20:14
Merda, odio quando la palude sfugge dopo il primo arresto :mad:
metal4dummies
14-01-21, 20:17
Non è compito del Governatore? :uhm:
Se non ricordo male nel District of Columbia è compito del Presidente
GenghisKhan
14-01-21, 20:37
https://i.imgur.com/u4HDOJ9.jpg
NoNickName
14-01-21, 20:48
Ciao, mi presento, sono Kemper e ho un cono gelato piantato sulla fronte
Te devi essere saltato fuori da un tombino con l'ultimo temporale
GenghisKhan
14-01-21, 21:01
https://i.imgur.com/JZiR5YX.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.