Listen very closely to what Trump supporters are saying at this moment in time. They are screaming and telling us who they truly are.

[ataraxia]

Take notice people. America might have been successful kicking the despot, dictator, wannabe, to the curb, but his sheeple are still here, alive and well. Take notice. Remember their monikers. The are the examples of the "bottom of the barrel" segments in our society that will still have to live with. We can't vote them out. We can't impeach them. We can't send them to a deserted island or a foreign land. We can't shoot them or put them in a cage . We are cursed to have to live among their existance. I have no answer how to fix stupid. The best advice I can offer is to totally put them on extinction, ignore them at every turn. The best we can do is adapt and improvise. Like herpes, these people are forever. Dumbassery is woven in the D.N.A. of America and there is no vaccine.

 

[Antiwar]

...

like Newton stated, the apple does not, in fact, fall far from the tree.

...

You're mixing physics and psychology.

What is the context of the saying that is attributed to Newton?

 

[JasperL]

We are the majority in America, and we recognize the Marxist attempt to totally destroy Trump after they stole his election. They are now accusing him of encouraging violence, which he never did.

I guess Trump should take solace in the fact that the angry leftwing mobs of Jesus' day crucified Him, and He was perfect.

LOL, hilarious.

No, it's not a cult!!

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Sorry but I seen and heard trump indict himself. Don't sit here and lie as if no one can see that your are lying.

I do not doubt that you feel you have heard him indict himself, or that you imagine that he did. But what we feel and what we imagine are simply not sufficient. You are free of course to feel and think as you do, but what you think and feel should have, and does not have, any tangible bearing or relevancy.

Don't sit here and lie as if no one can see that your are lying.

That is a remarkable statement. If I am not mistaken I think you are insinuating that I am lying? and that anyone observing *knows* it is a lie? So you are saying that I know that Trump indicted himself but that I am protecting him?

No. I do not think it can fairly and reasonably be asserted that Trump gave instructions to those people to break into the Capitol. It can be hysterically asserted though and you might be able to get many other people to chime in to an hysterical assertion.

And so it goes today . . .

 

[Antiwar]

...

That oversimplified graphic and attitude aren't helpful.

People can search "Chris Hedges + despair." Beware, his presentation is pretty gloomy.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

So you rather support those who killed a cop, pissed and shit on the floor of the Capitol and ran around with hand ties looking for Pence so they could hang him high from the nearest tree than in any way acknowledge the good in the Party that did none of the above.

Got it.

Oh no, not at all. The forced entry into the Capitol was completely wrong. However, my understanding is that this was carried out by a relatively (or comparably) small group of 'protestors'. And that must be taken into consideration. It is not accurate, and certainly not fair -- unless one is involved in slanderous accusation for special purposes, to associate the great mass of people who went to the rally with the criminal acts of a very few.

A corresponding example might be that of the rioters and 'protesters' who burned buildings in numerous cities of the US. Those actions were in all cases carried out by just a few. You could not blame the majority who participated in and desired a genuine peaceful protest with the actions of those few.

It is a mis-statement to say those who broke in *killed* the officer. My understanding is that there was a physical encounter, and possibly battery on the officer by a 'protestor', but from what I have read he died from a stroke. Therefore, his death came about as a result of the skirmishes but that he was not killed by a person or persons. How we describe things is important, obviously. And there is a tremendous recklessness in the way things are described.

Once needs to stop and examine why that is.

 

[JasperL]

I don't doubt that a bit. I worry about them totally fixing the Congressional elections in two years, though. To keep themselves in power in perpetuity. That's what Communists do.

Communists!!!

Everyone Drink!!

 

[Alizia Tyler]

View attachment 67312626

Ataraxia! How nice to see you again!

Take notice people. America might have been successful kicking the despot, dictator, wannabe, to the curb, but his sheeple are still here, alive and well. Take notice. Remember their monikers. The are the examples of the "bottom of the barrel" segments in our society that will still have to live with. We can't vote them out. We can't impeach them. We can't send them to a deserted island or a foreign land. We can't shoot them or put them in a cage . We are cursed to have to live among their existance. I have no answer how to fix stupid. The best advice I can offer is to totally put them on extinction, ignore them at every turn. The best we can do is adapt and improvise. Like herpes, these people are forever. Dumbassery is woven in the D.N.A. of America and there is no vaccine.

One of the things I tried to point out in *that other thread* is that you-plural (we, responsible citizens, thinking people) are far more advised to try to study and to understand these people that Captain America so egregiously condemns. I suggest that you make a tremendous mistake when you malign them in the way that you did.

And at the same time you might be able to see that because you do see and think of *them* in this way (I am reminded of the studies about *us & them* you referred to), you should be able to understand that what you think, the profound contempt you have for them, is not lost on them. They hear it, they internalize it, and they return the contempt. It may come about that the present conditions of social and political conflict result in political separation. Such things have happened. In any case, you might be able to easily understand why *they* wish to disassociate themselves from you on many different levels.

The other part of my observation here is that those who define large portions of America's population in this way assume they are superior. The note of superiority is very evident. It seems to me tremendously arrogant. "We are better than you, and we know what is best for you". That is, after all, your basic attitude, isn't it? You are wise, enlightened, far-seeing?

They beg to differ!

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I do not doubt that you feel you have heard him indict himself, or that you imagine that he did. But what we feel and what we imagine are simply not sufficient. You are free of course to feel and think as you do, but what you think and feel should have, and does not have, any tangible bearing or relevancy.

That is a remarkable statement. If I am not mistaken I think you are insinuating that I am lying? and that anyone observing *knows* it is a lie? So you are saying that I know that Trump indicted himself but that I am protecting him?

No. I do not think it can fairly and reasonably be asserted that Trump gave instructions to those people to break into the Capitol. It can be hysterically asserted though and you might be able to get many other people to chime in to an hysterical assertion.

And so it goes today . . .

Entertaining but void of reality. You would have to be an idiot to not know what trump told his red hats.

 

[JasperL]

If a person contemplates assassination, kidnapping or any crime that exists, if it is done over the telephone or the cellphone or by mail, through a crack in the wall or though any means of communication, it is a illegal act and it is the act that can be investigated and prosecuted.

Accusations that have a shaky grounding have been made that Trump instigated the events at the Capitol. Those are simply insinuations or more properly described slanderous accusations. These slanderous accusations are common in our present. But they do not hold up to a fair-minded analysis.

The reason therefore that Trump has been banned are because people and institutions and government do not like his ideas and do not want him to be able to communicate his ideas. It is that simple really. And it is that obvious.

It's not that simple or that obvious. When he tells his followers that there is a vast conspiracy, involving the DOJ, FBI, VP, many states, governors, secretaries of state, the SCOTUS, courts in many states and more, and that these actors deliberately defrauded the entire nation by stealing the election from Trump, it's a call to revolution, insurrection, and it's all based on LIES.

Those coming told us that was the plan, they told us they planned to use violence, and instead of condemning that Trump egged them on. Even if you can say he didn't tell them to engage in violence, which is true, violent insurrection is in fact a RATIONAL response to those who believed MONTHS of Trump's lies and his deliberate effort over many months to undermine elections and the peaceful transfer of power.

All of those or any of those are sufficient to impeach the President, and if Twitter et al. want to remove him from their platforms, the CONSTITUTION provides them the right to do so. He's feeding the members of society who tell us they want violent responses to the fraud Trump insists happened. It's the equivalent of building a giant bonfire, putting the wood in place, the kindling, the paper, then pouring the gasoline all over it, and then being SHOCKED, SHOCKED I tell you that someone lit a match.

So the "ideas" that people and institutions (not government...) wanted censored are LIES that fed what we saw this week, and there is still an inauguration on January 20th, and from what I've seen the same forces are promising a return trip on that day, to again disrupt, perhaps violently, the transfer of power in this country. You cannot be surprised that some private entities censor that speech. We should all condemn it and it's within the RIGHTS of private businesses to not provide the oxygen for POTUS to spread what are simply lies.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

We are the majority in America, and we recognize the Marxist attempt to totally destroy Trump after they stole his election. They are now accusing him of encouraging violence, which he never did.

I think that what you are saying here needs to be better understood. It actually needs to be studied and deeply considered. Those that you express your views to, pretty obviously, simply do not want to even try and understand. So, they block their ears.

Ataraxia posted a rather telling meme (I guess it is called) indicating that there in an America and then there is a Dumbf**kistan (I have a personal rule against writing out bad swear words, please excuse the prudishness). Back when Donald Trump was running for president I remember so clearly that the NYTs referred to *these people* (those who supported trump) as uneducated rubes. And the implication here is that these *sophisticated types* with their extensive education and their teeming portfolios see and understand everything better than their inferiors.

But those *inferiors* notice that the world that they, their superiors, are creating is one rife with perversion and also seeming to be based on Neo-Marxist notions and strategies. At this point I believe these people about as far as I can thrown them!

One of the principle strategies of Saul Alinsky in Rules For Radicals is not to direct anger or resistance against an abstraction -- a corporation or a bureaucracy for example -- but to find an individual and turn that individual into the focus of hate and contempt. I would suggest that this is what they have done with President Donald Trump. But I also suggest that -- and here I refer to Ataraxia's meme -- they do not really hate Trump per se . . . but all those lowly types in Dumbf**kistan. And who are they? Who are those people these Superior Beings so detest?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Entertaining but void of reality. You would have to be an idiot to not know what trump told his red hats.

I can (with just a bit of effort!) respect your opinion.

Over the next months and years *we* are going to reorganize, and in that process of reorganization we are, I think it truthful to say, build a substantial base within an articulated opposition. It is fine however if you say *we* are void of reality or that I am an idiot (if you mean that in the Greek sense, then yes!) but what is important for you to understand is that we are in the midst of cultural wars. It has not been settled yet. It is on-going.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

It's not that simple or that obvious. When he tells his followers that there is a vast conspiracy, involving the DOJ, FBI, VP, many states, governors, secretaries of state, the SCOTUS, courts in many states and more, and that these actors deliberately defrauded the entire nation by stealing the election from Trump, it's a call to revolution, insurrection, and it's all based on LIES.

I understand the point you are making. My personal sense is that in time, in the months and years ahead, that we will learn a great deal more about the issue of fraud. Please note that I do not know what to believe or to decide myself. But I have my suspicions.

Still, I think the most salient feature here is how the tech and social media companies, in collusion with government, and also with intelligence agencies, have all worked very very hard against the President and also the presidency. This was not illegal though, not in the sense that open fraud is illegal. But it is not quite proper and it has become a problem for the Republic. That is, the issue of private power inserting itself into democratic processes.

Therefore, for me at least, the issue is not so much that there may have been, or that it was likely there was, election fraud, but rather to observe how a far larger Establishment or *System* as I call it is working *like the devil* to turn the tide to its favor. But in this I am (I admit) far more inclined to respect nationalistic intentions and popular intentions and to shun globalist and multi-national intentions. So really the issue here extends very far beyond the person of Donald Trump.

 

[beancounter]

This needs to be stopped now. No more kid gloves. No more rubber bullets. No more pepper spray.

As soon as these Trump supporters step an inch past protest the line, as soon as they harm a hair on a police officers or soldiers head..the government should release holey hell upon them. They need to taste lead. They need to feel the full power of a hellfire missile launched from a fleet of preditore drones.

This isn't breaking windows and looting stores. These people want to kill people and tople the government. No comparison.

No mercy. These insurectionist need to be permanently stopped.

 

[JasperL]

I think that what you are saying here needs to be better understood. It actually needs to be studied and deeply considered. Those that you express your views to, pretty obviously, simply do not want to even try and understand. So, they block their ears.

Ataraxia posted a rather telling meme (I guess it is called) indicating that there in an America and then there is a Dumbf**kistan (I have a personal rule against writing out bad swear words, please excuse the prudishness). Back when Donald Trump was running for president I remember so clearly that the NYTs referred to *these people* (those who supported trump) as uneducated rubes. And the implication here is that these *sophisticated types* with their extensive education and their teeming portfolios see and understand everything better than their inferiors.

Can you quote where the "NYT" referred to people in red states as "these people." You're quoting something, so who said that and in what context. The NYT publishes a lot of stories every day. Which article by which author made this claim you're generalizing to, I suppose, everyone not a MAGA?

FWIW, I don't consider myself 'sophisticated' but I think those who were opposed to Trump were proved right. He's a liar, con man, bully, and is at least a narcissist if not a sociopath. He cares about nothing but his own interests, and it's coincidence if those align with anyone else's, or he believes advancing those interests also help him. Certainly we're entitled to that opinion, just like you are using a very broad brush to condemn the left.

Where's your attempt to understand US? Why does this understanding only have to go one way? We're supposed to treat your views with respect and understanding, but why isn't it your obligation to understand why we so oppose Trump and why is it OK for you to assume our motivations are illegitimate, an attempt to impose on you some undefined "Marxist" ideology?

But those *inferiors* notice that the world that they, their superiors, are creating is one rife with perversion and also seeming to be based on Neo-Marxist notions and strategies. At this point I believe these people about as far as I can thrown them!

One of the principle strategies of Saul Alinsky in Rules For Radicals is not to direct anger or resistance against an abstraction -- a corporation or a bureaucracy for example -- but to find an individual and turn that individual into the focus of hate and contempt. I would suggest that this is what they have done with President Donald Trump. But I also suggest that -- and here I refer to Ataraxia's meme -- they do not really hate Trump per se . . . but all those lowly types in Dumbf**kistan. And who are they? Who are those people these Superior Beings so detest?

Please tell us all about the "neo-Marxist" notions and strategies, specifically.

Also, while you're at it, to what "perversions" are you referring, specifically?

FWIW, I detest Trump.

 

[OlNate]

Listen here. Listen in real life. Listen on Parler. Listen on Facebook.

Sorry...can't do Parler. Don't want to catch anything.

 

[Visbek]

Listen here. Listen in real life. Listen on Parler. Listen on Facebook.

While I am curious as to what they are saying....

1) I largely ignore Facebook.

2) I have no interest whatsoever in increasing Parler's user base.

3) I am sure there are lots of semi-private discussions about the evils of people who didn't vote for Trump, and some plots to attack DC on the 17th or 20th. That doesn't really tell us what all Republicans and/or conservatives and/or Trump voters believe or say.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

He's feeding the members of society who tell us they want violent responses to the fraud Trump insists happened.

I would suggest to you that there is a rising tide of composed of persons who begin to question the corruption within the American system of government. Because I follow these things as a researcher (unofficial and outside of academia) I am aware of what they think, feel and say. There is something profoundly American is believing that:

What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

I do not quote him because I seek either violence or rebellion. I am really an observer and as I say *a researcher*. But I am trying to draw your attention to a *mood* that is developing among people who really do feel and believe they have been substantially disenfranchised.

It is wiser for you (and all of us) to actually find out what they think and why.

 

[JasperL]

I understand the point you are making. My personal sense is that in time, in the months and years ahead, that we will learn a great deal more about the issue of fraud. Please note that I do not know what to believe or to decide myself. But I have my suspicions.

Still, I think the most salient feature here is how the tech and social media companies, in collusion with government, and also with intelligence agencies, have all worked very very hard against the President and also the presidency. This was not illegal though, not in the sense that open fraud is illegal. But it is not quite proper and it has become a problem for the Republic. That is, the issue of private power inserting itself into democratic processes.

Is it similarly improper for Fox News, Sean Hannity, Rush, Levin, et al. to "insert [themselves] into the democratic process?" Why or why not? They are openly partisan, so if it's improper for "social media" then why not for all those openly right wing partisans pushing their agenda, and who've been doing it for far longer than social media have been a thing?

And what have "government" and "intelligence agencies" done specifically that you oppose or object to with regard to Trump?

Therefore, for me at least, the issue is not so much that there may have been, or that it was likely there was, election fraud, but rather to observe how a far larger Establishment or *System* as I call it is working *like the devil* to turn the tide to its favor. But in this I am (I admit) far more inclined to respect nationalistic intentions and popular intentions and to shun globalist and multi-national intentions. So really the issue here extends very far beyond the person of Donald Trump.

You're entitled to an opinion like the rest of us. Why don't you try to understand our point of view?

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Can you quote where the "NYT" referred to people in red states as "these people."

The Times has a way of talking about a class of person, if that is what you mean. See the following.

Do you have an electronic membership? There was a whole bunch of articles in the Times in 2016 such as this one. There are dozens you should find yourself on the Times site.

Trump’s white working class supporters — who provide somewhere between 58 and 62 percent of his votes, according to data from NBC and ABC polls — have suffered a stunning loss of relative status over the past 40 years.

Their wages have stagnated or declined; the ascendance of minorities has threatened their cultural dominance; and the growth of an increasingly large and affluent upper middle class has pushed goods and services once viewed as theirs by right beyond their reach.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

Is it similarly improper for Fox News, Sean Hannity, Rush, Levin, et al. to "insert [themselves] into the democratic process?" Why or why not? They are openly partisan, so if it's improper for "social media" then why not for all those openly right wing partisans pushing their agenda, and who've been doing it for far longer than social media have been a thing?

I see your point, I think.

I would certainly question the immense power of huge news corporations and their owners and the effect that they can have, and do have, in cultural, political and national matters. I think it must be challenged.

I think that in a milieu of demagogic politics that a constructive social conversation is rendered very difficult. How we have gotten to this point is through a long causal chain . . .

I do not think that the 'lens' of either Right or Left is relevant when one considers popular politics and American populism. The origins of the American populist movement was socially-conservative but quite progressive (in the Leftish sense of the world: pro the working man, pro the family and the community, in support of a living wage and such).

I think we have to separate out the interests of specific groups. Popular groups, corporate (private capital) groups, and governmental groupings. It actually makes conversing things easier.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

And what have "government" and "intelligence agencies" done specifically that you oppose or object to with regard to Trump?

What do you suppose Mr Schumer meant when he said (warned?):

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,”

I make the assumption that as this deepening political crisis unfolds that our own intelligence agencies are involved in observing, gathering information, and also in working to influence the flow of events. But I do allow for a certain amount of *paranoid thinking* in this regard. I grew up in Venezuela and am very aware (though you might not be) of the intense involvement of US intelligence agencies in all of Latin America in the Postwar but especially in the Kennedy era.

This is what intelligence agencies do. They have to get involved in controlling democracy. Often 'to make things safe for business'. Isn't this common knowledge?

 

[JasperL]

I would suggest to you that there is a rising tide of composed of persons who begin to question the corruption within the American system of government. Because I follow these things as a researcher (unofficial and outside of academia) I am aware of what they think, feel and say. There is something profoundly American is believing that:

I do not quote him because I seek either violence or rebellion. I am really an observer and as I say *a researcher*. But I am trying to draw your attention to a *mood* that is developing among people who really do feel and believe they have been substantially disenfranchised.

Yes, that's what demagogues do - feed that narrative. I'm not sure when in history giving into those beliefs you think worked out well. It's how you get people like Hitler, and Chavez, and Castro. It's a kind of sick nationalism, and you're feeding it on these threads.

It is wiser for you (and all of us) to actually find out what they think and why.

It would be just as wise for you to actually find out what WE who oppose Trump think and why.

 

[JasperL]

What do you suppose Mr Shumer meant when he said (warned?):

I make the assumption that as this deepening political crisis unfolds that our own intelligence agencies are involved in observing, gathering information, and also in working to influence the flow of events.

So you have suspicions, of a DEEP STATE, opposing Trump, and all that is good.... It's not an answer, because I cannot challenge that belief and you cannot defend it other than to say you believe it to be true, because something. It's no better than warmed over Q nonsense.

 

[Alizia Tyler]

So you have suspicions, of a DEEP STATE, opposing Trump, and all that is good.... It's not an answer, because I cannot challenge that belief and you cannot defend it other than to say you believe it to be true, because something. It's no better than warmed over Q nonsense.

But I did not say *deep state*, I only said *intelligence agencies*. Though this fellow did use that term (and described something pretty real I think). Do you consider his view of things valid or invalid? Real or false?

If you did not think that he spoke of *real things* how would you go about challenging him?

I don't thing the comparison to *warmed over Q nonsense* is a good comparison!

If I have suppositions and suspicions about the role of the CIA in the hemisphere, and in the politics of my mother country (and the region generally), would you tell me there is no evidence for all of this? (There most certainly is evidence, tons of it, and it is now *common knowledge*).

But how would I go about proving to you -- for one example -- the interface between US Intelligence agencies and, for example, News Corporations? What evidence would you accept? The link to an article? A website?

(There is a great deal of information out there -- you can find it by searching in Google, as you surely know).