And to be clear, we should not confuse this being a common perspective with it being a defensible one.
1 Like
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1817377498445000809
It wasnt Omar. It was Talib. The other brown one
2 Likes
They probably all look the same to him.
2 Likes
Amazed he didnât think it was me.
2 Likes
Well, time will tell if I have my head in the sand, or other have their heads in the clouds. Bangladesh and USA, I would take a guess that its not even a remotely plausible comparison.
1 Like
People should not be taken seriously on their ideas of what a second trump term will be if they have demonstrated a repeated inability (refusal?) to get to grips with what heâs already done.
6 Likes
Please watch some news coverage of what has happened here in the last couple of weeks. I assure you, whatever you will see will be very sanitised. Still, ask yourself if you want those to happen in your country.
It took us 33 years to get here. Maybe USA will take 34.
5 Likes
A lot of the west has been stable for long enough where you have at least a couple generations in most places that never experienced an existential threat. Therefore some people think it could never happen âhereâ.
People need to look beyond the tiny scope of thier own lifespans to see how fragile and brief peace and a functional democracy has been in the grand scheme of things.
7 Likes
Iâve been away for the weekend and havenât had a chance to reply to this yet, but it is problematic.
Firstly, the nonchalant dismissal of the fears that Trumpâs speech raises. This is not an isolated incident. This is a man who incited an insurrection, who has repeatedly made baseless claims about the last election and who has not promised to respect the result of the next one. There is every reason to believe that he meant exactly what it sounded like.
If, as you suggest, it is about the fact that he wonât be running again, why say you wonât have to vote again? There should be future elections and future opportunities to vote no matter what âfixesâ he plans. I donât see how an intelligent guy, like yourself, could convince yourself that his words didnât mean that his victory would mean the end of elections.
Why was it necessary to say something like this at all? Has there ever been a candidate who even hinted at something like this? Why even go there?
7 Likes
It is also important to remember that last time their theory for winning was not to get the most votes, but to fuck around with the process and stay in power through the back door. They are working different avenues this time, but it is essentially the same play book and is a LOT more organized with true believers inserted into positions of power who have been vetted to play their part this time around. They have been into positions of power at the state level all over the country that through a lot of mechanisms can just refuse to allow a legitimate election count. For a variety of reasons, delays in finalizing the vote counts, even if only for patently bullshit reasons, improve their likelihood of them winning. If you think back to the Supreme Courtâs ruling on the Florida recount in 2000 where they said not that Bush won, but the timeline in the constitution didnât allow for demonstrating that Gore won and therefore the earlier call for Bush must standâŚthey are making plays to see that sort of legal ruling, upheld by a corrupt supreme court if need be, from cases all over the country. Understand that when they complain about cheating at elections, the main goal is to make their opponents deny it so often that they are then backed into corner when it is time for them to talk about the actual cheating Trump does next time.
It is a real lack of imagination, and lack of understanding of how authoritarian regimes work elsewhere, to think that Trump has to end elections for the warnings to come true. Elections by themselves donât mean democracy if the result is assured before a single vote is cast. America is absolutely fantastic about lying to itself about who it is and what freedoms we have, and so that is the most dangerous direction for us because a large contingent of the country will deny outright that anything is wrong despite him winning 2028 with 75% of the vote count. The same as they deny what we saw on Jan6th and any of the other wealth of truly disqualifying actions Trump has made since 2016.
8 Likes
Yeah, but Murica!
Not a lack of imagination, they genuinely believe they are just better.
For those with short memories. Thereâs every reason to believe that Trump and his supporters will stop at nothingâŚ
https://www.washingtonpost.com/photography/interactive/2021/january-6-photos/
1 Like
âWhat a farceâ: CNNâs Tapper buried for letting Tom Cotton spew âMAGA liesâ about Harris
On Sunday morning, CNN host Jake Tapper faced an avalanche of criticism after inviting Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) on to talk about the changing presidential race now that Vice President Kamala Harris appears to be the 2024 Democratic presidential candidate.
What ended up happening was Tapper sitting back and letting Cotton ramble with no fact-checking as Arkansas Republican went on extensive rants about Harris â all of them current MAGA talking points about the vice president who Republicans are trying to paint as more liberal than Se. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
Moments after the interview (which can be seen below) with Cotton, social media it up with criticism of the âState of the Unionâ noting he failed to do any âpushback.â
As one commenter on X said of the interview: âWhat a farce.â
According to commenter G Money, âTom Cotton is full of sât, lied and distorted the truth, yet Jake Tapper had absolutely no pushback. None. Jake used to have a backbone. Seems like he gave it up for a paycheck.â
'Watching Jake Tapper, not fact check Tom Cotton this morning is pretty disappointing," Kevin Lee wrote to which Lady Jane replied, ââNo push backâ seems to be the theme of most if not all television interviews lately. Iâm old enough to remember when the threat of being investigated by 60 Minutes was used to assure good behaviour. Whatever happened?â
XChief wrote, âWatching Jake Tapper interview Sen. Tom Cotton on CNN. Tapper is showing Cotton videos of the unbelievable thing Trump and Vance said, then letting him give preposterous answers, or evade all together, with ZERO pushback or follow up. WTF?â
MJ wrote, âWhat has Tom Cotton ever done in the Senate? Nothing besides being a lap dog for Maga. Why would CNN Jake Tapper think he needs to be interviewed? Giving these lying machines air time is asinine. Ridiculous!â
âTom Cotton is on CNN right now and Jake Tapper is just letting him lie and lie and lie and lie more without any pushback. Every interview should have some credibility,â Rick Jahnz observed.
Upstate NY Bob contributed, âMade the mistake again of hoping to see direct questioning on a Sunday morning political program. Once again Jake Tapper allowed a MAGA guest to avoid answering questions. Zero follow ups. I wonder if Tom Cotton has to claim his CNN appearance as a campaign donation.â
2 Likes
I agree with you, the difference in the arguments here is that posters here believe it IS going to happen within 4 years, IF Trump wins the election. Ludicrous imo, yet very few in this thread, if any, call them out on what I consider hysteria. Maybe Trump wonât win, and we will never find out, or he does win and there is a whole bunch of whataboutismâs when the end of democracy doesnât materialize.
The funny thing about this thread, is that I can see the left wing hysteria, and itâs exactly like the right wing hysteria. I expect this comment to set off triggers to a large degree as people donât like being compared with something they detest.
And Tapper is laughingly described as something of an attack dog in the American press. They are fucking pussies , every single one of them.
3 Likes
The waterâs not boiling, fellow frogs.
4 Likes
Yes, they are.
On a couple of occasions I have watched Emily Maitlis interview politicians over here, not as a main thing for the US audience, but sort of in passing in her role, I think for whoever she works for in the UK.
Anyway, she ate them for breakfast. She was informed, polite, professional, and gave them such a tough time, and it was clear they were not used to it.
I remember Paxman asking Howard, âDid you threaten to overrule them?â Twelve times in a row. Classic interview. We donât get anything like that here. The media is soft as, and lets them get away with saying what they like, unchallenged.
It adds to the problem of so many being so uninformed.
4 Likes
So, thereâs a candidate running for president who has previously incited an attempted insurrection, who has stated that he will be a dictator (like the politicians he admires), who has a history of lies and disloyalty and who is saying that this election will be the last time his supporters need to vote, but looking at this situation and seeing warning signs is âhysteriaâ?
Anything other than deep concern is complacency.
6 Likes