US Politics Thread

[Federberg]

I hear what you're saying about Charlie Kirk being "different," in the sense that he was a charismatic figure, doing something that needs doing, i.e., trying to inspire dialogue across differing, even wildly differing viewpoints. (Side note, I don't think we needed Kirk for Buttegeig to be inclined the same way, because he naturally is, but I won't die on that battlefield.) I also promise to explore some of his podcasts and discussions in full, to understand better what he was trying to do. It's important to understand that, even for those of us who are late to it.

Without knowing enough about him, I will take your lead that. You say that, while he'll be replaced, he will probably be inadequately replaced. Leaders with charisma and intelligence, and a unique vision are not easily replaced. Aside from the obvious personal tragedy for his family, this is why it's a tragedy for the country. To the extent that I understand his positions, we couldn't be more different. I find any number of his positions to be vile. It is undeniable that he was a Christian Nationalist, which I think is terrible for this country. He didn't believe in the separation of church and state. But, he pushed for open dialogue, in a climate that wasn't offering much of it.

Your argument is that this loss is of a person in favor of free speech, which you say is a greater blow to democracy than the assassinations of public officials, in terms of impact. I am NOT diminishing that you agree that both are wrong. I fully recognize that you acknowledge both, and say that both are impactful and dangerous. IMO, the danger to democracy, and the fabric of our society includes, very importantly, the assassinations, and the threats to our elected officials, our judges, and, I would mention threats to those who work election polls. These assassinations and death threats discourage good people from doing the less high-profile work of democracy. Maybe it DOES really all come down to free speech. If Americans are coming to only allowing the speech that they agree with, and are becoming willing to resort to violence against opinions that they disagree with, then it all stems from that. But losing good public servants out of fear of retribution is also a very, very bad thing.

I don't disagree with you on the consequences of assassinating public officials. I just believe that if you lose the battle for free speech we end up in a world where people can claim that someone is vile from 30 second clips. We end up in a world where people refuse to listen to a full session of debate to actually understand what someone is trying to argue. Instant demonification which in the minds of the crazies justifies killing said individual. Look at all the so called "rational and good" people who've celebrated Charlie Kirk's death without even understanding what he was about (there's a special place in hell for people like Marc Lamont Hill).

Look... I feel like I almost became part of that, because when I first heard of him - Kirk - and his campaigning for Trump I instantly put him in the demon category. I only decided to listen to a full video because I wanted to luxuriate in the loathing of him, to get confirmation of my dislike. I was confused after I listened... this dude wasn't saying racist things! He was saying exactly the same thing I had said about the harms of Civil Rights legislation and the impact on African Americans. It gave me pause. Of course I was already open to the idea that the mainstream media can be poisonously dishonest. I've told you in the past how impactful the Depp-Heard case was for me. There's nothing quite like watching and listening to something with your own eyes and ears, and then reading the interpretation from journals like the Post and the Times to really open your eyes to how deceptive news outlets have become. For me it was like having cold water thrown on me in public. You know I don't like Trump.. how do you think I felt when I finally understood he had a point about... "Fake News"? It was horrible @Moxie I'm still not sure I've fully recovered from that

 

[britbox]

This throws me headlong back in covid days, when we had to do a lot of research ourselves, gaslighting was the norm and the governments were not to be trusted - and nor were the big corporations pushing solutions that didn’t hold up to scrutiny.

My question would be, we are right to be sceptical, but what are the tools for discerning truth? I mean, I question all sides but still eventually I have I accept there’s truth somewhere in any given situation. If we’re sceptical of all experts and figures of authority - and we ought to be - how can we find the truth? Non-experts are not experts, for a reason.

It’s a genuine question, not one that’s in any way critical of the video. When he said don’t sign petitions, I thumbsed up. I agree with so much of what he said, but it left a lot of spaces for unnecessary ambiguity too?

The guy (Chase Hughes) gives you a procedural toolset to help discern psyops but really these should only really help validate intuition. What he's saying isn't that unique but helpful. There are ex-CIA agents saying the same thing... and British Paratroopers saying Governments are using techniques that they once used against so-called foreign adversaries on their own populations.

Who determines what an expert is?

We've seen every western government rack up trillions of debt, oversee a mass health crisis issues inc autism, diabetes, dementia, cancer, homelessness, drug epidemics, violence on a scale that is beyond belief and yet people still call these people "experts". A severe case of Stockholm syndrome methinks.

Any so-called expert should be measured on outcomes not length of tenure or past job titles.

 

[Federberg]

This happened during the protests in London this past weekend. I’m posting it here because it could have happened on the other side of the pond. How can one have a legitimate conversation with such people??

 

[Kieran]

The guy (Chase Hughes) gives you a procedural toolset to help discern psyops but really these should only really help validate intuition. What he's saying isn't that unique but helpful. There are ex-CIA agents saying the same thing... and British Paratroopers saying Governments are using techniques that they once used against so-called foreign adversaries on their own populations.

Who determines what an expert is?

We've seen every western government rack up trillions of debt, oversee a mass health crisis issues inc autism, diabetes, dementia, cancer, homelessness, drug epidemics, violence on a scale that is beyond belief and yet people still call these people "experts". A severe case of Stockholm syndrome methinks.

Good point!

What I took away from the video was that we should be vigilant and question everything. And not only in politics but our health systems, charities etc. The reason why I never sign petitions is because they don’t tell you who’s behind the petition. I don’t want to associate myself with certain ideologies or organisations, you know? And I think a healthy dose of scepticism and criticism is merely a benefit of being an adult. We don’t have to trust the same people our parents did, simply because they did..

 

[Kieran]

This happened during the protests in London this past weekend. I’m posting it here because it could have happened on the other side of the pond. How can one have a legitimate conversation with such people??

What a fucking troll. Pull the victim card to stop a line of questions she doesn’t like..

 

[britbox]

This happened during the protests in London this past weekend. I’m posting it here because it could have happened on the other side of the pond. How can one have a legitimate conversation with such people??

The short answer is you can't.

However, there are worse examples of people being violently attacked just for asking basic questions that a 3 year old should be able to answer.

 

[Moxie]

I don't disagree with you on the consequences of assassinating public officials. I just believe that if you lose the battle for free speech we end up in a world where people can claim that someone is vile from 30 second clips. We end up in a world where people refuse to listen to a full session of debate to actually understand what someone is trying to argue.

Haven't we been there for some time, on both sides, and not just in politics? This didn't start with Charlie Kirk.

Instant demonification which in the minds of the crazies justifies killing said individual. Look at all the so called "rational and good" people who've celebrated Charlie Kirk's death without even understanding what he was about (there's a special place in hell for people like Marc Lamont Hill).

You have to separate the "crazies" from the "rational and good" people. Yes, the demonization of people dehumanizes them, and makes it easier/more likely for the unbalanced, with easy access to guns, to shoot them. Or at least at them. There is a lot of this demonizing/dehumanizing of the enemy going on, on both sides. (Which Trump refuses to recognize, which is a failure on his part, as the leader of this country.) I don't know who Marc Lamont Hill is, or your beef with him. As far as "rational and good people" saying bad things about Charlie Kirk, that's free speech. It may not be tasteful, or unifying, but it's free speech, since we're talking about that.

Look... I feel like I almost became part of that, because when I first heard of him - Kirk - and his campaigning for Trump I instantly put him in the demon category. I only decided to listen to a full video because I wanted to luxuriate in the loathing of him, to get confirmation of my dislike. I was confused after I listened... this dude wasn't saying racist things! He was saying exactly the same thing I had said about the harms of Civil Rights legislation and the impact on African Americans. It gave me pause. Of course I was already open to the idea that the mainstream media can be poisonously dishonest. I've told you in the past how impactful the Depp-Heard case was for me. There's nothing quite like watching and listening to something with your own eyes and ears, and then reading the interpretation from journals like the Post and the Times to really open your eyes to how deceptive news outlets have become. For me it was like having cold water thrown on me in public. You know I don't like Trump.. how do you think I felt when I finally understood he had a point about... "Fake News"? It was horrible @Moxie I'm still not sure I've fully recovered from that

I know that the Depp/Heard thing affected you a lot. But I don't see how you get from there to "fake news." It was a news story. It did happen. And I know you understand the difference between the news bureau and the editorials. So, what about that was "fake news," to you, as reported in the Washington Post, or the New York Times? What does "fake news" mean to you? In the old days, it meant the News of the World, the National Enquirer or TMZ and made up stories about celebs based on random photos or tips. To Donald Trump, I think it means stories that reflect poorly on him. Or that he deems not newsworthy against him. Maybe the Russia "peeing and whores" stories was fake. Maybe some of the Hunter Biden's computer stuff was fake. In these times, everything can make the internet, and look like "news," if you get your news from TikTok and Youtube. At least the mainstream media looks at it with a gimlet eye and tries to fact check. So, seriously, what do you consider "fake news?"

 

[Moxie]

Obama on the origins of some of this change on the Republican side. Not sure if you can see it if you're not on Facebook.

 

[Kieran]

Obama on the origins of some of this change on the Republican side. Not sure if you can see it if you're not on Facebook.

You know that Donald Trump became president immediately after Obama, and that he won the popular vote immediately after Biden? When Obama said that “they’ve been feeding their base all kinds of crazy for years, primarily for political expedience”, I thought of all the “kinds of crazy” we’ve been arguing about here for years, that the democrats and the left have been encouraging, “primarily for political expedience…”

 

[Federberg]

So... Colbert cancelled, now Kimmel?? Is this free speech?? We rail against the intolerance of the left, let's keep the same energy for right wing populism. This isn't it! Not democracy!

 

[Federberg]

I know that the Depp/Heard thing affected you a lot. But I don't see how you get from there to "fake news." It was a news story. It did happen.

what did happen? Heard claimed Depp assaulted her, what we heard on the tapes was Heard chasing him from room to room, and Depp saying that he had to remove himself when she started hitting him. She claimed that his refusal to engage was traumatising her. The MSM pushed the narrative that Depp was the abuser even after the evidence came out. What are you talking about?? She took a dump on his bed ffs!

He lost millions with no work in Hollywood for years. I've heard of teenage boys committing suicide from false allegations, with no blowback on the false accusers. If the media just reported the facts with dispassion it would be clear that 'believe all women' should be dumped into the trash bin of history. But they don't. The promote a fake narrative that destroys lives, and enables the likes of Amber Heard to behave the way she did. They promote news that is false, sustain a narrative that isn't factual, and they do it wilfully. If that's not fake news what is fake news?

 

[Kieran]

So... Colbert cancelled, now Kimmel?? Is this free speech?? We rail against the intolerance of the left, let's keep the same energy for right wing populism. This isn't it! Not democracy!

It’s mob rule. This is kind of rampant now, and maybe in this case there’s some opportunism with TV companies, using this moment to move on some old stock, but it’s really out of control now, I think, and I can’t see things are going to get better..

 

[Federberg]

It’s mob rule. This is kind of rampant now, and maybe in this case there’s some opportunism with TV companies, using this moment to move on some old stock, but it’s really out of control now, I think, and I can’t see things are going to get better..

I rather suspect that if guys like Kimmel and Colbert are smart they'll take their business to platforms like Youtube and Twitch. They might end up bigger and making more money than cable tv would ever have given them. But yes agreed, there's no turning back now

 

[Moxie]

It’s mob rule. This is kind of rampant now, and maybe in this case there’s some opportunism with TV companies, using this moment to move on some old stock, but it’s really out of control now, I think, and I can’t see things are going to get better..

This is not "mob rule." Colbert was canceled by CBS/Paramount and Kimmel was suspended by ABC, corporations who did it out of fear of losing favor with Trump.

 

[Kieran]

This is not "mob rule." Colbert was canceled by CBS/Paramount and Kimmel was suspended by ABC, corporations who did it out of fear of losing favor with Trump.

What makes you think that? Losing favour with Trump? I imagine those corporations could use evidence of negative presidential pressure to their favour, with their constituency?

 

[Kieran]

I watched the Kimmel monologue, it wasn’t particularly savage on Trump, and wasn’t anything unexpected from a leftist, which isn’t a criticism, he was doing a popular show monologue to a friendly constituency. He spent about 15 well worth seconds saying the reactions are vile before throwing rotting flesh to the partisans.

His ratings, however, are grinding their wheels in wet cement, and his contract is up next May, so I think it’s neither mob rule (which I originally leapt at, thinking it another tale of social media tattlers ganging up on him - I don’t follow American TV talk shows) nor is it the predictable bogey of the left, Orange Man Bad…

 

[Moxie]

What makes you think that? Losing favour with Trump? I imagine those corporations could use evidence of negative presidential pressure to their favour, with their constituency?

I guess I thought you were getting the same stories about both incidents that we got here. It's a little complicated, but here is a story in the NY Post (a conservative paper, I think you know,) which explains it. Trump complained about Colbert's complaining about the lawsuit that CBS settled with Trump, and mentioned that they wanted the FCC to approve a separate big sale deal they had going. Brendan Carr, head of the FCC, clearly speaking for Trump, threatened them, so Colbert got fired. Likewise with Kimmel. Trump complained on social media about Kimmel's remarks re: Charlie Kirk, Carr came out threatening, and ABC, which has a similar big deal in the works, suspended Kimmel. It's not the "mob," it's the big corporations, reacting to threats from Trump, both on social media, and via Carr.

Here’s the real reason ABC has suspended ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!’

Jimmy Kimmel’s comments on the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk weren’t just noxiously offensive and seemingly misleading – their timing was also incredibly bad.

nypost.com

 

[Moxie]

I watched the Kimmel monologue, it wasn’t particularly savage on Trump, and wasn’t anything unexpected from a leftist, which isn’t a criticism, he was doing a popular show monologue to a friendly constituency. He spent about 15 well worth seconds saying the reactions are vile before throwing rotting flesh to the partisans.

His ratings, however, are grinding their wheels in wet cement, and his contract is up next May, so I think it’s neither mob rule (which I originally leapt at, thinking it another tale of social media tattlers ganging up on him - I don’t follow American TV talk shows) nor is it the predictable bogey of the left, Orange Man Bad…

I see we posted at the same time. You'll see what I posted above, and I hope that helps clarify. I also see you've moved on mob. You're sort of wrong about the ratings, though. They used that one with Colbert, too. Both Colbert and Kimmel are two of the highest profile stars on their respective networks. And the execs know that many people consume their content the next day, in clips or in whole, rather than stay up late. That's the world we live in now. The ratings excuse was a pretty transparent ruse.

I think we'd all agree here that satire is protected speech. If they'd been conservative satirists, absolutely no one here thinks they'd have been sacked.

 

[Kieran]

I see we posted at the same time. You'll see what I posted above, and I hope that helps clarify. I also see you've moved on mob. You're sort of wrong about the ratings, though. They used that one with Colbert, too. Both Colbert and Kimmel are two of the highest profile stars on their respective networks. And the execs know that many people consume their content the next day, in clips or in whole, rather than stay up late. That's the world we live in now. The ratings excuse was a pretty transparent ruse.

I think we'd all agree here that satire is protected speech. If they'd been conservative satirists, absolutely no one here thinks they'd have been sacked.

If they’d been conservatives, they’d have shown respect to Charlie Kirk and his family. But even if they’d been satirising a lefties death (and I wouldn’t classify what Kimmel said as “satire”) then most likely the satirists would have worked for Fox and it’s unlikely (though not impossible) they’d be sacked.

I think this is just the machinations of a big corporation doing the maths, and moving Kimmel on. They’d have the strength and power - and willingness - to publicise anything improper from Trump.

They may even still blame Trump, but only if they want to shift the blame and make themselves victims in getting rid of Kimmel. If they wanted Kimmel to stay, he’d be a cause celebre, and they’d keep him…

 

[Moxie]

what did happen? Heard claimed Depp assaulted her, what we heard on the tapes was Heard chasing him from room to room, and Depp saying that he had to remove himself when she started hitting him. She claimed that his refusal to engage was traumatising her. The MSM pushed the narrative that Depp was the abuser even after the evidence came out. What are you talking about?? She took a dump on his bed ffs!

He lost millions with no work in Hollywood for years. I've heard of teenage boys committing suicide from false allegations, with no blowback on the false accusers. If the media just reported the facts with dispassion it would be clear that 'believe all women' should be dumped into the trash bin of history. But they don't. The promote a fake narrative that destroys lives, and enables the likes of Amber Heard to behave the way she did. They promote news that is false, sustain a narrative that isn't factual, and they do it wilfully. If that's not fake news what is fake news?

I've told you before that I didn't follow that case. But, because I'm saddened that you seem to have taken to believing in the concept of "fake news," I did some reading this morning.

The original lawsuit was Depp filing against the parent company of The Sun for defamation, based on their headline calling him a "wife beater." The judge ruled that he was guilty of 12 of the 14 incidents of alleged abuse, and therefore found that Depp was not libeled. His appeal was rejected in UK courts.

The second case, Depp v Heard, he brought against her for an Op-Ed in the Washington Post, which she wrote. This may be what you're referring to. In which case, it is a op-ed, not a news article, and it was written by Heard, herself, not the editorial board, or even one of its editorialists. You can complain that they shouldn't have published it, but they did. In that case, he was awarded damages, and she was awarded damages in her countersuit.

I can't read every news article that was published in the Post and the Times, so can you show me some examples of where they misreported what happened in court? Meaning, "willfully" reporting "fake news?" What was the narrative that they were promoting that wasn't factual, based on the above that I wrote?

As to Depp's career slump, for sure some of it is because of the negative publicity of Depp v Heard, and the previous suit. Some of it is also that he's has made other trouble in his life, and including on set. He was sued by a crew member for physical and verbal abuse on set, though the script supervisor says it was not physical. OK, so he only verbally abused a crew member. I have to tell, that is NOT common, and not looked well upon in Hollywood, as it is not in any workplace. Also, he has a history of drug and alcohol abuse, which could have made him difficult to insure. Believe me, if they still thought he was bankable, he'd get work. Some of it has to be that he looked frankly terrible for a while, though reportedly he's 100 lbs. The scandal didn't do anything good for Heard's career, either, though surely she had a lesser one. But they have both worked since.