A way to wreck "democracy"

[detbuch]

[wdmso]

At you actually Q
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

At you actually Q
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Chuck Schumer is.

[Pete F.]

https://youtu.be/GAAeL0yFhNg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

https://youtu.be/GAAeL0yFhNg
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This incestuous kind of journalism not only allows misinformation and disinformation, it pats itself on the back for spreading it. The video would have credibility if instead of just leftist NPR and New Yorker types it also included some or one right leaning journalist or even one who supported the idea of a "deep state" or shadow government or double government or national security state, which are other labels that are used to describe the same sort of thing, or even a "conservative" constitutionalist who preferred the term "administrative state" which is also a version of the real, unelected and mostly unchecked government within our federal system and which is actually more responsible for the regulations that govern us than the politicians we elect.

Your video discussion of whether or not a "deep state" exists concludes that it doesn't. That is, and this is the tricky key, it doesn't exist as Trump uses it. Well, that's hanging fruit right there. A whole lot of valid ideas may not exist in the way Trump expresses them. So the discussion revolves not around whether something exists that could be labeled "the deep state," rather it's a semantical dismissal of it being, in their opinion, incorrect usage. And one of them says that the term reminds one of a thuggish country like Turkey, but not the United States. It's not definitive to claim that it reminds them of something. (Although, come to think of it, it's sort of what you do, make enough comparisons to somehow make something look close enough to your desired depiction of Trump.)

One of the speakers in your video says that it is important to call out falsehoods. Then he falsely claims that the term has not substantially been used in the U.S. until Trump. They try to tie the political use of a "deep state" to Trump which, of course, in the eyes of their pre-conditioned peanut gallery, will disqualify the term as lies and propaganda. But the use of the terms "deep state" and the other related labels I mentioned predate Trump's campaign for the presidency. And they have been used to describe the symbiosis between military, intelligence, and other government agencies as well as large corporate interests and in coordination with major media which depends on otherwise undisclosed and often classified information being strategically leaked to selected reporters which facilitates the spreading of information and disinformation which creates the narratives needed to cover for and promote the agendas of the so-called "deep state" and its fellow labels.


You can find many articles, books, and videos on the use of the term "deep state" to describe the above government and corporate cabal mentioned above.
Here's a video by Bill Moyers, no right wing Trump boot licker, on the "deep state."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/watch...hidi_b_4848282

[Pete F.]

I’m sure you’re up on all the right wing tropes.
The area substacker is filling you full of #^&#^&#^&#^&.
Just think how Glenn Greenwald feels when he sees his fans supporting Bolsonaro the same way they support every other fascist he goes out of his way to downplay or defend
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I’m sure you’re up on all the right wing tropes.
The area substacker is filling you full of #^&#^&#^&#^&.
Just think how Glenn Greenwald feels when he sees his fans supporting Bolsonaro the same way they support every other fascist he goes out of his way to downplay or defend
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wow, that's some really deep, well thought out . . . how can I put it . . . $hit.

As for others who might actually be interested in the thesis of this thread, please watch the videos I posted. Don't let the fact that Pete is unable to discuss or debate them influence you to remain ignorant of this critical and freedom destroying political problem of our time.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Wow, that's some really deep, well thought out . . .

he's extremely hostile...

[Pete F.]

https://youtu.be/7cR4fXcsu9w
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

pete, what are your thoughts on ending the filibuster, stacking the supreme court, and making large liberal cities states,,/
all in an effort to make sure democrats get their way?

Are those ideas that reflect a healthy respect for democracy? or are those fascist ideas?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

pete, what are your thoughts on ending the filibuster, stacking the supreme court, and making large liberal cities states,,/
all in an effort to make sure democrats get their way?

Are those ideas that reflect a healthy respect for democracy? or are those fascist ideas?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think the filibuster should end, the Founders clearly rejected having a supermajority requirement for legislation.

The Supreme Court was stacked by McConnell in a concerted multi year effort, I would much rather see a divided court than a clear majority for either wing. Hopefully the current justices will rise to their position.
Ideally I would see the SC justices have a limited term, I forget the math but it works I think with 15 or 18 years where each term the president would pick a number of justices.
I would rather see them start at 60 than 40, next thing you know they will be selected at birth like the Dalai Lama.

I think it is time for a few new states, Puerto Rico and DC would work just as well as North and South Dakota did.

When the USSR collapsed in 1991, I remember thinking how odd it was that one of the world’s 2 superpowers could collapse just like that. No one should think that that can’t happen here.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Chuck Schumer is.

Thats funny what’s Mitch to you . Jesus ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

If you look this up in Webster A way to wreck "democracy". You’ll find Trumps picture an most of Trump Republicans

The Arizona GOP State Legislature shifted legal authority from the secretary of state to a Republican attorney general, because Trump lost and the Sitting Sec a Dem would not carry Donald’s water

Republican state lawmakers look to empower partisan poll watchers, In Texas In Texas, a measure under consideration by the Republican-controlled legislature would grant partisan poll watchers the right to videotape voters as they receive assistance casting their ballots.

And in Florida, a sweeping election bill passed Thursday by Republicans in the state legislature specifies that partisan observers must be able see the ballots as canvassing boards work to authenticate voters' signatures on absentee ballots. There are no limits on how many ballots poll watchers can challenge. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has indicated he will sign the law.

in Georgia, the state's controversial new voting law makes it explicit that any Georgian can challenge the qualifications of an unlimited number of their fellow voters. The new law comes after a Texas group, True the Vote, teamed up with Georgia activists last year to question the qualifications of more than 360,000 voters ahead of two Senate runoff elections.


More examples of how the right is far from American 1st .. all under the neat message of voting integrity being pushed by the minority party who has no integrity
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I think the filibuster should end, the Founders clearly rejected having a supermajority requirement for legislation.

The Supreme Court was stacked by McConnell in a concerted multi year effort, I would much rather see a divided court than a clear majority for either wing. Hopefully the current justices will rise to their position.
Ideally I would see the SC justices have a limited term, I forget the math but it works I think with 15 or 18 years where each term the president would pick a number of justices.
I would rather see them start at 60 than 40, next thing you know they will be selected at birth like the Dalai Lama.

I think it is time for a few new states, Puerto Rico and DC would work just as well as North and South Dakota did.

When the USSR collapsed in 1991, I remember thinking how odd it was that one of the world’s 2 superpowers could collapse just like that. No one should think that that can’t happen here.

McConnell followed the Biden Rule to a t. he did precisely what Biden suggested should be done if a president tried making a late term appointment. but you didn’t care when biden suggested it, did you? hmmm?

how many times do you have to step on a rake and take it in the face like a Hanna Barbera cartoon character, before you learn to watch your step?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

McConnell followed the Biden Rule to a t. he did precisely what Biden suggested should be done if a president tried making a late term appointment. but you didn’t care when biden suggested it, did you? hmmm?

how many times do you have to step on a rake and take it in the face like a Hanna Barbera cartoon character, before you learn to watch your step?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Once again you prove that you only listen to rhetoric and ignore facts.

Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than McConnell's.

There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.

There was no nominee to consider.

The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.

Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992.

Many of Biden's words echo the state of Washington today:

"Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the (Clarence) Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process, and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best."

He noted that among the previous seven nominations, two were not confirmed and two passed with strong opposition.

"In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

At [Are] you actually Q

Originally Posted by detbuch

Chuck Schumer is.

Originally Posted by wdmso

Thats funny what’s Mitch to you . Jesus ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Chuck Schumer said Trump was stupid to challenge the CIA because it had six ways to Sunday to get back at you. That sounds very conspiratorial. Why would he say such a nasty thing about our patriotic, Constitution supporting, law abiding, American citizen protecting organization. It sounds like something a "deep state" conspiracist like Q would say.

[Pete F.]

Meanwhile there’s a Republican member of Congress asking if the Union should divide along political parties?
Nothing to worry about
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

https://youtu.be/7cR4fXcsu9w
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This video is hilarious, as a comedy show should be. But it is not a credible rebuttal of the existence of a "deep state," or shadow government, or double government, or administrative state. The videos I posted are not far fetched predictions like Maher's. They are actual instances that actually happened. We actually do have administrative government run by unelected bureaucrats. We actually do have security and intelligence agencies which have subverted our laws and various presidential commands. And the Trump presidency actually did have a concerted effort against it by various "deep state" agencies.

Bill Maher's ridiculous dark comedy fictional scenario is no beleivable match to Eisenhower's warning about the military industrial complex and his warning that "We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes." Eisenhower claimed that he had wanted to say the "military–industrial–congressional complex. Which is actually, as it exists today, more accurate. It would also be more accurate if, as it has grown to be, it included "media" as part of the complex.

We do have agencies outside of constitutional limitations which have been gaining unconstitutional power and have been acting in ways that "endanger our liberties [and] democratic processes." That is, acting in ways that wreck democracy.

[Pete F.]

You should be very afraid because coronavirus, January 6th, the entire BLM and Antifa looting and riots,” were all operations organized by the Deep State and funded by George Soros.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You should be very afraid because coronavirus, January 6th, the entire BLM and Antifa looting and riots,” were all operations organized by the Deep State and funded by George Soros.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Resorting to lame sarcasm does not prove a point nor engage in honest dialogue. The same dishonest nonsense could be used to ridicule your fear of Trump. I don't think that sort of fear justifies avoiding other dangers to the "democracy" that you think is so essential to the future of your children. Are you afraid of talking about what has been an obvious hiding in plain sight of the gradual degradation of liberty imposed on us by the growing power granted to, and stolen by, various central government agencies and by the oligarchical relationship they have with corporations and the media?

You're afraid of Trump. Are you afraid to discuss the dangers of the growing power of our intelligence and security agencies, or the already powerful but still expanding so of our massive regulatory state, or the symbiosis between those things and large corporations along with the capture of corporate media including the powerful internet platforms?

Or is that oligarchic, fascistic government, corporate, and media complex a good model for the democratic future of your children? It seems to me that you may very well think it is. You have expressed a liking for an uninhibited central government that regulates the well being of society. And, though you profess an insistence that the
various regulators (politicians, policing and intelligence personnel, corporate leaders, and legacy and social media press) all have whatever it is that you think is good, honest character, you don't mind if they resort to lies, endless phony investigations and character assassinations.

Do you really believe that such an amalgamation of control over the life of your children is really protecting their freedom? Or will restore their "middle class" which you think is so important--rather than being one of the major causes of its disappearance?

[Pete F.]

Actually that statement was from Josh Mandel Republican candidate for Senate from Ohio
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Actually that statement was from Josh Mandel Republican candidate for Senate from Ohio
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You obviously don't agree with it, so you are being sarcastic. Is your sarcasm supposed to be proof that there is no such thing as the "deep state"? You don't think Eisenhower was right to warn us of such a thing by another name?

You lament the destruction of our middle class, and you blame corporate greedy interests for that destruction. You somehow think that the governmental regulatory power that enables corporate domination, is in bed with it, is going to be the solution to restoring our freedoms and the middle class.

Josh Mandel's over the top statement, Donald Trump, the Tea Party, and even the various leftist protests and "occupy" efforts all resulted from the alienation of American citizens from the government that we expect to serve and protect us even from itself, but, instead dominates us and sells its service to the highest bidders.

We no longer have a constitutionally limited government. Nor a dominant free press to help keep it honest and in check. We have dependents on a self-serving oligarchy, and protesters against that and who are being squeezed out of the public forum of expression, even from the internet outlets that were an escape from the military industrial congressional media complex.

And you want to preserve this for your children.

[Pete F.]

Well honey, it ain’t gonna happen by magic and I haven’t seen any shining stars of virtue on the right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Well honey, it ain’t gonna happen by magic and I haven’t seen any shining stars of virtue on the right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What is happening isn't being done by magic either. And what shining stars of virtue on the left or so-called "center" are making what you refer to as "it" happen? Waiting for "shining stars" to make "it" happen is like waiting for magic. The American people have to make "it" happen. But if they don't know what "it" is they aren't going to fix "it."

And if "it" has conditioned the people's minds into ignorant compliance, then the people will defend and protect "it". To their own detriment. To their own capture by "it".