Inauguration 2021

[GwynnInTheHall]

Celebration ceremonies happening today online.

Opening with an African American vocalist, Deva Mahal and diverse gospel choir-Resistance Revival, followed by Christina Alonzo, then Deb Haaland, then a Native American tribal chant, now representatives of women's groups.

Maga heads everywhere are exploding.

[revo]

Celebration ceremonies happening today online.

Opening with an African American vocalist, Deva Mahal and diverse gospel choir-Resistance Revival, followed by Christina Alonzo, then Deb Haaland, then a Native American tribal chant, now representatives of women's groups.

Maga heads everywhere are exploding.

I follow some Twitter accounts that post MAGAt tweets, and you should see some of the stuff these idiots post. They're in total and complete denial, and think Dopey is either activating martial law with the military posted, or using the Emergency Broadcast System to shut down the internet, or using the inauguration as a mass arrest event, or having surgery to look like Biden, while arresting the real one, and getting sworn in a 2nd time. I'm not making this up. They've all gone insane.

[MagSeven]

I follow some Twitter accounts that post MAGAt tweets, and you should see some of the stuff these idiots post. They're in total and complete denial, and think Dopey is either activating martial law with the military posted, or using the Emergency Broadcast System to shut down the internet, or using the inauguration as a mass arrest event, or having surgery to look like Biden, while arresting the real one, and getting sworn in a 2nd time. I'm not making this up. They've all gone insane.

Yes I've seen those same comments. They think that Trump called out the NG for his benefit, and that they will cordon off the capitol while Biden, Harris, Pelosi, and God knows who else gets arrested and dragged in front of a tribunal there on the steps after Trump gets inaugurated. People are saying to take as much money as you can from ATMs since they won't be working once Trump invokes the Insurrection Act. It's quite scary.

[revo]

Yes I've seen those same comments. They think that Trump called out the NG for his benefit, and that they will cordon off the capitol while Biden, Harris, Pelosi, and God knows who else gets arrested and dragged in front of a tribunal there on the steps after Trump gets inaugurated. People are saying to take as much money as you can from ATMs since they won't be working once Trump invokes the Insurrection Act. It's quite scary.

As a financial advisor, I've run into many walks of life. I still recall one older woman in her 70s, this was probably 2013 or so, who told me she was only living off her savings because she never contributed to Social Security (I think she worked for the clergy, which is allowed to not contribute to SS) because she believed Social Security would not stay solvent. I was stunned. This woman, who obviously believed all the right wing diatribe she had heard over the years, actually took action against herself! It was then that I realized these lunatics believe what they hear from right wing commentators and would follow them (even if those same commentators would NEVER not contribute to SS!) even if that meant potentially crippling themselves if they were wrong.

And it's the same right now with Trump and his looney bin followers, who are willing to kneecap themselves, losing their jobs and years off their life by going to prison. to follow the BIG LIE.

I'm not sure what makes right wingers so gullible in this country, but I've seen it before, and it's sad. They have this tendency to believe nonsense, as long as it's being pitched by people they deem to be important. They cannot distinguish right and wrong.

[DMT]

Because they're 1) dumb, and 2) racist, and preserving White power, no matter the costs, is worth it to them. Of course, mental illness is widely prevalent as well, and times of high stress trigger instability.

[Sour Masher]

I'm not sure what makes right wingers so gullible in this country, but I've seen it before, and it's sad. They have this tendency to believe nonsense, as long as it's being pitched by people they deem to be important. They cannot distinguish right and wrong.

I obviously have an opposing worldview than people on the right on most things, but I don't think conservatives have a monopoly on poor use of logic and deduction based on credible sources. I do think on many issues, those on the left have an edge, because the sources we believe without much vetting (because few have the time to do the deep dive on everything) are science-based, which happens to be right more often (but not always). Why those on the right don't do that, I think, is largely because of their faith, in many cases. I think many on the right distrust government, because they fundamentally believe in values such as freedom, independence, and and self-sufficiency, and are eager to look for media sources that validate that worldview--ones that highlight the inefficiencies and corruptions of government. And they likewise distrust science-based sources, because they are often in conflict with their faith-based sources.

On the left, instead of values that center on independence, self-sufficiency and religion, more often you have values that center on large scale cooperation, and collectivism across boundaries (whereas on the right you see it more based on a shared religion or state or national borders). I think the underlying mechanics of our brains are the same, really, by and large, even if the values and sources trusted by the left are more often accurate than those on the right, again, mostly because the right's values often lead them to ignore science-based data when it conflicts with their underlying values and religious beliefs.

[revo]

Let me also add that there have been plenty of instances where a "left leaning" outlet has been wrong about something, such as that BuzzFeed report on Michael Cohen & Trump in 2019. But while it was wrong, they did acknowledge and correct their mistake, and there was no attempt to completely deceive their audience or the world in general, which is quite unlike outlets like OAN or American Thinker. Outlets like that publish(ed) utter nonsense that they didn't fact check, or in many cases, didn't even use basic journalistic tenets. They're just pushing an agenda to gain new right wing viewers.

In BuzzFeed's case, their sources just failed them despite them using proper journalistic integrity.

In many right-wing site's cases, they just publish lies and garbage.

That's a major difference that cannot be compared, no matter how hard a righty will try.

[Judge Jude]

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/...prussia-story/

"no attempt to completely deceive their audience or the world in general"

that seems awfully charitable, given the volume of mistakes - especially in the case of Buzzfeed, Salon, Slate, etc. #liesandgarbage

posting a story that literally gets 1 million retweets and numerous hours of in-the-bubble chatter on national networks - followed weeks later by a tepid, reluctant correction that gets 100 retweets (tops) and no air time on those same "news" programs - hardly qualifies as "journalistic integrity."

in fact, much of the bullshit posted in the last couple of years has arisen precisely because no matter what the left media does, it will be absolutely true that what the right media did was worse.

imagine looters invading an all-purpose department store, and they haul off TVs, laptops, stereo systems, and the contents of the fine jewelry department. others, meanwhile, walk in to the unprotected store and empty out FootLocker and the Hallmark store. why? because they know there will be apologists who say 'hey, whatabout the looters who stole the electronics? they're the REAL criminals...."

yes, they are criminals. but.....

as Greenwald notes in the second paragraph below (and in the link above):

"following are the top ten worst media failures in two-plus-years of Trump/Russia reporting. They are listed in reverse order, as measured by the magnitude of the embarrassment, the hysteria they generated on social media and cable news, the level of journalistic recklessness that produced them, and the amount of damage and danger they caused. This list was extremely difficult to compile in part because news outlets (particularly CNN and MSNBC) often delete from the internet the video segments of their most embarrassing moments. Even more challenging was the fact that the number of worthy nominees is so large that highly meritorious entrees had to be excluded, but are acknowledged at the end with (dis)honorable mention status.

"Note that all of these “errors” go only in one direction: namely, exaggerating the grave threat posed by Moscow and the Trump circle’s connection to it. It’s inevitable that media outlets will make mistakes on complex stories. If that’s being done in good faith, one would expect the errors would be roughly 50/50 in terms of the agenda served by the false stories. That is most definitely not the case here."

.............

[that list has exhaustive lists of corrections and of major, reputable sites conceding their own errors as well as exposing those of rivals. responding here without addressing that undeniable fact reduces such a response to circle-jerking, pompom-waving, etc.]

[Judge Jude]

and for those shocked at how many Rs believe the election results are illegitimate (at least 70 percent, which is shocking).

luckily, sophisticated Ds wouldn't react so ignorantly:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...te-poll-finds/

November 13, 2016 at 7:00 a.m. EST
A strong majority of Americans accept Donald Trump as the winner of the presidential election last week, but a significant minority of Hillary Clinton supporters say his victory was illegitimate, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey was conducted immediately after Election Day as anti-Trump protests sprang up across major cities, at the end of an acidic campaign in which Trump himself said he may not accept election results if Clinton prevailed.

A 58 percent majority of Clinton supporters say they accept Trump’s election, while 33 percent do not. Questions about Trump’s victory are passionate — 27 percent of Clinton supporters feel “strongly” he did not win legitimately.

There are sharp racial and gender differences in Clinton supporters’ acceptance of the results. Only 18 percent of whites who supported Clinton say Trump is not the legitimate winner, identical to the public overall, but fully 51 percent of black, Hispanic and other nonwhite Clinton supporters say Trump’s victory was illegitimate. Women who supported Clinton are twice as likely as men to question the legitimacy of Trump’s victory, 42 vs. 21 percent.

..................

well, well. a majority of nonwhite Clinton supporters declared Trump's victory "illegitimate" - and 42 pct of Hillary-voting women.

I didn't see a lot of teeth-gnashing back then. was that in the original playbook - what pct of your base has to believe an election was "illegitimate" before we get concerned? Personally, I'm very concerned about 73 pct - and even about 33 pct, especially when that number rises among major subgroups of a particular party.

I guess all those "honest mistakes" in 2016 fooled them.

[revo]

https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/...prussia-story/

"no attempt to completely deceive their audience or the world in general"

that seems awfully charitable, given the volume of mistakes - especially in the case of Buzzfeed, Salon, Slate, etc. #liesandgarbage

posting a story that literally gets 1 million retweets and numerous hours of in-the-bubble chatter on national networks - followed weeks later by a tepid, reluctant correction that gets 100 retweets (tops) and no air time on those same "news" programs - hardly qualifies as "journalistic integrity."

in fact, much of the bullshit posted in the last couple of years has arisen precisely because no matter what the left media does, it will be absolutely true that what the right media did was worse.

imagine looters invading an all-purpose department store, and they haul off TVs, laptops, stereo systems, and the contents of the fine jewelry department. others, meanwhile, walk in to the unprotected store and empty out FootLocker and the Hallmark store. why? because they know there will be apologists who say 'hey, whatabout the looters who stole the electronics? they're the REAL criminals...."

yes, they are criminals. but.....

as Greenwald notes in the second paragraph below (and in the link above):

"following are the top ten worst media failures in two-plus-years of Trump/Russia reporting. They are listed in reverse order, as measured by the magnitude of the embarrassment, the hysteria they generated on social media and cable news, the level of journalistic recklessness that produced them, and the amount of damage and danger they caused. This list was extremely difficult to compile in part because news outlets (particularly CNN and MSNBC) often delete from the internet the video segments of their most embarrassing moments. Even more challenging was the fact that the number of worthy nominees is so large that highly meritorious entrees had to be excluded, but are acknowledged at the end with (dis)honorable mention status.

"Note that all of these “errors” go only in one direction: namely, exaggerating the grave threat posed by Moscow and the Trump circle’s connection to it. It’s inevitable that media outlets will make mistakes on complex stories. If that’s being done in good faith, one would expect the errors would be roughly 50/50 in terms of the agenda served by the false stories. That is most definitely not the case here."

.............

[that list has exhaustive lists of corrections and of major, reputable sites conceding their own errors as well as exposing those of rivals. responding here without addressing that undeniable fact reduces such a response to circle-jerking, pompom-waving, etc.]

So you're saying Fortune, the WaPO, and others WILLINGLY and KNOWINGLY used deception and lies and STILL printed those articles? Because THAT's what I'm saying.

The article on Scaramucci led to 3 journalists forcibly resigning at CNN (two of whom were Pulitzer Prize winners or nominees). Did the "journalists" at American Thinker resign yet? Let me know when they do.

All of those articles listed in that story appear to have suffered a breakdown in reporting and/or editing -- and NOT a group of yokels just making shit up like they were at The Onion.

Those 10 stories were bad. But they had consequences for those reporters. Where are the consequences for all of the OAN, NewsMax and other goons?

[Judge Jude]

if your house burns down by accident and mine is due to arson - we're both screwed (and "by accident" is way too kind when the errors only go in one direction).

and too often it is the Buzzfeeds and Slates and such that lead the left agenda anyway. MSNBC and CNN don't hesitate to run with anything that their audience wants.

as Matt Taibbi recently put it: "Media firms work backward. They first ask, “How does our target demographic want to understand what’s just unfolded?” Then they pick both the words and the facts they want to emphasize.

"News companies now clean world events like whalers, using every part of the animal, funneling different facts to different consumers based upon calculations about what will bring back the biggest engagement kick."

THAT'S what I'm saying.

the idea that no far-leftist, nutty candidate could ever take over the Democratic Party the way that Trump took over the Republicans is ludicrous. and believing it can't happen makes it even more likely to happen down the road.

you can see from the 2016 poll that the seeds are already there.

if AOC goes off the deep end, and decides to announce that Pelosi and Schumer and friends have to go, the mob will follow. 'deep-end AOC' then ratchets up the anti-Semitism, which is catnip to a massive segment of the uneducated left. that produces the rallies, and later the violence.

in the middle stages, a "never-AOCer" faction of the D party could emerge - and get run over by a radical tsunami. and once 'deep-end AOC' begins to take over, there will be no shortage of craven Ds who, seeking to keep or expand their power, will make any excuse and rationalization necessary.

AOC may never go that far - but if not, someone else could fill the vacuum.

what we have in this thread are future 'never-AOCers' or 'never'Alternative' - just ask your friendly neighborhood 'never-Trumpers' if it's so impossible.

[DMT]

Sorry JJ, this is another typical specious argument from the right-center: the "far left" (which is center-left to the rest of the world) is just as bad as the far right so we have to keep them in check by continuing to equivocate that they're two sides of the same coin. Until it happens, keep your "wild speculations that I'll pretend are factual because I'm a centrist" arguments for BS bin. AOC drives people like you nuts because not only is she powerful as well, she's also much smarter than you.

[Kevin Seitzer]

AOC also has personal character and integrity, which is in short supply in the Republican Party national leadership right now, outside of Mitt Romney and maybe Ben Sasse. Rest in peace, John McCain, and be glad you did not live to see this day.

[Judge Jude]

Sorry JJ, this is another typical specious argument from the right-center: the "far left" (which is center-left to the rest of the world) is just as bad as the far right so we have to keep them in check by continuing to equivocate that they're two sides of the same coin. Until it happens, keep your "wild speculations that I'll pretend are factual because I'm a centrist" arguments for BS bin. AOC drives people like you nuts because not only is she powerful as well, she's also much smarter than you.

ME: "much of the bullshit posted in the last couple of years has arisen precisely because no matter what the left media does, it will be absolutely true that what the right media did was worse."

DMT: "Sorry JJ, this is another typical specious argument from the right-center: the "far left" (which is center-left to the rest of the world) is just as bad as the far right so we have to keep them in check by continuing to equivocate that they're two sides of the same coin."

this is the kind of double-speak that goes on here.

[GwynnInTheHall]

ME: "much of the bullshit posted in the last couple of years has arisen precisely because no matter what the left media does, it will be absolutely true that what the right media did was worse."

DMT: "Sorry JJ, this is another typical specious argument from the right-center: the "far left" (which is center-left to the rest of the world) is just as bad as the far right so we have to keep them in check by continuing to equivocate that they're two sides of the same coin."

this is the kind of double-speak that goes on here.

You are wrong.

The next four years will be a reckoning of your well wrongness.

Post anything you want.

Your fucked either way.

If you're still a trump supporter or back any gop that supported him

Go fuck yourself