The globalists are authoritarians. The Democrat left here in this country are authoritarians. Both are obsessed with domination, power and control and are intolerant of any act of "democracy" that would defy them, much less openly reject them. In 2016, the pre-approved establishment candidates that year were known by pretty much everyone. It was Hillary and Jeb. The media and the establishment powers that be were supremely confident that the base would ultimately come around. With some propaganda here and well placed scandal there, the base would support who the establishment picked and who the base was told to support. In both parties at that stage, the elites imagined themselves as the players on the field and the coaches on the sidelines, while the voters were fans whose job was the cheer them on, although some boos here and there are expected along the way. First stop, the Republican primaries. By the time it was clear that Trump (1,441) was going to win the required delegates to win the nomination, the Republican party machine was frantically looking for some way to undermine the process and steal it from them, if they could. They at very points appeared to be considering a variety of low-down dirty tricks. But ultimately, they did not do it, as they . Let's remember, the #2 delegate holder was Ted Cruz (551), and in many ways, the Republican party establishment was even less enchanted with him than they were with Donald Trump. If they had tried to overrule the selection of both of those candidates for the #3 candidate, Marco Rubio (173), it would have destroyed the party once and for all. Between that and I think their desire to respect the democratic process, they let the process play out and Trump won. But people saw the intense resistance by the Republican establishment towards Trump, which continued after Trump took office. Second stop, the general election campaign. The corporate media and the Obama regime, including both the whitehouse and the federal agencies, especially the FBI, DOJ and CIA, went after Trump with everything they had. Unless you want to discredit yourself, do not bother trying to deny it. I am not going to argue with any of you people about any of this, because most of you appear to be incapable of telling the truth about this. Was that democratic? It was the aggressive opposite of democratic. There was nothing of the sort of restraint that we saw from the Republican establishment during the primary process. None. The leftist corporate media was as manipulatively assholish as they could possibly be. Smug, arrogant, condescending, disrespectful in the extreme. The polls and prognostications concocted by these people tripped all over themselves to show this contest as "over". It was a mortal lock according to these people. The sun was more likely to explode before the election than Donald Trump was to win the election. It was all made up. Propaganda. Fake news. Meanwhile, the Hillary Clinton campaign, with assistance from Barack Obama, his staff and the leaders of the FBI, DOJ and CIA were working together with Russian intelligence agents to orchestrate a campaign to undermine the other party's campaign. It was the most egregious and despicable abuse of federal government power in US history, without a close #2, and it was also an aggressive assault on our democracy. They tried to rig the election. There were pretty clearly a significant amount of more retail level election and voter fraud in the 2016 election by the Democrats as well, but they did not cheat hard enough. They would not make that mistake and again in 2020, when they pulled out all the stops and stole the election. Again, we have discussed all of this elsewhere, so I am not going to argue with you about any of this here, as from my point of view, the arguments you guys put forward are not at all credible or convincing. Of course also in 2020, your side truly jumped the shark when leftist leaders at Google, Twitter, Facebook, and all the corporate media went all in with a coordinated effort to "cancel" information and stories which were not supportive of certain "narratives" under the explanation that if they did not agree, it is "disinformation". This is full on George Orwell class stuff, and no amount of bleating about that by you guys is going to change that. It had a massive effect on the election. It was clearly undemocratic. And people like you as far as I can recall cheered it on and supported it, because what passes for principles with you people is "the end justifies the means thinking. I could certainly go on, but I think that gives us enough. You can try to parse the details in all of that if you like, but clearly you people are not supportive of democracy at all, as your conduct over the last six+ years have clearly demonstrated. You also do not support freedom either, which is another one of your favorite virtue signaling terms that you cavalierly cast around. If after all that you people have done and are currently doing, you do truly imagine that you really are supportive of either one of these concepts, then I do not know what to say to you other than, get help.
Thanks for replying. I won't argue with you about it h cause I was just wondering about your perspective. But one angle I was very interested in that you didn't address is how you feel about the authoritarian governments of Putin and Xi.
The Xi government is almost as scary as our own. It is a model of tyrannical totalitarianism, of a sort that humanity would do well to permanently rid itself of. Their culture is basically based on concepts from Marxist socialism while their economy is fascist socialism, of a sort that Hitler would have probably admired a good bit. The North Atlantic globalist elites are going with this combination also, although interpreted and implemented a bit differently. Both of these groups ultimately have aspirations of world domination and both see themselves in charge and not in partnership with the other. Putin is harder. He really was dealt a tough hand coming off of the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. He had a population that had no historical framework for democratic institutions, their demographics and economics were in a scary state of freefall. The US, NATO and the west had decided, wrongly, that the end of history had arrived and from here on out they would oversee a "rules based international order," with them making the rules (but in no way being obliged to follow them), and every other country would be expected to conform to whatever those rules were proclaimed to be, especially Russia. There actually are no such rules that either Russia or any other nation has agreed to follow. The North Atlantic globalist elites are confused about this, apparently because their breathtaking arrogance knows no bounds. In their imagination, all the other nations of the earth, especially Russia, will just have to graciously accept that and realize that their betters have spoken. The other countries have not agreed and that can certainly be seen in the nations supporting NATOs "global" coalition to isolate Russia, which is made up only of the North Atlantic countries, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. All the other countries of the world have refused to submit to the "rules" requiring the isolation of Russia. What this demonstrates is that the vast majority of other countries on earth do not recognize or respect this imaginary "rules based international order". The North Atlantic globalist elites appear to be somewhat surprised, very frustrated that this is not working and quite angry that these other countries are not showing them the deference and respect they imagine is their due as the self announced masters of humanity. Putin has done the best he can given his personal history and characteristics, his nation's history and circumstances, and the challenges presented by a rapidly changing world. To be fair, he can be quite brutal and unprincipled. For that matter, so can we. Russia is now a regional power and not a superpower, but they should not be triffled with or taken for granted, as hopefully the North Atlantic globalist elites are starting to learn. I believe Putin is trying to finish a historical and strategic transition for his country which he started back to the year 2000 when he first took office. This is what I think is important to him. He is not working according to the popular corporate media talking points, and he certainly is not impressed with our rediculously deceitful domestic propaganda narratives on this subject. I think a better way to look at his thinking, at least in terms of geopolitics, is to think of him as some sort of old-school king of his country, with all the flaws and potential benefits that model of leadership has. His actions start to make better sense if you think about him like that. But suffice it to say, he will go full nukes before he submits his country to the wildly misguided megalomaniacal aspirations of the North Atlantic globalist elites. And personally, I think he is making the right choice by taking that stance.
@MojoMan thanks for indulging me. Sounds like you don't care too much one way or another about whether people have genuine democracy in their own countries and are much more preoccupied with countries' having genuine sovereignty and not be dictated democracy or anything else by the US or anyone else. We're past arguing on it; I just wanted to understand a little better the worldview that generates the things you say.
I would like to see us have genuine democratic elections here in this country. After the last six years, it is hard to passionately believe that other countries should be following our example on these matters, or on the way our government is run, particularly at the agency level. I think democracy is an excellent ideal to strive for, as long as the elections that it is based on and the government that it produces are not thoroughly corrupt, which sadly, ours is. If nations like Russia cannot implement a democracy (elections and government) that is quite a lot better and less corrupt than what we have been experiencing in recent years, they might very well be better off just sticking with whatever it is that they have.
We were able (barely) to preserve our democracy against Trump's attempt to steal it and stay in power. Ukraine is a legit democracy that wad attacked by an authoritarian undemocratic military aggressor. You have chosen to cheer for the authoritarian non-democratic military aggressor, just like you support the leader who attempted to overturn democracy in our nation in order to preserve his power. 2020 was probably the most investigated, recounted, and accurate election we've had. It's why Trump and his appointed cabinet and staff all knew it.
I am fascinated by your world view, @MojoMan. I disagree with it and think there is a lot of conspiracy theory stuff in there, and not enough disdain for murderers like Putin and Xi, but it's interesting to see how some people think.
Hmm that segues into whether you heard anything interesting about ESG at Davos. Was buzzwordy last year during the market meltup, but with obvious contradictions happening as a result of the embargoes, is the illuminati still on course? Europe has long cheated their emissions reductions. They shut down some coal plants for gas, but also created a market trading in credits that aren't entirely accountable (like planting/cutting trees and not accurately counting it). I wouldn't be surprised if Germany is still counting green reductions from "modernizing" East Germany, That whole exchange is a vague shitshow not unlike uhh..."digital" credits. Sure... they're not as wasteful as Americans, but they aren't pushing the envelope on any green tech for the last 3 decades, except maybe nuclear by the French.
There are two polar ends to stupidity. On one end are the people who think any and all potential conspiracies are valid and correct. On the other end are the people who believe that none of them are. Conspiracies do of course happen and they are not vanishingly rare in occurrence by any means. Just because an idea has two or more people colluding together to act badly in it, does not actually make the idea impossible or invalid. If you want to imagine that it does, them please see the previous paragraph above. As far as having disdain for murderers, what about all of the innocent people that Barack Obama killed with drone strikes while he was in office? Are those murders supposed to be exempt from being disdained, just because America committed them under a Democrat party president? Also, as a reminder, it is your crew who believes we have a massive overpopulation problem and that the population of the earth needs to be rapidly reduced from just under 8 billion currently to about 750 million. By all appearances, there is probably going to be a lot of deaths from famine coming up here very quickly, which are in very large part attributable to the unprecedented sanctions and other spectacular measures hysterically assembled against the Russians after they invaded Ukraine, with no planning r concern about the consequences of those actions or who they would actually harm. I do have disdain for the murders of Xi and Putin, and also Obama and also those that your people are responsible for, including a lot of the covid mess and the pointless excess deaths that have occurred during this war n Ukraine, which could have avoided if the peace talks were not opposed by you guys.
It's an event where people meet, once a year. It's an illusion to believe that that makes them all think the same things or be in some way ideologically aligned. They are more wealthy and powerful than the average human, but many different walks of life are represented. E.g. I spoke to some billionaires, but also to a young startup entrepreneur from Bangladesh. If you think she is some supervillain who is in on some grand conspiracy to control the world, sorry, think again.
"National sovereignty" doesn't include a right to invade other countries. Whether it includes a right to strip away fundamental individual rights is more debatable. A country that is committing genocide against a segment of its population probably should be isolated and punished by a "liberal world order" that finds such actions intolerable, though maybe you'd want to argue otherwise.
If they cannot impose this kind of a misguided regime of medical totalitarianism in France, then it is difficult to see how it is going to be adopted by other nations worldwide.
