On Friday, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki announced that President Biden ordered three US intelligence agencies to review the threat of “domestic violent extremism.”
Since pro-Trump demonstrators stormed the US Capitol building on January 6th, calls to combat “domestic terrorism” have been growing. Before January 6th, Biden’s transition team had said they were planning to pass laws against domestic terrorism, and the Capitol incident has made it a top priority.
“The January 6th assault on the Capitol and the tragic deaths and destruction that occurred underscored what we have long known. The rise of domestic violent extremism is a serious and growing national security threat,” Psaki said.
Psaki went on to outline the first steps the Biden administration is taking. She said Biden ordered the newly confirmed Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines to conduct a threat assessment along with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.
Psaki said the assessment will produce a “fact-based analysis on which we can shape policy.” In addition to the intelligence analysis, the National Security Council is being tasked with finding ways to disrupt “extremist networks.”
It’s not clear if the assessment will lead to US government agencies being granted new authorities to counter domestic terrorism.
Congress is onboard with prioritizing domestic threats. Earlier this week, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act was introduced in the House with bipartisan sponsors. The bill would establish offices within the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and the Justice Department to combat domestic terrorism.
89 thoughts on “Biden Administration Announces Plan to Combat ‘Domestic Extremism’”
new mandatory covid/arsenic vaccine required by pol pot harris to cure non democrats from thinking—100% cure rate according to pope fauci and his church of mortuary science
When have they NOT found threats? What security has all the “defense” spending bought? There are threats but they are likely to be magnified to squeeze more money out of taxpayers. — http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0730-Pretexts.html
The US by some reckoning became a national security state in 1947, and the Pentagon with its intelligence buddies has been running things ever since, including the necessary ID of foreign enemies (Russia always included to prolong of US reins on Europe) and now extended to domestic “threats.”
The Global War on Terror was a military (not a law enforcement enterprise, as some thought it should be), and in Washington these days we see that the US part of the “global war” is also a military exercise.
Yes, but honorable mention must go to the WW1 state crafted by Wilson.
Correct, sir. With seeds planted by McKinley and TR.
Yes, and an excellent book on the McKinley and Wilson warmongering is “The Politics of War” by Walter Karp.
Wilson was a terror, but he didn’t have the Pentagon, CIA, and the merging of the military branches into the National Military Establishment. War is so much easier now, given a corrupt Congress, a huge compliant media empire, and mighty corporations. No need to be sneaky about it, as McKinley and Wilson were.
It all started with Wilson!
Now there was a truly racist, bigoted and anti constitution POTUS. Today, all one has to do is disagree with radical leftists any you will be labeled a racist….
That works both ways. Anybody the radical left calls racist is only being called racist because the radical left thinks everyone who disagrees with them are racists. So we have no racists that disagree with radical leftists?
The point is the left has weaponized the term and is using it to demonize people that disagree with a political agenda.
Doesn’t change what I said. The right claims EVERY claim of racism by the “radical left” is only because the radical left has weaponized the term. So even a blatant racist isn’t a blatant racist because the radical left has weaponized the term.
Nope. You made that up. The right doesn’t claim that EVERY claim of racism by the “radical left” …… Just the vast majority of those claims. Those on the right have condemned REAL racism again and again and have been ignored when they do. The left ignores those condemnations because they consider being conservative IS racist. Even if the conservative happens to be a person of color. Lately, the excuse being used to call conservatives of color is their “whiteness”. Which goes to show it is NOT about the color of someone’s skin or their ancestry. It’s about their ideology. Remember; “if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” ? Now that is racist statement. Insulting and derogatory .
Of course it isn’t about racism. It’s about a contemptible manipulation of the population by a cynical political class. Btw, racism isn’t illegal. Without a criminal ACTION It doesn’t make a person a criminal. It does make that person an a**h**e.
“Those on the right have condemned REAL racism again and again and have been ignored when they do.”
And you made that up. Unless you’re limiting the right to actual conservatives and not Trump’s cult members.
“The left ignores those condemnations because they consider being conservative IS racist.”
And that. Especially that. Now you’ve lumped every body on the left into Trump’s definition of “radical left” which is everyone who doesn’t kiss his ass.
“Of course it isn’t about racism. It’s about a contemptible manipulation of the population by a cynical political class.”
We agree. But we probably have a different idea of exactly what political class is contemptible. To me it’s Trumpism. I have no problems with real conservatives.
You have a funny idea about what the political class is. The idea that Trump’s base is part of or associated with the political class is hilarious.
The real “cult” isn’t “Trumpism”. It’s statism.
And no, there are indeed fringe elements that support Trump. There are always crazies in a large population. But, despite some rhetoric, they represent a tiny threat to liberty and the human rights of the people in this country. The same cannot be said of those that are supporting the people that are now in control of the American government. Under the guise of security, new legislation is on the agenda which will indeed impact the rights of Americans.
If you had any contact with the vast majority of those Americans who voted for Trump, you would realize that they just want to be left alone. Instead, they will be subjected to harassments, vituperous language, targeted regulations, unfair taxes, condemned as racists, white supremacists, sexists, deplorable, stupid, ignorant and a bevy of other derogatory terms.
Note that these are the people that grow America’s food. Deliver goods to America’s cities. Work to provide the nation’s energy. And much more.
I’ve lived in both worlds. Frankly, having lived along side people that overwhelmingly voted for Trump, I find them more open minded, generous, loving and NON RACIST than the self centered people who I knew in a predominantly progressive area I came from.
Again, it is not productive to interact with you. So, I’ll not continue.
“The real “cult” isn’t ‘Trumpism’. It’s statism.”
The former is a sub-cult of the latter.
Indeed. Trumpism is. But only trump supporters that are statists can be construed as being members of of a sub cult of statism. By definition.
” trump supporters that are statists”
But you repeat yourself.
Nope. But you do get high marks for snark. Btw, that’s not a compliment.
You seem to have problems with the English language ….again.
“It refers to the relatively small group of activists that is highly aware and active in politics”
I guess you were right. “Highly aware” does NOT describe Trumpism.
“If you had any contact with the vast majority of those Americans who voted for Trump, you would realize that they just want to be left alone. Instead, they will be subjected to harassments, vituperous language, targeted regulations, unfair taxes, condemned as racists, white supremacists, sexists, deplorable, stupid, ignorant and a bevy of other derogatory terms.”
Right. My mistake. And of course you have had contact with the “vast majority of those Americans who voted for Trump” so you would know. I can only judge them by things such as Trump’s rallies where he concentrates on leading chants like “Lock her up” or “Lebron James sucks” or by all those dressed in costume that converged on Washington to “stop the steal”. Or maybe those folks that just want to be “left alone” while promoting those wild Qanon conspiracy theories.
“I’ve lived in both worlds. Frankly, having lived along side people that overwhelmingly voted for Trump, I find them more open minded, generous, loving and NON RACIST than the self centered people who I knew in a predominantly progressive area I came from.”
Me too. And I say the Trump voters are the most obnoxious overbearing assholes that ever walked the face of the earth just like the man they voted for. See how easy that is?
“Again, it is not productive to interact with you. So, I’ll not continue”
Actually, I should have said “any” of the vast majority of Trump voters. But you nicely clarified your own position. So, at last I’ve managed to get you to admit the truth. You hate almost half the people in this country. I know, I know; it’s been pretty obvious you agreed with the whole “deplorable” theme.
So, why not just go our separate ways? By that I mean separate politically and economically. Usually when I’ve asked this question to progressives, I get some claptrap about the civil war settling this issue. But I thought the civil war was about slavery, right? And I thought that progressives believed that using violence and war was wrong.
In fact, people on both sides believe in using state power on people they differ with politically and culturally. THIS is the real problem. Electing people who seek to advance some at the expense of others is immoral.
Fact is there is a very thin veneer in any statist ideology between claimed peace an real aggression and violence. This manifests itself both internationally and domestically. The only way to win is not to play the game.
I have little hope that you will understand what I am saying, but who knows?
My comment about Trump supporters being the most obnoxious assholes was mocking your claim that they were “open minded, generous, loving NON racist”. And no, I don’t hate Trump supporters since my brother and sister both voted for him….TWICE.
For the life of me I can’t understand how anyone could vote for a man that condones torture, wanted to fill up GITMO and responded to a sexual abuse charge with “She’s not my type”. Now if he would have been an actual peace and liberty president I could have gagged and overlooked those disgusting issues. So my question is how any “open minded, generous, loving” person could possibly be a Trump supporter, including my brother and sister. Add his killer sanctions on half the world and his constant attacks on anyone he perceives as not being loyal to HIM leaves me dumbfounded how he has anything over single digit approval ratings.
My original reply to your comment was about the radical left being accused of using the racist card at every turn and that leading to ANY claim of racism being questioned, including legitimate claims. Similar to ANYBODY criticizing Trump being called a “never Trumper” or suffering from TDS whether that criticism was justified or not. I actually thought I was just adding to your original comment and wasn’t trying to be confrontational. I really don’t know why this conversation took the turn that id did. I normally like your comments, and upvote you regularly.
People are complicated. The reasons people voted for Trump are complicated also. Rightly or wrongly Trump tapped into the frustration of those that feel they are being oppressed by.the establishment. Thing is, I don’t like Trump. But I agree about the oppression.
You hear bs from.people like Knapp. They have no clue. He talks about the political means and the productive means. I have several neighbors. One was diagnosed with cancer and given a poor prognosis without a pretty invasive operation. He told me he would have passed on the operation but for the responsibility he had for his 5 year old adopted daughter. He’s in his mid 60’s and still working as a welder. Productive. He’s the youngest of my neighbors. My other 3 neighbors are in their 80’s. All are still producing. One grows hay for feed. Two others grow grapes. They a lot of the work themselves but what they produces provides the material for many jobs. None get any subsidies from the state. They volunteer to help the needy and give generously to charities. And yes, they pay quite a lot in taxes. Same with me. I started working when I was 11 yrs old. So, going on 60 years now of being productive.
I have multiple state agents coming on my property for “inspections”. They aren’t bad people but they are useless. I even have to show them what to look for. I have equipment that I have to pay a lot extra for to meet government requirements. Those requirements produce nothing of value but require a huge multiple increase in maintance.
Yes, my neighbors voted for Trump. Many did so for defensive reasons. It appears they were correct.
Yesterday I received a instruction for a new regulation requirement for my business. It will taken a substantial amount of time to comply.
There is only so much hatred that can be heard before people take it seriously. There is only so much regulation to bear before production stops..
Didn’t mean to be so hard on you.
So you describe some people from the productive class, and then say that means there’s no such thing as co-option of the productive class by the political class.
Trumpism is statism. If you voted for Trump, you voted for statism. If you were confused in your reasons for doing so, that doesn’t change the fact of what you did.
“There is only so much regulation to bear before production stops.”
True. And ditto for taxation.
Trump increased both.
No, I don’t say that at all. BTW, your “argument” is that if one voted for anyone they voted for statism.
As far as Trump increasing regulation? I didn’t see that and regulatory pressure on my business increased immediately after Biden was inaugurated. Perhaps that was coincidental.
As far as taxes? Since I consider deficit spending/expansion of the money supply backed by zero production, as a hidden tax, I would agree. Prices of goods and services would naturally drop without government money creation or the Banking Cartel money supply manipulation. Targeted inflation by Federal Reserve policy empowers the state and powerful special interests.
BTW, I didn’t vote for Trump. I do not vote for warmongers. I also have no desire to be a party of a political contest where the winning side gets to oppress the other “side”.
“As far as Trump increasing regulation? I didn’t see that and regulatory pressure on my business increased immediately after Biden was inaugurated. ”
The first clause of the second sentence is not incompatible with the second clause. All administrations increase regulations, but different presidents increase it in different sectors and in different ways.
The standard metric for regulation numbers is rules codified in the Federal Register. Trump’s inauguration was followed by a steep increase in the number of such rules, followed by a decrease (presumably linked to his executive order six months before that two rules be “identified for repeal” — not actually repealed — for each new one) that brought the number below that as of his inauguration for about six months before it started rising again and ended higher than when he took office.
You’re right about borrowing and inflation as taxation, of course — but even in raw dollars, the additional taxes paid by US consumers in the form of tariffs came to more than the dollars saved by US taxpayers on federal income tax and the end of the ObamaCare tax penalty combined. He raised taxes not even counting borrowing, and in the case of the tariffs he can’t even fob blame off on Congress since it was entirely his decision.
I don’t support Tariffs and I am one of those that was damaged by Trumps Tariffs.
I have argued the point on steel as an examp!e. If steel was delivered free, some would lose jobs. However, free steel would stimulate the economy in many ways. Construction and manufacturing as examples.
Congress passes laws that a government regulatory agency codifies into regulations. And Congress loves to pass legislation to pretend they are doing something useful. These cannot be removed because a particular regulation might require legislation to repeal a law. Others are created as a result of funding and tax bill. A POTUS cannot constitutionally remove these although enforcement by the executive branch is a different matter. IMO, the volume of the Federal Registry isn’t a very good metric on how onerous regulations are.
I do know I’m going to be required to spend quite a lot of time on compliance for new regulations. Likely there will be an increase in the complexity of the tax code.
I do agree that Trump’s tax reductions were a shell game with the burden of national debt being placed on the young and the yet to be born. Every honest older person should recognize the injustice of this. The government spending is mostly squandered in less than useless wars and crony payouts to powerful special interests. Trump and Congress are both guilty in this regards.
You’re right about how the regulatory process works. There was only a certain amount Trump COULD do versus regulation.
But he claimed he was going to cut regulation, then he claimed he was cutting regulation, then he claimed he had cut regulation … and his supporters at it up and now we get to hear from those supporters that he actually did do the things he said he was going to do, said he was doing, and said he had done, when the truth is that was just running his blowhole.
Gee. A politician deceived the public.. Must be a first.
You missed the point.
There are two classes: The political class and the productive class. Most people have one leg in each.
Yes, Trump supporters “just want to be left alone” — except for their farm subsidies, and their protective tariffs, and their desire to restrict who may live and work where, who may use which bathroom in their tax-funded social engineering schemes, etc.
Bs. Only a tiny fraction of Trump supporters get farm subsidies. I’m in ag and know of zero who do. There are massive regulations though.
Funny, your talking points are identical to those I saw on a progressive site.
43.8% of net farm income comes from government payments. And that doesn’t include government price-fixing to keep the prices of farm products artificially high.
Logical fallacy 1. Your claim is since 43.8% of farm net farm income comes from government payments, the majority of farmers must be getting a substantial portion of their income from the government.
Logical fallacy 2. Your claim is that since government price fixes some farm production, all farmers benefit from government intervention in the market.
Logical fallacy 3. You imply that all farmers are in favor of government intervention in farm prices.
Simple, that 43.8% farm income you mentioned mostly goes to a small number of industrial farms. Quite a few of those are owned by corporate interests.
BTW, you used another progressive talking point. Guessing you have very little knowledge of farming
Your logical fallacies #1, #2, and #3 all involve arguing with what you wish I was claiming rather than with what I was claiming.
As for my knowledge of farming, I don’t claim it to be huge. I came from a farming family on one side, grew up on a subsistence farm, and have worked on commercial farms a little, but vis a vis subsidies, I just look at the numbers, both dollars and number of recipients.
If you’re in commercial agriculture at any scale, not just “industrial,” you’re subsidized. That’s not the same thing as WANTING to be subsidized.
In the context of this debate, it is pretty clear what you were claiming. In fact, you make the same claim in your last paragraph.
So, no, I am not subsidized in any way. Either are my neighbors. Unless you want to make the claim that a tax credit or depreciation of a asset is being “subsidized”. That would be a pretty telling claim for some who is a self proclaimed libertarian.
You also can’t seem to understand that a number of people who voted for Trump did so defensively. Not because they desired to use the state to benefit themselves or to use the state to oppress others. To be left alone.
I certainly understand that a number of people who voted for Trump did so “defensively.”
I also understand why a number of people who did so over opposition to welfare statism hate to admit — and perhaps can’t even allow themselves to see — that they themselves are caught up in the welfare state.
I don’t know what your particular situation is, but if you are a farmer it would be incredibly surprising to me if you’re not subsidized in that particular area in various ways.
How much gas tax revenue does the road your farm fronts on produce versus the money the state spends keeping that road operable?
What products do you sell? Are they subject to government price supports? Are they eligible for purchase using government food stamps — that is, taxpayer money transferred to people on the condition that they spend it on your products instead of on shampoo or toys or DVDs?
There’s no moral shame in being caught up in the all-encompassing web of the welfare state. One of the reasons that web was built was to force everyone to be a subsidy recipient so that they’d have less standing to complain about being a subsidy contributor.
Like Bastiat said, the state is the great fiction through which everyone attempts to live at the expense of everyone else. Or, more to the point, the state is the great fiction which the political class uses to try to GET everyone to attempt to live at the expense of everyone else, with it as the middleman.
Be amazed then. I produce grapes for wine and nursery stock.
The road that gives access to my property is a town road. Whatever funding for maintenance isn’t covered by gas taxes is easily covered by other taxes that I pay. There is no government subsidy. Look elsewhere to who is subsidized. I pay far more in taxes than I received back in any form.
Note: by deed I “own” half the the road that passes by my property. I also pay property taxes on that part of the road which is on my property. I partially maintain my side bordering the road including weed mana and water runoff. I receive no compensation and no tax benefits for use of the road by the government or other useres. In addition, my driveway is routinely used without asking and with no notice.
None of the products I produce receive any government subsidies, price fixing supports or whatever. But there are extra taxes paid on what I produce. In addition, I pay licensing fees for th privilege of producing. There are additional taxes which are too complex to explain
What I produce is not subject to be subsidized via food stamps as food stamps cannot be used to purchase what I produce.
No. I do not seek to use the state to force others to pay for my needs or desires.
“Be amazed then. I produce grapes for wine and nursery stock.”
So you’re not a participant in the USDA/RMA grape crop insurance program?
And you don’t benefit from the 25% tariff on wines from France, Germany, Spain, and England?
No. I am not part of the USDA program.
No. I do not benefit from that tariff program. What I produce is very specialized.
You said you produce grapes for wine.
Do the wines you produce grapes for not compete with the wines that are tariffed (for the express purpose of “protecting” American competitors)?
If you’ve managed to avoid being subsidized, congratulations. You may be the only American in that situation.
You are making some assumptions.
1. You assume that my customers are wineries. I have a substantial home winemaker clientele. They purchase fresh grapes to produce wine as a hobby. They can buy wine cheaper than they can make it. They make wine for fun. The government hasn’t banned fun (yet). I am not aware of any tariff on fresh grapes.
2. You assume that there is some advantage in growing grapes for wine because tariffs raise the price of a competitor of someone an American grower might sell to. This is more complicated than it seems. The question revolves around supply and demand. If there is a shortage of supply, and that supply remains in short supply, a increase in the cost of a competitive product has not changed the supply and demand imbalance. Assuming there was no increase in the price of the product in short supply that is. A difficult concept for many. The market has reached a price equilibrium on a supply and demand imbalance. I wrote a paper on this subject nearly 50 years ago.
3. The grapes I grow are varieties that are rare in the USA. The countries you mention do not either grow or export wines made from these grapes.
4. Net benefit. The question of net benefit arises. Say the government tariffs raise the price of a end point competitive product. In this case wine. What about other tariffs? Tariffs on glass for bottles. Tariffs on steel for wire for trellis? Steel for line posts. Wood for end posts. Tariffs on agricultural machinery such as tractors and sprayers. Tariffs on machinery used for production such as bottlers, corkers, conveyors, press and crush equipment and much much more.
In conclusion, I’m confident that I receive no net benefit as a producer via government tariffs. In fact, the opposite is true. Outside of special interests, tariffs don’t benefit anyone. Tariffs are a tax on prosperity.
Thomas, I do understand how insidious government intrusions into the businesses and our lives are. Those actions permeate the economy and are difficult t measure. The claims that continual tinkering by supposed neutral agents of the state into all aspects of our lives are false. Some do indeed gain. But they do so at the expense of others.
“Net benefit” is an interesting question, but it’s not really the point. Presumably one incentive for ubiquitous subsidies is the ubiquity itself, so that if X complains about Y receiving a subsidy, Y can respond that X receives subsidies too. “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state” makes it easier for the state to justify itself.
I’m unaware of any tariffs on fresh grapes at the moment, but there’s a tariff on must from the EU. So if your home winemakers would prefer to start from must rather than from fresh grapes, they’ll have to pay higher prices for it if they get it from those countries.
Disagree. Net benefit to an individual business or person is exactly the point. This is not a comparison between businesses.
If state action through tariffs or subsidies create a advantage that is offset by a disadvantage from another state action, the net results is null to that business. Except the state gains, of course. Which wins by having more power and influence. The state and state supporters will claim that this isn’t a zero sum game due to some claimed benefit. But in the example of the above individual business it is.
Even worse; distorted markets create the potential for mal investment in the form of overextended production. Debt servitude is often the result… The banking cartel wins and through Fascist economic state policies the banks are guaranteed protection from economic distress…..Usually the business or industry will then beg the state for intervention which co opts the business or industry to state dependence. Free market suicide results.
This claim of overall economic gain can seldom be proved by the advocates of the particular tariff or subsidies. The consumer eventually pays by higher taxes including taxes.
Yes it did. Wilson was one of America’s worst presidents.
It’s kind of fun to read this Congressional baloney and try to get some meaning out of it. Here we go….”analyze, monitor & prevent”. . except “. . .it does not include acts perpetrated. . .”. . .
Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act
A BILL To authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to prevent domestic terrorism.
. . .the term ‘‘domestic terrorism’’ has the meaning given the term in section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, except that it does not include acts perpetrated by individuals associated with or inspired by—
(A) a foreign person or organization designated as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189);
(B) an individual or organization designated under Executive Order 13224 (50 15U.S.C. 1701 note); or
(C) a state sponsor of terrorism as determined by the Secretary of State under section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 4605), section 40 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2780), or section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371). . .here
Biden is well within the tradition. The Gov. used the Pinkertons to break Knights of Labor, Bill Thompson, IWW, Eugene Debs,…. The Palmer raids of the ’20’s against radical labor inspired J. Edgar Hoover’s suppression of the Communist Party and John L Lewis and the Reuther bro’s in the ’30’s & ’40’s, achieved his masterpiece against the anti-war activists of the ’60’s, probably the murder of JFK, RFK, undoubtedly MLK, Malcolm X, and numerous lesser leaders. The record is pretty clear, the US has always been a police state, …with a “friendly face”.
The Biden-Harris regime and their minions are trying to conflate the January 6 prank into The Reichstag fire and hope to get the American version of an Enabling act. But this time around, the new mentally impaired President will have to stand in for the mentally impaired Dutchman.
“the East German Stasi could only have dreamed of having a police state like amerika”. Thomas Drake
It is time to draft sane Ron Paul back in the House of Representatives. History has shown us (China, Italy, Russia & Germany) that the biggest problem is when the political center becomes too weak .
“Joe Biden’s inaugural was the most confusing, contradictory and incoherent ever delivered from the steps of the Capitol, reflective of the mind of its author and the state of the Union he now leads” says commentator Pat Buchanan. January 6th was a tempest in a teapot, there are enough laws on the books already.
What is the Biden administration going to do with the “domestic terrorists” who stole the last election? After all, stealing an election is the best way to “fertilize” domestic unrest! The answer- Nothing of course! If you stick a needle into the side of a bull you might want to be ready to get kicked or charged!
Trump even wrote on Twitter, “We can’t let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!”
Sound familiar? But that one is from 2012.
Or how about this one from 2016:
“In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,” said Trump.
Not quite like 2020 since he didn’t claim to win the electoral college in a landslide but maybe a trend?
Even primaries were fair game for Trump:
“Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!” Trump wrote on Twitter at the time.
I’m very relieved The Donald is departed, on account of how painful it was to support his themes, …which I do, …but which he only demagogued.
US elections have always a fraud in terms of their own promotional rhetoric (“free & fair & democratic”). Over a century ago, the “gilded age”, Lincoln Steffens paraphrased the Lincoln bullshit with his own immortal assessment of US politics: “Government of the people, by the pol’s, for the rich”. And that’s not to mention Hamilton and the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion.
All true. And fraud played no more of a role in this election than any other election.
We really don’t know do we? Ed Snowden exposed (Vault 7) the ability of the NSA to hack any server in the world leaving no thumbprint or a false one. And the 2020 election procedures, on account of the virus, were done ad hoc state by state, so there’s no way of knowing. But given all this why was a systems audit so objectionable?
Mostly however, given the extent to which the Deep State went -fabricating Russia-gate and emasculating Trump the whole period of his admin- we can be apodictically certain they were not going to allow him to win. So the presumption has to be that the whole thing was a “steal”.
Add to this the earlier cheating Bernie out of the nomination and the picture becomes pellucid.
“We really don’t know do we?”
We never can know for certain.
However, the burden of proof generally falls on the accuser, and in this case the accusers failed to even come close to approving the supposed “steal” (in the three suits that weren’t dismissed on standing or timeliness grounds, they withdrew their complaints as soon as they were given the green light to go ahead with presenting evidence).
The “presumption has to be” that if those claiming a steal had any evidence for the claim, they’d present the evidence instead of just using a rumor mill to power a large-scale financial grift.
A systems audit would forensically examine the servers, the programs, the security, the counting, ….
As I understand it sundry anecdotals were presented but the press of time precluded suspending judgement to allow a comprehensive audit. So, mutatis mutandis, as in 2000, the Court system chose the winner.
Even if the mechanicals squared, however, I don’t think you can confine it so narrowly.
And consider another thing: Trump got the greatest number of votes in history, significantly more than his predecessor, and Biden, a virtual cipher campaigning from his basement, got even more. What is the probability that eventuality was genuine?
“Sundry anecdotals” is a pithy way of putting “stuff we want you to believe but will run like hell from any requirement of proving.”
“What is the probability that eventuality was genuine?”
Well, I predicted it correctly in 48 of 50 cases (the other two, Georgia and Florida, were reasonably close), and many others did as well or better. It’s not like the outcome was at all unexpected.
I “predicted” it too. As they say, even Ray Charles saw this coming.
You predicted it, but now you believe it was some kind of scam? Doesn’t compute.
“If my guy loses, it can only be because the other guy stole the election” is not a prediction. It’s a set-up for an excuse. And setting up your excuse in advance is even weaker than trying to fob off blame on the Russians in hindsight.
They didn’t allow Bernie to win in ’16 or ’20; and, they exposed the total corruption of the Dem Party, Major Media, CIA, FBI fabricating and pushing Russia-gate to oust Trump. No mystery here. It was rather like the old USW locals in my town. Trump wasn’t to be allowed to win. You are naive.
Actually, I’m probably the most cynical guy you’ll ever discuss this with. So cynical that I never, ever, ever pretend wishful thinking and excuse-making are factual analyses.
Believing the election was stolen because you want the election to have been stolen, in the face of a complete absence of any evidence whatsoever to suggest that the election was “stolen,” is about as naive as it gets.
For it to be a “steal” just imagine the people needed to pull it off. You’d think it would be more likely that the feeble senile Biden would have actually received 81 million votes. But what is even more amazing is that not one single vote for Trump has ever been considered to be tainted. As if only those favoring Biden would be involved in any fraud.
“For it to be a “steal” just imagine the people needed to pull it off.”
It’s been a long time since the logic of that challenge impressed me (which it once did).
How do they get away with supporting Israel, 9/11, WMD, Bank bailout, Russia-gate, … with so many people involved? Their audacity is truly stunning.
I don’t think those are fair comparisons. Those things can be controlled by a very small number of people, 535 to be exact. Whereas the “steal” involved republican legislatures, republican governors, republican SOS’s, State Supreme Courts, the voting machines, the postal service and several foreign countries including Iran and China if you listen to that brilliant legal team Trump assembled.
To the extent that fraud may have changed the outcome in any states, the likeliest candidates would seem to be Democratic ballot stuffing in Georgia and Republican Cuban graveyard voting in Florida.
To lighten the mood : What are “they going to do” with the politically observent moderate left who are already having buyers remorse in their first weekend? ” Because no army – not even Big Tech partnered with Big Government – can stop an idea whose time has come. And Liberty is that idea. We must move forward with creativity and confidence!” advises Dr. Ron Paul.
When Biden put his hand on the bible i fully expected it to burst into flames.
Well, I’m going to jail. Peace bitches.
If you live in the US, I am afraid you already are.
“domestic violent extremism.” seems to have arrived in Russia or is it led by a Western puppet.
Russia and Belarus too should think in terms of their own Domestic Terrorism Acts.
Well before “Maidan” Putin knew enough to ban all CIA polluted NGO’s, otherwise, yes, he were a cinch for an asset. Still there remain inside a whole coterie of Yeltsin gangster Oligarchs (like those who used The Donald for their laundry) who are very aspirationally
“Western”, and would naturally gravitate to any anti-Russian agitator.
Putin purged the Oligarchs in his first 2 terms as President and took back all Russias natural resouces into governemnt control , however they got billions out of Russia before he could act.
Oligarch lackeys, then. In any event there is a substantial party (formal & informal) of wealthy Westernizers and youthful votaries in Moscow & Petrograd who resonate to Western consumerist ideology.
Putin did purge some of the oligarchs, while co-opting others. The low-end estimates of his personal wealth come in at $40 billion.
You have to do better than that. I’ve seen this low grade propaganda meme enough times (as recentlyas Chavez, Lula, Evo, Assange, the Ayatollahs, Assad,…) to know it for what it is, just to label evil anyone who opposes US hegemony.
I certainly don’t canonize Putin. It’s only that he’s like Othello. There is no justification for US aggression.
No, I don’t “have to do better than that.” If you want to believe what you want to believe because it’s what you want to believe, that’s no skin off my nose. But I didn’t label anyone evil, nor did I accuse anyone of “canonizing” Putin, nor did I attempt to justify US aggression. I just called a spade a spade.
ignorant self uglified amerikan from durakistan…igra za deermo
Why is it only now that America has this widespread extremism?
It can’t just be that Fox News lies to them. They listen, and welcome it.
They have been ignored and abused for decades. America’s post-war middle class has slid away to non-existence.
Politicians combat them because they won’t help them or serve them. They seek votes by fearing other voters.
Oh boy. Here we go.
“Extremism’ is a word deliberately chosen for its vagueness and used by intellectual slobs who are too desperate, sneaky or lazy to say exactly what they mean. Its only purpose is to deliberately try to confuse the difference between people who are extremely good (usually because of devotion to their principles) with people who are extremely bad. The sleazeballs who use this supposedly scary, yet undefined word are not only trying to smear people of conviction and integrity, but they’re also trying to divert attention away from the fact that they are obviously not people of principle themselves.” ~ Rick Gaber
So the US Establishment has suddenly realized the greatest threat to their power is not foreign terrorists but their own people who from all accounts are not happy bunnys i wonder why ? lol.
Golly, I never thought I would see the day. So the new potus has asked the primary perpetrators of the nations ‘violent domestic extremism’ (political assassinations, drug dealing, election stealing etc., both internally and around the rest of the world), the alphabet-soup ‘national security’ (sic) agencies, to investigate themselves. I can now rest easy as the crimes will soon be discovered and the guilty brought to task, what a relief.
what is lrft put of discussipn is who will define domestic extremism.
to pass bills saying a new agency will be created without its draft even in print and is an allowance for those new agencies to write own rules and regulatipns and without defining its penalties powers.to arrest, need for warrants and amounts of own security.needs; sets dangerous precedents. Lack of perspns Right.
Pol Pot reincarnated? never died, just became senile, installed as dear leader by emperor gates. now US military claims will purge all individuals with 6th grade or higher education—7th grade too “hateful. supremacist”
Comments are closed.