Ididn't trust her then and I don't trust her now.
You and me both. So that makes two. I wonder how common that opinion is. Probably a lot more common than you or I know.
And thats just it. They can claim the right is "slobbering" or "wild" for anyone. And it could be a full 90% against that person, but we wouldn't know it.
People need to talk more among each other so each of us can better grasp where our side actually stands and not like CNN-lite (fox) or one of the crypto-grifters like tucker control the discussion.
We also need a central hub for organizing our own counter-shilling to put up resistance to narrative pushes on our side (again like how they're trying to recover tucker's rep). We're still in a war of perceptions, whether you think thats a good thing (non-accelerationist), or a bad thing (accelerationist).
Need to hollow out and co-opt the civnats to destroy the states ability to use that as a division-point or sink for the rights political momentum. And need to co-opt the "conservative" moniker, so any attack on us appears to be an attack against the whole of the right. Political power lays not in the best argument, but where the crowds (moderates) sympathies lay. To rhetorically attack is insufficient, we also must provoke proverbial attack against us.
I have a bad habit of listening to conservative talk radio on the way to work and on the way home, can't stand the Nigger music and I'm inclined to believe they are both the same side of the coin. both sides tend to terrorize us with their panic porn. Hugh Hewitt is by far the worse. He lies, sides with liberal opinions but claims to be a conservative. On April 7, 2021 (8-9 AM) he states that the covid vaccine is just like the polio vaccine. the polio vaccine was a weakened/dead virus injection where the covid is an mRNA vaccine. mRNA is a DNA modifying vaccine except for J&J , it's a viral vector vaccine or at least that's what they are telling us. either way; Hewitt lied to his listeners. The only thing many "Conservatives" are conserving is their lifestyle. sorry to go off on a tear , but I'm just about sick of both sides. Limbaugh was the only one that was consistent in his message. He's gone and the rest can't convincingly imitate him. You will notice that all the anti-liberal mouthpieces have a twitter, facebook, reddit and every other liberal format button on their pages. railing against twitter/facebook but still using their service all the while calling liberals "hypocrites" .Then Mike Lindell comes out with a free speech platform where porn,profanity etc. is prohibited. I know TLDR , and if you got this far , thank you for listening to my rant. what you said is so much what I think , it stoked a fire.
I know TLDR , and if you got this far , thank you for listening to my rant. what you said is so much what I think , it stoked a fire.
You're welcome WD. Reddit and other platforms of that nature are absolutely trash. I do encourage people so inclined to continue using them simply because it interrupts their echo chamber. Even small victories are victories.
Like most of the people still let on air, or given a platform, Hewitt is probably in place to act, unwittingly or wittingly, as the fall guy, as the other half of the "aisle", to mirror the other side's argument. It's one party, pandering to both 'sides'.
I mostly use left/right, conservative/liberal still out of habit, but you're correct that it isn't all that productive. The progressive party (standard DNC+GOP machine combine) likes to slide society one way because they're focused on the policy outcome of values, while the public is focused on the labels, and I think its important to inject some chaos there and start forming microparties of 2-3 issues, inverting the "party->policies / public->labels" arrangement of politics. The power of the gun lobby for example is strongly related to policy/issues and not identity which is why it keeps confounding the progressive party and forcing the progressive's right-wing to pander and pretend to support gun rights, and this I think is a winning move:
microparties of 2-3 issues like I wrote, staunchly unyielding on the issues. If it were arranged correctly, it would force the progressive party to genuinely split through political deadlock over issues they "must" support in order to not lose credibility with their own base.
By doing this we could maneuver washington into a stalemate with the public and middle class, that would lead to a power vacuum, destabilizing their quid-pro-quo arrangement between the "parties", and causing the state and its unelected bureaucracy to lose long-term policy momentum
I'll read this a few times and cogitate on it to ensure I understand your philosophy. Thank You !
(post is archived)