Doublethink, Doubledown, Deprogram: Ramifications of "the Big Lie"

[Dill]

(02-03-2021, 10:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: Good. I read everything, but indeed it is far beyond my capacity to address everything, in fact I will severely cherry-pick my points of response. Many of your points are apparently valid and I don't disagree on most of them; the ones I cherry-pick will often be the ones I distinctly have a different take on.

Eg. I don't think a pandemic is a time where one shall not critizise the better and more factual network in face of the horrible one, on the mere basis that they are better. Yeah, FOX et al. were plain horrible on that. Mocking the pandemic, then having to accept it as serious, still mocking masks, then promoting masks, but still calling liberals out on mask-wearing, being pro-caution, then pro-protest, trying to follow Trump's moods, promoting this hydroxywhatever pill, all while remaining super-flabbergasted and indignant about anything any liberals would say... this could go on forever and yeah, it's horrible. Not only once did I call FOX a state propaganda channel the Turkmenish one could probably still learn a thing or two from. No one should watch Hannity, and watching Rachel Maddow is not even remotely the same side of the coin. Just to state what is clear to me.

I still see the MSM as what it imho is. It is not the time to not mention that either. It's not an undermining of truth-telling news sources. I rather see it as still calling a spade a spade.

I also agree that the lies regarding the election are a way more serious threat than any MSM transgressions. 74% of Republicans believe the election was stolen now? Yeah, that is crazy, and alarming beyond anything, and right-wing media deserves a huge amount of blame for that, more blame than the MSM deserves for anything really. Yet again.

That being said, on to the next posts... the responses get more spicy, I promise.

Thanks for hanging in there. Some quick notes of response, to "steady" future engagement.

1. Your "cherry picking" (which is not really cherry picking) is welcome and expected.  It is the only way to manage long arguments. And if you understand a long argument, see its "architecture," then of course you concentrate on the load-bearing beams, not every screen door and roof ornament. That's my view of what you are doing--concentrating on important structural features.

2. I am not arguing that we should not "call out" liberal media or whatever during a pandemic. E.g., if Cuomo messed up vaccine distribution in NY or hid the real rate of death in nursing homes with data sleights of hand, MSM should not suppress that because we want people to trust the MSM more than OANN or Infowars. One way of undermining "truth sources" is exactly by encouraging them to suppress inconvenient truths.

Rather, I was deploying the science analogy to explain why my focus at this juncture is on the RWMM and its differences from the MSM, and not on the U.S. media as a whole. You agree that Trump's Big Lie has created a pandemic-sized problem for U.S. democracy in terms of its potential consequences. So the question is--how do tens of millions of voters came to believe fervently in that Big Lie, and then continue to believe it after the Capitol is sacked and Biden is sworn in? This is a question about causes. And the RWMM has already generating and circulating answers, which vary from "We all are/the liberal media is to blame" to doubling down on the Big Lie.

But I think a serious social scientist (my ideal model here) would answer a question like that by looking not only to the source of the lie, but to the institutional supports enabling and maintaining its dissemination. All those supports aren't media organizations, but the latter have the primary role here. And they don't seem to be found among the MSM. If Biden had legitimately lost the election and claimed it was stolen, filed lawsuits in the manner of Trump--would the MSM have followed him down that road, reporting spurious "evidence" unchallenged? Were they a mirror image of the RWMM, they would have. But if you think, as I do, that they wouldn't have followed Biden down that road, then it is legitimate to ask: what are the differences between the two media spheres which allow solid purchase for a Big Lie in one but not the other? Do they, to any identifiable degree, operate under different rules, a different institutional logic?

If you grant that the RWM was frequently "trying to follow Trump's moods" while remaining "flabbergasted at anything the liberals would say," and Rachel Maddow is not the mirror image of Hannity, it seems you agree with much of what I have said, or at least you are seeing many of the same things I am seeing. There is indeed something "not the same" about the RWMM.

You also, as do I, think evidence is important. E.g, in a recent post you noted that in your assessment of Rachel Maddow that she lets us "see" for ourselves the evidence upon which she bases her judgment, so we can ourselves tell how and to what degree the inferences she draws from it are accurate and limited by the evidence at hand. So it looks like you agree that questions about journalistic quality and practice can be settled in empirical fashion.

3. So the question between us is, what are we really disagreeing about? Is it a question of fact or of how the facts are framed?

I readily admit there is something wrong with our media "as a whole." What you might clarify for me is how that something wrong "as a whole" illuminates the issue I placed on the dock to start this thread--namely the systemic differences between the MSM and RWMM which might shed light on why the latter has proved so capable of maintaining and disseminating a Big Lie.*

There are two kinds of response that issue which I think diverge from this question.

One is to prove that liberal journalists violate these norms too. That seems answer a different question, disprove a different claim, namely a claim that no liberal journalists violate the norms/only right wing journalists do. That just misses the point of an inquiry into systemic differences.

The other is a refusal to go there because it is "elitist" to find qualitative differences between liberal and illiberal institutions. That frames a search for causes as primarily search for blame, and so disqualifies evidence and evidence gathering at the outset. We know "both sides do it" and we are not going to challenge what we thus "know."

Over my next responses I am going to try and clarify my framing of the issue, since I think that has become more the issue than factual evidence.

*Three hours after posting this, I just had an idea: the MSM has had great difficulty recognizing the depth of change in the RWM and its news consumers. Think of how many missed the seriousness of Trump's rise as a candidate, not to mention the disruptive potential of his Big Lie even before the election. That could be cause they weren't "listening," but also because they credited the Trump "base" with better judgment, believing no one, or not enough at least, could possibly elect someone so unstable. I remember Lawrence O'Donnell loudly proclaiming "Trump will NOT be president" on more than one occasion.

[Dill]

(02-04-2021, 01:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: Maybe a poor choice of words but rather he responds to "both sides" as fairly (more fairly?) than a lot of us would.  Meanwhile when "both sides" reply to each other it can be less civil.  And not just in this discussion/thread.

I'll certainly agree that Hollo responds to all parties fairly--more so than many of us do.

It would be great if everyone remained civil.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-04-2021, 03:18 PM)Dill Wrote: I'll certainly agree that Hollo responds to all parties fairly--more so than many of us do.

It would be great if everyone remained civil.

It would probably be much easier if some people weren't pedantic, dismissive and condescending on a regular basis.  I honestly don't think you're a bad guy, but this makes it very difficult to remain civil with you.  After all, there are ways to be uncivil outside of "personal attacks", nor are all "personal attacks" as readily apparent as simple name calling.

I will add this.  The ability of Hollodero to have a civil discussion with both of us probably has as much to do with how we both interact with him, as opposed to each other, as it does his personality or posting style.

[GMDino]

"news"max ladies and gentlemen.

Newsmax guest: Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin was "chosen probably for his skin color rather than qualifications" pic.twitter.com/kJughNdKSz

— Jason Campbell (@JasonSCampbell) February 4, 2021

 


Although, TBF, the Trump fans turned on them for not letting the My Pillow guy rant on incoherently.

[*Nately120*]

Is not today the day the my pillow guys 3 hour documentary that proves the 2020 election was rigged drops?

[hollodero]

(02-04-2021, 06:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It would probably be much easier if some people weren't pedantic, dismissive and condescending on a regular basis.  I honestly don't think you're a bad guy, but this makes it very difficult to remain civil with you.  After all, there are ways to be uncivil outside of "personal attacks", nor are all "personal attacks" as readily apparent as simple name calling.

I will add this.  The ability of Hollodero to have a civil discussion with both of us probably has as much to do with how we both interact with him, as opposed to each other, as it does his personality or posting style.

Not just as much, imho, but way way more. It's the crucial point, and yeah it goes both ways too. Eg. there were things I said you didn't take issue with (except for maybe disagreeing), and at times I thought if Dill or Dino had said the exact same thing you'd probably tell them off.

My personality is not special and usually not so distinctly uncontroversial, and my posting style is determined by not being a native speaker. Maybe that shapes this perception.

When it comes to not understanding each other, to a large part I indeed guess there is no real will on both sides to even try. Opposition to the other side has turned into a defining trait, a beast that needs constant feeding. I disagree with the belief that liberals in general try harder and more sincere to reach understanding, the opposite isn't quite true either. At times I feel many people have their silent mechanisms to avoid any understanding from the get-go, to spark contradiction one can in turn take issue with and so on. Eg. condescending undertones vs. being overly offended by alleged condescending undertones, and many other mechanisms that turn out controversial in nature. And there's hardly anyone I'd exclude from that; maybe Bels.

Finally, I for one am not suited to be any kind of referee on that - for that I agree with the liberal take on things way too often. I did not intend to judge and lecture. Rather observe.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-05-2021, 11:51 AM)hollodero Wrote: Not just as much, imho, but way way more. It's the crucial point, and yeah it goes both ways too. Eg. there were things I said you didn't take issue with (except for maybe disagreeing), and at times I thought if Dill or Dino had said the exact same thing you'd probably tell them off.

My personality is not special and usually not so distinctly uncontroversial, and my posting style is determined by not being a native speaker. Maybe that shapes this perception.

When it comes to not understanding each other, to a large part I indeed guess there is no real will on both sides to even try. Opposition to the other side has turned into a defining trait, a beast that needs constant feeding. I disagree with the belief that liberals in general try harder and more sincere to reach understanding, the opposite isn't quite true either. At times I feel many people have their silent mechanisms to avoid any understanding from the get-go, to spark contradiction one can in turn take issue with and so on. Eg. condescending undertones vs. being overly offended by alleged condescending undertones, and many other mechanisms that turn out controversial in nature. And there's hardly anyone I'd exclude from that; maybe Bels.

Finally, I for one am not suited to be any kind of referee on that - for that I agree with the liberal take on things way too often. I did not intend to judge and lecture. Rather observe.

True on all counts.  There is no malicious intent in your questions or statements.  This cannot be said about some others.  It's infinitely easier to be civil and have a rational discussion with someone you know isn't waiting to stick the knife in.

[Dill]

(02-04-2021, 06:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It would probably be much easier if some people weren't pedantic, dismissive and condescending on a regular basis.  I honestly don't think you're a bad guy, but this makes it very difficult to remain civil with you.  After all, there are ways to be uncivil outside of "personal attacks", nor are all "personal attacks" as readily apparent as simple name calling.

I will add this.  The ability of Hollodero to have a civil discussion with both of us probably has as much to do with how we both interact with him, as opposed to each other, as it does his personality or posting style.

Just to be clear--I am not the cause of anyone's else's incivility.

I have never jumped into a thread laughing at others' stupidity, or claiming for myself extraordinary predictive powers or special knowledge for which I expect deference.  I may "condescend" to Trump or Qanon supporters, but I don't do that to people in the forum.

And it is not actually "pedantic, dismissive, and condescending" if, for example, I point out that someone is substituting ad hominem for argument--especially if the ad hominem is aimed at me. 

Finally, on those occasions I've sensed, or thought I sensed, condescension from someone else, I have never chosen to address it. Unlike the aforementioned violations of standards, it is a murky, difficult to specify charge, often no more than a subjective feeling. Best to tether discussion/arguments to external evidence, quotations/texts/data, not internal.  

I agree that Hollo is a good role model for forum behavior.

Also, I don't much enjoy stopping in the middle of discussion to talk about ad hominem and condescension. I'd rather just keep discussion about issues going, in this case, ramifications of Trump's big lie.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-05-2021, 01:23 PM)Dill Wrote: Just to be clear--I am not the cause of anyone's else's incivility.

This, right here, is why you fail.  For an older, educated, guy you appear to utterly lack even the slightest bit of self awareness or introspection.

Quote:I have never jumped into a thread laughing at others' stupidity, or claiming for myself extraordinary predictive powers or special knowledge for which I expect deference.  I may "condescend" to Trump or Qanon supporters, but I don't do that to people in the forum.

And it is not actually "pedantic, dismissive, and condescending" if, for example, I point out that someone is substituting ad hominem for argument--especially if the ad hominem is aimed at me. 

And, again, you seem completely unaware of how many of your posts actually come across to the person reading them.  I am not alone in my opinion of your posting habits, not even remotely.

Quote:Finally, on those occasions I've sensed, or thought I sensed, condescension from someone else, I have never chosen to address it. Unlike the aforementioned violations of standards, it is a murky, difficult to specify charge, often no more than a subjective feeling. Best to tether discussion/arguments to external evidence, quotations/texts/data, not internal.  

Even when you take the "high road" you often do it in a condescending manner.

Quote:I agree that Hollo is a good role model for forum behavior.

Consensus!

Quote:Also, I don't much enjoy stopping in the middle of discussion to talk about ad hominem and condescension. I'd rather just keep discussion about issues going, in this case, ramifications of Trump's big lie.

I won't continue with this either, as I am aware we are edging close to the forum rules.  I'll end with this and we can all continue on.  Until you learn why your posts and arguments rub people (not just me btw) you'll continue to elicit the types of responses you sometime get.  

[Dill]

(02-05-2021, 11:51 AM)hollodero Wrote: When it comes to not understanding each other, to a large part I indeed guess there is no real will on both sides to even try. Opposition to the other side has turned into a defining trait, a beast that needs constant feeding. I disagree with the belief that liberals in general try harder and more sincere to reach understanding, the opposite isn't quite true either. At times I feel many people have their silent mechanisms to avoid any understanding from the get-go, to spark contradiction one can in turn take issue with and so on. Eg. condescending undertones vs. being overly offended by alleged condescending undertones, and many other mechanisms that turn out controversial in nature. And there's hardly anyone I'd exclude from that; maybe Bels.

Finally, I for one am not suited to be any kind of referee on that - for that I agree with the liberal take on things way too often. I did not intend to judge and lecture. Rather observe.

Setting aside inferences about "liberals in general," would you agree that I have indeed shown you examples of liberals sincerely "trying harder" to understand and reach understanding (e.g., in post #67)?

I am asking the question just to see if we agree on the meaning of "trying harder" and "reach understanding."

No sense offering examples if we don't agree on what counts as an example.

[Dill]

(02-05-2021, 01:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This, right here, is why you fail.  For an older, educated, guy you appear to utterly lack even the slightest bit of self awareness or introspection.

And, again, you seem completely unaware of how many of your posts actually come across to the person reading them.  I am not alone in my opinion of your posting habits, not even remotely.

Even when you take the "high road" you often do it in a condescending manner.

Consensus!

I won't continue with this either, as I am aware we are edging close to the forum rules.  I'll end with this and we can all continue on.  Until you learn why your posts and arguments rub people (not just me btw) you'll continue to elicit the types of responses you sometime get.  

Sure. Pending that learning moment, lets agree to keep the discussion on ramifications of Trump's big lie.

[Dill]

(02-03-2021, 11:13 PM)hollodero Wrote: I hope you're aware that I won't read any of those, sorry... but the amount of time I can spend on American affairs is somehow limited and already severely stretched by my participating on these boards. I get why this can be doubted at times, but actually there are other issues I also need to attend to :)

Regarding all those sources--you were not expected to read all of them. They are there for you to check, should you doubt any claim based upon them.  E.g. for Strangers in Their Own Land, you'd only need to look at the table of contents and check one of the author's subject interviews. For other's, like Lakoff's, you'd only need to look at the TOC and a few paragraphs to test the "listening" and trying to understand the other side.

When one is making general claims about the U.S. media or a subsystem thereof as part of an argument, one should offer evidence which, if necessary can be examined. If my claims are "true", then they aren't so just because I say they are, but because of the evidence. Refuting my claims means refuting that evidence, and not something else that I didn't claim or didn't support.

This mode of proceeding is even more necessary now that we live in the "post-Truth" age of increasing resistance to evidence-based arguments.

(02-03-2021, 11:13 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't think I was doing something akin to that.
If I were to choose an example, I'd rather choose right-wing populism and how it's not a big deal in today's Germany because they get more votes in Austria or France. Yeah, well, true, but that doesn't mean it's only a matter of interest there.
- Nazis in GB were indeed a non-issue. The faults of the MSM are not comparably seldom, fringe and insignificant.

[--- oh and also I can't address your third reply... I'm done and tired, so sorry... maybe tomorrow]

The point of my GB/Nazi Germany analogy was not to show what you were doing, but to show what I was doing,

i.e., analyzing and describing social organizations by following the differences in practice in each to see whether and when they flip the organizations into wholes qualitatively different from one another--as was the case between GB and Germany in 1939, but not in 1929.

When we distinguish a dictatorship from a liberal democracy, we don't do it simply by quoting authoritarians and comparing what they say to liberals, though that may be a part of the project. We look primarily at how rules and institutions work in those different societies, what priorities there are and how they are set.  If one looks at the press in dictatorships, one sees that the state-form shapes it into something that cannot criticize the dictatorship. Editors and journalists who don't conform lose their jobs, sometimes their lives. Propaganda, false equivalence, defending the leader by de-legitimating alternative sources of authority become central journalistic tasks. The presentation of knowledge/information becomes "authoritarian," shaping all manner of national and domestic conflict as between "them" and "us," presenting the Regime's "Truth" as obvious and attacking the "hypocrisy" and "lies" of those who challenge it.

There was a time when fascists were a "non-issue" in both GB and Germany. Fascist parties grew and expanded in both countries during the '20s-'30s, achieving thousands in membership. But in GB they were checked by other parties and liberal institutions which had long been rooted in British society, and in the other they were not checked by weak, transplanted and "illegitimate" liberal institutions. Nazis eventually turned a liberal press into a totalitarian one. As they were doing that, it was possible to register the differences between the British press and the German--provided one had the right metric and applied it neutrally.

So I am applying the aforementioned metrics and method of framing historical study of social organization to a consideration of relatively distinct news networks in the U.S. This means noting differences between them in their relation to politicians in power, to parties, and to differences in their degree of divergence from claimed professional neutrality, in the degree of authority given them by their news consumers, and finally, in the accuracy of those consumers beliefs in the political world around them.

I am presuming these kinds of differences are measurable with the usual tools of political scientists and media scholars. And doing so can only seem worthwhile if one thinks, as I do, that Trump's Big Lie is a big problem for U.S. democracy, that it still has a strong hold on tens of millions who exercise political power on the basis of it, and the the RWMM remains the mainstay for it and other serious misconceptions about the political world we live in. Someone who does not share this concern will see no more than more partisan finger pointing here.

Which leads to the question of how this project "sounds" to people. I don't think it means I am biased if I don't find the above networks to be mirror images of each other, even if "both sides" use harsh rhetoric. If people are unfamiliar with my goals and comparative method, then my comparisons can certainly sound just like more partisan bickering--"Look, at Repubs nasty rhetoric"-- to be countered by "Dems do it too." No different from, and no more consequential than, a Twitter war over whether the exposed electric cords at Biden's WH briefings were uglier than exposed cords at Trump's.

As I said in a previous post, the key is whether one expects to see causal analysis or a blame game.

PS As I've said in previous posts, don't feel you have to respond to all or any of these posts and points. I'm retired and have time to waste. You likely don't. I'm more than happy if you respond to one or two points.

[Dill]

After following the Impeachment arguments today, and the follow up discussion on Fox's Outnumbered, I was put in mid of the question closing my opening post: 

The Right to Free Speech in the U.S. has, over the course of U.S. history, been shaped and defined sometimes in response to perceived threats to individual freedom and sometimes in response to public safety. Now that private sector efforts to combat seditious speech are conflated with state control to rouse a defense of "our freedoms," I am wondering whether or what contested conceptions of free speech may eventually settle into U.S. law.  Whose rights most need to protection now--the individual's or the public's?

We now see the free speech challenge following two different tracks: 1) Voting machine manufacturers are suing Fox and Trump lawyers for publicizing false claims that voting machines were rigged against Trump. This is already having an effect on Fox, as can be seen in the firing of Lou Dobbs.   And 2) The president's defense team is construing his incitement to "stop the steal" as defensible free speech. I

Regarding 2)--I am now less interested in how this will play out legally (dead end for Trump's case), and more interested in how it plays out politically, how it will fit into a larger argument the Dems now pose a great threat to "individual freedoms." That seems to be a direction Trump's defenders are taking his Impeachment trial. They are already flipping the Dems' characterization of Trump's coup attempt as "typical of banana republic dictatorships" into a claim that scorn for due process now makes the impeachment the kind of extr-legal process typical of dictatorships, and an attempt to "disenfranchise 74 million Trump voters" and the like.

Some relevant links:

Lawsuits Take the Lead in Fight Against Disinformation: Defamation cases have made waves across an uneasy right-wing media landscape, from Fox to Newsmax. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/06/business/media/conservative-media-defamation-lawsuits.html?searchResultPosition=1

In just a few weeks, lawsuits and legal threats from a pair of obscure election technology companies have achieved what years of advertising boycotts, public pressure campaigns and liberal outrage could not: curbing the flow of misinformation in right-wing media.

Fox Business canceled its highest rated show, “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” on Friday after its host was sued as part of a $2.7 billion defamation lawsuit. On Tuesday, the pro-Trump cable channel Newsmax cut off a guest’s rant about rigged voting machines. Fox News, which seldom bows to critics, has run fact-checking segments to debunk its own anchors’ false claims about electoral fraud....

Smartmatic, a voter technology firm swept up in conspiracies spread by former President Donald J. Trump and his allies, filed its defamation suit against Rupert Murdoch’s Fox empire on Thursday, citing Mr. Dobbs and two other Fox anchors, Maria Bartiromo and Jeanine Pirro, for harming its business and reputation.

Dominion Voting Systems, another company that Mr. Trump has accused of rigging votes, filed defamation suits last month against two of the former president’s lawyers, Rudolph W. Giuliani and Sidney Powell, on similar grounds. Both firms have signaled that more lawsuits may be imminent.

Litigation represents a new front in the war against misinformation, a scourge that has reshaped American politics, deprived citizens of common facts and paved the way for the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Fox News, for instance, paid millions last year to settle a claim from the family of a murdered Democratic National Committee staff member falsely accused by Fox hosts of leaking emails to WikiLeaks.

But the use of defamation suits has also raised uneasy questions about how to police a news media that counts on First Amendment protections — even as some conservative outlets advanced Mr. Trump’s lies and eroded public faith in the democratic process.

Denying Incitement, Trump Impeachment Team Says He Cannot Be Tried
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/08/us/politics/trump-impeachment-legal-brief.html?searchResultPosition=3

In a 78-page brief submitted to the Senate on the eve of the trial, the lawyers asserted that Mr. Trump did not “direct anyone to commit unlawful actions” or deserve blame for the conduct of what they called a “small group of criminals” who stormed into the Capitol. They said the former president’s rash of falsehoods about a stolen election, delivered at a rally outside the White House before the pro-Trump mob mounted its assault, were protected by the First Amendment.

Lawyers Call Trump's First Amendment Defense 'Legally Frivolous'
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/us/trump-defense-first-amendment.html?searchResultPosition=1

Breaking With G.O.P., Top Conservative Lawyer Says Trump Can Stand Trial
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/07/us/politics/charles-cooper-trump-impeachment.html?searchResultPosition=7

[Dill]

Anyone else following the Impeachment Trial?

Seems like the Dems have made a pretty strong case that Trump began grooming his base with the Big Lie for months before the election. And that he was well aware of their potential for violence given previous events in Michigan.

His people were monitoring the social media platforms upon which his followers plotted violence.

He could have acted to stop the rioting hours earlier, and called the NG, but did neither, sending out tweets to target Pence during the riot, as he was watching it on tv. During this time Republican politicians were urging him to act to defend the Capitol, while he, along with Rudy, was urging them to slow down the vote count.

His initial tweets during the riot did not instruct his followers to stop and leave, but instructed them to remain "peaceful."

He didn't condemn the rioters until the next day, when in a video he also took credit for sending in the National Guard.

Naturally, I am curious about how the RWM will respond to this.

To repeat a point I made above--the mob which descended on the Capitol genuinely believed the election had been stolen. A network of RWM and politicians credited that Big Lie and amplified it for Trump--

So now, how will that RWM and supporting politicians report/comment on an effect for which they were one of the primary causes? Fox is no longer crediting the Big Lie, but over the last week its commentators have intensified the whattaboutism ("BLM/ANTIFA"!) and charges of Dem hypocrisy, desperation, and TDS.

Jim Jordan has likened the RWM pushing the Big Lie to the MSM pushing the "Russia Hoax." Although from my perspective the claim that the Russia investigation was a "hoax" or "coup" is of a piece with the Big lie, generated and maintained in the same fashion, mostly by claims of news commentators and politicians.

So the machinery which created the big lie still seems to be operating, perhaps in overdrive now, given the direct hit to its credibility.

[Dill]

The recent discussions/conflicts over censuring GOP pols who voted for impeachment have got me thinking about "doublethink" and "deprogramming" again.

On the one hand, Biden is out of the gate with a high approval rating. That means support for his policies, or potential support, beyond his own party. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/president-biden-s-approval-number-stands-at-62-percent-101082693871

But on the other, the Big Lie and its promulgator have not at all gone away. While many MSM commentators now speak as if Jan. 6, Biden's inauguration and Trump's impeachment are in their rearview mirrors, GOP state parties are censuring or contemplating censuring their own who voted to Impeach their ex-president and still party leader.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-sen-richard-burr-facing-censure-home-vote/story?id=75905127
https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/politics/bill-cassidy-louisiana-republican-party-censure/index.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/02/16/pat-toomey-faces-censure-over-impeachment-vote-republican-party/6759842002/
"We did not send him there to vote his conscience. We did not send him there to do the right thing or whatever he said he was doing. We sent him there to represent us, and we feel very strongly that he did not represent us,"

This letter from Rep. Adam Kinzinger's (R-Ill) family is concerning, if it represents the current views of 10s of millions of voters, and the role of family and party in maintaining beliefs elsewhere disconfirmed. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/02/15/us/kinzinger-family-letter.html

They are disappointed that he has "gone against God" and "joined the Devil's Army" who support abortion.
He voted with the "socialists" who have been "brainwashed by the left." The family won't be convinced by his "horrible, rude accusations of Trump." They aren't judging anyone. Trump, like every Christian, has flaws. But Kinzinger has "lost the respect of Lou Dobbs, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Greg Kelly, etc." --whom, I gather, are sources of "truth" for Kinzinger's family.

Not easy to tell, but my impression is that tens of millions of Republican voters still believe the election was stolen and Biden is illegitimate. If people TRULY believe that, then what is their incentive to stop fighting, accept Biden as legitimate, especially if this is tied to "faith"? If I thought that Trump had illegally stolen the election--truly believed that--then I confess I would be ready to march on Washington too. This brings back that "deprogramming" issue, which Fox commentators found so insulting to Trump supporters who continue to believe in the face of disconfirming evidence.

Do non-Trump supporters think this conviction of Biden's illegitimacy will gradually go away? Maybe when schools and restaurants open again? If it is maintained and supported in closed circuit of family, RWM, and censuring party networks, I don't see why it would, at least not within the next year. The RWMM, Fox for sure, is no longer a serious platform for the Big Lie, but, perhaps to compensate, it has become more strident in warning viewers of the totalitarian threat posed by smug, freedom-stealing elites, and linked this threat directly to Biden's COVID policies, which impinge upon our "natural" freedoms by creating false pandemic fears the Dem party can manipulate to increase its state-backed power.  Fighting COVID policies and Dem/MSM "brainwashing" = fighting to keep our country, our freedoms. Every time you put on a mask to go in a store or every morning you cannot take your kids to school, you are feeling the heavy hand of that Dem state. That ties "their" policy to daily limitations on your existence/freedoms. 

The manufactured problem of voter fraud has made political legitimacy a kind of zero sum game. Being wrong about that fraud, after leading millions to protest it, is not like being wrong about a tax or trade policy, which could have been supported rationally in good faith. GOP politicians and voters who drank the fraud koolaid in their deep trust of Trump and his media/Evangelical enablers, cannot just flip a switch and accord a Biden government legitimacy without seriously questioning their own judgment to the point of questioning their whole worldview and deep faith in the authorities which maintain it, from Trump to Fox to the local pastor. 

The MSM, which recognized the fraud from the start, are now more untrustworthy than ever. Somehow.

Seems to me that many such voters--millions--are more likely to redouble efforts to maintain and reinforce the information bubble in which the "the steal" remains credible. If that is the case, then should we not expect that mass information will continue to be a national problem, as it has been since Biden's election, perhaps now in the form of resistance to policy?  Will its effects dissipate by summer, like the typical flu epidemic, maintain their current level, or spike as Biden imposes more stringent national COVID measures? 

[GMDino]

I'll post this here to continue how Trump will continue to shape the republican party.

And for a giggle.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/541950-trump-presses-republicans-to-stop-using-name-and-likeness-for-fundraising?fbclid=IwAR3YJPDkd8abUHxQWbrGNk2pbOEYsX0t7-8VhDmpaDaVtNuiVBCAZk5wkwc

Quote:Trump presses GOP to stop using name for fundraising
BY TAL AXELROD - 03/06/21 12:37 PM EST 965

 

Former President Trump is pressing Republican Party organs to stop using his name and likeness for fundraising and merchandise sales. 

Two sources familiar with the matter confirmed to The Hill that lawyers for Trump sent cease-and-desist letters Friday to the Republican National Committee (RNC), the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC).

The three groups are the largest fundraising bodies for the Republican Party.

Trump has long been known to tout his marketing expertise from his long career in real estate and was protective even while in office of how lawmakers and party organs used his name to benefit themselves and other candidates.

“President Trump remains committed to the Republican Party and electing America First conservatives, but that doesn’t give anyone - friend or foe - permission to use his likeness without explicit approval,” a Trump adviser told Politico, which was the first to report on the letters.

The move came the same day the RNC sent two emails to supporters looking for donations in the form of a thank-you card to Trump.

“President Trump will ALWAYS stand up for the American People, and I just thought of the perfect way for you to show that you support him!” one email reads. “As one of President Trump’s MOST LOYAL supporters, I think that YOU, deserve the great honor of adding your name to the Official Trump ‘Thank You’ Card.”

None of the three groups hit with the cease-and-desist letters immediately provided statements on the record to The Hill when reached for comment.

The letter from Trump’s attorneys appears to be part of the former president’s efforts to solidify his standing as a top kingmaker in the GOP. Trump has already forecasted that he will be heavily involved in the 2022 midterms while he mulls making a third presidential bid in 2024, and his endorsement is expected to be highly sought after by most Republicans.

The former president has so far most backed incumbents in their reelection bids, though he has warned sitting lawmakers he is ready to throw his weight behind primary challengers running against those he deems insufficiently loyal. 

“Where necessary and appropriate, I will back primary rivals who espouse Making America Great Again and our policy of America First. We want brilliant, strong, thoughtful, and compassionate leadership,” Trump said in a statement last month.

• Marjorie Taylor Greene's delay tactics frustrate GOP
• Greene sounds off on GOP after Hill story
  

So far, he’s endorsed former White House aide Max Miller, who is challenging Rep. Anthony Gonzalez (R-Ohio).


Gonzalez was one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump over his role in inciting the deadly Jan. 6 riot on Capitol Hill. 

Still, House Republicans for the most part have been more vocal in their embrace of the former president than their Senate counterparts since Trump left office.

Always about his brand.  He thinks he controls it even when referring to his time in office.  What a dolt.

[Dill]

(03-06-2021, 10:27 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'll post this here to continue how Trump will continue to shape the republican party.
And for a giggle.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/541950-trump-presses-republicans-to-stop-using-name-and-likeness-for-fundraising?fbclid=IwAR3YJPDkd8abUHxQWbrGNk2pbOEYsX0t7-8VhDmpaDaVtNuiVBCAZk5wkwc
Always about his brand.  He thinks he controls it even when referring to his time in office.  What a dolt.

I'm not giggling.  

So far, it LOOKS like Trump still has unprecedented power over millions of voters--enough maybe to exert effective control over 50 Senate votes, at least on some issues.

If this control does not begin to weaken over the next two months, then I fear it may hold steady all the way to the midterms. 

If a few Senators and Congressmen keep breaking away (like Romney and Cheney), then eventually, gradually, they may create more and more "permission" to do this. But this is the kind of "conventional" prediction that has regularly turned out to be wrong.

I also think struggling to focus an entire party on punishing the leader's personal enemies has to eventually wear on the rank and file, as it already does on the "establishment."  

[Dill]

More spin-off from "the Base": Star Southern Baptist evangelist Beth Moore has just broken with the Southern Baptist Church--largest denomination in the U.S.--over Trump.

https://religionnews.com/2021/03/09/bible-teacher-beth-moore-ends-partnership-with-lifeway-i-am-no-longer-a-southern-baptist/
Moore’s outsize influence and role in teaching the Bible have always made some evangelical power brokers uneasy, because of their belief only men should be allowed to preach.

But Moore was above reproach, supporting Southern Baptist teaching that limits the office of pastor to men alone and cheerleading for the missions and evangelistic work that the denomination holds dear....

Then along came Donald Trump. . . .

“Wake up, Sleepers, to what women have dealt with all along in environments of gross entitlement & power,” Moore once wrote about Trump, riffing on a passage from the New Testament Book of Ephesians.

Because of her opposition to Trump and her outspokenness in confronting sexism and nationalism in the evangelical world, Moore has been labeled as “liberal” and “woke” and even as being a heretic for daring to give a message during a Sunday morning church service.

Finally, Moore had had enough. She told Religion News Service in an interview Friday (March 5) that she is “no longer a Southern Baptist.”
In October 2016, Moore had what she called “the shock of my life,” when reading the transcripts of the “Access Hollywood” tapes, where Trump boasted of his sexual exploits with women.

“This wasn’t just immorality,” she said. “This smacked of sexual assault.”

She expected her fellow evangelicals, especially Southern Baptist leaders she trusted, to be outraged, especially given how they had reacted to Bill Clinton’s conduct in the 1990s. Instead, she said, they rallied around Trump.

“The disorientation of this was staggering,” she said. “Just staggering.”...

Still, she could not comprehend how he became a champion of the faith. “He became the banner, the poster child for the great white hope of evangelicalism, the salvation of the church in America,” she said. “Nothing could have prepared me for that.”

When Moore spoke out about Trump, the pushback was fierce. Book sales plummeted as did ticket sales to her events. Her criticism of Trump was seen as an act of betrayal. From fiscal 2017 to fiscal 2019, Living Proof lost more than $1.8 million.

[Forever Spinning Vinyl]

LOL

Let those idiots send their money to him so his followers and true Republicans can consume each other. He needs the money because he and his family will be bled dry by lawyer fees as he becomes a defendant for the rest of his life. All he is doing is weakening the Republican party and making sure that Democrats control Washington for years to come. All because of a weak man's ego. Absolutely hilarious.

[Dill]

(03-11-2021, 12:30 PM)Forever Spinning Vinyl Wrote: LOL

Let those idiots send their money to him so his followers and true Republicans can consume each other. He needs the money because he and his family will be bled dry by lawyer fees as he becomes a defendant for the rest of his life. All he is doing is weakening the Republican party and making sure that Democrats control Washington for years to come. All because of a weak man's ego. Absolutely hilarious.

Well, I hope it weakens the Republican party.

But I am not absolutely sure it does, or does so in a way that doesn't make them still powerful in an obstructive sort of way,

Hey, what do people think up there in Alaska? Any indication people are finally recognizing the grift?

Never been there and don't know what "conservatives" are like there.  I know they are very different in Montana and Texas, where my family is from.