The US shadow campaign to "fortify democracy"

Watch
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#1
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020...mpression=true

I guess TIME magazine is now a far right conspiracy theorist magazine for saying that a shadow cabal clandestinely intervened in the election to defeat Donald Trump 🙄
1
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#2
Name:  Screenshot_2021-02-05-19-21-58-51.jpg
Views: 6
Size:  158.6 KB

Nothing to see here folks 😠

Well I guess at least it's not a conspiracy anymore ... I wonder what else has been done to 'protect democracy'
0
reply
NJA
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 2 weeks ago
#3
It didn't take the Biden aAdministration long to up the ante . . . .or is that not a fair comment?

Name:  FB_IMG_1612562057170.jpg
Views: 7
Size:  64.0 KB
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Nothing to see here folks 😠

Well I guess at least it's not a conspiracy anymore ... I wonder what else has been done to 'protect democracy'
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020...mpression=true

I guess TIME magazine is now a far right conspiracy theorist magazine for saying that a shadow cabal clandestinely intervened in the election to defeat Donald Trump 🙄
As far as I can tell from the article, this "cabal" is made up of people from the US itself so... what's the issue here?
0
reply
Calibrated.
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report 2 weeks ago
#5
They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction. After Election Day, they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result.
How absolutely outrageous of them.

If only more voter suppression had happened, if only less people had voted, if only the American people were more ignorant of their system, if only fake news promoted by right wing grafters had been allowed to dominate the narrative then maybe the anti-democratic reactionary right would have seen their cult hero remain in office.
6
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 weeks ago
#6
Seems like a relative non-story to be honest. They're just putting a sensational spin on what has been common practice for decades.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by Napp)
Seems like a relative non-story to be honest. They're just putting a sensational spin on what has been common practice for decades.
Not quite. The internet, social media sites and near total partisanship of the MSM hasn't existed for decades.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#8
Name:  IMG_6624.jpg
Views: 5
Size:  100.1 KB
The 'resistance'
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#9
Report 2 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by Calibrated.)
How absolutely outrageous of them.

If only more voter suppression had happened, if only less people had voted, if only the American people were more ignorant of their system, if only fake news promoted by right wing grafters had been allowed to dominate the narrative then maybe the anti-democratic reactionary right would have seen their cult hero remain in office.
PRSOM.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Not quite. The internet, social media sites and near total partisanship of the MSM hasn't existed for decades.
Near total partisanship of the MSM? Are you kidding? Do the extremely popular right wing sites / papers like the Daily Mail, The Telegraph and The Express just not exist anymore?
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by Calibrated.)
If only more voter suppression had happened, if only less people had voted, if only the American people were more ignorant of their system, if only fake news promoted by right wing grafters had been allowed to dominate the narrative then maybe the anti-democratic reactionary right would have seen their cult hero remain in office.
Cool then why the secrecy?

I'll show you why:

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...peeches-453223

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/u...ntractors.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/1...acebook-436672


( But I'm sure these are just brave pro democracy activists acting out of patriotism sniff 🤣)
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Near total partisanship of the MSM? Are you kidding? Do the extremely popular right wing sites / papers like the Daily Mail, The Telegraph and The Express just not exist anymore?
Obviously talking about America not the UK.

Though the daily mail, telegraph and ConHome are all anti trump (even before November and regularly host critical pieces about him)
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#13
Report 2 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Obviously talking about America not the UK.

Though the daily mail, telegraph and ConHome are all anti trump (even before November and regularly host critical pieces about him)
Guess Fox News and the Wall Street Journal don't exist either, then.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Not quite. The internet, social media sites and near total partisanship of the MSM hasn't existed for decades.
The article is complaining about a supposed sinister cabal between business, activists and vested interests shaping policy is it not? This has been happening since time immemorial. The means of organising is of fairly limited impact imo.
As to the partisanship of media in America, its been that way for decades... Be it fox or cnn they have never sought to hide their biasses and it has been positively encouraged by government fiat. Then again, theyre not as bad as the 'non-msm' who are the pits for it.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Guess Fox News and the Wall Street Journal don't exist either, then.
Both of whom have been very lukewarm at best, Fox in particular has long been pretty dismissive of Trump which has been noted.

The NYP is a better example and they censored when it came to light that Hunter Biden had a laptop with all sorts of dodgy crap on it (that he is now being officially investigated for)

Also see:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/News...ntial_election


(Now imagine If this was the other way around )
0
reply
Ascend
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Guess Fox News and the Wall Street Journal don't exist either, then.

Image
1
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by Napp)
The article is complaining about a supposed sinister cabal between business, activists and vested interests shaping policy is it not? This has been happening since time immemorial. The means of organising is of fairly limited impact imo.
As to the partisanship of media in America, its been that way for decades... Be it fox or cnn they have never sought to hide their biasses and it has been positively encouraged by government fiat. Then again, theyre not as bad as the 'non-msm' who are the pits for it.
No. That's not what I'm highlighting. This group is not about shaping policy (eg lobbying X party to do Y) but about shaping the election itself through the 'control of Information'.

I am not against media partisanship. Quite the opposite in fact and this is why I am concerned about the above almost total one sided partisanship of the media working in conjunction with big tech to silence dissidents.

I get that people don't like Trump but I dont think giving these groups a monopoly on 'truth' is what they want either.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
No. That's not what I'm highlighting. This group is not about shaping policy (eg lobbying X party to do Y) but about shaping the election itself through the 'control of Information'.

I am not against media partisanship. Quite the opposite in fact and this is why I am concerned about the above almost total one sided partisanship of the media working in conjunction with big tech to silence dissidents.

I get that people don't like Trump but I dont think giving these groups a monopoly on 'truth' is what they want either.
I'm not sure we can call it all one sided, fox and oan being just two of the more visible networks trying to fellate Trump. As to the others, whilst some undoubtedly have a bent, i see little problem in them calling out Trump for his unamerican attitudes, corruption and general trashing of the country and its institutions. After all, pointing out that he was unfit for office was less an article of partisanship than a mere statement of fact. The only interesting aspect was that the networks supporting him (which are part of the msm, whether they like it or not) lied quite so much in support of him.

I will grant you a point with big tech in their abuses, not least in 'deplatforming' a sitting president. Something they will hopefully answer for in the coming enquires. That being said though, as far as silencing lunatic like Marjorie and other subhuman elements i can think of worse things. Silencing people for being merely conservative is one thing (something that doesnt actually happen very much) silencing them for propagating conspiracy theories, lies and propaganda is quite another though and something that i see no real issue with. Aside from their lack of doing it to some of the eco-fascists, blm lunatics with their 'antifa' buddies and so on. Basically the problem i see is less them cleaning undesirables from their sites but doing so with an ideology in mind.

You have a point on the truth aspect although in fairness thats a nasty problem for them to run into and theyve merely taken the safer course, especially with covid. It is easier to simply remove dubious material than go through the time and effort of fact checking it. On the flip side, there are singular truths on things such as 5G (its fine), Qanon (its rubbish) antivaxxers and so on. They might not have a monopoly on truth but equally they shouldnt be under any obligation to host crap like that which can cause physical harm to people. Difference of opinion is one thing, propagating lies and crack pot theories is quite another.
1
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by Napp)
I'm not sure we can call it all one sided, fox and oan being just two of the more visible networks trying to fellate Trump. As to the others, whilst some undoubtedly have a bent, i see little problem in them calling out Trump for his unamerican attitudes, corruption and general trashing of the country and its institutions. After all, pointing out that he was unfit for office was less an article of partisanship than a mere statement of fact. The only interesting aspect was that the networks supporting him (which are part of the msm, whether they like it or not) lied quite so much in support of him.

I will grant you a point with big tech in their abuses, not least in 'deplatforming' a sitting president. Something they will hopefully answer for in the coming enquires. That being said though, as far as silencing lunatic like Marjorie and other subhuman elements i can think of worse things. Silencing people for being merely conservative is one thing (something that doesnt actually happen very much) silencing them for propagating conspiracy theories, lies and propaganda is quite another though and something that i see no real issue with. Aside from their lack of doing it to some of the eco-fascists, blm lunatics with their 'antifa' buddies and so on. Basically the problem i see is less them cleaning undesirables from their sites but doing so with an ideology in mind.

You have a point on the truth aspect although in fairness thats a nasty problem for them to run into and theyve merely taken the safer course, especially with covid. It is easier to simply remove dubious material than go through the time and effort of fact checking it. On the flip side, there are singular truths on things such as 5G (its fine), Qanon (its rubbish) antivaxxers and so on. They might not have a monopoly on truth but equally they shouldnt be under any obligation to host crap like that which can cause physical harm to people. Difference of opinion is one thing, propagating lies and crack pot theories is quite another.
Rep for being intellectually consistent and reasonable esp in your second and third paragraphs.

A few points

On Trump's unfitness for office - well 75 million Americans disagree. Now I think democracy is dumb but if we are going to live in a democracy then attempting to suppress one half of the population isn't going to work out well.

Personally I am a strong advocate of the first amendment and also a big critic of the narrative against 'conspiracy theories' - many of the people writing about the below could have been censored in today's society:

https://www.businessinsider.com/true...racies-2013-12

I think censoring cranks lends them authority rather than subjecting them to scrutiny and ridicule.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report 2 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Both of whom have been very lukewarm at best, Fox in particular has long been pretty dismissive of Trump which has been noted.

The NYP is a better example and they censored when it came to light that Hunter Biden had a laptop with all sorts of dodgy crap on it (that he is now being officially investigated for)

Also see:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/News...ntial_election


(Now imagine If this was the other way around )
Seriously? Fox News is one of the most viewed TV networks in the US. They may not be pro-Trump but they're certainly not pro-Biden.

I'm curious as to how you think Trump could have obtained 47% of the vote if you also think that the internet, social media and nearly the entire MSM are left leaning. Clearly these people must be getting their information from somewhere, right?

The link gives a list of newspapers that are printed in major US cities and universities. Most cities and universities are left leaning, so it's not exactly surprising that most of their papers endoursed Biden.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Following the government's announcement, do you think you will be awarded a fair grade this year?

Yes (162)
51.27%
No (154)
48.73%

Watched Threads

View All