The right *is* willing to be hardass, though. I see some of that desperate ruthlessness on display in their defending Trump right now and accusing the Deep State of a “color revolution,” etc.
The point is that it’s a “war to nowhere.” Even if the Right openly suspended the Constitution to keep Trump in office, what would they do with all that power?
The Right is good at freaking out at advancing leftists who “hate America” or “Western values” or some such—at understanding every election as a “Flight 93” crisis.
But the Right is totally bereft of a vision; they can block and retreat but never advance. In the end, fortune favors the bold. I, for one, have little sympathy for conservatives as they get tossed in the dustbin.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I've noted a right-wing backlash against Fuentes for meeting with Trump. In summary, "You're ruining his reputation!"
I understand this...but it strikes me as deriving largely from jealousy. I don't blame Fuentes for meeting with the rich and powerful. I would certainly do (and have done) the same thing.
The issue is really the promotion on social media of the private turkey dinner. This was done by Milo (and Ye likely at Milo's behest). If you're going to have a tete-a-tete, you've got to keep that stuff secret. Milo turned the event into a media frenzy.
I don't quite know what to make of the China-related material. But might the Iran documents tell us something about the dynamics at play with regard to Trump, Iran, the Saudis and UAE—and, yes, Russia?
Avoiding any "Russiagate" hysteria, it's safe to say Trump was Moscow's preferred candidate in 2016. Trump returned the love, and, to be fair, much of what he said was reasonable and "realist": Why not get along with Russia? Why aren't NATO countries paying their fair share? etc.
Steve Bannon has earned the fanatical, irrational support of MAGA, who have no concept of politics or policy outside owning the libs. Lib-owning martyrdom will certainly appeal to them. Four months is a small price to pay for decades-long grift.
In a way, I'm surprised that Bannon could accomplish this. Back in 2017, he was fired for disrespecting Trump to various journalists and authors, even floating the use of the 25th amendment. (Perhaps he imagined himself taking over MAGA in Trump's place?).
Secondly, the "We Build The Wall" scam was so brazenly criminal, I'm genuinely shocked that anyone would take him seriously afterwards. I should have remembered this certain White infatuation with evangelical preachers, charlatans, and snake-oil salesmen.
The notion that Elon is sitting on $44 billion in cash is ridiculous. He’ll sell Tesla stock to purchase Twitter, and that stock is crashing as a result. It’s a vicious cycle, which, in a worst case scenario, eventuates in Musk losing his stake in the Tesla.
Currently, Elon’s 17% of Tesla is worth $128 billion dollars. But again, selling large chunks of this directly lowers the overall value, creating a cascade effect: The price keeps going down, forcing Elon to sell more shares.
Conservative and “New Right” Musk fanboys are hilarious. First, they announced that Elon was saving free speech; then they claimed that Elon was fake-purchasing Twitter to expose it or secretly destroy it. What do they say now?
In the weeks leading up to the 2020 election, Tim Pool made some rather remarkable predictions.
My point is not to dunk on a person who's clearly dumb, or call Pool a "grifter." What's most important is that Pool paid no real price, in terms of his audience's reaction, to his idiotic claims. In fact, his audience still loves him and treats him like a brave truth-teller.
Pool has an arrangement (or business model) with his audience: he boldly tells them nonsense, or at least misrepresents reports on current event. His audience gets good vibes and pays him for what is effectively entertainment.
#AlexJones dug his own grave. He can’t whine about the 1A when he actively ignored and defaulted in the trial where that was very much at stake.
A plausible, if not necessarily winning, defense could have been attempted based on the *Snyder v. Phelps* decision, in which SCOTUS upheld the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to demean the memory of fallen soldiers at their own funerals (!)—provided it was political speech.
Jones could have plausibly said that he was not engaged in harassment of individuals; he engaged in political speech against “the globalists” or some such; he got the facts wrong but not maliciously so. (I don’t say this as an admirer of Jones; I say it to be fair.)