They're getting more like Nazis every day - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15181947
Julian658 wrote:I often listen to MSNBC and one would think Trump is still POTUS according tho their rhetoric.

They keep on about him because it was great for the ratings when he was POTUS. It's all about ad money, but they aren't helping things.
#15181948
No wonder it's getting harder to get good people to run for politics. Only an irrational person would put themselves and their family through the barrage they have to go though.

Consider 80 years ago there was no TV, and not long before that no radio. Being a politician must have been much easier then, not having to deal with twitter freak-outs and the 24hr cable news cycle.
#15182419
late wrote:[The FBI are] sane and do their homework.

Glenn Greenwald would beg to differ: FBI Using the Same Fear Tactic From the First War on Terror: Orchestrating its Own Terrorism Plots. It's a rather lengthy piece, since he goes into the history of the story and other examples of FBI malfeasance, but the part about the FBI involvement in the Whitmer kidnapping conspiracy is this:

But the value of depicting Trump as having incited a frightening terrorist attack just weeks before the election, and the zeal to feed the broader narrative pushed by the U.S. security state that anti-government extremism is America's greatest national security threat, drowned out any skepticism. The storyline was clear and unquestioned: Trump was inciting ISIS-like terrorism on U.S. soil and right-wing extremists, who would fester even after Trump was done, were the primary menace that requires new domestic powers and larger budgets in order to defeat.

Yet just as happened with so many other narratives — from the origins of COVID to Hunter Biden's corrupt use of his ties to his father — Trump's defeat means the media is now willing to reconsider some of the propaganda that was pushed in the lead-up to the election. An excellent piece of investigative journalism published by BuzzFeed on Tuesday documents that, far from being passive observers of the plot, FBI informants and agents were the key drivers of it:

    An examination of the case by BuzzFeed News also reveals that some of those informants, acting under the direction of the FBI, played a far larger role than has previously been reported. Working in secret, they did more than just passively observe and report on the actions of the suspects. Instead, they had a hand in nearly every aspect of the alleged plot, starting with its inception. The extent of their involvement raises questions as to whether there would have even been a conspiracy without them.

So central to this plot were those acting at the behest of the FBI that many of the accused plotters only met each other because of meetings arranged at the direction of the FBI, who targeted them based on social media postings and other political activities that suggested anti-government and anti-Whitmer sentiments which could be exploited:

    A longtime government informant from Wisconsin, for example, helped organize a series of meetings around the country where many of the alleged plotters first met one another and the earliest notions of a plan took root, some of those people say. The Wisconsin informant even paid for some hotel rooms and food as an incentive to get people to come.

One of the FBI's informants, a former Iraq War soldier, “became so deeply enmeshed in a Michigan militant group that he rose to become its second-in-command.” With his leadership role in one of the key groups, and all while acting under the direction of the FBI, he was “encouraging members to collaborate with other potential suspects and paying for their transportation to meetings.” Indeed, he even “prodded the alleged mastermind of the kidnapping plot to advance his plan, then baited the trap that led to the arrest.”

A review of not only the BuzzFeed reporting but also the underlying court documents leaves little doubt that the primary impetus for this plot came over and over from the FBI. On July 12, a lawyer for one of the defendants filed a motion asking the court to compel the FBI to turn over all chats which their agents and informants involving the plot. He did so on the ground that the few chats they had obtained themselves — from their own clients — repeatedly show the FBI pushing and prodding its agents over and over to lure defendants into more meetings, to join in "recon” exercises, and to take as many steps as possible toward the plot.

While it was clear from the start that there were FBI informants and agents in the middle of all of this, it turns out that at least half of those involved were acting on FBI orders: twelve informants and agents. As BuzzFeed says, those acting at the behest of the FBI “had a hand in nearly every aspect of the alleged plot, starting with its inception.” All of that, concluded the reporters, “raises questions as to whether there would have even been a conspiracy without them.”

But this evidence does not so much raise that question as much as it answers it. The idea of kidnapping Gov. Whitmer came from the FBI. It was a plot designed by the agency, and they then went on the hunt to target people they believed they could manipulate into joining their plot — either people were easily manipulated due to psychological weakness, financial vulnerability, and/or their strongly held political views. In sum, the FBI devised this plot, was the primary organizer of it, funded it, purposely directed their targets to pose for incriminating pictures that they then released to the press, and then heaped praise on themselves for stopping what they themselves had created.
#15182422
@Doug64 - that sort of thing has been the FBI's MO since its beginning. The only thing which has changed in recent years is the target of that MO - back in the day, in the early 20th century, they used to target Anarchists, labour activists, Puerto Rican separatists, and the like, whereas now they target right-wing militias, Trumpists and the like as well. In fact, whoever the Establishment decides is a threat. Clearly, who they perceive to be a threat changes over time. But the methods they use to target those threats never fundamentally change.
#15182424
ckaihatsu wrote:So is the FBI pro-coup, or not?

I'm so confused.


x D

The FBI is pro whoever pays their wages. Just like the police or the military. So no, they are clearly not pro-coup. Why would they be?
#15182425
Potemkin wrote:The FBI is pro whoever pays their wages. Just like the police or the military. So no, they are clearly not pro-coup. Why would they be?


@Potemkin ;

Last words of Emperor Septimus Severus to his family were-''pay the troops''.
#15182426
Potemkin wrote:
The FBI is pro whoever pays their wages. Just like the police or the military. So no, they are clearly not pro-coup. Why would they be?



annatar1914 wrote:
@Potemkin ;

Last words of Emperor Septimus Severus to his family were-''pay the troops''.



The U.S. is 'banana-republicking' itself.
#15182427
ckaihatsu wrote:The U.S. is 'banana-republicking' itself.


@ckaihatsu ;

No, this is the world. America is going to be like everywhere else, finally, no illusions.


Revolution meets Reality, and is modified, even as it modifies reality.
#15182429
annatar1914 wrote:
@ckaihatsu ;

No, this is the world. America is going to be like everywhere else, finally, no illusions.



Okay.


annatar1914 wrote:
Revolution meets Reality, and is modified, even as it modifies reality.



Would you mind elaborating a bit on this -- it's vague and unclear in meaning. Thanks.
#15182438
ckaihatsu wrote:Okay.





Would you mind elaborating a bit on this -- it's vague and unclear in meaning. Thanks.


@ckaihatsu , revolutions come and go, and depending on how radical or how little revolutionary they really are, have a varying impact on the real world. Indeed, facts start to pile on, and ideas are tested as to how much they are in accord with those facts. Theories are tested and discarded or proved and retained. As it is, there is little that still works from the original American revolutionary system; from ''Articles of Confederation'' to ''US Constitution'' to American Civil War and beyond. People have come up with new ideas from it's ruins and the ruins of other revolutions, and so it goes on, right or wrong.
#15182453
Doug64 wrote:
Glenn Greenwald would beg to differ



"Why are we surprised that entrapment claims tend to be weak even if it appears that the police were deeply involved in the criminal activity charged, to the point of appearing to orchestrate it? It is mainly because media coverage — especially at the pretrial stage, when it is mostly defense lawyers speaking to the press — focuses on the wrong issue.

When it comes to entrapment claims, what matters most is the nature of the criminal conduct at issue. The degree of police aggressiveness is a side issue. Indeed, the more serious and potentially violent the crime, the more aggressiveness we expect from the police and their informants.

If you’re not focused on the nature of the crime, then any discussion of entrapment escapes the realm of common sense and enters that of a dry, artificial law-school exam.

The legal test of entrapment is straightforward. Entrapment is police enticing of a person to commit a crime that the person was not otherwise disposed to commit. Consequently, as a matter of law, there can be no entrapment if the accused (a) proposed or otherwise initiated the crime, or (b) was predisposed to commit the crime, even if the government proposed it.

In the real world, though, it’s usually a silly question, and the more heinous the crime, the more silly the question becomes. Why? Because innately law-abiding people do not get entrapped into committing violent crimes."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/whitmer-kidnap-case-enters-entrapment-phase/

Image
#15182459
late wrote:"Why are we surprised that entrapment claims tend to be weak even if it appears that the police were deeply involved in the criminal activity charged, to the point of appearing to orchestrate it? It is mainly because media coverage — especially at the pretrial stage, when it is mostly defense lawyers speaking to the press — focuses on the wrong issue.

When it comes to entrapment claims, what matters most is the nature of the criminal conduct at issue. The degree of police aggressiveness is a side issue. Indeed, the more serious and potentially violent the crime, the more aggressiveness we expect from the police and their informants.

If you’re not focused on the nature of the crime, then any discussion of entrapment escapes the realm of common sense and enters that of a dry, artificial law-school exam.

The legal test of entrapment is straightforward. Entrapment is police enticing of a person to commit a crime that the person was not otherwise disposed to commit. Consequently, as a matter of law, there can be no entrapment if the accused (a) proposed or otherwise initiated the crime, or (b) was predisposed to commit the crime, even if the government proposed it.

In the real world, though, it’s usually a silly question, and the more heinous the crime, the more silly the question becomes. Why? Because innately law-abiding people do not get entrapped into committing violent crimes."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/whitmer-kidnap-case-enters-entrapment-phase/

Image

That is a disgusting quote.

Perhaps a good exhibit for the title topic of the thread though.
#15182462
[quote="Unthinking Majority"]
No wonder it's getting harder to get good people to run for politics. Only an irrational person would put themselves and their family through the barrage they have to go though.

Consider 80 years ago there was no TV, and not long before that no radio. Being a politician must have been much easier then, not having to deal with twitter freak-outs and the 24hr cable news cycle.
[/quote]

Eventually the public need to realize that:
1. What they see in the media may not be the whole of actual truth, and
2. Leaders are still people

Meanwhile, leaders need to realize that:
1. It is of the society's best interest for them to assume a custodian role rather than a shepherd role, and
2. They should stop trying to outdo each other in impressing people with exotic promises or behavior.
#15182464
Crantag wrote:
That is a disgusting quote.

Perhaps a good exhibit for the title topic of the thread though.



The history of insurrections makes it look like the government isn't doing enough.

But it is a disgusting situation, assuming you don't like blowing up babies with bombs...
#15182466
annatar1914 wrote:
@ckaihatsu , revolutions come and go, and depending on how radical or how little revolutionary they really are, have a varying impact on the real world. Indeed, facts start to pile on, and ideas are tested as to how much they are in accord with those facts. Theories are tested and discarded or proved and retained. As it is, there is little that still works from the original American revolutionary system; from ''Articles of Confederation'' to ''US Constitution'' to American Civil War and beyond. People have come up with new ideas from it's ruins and the ruins of other revolutions, and so it goes on, right or wrong.



Yeah, dialectics. Got it.

*My* political concern is that the societal 'software' -- capitalism and private property relations -- doesn't match the 'hardware', meaning the world of overproductive mass industrial production that floods the world with goods and services but uses *exchange values* as a prerequisite for the *accessing* of such production.
#15182467
late wrote:
"Why are we surprised that entrapment claims tend to be weak even if it appears that the police were deeply involved in the criminal activity charged, to the point of appearing to orchestrate it? It is mainly because media coverage — especially at the pretrial stage, when it is mostly defense lawyers speaking to the press — focuses on the wrong issue.

When it comes to entrapment claims, what matters most is the nature of the criminal conduct at issue. The degree of police aggressiveness is a side issue. Indeed, the more serious and potentially violent the crime, the more aggressiveness we expect from the police and their informants.

If you’re not focused on the nature of the crime, then any discussion of entrapment escapes the realm of common sense and enters that of a dry, artificial law-school exam.

The legal test of entrapment is straightforward. Entrapment is police enticing of a person to commit a crime that the person was not otherwise disposed to commit. Consequently, as a matter of law, there can be no entrapment if the accused (a) proposed or otherwise initiated the crime, or (b) was predisposed to commit the crime, even if the government proposed it.

In the real world, though, it’s usually a silly question, and the more heinous the crime, the more silly the question becomes. Why? Because innately law-abiding people do not get entrapped into committing violent crimes."

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/whitmer-kidnap-case-enters-entrapment-phase/

[img]https://cdn.britannica.com/21/74221-050-70FD60D9/remains-Oklahoma-City-Alfred-P-Murrah-Federal-April-19-1995.jpg[img]



'In the real world entrapment is a silly question' -- ?

Why bother *discussing* entrapment, or even have it on the books, if it's inevitably going to be 'silly' -- ?

It's not silly *at all* -- it's an abuse of power on the part of the authorities.
#15182469
ckaihatsu wrote:
'In the real world entrapment is a silly question' -- ?

Why bother *discussing* entrapment, or even have it on the books, if it's inevitably going to be 'silly' -- ?

It's not silly *at all* -- it's an abuse of power on the part of the authorities.



It can be, usually isn't.

It's silly because, as the article pointed out, a law abiding person would simply not go there.

And since the obvious is not obvious enough, failure to prevent means occasionally you get an OK City bombing.

Image
#15182495
late wrote:
It can be, usually isn't.

It's silly because, as the article pointed out, a law abiding person would simply not go there.

And since the obvious is not obvious enough, failure to prevent means occasionally you get an OK City bombing.

[img]https://durhammuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/1996_E-G6125-iwb-FINAL-Charles-Porter-web.jpg[img]



This is getting *asinine*, late -- the FBI *used* entrapment, *facilitating* the plan to kidnap Whitmer, and possibly January 6th as well, at this rate.

Why is there even a *legal definition* of 'entrapment' if it's to be roundly considered as 'silly', putting all of the burden of proof / accountability on the subject themselves -- ?

By this reasoning, Miranda rights is *also* 'silly', and so are the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, etc.

Are you *for* a police state, late?

Certainly policing can be done to *prevent* the Oklahoma City bombing, or the January 6th attempted coup, but obviously it *didn't* -- even with the authorities' access to using entrapment -- so isn't that *enough*? Why aren't you blaming the *police* / government for its failures?
#15182506
ckaihatsu wrote:
This is getting *asinine*



It's already there.

We always have extremists getting violent, and it's getting worse. If you were to ask me, I'd say we're not doing enough to make it possible for the republic to survive, or avoid a dramatic increase in violence.

@JohnRawls ; They can do or say whatever the[…]

Key Rasmussen Polls

@Patrickov , the polls aren't confined to a small[…]

So not "medievalism" then. Lol. Wh[…]

I do not think it is possible to make any sort of[…]