An ‘unthinkable’ corporate response

tempo_n_groove · January 2021

mickeyrat said:

I'll tell you this, I don't think the censoring is a good idea.

tempo_n_groove · January 2021

Wasn't sure where this should go so figured I'd put it here first.
This shows corproations are drawing lines in the sand too. The end sentence would be the more level headed answer though.
From the NYT: Written by David Leonhardt

Good morning. Companies are halting donations to Congress members who backed overturning the election result.

Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, after the riot on Wednesday.Win Mcnamee/Getty Images

An ‘unthinkable’ corporate response

Large corporations and their lobbyists usually try to steer clear of messy political fights. Companies prefer to work behind the scenes, giving money to both political parties and quietly influencing tax policy, spending and regulation.

But President Trump’s effort to overturn the result of the presidential election — and the violent attack on Congress by his supporters — has created a dilemma for many companies. A growing number have decided that they are, at least for now, not willing to support members of Congress who backed Trump’s efforts to change the election result and promoted lies about election fraud.

Over the weekend, several large companies — Marriott, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Commerce Bancshares — announced a suspension of donations to members of Congress who voted against election certification. Yesterday, the list expanded to Amazon, AT&T, Comcast, Airbnb, Mastercard, Verizon and Dow, the chemical company. Hallmark has even asked for its money back from two of the senators who opposed certification, Josh Hawley and Roger Marshall.

“Just a few days ago, this would have been unthinkable,” Judd Legum — the author of the Popular Information newsletter, who has done the best recent reporting on corporate donations — told me.

In the Senate, the temporary ban on donations will also affect Rick Scott of Florida, Ted Cruz of Texas and a few other members. In the House, the group includes more than half of the Republican caucus, including its two top leaders, Kevin McCarthy and Steve Scalise.

“We have to create some level of cost,” Thomas Glocer, a board member at Morgan Stanley and Merck, told The Wall Street Journal. “Money is the key way.”

The National Association of Manufacturers, long one of the more conservative business lobbying groups, has been particularly harsh. It called out Republicans who “cheered on” Trump during his “disgusting” effort to overturn the election, which it said had “inflamed violent anger.” The association added: “This is sedition and should be treated as such.”

Still, many large companies have not announced a change. (And other companies, like Goldman Sachs and Google’s parent, have announced a pause on all political donations — a move that seems designed to prevent public criticism while also not angering politicians who supported attempted election fraud.)

McDonald’s and the tobacco company Altria, which are among the top 20 donors to McCarthy, the House Republican leader, have not announced a halt on donations to any Congress members. Neither has Bank of America (a major donor to Scott), although it said it would “review its decision making.”

The well-connected law firm Squire Patton Boggs has also not announced any policy change. It has donated to Paul Gosar, a House member from Arizona who helped promote the Jan. 6 rally that turned violent, tweeting “#FightForTrump” and “The Time Is Now. Hold the Line.”

What’s the bottom line? I asked Andrew Ross Sorkin, the Times columnist who has spent two decades covering corporate leaders, and he said that the announcements amounted to “temporary defensive moves.” The real question was whether, six months from now, the companies would go back to donating to the politicians who supported overturning a presidential election.

For more, read Andrew’s latest column, which argues for a permanent end to corporate political donations.

mickeyrat · January 2021

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

I'll tell you this, I don't think the censoring is a good idea.

so then user agreements and terms of service are worthless?

send those kinds of posts to a newspaper. bet they dont get printed online or in print.... helltheympolice thier comments online

fundamentally whats the difference?

tempo_n_groove · January 2021

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

I'll tell you this, I don't think the censoring is a good idea.

so then user agreements and terms of service are worthless?

send those kinds of posts to a newspaper. bet they dont get printed online or in print.... helltheympolice thier comments online

fundamentally whats the difference?

I have to look it up but the internet is governed by a set of laws that is broad and I do remember people wanting them changed. I'll need to delve in it further.

When something like Parler gets taken down then that is something. Is it a different point of view, alternate facts or hate speech? Wanting to secure our border doesn't make you a racist but it tends to lean that way now and if you say so you'll get lambasted.

I see the censoring as to bringing up more problems and it feeds the "deep state" theories.

mickeyrat · January 2021

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

I'll tell you this, I don't think the censoring is a good idea.

so then user agreements and terms of service are worthless?

send those kinds of posts to a newspaper. bet they dont get printed online or in print.... helltheympolice thier comments online

fundamentally whats the difference?

I have to look it up but the internet is governed by a set of laws that is broad and I do remember people wanting them changed. I'll need to delve in it further.

When something like Parler gets taken down then that is something. Is it a different point of view, alternate facts or hate speech? Wanting to secure our border doesn't make you a racist but it tends to lean that way now and if you say so you'll get lambasted.

I see the censoring as to bringing up more problems and it feeds the "deep state" theories.

plotting the violent overthrow of our government, overturning a secure and legally certified election, and installing a king is not alternate facts or hate speech. its felony conspiracy.

these companies are bound by contract law.

every member of Parler including its owner are free to hit a soapbox and spew whatever the fuck they want. however speech has its consequences. these fuckers are finding that out. a nongovernmental entity has its rights and obligations too.

this is the free market exercising its muscle.

Merkin Baller · January 2021

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

I'll tell you this, I don't think the censoring is a good idea.

so then user agreements and terms of service are worthless?

send those kinds of posts to a newspaper. bet they dont get printed online or in print.... helltheympolice thier comments online

fundamentally whats the difference?

I have to look it up but the internet is governed by a set of laws that is broad and I do remember people wanting them changed. I'll need to delve in it further.

When something like Parler gets taken down then that is something. Is it a different point of view, alternate facts or hate speech? Wanting to secure our border doesn't make you a racist but it tends to lean that way now and if you say so you'll get lambasted.

I see the censoring as to bringing up more problems and it feeds the "deep state" theories.

plotting the violent overthrow of our government, overturning a secure and legally certified election, and installing a king is not alternate facts or hate speech. its felony conspiracy.

these companies are bound by contract law.

every member of Parler including its owner are free to hit a soapbox and spew whatever the fuck they want. however speech has its consequences. these fuckers are finding that out. a nongovernmental entity has its rights and obligations too.

this is the free market exercising its muscle.

I'm against censorship of free speech as much as the next person, but it's no secret that free speech has its limitations.

If trump using twitter to organize lynch mobs to go after his political enemies doesn't warrant consequences, then what does?

tempo_n_groove · January 2021

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

I'll tell you this, I don't think the censoring is a good idea.

so then user agreements and terms of service are worthless?

send those kinds of posts to a newspaper. bet they dont get printed online or in print.... helltheympolice thier comments online

fundamentally whats the difference?

I have to look it up but the internet is governed by a set of laws that is broad and I do remember people wanting them changed. I'll need to delve in it further.

When something like Parler gets taken down then that is something. Is it a different point of view, alternate facts or hate speech? Wanting to secure our border doesn't make you a racist but it tends to lean that way now and if you say so you'll get lambasted.

I see the censoring as to bringing up more problems and it feeds the "deep state" theories.

plotting the violent overthrow of our government, overturning a secure and legally certified election, and installing a king is not alternate facts or hate speech. its felony conspiracy.

these companies are bound by contract law.

every member of Parler including its owner are free to hit a soapbox and spew whatever the fuck they want. however speech has its consequences. these fuckers are finding that out. a nongovernmental entity has its rights and obligations too.

this is the free market exercising its muscle.

I bolded the above.

Almost half the country that could vote, voted for Donald Trump and a fair amount of them believe the election was rigged and wanted to do something about it. How we stop that way of thinking is a different story.

tempo_n_groove · January 2021

Merkin Baller said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

I'll tell you this, I don't think the censoring is a good idea.

so then user agreements and terms of service are worthless?

send those kinds of posts to a newspaper. bet they dont get printed online or in print.... helltheympolice thier comments online

fundamentally whats the difference?

I have to look it up but the internet is governed by a set of laws that is broad and I do remember people wanting them changed. I'll need to delve in it further.

When something like Parler gets taken down then that is something. Is it a different point of view, alternate facts or hate speech? Wanting to secure our border doesn't make you a racist but it tends to lean that way now and if you say so you'll get lambasted.

I see the censoring as to bringing up more problems and it feeds the "deep state" theories.

plotting the violent overthrow of our government, overturning a secure and legally certified election, and installing a king is not alternate facts or hate speech. its felony conspiracy.

these companies are bound by contract law.

every member of Parler including its owner are free to hit a soapbox and spew whatever the fuck they want. however speech has its consequences. these fuckers are finding that out. a nongovernmental entity has its rights and obligations too.

this is the free market exercising its muscle.

I'm against censorship of free speech as much as the next person, but it's no secret that free speech has its limitations.

If trump using twitter to organize lynch mobs to go after his political enemies doesn't warrant consequences, then what does?

I remember when Howard Stern would get in a tiff with someone and his fans would go after or heckle them. His fans were always rabid and loyal.

Alex Jones was thrown off the air because of this too. He was slightly more radical than Trump and Stern though. I had heartache with that too but was relieved in a way that people would stop listening to him as gospel.

I have very mixed feelings about it is all.

mickeyrat · January 2021

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

I'll tell you this, I don't think the censoring is a good idea.

so then user agreements and terms of service are worthless?

send those kinds of posts to a newspaper. bet they dont get printed online or in print.... helltheympolice thier comments online

fundamentally whats the difference?

I have to look it up but the internet is governed by a set of laws that is broad and I do remember people wanting them changed. I'll need to delve in it further.

When something like Parler gets taken down then that is something. Is it a different point of view, alternate facts or hate speech? Wanting to secure our border doesn't make you a racist but it tends to lean that way now and if you say so you'll get lambasted.

I see the censoring as to bringing up more problems and it feeds the "deep state" theories.

plotting the violent overthrow of our government, overturning a secure and legally certified election, and installing a king is not alternate facts or hate speech. its felony conspiracy.

these companies are bound by contract law.

every member of Parler including its owner are free to hit a soapbox and spew whatever the fuck they want. however speech has its consequences. these fuckers are finding that out. a nongovernmental entity has its rights and obligations too.

this is the free market exercising its muscle.

I bolded the above.

Almost half the country that could vote, voted for Donald Trump and a fair amount of them believe the election was rigged and wanted to do something about it. How we stop that way of thinking is a different story.

most of those love the flag. and that seems to be about it.

the rest of us love the constitution first......

tempo_n_groove · January 2021

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

I'll tell you this, I don't think the censoring is a good idea.

so then user agreements and terms of service are worthless?

send those kinds of posts to a newspaper. bet they dont get printed online or in print.... helltheympolice thier comments online

fundamentally whats the difference?

I have to look it up but the internet is governed by a set of laws that is broad and I do remember people wanting them changed. I'll need to delve in it further.

When something like Parler gets taken down then that is something. Is it a different point of view, alternate facts or hate speech? Wanting to secure our border doesn't make you a racist but it tends to lean that way now and if you say so you'll get lambasted.

I see the censoring as to bringing up more problems and it feeds the "deep state" theories.

plotting the violent overthrow of our government, overturning a secure and legally certified election, and installing a king is not alternate facts or hate speech. its felony conspiracy.

these companies are bound by contract law.

every member of Parler including its owner are free to hit a soapbox and spew whatever the fuck they want. however speech has its consequences. these fuckers are finding that out. a nongovernmental entity has its rights and obligations too.

this is the free market exercising its muscle.

I bolded the above.

Almost half the country that could vote, voted for Donald Trump and a fair amount of them believe the election was rigged and wanted to do something about it. How we stop that way of thinking is a different story.

most of those love the flag. and that seems to be about it.

the rest of us love the constitution first......

I need to PM you about the flag.

mickeyrat · January 2021

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

I'll tell you this, I don't think the censoring is a good idea.

so then user agreements and terms of service are worthless?

send those kinds of posts to a newspaper. bet they dont get printed online or in print.... helltheympolice thier comments online

fundamentally whats the difference?

I have to look it up but the internet is governed by a set of laws that is broad and I do remember people wanting them changed. I'll need to delve in it further.

When something like Parler gets taken down then that is something. Is it a different point of view, alternate facts or hate speech? Wanting to secure our border doesn't make you a racist but it tends to lean that way now and if you say so you'll get lambasted.

I see the censoring as to bringing up more problems and it feeds the "deep state" theories.

plotting the violent overthrow of our government, overturning a secure and legally certified election, and installing a king is not alternate facts or hate speech. its felony conspiracy.

these companies are bound by contract law.

every member of Parler including its owner are free to hit a soapbox and spew whatever the fuck they want. however speech has its consequences. these fuckers are finding that out. a nongovernmental entity has its rights and obligations too.

this is the free market exercising its muscle.

I bolded the above.

Almost half the country that could vote, voted for Donald Trump and a fair amount of them believe the election was rigged and wanted to do something about it. How we stop that way of thinking is a different story.

most of those love the flag. and that seems to be about it.

the rest of us love the constitution first......

oh and there were about 60 to 70 million that could vote but didn't

Merkin Baller · January 2021

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

I'll tell you this, I don't think the censoring is a good idea.

so then user agreements and terms of service are worthless?

send those kinds of posts to a newspaper. bet they dont get printed online or in print.... helltheympolice thier comments online

fundamentally whats the difference?

I have to look it up but the internet is governed by a set of laws that is broad and I do remember people wanting them changed. I'll need to delve in it further.

When something like Parler gets taken down then that is something. Is it a different point of view, alternate facts or hate speech? Wanting to secure our border doesn't make you a racist but it tends to lean that way now and if you say so you'll get lambasted.

I see the censoring as to bringing up more problems and it feeds the "deep state" theories.

plotting the violent overthrow of our government, overturning a secure and legally certified election, and installing a king is not alternate facts or hate speech. its felony conspiracy.

these companies are bound by contract law.

every member of Parler including its owner are free to hit a soapbox and spew whatever the fuck they want. however speech has its consequences. these fuckers are finding that out. a nongovernmental entity has its rights and obligations too.

this is the free market exercising its muscle.

I'm against censorship of free speech as much as the next person, but it's no secret that free speech has its limitations.

If trump using twitter to organize lynch mobs to go after his political enemies doesn't warrant consequences, then what does?

I remember when Howard Stern would get in a tiff with someone and his fans would go after or heckle them. His fans were always rabid and loyal.

Alex Jones was thrown off the air because of this too. He was slightly more radical than Trump and Stern though. I had heartache with that too but was relieved in a way that people would stop listening to him as gospel.

I have very mixed feelings about it is all.

I'm trying to recall when Howard Stern fomented an overthrow of the United States Government... when was that exactly?

mickeyrat · January 2021

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

I'll tell you this, I don't think the censoring is a good idea.

so then user agreements and terms of service are worthless?

send those kinds of posts to a newspaper. bet they dont get printed online or in print.... helltheympolice thier comments online

fundamentally whats the difference?

I have to look it up but the internet is governed by a set of laws that is broad and I do remember people wanting them changed. I'll need to delve in it further.

When something like Parler gets taken down then that is something. Is it a different point of view, alternate facts or hate speech? Wanting to secure our border doesn't make you a racist but it tends to lean that way now and if you say so you'll get lambasted.

I see the censoring as to bringing up more problems and it feeds the "deep state" theories.

plotting the violent overthrow of our government, overturning a secure and legally certified election, and installing a king is not alternate facts or hate speech. its felony conspiracy.

these companies are bound by contract law.

every member of Parler including its owner are free to hit a soapbox and spew whatever the fuck they want. however speech has its consequences. these fuckers are finding that out. a nongovernmental entity has its rights and obligations too.

this is the free market exercising its muscle.

I'm against censorship of free speech as much as the next person, but it's no secret that free speech has its limitations.

If trump using twitter to organize lynch mobs to go after his political enemies doesn't warrant consequences, then what does?

I remember when Howard Stern would get in a tiff with someone and his fans would go after or heckle them. His fans were always rabid and loyal.

Alex Jones was thrown off the air because of this too. He was slightly more radical than Trump and Stern though. I had heartache with that too but was relieved in a way that people would stop listening to him as gospel.

I have very mixed feelings about it is all.
I'm trying to recall when Howard Stern fomented an overthrow of the United States Government... when was that exactly?

he didnt. he went to siriusxm......

tempo_n_groove · January 2021

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

I'll tell you this, I don't think the censoring is a good idea.

so then user agreements and terms of service are worthless?

send those kinds of posts to a newspaper. bet they dont get printed online or in print.... helltheympolice thier comments online

fundamentally whats the difference?

I have to look it up but the internet is governed by a set of laws that is broad and I do remember people wanting them changed. I'll need to delve in it further.

When something like Parler gets taken down then that is something. Is it a different point of view, alternate facts or hate speech? Wanting to secure our border doesn't make you a racist but it tends to lean that way now and if you say so you'll get lambasted.

I see the censoring as to bringing up more problems and it feeds the "deep state" theories.

plotting the violent overthrow of our government, overturning a secure and legally certified election, and installing a king is not alternate facts or hate speech. its felony conspiracy.

these companies are bound by contract law.

every member of Parler including its owner are free to hit a soapbox and spew whatever the fuck they want. however speech has its consequences. these fuckers are finding that out. a nongovernmental entity has its rights and obligations too.

this is the free market exercising its muscle.

I'm against censorship of free speech as much as the next person, but it's no secret that free speech has its limitations.

If trump using twitter to organize lynch mobs to go after his political enemies doesn't warrant consequences, then what does?

I remember when Howard Stern would get in a tiff with someone and his fans would go after or heckle them. His fans were always rabid and loyal.

Alex Jones was thrown off the air because of this too. He was slightly more radical than Trump and Stern though. I had heartache with that too but was relieved in a way that people would stop listening to him as gospel.

I have very mixed feelings about it is all.
I'm trying to recall when Howard Stern fomented an overthrow of the United States Government... when was that exactly?

Nice.
I'm showing how he used his mass influence in media to distort a situation. Thank you for seeing the angle I was going for, lol.

Merkin Baller · January 2021

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

I'll tell you this, I don't think the censoring is a good idea.

so then user agreements and terms of service are worthless?

send those kinds of posts to a newspaper. bet they dont get printed online or in print.... helltheympolice thier comments online

fundamentally whats the difference?

I have to look it up but the internet is governed by a set of laws that is broad and I do remember people wanting them changed. I'll need to delve in it further.

When something like Parler gets taken down then that is something. Is it a different point of view, alternate facts or hate speech? Wanting to secure our border doesn't make you a racist but it tends to lean that way now and if you say so you'll get lambasted.

I see the censoring as to bringing up more problems and it feeds the "deep state" theories.

plotting the violent overthrow of our government, overturning a secure and legally certified election, and installing a king is not alternate facts or hate speech. its felony conspiracy.

these companies are bound by contract law.

every member of Parler including its owner are free to hit a soapbox and spew whatever the fuck they want. however speech has its consequences. these fuckers are finding that out. a nongovernmental entity has its rights and obligations too.

this is the free market exercising its muscle.

I'm against censorship of free speech as much as the next person, but it's no secret that free speech has its limitations.

If trump using twitter to organize lynch mobs to go after his political enemies doesn't warrant consequences, then what does?

I remember when Howard Stern would get in a tiff with someone and his fans would go after or heckle them. His fans were always rabid and loyal.

Alex Jones was thrown off the air because of this too. He was slightly more radical than Trump and Stern though. I had heartache with that too but was relieved in a way that people would stop listening to him as gospel.

I have very mixed feelings about it is all.
I'm trying to recall when Howard Stern fomented an overthrow of the United States Government... when was that exactly?

Nice.
I'm showing how he used his mass influence in media to distort a situation. Thank you for seeing the angle I was going for, lol.

One guy was a threat to decency, the other's a threat to national security & the constitution.

You're comparing apples & oranges here, what we're living through is unprecedented.

tempo_n_groove · January 2021

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Merkin Baller said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mickeyrat said:

I'll tell you this, I don't think the censoring is a good idea.

so then user agreements and terms of service are worthless?

send those kinds of posts to a newspaper. bet they dont get printed online or in print.... helltheympolice thier comments online

fundamentally whats the difference?

I have to look it up but the internet is governed by a set of laws that is broad and I do remember people wanting them changed. I'll need to delve in it further.

When something like Parler gets taken down then that is something. Is it a different point of view, alternate facts or hate speech? Wanting to secure our border doesn't make you a racist but it tends to lean that way now and if you say so you'll get lambasted.

I see the censoring as to bringing up more problems and it feeds the "deep state" theories.

plotting the violent overthrow of our government, overturning a secure and legally certified election, and installing a king is not alternate facts or hate speech. its felony conspiracy.

these companies are bound by contract law.

every member of Parler including its owner are free to hit a soapbox and spew whatever the fuck they want. however speech has its consequences. these fuckers are finding that out. a nongovernmental entity has its rights and obligations too.

this is the free market exercising its muscle.

I'm against censorship of free speech as much as the next person, but it's no secret that free speech has its limitations.

If trump using twitter to organize lynch mobs to go after his political enemies doesn't warrant consequences, then what does?

I remember when Howard Stern would get in a tiff with someone and his fans would go after or heckle them. His fans were always rabid and loyal.

Alex Jones was thrown off the air because of this too. He was slightly more radical than Trump and Stern though. I had heartache with that too but was relieved in a way that people would stop listening to him as gospel.

I have very mixed feelings about it is all.
I'm trying to recall when Howard Stern fomented an overthrow of the United States Government... when was that exactly?

Nice.
I'm showing how he used his mass influence in media to distort a situation. Thank you for seeing the angle I was going for, lol.

One guy was a threat to decency, the other's a threat to national security & the constitution.

You're comparing apples & oranges here, what we're living through is unprecedented.

Never mind then.

DewieCox · January 2021

Masters of the self own, they’ve been sharing Orwell(a democratic socialist) exerpts the last few days, while pressing for the government to step in and force private companies to allow blatant disinformation and propaganda.

mickeyrat · January 2021

DewieCox said:

Masters of the self own, they’ve been sharing Orwell(a democratic socialist) exerpts the last few days, while pressing for the government to step in and force private companies to allow blatant disinformation and propaganda.

critical thinking skills sorely needed in this country.

mickeyrat · January 2021

Newt Gingrich’s blatant hypocrisy
Opinion by Erik Wemple

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/11/newt-gingrichs-blatant-hypocrisy/

The U.S. Capitol is a special place for Newt Gingrich. The former Georgia congressman was first elected to the House in 1978. He was aggressive and intellectual-sounding, rising to minority whip in 1989. Thanks in part to his famous “Contract With America,” Gingrich stepped up in 1995 to be speaker of the House, ending a long Democratic monopoly.
So Gingrich had some things to say last week after Trump supporters invaded and ransacked the Capitol. “Well, I was furious. I am furious. Every person who broke into the Capitol has to be arrested and has to be prosecuted,” said Gingrich on Thursday. He went on:
This is the center of freedom on the whole planet. It’s a symbol for everybody. And what happened yesterday was utterly, totally inexcusable. People should be locked up and punished. And I’m delighted that they’re increasing the preparations for the inaugural because we have to make absolutely certain nothing like this happens again. But as a former House member as well, as you point out, former speaker, I found it enraging that people who clearly are not patriots — these are people are destructive barbarians and they are frankly criminals, and they should be treated that way and locked up. And I’m very proud of the Capitol Police, that they clearly needed a lot more reinforcements yesterday.
One thing about these “barbarians”: They were motivated by just the sort of rhetoric on Fox News spewed by people such as … Newt Gingrich. A network contributor, Gingrich was a steady presence on the conspiratorial prime-time program “Hannity,” where he was careful to agree with the baseless claims from the host, Trump loyalist supreme Sean Hannity.
Take the Nov. 5 edition of “Hannity.” News organizations at this point hadn’t even called the race for President-elect Joe Biden because the results in key states were uncertain, but it wasn’t too early for Gingrich to form definitive opinions. After Hannity raised concerns about the access of observers to ballot processing, Gingrich went off:
I’ve been active in this since 1958. That’s 62 years. I am the angriest I have been in that entire six decades. You have a group of corrupt people who have absolute contempt for the American people, who believe that we are so spineless, so cowardly, so unwilling to stand up for ourselves that they can steal the presidency. And we will wring our hands, bring in a few lawyers and do nothing. … The Philadelphia machine is corrupt. The Nevada machine is corrupt. The machine in Detroit is corrupt. And they are trying to steal the presidency. And we should not allow them to do that.
As Hannity’s corrupt coverage of a fair and clean election bumped along in the following days, Gingrich delivered for his buddy.
Nov. 9: “I think, a week from now, we will have amazingly more evidence of just how corrupt the system has become.”

Nov. 17: “And I think we have to take this whole system apart and recognize that this is — this election is a great moment for the American people to decide do they want to have an honest election where they get to pick their leaders or do they just want corrupt machines such as the one that Stacey Abrams is building.”

Nov. 30: “More and more, we resemble Venezuela, or Zimbabwe, or Cuba, or Belarus. I mean, any of these countries that are truly Third World dictatorships where the elections are totally false, and where the laws changed to go after the opposition.”

Dec. 7: “So I think this is going to be an extraordinarily important election, and I think the odds are very high that if every Republican will vote — my model is very simple, we have to win by a bigger margin than Stacey Abrams can steal,” said Gingrich regarding the Jan. 5 Senate runoffs in Georgia.

Jan. 4: “I think this race clearly is winnable,” said Gingrich in reference to the Georgia Senate runoffs, “and I think that the Republican organization, frankly, is capable, of getting more than a million people to the polls tomorrow. With people I’ve talked with who are in the operation are very confident that the turnout is going to be enormous. And I think they have over 8,000 poll watchers, so the odds are pretty good it’s going to be an honest count. We’ve learned a lot of lessons from what happened in November.”
Boldface inserted to highlight Gingrich’s implication — that if there weren’t hordes of poll watchers, the people counting the votes in this Republican-controlled state would throw the elections to the Democrats. Most of this blather is just muscle memory for Gingrich, whose rise to power was fueled by making people suspect the worst of his political opponents. It’s not hard to find political scientists who date the coarsening of U.S. politics — and the preconditions for President Trump’s 2016 election — to Gingrich’s cynical takeover of Republican politics in the 1990s.
As McKay Coppins wrote in a profile, Gingrich was chased out of Congress by the “same bloodthirsty brigade he’d helped elect.” And his thoughts on that incident bear some resemblance to his comments about last week’s rioters: “I’m willing to lead, but I’m not willing to preside over people who are cannibals,” said Gingrich in 1998.
Gingrich will Gingrich. The question is why Fox News continues to pay him to sow division and nonsense on the highest-rated show on cable news. We asked the network about that relationship and will post any response that we receive.
In an appearance on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” on Sunday, former Fox News contributor Julie Roginsky addressed the network’s role in misinforming its viewers about the election: “I want to almost speak directly to my old boss, Rupert Murdoch, to say, you can stop this madness,” Roginsky told host Brian Stelter. Add Lachlan Murdoch, Fox News Media CEO Suzanne Scott and Fox News President and Executive Editor Jay Wallace to that list.
It’s debatable, of course, just how much Fox News can do at this point to stop that madness that it has spent decades nursing. As the Trump campaign was seeking to build its case that the election was a fraud, host Tucker Carlson expressed some skepticism about certain claims made by lawyer Sidney Powell at an instantly historic Nov. 19 news conference. A pro-Trump backlash engulfed Carlson, who addressed the discontent in a cowardly segment the next night: “Sidney Powell came on Fox this morning and suggested we may not have to wait much longer. I fully expect, she says, that we will be able to prove all of it in a court within the next two weeks. Well, as far as we’re concerned, that is great news.”
Cheering for voter fraud — that’s one way to endear yourself to the MAGA crowd. It’s hard at this point to determine whether Fox News controls this constituency or whether it’s the other way around. Whatever the case, TV sets need a brand-new “hypocrisy-mute” button for Fox News commentators who express umbrage at the Capitol riot.

tempo_n_groove · January 2021

DewieCox said:

Masters of the self own, they’ve been sharing Orwell(a democratic socialist) exerpts the last few days, while pressing for the government to step in and force private companies to allow blatant disinformation and propaganda.

1/2 believe that...

GOP

Comments

An ‘unthinkable’ corporate response

Categories