• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Discussion How can democracy function when part of the population are acting on non-factual information?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
7,769
3,156
136
The can of worms was opened up close to a decade ago. While the big name has gone away, nature abhors a vacuum.
There is no both sides on this one. One side has the money to pay and the willingness to do shady shit

 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,218
1,063
126
I appreciate the way this NZ reporter discounts the far-right, failed MP. We need this treatment of anti-faxers in the US to preserve an informed electorate, and a healthy democracy.

Saw that before lol. Would love to see her interview Trump or any of the alt-reality folks that make their way onto TV.
 

imported_tajmahal

Diamond Member
Jul 9, 2009
9,353
1,175
136
The can of worms was opened up close to a decade ago. While the big name has gone away, nature abhors a vacuum.
There is no both sides on this one. One side has the money to pay and the willingness to do shady shit

True, just look at this case where a black police chief arrested political figures for clearly breaking the law, on video, yet she gets fired from her job and the politicians walk away free and get praised by other political figures.

"When Greene, who is Black, later announced the charges, she said Lucas and others "conspired and organized to destroy the monument as well as summon hundreds of people to join in felonious acts."

 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
5,731
681
126
I think it's scary how surveys are showing 80% of Republicans claiming voter fraud. Just scary. This is how democracies fall.
110% of Democrats believed "Trump-Russia", the dossier, and Adam Schiff had tons of evidence. How did all that turn out? Democrats tried to influence the 2016 elections with falsehoods and they continued with the same lies into 2018 and 2020.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
6,518
5,079
136
110% of Democrats believed "Trump-Russia", the dossier, and Adam Schiff had tons of evidence. How did all that turn out? Democrats tried to influence the 2016 elections with falsehoods and they continued with the same lies into 2018 and 2020.
Your brain is fucking mush after intentionally letting Rush Limbaugh and Russians shit directly into your skull for your entire life.

Get a grip, loser.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
4,229
1,596
136
110% of Democrats believed "Trump-Russia", the dossier, and Adam Schiff had tons of evidence. How did all that turn out? Democrats tried to influence the 2016 elections with falsehoods and they continued with the same lies into 2018 and 2020.
??? Not even sure what you're talking about.

Democrats believed the trump team was in contact with the russian government and attempted colluded to try and win the election for him. That has more or less been proven.
There has been suspicions that russian interference with facebook troll farms and etc helped swing the election towards him. That also has more or less been proven. It pretty much is all in the muller report. So I'm not sure what you're exactly arguing about lies.

The 2018 campaign was mostly a campaign about healthcare (though in the background it was a referendum on trump). Remember that was shortly after the GOP tried to repeal the ACA and failed (despite having the house, senate, and presidency).
2020 was mostly about trump. No credible person thinks that when voters were at the polls this year, his russian collusion 4 years ago was pressing on their mind as they made decisions. I mean come on man. Russian collusion was the last thing on anyone's mind in 2020.

The fact of the matter is a deeply and historically unpopular president who is currently poorly handling the biggest public health and economic crisis the US has faced in more than 50 years and who was a longshot to win the presidency in the first place LOST re-election. Why is that so hard to grasp? Why is that beyond the realm of reality for so many people when to me it seems like the most ordinary thing to expect? Why is there a need to introduce all these myths and allegations when the simplest explanation is clearly the right one? Unpopular presidents tend not to win. Why is that suddenly a far out crazy idea?
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
10,908
214
106
True, just look at this case where a black police chief arrested political figures for clearly breaking the law, on video, yet she gets fired from her job and the politicians walk away free and get praised by other political figures.

"When Greene, who is Black, later announced the charges, she said Lucas and others "conspired and organized to destroy the monument as well as summon hundreds of people to join in felonious acts."

But no one on the left is denying it happened. There's no crazy theories of how she was a plant or such. The big stuff on the right that I recall:

CC isn't real. Bringing a snowball into Congress to disprove it.
COVID isn't real. Refusing to contain it since they believe it's just like the flu or doesn't exist at all.
Election fraud. Lots of press conferences with claims of evidence but nothing that can stand up in court.
 

ralfy

Senior member
Jul 22, 2013
397
18
81
The problem isn't so much part of the population acting on non-factual information as both political parties and the gov't working for the rich, which in turn feeds information using the same media which they own to the same population that works for them, buys the goods and services from businesses which the rich are also the main investors, using money paid for or lent by the rich, and votes for the same politicians who promote neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism which favor the rich.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
8,192
5,283
136
The problem isn't so much part of the population acting on non-factual information as both political parties and the gov't working for the rich, which in turn feeds information using the same media which they own to the same population that works for them, buys the goods and services from businesses which the rich are also the main investors, using money paid for or lent by the rich, and votes for the same politicians who promote neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism which favor the rich.
There's a degree of truth to this, but there's also some equivocation.

The Republicans are the only ones explicitly tolerating or condoning outright false claims. As in "so obviously wrong you could clear it up with a quick online search" false. Not just Trump, but QAnon backers who win elections or people peddling discredited Hunter Biden stories.

For that matter, there's no sense that there's a Republican faction just waiting to make a real connection with the people like there is with the Democrats (AOC/Sanders/Omar/etc.). Even the erstwhile 'moderate' Republicans happily cave in to Trump when they're asked to vote. Oh, they'll try to distance themselves with Trump out of office, but there's no inkling that they care about much more than holding on to power. No inkling that someone with their "small government" vision wants to please everyday people instead of the wealthy and corporations.

There are such things as reasonable conservatives, but it seems like they've been pushed out of the GOP over time. And I don't know how they're going to get back when the current party dislikes truth and relies on obstructionism.
 

ralfy

Senior member
Jul 22, 2013
397
18
81
There's a degree of truth to this, but there's also some equivocation.

The Republicans are the only ones explicitly tolerating or condoning outright false claims. As in "so obviously wrong you could clear it up with a quick online search" false. Not just Trump, but QAnon backers who win elections or people peddling discredited Hunter Biden stories.

For that matter, there's no sense that there's a Republican faction just waiting to make a real connection with the people like there is with the Democrats (AOC/Sanders/Omar/etc.). Even the erstwhile 'moderate' Republicans happily cave in to Trump when they're asked to vote. Oh, they'll try to distance themselves with Trump out of office, but there's no inkling that they care about much more than holding on to power. No inkling that someone with their "small government" vision wants to please everyday people instead of the wealthy and corporations.

There are such things as reasonable conservatives, but it seems like they've been pushed out of the GOP over time. And I don't know how they're going to get back when the current party dislikes truth and relies on obstructionism.
Both political parties have been employing a combination of neo-conservatism (i.e., the use of the military and foreign policy to control weak countries) and neo-liberalism (i.e., deregulation which makes the U.S. rich more power and which forces weak countries to open up their economies, thus allowing the U.S. and others to prey on them) since the Reagan administration in order to keep the petrodollar propped up and thus serve the interests of the rich. In return, the rich, which owns much of the U.S. economy, including industries ranging from pharma to food production to media, fund both parties, spending across the board, and the military industrial complex.

That's why Presidents who are supposed to be the opposite of each other, like Bush and Obama, are alike: they engaged in warmongering, bailed out the rich, promoted increased borrowing and spending to ensure "economic growth," and enabled provisions to the advantage of the rich, including people like Trump.

Equivocation is generally a smoke-screen. They are all part of the same swamp that serves Wall Street.
 

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
6,745
2,263
136
It’s been predicted that this could be the beginning of the end for America and for American democracy. The Soviet Union fell apart during the Reagan era, and then bounced back through a murderous dictator Vladimir Putin. Will our current downfall of America as we know it possibly follow the same path? Where Donald Trump comes back in 2024 or remains in 2021 as America’s first murderous dictator? Not as president but openly as the full blown dictator? It could happen. The stars are aligned for that to happen. I honestly believe this is exactly the desire of many republicans. I truly believe that this explains the attitude from the Republican leadership. I honestly believe that republicans don’t mind, don’t mind at all if America turns into a dictatorship, just as long as that dictator is.... Donald Trump or someone as close as possible. The way this republican leadership from the United States congress down to the governorships have had no problem with enabling Donald Trump and encouraging Donald Trump’s destructive behavior is pretty much all the proof anyone needs that millions of Americans are ready for a dictatorship. Joe Biden is not yet acting president of the United States of America, and Joe Biden may never become acting president of the United States of America. We’re coming down to the wire and we shall know soon. We could know as soon as next week if we live in a democracy, or dictatorship.
You're saying Heil Mein Fuhrer Agolf Twittler??
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
11,934
3,161
136
You're saying Heil Mein Fuhrer Agolf Twittler??

I think the Repub base really don't care who their leader is so long as that person is able to keep a firm grip on the wheel house of the nation and it's become apparent that they really don't give a rat's ass how it's done too.

Whatever it takes, whatever crimes needs to be committed, whatever can be done to silence the opposition and restrict their right to vote, hey it's all good.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
29,550
3,319
126
Equivocation is generally a smoke-screen. They are all part of the same swamp that serves Wall Street.
You are clearly overly cynical. You have your balance way to the right to keep your beam parallel. The GOP are far heavier in crime.


Dems________________________________________________________GOP
.............................................................................................../\...............
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
7,895
2,987
136
Both political parties have been employing a combination of neo-conservatism (i.e., the use of the military and foreign policy to control weak countries) and neo-liberalism (i.e., deregulation which makes the U.S. rich more power and which forces weak countries to open up their economies, thus allowing the U.S. and others to prey on them) since the Reagan administration in order to keep the petrodollar propped up and thus serve the interests of the rich. In return, the rich, which owns much of the U.S. economy, including industries ranging from pharma to food production to media, fund both parties, spending across the board, and the military industrial complex.

That's why Presidents who are supposed to be the opposite of each other, like Bush and Obama, are alike: they engaged in warmongering, bailed out the rich, promoted increased borrowing and spending to ensure "economic growth," and enabled provisions to the advantage of the rich, including people like Trump.

Equivocation is generally a smoke-screen. They are all part of the same swamp that serves Wall Street.
I don't agree that they are equivalent. Seems to me that the Democrats, in this scenario, are the plutocrats' reserves. They are the B-team, the ones they turn to when the A-team have fallen into disarray or become too discredited. The Dems step up and do the job while the Republicans sort themselves out. They are not the first-choice, because they are, from the neolibs and neocons (two different strands, as you point out - by no means the same people and their interests don't always coincide) point-of-view, unreliable, with too many other influences operating on them.

Just declaring both to the exactly the same thing is what those plutocrats want people to think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thilanliyan

ralfy

Senior member
Jul 22, 2013
397
18
81
You are clearly overly cynical. You have your balance way to the right to keep your beam parallel. The GOP are far heavier in crime.


Dems________________________________________________________GOP
.............................................................................................../\...............
Nonsense. Both Clintons, Obama, and their liberal fans also engaged in warmongering and bailing out the rich. Why? Because there's no such thing as a Washington that doesn't work for Wall Street.
 

ralfy

Senior member
Jul 22, 2013
397
18
81
I don't agree that they are equivalent. Seems to me that the Democrats, in this scenario, are the plutocrats' reserves. They are the B-team, the ones they turn to when the A-team have fallen into disarray or become too discredited. The Dems step up and do the job while the Republicans sort themselves out. They are not the first-choice, because they are, from the neolibs and neocons (two different strands, as you point out - by no means the same people and their interests don't always coincide) point-of-view, unreliable, with too many other influences operating on them.

Just declaring both to the exactly the same thing is what those plutocrats want people to think.
Those two strands work with each other. Neoconservatism refers to military intervention and all sorts of dirty tricks to keep weaker countries in control, and neoliberalism refers to economic deals such as loan agreements and aid towards the same ends.

That's why Bush and Obama were no different from each other: warmongers who attacked, destabilized, and pressured other countries to avoid moving away from the petrodollar or to serve U.S. economic or military interests, and bailed out the rich who engaged in financial speculation thanks to regulation from the Reagan administration onward.

Trump couldn't counter the same because there's no such thing as President who works outside the swamp, and there's no such thing as a rich businessman who got away with it thanks to provisions made possible by the Bush and Obama administrations.

That's why the public shouldn't be surprised if Trump concedes and Biden takes over. No one can ever drain the swamp because it's backed by and works for the rich. And that's the same rich that provides credit to the same public that no longer questions military intervention or more bailouts for the rich.
 

Entangled

Banned
Nov 28, 2020
80
9
11
With the internet and such I had thought we could be more democratic and have people have a bigger voice in government. But seeing how things are trending it seems we're going to be running into the issue that we won't even be able to have people that share the same reality. Attempting to control misinformation is going to be impossible for the government due to the first amendment and do we really want corporations to be the ones to determine the truth? Even if they were, we see that people just switch to more closed platforms.

Currently we have representatives that have history with each other but the new blood coming in seem to be more polarized. It going to be harder for those in the middle to win primaries for both parties. This might just lead to a stall in government. The argument will change from pros/cons of policy and to what is true. How can you make a informed decision when most of the information is non-factual?
You are on the right track, however the media is 100 percent fake. See the people watching FOX know that CNN and MSNBC are fake, and the people watching CNN and MSNBC know that FOX is fake. The fact is however that they are all fake, so that said so are your own thoughts fake if they are based upon neural interactions created by something not real to start with.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
7,895
2,987
136
Have you traveled the world at all?

If you haven't looked around much - the same is basically occurring in many different countries... Brazil... India... France...UK... Poland.... list goes on and on...
No, the same is not happening. What is happening in the US is not happening in any other fully developed country.

FYI, I have 2 passports. Do you even have 1? If you even know anyone outside the country, give them a call and get their opinion of the US right now.
I very rarely agree with s0me0nesmind1, but this is one of the rare exceptions.

The reference was to 'polarisation', and that (minus the strange American 'z'!) has been happening in many countries. Certainly including the ones listed. You could also talk about the rise of wanna-be 'strongman' figures, and you could also add Hungary, Israel, the Phillipines and Turkey. And, of course, Russia (the trend-setter?).

Even the politicisation of the pandemic is not limited to the US. Nor is the madness of Qanon and associated conspiracy theories. I hear crackpot conspiracy theories about the virus from people here in the UK,
 
  • Like
Reactions: Starbuck1975

Entangled

Banned
Nov 28, 2020
80
9
11
I very rarely agree with s0me0nesmind1, but this is one of the rare exceptions.

The reference was to 'polarisation', and that (minus the strange American 'z'!) has been happening in many countries. Certainly including the ones listed. You could also talk about the rise of wanna-be 'strongman' figures, and you could also add Hungary, Israel, the Phillipines and Turkey. And, of course, Russia (the trend-setter?).

Even the politicisation of the pandemic is not limited to the US. Nor is the madness of Qanon and associated conspiracy theories. I hear crackpot conspiracy theories about the virus from people here in the UK,
So in your mind whatever your TV says as relayed by the media is real true and believable.

Or in other words, no government ever lies to it's own people.

OK if you um say so
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
7,895
2,987
136
Those two strands work with each other. Neoconservatism refers to military intervention and all sorts of dirty tricks to keep weaker countries in control, and neoliberalism refers to economic deals such as loan agreements and aid towards the same ends.

That's why Bush and Obama were no different from each other: warmongers who attacked, destabilized, and pressured other countries to avoid moving away from the petrodollar or to serve U.S. economic or military interests, and bailed out the rich who engaged in financial speculation thanks to regulation from the Reagan administration onward.

Trump couldn't counter the same because there's no such thing as President who works outside the swamp, and there's no such thing as a rich businessman who got away with it thanks to provisions made possible by the Bush and Obama administrations.

That's why the public shouldn't be surprised if Trump concedes and Biden takes over. No one can ever drain the swamp because it's backed by and works for the rich. And that's the same rich that provides credit to the same public that no longer questions military intervention or more bailouts for the rich.

These days, when people outflank me from the left, I start wondering if they are false-flag rightists. That's just the times we are in. You see rightists-cos-playing-as-leftists all the time. Someonesmind was doing it just recently, posing as a noble opponent of the incarceral state and fighter for racial justice, when it was a useful pose to attack Clinton and Biden

Just writing off 'both sides' is a recipe for demoralisation and inertia. It's the line that helped the Nazis take power, last time round, after all. cf "Thiird period Stalinism".

I certainly don't think Biden will change anything very much. But he's still the least-bad thing on offer. And I still think Hilary was more of a 'hawk' on foreign policy than is Trump. But that's only because Trump is too ignorant of the world outside the US, and his fragile ego means he's too scared of losing control of things, to risk any military adventures, where others, with more knowledge of such things, will naturally assume greater prominence. He's clearly more paleo-con than neo-con, and is also clearly a coward - probably his only good quality.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
7,895
2,987
136
So in your mind whatever your TV says as relayed by the media is real true and believable.

Or in other words, no government ever lies to it's own people.

OK if you um say so

What are you on about?

Are you one of those 'plandemic' conspiracy-nutters. One of those who uncritically swallows the propaganda of the owners of capital and think that makes them smarter than the 'sheep'.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
7,895
2,987
136
So in your mind whatever your TV says as relayed by the media is real true and believable.

Or in other words, no government ever lies to it's own people.

OK if you um say so

There's an obvious class-conflict over the Pandemic response, because there's a big difference in the situation for someone for whom an opening up of the economy means going back to work in a public-facing job and having the risk of getting the virus and taking it back to their elderly family members. and someone who's income comes from collecting 'rent' on capital, which just rolls in once the economy reopens, without them having to take any risk themselves. Or even a more middle-class person who can work from home.

That is going to merge with an anxiety about 'civil liberties' and the kind of increased state power that is needed to deal with such a disease, so the two sides of 'libertarianism' (concern for protecting the economic interests of the privileged, and concern for bourgeois freedoms) are going to merge. That's why the Tories here are divided over it, and facing rebellions from their own MPs.

The conspiracy theories about the pandemic being 'fake' are spread in order to serve the interests of the owners of capital, and too many willing dupes pick up and swallow them like sheep, because they identify with that class. Just as I encounter similar dupes who uncritically swallow the propaganda that tells them to blame Muslims or some other out-group for all their problems. That way those with real power get let off the hook.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
29,550
3,319
126
Nonsense. Both Clintons, Obama, and their liberal fans also engaged in warmongering and bailing out the rich. Why? Because there's no such thing as a Washington that doesn't work for Wall Street.
You can keep that whitewashed perspective. The devil is in the details and the details paint the GOP way way way worse in terms of being :rolleyes:.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS