Who Is 'Destroying Democracy in Darkness?'

[Vambram]

Who Is 'Destroying Democracy in Darkness?'

The 2023-2024 campaign season is not just the strangest on record, it's also arguably the most anti-

townhall.com

The 2023-2024 campaign season is not just the strangest on record, it's also arguably the most anti-democratic. Ostensibly, the Democratic Party has claimed over the last decade that former President Donald Trump posed a continued and existential threat to the republic. That allegation subsequently justified a variety of anti-democratic means to neuter his first two presidential candidacies, his presidency, and now his third and final run for the White House.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Who Is 'Destroying Democracy in Darkness?'

The 2023-2024 campaign season is not just the strangest on record, it's also arguably the most anti-

townhall.com

The 2023-2024 campaign season is not just the strangest on record, it's also arguably the most anti-democratic. Ostensibly, the Democratic Party has claimed over the last decade that former President Donald Trump posed a continued and existential threat to the republic. That allegation subsequently justified a variety of anti-democratic means to neuter his first two presidential candidacies, his presidency, and now his third and final run for the White House.

I had to stop reading halfway through because by the end of paragraph 6 VD Hanson had spent half of them telling outright falsehoods. (The Clinton campaign did not seed the "Russia Investigation", Trump's Russofillic staffers did that all on their own. The "Hunter Biden" op was coordinated by Trump's personal attorney. Sigh.)

 

[Yttrium]

Lemme look at the article here.

- Accusations of collusion between Trump and Russia in the 2016 election

I think the Democrats went too far on that one.

- Hunter's laptop

Uh... this was used primarily as a conspiracy theory against Biden, much the same way the Russia collusion thing was used against Trump. (And it went nowhere.) Trying to frame it as an attack on Trump is quite a weird spin.

- Trying to remove Trump from the ballot in 16 states

Yeah, the reasoning was pretty weak.

- Felony charges against Trump

Ha ha no. Trump brought the charges on himself.

- Similar charges could have been made against Biden

Also ha ha no.

- Early presidential debate

Made Trump look good and Biden bad.

- Nullifying primary votes

Biden dropped out. They followed the rules of their primary process.


So there's a couple things I'd say shouldn't have been used against Trump, and the rest is pro-Trump spin. Not really a compelling argument for destroying Democracy.

 

[Vambram]

I had to stop reading halfway through because by the end of paragraph 6 VD Hanson had spent half of them telling outright falsehoods. (The Clinton campaign did not seed the "Russia Investigation", Trump's Russofillic staffers did that all on their own. The "Hunter Biden" op was coordinated by Trump's personal attorney. Sigh.)

Everything written in that article is factual.

 

[AlexB23]

Who Is 'Destroying Democracy in Darkness?'

The 2023-2024 campaign season is not just the strangest on record, it's also arguably the most anti-

townhall.com

The 2023-2024 campaign season is not just the strangest on record, it's also arguably the most anti-democratic. Ostensibly, the Democratic Party has claimed over the last decade that former President Donald Trump posed a continued and existential threat to the republic. That allegation subsequently justified a variety of anti-democratic means to neuter his first two presidential candidacies, his presidency, and now his third and final run for the White House.

As a centrist, the culprit that is destroying democracy is the two party system eating each other alive, along with lobbying from massive corporations. It is not just one party, or one candidate, both sides may cause issues in the long-term for our democracy in the 2020s and beyond. It is time that we push the reset button, and get two completely new candidates, or even a third candidate.

From Pillar Catholic: "With a growing number of Catholics feeling disenfranchised from major political parties, the American Solidarity Party has in recent elections attracted interest among some Catholic voters. There are elements [of Catholic social teaching] to be found in both the Republican Party's platform, as well as in the Democratic Party's platform.

For example, there are socially conservative positions which the Republican Party has historically held that are in keeping with Catholic tenets about life and marriage. And on the other hand, the Democratic Party has been, historically, the advocate of the worker, and has been particularly interested in proper stewardship of the environment.

Those are both important aspects of Catholic social teaching, but never-the-two-shall-meet in either of those two parties. In the American Solidarity Party platform, they are united. So there is a consistency, if you will, drawing from all the aspects of Catholic social teaching, within our party's platform."

My fellow Catholics are fed up with the two party system also:

‘We’re taking the long view’ - Why the American Solidarity Party runs for office

Meet Peter Sonski, presidential candidate

www.pillarcatholic.com

 

[Hans Blaster]

Everything written in that article is factual.

No. It wasn't. That was the problem. Mr. VD Hansen has no problem with propagating falsehoods. He either knows he wrote them or does not care enough to fact check what he writes. The only writings of his worth reading contain hoplites.

 

[Vambram]

No. It wasn't. That was the problem. Mr. VD Hansen has no problem with propagating falsehoods. He either knows he wrote them or does not care enough to fact check what he writes. The only writings of his worth reading contain hoplites.

I fully and wholeheartedly disagree with this post.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I fully and wholeheartedly disagree with this post.

Do you often disagree with facts?

 

[Vambram]

Do you often disagree with facts?

I am agreeing with facts. You, sir, are NOT.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am agreeing with facts. You, sir, are NOT.

This is the first of the false claims VD Hanson makes:

"A near decade ago, we witnessed the 2015-2016 Hillary Clinton/Democratic National Committee/FBI-assisted effort to plant the false accusation of Trump-Russian collusion to warp the 2016 election.

That gambit centered around the fraudulent Steele dossier and nearly fatally crippled the Trump 2016 campaign. That hoax would later sidetrack 22 months of his presidency before being proven a fantasy."

This is not true. The FBI investigation into Trump's associates in Summer 2016 was started because they had all sorts of their own hinky connections to Russia (the campaign manager received his payments from a Putin oligarch via money laundering; the "coffee boy" who bragged about being offered Russia supplied dirt on Clinton to an Australian diplomat; etc.) None of them were dependent on the "Steele Dossier".

The "Dossier" had virtually *no* impact on the campaign itself. The first reporting based on copies reporters had gotten hold of occurred just a week or so before election day. Almost no attention was given to it. (This was the time of the Access Hollywood tape, the wikileaks story after story from the hack of the Clinton campaign, and the endless stream of sexual harassment and assault accusations against Trump. One of those accusations that flared up at that time, but didn't become public was the Stormy Daniels affair that was suppressed by a large cash payment.)

As for lengthy impact on the Trump Administration, that flared up not because of any "Dossier", but because the incoming NSA had an unsecured conversation with the Russian ambassador to the US and when questioned about it, lied to the FBI in his WH office. The investigation and firing of General Misha that resulted from that encounter angered Trump who fired the FBI Director for it and *THAT* lead to the appointing of a special counsel.


VD Hanson is either woefully ignorant or he knew what he wrote was false. The editors of "Townhall.com" are either negligent or complicit in the lie.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Do you often disagree with facts?

That is an ironic statement.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Who Is 'Destroying Democracy in Darkness?'

The 2023-2024 campaign season is not just the strangest on record, it's also arguably the most anti-

townhall.com

The 2023-2024 campaign season is not just the strangest on record, it's also arguably the most anti-democratic. Ostensibly, the Democratic Party has claimed over the last decade that former President Donald Trump posed a continued and existential threat to the republic. That allegation subsequently justified a variety of anti-democratic means to neuter his first two presidential candidacies, his presidency, and now his third and final run for the White House.

Political power accumulates at the highest level it can organize. Once when people lived in caves, the family, the clan, or tribe was it. Then walls and agricultural advances made territorial groups, city states, and eventually....the nation-state.

International political organization has been attempted to various degrees of success....the UN for example, or the EU, but they're new and have doubtful futures.

Of course, political power isn't the only type of power....economic power is another.

Economic power has globalized faster than Political power....and ultimately, we have no checks on it. The ESG score is a great example of global economic power attempting to usurp political power. It's easier in western democracies....that's what is destroying them.

 

[Vambram]

This is the first of the false claims VD Hanson makes:

"A near decade ago, we witnessed the 2015-2016 Hillary Clinton/Democratic National Committee/FBI-assisted effort to plant the false accusation of Trump-Russian collusion to warp the 2016 election.

That gambit centered around the fraudulent Steele dossier and nearly fatally crippled the Trump 2016 campaign. That hoax would later sidetrack 22 months of his presidency before being proven a fantasy."

This is not true. The FBI investigation into Trump's associates in Summer 2016 was started because they had all sorts of their own hinky connections to Russia (the campaign manager received his payments from a Putin oligarch via money laundering; the "coffee boy" who bragged about being offered Russia supplied dirt on Clinton to an Australian diplomat; etc.) None of them were dependent on the "Steele Dossier".

The "Dossier" had virtually *no* impact on the campaign itself. The first reporting based on copies reporters had gotten hold of occurred just a week or so before election day. Almost no attention was given to it. (This was the time of the Access Hollywood tape, the wikileaks story after story from the hack of the Clinton campaign, and the endless stream of sexual harassment and assault accusations against Trump. One of those accusations that flared up at that time, but didn't become public was the Stormy Daniels affair that was suppressed by a large cash payment.)

As for lengthy impact on the Trump Administration, that flared up not because of any "Dossier", but because the incoming NSA had an unsecured conversation with the Russian ambassador to the US and when questioned about it, lied to the FBI in his WH office. The investigation and firing of General Misha that resulted from that encounter angered Trump who fired the FBI Director for it and *THAT* lead to the appointing of a special counsel.


VD Hanson is either woefully ignorant or he knew what he wrote was false. The editors of "Townhall.com" are either negligent or complicit in the lie.

This entire post is filled with absolutely incorrect analysis of the facts, in my opinion.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This entire post is filled with absolutely incorrect analysis of the facts, in my opinion.

My point is that VD Hansen's "analysis" is utterly erroneous, or should I say fabricated.

To paraphrase a "famous" intellectual lightweight: The facts don't care about your opinions.

 

[Vambram]

My point is that VD Hansen's "analysis" is utterly erroneous, or should I say fabricated.

To paraphrase a "famous" intellectual lightweight: The facts don't care about your opinions.

My point is that your analysis of this is based upon your opinion and stuff that the liberal media wants everyone to believe is true when we all know that they have lied for years about this.

 

[loveofourlord]

Lemme look at the article here.

- Accusations of collusion between Trump and Russia in the 2016 election

I think the Democrats went too far on that one.

- Hunter's laptop

Uh... this was used primarily as a conspiracy theory against Biden, much the same way the Russia collusion thing was used against Trump. (And it went nowhere.) Trying to frame it as an attack on Trump is quite a weird spin.

- Trying to remove Trump from the ballot in 16 states

Yeah, the reasoning was pretty weak.

- Felony charges against Trump

Ha ha no. Trump brought the charges on himself.

- Similar charges could have been made against Biden

Also ha ha no.

- Early presidential debate

Made Trump look good and Biden bad.

- Nullifying primary votes

Biden dropped out. They followed the rules of their primary process.


So there's a couple things I'd say shouldn't have been used against Trump, and the rest is pro-Trump spin. Not really a compelling argument for destroying Democracy.

Except with Russia there was enough evidence found to investigate,, but trump was president so couldn't be charged while in office. Plus many of his cabinet did get in trouble.

 

[Hans Blaster]

My point is that your analysis of this is based upon your opinion and stuff that the liberal media wants everyone to believe is true when we all know that they have lied for years about this.

Show me where I am wrong.

 

[Vambram]

Show me where I am wrong.

Victor David Hanson already did.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Victor David Hanson already did.

You've got this backward. I showed how VD Hanson was wrong. Now it is your turn. I've read the Mueller report. Have you? or Hanson?

 

[Ana the Ist]

This entire post is filled with absolutely incorrect analysis of the facts, in my opinion.

It's odd to think that without a hint of irony....these people call you a conspiracy theorist.