Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Over/Under on How Many Fascists It Takes To Destroy America?
Tucker Carlson has a powerful commentary reviewing how many people have lost their jobs or otherwise suffered personally and financially for the simple act of expressing an opinion that does not pass muster with the corporate political correctness police in Silicon Valley. He challenged Trump to make First Amendment protection a high priority of the Justice Department. He asked the rhetorical question regarding how the Holder Justice Department would have reacted to actions by Silicon Valley against an Obama supporter?
Carlson’s commentary underscored a toothless Trump Administration (press assertions of persecution notwithstanding) when it comes to the First Amendment rights of his supporters or just even free thinkers or Christian believers. Carlson questioned that if Trump cannot make those who voted for him feel that their personal liberties are more secure in 2020 due to his Presidency, then should he be President in 2021?
This highlights how strong fascism has become in our culture. And yet I firmly believe that the vast majority of Americans do not want this. So my question then becomes: How many fascists does it take to destroy America?
Published in General
Come to think of it, the answer to the headline question is known. The intelligence services have been running maps of foreign cell networks for decades. If anyone knows how effective an individual, a cell, and a cell network is, it’s the CIA. They can probably tell you down to the man how many men, and in what positions, and how long it would take, and how far along they are now in the US. If they can’t they’re derelict.
Question: How many fascists does it take to destroy America?
Answer: Oh, that would be [redacted].
You have an opinion of the CIA at odds with my experience.
That’s a universal statement that I don’t accept. It depends. I don’t believe in finding a remedy for all wrongs, but let’s put something on the floor before we reject it. Harassment law is in a constant state of flux. Maybe it’s time some of that flux moved in the direction of those who favor conservative beliefs.
So, conservatives become Socialists based on the argument that if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em?
No, more like if you can’t limit government then how about conservatives being protected rather than being oppressed.
Umm, no. In fact, I have no idea where you got that.
Speaking of Google…
“…we (at Google) spied on (James Damore’s) phone and computer. We didn’t find anything, although our spying probably made his devices unusably slow, preventing him from organizing support within the company. … To control the narrative, we planted stories with journalists and flexed Google’s muscles where necessary. … Our PR firms sent press releases saying ‘the NLRB ruled the firing legal’, which was, of course, manufactured b—s—. … All of our scheming was over the phone, in deleted emails, or through an external PR firm, so we can deny all of it. Now that we’ve forced him into arbitration, we’re close to screwing him over completely.” — TiredOfLying4Google, Reddit User
Is it more quantitatively wrong or more qualitatively? And is the Deep State “not as powerful as [I] think?”, or is the Deep State at the successful end of it’s soft coup against Trump?