American election.

[Immanuel Can]

Have you eliminated the possibility that you might be being played?

Sometimes everybody is. But this time, I'm watching it happen to others.

If you're not sure what you should conclude, best not to conclude. But it seems like validating a questionable candidate as president of the US is one super big "conclusion."

[Gary Childress]

Have you eliminated the possibility that you might be being played?

Sometimes everybody is. But this time, I'm watching it happen to others.

If you're not sure what you should conclude, best not to conclude.

Interesting. In what way do you perceive people being "played" or what is meant by being "played"?

[Immanuel Can]

Interesting. In what way do you perceive people being "played" or what is meant by being "played"?

Oh, many ways, Gary. But we were talking about the MSM first denying that the laptop was anything but a Russian plant, and now admitting it's real, and that Hunter Biden is under five investigations. So it's not a matter of speculation, since it's not some "conservative" critic but the MSM that reversed themselves on that. There's no way, then, they didn't play the American public...even by their own admission.

[Gary Childress]

Interesting. In what way do you perceive people being "played" or what is meant by being "played"?

Oh, many ways, Gary. But we were talking about the MSM first denying that the laptop was anything but a Russian plant, and now admitting it's real, and that Hunter Biden is under five investigations. So it's not a matter of speculation, since it's not some "conservative" critic but the MSM that reversed themselves on that. There's no way, then, they didn't play the American public...even by their own admission.

I see. The Hunter Biden affair seems to be exposing a good deal of media hypocrisy as well as some on the part of the FBI as well.

[Immanuel Can]

I see. The Hunter Biden affair seems to be exposing a good deal of media hypocrisy as well as some on the part of the FBI as well.

It does indeed.

The right thing to be concerned about here is not Biden or Trump, though everybody talks as if they're what's at stake. What's at stake is nothing less than the entire electoral process in the world's leading democracy. For if the electors are deprived of the information they need in order to make a rational decision about what they're doing, or -- even worse -- if confidence in the electoral process is undermined by media or vote manipulation, then what's opened to question again is this: can democracy survive?

Since I don't live in the US, who wins is of no particular moment to me. Trump or Biden, neither will be my president. In fact, selfishly speaking, one might say that a weaker government in the US would suit my interests. But I think something very big and important is really under threat right now, and ALL democracies in the world have reason to be concerned; for if the US is no more impervious to a corrupt electoral process than is any banana republic, then which country in the world can we look to and say, "That's where democracy will work"?

It looks to me right now as if the US process, as it now stands, has become irredeemably corrupt. And if their checks and balances, such as their judiciary, do not manage to intervene to assure the integrity of the process, then we're all in deep trouble...at least those of us who believe people have a right to determine their own government, rather than to be "managed" into submissiveness by autocrats, ideological zealots, or a manipulative mass media.

[Gary Childress]

I see. The Hunter Biden affair seems to be exposing a good deal of media hypocrisy as well as some on the part of the FBI as well.

It does indeed.

The right thing to be concerned about here is not Biden or Trump, though everybody talks as if they're what's at stake. What's at stake is nothing less than the entire electoral process in the world's leading democracy. For if the electors are deprived of the information they need in order to make a rational decision about what they're doing, or -- even worse -- if confidence in the electoral process is undermined by media or vote manipulation, then what's opened to question again is this: can democracy survive?

Since I don't live in the US, who wins is of no particular moment to me. Trump or Biden, neither will be my president. In fact, selfishly speaking, one might say that a weaker government in the US would suit my interests. But I think something very big and important is really under threat right now, and ALL democracies in the world have reason to be concerned; for if the US is no more impervious to a corrupt electoral process than is any banana republic, then which country in the world can we look to and say, "That's where democracy will work"?

It looks to me right now as if the US process, as it now stands, has become irredeemably corrupt. And if their checks and balances, such as their judiciary, do not manage to intervene to assure the integrity of the process, then we're all in deep trouble...at least those of us who believe people have a right to determine their own government, rather than to be "managed" into submissiveness by autocrats, ideological zealots, or a manipulative mass media.

How does the Hunter Biden affair affect the "entire electoral process" (assuming you mean the process of voting and ballots)? Admittedly, I haven't followed the story. But from what little I've read in MSM it seems to mostly involve potential conflicts of interest with HB's business dealings in Ukraine and possibly China and not with manipulation of ballots or anything like that. It almost sounds like a new "Russia-gate" to me except with the tables turned. Granted, the media attention to the matter has been selectively different than to the "Russia collusion" conspiracy theory with Trump. However, I would have thought that would tend to indicate more of a problem with our media than with the "electoral process".

[Immanuel Can]

How does the Hunter Biden affair affect the "entire electoral process" (assuming you mean the process of voting and ballots)?

Various ways, actually. What we know for certain is that MSM suppressed the laptop. On that laptop were reasonable grounds to suspect the candidate of not just personal corruption, but of treason. We know that also, now. Would you, as an elector, not want to know about the existence and content of that laptop before you voted? But you were not given that option. Instead, you were told there was nothing to it. But now, the MSM are all admitting there was enough damning information on that laptop to warrant five investigations of Hunter Biden, plus the mysterious mention, on the laptop of "the big guy" as the recipient of large amounts of money from foreign suitors.

Now, just who would that "big guy" possibly be?

Let's ignore the Bobulinski testimony, that is, the testimony of the former business partner of Hunter Biden, who has declared on record and unprotected from libel suits that "the big guy" is Joe Biden. Let's pretend that never happened. Let's pretend we just don't know. If "the big guy" on the laptop really refers to somebody else, you'd have to say there was another "big guy" to whom Hunter Biden had power to gate keep, somebody important enough that Hunter Biden could make millions, as we know he did, by selling this "big guy's" influence.

Who do you suspect "the big guy" is?

Don't you want to know, before you vote, if it just might, perhaps, be Joe Biden? And is there any chance -- any at all -- that if it DID turn out to be Joe Biden, you might rethink your willingness to vote for him?

[Gary Childress]

How does the Hunter Biden affair affect the "entire electoral process" (assuming you mean the process of voting and ballots)?

Various ways, actually. What we know for certain is that MSM suppressed the laptop. On that laptop were reasonable grounds to suspect the candidate of not just personal corruption, but of treason. We know that also, now. Would you, as an elector, not want to know about the existence and content of that laptop before you voted? But you were not given that option. Instead, you were told there was nothing to it. But now, the MSM are all admitting there was enough damning information on that laptop to warrant five investigations of Hunter Biden, plus the mysterious mention, on the laptop of "the big guy" as the recipient of large amounts of money from foreign suitors.

Now, just who would that "big guy" possibly be?

Let's ignore the Bobulinski testimony, that is, the testimony of the former business partner of Hunter Biden, who has declared on record and unprotected from libel suits that "the big guy" is Joe Biden. Let's pretend that never happened. Let's pretend we just don't know. If "the big guy" on the laptop really refers to somebody else, you'd have to say there was another "big guy" to whom Hunter Biden had power to gate keep, somebody important enough that Hunter Biden could make millions, as we know he did, by selling this "big guy's" influence.

Who do you suspect "the big guy" is?

Don't you want to know, before you vote, if it just might, perhaps, be Joe Biden? And is there any chance -- any at all -- that if it DID turn out to be Joe Biden, you might rethink your willingness to vote for him?

Fair point. I didn't vote for Biden but I'm sure it would have influenced other voters, possibly enough to change the election results had the press locked onto the story.

Of course, then we have 4 more years of undermining the EPA and a return to more coal consumption, continued dismantling of nuclear limitation treaties, etc. So I guess it's a matter of picking our poison. I mean, Trump would have been great had he not been against environmentalism, for dismantling nuclear treaties and taking us off the UN Human Rights Council. I wouldn't think isolationism or nationalism are realistic for the US at this stage in world history. It seems like the US benefits from cosmopolitanism and the sharing of ideas and technology that comes with it.

[Immanuel Can]

I mean, Trump would have been great had he not been against environmentalism, for dismantling nuclear treaties and taking us off the UN Human Rights Council. I wouldn't think isolationism or nationalism are realistic for the US at this stage in world history. It seems like the US benefits from cosmopolitanism and the sharing of ideas and technology that comes with it.

It's interesting to me that throughout history, mankind's idea when faced with the failures of his plans, has always been, "I just didn't have enough power/people." In other words, he rarely thinks, "Maybe my ideology was wrong," but rather, "I should have pushed it much farther; then it might have worked."

I'm reminded of this human failure every time somebody mentions "globalism," "cosmopolitanism," or something like the UN. These are all "bigger will be better" movements. They all take for granted that if we just get everybody involved, then things that have never worked before will actually work.

To be sure, tribalism, localism, provincialism and nationalism all come with their own problems. But globalism is actually a very bad idea; and you would think that anybody who thought about it for five minutes would clue in. But somehow, they don't.

Globalism means that decisions about you are controlled by an elite that never sees you, never has to consider you, and has no accountability to you. It means that the price of rice in your neighbourhood is set by Brussels or Davos, or more plausibly, in Beijing. It means that the circumstances of your life -- your laws, your economy, your opportunities, and your social patterns -- are engineered in the interests of other people, not of your particular interests. It means that the goods of the prosperous are reallocated to pay off those who have contributed nothing. It means a relentless campaign of indoctrination, instead of education. It means the end of personal freedom, and the beginning of the tyranny of the collective. It means the end of incentives to local business, local production and local social decisions, and puts all of that in the hands of distant ideologues with no particular stock in seeing you continue to thrive.

And globalism has one further fault: it's very dangerous when it fails. It can easily decline into regionalism, where large factions assemble on different sides, each possessed of sufficient resources to really hurt each other, and they compete viciously for control. We saw a glimpse of that during the Cold War, for example. In regionalism, superpowers compete. Massive currents of conflict swing across the globe, perhaps killing millions each time they do. Of course, the ultimate loser turns out to be the globe -- everybody loses. Something like total environmental disaster, worldwide epidemics or nuclear war breaks out. And because the means possessed by the superpowers is so great, the world itself cannot survive such a struggle.

Compared to those sorts of outcomes, nationalism, or even provincialism or tribalism look not too bad. At least their scale seems to put some limits on the damage they can do. With global ambitions come global consequences.

[Gary Childress]

I mean, Trump would have been great had he not been against environmentalism, for dismantling nuclear treaties and taking us off the UN Human Rights Council. I wouldn't think isolationism or nationalism are realistic for the US at this stage in world history. It seems like the US benefits from cosmopolitanism and the sharing of ideas and technology that comes with it.

It's interesting to me that throughout history, mankind's idea when faced with the failures of his plans, has always been, "I just didn't have enough power/people." In other words, he rarely thinks, "Maybe my ideology was wrong," but rather, "I should have pushed it much farther; then it might have worked."

I'm reminded of this human failure every time somebody mentions "globalism," "cosmopolitanism," or something like the UN. These are all "bigger will be better" movements. They all take for granted that if we just get everybody involved, then things that have never worked before will actually work.

To be sure, tribalism, localism, provincialism and nationalism all come with their own problems. But globalism is actually a very bad idea; and you would think that anybody who thought about it for five minutes would clue in. But somehow, they don't.

Globalism means that decisions about you are controlled by an elite that never sees you, never has to consider you, and has no accountability to you. It means that the price of rice in your neighbourhood is set by Brussels or Davos, or more plausibly, in Beijing. It means that the circumstances of your life -- your laws, your economy, your opportunities, and your social patterns -- are engineered in the interests of other people, not of your particular interests. It means that the goods of the prosperous are reallocated to pay off those who have contributed nothing. It means a relentless campaign of indoctrination, instead of education. It means the end of personal freedom, and the beginning of the tyranny of the collective. It means the end of incentives to local business, local production and local social decisions, and puts all of that in the hands of distant ideologues with no particular stock in seeing you continue to thrive.

And globalism has one further fault: it's very dangerous when it fails. It can easily decline into regionalism, where large factions assemble on different sides, each possessed of sufficient resources to really hurt each other, and they compete viciously for control. We saw a glimpse of that during the Cold War, for example. In regionalism, superpowers compete. Massive currents of conflict swing across the globe, perhaps killing millions each time they do. Of course, the ultimate loser turns out to be the globe -- everybody loses. Something like total environmental disaster, worldwide epidemics or nuclear war breaks out. And because the means possessed by the superpowers is so great, the world itself cannot survive such a struggle.

Compared to those sorts of outcomes, nationalism, or even provincialism or tribalism look not too bad. At least their scale seems to put some limits on the damage they can do. With global ambitions come global consequences.

I don't know. From a cultural perspective, I'd rather live in a cosmopolitan Athens than Sparta. But different strokes for different folks I guess.

[tillingborn]

Have you eliminated the possibility that you might be being played?

Sometimes everybody is. But this time, I'm watching it happen to others.

If you're not sure what you should conclude, best not to conclude. But it seems like validating a questionable candidate as president of the US is one super big "conclusion."

Frankly, I cannot remember a presidential candidate that wasn't questionable. I think Gary Childress makes the pertinent point rather well:

I don't know. From a cultural perspective, I'd rather live in a cosmopolitan Athens than Sparta. But different strokes for different folks I guess.

That is an eloquent way of conveying the point that any conclusion about which candidate to vote for usually is, and should be, based on policy. Both Donald Trump and Joe Biden are routinely attacked by media hostile to their policies and being the skeptical type, my conclusion is that people for whom character decides elections are being played if they believe it, or are playing if they insist on it. As someone who has urged that the "real factual gold" on a laptop should override voters' political wishes, it seems to me that you are either playing or being played.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know. From a cultural perspective, I'd rather live in a cosmopolitan Athens than Sparta. But different strokes for different folks I guess.

How "cosmopolitan," in the modern sense, was Athens? Aristocrats had rights, but women less than men, and citizens had slaves. They were pretty much a Greek monoculture -- at least, the "lesser" cultures were never allowed a voice in Athens. Would you really want that?

How likely is the recreation of an "Athens" on a global scale today, anyway? Can you see that as a plausible alternative, given our realities?

[Immanuel Can]

That is an eloquent way of conveying the point that any conclusion about which candidate to vote for usually is, and should be, based on policy.

It's pretty fair to say that this last election had nothing to do with policy. The campaign was run on personalities, mostly ginning up personal antipathy.

What were Biden's allegedly popular "policies" by the way? Could you even say?

As someone who has urged that the "real factual gold" on a laptop should override voters' political wishes,

Whoa, partner. Nobody knows what "voters political wishes" actually were, because the election was rigged. You know it was, because of the abundant statistical anomalies. Are you going to tell me that as a candidate, Joe Biden was far more popular than Obama? Are you going to say that Joe Biden was, in fact, so popular that he was the only president to lose most of the bellwethers and still become president? This senile man, who campaigned from his basement, you're going to tell me was actually the most beloved presidential candidate in modern history?

Meanwhile, straw man, chum. Nobody said anything should "override" voter wishes. What I said was that voters did not get to find out what they'd actually "wish," because they were denied the information they needed by the MSM. There's a whole lot of difference.

But I can see you're uninterested in what the truth is there, so I'll leave it.

[Gary Childress]

I don't know. From a cultural perspective, I'd rather live in a cosmopolitan Athens than Sparta. But different strokes for different folks I guess.

How "cosmopolitan," in the modern sense, was Athens? Aristocrats had rights, but women less than men, and citizens had slaves. They were pretty much a Greek monoculture -- at least, the "lesser" cultures were never allowed a voice in Athens. Would you really want that?

How likely is the recreation of an "Athens" on a global scale today, anyway? Can you see that as a plausible alternative, given our realities?

Don't be silly. Of course, I don't want slavery, however, in comparative terms of the day Athens was much more cosmopolitan than Sparta.

[Immanuel Can]

...in comparative terms of the day Athens was much more cosmopolitan than Sparta.

But the comparison is very poor, Gary. We might say that Cuba is more "free" than Venezuela right now; it certainly doesn't mean that either is actually free. If you want to make a comparison, you need to pick something that's actually admirable and practical for today.

Athens was an elitist state and a slave state. Sparta was a really elitist, really militant, really nasty slave state. I don't think we're smart to be admiring either. And neither is a good pattern for the modern state.