Sidney Powell’s “Kraken” did emerge—but only to consume the “credibility” of Fox News as it settles Dominion defamation case

 

As some people may have heard, Fox News settled the $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against it filed by Dominion Voting Systems Corporation just days before the trial was set to begin, which promised to be quite embarrassing for the network as some well-known names would be forced to take the stand to “explain” why they peddled election fraud conspiracies they knew to be complete bullshit as "fact."

Fox News agreed to pay Dominion just under $800 million, which Fox executives and its infamous employees rightly believe is a “fair” amount to avoid public revelations far more costly to its already lousy credibility—especially given that the settlement also halted the investigation by a special master into whether Fox News had in good faith complied with the discovery process.

While Fox News was basically giving an “open mike” to absurd election fraud conspiracies, every recount involving Dominion voting machines showed that the counts they generated accurately reflected the vote count. Yet this did not stop Fox News personalities and their “guests” from peddling the hoax that Dominion machines had been deliberately manipulated to change votes in swing states like Arizona and Georgia.

The fact that it just didn't matter to Fox News viewers that there was proof that the 2020 election was not “stolen” demonstrated that the network's "news" coverage brainwashed millions with daily doses of divisive misinformation and outright lies. These lies can of course sound “logical” if you want them to be; it’s the old “you can’t disprove a negative” trick—“Humans did not live on the Moon millions of years ago. Oh yeah? Prove that they didn’t.”  To many people, if you can’t “prove” a nonsense statement is false, then it must be “true.”

Fox News's prime-time line-up had so brainwashed its viewers with this kind of nonsense with its election fraud conspiracies that when the "news" anchors began to scorn or ignore the claims on air, many viewers—and Fox's most popular "personalities" peddling the falsehoods—felt "betrayed" by the network. Viewership sank following the 2020 election, and to bring them back, Fox's political "evangelicals" gave lunatics like Sidney Powell, Rudi Giuliani and Mike Lindell a platform to repeat their crazed claims with little or no pushback—and in the cases of Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo and Jeanine Pirro, open support for those claims.  

Fox News viewers had been fed clearly false information for so long that they simply did not know any other "reality"—even as the rest of us knew what they were being fed was obvious falsehoods. Fox News’ responsibility for January 6 also cannot be overlooked or “underappreciated” because of what they were doing.

Dominion’s lawsuit filing makes for interesting reading. Powell especially was given an “open mike” and supportive environment from Bartiromo and Dobbs. For example Bartiromo states as “truth” claims that she doesn’t actually know to be true or not—in fact demonstrated to be false by recounts even as she asserted the opposite:

Sidney, we talked about the Dominion software. I know that there were voting irregularities. Tell me about that.

Powell asserts “facts” she clearly has no “proof” actually exist, but claims as true because who is going to disprove it when there are many people who want to believe it?  

That’s to put it mildly. The computer glitches could not and should not have happened at all. That is where the fraud took place where they were flipping votes in the computer system or adding votes that did not exist.

Powell’s most important verbal “weapon” was claiming that Dominion machines were allegedly used to “rig” elections in favor of the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez here…

Well, I can hardly wait to put forth all the evidence we have collected on Dominion, starting with the fact it was created to produce altered voting results in Venezuela for Hugo Chavez and then shipped internationally to manipulate votes for purchase in other countries, including this one.

…and there:

 It was created for the express purpose of being able to alter votes and secure the reelection of Hugo Chavez and then Maduro. They’ve used it in Argentina,” Powell said. “There is an American citizen who has exported it to other countries and it is one huge, huge criminal conspiracy that should be investigated by military intelligence for its national security implications…We have sworn witness testimony of why the software was designed. It was designed to rig elections … We have so much evidence, I feel like it’s coming in through a fire hose.

The credulous Bartiromo could only say “Wow.” She never did ask Powell to provide viewers even a dribble of the “evidence” coming out of that fire hose. This goes on and on. Powell falsely told Dobbs that Smartmatic owned Dominion, and went on to say that

I’ve just gotten some stunning evidence from a firsthand witness, a high-ranking military officer, who was present when Smartmatic was designed in a way that – and I’m going to just read to you some of these statements, if you don’t mind, so I get them exactly right…From the affidavit, (Smartmatic was) ‘designed in a way that the system could change the vote of each voter without being detected. We are just continuing to be inundated by evidence of all the frauds here and every manner and means of fraud you could possibly think of.

As it turned out, Powell’s “evidence” was nothing more than claims made by one or two people working at vote-counting sites who saw “things” they wanted to see, or someone looking through a window “interpreting” what they were seeing without actually knowing what they were looking at. Judges rightly and repeatedly threw out these nonsense fraud claims when Powell presented them in court.

But what was worse was that despite the fact that they knew these claims to be ridiculous, Fox News hosts not only still allowed these claims a “fair” hearing without push back, but as noted in many cases supported them on air. Some, like Dobbs apparently did personally believe election fraud claims, telling Powell

Let me make you an offer, very straightforwardly, We will gladly put forward your evidence that supports your claim that this was a Cyber Pearl Harbor. We have tremendous evidence already … of fraud in this election, but I will be glad to put forward on this broadcast whatever evidence you have, and we’ll be glad to do it immediately.

Of course that evidence was never forthcoming. But that didn’t stop Dobbs releasing these tweets:

Read all about Dominion and Smartmatic voting companies and you’ll soon understand how pervasive this Democrat electoral fraud is, and why there’s no way in the world the 2020 Presidential election was either free or fair.

I think many Americans have given no thought to electoral fraud that would be perpetrated through electronic voting; that is, these machines, these electronic voting companies, including Dominion, prominently Dominion, at least in the suspicions of a lot of Americans. We have technical presentations that prove there is an embedded controller in every Dominion machine, that allows an election supervisor to move votes from one candidate to another.

Jeanine Pirro, of course, was another who simply repeated Powell's and others false claims, not even bothering to verify even the most “essential”  assertions were factual:

The President’s lawyers alleging a company called Dominion, which they say started in Venezuela with Cuban money, and with the assistance of Smartmatic software, a backdoor is capable of flipping votes.

Dominion was a competitor—not a business partner—with Smartmatic, and it was founded in Toronto, Canada and has its corporate headquarters in the U.S. Facts simply don’t matter when you have a conspiracy-minded audience to please.

Tucker Carlson was one who asserted behind the scenes that he knew the election fraud claims were “bullshit,” but as Dominion correctly pointed out in its lawsuit, this only made his and his colleagues' crimes worse. 

When Mike Lindell proclaimed that  “Every outlet in the country, they go, ‘Mike Lindell, there’s no evidence, and he’s making fraudulent statements.’ No. I have the evidence. I dare people to put it on. I dare Dominion to sue me because then it will get out faster. So, this is – you know, they don’t – they don’t want to talk about it,” Carlson on-air agreed that people don’t want to hear the “evidence”—implying that there was such "evidence."

In its court filings, Dominion successfully convinced Judge Eric Davis that the following crimes had been committed and Fox News had no “free speech” defense against:

First, falsity Fox broadcast false information. These lies fall into four categories, each provably false at the time. Fox falsely claimed : (1) Dominion committed election fraud by rigging the 2020 Presidential Election. (2 ) Dominion's software and algorithms manipulated vote counts in the 2020 Presidential Election (3 ) Dominion is owned by a company founded in Venezuela to rig elections for the dictator Hugo Chavez. (4 ) Dominion paid kickbacks to government officials who used its machines in the 2020 Presidential Election.

Second, publication about Dominion. It is legally irrelevant that but not all of the accused statements relate to false charges made by a guest and not a host . Fox is deemed the publisher of every statement those guests aired against Dominion . It is a black - letter rule that one who republishes a libel is subject to liability just as if he had published it originally , even though he attributes the libelous statement to the original publisher , and even though he expressly disavows the truth of the statement. Moreover, liability attaches to all those who share responsibility for the decision to publish the statements. The broadcasts on their face also refer to Dominion and connect Dominion to the lies and the far-fetched conspiracy theories regarding the massive but non - existent fraud that supposedly flipped millions of votes from Trump to Biden.

Third, actual malice. Actual malice requires a showing that those responsible for the publication either knew or recklessly disregarded the truth. Here, literally dozens of Fox employees had responsibility for at least one of the defamatory statements Prevailing on summary judgment requires finding that just one person met the required actual malice standard for each. The evidence demonstrates much more. Each person with responsibility either knew the truth or recklessly disregarded the truth.

Fourth, defamation per se. A statement is per se defamatory ifit ( 1) charges the plaintiff with a serious crime; [or ] (2 ) tends to injure the plaintiff in her or his trade , business or profession." Kasavana v. Vela, 172 AD3d 1042, 1044 (2d Dept 2019). Where a defendant's statements are per se defamatory, the plaintiff need not prove damages to establish liability. Whether particular statements are considered defamatory per se is a question of law. Here, every statement is per se defamatory.

Finally, no affirmative defense protects Fox. Fox's defenses fail on the merits as a matter of law even assuming it has properly preserved them…The neutral report privilege cannot apply if the publisher endorses or distorts the charges or otherwise fails to provide accurate and disinterested reporting.

As damning as anything is the actual malice charge. Carlson knew the election fraud claims were BS, but he was more concerned about his and prime-time colleagues “reputations” and "credibility" in light of the “straight news” anchor reporting:

We devote our lives to building an audience and they let Chris Wallace and Leland fucking Vittert wreck it.

Laura Ingraham joined in by complaining that “We are officially working for an organization that hates us.” But what they chose to do was to “mollify” Trump’s fans to maintain ratings, and this came at the expense of what most of those on Fox News knew to be factual. Carlson himself was aware of the power of Trump and its danger to a fact-based reality:

I hate him passionately … What he’s good at is destroying things. He’s the undisputed world champion of that. He could easily destroy us if we play it wrong, We’re all pretending we’ve got a lot to show for it, because admitting what a disaster it’s been is too tough to digest. But come on. There really isn’t an upside to Trump.

Yet even as Carlson was disparaging Trump and pooh-poohing the claims made by Powell and Lin Wood, he was willing to give them a “hearing” because there was “no doubt there was fraud in the election.” What made him particularly “angry” was not necessarily that there was no evidence of "fraud," but that “Trump and Lin and Powell have so discredited their own case, and the rest of us to some extent, that it’s infuriating. Absolutely enrages me.”

Carlson hoped that “Once he’s out (meaning Trump), he becomes incalculably less powerful, even in the minds of his supporters. He’s a demonic force, a destroyer. But he’s not going to destroy us. I’ve been thinking about this every day for four years.” He was wrong, of course, as Trump has insured that he would not quietly walk into twilight dark.

Meanwhile, Rupert Murdoch was so fearful of a “Trump explosion” that after Fox News’ “Decision Desk” called Arizona for Joe Biden he exclaimed to a former New York Post editor that he hoped they were proved “wrong.” And he also encouraged the dissemination of false claims on air after election day for ratings, until January 6, when to save the network from being seen as culpable he wrote in a memo

Trump insisting on the election being stolen and convincing 25 percent of Americans was a huge disservice to the country. Pretty much a crime. Inevitable it blew up Jan. 6th. Best we don’t mention his name unless essential and certainly don’t support him. We have to respect people of principle and if it comes to the Senate, don’t take sides. I know he is being over-demonized, but he brought it on himself.

Yet it was in the end up to the “power three” at the network—Carlson, Ingraham and Sean Hannity who had in the words of Ingraham “enormous power…more power than we know or exercise.” That is one “scary” thought, and indicative of their power to completely brainwash and shape “reality” even when they themselves know it to be a false reality, if only behind the scenes.

In desperation mode after losing viewers to Newsmax and One America News who were still gleefully peddling election fraud conspiracies,  Fox News executives lamented that “Fox News is facing a brand crisis” and “open revolt” by those in the audience who had come to expect Fox News to be something other than “fair and balanced”—more like a mountain sitting atop one side of a seesaw and a mole hill on the other. It was feared by one executive that “precipitous decline in Fox’s favorability among our core audience” posed “lasting damage to the Fox News brand unless effectively addressed soon.”

And before January 6 when the most defamatory claims were being made, that of course was to give voice to election fraud conspiracies no matter how ludicrous. Bartiromo was perhaps the worst of them. She told Steve Bannon that  “I want to see massive fraud exposed” and her producer, Abby Grossberg, admitted that  “Our audience doesn’t want to hear about a peaceful transition.” Interestingly, Grossberg has since complained that she and Bartiromo were being "set-up" as “patsies” to take most of the blame, despite the fact that they were the worst perpetrators of defamation.

Given all this evidence, it was not a difficult decision for the judge to rule that Fox News’ on-air support for false election fraud conspiracies constituted either  factual assertions  or "mixed opinion.” This meant that their statements could not be defended as merely “opinion,” but were put forward as “fact.” As seen in the on-air statements, it was clear that information given didn’t merely “imply” that Dominion might be “guilty,” but that it was “guilty.” Accusations of criminal activity, wrote the judge, were not protected speech under the Constitution.

To the bitter end, Fox News continued to claim that “This case is and always has been about the First Amendment protections of the media’s absolute right to cover the news. Fox will continue to fiercely advocate for the rights of free speech and a free press as we move into the next phase of these proceedings.”  

But in the end Fox News knew that the evidence to be heard in court would expose this as pure hypocrisy, and likely irrevocably damage its “brand.” After weeks of discussion it finally found an amount of money that it could “settle” with. While admitting that the network “erred,” it nonetheless was not required to issue an on-air retraction of all the lies they have told and continue to tell its viewers.  Yes, still “free” to tell dangerous lies, the kind they told that helped lead to the January 6 insurrection.

 

The terms “republic” and “democracy” are virtually meaningless in this country--especially when "pure democracy" more closely defines Republican nihilists

 

Last week when an Arizona Republican state legislator was expelled by her own party for upsetting the “decorum” and “respect” for the institution by inviting some far-right “researcher” to make outlandish claims without evidence (such as the Democratic governor taking payoffs from drug cartels), it was justified in protecting the sanctity of "our republic.” That got me to thinking about how today Republicans are more insistent  on referring to this country as a “republic,” and Democrats insist on the term “democracy.” So which is it?

Republicans point out that the word “democracy” is not mentioned in the Declaration of  Independence or the Constitution; yet “democracy” was a cherished notion of Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson. Although Jeffersonian and Jacksonian “democracy” had different roles on the part that voters played, they still insisted that ultimate power rested with the will of people, not with a few "elites." 

Republicans, however, claim that a “republic” is one that protects the will of the “minority,” in fact the will of the "minority"--generally speaking the "elites"--can overrule that of the majority. We see some of that in action today, not just in the blindness of a fanatical "base," but by the actions of the current U.S. Supreme Court, which Republicans have managed to pack with narrow-minded cultural bigots who can do something much worse: deny anyone (whether those in the center-left majority or a demographic minority) rights that another “minority”—meaning white culture war bigots—don’t want them to have.

James Madison wrote that “In a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents. A democracy, consequently, will be confined to a small spot. A republic may be extended over a large region.” Yet as George Thomas wrote in the Atlantic, Madison still defended the rule by the “people” rather than the “few,” although his fear that “democracy was also susceptible to demagogues—men of ‘factious tempers’ and ‘sinister designs,’ who relied on ‘vicious arts’ to betray the interests of the people” gives one pause to speculate that his fear of “mob rule” reminds of too much of those "republic" politicians responsible for events of January 6.

The U.S. may be a “republic” in the sense that it is governed by elected officials, but the notion of an elected form of government would be impossible without its very basis—democracy, meaning election by the “people,” and not chosen by a group of "elites." In fact, the term “republic” harkens back to Roman times, and Roman senators were not in fact elected by “the people,” but either nominated by a consul (who was the de facto head of state) and later the censors. They had no real governing role save as an advisory board and make themselves rich. 

Thus the correct term to define the government of this country is as a “democratic republic.” Autocratic, corporatist and fascist tendencies under the guise of  "republic" is only kept under control by “democratic” principles of  elected government; i.e. the "will" of the majority--and it is increasingly clear that many Republicans do not like that theory of government, and do all they can to deny as many in the majority as they can the right to be heard at the ballot box. 

Furthermore, over the course of U.S. history debates over whether this is a “republic” or a “democracy” are essentially meaningless, especially when it comes to the Republican Party. We can examine party platforms to see how the parties have “evolved” over time. For example the first Republican Party platform in 1856 focused almost exclusively on banning slavery from the territories. It held up the territory of Kansas as an example of where anti-slavery residents’ rights were violated by those who wished to forcibly introduce slavery against the majority "will." Of course the reality was that many white residents who did not want slavery introduced into the territory were not necessarily anti-slavery; they just didn't want blacks as "neighbors."

The 1860 Republican platform also focused on preventing slavery from being introduced into the territories, opposing the notion that the Constitution supported a “new dogma” that deprived anyone (including blacks without specifically saying so) of their rights under the Constitution. The “slavocracy” was of course keen on expanding slavery into the territories because it saw its power in Congress diminishing, and the only way to maintain influence and stave-off threats to the continued existence of slavery was creating new slave states from the territories.

However, there was this interesting tidbit in the 1860 platform:

That the Republican party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws or any state legislation by which the rights of citizens hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.

This was in response to the accusation that big city machines like Tammany Hall in New York were showing too much favor to (mostly Irish) immigrants to expand their power base, and speeding up the naturalization process to allow them to vote for their “friends.” This had already been seen in the anti-immigrant “Know-Nothing” or American Party movement, and this nativist sentiment would lead to the restrictive 1924 immigration law, and eventually to white nationalism today. Of course, the “fear” for Republicans was that most voters of recent immigrant background would vote for the Democrats in northern states.

The 1920 Republican platform, after complaining the Woodrow Wilson administration was as “unprepared for peace” as it was for war, made this statement: "We undertake to end executive autocracy and restore to the people their constitutional government.” What did that mean? Well, that is not exactly clear at the time, but it would become "clearer" later with all the free-for-all graft and corruption in the Harding and Coolidge administrations, and the financial anarchy that led to the Great Depression. 

Then we see this forerunner of "American First" nationalism: “Subject to a due regard for our international obligations, we should leave our country free to develop its civilization along lines most conducive to the happiness and welfare of its people, and to cast its influence on the side of justice and right should occasion require."

It then goes off into a tangent about being a “sincere friend of the Mexican people” before setting-up rationalizations to invade the country to “protect the American people.” This is in contrast to opposition to supporting Wilson’s plan to aid Christian Armenia, whose people were threatened by genocide by the Muslim Turks:

The acceptance of such a mandate would throw the United States into the very maelstrom of European quarrels. According to the estimate of the Harbord Commission, organized by authority of President Wilson, we would be called upon to send 59,000 American boys to police Armenia and to expend $276,000,000 in the first year and $756,000,000 in five years. This estimate is made upon the basis that we would have only roving bands to fight; but in case of serious trouble with the Turks or with Russia, a force exceeding 200,000 would be necessary.

While the Turkish government still bristles over accusations of genocide, out of a population that once numbered up to 1.5 million, only 50-70,000 Christian Armenians still "officially" live in Turkey. 

“America First” philosophy was part of the "program" in regard to support of the League of Nations, the forerunner of the United Nations:

We believe that all this can be done without the compromise of national independence, without depriving the people of the United States in advance of the right to determine for themselves what is just and fair when the occasion arises, and without involving them as participants and not as peacemakers in a multitude of quarrels, the merits of which they are unable to judge.

On the other hand, the platform's stand on taxes was “pragmatic” compared to today:

The burden of taxation imposed upon the American people is staggering; but in presenting a true statement of the situation we must face the fact that, while the character of the taxes can and should be changed, an early reduction of the amount of revenue to be raised is not to be expected.

On free speech, while “We demand that every American citizen shall enjoy the ancient and constitutional right of free speech, free press and free assembly and the no less sacred right of the qualified voter to be represented by his duly chosen representatives,” “free speech” was also no defense against advocating “resistance to the law, and no man may advocate violent overthrow of the government.” This was likely in regard to "anarchists," but note that Republicans were out of power when the January 6 version of anarchists were being prosecuted, and we have heard from many Republicans (Marjorie Taylor Greene) say that they didn’t necessarily have a problem with the violent overthrow of a newly elected head of state.

On immigration, the Republican platform asserted that “aliens” were “not entitled” to the right of free speech if it was “agitation directed against the government of American institutions.” However, it was somewhat more “pragmatic” on how to deal with a “nation of immigrants” than it is today:

Every government has the power to exclude and deport those aliens who constitute a real menace to its peaceful existence. But in view of the large numbers of people affected by the immigration acts and in view of the vigorous malpractice of the Departments of Justice and Labor, an adequate public hearing before a competent administrative tribunal should be assured to all.

But on social policy, the Republican Party still wanted to at least imply that it was the “friend” of the black man, unlike the South still dominated by the Democratic Party:

The supreme duty of the nation is the conservation of human resources through an enlightened measure of social and industrial justice. Although the federal jurisdiction over social problems is limited, they affect the welfare and interest of the nation as a whole. We pledge the Republican party to the solution of these problems through national and state legislation in accordance with the best progressive thought of the country.

So let’s jump to the 1980 Republican platform. Things had changed dramatically in the ensuing decades, starting with the influence of the John Birch Society in the 1950s and Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” in the 1960s. After a rundown of all the disasters of the Carter administration, we learn that Democrats

…are without program or ideas to reverse it. Divided, leaderless, unseeing, uncomprehending, they plod on with listless offerings of pale imitations of the same policies they have pursued so long, knowing full well their futility. The Carter Administration is the unhappy and inevitable consequence of decades of increasingly outmoded Democratic domination of our national life. Over the past four years it has repeatedly demonstrated that it has no basic goals other than the perpetuation of its own rule and no guiding principle other than the fleeting insights provided by the latest opinion poll. Policies announced one day are disavowed or ignored the next, sowing confusion among Americans at home and havoc among our friends abroad.

I don’t know about you, but that sounds very much like the Republican Party today. 

The platform goes on about tax cuts, “improving” the welfare system by degrading those on it, weakening environmental regulations that “harm” economic growth. While the platform put in a lot of nice words about being the “Party of Lincoln,” it was mostly for show, since instead of seeking ways to increase the benefits of “Reaganomics” for all classes of people, Ronald Reagan reduced staff and placed anti-affirmative action fanatics like Clarence Thomas in the EEOC and the Civil Rights Commission.

But was most interesting was the California man’s acceptance of the place of Hispanics in American society, before East and South Asians became the more “accepted” face of “foreignness”—who like whites and blacks are not “native” to this part of the world, unlike most Hispanics who have “blood” that is "native" to this hemisphere:

Hispanics are rapidly becoming the largest minority in the country and are one of the major pillars in our cultural, social, and economic life. Diverse in character, proud in heritage, they are greatly enriching the American melting pot.

Hispanics seek only the full rights of citizenship—in education, in law enforcement, in housing—and an equal opportunity to achieve economic security. Unfortunately, those desires have not always been fulfilled; as in so many other areas, the Carter Administration has been long on rhetoric and short on action in its approach to the Hispanic community.

We pledge to pursue policies that will help to make the opportunities of American life a reality for Hispanics. The economic policies enunciated in this platform will, we believe, create new jobs for Hispanic teenagers and adults and will also open up new business opportunities for them. We also believe there should be local educational programs which enable those who grew up learning another language such as Spanish to become proficient in English while also maintaining their own language and cultural heritage. Neither Hispanics nor any other American citizens should be barred from education or employment opportunities because English is not their first language.

Damn, what party is that again? Hell, even "socialist" Democrats wouldn't go that far, being too consumed with gender and black advocacy; Hispanics are not even allowed a "voice" in the mainstream media or entertainment. For the Republican Party as we know it today, they are all “drug dealers,” “rapists” “criminals” and just plain mostly “bad dudes.” 

But  despite those kind words, in 1986, Reagan signed an immigration law that provided amnesty for all illegal aliens who did not have criminal records—but would also make it much more difficult for U.S. employers (especially farmers) to legally hire cross-border temporary workers, and in the final analysis this caused illegal immigration to become much worse.

What about the Democrats? In the book  A People and a Nation: A History of the United States, the founding of the Democratic Party in 1828  

…represented a wide range of views but shared a fundamental commitment to the Jeffersonian concept of an agrarian society. They viewed the central government as the enemy of individual liberty... Jacksonians feared the concentration of economic and political power. They believed that government intervention in the economy benefited special-interest groups and created corporate monopolies that favored the rich. They sought to restore the independence of the individual—the artisan and the ordinary farmer—by ending federal support of banks and corporations and restricting the use of paper currency, which they distrusted.

But in a “twist” of how times have changed, how the Democratic Party defined “the proper role of government tended to be negative, and Andrew Jackson's political power was largely expressed in negative acts. He exercised the veto more than all previous presidents combined... Nor did Jackson share reformers' humanitarian concerns. He had no sympathy for American Indians, initiating the removal of the Cherokees along the Trail of Tears.^”  

But times change, and this philosophy would eventually be more closely aligned with the Republicans and their media supporters today.

In the 1928 Democratic platform, the party still clung to “Jeffersonian ideals” like “states’ rights”—meaning that of Southern states—and the "popular will," but still not mentioning at all social or minority concerns they have become identified with today:

We hold that government must function not to centralize our wealth but to preserve equal opportunity so that all may share in our priceless resources; and not confine prosperity to a favored few. We, therefore, pledge the Democratic Party to encourage business, small and great alike; to conserve human happiness and liberty; to break the shackles of monopoly and free business of the nation; to respond to the popular will.

The Republican Party, of course, was accused of corruption and that certainly was true. The impact of its laissez-faire attitude toward financial regulation would only be known in another year, so this did not hinder Herbert Hoover's election. The Democrats' stance on immigration was in keeping with the times, yet maintained at least a modicum of humanity, in stark contrast to what we saw during the Trump administration and its family separation policy:

Laws which limit immigration must be preserved in full force and effect, but the provisions contained in these laws that separate husbands from wives and parents from infant children are inhuman and not essential to the purpose or the efficacy of such laws.

The 1932 Democratic platform not surprisingly took advantage of public frustration with the failure of Republican Party to take ownership of the Great Depression:

In this time of unprecedented economic and social distress the Democratic Party declares its conviction that the chief causes of this condition were the disastrous policies pursued by our government since the World War, of economic isolation, fostering the merger of competitive businesses into monopolies and encouraging the indefensible expansion and contraction of credit for private profit at the expense of the public.

Far from a party “without a plan,” the rest of the platform was a laundry list of what an FDR administrations planned to do—and not do what Republicans did. What is interesting is that although “social” issues are not mentioned, neither does the platform search for scapegoats like immigrants, who are not mentioned at all. However, during the Depression, people of Mexican heritage were gathered-up in border states and deported regardless of their legal status; it is estimated that 60 percent of all those illegally deported were U.S. citizens, and FDR did almost nothing to stop this.

But during the height of the civil rights period, the 1964 Democratic platform chose to alienate many Southern white Democratic voters by embracing a progressive social policy that encouraged all people to find a common purpose "together" without partisan hatreds:

America is One Nation, One People. The welfare, progress, security and survival of each of us reside in the common good—the sharing of responsibilities as well as benefits by all our people.

Democracy in America rests on the confidence that people can be trusted with freedom. It comes from the connection that we will find in freedom a unity of purpose stronger than all our differences. We have drawn upon that unity when the forces of ignorance, hate, and fear fired an assassin's bullet at the nation's heart, incited violence in our land, and attacked the outposts of freedom around the world. Because of this unity, those who traffic in fear, hate, falsehood, and violence have failed to undermine our people's deep love of truth and quiet faith in freedom.

Our program for the future is to make the national purpose—the human purpose of us all—fulfill our individual needs. Accordingly, we offer this platform as a covenant of unity. We invite all to join us who believe that narrow partisanship takes too small account of the size of our task, the penalties for failure and the boundless rewards to all our people for success. We offer as the goal of this covenant peace for all nations and freedom for all peoples.

The change in the Democratic Party couldn’t be more dramatic from its original inception, and so too was that of the Republican Party, which took over the "mantle" of white nationalism vacated by the Democrats. While the Republican Party today is identified with big business and cultural and racial bigots, the Democratic Party then and there proclaimed itself to be the party of all people, not just those of the “privileged” social and economic classes. 

Whereas Republican policies today almost solely benefit the rich classes (whether through tax cuts or deregulation), Democratic philosophy disparages the “culture war” mentality that Republicans use to disguise their contempt for working people, and act for the benefit of all people—whether some of them “like” others to benefit or not.

The 2008 Democratic platform promised “change” from the divisiveness that had become Republican Party “policy.”

We come together at a defining moment in the history of our nation – the nation that led the 20th Century, built a thriving middle class, defeated fascism and communism, and provided bountiful opportunity to many. We Democrats have a special commitment to this promise of America. We believe that every American, whatever their background or station in life, should have the chance to get a good education, to work at a good job with good wages, to raise and provide for a family, to live in safe surroundings, and to retire with dignity and security. We believe that quality and affordable health care is a basic right. We believe that each succeeding generation should have the opportunity, through hard work, service and sacrifice, to enjoy a brighter future than the last.

Fine words, but voters suddenly remembering that Barack Obama was black (the Tea Party "movement") thought that was enough "change" after just two years. What is interesting about the Republican’s 2016 platform—which they used in 2020 as well—is that it is pages and pages of “plans” that Trump didn't have a hand in creating or had any interest or intention to follow through on, but it “looked like” they had a “plan.” In fact the only “plans” that Trump and his stooges had the time or inclination for had to do with their own personal prejudices and gripes, like cutting taxes for the rich, cutting regulations, gutting the EPA, attempting to prevent all immigration from Latin America, and mindlessly overturning every Obama-era foreign and domestic initiative (save the ACA, because it was the law) simply because it was Obama's.

None of this helped the vast majority of people who voted for Trump and his Republican allies. Republicans are not about helping all people, or even most people, in fact they openly seek to inflict damage on as many voters they see as against them as they can. Of course, while "average" Republican voters react with glee to see others hurt, in the end they find that they are also "damaged" when those policy demons say "hello" to them when they need help, because Republicans didn't really care about them either.    

In the end it doesn't matter what the political parties claim as their governing philosophy, whether as a "republic" or a "democracy"; it is whatever works at certain time, and most of the time it is out of boredom with the current "regime" and a desire for something "different," since, to be honest, nothing really "changes" all that much except the rhetoric. They make bold promises and often either have no intention to follow through (Republicans), or are not given the time to accomplish what they promised to do (Democrats).  

Sometimes they "hear" the people and then "forget" what they "said." Remember when George Bush won the 2000 election despite losing the popular vote, and he claimed that he "heard" the majority of voters say they didn't want tax cuts for the rich? Well, he soon "forgot," and the budget surpluses of the Clinton presidency were abandoned for ballooning deficits to record levels after Bush decided that his corporate puppet masters needed their "payday" for supporting him (and of course he had to pay for that war about nonexistent WMDs).

The truth of the matter is that for Republicans today, they want it both ways: they prefer a "republic" run by "patricians" who are selected to run by corporate elites and are accountable only to them, and yet they need a small  but vocal cadre of  nihilists, men and women who can play the worst of a "pure" democracy who, as James Madison wrote, were with "factious tempers" and "sinister designs," who would betray the interests of the people through "vicious arts" to cloud their minds to the hypocrisy. Names like McCarthy, Jordan, Greene and Gaetz immediately come to mind. 

I have to admit that since the Depp case, I am finding less and less "commonality" with YouTube "influencers"

 

I admit I don’t always agree with the opinions of the YouTubers who I followed during the Johnny Depp case, and sometimes I hold quite the opposite opinion in certain ways, particularly ideological. One is with a Taylor Swift fan, and he is giving her “props” for the way she is “handling” her hundreth break-up. It sounds like the guy she was in a 6-year relationship proposed to her and it was then she “discovered” how much she really “felt” about him, which is about as much you would expect from a user who has made a fortune out of a corporate-created "image," complete with that blonde, blue-eyed Aryan-Nordic frontage.

Give me a break. Swift is just like Amber Heard, a complete narcissist who in this case the so-called "music" industry has built-up for purely commercial reasons. The truth should be obvious: she used this guy for his work on her songs, and she kept him on a leash for that reason alone. Swift has had so many breakups that we must at long last come to the conclusion that it must be about her, not "them," right?

Anyways, Swift's music (such as it is) is reflective of the kind of boring, tuneless whines that receives "critical acclaim" these days, and yet people are paying thousands a pop to see "her." Why? She can't sing, she can't dance, and her output will be forgotten a decade after she leaves the scene. Why the hell do you think they still use Seventies tunes in films and television commercials? Because those songs actually speak to the concerns of normal people.

But you are still going to freakin' tell me that she is on the same level as Madonna? What crack are you smoking if you think Swift is anywhere near her as far as quality, quantity, performance or any other discriptor that matters? I admit that how I feel about Madonna depends on what day it is, but I would never disrespect her by suggesting that Swift is in the same ballpark as her.

Going on, I have to admit that I am sick of all this dumping on Meghan Markle.  Unlike the other “royals” she had a “real” job once. Prince Harry didn’t have to court her and marry her, but being the “spare” he probably wanted to be “different” and broaden his horizons. The rest of the royal family and household apparently had their own stereotypes about how “black” Americans act (let alone even "belonged"), and the way they sat back and allowed her to be ill-treated by the British media proved it. In fact they probably enjoyed it. Why should she have continued to play the "game" when the British media was finding fault with everything she did?

Not being allowed to pursue her own career, Markle had a right to expect that Harry and his family would provide for and protect her. But Charles forbade her a personal income from the royal “purse,” unlike for the other royal consorts, which was taken as an insult to her as it should have been. Could these things have been handled differently by both parties? Yes, but Markle clearly was never really treated as a “legitimate” member of the family, merely tolerated as an unwanted “curiosity.” Did she “sign up” for this when she “vacated” her own career? No, of course not, so why are people complaining about her?

And then you had people congratulating Elon Musk over his “take-down” of a BBC reporter over whether or not there is hate speech on Twitter. Sorry, I don't buy this at all. Musk is a danger to this country. Period. Evil does have a certain "logic" to it, if you're mind works that way. I have this feeling that he is going to allow Twitter to become a cesspool of far-right misinformation and rhetorical violence out of omission; "free speech," as some people call this, has a cost as we saw on January 6. Musk says he was "forced" to buy Twitter for legal reasons despite it potentially being a money loser for him, and now he is taking his "revenge," mainly those on the “left," especially if they don't pay for that "coveted" check mark.  What a phony.

I hope the Supreme Court does overturn Section 230, because that would make Musk legally and financially responsible for any "speech" on Twitter that leads to violence. It is obvious that the BBC reporter wasn't prepared to give those examples of hate speech on Twitter, but there have been many studies showing that since Musk issued an “amnesty” and reinstated known hate groups on Twitter, that anti-Semitic and racist accounts are rising faster than they can be “discovered” and taken down, especially if they just change to an account with a different name.

Musk didn't say anything at all during the BBC interview that made any sense; he didn't present any "facts" himself,  which is how conservatives tend to work. Musk was just playing the "you can't prove a negative" game, and the BBC reporter fell right into it. So who is the bigger liar: the guy who says there is hate speech on Twitter, or the guy who says there isn't? I think that the answer should be obvious, but apparently not to some YouTube “influencers.”

Another thing that I find curious: Why isn’t anyone “investigating” Amber Heard’s current financial situation? She was supposed to be “broke” last year, and according to IMDB, Heard hasn’t worked in two years, and has nothing in pre-production. Heard’s “net worth” is probably at best just a guess.  It was allegedly around $12.5 million 2021, then $8 million in 2022, to the current claim of $6 million, although a story in Parade last December asserted that her net worth was down to $2.5 million. 

During her 2016 divorce proceedings, Heard made some outrageous claims about her “needs,” such as $50,000 a month in expenses, and she hypocritically demanded that Depp take a 52-week “anger management” course. It seems that since Heard had contributed almost nothing of worth during her relationship with Depp (she and her "friends" were the worst of leeches), she ended-up getting virtually nothing from Depp, save that $7 million tax-free, which she claimed she was going to donate to two charities. Why did she demand that Depp provide the money tax-free (meaning Depp paid the taxes on the gross income required to net $7 million) if she really did intend to donate it all it, because that would have made it tax-free anyways? Because she intended to use it for herself, which would have made it taxable income.

Heard has already been paid for Aquaman 2 which is set to be released in December, and word is that it is not expected to do well at all. She has a indi-film called In the Fire which has been in “post-production” for two years with no release date. Depp, on the other hand, has Jeanne du Barry opening the Cannes Film Festival despite efforts by Heard stans media to sabotage it with inflammatory stories about both Depp and the director, Maïwenn. This isn’t surprising of course; Hollywood is also trying to sabotage Leonardo DiCaprio with old stories after his testimony about Hollywood corruption in a current federal case involving money laundering and bribery.

So where is Heard getting her money from? Why are not people the least bit curious about this? The “theory,” of course, is that Musk is paying her child support, since he is alleged to have donated the sperm for the embryo that was placed in an unnamed surrogate mother. Frankly, if Musk is such a “smart” guy, then why would he allow himself to be hoodwinked by a self-serving schemer like Heard? Surely he would have only agreed to this if his liability was limited? Of course the other "theory" is that Heard is blackmailing him with some "secret" information to aid his sense of "generosity." Remember that Heard took those "compromising" photos of Depp napping; that's how her mind works.

But what is “curious” here is why hasn’t anyone just point-blank asked Musk if Heard is currently living off his money? Probably because it will look like he caved-in to Heard’s extortion—or that Heard is a scheming extortionist, which of course would make her not look too good either. To be honest, one fears for that kid Heard is “raising.” She is as much the narcissist and paranoid fantasy world dweller as Evan Rachel Wood, and court papers involving her custody dispute with her ex-husband reveals she has turned her young son into a quivering fear freak.

While there are a few YouTubers I still follow (Colonel Kurtz), I generally don't have a lot of spare time for it now; because of my past interest I still get the latest "updates" on my phone, but if I see it is something I disagree with, I might only take the time to note my view briefly and move on. I do my own work, I don't need an "influencer" to tell me what to think.