>She is a puppet playing her part.
That's at least as bad as the reality we're being sold.
If both Trump and Pelosi are both in on this - and so far, we're getting nothing, we're getting nothing.
Is this a scenario where Trump struts around like a big winner and all them escape justice?
I like the version of events where we get what we want. Instead of worse every year. Not suggesting that Trump isn't superior to Democrats, but I'd like to see our team get clear wins, where we get what we want, in terms of major changes that benefit us, and disadvantage (((them))). (((They've))) been on a very long winning streak, centuries long, at least since 1913 in the US, and if we've won with such thoroughness that Pelosi is merely an actress playing a part, then we should be getting our wins on policy grounds. Watching Trump strut around like a winner, and he most certainly will win big as soon as tomorrow, isn't really a big victory for us here on the ground who have been taking losses at least since 1913.
And it's not at all some sort of "payback for the bad things the US has done sort of social justice thing", if Native Americans were in charge of our institutions, we could say, well, we really did treat them badly for centuries, and, in some way, they deserve to be in charge. Same thing for Blacks. If Blacks were put in charge, same thing, we treated them badly, and they deserve more.
But Jews are in charge. Why? Why do we allow this. Why do we have a Civil Rights Act which doesn't really help Black Males all that much, but helps Gays and Trannys achieve "not locked up for being crazy" status, but somehow has done nothing about the fact taht Jews are less than 2% of the population, and somehow have so many of the top jobs, far far more than 2%.
How about making a modification to the 64 Civil Rights Act called "Fuck the Jews" law? 2% quota for Jews. And any number of new laws that will fix the problems. Break our big companies up. Google and Twitter and Facebook are considered utilities, regulate them like utilities. People use those websites like people used a phone landline 50-100 years ago. Could Ma Bell listen in to our calls and break your connection when they didn't like what you were saying? Because people communicate through Facebook and Twitter - broadcasting to thousands perhaps - and they also use Facebook and Twitter like a 2020 version of a 1950s phone call. You send a direct message to someone on facebook. Facebook is a core communications method today. It's as necessary (to some, or in some ways) as a phone line. Was Ma Bell able to refuse service on ideological grounds?
I like the idea that there are ideological sites where people of a certain ideology can ban those who don't share the ideology. But Twitter and Facebook became monopolies of a type, without revealing, before they became monopolies, that they intended to become sites imposing an ideology. No. Monopolies Of A Type shouldn't be able to impose ideologies, much like Ma Bell was unable to cut off conversations. And any sort of secret banning, shadow banning, should be outright illegal across the board. Facebook and Twitter and Google shouldn't be allowed to play politics, Crowdstrike shouldn't be allowed to play politics, the biggest Monopolies Of A Type should not be able to refuse service on ideological grounds. Paypal shouldn't. People and businesses are able to, legally at this point, become deplatformed for ideological reasons, and that should stop.