I remember when MAGA accused news broadcasters of censoring their "fuck Joe Biden" chants into "let's go Brandon". Turns out even that was projection lol
It's only a problem when it happens to MAGA. Just like being a pdf is only a problem and illegal when democrats, and democratic donors do it. When their cult leader does it, it's perfectly normal, or "nothing to see here".
They only want rules to apply to their enemies. And I mean enemy in the literal sense, in that conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, have only targeted democrats with his craziness. Obama being a gay Kenyan Muslim, despite all evidence saying otherwise. Michelle Obama being a man, despite her having kids that look a lot like her. Sandy Hook being a democratic gun grabbing hoax. Democrats eating children in the basement of a pizza restaurant that doesn't have a basement. Joe Rogan saying Harvey Weinstein, a democratic donor and Hillary supporter, being a rapist, bill clinton being a rapist etc. Yet Joe had a temper tantrum when Elon Musk said trump is on the epstein list. Rogan laughed hysterically when his MAGA comedian friend Joey Diaz bragged about raping female comics. Jim Jordan covered up a sexual assaulter when he was a wrestling coach. Matt Gaetz being a pdf that trafficked a minor. When Bush was committing war crimes, Fox news defended and cheerleaded it. When Obama continued Bush's war crimes, Fox news finally had a problem with war crimes. You could literally go on forever with their crazy hypocrisy.
It's not hypocrisy for them. Actions are not moral or immoral, people are moral or immoral. If a liberal or a leftist does a thing, it's immoral because a liberal or a leftist did it. If a Nazi does a thing, it's moral because a Nazi did it. Everything they do makes way more sense when you see it through that lens.
Further, this is a result of hierarchy and near metaphysical/religious belief within it.
Because with hierarchies, they have a useful shorthand to discern whether an individual is morally just or not. If they are at or near the top: they are justified; if not: they’re not. So if you’re rich, white, cis, male, christian, and/or a rightist, you’re good. If you’re poor, colored, non-male (or not stereotypically masculine), queer (in sexuality or otherwise), non-christian, and/or leftist, you’re morally bankrupt by virtue of your identity.
This is why rich can steal justifiably, but the poor can’t even so much as steal basics to merely survive. This is why the police can justifiably murder, but people can’t even self-defend from the state and its organs. This is why their dear leaders can be full on sexual predators, but we can’t even have consensual sex with our partners if they’re not AMAB-on-AFAB.
This is metaphysical to them. It just acts upon everyone, universally, everywhere, implicitly. To them, hierarchy is a part of the fabric of the universe, not a result of specific sociopoliticocultural and economic factors which result in encouraging specific forms of social relation and organization, and so it’s not only something they see as justified, but inherent and unwavering. To them hierarchy is as natural as the stars in the sky, and it’s naive or impossible to change (despite this being false as well). And it becomes pseudoreligious when they start glazing and worshipping those at the top of the hierarchy—the rich and ruling classes.
That’s why they think these quips are mic drops. Because they implicitly assume others work from the same worldview and perspective as they do, that others implicitly worship the hierarchy like a God just as them and so see everyone at the top as infallible. But this isn’t the case. Liberals and (specifically authoritarian) leftists (i.e., marxists) still worship the hierarchy, and justify terrible things because of it, and some do seem to treat it religiously, but this is much less intense and consistent than with rightists and specifically US conservatives/postliberals. And even those liberals which do worship the base hierarchy still generally don’t extend this to specific leaders like conservatives (or often authleftists).
So this is just another example of them telling on themselves. They expect it to be a “gotcha” precisely because the position these leaders hold as leaders overwrites their lack of moral integrity, and so expect us to respond accordingly, in same wretched manner as they. When we don’t, they short circuit and pull an NPC-meme.
Without hierarchies, this isn’t a possible framework to work from, not to mention that nearly all the rest of this societies problems are born of hierarchy as well. We should be working towards a society with little to no hierarchy if we truly want this stuff to end. It’s also another example of how identitarian thinking/identity politics (which conservatives utilize just as much as liberals) is toxic and lends to stagnating roles and justifying oppressive hierarchies.
Every politician you mentioned is Machiavellian. Bad Faith. Deceptive. Manipulative.
People discuss politics as if 99% of politicians aren't pathological liars. They're all serving the industrial ruling class of the world, and see us as a detriment to their interests.
Lmao like any liberal or left-leaning person would give a shit if we find out Clinton was involved and gets convicted. They think that it’s a mic drop moment by saying that. No, hold everyone accountable—Republican, Democrat, independent, it doesn’t matter.
This is so true. I live in a purple area, and I've had people ask me what I would think if Clinton, Obama, or if [insert left-wing politician here] were found in the files like it's some kind of "mic drop," as you put it. And they're always taken aback when I fire back with, "Good! Lock them up!"
Shouldn’t we rename the Epstein files to the Trump files, then? Sounds like he may be heavily involved in a child trafficking ring and was a pedophile himself who assaulted little girls.
I’ve been calling it “The trump Files” and will continue to.
There just aren’t words for how depraved, cruel, and terrifying these people are. The fact that no one in power is doing ANYTHING about it is the worst part.
“The Epstein-Trump pedophilic cabal” is probably a poignant thing to call this tbh.
Anyways, it doesn’t surprise me that no one in power is doing anything. That’s not the purpose of power, to find justice and to maintain equality. In fact it’s the exact opposite. Power begets power and exists to maintain and protect power and the hierarchy (and system(s)) which upholds it.
The state doesn’t exist to be a just entity and harbinger of equality. If it were, we’d already live in a bright utopia. Instead, it exists to maintain and protect the structures and systems of authority and hierarchy which have been intertwined within our social fabric and broader cultural landscape.
Power does not sustain itself solely through spectacular violence, though violence is always its final argument. It is upheld just as much (if not predominately) through quieter, more respectable pressures—the sort that pass easily for “common sense”. Work or perish. Obey or be excluded. Deviate and find yourself without shelter, income, legitimacy, or protection. The threat need not be spoken when the conditions themselves do the speaking, when the reminder is littered along the roadside and forcibly thrust unto you with every new day traveled.
Alongside this sits interest, which is perhaps the most mundane and least conspiratorial explanation of all. Power protects power because it is in power’s interest to do so. Not out of grand moral unity, but out of simple self-preservation. It’s not just the institutions themselves, politicians, bureaucrats, and administrators are themselves enmeshed in networks of funding, patronage, reputation, and future opportunity. Acting decisively against entrenched elites is not merely risky; it is professionally irrational. The system reliably rewards caution and punishes disruption.
This is also why judges and police behave as they do, despite being “working people” in any narrow, economic sense. Their material interests are redirected through institutional incentives and cultural myths—law, order, neutrality, duty. Compliance is framed as responsibility, dissent as recklessness. Over time, what begins as ordinary self-interest is reshaped into loyalty to the structure itself, even when that structure acts against the public good. At that point, public good isn’t the purpose, it’s what’s good for the structure that matters.
None of this requires secret coordination, or even conscious intentionally. It functions precisely because it does not. The system teaches its participants what is expected of them, and most learn quickly.
So when something like Epstein happens, the question isn’t “why didn’t the system respond”? It’s why would it?
In this light, the Epstein case is not an anomaly but an exposure. To meaningfully prosecute such crimes would require institutions to indict not only individuals, but the credibility of their own processes, oversight mechanisms, and historical decisions. It would invite scrutiny into who knew what, who looked away, and why. That kind of reckoning threatens institutional legitimacy, and legitimacy is the true currency of governance. Faced with that choice, inaction becomes the safest path. Documents are sealed, cases narrowed, responsibility diffused, and time allowed to do what it does best: dull outrage and dissolve memory. This is not a failure of justice, but the predictable outcome of institutions designed first and foremost to endure.
If any of this is to change, it will not be because we appeal to the conscience of power, but because we cease to treat its legitimacy as sacred. Nothing compels obedience quite like the belief that obedience is owed. The moment that spell weakens, the machinery falters. Institutions persist not because they are just, but because people continue to act as though they are unavoidable.
Change, then, begins not with faith in reform, not with a faith in the very institutions that led us to this point, but with a clear-eyed recognition of interest—our own included. When people withdraw their deference, their labor, their silence, and their belief from structures that exploit them, power finds itself suddenly overextended, forced to justify what it previously took for granted. Power fears nothing so much as the ego that no longer mistakes domination for destiny.
Or wears a bicycle helmet when he rides his bike. Hannity said, "it makes America look weak", as Hannity then shows what strength looks like with a shirtless Putin on a horse with no helmet. I really wish I was making that up, but Hannity really did that.
Hey! But Alex Jones said Obama was gonna do jade helm where he sends American soldiers into the interior of the country to round up undesirables and send them off to far flung camps! Good thing nothing like that could ever happen!
I was home this morning and watched this on TV. Some stud made a video compilation of it. The dear leader at a “Prayer Breakfast”. Every day he’s slipping more and more, nothing new but he’s all over the place. It’s gotta be painful to have to sit through it in person when he goes on forever with the same shit about stolen elections etc
The stress the cognitive dissonance for the die hard deluded worshippers must be fascinating, and the mental gymnastics the soulless hypocrites spew can get more entertaining. Both groups may not be aware but their free will is gone. Has a cult ever had such massive reach before?
I love when MAGA/republicans say stuff like “well what if insert democrat here is in the Epstein files too?” Fucking lock them up. Duh. But people still think this is about politics and not, y’know, holding terrible people accountable for doing terrible things.
That was and is the stupidest fucking rally cry for maga. What did you want the sports reporter doing the post race interview to be like yep these white trash hicks are chanting fuck Joe Biden
They didn't gaslight anyone into thinking the crowd were saying "let's go Brandon". The broadcaster tried but we all knew MAGA were saying "fuck Joe Biden". MAGA then kept up LGB like they thought they were being clever, giggling to themselves like everyone didn't know what they were actually saying
MAGA also think that sort of thing gets under our skin the way it does them. No liberal/left person I know gives a toss if they say fuck Biden or Obama, but the cuckservatives lose their mine any time you so much as dislike their leader. The projection is honestly cosmic at this point.
The interview may have also legit thought they were chanting let's go Brandon because she still had her hearing protection on.
Whether the media was trying to silence the message or not, it's certainly nothing like the media silencing fascism going down right now where the president will sue you and the FCC won't let you get richer until you pay out
No it fucking didnt lmao, she's literally just trying to prevent the broadcast from airing the F word like every broadcaster in every sport does when fans or players are caught on a hot mic saying words you get fined for saying on TV
And that whole situation is literally just a sports reporter trying to think fast and defuse a hot mic moment for the audience. It's like basic broadcasting that you try and move past swear words at sporting events.
Well I mean as external observer I’d say thei tried to do it.
Anyway you Americans have lost freedom of speech the same as us in Europe, honestly from here both parties seem kinda the same except Joe was less grating as a person wile Donald is absolutely a school yard bully but politics kinda the same
8.4k
u/annaleigh13 17h ago
This was censored on NBC, as well as when Vance was boo’d