Following the money trail from Jan 6- 2021

[vertical_doug]

Funny how all roads seem to lead back to the Mercer's.

If you recall, they funded Trump, Breitbart news , Cambridge Analytica and Jared Kushner's targeting online AD campaign in 2016.

It seems, they just get busier and more extreme- they fund Parler, had the CEO fired because he wanted to reign in the crazy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/t...gtype=Homepage

John Matze, the chief executive of the embattled social media platform Parler, said on Wednesday that he was fired last week.

Mr. Matze, 27, who co-founded the site in 2018, said in an interview that he was not given an explanation for the decision. He said he believed he was fired because of a difference in opinion with the prominent Republican political donor Rebekah Mercer, who supports Parler financially.

Ms. Mercer, he said, did not seem to want to impose any restrictions on what users could say on Parler, which has billed itself as a “free speech” social network. While that open philosophy made the site popular with conservatives, it also led to trouble.

Last month, Parler was removed from Apple’s and Google’s app stores and booted from Amazon’s web-hosting platform for not being strict enough in policing and removing posts that tried to incite violence or crime.

“I’ve always been about free speech and everyone being welcome. I’ve never been about conservative political activism,” Mr. Matze said. But he said he had told Ms. Mercer that Parler needed to consider restricting domestic terrorists, white supremacists and members of QAnon, the baseless pro-Trump conspiracy theory, from posting on the platform.

“I got dead silence as a response, and I took that dead silence as disagreement,” he said.

.......

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They also seem to behind funding for the likes of Josh Hawley, Milo Yiannopolous, and claim Centre Firearms which they own has the largest private cash of machine guns in the United States.
https://www.salon.com/2021/02/04/how...-capitol-riot/

[Too Tall]

Thanks, missed that article.
Somebody needs a hug.

[j44ke]

For a long time I thought the Mercers were husband and wife. Couldn't figure out the references to a daughter.

[htwoopup]

Yes, while she is no dummy (Stanford grad) her views are frightening about civil war etc.

And to Douglas’ point on following the money...

https://theintercept.com/2021/01/27/...-capitol-riot/

https://www.salon.com/2021/02/04/how...-capitol-riot/

[monadnocky]

If I hear the term "free speech" once more in regards to non-government-related activities...
I really don't know what's so hard to understand about this concept.

[Sino]

So a donor gave money to support their views....how is that different than giving to any political party or entity that skews the news towards their viewpoint?

The idea that "news" or reporting was ever non-partial is completely insane. Both sides need to drop it and work on some sort of semblance of peaceful cooperation, not finger-pointing.

You can't really want peace if all you do is stoke the fire and point fingers. If you want a one-sided facist dicatorship on either side (yes, facism can be on either side of the spectrum) that's fine, but at least be honest about it.

There is no objective, only subjective. People on both sides now view the other side as bat shit crazy, both with an apparent stench of self-righteousness that should gag anyone. If anyone can't accept that everything is subjective, then you really don't understand democracy at its most base. Too many people on both sides are acting like Ayn Rynd characters (puke for her books, and puke for her stupid objectivist views, which either side could apply).

I'm so sick of both sides. I'm non-partisian, have voted both sides, have views which currently either makes me a "communist" if they're from the right, or an "extremist" if they're from the left. I'm not alone, and the seemingly only level headed people with anything that even resembles the ability to contemplate that people see their views as "truth," and try to find a happy medium are being marginalized the same way as always happens before civil wars start. Too many people here are chest pounding "if you're not with us, you're against us."

It needs to stop. People need to move on.

I urge all of you to reconsider attacking ANYONE based on their current political viewpoint, including people like the Mercers. For every Mercer, the other side has their Soros. For every Capitol riot, the other side has their BLM riots, and it just never ends. It never, ever, will end until more people start taking a stance that compromises and puts the past behind us.

Things are only going to get worse until that day.

/rant.

[VertigoCycles]

I urge all of you to reconsider attacking ANYONE based on their current political viewpoint, including people like the Mercers. For every Mercer, the other side has their Soros. For every Capitol riot, the other side has their BLM riots, and it just never ends. It never, ever, will end until more people start taking a stance that compromises and puts the past behind us.

/rant.

This is a false equivalency. The Capitol riot was incited in no small part due to outright lies that the election was "stolen". Average people on the right have been groomed for years and made to believe that they're victims, democrats eat babies, Soros is the head of a cabal that's trying to steal freedoms...it's all false and the cult that has arisen from this has their beliefs rooted in falsities.

On the other hand, people of color, non-christians, LGBTQ have been the subject of discrimination and mistreatment for decades, centuries. That's actual objective fact. It's easy to label the BLM actions as riots, it was designed that way in fact. I can tell you that the majority of the gatherings here in my city in the summer started out peacefully. Certainly there were people in the group who were agitated and they were systematically asked to leave by impromptu organizers on the day. My wife was down there as part of the wall of moms. She saw firsthand how unlabelled law enforcement would declare a riot EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO RIOT, and then start shooting rubber bullets and tossing tear gas into the crowd. So yes, it turned into a riot and as I said, it was designed that way for maximum effect in the news.

There is not an equivalency on both sides and the talk of unity from the right is not in good faith, it's to provide cover for their finger pointing "see, democrats don't want to move on" and pearl clutching. Yes, we need to move on, but that can only happen when people are held accountable for their actions

[Sino]

This is a false equivalency. The Capitol riot was incited in no small part due to outright lies that the election was "stolen". Average people on the right have been groomed for years and made to believe that they're victims, democrats eat babies, Soros is the head of a cabal that's trying to steal freedoms...it's all false and the cult that has arisen from this has their beliefs rooted in falsities.

On the other hand, people of color, non-christians, LGBTQ have been the subject of discrimination and mistreatment for decades, centuries. That's actual objective fact. It's easy to label the BLM actions as riots, it was designed that way in fact. I can tell you that the majority of the gatherings here in my city in the summer started out peacefully. Certainly there were people in the group who were agitated and they were systematically asked to leave by impromptu organizers on the day. My wife was down there as part of the wall of moms. She saw firsthand how unlabelled law enforcement would declare a riot EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO RIOT, and then start shooting rubber bullets and tossing tear gas into the crowd. So yes, it turned into a riot and as I said, it was designed that way for maximum effect in the news.

There is not an equivalency on both sides and the talk of unity from the right is not in good faith, it's to provide cover for their finger pointing "see, democrats don't want to move on" and pearl clutching. Yes, we need to move on, but that can only happen when people are held accountable for their actions

Well, point completely, and totally proven. I couldn't have written it better myself. Your only valid point, that of discrimination, is completely and totally non-partisan and has swung back and forth throughout the country's history.

Study history, then present your opinions.

[cash]

. For every Capitol riot, the other side has their BLM riots, and it just never ends. It never, ever, will end until more people start taking a stance that compromises and puts the past behind us.


/rant.

There is no equivalent to the "Capitol riot", or insurrection/attempted coup. There are so many false equivalencies in your rant it's hard to take seriously. Moving on requires contrition and accountability.

[echappist]

Well, point completely, and totally proven. I couldn't have written it better myself. Your only valid point, that of discrimination, is completely and totally non-partisan and has swung back and forth throughout the country's history.

Study history, then present your opinions.

It would seem that you may need to brush up on your understanding of adoption of Randian philosophy (if it could be called that) first. Hint: only one side are ardent proponents of her ideas, chief amongst them the Kochs and the Mercers, neither of whom are really conservative but more libertarian in the sense that they don't want to be subject to any regulation.

There is no objective, only subjective. People on both sides now view the other side as bat shit crazy, both with an apparent stench of self-righteousness that should gag anyone. If anyone can't accept that everything is subjective, then you really don't understand democracy at its most base. Too many people on both sides are acting like Ayn Rynd characters (puke for her books, and puke for her stupid objectivist views, which either side could apply).

[Sino]

There is no equivalent to the "Capitol riot", or insurrection/attempted coup. There are so many false equivalencies in your rant it's hard to take seriously. Moving on requires contrition and accountability.

From your opinion. The other side sees attacking and burning federal and state property as exactly the same thing. They also say the news manipulated everything. They also say there are rich benefactors behind the scenes manipulating everything. Again, both sides think they're right by using the same reasoning, both with a stench of self-righteousness, that, from the sidelines, is almost comical to see how people really do live in individual completely subjective universes. Almost.

Both sides are presenting the same situations, with the same conspiracy theories (news, financing, etc.), and coming to polarized conclusions of the events. Do you both even hear yourselves? I could cut and paste the entire reasoning, change the conclusion and it would be straight from the very people that you say you are against.

Moving on is moving on. If people are accountable, then they must be accountable equally by current law. No one said anything about people not being held accountable for breaking the law. I said that presenting completely legal things by either side as "bad" must end. The finger pointing and trying to make the other side evil, must end.

Again, you have proven my point to a T.

Honestly, it's just really sad.

[Sino]

It would seem that you may need to brush up on your understanding of adoption of Randian philosophy (if it could be called that) first. Hint: only one side are ardent proponents of her ideas, chief amongst them the Kochs and the Mercers, neither of whom are really conservative but more libertarian in the sense that they don't want to be subject to any regulation.

This is wrong. Only one side are proponents of her CONCLUSIONS. Her reasoning can be used, and is being used (objectivism in case you forgot) by both sides, which is the problem. Like I said, her reasoning makes me want to puke.

Both sides are absolutely sure they're right. Both sides have accepted and embraced a "with us or against us" facism. Both sides

Total incapability to consider that other people are equally as sure, convinced, etc., is again, this is what leads to civil wars.

[j44ke]

From your opinion. The other side sees attacking and burning federal and state property as exactly the same thing. They also say the news manipulated everything. They also say there are rich benefactors behind the scenes manipulating everything. Again, both sides think they're right by using the same reasoning, both with a stench of self-righteousness, that, from the sidelines, is almost comical to see how people really do live in individual completely subjective universes. Almost.

Both sides are presenting the same situations, with the same conspiracy theories (news, financing, etc.), and coming to polarized conclusions of the events. Do you both even hear yourselves? I could cut and paste the entire reasoning, change the conclusion and it would be straight from the very people that you say you are against.

Moving on is moving on. If people are accountable, then they must be accountable equally by current law. No one said anything about people not being held accountable for breaking the law. I said that presenting completely legal things by either side as "bad" must end. The finger pointing and trying to make the other side evil, must end.

Again, you have proven my point to a T.

Honestly, it's just really sad.

What if the other side is evil but conducting their evil behavior using legal means?

[j44ke]

What is the role of ethics? One can perform legally but be unethical. How are those people to be held accountable?

In the case of the election, the contention that the election was stolen was not supported by any fact. How should one respond to a group of people whose actions are based in the belief of something that is false?

[echappist]

This is wrong. Only one side are proponents of her CONCLUSIONS. Her reasoning can be used, and is being used (objectivism in case you forgot) by both sides, which is the problem. Like I said, her reasoning makes me want to puke.

Given that her main characters evince of her conclusion, that's a difference without distinction.

Either that, or you need to write more cogently, so your audience doesn't have to guess what you intend to convey.

Also, your statement that "[o]nly one side are (sic.) proponents of her CONCLUSIONS" seem to contradict what you wrote earlier.

Again, highlighting what you originally wrote.

There is no objective, only subjective. People on both sides now view the other side as bat shit crazy, both with an apparent stench of self-righteousness that should gag anyone. If anyone can't accept that everything is subjective, then you really don't understand democracy at its most base. Too many people on both sides are acting like Ayn Rynd characters (puke for her books, and puke for her stupid objectivist views, which either side could apply).

[Sino]

What if the other side is evil but conducting their evil behavior using legal means?

What is the role of ethics? One can perform legally but be unethical. How are those people to be held accountable?

In the case of the election, the contention that the election was stolen was not supported by any fact. How should one respond to a group of people whose actions are based in the belief of something that is false?

For #1 , then laws need to be enacted to prohibit the behavior, if it is agreed to be evil. In our case, that means following the Constitutional protocol to create a law and vote on it.

Ethics are far too circumstantial to bring into the context imo. All sides throughout history always see themselves as ethical. Hitler was ethical because he was solving a problem and liberating humanity, right?...of course we know that doesn't really work and I don't think there has ever been even a philosophical agreement, so "ethics" seems a little unstable unless we define it better...which are laws.

Laws on the other hand are our best bet at solidifying a group's agreement on ethics. As a pragmatic person, I personally don't think humanity will ever make it past that basic agreement, while it is fun to contemplate.


Of course we would hope that the basic foundation for laws, (the Constitution) would hold the long-term oversight of best interests in mind. What do I mean? The short term solution to many events in 2020, as both sides seem to have agreed on, is that the news is not reliable. So, censure it, right? All news must be state-approved. Of course, we see throughout history, this goes completely awry, even if it's for the best intentions.

So, in this specific case, people on any side who destroy property need to be equally accountable, regardless of their reasons. Everyone had a legal right to speech, and to protest. No one had a right to destroy, and certainly neither accomplished anything positive, but yet, both sides see themselves justified, which is why our current situation is so lamentable to me.

[Sino]

Either that, or you need to write more cogently, so your audience doesn't have to guess what you intend to convey.

Also, your statement that "[o]nly one side are (sic.) proponents of her CONCLUSIONS" seem to contradict what you wrote earlier.

Again, highlighting what you originally wrote.

Yes, that may be true, however, I hope that it is now clear.

As for the second sentence, I was hoping for abstract thought and imagination in interpreting pukeworthy objectivist characters in a variety of opinions/conclusions, but point taken as noted above.

[johnmdesigner]

So a donor gave money to support their views....how is that different than giving to any political party or entity that skews the news towards their viewpoint?

The idea that "news" or reporting was ever non-partial is completely insane. Both sides need to drop it and work on some sort of semblance of peaceful cooperation, not finger-pointing.

You can't really want peace if all you do is stoke the fire and point fingers. If you want a one-sided facist dicatorship on either side (yes, facism can be on either side of the spectrum) that's fine, but at least be honest about it.

There is no objective, only subjective. People on both sides now view the other side as bat shit crazy, both with an apparent stench of self-righteousness that should gag anyone. If anyone can't accept that everything is subjective, then you really don't understand democracy at its most base. Too many people on both sides are acting like Ayn Rynd characters (puke for her books, and puke for her stupid objectivist views, which either side could apply).

I'm so sick of both sides. I'm non-partisian, have voted both sides, have views which currently either makes me a "communist" if they're from the right, or an "extremist" if they're from the left. I'm not alone, and the seemingly only level headed people with anything that even resembles the ability to contemplate that people see their views as "truth," and try to find a happy medium are being marginalized the same way as always happens before civil wars start. Too many people here are chest pounding "if you're not with us, you're against us."

It needs to stop. People need to move on.

I urge all of you to reconsider attacking ANYONE based on their current political viewpoint, including people like the Mercers. For every Mercer, the other side has their Soros. For every Capitol riot, the other side has their BLM riots, and it just never ends. It never, ever, will end until more people start taking a stance that compromises and puts the past behind us.

Things are only going to get worse until that day.

/rant.

Absolutely disgusting.
George Soros didn't take babies away from their parents at the border.
Jesus, didn't you learn anything from the last election cycle?
And yes, my last name is Mercer and I think the Mercer's should be in orange jump suits.

[Sino]

Absolutely disgusting.
George Soros didn't take babies away from their parents at the border.
Jesus, didn't you learn anything from the last election cycle?
And yes, my last name is Mercer and I think the Mercer's should be in orange jump suits.

Yikes. Not even worth a response, except to say, yet again, thank you for proving my points.

[johnmdesigner]

No point here at all.
Thank god we now have an adult in control.