[atoav]

Depends which political propaganda machine you are talking about: the one that is outraged at their speakers husband being hit by a hammer or the one flately making stuff up to justify that attack.

P.S. I am not an US citizen so I couldn't care less, but when "my" party over here would defend a guy who breaks into someone's home and hit an old man with an hammer because of — you name it — political propaganda I would pause for a moment and revaluate whether I am still who I think I was.

[kukx]

Why do you feel a need to defend political propaganda? Did you not just try to show that it is instrumental? If anything I guess you agree that there is this top down attack on Musk. Well, he became so influential that shady political interests are in play.

[carschno]

How do you imagine a "top down attack" on the richest man on earth?

[api]

Not top down, but maybe side to side.

Tesla has really helped push EVs over the adoption hump and into the mainstream. Quite a lot of incredibly wealthy people and governments (petro-states) would love to see Tesla (and Musk personally) fail. Upending the global energy order is a big deal and will make you serious enemies.

SpaceX has also almost single handedly taken the entire launch industry. Nowhere near as big as the oil and internal combustion engine industries but it's very wrapped up with large powerful states like Russia. Roscosmos is basically dead now.

The idea that Musk is pro-Russian is kind of dubious for many reasons, and Russia certainly has zero reason to be pro-Musk. He's destroyed their space industry, threatens the fossil fuel basis of their economy, and helped Ukraine.

[kukx]

If you are the richest man on earth and are attacked by political elites how would you defend yourself? Mind that they control, to some extent, media and institutions. There are things beyond money.

[incahoots]

Gonna have to agree with this. Musk may be rich but rich doesn't necessarily mean you have the same access to certain networks as other oligarchs.

If anything we should sit back and let them eat their own. I mean they've been doing it to us for so long that it's a bit refreshing to see them attack each other.

[atoav]

You do not become the richest man on earth if you are not intermingling with political actors and institutions on a grand scale. It might be shock you to hear, but the man does not need your support to defend himself.

It speaks of his PR department that you think he does.

[atoav]

I am not defending political propaganda, I am observing the area where it transitions into action with worry and thus critizising it.

Living in an area of the world where you are given more than two political choices might make you think a little differently on a lot of stuff. For example you don't have to take sides like in a team sport and cheer on "your" team independent of it's actions. What I am saying here is that the US is an absolute mid-pit in terms of propaganda and this includes Republicans and Democrats alike. Yet by my standards (the standards of someone whose grandfather was an actual Nazi) one of those propaganda machines is more dangerous than the other.

[_-david-_]

> because of — you name it — political propaganda I would pause for a moment and revaluate whether I am still who I think I was.

We don't know why Pelosi's husband was attacked. The guy who attacked him appears to be left wing (nudist activist, pro lgbt, he made hemp jewelry, and was a member of the green party). Pelosi appears to have said the attacker was his friend on the police call.

We just don't know enough to say it is political.

[atoav]

> We just don't know enough to say it is political.

If you read my comment again you will realize that I did not say whether the attack was political or not.

I said the defense of the attack certainly is exactly that: political.

So it does not matter anymore whether the attack itself was political at this point.

The question now is: Why would anybody defend an supposed "non-political" attack like this one? This is literal "supporting-horror-movie-villain"-territory. Or as I said: If they made me defend that, I would definitely reconsider why I let them manipulate me into this. I am not sure what I would gain from letting them do this to me, other than offsetting the realization that they duped me for yet another day.

On a side note: given what we know this attack was indeed political. If you are consume actual news outlets you might know that the attacker is quoted to have said to the police he wanted to wait for the speaker and "break her kneecaps” to show other members of Congress there were “consequences to actions".

Attacking a public representative for their political actions is as political as it gets. If you don't like what your representatives do in a democracy, you vote them out. What you don't do is this psycho killer bullshit.

[_-david-_]

>say whether the attack was political or not.

>I said the defense of the attack certainly is exactly that: political.

>So it does not matter anymore whether the attack itself was political at this point.

I misread what you wrote.

>The question now is: Why would anybody defend an supposed "non-political" attack like this one? This is literal "supporting-horror-movie-villain"-territory. Or as I said: If they made me defend that, I would definitely reconsider why I let them manipulate me into this. I am not sure what I would gain from letting them do this to me, other than offsetting the realization that they duped me for yet another day.

I don't think any mainstream person is defending this. There have been comparisons to Rand Paul's attack since various people who were supportive of the attack on Rand (including the Pelosi's daughter) are opposed to this one.

There has also been some lack of sympathy, which is unfortunate.

>On a side note: given what we know this attack was indeed political. If you are consume actual news outlets you might know that the attacker is quoted to have said to the police he wanted to wait for the speaker and "break her kneecaps” to show other members of Congress there were “consequences to actions".

I haven't seen anybody provide evidence to that. I have seen some claims, but nobody involved is quoted as hearing it (as far as I have seen).

Seeing how the media has been lying from the very beginning of this case I will wait until somebody reputable provides evidence to that statement.

The defense lawyer said there has been a lot of misinformation regarding this case, so I think trusting the people spreading the misinformation isn't a wise decision.

>Attacking a public representative for their political actions is as political as it gets.

>If you don't like what your representatives do in a democracy, you vote them out. What you don't do is this psycho killer bullshit.

I agree you shouldn't attack people over politics, but you are assuming this was an attack over political actions...

He appears to be similar politically to the Pelosis.