US politics 2016: I can see Russia from my White House

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 minutes ago, Galactus said:

 

 

 

Your argument was that you don't go from more authoritarian to less authoritarian without revolts or foreing interference, this is just not true. There are plenty of examples of authoritarian ruling classes (for various reasons) slackening the reins.

Heck, with the exception of the aborted coup in 1990, the collapse of the USSR was not the result of either a revolution or foreign intervention, but the results of inherent issues within the regime itself. 

Franco's restoration of Spanish democracy?

[Galactus]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Franco's restoration of Spanish democracy?

He died first. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Galactus said:

He died first. 

Obligatory...

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Galactus said:

He died first. 

But he set in motion before he died.

[Dr. Pepper]

Trump to Remain Executive Producer of The Apprentice

Because of course.

Quote

President-elect Donald Trump will retain executive producer credit on NBC’s Celebrity Apprentice, even while in the White House, Variety reported Thursday afternoon. The popular reality-TV series returns in the new year for its 15th season, featuring new host Arnold Schwarzenegger. Trump’s continued financial stake in the television show adds to the pile of conflict-of-interest concerns about his incoming presidency. Variety notes that it is currently unclear how much his per-episode fee, paid through the production entity MGM, will be—with speculation that it will be in the low five-figures, at minimum. Trump ceased hosting the program in early 2015 as he began his political career, and NBC ended up cutting ties to him altogether after his June 2015 declaration that Mexican immigrants tend to be rapists and criminals. His involvement in the show also came under scrutiny this year after former staffers and participants on the show spoke to various outlets, including The Daily Beast, alleging inappropriate behavior by Trump during the show’s tapings.

 

[LongRider]

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Ah yes, the good old days of 2004, when people thought the Bush presidency was going to be a success. Back in those days, remember when people wrote books like:

https://www.amazon.com/Bullish-Bush-Owenership-Society-Stronger/dp/B008SMNO4Q

Just for laughs:

LOL.

By the way, the guy that wrote that book, now works for Trump.

Well, the reviews are fun.  My favorite one star review

1.0 out of 5 stars

Are you serious?

By D. Smith on March 5, 2009

Format: Paperback

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[Commodore]

20 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

Fetuses are not children.

These children imploring us not to kill their kind convince me otherwise (France recently banned this ad from television, the justifiable guilt and shame it evokes being too much to bear). 

 

[Fragile Bird]

So....I just heard DT's children can all get jobs in the White House because the anti-nepotism rules only apply to various Departments, and not to the White House.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

So....I just heard DT's children can all get jobs in the White House because the anti-nepotism rules only apply to various Departments, and not to the White House.

Eh.  Of course they can.  Hopefully they do, it'll be easier to force Trump to take more drastic measures to distance himself from his business interests, and I think th as t it'd be better to have them in his ear than most of his other cabinet choices.  Better them than Pence and Romney's minions.

[TrueMetis]

1 hour ago, Commodore said:

These children imploring us not to kill their kind convince me otherwise (France recently banned this ad from television, the justifiable guilt and shame it evokes being too much to bear). 

 

Well, you're easily convinced.

[Kalbear]

4 hours ago, Ormond said:

I think when your statement that countries never peacefully go from more authoritarian to less is contradicted by the history of the last century in several Latin American countries, where democracies have been overthrown by authoritarian military juntas and later less authoritarian electoral democracies have been restored without huge uprisings. 

Arguably they weren't particularly less authoritarian, just different authorities in power. But it's a reasonable point that I likely overstated things.

That said, Democracies do not tend to be restored easily or cheaply, and there's usually quite a bit of pain before it gets better. And if our best hope is something like Brazil, which went from a military dictatorship to an incredibly corrupt set of governments, that's not a great sign either.

4 hours ago, Ormond said:

I don't think people should be complacent. But your degree of pessimism would seem to lead to a degree of despair and apathy that would make the outcome more likely. If there is no hope, why do anything to oppose the new regime? 

Who said anything about no hope? I am saying that it's happening. The way to defeat authoritarian regimes is to ensure that they do not become too powerful and to potentially set aside the ability for revolution when the time is right. But do not look to the standards of democratic rule, political norms or prior behaviors to save you. This isn't likely to be some random blip in US history. 

Quote

But who on this thread has said that Trump should NOT be "opposed now"?

@Manhole Eunuchsbane and @Altherion, both of which have implied that things will either go back to normal or swing the 'right' way after this. Manhole specifically said something about the pendulum swinging back. And no, it doesn't work that way with something like a Trump presidency. There is no guarantee that there will be any regular voting ever again. 

So no, don't oppose Trump by thinking that you'll be able to get him out of office in 4 years because he'll do such a 'bad' job, or assume that you'll be able to pick up seats in the House and Senate (which is also not really going to happen anyway, but especially not now). Don't oppose him by just assuming sternly worded calls to your congressperson are going to work. Don't oppose him by simply donating money. Assume that for the next 8 years, you are going to be in a system that is actively trying to find dissidents and silence them, and figure out how you can help in that format. Or, conversely, get the fuck out of dodge now while you can.

[Kalbear]

And yeah, I guess that's another way that dictatorships end - when the dictator dies. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

 

@Manhole Eunuchsbane and @Altherion, both of which have implied that things will either go back to normal or swing the 'right' way after this. Manhole specifically said something about the pendulum swinging back. And no, it doesn't work that way with something like a Trump presidency. There is no guarantee that there will be any regular voting ever again. 

 None of that equals "Trump should not be opposed now". My view on this is simply not as cynical as yours is. Of course his bullshit should be opposed at every turn. And I honestly believes the pendulum does work that way. One side pushes it too far to one side, and that ultimately results in a deeper swing in the other direction. This Twitter trick he does is problematic, sure, but I can't equate it to "quieting dissidents". It also promotes further dissidence.  

 

 

 

 

 

[Kalbear]

And yeah, the dreaded triple post.

Sarah Kenzdior has covered a lot of authoritarian regimes and has a lot of experience in how they start and how they operate. She recently wrote some points on what you should do. It's worth reading, because in a few years you might find yourself acting as a completely different person than you thought you were, and it will happen so subtly that you will have never noticed that you changed. And this isn't Trump, mind you. This is things like the Patriot Act  being put into place and remaining in play for 15 years, or the authorization of military force being used to justify attacks against nations that didn't exist when it came into being, or drone strikes being considered acceptable, or debating the merits of torture as if it were ever something reasonable.

Quote

 

But I need you to fight too, in the way that matters most, which is inside. Authoritarianism is not merely a matter of state control, it is something that eats away at who you are. It makes you afraid, and fear can make you cruel. It compels you to conform and to comply and accept things that you would never accept, to do things you never thought you would do.

You do it because everyone else is doing it, because the institutions you trust are doing it and telling you to do it, because you are afraid of what will happen if you do not do it, and because the voice in your head crying out that something is wrong grows fainter and fainter until it dies.

 

Here's another good response from her on what you can do to fight back.

Quote

 

Democracy is not just a matter of trust but of power. It is difficult to control what power you have in an authoritarian kleptocracy run on brutal force – which to be blunt, appears to be where we’re headed – but you can form networks of trust, and you can still seek the truth. History is full of people who have endured this struggle; we are merely doing it in a technological era which can cause immense confusion but also has advantages, as individuals are able to establish a consistent record of reliability. Actions often speak louder than words in this regard.

Furthermore, local ties are a strong deterrent against any idea of a “post-truth” world. It may be hard to trust what you see elsewhere, but you know what you see with your own eyes, and your neighbors do too. You might not agree on the relevance of what you see, you might debate ideas, but you are working within the same basic reality. That’s why I think building up local media and civic organizations is a good step toward eliminating this idea that trust and truth are lost.

 

 

[TerraPrime]

1 hour ago, Commodore said:

These children imploring us not to kill their kind convince me otherwise (France recently banned this ad from television, the justifiable guilt and shame it evokes being too much to bear). 

 

So... what was the point of the ad? That people who are alive wish to remain alive? What?

 

 

Edit:

 

But you know what? It really doesn't matter. Call the developing fetuses "adults" if you want. I would still support legal abortions with minimum regulation. If there's an adult human being whose life depends on his/her feeding tube attached to my stomach, I get to decide when or if I pull the feeding tube out.

[snake]

Former Canadian PM Brian Mulroney(who was good friends with Ronald Reagan) thinks Trump will be a very important president with significant achievements. 

Story.

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Commodore said:

These children imploring us not to kill their kind convince me otherwise (France recently banned this ad from television, the justifiable guilt and shame it evokes being too much to bear). 

Actually it didn't. The CSA (superior audiovisual council) sent a reprobatory letter to the tv channels two whole months after it was broadcast. The clip was never formally banned, but because it was aired for free, the CSA asked the tv channels to provide some context or counterpoint to such clips in the future. Which I find perfectly valid, since the clip is full of shit
It took me about 20 seconds to find out that information was false. Of course, being able to read French helps, but I think anyone should have been able to doubt such an assertion anyway.

And yeah, if this clip can convince you that abortion is bad, it means you're either very gullible or in a position of emotional vulnerability (like, say, a pregnant woman with doubts). Trying to make women feel shame and guilt for their decision is a despicable and cowardly strategy.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 None of that equals "Trump should not be opposed now". My view on this is simply not as cynical as yours is. Of course his bullshit should be opposed at every turn. And I honestly believes the pendulum does work that way. One side pushes it too far to one side, and that ultimately results in a deeper swing in the other direction. This Twitter trick he does is problematic, sure, but I can't equate it to "quieting dissidents". It also promotes further dissidence.  

It...doesn't though. Boeing after being slammed donated $1m to the presidential inauguration. CNN changed their coverage and their policies. Cities are already starting to buckle on the notion that they'll lose massive federal funding to be sanctuary cities. He continues to call out CNN reporters by name at rallies. He's caused a union rep to start getting death threats. People have gone in to investigate a pizza place with an AR-15. And he's not even in office yet.

And that's not counting all the people who have been harassed for wearing a hijab, or being black, or being Muslim, or wearing a turban. How is that not suppressing dissent? 

And it's not just him. It's his supporters and his allies. It's Breitbart, it's Milo, it's Pence and Bannon and Sessions. This is how Breitbart and Milo have worked for years now - sending scores of trolls to harass and harm people. They didn't do it themselves, no - they have others. You think Trump isn't going to do that? Come on. 

The quieting dissidence hasn't really happened in any major way, yet. He's not actually in power. But if you think that a man who has sued people for $5bn because they mentioned that he wasn't as wealthy as he claimed is not going to use the power of the government to silence critics? He just got handed the keys to the least oversighted system designed to monitor the US citizenry from every single angle, and can abuse it without anyone knowing any better. You really think he's not going to do anything?

[Altherion]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And no, it doesn't work that way with something like a Trump presidency. There is no guarantee that there will be any regular voting ever again.

I do not see any evidence for this degree of pessimism. First, we've had authoritarian populists as Presidents before (e.g. King Mob) and nothing of the sort happened. Second, making comments on Twitter is not the same thing as sending soldiers or police to arrest people. Third, what mainly protects the social order of the US is not so much democracy as a balance of power and that is very much in place.

[Rippounet]

2 hours ago, LongRider said:

Well, the reviews are fun.  My favorite one star review

I loved this one:

Quote

If they changed the title to "Bullsh#t on Bush" it would be more fitting. Please file under fiction.