It CAN Happen Here....

[Cl1mh4224rd]

...the USA will survive him just fine.

I agree that the U.S. will survive, but I disagree with the "just fine" part. Hell, I might even be willing to agree with the "just fine" part. But just because the result of an action falls within the potentially broad and subjective category of "just fine" doesn't mean that the result doesn't leave us worse off than before.

And that's kind of the issue.

"Just fine" is a relative judgement. "Just fine" is based on the current state of affairs. And if the current state of affairs is trending downward, "just fine" becomes an extremely dangerous justification for doing nothing to stop a slow slide into obscurity or horror.

 

[Mikemcc]

The "doom porn" is a list of news articles detailing, among other things, how a foreign power influenced, hacked and possibly altered the result of the 2016 election, and how the resulting winner of that election is effectively dismantling oversight and checks and balances.

But yeah, it's just silly.

The hacks were more about the released information. The timing of the releases were a sublime operation, perfectly pitched and timed. They undoubtedly affected the election, but only because there was reason for them to. Clinton was unbelievably stupid in having a private e-mail server. Her own department has an excellent IT department and a generally good record in rebuffing attacks. She basically hung herself out to dry, the risk of revelation was far higher having the private server.

 

[uke2se]

The hacks were more about the released information. The timing of the releases were a sublime operation, perfectly pitched and timed. They undoubtedly affected the election, but only because there was reason for them to. Clinton was unbelievably stupid in having a private e-mail server. Her own department has an excellent IT department and a generally good record in rebuffing attacks. She basically hung herself out to dry, the risk of revelation was far higher having the private server.

You are conflating two things. Clinton had nothing to do with the IT security in the DNC, and there were no real revelations in the leaked material, just emails between colleagues. The very fact that it was hacked and leaked meant it could be spun into something that people who didn't really pay attention would think was bad. I mean, it was leaked, so it must mean there were bad stuff in there, mustn't it?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can't speak to the daily mail, I don't read. Its entirely possible that its as hysterical as Giz suggests. There is however a lot of breathless reporting on every silly thing trump does as though its a disaster and plenty of things he does that Obama and Bush and others have done that went completely unnoticed.

That is an unsupportable POV.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nonsense, its a picture of an incompetent and ineffectual administration led by an ignoramous.

The blog starts with:
and ends with, trump can't get anything done.

I'm not defending Trump by saying he's not Hitler, I'm attacking the likes of this blogger that desperately wish he was.

ETA: Seriously, its an "authoritarian list" that includes, nothing much happened today and its reported on in the Washington Post(I think, I can't get through the pay wall)... This **** hurts the anti-trump side by making it look like a bunch of hysterical children.

So you are conflating bogs with the mainstream news reporting?

 

[Bob001]

.....
We went through this same nonsense when Bush was in office, and no doubt we'll go through it again when some other bellend gets brought in. Same over here in the UK.

Trump is a goon, but I don't see him being this axis of evil-type character from a Captain America comic-book.

No, we didn't. GW Bush had been a successful two-term governor of Texas, and as the son of a President and grandson of a Senator his family had a long history of public service. Bush made some terrible misjudgments, but he made them within the range of normal political debate. Trump's contempt for the judiciary ("so-called judges") and the "fake news" media, his blatant racism, his demeaning our allies while pandering to our enemies, his undisguised corruption and his fundamental stupidity about basic matters of fact are unparalleled. No one could imagine that Bush could launch nuclear war out of pique; with Trump, we can't be sure.

 

[Mikemcc]

You are conflating two things. Clinton had nothing to do with the IT security in the DNC, and there were no real revelations in the leaked material, just emails between colleagues. The very fact that it was hacked and leaked meant it could be spun into something that people who didn't really pay attention would think was bad. I mean, it was leaked, so it must mean there were bad stuff in there, mustn't it?

I agree with that, but the revelations tainted her campaign at a crucial moment and she responded poorly. Looking back it is easy to distance these things. But, at the time, there wasn't the time for reasoned responses to alter voter view points. Many just saw a privileged woman, who's campaign had distain for basic IT security, had presided over a very poor security operation in Libya, and didn't engage well with the core voters (that bit repeated by May in the UK).

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The hacks were more about the released information. The timing of the releases were a sublime operation, perfectly pitched and timed. They undoubtedly affected the election, but only because there was reason for them to. Clinton was unbelievably stupid in having a private e-mail server. Her own department has an excellent IT department and a generally good record in rebuffing attacks. She basically hung herself out to dry, the risk of revelation was far higher having the private server.

It's interesting how something good (revelation of questionable activities) at the wrong time (or right time, depending on your point of view) can actually result in a much worse situation.

You can blame the person or organization who did the questionable thing that was revealed. You can blame the person or organization that did the revealing.

Or you can blame both. And you can blame them equally, or to different degrees.

I choose to distribute the blame unequally, because I feel that the timing of the revelation will result in far more "damage" than the thing that was revealed ever could.

 

[Bob001]

....
Does she name these so-called experts in authoritarianism? Can someone help out, I can't find them listed on her blog, am I just supposed to take her word as the undeniable truth?

One of them is Masha Gessen, a Russian immigrant who knows autocracy first-hand and who is scared for America. She has expressed particular concern about how Trump and his serfs will respond to his first real crisis:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...ton_s_concession_speech_was_so_dangerous.html
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/10/trump-election-autocracy-rules-for-survival/
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/masha-gessen-the-full-transcript-214927
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trumps-political-prisoners

 

[uke2se]

I agree with that, but the revelations tainted her campaign at a crucial moment and she responded poorly. Looking back it is easy to distance these things. But, at the time, there wasn't the time for reasoned responses to alter voter view points. Many just saw a privileged woman, who's campaign had distain for basic IT security, had presided over a very poor security operation in Libya, and didn't engage well with the core voters (that bit repeated by May in the UK).

I'm not sure how she should have responded. The DNC and Podesta were the victims of crimes, and the resulting loot was used to make various lies and insinuations about her and her campaign. The story should always have been: who were the hackers and why did they do it, but because there are so many completely unscrupulous players in various positions of authority in US (right wing) media and politics, a focus was instead kept on the nothing-burger that was the actual hacked material, and lies were spun about it. It influenced enough people. These people might or might not be incurably stupid, but they sure acted stupidly in being influenced by this obvious plot.

 

[Bogative]

If you'd read the blog, you'd note that the bullet points all link to news articles.

No they don't. Of the first five bullet points in the blog post I linked, two of them have no links, one of them goes to the Southern Poverty Law Center, another one goes to a real news source, NBC, and the fifth one goes to a news article about a hate crime perpetrated in Trump's name that was later proved to be a completely fabricated hoax.

You could google it. There's quite a few experts in authoritarianism that has raised the red flag over Trump's actions.

I'm not going to Google it. She made the claim, she needs to back it up by providing sources for the opinions of some mysterious authoritarianism experts that she bases her opinions off of. This is another reason why the Washington Post should not be running opinion pieces of partisans based on anonymous sources, it's nothing more than trash.

The SPLC is somehow not a trusted source now? Too "anti-anti-semitic" for your tastes?

Why would I trust them? They made their list of Trump inspired hate crimes without using any kind of scientific standards. Some of the accounts were based on secondhand reports, they have since admitted they published several hoaxes.

You should write an article of all the hate crimes committed against white students, and then explain how that diminishes the hate crimes committed against non-white students.

It doesn't diminish the hate crimes committed against nonwhites. However, it completely diminishes any presumptions that the SPLC is anything other than an agenda driven organization willing to omit reported bias-crimes that doesn't fit their narrative. If they were an unbiased organization, they would've published all reported crimes.

Maybe she believes rapes in colleges is a bad thing? Or are you saying it doesn't happen?

She claims that females nationwide being grabbed by the genitals is proof of Trump's authoritarianism. She provides zero proof that it happened, much less that it increased. I'm curious to know how that could be attributed to Trump's authoritarianism if it even happened.

Yeah, there's no difference between half and none.

What number of skipped intelligence briefings delineates normal presidential behavior and authoritarianism?

Someone ruling by twitter decree and avoiding the press is a sign of authoritarianism.

Do you have any of the so-called experts' evidence to back up your claim?

I consider myself very fortunate, I followed Trump's twitter account for a short time but I managed to escape his authoritarianism by clicking "unfollow."

You're not very good at it. Also, isn't infowars.com a trusted right wing news outlet now?

No more so than some chick's opinion blog.

Maybe you could say what news articles in the blog are particularly hysterical? Nobody else seems to be able to.

You betcha: Link.

The world is leaving your kind behind. It's a welcomed divorce.

The kind that demands more than the opinions of a Hillary Clinton supporter to prove Donald Trump is ushering in totalitarianism regime?

 

[Bogative]

One of them is Masha Gessen, a Russian immigrant who knows autocracy first-hand and who is scared for America. She has expressed particular concern about how Trump and his serfs will respond to his first real crisis:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...ton_s_concession_speech_was_so_dangerous.html
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/10/trump-election-autocracy-rules-for-survival/
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/masha-gessen-the-full-transcript-214927
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trumps-political-prisoners

Thank you for the links. I read three of the articles(the politico transcript is too long to tackle on a Friday night). She seems to make some worthwhile points that we should watch out for in the future. The problem I have is with the Washington Post linking to Siskind's blog in which she claims that the things she disagrees with Trump politically about, or even finds distasteful, is proof of authoritarianism.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Not silly, but I just do not see America on the verge of becoming a dictatorship.
If I wanted do I could point at how some on the left seem ok with using violence to silence their opponents,which is just as bad.

Moral equivalence is no argument; it's childish finger pointing.

 

[Craig4]

While I have no doubt that The Orange Hair wants to betray his country and rule as an authoritarian, all the checks and balances seem to be working. The courts remain independent, the media reports what it likes and Congress doesn't seem in the thrall of the president. All in all, I think we're okay.

 

[uke2se]

No they don't. Of the first five bullet points in the blog post I linked, two of them have no links, one of them goes to the Southern Poverty Law Center, another one goes to a real news source, NBC, and the fifth one goes to a news article about a hate crime perpetrated in Trump's name that was later proved to be a completely fabricated hoax.

The link I posted. I don't particularly care about any links you post.

I'm not going to Google it. She made the claim, she needs to back it up by providing sources for the opinions of some mysterious authoritarianism experts that she bases her opinions off of. This is another reason why the Washington Post should not be running opinion pieces of partisans based on anonymous sources, it's nothing more than trash.

She's not a poster on a forum of right wing nit-pickers. She doesn't have to prove anything to you. Either google it or wallow in ignorance.

Why would I trust them? They made their list of Trump inspired hate crimes without using any kind of scientific standards. Some of the accounts were based on secondhand reports, they have since admitted they published several hoaxes.

Don't trust them then. Nobody really cares.

It doesn't diminish the hate crimes committed against nonwhites. However, it completely diminishes any presumptions that the SPLC is anything other than an agenda driven organization willing to omit reported bias-crimes that doesn't fit their narrative. If they were an unbiased organization, they would've published all reported crimes.

Yes, fighting hate is agenda driven and highly biased, especially against the right.

She claims that females nationwide being grabbed by the genitals is proof of Trump's authoritarianism. She provides zero proof that it happened, much less that it increased. I'm curious to know how that could be attributed to Trump's authoritarianism if it even happened.

She doesn't claim that at all. You are lying.

What number of skipped intelligence briefings delineates normal presidential behavior and authoritarianism?

So half is the same as none. Got it.

Do you have any of the so-called experts' evidence to back up your claim?

Google it.

I consider myself very fortunate, I followed Trump's twitter account for a short time but I managed to escape his authoritarianism by clicking "unfollow."

No, you haven't. He's your president.

No more so than some chick's opinion blog.

I'd say quite a lot more so. Alex Jones is pally with your president, and the useful idiots that voted for Trump seems to enjoy infowars quite a bit.

You betcha: Link.

Reporting on this blog is what's hysterical? How very meta.

 

[uke2se]

Thank you for the links. I read three of the articles(the politico transcript is too long to tackle on a Friday night). She seems to make some worthwhile points that we should watch out for in the future.

So we shouldn't be watching for them now, is that what you're saying?

 

[uke2se]

While I have no doubt that The Orange Hair wants to betray his country and rule as an authoritarian, all the checks and balances seem to be working. The courts remain independent, the media reports what it likes and Congress doesn't seem in the thrall of the president. All in all, I think we're okay.

I see it very differently. Trump is in a position to stack lower courts with appointees vetted by the Federalist Society, and there's a good chance that he'll get to nominate one or two more SC judges before he's ousted. The media is under full assault by Trump and his drones, including the right wing media. Congress might hem and haw but they have done exactly nothing at all to curtail Trump's excesses.

 

[magellan]

One of them is Masha Gessen, a Russian immigrant who knows autocracy first-hand and who is scared for America. She has expressed particular concern about how Trump and his serfs will respond to his first real crisis:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...ton_s_concession_speech_was_so_dangerous.html
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/10/trump-election-autocracy-rules-for-survival/
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/masha-gessen-the-full-transcript-214927
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trumps-political-prisoners

Knows autocracy first hand?
She moved to New York in 1981 when she was 14.

 

[3point14]

Wake me up when journalists start mysteriously, and not-so-mysteriously, dying, powerful opposition are railroaded into jail on minor or made-up charges, and a military helicopter attacks the Supreme Court who suspended the legislature to take it over themselves, then reversed themselves when they realized they went too far.

Isn't it a bit late by then?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Wake me up when journalists start mysteriously, and not-so-mysteriously, dying, powerful opposition are railroaded into jail on minor or made-up charges, and a military helicopter attacks the Supreme Court who suspended the legislature to take it over themselves, then reversed themselves when they realized they went too far.

Be a little late by then, wouldn't it?

Isn't it a bit late by then?

Maybe not for Beerina? That may be an outcome he desires and doesn't want to miss, which is why he's choosing to sleep until it occurs.

But seriously... Beerina's attitude is exactly like saying, "I refuse to do anything to improve my health until I have a heart attack."