Moving Forward

It's been a fascinating 5 years since Donald Trump emerged in the Republican field.  We've seen the power of personality, the power of conspiracy thinking, and this has brought American democracy to a point of fragility not seen since the Civil War.  I follow politics.  Always have and ended up with an accidental political science minor at MSU just because I kept taking classes.  I've my political viewpoints and, up until quite recently, I could look and speak with friends and family on the right with at least a common understanding of the issues.  How to address them could be quite different but there was a shared foundation.  I didn't support Romney, McCain, Bush, Dole, etc., but I felt they were fellow Americans and I simply preferred other candidates and voices.  Criticism was simply directed at what I considered the strengths and weaknesses of their positions and roles.  But the world is different post-Trump and I'm honestly not sure what to do in this new world.

Here's what I see.  A demagogue with an authoritarian bent ran a cult of personality campaign and won the White House.  That works everywhere, the US is no different and many, including myself, simply put 2016 through the prism of a conventional choice.  It's clear Trump was, and is, something quite different.  The only thing that truly surprised me was the degree to which many conventional Republicans went along and my belief is that was done with intention, to use Trump to facilitate better control of the judiciary and get some legislation passed.  It was a dance with the devil and this past week showed them the price that would need to be paid as they chanted "hang Mike Pence."  The MAGA voter does not belong to the GOP, they belong to Trump and there is a real threat to the splitting of the Republican Party as a result if Trump forms his own party after his presidency.  That's a dynamic that will be interesting to watch.

My biggest concern though is the MAGA voter.  These are white voters, often under-educated, under-employed and increasingly marginalized as the country becomes more multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious and a division of values becomes clearer that leaves these often rural (or rural values) voters without any political power.  Trump gave them a voice.  You can't put that genie back in the bottle and we all see the issues, and dangers, with this demographic in our country.  More disturbing to me is the role of disinformation in our country as Trump went beyond conspiracy theory and into flat-out conspiracy in simply trying to will things into existence without any evidence whatsoever.  To my earlier point, there is no longer a common understanding of the issues.  There is a significant portion of our citizenry with which I cannot say we've a common foundation and they've a voice who was just elected out of office.  This dynamic isn't going away.

I'll add this - if I honestly believed an election was being stolen by a group of people who were pedophile child-rapists bleeding out children in their quest for eternal life, yes, I'd be outraged to the point of civil unrest.  Who wouldn't be?!  Writing those beliefs out sounds utterly insane, but it's entirely possible to live in that Q bubble now, put the world you see through that prism, have it be endorsed by the White House and be your driving force in political decision-making.  How the heck do we correct that?!  You can't counter it with logic, information, or truth.  Cutting off channels for this disinformation simply adds legitimacy to the conspiracy.

I don't say this lightly - I'm not sure our democracy can survive unless those seeking power, of who have it, don't use the tools Trump has revealed as being capable of tremendous impact in the US.  My concern now isn't Trump.  My concern is that the next demagogue with an authoritarian bent won't be quite so incompetent.  And I'm not sure that wouldn't be the end of the American democracy.

Well said Heathens.

Hello Heathens great post and you share a lot of thoughts I've had a tough time grappling with for a while. I can honestly say when Spicer gave that press conference about the crowd size denying what we all saw with our own eyes I instantly felt a huge threat from this administration. I remember engaging with friends that supported Trump around this time and they had a hard time admitting Hillary won the popular vote. I also saw them later on down the road rationalize locking women in cages and the separation from their children. These conversations were unlike anything I've had in the past with people I knew. I was like what in the hell are these people seeing?

Experiencing the last four years I went searching for answers and I pretty much have concluded you can never understimate the appeal of a strong man and for people to fall in line. We have so many examples in history of this happening. Trump offered simple solutions to complex problems to these people and they bought in. It was part of his con job. That and only he could do it alone. And that everyone is corrupt he's just open and honest about it...

One other thing I realized along the way, is just how friggin racist this country is. I've looked deep in hard and still learning more but I think racism and misogyny is really a major driving force in all that we are seeing now.

"You can't counter it with logic, information, or truth. "

Amen. All I can say to this is in my days of interacting with conservatives and hearing all their takes on the welfare queens and their lessons to minorities that were poor was along the lines of picking them selves up by the bootstraps/work hard to get out of the ghetto. My advice to them is to take some accountability for their susceptibility to a cult leader/demagogue and to enroll in some humanities courses. The humanity courses are designed to develop critical thinking and this is a skill set they are severely lacking in. A course going over Henry Millers Classic 'The Crucible' might do them some good.

Steve, 100%. The challenge here is that the last person to realize they're in a cult is the cult member. Looking to psychology, it's impossible to convince them of that truth. So you counter it without judgement or criticism, but try to express an understanding of why it's appealing. And the country has to seriously look at why Trump is appealing. As you said, there are countless examples to look at historically. This authoritarian, demagogue, "I alone can fix this" cult of personality works and today's information landscape is why we're seeing this on the rise globally.

My fear isn't that Trump is the next Hitler. My worry is that this past week was the incompetence of the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch in Germany. I'm sure the German people were thinking that was an interesting news week and was addressed appropriately. 1933 told them something quite different. This was an attempted coup this past week. History will see that clearly. But how do we, individually and collectively, begin to re-lay the foundations that underpin our democracy. Humanities is a great guide. How to translate that for the masses is the challenge.........

steveschneider wrote:Hello Heathens great post and you share a lot of thoughts I've had a tough time grappling with for a while. I can honestly say when Spicer gave that press conference about the crowd size denying what we all saw with our own eyes I instantly felt a huge threat from this administration. I remember engaging with friends that supported Trump around this time and they had a hard time admitting Hillary won the popular vote. I also saw them later on down the road rationalize locking women in cages and the separation from their children. These conversations were unlike anything I've had in the past with people I knew. I was like what in the hell are these people seeing?

Experiencing the last four years I went searching for answers and I pretty much have concluded you can never understimate the appeal of a strong man and for people to fall in line. We have so many examples in history of this happening. Trump offered simple solutions to complex problems to these people and they bought in. It was part of his con job. That and only he could do it alone. And that everyone is corrupt he's just open and honest about it...

One other thing I realized along the way, is just how friggin racist this country is. I've looked deep in hard and still learning more but I think racism and misogyny is really a major driving force in all that we are seeing now.

"You can't counter it with logic, information, or truth. "

Amen. All I can say to this is in my days of interacting with conservatives and hearing all their takes on the welfare queens and their lessons to minorities that were poor was along the lines of picking them selves up by the bootstraps/work hard to get out of the ghetto. My advice to them is to take some accountability for their susceptibility to a cult leader/demagogue and to enroll in some humanities courses. The humanity courses are designed to develop critical thinking and this is a skill set they are severely lacking in. A course going over Henry Millers Classic 'The Crucible' might do them some good.

Lots of luck getting the MAGA crowd to dump $3k into a couple of classes.

“The only thing that truly surprised me was the degree to which many conventional Republicans went along and my belief is that was done with intention, to use Trump to facilitate better control of the judiciary and get some legislation passed.”

I think you’re dead wrong on this point. It may have been a deal with the devil to start with but even the so called moderates (which I really don’t believe exist anymore) fell under the spell. As of last week 70% of the party believed that the elections were not free and fair. That’s a long way from a marriage of convenience as you suggest.

Jake from State Farm wrote:

steveschneider wrote:Hello Heathens great post and you share a lot of thoughts I've had a tough time grappling with for a while. I can honestly say when Spicer gave that press conference about the crowd size denying what we all saw with our own eyes I instantly felt a huge threat from this administration. I remember engaging with friends that supported Trump around this time and they had a hard time admitting Hillary won the popular vote. I also saw them later on down the road rationalize locking women in cages and the separation from their children. These conversations were unlike anything I've had in the past with people I knew. I was like what in the hell are these people seeing?

Experiencing the last four years I went searching for answers and I pretty much have concluded you can never understimate the appeal of a strong man and for people to fall in line. We have so many examples in history of this happening. Trump offered simple solutions to complex problems to these people and they bought in. It was part of his con job. That and only he could do it alone. And that everyone is corrupt he's just open and honest about it...

One other thing I realized along the way, is just how friggin racist this country is. I've looked deep in hard and still learning more but I think racism and misogyny is really a major driving force in all that we are seeing now.

"You can't counter it with logic, information, or truth. "

Amen. All I can say to this is in my days of interacting with conservatives and hearing all their takes on the welfare queens and their lessons to minorities that were poor was along the lines of picking them selves up by the bootstraps/work hard to get out of the ghetto. My advice to them is to take some accountability for their susceptibility to a cult leader/demagogue and to enroll in some humanities courses. The humanity courses are designed to develop critical thinking and this is a skill set they are severely lacking in. A course going over Henry Millers Classic 'The Crucible' might do them some good.

Lots of luck getting the MAGA crowd to dump $3k into a couple of classes.

I put that solution out there with tongue in cheek. It's as unrealistic and simplistic as their suggestion to poor minorities to pick their selves up by the boot straps and just work hard. I do think developing critical thinking skills and developing skills of self awareness that would allow them to observe their own symptoms would do some good.

Rocinante wrote:“The only thing that truly surprised me was the degree to which many conventional Republicans went along and my belief is that was done with intention, to use Trump to facilitate better control of the judiciary and get some legislation passed.”

I think you’re dead wrong on this point. It may have been a deal with the devil to start with but even the so called moderates (which I really don’t believe exist anymore) fell under the spell. As of last week 70% of the party believed that the elections were not free and fair. That’s a long way from a marriage of convenience as you suggest.

Fair point, but I'm not speaking about the Republican voter. I'm looking at party leadership. Once Trump was the nominee and then won the White House, you saw people line up behind him with few voices of dissent. Romney and Kasich are perhaps the most notable examples of not falling in line. Party leadership went along and every indication from the political world in DC is that they were willing to say things privately to express their views on Trump, but wouldn't do so publicly. Some perhaps converted to a true believer (Lindsey Graham might be a good example) while the likes of McConnell went along to get their own agenda advanced. That's selling your soul, and everyone wants to think they can control that transaction, but then January 6th happens. The question now is whether they realize what they've done and how do they try to put the genie back in the bottle. Heck, look at Pence. He's surprised Trump turned on him. Really?! How they heck does he not see that everything with Trump is transactional.......

Heathens '87 wrote:Steve, 100%. The challenge here is that the last person to realize they're in a cult is the cult member. Looking to psychology, it's impossible to convince them of that truth. So you counter it without judgement or criticism, but try to express an understanding of why it's appealing. And the country has to seriously look at why Trump is appealing. As you said, there are countless examples to look at historically. This authoritarian, demagogue, "I alone can fix this" cult of personality works and today's information landscape is why we're seeing this on the rise globally.

My fear isn't that Trump is the next Hitler. My worry is that this past week was the incompetence of the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch in Germany. I'm sure the German people were thinking that was an interesting news week and was addressed appropriately. 1933 told them something quite different. This was an attempted coup this past week. History will see that clearly. But how do we, individually and collectively, begin to re-lay the foundations that underpin our democracy. Humanities is a great guide. How to translate that for the masses is the challenge..........

One other point I meant to add in my original post of what I learned along the way the last four years is that systems collapse and it was startling when I realized it could easily happen here. I watched that PBS special Rise of the Nazis. The first episode was the best one in my opinion. Going off memory but when they talked about one of the back room deals when they moved him up to chancellor it was anticipated that it would expose to the German Public what a buffoon he was and that it would cause the power of the Nazis to diminish. My memory might be off but it was something along those lines...at any rate when I watched that episode I couldn't help but to think of what we learned in the Podesta emails when they worked to elevate Trump because they thought he would be an easy candidate for Hillary to beat.

Also, regarding your take on Trump isn't the next Hitler is correct. Sad and disgusting irony of all this is a good chunk of his base is so antisemitic their ultimate vision of where this country should be does not include the Trumps because of Ivanka and Kushner. The Trumps are useful to them at this point and time but like we saw with Mike Pence they will turn on the Trumps at a certain point. Anytime an expert on hate or racism appears on Amnapour & Co. it's well worth the watch.

I do wonder to what degree Ivanka and Jared, with Jewish children, understand the danger her father is creating for the world in which they live. That's a cognitive leap I simply couldn't make as a parent, no matter the power.......

My hope is that the events on Wednesday, and the continued outrage against Trump, as well as Cruz, Hawley, and others that are having major corporations cut ties, wakes up enough Republican politicians to realize that this isn't good for their careers. Granted, they've shown themselves to be cowards over the last 4 years, so that may be unrealistic, but this may have shook them. To some extent, I think many thought ot was all just talk, just political theater, and that Trump's fans understood that.

Mick Mulvaney today said something to the effect of that he was shocked that people took Trump literally about this. What? Words matter, you fuck. But some of these politicians probably live in such a political bubble that they think it is just all talk. So maybe, just maybe, this was a little bit of a wake up call. Who knows, their cowardice is pretty strong.

But if we can at least get most of the Republicans in Congress to stop the lies and the bullshit, that's a start. We need Congress unified in getting to the bottom of everything that happened and root out any violence brewing around the country. This can't be strictly partisan. There may well be people in Congress who directly assisted them and were involved on a plot to capture/kill legislators and even the VP (beyond just those who helped incite them). A unified Federal government is necessary to combat the nationwide threat.

I feel like every day has gotten stranger and stranger ever since they killed that damn gorilla.

MiamiSpartan wrote:My hope is that the events on Wednesday, and the continued outrage against Trump, as well as Cruz, Hawley, and others that are having major corporations cut ties, wakes up enough Republican politicians to realize that this isn't good for their careers. Granted, they've shown themselves to be cowards over the last 4 years, so that may be unrealistic, but this may have shook them. To some extent, I think many thought ot was all just talk, just political theater, and that Trump's fans understood that.

Mick Mulvaney today said something to the effect of that he was shocked that people took Trump literally about this. What? Words matter, you fuck. But some of these politicians probably live in such a political bubble that they think it is just all talk. So maybe, just maybe, this was a little bit of a wake up call. Who knows, their cowardice is pretty strong.

But if we can at least get most of the Republicans in Congress to stop the lies and the bullshit, that's a start. We need Congress unified in getting to the bottom of everything that happened and root out any violence brewing around the country. This can't be strictly partisan. There may well be people in Congress who directly assisted them and were involved on a plot to capture/kill legislators and even the VP (beyond just those who helped incite them). A unified Federal government is necessary to combat the nationwide threat.

Having listened to some clips of Boebert and seeing her glock ad I think she's going to be well funded and continue with the rhetoric. I like the idea of cutting off their funding but I just don't see how it happens. Lincoln Project is going to try to do it so it will be interesting to see if they can make these people pay a price for this type of lunacy.

steveschneider wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:My hope is that the events on Wednesday, and the continued outrage against Trump, as well as Cruz, Hawley, and others that are having major corporations cut ties, wakes up enough Republican politicians to realize that this isn't good for their careers. Granted, they've shown themselves to be cowards over the last 4 years, so that may be unrealistic, but this may have shook them. To some extent, I think many thought ot was all just talk, just political theater, and that Trump's fans understood that.

Mick Mulvaney today said something to the effect of that he was shocked that people took Trump literally about this. What? Words matter, you fuck. But some of these politicians probably live in such a political bubble that they think it is just all talk. So maybe, just maybe, this was a little bit of a wake up call. Who knows, their cowardice is pretty strong.

But if we can at least get most of the Republicans in Congress to stop the lies and the bullshit, that's a start. We need Congress unified in getting to the bottom of everything that happened and root out any violence brewing around the country. This can't be strictly partisan. There may well be people in Congress who directly assisted them and were involved on a plot to capture/kill legislators and even the VP (beyond just those who helped incite them). A unified Federal government is necessary to combat the nationwide threat.

Having listened to some clips of Boebert and seeing her glock ad I think she's going to be well funded and continue with the rhetoric. I like the idea of cutting off their funding but I just don't see how it happens. Lincoln Project is going to try to do it so it will be interesting to see if they can make these people pay a price for this type of lunacy.

Or she's going to go to jail. She tweeted during the insurrection that they (the Congresspeople) were in the Chamber. Then she tweeted a short while later that the Speaker had been evacuated. Maybe Dems tweeted similar things, but with her being a bit of a nut, one has to wonder if she was informing the terrorists. If nothing else, it requires investigating, along with so much else.

Marriott, Blue Cross, and others have already said that they will no longer donate to anyone that voted for the objections. I think that wave is just beginning.

[tw]1348328968081072133?s=21[/tw]

Bone chilling. Let’s hope the police and national guard do their job.

The path forward starts with meaningful electoral reform. The country is too diverse and complex for politics to be filtered through two dominant parties always fighting for slim majorities. I think meaningful electoral reform that yields new and viable parties - allows current intra-party "factions" to separate into new viable parties - would be beneficial.

This might also help reduce reliance on executive power and the demagoguery Heathens mentions. Right now, regardless of ideology, people are increasingly comfortable with unilateral presidential action if it satisfies their policy preferences. Since Congress is so dysfunctional, they increasingly prefer candidates who promise they "alone can fix it," and then act accordingly when in office. This is a problem, and it was one envisioned by the framers. Two Hamilton quotes come to mind here. Unfortunately the latter is from Federalist No. 68 and his defense of the Electoral College.

The truth unquestionably is, that the only path to a subversion of the republican system of the Country is, by flattering the prejudices of the people, and exciting their jealousies and apprehensions, to throw affairs into confusion, and bring on civil commotion. Tired at length of anarchy, or want of government, they may take shelter in the arms of monarchy for repose and security.

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.

I think those passages clearly demonstrate a concern for candidates who simply "fan the flames," and my concern is that so long as Congress remains polarized and dysfunctional, supported by a winner-take-all electoral systems that incentivize bad behavior, those types of candidates will resonate with many voters. Our presidential system hinges on Congress having parties that collaboratively legislate.

Lastly, I think the way citizens interact with politics needs to change. We often think  being informed and casting ballots is enough. It's not even close to enough, especially given the dizzying amount of contradictory information so widely available. It really is no longer meaningful to simply be an informed voter. For example, it is time for informal citizen assemblies to be formed, preferably intensely local to ensure access, and results of discussions and decisions openly communicated to elected officials. It is also time to demand the return of local journalism. Our politics have become incredibly national, and I would argue the disappearance of local journalism has played a role in this change.

IMO, Putin is still fighting the cold war.

America foolishly thinks it won the cold war.  We view it as communism versus capitalism and capitalism won.

Putin never saw it that way.  Ji Jinping doesn't see it that way.  Kim Jong Un doesn't see it that way.  Our enemies view it as a war between democracy and fascism. 

I think we need to understand that to move forward.  Enemies of our country will continue their attempts to undermine democracy.  They will continue to sow disinformation.  They will attempt to disrupt and to call into question the results of free elections.  They will aid, bribe and even blackmail US politicians in support of their cause.

Trump did a great job of serving up Africa to the Chinese and allowed them a far larger economic footprint in the Pacific Rim by backing out of the Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement in January 2017.

Between tariffs that we all end up paying for, we have lost being at the head of the table of world leaders.

This is 5-minutes worth your time. What he outlines is history provides a framework for why we are where we are, but also provides lessons for how to ensure our democracy does not die. And that's a legitimate risk right now. What I took away as his outline for how authoritarianism works to destroy a democracy...

step 1: you lie - all the time - to yourself and to everyone.
step 2: you say it's your opponents and the journalists who lie.
step 3: everyone looks around and says there is no truth.

This seems to be the dynamic of America right now. How we change this is what will tell us if the American democracy has a future.....

Heathens '87 wrote:This is 5-minutes worth your time. What he outlines is history provides a framework for why we are where we are, but also provides lessons for how to ensure our democracy does not die. And that's a legitimate risk right now. What I took away as his outline for how authoritarianism works to destroy a democracy...

step 1: you lie - all the time - to yourself and to everyone.
step 2: you say it's your opponents and the journalists who lie.
step 3: everyone looks around and says there is no truth.

This seems to be the dynamic of America right now. How we change this is what will tell us if the American democracy has a future.....

Watched it two times. Obama in his recent book tour interviews noted how important it was to our democracy to get back to a shared common set of facts. I've been touting for the last four years the best source of information is print journalism and have recommended to anyone to get a subscription to one of the main national news papers. Whenever someone tells me it's fake shit or progressive/liberal I ask them to pick out at random any news story (not op-ed) off the front page and to point out where it's fake. The results are very interesting. They usually see it's just boring factual reporting.

steveschneider wrote:

Watched it two times. Obama in his recent book tour interviews noted how important it was to our democracy to get back to a shared common set of facts. I've been touting for the last four years the best source of information is print journalism and have recommended to anyone to get a subscription to one of the main national news papers. Whenever someone tells me it's fake shit or progressive/liberal I ask them to pick out at random any news story (not op-ed) off the front page and to point out where it's fake. The results are very interesting. They usually see it's just boring factual reporting.

We've actually upped our subscriptions as a result of this new world. The local paper, the New York Times, Harper's, the Guardian and the Atlantic are all current. I also add the Economist in at times but it can be overwhelming as a weekly. We're PBS and NPR members. Our library gets us digital access to the New Yorker and the Wall Street Journal. Good journalism, as a pathway to truth, deserves support.

And I come back to a truth - "if you're not paying for the product, you are the product."

Heathens '87 wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

Watched it two times. Obama in his recent book tour interviews noted how important it was to our democracy to get back to a shared common set of facts. I've been touting for the last four years the best source of information is print journalism and have recommended to anyone to get a subscription to one of the main national news papers. Whenever someone tells me it's fake shit or progressive/liberal I ask them to pick out at random any news story (not op-ed) off the front page and to point out where it's fake. The results are very interesting. They usually see it's just boring factual reporting.

We've actually upped our subscriptions as a result of this new world.  The local paper, the New York Times, Harper's, the Guardian and the Atlantic are all current.  I also add the Economist in at times but it can be overwhelming as a weekly.  We're PBS and NPR members.  Our library gets us digital access to the New Yorker and the Wall Street Journal.  Good journalism, as a pathway to truth, deserves support.  

And I come back to a truth - "if you're not paying for the product, you are the product."  

Watch News Hour regularly, subscribe to the NYT. Been considering adding Washington Post just for Greg Sergeants writing. Guilty of just reading the Atlantic for free, and should do something about that.

The Atlantic often veers into very well written fear mongering.

Rocinante wrote:The Atlantic often veers into very well written fear mongering.

A broad statement. Can you elaborate?! That's not a request made with judgement. I'm honestly curious.....

Heathens '87 wrote:

Rocinante wrote:The Atlantic often veers into very well written fear mongering.

A broad statement. Can you elaborate?! That's not a request made with judgement. I'm honestly curious.....

During the last four years the Atlantic has become the go to for stories about what the president might do, playing out hypothetical scenarios to the nth degree of horror. They are well written and well researched but very few if any have played out and in the end they’ve just been anxiety inducing. They’ve gotten a lot of attention too, with the authors being interviewed on lots of other news shows, it’s kind of an echo chamber of intellectual doom fetishists.

My opinion

I think it’s a general problem with news organizations right now. They are so desperate to generate content in the digital age that they report on one story and then have 20 or more analysis pieces about that story which gets one side all worked up and the other side claiming media bias.

Rocinante wrote:

Heathens '87 wrote:

A broad statement. Can you elaborate?! That's not a request made with judgement. I'm honestly curious.....

During the last four years the Atlantic has become the go to for stories about what the president might do, playing out hypothetical scenarios to the nth degree of horror. They are well written and well researched but very few if any have played out and in the end they’ve just been anxiety inducing. They’ve gotten a lot of attention too, with the authors being interviewed on lots of other news shows, it’s kind of an echo chamber of intellectual doom fetishists.

My opinion

The Atlantic laid out the theory of how Trump would try to steal the election and going off memory turned out to be pretty spot on.

steveschneider wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

During the last four years the Atlantic has become the go to for stories about what the president might do, playing out hypothetical scenarios to the nth degree of horror. They are well written and well researched but very few if any have played out and in the end they’ve just been anxiety inducing. They’ve gotten a lot of attention too, with the authors being interviewed on lots of other news shows, it’s kind of an echo chamber of intellectual doom fetishists.

My opinion

The Atlantic laid out the theory of how Trump would try to steal the election and going off memory turned out to be pretty spot on.

Um. No it wasn’t. At all. You’re out of your depth, steve.

Rocinante wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

The Atlantic laid out the theory of how Trump would try to steal the election and going off memory turned out to be pretty spot on.

Um. No it wasn’t. At all. You’re out of your depth, steve.

Yes it was.

MSU addict wrote:IMO, Putin is still fighting the cold war.

America foolishly thinks it won the cold war.  We view it as communism versus capitalism and capitalism won.

Putin never saw it that way.  Ji Jinping doesn't see it that way.  Kim Jong Un doesn't see it that way.  Our enemies view it as a war between democracy and fascism. 

I think we need to understand that to move forward.  Enemies of our country will continue their attempts to undermine democracy.  They will continue to sow disinformation.  They will attempt to disrupt and to call into question the results of free elections.  They will aid, bribe and even blackmail US politicians in support of their cause.

Heathens '87 wrote:This is 5-minutes worth your time.  What he outlines is history provides a framework for why we are where we are, but also provides lessons for how to ensure our democracy does not die.  And that's a legitimate risk right now.  What I took away as his outline for how authoritarianism works to destroy a democracy...

step 1: you lie - all the time - to yourself and to everyone.
step 2: you say it's your opponents and the journalists who lie.
step 3: everyone looks around and says there is no truth.

This seems to be the dynamic of America right now.  How we change this is what will tell us if the American democracy has a future.....

I read Snyder's The Road to Unfreedom, which is an excellent read with a focus on Putin's Russia. He mentions that Russia realizes it will not again rise to being a peer competitor with the U.S., so it has focused on weakening the U.S. (and it's Western rivals). Along the same lines, Tufecki's Twitter and Teargas discusses how non-democratic regimes engage in an almost reverse censorship by flooding the information space with contradictory information. People simply do not know what is true and what is not, and eventually give up in the confusion of sorting through information. Trump and his Internet and media allies have successfully used this tactic.

I just finished the chapter in Singer and Brookings Like War that discusses the Soviet's use of "dezinformatsiya," or disinformation, and how that has been significantly upgraded by Russia and made significantly more impactful through the Internet and satellite broadcasting. They quote a Russian general as saying, "the role of nonmilitary means of achieving political and strategic goals has grown. In many cases, they have exceeded the power of force or weapons in their effectiveness."

I find the intersection between tech and the dissemination of information to be both fascinating and scary.

steveschneider wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

Um. No it wasn’t. At all. You’re out of your depth, steve.

Yes it was.

I guess I missed the part where the joint chiefs were forced to wrest the nuclear codes from him. Or when the states sent competing electors. Or conversely, the part where the article predicted an angry mob of idiot rednecks storming the capital.

Fucking steve

Rocinante wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

Yes it was.

I guess I missed the part where the joint chiefs were forced to wrest the nuclear codes from him. Or when the states sent competing electors. Or conversely, the part where the article predicted an angry mob of idiot rednecks storming the capital.

Fucking steve

But Roc it said he would deny the election results and without that brilliant analysis how could we have ever known *checks notes* ah, it says here that even a cat could have figured that out with any amount of attention since 2016

Rocinante wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

Yes it was.

I guess I missed the part where the joint chiefs were forced to wrest the nuclear codes from him. Or when the states sent competing electors. Or conversely, the part where the article predicted an angry mob of idiot rednecks storming the capital.

Fucking steve

The article outlined how Trump 'could' attempt to steal the election. Sorry it didn't give an exact picture of how it would turn out.

Fucking Rocinate

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

I guess I missed the part where the joint chiefs were forced to wrest the nuclear codes from him. Or when the states sent competing electors. Or conversely, the part where the article predicted an angry mob of idiot rednecks storming the capital.

Fucking steve

But Roc it said he would deny the election results and without that brilliant analysis how could we have ever known *checks notes* ah, it says here that even a cat could have figured that out with any amount of attention since 2016

uh okay.

steveschneider wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

I guess I missed the part where the joint chiefs were forced to wrest the nuclear codes from him. Or when the states sent competing electors. Or conversely, the part where the article predicted an angry mob of idiot rednecks storming the capital.

Fucking steve

The article outlined how Trump 'could' attempt to steal the election. Sorry it didn't give an exact picture of how it would turn out.

Fucking Rocinate

Wait, so your argument is that they said what he "could" do, not what he was able to do? Meaning that someone at the Atlantic came up with the same potential pitfalls and loopholes that legal scholars (and others) have known about for 200 years.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

The article outlined how Trump 'could' attempt to steal the election. Sorry it didn't give an exact picture of how it would turn out.

Fucking Rocinate

Wait, so your argument is that they said what he "could" do, not what he was able to do? Meaning that someone at the Atlantic came up with the same potential pitfalls and loopholes that legal scholars (and others) have known about for 200 years.

The title of the article was 'How Donald Trump Could Steal the Election"

If it was such common knowledge how come it wasn't really discussed until that Atlantic Article? Also, Rocinate the article went over "Or when the states sent competing electors" going off memory that was pretty much what the article argued the GOP could do. If you guys know this back in 2016 well then I stand corrected and color me impressed. You might want to get a job at CNN.

steveschneider wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

During the last four years the Atlantic has become the go to for stories about what the president might do, playing out hypothetical scenarios to the nth degree of horror. They are well written and well researched but very few if any have played out and in the end they’ve just been anxiety inducing. They’ve gotten a lot of attention too, with the authors being interviewed on lots of other news shows, it’s kind of an echo chamber of intellectual doom fetishists.

My opinion

The Atlantic laid out the theory of how Trump would try to steal the election and going off memory turned out to be pretty spot on.

Not could. Would. That's what you said.

Fucking steve...

I'm old enough to remember when this conversation had potential.

Cameron wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

The Atlantic laid out the theory of how Trump would try to steal the election and going off memory turned out to be pretty spot on.

Not could. Would. That's what you said.

Fucking steve...

At the time the time the article came out it was could.

"used to indicate possibility."

And now we can look back and say yep that article gave us an idea of what he would try to do.

"—used in auxiliary function to express probability or presumption in past or present time"

I don't even know how to respond to that stupid bullshit. I really don't.

Fucking steve...