Trump's America

[N.E. Brigand]

Language warning, but kinda worth it for "Howdy Arabia, Y'all"

Speaking of Parler, there was reporting this weekend by the Wall Street Journal and others (here's CNN's story) about how Parler is funded by Rebekkah Mercer, who along with her father Robert rose to prominence in 2016 for their funding of Cambridge Analytica, Breitbart, and Donald Trump's campaign. My understanding is that their political activism largely stems from their desire to stop the IRS from assessing some $7 billion in back taxes they may owe.

[yovargas]

Twitter was around during Obama's presidency. I'd say Twitter is certainly problematic, but it is only a vehicle for a problem.

Social media was in its infancy during Obama's time. What it was in 2008 can't be compared to what it was 10 years later.

[RoseMorninStar]

Twitter was around during Obama's presidency. I'd say Twitter is certainly problematic, but it is only a vehicle for a problem.

Social media was in its infancy during Obama's time. What it was in 2008 can't be compared to what it was 10 years later.

Yes, of course that is true, but do you think that Obama or Bush would use Twitter in the way Trump has had it been around earlier? How about Biden? Harris going forward? The problem with Trump is that he has no filter. Whether he is on Twitter, Fox news, giving a State of the Union address, at a disaster site, or what have you, he has no dignity or character, and he lacks good judgement. He does not care if he misspells or if what he says are lies and conspiracy theories .. he doesn't care how he comports himself. That is not the fault of Twitter, which is just a vehicle for his poor behavior. For what it's worth, my pro-Trump friends/family members do not look at Trump's tweets. They don't want to know/it's easier to delude themselves if they don't know what a fool he makes of himself on a regular basis. They just wave it off.

I wasn't alive during the Kennedy/Nixon debate but I recall hearing a lot about it while I was growing up. About how TV was a bonus for Kennedy and disastrous for Nixon (he sweated and his beady little eyes darted everywhere). Before that it was Roosevelt's fireside chats on the radio. Everyone, including politicians, can make judicious use of media, in the end, it is up to the user. Trump is not forced to make Tweetrages at 6am or during cabinet meetings. He is not forced to choose between whining about golf tournaments or ignoring Military Service personnel who died in a helicopter crash near Veterans day (or a gazillion other poor choices). He makes those choices, not Twitter.

[yovargas]

This isn't about how Trump used twitter. It's about how social media has affected the culture that allowed Trump to rise.

[RoseMorninStar]

This isn't about how Trump used twitter. It's about how social media has affected the culture that allowed Trump to rise.

OK, gotcha. I misunderstood the conversation.

Still, it doesn't help that he does not elevate the conversation and maintain a certain dignity.

[N.E. Brigand]

This isn't about how Trump used twitter. It's about how social media has affected the culture that allowed Trump to rise.

Twitter mainly affects the media and politically engaged people, I think, unlike Facebook, which has a broader reach.

[N.E. Brigand]

Speaking of which, a number of politically engaged media people on Twitter are speculating that Trump may hold an alternate inauguration for his "second term" on January 20, and we'll end up something like the 14th-15th century antipopes of Avignon and Pisa.

[Impenitent]

Should that unlikely situation come to be, what would be a constitutionally acceptable response?

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

[Túrin Turambar]

It's quite plausible. Anyone authorised to administer oaths under federal legislation can administer the presidential oath of office. Calvin Coolidge, for example, was sworn in by a notary public (his father) on the unexpected death of President Harding. So if Trump could find a notary willing to play along he could hold a parallel inauguration. I have no idea how the Biden Administration would respond, if they even bothered to respond at all. His orders would be meaningless, although he could cause problems if people (either in the U.S. or foreign leaders) continued to recognise him as the legitimate president.

[RoseMorninStar]

Should that unlikely situation come to be, what would be a constitutionally acceptable response?

Unfortunately Impy, I don't think that sounds at all unlikely. He's not a mentally stable man. I believe someone might find a constitutionally acceptable response in the 25th amendment. Or a one-way trip in a padded wagon to a rubber room.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That's not going to happen.

[elengil]

[Dave_LF]

I blame the internet. I'm not entirely kidding about that either. There have always been nutcases out there, but the internet lets them synchronize their nuttery and turn it into political power. It also makes it trivially easy for bad actors anywhere in the world to put their propaganda in front of anyone they want.

I once spoke to a former Australian Deputy PM whose one-word explanation to my question on the decline of political standards in this country was "Twitter". It's simplistic, but the broader problems of echo chambers and short context-free newsbites is certainly a big part of the problem.

In one of the Jurassic Park books, Crichton has Ian Malcolm say that the internet will be the end of human civilization because with everyone connected, everyone will think the same things and there will no longer be any variation for natural selection to act upon. That was sort of on the right track, but not quite. What it's actually done is facilitate a previously impossible level of intellectual balkanization. It has also created a serious signal-to-noise problem. I don't remember the exact wording or where it came from, but someone said that the internet's great promise was that it would give everyone a voice, and its fatal flaw was that it did.

[N.E. Brigand]

Justice Department Asserts Unreviewable Discretion to Kill US Citizens

I'd just like to urge the Trump administration to think through the possible ramifications of giving President Biden such power.

[RoseMorninStar]

Justice Department Asserts Unreviewable Discretion to Kill US Citizens

I'd just like to urge the Trump administration to think through the possible ramifications of giving President Biden such power.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Honestly, I think that article paints a somewhat distorted picture.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

[N.E. Brigand]

Honestly, I think that article paints a somewhat distorted picture.

Because the Obama administration had already taken a number of steps along that path before Trump ever took office? You'd get no argument from me there. But this passage from the article certainly indicates that one of the judges hearing the appeal sees the latest development as potentially significant:

"'Do you appreciate how extraordinary that proposition is?' U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett asked Justice Department attorney Bradley Hinshelwood, paraphrasing his claim as giving the government the ability to 'unilaterally decide to kill U.S. citizens.'"

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, I saw that, but it takes one statement of one judge of the three on the panel, and blows it up into something that isn't really indicative of what was discussed in the hearing.

ETA: To be clear, I disagree with the actions of both the Obama administration and the Trump administration.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

To be more clear, what I object to is journalists who report on legal proceedings in a misleading fashion in order to push a particular narrative, even when I largely agree with the point that they are making.

[Inanna]

I feel the same when I read articles that describe/summarize some research.