I think that is a perfectly valid fear no matter who is president to some degree but the problem i have right now is how we just experienced a president very recently who actually did far more fascist kinds of things than Trump has hinted at doing and the media sat there barely questioning it. The media sat there though and instead of questioning any of it bought hook, line and sinker into the fearmongering rhetoric and slapped war on terror on their screens for 5 years straight while around a quarter of a million people died. The media has shown itself to be a false entity when it comes to being collective watchdog for fascism in this country. They only serve themselves and the corporations who own them. They are only showing resistance to Trump imo because they are being told to do so.
Glenn Greenwald, Wikileaks stooge, is quite right - it's deeply sinister that the US intelligence community reported that the Russians hacked one side in U.S. elections. They should have just bent over and thought of Russia.
And it's outrageous that someone should leak that the Justice Department warned the President about his NSA pick having illicit contact with Russia over sanctions prior to the inauguration. Obviously, they should have just let the President sit on the report, as his Twitter feed shows he knew about the contact the day it happened.
What some would see as transparency in government, Wikileaks and its fellow travelers rightly identify as the nefarious workings of the "Deep State".
My goodness, someone may even reveal that Trump's recovery from bankruptcy was funded by Russia and that he's selling out Ukraine in payback:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...e-just-dropped
/sarcasm off
I didn't think I could find someone or something more repulsive than DJT. Congratulations, Wikileaks and your fellow travelers! The Donald is a narcissistic man-child with dementia, what's your excuse? I hope there's a pussy-grabbing umbrella tipped with polonium waiting for you in hell.
1. Trump and Bernie both shared the same trade deals ideals.
2. Trump and Bernie both thinks the base salary should be higher. However, Trump don't want to interfere with States.
3. Trump and Bernie are two outsiders of political parties.
4. Trump and Bernie agrees on rejecting lobby from the government.
And until proven otherwise, Trump also support affordable health care (not affordable act, that's something else entirely).
Yes, Hillary supported some things, but supporting Hillary was to support the same corrupted government again. If Bernie couldn't make it, at least Trump will do some of the things Bernie would've done to remove the deep state.
And again -- Trump has done nothing that goes counter to that. The whole tirade is overblown hysteria manipulated by the medias. Don't you see they live because they get to make people afraid?
Ok, first of all, I disagreed with Devos nomination. Second, I did not speak of spying, I spoke of data manipulation. Propaganda? I know you guys love to imagine Trump with Putin, but seriously let it go. It sounds worse than Pizzagate.
To assess your second point, it's not about picking a side. If it was about picking a side, I'd defend everything Trump does. I don't. I disagreed with the immigration ban, I disagreed with Devos and Bannon nominations, I raised my eyebrows when Flynn was caught red handed, I thought Trump was stupid when he deliberately decided to push aside CNN after the IC leak.
It's about understanding that with the system, with the candidates, with how things are done in the US, that's all there is to do. Democrats had a golden opportunity with Bernie. When the DNC e-mails leaked, what we saw was a complete, genuine hatred for him from his own party. Medias colluded with the big heads within the DNC to smear him as much as possible, calling him sexist and racist. You think it's ok to support a government who does that? Donna Brazile, who leaked debate questions. How can you trust a government to say the truth when everything is just a rehearsed play?
I am not blind to Trump's misdemenaor. But the only logical thing you can do is to make sure that things work. If everyone did as some gentlemen/gentlewomen here who'd rather spit and scratch at anything Trump's show, at anyone who dare say "Hey, you know what? Trump's not THAT bad" then you'd see a strong rise in the alt-right and neo-nazism. Extremism breed extremism. It's a goddamned loop of hatred that feed on itself.
Not only is that disgusting. It's exceedingly, profoundly, explicitely showing how animalistic we are in nature when you need to make the other side feel the wrongs they've done to you. An eye for an eye is not fighting for your rights, it's fighting for you injured egos. Egos are not physical, they're psychological. Yet the violence these people breed is very real and tangible.
Not really. Hillary and Bernie were extremely polarized. Hillary was very authoritarian, while Bernie is libertarian. Hillary is center-right, Bernie is left. Also, you should read on how Bernie and Trump are similar, because they are and there's quite a few documented cases of where they both agree on the same things.
Google Diversity Memo
Learn to use critical thinking: https://youtu.be/J5A5o9I7rnA
Political left, right similarly motivated to avoid rival views
[...] we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism)..
8 years this shit was said about Obama, it never happened and it wouldn't of happen under Clinton, in fact there is no basis to make that claim other then she's a dem.
- - - Updated - - -
Trump took in Oil execs, bankers, and lobbyists for his cabinet, Trump is so outside of the political party half the party is kissing the ring, Trump has already gone back min wage, and both don't like standing trade deals but they have different views on what should be done.
Institutions serving as a check on the executive is an intended part of the American system. Democracy doesn't mean ''I won, so now fuck ya'll, I do what I want''. If the President oversteps his bounds, or if parts of his administration are acting in a dodgy manner/against the law, it is literally their job to call them out on it, and perhaps take action if required.
Now, Trump hasn't done anything impeachable yet, so surely no one should be rushing to depose him. But keeping their eyes on the guy who has shown a lack of respect for institutions, and generally anyone who doesn't lick his boots? That seems like the sensible approach to me.
Also, friendly reminder that ol' Bill Clinton was almost impeached because he lied about something as mundane as getting a blowjob from his secretary (and yes, I know it was under oath). So let's not act as if Trump is under an extraordinary level of scrutiny.
I think that could be part of it; that term has flowered around here ever since. I really liked Skroe's take and detailed explanation of it, and seeing threads like this and various posters demonizing it (and using the 'shadow government' usage) is intensely annoying/frustrating. With so much uncertainty and such an epidemic of stupidity at the higher levels, people should be pleased that there are enough sensible people to keep things ticking along and keep us from getting manhandled by Trumps tiny little fingers. The country has to make it out of this whole--or at least as healthy as possible.
edited to point out that even the most Trump-loving person here has to at least try to respect that handing the keys over to any single person is a dice-roll even when it isn't to a guy like this, and that a strong country has to have a degree of stability resistant to a single persons whims.