Meanwhile in America after Trump

[OpenSourcerer 1435]

Crimea, eh? As a Russian myself, kind of off-topic in an off-topic thread...

Russian media, especially RIA and Pervy Kanal, all reported in favor of Crimea's "referendum", claiming that 81% of the eligible voters or so did vote, of which 97% or so voted pro-russian. This is the first thing which got me thinking, since both are very pro-government; they would definitely make all numbers prettier.

Later Putin's own people admitted it was not correct. Far less eligible voters did actually vote, and of those who did only 60% or so voted pro-russian.

Russia indeed annexed Crimea.. since Sewastopol, one of the more important military bases for the russian marine corps is in Crimea. So when you read, there was military involved: Yes, and they were not "protecting the referendum from "Nazi Ukraine"", they were occupying political points of interest there.

 

Now, back to America.

[LZ1 672]

@L1, I'm glad to hear your like democracy, not exactly a powerful statement of support, but at least in the same category as a fondness for pasta or cigars. From your accumulated posts I couldn't have guessed you like democracy and considered asking you directly what form of government you do prefer? I've found two consistent and I think related themes in your posts,

 

1) a preference for excusing repressive regimes

 

2) a hated for all things American which informs your attitude #1. As long as dictators are opponents of the U.S. you're glad to give them a free pass. Its ironic that you accuse me of wearing rose-colored glasses when you adopt a thoroughly Pollyanna attitude toward the worst human rights abusers in the world. Your statement justifying Russian seizure of Crimea is a perfect example. Russia was justified in seizing a neighbors territory because they had "reasons". Ukraine is a small poor weak country which was ruled by an oppressive Russian puppet. When the people got up enough outrage and courage to overthrow him he ran off to Russian which soon thereafter invaded the Crimea.

 

Yes Trump is the undisputed nightmare of Global warming, He wants out of the Paris accords ASAP because it's all a Chinese plot to weaken America. What a brilliant thinker. He's also the undisputed nightmare for women's equality. He's just said he will appoint a Supreme Court judge who opposes  abortion and that women who have abortions should be punished. Roe v Wade will soon be history. Back to coat hangers in hidden back rooms. He's also the undisputed nightmare for racial equality, for gay rights, for science over religious dogma (denies evolution), for universal health care. Are any of those issues you oppose, LZ1? With the support and pressure of the Republican Party, all the slow progress of the last few decades will be undone with immediate effect. As much as I dislike Hillary, NONE of these backward lurches would have occured under her administration. So no they are NOT THE SAME, there was a difference and the very much worst road was taken.

 

Lastly to your 4th point. If democracy crumbles in America, even the imperfect democracy your abhor, it could not be rebuilt with all the worlds major power centers and global corporate oligarchs backing fascist surveillance states to preserve their unchangeable dominance.

Well guys, I would like if you both watched your tone a bit, as there's no reason to be rude to one another .

 

@Kepler

 

Thanks for a long post, I like those.

 

I think your opinion is contradictory. 1) You claim I excuse repressive regimes and yet you routinely excuse the US? I don't excuse them. I acknowledge the fact that they do bad things. Instead, what I'm doing is a response to what you're doing (funny enough), because what you do, is never look at why they do what they do. Instead, you often simply jump to the conclusion that they're basically just evil/bad, as if this were a Harry Potter movie and that that's why. Which in turn means that you don't view reality at all.

 

2) I never said I hated the US. But as with previously, you seem to think that the equation goes like this: critique = hatred. If so, then I would, by your definition, also be a hater of all things Russian and Chinese. I'm not. Again, it's just that your points of view lack balance. You constantly repeat (respectfully speaking) the same things regarding various human rights. Yet you refuse to acknowledge the US role in the subversion of those very same rights. It's strange to see. It's like when the BBC, CNN or the Guardian or the New York Times report that Trump will undermine human rights and yet they don't take a deeper and closer look at the human rights violations already committed under Obama. It's self-defeating.

 

Likewise, you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge what the US has done in the world and whether or not its actions could have at least partly helped provoke circumstances around the world, to evolve into how they are now. I'm not saying it's 100% the US fault, no. I'm asking you if you can acknowledge that the US has any fault at all - on the same level as these "regimes" that you keep critiquing. Because if you can't, then there's nothing more to talk about really, as you will just keep going from "Oh no, look at the effects of Trump" to "Yuck, look at those evil disgusting regimes like Russia being evil again" and back again. Which is tedious and doesn't come close to a realistic appraisal of events at all.

 

I did not say Russia was justified in the actions it took surrounding Crimea. I said that Russia, like any state, doesn't just *do* things at random. But that it has reasons and motivations for doing things. Reasons and motivations which you completely ignore, by instead preferring to simplistically say that Russia is simply a "regime" and that's that.

 

As I've also said, I support the various rights you mentioned and keep mentioning. I just, perhaps unlike you, don't make them into my entire argument. I agree that the Republican party is pretty much a dark stain on humanity, due to all the troubles they cause. But I also think the Democrats aren't really that much better - sure they "officially" support women's rights, but that's only for women in the US. What about Iraqi women? Afghan women? Syrian women? They're bombing those. Or what about when the US helped topple a Democratically elected Iranian leader, leading to leaders like the Shar later on? They don't care about those either. So, as I'm saying, you refuse to look critically at the US. Not looking critically at your own country, is just as much the reason why the US is in dire straits now, as it is that Trump was elected. Because it's people like yourself, respectfully, which enable bad actions that the US government commits. But if you think the US pretty much can't do anything wrong, then you'll never care, even when it does. You'll simply resort to blaming:

1. The government.
2. Some leader of state, say Obama or Putin.
3. Some repressive regime and/or terrorist group.

But never yourself and the US as a whole. In a previous post, I took the trouble to source some links, to show you that the US does plenty evil in the world, that has nothing to do with fighting Communists, Terrorists or whatever else, but simply furthering its own strategic goals, with the lives of innocents and their rights, as payment. What did you do? You ignored that post almost entirely. You didn't even acknowledge my critique of the US at all. I can critique the US/China/Saudi Arabia and so on. But can you critique the US? I don't think so. Instead, you ask for the US to be cut some slack, which is madness (for a lack of a better word). Because if the US, considering everything it has done, should be cut some slack, then you should also cut Russia/China/Iran/North Korea/Saudi Arabia and all the others some slack too. But you don't.

 

What you desperately need, Kepler, is to take a good hard look at the definition of what's called "American Exceptionalism". Article excerpt that should highlight this notion to you quite clearly:

 

Earlier this year, Hillary Clinton stated, "We are the indispensable nation. We are the force for progress, prosperity, and peace," which might seem an odd statement from a woman who supported the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya as well as the bombing of Syria.

[LZ1 672]

Put differently, Kepler, a poll by the American polling company Gallup, in 2014, found that the US was considered the biggest threat to world peace. Well before Trump or HIllary fighting for the presidency. Not Russia, not China, not all the "regimes" you like to hit on. It's a poll that most Americans may not have heard about, as it wasn't really carried by US media, naturally. This was a survey of 65 countries. But according to you, none of this will matter, because the US is simply fighting for various "rights", while all the others are just abusing human rights. So are you going to tell me that the rest of the world is just plain wrong hmm?

 

Because I can agree that Russia shouldn't have annexed Crimea for instance. But how is it any different to the US virtually annexing Iraq, Afghanistan and all the others? Try and for once focus on what the US has done please, instead of just going back to hitting on the others again and talking about human rights. Just for a change.

 

[FromtheWalls 83]

Leaders in the white nationalist movement are thrilled that President-elect Donald Trump has named Steve Bannon as his chief strategist and senior counselor. They see Bannon, the Breitbart News executive chairman denounced for anti-Semitism and peddling white nationalist views, as someone who will push Trump toward extremism.

 

White nationalism is an ideology that advocates a racial definition of national identity.^[1] Proponents of the ideology identify with and are attached to the concept of a white nation.^[2] It ranges from a preference for one's specific white ethnic group, to feelings of superiority, including calls for national citizenship to be reserved for white people.^[3]

White separatism and white supremacy are subgroups of white nationalism. Separatists seek a white-only state, while supremacists add ideas from social Darwinism and Nazism to their ideology.^[4]

 

 

^{The comparisons to 1933 Germany are becoming more obvious as the real Donald Trump steps out from behind the curtain.}

 

Bannon is an excellent choice, and you have brought this upon yourselves. Instead of having reasonable debates about all the problems with third world immigration and backwards islam, you just respond with "racism" to the point that it has become a title of honor for any free thinker. I told people over and over that it was inevitable that the tide would turn thanks to the multiculturalist extremists, but the sheeple who adopt whatever is being pushed by the propaganda machine at the time always think it will last forever, unable to comprehend the mechanisms of change. So-called right wing parties are rising all over the West, and this is just the beginning - while you will double down on hysteria about "racism", a hysteria people don't actually share. It's just the establishment and their loyal sheeple, and the illusion is crumbling. This could have been resolved differently, but it's too late now - your fundamentalist hysteria about anything resembling race issues means there's no turning back. Congratulations and well played   

[LZ1 672]

@FromtheWalls

 

To be fair though, don't you think racism is bad? I certainly do and a lot of those rights people like Kepler keep mentioning, are important. It's just that when people like Kepler (respectfully), only talk about those rights and don't stay rooted in reality, then the problem begins. As you alluded to. That's when the "sheeple", as you call them, easily get tricked by excuses of fighting for "freedom and democracy" abroad or [harmful] "trade" deals, are damaging. As you rightly say, we can't just keep talking about all the -isms and being outraged. Noam Chomsky said it best:

 

"You don't just scream at it. You look at the roots, you try to figure out how to deal with it, you respond to it." - Noam Chomsky

Which goes for all issues, I think.

[FromtheWalls 83]

@FromtheWalls

 

To be fair though, don't you think racism is bad? I certainly do and a lot of those rights people like Kepler keep mentioning, are important. It's just that when people like Kepler (respectfully), only talk about those rights and don't stay rooted in reality, then the problem begins. As you alluded to. That's when the "sheeple", as you call them, easily get tricked by excuses of fighting for "freedom and democracy" abroad or [harmful] "trade" deals, are damaging. As you rightly say, we can't just keep talking about all the -isms and being outraged. Noam Chomsky said it best:

 

"You don't just scream at it. You look at the roots, you try to figure out how to deal with it, you respond to it." - Noam Chomsky

Which goes for all issues, I think.

 

The worst kind of racism comes from "anti"-racists who think non-whites are inherently weak and pitiful delicate flowers who need special protection and who aren't responsible for anything, much like children. It is always the ones they consider intelligent and superior that are to blame, because they should know better, while being self-loathing white guilters in denial of their own racism - lashing out with rage at anyone voicing criticism. Affirmative action, hate crime laws, hate speech laws, focus on racism being a one-way issue, defending islam because they associate it with non-whites so even a global force of oppression becomes something to defend against "racism" etc. These people are completely out of touch with both reality and themselves, just parroting whatever they were told to believe back in 2016 by mainstream propaganda channels. There's no logic or reason driving them, as seen throughout history people are consistently duped before it all comes falling down - and it's happening again on our slow quest towards nihilistic enlightenment. Bad or not bad is irrelevant in the end, it's just what is or is not. Did I want a return of nationalism? Nope, I am not fond of fascism, including the fascism of "anti"-racism. Was it inevitable? Yes. Do I grin knowing they self-destruct before my eyes and are unable to change themselves to stop it? Most definitely, this is going to be the ride of my life.

[Kepler_452b 77]

@Rickn, I had a short look at RT, the Russian news outlet. I couldn't find any articles critical of Putin. Since you watch it every day, could you help me out by posting any RT links critical of Putin.

[LZ1 672]

@Rickn, I had a short look at RT, the Russian news outlet. I couldn't find any articles critical of Putin. Since you watch it every day, could you help me out by posting any RT links critical of Putin.

What's the point in that exercise though? Isn't that just like trying to find a US outlet depicting Putin and/or Russia in a positive light as well? Even if either were found, what's the point? We already know that virtually all media, has a propaganda aspect to it. It's just a matter of picking your poison.

[Kepler_452b 77]

@LZ1, you must be really hard up for something to do if you have to respond to requests that weren't addressed to you....very rude. My question was directed to Rickn.

[LZ1 672]

@LZ1, you must be really hard up for something to do if you have to respond to requests that weren't addressed to you....very rude. My question was directed to Rickn.

lol, I didn't mean to be rude, but your post was interesting and there's nothing that'll stop Rickn from answering anyhow.

[LZ1 672]

Actually Kepler, don't bother replying to my last posts. I've said the same things to you 2-3 times and it just gets ignored mostly.

 

Just forget all my posts, as I found a (hilarious) video that pretty much perfectly sums up what I want to say (minus the insults, naturally):

 

https://youtu.be/GLG9g7BcjKs

 

If you're then up for doing some extra legwork, I found this video equally instructive (and hilarious):

 

https://youtu.be/P979HaI5qlk

 

I'm out of the discussion. It was fun while it lasted y'all . Thank you for sharing.

 

P.S. If you either want to lighten the mood or can't be assed watching a long video, this is invaluable for the lols, haha:

 

https://youtu.be/HyT7vXdyieM

 

Got a feeling FromtheWalls may like the videos <3.

 

Peace!

[OpenSourcerer 1435]

@Rickn, I had a short look at RT, the Russian news outlet. I couldn't find any articles critical of Putin. Since you watch it every day, could you help me out by posting any RT links critical of Putin.

 

RT belongs to RIA. I'll quote myself:

 

Russian media, especially RIA and Pervy Kanal, all reported in favor of Crimea's "referendum" [...] since both are very pro-government

[q9z8d 3]

 

​​

 

These rioters are very bad and dangerous people. They are actually demonstrating against democracy with free and open elections. They should move to North Korea where they would be much happier.

nope. they are actually participating in democracy.

 

No. They are NOT participating in democracy.

​

Dragging people out of their cars and beating them in the streets, smashing shops, looting and chanting death threats to a democratic elected person - is NOT participating in democracy.

​

First of all, technically the popular vote went to clinton; indicating that a true, direct democracy would have elected Clinton.

Either way, just as vpn users don't have to defend the actions of every hacker who has stolen identities using a vpn and darknet heroin vendors who use vpns, I don't seek to defend every instance of an anti-trump protest. You employed a straw man fallacy ("giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent" - Wikipedia) when attempting to refute my point: I don't support (and never have supported) dragging innocent people out of their cars and beating them, along with the other things you listed. I'm merely responding to the assertion that somehow protesting against a president is anti-democratic; I would argue that, in fact, it is a key example of democracy: exercising the right to express one's opinions and protest against even the most powerful leader of a nation.

So yes, protesting is participating in democracy.

[q9z8d 3]

 

Thousands of people have turned out to protest in at least 50 cities across the United States in the days since Donald J. Trump was elected president.

Donald Trump has already done wonders for Democracy 

Thank you for the links Kepler - It's good you stay updated and determined. I admire that.

I see what you mean about organizing in protests but is having a fascist in office really pro-democracy? I think the risk outweighs the benefits. We'll also see all climate regulations go down the drain, possibly another war at some point which may involve nukes, a mobilization of white supremacy, etcetera so yea... definitely net bad

 

 

@FromtheWalls

 

To be fair though, don't you think racism is bad? I certainly do and a lot of those rights people like Kepler keep mentioning, are important. It's just that when people like Kepler (respectfully), only talk about those rights and don't stay rooted in reality, then the problem begins. As you alluded to. That's when the "sheeple", as you call them, easily get tricked by excuses of fighting for "freedom and democracy" abroad or [harmful] "trade" deals, are damaging. As you rightly say, we can't just keep talking about all the -isms and being outraged. Noam Chomsky said it best:

 

"You don't just scream at it. You look at the roots, you try to figure out how to deal with it, you respond to it." - Noam Chomsky

Which goes for all issues, I think.

 

The worst kind of racism comes from "anti"-racists who think non-whites are inherently weak and pitiful delicate flowers who need special protection and who aren't responsible for anything, much like children. It is always the ones they consider intelligent and superior that are to blame, because they should know better, while being self-loathing white guilters in denial of their own racism - lashing out with rage at anyone voicing criticism. Affirmative action, hate crime laws, hate speech laws, focus on racism being a one-way issue, defending islam because they associate it with non-whites so even a global force of oppression becomes something to defend against "racism" etc. These people are completely out of touch with both reality and themselves, just parroting whatever they were told to believe back in 2016 by mainstream propaganda channels. There's no logic or reason driving them, as seen throughout history people are consistently duped before it all comes falling down - and it's happening again on our slow quest towards nihilistic enlightenment. Bad or not bad is irrelevant in the end, it's just what is or is not. Did I want a return of nationalism? Nope, I am not fond of fascism, including the fascism of "anti"-racism. Was it inevitable? Yes. Do I grin knowing they self-destruct before my eyes and are unable to change themselves to stop it? Most definitely, this is going to be the ride of my life.

really? so calling out oppressive regimes is actually disrespectful to those people getting oppressed? What an interesting concept! I'm sure children who's parents might be targeted and risk being deported soon agree with you!

The election was a validation of white supremacy. It sent a message to the "rapist" mexicans and the black people who shouldn't even be rented appartments and muslims who don't deserve the 1st amendment that they aren't wanted by nearly half the country.

I don't think its an unfair assumption to make that you're white. The truth is, you speak from an ivory tower: a place of privilege and seclusion where you can't, or don't want to recognize racism. I know that you think this is bullshit but I don't know if there's any other way to say it.

Nonwhite people aren't delicate flowers but they are fellow human beings who deserve justice (_{not to say that exclusively human beings deserve justice).}

[Kepler_452b 77]

Those of us who understood the disaster that is Donald Trump are having our fears confirmed:

 

He appointed a white supremacist, Stephen Bannon,  as his Chief White House Strategist:

 

"https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/14/steve-bannon-white-house-racism-fear"

"https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2015-steve-bannon/"

"http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/donald-trump-presidency.html"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The residents of BALMEDIE, Scotland recount the lies Trump told, the promises he broke, the bullying he did, and what the world can expect of a Trump presidency:

 

"http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/europe/donald-trump-scotland-wall.html"

[Ricnvolved1956 51]

*YAWWWWN* The $hillary bots are never going to accept the reality of a sh***y candidate who then ran an even sh***ier campaign. And the cry babies have the democratic party insiders and queen makers to thank for that.

 

A good friend was pretty despondent with the election results. Like me, he voted Sanders in our state primary. Unlike me, he voted (quite unenthusiastically) for Clinton in the general election whereas I voted for Stein. I knew he didn't agree with my complacency about the result and asked if I really thought Sanders would've won had he been the democratic candidate. My response was that we'll never know for sure, but there was an even bigger question than if Sanders would've won-- Did Clinton win?

 

I'm going to try to make it clear one more time-- I have no love for Trump. At all. But after how the Clinton and party mafia treated Sanders and his supporters... well, all I can say is they got exactly what they deserve.

[Kepler_452b 77]

*YAWWWWN* The $hillary bots are never going to accept the reality of a sh***y candidate who then ran an even sh***ier campaign. And the cry babies have the democratic party insiders and queen makers to thank for that.

 

A good friend was pretty despondent with the election results. Like me, he voted Sanders in our state primary. Unlike me, he voted (quite unenthusiastically) for Clinton in the general election whereas I voted for Stein. I knew he didn't agree with my complacency about the result and asked if I really thought Sanders would've won had he been the democratic candidate. My response was that we'll never know for sure, but there was an even bigger question than if Sanders would've won-- Did Clinton win?

 

I'm going to try to make it clear one more time-- I have no love for Trump. At all. But after how the Clinton and party mafia treated Sanders and his supporters... well, all I can say is they got exactly what they deserve.

 

 

@Ricnvolved1956

First I should apologize, I think I responded a little harshly to one of your posts in another thread a couple of weeks ago.  I completely agree with you that Bernie was the best choice by two orders of magnitude and that the Dem party and HRC deliberately sabotaged his bid for the nomination because of entrenched interests. I lay the blame for the current (and future) Trump disaster squarely at the feet of the DNC,  HRC, and the rest of the Dem "elite". They should publicly accept the blame for this mess and be pilloried, but that will never happen. I believe Bernie would have beat Trump handily, as the polls showed consistently, because he had the support and love (yes) of millennial voters, independents, many libertarians, and even many conservative Republicans (ok not the love). Yes, the Dem leadership got what it deserved, but unfortunately the U.S. and the world will be punished for their sins.

[Kepler_452b 77]

Privacy Will Be More Necessary Than Ever Under President Trump

 

Very good article in Time:  "http://time.com/4570124/donald-trump-privacy/"

[Kepler_452b 77]

"Trump may try to undermine liberal democracy in the United States"

 

"http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/world/americas/western-liberal-democracy.html"

 

I think this researcher, Yascha Mounk, has it right: Liberal democracy is under threat and weakening.

[FromtheWalls 83]

"Trump may try to undermine liberal democracy in the United States"

 

"http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/world/americas/western-liberal-democracy.html"

 

I think this researcher, Yascha Mounk, has it right: Liberal democracy is under threat and weakening.

 

Haha, I love it. Under Obama we got the least transparent government in history, pursuit of more whistle-blowers than under any other government, additions to NDAA that ensure anyone can be held indefinitely with no charge and with legal deniability to the family they even have the person, additions to the Patriot Act and a nightmare of a mass surveillance regime that suddenly got scary now that the Bamster is on his way out etc. Obama has been chipping away at liberty for eight years, and he seems to only lament that he didn't erode even more of it. Maybe it will continue under Trump, but at least this time it will be hilarious. There is no new insight gained, either - people still think Hillary would be less of a threat, thus gaining no understanding in the process. The silent erosion would continue under her, now media will whine with impotent rage - but they are already defeated. Let the journey towards nihilism continue, it's going to be one hell of a ride.

 

Edit: I will continue to stand for freedom just like I have under eight years of the Obama nightmare, whose latest claim to fame is to literally lie and say he can't pardon Snowden, which he absolutely can. What a useless idiot that dunce turned out to be.

[serenacat 83]

"journey towards nihilism continue, it's going to be one hell of a ride."

No one knows what will happen, Trump seems to have various visions and schizoid personas, like a host of Westworld.

But unlike the Nazis or Communists or various authoritarian regimes, there does not seem to be a consistent shared ideology, more different opportunistic "leaders" and groups salivating at different stimuli, and driven for ingroup power, some for worship of money.

Sort of like throwing a cow carcass into a yard full of half starved police dogs, security dogs, junkyard dogs and watch them rip each other. Less competition as the carcass of America rots and swells with maggots and gases.

Then maybe Trump and Putin fall out with an ambitious doublecross, like Hitler and Stalin with Barbarossa. Not a World War, just 24 hours of nuclear exchange would burn the worthwhile targets in Russia and the USA, while most of Europe, China, India and the rest of the world tried to hide.

 

 

 

 

[OmniNegro 155]

Edit: I will continue to stand for freedom just like I have under eight years of the Obama nightmare, whose latest claim to fame is to literally lie and say he can't pardon Snowden, which he absolutely can. What a useless idiot that dunce turned out to be.

Well, if you subscribe to the idea that Snowden is an American agent trying to build reputation with those who hate America, then it would actually be very detrimental to pardon him. But otherwise you are quite right. And I have no idea if Snowden is an American agent or not. Nor any concern if he is.

 

The one universal identifying trait of a politician is that they are all liars. Absolutely none are honest. And anyone who thinks any one of them is needs to take a really hard look at them for a while. Despite all efforts, truth cannot ever be fully suppressed. The best a practiced liar can do is make the truth indistinguishable from their lies.

[LZ1 672]

Privacy Will Be More Necessary Than Ever Under President Trump

 

Very good article in Time:  "http://time.com/4570124/donald-trump-privacy/"

 

So one-sided. You need a greater amount of "John Pilger"in your media diet Kepler. Here's an excerpt which challenges your views:

 

In the US, the anti-Russia campaign has been elevated to virtual reality. The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, an economist with a Nobel Prize, has called Donald Trump the "Siberian Candidate" because Trump is Putin's man, he says. Trump had dared to suggest, in a rare lucid moment, that war with Russia might be a bad idea. In fact, he has gone further and removed American arms shipments to Ukraine from the Republican platform. "Wouldn't it be great if we got along with Russia," he said.

 

This is why America's warmongering liberal establishment hates him. Trump's racism and ranting demagoguery have nothing to do with it. Bill and Hillary Clinton's record of racism and extremism can out-trump Trump's any day. (This week is the 20th anniversary of the Clinton welfare "reform" that launched a war on African-Americans). As for Obama: while American police gun down his fellow African-Americans the great hope in the White House has done nothing to protect them, nothing to relieve their impoverishment, while running four rapacious wars and an assassination campaign without precedent.

 

The CIA has demanded Trump is not elected. Pentagon generals have demanded he is not elected. The pro-war New York Times - taking a breather from its relentless low-rent Putin smears - demands that he is not elected. Something is up. These tribunes of "perpetual war" are terrified that the multi-billion-dollar business of war by which the United States maintains its dominance will be undermined if Trump does a deal with Putin, then with China's Xi Jinping. Their panic at the possibility of the world's great power talking peace - however unlikely - would be the blackest farce were the issues not so dire.

 

That's from one of the worlds most illustrious journalists too. It's not to say he's automatically right about everything - but if it spurs critical thought, then that's a good thing.

 

I don't disagree that privacy will probably be even more important under Trump. I just think the constant automatic anti-Trump "journalism" is boring and whatever delusions may be created because of it, dangerous as well. Besides, didn't rule 41 just pass into law? The one giving the FBI extended hacking mandates. To my knowledge, Trump didn't have anything to do with that. That developed under the Obama administration. I think the crucial difference, is that Trumps moves are "obvious" because he's a loud-mouth. Or at least made obvious by media. While Obama's aren't, in the same way.

 

One more from John:

 

Dissenting journalism and scholarship have since been systematically banished or appropriated, and democratic ideas emptied and refilled with "identity politics" that confuse gender with feminism and public angst with liberation and wilfully ignore the state violence and weapons profiteering that destroys countless lives in faraway places, like Yemen and Syria, and beckon nuclear war in Europe and across the world.

 

The stirring of people of all ages around the spectacular rise of Jeremy Corbyn counters this to some extent. His life has been spent illuminating the horror of war. The problem for Corbyn and his supporters is the Labour Party. In America, the problem for the thousands of followers of Bernie Sanders was the Democratic Party, not to mention their ultimate betrayal by their great white hope. In the US, home of the great civil rights and anti-war movements, it is Black Lives Matter and the likes of Codepink that lay the roots of a modern version.

 

For only a movement that swells into every street and across borders and does not give up can stop the warmongers. Next year, it will be a century since Wilfred Owen wrote the following. Every journalist should read it and remember it...                       

 

I like this quote, from the bottom of this post:

 

The responsibility of the rest of us is clear. It is to identify and expose the reckless lies of warmongers and never to collude with them. It is to re-awaken the great popular movements that brought a fragile civilisation to modern imperial states. Most important, it is to prevent the conquest of ourselves: our minds, our humanity, our self respect. If we remain silent, victory over us is assured, and a holocaust beckons.

[Ricnvolved1956 51]

Kepler-- Thank you for your apology. I extend mine in return. Though I have the feeling we're not always going to agree on political subjects, it's a good thing we can agree to disagree courteously.

[Ricnvolved1956 51]

FromtheWalls-- I agree with all you say in your post. But for the purpose of full disclosure in regards to my own self interest, I am sincerely and eternally grateful for one huge benefit of Obama being president. Namely, The Affordable Care Act. I will keep this as brief as possible, but the unfortunate fact is that I have a medical condition called Peutz Jeghers Syndrome and the only way I could get insurance in the past was through workplace coverage. However, I've been out of the workplace for 8 years and The Affordable Care Act has been literally a financial lifesaver. Without it, there is no way any health insurance company would issue me a policy, or certainly not one I could afford. The Affordable Care Act has been the object of nearly incessant abuse and criticism from the politically conservative right, a lot of it from ignorance but mostly because republican conservatives made it a political football and dog whistle. Since it became law there has been a torrent of demagoguery and screaming to completely do away with it. Why not just reform and improve it instead? At the time The ACA became law there were statistics that approximately 43 million to 45 million people in the U.S. were either severely underinsured or had no coverage at all. If The Affordable Care Act is abolished, what are people like me to do?

 

I'll conclude this with a demagogic gem from Rush Limbaugh during the time The ACA was prominent in the news. He was being his usual gasbag self and bellowed that Amerikans already had health coverage-- If you get sick and you don't have health insurance coverage, just go to the emergency room. I swear to you he said that. If I could have blown his head off with an AK-47 at that moment, I would've done it and worried about the consequences afterward. He could go to his local hospital emergency room and get treated. (I've also wondered if his health insurance policy covered his oxycontin detox program and his viagra when he went to The Dominican Republic for his sex tourist vacations. Anyway.... Rush?.... Save your money and ditch your healthcare coverage! If you get cancer.... just go to the emergency room! Lead by example, you f*cking moron!)