Lame as hell. I've never seen CLOSE to a decent defense from any of you Trumpers for why Trump's Top 5 or 10 of clearly disqualifying actions/comments were OK. You can't do it. So you just pretend that the alternative is worse. Just plain stupid and pathetic and destructive.
I know you weren't talking to me...but try and look at it this way: which would you rather have...a grandfatherly President who tries as hard as he can not to offend people or an a-hole President who doesn't care who he offends?
It's a trick question. I don't care how my President decides to convey their personality. I care way more about the policies that President crafts, whether they are effective, and how those policies play out.
You know, now that you put it that way, it's really making more sense to me.
The fact that he praised dictators the world over? Who cares - that's just him being an a-hole, which I'm ok with.
The fact that he sided with Putin over our own intelligence services? Just being an a-hole. No bigee.
Fought against worldwide cooperation to combat climate change? Meh, just being an a-hole.
Downplayed COVID so that he might win re-election at the cost of tens of thousands of lives? Just being an a-hole.
Weakened NATO and cost the US it's traditional role as leader of the free world? Just another a-hole move.
Tried to overturn the results of a presidential election (which would have effectively been the end of the United States)? So what? Just being an a-hole.
You know, I kind of like how you frame that. I'm totally ok with a-holes. Trump's A-OK with me!
So we have a disinformation board led by a lady who has known to lie in the past and EVERY single appointee will be one who is liberal. You don't see a problem with that?
Do I see a problem if Trumpers don't like the people appointed by Biden?
No, I don't see a problem with that at all.
My god, man.
Stop playing partisan politics when the fate of democracy is at hand.
The left (and center) were right about that when it comes to Trump's attempt to prevent a peaceful transition of power in January 2021. But you are so blinded by your obsession about Democrats vs. Republicans that you just refuse to see what's right in front of you.
I posted before that anyone who supports this is either a totalitarian, a Democrat too blinded by bias to see the danger, or people who are simply too ignorant to understand the danger. I suggested you look in a mirror to discern which one you are. By your continued posting, it is becoming clear: all you care about is "your team" winning, which is idiotic and makes you just as bad as those who worship at Trump's altar.
A government agency given ANY power to declare what is mis- or dis- or mal- information is ripe for abuse to become a propaganda arm of the government, silencing criticism and any opposition either directly or indirectly. It doesn't matter if it is a department filled with folks appointed by Biden or Trump or anyone else, it's still a danger to democracy that has no place in any government that declares itself to be a democracy or republic.
Play this scenario through your mind:
Let's hop in a hypothetical time machine and take a look at what could have happened in November 2020 if this department was already in place, even if the extent of it's power is merely to "study the problem and make a recommendation". What kind of abuse of power could that really allow?
Trump's "Department of Misinformation" looks into two competing stories that are circulating:
One is the story of how "election officials in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Wisconsin rigged the election by __(take your pick of excuses)__"
The other story is how "There was no election fraud that occurred in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Wisconsin."
This "department", after looking into the subject, declares that there is insufficient evidence one way or another to CONCLUSIVELY prove whether election officials rigged the election to any degree, and therefore recommends that nothing be done to slow the spread of that news story.
This "department", after looking into the subject, also declares that there is some evidence of SOME election fraud (not stipulating whether or not there actually was enough to overturn the election), and recommends that any media caught spreading that story should be fined and any persons on social media spreading that story should be banned or censored.
As a result, the public is swayed slightly more towards believing that the election was rigged -- despite that probably not being the case. This scenario is entirely reasonable because it's easy to spin the narrative in that regard, even if isn't entirely true.
A government doesn't need to be given much power in order to abuse that power to a degree that becomes dangerous to the democratic process. Even as little authority as "looking into a problem and making recommendations" yields to that government department a power of influence over the populace that it shouldn't have.
I know you weren't talking to me...but try and look at it this way: which would you rather have...a grandfatherly President who tries as hard as he can not to offend people or an a-hole President who doesn't care who he offends?
It's a trick question. I don't care how my President decides to convey their personality. I care way more about the policies that President crafts, whether they are effective, and how those policies play out.
You really think that Trump's faults were just about personality? Really? When he lies to your face pretty much every day, that's "just personality"?
Siding with Putin over US intel (Helsinki)? Mocking POWs? Shaking down Zelensky? CLEARLY TRYING TO STEAL A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? Clearly not caring about managing a pandemic as well as possible? SURELY, you can see that those things are about infinitely more than just "personality," or JUST being a general A-hole, right?
I wasn't a fan of Trump before he became president, and was disappointed that he got it. But I remember early on he did something nice/cordial with Taiwan that apparently the diplomatic smarty pants thought was so bad because it would annoy China (I forget exactly what it was). I was happy he did it. We've played our silly games semi-supporting Taiwan for decades, always SO scared of annoying the bully China. Pushing back against that was nice to see. I thought, "You know, I'll bet this guy will do a lot of things that I don't like, but stuff like that is fine." I was open to seeing some defensible rebellion against "norms" from him.
Unfortunately, I saw next-to-nothing of stuff I like from him in the coming years - i.e., defensible political/governmental norms-busting - just a whole crap load of simply indefensible stuff like listed above.
You absolutely nailed something essential with your assessment that Trump's Presidency was largely about "norm-busting."
If you don't like the man, I'm probably powerless to change that. But if you are so mystified that you can't see how anyone could possibly support him, consider this quote: "When you hate the china shop, you love the bull."
You really think that Trump's faults were just about personality? Really? When he lies to your face pretty much every day, that's "just personality"?
Siding with Putin over US intel (Helsinki)? Mocking POWs? Shaking down Zelensky? CLEARLY TRYING TO STEAL A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION? Clearly not caring about managing a pandemic as well as possible? SURELY, you can see that those things are about infinitely more than just "personality," or JUST being a general A-hole, right?
I wasn't a fan of Trump before he became president, and was disappointed that he got it. But I remember early on he did something nice/cordial with Taiwan that apparently the diplomatic smarty pants thought was so bad because it would annoy China (I forget exactly what it was). I was happy he did it. We've played our silly games semi-supporting Taiwan for decades, always SO scared of annoying the bully China. Pushing back against that was nice to see. I thought, "You know, I'll bet this guy will do a lot of things that I don't like, but stuff like that is fine." I was open to seeing some defensible rebellion against "norms" from him.
Unfortunately, I saw next-to-nothing of stuff I like from him in the coming years - i.e., defensible political/governmental norms-busting - just a whole crap load of simply indefensible stuff like listed above.
You absolutely nailed something essential with your assessment that Trump's Presidency was largely about "norm-busting."
If you don't like the man, I'm probably powerless to change that. But if you are so mystified that you can't see how anyone could possibly support him, consider this quote: "When you hate the china shop, you love the bull."
The thing is, that the china shop, in this case, is the United States of America. And, for all its faults, I love the United States of America. So, your bull can go the fvck to hell.
Do I see a problem if Trumpers don't like the people appointed by Biden?
No, I don't see a problem with that at all.
My god, man.
Stop playing partisan politics when the fate of democracy is at hand.
The left (and center) were right about that when it comes to Trump's attempt to prevent a peaceful transition of power in January 2021. But you are so blinded by your obsession about Democrats vs. Republicans that you just refuse to see what's right in front of you.
I posted before that anyone who supports this is either a totalitarian, a Democrat too blinded by bias to see the danger, or people who are simply too ignorant to understand the danger. I suggested you look in a mirror to discern which one you are. By your continued posting, it is becoming clear: all you care about is "your team" winning, which is idiotic and makes you just as bad as those who worship at Trump's altar.
A government agency given ANY power to declare what is mis- or dis- or mal- information is ripe for abuse to become a propaganda arm of the government, silencing criticism and any opposition either directly or indirectly. It doesn't matter if it is a department filled with folks appointed by Biden or Trump or anyone else, it's still a danger to democracy that has no place in any government that declares itself to be a democracy or republic.
Play this scenario through your mind:
Let's hop in a hypothetical time machine and take a look at what could have happened in November 2020 if this department was already in place, even if the extent of it's power is merely to "study the problem and make a recommendation". What kind of abuse of power could that really allow?
Trump's "Department of Misinformation" looks into two competing stories that are circulating:
One is the story of how "election officials in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Wisconsin rigged the election by __(take your pick of excuses)__"
The other story is how "There was no election fraud that occurred in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Wisconsin."
This "department", after looking into the subject, declares that there is insufficient evidence one way or another to CONCLUSIVELY prove whether election officials rigged the election to any degree, and therefore recommends that nothing be done to slow the spread of that news story.
This "department", after looking into the subject, also declares that there is some evidence of SOME election fraud (not stipulating whether or not there actually was enough to overturn the election), and recommends that any media caught spreading that story should be fined and any persons on social media spreading that story should be banned or censored.
As a result, the public is swayed slightly more towards believing that the election was rigged -- despite that probably not being the case. This scenario is entirely reasonable because it's easy to spin the narrative in that regard, even if isn't entirely true.
A government doesn't need to be given much power in order to abuse that power to a degree that becomes dangerous to the democratic process. Even as little authority as "looking into a problem and making recommendations" yields to that government department a power of influence over the populace that it shouldn't have.
My god, man.
You don't know anything about this board except its name.
And you think it is going to bring down democracy.
Stop playing partisan politics when the fate of democracy is at hand.
The left (and center) were right about that when it comes to Trump's attempt to prevent a peaceful transition of power in January 2021. But you are so blinded by your obsession about Democrats vs. Republicans that you just refuse to see what's right in front of you.
I posted before that anyone who supports this is either a totalitarian, a Democrat too blinded by bias to see the danger, or people who are simply too ignorant to understand the danger. I suggested you look in a mirror to discern which one you are. By your continued posting, it is becoming clear: all you care about is "your team" winning, which is idiotic and makes you just as bad as those who worship at Trump's altar.
A government agency given ANY power to declare what is mis- or dis- or mal- information is ripe for abuse to become a propaganda arm of the government, silencing criticism and any opposition either directly or indirectly. It doesn't matter if it is a department filled with folks appointed by Biden or Trump or anyone else, it's still a danger to democracy that has no place in any government that declares itself to be a democracy or republic.
Play this scenario through your mind:
Let's hop in a hypothetical time machine and take a look at what could have happened in November 2020 if this department was already in place, even if the extent of it's power is merely to "study the problem and make a recommendation". What kind of abuse of power could that really allow?
Trump's "Department of Misinformation" looks into two competing stories that are circulating:
One is the story of how "election officials in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Wisconsin rigged the election by __(take your pick of excuses)__"
The other story is how "There was no election fraud that occurred in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Wisconsin."
This "department", after looking into the subject, declares that there is insufficient evidence one way or another to CONCLUSIVELY prove whether election officials rigged the election to any degree, and therefore recommends that nothing be done to slow the spread of that news story.
This "department", after looking into the subject, also declares that there is some evidence of SOME election fraud (not stipulating whether or not there actually was enough to overturn the election), and recommends that any media caught spreading that story should be fined and any persons on social media spreading that story should be banned or censored.
As a result, the public is swayed slightly more towards believing that the election was rigged -- despite that probably not being the case. This scenario is entirely reasonable because it's easy to spin the narrative in that regard, even if isn't entirely true.
A government doesn't need to be given much power in order to abuse that power to a degree that becomes dangerous to the democratic process. Even as little authority as "looking into a problem and making recommendations" yields to that government department a power of influence over the populace that it shouldn't have.
My god, man.
You don't know anything about this board except its name.
And you think it is going to bring down democracy.
The liberal definition of "misinformation" is all any intelligent person needs to know it's a terrible idea.
Federal and state lawmakers, constitutional scholars and other experts are expressing concerns with the Department of Homeland Security's new misinformation board, which they say is the Biden administration's attempt to stifl...
This is true. The concerns are mounting because it's what Fox and the right wing echo-chamber is promoting these days.
But you can only keep outrage going for so long. When this dies down they will move on to some other pointless thing to make you mad and keep you watching and clicking.
I wish you all an early "Merry (war on) Christmas!"
I am well aware that you simply aren't worth it but just for kicks:
I think that the name of the board (Disinformation Governance Board) makes people unnecessarily nervous about it. If, in fact, it had the charter of policing all "speech" in all its forms then it would be an odd mix of scary and nutty. But its actual charter seems to be much narrower - focusing on countering Russian propaganda as well as that coming from human smugglers. Should we be against that? I'm not so sure.
The government played a huge role in fighting against the endless lies of the tobacco industry for decades. Was that role a terrible mistake? Did it lead to some Orwellian nightmare? Not as far as I can see. Is this "Disinformation Governance Board" something quite different, or does it just have an unfortunately chosen name (terribly chosen names being a Democratic Party specialty)?
For most of their history, political parties have tried to win elections by broadening their appeal. Makes sense, right? Now, popular candidates within the Republican Party have become suspect, relegated by Trump and the party's most devoted activists to "RINO" territory in favor of a leader who twice lost the national popular vote.
Latest Marist poll has Democrats losing among Gen Y/Z (46-45) and among Hispanics (52-39). Massive swings in those categories compared to a few years ago.
Many of today’s Republicans sound like the crybabies they always accused Democrats of being. They’ve flipped the script so much the GOP of old has become the POG – the Grand Old Party is now the Party of Grievance. I dunno, maybe it's always been this way, but during the most recent heyday of Republicanism, the Reagan era, I don't recall quite so many whiners.
Many of today’s Republicans sound like the crybabies they always accused Democrats of being. They’ve flipped the script so much the GOP of old has become the POG – the Grand Old Party is now the Party of Grievance. I dunno, maybe it's always been this way, but during the most recent heyday of Republicanism, the Reagan era, I don't recall quite so many whiners.
A more intelligent person would stop and wonder why their party is the most unpopular it's been in generations...
Stop playing partisan politics when the fate of democracy is at hand.
The left (and center) were right about that when it comes to Trump's attempt to prevent a peaceful transition of power in January 2021. But you are so blinded by your obsession about Democrats vs. Republicans that you just refuse to see what's right in front of you.
I posted before that anyone who supports this is either a totalitarian, a Democrat too blinded by bias to see the danger, or people who are simply too ignorant to understand the danger. I suggested you look in a mirror to discern which one you are. By your continued posting, it is becoming clear: all you care about is "your team" winning, which is idiotic and makes you just as bad as those who worship at Trump's altar.
A government agency given ANY power to declare what is mis- or dis- or mal- information is ripe for abuse to become a propaganda arm of the government, silencing criticism and any opposition either directly or indirectly. It doesn't matter if it is a department filled with folks appointed by Biden or Trump or anyone else, it's still a danger to democracy that has no place in any government that declares itself to be a democracy or republic.
Play this scenario through your mind:
Let's hop in a hypothetical time machine and take a look at what could have happened in November 2020 if this department was already in place, even if the extent of it's power is merely to "study the problem and make a recommendation". What kind of abuse of power could that really allow?
Trump's "Department of Misinformation" looks into two competing stories that are circulating:
One is the story of how "election officials in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Wisconsin rigged the election by __(take your pick of excuses)__"
The other story is how "There was no election fraud that occurred in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona and Wisconsin."
This "department", after looking into the subject, declares that there is insufficient evidence one way or another to CONCLUSIVELY prove whether election officials rigged the election to any degree, and therefore recommends that nothing be done to slow the spread of that news story.
This "department", after looking into the subject, also declares that there is some evidence of SOME election fraud (not stipulating whether or not there actually was enough to overturn the election), and recommends that any media caught spreading that story should be fined and any persons on social media spreading that story should be banned or censored.
As a result, the public is swayed slightly more towards believing that the election was rigged -- despite that probably not being the case. This scenario is entirely reasonable because it's easy to spin the narrative in that regard, even if isn't entirely true.
A government doesn't need to be given much power in order to abuse that power to a degree that becomes dangerous to the democratic process. Even as little authority as "looking into a problem and making recommendations" yields to that government department a power of influence over the populace that it shouldn't have.
My god, man.
You don't know anything about this board except its name.
And you think it is going to bring down democracy.
Although we certainly don't know every aspect of it, we know more than just it's name.
We know that it's mission is to "counter misinformation, disinformation and malinformation", we know that "misinformation" is a term that has always been poorly defined, we know that it will be initially targeted at minority communities (where Biden's support has been dropping the most), we know that the two greatest initial concerns are "Russian disinformation" (which has been used in the past as a way to deny accusations against Biden) and Mexican human smugglers. We know the appointed leader of the board is very partisan and has a history of promoting at the very least the Hunter Biden laptop story as being (probably) Russian disinformation without any proof, that the Steele dossier as being above the board legitimate, and that she has made several troubling statements regarding freedom including free speech in the past (though some have been deleted in the last couple days), some including her opinion that the country needed to force lockdowns on the populace during COVID. The leader of a "misinformation" board that is afraid of free speech and approving of government taking away liberties of the people is not a particularly good sign.
What we don't know is the extent of it's powers, but as I mentioned even if it's merely as small as "studying problems and making recommendations" (which is doubtful) it has the potential to be incredibly dangerous to democracy.
You absolutely nailed something essential with your assessment that Trump's Presidency was largely about "norm-busting."
If you don't like the man, I'm probably powerless to change that. But if you are so mystified that you can't see how anyone could possibly support him, consider this quote: "When you hate the china shop, you love the bull."
The thing is, that the china shop, in this case, is the United States of America. And, for all its faults, I love the United States of America. So, your bull can go the fvck to hell.
The "China Shop" is the liberal coastal elites not the US. His quote hits the nail on the head when it comes to relationship between liberals and conservatives and cult of Trump.
You don't know anything about this board except its name.
And you think it is going to bring down democracy.
Although we certainly don't know every aspect of it, we know more than just it's name.
We know that it's mission is to "counter misinformation, disinformation and malinformation", we know that "misinformation" is a term that has always been poorly defined, we know that it will be initially targeted at minority communities (where Biden's support has been dropping the most), we know that the two greatest initial concerns are "Russian disinformation" (which has been used in the past as a way to deny accusations against Biden) and Mexican human smugglers. We know the appointed leader of the board is very partisan and has a history of promoting at the very least the Hunter Biden laptop story as being (probably) Russian disinformation without any proof, that the Steele dossier as being above the board legitimate, and that she has made several troubling statements regarding freedom including free speech in the past (though some have been deleted in the last couple days), some including her opinion that the country needed to force lockdowns on the populace during COVID. The leader of a "misinformation" board that is afraid of free speech and approving of government taking away liberties of the people is not a particularly good sign.
What we don't know is the extent of it's powers, but as I mentioned even if it's merely as small as "studying problems and making recommendations" (which is doubtful) it has the potential to be incredibly dangerous to democracy.
This sounds like 99% speculation. Do you have an official source?
