Interesting statistics. One of the most striking differences is the percentage of stories framed around leadership/character vs policy/agenda, with 74% about leadership/character in the Trump nightmare compared to only 35% during the same period of the Biden administration. How is that at all unexpected or surprising though? If Biden made himself the star of a reality tv show, made it all about himself as much as inhumanly possible, the media would certainly accommodate him.

Today’s news is that Trump is invoking ‘executive privilege’ in urging his former staffers to ignore subpoenas from the Jan 6th commission.

The question is, how can someone who ignores constitutional norms then invoke constitutional privileges to shield himself and others from their unconstitutional actions?

Same with his proposed candidacy for the next presidential election. Surely a pre-requisite for standing in an election is the obligation to respect the results of the election . If he cannot accept the results of a fair election then he ought not to be eligible to stand in the next one. Very simple,. I don’t know why this point hasn’t been picked up by the commentariat.

The polarisation these politicians thrive one can only exist in a society that supports it. The most important factor in that is how people get information. — Benkei

Information spreads in various ways. It has spread since history and likely much of it has been incorrect. Yet the cause of people getting angry about the present, the rise of populism isn't just how people get information.

It simply doesn't go like that. The simple fact is that if people are fine with their life, economically have no worries, the public sector works, they simply don't get angry just because of algorithms.

All of it in the context of unjust political investigations and impeachment inquiries, not to mention the fevered media treatment unlike the world has ever seen, peering into every facet of his life. — NOS4A2

NOS, he was just an inept leader. Simple as that. A great commentator and could engage with his supporters yes, but the position wasn't for the Tweeter in Chief. That's not leadership. In that role, tweeting and engaging the public discourse he was great, at least Twitter was happy.

NOS, he was just an inept leader. — ssu

Who tried to kill the United States of America. I call that treason, and it's me, he gets the rope.

Uhm...

NOS, he was just an inept leader. Simple as that. A great commentator and could engage with his supporters yes, but the position wasn't for the Tweeter in Chief. That's not leadership. In that role, tweeting and engaging the public discourse he was great, at least Twitter was happy.

Certainly taking the media commentary at face value would lead one to such beliefs, but in comparing him to other leaders worldwide, I don’t see it. It’s as simple as that.

You don't think there's a fundamental difference between how information was searched for and reached us before Google and Facebook and now? We've got record numbers of people believing the worst things without any ability to even listen to opposing views.

I've been on this and the old forum since 2003. Discourse has significantly changed here too. Before, it was only philosophy of religion that was shit. Nowadays it's politics too.

Here's a short article just about targeted ads: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/05/targeted-ads-fake-news-clickbait-surveillance-capitalism-data-mining-democracy

I really invite you to read more about the information apocalypse, how deception unmoors us from reality and how it becomes increasingly difficult to tell reality from fake news How targeted distribution of information leads to information going "viral" in ways it didn't and couldn't before. Eg, how the Plandemic gets millions of views is caused by targeted video offerings not because people actually searched for it.

Here's a short article just about targeted ads: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/05/targeted-ads-fake-news-clickbait-surveillance-capitalism-data-mining-democracy — Benkei

It's pretty bad. It's even hard to find words to say if one considers the very real consequences of this phenomenon. Making everything reducible to terms of profit is going to kill us all.

What a way to go.

NOS, he was just an inept leader.
— ssu
Who tried to kill the United States of America. — tim wood

Here's a thought: Instate Trump as the rightful POTUS, under the condition that he tells people to get vaccinated. Ha!

You don't think there's a fundamental difference between how information was searched for and reached us before Google and Facebook and now? We've got record numbers of people believing the worst things without any ability to even listen to opposing views. — Benkei

Sure, in absolute terms, those numbers are increasing, but in relative terms, percentagewise? You don't have any actual data for this, do you?

We've got /.../ people believing the worst things without any ability to even listen to opposing views. — Benkei

Do you know of any time in human history when this was not the case?

I don't. Sure, the superficial methods change over time, as technology changes, but the underlying principles are the same. Pick any actual time in human history, any actual year and place, and research whether people in that year and place had free access to all information.

Was there ever a time when the distribution of information was not in one way or another targeted?

To do something about the polarization of politics is the problem. The political discourse is just spiraling out of control. It's like people are just waiting for the next clash to ensue. — ssu

This isn't just in the US, it's a global trend. Polarization (and simplificationism) appear to be the logical consequences of democracy.

Democracy wasn't born out of some deep mutual respect people would have for eachother, but is merely one of the options for what to do when there is no hereditary monarchy (or its equivalent) in place.
Don't forget that the original motto of the French Revolution was Liberté, égalité, fraternité ou la mort.

I like what you wrote there. But polarization is also the logical consequence of free speech, or at least speech less confined by the conventional limitations. We’re at a point where anyone’s views can be expressed and viewed on some medium or other, which has hitherto been unseen. I suppose that’s a kind of democracy. But it necessarily leads to people reading or listening to views they’re not used to, and finally to censorship.

It’s not the discourse itself that is spiralling out of control, for an increasing accessibility to avenues of expression and communication is arguably an encouraging occurrence, but the reaction to it will lead to far greater perils.

I already look forward to tell you I told you so.

Tell me now.

but in comparing him to other leaders worldwide, I don’t see it. It’s as simple as that. — NOS4A2

Then you don't want to look or simply refuse to look. There has been a few, one African president that refused to go after losing elections... and after a bit of insistence went out.

Who tried to kill the United States of America. — tim wood

Giving the finger to the Constitution and wanting to stay in power by whatever means isn't a way to kill a country. Have some trust in your country.

I think the really ominous sign was people like general Flynn who insisted that Trump should get the armed forces involved. Luckily Trump is just a bully and wouldn't really go through (or in his ineptness incapable of doing so.)

Former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn on Thursday said that President Trump could deploy the military to “rerun” the 2020 election.

During an appearance on Newsmax’s “Greg Kelly Reports,” Flynn was asked about the actions the president could take to undo the results of the election.

After Flynn suggested that the president could seize every voting machine across the country, he then suggested deploying the military in swing states that the president lost to President-elect Joe Biden.

“He could order, within the swing states if he wanted to, he could take military capabilities and basically rerun an election each in those states,” Flynn said.

Flynn, who has worked in special forces and has lead the Defense Intelligence Agency, are the kind of guys that you really have to look out for. They wouldn't fuck around (while Trump is all about fucking around). If given the power people like Flynn wouldn't just watch on TV how the events are happening after getting the people to march to the Capitol Hill as Trump did.

Yet that 9/11 moment of total strategic surprise has gone past and an autocoup, a form of coup d'état in which the leader of the state that has come to power through legal means, dissolves or renders powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assumes extraordinary powers, isn't going to be so easy anymore in the US.

I think the really ominous sign was people like general Flynn who insisted that Trump should get the armed forces involved. Luckily Trump is just a bully and wouldn't really go through (or in his ineptness incapable of doing so.) — ssu

This is the first thing I've read that sparks some doubt about Trump for me. Indeed, why didn't Trump get the armed forces involved after having lost the election!

why didn't Trump get the armed forces involved after having lost the election! — baker

Have you followed the debate about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley?

The US armed forces are not exactly a pushover institute. Since the George Floyd riots, there had been friction between the military and the Trump team.

First, basically Trump would have had to basically fire all the heads of the military and replace them with yes-men. Possible, even if difficult, but this would have needed a plan and decisive leadership to be carried through. Trump lacked both. Trump pinned his hopes on Pence and when that didn't work, had nothing left than just to watch his followers have a blast at occupying Capitol Hill. Just as nearly everything Trump did and does, is decided on the moment and fired from the hip.

In fact Milley has been quite consistent on his view that the armed forces won't get into politics. And if you think that he or the US armed forces will do anything and have a "yess suh, whatever you say suh!" attitude toward Presidents, please listen to the following clip that Milley gave in a speech during the chaotic last November 2020. The speech is pretty much intended as a communication to the Trump people and where the military stands on the election, because it's not your ordinary speech you give in a museum:



Armed forces typically don't have to acknowledge election results. That happened in the US in the last elections.That Milley was worried about the possibility of Trump launching a strike at the Chinese (or somebody) and questioning Trump's abilities just shows how much distrust there was between Trump and his military.

The US armed forces are not exactly a pushover institute. Since the George Floyd riots, there had been friction between the military and the Trump team.
/.../ — ssu

I was much surprised by this at the time, and couldn't make sense of it.

In fact Milley has been quite consistent on his view that the armed forces won't get into politics. And if you think that he or the US armed forces will do anything and have a "yess suh, whatever you say suh!" attitude toward Presidents, please listen to the following clip that Milley gave in a speech during the chaotic last November 2020.

This is peculiar.

The country I live in, Slovenia, has been having a crisis as well. The right wing government issued a decree according to which most government employees would have to be either recovered or vaccinated in order to still come to work (with the decree, the government removed the T condition from RVT). The union of the police filed a motion to the constitutional court to assess whether the decree is constitutional or not. The constitutional court temporarily held back the enforcement of the decree, we're still waiting for its decision.

The salient point is that about 30% of the military and the police are not vaccinated and if these people would not come to work, the military and the police would be rendered defunct or at least seriously impaired. I am very much surprised by this, given that it always seemed like the military and the police are on the side of the current government (and the current government did put many of their own people in high positions in the military and the police).

This isn't just in the US, it's a global trend. Polarization (and simplificationism) appear to be the logical consequences of democracy.

Democracy wasn't born out of some deep mutual respect people would have for eachother, but is merely one of the options for what to do when there is no hereditary monarchy (or its equivalent) in place.
Don't forget that the original motto of the French Revolution was Liberté, égalité, fraternité ou la mort. — baker

Democracy is a necessary safety valve. But basically if the economy goes bust and people are really unhappy about the situation, then ugly things and talk can emerge. And then it isn't just the administration in charge that people are angry about, usually people get fed up with the mainstream political parties and some start looking at what earlier was "the fringe". And this is how radicals can seize the moment and the loonies get into the center stage while people start to hate "the moderates".

You don't think there's a fundamental difference between how information was searched for and reached us before Google and Facebook and now? We've got record numbers of people believing the worst things without any ability to even listen to opposing views.

I've been on this and the old forum since 2003. Discourse has significantly changed here too. Before, it was only philosophy of religion that was shit. Nowadays it's politics too. — Benkei

I usually didn't (and don't) participate in the philosophy of religion forum. Well, the talk was still quite heated when the war on Iraq happened, that I remember. People came to the old forum "to defend" the actions of the Bush administration in invading Iraq. So the present isn't so new.

I really invite you to read more about the information apocalypse, how deception unmoors us from reality and how it becomes increasingly difficult to tell reality from fake news How targeted distribution of information leads to information going "viral" in ways it didn't and couldn't before. — Benkei

But notice one thing: Both you and your countrymen as I and other Finns share this similar media environment with the Americans. Yet Dutch politics or Finnish politics aren't as polarized as US politics with houses of government being occupied (at least that I know, I could be wrong about Dutch politics, but do know how it's here).

I would say one decisive difference is that both in Finland and the Netherlands and unlike in the US, there has to be coalition governments, which means that the parties simply have to get along somehow. In the US 'winner wins everything'-system there isn't any need to be diplomatic with the other party. It's the other way around: the two parties who actually share a lot of policies have differentiate from the other and activate people to vote for them by depicted how bad the other party is. And this has gone totally out of control in the US.

So basically my point is that the "information apocalypse" doesn't polarize politics itself, but once if polarization is sought, it really amplifies it a lot. Yet there has to be larger reasons for the polarization itself. Otherwise I guess Finns and Dutch people would be storming their Parliaments and talk about a new civil war....for, I don't know, for some reason.

Enjoying the global media issues in the Netherlands...


...and in Finland, try to spot the persons of colour in the crowd.

The constitutional court temporarily held back the enforcement of the decree, we're still waiting for its decision. — baker

This is actually what is happening and has happened in many countries. The pandemic has put the ruling administrations in a tough spot and if the emergency laws aren't up to it (as usual), it causes this kind of friction where governments have to back down because of legal reasons. Has happened here too. But I guess it still far from a threat of there happening a self coup or the polarization of politics in the US.

I am very much surprised by this, given that it always seemed like the military and the police are on the side of the current government — baker

The police or the military don't go on strike as other government workers can do. They do understand their important unique role. Yet don't think that they as government employees wouldn't share the features similar with other government employees. They naturally have an idea of how to do their job. It's always one thing for a political leadership to make up policies, totally another thing if the goverment bodies implement them.

But notice one thing: Both you and your countrymen as I and other Finns share this similar media environment with the Americans. Yet Dutch politics or Finnish politics aren't as polarized as US politics with houses of government being occupied (at least that I know, I could be wrong about Dutch politics, but do know how it's here). — ssu

ahahaha, it is definitely polarised and getting crazier by the year. We're lucky we have a lot of political parties which means the extremes don't have a lot of chance.

Btw, have a look at this: https://mashable.com/video/facebook-leaker-frances-haugen-60-minutes

Caren White opines ...

Trump is Showing Us What His Second Term Would Look Like (Oct 3, 2021)

comparing him to other leaders worldwide, I don’t see it. It’s as simple as that. — NOS4A2

:lol:

I’m shocked.

I imagine that’s a perpetual thing with you, Mike.

Still waiting for you to tell me so.

This is actually what is happening and has happened in many countries. The pandemic has put the ruling administrations in a tough spot and if the emergency laws aren't up to it (as usual), it causes this kind of friction where governments have to back down because of legal reasons. Has happened here too. But I guess it still far from a threat of there happening a self coup or the polarization of politics in the US. — ssu

Actually, our current government has been using the pandemic to advance its own agenda. These same politicians have tried to establish a totalitarian right wing regime before when they were the government. As irony would have it, there was a political crisis and a change of government (with the current one coming into position) just a few weeks before the outbreak of the pandemic.

I imagine that’s a perpetual thing with you, Mike. — NOS4A2

Laughing at your utter predictability? Yes, that's a perpetual thing.

Still don't understand how he can be allowed to participate when he won't observe the house rules.

Yeah, not interested. You can find plenty on the internet.