An ex-MAGA activist warns “no civic savior is coming” as Donald Trump’s cognitive decline becomes undeniable
What if Donald Trump defeats President Biden and takes control of the White House in 2025? He has already announced his plans to become the country’s first dictator, and to launch a reign of terror and revenge against his so-called enemies. As detailed in documents such as Project 2025, Agenda 47, and elsewhere, the infrastructure is being created right now to put Trump’s neofascist plans to end multiracial pluralistic democracy in effect on “day one." The so-called resistance will not have the courtesy of ramping up or mobilizing to stop Dictator Trump’s onslaught. It will be a “shock and awe” campaign visited upon the American people.
Dictator Trump’s reign of terror will be made even worse by the fact that as shown during recent speeches, interviews, and at other events he appears to be encountering severe difficulties in cognition, language, and memory.
In a series of recent conversations with me here at Salon, Dr. John Gartner, a prominent psychologist and contributor to the bestselling book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President,” has issued this warning: “Not enough people are sounding the alarm, that based on his behavior, and in my opinion, Donald Trump is dangerously demented. In fact, we are seeing the opposite among too many in the news media, the political leaders and among the public. There is also this focus on Biden’s gaffes or other things that are well within the normal limits of aging. By comparison, Trump appears to be showing gross signs of dementia. This is a tale of two brains. Biden’s brain is aging. Trump’s brain is dementing.”
Until and unless we have a way to artificially enhance intelligence - or find some other way to push human nature forward - we will likely always be stuck with some significant minority of the deplorables. The trick is to not give them any power or say whatsoever, though.
Sounds like he’s well qualified to be the first king of the USA. He’s got everything. A ridiculous family tree, he’s loony, he’s corrupt, he’s bankrupt. All hail king Trump the first!
King Donald I. They use first names for kings
Yeah, it would be the first king in the Trump dynasty. Blech.
Maybe if people understood electoral design and consensus mechanism we could have something other than the worst possible options in each party. Election mechanisms that promote popularity instead of acceptability is what got us here. The truth is the system doesn’t work. When can people just start saying that openly?
You will choose between two senile candidates. One a psychopath wannabe dictator, the other one a genocide enabler. I am not jealous.
Sorry to challenge your worldview, but they are both genocide enablers. Arguably one of them already directly committed one by not taking the pandemic seriously. Not all 1 mil+ covid deaths are on his hands but many, many of them are.
I agree with you that they are both genocide enablers but calling the pandemic a genocide doesn’t quite work. It didn’t wipe an entire group of people off of the planet or out of an area. But yes, anyone who supports Israel right now is a genocide enabler, literally, and unfortunately both qualify, and so does almost all of congress.
If the system only gives you genocide enablers as an option it’s time to stop believing in that system.
If the system only gives you genocide enablers as an option it’s time to stop believing in that system.
calling the pandemic a genocide doesn’t quite work.
Thank you for saying this. Yes. It was a mass casualty event perpetrated by willful incompetence of the highest degree, but it was an indiscriminate killer, not a targeted attack on a certain subset of human beings.
I notice people, especially fellow left-leaners, throwing the term “genocide” around like it just means “kills a bunch of people in some country or something.” It’s a strongly-worded appeal to emotion, and the heinousness of such a crime loses its meaning when it isn’t specific.
By all means lets accuse these politicians of the crimes they commit, but we lose credibility when we ignore literacy in exchange for drumming up fervor.
Why should this challenge my worldview? I literally called him a psychopath. I just despice both of them.
“One of them is a genocide enabler”. The wording of A is this, B is that, asserts contrast and not a shared characteristic. Just a friendly reminder that both of them are genocide enablers.
Trump didn’t have the chance yet. But yes, I agree that he is an aspiring genocide enabler. Doesn’t change my views about Biden, though.
Sorry, you didn’t shatter any worldviews today, but we had a nice chatter about semantics.
Israel has been plotting genocide for quite a while and anyone who has kept a bead on Israel knows that. If you supported them even before the immediately recent actions you are still a genocide enabler. So it’s still both.
I too, prefer my politicians bland.
Ok, maybe a little paprika.
Trump does look like a well spiced bird that’s been under a heat lamp for about 40 years.
Biden looks like a bland bird that’s been left to boil in a pot for 10.
Trump will also enable the genocide and remove all aid to Ukraine to give to Israel too.
As long as it all cycles back to the defense contractors the real people in power in washington would let him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD6kvDHbIYY
Quite possible.
He’s already said as much. So I’d imagine it’s more incipient than possible
What’s terrifying about MAGA isn’t Trump, it’s who comes next.
A second term for Trump will be terrible, but it’ll end fairly quickly as I don’t think he’s going to live another 10 years.
However, if you take a look at the “Next generation” they are all copying trumpism but just making it a bit more crazy. Vivek is the poster child for this behavior. They are finding more and more than just abandoning pretext and saying the quiet part outloud doesn’t lose elections.
The only way to stop this is having the GOP lose over and over and over again. After Biden’s presidency the GOP cannot see power for at least another decade otherwise it will just snowball into more extreme craziness (it may do that anyways as the insane base will keep moderates out of office).
Cults of personality tend to die when the leader at the center goes away (by jail or death or something else). There are exceptions, but it’s what tends to happen.
You can see this in the lackluster performance of down ballot candidates who get Trump endorsements. The cult wants Trump, the singular man. They don’t turn out to put his lackeys into power. Some of them still win because they’re in safe red districts, but they don’t win as hard as they should.
It’s a lesson Caesar’s Legion in Fallout New Vegas taught us. A cult built around a charismatic leader often collapses into infighting when the leader dies. They follow the man, not his ideals. It may not happen right away, but it will given enough time. The followers will start to disagree on small things, some will be scooped up by some other charismatic grifter. In the end the movement fractures.
Not disagreeing with you necessarily, but I just love how you used a fictional example to learn from, which could be total bullshit since fiction is just that, made up.
Or we can look at a real world example. Scientology.
The same thing happened with Alexander the Great.
What? Which ones?
I’m actually drawing blanks. Perhaps it’s survivorship bias but to me it seems like most cults of personality stick around if there’s no force actively shutting them down, generally with violence.
Nazi germany, for example, didn’t end because hitler died. It ended because the allies and the soviet union occupied germany for decades squelching any Nazi sentiment. Ditto for Japan with the Hirohito (who himself was in a long line of royals that still continues just with muted power). You can look at mormonism where the founder was killed by a mob, that’s still very much alive. Or Scientology where the leader had a heart attack. Heck, even the moonies are still around.
Without a heavy societal push, cults of personality very often linger.
Oneida Cult. It dispersed almost immediately when the founder was arrested, and all that remains is the silverware manufacturer. Quite a few other examples in upstate New York in the 19th century, which was a very popular place to start weird new religious movements. There were tons of them, but you only hear about a handful that survived–Mormons, 7th Day Adventists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses are about it.
Nazis did fight right up to the point where Hitler died. He was the one pushing them to fight until every man, woman, and child in Germany was dead. Hitler died on April 30, and the official surrender happened on May 2. Nobody was actually interested in continuing to let Germany burn.
So yes, it’s a matter of survivorship bias. You know the counter examples because they stayed around, but they’re exceptions.
Without a heavy societal push, cults of personality very often linger.
They may linger, but they never have the power they used to. If they do, they have to rebuild from scratch, which is more or less what Trump does with white supremacists.
They may linger, but they never have the power they used to. If they do, they have to rebuild from scratch, which is more or less what Trump does with white supremacists.
I guess this is what generally concerns me about trump. I don’t think he’ll be replaced while he’s alive. However, the apparatus that made him a god amoung racists is still in place and hasn’t substantially been changed since he left office.
What’s frightening to me is it just takes the rightwing grifters to rally on another god king to ultimately start this problem anew. We have an entire “media” ecosystem that’s now learned that fascism is actually kind of cool.
The only hope, it seems to me, is that his supporters tend to be old people that will end up dying around the same time he does.
I’ll also say that I don’t think the study of cults (or more accurately to the terminology of the field, high control organizations and the BITE model) are very well developed. They’re focused on identifying them, and helping individuals leave and reacclimate to the larger society. There’s very little research on how high control organizations end, why the cults of personality that survived in the long run managed to do so, or tactics that could be used to dissolve them on a greater scale.
Here’s the thing, I’m not sure I’d totally classify Trumpism as a high control org. It certainly has aspects of it, but it probably more closely resembles the hippy movement of the 60s (from which many cults did spring). The only real core belief is how awesome trump is. Beyond that it’s a bunch of fringe and frayed beliefs based whatever that individual might believe.
For example, I have black in-laws that are also trump supporters (yeah… I know) who are convinced that Trump isn’t racist AND that trump has this secret plan that would have made all black people fabulously wealthy, Had Joe biden not stolen the election. It was something that was always on the cusp of happening were it not for “the deep state”.
I don’t think this is a mainstream trump belief but I now have to wonder how many trumpist have these sorts of special whacky beliefs untethered from the reality of who trump is.
But then there’s another phenomena that seems somewhat unique to trump which is, when he says something they do not like it’s “He didn’t say that. Oh, he did say that? Well he didn’t mean that, it was just something he said for X reason”. That is, they don’t actually care about what Trump says or does, they care about what he represents. Trump can’t really command his followers super effectively because half the time they are going to think he’s “just being trump”. This is also where it’s scary because a number of his followers want violence and I don’t think trump could stop them if they started down that path.
I don’t think this is a mainstream trump belief but I now have to wonder how many trumpist have these sorts of special whacky beliefs untethered from the reality of who trump is.
As a former Jehovah’s Witness myself, I can see parallels here. There are often things believed by rank and file members that don’t match up with what people at the top are saying.
For example, if you were to ask regular JWs what the doctrine says about the Big Bang theory, you would get an answer consistent with most fundamentalists Christians–that is, throwing it in the same bucket as evolution. However, I’ve also gone over the actual published material on the subject, and it’s not actually obvious what the official stance is. Much of what has been written in official material is along the lines of “the Big Bang shows that science agrees that the universe has a beginning, just like Genesis says”. It never quite comes right out and approves it, but it never strongly denies it, either. It’s a major contrast from evolution, where the official stance is quite clear.
They seem to be fully aware that the rank and file think one thing, but the official doctrine in place is something else. I find that even many former members are surprised to learn this.
I bring this up to say that you might be seeing a similar thing among your relatives. There are all sorts of crazy Trump beliefs that derive from nothing the man has actually done or said. People will imprint their own thoughts and hopes into places where there is otherwise a vacuum of things the cult tells you to think.
Scientology is a religion, was always meant to be a religion. Trump isn’t going down that angle. Ironically, he’s too much of a narcissist to have the self inflection enough to become a religious leader.
With something like Trump, who else in the party is going to take up the banner? DeSantis? He got completely fucking disgraced this last year attempting that. Haley? She’s a sociopath and nobody really likes her on either side. Trumps children? They’re about as charismatic as a wet sock.
He has no legacy. He’s it. It’s the weakpoint of serial narcissists. Their empire collapses when they do, because they’re too insanely jealous to share any secrets or power with anyone else.
Can’t stop the power sharing once you are dead.
I’ve no clue who 2.0 will be. Could be someone not on the stage at the moment, could be someone like Jim Jordan or Matt Gaetz. There’s lots of options to be sorted out after Trump dies.
I view it sort of like the situation with the major rightwing propagandists. When Rush Limbaugh died, that wasn’t the end of rightwing propaganda, there were already new shitheads in the rafters like Tucker Carlson that’d eaten up the space.
With Tucker off the air, there’s now Jessie Waters (or whatever) doing his part. Before that there was bill oriely.
Trump might not be setting up a dynasty but that’s not really what I’m concerned about, I’m concerned about him setting up fascism that’s willing to glom onto the next leader like it glomed on to him.
TBF, the only thing that matters is if he lives another 4 years. 8 if he loses this election.
The implication is that if Trump wins, he won’t be leaving in 4 years. He won’t be leaving until death. Because that’s what dictators do.
But doesn’t that just mean they will go back to not saying the quiet part out loud? Doubt they will actually change and have someone decent as a candidate anytime soon.
Exactly. Conservatives do not change. They just change how loud they are about their bigotry.
Trump has also stated he wants to be a dictator on day 1. This plus all of the other anti-democratic stances of the Republicans has me convinced that if Republicans win in 2024, there isn’t going to be another real election in the US. It’ll either be so corrupt, abbreviated or “managed” that it’s effectively Russia, or there will be an “emergency” that delays a national election indefinitely.
And then when we stop following the laws and the election is cancelled, we’ll see if the second amendment actually matters.
2nd amendment won’t matter unless a very specific thing happens: the entire government and executive branches, namely the military, collapses. It really depends on what the military does and enforces domestically. Whatever government the greater military props up wins and nothing individual citizens do can compete with that.
If everything collapses, famine will be the prime mover. And if you’re not part of a roving band of armed looters or an entrenched armed community, you’re screwed.
the only way to stop this is having the GOP lose over and over and over again.
This is asking a lot imo. You’re asking everyone to be vigilant and I think the last 10 years have proven that a significant proportion of the voter population cannot be relied on to be vigilant, because they’re content in being myopic.
That seems to be the weak point of a republic. I just watched a video essay on YouTube about the politics of Star Wars and how the Republic fell to the Empire and I think the guy made a lot of good points and it included a call to action in our elections. I think Star Wars is known to have taken from the fall of the Roman Republic and there’s more recent examples of the death of a democracy in the Weimar Republic in Germany.
With the two real life examples, all it took was a prolonged period of decay (from inside and outside factors) to lead to the Roman Autocratic Empire and Nazi Germany. I’d argue the US was on this relative path before with the America First party that rose to oppose FDR in the 1930’s. All it may take is another bad world event to push people into being content with a populist autocrat like Trump.
I’m still hopeful, but we should all take the lessons of the past into account when deciding how to move forward.
Not to mention that the resistance is immensely fractured. I’m still not sure that we’ve seen an event heinous enough to galvanize the opposition past ideological boundaries. For many, stopping Trump is not yet enough to delay their potential political gains. Populism rides on the strongest human emotions, the easiest and vaguest enemies, and the simplest (wrong) answers. It’s going to take a united effort, the sort that was brought about by the geopolitical situation in the FDR era, or I worry that we fail.
The “resistance” is clustering themselves into smaller and smaller areas and because of our shitty representative apportionment they lose political power when moving to populated places.
If we want to fix this we need to convince people that the amenities in cities aren’t going to survive when the federal government mainly represents empty land and thinks those amenities are from Satan.
I’m not exactly going to fault persecuted people for fleeing their homes. It’s not always about “amenities” as much as it is safety and belonging. I’m not against the idea that this dilutes our political power in our system, but I’m also not sure that it’s the front I’m going to choose to fight on.
Absolutely. There are definitely people who need to leave in order to be safe.
But when I talk to people who don’t have that problem about living in flyover country their first response is “There’s nothing to do out there.”
Guess this one just hit close to home since I am one of the aforementioned runners. I do think that if someone is in the position to be able to contribute their vote in an area where it will make more impact, they should do so. I guess I just also understand not wanting to dictate so much of your life for a minor bump in a political cause, imperative as it might be. It’s a hard situation all around.
Wait a minute, if we get rid of the Republican Party, wouldn’t a two party system become a one party system? So if Trump is elected, end of democracy, if Republican party is destroyed, also end of democracy? Is there no way out? End of democracy either way?
There are plenty of other parties.
Even if the Republican party disappears I guarentee liberals will tell you voting for a party like the greens or cpusa would be a wasted vote. It’s the only strategy they have other than not being republicans.
The real fix is to get rid of the electoral college. Only then will the will of the people be felt.
Yes, but it’s more than that. The electoral college only affects the presidency. We also need ranked choice voting. The first-past-the-post system assures the dominance of two parties, which can play the voters off each other to do whatever the donor/capitalist class wants. Mandatory voting and fully publicly financed elections would also be huge wins.
I’m not a political scientist but I watched Hamilton one time, and I think what would happen is the parties start to move around. Right now both parties are unfortunately right leaning.
Democrats, by European standards, are middle-right, while Republicans are
chaotic evilfar right. Maybe the parties start moving closer to the left?I hope so, sounds very risky to get rid of Republican party first and then wait in a one party system until something changes. I am afraid that once you have someone with complete power, they will use it to stay in power forever.
The two party system isn’t the rule as much as it is a symptom of our winner-takes-all voting system. In the event that the Republican party loses significant support from voters, the Democratic party would surely split into two polar factions.
In countries with one party systems they also have winner-takes-all voting system. I think that without two parties at least, one party will take over complete power and use it to stay in power forever.
The Democrats because what they already are: the right wing corporatist party, and hopefully leftists actually form a coalition and a party
Maybe this is me being overly optimistic, but ideally if the Republican party ends, the power vacuum left behind would be filled by multiple parties, who would be more motivated to do things like implement ranked choice voting, abolish the electoral college, fix gerrymandered districts, etc. So we’d end up with a multiple party system. Maybe. Hopefully.
Ranked choice has to precede a pluralistic system. We’ve had similar upheavals before, a long time ago (one presaged the civil war), but as long as we have first-past-the-post, it will always settle into two-party lock-in. But, and this is the good news, after the civil war, we had the second founding - a massive overhaul of the Constitution, for the better. If, in the aftermath of the death of the Republican party, we get another chance at that, (hopefully without all the killing), maybe we can enact ranked choice, eliminate the electoral college, ban gerrymandering, establish mandatory voting, add an enforced “none of the above” option to ballots, expand the Supreme Court, uncap the House of Reps limit, eliminate the senatorial land-vote in favor of proportional representation, get fully publicly funded elections, and and and am I asking too much? I just want a real democracy.
Extremely optimistic.
The two party system currently is holding hostage debates/funding/media. Even social media is in on it. Which is why a third party has always struggled. Not because they didn’t have good ideas, but because they were shut out of the room.
The two-party system is a system, and systems can be changed. If the Republican party finally implodes, just as when the Whigs did, it will be an amazing opportunity for progress. We need to be ready to move.
Yeah I don’t disagree with you. But for what it’s worth, I think there’s a chance that we could end up with a multi-party system if the Republican party dissolves. If the Democratic party disappears, I think it’s a whole other story.
We need to enact schrodinger’s vote. Put the Democrats and Republicans in a box and never check on them again. Are they dead or alive? Walking fossils are kind of both. 🤔
No more than the death of the whigs. A dead Republican Party creates a vacuum for either the democrats to split or a third party to ascend
I bet that will work about as well as trickle down economics.
Nah, the US-system is mathematically locked in a two-party system, it absolutely demolishes the chance for a third party but doesn’t tolerate a single party either. Though it might take 8 - 12 years for the (former) republican vote to congeal around a new point of possible agreement.
Yeah, I don’t think this article makes sense. I don’t think Republican party will die until we change elections into ranked choice voting or direct democracy.
Okay? Your prediction is based on what exactly? You’re pitching a hypothetical outcome to a hypothetical situation. We’re in the factual shallow end here.
We’ve had party changes and party restructures before. It’s not unheard of. There is the third option of the republicans needing to restructure and hide for a while like they did after the new deal.
So in the mean time, before this restructure, if it happens at all, there would be a period where one party would have unlimited power? Sounds like very risky, if it gets to that point, they can use that power to stay in power forever. I think we need ranked choice voting before we get rid of republicans or some sort of direct democracy.
I fully agree with tanked choice, and want to pressure politicians towards it. Hell I’ve been parliament curious lately. But I also understand the difference between realistic and unrealistic worries. The democrats are a catch all party with less cohesion than would be necessary for a tyrannical single party. And it’s not unlimited power, there are usually a few independents in congress. If the republicans collapse we’ll either have a replacement party within like an election or two or we’ll have a lot of independents very quickly.
I’m not saying that a single party isn’t bad. My home state is so gerrymandered that republicans brazenly defy the will of the citizens. Like we added abortion to our constitution and legalized marijuana by ballot initiative and the republicans in charge promptly considered banning abortion anyways and have been fighting over how best to gut the marijuana legislation we voted on since. But there’s a huge difference between gerrymandering and other means by which a single party holds control and a major party collapsing because it’s become so toxic it can no longer win
honestly I wouldn’t risk it to wait for an election or two. Once you have complete power you can use it to stay in power, gut everyone from the party that is not on your side. It is such a big risk to have a one party system, even for a short while, that risking your vote now for the third party is actually lower.
It will be a “shock and awe” campaign visited upon the American people.
This subject does not seem to be receiving the warranted attention it deserves
Trumpism is not going to be defeated by voting at this point. Pelosi: “US needs a ‘strong’ Republican Party.” Dems are fine with the good cop, bad cop dynamic.
In this case she may have been making an indirect swipe at Republicans in general, saying that the party isn’t strong.
Yeah, that’s the way I read, especially given all the republican infighting.
The country genuinely does need a competitive second party.
Everyone blames Democrats for the lack of choice in candidates, while the other guys are nominating a twice impeached, adjudicated rapist and insurrection supporter with ninety one criminal indictments and multiple pending civil suits.
I haven’t had a candidate come out of the GOP worthy of consideration in my entire lifetime. At one point, they were the party of not only Lincoln but folks like Eisenhower.
It needs an electoral system that makes third parties viable.
You know it’s bad when “BuT hE hAsN’t bEeN cOnViCtEd YeT!” is somehow a defense for supporting this guy.
Like, c’mon that nonsense wouldn’t fly pertaining to your daughter’s new boyfriend, why the heck would you let it excuse somebody running a crumbling world superpower?!
You’ve now been made a moderator of Lemmy’s conservative community. That’s exactly what they spout constantly…
Trump is here because dems wanted an easier candidate to run against. https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/
2016 was 8 years ago, and I think it’s rather weird and conspiratorial to blame Hillary for Trump in the first place. She might’ve had a preferred opponent but she certainly didn’t control the GOP. She barely controlled the DNC. She had a hard fought primary with Bernie who wasn’t even a member of the party, and had a relatively low national profile before the election.
This points at exactly what I’m talking about above. To hear you tell it, Democrats are somehow the only people with agency in the entire political landscape.
Politicians have no real agency, it is the rich that control the entire political landscape. They liked Hilary and Trump, and they told them to support elevate each other so that no matter who wins, they get their way. They do this in every election, same major donors fund both sides.
Democrats and Republicans are just puppets that pretend they are against each other, but in reality they are on the same side working for the same employers and getting votes by bashing each other.
So you had a long think on this response and decided that your take that Hillary was responsible for Trump was too nuanced? 😆
There are material differences between Democrats and Republicans and acting like there aren’t serves nobody (except perhaps Republicans).
Trump is a democrat funded candidate in republican party. They both work for the same people and same interests.
You’re an idiot
mercy-kill
I don’t see why they deserve any mercy.
Because not all sheep deserve to be slaughtered. There’s a lot of people who vote out of fear because they don’t know any better. It’s the Republican party that needs to be done away with.
exactly.
Whether we like to believe it or not, no one is the villan of their own story. I won’t deny that the Republican party courts the worst of the worst types of scumbags around us, but their propaganda machine gets so many people in so many different ways.
They managed to get my otherwise amazing gay cousin to vote for Trump by his displeasure with the Israel/Palestine conflict (this was well before the current genocide) The media he was consuming framed everything in terms of Democrat support so he was lead to believe the Republicans have the “compassionate” resolution. He votes against his own well being because of propaganda… :(
Bollocks. Anyone who still supports Trump after 6 January 2021 knows exactly what they are signing up for.
The Republican Party simply represents the voters, they’d get no votes without that.
So no, they don’t deserve mercy. The average conservative voter is the very reason we have this problem to begin with.
Politicians need someone to represent. They found it in America’s racists and nationalists.
Yes, but part of the Republican strategy is to distort the truth or history using lies. They may have found what they want or need in America’s racists and nationalists, but not until they pumped them full of misinformation first.
I think it’s important to clarify here that “the Republican Party” (see also: “the GOP”) refers to the party leaders and political figures. It doesn’t (usually) refer to the voters, although you might hear “Republican consituency” or “Republican voters”, or even “Republicans”. But “the Republican Party” is generally agreed to mean the leaders, or the organization that presents them as leaders. I think you agree with that point because you seem to be making the same clarification in your last sentence. My comment, and the article headline, are referring to this group.
I think I agree with you that the sheep don’t need to be slaughtered, although they are going to need some very tough medicine.
The people who led them to this point? No mercy.
If this were a healthy democracy, we would have a press corps that would put a spotlight on what is real and not “both sides” everything while focusing on the horse race instead of the consequences of the election.
Oh, I don’t know about that one. The job of the press corp is to report, not to speculate. This is one of the problems we have now, there’s far too much opinion and speculation in the “news” media. I have to use quotes for news because what most Americans choose to observe as the news today is a shell of what it once was. The call should be for less speculation and more unbiased reporting and interviews for both sides.
Incidentally, since I was a kid, I’ve always thought the news and government leaders have failed to educate the people about policy and intents. This seems to be where speculative and opinion based journalism have taken seat.That the media are focused on Biden‘s age, while ignoring Trump’s infirmities is absolutely maddening.
Agreed. Because (again) “the news” doesn’t so much care about their responsibility as the fourth pillar of democracy but about their responsibility to advertisers and share holders. Trump and fear have always been the Big Stories that generate ad revenue.
As James Fallows pointed out, in the New York Times there were headlines on Super Tuesday’s outcomes that Trump romped and Biden has trouble while Biden got a significantly higher percentage of votes than did Trump, which tells us all too much about media bias.
I mean, he is the incumbent president. Does anyone even know who’s running against him in a primary? No. because the media isn’t reporting that (enough).
I’m honestly a little more distraught about what the press has become than four more years of Trump. It’s in large part because of the press and media outlets pretending to be news that we have Trump in the first place.
Although, I do blame The Public’s lack of interest and attention more so. People just don’t care to watch actual news. They only care about headlines and short video clips and thriving in their echo chambers. So, as much as I’d love more federal funding for non-profit journalism, that’s not going to overcome our disinterest in real unbiased reporting and interviewing.I think the future of this country is very, very dismal. The polarization of politics can only get worse as we hand over all our Power of The People to social media and content makers and (eventually) AI – unless we adopt Ranked Choice Voting. RCV could very well reduce the polarization and extremism on both sides of the aisle while (eventually) cultivating a congress that works together to enact legislation making this country more representative of The People. As would public funding of all elections and regulating the power of special interest groups in DC.
I’m honestly a little more distraught about what the press has become than four more years of Trump. It’s in large part because of the press and media outlets pretending to be news that we have Trump in the first place.
We have intentional propaganda for political power (Fox/Newsmax) and we have propaganda for monetary gain (literally every single major media corporation) then there are a handful of outliers like NPR/PBS that not too many people pay attention to.
Actually, I felt hit over the head watching PBS Newshour after Katie Britt’s objectively bizarre SOTU response. Here’s a link to the recorded live stream timestamped immediately after Britt’s address (~2:11:00)(you’re welcome) https://www.youtube.com/live/nFMuU4uCFh0?si=70umbfLmLbqojLRj&t=7851
They responded like grown ass adults and (for the most part) on the content and relevance of her address. I don’t know how they were able to hold it together with such professionalism. I think part of it is that they have a spectrum of political leanings there who still have respect for one another. They’re there to report on the event and offer broad context to the story without getting in the weeds and bickering for ratings.
Republicans are at best corporate shit slingers and at worst fascists and pedophiles. Why do they deserve anything resembling mercy?
It is a saying…
And in the end almost everyone deserves mercy.The republican party is not a person though. Theres no need to be merciful to a ideaology, especially one that aspires to become fascism.
Bless your heart.
He misspelled politicians.
I think plotting the execution is a bit premature given how they’re winning all the judicial races.
If we seek out ways to ‘kill’ that ‘political party’ I urge we give no mercy, no quarter, and we finish the damn job.
And by “finish the job” we of course mean going all the way: Unscrewing the pommel and ending them rightly.
Although I find the meme hilarious, this makes perfect sense. That’s something I assumed as well. The pommel was likely weighted and heavy, and the shock of it coming at you and the sudden ear-ringing “CLANG” of it bouncing off your helmet was probably just wtf-disorienting enough to allow your opponent into your blind spot or deadly proximity. Ouch.
I’ve practiced something similar in martial arts, where you throw your hands wildly toward the face for a half second and take advantage of the blinking flinch for a sweep or grab.
Thanks for sharing!
I have been saying this for awhile. They need to be forced into a restructure like they did in the past. Remember the whig party? No I don’t either but its in the history books as should be the only place for the GOP.
Fitting. American democracy began with Mad King George III and will end with Mad King Trump I.
Americans have been electorally mercy killing the GOP for forty years, they invented moving the goalposts in response.
There may still be a less electoral way to mercy kill the GOP.
Americans have been electorally mercy killing the GOP for forty years
Feeling incredibly happy every time a cockroach dies of old age, because I’m pretty sure this means I’m beating them.
There may still be a less electoral way to mercy kill the GOP.
Unfortunately, the folks with the highest proclivity to try and run a rival’s campaign bus off the road aren’t in the liberal party.
They have been killing them with the popular vote. The GOP wins the electoral votes often actually.
