So quote me saying that—or, of course, anything that a reasonable person might take to mean that.
If you insist.
Are you serious? You flat out stated in your own OP that:
So… what, we’re no longer going to be able to voice our opinions of TFG because what, space aliens are going to take away our freedom of speech, because how on earth are we supposed to believe TFG has the intellect to do it himself based upon you stating that we are going to be unable to post our true opinions of TFG here or anywhere else in a month?
Sorry, you’re either trolling or incredibly stupid.
And where in that is what you claimed is in it:
Please point out where I said (in any phrasing):
- “all hope is lost”
- “democracy is over forever” and/or
- “we’re all going to be dead or in a concentration camp in a few weeks”
You are getting positively Trumpian in your ability to just make stuff up.
Awesome projection, but again: where on earth in anything I’ve written is ‘Trump has the intellect and expertise’ to do anything at all?
Why would ‘something happens via action by the federal government under Trump’ imply that TRUMP was smart or competent?
This is the disconnect you’ve been claiming, nonsensically. That I’d said that something might happen and that (according to you) proves that Trump is smart and/or competent.
This is breathtakingly illogical of you. Why are you claiming such a thing?
I already did. If you want to say that you didn’t say what you said and your OP isn’t about what it’s about, then please tell the class what you were TRYING to say instead.
“Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?”
Recall that people here can read.
Looks like this is one of those threads where repetition is called for:
That wasn’t a poorly framed side comment: it was the OP’s thesis.
It wasn’t accurate and it was sufficiently inaccurate to be unhelpful. Trump wants to overwhelm the opposition with fireworks and the Resistance needs to stay in focus. Linked from TPM, Ben Raderstorf provides pointers:
1 ) Are your predictions a reflection more of your emotional state than specific empirical evidence? Facile cynicism (bad) != informed skepticism (good). “How do we know bad-thing won’t happen”, puts the cart before the horse. Ok, this one is by me, not Raderstorf.
I said we need to stay focused. What does that mean? Insofar as Trump’s bombast is concerned:
2 ) Is the action tangible, actionable, and detailed? Or intangible, abstract, and vague? Focus on Homeland Security not vague threats to invade Greenland.
3 ) Does this thing cause irreparable harm to real people?
4 ) Does this action target the opposition in a way that may cause anticipatory obedience?
Me: Hystericism encourages anticipatory obedience. Don’t do that.
5 ) Does this entrench the authoritarian faction in power and make it more difficult to dislodge?
I suppose we can compare notes a month from now, then. If either of us have been thrown in gulag for speaking ill of Dear Leader, I owe you a Coke.
How are you going to get a Coke into or from a gulag?
Smuggling.
I should say that the sort of perspective expressed by Sherrerd is quite common and eminently forgivable. Contemplating the apocalypse is less stressful than grappling with the uncertainty ahead. But near term threats are per-requisite to mortal threats to the Republic. So we should focus on the tangible.
This just in: Proud Boys insurrectionist Enrique Tarrio is reportedly going home from prison. I trust the patriots at antifa will be keeping tabs.
I’ll figure that part out when I get to it.
Indeed. He (and his succession of marquee proxies like Musk and Ramaswany) likes to troll and trigger and flood the zone with shit so that there’s no chance to concentrate on what may be actually happening.
…
And we have been very circumspect about it but we all know that the reiteration of the “we’re all going to be dead or in a concentration camp in a few weeks” scenario is almost a trademark of an individual Doper who is NOT in this thread, and yes it is tedious and annoying as shyte but I don’t recall even them predicting it happening THAT fast. Deep steady breaths, everyone…
I believe they gave us 6 to 9 months as of November.
Ok, but predictions for what the next fascist will do are different than predictions over the next 1 or 6 months. We should direct the bulk of our attention at the actions Raderstorf lists: I think he struck a good balance between short and medium term. Do that, and the fascists won’t have a long term. Working in our favor is the historical observation that fascism tends to burn itself out.
The problem with this view of mine, is that climate trends that were long term in 1990 are now upon us and are intensifying. Build back better was a solid step in the proper direction - the first one by policymakers - but it lacked among other things a strong R&D program. Stranger:
The straw men continue to pile up. I bet Ben Raderstorf doesn’t advocate for them, so I have to wonder at the eagerness to promulgate them:
I began by noting that neither of Trump’s heroes, Vlad of Russia and Xi of China, permit dissent. I then provided some Specific Empirical Evidence in the form of reporting by organizations such as Freedom House. Your straw man looks rather woebegone.
Yes, I agree. That’s why I refrained from hystericism*. Trump’s heroes disallow dissent; you believe it’s “hysterical” to predict that he might like to emulate him? Or “hysterical” to note that he appears to feel unconstrained by the usually-claimed “guard rails”?
If so, you’ve failed to make that case.
Please quote any claims you believe I’ve made about gulags; note that your straw man isn’t strong enough to hold up the “I already did” ploy. He’ll collapse under its disreputable weight.
This is a particularly threadbare (straw-bare?) straw man. Noting that dissent isn’t allowed by Trump’s heroes isn’t “contemplating the apocalypse,” it’s merely the recording of facts.
None of you have yet to offer a single piece of “specific empirical evidence” that Trump favors permitting dissent, by the way. I would challenge you to support your argument.
(Mr. ‘can’t we just shoot protesters in the legs’ Trump doesn’t appear to have provided you with much, it’s true.)
Hello, man of straw. Too bad you can’t support your claim with any evidence that I’ve posted anything equivalent to this.
Since apparently no one (yet) wants to engage with the actual content of this thread, instead providing the Dance of the Men Made of Straw, I’ll restate the obvious:
- Trump’s heroes don’t permit dissent
- Trump is unconstrained by a need to win another election; SCOTUS has signaled he need not fear prosecution for any violations of our laws, including the Constitution.
- So what will stop him from instructing his minions to begin steps to make our system more like those of Russia and China?
As to one of the ways in which this may be accomplished: see the next post.
.
.
* I wanted to quote you accurately, but this is a very odd coinage. Why not the clearer “hysterics” or “hysteria”?
Today Greg Sargent published an article outlining a plausible method by which the Trump Administration is likely to claim unbounded power to do…whatever they like, in the name of protecting the nation from “invasion.”
Trump can hold these powers as long as he claims that “invasion” is occurring:
This is a bit from a longish article appearing behind a paywall (at The New Republic). Inputting the title “Trump’s Awful New “Invasion” Executive Order is One of His Darkest Yet” does yield some other sources. Sargent himself has posted what seems to be the whole article in chunks on his Bluesky account:
If we are at war, not with Eastasia but with an “invasion,” then Congress apparently becomes at least somewhat irrelevant to the task of constraining Trump, as would the courts. We’re not there yet. But unhysterical people—people allergic to conspiracy theorizing—seem to believe that this is the plan.
Here’s the firewalled source (I apologize for not having any ability to provide a free look, but as I mention, the author has posted all or most of it at Bluesky–see above.)
I do protest, may I point out at no point was I addressing that to YOU. One can see by reading that paragraph I was in fact stating that THAT sentiment was only being expressed by someone NOT in this thread.
Alright.
I see that Trump has removed the security details of John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Pompeo’s top aide Brian Hook. The last two face a credible, current, ongoing threat from Iran (for their participation in the January 2020 killing of Iran’s Soleimani, on Trump’s behalf).
Bolton has spoken out against Trump but neither Pompeo nor Hook has done so. So “retribution” can’t be the reason that Trump is choosing to endanger their lives.
In related news: Trump’s minions are memory-holing vast swaths of information—including the US Constitution, which was removed from its government website.
Of course these websites and features weren’t removed because they contained open criticism of Trump. But it’s easy to see how someone wanting facts on which to base their criticism of Trump, might have tried to use them. (Also, of course, the removals are badges of Culture Warrior status for Donald.)