Jump to content
IGNORED

Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)


Nebraska

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, usagi said:

my hot tip for this one: allow yourself to type in reddit.com in your browser when you feel the urge, allow yourself to click Go, allow the page to load even, and then close it without looking at anything. for some reason deflecting the urge this way worked for me. it may take several weeks of doing this but eventually you'll forget about it, your brain will start to regrow as you stop taking insta-opinions from the ADD college kid hivemind.

I think youtube, which doesn't fall in quite the same category as FB or Twitter but is definitely at the forefront of disinformation propagation, is the hardest one to beat overall. I'm not going to kill my yt account with my 5000+ favourites playlist that I've built over 13 years. at least it's easier not to engage with others on it but there is so much bullshit content and their leadership doesn't care at all.

I didn't have an immediate improvement and there was a cost to pay in terms of my social life, but I decided that if a connection could not be maintained without FB then it was an acceptable cost given the bigger problem. over time unplugging from that shit helped realign some of my perceptions. that was a few years ago, shortly after Cambridge Analytica which I naively thought would have been the nail in the coffin for a lot more people but which was basically ignored.

About YouTube:
Use an Extension/Add-On like Clean Up Youtube.
It allows you to:
Clean Up Youtube Extension
Only watch your subscriptions -or- videos linked from watmm.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dingformung said:

- Socialise social media and put it under parliamentarian control. The idea that some tech company's para-police is responsible for handling matters of such high public importance is negligent, irresponsible and undemocratic. If you're at it, nationalise prisons, too. 

not sure i like the idea of someone like trump having authority over social media (actually i'm sure i don't). not that i claim to fully comprehend the situation or to know the best solutions to the various problems. we do need to acknowledge that these platform execs are akin to national leaders, operating as though sovereign and with enormous consequence. years ago i thought national governments would become less significant than corporations, eventually, but didn't know how the transition would play out. we are now seeing the overlapping paradigm more clearly. information is powerful.

maybe it's good that the two paradigms of digital and government contend with each-other, as a form of check and balance? kind of like the way that the corporate sphere can operate as an independent vertical of power that has the ability to provide a check on government, in the US. see: wallmart and comcast halting donations to political entities to express disfavor with recent political decisions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/business/walmart-political-donations-Republicans.html

https://www.phillyvoice.com/comcast-political-contributions-republican-objectors-capitol-riot/

Edited by very honest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, very honest said:

not sure i like the idea of someone like trump having authority over social media

Neither do I and it's not what I mean.  To socialise just means that it's publicly funded and treated like other nationalised infrastructure.  Doesn't mean it's under direct command of the US president, lol.  From the Wiki-Article about public broadcasting: "Public-sector media (state-funded) is not to be confused with state media (state-controlled), which is 'controlled financially and editorially by the state.'"

Also, someone like Trump wouldn't have got into power if social media was socialised and if there was more public-sector media.  ? 

Generally the US president has too much power, he's got almost dictator like untouchability. But fix your two party system first before you fix your presidential system, lol (won't happen ?).

4 minutes ago, very honest said:

maybe it's good that the two paradigms of digital and government contend with each-other, as a form of check and balance?

Hmmm, no - businesses can't act as a balance to the government because they aren't elected or got into power through democratic processes. I don't know how highly you value the idea of democracy but corporations are like little Soviet Unions, or can be if they want to - there is nothing democratic about them and they shouldn't be a "counterbalance" to the government. More often than not it's not the most moral companies that come out on top. The government, without being authoritarian, should have full authority to work properly for its citizens.

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

bro, walmart and comcast? are you ok? this is a completely undemocratic influence on politics lol

it's wild to me how much liberals are celebrating corporations these days. stunning stuff. i saw some blue checks on twitter giving props to Dow Chemical last week lmao. they're like an archetype of a villainous corporation but it's cool, as long as their PR department assures us they don't like republicans atm, we love and support them. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:

bro, walmart and comcast? are you ok? this is a completely undemocratic influence on politics lol

it's wild to me how much liberals are celebrating corporations these days. stunning stuff. i saw some blue checks on twitter giving props to Dow Chemical last week lmao. they're like an archetype of a villainous corporation but it's cool, as long as their PR department assures us they don't like republicans atm, we love and support them. 

you seem to be reflexively judging based on prior concepts surrounding "corporations" and "comcast" and not really considering the specific instance i was discussing. i think the point i made was pretty self-evident. please don't conflate:

  • the corporate sphere is an independent power vector that has the capacity to provide a check on government

with:

  • i approve of all things relating to large corporations and politics

no one has absolved dow chemical of all things. but yeah it's nice that they are using their power to thwart the anti-democracy threat.

Edited by very honest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, very honest said:

you seem to be reflexively judging based on prior concepts surrounding "corporations" and "comcast" and not really considering the specific instance i was discussing. i think the point i made was pretty self-evident. please don't conflate:

  • the corporate sphere is an independent power vector that has the capacity to provide a check on government

with:

  • i approve of all things relating to large corporations and politics

no one has absolved dow chemical of all things. but yeah it's nice that they are using their power to thwart the anti-democracy threat.

i would argue it's anti-democratic for corporations to have any financial influence on politics. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alcofribas said:

i would argue it's anti-democratic for corporations to have any financial influence on politics. 

yeah, their "will" is already covered by the fact that the people in the corporation can already vote. No need for anything on top of that.

Edited by Brisbot
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Alcofribas said:

i would argue it's anti-democratic for corporations to have any financial influence on politics. 

we agree campaign finance needs to be reformed, and is a root problem. dark money is a big problem. i think citizens united is up for review in the near future, that established corps as people.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

random thought - I can't believe this thread made it 5 years without getting locked or having massive amounts of posts deleted. if this discussion had occurred anywhere else online, it would have lasted maybe 2 minutes without a trumpo torpedoing in.

how can we replicate this bastion of civility that exists within these hallowed halls? how can we make the world more like us is what everyone should be asking themselves here. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just now, zero said:

random thought - I can't believe this thread made it 5 years without getting locked or having massive amounts of posts deleted. if this discussion had occurred anywhere else online, it would have lasted maybe 2 minutes without a trumpo torpedoing in.

how can we replicate this bastion of civility that exists within these hallowed halls? how can we make the world more like us is what everyone should be asking themselves here. 

Get everyone into very niche and esoteric music, of which 95% of the time left wing types are into.

  • Farnsworth 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, zero said:

random thought - I can't believe this thread made it 5 years without getting locked or having massive amounts of posts deleted. if this discussion had occurred anywhere else online, it would have lasted maybe 2 minutes without a trumpo torpedoing in.

how can we replicate this bastion of civility that exists within these hallowed halls? how can we make the world more like us is what everyone should be asking themselves here. 

i'm selling a lot of posts from here to the russians tho

  • Haha 1
  • Burger 1
  • Farnsworth 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brisbot said:

 

Get everyone into very niche and esoteric music, of which 95% of the time left wing types are into.

I'm starting to worry a little about Richard though, he might start attracting that 5% of undesirables to this world. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zero said:

I'm starting to worry a little about Richard though, he might start attracting that 5% of undesirables to this world. 

don't worry too much, plenty of us around here are very happy to let any stray new idiots know that they're idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ignatius said:

reports saying trump is going to pardon/give clemency to like a hundred people today or something. 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/17/politics/trump-pardons-expected/index.html

What does this mean for the people he pardons? Does it mean they can't be prosecuted for whatever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dingformung said:

Neither do I and it's not what I mean.  To socialise just means that it's publicly funded and treated like other nationalised infrastructure.  Doesn't mean it's under direct command of the US president, lol.  From the Wiki-Article about public broadcasting: "Public-sector media (state-funded) is not to be confused with state media (state-controlled), which is 'controlled financially and editorially by the state.'"

i take your point, but it's not that simple. departments and agencies in the US are basically all executive branch, tools of the president. mechanisms of check and balance are there but we've seen inspector generals fired when investigating trump and impeachment convictions foiled by party allegience. we've seen trump purge leadership at voice of america, socialized media. we've seen trump installing inept lackeys everywhere, leaving posts unmanned, and threatening leadership to cater to his objectives. the executive branch really got trashed in the last 4 years.

1 hour ago, dingformung said:

Generally the US president has too much power, he's got almost dictator like untouchability. But fix your two party system first before you fix your presidential system, lol (won't happen ?).

it's been a stress test, over here, and i'm hoping some legislation happens to strengthen checks and maybe institute some new ones. i agree that the office of the presidency could use major reshaping. it could easily be split into two positions, and additionally have powers stripped away. regarding the two party system, i see the shortest path away from two party to be splintering one or both of the two parties, and we see that starting to happen. i'm not sure what reinforcement mechanisms can be dismantled, or what catalysts can be introduced, to faciliate this, but this is maybe a good question to consider.

i think the most destabilizing element is the information situation. i'm hoping we're now through the worst of it. i sensed in 2016 that it would worsen, but now i hope we are seeing some of the extents.

1 hour ago, dingformung said:
1 hour ago, very honest said:

maybe it's good that the two paradigms of digital and government contend with each-other, as a form of check and balance?

Hmmm, no - businesses can't act as a balance to the government because they aren't elected or got into power through democratic processes. 

i am speaking in terms of systems design. voters are a power vector, though they are not elected. meritocracy in career positions is a check. media is a check. the corporate sphere having some type of influence i am not necessarily opposed to. 

1 hour ago, dingformung said:

corporations are like little Soviet Unions, or can be if they want to - there is nothing democratic about them and they shouldn't be a "counterbalance" to the government. More often than not it's not the most moral companies that come out on top. The government, without being authoritarian, should have full authority to work properly for its citizens.

i'm not sure where i am on whether corps should be allowed to donate. i think donations should definitely be transparent and capped, in any case. something about leaders of industry having an additional voice seems rational to me, but maybe i'm wrong. i'll reiterate that i would be for very low donation caps.

Edited by very honest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Squee said:

What does this mean for the people he pardons? Does it mean they can't be prosecuted for whatever?

they can't be prosecuted for their existing crimes i think. or things they've been indicted for. but they don't get some kind of get out of jail free card for future crimes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, very honest said:

i take your point, but it's not that simple. departments and agencies in the US are basically all executive branch, tools of the president. mechanisms of check and balance are there but we've seen inspector generals fired when investigating trump and impeachment convictions foiled by party allegience. we've seen trump purge leadership at voice of america, socialized media. we seen trump installing inept lackeys everywhere, leaving posts unmanned, and threatening leadership to cater to his objectives. the executive branch really got trashed in the last 4 years.

Are random CEOs really better than Trump? Some of them might be smarter and more ruthless psychopaths. Trump himself is a CEO. Do you think that media corporations whose purpose is first and foremost to generate returns for their investors by way of making maximum possible profit (disregarding any possible consequences) are really better than an elected government (despite gerrymandering and other ways of election interference)? Do you trust them more? Even if you can answer this question with "yes", others might want to have a say in that, too - democracy, ya know. Corporation rule is authoritarianism.

 

1 hour ago, very honest said:

i am speaking in terms of systems design. voters are a power vector, though they are not elected. meritocracy in career positions is a check. media is a check. the corporate sphere having some type of influence i am not necessarily opposed to. 

"Some type of influence" is funny, considering that the nation is basically in control of the military-industrial complex - whose influence reaches far into all other nations of the world, as well, economically, politically, intelligence wise, militarily, etc.

Lol @ thinking that the fact that voters aren't elected says anything. A Bertold Brecht quote comes to mind: "The people has forfeited the government's trust. Wouldn't it be easier if the government just elected a new people?"
 

1 hour ago, very honest said:

i'm not sure where i am on whether corps should be allowed to donate. i think donations should definitely be transparent and capped, in any case. something about leaders of industry have an additional voice seems rational to me, but maybe i'm wrong. i'll reiterate that i would be for very low donation caps.

That donations should be transparent should go without saying, unfortunately that's not the case not only in the US but in (I think) all major Western countries. In Germany, parties - on top of the donations - get state money based on the amount of votes they get. I think that's a good system and should replace donations by private corporations, who want something in return, entirely. Remove corporation donations all together - they give parties an advantage without any democratic legitimisation to do so. It's basically legalised corruption/bribery. Again, I don't know how dear you hold the idea of democracy.

 

1 hour ago, very honest said:

it's been a stress test, over here, and i'm hoping some legislation happens to strengthen checks and maybe institute some new ones. i agree that the office of the presidency could use major reshaping. it could easily be split into two positions, and additionally have powers stripped away. regarding the two party system, i see the shortest path away from two party to be splintering one or both of the two parties, and we see that starting to happen. i'm not sure what reinforcement mechanisms can be dismantled, or what catalysts can be introduced, to faciliate this, but this is maybe a good question to consider.

I think it won't happen. The system is too rigid to be fundamentally changed without major disruptions. Here's a random map for some reason:

1509018290_Bildschirmfoto2021-01-19um20_21_26.thumb.png.9e5664efcec7017916ebc345a876555c.png

Edited by dingformung
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ignatius said:

they can't be prosecuted for their existing crimes i think. or things they've been indicted for. but they don't get some kind of get out of jail free card for future crimes. 

Ok, that explains this...

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/joe-exotic-trump-pardon-tiger-king-b1789254.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, very honest said:

 

  • the corporate sphere is an independent power vector that has the capacity to provide a check on government

This is straight up fucking stupid. The role of a corporation is to make as much money as possible while spending the least amount of money to get it which has historically caused much exploitation and inequality. Remember how laborers used to not have a weekend? If anything, the government is a check on corporations.

2 hours ago, zero said:

random thought - I can't believe this thread made it 5 years without getting locked or having massive amounts of posts deleted. if this discussion had occurred anywhere else online, it would have lasted maybe 2 minutes without a trumpo torpedoing in.

how can we replicate this bastion of civility that exists within these hallowed halls? how can we make the world more like us is what everyone should be asking themselves here. 

There have been a few randos and watmmers that have come and gone. Like usual, they'll come in hot and say a bunch of dumb shit but they get smacked down because that's not the culture around here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we're getting down to the zero hour, and it's looking less and less likely that we'll get to see donald hauled out of the WH in cuffs. once again, I can't escape the feeling that he's going to get away with it all... that thing to get rid of him ASAP lost momentum, and the chances of him getting tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison for his role in the riots are going to only get slimmer as we move further and further away from Jan. 6th, and other things come and go in the hourly news cycle. cancelling his twitter may have even backfired in some way, as now he can't keep yelling about the insane stuff that would further implicate him and continue to sour R opinion of him.

after all, a con man like donald doesn't grift this long out in the open without knowing a thing or two about survival. I'd suspect he'll keep his head down until this all boils over, then return in some form to entertain us all. who knows, maybe he'll bring back The Apprentice in some MAGA-fied version... let the red hats battle it out to get to be his personal butler or some shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I am super naive about the US political system, but wouldn't these (relatively) simple things fix quite a bit:

A) Term limits for Congress. I mean, isn't this a no-brainer? You could eliminate career politicians tied to mega-corps and self-interest groups, no? 

2) Abolish the electoral college. There is literally no need for it. It would eliminate gerrymandering and make all votes count.

D) Having the electoral college gone would then clear a path for a legitimate 3rd party. Both sides are so fucking extreme right now that anyone that comes right down the middle would seem like a hyper-intelligent logical person. Since no electoral college, you could have 3rd party members in congress and then a president who is neither a Republican or Democrat.

I don't know, this just seems logical to me. But again, I also like cold toilet seats, so who knows. The way this country is looking, I am going to be asking Stephen G to sponsor me to move to Canada or maybe I should go to Denmark or something. What a mess.

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jules said:

Maybe I am super naive about the US political system, but wouldn't these (relatively) simple things fix quite a bit:

A) Term limits for Congress. I mean, isn't this a no-brainer? You could eliminate career politicians tied to mega-corps and self-interest groups, no? 

2) Abolish the electoral college. There is literally no need for it. It would eliminate gerrymandering and make all votes count.

D) Having the electoral college gone would then clear a path for a legitimate 3rd party. Both sides are so fucking extreme right now that anyone that comes right down the middle would seem like a hyper-intelligent logical person. Since no electoral college, you could have 3rd party members in congress and then a president who is neither a Republican or Democrat.

I don't know, this just seems logical to me. But again, I also like cold toilet seats, so who knows. The way this country is looking, I am going to be asking Stephen G to sponsor me to move to Canada or maybe I should go to Denmark or something. What a mess.

 

 

it's not a system where you can just apply logic to it and fix it. it's typically lacking in pragmatism for solving problems. there are plenty of things that seem like no brainers but to get the no brainer through congress you have to deal with all the career politicians, lobbyists, special interests, people protecting their agenda which is often their own re-election. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dingformung said:

Are random CEOs really better than Trump?

yes

2 hours ago, dingformung said:

Some of them might be smarter and more ruthless psychopaths. Trump himself is a CEO. Do you think that media corporations whose purpose is first and foremost to generate returns for their investors by way of making maximum possible profit (disregarding any possible consequences) are really better than an elected government (despite gerrymandering and other ways of election interference)? Do you trust them more? Even if you can answer this question with "yes", others might want to have a say in that, too - democracy, ya know. Corporation rule is authoritarianism.

i don't really feel like defending corps as people. we got onto this because i used the check of corporate political influence as an analogy for digital sovereignty as a check on government. i think that point stands. i don't think the examples i laid out of corporations providing checks have been disproven. whether or not these limited instances are worth the tradeoff of corporations being considered people in US law and being able to donate to campaigns is a separate question. i DON'T feel strongly about corporations being legally people or able to donate. i said i don't even have a position on the question. the answer to this question does not have bearing on whether or not my analogy worked to illustrate my point about the value of digital soverignty.

2 hours ago, dingformung said:

Lol @ thinking that the fact that voters aren't elected says anything.

heh

2 hours ago, dingformung said:

Again, I don't know how dear you hold the idea of democracy.

are you kidding me man

 

1 hour ago, Braintree said:
4 hours ago, very honest said:
  • the corporate sphere is an independent power vector that has the capacity to provide a check on government

This is straight up fucking stupid. The role of a corporation is to make as much money as possible while spending the least amount of money to get it which has historically caused much exploitation and inequality. Remember how laborers used to not have a weekend? If anything, the government is a check on corporations.

rude, man. i don't call you fucking stupid when i disagree with you. and i don't even think we disagree. i explicitly was not coming down on the side of corporations as people. i just mentioned that sometimes they can function this way, i did not weigh in on whether or not this was worth the trade-off of the negative aspects of their present political role. 

Edited by very honest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.