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

[youtubehd]HMLXfF5s_N8[/youtubehd]

Trump only has just over $1 million in campaign funds apparently, compared to Clinton's over $40 million, on top of that a large chunk of the Trump's donations seem to be going to his own business and to pay off his kids for various nonsense.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-campaign-payments_us_5768a69ee4b0853f8bf1fe2d

Is his whole campaign just a grift on rich Republicans? [tinfoilhat]Possibly orchestrated by the Clintons to destroy the republic party[/tinfoilhat]

  On 6/17/2016 at 12:57 AM, ignatius said:

trump is in plans for making his own network built around the audience that is supporting him for his presidential bid. all that vitriol on cable so people can go full racist idiot when Fox News isn't giving them what they need. ugh. wtf america.

 

https://politicalwire.com/2016/06/16/trump-may-start-a-tv-network/

So we'd officially be a soft dictatorship with a propaganda laden state run network. Venezuela had one of these when Chavez was in power.

you got me thinking about the possibility of trump trying to take over if he wins. hard to imagine the military and various other mechanisms allowing it to happen, but it brought me to another thought. trump exhibits clear signs of being a crazy dude, and you shouldn't underestimate what a crazy dude is capable of. tough to know if he's consciously trying to throw the race because it's a shit job, or subconsciously trying to throw the race because he senses he's in over his head, or if he really is bat-shit. shouldn't discount the latter.

  On 6/21/2016 at 5:47 PM, very honest said:

you got me thinking about the possibility of trump trying to take over if he wins. hard to imagine the military and various other mechanisms allowing it to happen, but it brought me to another thought. trump exhibits clear signs of being a crazy dude, and you shouldn't underestimate what a crazy dude is capable of. tough to know if he's consciously trying to throw the race because it's a shit job, or subconsciously trying to throw the race because he senses he's in over his head, or if he really is bat-shit. shouldn't discount the latter.

i think it will reveal how little the president can actually do, though I imagine there are backup plans in case he goes off the rails and tries to commit dangerous executive orders.

the bush to obama transition is a good example - once obama came in power it was not a big change at all in foreign and military policy. Iraq war was very much pushed not by W alone but by advisers, complacent cabinet members, congress through majority votes, etc. it was an exension of the war on terror which even Gore would of implemented without hesitation.

  On 6/21/2016 at 6:01 PM, joshuatx said:

 

  On 6/21/2016 at 5:47 PM, very honest said:

you got me thinking about the possibility of trump trying to take over if he wins. hard to imagine the military and various other mechanisms allowing it to happen, but it brought me to another thought. trump exhibits clear signs of being a crazy dude, and you shouldn't underestimate what a crazy dude is capable of. tough to know if he's consciously trying to throw the race because it's a shit job, or subconsciously trying to throw the race because he senses he's in over his head, or if he really is bat-shit. shouldn't discount the latter.

 

i think it will reveal how little the president can actually do, though I imagine there are backup plans in case he goes off the rails and tries to commit dangerous executive orders.

 

the bush to obama transition is a good example - once obama came in power it was not a big change at all in foreign and military policy. Iraq war was very much pushed not by W alone but by advisers, complacent cabinet members, congress through majority votes, etc. it was an exension of the war on terror which even Gore would of implemented without hesitation.

 

i hear a lot about the dangers of the power that's been consolidated to the executive. we'd all like to think that an unfortunately elected mad man couldn't do too much harm, but i have to wonder.

an abrupt withdrawal from iraq would have been very much not ideal, which is why the process was staged. also i agree that obama was obliged to show some degree of deference to his military advisors.

a strong case can be made for the suggestion that bush's administration allowed 9/11 to happen. this relatively recent politico article, in which new information about the warnings that were ignored was released, paints a rather damning picture, and it comes right from the mouths of the high level intel guys who were involved. i wouldn't say that any president would have allowed the known plot to be carried out.

regarding entry into the iraq war, i entirely disagree. you must not have seen maddow's documentary hubris in which she interviews the intelligence advisors to the bush administration who say on camera that they informed the administration that the "intel" regarding wmds was garbage, and presents other very concerning information about the lead-up to the iraq war. powell knew there were no wmds before they went in. it's not even refuted that sadam had no ties to al qaeda. she did a follow up to that called why we did it which continues the same thread. she assembles a lot of direct, important, and exclusive information in those.

its hard to say why we really went into iraq. it seems like a combination of personal gains by individuals in the administration, vengeance for the assassination attempt on bush sr, an old-world mentality about being able to smudge the reasons for war, and knowing that the m.i.c. was already half mobilized for a broader mideast war anyway.

if i'm not mistaken, the president can undertake military action unfettered for a period of time, 30 days or 90 days. the only thing to stop him or her might be the military's unwillingness to carry it out, which would be a historically big deal and have massive ramifications of its own. if there was some semblence of a rationale, though, the military would be obliged to follow orders.

people like to think that things wont go wrong, but they do.

Going to have check that Politico article later

sent using magic space waves

Saw some talk about (political) power/influence recently. One of the points made was that many people have a linear idea about power, while in reality political power is often very non-linear and much more unpredictable. Very interesting idea to have this distinction.

And when I hear people talk about the US president, for instance. Whether it's the "it's all the same/doesn't really matter who's in charge" idea, or the "the us president has the power to launch a nuclear missile/can single handedly screw everything up" kind of argument, in both cases there's an implicit notion of linear power structures, I believe.

In a non-linear world neither is actually the case. It does matter who's in charge, but the outcome tends to gravitate towards some kind of equilibrium. The difference is mostly in how this equilibrium is reached and to a lesser extent perhaps which equilibrium. (not implying different equilibriae..(? is that the correct latin plural form??) are miles apart from eachother) And it's pretty rare for a single person in the administration to screw up so bad that wars could depend on it. I really find that hard to believe. Even if there's one guy with a final say, there are plenty of influences built into the system such that the decision-making is a multi-person/dimension thing, if you know what i mean.

  On 6/21/2016 at 9:31 PM, goDel said:

Saw some talk about (political) power/influence recently. One of the points made was that many people have a linear idea about power, while in reality political power is often very non-linear and much more unpredictable. Very interesting idea to have this distinction.

 

And when I hear people talk about the US president, for instance. Whether it's the "it's all the same/doesn't really matter who's in charge" idea, or the "the us president has the power to launch a nuclear missile/can single handedly screw everything up" kind of argument, in both cases there's an implicit notion of linear power structures, I believe.

 

In a non-linear world neither is actually the case. It does matter who's in charge, but the outcome tends to gravitate towards some kind of equilibrium. The difference is mostly in how this equilibrium is reached and to a lesser extent perhaps which equilibrium. (not implying different equilibriae..(? is that the correct latin plural form??) are miles apart from eachother) And it's pretty rare for a single person in the administration to screw up so bad that wars could depend on it. I really find that hard to believe. Even if there's one guy with a final say, there are plenty of influences built into the system such that the decision-making is a multi-person/dimension thing, if you know what i mean.

the established norm is to consult with others but there is no rule necessitating a group decision. the president has sole authority to initiate hostilities.

that's not an established norm, that's how the administration works. a process.

what do you think will happen as soon as some future president singlehandedly starts deciding important stuff like this? i remember some high-up defense people already saying they'd ignore certain commands from higher up the decision-chain if stuff like that (lets start a war...) would happen. the term 'soul authority' is a mostly symbolic term. 'soul responsibility' just as empty perhaps.

James Brown is the only soul authority I recognize

https://youtu.be/4jRuEkK61Dg

http://www.humanityparty.com/

  On 6/21/2016 at 10:29 PM, goDel said:

that's not an established norm, that's how the administration works. a process.

 

what do you think will happen as soon as some future president singlehandedly starts deciding important stuff like this? i remember some high-up defense people already saying they'd ignore certain commands from higher up the decision-chain if stuff like that (lets start a war...) would happen. the term 'soul authority' is a mostly symbolic term. 'soul responsibility' just as empty perhaps.

show me a rule requiring the president to defer to anybody (regarding the current topic). there most certainly are rules to take care of defense officials disobeying orders from the commander in chief.

  On 6/17/2016 at 5:14 AM, ambermonk said:

 

  On 6/16/2016 at 8:16 PM, chenGOD said:

Should really be マンコ

 

Same literal meaning if you think about it...

  On 6/21/2016 at 12:29 AM, triachus said:

cray https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/20/donald-trump-assassination-attempt-las-vegas-rally

You know what this means...another wall to keep the British out!

  On 6/21/2016 at 11:02 PM, sweepstakes said:

James Brown is the only soul authority I recognize

zole authority

  On 6/21/2016 at 11:10 PM, very honest said:

 

  On 6/21/2016 at 10:29 PM, goDel said:

that's not an established norm, that's how the administration works. a process.

 

what do you think will happen as soon as some future president singlehandedly starts deciding important stuff like this? i remember some high-up defense people already saying they'd ignore certain commands from higher up the decision-chain if stuff like that (lets start a war...) would happen. the term 'soul authority' is a mostly symbolic term. 'soul responsibility' just as empty perhaps.

 

show me a rule requiring the president to defer to anybody (regarding the current topic). there most certainly are rules to take care of defense officials disobeying orders from the commander in chief.

 

rules? what would happen in a situation like that? you think everyone apart from the president just behaves like some sort atomaton zombie slave in some system based on strikt rules?

if that would happen, my guess there's obviously going to be some "you have to follow the rules" kind of nonsense at which point things soon escalate to the legal system. and this is exactly where power is taken out of the hands of this autocratic president with that holy "soul responsibility". and that's when democracy kicks back in again.

  On 6/21/2016 at 11:24 PM, goDel said:

 

 

rules? what would happen in a situation like that? you think everyone apart from the president just behaves like some sort atomaton zombie slave in some system based on strikt rules?

 

if that would happen, my guess there's obviously going to be some "you have to follow the rules" kind of nonsense at which point things soon escalate to the legal system. and this is exactly where power is taken out of the hands of this autocratic president with that holy "soul responsibility". and that's when democracy kicks back in again.

 

if what would happen? you're referencing some unspecified hypothetical scenario, i'm guessing it's a very obviously wrong war that trump would initiate. for one thing, wars are almost always laden with complexities and propaganda so the notion that it would be clear to everyone that it was wrong seems like an unlikely situation. second of all, we got onto this thread of the discussion because you said:

  On 6/21/2016 at 9:31 PM, goDel said:

In a non-linear world neither is actually the case. It does matter who's in charge, but the outcome tends to gravitate towards some kind of equilibrium. The difference is mostly in how this equilibrium is reached and to a lesser extent perhaps which equilibrium. (not implying different equilibriae..(? is that the correct latin plural form??) are miles apart from eachother) And it's pretty rare for a single person in the administration to screw up so bad that wars could depend on it. I really find that hard to believe. Even if there's one guy with a final say, there are plenty of influences built into the system such that the decision-making is a multi-person/dimension thing, if you know what i mean.

which is a much more broad statement than the narrow and unrealistic hypothetical you are talking about now.

like the image.

whatever. just saying the "soul responsibility" thing is just some imaginary invention for people who want to believe in some linear form of power structures. even though the system is explicitly built (different branches) to always have checks and balances. which basically implies an inherent non-linearity.

but i'll start putting these goalposts back in my arse now. things go nowhere pretty fast. so back to the dark warmth beyond my own circular muscle down south i go.

i see your point but in the military the chain of command is not an abstract concept, it is very concrete. one of the most significant roles the president plays is as the military commander.

  On 6/21/2016 at 11:13 PM, usagi said:

 

  On 6/21/2016 at 11:02 PM, sweepstakes said:

James Brown is the only soul authority I recognize

 

zole authority

Thank you thank you... for the rest of yas

  On 6/21/2016 at 11:04 PM, Nebraska said:

https://youtu.be/4jRuEkK61Dg

 

http://www.humanityparty.com/

This is interesting but it seems contradictory. On the one hand the narrator says they believe in freedom according to the pursuit of happiness of the individual, and that they don't want to pick on the wealthy... and I seem to remember them saying something about no taxes? On the other hand they want the world to be debt-free, have free higher education, health care, etc. Which sounds pretty rosy but what if the wealth of the wealthy depends on others' debt? Who is going to pay for this?

Also kind of weird that they are talking about peace and happiness and keep showing all of these pretty graphic images of violence and mutilation, I guess to prove a point. And anonymous has an image issue to work on, to say the least. They probably ought to ditch the Fawkes mask if they're sincere. And is that really how you pronounce en-veye-rons?

Oh well. Might be interesting to keep an eye on but I expect this to go the way of Occupy Wall Street...

wait, you mean you actually watched the video? I took one look a the preview still and scrolled quickly on by...

If I hadn't watched it I might never have noticed how much will.i.am looks like Anthony Fantano...

https://youtu.be/4jRuEkK61Dg?t=35m6s

trump accused of raping 13 year old girl in federal lawsuit

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/donald-trump-accused-of-raping-13-year-old-in-federal-lawsuit/

The suit alleges Trump and Epstein lured the then 13-year-old and several other young women to the parties with promises of modeling careers and cash.

According to the allegations, Trump tied her to a bed and exposed himself and raped her, while ignoring her pleas to stop. The suits states Trump “responded … by violently striking Plaintiff in the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted.”

  On 6/22/2016 at 3:13 AM, sweepstakes said:

Also kind of weird that they are talking about peace and happiness and keep showing all of these pretty graphic images of violence and mutilation, I guess to prove a point. And anonymous has an image issue to work on, to say the least. They probably ought to ditch the Fawkes mask if they're sincere.

i think the peace and happiness message is one they hope will become their new image considering most people associate anonymous with 4chan upstarts. i agree about the guy fawkes mask. the one biggest problem in anonymous is exactly what they claim makes them strong: their lack of leadership. how do you even implement any kind of guidelines when your entire organization has various factions that don't comply and/or constantly contradict one another?

and for a movement whose biggest effects have been felt online, they usually fare less successful irl (eg. occupy wall street or project chanology)