You won't read this, but you should:

You won't read this, but you should:

theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/NSfBG
books.google.com/books?id=JnLznqA-PG4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
apnews.com/39f1f8e4ceed4a30a4570f693291c866
cnn.com/2017/01/29/us/refugee-terrorism-trnd/index.html
theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/07/gingrich-nice-sharia/491471/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

checkem and OP deletes this thread

Highlights:

>The transition has been nonviolent, often not even very dramatic. Opponents of the regime are not murdered or imprisoned, although many are harassed with building inspections and tax audits. If they work for the government, or for a company susceptible to government pressure, they risk their jobs by speaking out. Nonetheless, they are free to emigrate anytime they like. Those with money can even take it with them. Day in and day out, the regime works more through inducements than through intimidation. The courts are packed, and forgiving of the regime’s allies. Friends of the government win state contracts at high prices and borrow on easy terms from the central bank. Those on the inside grow rich by favoritism; those on the outside suffer from the general deterioration of the economy. As one shrewd observer told me on a recent visit, “The benefit of controlling a modern state is less the power to persecute the innocent, more the power to protect the guilty.”

I would honestly choose a dictatorship over living under leftists again at this point.

Oh, sooooo close...but, not really.

Anyway,
>Yet the American system is also perforated by vulnerabilities no less dangerous for being so familiar. Supreme among those vulnerabilities is reliance on the personal qualities of the man or woman who wields the awesome powers of the presidency. A British prime minister can lose power in minutes if he or she forfeits the confidence of the majority in Parliament. The president of the United States, on the other hand, is restrained first and foremost by his own ethics and public spirit. What happens if somebody comes to the high office lacking those qualities?

>Over the past generation, we have seen ominous indicators of a breakdown of the American political system: the willingness of congressional Republicans to push the United States to the brink of a default on its national obligations in 2013 in order to score a point in budget negotiations; Barack Obama’s assertion of a unilateral executive power to confer legal status upon millions of people illegally present in the United States—despite his own prior acknowledgment that no such power existed.

ah yeah, in a day and age where the mass media lies continuously, the deep state actively announces its presence, the intelligence community leaks like a sieve to undermine the president, left-wing groups resort to violence against even mainstream conservative politicians, large corporations all control the other candidate hook, line, and sinker, it's trump we should be worried about.

jesus fucking christ you morons are delusional.

>As politics has become polarized, Congress has increasingly become a check only on presidents of the opposite party. Recent presidents enjoying a same-party majority in Congress—Barack Obama in 2009 and 2010, George W. Bush from 2003 through 2006—usually got their way. And congressional oversight might well be performed even less diligently during the Trump administration.

>The first reason to fear weak diligence is the oddly inverse relationship between President Trump and the congressional Republicans. In the ordinary course of events, it’s the incoming president who burns with eager policy ideas. Consequently, it’s the president who must adapt to—and often overlook—the petty human weaknesses and vices of members of Congress in order to advance his agenda. This time, it will be Paul Ryan, the speaker of the House, doing the advancing—and consequently the overlooking.

>“Do you have any concerns about Steve Bannon being in the White House?,” CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Ryan in November. “I don’t know Steve Bannon, so I have no concerns,” answered the speaker. “I trust Donald’s judgment.”

>Asked on 60 Minutes whether he believed Donald Trump’s claim that “millions” of illegal votes had been cast, Ryan answered: “I don’t know. I’m not really focused on these things.”

>What about Trump’s conflicts of interest? “This is not what I’m concerned about in Congress,” Ryan said on CNBC. Trump should handle his conflicts “however he wants to.”

>Ryan has learned his prudence the hard way. Following the airing of Trump’s past comments, caught on tape, about his forceful sexual advances on women, Ryan said he’d no longer campaign for Trump. Ryan’s net favorability rating among Republicans dropped by 28 points in less than 10 days. Once unassailable in the party, he suddenly found himself disliked by 45 percent of Republicans.

>lies continuously

Simply stating information with confidence doesn't make it true. And Trump is a large corporation and his cabinet is their bread and butter (Tillerson, Devos, Pruitt, Sessions, etc.).

Who is delusional, really?

Continuing,
>From the point of view of the typical Republican member of Congress, Fox remains all-powerful: the single most important source of visibility and affirmation with the voters whom a Republican politician cares about. In 2009, in the run-up to the Tea Party insurgency, South Carolina’s Bob Inglis crossed Fox, criticizing Glenn Beck and telling people at a town-hall meeting that they should turn his show off. He was drowned out by booing, and the following year, he lost his primary with only 29 percent of the vote, a crushing repudiation for an incumbent untouched by any scandal.

>Fox is reinforced by a carrier fleet of supplementary institutions: super pacs, think tanks, and conservative web and social-media presences, which now include such former pariahs as Breitbart and Alex Jones. So long as the carrier fleet coheres—and unless public opinion turns sharply against the president—oversight of Trump by the Republican congressional majority will very likely be cautious, conditional, and limited.

I'll never read from a magazine that regularly publishes pro-reparations propaganda.

>The traditions of independence and professionalism that prevail within the federal law-enforcement apparatus, and within the civil service more generally, will tend to restrain a president’s power. Yet in the years ahead, these restraints may also prove less robust than they look. Republicans in Congress have long advocated reforms to expedite the firing of underperforming civil servants. In the abstract, there’s much to recommend this idea. If reform is dramatic and happens in the next two years, however, the balance of power between the political and the professional elements of the federal government will shift, decisively, at precisely the moment when the political elements are most aggressive. The intelligence agencies in particular would likely find themselves exposed to retribution from a president enraged at them for reporting on Russia’s aid to his election campaign. “As you know from his other career, Donald likes to fire people.” So New Jersey Governor Chris Christie joked to a roomful of Republican donors at the party’s national convention in July. It would be a mighty power—and highly useful.

>The courts, though they might slowly be packed with judges inclined to hear the president’s arguments sympathetically, are also a check, of course. But it’s already difficult to hold a president to account for financial improprieties. As Donald Trump correctly told reporters and editors from The New York Times on November 22, presidents are not bound by the conflict-of-interest rules that govern everyone else in the executive branch.

>Presidents from Jimmy Carter onward have balanced this unique exemption with a unique act of disclosure: the voluntary publication of their income-tax returns. At a press conference on January 11, Trump made clear that he will not follow that tradition.

>Trump will try hard during his presidency to create an atmosphere of personal munificence, in which graft does not matter, because rules and institutions do not matter. He will want to associate economic benefit with personal favor. He will create personal constituencies, and implicate other people in his corruption. That, over time, is what truly subverts the institutions of democracy and the rule of law. If the public cannot be induced to care, the power of the investigators serving at Trump’s pleasure will be diminished all the more.

>You would never know from Trump’s words that the average number of felonious killings of police during the Obama administration’s tenure was almost one-third lower than it was in the early 1990s, a decline that tracked with the general fall in violent crime that has so blessed American society. There had been a rise in killings of police in 2014 and 2015 from the all-time low in 2013—but only back to the 2012 level. Not every year will be the best on record.

>A mistaken belief that crime is spiraling out of control—that terrorists roam at large in America and that police are regularly gunned down—represents a considerable political asset for Donald Trump. Seventy-eight percent of Trump voters believed that crime had worsened during the Obama years.

>Simply stating information with confidence doesn't make it true

says the moron quoting a biased article, taking everything as gospel

if you can't find evidence of all the things i stated, then you're too stupid to be on 4ch. perhaps reddit is a better place for you?

Ignorance is bliss.

>In true police states, surveillance and repression sustain the power of the authorities. But that’s not how power is gained and sustained in backsliding democracies. Polarization, not persecution, enables the modern illiberal regime.

>By guile or by instinct, Trump understands this.

>Whenever Trump stumbles into some kind of trouble, he reacts by picking a divisive fight. The morning after The Wall Street Journal published a story about the extraordinary conflicts of interest surrounding Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, Trump tweeted that flag burners should be imprisoned or stripped of their citizenship. That evening, as if on cue, a little posse of oddballs obligingly burned flags for the cameras in front of the Trump International Hotel in New York. Guess which story dominated that day’s news cycle?

>Civil unrest will not be a problem for the Trump presidency. It will be a resource. Trump will likely want not to repress it, but to publicize it—and the conservative entertainment-outrage complex will eagerly assist him. Immigration protesters marching with Mexican flags; Black Lives Matter demonstrators bearing antipolice slogans—these are the images of the opposition that Trump will wish his supporters to see. The more offensively the protesters behave, the more pleased Trump will be.

>In the early days of the Trump transition, Nic Dawes, a journalist who has worked in South Africa, delivered an ominous warning to the American media about what to expect. “Get used to being stigmatized as ‘opposition,’” he wrote. “The basic idea is simple: to delegitimize accountability journalism by framing it as partisan.”

It was a good article. I suggest reading ot as well.

>Ignorance is bliss.

yes, we can see that you think so.

perhaps you can spam some biased vox or salon crap afterwards, so that we can ignore that, too?

>moron quoting a biased article
And yet, such a biased article has not had a single point refuted by you.

It should be easy. I mean you read it and understand the bias. A sentence or two should suffice to ruin it's claims.

Speaking of bias,
>The rulers of backsliding democracies resent an independent press, but cannot extinguish it. They may curb the media’s appetite for critical coverage by intimidating unfriendly journalists, as President Jacob Zuma and members of his party have done in South Africa. Mostly, however, modern strongmen seek merely to discredit journalism as an institution, by denying that such a thing as independent judgment can exist. All reporting serves an agenda. There is no truth, only competing attempts to grab power.

>By filling the media space with bizarre inventions and brazen denials, purveyors of fake news hope to mobilize potential supporters with righteous wrath—and to demoralize potential opponents by nurturing the idea that everybody lies and nothing matters. A would-be kleptocrat is actually better served by spreading cynicism than by deceiving followers with false beliefs: Believers can be disillusioned; people who expect to hear only lies can hardly complain when a lie is exposed. The inculcation of cynicism breaks down the distinction between those forms of media that try their imperfect best to report the truth, and those that purvey falsehoods for reasons of profit or ideology. The New York Times becomes the equivalent of Russia’s RT; The Washington Post of Breitbart; NPR of Infowars.

>This outcome evidently gnawed at the president-elect. On November 27, Trump tweeted that he had in fact “won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” He followed up that astonishing, and unsubstantiated, statement with an escalating series of tweets and retweets.

>It’s hard to do justice to the breathtaking audacity of such a claim. If true, it would be so serious as to demand a criminal investigation at a minimum, presumably spanning many states. The claim was not true. Trump had not a smidgen of evidence beyond his own bruised feelings and internet flotsam from flagrantly unreliable sources. Yet once the president-elect lent his prestige to the crazy claim, it became fact for many people. A survey by YouGov found that by December 1, 43 percent of Republicans accepted the claim that millions of people had voted illegally in 2016.

>A clear untruth had suddenly become a contested possibility. When CNN’s Jeff Zeleny correctly reported on November 28 that Trump’s tweet was baseless, Fox’s Sean Hannity accused Zeleny of media bias—and then proceeded to urge the incoming Trump administration to take a new tack with the White House press corps, and to punish reporters like Zeleny. “I think it’s time to reevaluate the press and maybe change the traditional relationship with the press and the White House,” Hannity said. “My message tonight to the press is simple: You guys are done. You’ve been exposed as fake, as having an agenda, as colluding. You’re a fake news organization.”

>This was no idiosyncratic brain wave of Hannity’s. The previous morning, Ari Fleischer, the former press secretary in George W. Bush’s administration, had advanced a similar idea in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, suggesting that the White House could withhold credentials for its press conferences from media outlets that are “too liberal or unfair.” Newt Gingrich recommended that Trump stop giving press conferences altogether.

Yes, everything that questions your beliefs is biased and adversarial. That's a very intelligent observation that all healthy, knowledgeable adults should hold.

Case in point,
>Even so, it seems unlikely that President Trump will outright send the cameras away. He craves media attention too much. But he and his team are serving notice that a new era in government-media relations is coming, an era in which all criticism is by definition oppositional—and all critics are to be treated as enemies.

>In an online article for The New York Review of Books, the Russian-born journalist Masha Gessen brilliantly noted a commonality between Donald Trump and the man Trump admires so much, Vladimir Putin. “Lying is the message,” she wrote. “It’s not just that both Putin and Trump lie, it is that they lie in the same way and for the same purpose: blatantly, to assert power over truth itself.”

>muh alt right talking points
Do you have any thoughts that you came up with yourself or do you let the Bannons and Millers of this world do the thinking for you?

>By all early indications, the Trump presidency will corrode public integrity and the rule of law—and also do untold damage to American global leadership, the Western alliance, and democratic norms around the world. The damage has already begun, and it will not be soon or easily undone. Yet exactly how much damage is allowed to be done is an open question—the most important near-term question in American politics. It is also an intensely personal one, for its answer will be determined by the answer to another question: What will you do? And you? And you?

>Of course we want to believe that everything will turn out all right. In this instance, however, that lovely and customary American assumption itself qualifies as one of the most serious impediments to everything turning out all right. If the story ends without too much harm to the republic, it won’t be because the dangers were imagined, but because citizens resisted.

>The duty to resist should weigh most heavily upon those of us who—because of ideology or partisan affiliation or some other reason—are most predisposed to favor President Trump and his agenda. The years ahead will be years of temptation as well as danger: temptation to seize a rare political opportunity to cram through an agenda that the American majority would normally reject. Who knows when that chance will recur?

>A constitutional regime is founded upon the shared belief that the most fundamental commitment of the political system is to the rules. The rules matter more than the outcomes. It’s because the rules matter most that Hillary Clinton conceded the presidency to Trump despite winning millions more votes. It’s because the rules matter most that the giant state of California will accept the supremacy of a federal government that its people rejected by an almost two-to-one margin.

Maybe start with something rooted in reality instead of fictional Hollywood script.

It's not biased because you don't agree with the title, and I say the title because I know you did not read it. dummie.

>Many of the worst and most subversive things Trump will do will be highly popular. Voters liked the threats and incentives that kept Carrier manufacturing jobs in Indiana. Since 1789, the wisest American leaders have invested great ingenuity in creating institutions to protect the electorate from its momentary impulses toward arbitrary action: the courts, the professional officer corps of the armed forces, the civil service, the Federal Reserve—and undergirding it all, the guarantees of the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights. More than any president in U.S. history since at least the time of Andrew Jackson, Donald Trump seeks to subvert those institutions.

>Trump and his team count on one thing above all others: public indifference. “I think people don’t care,” he said in September when asked whether voters wanted him to release his tax returns. “Nobody cares,” he reiterated to 60 Minutes in November. Conflicts of interest with foreign investments? Trump tweeted on November 21 that he didn’t believe voters cared about that either: “Prior to the election it was well known that I have interests in properties all over the world. Only the crooked media makes this a big deal!”

>What happens in the next four years will depend heavily on whether Trump is right or wrong about how little Americans care about their democracy and the habits and conventions that sustain it. If they surprise him, they can restrain him.

>Public opinion, public scrutiny, and public pressure still matter greatly in the U.S. political system. In January, an unexpected surge of voter outrage thwarted plans to neutralize the independent House ethics office.

>In the early days of the Trump transition, Nic Dawes, a journalist who has worked in South Africa, delivered an ominous warning to the American media about what to expect. “Get used to being stigmatized as ‘opposition,’” he wrote. “The basic idea is simple: to delegitimize accountability journalism by framing it as partisan.”

are you implying the american media is anything BUT partisan as fuck?
you got FOX, which is literally a direct propaganda outlet for the GOP establishment. and you got a bunch of other networks, all of which align closely with the democratic party and the associated progressive movement.
not a single major media outlet in america is non-partisan.

You won't read this but you should:

archive.is/NSfBG

theatlantic.

into the trash it goes. and sage.

>Those citizens who fantasize about defying tyranny from within fortified compounds have never understood how liberty is actually threatened in a modern bureaucratic state: not by diktat and violence, but by the slow, demoralizing process of corruption and deceit. And the way that liberty must be defended is not with amateur firearms, but with an unwearying insistence upon the honesty, integrity, and professionalism of American institutions and those who lead them. We are living through the most dangerous challenge to the free government of the United States that anyone alive has encountered. What happens next is up to you and me. Don’t be afraid. This moment of danger can also be your finest hour as a citizen and an American.

It seems those who truly dislike dishonesty would wholeheartedly back this. If you find dishonesty troubling in what you deem "fake news" then I'd naturally expect similar outrage when our president and government institutions make outright false claims and statements.

>backing conspiracy theories with little-to-no evidence
>interpreting our president's statements from the literal to what you believe he meant
>siding with corporations with clear stakes and interests vs science with verifiable methods
>choosing security over liberty and American ideals

Make it less obvious that you don't actually care, you just want to "win" by all means necessary. You don't even know what you're winning but you feel powerful. It would be wise to remember that feeling is fleeting and temporary. One party running amuck within our government inevitably means the other will as well. They always take cues from past administrations.

It's not healthy for a democracy on either side.

Feel free to skip the hypothesis he creates to go to the supporting evidence. It's an introduction designed to capture the reader's attention, you know, like most introductions since the beginning of time...

David "I Coined the Term Axis of Evil and Helped Bush Become Autocratic in Invading Iraq" Frum

>If you find dishonesty troubling in what you deem "fake news" then I'd naturally expect similar outrage when our president and government institutions make outright false claims and statements.

trump and his administration never presented false information regarding relevant subjects.
did he get butthurt and lie about the size of his inauguration crowd? probably. do i care about the size of his inauguration crowd? not at all.
did conway refer to a made up islamist attack? yes. does it matter in the big picture of islamic violence (pic related) ? not at all.

HE'S BACK, BABY

SWAGLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORD

Interesting read but flawed in that it over looks if not outright ignores the trend that Obama had already set with Congress but solely focused on Trump. While I do agree the checks and balances should remain and even those within their own party should be diligent the DNC has thrown itself into chaos and unpopularity with its campaign tactics and pressure on the media to take out of context, if not outright make claims with no evidence, to deligatimize Trump.

Many of the points the article talks about have happened within the Obama presidency, yet it wasn't a problem then and now it suddenly is. It makes the message seem like nothing more than another attempt to drive public support away from Trump, instead of point out some of the things that should be addressed. Unfortunately the media itself has caused this and are solely to blame for their either inability or outright refusal to present unbiased claim.

Also the fact that people are only now realizing that this is the way Washington works and the media is actually talking about it shows a willing ignorance to me. All branches have been forced to fall in line or face potential de-funding, science is a glaring example grants are awarded and given based on the experiments published and the results being desired or not.

To me to suddenly be so concerned about it and lay it sole on Trump shows not that they actually care, but that they fear their loss of power and monopoly on the information the public has access to.

My only hope is that actual journalist start using this opportunity to establish themselves either through independent news feeds, or by the old guard being pushed out. Either way the rich have ruled America for a long time, it's only now that it's convenient to point it out that they let the media do it.

Is that an article talking about how Obama built an autocracy?
>harassed with building inspections and tax audits
Check.
>they risk their jobs by speaking out
Check.
>the regime works more through inducements than through intimidation
Check.
>The courts are packed, and forgiving of the regime’s allies
Check.
>Friends of the government win state contracts at high prices and borrow on easy terms from the central bank
Check.
>Those on the inside grow rich by favoritism; those on the outside suffer from the general deterioration of the economy
Check.
>the willingness of congressional Republicans to push the United States to the brink of a default
This is a lie. Failure to raise the debt limit does not result in default. It results in government employees having their paychecks withheld.
>Barack Obama’s assertion of a unilateral executive power to confer legal status upon millions of people illegally present in the United States
Check.
>Recent presidents enjoying a same-party majority in Congress usually got their way
Check.

It's literally about Obama.

Simply putting it into an article doesn't make it true either.

>le alt right is real
FUCK OFF

...

>Opponents of the regime are not murdered or imprisoned, although many are harassed with building inspections and tax audits. If they work for the government, or for a company susceptible to government pressure, they risk their jobs by speaking out.
literally obama and their minions. couldn't even make it past the first sentence.

I will correct myself here, Obama wasn't the first to use this trend merely the last and more brazen.

pic upload failed lmao

>Opponents of the regime are not murdered or imprisoned, although many are harassed with building inspections and tax audits.
Are they actually admitting government interferes with business?

Posting in a swaglord thread

Yes, I'm implying that.

I'm not just using anecdotes but meta-analysis studies on news bias. If you have access to an academic library you can pull the entire text, or at least the conclusions section, this is just a sample:
books.google.com/books?id=JnLznqA-PG4C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

You're using false equivalency, btw.

Because there is so much disparity on one side, you believe the other is equally partisan. Though the Atlantic article touches on this several times, I'll assume you didn't read it all so:

>“The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio“ found that 91 percent of weekday talk formats are given over to right-wing programming. No surprise, really, but good to have further evidence.

>pic related

There is an elephant in the room that no one wants to really address. To combat this they claim the other side is doing the exact same thing and every one is not credible. That's bullshit. Again, false equivalency. And it's one of the main reasons that so many Americans believe in bold-faced lies.

...

>muh sides
Its not about democrats or republicans.
>The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio“ found that 91 percent of weekday talk formats are given over to right-wing programming.
How much do you want to be that 99% of that is cuckservative jewish bullshit.

>Thread is 47 post long
>OP 20 post in.
Oh god.

You won't stuff a burning cactus up your prolapsed anus, but you should.

Continuing on
>concerns of subservience to media, PACs, think tanks
Check.
>court packing again
Check.
>try hard during his presidency to create an atmosphere of personal munificence, in which graft does not matter
Check.
>create personal constituencies, and implicate other people in his corruption
Check.
>subvert the institutions of democracy and the rule of law
Check.
>In true police states, surveillance and repression sustain the power of the authorities
Check.
>Polarization
Check.
>Civil unrest will not be a problem... It will be a resource
Check.
>likely want not to repress it, but to publicize it
Check.
>“Get used to being stigmatized as ‘opposition,’” he wrote. “The basic idea is simple: to delegitimize accountability journalism by framing it as partisan.”
Check.
>resent an independent press, but cannot extinguish it
Check.
>intimidating unfriendly journalists
Check.
>served by spreading cynicism than by deceiving followers with false beliefs
Check.
>punish reporters
Check.
>He craves media attention too much
Check.
>a new era in government-media relations is coming, an era in which all criticism is by definition oppositional—and all critics are to be treated as enemies
Check.
>corrode public integrity and the rule of law
Check.
>do untold damage to American global leadership
Check.
>More than any president in U.S. history... seeks to subvert those institutions
Check.
>count on one thing above all others: public indifference
Check.
>If they surprise him, they can restrain him
Check.

It's an article about Obama.

So the globalists who wish to enslave humanity now accuse man who interferes with them in building totalitarian state. Jew truly cries out as he strikes you.

>That's right go-- er, citizens! Guns don't defend liberty!
>Give them up! Join antifa! That's where the REAL patriots are!

>You're using false equivalency, btw.
Nice big words for a man whos post consist of regurgitating what a news meme article said on the internet.

>You could tell a similar story of the slide away from democracy in South Africa under Nelson Mandela’s successors, in Venezuela under the thug-thief Hugo Chávez, or in the Philippines under the murderous Rodrigo Duterte. A comparable transformation has recently begun in Poland, and could come to France should Marine Le Pen, the National Front’s candidate, win the presidency.

>Outside the Islamic world, the 21st century is not an era of ideology. The grand utopian visions of the 19th century have passed out of fashion.

if you take this seriously than the deep state has indoctrinated you well

If only this article was written during the last 16 years of neo con rule.

Really got my noggin joggin

the entire article is about
>b-but this is what trump will do in the future

im sure he could do it, but the article is a farce to push the idea that trump is some kind of dictator, which he isnt

learn the difference between real authoritarianism and nationalism

>There is an elephant in the room that no one wants to really address. To combat this they claim the other side is doing the exact same thing and every one is not credible. That's bullshit. Again, false equivalency. And it's one of the main reasons that so many Americans believe in bold-faced lies.

Their is an elephant in the room, however it is not a left or right issue both sides are in on it like it or not. The DNC hack showed they outright can and will rig their primaries if need be, the handing of questions to Hillary before a debate shows a lack of integrity and the WikiLeaks emails show out right cooperation of the media with one side.

To try and make this a good vs evil argument is where journalism fails time and again today. It should never be about that it should be about here are the problems, the hard facts that can be verified by multiple sources, instead the media is happy to take out of context, omit, or sit on news stories until they can do the most damage.

This is evident in the recent Sessions "scandal", along with the Flynn and the continued running of the Russian hacked the election. True Russia did hack the election, the DNC side and exposed the rigging they do in their own primary. Flynn was tried and deemed guilty before any actual investigation had been done and low and behold he did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law. Sessions quote is taking 100% out of context and omits parts of the question to outright make it seems like he lived under oath and that is the narrative the media has pushed.

You'll have better ground to stand on and be more well received should instead of attempting to demonize one side or the other point out the issues that both sides are fully willing to participate in. They are issues but attempting to make this about one or the other makes people instead focus on the biased instead of the facts.

REMEMBER

SHAREBLUE IS FUNDED BY SUBVERSIVE FOREIGN ELEMENTS SEEKING TO CRIPPLE AMERICA.

OUR GOVERNMENT AND CORPORATE APPARATUS HAS BEEN INFILTRATED AND CORRUPTED BY CHINESE/SAUDI/ISRAELI/VATICAN INTERESTS. CIA IS CLOSELY WORKING WITH ALL THESE GROUPS, BUT ESPECIALLY MOSSAD.

YOU FALL FOR THIS GARBAGE, YOU DOOM THIS NATION.

see
You assume I'm picking only on Trump.

Reagan begat Clinton begat Bush who begat Obama who begat Trump. Each has channeled more power into the Executive branch. The great thing about Trump is that he's clumsy with it so it's far more apparent and far less clever. The liberal after Trump will be even worse if this slow erosion isn't resisted.

Now to address specific points from that article:
>Gorsuch is for civil liberties and reduction in government interference
Unless those liberties involve being terminally ill seeking euthanasia, women's right to choose, civil rights of homosexuals, etc.

If you like I can provide references to my rebuttal.

>McMaster as NSA
Let us not forget this wasn't Trump's first choice. Your memory can't be that short. I have no immediate issue with McMaster, nor some of his other picks like Mattis.

But are you seriously implying Flynn wasn't a problem for a functioning democracy when he was clearly an outlet for some of the inane conspiracies being purported as fact by this administration and their ardent supporters?

>Trump rewritting blocked EO
Again, Trump attempted to do something unjust but was prevented does not excuse him from the initial action. That's not just illogical, it's stupid. And isntead of abandoning a poor concept and even poorer execution, he wants to try again with better legal gymnastics? That's not a good thing.

The article doesn't elaborate on how Obama's administration reacted differently to judicial setbacks. It's not irrelevant, again false equivalency, but I'd like to know more if you have that information.

The article then goes on to state that government regulations are bad. This is a whole other topic for debate but one that only the most diehard Libertarian will defend. We need regulations. The article doesn't however address any of the points about Trump enriching himself or those around him by his position as President. It is almost disturbingly absent in the text. I imagine because there is no foundation to mount an argument but I still expected something there...

So, Trump has rapidly moved to do what Obama took years to do. It's only been 30 days in and he's threatened to intervene with federal agencies in U.S. cities, limit the rights of minorities, target other minorities with little basis in reality, enrich corporations and big businesses by reducing regulations, threaten private entties into coercion, attacked the integrity of our judicial system, marginalized the importance of our press, etc. (the article conveniently doesn't mention any of this, naturally).

Learn to think critically.

You're using your British address. You meant to use your American one. Good try, Russian cunt.

This.

The projection of the left is reaching critical levels.

>trump and his administration never presented false information regarding relevant subjects.

He said 3 million illegals voted in our U.S. Presidential election. How the hell would that not be considered relevant and false information for a working democracy?

The erosion of truth isn't one dramatic moment. It's continuous lies that create a sense of normalcy. And yes, inventing terrorists attacks to push a narrative that is largely untrue (i.e. this ban is for security) , is relevant:
apnews.com/39f1f8e4ceed4a30a4570f693291c866
cnn.com/2017/01/29/us/refugee-terrorism-trnd/index.html

Is there anything wrong with Autocracy if the leader is good?

Did you enjoy it under Obama?

>So, Trump has rapidly moved to do what Obama took years to do.
Lol. Trump is trending less authoritarian than Obama.

>The article doesn't however address any of the points about Trump enriching himself or those around him by his position as President.
No evidence of this exists.

OP: BTFO
THREAD: DERAILED

>implying this article would exist if Clinton won.

No, that's why Trump is president now.

This is just max projection on the part of the left.

But the leader is terrible.

New media'z hardline articles are really well researched and thinky-making

You made the claim Obama does all of this. So, now that Trump is doing similar...where is the outrage?

archive link you nigger faggot

>trending less authoritarian

Again, did you read the article?

>no evidence
He shilled his products on the campaign trail, threatened Nordstrom, Conway shilled Ivanka's products, Ivanka sat in with a head-of-state meeting with Shinzo Abe, none of the countries on the ban list are locations where Trump does business (the original list was much larger, mind you), etc.

This is without even seeing his tax returns. A first for any president in the last 50 years. But again, I'm sure you'll excuse all of that for reasons...

>Atlantic

Oh, you mean the same Jewish shill agitprop organization where a Jew called for and defended Sharia Law for the West a mere 24 hours after a Muslim bulldozed through a crowd of 80 people in France, crushing women and children to death, and then other Muslims descended on the bodies and attempted to loot them.

theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/07/gingrich-nice-sharia/491471/

The only elephant in the room is that Jews run the media and have an explicitly anti-white anti-American pro-Israel pro-Jewish bias. That 80% of Jews vote Left, and consequently 80% of media is Leftist, is no coincidence.