Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse

[Michael Scally MD]

More than 16,000 people have signed an open letter to President Trump from the leaders of a Pittsburgh-based Jewish group who say the president will not be welcome in the city unless he denounces white nationalism and stops “targeting” minorities after a mass shooting Saturday at a local synagogue left https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/victims-of-the-pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_victims-1045am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory-ans (11 dead).

The letter, which was published and shared on Sunday, was written by 11 members of the Pittsburgh affiliate of Bend the Arc, a national organization for progressive Jews focused on social justice, following what is being called the https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/10/28/victims-expected-be-named-after-killed-deadliest-attack-jews-us-history/?utm_term=.1067e7f5ceed (deadliest attack) on Jews in U.S. history. The shooting at Tree of Life synagogue also left several people injured, including law enforcement. As of early Monday morning, the letter had 16,533 signatures.

“For the past three years your words and your policies have emboldened a growing white nationalist movement,” the Jewish leaders wrote. “You yourself called the murderer evil, but yesterday’s violence is the direct culmination of your influence."

The letter continued: “Our Jewish community is not the only group you have targeted. You have also deliberately undermined the safety of people of color, Muslims, LGBTQ people, and people with disabilities. Yesterday’s massacre is not the first act of terror you incited against a minority group in our country.”

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

View attachment 99871

View attachment 99872

Bolsonaro’s eulogies to the military dictatorship and its torturers tell us a bit more. Brazil’s “day that lasted 21 years” did not go far enough, in his mind: The dictatorship “should have killed 30,000 more,” he said in 1999, while serving his third term as a congressman. Within the military establishment, Bolsonaro represents an extremist tendency; former military-dictator Ernesto Geisel labeled him “completely beyond the pale” and a "military evil."

Indeed, his idolization of violence and promises to greenlight extrajudicial killings brings him closer to the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte than to the current U.S. president. An editorial in the New York Times put Bolsonaro and Trump in the same league, but the U.S. is led by a politician who still enacts policy within the bounds of the law, in and through American institutions. The so-called “Trump of the Tropics” is a gross misnomer.

Bolsonaro’s running mate, retired general Hamilton Mourão, suggests a Bolsonaro government would seek to redraft the 1988 Constitution, this time without any popular, representative input and stack the Supreme Court with additional justices. Attempts to strangle the constitution, such as these, put us in mind of other “managed democracies,” such as Vladimir Putin’s Russia or Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's Turkey. “Constitutional dictatorship” is another term that could describe a post-Bolsonaro Brazil.

But these comparisons only go so far.

The widely discussed case for “Bolsonarism” being a form of neo-fascism hinges not just on bigotry, violence and authoritarianism, but on the interests that have rallied to him. The nucleus of his support — as per classic studies on fascism — is a middle class made up of small business owners and independent professionals, plus members of the police and armed forces. Though sections of the poor have also voted for him — mobilized by a worsening public security situation — the rich and educated support him in much larger proportions; this has been a decisive factor in this success so far.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

TERRORIST RHETORIC
https://claytoonz.com/2018/10/29/terrorist-rhetoric/

I’m not saying that if you’re a conservative who is in favor of strong and strict immigration policies, then you’re on the same side as a terrorist, or the equivalent. But, if you’re using the issue of immigration to malign people and you use the same talking points and lies that inspired a terrorist to kill eleven people, then you’re speaking the same language. You’re talking the talk. What concerns me is if you’re going to start walking it.

The first argument Donald Trump made after the massacre at a synagogue in Pittsburgh was that more guns will decrease gun violence. His second argument was that the shooter was not a fan of his.

It’s true. The shooter responsible for the killings at a Pittsburgh synagogue wasn’t a Trump fan, but he was a fan of the Trump agenda. His problem with Trump is that he didn’t believe he is really a nationalist and he didn’t hate enough.

Despite having a Jewish son-in-law and a daughter who converted, Trump is not a friend to Jewish people or any minorities for that matter. The only minority he likes is the one percent of this nation that has the most wealth. While he talks a big game and moves our Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, he defends Nazis who chant “blood and soil” and “Jews will not replace us.”

While calling himself a nationalist, Trump complains about globalists. The Pittsburgh shooter calls himself a nationalist and complains about globalists. When people like that say “globalists,” they’re talking about Jews.

Trump has spent the past few weeks trying to scare Americans about an invasion of immigrants who are walking toward our southern border. The shooter has taken up his mantle and has also complained about this “invasion” on social media posts. The shooter has blamed Jews for funding the caravan where Trump has blamed one Jew.

The shooter wrote in another post that Trump was too soft on the “kike infestation.” He also wrote that Jews and immigrants will prevent Trump from making America great again. He may not have believed in the man, but he believed the message. He repeated it often enough. He used it Saturday as the basis for his attack.

White supremacist Andrew Anglin said that when Trump refused to condemn people like him after Charlottesville, he said, “We interpret that as an endorsement.” According to the Anti-Defamation League, the incidence of anti-Semitic hate crimes jumped nearly 60 percent in 2017, which is the largest spike since they started keeping track in 1979.

Trump may not have ordered Nazis to run people over, or white supremacists to mail pipe bombs or to shoot up synagogues, but he has set the tone.

Trump Condemns the atmosphere of hate while continuing to hate. He talks about all sides having a civil tone, and in the same breath he blames the media for violence. The media are at fault for doing their job. The most hateful rhetoric the media has published over the past three years is when it has quoted Donald Trump.

Jewish leaders in Pittsburgh know this and they don’t want Trump to visit their city. In a letter signed by over 16,000 people discouraging Trump from visiting, they wrote “For the past three years your words and your policies have emboldened a growing white nationalist movement. You yourself called the murderer evil, but yesterday’s violence is the direct culmination of your influence.”

When you go online and echo Trump’s lies about the media or the migrant caravan, you’re repeating the argument of a white supremacist who killed eleven people in a Pittsburgh synagogue on Saturday. Just like the pipe bomber, this shooter isn’t one of you as much as he is you.

The shooter may not have had all the Trump stickers, but he had the rhetoric. If you’re a Kool-Aid drinking Trump sycophant, you have it too.

Before we can remove all this hate and start to heal, we have to remove the source. We have to remove Donald Trump from the presidency. We need a president who doesn’t embolden Nazis and white supremacists.

 

[flenser]

You're right. Posting here (and most likely the other forums too) has only hardened the resolve of each person. There is no changing anyone's mind, especially on this thread which consists of maybe 5 people. I do/did enjoy your posts and insight though so if you're bored, stop in.

TBH it's not really a mater of boredom, but of wanting to spend my time effectively. I do have political motivations, and just like liberals and conservatives, those motivations are driven by emotions. But no one here is interested in or willing to face their own hypocrisy, so exposing it here is mostly wasted effort.

Brutally Honest: Facebook Removes, Then Restores, Images From Yemen
by Tyler Durden
Sun, 10/28/2018 - 22:05

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk,

A couple of questions describe the problem with censorship: Who controls the censors? What biases do they have?

...

full article

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[xy5jn0]

The Democratic Nazi Party's house negro lies again

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Actually consider what Donald Trump is telling the press: Give me unwavering loyalty or you and the American people could be murdered at literally any time. It's sadistic extortion. 1/

And think about what Trump considers "fair" coverage. He said months ago that Fox News, a network built as a propaganda arm specifically for him, was "tough." He said that. Fox News was a bit tough for him. He's looking for the loyalty of a dictator like Kim Jong Un. 2/

After meeting with Kim he openly lauded North Korea's dystopian media. That's what Trump wants, a television he can turn on and only see flattering and god-like coverage of himself. That's literally what he's always wanted, and that's the only thing he'll accept. 3/

Trump has shown, time and time again, how much he admires dictators who control their countries via the media and by force. That's what we're seeing here. His behavior right now is eerily reminiscent of the "hands off" intimidation Putin used to plunge Russia into the abyss. 4/

At best, Trump can inspire murderers and white nationalist groups to commit his terrorism, and he's just not aware of it. At worst, he's playing them like an instrument. Either way, the result is beyond terrifying when you consider the ramifications. 5/

And so now, here we are, living in a country where we face the possibility of being murdered because we don't fully bow down in front of a pathetically needy president who demands nothing but unwavering loyalty and worship. That's where we are as of this very moment. 6/

Journalists, pundits, politicians, everyone with any kind of a voice, needs to wake up and look this thing in the eye. This isn't sit-back-and-see-what-happens while having the same old guests and same old conversations time. We're deep, deep in the thick of this thing. 7/7

Thread by @JYSexton: "Actually consider what Donald Trump is telling the press: Give me unwavering loyalty or you and the American people could be murdered at lit […]"

 

[xy5jn0]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

 

[Michael Scally MD]

Good morning internet. Would you like to enjoy your weekend like a normal person? Then go instagram a bumble or something, I don’t know, whatever the hell the kids do. But would you like to spend a few hours reading about difficult problems and becoming radicalized to the position that “social media” as we know it (marrying panopticon surveillance to ad revenue) cannot be fixed, and must die? In that case, I can help!

Read these:

Zeynep Tufekci: “How social media took us from Tahrir Square to Donald Trump.” (18 pages.) A good fast orientation charting the last seven years. During the Arab Spring, we thought totalitarian governments would not survive in a world free of information gatekeepers. Today it looks more like liberal democracy might not make it.

Alice Maz: “https://jacobitemag.com/2017/12/05/a-priesthood-of-programmers/ (A priesthood of programmers.)” (13 pages.) This puts the last seven years into the context of the last 3,000. The story is that the dominant technology for preserving information has radically changed four times. Each time, the old system for arbitration of truth was destroyed (or “disrupted,” if you will), and whole nations and cultures dissolved in a period of chaos until a new system took over the function. Can civilization exist without a sensemaking power structure? Maybe, but it hasn’t yet.

Joreen: “The tyranny of structurelessness.” (9 pages.) In which a person at the center of the civil rights and second-wave feminist movements lays out the reasons why unstructured forums with “open participation” and weak governance seduce every new generation of idealistic reformers, but end up entrenching the same old caste and privilege system every time.

Still going strong?

Jennifer Kavanaugh and Michael Rich: “Truth Decay.” (324 pages.) A beefy piece of work, as befits the RAND Corporation. Goes into depth about three eras in US history that featured declining trust in institutions and dissolution of agreement on what constitutes “facts.” Many parallels to Alice Maz’s 3000-year view, but closer to home, if you’re finding it hard to care about how the pope maintained the information ecosystem in medieval Europe. Spoiler: each of the US transition periods is ended by a major war. Uh oh.

Carly Nyst and Nicholas Monaco: State Sponsored Trolling. (67 pages.) Zooms back in on the last few years, giving case studies from seven countries where young authoritarian movements are crushing opposition via the Power of the Internet: Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Ecuador, the Philippines, Turkey, the United States, and Venezuela. Placed side by side, the US doesn’t really look exceptional at all. Uh oh.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

A retirement investment product associated with steak-dinner sales pitches is flourishing thanks to the death of a regulation once expected to curtail it.

Annuity sales totaled $59.5 billion in the April-to-June period, the highest since late 2015, according to the Limra Secure Retirement Institute. Sales are expected to remain strong through at least the rest of the year.

The boom shows how Washington’s push to roll back financial regulations is giving new life to products that industry watchdogs say aren’t always good for investors. The annuities resurrection stems from the demise of the Labor Department’s fiduciary rule, an Obama-era proposal that would have required brokers who oversee retirement savings to act in their clients’ best interests.

 

[Michael Scally MD]