Hva om Donald Trump blir president?

[Pelen]

Opprinnelig lagt inn av Maverick, her.

Nei, men tror du nå egentlig det har noe å si?

Nei, det har vel dessverre ikke det, men de fleste oppegående mennesker ser vel forskjellen.

[LaBanga]

Det eneste positive med forslaget om å ville sjekke sosiale medier til folk som kommer inn i landet, må jo være at det er et tegn på at Apple har klart å stå imot innsyn på systemnivå fra etteretningsmyndighetene. Hadde de hatt kontroll der, så hadde de ikke trengt å foreslå det en gang.

[Niobe]

Jeg har to planlagte USA-turer i år. Det er utvilsomt med en viss bismak, ikke minst fordi billettene ble bestilt mens jeg fremdeles lo av tanken på Donald Trump som president. Men jeg ser frem til å kunne diskutere situasjonen med amerikanere i USA.

[Pamina]

Han, altså Trdump har nå uttalt, iflg. NBCNews:

Opprinnelig lagt inn av The dictator in chief

It’s ‘Disgraceful’ for Pope to Question My Christianity

For dette vet jo ikke paven noe om, må vite!

[Maverick]

For fem minutter siden:

"There is nothing nice about searching for terrorists before they can enter our country. This was a big part of my campaign. Study the world!"

[Maverick]

Breaking news på Reuters: Iraqi Parliament votes to "retaliate" against US.

[Albertine]

Opprinnelig lagt inn av Maverick, her.

Breaking news på Reuters: Iraqi Parliament votes to "retaliate" against US.

Faen heller...

[Sir Limpalot]

Dette blir stas...

[Strå]

Opprinnelig lagt inn av Pelen, her.

Ja, slik føle jeg også. Vi har en reise lanlagt.

Det kan jeg også i tilfelle. Men jeg, som de fleste, er ikke mot USA; men mot Trump.

Jeg tror ikke det utgjør noen forskjell for Trump, og med de diktatoriske tendensene han ser ut til å ha så er det umulig å ane hvordan ting blir tolket.

[Sir Limpalot]

Skal jeg være ærlig hadde jeg ikke klart å la være å være bittelitt bekymret hvis jeg skulle til USA, nå.
Jeg har skrevet såpass mye USA-kritisk på nettet at det ikke akkurat er vanskelig å finne og jeg er jo, i amerikansk høyresidemålestokk, blodkommunist.
Så jo, litt bekymret hadde jeg faktisk vært.

[Maverick]

Jeg ble nettopp lagt inn på "watchlisten" til en eller annen alt right-idiot (som tilbringer mye tid på å retweete David Duke, lissom...), velger å se på det som en ære. Mye bra folk og mange staute snowflakes på den watchlisten.

[Sir Limpalot]

Opprinnelig lagt inn av Maverick, her.

Jeg ble nettopp lagt inn på "watchlisten" til en eller annen alt right-idiot (som tilbringer mye tid på å retweete David Duke, lissom...), velger å se på det som en ære. Mye bra folk og mange staute snowflakes på den watchlisten.

Og vi gratulerer!
Det er et sikkert tegn på at du mener noe riktig og gjør noe med det.

[Teflona]

Denne mannen styrer det meste.
https://www.google.no/amp/www.cosmop...?client=safari
Lettlest artikkel, finnes flere om denne gærningen om orker lese mer. Og det bør du.

[Hondacrv]

Opprinnelig lagt inn av Maverick, her.

Breaking news på Reuters: Iraqi Parliament votes to "retaliate" against US.

Kva tyder retaliate?

[Neket]

Opprinnelig lagt inn av Hondacrv, her.

Kva tyder retaliate?

Ta igjen. De sier de vil ikke slippe inn amerikanske statsborgere.

[Hondacrv]

Å, hjelpes. No blir eg litt redd altså

[Maverick]

Attorney general (justisminister) Sally Yates erklærte at muslim ban ikke er etter grunnloven og ikke vil bli forsvart i rettsak. Poff - sparken.

[LaBanga]

Ja, er det noe Trump er god på, så er det jo nettopp å gi folk sparken. Tipper det ikke blir siste gangen.

[Toffskij]

Dette er rett og slett dritskummelt.

[Pelen]

Hva tenker dere om dette?

Sitat:

From Heather Richardson, professor of History at Boston College:

"I don't like to talk about politics on Facebook-- political history is my job, after all, and you are my friends-- but there is an important non-partisan point to make today.
What Bannon is doing, most dramatically with last night's ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries-- is creating what is known as a "shock event."
Such an event is unexpected and confusing and throws a society into chaos. People scramble to react to the event, usually along some fault line that those responsible for the event can widen by claiming that they alone know how to restore order.

When opponents speak out, the authors of the shock event call them enemies. As society reels and tempers run high, those responsible for the shock event perform a sleight of hand to achieve their real goal, a goal they know to be hugely unpopular, but from which everyone has been distracted as they fight over the initial event. There is no longer concerted opposition to the real goal; opposition divides along the partisan lines established by the shock event.

Last night's Executive Order has all the hallmarks of a shock event. It was not reviewed by any governmental agencies or lawyers before it was released, and counterterrorism experts insist they did not ask for it. People charged with enforcing it got no instructions about how to do so. Courts immediately have declared parts of it unconstitutional, but border police in some airports are refusing to stop enforcing it.

Predictably, chaos has followed and tempers are hot.

My point today is this: unless you are the person setting it up, it is in no one's interest to play the shock event game. It is designed explicitly to divide people who might otherwise come together so they cannot stand against something its authors think they won't like.

I don't know what Bannon is up to-- although I have some guesses-- but because I know Bannon's ideas well, I am positive that there is not a single person whom I consider a friend on either side of the aisle-- and my friends range pretty widely-- who will benefit from whatever it is.
If the shock event strategy works, though, many of you will blame each other, rather than Bannon, for the fallout. And the country will have been tricked into accepting their real goal.
But because shock events destabilize a society, they can also be used positively. We do not have to respond along old fault lines. We could just as easily reorganize into a different pattern that threatens the people who sparked the event.

A successful shock event depends on speed and chaos because it requires knee-jerk reactions so that people divide along established lines. This, for example, is how Confederate leaders railroaded the initial southern states out of the Union.

If people realize they are being played, though, they can reach across old lines and reorganize to challenge the leaders who are pulling the strings. This was Lincoln's strategy when he joined together Whigs, Democrats, Free-Soilers, anti-Nebraska voters, and nativists into the new Republican Party to stand against the Slave Power.

Five years before, such a coalition would have been unimaginable. Members of those groups agreed on very little other than that they wanted all Americans to have equal economic opportunity. Once they began to work together to promote a fair economic system, though, they found much common ground. They ended up rededicating the nation to a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Confederate leaders and Lincoln both knew about the political potential of a shock event. As we are in the midst of one, it seems worth noting that Lincoln seemed to have the better idea about how to use it."