It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Dangerous Irony of a Trump Dictatorship

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 12:57 PM
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

They are willing to burn down the country because Trump said, 'Grab them by the p-y."

I'm convinced that is the bottom line.

posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 01:32 PM
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I just found out that after railing against the stimulus pork bill congress just passed, she voted for it.

Republican Josh Hawley did the same thing.

We're being played.
edit on 12 22 2020 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 01:34 PM
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

And as much as that first scenario appeals to me, the second seems much more of a realistic comprehension of the man.

You won't get an argument out of me with regard to Trump's ego.

But I don't agree with your characterization of this.

posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 01:46 PM
a reply to: projectvxn

We're being played.

Yep. Literally no one is really addressing the most existential issues we are facing, both sides appear to just be jockeying for position. I was momentarily excited about Trump when he first hit the stage in the primary debates. It seemed to me that he was hitting a lot of what I considered to be major issues. Then I listened more and all he seemed to be doing to me was just to repeat conspiracy theories and dissatisfactions I had held for years.

posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 01:47 PM
a reply to: projectvxn

I would be a fool to expect that we could agree on that one, I just wanted to make myself clear on that. Hopefully we can still find ground to converse

posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 01:48 PM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Serdgiam

I sound like a broken record at times, but I will keep saying: there are not two sides.

Excellent post.

I think I would say that there are two sides in society at large, but not so much in the political & corporate system. The spectrum between those sides seems best predicted by how much media one consumes, and how fervently they believe/disbelieve it.

I would maybe even say there are three sides. The corporate-political entity, the so-called "left," and the so-called "right." The latter two end up fighting over the Gospel of the first, and they all work towards the same reality in the end.

I do still believe that Trump is something of an outsider to this, but none of it requires him to actually be complicit anyway. The same manipulation could have (and has) been done to anyone and everyone who would question, dissent, or worst case scenario: actually come up with ideas that have nothing to do with the corporate-political apparatus, or render it obsolete.

Of course, certain personality types are much easier to demonize than others. And, lets be real, Trump pretty much epitomizes that personality type.

My own nature is generally amused by his trolling, but he doesnt seem to really be in control of it. While he may be able to influence the news cycle.. It serves as little more than kindling to the fire we should be fighting. I still think he is a better choice than Biden, but we are going to be facing the same issues either way. I believe a second Trump term would give a bit more time, but not much else.

The corporate-political system works towards absolute authoritarian control marketed as righteous and good, exploiting ideals. The "left" buys into the marketing, but is largely unaware of the myopic nature of it or the real world results. The "right" spends all their time actively rejecting this Narrative, but not in any way that would actually beat back the larger agenda. Its really just escalating, but blind outrage. The rest is pretty much made up of people who are disparate enough that their voices get drowned out or erroneously lumped into one side. Particularly when channels of communication are saturating society with the two "sides," and specifically amplifying the most extreme voices.

In an age where "things" manifest at an increasingly rapid rate, this spells nothing less than disaster. Even if this Monolith was truly working towards what is best for our species ..which I think many technocrats believe[i] they are.. the downstream consequences of modern tools & technology is still a critical issue.

Their solution is to seize control of essentially everything, because commoners just cant be trusted with wielding the tools we have now (much less the near future). Of course, the reality is that it is human behavior and not specific to any given group.

That said, it would still require a great deal of disruption for even those on the "left" to openly accept a lot of it. Which we have certainly seen this year! So, it creates a situation where the end result is nigh inevitable corporate-political supremacy. A paradigm that is established at a faster rate, directly correlated with the severity of the fight between the "left" and the "right."

As long as most fight over the Narrative itself, particularly over aspects that are only currently achievable in imagination or based on entirely false premises, there will never be meaningful competition to the corporate-political religion. If they manage to actually gain the level of authority & control desired, I suspect it will take at least a generation or two for the tools that could break from the imposed dependency to become accessible enough to construct a meaningful alternative.

posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 02:01 PM

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Serdgiam

Whoever you are behind that keyboard, I applaud you for the best ATS post I have read in a long while. I would like to see your post as the foundation of a platform for someone to run with in 24

I thank you for that!

But, I think that politics should be a derivative (at most), rather than the prime factor. Perhaps the scariest possibility to a modern day politician is that they might be an obsolete concept. Given the situation as it stands now though, gaining those positions in tandem with other work could be effective.

We wait and wait for people who "represent" us to gain power on things that begin with us on an individual level. And, we are finally getting to a place where those individual voices can actually be heard without proxies. However, the framework needs to be built with that in mind, and it currently does the opposite.

We can essentially build and deploy all of these things here and now. No reason to needlessly inject middlemen as bottlenecks.. Particularly ones so susceptible to corruption and tyranny.

posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 02:26 PM
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I know we can.

I'm done fighting people over things. We've accomplished nothing doing that and I am not proud of it.

posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 02:34 PM
a reply to: Serdgiam

I kind of see the political perspective like a magnifying glass. We find something we think we need to see better so we look at it through this lense that magnifies in close up on particular subjects. The problem with a magnifying glass is that it pushes us down into isolated perception and excludes the larger contexts that we should really be looking at. Maybe a macro-scope that focuses on the entirety of what we are facing. Ya see what I am trying to get at here?

Perhaps the scariest possibility to a modern day politician is that they might be an obsolete concept

This has flitted though my mind a couple of times recently but I just let it pass through for all the other things that I am entertaining at this point.Yes, It could be only a hope that we could be on the verge of citizen governance as hoped for originally though that's just a wisp of a notion to my mind at this point.

For me, it's not that we fight against this authoritarian or that authoritarian, rather it's that we fight against any who would seek to be in that representative position, being molded INTO authoritarians.

In a way, Trump has latched onto a key point of where we might or even should be headed. This being in constant communications with the rest of our citizenry. The twittering and all the rest could be a harbinger of how we could work with those we choose to carry out our issues as we see them. Could we even vote on a daily basis on issues?? POTUS could say hey gang, what about this or that and we could vote? I don't know how any of that could work or even if it would be good for us but it certainly might be an interesting avenue of study. So far, the problem as I see it is that it is Trump who is the inaugural example of this.

posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 03:11 PM
a reply to: projectvxn

Agreed. This retinue of drawing a line in the sand has proved useless other than stepping back and drawing another line in the sand even farther away from the other guy who is doing the same leaving a ''no mans land in between the two.. We could have learned that lesson from the trench wars in Europe in the first world war over a hundred years ago.

For me, we could accept those lines that have been drawn as stemming from our own limitations and just let them rest while seeking to find the essences behind why we drew those lines in the first place, It's my assumption, no, rather my hope that those essences are more common to us all then we have allowed ourselves to understand.

posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 03:51 PM
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

I can't really speak to your impressions of Mr. Trump as mine are so radically different so as to be talking about different people.

I can clarify that I see professional politicians as those people who make a career out of being in politics. The classic idea of public service represented the idea that an individual would be making a sacrifice to hold office not getting rich off it. Term limits and severely reducing lobbying would go a long way toward reducing what I see as the problem which is the possibility of making millions as a politician.

posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 03:55 PM

originally posted by: projectvxn

We're being played.

You realize that you've known that for a very long time.

When I realized just how much it all is in our faces "FU" it all is ...I finally understood the movie Network.

posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 04:15 PM

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

I can't really speak to your impressions of Mr. Trump as mine are so radically different so as to be talking about different people.

Don't need you to do that; I've enumerated a (non-exhaustive) list of Trump's negative behaviors I've noticed, so we're all good there.

Reciprocally, you might further this dialog by elaborating on "your impressions", unless you have no positive ones (which I suspect is the case and is then a rather dubious outlook IMHO), in which case I'd call into question your genuine preference for non "professional politicians" attaining elected office. Like I said, the gaps from the GOP primary are being closed right now I'd wager, so we ain't seeing another non-politician nominee for POTUS in the 2 main political parties again, maybe in a generation.

It is safe to assume that tPTB are all done letting political neophytes/mavericks into the White House now. So any potential positives for letting a non "professional politician" having another 4 years to try to de-politicize Washington as POTUS are bye bye now. The next 4 years will be about the archetypal "professional politician" doing what his ilk do : smile, spew pleasantry B.S., say X and do Y, and generally play the role he has his entire life.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I can clarify that I see professional politicians as those people who make a career out of being in politics.

Yeah sure. Like Joe Biden. I gotcha

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The classic idea of public service represented the idea that an individual would be making a sacrifice to hold office not getting rich off it.

Right, exactly, kind of like say...Donald Trump. He may or may not been handed a large % of his early wealth from his dad. He also might have gained some portion of his wealth from unfair real estate deals. But either way, IDGAF about that, when what he's "earned" in public office is a pittance in comparison. I could look past those earlier transgressions from Trump if I suspected he had no interest in expanding his wealth from elected office. I gave it a 50/50 coin flip that this was the case with him. I 150% know Joe Biden has built his entire net worth from elected office. The End.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Term limits and severely reducing lobbying would go a long way toward reducing what I see as the problem which is the possibility of making millions as a politician.

Right on, I can dig all of this. I have no idea how these things will ever in 1000 years make it into the fabric of our legislature and political landscape tho.

Of all the people in all of the congressional seats, I tend to trust "mavericks" more than any other breed of politician. The Pauls, father and son. Maybe a Gabard, IDK.

Trump, lumps and all, was a maverick. Now we have a "professional politician" in charge.

posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 04:28 PM
Not trying to antagonize you in such much as understand an example, or generic traits, of what you think a non "professional politician" president looks like.

posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 07:10 PM
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

Right, almost everyone can agree Trump's an ass ... that's not what I was referring to. Your post and others commonly state what you see in the Trump Administration that I simply do not see. Rather than harp on that, again, I stated there was no reason to try to discuss Trump. Positive impressions? Some of his EOs have great titles.

You can call anything into question you like certainly ... I'm not sure what significance I'm supposed to derive from that. You seem to have bought into the nonsense that Trump" isn't a politician." He started contemplating running for office in 2000. He's admitted that he's manipulated politicians on both sides, he worked city politics in NYC for decades, he's been a member of about five political parties, and he flip flops on the issues as required by whoever he thinks will vote for him.

He's a prime example of a politican, and I've said repeatedly that all polticians are psychopaths so I don't know why you keep trying to toss Biden up.

Biden's certainly exactly what I'm referring to when I say we need to avoid professional politicians. Good pickup on your part, I guess.

Trump was not a political maverick. Trump trampled traditions and norms of the Presidential office and pointed out important areas in which the modern Presidency needs to be brought back under Constitutional limitations hard. Not the same thing.

(In fact, that's another positive thing I can say about Trump ... he showed us where our system of checks-and-balances needs strengthening.)

Trump isn't a poor man for sure. He also isn't as wealthy as he claims, and he lives on credit much of which is coming due in 2022. Of course he's in it for the money:

Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner allegedly created a shell company that secretly paid the president’s family members and spent more than $600 million, a report says.

The payments to the Trump family and top advisors through the company helped shield financial details from the public, according to Business Insider.

Use of the company, incorporated as American Made Media Consultants Corporation and American Made Media Consultants LLC, reportedly allowed the president and his family to bypass federally required financial disclosures.

Campaign finance records show the Trump campaign and its committee at the Republican National Committee, spent $617 million from their $1.26bn coffers through the company, according to Business Insider.

The Independent

Trump's income over the last decade or so comes from licensing his name. His company holds very little real estate, and he personally hasn't developed anything since ... what the 90s? Further his marketing deals have mostly all gone bust (Trump Steaks, Trump Air, Trump University) ... so obviously whatever acumen he had has at best gone through a dry spell.

Time will tell how Mr. Trump will be seen. That will be somewhere between the truth and the hype.

I don't disagree with you about Biden. He's a placeholder at best. Apathy vs. anxiety. It's time for someone to step up on the national stage, flip off the establishment pretending to be two parties, run on the issues, and work for this country again.

I've yet to see any examples of that in recent history; I'm not holding my breath.
edit on 22-12-2020 by Gryphon66 because: Noted

posted on Dec, 22 2020 @ 10:00 PM
a reply to: CitizenZero

House Democrat Jerry Nadler is still consumed and obsessed. After President Trump pardoned 20 people today, Nadler reacts..

Go suck an egg Jerry!

posted on Dec, 23 2020 @ 11:47 AM
So people are comparing trump to map now? Methinks these folks have been hitting the egg nog a little too early.

Mao's 'great leap forward' killed over sixty million people, I don't recall trump doing that, Nero? Sure I clearly ordering the death of firstborn infants.

Trump is not a dictator, he's a cult of personality.

posted on Dec, 25 2020 @ 11:11 AM
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I think I see what you are getting at there. I might conceptualize it a bit differently, but it points in the same direction.

I think the biggest "themes" tend to concentrate attention on the areas that have the most social & cultural momentum. Essentially, the positions with the most influence (from politicians to social media icons) get the most attention, but are also in a place to exert their will on others most effectively.. which can lead to something of a snowball effect.

I do think technology can change how we vote dramatically. Up to and including a real-time direct democracy (which certainly has big, big problems).

I dont really see this corruption changing. As long as some are in a position to have basics exploited, and others are in positions to do so, it will happen.

The biggest shift there is simply that everything moves at an increasingly rapid pace. Essentially, the people who get the most attention direct the course for our entire civilization. What type of person is that nowadays? Well, it tends to be the most extreme voices. The biggest difference is that those aligning with the so-called "left" do so under a very historically dangerous paradigm.

I envision something of a "life starter pack." It would be given at birth, or a certain age, and would include all the tools to directly provide ones own food, manufacturing ability, and energy production. Realistically, a paradigm like this has many of the same fundamental issues as a direct democracy. However, it does so by removing the main factors of coercion, force, and control.

From what we have seen throughout history, as well as modern times, is that concentrating these tendencies into easily identifiable positions of power does not actually address the issues. In many ways, it just makes some of the aspects worse and (imo) it ends up being a wash.

In the next 50 or so years, we will be seeing technology that essentially looks like magic. Is the population at large responsible enough for this? Does concentrating access and power to specific individuals actually alleviate the issues?

Neither road will be particularly easy.. But if we track them out to "best case scenario" results, I believe that decentralization has significantly more potential to create the world so many say they want to make.

When it comes down to it though, I think many (if not most) prefer to be told what to do. Then if "things" inevitably go wrong, it can be blamed on anyone but ourselves. Typically, it will be focused on what/whoever has the most attention in the public. For better or worse, that is currently Trump in many ways.

But, is he the source or merely an effect? Id argue very strongly for the latter. In that, his presence (or lack thereof) isnt particularly relevant to our current situation. I would say that we are dealing with issues of being human. Longstanding problems. Its just that our stage of advancement currently exacerbates the worst traits and nearly all of our communcation channels have been setup to amplify those issues (intentionally or not).

TL;DR: We are currently building a society that is driven exclusively by the most vocal, extreme voices. These voices have, by-and-large, coalesced into echo chambers that provide a very, very skewed perception of reality. As our tools reduce the time and effort between thought and reality.. We are facing an existential threat. This means we have an underlying problem(s) at the core of it all, while many focus solely on the superficial symptoms (like Trump).

posted on Dec, 25 2020 @ 01:15 PM
a reply to: Serdgiam

Some people seek after truth, rather TRUTH..
In my life have have been one of those though at this point find that treasure to be chimeral. (I made that word up I think though it is based on the concept of chimaera, a thing that is hoped for or wished for but in fct is illusory or impossible to achieve.)

At this point I prefer my ''truth'' in small doses, little bits and pieces that come from here and there to be examined in conjunction with all the other little pieces I have put together in my own ''reality jigsaw''.Ohh, if we capitalize that into ''Reality Jigsaw'' we might start a new religion. Oh, back to our conversations.

I find so many points in your last post to pick up and examine it is hard to find one to start on but I'll give it a try.


NO, never mind that for now. After typing Trump, I found an opportunity to take a shower which I did. And as I did my mind wandered away from Trump to this.

When I was ten, and that was well over 60 years ago, my uncle told me to consider that we know nothing. We only assume. We assume that a ball held in our hands will fall to the ground when released. But this is just an assumption. It may not. And it certainly WILL not if we eliminate gravity as part of our equation. As I kid, this began to teach me that context could be our real subject matter rather than whatever effects arise within the context of it's presence.

And over my years I have found that we, all of us to one degree or another tend towards focusing on any effect rather than the possible contexts within which those effects take place. And as you might assume from this I have tended towards existentialism ever since, which of course runs right back to your comment due to it's being the very same root word ''existential'' in your evaluation of our current situation. Or situations.

Here I need to inject the observation that when I use the word ''effect'' it is likely in the same way that you use the term

And yes, I agree that what we face as individuals as a society and as a world filled with people is very existential. The rapidness of the effects of our technological changes has and will continue to put us in need of advancing philosophical challenges that though dormant for eons are now paramount to moving any farther in this ''bottle neck'' civilization in from which we are emerging.

So, trying to swing this back to Trump I think that he does not have the capacity to either achieve or even stumble upon any of those existential needs that we are facing. This is not to say that I think Biden or almost anyone in the Democrat Party does either. In fact, I would say that the established ''liberal'' paradigm has presented us with certain expressions of it's philosophy that though workable in isolated situations during specific times, no longer serves as a basis for much of a future at all. INdeed, it, that liberal paradigm itself has taken on all the aspects of conservatism that it used to rail against. That is is is now mired in it's own sense of existential ''rightness''.

From all that you offered I now find that I cannot jump to any of the other pertinent topics of discussion you expressed and at this point should you desire, it is your turn to toss something back to me. I"m ready to catch or fumble as the case may be.

posted on Dec, 28 2020 @ 04:11 AM
a reply to: MotherMayEye

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in