America After MAGA

[Thera32]

I agree even the best America can offer, which is NPR/PBS, is still pretty toothless compared to the media in other countries. Fox is just on a completely different continent compared to the others.

There was a study where reliance on fox news' website made you in some aspects about as uninformed as people who engaged with no news.

Also don't forget the dominon lawsuit, where the judge released all the documents and we learned that the entire higher echelon of the company was deliberately lying for ratings.

They gave Glen Beck, a insane conspiracy theroist, a prime time spot for a few years.

The final one that gets me so mad is the Delta Smelt stuff. They ran a totally fabricated story at the behest of a bunch of rich farmers, and that destroyed decades of work trying to fix California's water issues. Trump currently references this story, which aired in 2009, whenever an issues happens in Cali. That fabricated story is literally creating policy 16 years after it aired.

It was a survey questionnaire and it wasn't "as uninformed", the real result was LESS! People who followed Fox "News" were LESS informed than people who followed no news at all, FFS that tells a lot about american tv quality and keep in mind this was in 2012.

STUDY: Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All

A study finds that watching Fox News may leave viewers less informed than not watching news at all, raising concerns about media influence.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Anyone who only watches Fox News already has a manufacturing defect anyway, can't be expected to respond correctly to anything.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

MAGA will just transform into something else post-Trump and latch on to the next far right GOP Presidential candidate that says what they want to hear. A candidate that will likely imitate Trump's playbook and whatever means necessary, to win the party nomination.

It's fairly simple: MAGA will end when Trump leaves office. Because MAGA is a construct of Trump himself.

The rest of you fellas are reading way too far into this as some sort of coherent worldview as part of a Reagan-Bush I/II continuum instead of a psychological disposition. The old textbooks don't work anymore.

 

[danjuno]

It's fairly simple: MAGA will end when Trump leaves office. Because MAGA is a construct of Trump himself.

The rest of you fellas are reading way too far into this as some sort of coherent worldview as part of a Reagan-Bush I/II continuum instead of a psychological disposition. The old textbooks don't work anymore.

Ultra-nationalism is a lot broader then what Trump's done in the USA, though. The idea of Trump running was still a meme in 2011 when Utoya happened.

 

[amadeus]

that tells a lot about american tv quality and keep in mind this was in 2012

Why hasn’t anyone redone the same study for 13 years? Something is off about that it hasn’t been reproduced.

 

[KMRblue1027]

I wouldn't be shocked if such a study isn't easily possible anymore since the rise of social media news dominating the landscape. Its just as bad if not worse for propaganda then Fox was but it's much more fragmented.

 

[Samson]

Why hasn’t anyone redone the same study for 13 years? Something is off about that it hasn’t been reproduced.

That study also seems to be unavailable. I am not convinced, how can you effectively sample a population that by definition does not engage with media?

 

[IglooDame]

It's fairly simple: MAGA will end when Trump leaves office. Because MAGA is a construct of Trump himself.

The rest of you fellas are reading way too far into this as some sort of coherent worldview as part of a Reagan-Bush I/II continuum instead of a psychological disposition. The old textbooks don't work anymore.

MAGA will end when Trump loses access to his megaphone.

Let's pretend for a moment that a Democrat wins the presidential election in 2028. Do you seriously think Trump just wanders off into the distance at that point? That he hasn't already made the case that he should have a 3rd term, that the GOP candidate (him or a minion or something) didn't really win and it was rigged again? And so the MAGA faithful will continue following him.

 

[Voidwalkin]

This may be an odd thread to start in light of the bleakness of the current moment, but the Allies began planning to occupy Germany in 1942. So, assuming that MAGA is defeated and is not in control of the American state on January 20th, 2029, what changes should be made to the Constitutional order to prevent a repeat of the second Trump term?

In broad outline, I propose:

-abolishing the Department of Homeland Security. Prosecutions of officers employed by DHS who violated the constitutional rights of persons under US jurisdiction under any previous administration. DHS functions deemed essential to be split up between other relevant departments and agencies.

-Constitutional amendment specifying that the President is liable for any criminal acts committed in office, regardless of whether the acts were "official" or not

-some means of checking the Supreme Court's power. Term limits, increased # of justices, perhaps allowing a supermajority in Congress to override a SCOTUS decision if it strikes down Congressional legislation

-The CECOT prison to be broken open and prisoners to be transferred to normal prisons or other kinds of rehabilitation facilities (or released) according to the facts of their specific case

- strengthening of anti-corruption laws, to include constititional amendments if necessary.

-constitutional amendment specifying that incorporation is a privilege designed to advance the public interest, not an unconditional right of individuals, and exempting corporate property from Bill of Rights protections that were only intended to protect personal property

I'm only 6 weeks late, but nevertheless, I think this is all a little too...I dunno, legalist. If the will to overcome the system is greater than the will to uphold it, it's hard to imagine an effective set of checks and balances. Getting government moving and restoring faith in the ability of the public sector to do good works is what'd really put cold water on Trumpism.

To do that expediently, though, you would kinda...wanna, uh, sidestep, some things and go over a few of those checks and balances yourself. You'd immediately want to reduce the influence of rentiers and corporations simultaneously, which would require widening of state powers, deployment of flimsy pretexts, loosening of regulations as to where and what the public sector can do, basically, what the state can demand of the private sector.

Act first, then wait for the courts to strike it down later. It's pretty Trumpian itself. Maybe that's our era, though... circumstances have put the public in such a change mood that it may be that the only real question is whether or not you harness populism for good or ill.

 

[IglooDame]

Intriguing thought upon waking this morning:

Canada, obviously forget about becoming the 51st state, but would you maybe be willing to take on three more provinces? I promise none of the three would be as annoying as Quebec.

Washington/Oregon/California, and maybe throw in Hawaii and possibly Alaska
Minnesota/Wisconsin/Illinois/Michigan, but it might only be North Illinois
and Pennsylvania/Maryland/Delaware/NY/Connecticut/RI/Mass/Maine (and probably VT, but probably not NH)

I think you could cut a pretty favorable deal right now.

(and also )

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

Well, if Canada took any 3 of those states, it would certainly LOSE a couple of the provinces. (2 - 4)

(and of course, the maps would look ... weird)

 

[EnglishEdward]

Reminds me of:

Jesusland map - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Evie]

In that scenario, current Canadians would form about, what, a quarter to a third of the population of the new state? We still basically wind up the XXst state in this version, just we get to keep the name Canada to some degree.

I'd suggest that it makes much more sense for American Cascadia (California included) and the North-East to strike out on their own under, as equal friends and allies of Canada rather than as parts of thereof. the Mid-West is harder to figure out, but honestly so long as they keep Canada happy (to get the Saint Lawrence seaway), they can probably strike out on their own too.

 

[IglooDame]

In that scenario, current Canadians would form about, what, a quarter to a third of the population of the new state? We still basically wind up the XXst state in this version, just we get to keep the name Canada to some degree.

I'd suggest that it makes much more sense for American Cascadia (California included) and the North-East to strike out on their own under, as equal friends and allies of Canada rather than as parts of thereof. the Mid-West is harder to figure out, but honestly so long as they keep Canada happy (to get the Saint Lawrence seaway), they can probably strike out on their own too.

It's a fair point. I was just thinking that moving to another existing federal nation would require um less paperwork and constitutional conventioning and such.

But okay Greater Chicagoland can do whatever. I'd suggest Canada could still have Maine, at least.

 

[Evie]

We'd also be happily willing to take Vermont off your hands, since, let's face it, they're already halfway to being Canadian anyway. Plus, judging by the effort they're putting in apologizing for current events (up to and including admitting our Maple Syrup is better, imagine), they're really really really really wanting our continued approbation (and tourism money). And it would finally resolve that little border problem around that one library...

We can *discuss* New Hampshire, we wouldn't mind having the White Mountains, but it's going to require significant, ah, incentives, to get us onboard with taking on their libertarian nonsense.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Vermont, NH and Maine are the obvious choices in the east. Michigan and Minnesota in the Midwest, and Idaho, Washington and Montana in the west. Losing the blue states might be somewhat offset by losing a few red ones.

 

[Evie]

Wow, wow, I said we were fine with taking on NH for some compensation. Idaho and Montana? That's a whole other ball game and convincing us to take those on won't be cheap!

 

[Akka]

In that scenario, current Canadians would form about, what, a quarter to a third of the population of the new state? We still basically wind up the XXst state in this version, just we get to keep the name Canada to some degree.

Wow, that's pretty racist of you here. Are you really saying you object with your country getting a large influx of foreign population ?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Wow, wow, I said we were fine with taking on NH for some compensation. Idaho and Montana? That's a whole other ball game and convincing us to take those on won't be cheap!

We already have Alberta, we don't need another 2.

 

[Evie]

Well, in fairness, given Canadian political systems and the lack of an all-provinces-get-equal-representation senate, it's less another two Alberta and more like another 75% of an Alberta

Still enough of a pain to require some massive concessions, mind you.