TRUMP is seriously dangerous

[Nordic]

Trump has no actual political power, nor has he ever, nor will he.

Overton Window, remember.

[mentalgongfu2]

Trump has no actual political power, nor has he ever, nor will he.

Overton Window, remember

I hope you're right. If by political power you mean ability to pull strings with the real movers and shakers you may be right, but Trump certainly has people power. Frighteningly so from my vantage point. If he said next the US should ban Roman Catholics from coming into the country I don't think it would dissuade those who already are on board, provided they don't self identify in that camp.

[slomo]

Trump has no actual political power, nor has he ever, nor will he.

Overton Window, remember

I hope you're right. If by political power you mean ability to pull strings with the real movers and shakers you may be right, but Trump certainly has people power. Frighteningly so from my vantage point. If he said next the US should ban Roman Catholics from coming into the country I don't think it would dissuade those who already are on board, provided they don't self identify in that camp.

Trump is activating and empowering a demographic that has some very ugly views.

I've mentioned in the past that part of the problem is that the ecconomic concerns of this demographic have been dismissed (despite the GOP paying lip-service to them). So the problem has been left to fester, and what we have is a fulminating necrosis. It will not end well.

[Elvis]

Has this been posted? MediaMatters data, number of minutes FOX Noise has given to Trump vs. the other GOP witnits.

[Elvis]

Probably should have posted it in this thread, but if anyone is interested, I sketched a scenario and posed some questions about Trump in the "Trump is a Hillary Plant" thread.

[justdrew]

"TRUMP calls for new Star Wars movie to be banned and never shown, source media to be destroyed"



tweet about it now #grandmofftrump

Hours after Donald Trump suggested the U.S. ban Muslims from entering the United States, the leading Republican presidential candidate said America should also consider "closing the Internet up in some way"

[82_28]

Fuck that guy is an idiot, if he wants to "make america great again" as he says. I would say at this point, around 95% of the population rely upon the Internet in some fashion. I would be unemployed if I didn't have access along with the rest of the uuuge company that is investing millions every day to build fiber. I expect him finally to fizzle with this. I hope the media runs with that. It should put a stake in him.

Again, he is an embarrassment that he is even polling so highly.

[mentalgongfu2]

82_28, I love your contributions to RI, but I think you are naively optimistic in that prediction. Embarrassment, yes, and the media will attempt to put a stake in him, but he will counter that he is only proposing banning access to the part of the Internet that foments terror, and those who agree with him will not budge. I really don't believe he can say anything anymore to turn off anyone who already supports him, and that number is surprisingly large.

[82_28]

The thing is is that you can't "ban" certain parts of the Internet. I am about to hop on to my company's INTRANET and expect to have full use of the INTERNET from there. I do things much differently there. I would never log into RI with it, but I could. I think Dump is appealing to people who have no idea how telecommunications work and the Internet is just "a thing". . .

[mentalgongfu2]

I suppose that gets to the definition of "ban," to unfortunately sound like Billy Boy Clinton in the Ken Starr investigation. Stopping access may not be realistically possible, but designating certain sites or topics as trouble and those who visit them as potential troublemakers, that is certainly possible unless I'm sorely mistaken. Maybe avoidable for those who know how IP addresses are tracked and to use proxy servers and the like to hide themselves, but I can't say I'm in that camp. And then, just the effort at using such disguises will be considered "anti" behavior, similar to how the lack of terrorist connections in the San Bernadino shooting is being portrayed as evidence of an even deeper terrorist connection. Regardless, I think it's far past time anyone who cares at all about a semblance of personal privacy or simply avoiding being eaten alive by 4chan trolls or whatever else it may come to starts to learn more about how this whole foundation does work. When I first saw Ghost In The Shell I thought it was a good idea, and I've obviously delayed too long. As someone knowledgeable about the infrastructure, perhaps you have a starting point to recommend?

[justdrew]

We just need to install a T chip in everyone's internet and only grand moff trump aproved internet sites will work. it's easy.

[Nordic]

Has this been posted? MediaMatters data, number of minutes FOX Noise has given to Trump vs. the other GOP witnits.

[Elvis]

Has this been posted? MediaMatters data, number of minutes FOX Noise has given to Trump vs. the other GOP witnits.

Funny how similar that looks to a hand flipping you off.

Hahahaha! I didn't see that 'til you mentioned it.

[stefano]

Stopping access may not be realistically possible

You can block access to certain domains from certain IP blocks if you have the co-operation of the people (in the US, that's 3 or 4 companies?) who route the traffic. It happens in a lot of places, Ethiopia for instance. YouTube was blocked in Tunisia when I lived there in the old days.

but designating certain sites or topics as trouble and those who visit them as potential troublemakers, that is certainly possible unless I'm sorely mistaken.

This happens already.

Maybe avoidable for those who know how IP addresses are tracked and to use proxy servers and the like to hide themselves, but I can't say I'm in that camp.

Using Google to find out how proxies work, or to download Tor, almost certainly gets you onto a list as well.

[seemslikeadream]