@ChaosEngine
never going to happen.
the obama administration has been waging war against whistleblowers for 8 years.prosecuting more whistleblowers using the archaic "espionage act of 1917" to pursue and prosecute more whistleblowers than any other president in americas history COMBINED.

unless there is a massive public outcry to force the executive branch to pardon snowden,it is never going to happen.

but as long as we are making a wishlist to the fairy godmother of shit-that-is-never-going-to-happen,let me add to that list:

1.repeal the NDAA of 2017,which is an addon to the NDAA of 2012,which is a simply continuation of the MCA of 2006 (look em up folks,those "rights" you claim to have are really mere suggestion due to these abominations.

2.pursue and indict ALL wall street players who knowingly engaged in fraud and collapsed the global economy.strip them of all begotten gains to pay back the american people,and throw them in the most vile of maximum prisons (hopefully with a bunkmate nicknamed 'anal destroyer").

3.recind ALL expanded powers that the bush administration enacted (thanks to neocons addington and woo) and which the obama administration actually expanded even further,and NOW trump will be executive over the most powerful executive branch in american history .(this would be a nice one eh?).

4.have the DEA and ATF actually honor obamas original statement that his administration would not pursue federal law in regards to marijuana,mandated by referendums by the citizens of those states (to which he had promptly disregarded,and raided local dispenseries).

5.reduce americas prison population(2.4 million,largest on the planet) by pardoning the non-violent drug offenders,and disallowing companies like nike and apple to abuse prison labor (slave labor).

6.stop the practice of military intervention at the behest of corporations to exploit the poorest and most vulnerable.

7.stop the practice of regime change at the behest..oh this is becoming familiar...corporations wishing to exploit the poorest and most vulnerable for their resources.

8.and could we possibly,maybe..stop with targeted drone strikes? a.k.a "assassinations". how a constitutional law professor reconciles his law pedigree with his "value target tuesday" i.e:murder just boggles my mind.

man,i should stop.my wishlist is becoming to long..and depressing.

i voted this video up because i will not ignore that obama did some good,and even some great things during his presidency,but i also will not ignore his very disturbing failures.

and there are a LOT of disturbing failures.

so i will sit and hold hands and sing kumbaya as we all remember our very smart president,but let us not forget..this very same president expanded an executive branch that trump will be taking over the reigns very soon.

and on that note,i have to give him a failing grade.

That's just my point though. It would be easy to stop Trump from turning the US into a fascist dictatorship.

But...

The people you're tasking with stopping him are the people who would benefit the most from his reign. There are some idealists in Senate/Congress, but most of them are not Republicans. Don't you think OTHER countries which became failed states/dictatorships had laws and procedures to prevent one person from seizing power? 'Cause I can tell you for a fact, many of them did, many of them had systems far more robust than the United States has.

Fundamentally, the United States is no longer a truly democratic country. It hasn't been for decades, but things have progressed to the point where calling yourselves a 'democracy' is a joke to the rest of the world.

There's a good graph out there that shows how democratic the US is. It maps popularity of a law against the likelihood of the law being passed. If 0% of the people support the law, it has a 30 percent chance of being passed, at 100% support, it has a 30% chance of being passed. Re-run the graph for top 10%ers and 0 support is 0 chance, 100% is 61%.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig (graphs are in this video)

The USA is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy, trending towards despotism and dictatorship.

I'm anxious to see the Faux Left coming out of the woods again during the reign of the Orange One. All the shit they opposed when the Bush administration did it only to shut up when the Obama administration continued, or even expanded it, are they going to oppose it again? Can we at least get opposition against the targetted killing of US citizens without due process (al-Awlaki)?

What of all the Dem sycophants in the liberal wing of the media (Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Operative K, Rachel Maddow, etc) who went on a pro-HRC binge over the last months in particular, will they return to reality?

And what is Alex Jones going to? Having raged against government in general only to have his guy now be in charge of the government... is he going to sell beauty products now?

Edit: Thomas Frank, again, to the rescue:

Put this question in slightly more general terms and you are confronting the single great mystery of 2016. The American white-collar class just spent the year rallying around a super-competent professional (who really wasn’t all that competent) and either insulting or silencing everyone who didn’t accept their assessment. And then they lost. Maybe it’s time to consider whether there’s something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high social status, that turns people away.

For starters, I have to oppose the implied thought that Saddam's reign of terror was preventing this sectarian violence. His rule through the Suni minority to wage genocides against the Kurdish and Shia majority and decades of brutal repression of same all served to make the sectarian hatred and violence worse. Tally up the hundreds of thousands he killed through genocide, the million plus he killed in the Iran-Iraq war and everyone that died by direct execution or deliberate starvation level poverty and compare it doesn't stand out as starkly and objectively a desirable alternative to today.

Now if you ask what would I do differently it depends on what level of power I've got to act with. Ideally, we can go back to first Iraq war and have Bush senior march on Baghdad. This would've aborted one of Saddam's genocides. Equally importantly, this would have kept the Shia Iraqi population's view of America as a liberating force. The standing in the desert and watching Saddam slaughter them thing still carried their mistrust of American forces after Saddam's actual removal later. That singularly stupid move of leaving Saddam in power, at the urging of most of the planet, drove the Shia population of Iraq back to Iran as their sole sympathetic ally.

Next step, after the removal of Saddam, whether we can do it back then, or only a few years ago as it really happened is to truly setup an occupation government. You don't bring stability to a region by immediately trying to transition to a democracy before the shooting has even stopped. The occupation government would be run by somebody with actual knowledge and experience with Iraq, rather than as Bush senior did by sending in a guy with zero experience and a two week lead to brief himself. The task you should place on this leader, is to setup a federated Iraq, with distinct and autonomous Shia, Sunni and Kurdish states. The occupation government would dictate things after taking input from Iraqi's rather than holding them to the tyranny of the majority as Bush and co allowed. The occupation would setup an initial constitution defining what laws and agreements spanned all three Iraqi provinces/states and what extent of autonomy they had to define their own systems of government. The American military's job would be to enforce this very basic constitutional framework. Each Iraqi state/province would be aided in setting up their own governments with a transition plan again dictated not voted upon. The transition plan would define the point in time when each state transitioned from occupation rule to a self determined future and rule of law.

The above plan on the whole would work, but Bush and co couldn't have managed post Saddam Iraq more poorly if they had actively tried to.

If zero time travel is allowed and we are to 'fix' things today, you need a lot MORE power. You need an army the size of America or Russia's and the political will to spend several years doing things the public will hate you for. The end game is still the same as above, a federated Iraq kicked off under a dictatorial occupation. To get there from today though you need to create stability. You need to take an army and march it across the entire country. As each city is cleared of militants you take a census of everybody and keep it because you need it to track down future militants. In entirely hostile locations like were ISIS has full rule, you bomb them into the stone ages before marching the army in. The surviving population is given full medical treatment. Now, as for sorting militants from civilians though, you do NOT use American style innocent until proven guilty justice. Instead, any fighting age males are considered guilty until proven innocent. This level of rule of law needs to remain in place until stability can be restored. You of course guarantee lots of innocent arrests, but your trying to prevent massive numbers of innocent deaths so it's required. As you stabilize the nation you can relax back to innocent until proven guilty and work on re-integrating the convicted.

You'll note that although the methods I'd declare necessary above are by any count 'brutal', they do not extend into Saddam's usage of genocide, torture and rape as the weapons of choice.

According to him, but he's pathological. Prove it. It's possible he's in debt.

Being president does not hand the rule of government to one man....no matter what Fox News said. He has ZERO parliamentary power. We don't have a parliament.

A president can grasp power (see Bush2) for the office and, if not stymied by congress and the courts, might be successful in wrestling the reigns of power from it's rightful places in our system.

It's how he operates, what indication do you have that he would change his MO?

But you also said she's committed more Federal crimes than are countable (or that's what you meant to say), then went on to whine when I said Trump has LIKELY committed more Federal crimes than are countable...and I gave you specifics. If I can't say he committed them until he's convicted (and he has been found guilty of those crimes) then you can't say it until she's convicted based on YOUR own rules....but you can't follow that logic.

Yeah, that's what I thought....'I'm gonna say what I want to say, don't bother proving me wrong, because I'll keep saying it anyway'. You enjoy that....by yourself.

How is that different? You're still incredibly naïve by both definitions, and they aren't very different. One says lacking wisdom, the other lacking information. I say both are correct, and you resemble both.

He's a billionaire. Traditionally speaking society at large accepts that people with incredible wealth are powerful.

If he's elected then by definition no force is needed and he doesn't need to try and seize the reigns. He's the president. He has a lot of parliamentary power. The reigns are handed to him on a silver platter. That said, he's still got congress to deal with, and if it's a hostile congress then he could be pushing shit up a hill.

Thank you for your fascism elucidation. I disagree that system will happen if he is elected. It's almost fanciful.

I don't believe Clinton has been charged or convicted. That's why I said she's "innocent until proven guilty".

No, not satisfied. I'd need to see links to court outcomes. But I'm not that interested so don't bother on my behalf.

As per the Oxford Dictionary the common use of naive is: showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgement. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/naive

Dictionary.com doesn't cut it for me

True, no one KNOWS, but it's a no brainer that his election would be seen as unpredictable by the markets, and dire political unpredictability=bear market.

Not so in any way. He has so little actual power it's laughable that you would think that. He's not even allowed to run the companies he actually owns large parts of because the boards won't allow him to, because they have a duty to not let him drive the companies into the ground. What "power" do you think he has?

He probably can't "seize the reigns" by force unless he's elected. He can attempt to seize them if he is elected.

Facism-(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Has Clinton been convicted? You didn't even say "likely broken Federal law", you said "on more occasions than is accountable, broken Federal Law" Because his past has not been as transparent by far and usually those dealing with him are forced to sign non disclosure agreements, it's patently ridiculous to imply that his crimes would be simple to just point to....but OK, not paying off on interstate contracts is a federal crime, one he's admitted publicly that he's committed uncountable times, any time he gets service before payment in full it seems....and he's been found guilty of that in civil court. Satisfied?

Um...lacking knowledge is being naïve.
Naïve-having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous:

We can only imagine what will happen. Nobody knows.

He is already one of the most powerful men in the world.

He can't seize the reigns. He can only be voted in. I.e., the reigns will be handed to him freely given by democratic vote.

Fascist means such a lot of things nowadays that it is an easy catchall insult. You'll have to elucidate exactly what you mean. Totalitarian? Despot? Anti-democratic? Etc, etc. the list is so long. It's a useless word when it means so many different things. You might as well say "smurf".

"Demagogue". Lol. Yes, he seems pretty good at it too.

Likely is not the same as has. He either has or he hasn't broken as many or more federal laws. And if he has you'd be able to point out the investigations, convictions or some other irrefutably damning evidence. And, just like Clinton, he's innocent until proven guilty.

You forgot an option at the end of your diatribe against Trump. 4) Lacking knowledge of said allegations. Which is not the same as naive.

You seem to imagine that the "chaos" that a Trump presidency would be confined to the American political arena. It would not. You can be certain that another world wide recession/depression would follow his election, before he's even in office. Financial markets hate uncertainty, and he is the embodiment of uncertainty. That chaos would not go unnoticed by anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together, nor would it be the only chaos he would incite.
I defy you to show one case in history when a power grasping fascist demagogue seizing the reigns of power has ever led to a net positive outcome.

You also seem to not know or care that Trump has been sued 3500 times in the last decades, has likely broken as many or more federal laws than Clinton, brutalizes women personally (that's what it's called when you take a non-citizen wife because she can't say "no" to you, and it's what it's called when you steal from people because you don't pay your bills or fulfil your contracts, causing hundreds of businesses to fail, some owned by women), is a consummate con man, a bully, an idiot, is incredibly gullible and naïve, is incredibly thin skinned, is hyper reactionary, and is a narcissistic demagogue. I say you either don't know or care because you implied he is "better" than Clinton in these areas, which you could only claim because you are either 1) completely naïve on the subject 2) willfully blind to his innumerable faults or 3) intentionally misleading and misguided. Your choice.

*quality

How does a bastard, orphan, son of a whore
And a Scotsman, dropped in the middle of a forgotten spot
In the Caribbean by Providence, impoverished, in squalor
Grow up to be a hero and a scholar?
The ten-dollar Founding Father without a father
Got a lot farther
By workin' a lot harder
By bein' a lot smarter
By bein' a self-starter
By fourteen they had placed him in charge of the trade and charter
And every day while slaves were being slaughtered
And carted away across the waves
Our Hamilton kept his guard up
Inside he was longing for something to be a part of
The brother was ready to beg steal borrow or barter
Then a hurricane came and
Devastation reigned and
Our man saw his future drip drippin' down the drain
Put a pencil to his temple
Connected it to his brain
And he wrote his first refrain
A testament to his pain
When the word got around, they said, "This kid is insane, man!"
Took up a collection just to send him to the mainland
Getcha education, don't forget from whence you came
And the world is gonna know your name!
What's your name, man?

Alexander Hamilton, his name is Alexander Hamilton
And there's a million things he hasn't done
But just you wait, just you wait

When he was 10, his father split
Full of it, debt-ridden
Two years later, see Alex and his mother, bed-ridden
Half-dead, sittin' in their own sick, the scent thick
And Alex got better but his mother went quick
Moved in with a cousin, the cousin committed suicide
Left him with nothin' but ruined pride
Somethin' new inside
A voice saying Alex, you gotta fend for yourself
He started retreatin' and readin' every treatise on the shelf
There would've been nothin' left to do
For someone less astute
He would've been dead or destitute
Without a cent of restitution
Started workin', clerkin' for his late mother's landlord
Tradin' sugar cane and rum and other things he can't afford
Scannin' for every book he can get his hands on
Plannin' for the future, see him now as he stands on
The bow of a ship headed for a new land
In New York you can be a new man
The ship is in the harbor now
See if you can spot him
Another immigrant comin' up from the bottom
His enemies destroyed his rep, America forgot him
And me? I'm the damn fool that shot him

Alexander Hamilton
We were waiting in the weeds for you
You could never back down
You always had to speak your mind
But Alexander Hamilton, we could never take your deeds from you
In our cowardice and our shame
We will try to destroy your name
The world will never be the same, Alexander!

Yeah, I'm the damn genius that shot him

Up for a laugh?

Straight from /r/Rainbow6: https://imgur.com/YQpwzOQ

And yes, it's authentic (ignore text, but read the comments)

As a matter of pedantry.....Paul knew full well before the Jihad started, that it would spread to the stars.

This was the least fucked up possible future he saw and even though he knew it involved the death of his love Chani, he chose that future over the "golden path".

*Massive spoilers from later books below*
*
*
*
*

His second son Leto (yes another one) eventually fulfilled this and basically calls his father a big pussy for avoiding it in the 1st place.

The Golden path being ascent to godhood and becoming the greatest tyrant the human race would ever know. (Worm-man super hybrid)

(The end result being that the human race would finally be free of the fatalism Paul and Leto II were trapped by, by the time his reign ended millennia later.)

If it were only a 'few entitled fucks' it would be laughable.
Sadly, those entitled fucks have become many, and have taken the reigns of the 'PC' and 'Feminist' movements, or at least have become the face of those movements if nothing more, simply by being the loudest and most vocal members of them. They have managed to wrestle control of numerous universities, and bullied the staff into capitulation or worse, out of a job for nothing more than having a differing opinion.

I wish they could simply be easily ignored, they can't.
I wish they had no power to force their viewpoint, but that's not the case.
I wish universities would stand up to them and tell them "universities are places where you are intended to be exposed to varying points of view. Any attempt to silence another's point of view is contrary to our educational mission. If you are found to be participating in a group attempting to silence others viewpoints, you will be expelled."
I wish their parents had not coddled these infants and told them they are the best person in the world and worthy of every possible benefit, with no responsibility to go along with it.

I also feel for these kids, who will have zero opportunities when they finish college because they never learned how to be adult and so they won't be employable.

I would say this is pretty much on the button, though. This way clearly isn't working, but the people who have money and power have convinced the majority that nothing can change and even if we could we would be worse off.

I don't think i'm being melodramatic or conspiracy theorising either. Rupert Murdoch and the Barclay brothers tell people what to think and they think it. Democracy has been subverted by money in most western countries with corporate lobbyists willing to spend billions to get a politician on-side, "anti-lobbying" legislation that actually attacks grassroots and activists from broadcasting the truth at election time (and leaves lobbying untouched), and unfair campaign spending/fund-raising that leaves the rich with all the advantage.

The media in Britain have consistently presented a skewed and incorrect representation of the left-wing party leader. It is clearly a campaign by vested interests to stop a man who would bring their reign to an end. The language that they use and the metric by which they judge "their" guy is COMPLETELY different to how they judge the "other" guy.

What's worse is, fairness and balance in the media has deteriorated to such a point that it is now absolutely fine for all this to happen.

As Lawdeedaw said, we are already a long way up shit creek and we didn't even pack the paddle. Some people are getting very rich and are very comfortable, they have immense power and they will say anything to convince you that it's best that it stays that way. Including lying and using manipulative language and statistics in their national publications and television stations. And all you as an individual really has to do is vote someone into power that cannot be corrupted. You've got Bernie, we've got Jeremy.

"Too rich to be corrupted" is farcical though - let's only trust rich people then. Not only does this suggest that rich people are more trustworthy just by dint of having lots of money, but that poor people are less trustworthy because the greedy little paupers can't restrain themselves from 'upping their station'? I would rather judge someone on who i perceive their character to be than based on what is in their bank account, but i guess i'm fucked up like that.