Guantanamo is still open, the NSA is as powerful as ever, a partisan puppet has been installed at the CIA, and Trump has all of these tools at his disposable.
The UK just codified all of their past illegal surveillance activities.
I don't think I will have children.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/asia/thailand...
The message of that book is 'resistance is futile'. Nothing, not even love (per Mr. Blair) is strong enough to resist the power structure. It is propaganda designed to completely crush the spirit without offering even a single remedy.
Under the spreading chestnut tree
I sold you and you sold me.
An extreme totalitarian surveillance state will
eventually converge to punishing acts like extra
marital sex or keeping a diary with personalized
torture until victims are broken beyond any thought
of hostility towards their authority figures.
I'll read Lord of The Rings to my kids and let thoughts of Frodo give them the courage and the hope, and I suppose you can terrorize your kids by reading them about "rat face cages" and betrayals and fear culminating in a sit down in Chestnut Tree cafe drinking Victory Gin.
It's right there in The Party's second-favorite slogan:
Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.
It did take more than a generation to drive us into the ground.
>A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both
Nothing you can do about it. Trump and Clinton had the same motivations: they both want to own you, enrich themselves and their friends, and they don't care about anything else. With regard to foreign policy, they support the same nations abroad, will keep sending them money, some of which abuse human rights, and deamonize the same enemies.
Obama never gave a shit about civil liberties or human rights. Largest criminal investigation against journalists ever in the entire history of America. Guantanamo still open. Administration uses newspeak to criminalize Snowden. Largest funding sent to militarized human-rights-abusing foreign nation states in history of the country. Increased military presence throughout the world despite the fact Americans are at least over 50 times more likely to be killed by our own domestic police officers than by a terrorist. Jesus christ.
Fundamentally the Snowden relations haven't lead to serious legal or operational change. Why is that? Because knowing all the technical information about PRISM etc is interesting for techies but it hasn't resonated with policymakers. They act on personal interests and those personal interests are dictated by a fear of looking soft on terrorism, crime or child porn etc.
So in theory what should a new Edward Snowden do in the future in make policy change?
Well having worked in Westminster Parliament, I think (if possible) he should release one month's worth of communications (email, SMS, web history) between MPs or House Members/Senators in the USA..
Why? Because that will change the personal risk calculous for policymakers. Without wanting to be crude, if you have ever worked in a parliament, a huge chunk of parliamentarians have something to hide - they are fucking someone else, they do coke like it's going out of fashion, they vote against things when they secretly do it themselves etc.
Parliamentarians always write bills with added protection for themselves which their citizens are not privy too (the Wilson Rule in the UK for example). Now at times that privilege is important (e.g speaking rights without threat of libel etc) but often it serves parliament to pass laws safe in the knowledge that they won't be subject to them.
Think I'm being ridiculous? Maybe I am, but remember what happened with the Senate Intelligence Committee over Snowden revelations (not much) and compare that to what happened when the CIA got caught spying on the Senate and interfering with the route report (people got torn a new asshole). That's because the US parliamentarians suddenly felt the same sense of violating that they were happy to allow citizens to be targeted by.
...anyway this is just a thought experiment but happy for others to point other ridiculous ideas - cos change is getting further away than ever.
Otherwise, there is a misalignment of incentives for the elected representatives as you point out.
For an (unrelated) example of this misalignment, N.N Taleb outlines in his works why most financial "news" or "recommendations" are completely useless - the people peddling the "news" are trying to sell a story. If they actually put their own money (like their personal savings account) based off their recommendations, a lot of them would disappear very quickly. At the moment, most of them have no "skin in the game".
Binney came out and told everyone what's was happening. Nothing happened. Snowden appeared, there was a lot of talk but not much has been done. Did Obama put an end to it? No.
They just implemented a buddy-system (like "no-lone" zones in nuclear silos) to prevent rogue whistleblowers from doing what he did. But besides that that, they of course learned, people in large agree with it and tacitly approved, so might as well double down on surveillance.
Neither party is for us anymore.
To be clear, I find it just as horrific when non-American citizens are jailed indefinitely and killed extra-judicially, but to me those last two examples reveal that Obama doesn't even follow the moral code that he pays lip service to. He's empty, a badly disguised wolf in sheep's clothing, but nearly everyone fell for it.
It appears that the majority of Americans are very focused on the election drama and inconsequential distractions while the elite in this country can do anything they want, raping children and getting away with it. You think that's an exaggeration, don't you?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/who-is-jeff...
One of Bill Clinton's best friends with connections to Bitish Royalty was convicted for raping children. Many said he should have been sent away for most of his life. Served 13 months, special cell, nights only, allowed to leave from 7am - 11pm. Officers in charge of investigation resigned. Imagine what people are not getting caught for. This is too insane to be true.
Here's another elite getting special treatment after raping his three year old daughter:
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/04/02/justice/delaware-du-pont-r...
Here's Blackwater founder Erik Prince (not necessarily someone I trust in the slightest) making some enormous claims about the investigation into Anthony Weiner's laptop:
http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/11/04/erik-prince-nypd-r...
I never thought I'd see the day where I'm citing Breitbart and Erik Prince, but reality is stranger than fiction these days and I'm not sure what the hell to believe anymore.
Exactly. So just bear in mind, when the war against independent media is won, your children won't have to worry about that. Then they will be told what is appropriate for them to see and hear, and by consequence, what to think.
Yes there's a lot of really shit people out there with a website and news headlines. That by itself is not a good reason to throw away the first amendment and grant the government and largest corporations the right to control what people see and hear. What's even more troubling, is there's no evidence that the majority of "fake news" is even what the mainstream media says it is. If you read this and don't believe me:
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/18/the-stark-contrast-betwe...
Independent news is already marginalized and criminalized. Amy Goodman and Glenn Greenwald have had that happen to them. Wikileaks is being attacked like a criminal organization. Once all the people like that are dealt with there's nothing left. Rotten to the core.
So, corrupted insiders installed all those tools. Now an outsider gets elected into White House. You know what are the requirements for the post, right? At least 35 years old, American. All parts of that corrupted clique, from Hillary to Jon Stewart, fought tooth and nail to prevent him from being elected. Hillary was known evil. Trump is basically a big unknown. Why can't you give this man a chance?
EDIT. I guess I'm judging American politics by European standards. America are so deep in superficial fluff that it can't see what really happened. Left has lost everything because of bullshit of its progressive wing. Outsider has won White House. And you people are talking about Trump being racist - a "fact" discovered during the most vicious presidential campaign of last 50? years.
Trump is garbage candidate. Hillary is to blame you have him. In Trump vs Bernie race Trump would had a really hard time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
>Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government, or society itself into improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society.
Yes, how dare he share his opinion of a presidential candidate!
> Why can't you give this man a chance?
Breitbart.com editor for cabinet, his biggest supporter and rabble-rouser during the election. Nice tit for tat there, coming from the 'less corrupt' candidate. Racist piece of human garbage.
"Jeff Sessions, considered too racist to be a judge in 80's, is Trump's AG."
If he were going to be given a chance, I think he's communicated his intent in actions as well as the previous hedged words at this point.
This is why Clinton lost the election. Most people don't buy this hyperbole anymore. Even 1/3rd of Clinton voters don't believe the media anymore.
> "Jeff Sessions, considered too racist to be a judge in 80's, is Trump's AG."
My understanding is that Sessions worked to ensure that a KKK leader, who kidnapped and murdered a black teenager, received the death penalty instead of a life sentence. Isn't this counter-evidence to the assertion that he's a racist?
But I guess it's hard to reason when you've made up your mind that your opponents are "human garbage."
Since these are all pretty straightforward observations, the attempts to "rehabilitate" Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III by pointing out his conviction of a KKK leader are pretty telling. As in, that's the best argument you have? (I'm sure there are in fact better arguments; you should find them and use them instead. Fair warning: "Sessions once shared a hotel room with another black lawyer", an argument that has actually been advanced on Twitter, is not one of the better alternatives).
There's surely some truth to that, but it doesn't justify dismissing it as counter-evidence. You could just as easily rationalize any other vague, unsubstantiated reason to do so, such as claiming that there was some entirely personal grudge that Sessions was holding against him. People act on a variety of motivations. Selectively dismissing evidence based upon one hypothesized motivation is intellectually dishonest.
> Since these are all pretty straightforward observations, the attempts to "rehabilitate" Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III by pointing out his conviction of a KKK leader are pretty telling. As in, that's the best argument you have? (I'm sure there are in fact better arguments; you should find them and use them instead. Fair warning: "Sessions once shared a hotel room with another black lawyer", an argument that has actually been advanced on Twitter, is not one of the better alternatives).
This is not a logical argument. You are taking evidence counter to your assertion and twisting it into a counter-attack in which, by even uttering it, a person proves himself wrong. This has been dubbed a Kafkatrap. It begs the question and is a bare attempt at emotional manipulation.
He had already evaluated that evidence and found it weak and unconvincing.
> 2) asserting it as evidence for his claim
This did not happen.
> 3) implying that mentioning that counter-evidence is itself evidence of malfeasance on my part ("pretty telling").
He's using a simple argument. A) When people are trying to be convincing, they usually use some of the better evidence they have. B) He asserts that X and Y are weak and unconvincing evidence, based on previous evaluation.
This leads to a very simple conclusion: Someone pulling out X and Y as their main line of argument probably has no good evidence. This is not kafkaesque. He gave you a genuine opportunity to provide good evidence.
The only 'telling' is of lacking good evidence, not malfeasance.
-
In other words, he's not trying to take your evidence and turn it backwards. He's saying that the use of weak evidence as the core of your argument implies that you don't have good evidence. Weak evidence is better than nothing, but he has evidence of his own on the other side, so weak evidence is not enough in this case.
What's "the media," exactly? Would it include the most watched cable network? Because no, I don't believe Fox News blindly, but let's not pretend there's a monolithic single mainstream there. Even it is certainly more accurate than the shit you'll find online most places.
I did. Then he immediately brought on a white nationalist as his closest advisor and is apparently going to name a southern good ol' boy who thinks marijuana is straight up the devil as his Attorney General. Chance thoroughly blown.
Man, even after losing the election, the left still hasn't changed its record. "-ist -ist -ist, -phobe -phobe -phobe!" Most of the electorate doesn't buy it anymore.
Genuinely curious: what word would you use to describe Steve Bannon?
> Genuinely curious: what word would you use to describe Steve Bannon?
Person. Respectfully, I reject the question, which implies that anyone can or should be labeled by a single word. This is part of the problem with American politics. It degrades discussion into "Is not!"/"Is too!" back-and-forth, which is useless.
Here's my bottom line: this election has shown how extremely biased the media is. Despite a few columns here and there calling for the media to examine itself and change its ways, the media has not changed. One should take everything one hears about Trump and his administration with many grains of salt.
For example, I watched Don Lemon on CNN excoriate Bannon, taking the default position that he is a racist, sexist, anti-Semite, and demanding that one of his guests (the other two of which were anti-Bannon) prove that Bannon was not any of those things. That is not journalism--that is libel.
Oh my god, you know what the question meant. Describe his views related to race.
That's funny, because I was just thinking the problem was the tendency for people to look at an opinion and immediately apply partisan politics to it. Since you decided to deflect the question instead of answer it, I'll just say this: it's really disappointing to me that there's apparently no room to not agree with any major political party.
I'm watching the absolute mockery that is being made of the front office of our government right now, and I'm extremely disturbed, embarrassed, and pessimistic. The media didn't make Steve Bannon the leader of the alt-right movement, Steve Bannon did[1]. I know for sure that I do not agree with any of the elements of the alt right movement that I've observed (either self-proclaimed or through the media).
I don't think we disagree here. I think another way to state what you said is that one of the problems is a failure to recognize nuance, a tendency to reduce everything to binary choices.
> Since you decided to deflect the question instead of answer it
I rejected the question because, to me, it implied a binary "is racist/is not racist" choice. After all, when it comes to the media and public opinion, that issue is binary. There's no "a little bit racist," or "can seem racist from some perspectives," or "some people think he's racist but there's room to disagree on the interpretation"--no, when it comes to the media, it's either 100% racist, or not racist at all. And to be safely declared the latter, one must avoid even mentioning certain words and phrases, any one of which means being permanently, irreversibly labeled with one of several different -isms. It's like the media's equivalent of a sex offender list: say the wrong thing, and you're on it for life.
Anyway, if you want to ask a more nuanced question, or clarify what you meant, I don't mind discussing it further.
> I'll just say this: it's really disappointing to me that there's apparently no room to not agree with any major political party.
It's disappointing that it seems that way, yes. I certainly disagree with both, even though I lean toward one platform more than the other.
> I'm watching the absolute mockery that is being made of the front office of our government right now, and I'm extremely disturbed, embarrassed, and pessimistic.
Okay. I've been watching that mockery for the last 8 years--you know, with the IRS being turned into a political weapon; the DoJ being used to incite societal unrest; State sending our avowed enemies, who call for "death to America!", many millions of dollars in cash on a secret overseas flight; the DoE issuing decrees to local school districts, threatening to recall federal funding unless they run their bathrooms a certain way--things like that. Those things disturb and embarrass me as an American.
> The media didn't make Steve Bannon the leader of the alt-right movement, Steve Bannon did.
Sorry, as far as I'm concerned, the "alt-right" is simply a concoction of the media (and Wikipedia is heavily biased toward the left, so I reject it as a source). No one was talking about it before the election season. No one mentioned it during the primaries. It's yet another made-up basket that the leftist media can toss people into whom they want to denigrate. It's basically their pet bogeyman, which they feed with lies and half-truths, fattening it up for the continual slaughter in an endless cycle. In a few months they'll realize that, just as with their constant chanting of "racist/sexist/bigot/deploraphobe", most of the public isn't listening anymore, and then they'll invent a new basket to toss people into.
So, anyway, thanks for the civil discussion. It's more than some people around here are willing or capable of. :/
So, how do we have any kind of meaningful discussion if all sources and channels I've used to learn things about the world is apparently biased? What are the sources of truth that you've seem to have discovered while the rest of us have had the wool pulled over our eyes? How'd you find it and how do you verify it?
> The problem is it's impossible to have a discussion with you.
I have explicitly agreed to continue the discussion if you will ask more-specific questions. You respond by saying that it's impossible to have a discussion with me. Which of us is now refusing discussion?
> Any source of information that I have is going to be discredited as biased
You have provided one (1) source: Wikipedia. I rejected it out-of-hand, just like any serious researcher or academic institution does. You then leaped to the conclusion that any source you provide will be discredited. Again, it is you who are refusing to further the discussion, and you are making up excuses to try to justify it. Why bother responding at all if this is how you're going to respond?
Note that I haven't provided any references of my own, nor have I requested that you do so. This isn't an academic journal, it's a casual discussion on the Internet. There isn't any audience now, and neither of us have anything to prove to anyone. If you want to talk some more, have a pleasant, civil discussion, share ideas and hopefully come to a better understanding of each other's views, that's fine. If not, that's fine too. But if you're not, please don't make up excuses based on unfounded accusations to make it sound like I'm at fault.
It's beginning to sound like you are avoiding discussion because I have challenged your views and made you uncomfortable. Whether that's the case or not, of course, only you can say. But if you're really interested in searching for the truth, understanding other perspectives, etc, then you're going about it the wrong way.
> (based on what proof? I don't know, I guess just that "this election proves it" - whatever the hell that means).
Now you're putting words in my mouth. You are imagining that you are having a discussion with someone else, someone you actually know or have discussed with before. I am not that person, and I haven't said those things.
> So, how do we have any kind of meaningful discussion if all sources and channels I've used to learn things about the world is apparently biased?
Every source is biased, because every person is biased. That's how humans are. The questions are then, 1) to what extent a source is biased, and 2) whether you have explored a variety of sources to attempt to compensate for bias. If you only read sources that are biased in a certain way, then your own views are probably going to be similarly biased.
> What are the sources of truth that you've seem to have discovered
I read and listen to a variety of sources, as I hope you do.
> while the rest of us have had the wool pulled over our eyes?
If you really want to talk about this, it would be better to talk about specific topics. Sweeping statements about one group or the other being generally deceived aren't very useful, whether accurate or not; they are nearly always "preaching to the choir" and not useful for overcoming bias.
> How'd you find it and how do you verify it?
This, of course, is the most important question: with the overwhelming amount of information available to us, how do we verify the information we take in? Books have been written about this. Suffice to say here that the first step is to be skeptical of everything you hear, especially on the Internet, and especially regarding politics, and especially surrounding an election, and especially given how the recent election has demonstrated the media's extreme bias (remember, even the media itself has admitted this; see Will Rahn's commentary on CBS News, the recent op-ed by the NYT, etc).
Ok, anyway, if you want to keep talking, cool. If not, cheers.
When I see responses like this:
>You have provided one (1) source: Wikipedia. I rejected it out-of-hand, just like any serious researcher or academic institution does.
It's pretty clear you don't understand the basics of how wikipedia works. There's no point in discussing with you.
Trump lost the popular vote.
1. In at least some states, absentee ballots are not counted unless their number is greater than the difference between the counted results. Some have claimed that absentee ballots historically favor the Republican party. If this is so, it could be that, were all the absentee ballots counted, Clinton would not win the popular vote.
2. It's been claimed that about 3 million non-citizens voted in the election (lawsuits pending--we shall see). Obviously, the vast majority of non-citizens would vote for Clinton. Therefore, if this is true, Clinton did not win the popular vote at all.
3. It's interesting to note that if Los Angeles County alone were not counted in the results, Trump would win the popular vote. And Los Angeles is a sanctuary city.
Of course, it's a matter of opinion whether a few, densely packed urban environments, many of which are sanctuary cities for non-citizens, should be able to effectively overturn the vote of the rest of the country.
So the "Clinton won the popular vote" point is not as straightforward as it may seem.
(For anyone who wants a source on that claim, it's me, I'm claiming it here.)
In short, it implies that we're not sincere when we make fun of far-out conspiracy theories, but rather that we're only doing it to enhance our social standing.
And the double-standard is evident here, as in any other situation, such "unsubstantive" comments would bring down the chastisement of the mods and the community downvotes. But since the victim is not left-leaning, it's okay.
There's no double standard here. Unsubstantive, funny comments have always been allowed as long as they're not disruptive and are actually funny.
If you don't like being made fun of for bringing up completely unsubstantiated claims as if they were in any way relevant, then don't bring them up. Problem solved.
Did you notice the key words, "in principle," or did you selectively omit them? Do you understand the principle of ganging up on people whom you disagree with and cheering each other on as you do it? Do you really not grok this?
> There's no double standard here. Unsubstantive, funny comments have always been allowed as long as they're not disruptive and are actually funny.
"Actually funny," huh? "Not disruptive"? I guess I've been visiting a different "Hacker News" site, because the one I've been going to quickly downvotes and chastises even the mildest of humor buried deep in a subthread. I stand by the double-standard claim.
> If you don't like being made fun of for bringing up completely unsubstantiated claims as if they were in any way relevant, then don't bring them up. Problem solved.
Funny that you should accuse me of irrelevant claims when you have derailed the discussion multiple times with non-sequiturs of your own invention about extra-terrestrials.
You are not discussing in good faith. Let's end this discussion here. Good evening.
I'm not sure if you got the "three million non-citizen voters" thing from Infowars or directly from Gregg Phillips.
If the former, then you're posting something from a conspiracy site whose other headlines include "ALIENS DO EXIST, SAYS TOP SECRET FBI MEMO" and "THE COMING STAGED ALIEN INVASION."
If the latter, then you're taking at face value something from some random person on twitter.
Either way, it has zero credibility. You're right that I'm not discussing in good faith, because I'm trying to point out how ridiculous your original claim was by doing the same thing back to you. The only difference between yours and mine is that I actually understand that mine is fake.
Did I do it wrong?
As I said, it has been claimed that 3 million non-citizens voted, and a lawsuit is pending, so we shall see.
If it is true, then obviously that is a significant problem, and obviously Clinton would not have won the popular vote. And obviously that would vindicate the Republicans' efforts to institute voter-ID laws, and it would condemn the Democrats' repeated attempts to prevent such laws, and basically implicate them in election fraud. (Not to mention the Scott Foval videos.)
And that is one of the issues surrounding the repeated claim that Clinton won the popular vote, and the implied problem.
No, and who would? ETs have not been proven to exist, and if they did, why would they care about our election? This is a silly non-sequitur; please stop derailing the discussion with it.
Back in reality, non-citizen human beings in the USA obviously do exist, and groups have them have been very vocal about the election (going as far as marching in the streets with foreign flags), and articles in real newspapers (not "fake news sites") have been published recently documenting votes by non-citizens in elections, and videos have been published showing Democrat operatives by name and face admitting to committing election fraud.
This shows party, motive, opportunity, and method. What it does not show is to what extent it has occurred. The only source for the "3 million" claim is one person who has not shown his data or methodology, so of course it is not conclusive, and we should be skeptical. However, given the general evidence of fraud and manipulation surrounding this election, it should not be dismissed out-of-hand either. We should follow the lawsuit he is filing and see what happens.
Now, do you actually disagree with anything I just said? If so, please explain why without making silly remarks about ETs.
Ok but what does that prove or show? Didn't Hillary know she was supposed to get the electoral college votes? I hear many mention that, but doesn't that just make Hillary's team look more incompetent.
As for Trump, he's put a nazi (or alt-right if you prefer) in the White House. He's nominated another racist for AG: Sessions who was considered too racist to be a judge, in a confirmation hearing in 1986. The judiciary committee was led by none other than Strom Thurmond. Thurmond and company thought he was too racist. Thurmond! Let that sink in.
Speaking of foreign donations, the President-Elect has 'invited' foreign dignitaries to stay at the Trump Hotel (the Old Post Office) in DC. Which they are doing so in an effort to gain favor with the new administration. Profits from their stays, of course, goes straight to Trump. Unfortunately for him, this will be quite illegal, and un-Constitutional according to the emoluments clause, as soon as he takes office. This clause will also apply to his foreign holdings, many of which remain in the dark because Trump has decided to be as non-transparent as possible.
Mentioning Thurmond is simply misleading and detracts from the main point that Sessions was rejected from a federal judgeship because of concerns that he was a racist.
The fact of the matter is that Thurmond voted for Sessions.
> On June 5, 1986, the Committee voted 10–8 against recommending the nomination to the Senate floor, with Republican Senators Charles Mathias of Maryland and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania voting with the Democrats.
Of course, once in office, those businesses will be administered by the "blind" trust run by his children... and Trump wants to stay in New York a few days a week to "be around his family"... where of course, they won't possibly talk business, right? (That's if they're not accompanying him around the world, be it Ivanka joining in meetings with Japanese dignitaries, his sons being part of his transition team, or peddling his son-in-law as one of his advisors - someone so ignorant of the operation of government that until after the election, he apparently didn't realize that Trump would have to hire advisors to replace Obama's...).
What could possibly be untoward about any of that...?
Not really. Under Obama the federal government raided hundreds (if not thousands) of legal dispensaries and grow operations, and spent hundreds of millions in doing so.
Also is it possible to be in favor of limited controlled immigration programs and not be called a racist? What happens if the person isn't white, like me, am I also a racist? Can I be a white nationalist who isn't white?
> White nationalism is an ideology that advocates a racial definition of national identity.[1] Proponents of the ideology identify with and are attached to the concept of a white nation.[2] It ranges from a preference for one's specific white ethnic group, to feelings of superiority, including calls for national citizenship to be reserved for white people.[3]
Curious, isn't it?
I first saw this term in the establishment press -- White Nationalist -- last week. To me, it seems to be an attempt to conflate White Supremacists with Nationalists. It is possibly an amusing pastime to substitute various candidate Xs into "<X> Nationalist" and consider the possibilities.
As for Bannon, that guy looks like he walked out of CIA central casting, with patrons in Goldman Sachs. Such wonderful straw(wo)men to co-opt genuine grievances of people.
I wouldn't call Hillary and her ideology "left". It is more neo-liberalism or corporatism perhaps. There not much "left" in there. If she was "leftist" she would have cared and talked more about people who have no jobs, or about basic income and so on.
Anti-globalisation and anti-NAFTA is a also a leftist cause. It is funny that as soon as Trump picked it up, the neo-liberals distanced themselves from as quickly as possible. For example Chomsky has been harping on for decades about it. It is rather informative to read about it:
https://chomsky.info/secrets03/
(excerpt)
---
The day after NAFTA passed, the New York Times had its first article on its expected impact in the New York region. (Its conclusions apply to GATT too.) It was a very upbeat article. They talked about how wonderful NAFTA was going to be [...] there’ll be some losers too: women, Hispanics, other minorities, and semi-skilled workers-in other words, about two-thirds of the work force. But everyone else will do fine. Just as anyone who was paying attention knew, the purpose of NAFTA was to create an even smaller sector of highly privileged people-investors, professionals, managerial classes. (Bear in mind that this is a rich country, so this privileged sector, although smaller, still isn’t tiny.) It will work fine for them, and the general population will suffer.
The prediction for Mexico is exactly the same. The leading financial journal in Mexico, which is very pro-NAFTA, estimated that Mexico would lose about 25% of its manufacturing capacity in the first few years and about 15% of its manufacturing labor force. In addition, cheap US agricultural exports are expected to drive several million people off the land. That’s going to mean a substantial increase in the unemployed workforce in Mexico, which of course will drive down wages.
---
Note Chomsky makes a connection there about a predicted flood of immigrants from the South (which happened, so what was a good analysis). I didn't listen much to Trump to know if he ever made that connection.
Bernie is more of a leftist if you wish as well. He was very suspicious of immigration and was a anti-globalist in a way as well. Open borders policy for him was a "Koch brothers" right wing thing. He got quite upset about immigrants there flooding in and talks about "job creation" in US
He says it clearly here:
https://youtu.be/S5vOKKMipSA?t=342
So as the saying from Twin Peaks goes, the owls are not what they seem
Actually, wrong!
Trump, by his words and actions, is a known known. Starting from his Birther campaign against Obama, to his utterances during the presidential campaign, to his confirmed cabinet appointments, we know who the man is.
Let's hope we survive the next 4-8 years. If we're lucky, he'll serve just one term.
In this country we fight. Our rhetoric is one of hard-fought victory. Not capitulation.
I can't imagine anything Trump decides to "do about" the surveillance state being considered an improvement by the average HNer