Effectiveness of the big lie; Social media impacts; Trump judge protects Trump; Initial fallout

Some authoritarians are quite intelligent and insightful about human nature. Consider this quote, for example:

All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.

That is probably at least part of why the big lie works so well for DJT.

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

Especially since DJT came on the scene in 2015-2016, the toxic influence of social media on politics and democracy has been increasingly researched. This Q&A came out of ongoing curiosity about the current state of research about social media dark arts. Perplexity describes it like this.  

Q: On balance is American social media more politically divisive and disinforming than uniting and informing?

A: American social media appears to be more politically divisive and disinforming than uniting and informing. Here are the key points supporting this conclusion:

1. The United States is an outlier in its negative perception of social media's impact on democracy. Only 34% of U.S. adults think social media has been good for democracy, while 64% say it has had a bad impact.

2. Americans are consistently among the most negative in their assessments of how social media has affected politics and society. For example, 79% of Americans believe social media has made people more divided in their political opinions, the highest percentage among 19 countries surveyed.

3. 69% of Americans say social media has made people less civil in how they talk about politics, again the highest share among the nations studied.

4. Experts have concluded that the use of social media contributes to partisan animosity in the U.S. A group of 15 researchers summarized the scholarly consensus, stating that social media companies have played an influential role in political discourse, intensifying political sectarianism.

5. While social media may not be the main driver of polarization, researchers posit that it is often a key facilitator.

6. Social media algorithms and business models have been shown to exacerbate outrage and anger, and social media has been found to help recruit and provide platforms to extremists.

However, it's important to note that the research on this topic is not entirely conclusive:

1. Some studies have found that staying off social media platforms like Facebook can reduce polarization on policy issues, but not necessarily on party identity.

2. Recent landmark studies involving tens of thousands of Facebook and Instagram accounts found that social media algorithms did not affect users' polarization.

3. The problem may not be social media alone, but the country's entire media system. A literature review found that media in general was likely increasing ideological and affective polarization.

4. Most Americans do not use social media to discuss politics, as politics is a very incidental part of life for many people.

In conclusion, while the evidence suggests that American social media tends to be more politically divisive and disinforming, the issue is complex and multifaceted. Social media's role in polarization should be considered alongside other factors contributing to the current political climate in the United States.

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

Trump judge Aileen Cannon, a/k/a/ Loose Cannon  Aileen, has dismissed the entire Mar-A-Lago stolen documents federal lawsuit against DJT. The dismissal was not on immunity grounds, but instead on grounds of Jack Smith as special prosecutor being unconstitutionally funded. His investigation and prosecution now simply vanishes into thin air. We have to wait for another year or two while appeals play out. DJT has been protected by his corrupt judge.   

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon on Monday tossed former President Trump’s criminal charges accusing him of mishandling classified information, ruling that special counsel Jack Smith was not lawfully appointed.

The ruling hands a major victory to Trump, marking the first time one of his four criminal cases has been dismissed entirely.

Cannon ruled that no federal law authorized Smith’s appointment.

“The bottom line is this: The Appointments Clause is a critical constitutional restriction stemming from the separation of powers, and it gives to Congress a considered role in determining the propriety of vesting appointment power for inferior officers,” Cannon wrote in a 93-page ruling.

“The Special Counsel’s position effectively usurps that important legislative authority, transferring it to a Head of Department, and in the process threatening the structural liberty inherent in the separation of powers.”

Cannon said that, after “careful study,” she determined that no legal statute grants an attorney general authority to appoint a federal officer with the “kind of prosecutorial power wielded by Special Counsel Smith.”

The rule of law takes another major hit from American radical right authoritarians. The enemy is in our midst, not some foreign invaders like Mexican rapists and drug dealers. The enemy is the kleptocratic dictator DJT, and his kleptocratic, authoritarian, Republican Party. Both are thoroughly morally rotted.

____________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

A bit of initial fallout from the assassination attempt: Trump’s chances of winning have spiked to roughly 70 percent from 60 percent before the shooting attempt at betting site Polymarket. 

Poll analyst Nate Silver comments: 

It’s fine to say “I refuse to speculate” — but does that mean you think the consensus is misguided? Personally, I have no basis to think the consensus is wrong here. You can get cute if you like and try to draw historical analogies, like to the assassination attempts against Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 or Ronald Reagan in 1981 (which produced a sharp but short-lived boost in his approval ratings). But I think that’s barking somewhat up the wrong tree. In the present moment, this at the very least makes Trump much more sympathetic and undermines the implicit premise of the Biden campaign to restore order and stability to America,

There are, however, two major sources of uncertainty. One is whether the Trump campaign will take the high road or the low road. In rare possession of the moral highground, will Trump ask the nation to come together? Or, like one of his potential VP picks, Senator J.D.Vance of Ohio, will he plunge us further into darkness, blaming his political opponents for the attempt on his life? The high road is probably the more electorally rewarding course, believe it or not, especially given that Trump was winning to begin with. But candidates with authoritarian tendencies can obviously seize on moments like these also.