so, Trump's first term, from what I remember, the news media didn't try to kiss the ring or pay him off to stop him being mean. they took an antagonistic (maybe too antagonistic) role to the trump presidency. Which fair enough, that's their job, to hold the government to account.

But this time around, I never fully understood why the left leaning news media is kissing the ring?

• Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski flew down to Mar-a-Lago to kiss the ring
• Trump and CBS '60 Minutes' near settlement in $20 billion lawsuit

There is also Jeff Bezos revamp of the 'Washington Post' although that one surprises me a bit less given the tech oligarchy and Bezos being a modern day Lex Luthor. Surprised that soulless sack of s**t left the Washington Post alone as long as he has tbh.

There may be more instances of the left-wing media kissing the ring but these are just the ones I am aware of.

An easy answer to the second instance is: cause the executives at these news agencies didn't want to deal with a lawsuit by Trump and the money it would cost them, but if that is true, then how come this didnt happen the first time around? Did Trump just not sue the news agencies until this time? Any ideas why?

And that doesn't answer the first instance of those MSNBC hosts flying down to Mar-a-Lago to appease the baby in chief?

Even with all the political upheaval, my day to day has not changed. A sign of some level of privilege, but also something of growing discomfort. I feel like i should actively doing something to fight or preparing for the worst.

I often hear that we need to organize but i find that vague and not helpful. Going to rallys and protests shows public anger and frustration but dont see how that directly affects the current administration when they just dont care. Its still a start, but how are people turning that frustration into a action?

How have your lives been changing and what are you doing to confront the change?

What are some ways groups have organized to take direct action?

There is now a straight line connecting the White House to Nazis. I know: sounds like a conspiracy theory. However, the dots make a straight line. Just read the below. That's all I ask. Here are the dots:

• 47 issues Executive order 14188: "Additional measures to combat *Anti-Semitism". 47 has been co-opting "Anti-Semitism" to mean "Anti-Zionism" for a while now. "Anti-Semitism" means "Anti-Jewish". "Anti-Zionist" != "Anti-Jewish". "Anti-Zionism" is disagreeing with the conservative Israeli equivalent of America's "manifest destiny".
• 1488 is a Nazi dog whistle 1488 is often represented as 14/88.
• This EO doesn't make Jews safer. It makes them targets.. This clearly aligns well with the intent behind 14/88.
• The statistical probability of this as a coincidence , EO14188 being about "Anti-Semitism" and the existence of 14/88? Clearly absurdly low.
• Nazis in the White House.

EDIT: Thank you to the folks who amended the tags.

There is still resistance of a sort within the government, but dictatorships don't require 100% consolidation of all power into the Executive. And if that struggle is being ignored by the Executive, then what difference does it make?

Just had a thought that the 3 countries considered the biggest powers have leaders who are all 70+. So I looked into it and found that the average age of the leaders of the 10 most populous countries (and EU) is 72.

Has the age of major countries' leaders ever been higher?

Has it always been like this?

I understand it irt. authoritarian countries. Democracies trend way lower.