[partiallypro]

I agree with you, but I did think the article was still good. You can ignore the talking points in it and it stands on its own. It's possible that this was revised number of times, and the author was either more or less heavy handed on the political side. FP Magazine hates Trump, if you've read their publication, so this is no surprise. The biggest eye roll moment for me was Trump targeting "Black Lives Matter" like he would foreign terrorists.

[heymijo]

I live in a small university town in Appalachia Ohio. A few months ago 70 people were arrested at a peaceful sit-in at the university student-center.

The State Highway Patrol, who had nothing to do with this, requested for its intel unit, information about everyone arrested so they could begin tracking them via social media.[1]

It does not seem far fetched to me that any president or really any person in a position of power would wield that power to target any group they view as dissidents. The FBI's surveillance and meddling with MLK is well-documented [2].

[1] http://www.athensnews.com/news/campus/emails-clarify-ou-and-...

FTA: Specifically, the day after the protest, the State Highway Patrol’s Athens Post commander, Lt. Virgil Conley, emailed OU Police Capt. Brian Kapple, asking him for details on the protesters.

“Can you advise how many were arrested last night? Also, I have a request from our intel unit if you were to provide their names and DOB, they can begin to track them through social media and open resources,” Conley wrote. “As we know, these folks tend to move around a little bit and are involved in other instances across the state, and that would assist other agencies in identifying those subjects and mitigate future issues.”

[2] http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/14/us/fbi-and-mlk/index.html

[downandout]

Well over half of the article is nothing but speculation designed for fearmongering among their audience (who are undoubtedly extremely liberal, judging from the other Trump articles on their site).

[dmix]

It depends on the author and subject, FP has some decent writing and some excellent geopolitical analysis.

Although I haven't been reading it as much since the election - maybe the editors are pushing the anti-Trump angle hard like NYTimes has been shamelessly doing recently. It's writers are very 'internationalist' and focused on geopolitical diplomacy so a lot of them are falling under the 'I'm appalled at Trump and must bring it up at every moment to show that America is still okay'.

It's tough being a news junkie and not being a typical foaming at the mouth US mainstream liberal these days (which to the surprise of many in that category does not make one a right wing Trump supporter, nor American for that matter).

[arca_vorago]

Foreign Policy is a main media extension of the Council on Foreign Relations, an extension in the US of Chatham House and British Imperial cough sorry Commonwealth policy.

Relevant reading verifying they are part of a conspiracy against the US: Carroll Quigley.

[kelnos]

Trump might not target BLM, but I wouldn't put it past Bannon.

[spoiledtechie]

Why is that? Because you have heard bad things about Bannon? What bad things have you heard that make you believe that? Facts, not opinions.

[lukifer]

The quotes about "Leninist", "Darth Vader", and "Fourth Turning" are sufficient to justify this suspicion.