demos
Legend
Posts: 9,206
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Oct 31, 2024 20:12:14 GMT
I don't know why you insist that I'm not "getting the point" or "not understanding what I read" Because you don't.
So, you think corporatism is a good policy?
Yeah, look at what they do AND DID while in office.
No, I didn't. And if you actually read the post, you would understand that.
Where we are as a country isn't really about Trump. It's bigger than him; he's just a symptom.
All his policies? What if something was illegal? What was the line?
No, I didn't lament that. In the very post you quoted and responded to I specifically said: "LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT DOESN'T NEED THIS STUFF; it's the militarization of our police."
Read my posts. Holy shit dude. I do know this. That's why I THINK IT IS A BAD FUCKING POLICY. I THINK IT IS A BAD POLICY THAT TRUMP ALLOWED IT TO RESUME.
That was in response to your comment about benign ignorance. Because this stuff wasn't benign or done in ignorance. In fact, it was carried out and in some cases recommended by those "competent" people. Those "adults in the room."
You aren't understanding. And that's more and more evident with each successive response.
|
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Oct 31, 2024 20:14:58 GMT
He doesn't really have a policy of restraint. He may have some restraining moments, but at heart he's a militarist. His first term was full of NeverTrumpers and establishment foreign policy gurus. But he has a message. And it's a popular message.
The problem is Democrats (outside of Bernie Sanders types) don't have a policy of restraint or a message. And now their nominee is hanging out with Liz Cheney and talking about how Iran is the greatest threat to the United States.
For example, that's why Trump is - surprisingly - actually making some in-roads with Muslim voters.
You'd have been more correct is you'd stopped at "He doesn't really have a policy." That just about covers it. No matter the subject. Bullshit. Democrats have had and have a message all along. It promotes people over special interests. There are many aspects of it. And I consider Iran a threat to the US. Why don't you? They support various proxy outfits to carry out their aims, virtually all of them against US interests. Hell, the Iraq war only makes sense if you think of Dick Cheney as an Iranian mole.....how else could a majority Shia country be ruled by a minority Sunni regime that had been enemies of Iran for a decade? Now both Iran and Iraq anr Shia countries. Bush and Cheney saw to it. The greatest threat to the United States is trump and trumpism. You keep believing that. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,206
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Oct 31, 2024 20:16:30 GMT
What were the fourteen other comments this clown made before coming to his conclustions? Well, you could try clicking the link and reading them.  Yeah, that's why I linked it, so you can click on it and read it. Where'd he write that. In the comment where he says "certainly not the far left"?
Your reading comprehension is very poor. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,206
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Oct 31, 2024 20:19:53 GMT
You'd have been more correct is you'd stopped at "He doesn't really have a policy." That just about covers it. No matter the subject. Then we can rule out him being fascist too then.
You seriously don't give more than a cursory glance to what you're responding to do you? I said they don't have a policy or message of foreign policy restraint.
Are they they the greatest threat to the United States? (You know, the thing I actually wrote about and what Harris said).
Believing what?
|
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Oct 31, 2024 20:44:43 GMT
You'd have been more correct is you'd stopped at "He doesn't really have a policy." That just about covers it. No matter the subject. Then we can rule out him being fascist too then.
You seriously don't give more than a cursory glance to what you're responding to do you? I said they don't have a policy or message of foreign policy restraint.
Are they they the greatest threat to the United States? (You know, the thing I actually wrote about and what Harris said).
Believing what?
Yes, I admit I initially misread your twitter guy's tweet. I may have also misinterpreted some of your prior statements. As I recall, this all started with me asserting trump is a fascist. You didn't think so. Then things started going off the subject, mostly because of you ignoring all the fascist stuff he's said and says he'd like to do while defending him against the fascist charge. I still say he's a fascist. Nobody told me to say that. I didn't come to that conclusion by any means other than my own perception. As for Harris saying Iran is the biggest threat to the US, I don't know if it is or isn't. Maybe it's North Korea (they have a leader like trump). I don't think it's China; they've got too much to lose by destroying us unless they figure they've got all they can get from us. Overall, I'd say the biggest threat to the US us trump and trumpism. trumpism is lies and bullshit, which is not good for anyone but trump and his hangers on. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,206
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Oct 31, 2024 21:27:10 GMT
Yes, I admit I initially misread your twitter guy's tweet. I may have also misinterpreted some of your prior statements. As I recall, this all started with me asserting trump is a fascist. You didn't think so. Then things started going off the subject, mostly because of you ignoring all the fascist stuff he's said and says he'd like to do while defending him against the fascist charge. I still say he's a fascist. Nobody told me to say that. I didn't come to that conclusion by any means other than my own perception. Let's review what I actually said:
"Again, being a fascist implies he has an ideology. He doesn't (outside of trade policy, he is and has been all over the map politically). There are also other elements missing from this comparison too. A better comparison would be Turkey, Hungary or Poland (~2015-2024) - an illiberal democracy."
Historically, the fascist charge has been used frequently in American politics. Being a fascist isn't just about what someone says. There are actual elements to fascism, including specific policies (look at Hitler and Mussolini's rise to power). These elements are missing from claims about Trump. You yourself even suggest he has no policy.
The United States' future could resemble what's happened in Turkey, Hungary or Poland, i.e., the emergence of an illiberal democracy - quite possibly on a state by state basis. Here's one definition:
Some of that sounds pretty familiar, and I'm not talking about Trump. The elements of this predate him. His autocratic instincts make it likely he would use those powers in illiberal ways, just as he did during his first administration. All of this will exist after him too (and it will probably get worse before it gets better).
If you want to stop that, you have to rein in executive power. However, we have a dysfunctional Congress that makes that unlikely.
|
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Nov 5, 2024 19:16:48 GMT
Yes, I admit I initially misread your twitter guy's tweet. I may have also misinterpreted some of your prior statements. As I recall, this all started with me asserting trump is a fascist. You didn't think so. Then things started going off the subject, mostly because of you ignoring all the fascist stuff he's said and says he'd like to do while defending him against the fascist charge. I still say he's a fascist. Nobody told me to say that. I didn't come to that conclusion by any means other than my own perception. Let's review what I actually said:
"Again, being a fascist implies he has an ideology. He doesn't (outside of trade policy, he is and has been all over the map politically). There are also other elements missing from this comparison too. A better comparison would be Turkey, Hungary or Poland (~2015-2024) - an illiberal democracy."
Historically, the fascist charge has been used frequently in American politics. Being a fascist isn't just about what someone says. There are actual elements to fascism, including specific policies (look at Hitler and Mussolini's rise to power). These elements are missing from claims about Trump. You yourself even suggest he has no policy.
The United States' future could resemble what's happened in Turkey, Hungary or Poland, i.e., the emergence of an illiberal democracy - quite possibly on a state by state basis. Here's one definition:
Some of that sounds pretty familiar, and I'm not talking about Trump. The elements of this predate him. His autocratic instincts make it likely he would use those powers in illiberal ways, just as he did during his first administration. All of this will exist after him too (and it will probably get worse before it gets better).
If you want to stop that, you have to rein in executive power. However, we have a dysfunctional Congress that makes that unlikely.
Fair enough. Ok, he's a stupid fascist. As far as I know, Mussolini nor Hitler had any definite ideology. They basically just repeated their vow to restore the nation's economy and sense of worth. They were fascists because of their words and actions. I just think trump is the same way. He, as well as they, put enormous effort in stirring up emotional reactions to current situations. Those European leaders were able to rise to power because they instilled either a sense of fear of some "other" or by appealing to their "patriotic" sensibilities or pocketbooks. trump does the same thing (constant whining about immigrants, constant lying that the economy under him was the greatest.....he only inherited Obama's economy, just like Biden inherited trump's crashed one) I didn't pay much attention to your previous replies on this because instead of you telling me why trump is not a fascist, you went off about General Kelly's former role at DHS, some twitter philosopher's multi part fascism essay, and who knows what else. So, you figure trump is fascist lite. Ok. And I agree; Congress is out of whack. The border will only be fixed when Congress fixdes it. it's been the way it is for decades. Until that changes, there will be problems. Current immigration law states that anyone can seek asylum here "regardless of how they got here." |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,206
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Nov 5, 2024 20:00:16 GMT
Fair enough. Ok, he's a stupid fascist. As far as I know, Mussolini nor Hitler had any definite ideology. They basically just repeated their vow to restore the nation's economy and sense of worth. They were fascists because of their words and actions. They certainly had an ideology. A couple of ideological aspects that Italian fascism and Nazism had in common were corporatism and imperialism. Nazism added in the dimension of race (Italian fascism was not initially racist and Jews played leading roles in it early on).
I found Paul M. Hayes Fascism enlightening a long time ago. William Halperin's Mussolini and Italian Fascism also. And of course, there's always Mein Kampf.
I've also read bits and pieces of Robert Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism, which is interesting.
Mussolini and Italian fascists used political violence and the threat of violence to assume power. Hitler and the Nazis did the same. In response to that violence, existing governments sought to mitigate the problem by offering Hitler and Mussolini power and roles in the government, thinking they could suborn them.
Trump won an election outright in 2016. He did not resort to political violence, nor did he in 2020 (you can argue that he and his supporters attempted to prevent the outcome of that election if you want). And there has been no violence this time either (I suspect there won't be if he loses; we'll find out in a few hours).
Trump has autocratic tendencies, but based on his previous administration, he colors within the lines of "legal." Going back to Kelly; when he left the administration, he said Trump never have him an order to do anything illegal.
Until you fix Congress, President's will continue to exert their imperial powers. And that starts with fixing gerrymandering so that there are more swing districts and making the primaries less of an ideological purity contest.
|
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Nov 5, 2024 20:11:57 GMT
Fair enough. Ok, he's a stupid fascist. As far as I know, Mussolini nor Hitler had any definite ideology. They basically just repeated their vow to restore the nation's economy and sense of worth. They were fascists because of their words and actions. They certainly had an ideology. A couple of ideological aspects that Italian fascism and Nazism had in common were corporatism and imperialism. Nazism added in the dimension of race (Italian fascism was not initially racist and Jews played leading roles in it early on).
I found Paul M. Hayes Fascism enlightening a long time ago. William Halperin's Mussolini and Italian Fascism also. And of course, there's always Mein Kampf.
I've also read bits and pieces of Robert Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism, which is interesting.
Mussolini and Italian fascists used political violence and the threat of violence to assume power. Hitler and the Nazis did the same. In response to that violence, existing governments sought to mitigate the problem by offering Hitler and Mussolini power and roles in the government, thinking they could suborn them.
Trump won an election outright in 2016. He did not resort to political violence, nor did he in 2020 (you can argue that he and his supporters attempted to prevent the outcome of that election if you want). And there has been no violence this time either (I suspect there won't be if he loses; we'll find out in a few hours).
Trump has autocratic tendencies, but based on his previous administration, he colors within the lines of "legal." Going back to Kelly; when he left the administration, he said Trump never have him an order to do anything illegal.
Until you fix Congress, President's will continue to exert their imperial powers. And that starts with fixing gerrymandering so that there are more swing districts and making the primaries less of an ideological purity contest.
I am not as widely read as you on fascism or its ideology. I've read some Hannah Arendt and some contemporary stuff. As for Hitler having any sort of ideology, I find it hard to imagine a failed painter and former corporal having any sort of serious ideology other than self preservation and a strong sense of national pride (or actually a strong sense of national shame at the end of the first world war). He was able to use the way Germany was penalized to rouse a national mood that eventually led him to power. I'm not so familiar with the Italian version of this, only that Mussolini allied with Hitler once they both became leaders. I know that Mussolini had his black shirts militia and that Hitler has his brown shirts militia. They both later established what amounted to provate armies tasked with enforcing whatever whims struck them. I do apprecialte your comments since you appear to be quite well read and astute. I think the electoral college should be abolished. It's a relic of another time and waters down the power of the one man one vote concept when taken as fifty elections instead of one. |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,206
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Nov 5, 2024 20:28:04 GMT
I am not as widely read as you on fascism or its ideology. I've read some Hannah Arendt and some contemporary stuff. As for Hitler having any sort of ideology, I find it hard to imagine a failed painter and former corporal having any sort of serious ideology other than self preservation and a strong sense of national pride (or actually a strong sense of national shame at the end of the first world war). He was able to use the way Germany was penalized to rouse a national mood that eventually led him to power. Regarding ideology, read Mein Kampf; its all there. And the Nazis never won a majority in the German parliament (the party actually lost votes and seats in 1932). Hitler himself never won an election. Ultimately, it was violence and the threat of violence which led Hitler to the chancellorship; and violence which secured him in that power.
Mussolini came first and provided some models for Hitler to follow (some of those didn't work out; e.g., the putsch).
|
|
|
|
Post by runswithscissors on Nov 8, 2024 14:56:47 GMT
I am not as widely read as you on fascism or its ideology. I've read some Hannah Arendt and some contemporary stuff. As for Hitler having any sort of ideology, I find it hard to imagine a failed painter and former corporal having any sort of serious ideology other than self preservation and a strong sense of national pride (or actually a strong sense of national shame at the end of the first world war). He was able to use the way Germany was penalized to rouse a national mood that eventually led him to power. Regarding ideology, read Mein Kampf; its all there. And the Nazis never won a majority in the German parliament (the party actually lost votes and seats in 1932). Hitler himself never won an election. Ultimately, it was violence and the threat of violence which led Hitler to the chancellorship; and violence which secured him in that power.
Mussolini came first and provided some models for Hitler to follow (some of those didn't work out; e.g., the putsch).
Thanks. And I meant to thank you earlier for the book referrals but neglected to do so. |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 26,009
|
Post by petep on Nov 8, 2024 15:41:04 GMT
Actually to anyone who has been paying attention this has been a problem there for years. Bad management and corruption. Trump actually pointed this out at the end of his presidency after the hurricane. Rampant corruption and he cut the money. And some were prosecuted. Then Biden Harris went back to the Obama era of ignoring it….like they ignored everything else except persecuting trump
|
|
