Decency, Trump and Obama.

[Dill]

(03-15-2017, 07:01 AM)hollodero Wrote: But the analogies to my country fail at very important points, the situation is so different. And yet some mechanisms are so strikingly similar, something I never saw in american politics before (similarities I mean). I can only see it as it was taken from Europe, who took it from us, see "Jörg Haider" "HC Strache" or "FPÖ" (you know some of those probably, don't feel prompted to google the others, doesn't matter). What happens in the US, we invented... but again, vast differences, our alt-rights have their own party and didn't need to overtake another one, we don't have a vain dumb-dumb millionaire who is driven by reaching historic immortality they can use as a tool, and we don't have to deal with North Korea and stuff like that.

You are correct about the differences between Alt-rights, e.g., they have their own party in the East Reich, etc.  Whereas in the US they had to take over an existing party, which often resists their aims, (Imagine the FPÖ and ÖVP forced to share the same administration and budget)

But I think there has been more historical interaction/resemblance between US and European/Austrian right than you realize.  The kind of “scientific racism” so prominent in post WWI Germany originated in the 19th century US, France, and Great Britain, where Northern Europeans either lived side by side with millions of African/Asian descended people whom they did not want to see assimilated or were in a position to control vast colonial populations.

History never repeats itself, but many of the phenomena you describe about manipulation of masses by vilifying the free press and constructing media liberal elites with secret agendas and boosting a strong, authoritarian change agent who can jump over politically correct liberal hurdles to get things done and shut the liberal elite up along the way—all that existed in the US and UK as well as Germany in the 1920s.  Germany even had the dissatisfaction of rural dwellers who felt the main parties weren’t listening to them—“flyover Germany” so to speak. I find it chilling to read Nazi discussions of immigrations and foreigners and the pre-occupation with borders and the urgent need to register foreigners living within the Reich.

Watching Trump speak about judges who blocked his executive order, mis-explaining US law to thousands of listeners, was especially chilling—the roaring approval of groupthink hatred from the dis-informed crowd chanting "lock her up, lock her up."  It is still all about symbols and magical thinking and revenge.

[Dill]

(03-15-2017, 07:01 AM)hollodero Wrote: Leverage, still yes, but it took a severe hit, I'd say. You still have a fancy military, though.

Well I am glad that you acknowledge that.

It just won't do to have you and your friends all sitting around the Stammtish Friday evenings laughing about how Obama has weakened the US military.

[Dill]

(03-15-2017, 07:01 AM)hollodero Wrote: And the alt-right governed administration can have "success", not because of Trump, but in spite of him, for there's a conservative agenda, conservatives who believe they use and play Trump. Which is not the case. They get played and used. And the republican voter base gets played and used, too. They need to see that. Should Trump get reelected, it might be over, and they lose too. That's the mistake, to think you could contain the alt-rights in the long run. In my country, voters ultimatively run away (mainly to the conservatives), but you only have the democrats where they can run to, and many will never bring themselves to do that, not even to being complicit to a democrat win by not voting at all. The notion of "avoiding the liberal win" in the United States might be the biggest alt-right chance to raise to sustainable power and shape the world. That's what's so scary.

That's also why you need to bring out the moderates, maybe even the conservatives - and those who do not vote, which is half the population. Or you need a new party, whatever, but you need to change your ways of thinking and talking politics. Or we all, even in Europe, face a huge danger.

And that's why you need a different way of talking, I see it here and everywhere, I see the "left" making the same mistake over and over again they also make here, which I make as well, which is being arrogant, condescending, the more sensible human being with the better values, all that, and trying to win the argument no matter what. I see the media staring at the phenomena like the rabbit stares at the snake and not knowing what to do - except doing exactly what I described. They all exaggerate things too, don't make the right points, turn to arrogance, get attackable and that's how fascists (for lack of a better term) can raise.

I share the same fears that you do. It's like the resolve of '45 to never let this happen again has been forgotten.

And the past is so distance now that many in the present find the lessons of history unreadable. That old-style authoritarian demagoguery playing peoples hopes, racial stereotypes, and economic fears--and its consequences--has no parallel to today's authoritarian demagoguery playing to peoples' hopes, racial stereotypes, and economic fears.

One element of that old-style demagoguery was how it made people out of power feel empowered, listened to, and appreciated. It identified listeners with a powerful leader and re-awakened, rejuvenated state--taken back from the liberals who had weakened it to be made strong again by the leader's resoluteness.

The one positive side of the current conjuncture is that the US is not presently in a depression, nor does the population feel deeply humiliated by a war loss which saddles it with guilt and crippling reparations.  Some things that Trump is doing now, like cutting the State Dept. and EPA, will very soon increase resistance to his presidency with consequences threatening to previously apolitical segments of the US population.

It is Trump's own policies which will bring out the moderates--not anything specifically that liberals or leftists or Democrats or journalists may say to them.  Which is good because I agree with you, the media appears helpless. They expose aspects of Trump politics that should bring down a leader in a democracy, but to no effect. This is because Trump's supporters do not care how badly he behaves, and the Republican establishment needs their support to get their non-Trump agenda ratified.

It is very hard to discuss the p***y grabber who back in the '90s called reporters pretending to be his own publicist, and then led the birther movement and still thinks 3-5 million people voted illegally and wants to bring back torture. How do you even mention all that without seeming arrogant and condescending? And why should you (the journalist) be faulted for "condescending" if you look askance at this behavior? Why should this, um, 'extraordinary' candidate be so normalized?

What produces adherence to Trump does not seem amenable to the usual policy arguments based upon data, logic and policy knowledge. My thinking is that journalists and others with public voices should continue to prevent the normalization of Trump's behavior and policies, and keep clear alternatives before a heretofore complacent public as they come to awareness that by not voting at all, or maybe voting for Trump for "change", they have put their private interests and the national interest at risk.

[Rotobeast]

(03-16-2017, 03:59 PM)Dill Wrote: Watching Trump speak about judges who blocked his executive order, mis-explaining US law to thousands of listeners, was especially chilling

That was when I lost my last shred of optimism, for the next 3.75 years.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-13-2017, 02:16 AM)Dill Wrote: I don't think I am throwing all this forum's Trump defenders in the same alt-right pot. E.g., I don't regard Justwin as a Trump supporter at all, just someone who takes a rightist view of economics.

In my defense, my economic views are neither "right" nor "left".  Any attempt by either party to hijack those views in their platform are not an indication of my endorsement.

Politics do not influence my economic philosophy.  I don't think I'm alone as a free market guy who questions what that means in a global economy.

But it is interesting that advocating lower debt and lower government spending has become a "conservative" view.

[Rotobeast]

(03-18-2017, 02:12 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: In my defense, my economic views are neither "right" nor "left".  Any attempt by either party to hijack those views in their platform are not an indication of my endorsement.

Politics do not influence my economic philosophy.  I don't think I'm alone as a free market guy who questions what that means in a global economy.

But it is interesting that advocating lower debt and lower government spending has become a "conservative" view.

It USED TO BE a "conservative" view.
That's why I'm now Libertarian.

I will say that the the majority of the Freedom Caucus still hold those values.

[Benton]

(03-18-2017, 10:24 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: It USED TO BE a "conservative" view.
That's why I'm now Libertarian.

I will say that the the majority of the Freedom Caucus still hold those values.

yeah, I think the last few decades have erased the connection of the GOP as a party of debt reduction and less spending. You've got one side that spends irresponsibly on welfare and one that spends irresponsibly on a different form of welfare.

[Dill]

(03-18-2017, 02:12 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: In my defense, my economic views are neither "right" nor "left".  Any attempt by either party to hijack those views in their platform are not an indication of my endorsement.

Politics do not influence my economic philosophy.  I don't think I'm alone as a free market guy who questions what that means in a global economy.

But it is interesting that advocating lower debt and lower government spending has become a "conservative" view.

Perhaps "rightist" was not the right word, Justwin, or it includes too much. But from my memory of your various posts, I assumed you were a "classical liberal"--someone who supports free markets, minimal government, and prioritizes property rights. Pursuit of self interest is good and failure to recognize that a bad foundation for policy, etc. . . .

In the U.S. context, classical liberalism became "conservative" in the decades after the civil war, as the new or "progressive" version of liberalism appeared, which opposed oil, banking, and railroad monopolies, and endorsed government intervention in a range of issues from child labor to public schools to national parks to sanitation, and which led to expanding federal tax revenues. Post WWI, "liberals" in the courts began defending free speech and civil rights.

The 1932 election crystalized this opposition, so in the US context, the classical liberalism of Hoover is ever after "conservative" and FDR's Keynesian interventions and "big government" are "liberal." That is when the battle lines were settled, though each side has collected new issues since, like school vouchers for the former and gay rights for the latter. There are variants, though. "Paleoconservatives" want smaller government, but don't like free trade and tend to isolationism in foreign policy. Neocons accept some welfare/government programs as necessary for social stability, are conservative on social issues, but adopt an aggressive foreign policy as they see the US economy and political power as tied to global markets --and hence, global stability. I've never thought you fit either of those categories.

What confuses our European friends is that they see two versions of liberalism, each of which would be in the middle of the spectrum in most European countries, constantly described as "far right" or "far left."

[hollodero]

(03-16-2017, 04:32 PM)Dill Wrote: The one positive side of the current conjuncture is that the US is not presently in a depression, nor does the population feel deeply humiliated by a war loss which saddles it with guilt and crippling reparations.  

I saw your reasoning, and while that seems valid, I'm not so sure whether overall this really is a positive side. If you think about it. I leave it at that.

(03-16-2017, 04:32 PM)Dill Wrote: It is very hard to discuss the p***y grabber who back in the '90s called reporters pretending to be his own publicist, and then led the birther movement and still thinks 3-5 million people voted illegally and wants to bring back torture. How do you even mention all that without seeming arrogant and condescending? And why should you (the journalist) be faulted for "condescending" if you look askance at this behavior? Why should this, um, 'extraordinary' candidate be so normalized?

That's a fair question. He shouldn't. Objectivity, reason and truth must prevail.

The tendency one needs to shy away from is letting your own political pendulum swing with half amplitude towards the own political beliefs. Which seems perfectly fine to do, given how agenda-driven the other side operates. Why not go slightly "liberal" - or take things one step further then hard facts determine - when opposing their agenda too. Why not overstating things a bit too. Well. It feels right, but isn't helpful. One needs to give the personal opinion as well, sure, else it would not be a debate. But the controversy should be fought with facts.

Regarding the media, your landscape is complicated, and FOX is a propaganda outlet which is hard to oppose. But it's more complex. It was equally ridiculous when your MSM praised Trump's Congress speech. As if now finally he got normal, phew, everything's fine and forgotten now. That was hard to watch. What Rachel Maddow (who obviously is great, but I don't know her and don't care) did and how she did it was stupid, too.

Btw. I'm not so sure about FOX and whether they of all people are the conservatives that need to come around. After all, there are still journalists at work, and their reporting turns into a loyalty test. I don't know it the willingness to show loyalty stretches into eternity. There are signs of opposition.
Maybe FOX needs to save America.

[hollodero]

(03-18-2017, 02:12 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: In my defense, my economic views are neither "right" nor "left".  Any attempt by either party to hijack those views in their platform are not an indication of my endorsement.

Politics do not influence my economic philosophy.  I don't think I'm alone as a free market guy who questions what that means in a global economy.

But it is interesting that advocating lower debt and lower government spending has become a "conservative" view.

Well, denying that CC is a serious threat did it for me in my assumption. When I hear that from someone I know nothing about, I kind of know two things with some certainty afterwards: 1) US-American and 2) republican. These views are not common world-wide.

The additional assumption 3) Trump voter is standing to reason, since almost all republicans are.

[hollodero]

(03-19-2017, 03:39 PM)Dill Wrote: What confuses our European friends is that they see two versions of liberalism

That is true.

(03-19-2017, 03:39 PM)Dill Wrote: each of which would be in the middle of the spectrum in most European countries, constantly described as "far right" or "far left."

Well, not exactly. We consider your "far right" as being quite far right indeed. In general, your republican party is quite unmatched here, and we couldn't tie it to an existing European political ideology. Right now we can, of course, but in general there is no equivalent. But the middle, no. The equivalent for the democratic party is our moderate conservatives. I would call Sanders "left" (but not far left), maybe this Edwards guy that once was there, certainly some others I don't know of. The rest, including Hillary or Obama, is more in the middle or slightly on the right. Imho.

In conclusion, our spectrum centers at a point you would already call "left".

(03-16-2017, 03:59 PM)Dill Wrote: You are correct about the differences between Alt-rights, e.g., they have their own party in the East Reich, etc.  Whereas in the US they had to take over an existing party, which often resists their aims, (Imagine the FPÖ and ÖVP forced to share the same administration and budget)

But I think there has been more historical interaction/resemblance between US and European/Austrian right than you realize.   

Two things, first I imagine it quite in the way you described it. Two-party system would probably already have brought us an alt-right government. Sice we don't have that, they had to make do with the role as junior partner. Thank god for that.

About the historic perspective, sure some patterns are uníversally visible and part of every authoritarian's playbook. And some of these things are visible now, I didn't intend to neglect that. It's reason enough to be alarmed. 

There's some major differences, and one of those I have already hinted at, the alt-right raises out of a society of relative wealth, security and freedom. This I see as historically unprecedented.

[Dill]

(03-21-2017, 07:04 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, not exactly. We consider your "far right" as being quite far right indeed. In general, your republican party is quite unmatched here, and we couldn't tie it to an existing European political ideology. Right now we can, of course, but in general there is no equivalent. But the middle, no. The equivalent for the democratic party is our moderate conservatives. I would call Sanders "left" (but not far left), maybe this Edwards guy that once was there, certainly some others I don't know of. The rest, including Hillary or Obama, is more in the middle or slightly on the right. Imho.


In conclusion, our spectrum centers at a point you would already call "left".

There's some major differences, and one of those I have already hinted at, the alt-right raises out of a society of relative wealth, security and freedom. This I see as historically unprecedented.

1. You are correct about our far right being far right indeed. In some ways I am still seeing the old Republican party, not the new, and thinking of a time before the Alt-right was mainstreamed, when it was still negligible. To modify my point--until RECENTLY, like the last decade, the political divide in the US has been between Classical and progressive liberals, not real "leftists" and the far right.

2. Totally agree with you on the spectrum placement. Our "far left dictator" Obama was no enemy of Wall Street. His domestic policy was perhaps to the right of Republican Eisenhower's  (back in the '50s) on many points.

3. I share your astonishment about the US alt-right emerging from wealth, security, and freedom. I would add, though, that it seems to attract people who perceive themselves to be ignored or members of an excluded demographic, people who believe their country has been taken over by "THEM." Also I add some other intriguing demographic similarities to the Weimar German voters susceptible to Hitler. Then many rural voters ("flyover" Germany?) felt excluded by the mainstream parties, as did lower middle class urban voters who could not identify with the KPD or SPD. The complaint was that parties had become self-perpetuating, put their interests above the nation and their own voters, dishonest in their selection of representatives, etc.  Racism has been rather submerged in the US since the mid-70s, giving many "liberals" the impression it was largely past. But now we see what seething anger was released by Trump, who gave so many permission to be "politically incorrect."  The Trump whitelash is in large part a response to perceived threats to personal and cultural identity, and loss of power, in addition to looming threats to wealth and security, the sense of (real) economic stagnation felt by many in the middle and lower classes.

[Dill]

(03-21-2017, 06:34 AM)hollodero Wrote:  But the controversy should be fought with facts.

Regarding the media, your landscape is complicated, and FOX is a propaganda outlet which is hard to oppose. But it's more complex. It was equally ridiculous when your MSM praised Trump's Congress speech. As if now finally he got normal, phew, everything's fine and forgotten now. That was hard to watch. What Rachel Maddow (who obviously is great, but I don't know her and don't care) did and how she did it was stupid, too.

Btw. I'm not so sure about FOX and whether they of all people are the conservatives that need to come around. After all, there are still journalists at work, and their reporting turns into a loyalty test. I don't know it the willingness to show loyalty stretches into eternity. There are signs of opposition.
Maybe FOX needs to save America.

I am rather agnostic about fighting the controversy with "facts," though I frequently do so in this forum.  If you have been following some of the threads, you can see facts, evidence, even logical consistency no longer have the currency they once did. A new media audience has developed to generate alternative facts and their media have raised false equivalence to an art form. The result is a mish mash of hyper-aggressive magical thinking, projection, and scapegoating. I don't think much can be done about this by way of traditional debate in the public sphere.  One positive about the Trump presidency is that he is undermining it himself in a way that makes it hard to blame "liberals" and the MSM, and he is calling Fox and Breitbart into question precisely by taking them seriously.

LOL yes, ridiculous praise for a speech written by others, which only worked to the degree Trump did not ad lib. The bar is so low now. The only people who REALLY gushed were right wing pundits like Hugh Hewitt and the Fox crew. I think the rest were trying to be "fair." They needed something on record about Trump that was not a criticism to show they are balanced.

Maddow promised too much when she said she had Trump's taxes--implying she had the recent ones. But over all, she is one of our best journalists. She always sets up issues with thorough backstory of the sort we don't usually get from journalists today.

Finally, I do not expect Fox to "come around," though I do think in the coming year that more of them will distance themselves from Trump. Van Sustern and Kelly have jumped ship.  George Will directly opposed Trump from the get go as a vulgarian and not a traditional conservative. Then after Trump complained he was fired. That sent a message. There is definitely confusion, though, and consternation as Trump continues to insist Obama wire-tapped him.

[*bfine32*]

Looks like Trump may have been under surveillance. It just wasn't "on purpose"

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-devin-nunes-wiretapping-fbi-intelligence-committee-572423?rx=us

[GMDino]

(03-22-2017, 06:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Looks like Trump may have been under surveillance. It just wasn't "on purpose"

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-devin-nunes-wiretapping-fbi-intelligence-committee-572423?rx=us

You mean his people were in touch with people who were under surveillance.

And not during the campaign.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/devin-nunes-donald-trump-surveillance-obama-236366

Quote:“I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show that the president-elect and his team were, I guess, at least monitored,” Nunes told reporters. 

Quote:Nunes described the surveillance as most likely being “incidental collection.” This can occur when a person inside the United States communicates with a foreign target of U.S. surveillance. 

Quote:He also said he did not know yet whether the Trump transition team members who were unmasked were communicating from Trump Tower.

Looks like you're "not defending Trump" again.

[*bfine32*]

(03-22-2017, 07:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: You mean his people were in touch with people who were under surveillance.

And not during the campaign.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/devin-nunes-donald-trump-surveillance-obama-236366









Looks like you're "not defending Trump" again.

Just sharing some big news of the day. But you have done your duty. Didn't know you would post a link that supports my "may have been" statement. You sure do like backing me up.

[GMDino]

(03-22-2017, 07:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just sharing some big news of the day. But you have done your duty. Didn't know you would post a link that supports my "may have been" statement. You sure do like backing me up.

At least now I get why you Love Trump so much.

You just like lying.  Like saying "he may have been" when he clearly was not and no one said he was.

Solid post though.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-22-2017, 06:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Looks like Trump may have been under surveillance. It just wasn't "on purpose"

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-devin-nunes-wiretapping-fbi-intelligence-committee-572423?rx=us

From the article . . .

Quote:Representative Devin Nunes said the information which he said was obtained from a source he did not identify in any way, was collected legally in November, December and January - from the Nov. 8 election to Trump's Jan. 20 inauguration 

This is nothing more than a distraction from Trump's claim he was wiretapped before the election.






You sure are distracted.

[*bfine32*]

(03-22-2017, 08:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: At least now I get why you Love Trump so much.

You just like lying.  Like saying "he may have been" when he clearly was not and no one said he was.

Solid post though.

First off: Watch your mouth.

Secondly: It is there for folks to listen to and read. They can decide if it was incorrect to suggest this indicates he may have been survielled. 

Finally: I have said (in this very thread I believe) that his comments about being survielled are some of the worst comments he's said since election and he should have been censured immediately. I do not mention this to explain myself to you as most here already realize the purpose of your existence in this forum. I mention this in case someone is stupid enough to take what you say with any degree of validity. 

[*bfine32*]

(03-22-2017, 08:30 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: From the article . . .


This is nothing more than a distraction from Trump's claim he was wiretapped before the election.






You sure are distracted.

I'm not distracted a bit; I simply posted some news with a comment of It appears he may have been. 

My views on Trump commenting about being surveilled have been made known and I thought understood. I could give a damn less if he was surveilled if it were thought to be in the National Interest. Hell I hope POTUS did order the surveillance if he had reason to believe their was foul play.

You guys just get confused sometimes when folks can judge individual events on their own merits. See the reasoning I provided Dino for why I explained myself here.