Republican National Convention(s)

[Dill]

(08-25-2020, 03:42 PM)PhilHos Wrote: We've had 4 years of Trump and he's nowhere near closer to being a fascist dictator now than he was 4 years ago, but, sure, keep comparing him to one because THAT doesn't further divide the country or anything.

I would not call Trump a fascist at this point. He does not purvey that ideology of sacrifice and subordination to a "spiritual" state over bourgeois money grubbing that we find in fascism*, and is not likely to. He doesn't strut around in uniforms. But he is certainly an authoritarian, and is striving to increase his powers following a path which past dictators have. 

To see that, though, you'd have to know what a path from democracy to dictatorship typically looks like, and looked like before Trump. Without some independent standard of judgment about what counts as a move towards dictatorship, and an independent framework for comparing apples to apples, there can't really be explanation or discussion, only recurring equivocation.

So I'd say he's SOMEWHAT closer to being an authoritarian dictator now than he was four years age. Sure, he was already undermining the free press four years ago, including unqualified family members as key advisors, displaying an authoritarian leadership style, and admiring that style in other authoritarian leaders. He has never evinced an understanding of rule of law or Constitutional separation of powers. He rode to power stoking grievance against an immigrant and Muslim "Other" in our midst, a defining feature of right-wing, authoritarian populism.

But four years ago he had not yet fired whistle blowers and other officials investigating his abuse of power. He was only beginning to undermine the CIA/FBI back then, and had not done so on an international stage. He had not yet used his power over foreign policy or over institutions like the post office for the partisan purpose of undermining US elections. He did not yet have the Republican Party as fully under his control as he did by the time of his impeachment for abuse of power and obstruction of justice. He had not yet called the US military into the streets against US citizens. The first time he ran, the Republican Party had a platform. This time they don't, just that reaffirmation of support for the dear leader.

Four years ago, people imaged there were more effective checks against presidential power than there actually are. It is Trump who has so eagerly demonstrated this for us.

I should add that the primary threat to democracy now isn't just from Trump's illiberal, anti-democratic leadership, but from the embrace of that illiberal, anti-democratic leadership by a mass of followers. There could be no Trump in power, no authoritarian threat to democracy, without their support of the man above party, platform, and rule of law. The millions who would look the other way if he shot someone on 5th Avenue. And the threat doesn't have to be that he actually becomes a full-fledged dictator. Bad enough if he breaks down democratic governance and divides the nation with an alternative and anti-democratic narrative of "hoaxes" and a lying press which cannot be trusted over his confused and contradictory pronouncements.

*One could even argue that Trump is exactly the image of what fascist leaders like Hitler and Mussolini defined themselves against, the money grubber par excellence with no transcendent SPIRITUAL goals worthy of sacrifice. Someone like that would be unfit to embody the will of the nation.

[BmorePat87]

Melania made a lot of references to the pandemic, Frontline workers, and victims, suggesting that her family was fighting for them and cared.

Attendees were not tested for Covid, were not required to be 6 feet apart, and did not wear a mask.

[*Nately120*]

(08-26-2020, 11:06 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Melania made a lot of references to the pandemic, Frontline workers, and victims, suggesting that her family was fighting for them and cared.

Attendees were not tested for Covid, were not required to be 6 feet apart, and did not wear a mask.

I wonder why notable republican, Herman Cain, didn't speak at the RNC.

[Dill]

(08-26-2020, 11:06 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Melania made a lot of references to the pandemic, Frontline workers, and victims, suggesting that her family was fighting for them and cared.

Attendees were not tested for Covid, were not required to be 6 feet apart, and did not wear a mask.

Yeah, well there was no Covid testing or mask wearing at the Democratic convention of 2016 and no social distancing either.

But not a PEEP from the liberal press about that!  They only complain when it's Republicans!

[GMDino]

Another oddity:

Trumps average DISAPPROVAL rating is going UP during the RNC when they are praising him left and right.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-26-2020, 08:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: Angry? Nah.  I just get tired of people posting just to be argumentative rather than doing a little research.

I'm all for alternative information and proof...not just "well sure but..." 

Don't have time to look it up?  Don't post it.

Sir. 

While I appreciate your input I'll continue to post in the fashion I please rather than what pleases you.  

[GMDino]

(08-26-2020, 08:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: Angry? Nah.  I just get tired of people posting just to be argumentative rather than doing a little research.

I'm all for alternative information and proof...not just "well sure but..." 

Don't have time to look it up?  Don't post it.

Sir. 

(08-26-2020, 11:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: While I appreciate your input I'll continue to post in the fashion I please rather than what pleases you.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-26-2020, 12:14 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Oh, please let me add an addendum.  Your opinion of what constitutes that type of post means less than nothing to me.  The rest of my response stands.  Thank you and enjoy your day.

[Belsnickel]

(08-26-2020, 11:53 AM)GMDino Wrote: Another oddity:

Trumps average DISAPPROVAL rating is going UP during the RNC when they are praising him left and right.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

They can't get that data that fast. It takes several days for data to reflect any changes from the conventions.

[GMDino]

(08-26-2020, 12:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They can't get that data that fast. It takes several days for data to reflect any changes from the conventions.

That makes more sense as the daily went down a bit during the DNC and then jumped up again this week.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-26-2020, 12:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They can't get that data that fast. It takes several days for data to reflect any changes from the conventions.

Bel, don't destroy the narrative.  Demoralization tactics don't need actual facts.

[GMDino]

(08-26-2020, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Bel, don't destroy the narrative.  Demoralization tactics don't need actual facts.

Not really.  I post something.  I learn something.  I admit that now I know more and it makes sense.

That's without a "narrative" or "demoralization tactics".

AND it adds to the conversation.

Try it.  Sir.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-26-2020, 12:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not really.  I post something.  I learn something.  I admit that now I know more and it makes sense.

That's without a "narrative" or "demoralization tactics".

AND it adds to the conversation.

Try it.  Sir.

I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to your source.  

[Belsnickel]

(08-26-2020, 12:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to your source.  

The source just provides the numbers. They aggregate polling. In fact, you can look at the polls used in the aggregate and see the time frame over which the data was collected.

[Dill]

(08-26-2020, 12:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Bel, don't destroy the narrative.  Demoralization tactics don't need actual facts.

Well they often involve preventing "actual facts" from entering public discussion, or from being discussed if they do.

Another such tactic is to create "alternative" facts to sow confusion.

[Dill]

(08-25-2020, 06:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is a lot of words to basically say it's ok to do it when you think it's ok to do it.  I suppose comparing someone to the Nazis would be perfectly acceptable if they were for building more highways?  Not a charged comparison at all, right?

Those "words" are actually a concise statement of a scholarly standard of independent research which emerged in German universities during the late 18th century, and was over the next century adopted in research institutions worldwide, including the US. If you can resolve those "words" into statements, you'll find nothing there "basically says it's ok to do it when I think it's ok to do it." 

So it's happening again, as it has on so many other threads (e.g., most recently, the Esper/Milley thread)--I articulate standards of analysis/judgment independent of any specific issue or political conflict so people can have a rational discussion of issues, and you cast the standards as just another form of personal bias. 

The only principle have you articulated and doubled down on, in both the old and the new forum, is that one needn't actually engage with and demonstrate understanding of opposing positions before condemning them. One can judge them before hand. Pre-judge them. Praejudicium. Prejudice elevated to an operational standard. 

As far as building highways, Ike got the idea for a US interstate from Germany--from HITLER if it comes to that. I don't recall reading whether anyone considered it a "charged comparison" if peope noted where he got the idea. Perhaps adopting that particular Hitlerian idea did not cut against the grain of American democracy the way that undermining the free press does. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-26-2020, 01:06 PM)Dill Wrote: Those "words" are actually a concise statement of a scholarly standard of independent research which emerged in German universities during the late 18th century, and was over the next century adopted in research institutions worldwide, including the US. If you can resolve those "words" into statements, you'll find nothing there "basically says it's ok to do it when I think it's ok to do it." 

So it's happening again, as it has on so many other threads (e.g., most recently, the Esper/Milley thread)--I articulate standards of analysis/judgment independent of any specific issue or political conflict so people can have a rational discussion of issues, and you cast the standards as just another form of personal bias. 

The only principle have you articulated and doubled down on, in both the old and the new forum, is that one needn't actually engage with and demonstrate understanding of opposing positions before condemning them. One can judge them before hand. Pre-judge them. Praejudicium. Prejudice elevated to an operational standard.

I'm going to try hard to respond to this without making it personal.  What you tend to do is a take a simple discussion and obfuscate behind a long winded explanation, introducing a lot of principles and facts that really aren't relevant and then acting like you proved something when someone doesn't engage in the ponderous effort to actually address every irrelevancy you introduced. 

It's a simple concept, comparing your political opponents to the Nazis or anything related to the Nazis is a charged, and over the top, allegation.  It is done to be intentionally inflammatory and no amount of pontificating on your part will change this.  This is, of course, my opinion.

Quote:As far as building highways, Ike got the idea for a US interstate from Germany--from HITLER if it comes to that. I don't recall reading whether anyone considered it a "charged comparison" if peope noted where he got the idea. Perhaps adopting that particular Hitlerian idea did not cut against the grain of American democracy the way that undermining the free press does. 

Did anyone compare Ike to Hitler when he did it?  Did his political opponents come out and say, Ike is like Hitler because of "x"?  If not then your example is meaningless.

[*Nately120*]

(08-26-2020, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Did anyone compare Ike to Hitler when he did it?  Did his political opponents come out and say, Ike is like Hitler because of "x"?  If not then your example is meaningless.

I heil Ike?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-26-2020, 01:31 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I heil Ike?

Would have made for an interesting campaign button. 

[Dill]

(08-26-2020, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Did anyone compare Ike to Hitler when he did it?  Did his political opponents come out and say, Ike is like Hitler because of "x"?  If not then your example is meaningless.

The autobahn was your "meaningless" example. 

But Ike's political opponents wouldn't make much of his stealing the idea from Hitler because building highways was a non-partisan issue, a good idea whomever it came from. Ideas aren't bad just because they came from Hitler. Building roads doesn't undermine democracy.

But denigrating the free press and undermining confidence in free elections do undermine democracy.