Republican National Convention(s)

[*Nately120*]

(08-26-2020, 01:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Would have made for an interesting campaign button. 

I always associate Eisenhower with my ol' man saying "When I was a kid we were so scurred that we had to put a general in the white house!"  And then after that it was "If JFK gets elected the Pope is going to be running the USA."

At least politics was always pretty nuts.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-26-2020, 01:42 PM)Dill Wrote: The autobahn was your "meaningless" example.

Dear god, not in the way you just used it.  

Quote: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.

It also didn't make him a Nazi, did it?

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

Indeed.  Should they invite comparisons to Adolf Hitler though?  Or is that maybe a bridge too far and is only being done to be intentionally inflammatory?

[Dill]

(08-26-2020, 01:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dear god, not in the way you just used it.  
It also didn't make him a Nazi, did it?

Indeed.  Should they invite comparisons to Adolf Hitler though?  Or is that maybe a bridge too far and is only being done to be intentionally inflammatory?

No, building highways didn't make Ike a Nazi.  And if Trump presents a plan for extending highways, no one is going to say "See! Just like Hitler!" (You were complaining about "facts that aren't really relevant" earlier?)

Whether Trump's anti-democratic actions should "invite comparisons" depends on whether 

1) one is concerned about the trending authoritarianism in our own government and popular support for it, and what that means for the future of US democracy, and on whether

2) one agrees contemporary social science affords analytic frameworks which allow one to accurately and profitably compare apples to apples when discussing states/leaders, in part by excluding non-issues (Ike built highways. Was he a Nazi?), thus producing knowledge more stable than "opinion,",and 

3) whether any asserted points of comparison within such a framework are valid and can be empirically substantiated. (One can hardly say that denigrating the press is "not like Hitler" or any number of authoritarian dictators.) And especially

4) whether such asserted points of comparison reveal anything specific and noteworthy about Trump's politics that comparison with non-authoritarian governments would not.

"Intentionally inflammatory" statements aren't likely to vet out in this process.

You don't seem to care about 1-4. 

If did you did, "inflammatory" would not trump empirical validity. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-26-2020, 02:38 PM)Dill Wrote: No, building highways didn't make Ike a Nazi.  And if Trump presents a plan for extending highways, no one is going to say "See! Just like Hitler!"
(You were complaining about "facts that aren't really relevant" earlier?)

Whether Trump's anti-democratic actions should "invite comparisons" depends on whether 

1) one is concerned about the trending authoritarianism in our own government and popular support for it, and what that means for the future of US democracy, and on whether

2) one agrees contemporary social science affords analytic frameworks which allow one to accurately and profitably compare apples to apples when discussing states/leaders (thus producing knowledge more stable than "opinion"), and 

3) whether any asserted points of comparison within such a framework are valid and can be empirically substantiated. (One can hardly say that denigrating the press is "not like Hitler" or any number of authoritarian dictators.) And especially

4) whether such asserted points of comparison reveal anything specific and noteworthy about Trump's politics that comparison with non-authoritarian governments would not.

You don't seem to care about 1-4. 

If did you did care, "inflamatory" would not trump empirical validity. 

You argue that not wanting people compared to Adolf Hitler is analogous to not caring about 1-4.  This is a very poor argument.

[Dill]

(08-26-2020, 02:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You argue that not wanting people compared to Adolf Hitler is analogous to not caring about 1-4.  This is a very poor argument.

Can you do more that just assert that, like actually explain why it is a "very poor argument"? 

Pick 4, for example. Why is wrong to say we can understand something about Trump's political behavior and its implications for democracy via the historical precedent of Hitler's political behavior, that we COULD NOT by studying the leader of another liberal democracy--Like Churchill or de Gaulle?  

Until you do, still sounds like "inflammatory" trumps empirical validity. 

It still looks like you just see individual "people" being compared; the purpose and framework of systematic comparison escapes you. 

[*PhilHos*]

(08-25-2020, 05:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: You repeated the falsehood at least 3 times in an hour. 

And when I discovered I was wrong, I owned up to it. 

I apologize for disparaging Biden to your dissatisfcation. You probably aren't going to want to watch any news during this campaign cycle if you can't handle someone repeating a falsehood about Biden. Just sayin'.

[Dill]

(08-26-2020, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 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.

What I tend to do is contest the reduction complicated political issues to sound bites. The "long-winded explanations" you detest result from defining terms, articulating principles independent of the issue at hand--the things people normally do when they want political discussion to move beyond exchange of baseless accusations and "opinion."  "Obfuscation" is the effort to prevent or undermine such efforts, often by adopting positions ad hoc--e.g.,"inflammatory" is ok when talking about Muslims, but not Trump.

From what perspective could the following principle be judged "irrelevant":

It is not "unacceptable" for Americans to note, discuss and make a case for [Trump/Hitler] correspondences if they are really there.          
It should be unacceptable to acknowledge they are there but deny their discussion.

So far on this thread, you have not really disputed the fact of parallels between Trump's and Hitler's (and other dictators') anti-democratic behavior, just argued that they should not be publicly confirmed and discussed because they are "charged." 

Such an argument for suppressing political discussion appears to separate that discussion from any kind of factual grounding, as if such "charged allegations" were only that, not factual claims subject in principle to confirmation. 

It also appears to dismiss the idea that past political precedents can guide present behavior, perhaps most especially when they are "charged."

[Vas Deferens]

Lou holtz. Very convincing.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-26-2020, 03:52 PM)Dill Wrote:
What I tend to do is contest the reduction complicated political issues to sound bites. The "long-winded explanations" you detest result from defining terms, articulating principles independent of the issue at hand--the things people normally do when they want political discussion to move beyond exchange of baseless accusations and "opinion."

I literally could not ask for a better example.

 

Quote:"Obfuscation" is the effort to prevent or undermine such efforts, often by adopting positions ad hoc--e.g.,"inflammatory" is ok when talking about Muslims, but not Trump.

Still stinging about my criticism of Islam, eh?  Don't worry, women are still being oppressed, gay people are being executed and apostates are being killed in the Islamic world.  All is right, from their perspective at least.

Quote:From what perspective could the following principle be judged "irrelevant":

It is not "unacceptable" for Americans to note, discuss and make a case for [Trump/Hitler] correspondences if they are really there.          
It should be unacceptable to acknowledge they are there but deny their discussion.

From the perspective that such comparison are so highly charged as to make their use a deliberate attempt to be inflammatory.  Are there no other totalitarian governments one could use an a parallel? 

Quote:So far on this thread, you have not really disputed the fact of parallels between Trump's and Hitler's (and other dictators') anti-democratic behavior, just argued that they should not be publicly confirmed and discussed because they are "charged." 

I haven't argued against the earth being flat either.  I don't waste my time arguing against pure hyperbole.

Quote:Such an argument for suppressing political discussion appears to separate that discussion from any kind of factual grounding, as if such "charged allegations" were only that, not factual claims subject in principle to confirmation. 

Oh my, calling for no Nazi comparisons is now "suppressing political discussion".  You'll pardon me, I just got whiplash from my severe eyeroll.

Quote:It also appears to dismiss the idea that past political precedents can guide present behavior, perhaps most especially when they are "charged."

It does no such thing, except to this determined to use the worst possible example in human history as their basis for comparison. 

[BmorePat87]

That congressional candidate who took smiling selfies at his "bucket list" Hitler's Eagle Nest (while referring to him by the honorary title "fuehrer" ), who lied about getting into the Naval Academy, who dropped out of college after one semester, who owns a real estate investment company with a white nationalist linked name but has never purchased any real estate, and who was accused of sexual assault/harassment by several women and didn't deny the accusations...

That guy spoke because why not?

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

Well I only read 2 lines of the OP, but I really wish this thread could have been started by one of the few Republicans on the forum instead of having to read a left wing poster immediately bash the Republican convention right out of the gate.

[BmorePat87]

(08-27-2020, 12:30 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That congressional candidate who took smiling selfies at his "bucket list" Hitler's Eagle Nest (while referring to him by the honorary title "fuehrer" ), who lied about getting into the Naval Academy, who dropped out of college after one semester, who owns a real estate investment company with a white nationalist linked name but has never purchased any real estate, and who was accused of sexual assault/harassment by several women and didn't deny the accusations...

That guy spoke because why not?

He incorrectly said Madison signed the Declaration (he wrote and signed the Constitution). 

Normally, this is nothing. A mistake. But, you're trying to be the youngest member of Congress, have no education, and have no job... get the basic civics right? 

[Vas Deferens]

(08-27-2020, 12:49 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Well I only read 2 lines of the OP, but I really wish this thread could have been started by one of the few Republicans on the forum instead of having to read a left wing poster immediately bash the Republican convention right out of the gate.

Meta

[Dill]

(08-27-2020, 12:49 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Well I only read 2 lines of the OP, but I really wish this thread could have been started by one of the few Republicans on the forum instead of having to read a left wing poster immediately bash the Republican convention right out of the gate.

You could start a thread about the other Republican convention, the one pledging support for principles over persons.

[Dill]

(08-26-2020, 11:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I literally could not ask for a better example.

Still stinging about my criticism of Islam, eh?  Don't worry, women are still being oppressed, gay people are being executed and apostates are being killed in the Islamic world.  All is right, from their perspective at least.

From the perspective that such comparison are so highly charged as to make their use a deliberate attempt to be inflammatory.  Are there no other totalitarian governments one could use an a parallel? 

I haven't argued against the earth being flat either.  I don't waste my time arguing against pure hyperbole.

Oh my, calling for no Nazi comparisons is now "suppressing political discussion".  You'll pardon me, I just got whiplash from my severe eyeroll.

It does no such thing, except to this determined to use the worst possible example in human history as their basis for comparison. 

Defining terms and articulating principles independent of issues discussed--why reject the "example" of standards that limit the free range of unsupported accusation? Why should "unsupported" be preferable to "long-winded? That's really the priority you are setting here.

For you, Trump/Hitler is still just a comparison of individual "persons."  One can certainly use other--and all--authoritarian leaders for Trump parallels, because there is a body of scholarship about such, exploring what they have in common, what makes them all  anti-democratic, what the "signs" are. But all aren't equally illuminating for American leaders; e.g., Stalin didn't accede to power in a democracy. He never had to denigrate the press or declare a state of emergency. His path around the rule of law was quite different. Trump is not a general who seized power in a military coup, like Pinochet. You won't notice this if it's all just about "bad examples of humans."

For the Trump case, the issue is how an authoritarian moves through, around and over the institutions of an apparently thriving democracy.  It's about the condition of the press, the state of public debate, the resistance (or not) of voters at every stage of the process, and about enabling legal rationales and the failure of checks.The situation of Kim in NK offers few or no institutional parallels here (though there may be fascinating similarities in narcisstic behavior).  Orbán and Erdogan might. However, for such a project to make sense, one must be able to see an institutional analysis with a practical ethical goal, not an attempt to free-associate one nasty person with a nastier one. But the latter is all one will see if institutions are largely invisible, the difference between analysis and accusation is nil, and empirical verification a "long-winded" hindrance to pre-judgment. 

But there is no assumption here that Trump has to be compared to only one other authoritarian, any more than it makes sense to say "Compare him to anyone BUT Hitler," because that one is "inflammatory." 

Despite my mention of the scapegoating of typical of right wing, authoritarian populism, your "highly charged" remarks about Muslims (a target you share with Trump) establish you have no problem with "a deliberate attempt to be inflammatory."  Deliberate charged, inflammatory hyperbole (or "intentional exaggeration") is your currency, to the very degree you find definitions, logical analysis and evidence-based argument "long-winded." Yet when empirically verifiable and remarkably consistent comparisons between Hitler's actions as German Chancellor and Trump's are on the table, your first impulse is neither to investigate nor refute, but to drag the red herring of "incivility" across every reader's path. 

In a forum predicated on free political speech, the way to kill political discussion of Trump/Hitler parallels is to refute the parallels. Show that Trump doesn't denigrate the press (or that Hitler didn't, or that such denigration really has no consequences), that he doesn't scapegoat minorities, obstruct justice, or terminate subordinates who put rule of law first, or seek to undermine the coming elections, etc. Or show that Hitler didn't do those things. Explain why it's just hyperbole to wonder if Trump will declare the national emergency he assures us is one of his "options." Or why looking into Kim's attacks on the NK free press (lol) would be more illuminating for the Trump case than Hitler's attacks on the German press.

But that's not your method. By declaring already noted parallels between Trump and Hitler "hyperbole," and then declaring you don't address hyperbole, you, who otherwise have nothing against hyperbole, position yourself to "refute" the empirical fact of parallels by just CALLING them hyperbole. Same gesture on the Esper/Milley thread when you spent at least 4 posts pre-judging and dismissing a Letter to them while unable to quote it or demonstrate you'd even read it--finally claiming it was beneath you to bother at all.

So yes, certainly, you'd like to suppress political discussion of any Hitler/Trump parallels, without actually addressing the empirical validity of those parallels.  "Eyerolls," accusations, and dismissals don't refute this. They confirm it. 

[*michaelsean*]

(08-26-2020, 11:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I literally could not ask for a better example.

 

Still stinging about my criticism of Islam, eh?  Don't worry, women are still being oppressed, gay people are being executed and apostates are being killed in the Islamic world.  All is right, from their perspective at least.



From the perspective that such comparison are so highly charged as to make their use a deliberate attempt to be inflammatory.  Are there no other totalitarian governments one could use an a parallel? 



I haven't argued against the earth being flat either.  I don't waste my time arguing against pure hyperbole.



Oh my, calling for no Nazi comparisons is now "suppressing political discussion".  You'll pardon me, I just got whiplash from my severe eyeroll.


It does no such thing, except to this determined to use the worst possible example in human history as their basis for comparison. 

You're missing something here, and that is the far left is showing restraint when they compare him to Hitler and some policies.  They believe he would willingly exterminate 12 million people to advance himself if he could get away with it.  They just aren't willing to outright say it yet.

[Belsnickel]

(08-27-2020, 01:32 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You're missing something here, and that is the far left is showing restraint when they compare him to Hitler and some policies.  They believe he would willingly exterminate 12 million people to advance himself if he could get away with it.  They just aren't willing to outright say it yet.

I don't believe he would actively kill that many people. I believe he is self-centered enough to let that many people die through policies that harm them, but not that he would actively have them killed.

[BmorePat87]

(08-27-2020, 01:32 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He incorrectly said Madison signed the Declaration (he wrote and signed the Constitution). 

Normally, this is nothing. A mistake. But, you're trying to be the youngest member of Congress, have no education, and have no job... get the basic civics right? 

lol, damn he made a crack that people doubting someone his age "do not know American history"

[GMDino]

(08-27-2020, 01:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't believe he would actively kill that many people. I believe he is self-centered enough to let that many people die through policies that harm them, but not that he would actively have them killed.

Jebus no.  Trump's a coward.  Plus killing people is bad for the brand.  Well ORDERING the killing of people.  If people HAPPEN to die due to your feckless "leadership" then just blame someone else.

[samhain]

(08-27-2020, 01:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't believe he would actively kill that many people. I believe he is self-centered enough to let that many people die through policies that harm them, but not that he would actively have them killed.

I'm not sure.  I think that the only thing that keeps him from doing that sort of thing is the remnant of halfway decent government/military officials that refuse to allow it.  He's got zero problem equating anyone who opposes him with terrortists/enemies of the state.  It's not a big leap to justify killing those kinds of people, particularly to his base.  

I don't think he cares if he kills 12 or even 100 million people as long as it doesn't hurt his social media following/likes.  Even if he's not able to murder people on a whim personally, he's established that he's a true sociopath.  He cares for nothing other that himself and his self-image.  

I can envision a situation where he and his base put political opponents in "camps" fairly easily, and I can absolutely see him being more than willing to galvanize his base to kill liberals.  There are many who are dumb enough and willing.  In fact, I think it's probably going to happen one way or the other.