Steve Bannon.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-13-2017, 03:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Fascism, according to the OED, is a nationalistic and authoritarian system of government. So, you admit to them being nationalist, which is the first part. If you look up authoritarian in the OED, I'd say it pretty well fits as well.

I think the term fascist gets thrown around far too often, but when you look at the definition of the movement you can see where people would draw correlations. Hate to break it to you.

Oh I know it is and many terms get thrown around and mis-used way to much. Even the Hitler-Trump comparison is so effing stupid. Trump is no where near the same class as Hitler, and anyone that thinks that is seriously embarrassing themselves.

Every leader of every country should be a Nationalist, but that doesn't meant that they are authoritarian as well. 

But don't play stupid, There is much more to Facism than the simple terms used in the dictionary.

What personal freedom has Trump taken from you that you would regularly utilize?

We are not North Korea where you oppose Kim-Jun and your family dies.
We do not make Protesters disappear and never to be heard from again like the People's Republic of China.
We do not put out the kind of false propaganda that Iran does.
Cuba, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Vietnam all have that style of government, we just simply do not compare to any of them on a consistent basis.

(02-13-2017, 03:41 PM)xxlt Wrote: Don't worry. He doesn't believe you. He doesn't believe the OED. He knows the truth!

   Stick to CNN, you can't handle the truth. 

[samhain]

(02-13-2017, 04:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Oh I know it is and many terms get thrown around and mis-used way to much. Even the Hitler-Trump comparison is so effing stupid. Trump is no where near the same class as Hitler, and anyone that thinks that is seriously embarrassing themselves.

Every leader of every country should be a Nationalist, but that doesn't meant that they are authoritarian as well. 

But don't play stupid, There is much more to Facism than the simple terms used in the dictionary.

What personal freedom has Trump taken from you that you would regularly utilize?

We are not North Korea where you oppose Kim-Jun and your family dies.
We do not make Protesters disappear and never to be heard from again like the People's Republic of China.
We do not put out the kind of false propaganda that Iran does.
Cuba, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Vietnam all have that style of government, we just simply do not compare to any of them on a consistent basis.



   Stick to CNN, you can't handle the truth. 

You don't think the repeated efforts to push a theory about 3-4 million illegal votes is false propaganda?  Or Conway calling their own information "alternative facts"?  

I'd say anyone who watched Stephen Miller's interview yesterday would have a tough time arguing that this isn't an administration with authoritarian designs.  Fortunately they are failing in a major way at demonstrating the authority that they think they posess.

[Belsnickel]

(02-13-2017, 04:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Oh I know it is and many terms get thrown around and mis-used way to much. Even the Hitler-Trump comparison is so effing stupid. Trump is no where near the same class as Hitler, and anyone that thinks that is seriously embarrassing themselves.

Every leader of every country should be a Nationalist, but that doesn't meant that they are authoritarian as well. 

But don't play stupid, There is much more to Facism than the simple terms used in the dictionary.

What personal freedom has Trump taken from you that you would regularly utilize?

We are not North Korea where you oppose Kim-Jun and your family dies.
We do not make Protesters disappear and never to be heard from again like the People's Republic of China.
We do not put out the kind of false propaganda that Iran does.
Cuba, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Vietnam all have that style of government, we just simply do not compare to any of them on a consistent basis.



   Stick to CNN, you can't handle the truth. 

What you might be missing from the comparisons that people understanding of the topic are doing is that you are thinking of the end result and comparing what you see in authoritarian regimes with what we see now. What most of the serious and legitimate critiques have been arguing is that the language used, the propaganda, the interactions with the media, the "alternative facts", these things are reminiscent of the early days of authoritarian regimes. What we see from Trump and his administration are behaviors that are exhibited by authoritarian regimes when they gain power.

This is the difference between opinions about the administration and what we can point to using evidence. If you see someone say that Trump and his ilk are fascists or they are authoritarians, that is an opinion. But when someone says that if you compare the behaviors of this administration to administrations that were gaining power to become authoritarian regimes you can see come commonalities and that is concerning, that is something different and instead of it being dismissed because there was a trigger word that caused you to just feel your beliefs are being attacked (something that actually happens when discussing these sorts of things, phrasing matters), it would be good to set down the MAGA glasses and read it with an attempt at objectivity. Not saying it will change your mind, or even that it should, just dismissing it out of hand isn't going to help your understanding.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-13-2017, 05:23 PM)samhain Wrote: You don't think the repeated efforts to push a theory about 3-4 million illegal votes is false propaganda?  Or Conway calling their own information "alternative facts"?  

I'd say anyone who watched Stephen Miller's interview yesterday would have a tough time arguing that this isn't an administration with authoritarian designs.  Fortunately they are failing in a major way at demonstrating the authority that they think they posess.

No, because it is true that Illegals voted, the exact number is what is debatable.

Alternative Facts? So it's ok for the Media to use "Alternative Facts" by showing pics of Trumps inauguration that were false? Was it the size of Obama's? probably not, however it was ranked 5th most watched on TV by Nielson (30.8 Mil), this does not include the people that used their phones and watched live as well. There were many live stream options that were available for Trump that were not available for Obama. So it could very well have been the most watched. Twitter Livestream (6.8 Mil). Reagan holds the record at 41.8 mil viewership. So it's not really a stretch to say most viewed. I watched it on my phone as well and I didn't use Twitter.

(02-13-2017, 05:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What you might be missing from the comparisons that people understanding of the topic are doing is that you are thinking of the end result and comparing what you see in authoritarian regimes with what we see now. What most of the serious and legitimate critiques have been arguing is that the language used, the propaganda, the interactions with the media, the "alternative facts", these things are reminiscent of the early days of authoritarian regimes. What we see from Trump and his administration are behaviors that are exhibited by authoritarian regimes when they gain power.

This is the difference between opinions about the administration and what we can point to using evidence. If you see someone say that Trump and his ilk are fascists or they are authoritarians, that is an opinion. But when someone says that if you compare the behaviors of this administration to administrations that were gaining power to become authoritarian regimes you can see come commonalities and that is concerning, that is something different and instead of it being dismissed because there was a trigger word that caused you to just feel your beliefs are being attacked (something that actually happens when discussing these sorts of things, phrasing matters), it would be good to set down the MAGA glasses and read it with an attempt at objectivity. Not saying it will change your mind, or even that it should, just dismissing it out of hand isn't going to help your understanding.

(See above explanation).

Since you want to throw terms around, how about this one: Godwin's Law.

Calling/comparing Trump to whatever despicable human leader/government style you dislike, is nothing more than another way of saying "I don't like him".

Attacking his policies is different, that we can discuss. But once idiots revert to using Godwin's law, there is no point in discussing it further with them.

[GMDino]

(02-13-2017, 07:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: No, because it is true that Illegals voted, the exact number is what is debatable.

Alternative Facts? So it's ok for the Media to use "Alternative Facts" by showing pics of Trumps inauguration that were false? Was it the size of Obama's? probably not, however it was ranked 5th most watched on TV by Nielson (30.8 Mil), this does not include the people that used their phones and watched live as well. There were many live stream options that were available for Trump that were not available for Obama. So it could very well have been the most watched. Twitter Livestream (6.8 Mil). Reagan holds the record at 41.8 mil viewership. So it's not really a stretch to say most viewed. I watched it on my phone as well and I didn't use Twitter.

Is that what Spicer said?

No?

Then the only alternative facts came from the administration.

The same one that says they have provided evidence of 2-3 million illegal voters.

Please stop trying to defend their stories...you're just embarrassing yourself.

[Benton]

(02-13-2017, 07:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: No, because it is true that Illegals voted, the exact number is what is debatable.

Alternative Facts? So it's ok for the Media to use "Alternative Facts" by showing pics of Trumps inauguration that were false? Was it the size of Obama's? probably not, however it was ranked 5th most watched on TV by Nielson (30.8 Mil), this does not include the people that used their phones and watched live as well. There were many live stream options that were available for Trump that were not available for Obama. So it could very well have been the most watched. Twitter Livestream (6.8 Mil). Reagan holds the record at 41.8 mil viewership. So it's not really a stretch to say most viewed. I watched it on my phone as well and I didn't use Twitter.



(See above explanation).

Since you want to throw terms around, how about this one: Godwin's Law.

Calling/comparing Trump to whatever despicable human leader/government style you dislike, is nothing more than another way of saying "I don't like him".

Attacking his policies is different, that we can discuss. But once idiots revert to using Godwin's law, there is no point in discussing it further with them.

pointing out the similarities isn't the same as saying you don't like him. Its pointing out the similarities.

noting that jeffry dahmer liked to eat people isn't saying you dislike him, its saying he was a cannibal. Pointing out that woody Allen married a child isn't saying you don't like him, its calling him a child predator. Noting that trump just appointed a highly unqualified campaign contributor to a position of power isn't saying he's a mean fella, its pointing out the trait of fascist regimes to benefit members over non-members.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Just so you know, I voted, a write in vote, for Castle which should alarm all of you...lol.

[hollodero]

(02-13-2017, 07:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: No, because it is true that Illegals voted, the exact number is what is debatable.

You see, seeing the number as "debateable" is something completely diffeerent than claiming "it were millions". They claim millions just to satisfy the vanity of a president who can not stand that more overall people voted Hillary. Him/they throw that number out without any kind of proof whatsoever. And the claim is not harmless, it goes to the very foundation of your voting rights and people's trust in the whole process.
And after throwing out that completely imaginary number, they claim that the burden of proof doesn't fall on them. But the media. Who fails to disprove the phantastic claim.
If instead they said "there are illegal votes, the number is debateable, we should look into it" (like you do), then it would be no big deal and fair game. But it wasn't like that.

(02-13-2017, 07:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Alternative Facts? So it's ok for the Media to use "Alternative Facts"

Never OK. But the media allegedly doing it doesn't make it an ounce more OK for an administration to do so.
Did "the media" do it? I heard of one reporter who oversaw a Martin Luther King bust, reported on it and apologized for his mistake later. That's all there is. One reporter getting a detail wrong can in no way ever justify giving out "alternative facts" that are pure lies. If certain reporters are to blame, blame them. Don't justify bad deeds by alleged bad deeds committed by others. If there are those deeds, an adminstration needs to be better.

(02-13-2017, 07:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: by showing pics of Trumps inauguration that were false?

How can pics be "false"? Were they photoshopped?

(02-13-2017, 07:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Was it the size of Obama's? probably not, however it was ranked 5th most watched on TV by Nielson (30.8 Mil), this does not include the people that used their phones and watched live as well. There were many live stream options that were available for Trump that were not available for Obama. So it could very well have been the most watched. Twitter Livestream (6.8 Mil). Reagan holds the record at 41.8 mil viewership. So it's not really a stretch to say most viewed. I watched it on my phone as well and I didn't use Twitter.

Well, but it wasn't about "most viewed". Your emotionally hurt president let his speaker come out and say 1) There are no official numbers so no one can know and 2) this was the biggest crowd ever attending, period!

Which is ridiculous. Never mind viewerships, it was all about the crowd size. This whole crowd size thing wouldn't have been an issue hadn't Trump made it one in the first place.

(02-13-2017, 07:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Since you want to throw terms around, how about this one: Godwin's Law.

Calling/comparing Trump to whatever despicable human leader/government style you dislike, is nothing more than another way of saying "I don't like him".

It's really not about liking him. Trump makes it about that. It's about a bunch, a series of conducts that are neither normal nor comparable to what other presidents did. It's about agitation and silencing opposition.

(02-13-2017, 07:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Attacking his policies is different, that we can discuss. But once idiots revert to using Godwin's law, there is no point in discussing it further with them.

Right, it's not about policies. It's not about people being opposed to a wall or to a ban which is no ban except when the president calls it a ban. It's about spreading false information, alt-facts if you will, about agitation, about a whole new dimension of lies. Attacking judges, attacking the media, attacking newspapers and networks, attacking whoever is opposed to him. Add in Steve Bannon on the Security Council, Kellyanne inventing massacres and giving free commercials. Add in that he plays the american public for suckers. Like promising a thousand times to show tax returns and then never showing them. Add in he proposed torture and war crimes. Add in he makes up murder rates (highest ever?), unemployment rates (42%?) and 1.000 other things. Add in threatening Hillary with jailtime. Add in that he called Obama the founder of ISIS and that whole birther thing. Add in all those lies to rally up uninformed people. And I stayed away from all the sexist and racial stuff there.
Now I will not make any Hitler-Trump comparison, I agree that is far-fetched. I make an comparison to the leaders of former Soviet countries, though. Trumps behaviour resembles that of a leader of Kazachztan or a country like that. What holds him back is not his personal belief in the values of a democracy, at this point it's jsut the constitution that does so. If Trump got his way, he would probably fire that Washington judge and then shoot him to the moon. And that assumption is based on what he says and tweets, and it's threatening.
I root for the state of law, the separation of power, for freeedom of speech, for your constitution. Things Trump constantly questions and attacks on Twitter alone.

See things differently? Fine, see things differently. But at this point don't call people "idiots" who are concerned. There is valid reason to be.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-13-2017, 07:35 PM)Benton Wrote: pointing out the similarities isn't the same as saying you don't like him. Its pointing out the similarities.

noting that jeffry dahmer liked to eat people isn't saying you dislike him, its saying he was a cannibal. Pointing out that woody Allen married a child isn't saying you don't like him, its calling him a child predator. Noting that trump just appointed a highly unqualified campaign contributor to a position of power isn't saying he's a mean fella, its pointing out the trait of fascist regimes to benefit members over non-members.

Uhm, no not quite the same.

No one compared Hitler to Hitler....
You can't compare someone to themselves.
Calling Trump Hitler is not the same as calling Hitler Hitler....
If someone eats people or commits a similar atrocity, then they can be compared to Dahmer. What some of you are doing is saying that Dahmer and XXX come from a broken home are the same, and yes that's a true statement, but it doesn't mean that everyone that comes from a broken home is going to end the same as Dahmer. So because Dahmer was a terrible human being, I am now calling XXX a terrible human being even though he did not eat anyone or commit an atrocity on the same level as Dahmer to actually deserve to be compared to Dahmer. People don't like Dahmer, so basically I'm just saying I don't like XXX.

What you seem to ignore about the Draining of the Swamp part, is that yes, the majority of Trump's cabinet does already have a lot of self made money, so they aren't exactly going to be easy to bribe by lobbyists. If they didn't have a lot of money already, then they'd be susceptible to bribery from the lobbyists and would become part of the swamp instead of draining it like Trump expects them to.

[Vas Deferens]

(02-13-2017, 08:44 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: What you seem to ignore about the Draining of the Swamp part, is that yes, the majority of Trump's cabinet does already have a lot of self made money, so they aren't exactly going to be easy to bribe by lobbyists. If they didn't have a lot of money already, then they'd be susceptible to bribery from the lobbyists and would become part of the swamp instead of draining it like Trump expects them to.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that these are the people who flooded the lowlands in the first place and created the swamp. Why did they want to influence policy the first time around? To merely obtain a position that pays less than they donated? If so, I don't want that kind of moron spending money in our coffers.

[THE Bigzoman]

(02-11-2017, 12:04 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: You won't find a single person who voted for daddy around here. They all have low T daddy guilt and will claim they voted for someone else, but let's give the clown a chance.

Bannon is probably more fascist than daddy just by exposure to a wider swath of humanity alone. Couple that with being entrenched in the scum that is breitbart comment section, you got a real winner.

I didn't vote trump, but I didn't see him as a "hell no" candidate.

[Vas Deferens]

(02-13-2017, 09:08 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: I didn't vote trump, but I didn't see him as a "hell no" candidate.

Whatever. I don't actually care who around here did or did not vote for a pathological liar prone to hissy fits, possibly because he appealed to their fear of others. I just think it's funny that so few around here have the backbone to admit they did when there are obvious concerns now.

And yeah. He was 'hell no' to me the whole way.

[xxlt]

(02-13-2017, 05:23 PM)samhain Wrote: You don't think the repeated efforts to push a theory about 3-4 million illegal votes is false propaganda?  Or Conway calling their own information "alternative facts"?  

I'd say anyone who watched Stephen Miller's interview yesterday would have a tough time arguing that this isn't an administration with authoritarian designs.  Fortunately they are failing in a major way at demonstrating the authority that they think they posess.

Alternative facts arriving in 5...4...3...

[xxlt]

(02-13-2017, 05:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What you might be missing from the comparisons that people understanding of the topic are doing is that you are thinking of the end result and comparing what you see in authoritarian regimes with what we see now. What most of the serious and legitimate critiques have been arguing is that the language used, the propaganda, the interactions with the media, the "alternative facts", these things are reminiscent of the early days of authoritarian regimes. What we see from Trump and his administration are behaviors that are exhibited by authoritarian regimes when they gain power.

This is the difference between opinions about the administration and what we can point to using evidence. If you see someone say that Trump and his ilk are fascists or they are authoritarians, that is an opinion. But when someone says that if you compare the behaviors of this administration to administrations that were gaining power to become authoritarian regimes you can see come commonalities and that is concerning, that is something different and instead of it being dismissed because there was a trigger word that caused you to just feel your beliefs are being attacked (something that actually happens when discussing these sorts of things, phrasing matters), it would be good to set down the MAGA glasses and read it with an attempt at objectivity. Not saying it will change your mind, or even that it should, just dismissing it out of hand isn't going to help your understanding.

I told you once...

[THE Bigzoman]

(02-13-2017, 09:20 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Whatever. I don't actually care who around here did or did not vote for a pathological liar prone to hissy fits, possibly because he appealed to their fear of others. I just think it's funny that so few around here have the backbone to admit they did when there are obvious concerns now.

And yeah. He was 'hell no' to me the whole way.

This reminds me a lot of the post brexit articles about how people regretted their leave vote.

The kek praising shitpostets (and let's be honest, I fall in this category because of my time on the internet and love for humor and shitposting) don't care what happens or what people think. I'm sure the diehard trump supporters feel the same. I think Michael Moore summed it up best when he said trump was the human Molotov cocktail they were waiting for.

[Belsnickel]

(02-13-2017, 09:28 PM)xxlt Wrote: I told you once...

I know, but this time he just ignored the points, so I am done.

[*bfine32*]

(02-13-2017, 09:20 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Whatever.  I don't actually care who around here did or did not vote for a pathological liar prone to hissy fits, possibly because he appealed to their fear of others.  I just think it's funny that so few around here have the backbone to admit they did when there are obvious concerns now.  

And yeah. He was 'hell no' to me the whole way.

Let me guess; You didn't vote for Hillary.

The concerns now are no more obvious now than they were the day he threw his Make America Great hat into the ring. I'm not sure that backbone is a requirement to "admit" that you did something you didn't do. If there had only been 2 candidates, if my state was truly contested, or the Presidency was determined by popular vote; then I would have voted for Trump while wearing my Trump T-Shirt.

WTS, you obviously are missing the true humor in these election results and it is not those that state they didn't vote for Trump. It is those that have thrown a "hissy fit" everyday sense the results were known.  

[*bfine32*]

(02-13-2017, 09:29 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: This reminds me a lot of the post brexit articles about how people regretted their leave vote.

The kek praising shitpostets (and let's be honest, I fall in this category because of my time on the internet and love for humor and shitposting) don't care what happens or what people think. I'm sure the diehard trump supporters feel the same. I think Michael Moore summed it up best when he said trump was the human Molotov cocktail they were waiting for.

Those folks have a much harder time. If they state they voted for Hillary then they admit they voted for a candidate every bit as flawed as Trump. If they say they voted for some other lefty   then they admit they were the main reason Trump won the EC. 

[Rotobeast]

Given we're talking about Bannon running things.......

Am I the only one who sees Trump's buffoonery as calculated misdirection ?
Just curious.


And Hollo..... I forgot you received a blood transfusion from Chuck Norris, when you were a wee lad.
My deepest apologies.

[Bengalzona]