Steve Bannon.

[Vas Deferens]

(02-13-2017, 11:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.  

You don't have to guess. I've been very open about that issue. We're I in a state where it was an issue, I would have bit the bullet because trump is a clown of magnificent proportions.

But your boy obviously knows what he's doing...

Go back to being a big business tycoon and leave us dumb liberals to our ***** fest would ya! Looking forward to reading about your next game changer in HBR.

[Benton]

(02-13-2017, 08:44 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: 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.

I'm too sober to understand the first part.

as far as draining the swamp...

a good chunk of his cabinet is lobbyists. That's the criticism. You're correct in that they can't be bought as easily... But only because they're the ones who have been doing the buying. Now they just cut out the middle man and went directly to buying their way into positions of authority.

which is, by definition, pretty fascist.

[treee]

(02-14-2017, 02:26 AM)Benton Wrote: I'm too sober to understand the first part.

as far as draining the swamp...

a good chunk of his cabinet is lobbyists. That's the criticism. You're correct in that they can't be bought as easily... But only because they're the ones who have been doing the buying. Now they just cut out the middle man and went directly to buying their way into positions of authority.

which is, by definition, pretty fascist.

You're crazy. There is no way that having a government full of corporate elites with no experience representing people could have negative repercussions. Swamp=Drained.

[*bfine32*]

(02-14-2017, 02:12 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: You don't have to guess. I've been very open about that issue.

Well to be fair, I don't hang on to every word of your posts as you do mine; so you'll have to forgive me if I was not aware of your voting record. So we will have an equally hard time finding someone admitting they voted for Hills it appears.

[hollodero]

(02-14-2017, 12:45 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: 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.

Chuck got one from me. 

About the bufffoonery. No, I do not see it as misdirection, although it crossed my mind. I, of course, do not really know anything. But I am on the Bannon train, I think he tried it with Palin, then successfully with Trump, he has a pattern of choosing easy influencable, self-regarding, not that bright individuals. But Trump is still Trump, still a sophomoric egomaniac who does stuff on impulse. I do not grant Trump any kind of impulse control (and why would anybody), hence I cannot believe he's following a master plan.

[samhain]

(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.

Zero proof of the numbers the administration gives.  Zero, none, zip.  Not even from Republican state voting officials, who also say the administrations numbers are basically bullshit.  It's an out and out lie.  Some and 3 million are not the same thing.

Notice you left out the part about Miller who basically went on all the cable shows and told the country that Trump had autocratic powers and was preparing to demonstrate them to the entire country.  What a piece of shit.  Not surprising that his mentor Spencer is an actual Neo Nazi.  There's a ***** Neo Nazi sympathizer advising an American president and you are okay with that.  Let that sink in.

Let's not forget the lies about the botched Yemen raid being a complete success, then hiding behind a dead soldier like the chickenshits they are.  Then let's toss in the inflated crime statistics used to make it look like we're Somalia or something, paving the way for a heavy-handed crackdown.  

Then there's the Bowling Green lie and the lie about the media underreporting terrorism being used to drum up even more fear and discontent.  All of this is to give them more power as they insult the judiciary and the entire system of checks and balances.  

Yeah, this is completely normal.

[samhain]

(02-14-2017, 09:13 AM)treee Wrote: You're crazy. There is no way that having a government full of corporate elites with no experience representing people could have negative repercussions. Swamp=Drained.

Yeah, all those cool Trumpers screaming "Goldman Sachs" at Cruz's wife during the RNC have to be pretty pleased that their CEO is now running the treasury.  Drain the swamp, lol. 

[Dill]

(02-13-2017, 03:05 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I voted for Trump, and have zero guilt.

Facism and Trump/Bannon have very little in common. Trump/Bannon are Nationalists, they puts America first, with all of it's races, not one race. There is nothing wrong with that, that's Trump's style and a big reason why he won the
In fact, I am pissed at the continuous mis-information.election, because apparently there is enough of "us" out there that feel the same.

Hilarious, even effing Google is getting in on it by changing the actual definition of the word "facist".

Trump has been trying to back Business and EPA regulations off, that does not fit with a Facist style of government, in fact it is entirely the opposite.

Since Trump has become POTUS, he has not been trying to shut down the opposition with physical force, we might all soon lose our Freedom of Speech, but it would be because his hand is being forced by all of these idiots that are still rioting over everything and are falling for the mis-leading lines of BS they read on the MSM. If you think he's been shutting down people's right to protest, then show men where he acted against a Peaceful protest, not one that got out of hand and caused harm to people/property by the protesters.

Mike, I think you may be selective in your anger at dis-information. Or is that you believe Trump does not misinform but the MSM (which hardly speaks with one voice) does?

Your comments about business and regulation are intreiguing. I would like to know where you get your information about "fascist-style" governments? What is the "actual" definition and who decided it?

Hitler, a NATIONALIST who put GERMANS FIRST OVER IMMIGRANTS and was ALL ABOUT SECURING GERMANY'S BODERS, is of course very different from Trump, who PUTS 'MERICANS FIRST OVER IMMIGRANTS CUZ IT'S ALL ABOUT SECURING 'MERICA'S BORDERS. Trump is American. Hitler was German.

It is kind of silly to compare Trump in his first month of office to the body of nasty work Hitler developed over the years after his election/appointment as dictator. Also, the U.S. has more checks and balances than the Weimar government. It would take an EXTREME crisis on the order of a nuke in NY or LA to shut down those checks. And it's not clear the nation would prefer the unstable Trump in such a case.  Hitler so much more focused.

We can, however, compare their rhetoric and policy priorities at this stage--and the kind of advisors and supporters with which they surrounded themselves, as well as which they distanced themselves from. And we may even be able to compare the supporters attracted to each.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-13-2017, 10:58 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know, but this time he just ignored the points, so I am done.

I didn't ignore your points, you ignored mine.

Compare all you want, what I'm telling you is your comparisons are silly because it won't end with the same path as Mussolini/Hitler. We have too many Checks and Balances in the system that won't allow that type of leader to emerge.

[*bfine32*]

(02-14-2017, 02:21 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I didn't ignore your points, you ignored mine.

Compare all you want, what I'm telling you is your comparisons are silly because it won't end with the same path as Mussolini/Hitler. We have too many Checks and Balances in the system that won't allow that type of leader to emerge.

I just let the Hitler folk go and let the assertion stand on its own merit. They know why they try to make the anaolgy and ignore the vast differences. Rationale folks can determine is a correlation between Hitler and Trump is warrented.

[*bfine32*]

(02-14-2017, 01:13 PM)Dill Wrote: It is kind of silly to compare Trump in his first month of office to the body of nasty work Hitler developed over the years after his election/appointment as dictator.

On this we agree 100%

[treee]

(02-14-2017, 02:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: On this we agree 100%

There are many legitimate criticisms about Trump. Just because he displays authoritarian motives, that does not automatically equate him to Hitler. Regardless, authoritarians are a potential danger to any democracy and he has certainly earned the critical microscope his administration is currently under.

[*bfine32*]

(02-14-2017, 02:43 PM)treee Wrote: There are many legitimate criticisms about Trump. Just because he displays authoritarian motives, that does not automatically equate him to Hitler. Regardless, authoritarians are a potential danger to any democracy and he has certainly earned the critical microscope his administration is currently under.

Nothing wrong with being critical. it would be refreshing if a portion of it were constructive.

[BmorePat87]

(02-14-2017, 02:21 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I didn't ignore your points, you ignored mine.

Compare all you want, what I'm telling you is your comparisons are silly because it won't end with the same path as Mussolini/Hitler. We have too many Checks and Balances in the system that won't allow that type of leader to emerge.

One thing I will say is I felt like you didn't give Matt a fair shake with his response. He was comparing early behaviors rather than suggesting similar later policy or outcomes, and pointed that it is just troubling that a leader would try to do that in this country (attack the media for reporting facts, scapegoating a minority, presenting "alternative facts" that are unsubstantiated and/or blatantly false, attacking the legitimacy of the other branches, suggesting that opposition to his actions will mean our country's security is in jeopardy, engaging in personal attacks, calling for protectionist economic policies). It doesn't help that he surrounds himself with people who have ties to members of the alt-right.

Not that our system is not prepared to deal with such an unqualified and eccentric demagogue with thin skin who seems more interested in presentation than results, but it's just troubling that such a figure would be accepted as worthy enough to hold arguably the most important office in human history by a large enough segment of our population. 

I'm not going to call him Hitler. I didn't call Bush that or Obama "Mao". He's not. In fact, immigration ban aside, he has done very little as President, trailing behind Obama in terms of getting to work and mostly just signing executive orders that mostly state the position of the President but do not mandate any actual action or change to get to that position. 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/president-trump-has-done-almost-nothing-214775?cmpid=sf

Guys on the left, tone down the Hitler talk. Guys on the right, do not normalize what behavior we have seen. 

[Benton]

(02-14-2017, 02:21 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I didn't ignore your points, you ignored mine.

Compare all you want, what I'm telling you is your comparisons are silly because it won't end with the same path as Mussolini/Hitler. We have too many Checks and Balances in the system that won't allow that type of leader to emerge.

Germany, 1936.

"Look, you can trust us. What, like we're going to commit mass murder? Absurd! Stop listening to those lying reporters."
— Heinrich Spicer, Nazi Party Press Secretary

[GMDino]

Who did we compare the other guy's guy to before Hitler?

[Belsnickel]

(02-14-2017, 02:21 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I didn't ignore your points, you ignored mine.

Compare all you want, what I'm telling you is your comparisons are silly because it won't end with the same path as Mussolini/Hitler. We have too many Checks and Balances in the system that won't allow that type of leader to emerge.

Except I am not talking about comparing to Hitler or Mussolini. I'm talking about much more generic comparisons. I agree that our system is well designed to hold off the end results of most authoritarian regimes, but that doesn't negate the troublesome behaviors that are exhibited by certain political figures. I would argue that it is necessary that we discuss these behaviors and the concerns they raise for the very fact that if they are not raised then our checks and balances, our system of accountability, falters.

I discussed the definition of fascism, to which you replied with comparisons to systems which have been in place for a while. I then provided you with an explanation as to why that was fallacious and you ignored it.

[hollodero]

(02-14-2017, 02:21 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I didn't ignore your points, you ignored mine.

Compare all you want, what I'm telling you is your comparisons are silly because it won't end with the same path as Mussolini/Hitler. We have too many Checks and Balances in the system that won't allow that type of leader to emerge.

I think that is true.
I don't think that a greater tolerance towards authoritarian impulses should be a consequence of the existence of these checks and balances.

[Dill]

(02-14-2017, 02:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: On this we agree 100%

Yes, let's just compare their personality traits and policy preferences, as manifest before and immediately after taking office.
And the priorities of their supporters.

That seems fair.

[Dill]

(02-14-2017, 03:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: Who did we compare the other guy's guy to before Hitler?

LOL