Steve Bannon.

[Dill]

(02-15-2017, 08:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: In order for this to be a Fascist Authoritarian government, we'd need to basically toss out the Parliament. That's never going to happen, so we can never achieve that status that you are talking about.

Plain and Simple, Workplaces are Authoritarian, boss tells you want to do, this is the persona that Trump is, but he also understands the system, laws and obviously tries to follow them, else his "ban" wouldn't have been so complex. He would've simply stated no more Muslims allowed and been done with it.

Reaganism, Thatcherism and now Trumpism, all have many fascist ideas and similarities and are being called Fascism, even though they are operating in a political environment where democratic representation is/was maintained. The original concept has been twisted by rhetorical abuse over time to fit what ever the leader in question is doing that is remotely similar in an effort to politically assassinate them.

The Nazi movement was "fascist" when it came to power WITH A PARLIAMENT, as was Italian Fascism. Parties and leaders can be fascist well before governments. So we could certainly have a fascist leader without a fascist government. That is the issue for most people concerned about Trump.

Not all workplaces are "authoritarian." And Trump does not understand how the law works, which is why he muffed his "ban."  E.g., he did not run his executive order by his own AG first or the agencies affected like the State Department.

Reagan and Thatcher were neoliberals, never especially close to fascism in their own countries, though some may have called them that in sloppy way of labeling common in the U.S., where "fascism" means basically policies one doesn't like. No one ever paid much attention to the label--until Trump was elected.



 

[hollodero]

(02-16-2017, 07:57 PM)Dill Wrote: Hitler comparisons CAN be silly, but not always. Depends on what is claimed, what is compared.

You mentioned a point I have repeatedly made--Hitler was much more FOCUSED than Trump. 

Since the 1950s in the U.S., presidents have been compared to Hitler, mostly by the Right, but somewhat by the student left in the 190s. Organizations like Planned Parenthood and those advocating universal healthcare are frequently aligned with fascism and Nazism.

Most such comparisons are based on a very superficial, distorted knowledge of Nazism, perpetrated since the 1950s along with anti-Communism. (National SOCIALISM--get it?)

In Trump's case, what spurs people to terms like "fascism" and comparisons to the world's most famous Austrian is the autocratic style and the famously authoritarian personality. I don't have a problem with people highlighting that, since those traits are likely to produce bad policies.

Historical periods and figures are never identical. It is silly to suppose that, given our current checks and balances, Trump could become a Putin-style dictator, let alone end up on a balcony in a uniform speaking to thousands with 100 ft long American flags draped on either side. But that doesn't mean he cannot do great damage in the next year--even to Europeans not enfranchised to elect him.

It is interesting that the U.S. has never had a president so similar to Hitler, not just in personality traits, but also in what might be called "policy instinct"--the claims "weak" leadership has left national trade and employment subject to whims of free trade and international capital, lip service to workers while preparing tax relief for the wealthy, readiness to trash old alliances in favor of new ones with other autocrats, the desire to expel immigrants and control borders, the perpetual scapegoating of minorities in the name of security, the ability to push the buttons of people who feel liberals are siphoning off their hard earnings to support social parasites--people who agree the free press "lies" and that the government has forgotten them because traditional political parties have diverged from their original purposes and now only represent their own short-term interests--hence a "new movement" is needed to break the stranglehold of traditional elites and business as usual; the existence of a leftist "fremdkultur" in control of the country's policies, and capable of throwing up national leaders racially different from the norm, of uncertain origin, and culturally alien.  A country to be taken back from those who don't belong, don't represent or express the national values . . . .

Whew! I am out of breath listing similarities. And I never even mentioned the hatred of a sneering liberal elite whose aesthetic production (e.g. Hollywood movies but also modern art in the German case) is destroying the conservative social fabric. And I have totally skipped the personality traits--the Manichean casting of all around as friend or enemy, weak or strong, useful or not, support or threat.  And then there is manner in which Trump, like Hitler, sets underlings in competition with one another in a perpetual chaos of toadying. You mentioned Bannon--I could go another paragraph on the kind of people Hitler selected to be around him, the kind of person you had to be to work with him, but I'm running out of gas.

One can always find a president who exhibits some of the above-mentioned traits, but I cannot think of one who checks so many boxes as Trump does.  Pointing out that Trump doesn't have a moustache negates none of the above.
 

That I consider an excellent post.

[Dill]

(02-16-2017, 08:24 PM)hollodero Wrote: That I consider an excellent post.

Lol thanks. Hope it will stimulate folks to look a bit more closely at Trump's policies, as well as the personality.

[Belsnickel]

(02-15-2017, 08:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Let's take a look at this again.
There can be similarities, but at the same time, contrasts, so it doesn't add up correctly.

In order for this to be a Fascist Authoritarian government, we'd need to basically toss out the Parliament. That's never going to happen, so we can never achieve that status that you are talking about.

Plain and Simple, Workplaces are Authoritarian, boss tells you want to do, this is the persona that Trump is, but he also understands the system, laws and obviously tries to follow them, else his "ban" wouldn't have been so complex. He would've simply stated no more Muslims allowed and been done with it.

Reaganism, Thatcherism and now Trumpism, all have many fascist ideas and similarities and are being called Fascism, even though they are operating in a political environment where democratic representation is/was maintained. The original concept has been twisted by rhetorical abuse over time to fit what ever the leader in question is doing that is remotely similar in an effort to politically assassinate them.

Sorry for the delayed response, here, I was overlooking this thread for some reason. Maybe just seeing Bannon's name made me avoid it, I don't know.

Anyway, the point I make in this conversation is that whether or not our system of government is different, these behaviors should be concerning. First generation autocrats don't get that way because their system of government allowed for it, they got that way because they tore down the system of government that was in place. Hugo Chavez is one recent example.

He was elected to his second term, under the constitution in Venezuela, and that should have been his last. But because of his power plays in the government he ended up having that rule abolished and being elected to a third, and then a fourth term. It should be noted he was the first president under the constitution that limited a president to two terms. He gained power as an autocrat and while a legislature existed, they did his bidding. He had essentially neutered the legislature and could have had it abolished. Had he not died of cancer he would be ruling to this day.

I'm not going to sit here and say that I fear what happened in Venezuela, or what has happened in other countries, is going to happen here under Trump. Trump doesn't have the support in the legislature for that and he doesn't have the mandate of the popular vote to back him up, which is very important for these types of people to take power in the manner they do. What concerns me about Trump over all of the others you mention is that his rhetoric, his behavior, is much more like a Hugo Chavez than it is a Ronald Reagan or a Margaret Thatcher. The ideologies may be different, but how the message is being delivered is eerily similar. That is what experts are telling us, and that is what is concerning to many people.

[Vas Deferens]

Amazed I haven't seen the hitler pushback from the dittoheads that were screaming 'feminazi' for so many years.

[*bfine32*]

It appears your President has heard your pleas:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/bannon-removed-national-security-council-152955543.html

Quote:President Donald Trump reorganized his National Security Council on Wednesday, removing his chief strategist,Stephen Bannon, and downgrading the role of his Homeland Security Adviser,Tom Bossert, according to a person familiar with the decision and a regulatory filing.

I'm sure we'll all applaud POTUS for doing this sooner (within 90 days) rather than later

[GMDino]

(04-05-2017, 01:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It appears your President has heard your pleas:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/bannon-removed-national-security-council-152955543.html



I'm sure we'll all applaud POTUS for doing this sooner (within 90 days) rather than later

Supporters will.  They don't question the President.

The rest of us will probably wait to see why and what position he'll still hold.

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2017, 01:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It appears your President has heard your pleas:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/bannon-removed-national-security-council-152955543.html



I'm sure we'll all applaud POTUS for doing this sooner (within 90 days) rather than later

Nope, and here's why (a quote from the source article Yahoo used, but didn't pull themselves):

Quote:A White House official said that Bannon was placed on the committee in part to monitor Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and never attended a meeting. He’s no longer needed with McMaster in charge of the council, the official said.

One, if we go back to the beginning of all of this there were reports Trump didn't even really know that he had done this. So the excuse being given here could very well be bullshit. However, even if Trump did put Bannon there I still have two big problems that mean I give him no credit. The first is that the NSC is supposed to be apolitical. Putting a political strategist on it, even just to do that job, is ludicrous. You can't tell me there wasn't anyone close to Trump that could have done the job that wasn't a political strategist. The second reason is because if you needed someone to keep an eye on your NSA, then maybe he shouldn't have been made the NSA to begin with! And if it wasn't a problem with Flynn specifically but just the general issue that has been going on with having Trump insiders shadowing appointees in the government to insure loyalty then there is still a bigger problem. That is unprecedented in this country, but it does have precedent in other places. Places that we don't like drawing comparisons to.

So no, there is no credit to be given for this because even though he was removed there was no acknowledgment of the fact it was problematic he was there in the first place, and that the reason they give for it is extremely problematic as well.

[BmorePat87]

a former World of Warcraft gold farming investor turned white nationalist appeasing media mogul who, in his spare time, makes dystopian documentaries starring a duck hunter should not be the President's top advisor to begin with.

[GMDino]

(04-05-2017, 01:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: a former World of Warcraft gold farming investor turned white nationalist appeasing media mogul who, in his spare time, makes dystopian documentaries starring a duck hunter should not be the President's top advisor to begin with.

"Give him a chance" ™  

[JustWinBaby]

(04-05-2017, 01:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The first is that the NSC is supposed to be apolitical. Putting a political strategist on it, even just to do that job, is ludicrous.

You'd prefer someone like Susan Rice?

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2017, 02:19 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You'd prefer someone like Susan Rice?

Yeah, no comparison there. Rice's role in the White House was not a political strategist. But nice try.

Also, this whole thing about Rice is much ado about nothing. She did lie in the PBS interview I think it was, but her requesting (because she couldn't do it herself or even order it to be done) that US citizens be unmasked in intelligence was not illegal in any way and does not constitute a leak or any such thing.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-05-2017, 02:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, no comparison there. Rice's role in the White House was not a political strategist. But nice try.

Also, this whole thing about Rice is much ado about nothing. She did lie in the PBS interview I think it was, but her requesting (because she couldn't do it herself or even order it to be done) that US citizens be unmasked in intelligence was not illegal in any way and does not constitute a leak or any such thing.

Matt, why would the NSA to the US President need a to know names of individuals in an intel report? If the former NSA disseminated those names all over DC as alleged, why is it we are just hearing about it months later from the Trump administration who is desperately trying to prop up Trump's lies that Obama had him wire tapped before the election and to distract from the fact they are the source of the leak to Nunes who made a big show of informing the White House about the info the White House leaked to Nunes the day before Nunes informed the White House about the information the White House gave him the day before?

[BengalHawk62]

Can I say it?  Can I say it?  Can I say it?  



You're Fired!  





He sure does like to fire people.

[*bfine32*]

Well to be honest I knew some folks wouldn't give him credit for righting a possible mistake.

[BengalHawk62]

He sure does make a lot of mistakes.

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2017, 04:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well to be honest I knew some folks wouldn't give him credit for righting a possible mistake.

Mostly because if it was or the reason given, he didn't really right a mistake. There was no possible about it, it shouldn't have happened, but their messaging and behavior shows that they don't see it as such and that is what is problematic and why I give them no credit.

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2017, 02:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, no comparison there. Rice's role in the White House was not a political strategist. But nice try.

Also, this whole thing about Rice is much ado about nothing. She did lie in the PBS interview I think it was, but her requesting (because she couldn't do it herself or even order it to be done) that US citizens be unmasked in intelligence was not illegal in any way and does not constitute a leak or any such thing.

Yeah, not illegal but most likely requested because of political reasons. Sorta odd for someone whose role is not that of a political strategist. 

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2017, 07:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, not illegal but most likely requested because of political reasons. Sorta odd for someone whose role is not that of a political strategist. 

I could think of a lot of non-political reasons why it would be prudent to have those persons unmasked. But where you fall on this is going to be partisan and since intent would be very difficult to prove in that instance, and given that she has to make the request and then it has to be deemed appropriate or not to unmask the name by the IC before it is done, it's not going to amount to anything.

[Millhouse]

Good to hear, as I never liked that move to begin with.

And I also read that Nina Habib Powell who is the deputy national security adviser for strategy, will now be invited to principals and deputies meetings. Apparently her influence in the White House is growing, especially after Bannon's exit. Quick tidbit, she was born in Egypt into a Coptic Christian family, not a Muslim one. But hey, libs should be happy about 2 outta 3 there .