Steve Bannon.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-13-2017, 08:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

I didn't want to go there, because it's highly speculative, but studies have found that out of the 22-24 Million Illegal immigrants and non-US immigrants, that approximately 25% think they are registered to vote. Throw in the Trump Wall as an issue for the 2016 election, and it's not a stretch to day that vote participation would be very high amongst those 2 groups. Would it be nice to see some actual data? Yes it would, but unless you are a Democrat, then the numbers seem believable. The Liberals keep downplaying this group simply because it tends to vote 80:20 Dem:Rep.

(02-13-2017, 08:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

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

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.

False, the Media did post a picture of the Event early in the morning and compared it to Obama's during the speech to show that Trump attendees was down.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-inauguration-crowd-size/

Look closely at the pictures, they went further left for Trump's than Obama's picture. CNN also claims that there was 1.8 Million at Obama's Inauguration. However, a company which specializes in counting crowd sizes says it was more like 800k for Obama and ironically, what was forecasted for Trump speech. They are not done yet counting on Trump's speech at least I couldn't find any numbers from them yet.

As usual, Trump's point was lost in MSM translation (of CYA) that they originally downplayed his attendance and Trump called them on it.

(02-13-2017, 08:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

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.

Trump doesn't make it about liking him, he makes it about people that should be doing their job instead of playing political games, like the 9th Circuit Court and the Media telling the Truth (even though he is not always truthful). His "ban" was done via following the law perfectly. The only part that should have been expounded on further was the Green Card Holders.

Alt Facts? Kellyanne and Spicer both admitted they made a mistake in their interviews. This administration is green and getting their feet wet, they will get more and more polished as they get more experienced. There was no need for the MSM stupidity about that occurred.

Agitating and silencing opposition? Name one POTUS that hasn't done anything like that before?

It's not all about attacking whoever is opposed to him, in the case of the Media it's about reporting on him out of context or falsely reporting in the first place. People attacking Baron (his 10 year old) and calling his wife a former professional escort (She sued that blogger and won the case btw), and spreading all kinds of other lies (such as idiots that compare him to Hitler/Mussolini) you'd be a little agitated as well. You have a lot of Opinion in there as well. So let's go for Truth.

What rights has he taken away from USC's?
What Protesters has he silenced?

[Dill]

(02-14-2017, 11:07 AM)hollodero Wrote: 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.

I don't see the question of planned misdirection vs impulsive incompetence as either/or. It can be both/and.

I don't think Trump has a master plan. He basically just reacts. The Dems have a healthcare plan? Then he will have a bigger better one. The best anyone has ever seen. In what will it consist? The answer will accumulate piecemeal as Republicans around him begin feeding him bits and pieces of what they want to see put in place.

But he comes from a business entertainment environment in which he has been able augment his own power by keeping people dependent upon him for jobs and favors guessing and in competition with one another.

It looks like he has continued that practice into the White House, which continues to be in chaos, and he employs picking advisors and cabinet, and it to the degree he can (at this point) in foreign policy, where it quickly breaks down.

So there is a plan, kind of, or perhaps a practiced behavior pattern which has gotten results before. But now he is so far out of his depth he cannot control the consequences.

Bannon I think, Like Kellyann, is brighter than Trump and able to influence him. A Trump doctrine might soon be discernible from Trump's domestic and foreign policy actions, revealed in consistent (if muddled) attempts to ban Muslims, expel immigrants, scuttle trade agreements, and muddle post-WWII alliances, again and again. 

Therefore not a Master plan, but a plan of sorts, the consequences of which have been very simply imagined (ISIS will back down if we build more aircraft carriers; employment will rise when illegals are expelled) but not thought through, beyond expected approval from his base.

[*bfine32*]

(02-14-2017, 07:54 PM)Dill Wrote: 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.

You can make all the correlations you want and allow others to evaluate your rationale; but don't insult my intelligence by asserting you are making such comparisons out of fairness.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-14-2017, 11:41 AM)samhain Wrote: 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.

Wow, you angry or what? Did Trump file bankruptcy on your business and get out of paying you?

In another post I said it would be great if they would post numbers. This shit's been going on for years. Illegals, dead people, immigrants. I had no trust of the system long before Trump came along.

I didn't watch the Miller video so I had nothing to comment about it. Do you have a transcript?

Nazi references, Godwin's law wins again.

Lies about botched Yemen raid? Pretty sure there was no lies about it, if you think that's on Trump, you better talk to your military boys here. That had to be approved by the Local and Regional officers, then on up a long chain of people before it even was signed by Trump. And yes there can be casualties and still be a successful raid. If you disagree, then you better talk with the military boys here. Trump certainly didn't hide behind the body, he greeted it at the Airport.

Inflated crime statistics? Point them out. There has been truth in most of them. In fact, didn't the FBI back Trumps claims?

Bowling green was not a lie, the massacre part didn't happen, but 2 Iraqi refugees were arrested buying weapons and gathering up cash to send to Iraq. She even admitted she made a mistake about it. Them saying the media is underreporting is their opinion. I do know that there is things I haven't seen much on the MSM about, that has been downplayed.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-14-2017, 03:39 PM)Benton Wrote: 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

Godwin wins again!

(02-14-2017, 05:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

I'll re-take another look at that post and try to get back to you on it.

[Dill]

(02-14-2017, 08:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You can make all the correlations you want and allow others to evaluate your rationale; but don't insult my intelligence by asserting you are making such comparisons out of fairness.

Unclear what you mean by "fairness."  But you may have hit upon a big difference between Trump supporters and Trump opponents.

The point of political comparisons /analogies is to produce understanding and re-evaluation of policies and candidates. Everyone understands (or should) that analogies are always partial; politicians, historical and political circumstances are never identical. Still, comparisons/analogies help us avoid errors of past candidates and policies.

They are only "unfair" if factually false, or distorting--as in emphasizing traits in one candidate which also exist in an opponent, or all candidates in general, or in creating false equivalences.

So the "intent" of anyone making comparisons should not play a role in judging the validity of his comparisons. Rather the comparisons should be judged on whether correlations made are accurate, based on factual evidence.  And if they are, then the comparison is not "unfair" just because the result does not favor some favored candidate or policy.

If I point out that Hitler hated liberals, tore up treaties, called the press liars, and wanted to boot immigrants and expand the military, and that Trump also hates liberals, calls the press liars, and wants to tear up treaties, boot immigrants and expand the military, the validity of those correlations in no way depends on whether I, personally, want to be "fair" or "unfair."  The historical record is there to check and it remains unchanged whether I want to be fair or not.

So I don't expect anyone to assume I am making a comparison out of "fairness." I expect them to either accept the comparison as valid--"fair" if you will--or explain why it is not.  

Same goes when others are making comparisons. I care only whether the correlations are true, not whether the person making them was fair or unfair.

 

[*bfine32*]

(02-14-2017, 09:29 PM)Dill Wrote: Unclear what you mean by "fairness."  But you may have hit upon a big difference between Trump supporters and Trump opponents.


The point of political comparisons /analogies is to produce understanding and re-evaluation of policies and candidates. Everyone understands (or should) that analogies are always partial; politicians, historical and political circumstances are never identical. Still, comparisons/analogies help us avoid errors of past candidates and policies.

They are only "unfair" if factually false, or distorting--as in emphasizing traits in one candidate which also exist in an opponent, or all candidates in general, or in creating false equivalences.

So the "intent" of anyone making comparisons should not play a role in judging the validity of his comparisons. Rather the comparisons should be judged on whether correlations made are accurate, based on factual evidence.  And if they are, then the comparison is not "unfair" just because the result does not favor some favored candidate or policy.

If I point out that Hitler hated liberals, tore up treaties, called the press liars, and wanted to boot immigrants and expand the military, and that Trump also hates liberals, calls the press liars, and wants to tear up treaties, boot immigrants and expand the military, the validity of those correlations in no way depends on whether I, personally, want to be "fair" or "unfair."  The historical record is there to check and it remains unchanged whether I am fair or not.

So I don't expect anyone to assume I am making a comparison out of "fairness." I expect them to either accept the comparison as valid--"fair" if you will--or explain why it is not.  

Same goes when others are making comparisons. I care only whether the correlations are true, not whether the person making them was fair or unfair.

 

Let's compare Hitler to Trump



Hitler: Born in Austria to a failed farmer, relocated to Germany, had no interest in education, served as a Soldier, joined various ideological political parties at a young age, and joined a coup to overtake Moscow


Trump: Native born citizen, went to College and became a business man


Hitler: Frequently denounced Capitalism


Trump: Internationally known Capitalist


Hitler: Rose to power by being a popular figure in his Nation's most powerful Political party


Trump: Rose to power by being hated by both political parties of his Nation


Hitler: Sought “living space” for his people by invading other countries


Trump: Sought a stronger country by expelling folks from other countries


Hitler: A life-long Bachelor


Trump: Married 3 times


Hitler: Rose to power through a life of politics at 44


Trump: Political outsider elected to his first government position at 70


But it is "fair" (use whatever meaning for the word you wish) to compare the two because they both say the same rhetoric that 10s of thousands of Politicians have said throughout the history of politics.

Would it have been fair to compare Obama to Pol Pot because they both wanted change and screwed up medical care to there citizens.

[hollodero]

(02-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I didn't want to go there, because it's highly speculative, but studies have found that out of the 22-24 Million Illegal immigrants and non-US immigrants, that approximately 25% think they are registered to vote. Throw in the Trump Wall as an issue for the 2016 election, and it's not a stretch to day that vote participation would be very high amongst those 2 groups. Would it be nice to see some actual data? Yes it would, but unless you are a Democrat, then the numbers seem believable. The Liberals keep downplaying this group simply because it tends to vote 80:20 Dem:Rep.

Well. As you said, highly speculative. Which should be enough cause to refrain giving out numbers like "at least 3 million" as a given, like Trump did. Or to claim that there are buses full of illegal voters coming to New Hampshire, what even GOP members from New Hampshire sharply rejected.

(02-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: False, the Media did post a picture of the Event early in the morning and compared it to Obama's during the speech to show that Trump attendees was down.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/donald-trump-barack-obama-inauguration-crowd-size/

Look closely at the pictures, they went further left for Trump's than Obama's picture. CNN also claims that there was 1.8 Million at Obama's Inauguration. However, a company which specializes in counting crowd sizes says it was more like 800k for Obama and ironically, what was forecasted for Trump speech. They are not done yet counting on Trump's speech at least I couldn't find any numbers from them yet.

There are other pictures too.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2pHhT3XAAAOePz.jpg

- In fact, I do not care about the crowd size, and neither should Trump, that kind of is my point. Have you seen that interview where he shared his feelings when "by accident" zapping to a network covering the inauguration? His voice was so dramatic, effect-seeking, as if he was the victim of a huge complot. I don't know which film it was where someone said "are you such a big loser that you don't even recognize when you've won?" - nope. His public hunger for appreciation tops all other notions of this man. All other notions. That alone really is hard to argue and should worry people.
It's the whole pettiness behind it. As I said, topped by letting poor Spicer run out and say there are no numbers and it was the biggest crowd ever, period! One of these sentences being a lie, logically. Then Trump has the nerve to talk more about crowd size in front of the CIA wall. And allegedly to several world leaders, where his own popularity always is an issue. There's a time and a place, even if his claims were correct (which according to almost everybody they aren't).

As for facts on that one, they are obviously hard to come by, but I saw even very cautious people that said 2008 crowd was definitely bigger.
And what else? No one would have cared. It means nothing except to him.

(02-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: As usual, Trump's point was lost in MSM translation (of CYA) that they originally downplayed his attendance and Trump called them on it.

This was the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period. There is not much wiggle room for interpretation in that statement.
But this "as usual" part gets a habit. I do not envy you, having to interpret everything Trump or one of his minions says in a way he more or less clearly did not say it.

(02-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Trump doesn't make it about liking him, he makes it about people that should be doing their job instead of playing political games, like the 9th Circuit Court and the Media telling the Truth (even though he is not always truthful). His "ban" was done via following the law perfectly. The only part that should have been expounded on further was the Green Card Holders.

...which makes the term "perfectly" a bit vague. Denying Green Card holders - and iraqi US war fighters who were granted right of residence for their service - entrance was not following the law "perfectly".
Even Neil Gorsuch called Trumps response to the judges "demoralizing". You can hardly blame him for playing "political games" there.

(02-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Alt Facts? Kellyanne and Spicer both admitted they made a mistake in their interviews. This administration is green and getting their feet wet, they will get more and more polished as they get more experienced. There was no need for the MSM stupidity about that occurred.

Well, good for them.
(I do not kow what MSM means, though, so I can not respond)

(02-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Agitating and silencing opposition? Name one POTUS that hasn't done anything like that before?

Not like that.
I mentioned the stuff, from the birther thing to false murder allegiations (CentralPark5 or whatever they were called), threatening Hillary with jailtime, calling newspapers "failing" and CNN "fake news", calling for the cancellation of SNL, Stephen Miller talking about judicial usurpation and enormous POTUS power not to be questioned, Kellyanne with her massacre invention (I'm sorry, I can't see that as a simple "mistake"), claiming the "so-called" judge is to blame for any terror attacks happening, and so on. And I will add his campaign claims about how the US is losing, in peril, laughed at and taken advantage of by every single country, how the american dream is dead, Ted Cruz' father is connected to the JFK murder, the golden star wife might not be allowed to talk, how second amendment people could do something about Hillary, how Mexico sends rapists, how he would bring back torture and kill families of alleged terrorists, sending the feds to chicago, going after Rosie O'Donnell, Meryl Streep, Ariana Huffington with truely hurtful comments, how China invented Climate change, how he would likely not accept a loss at the election, the wrong unemployment rates (over 40%), ok I was there already... and I stop because I'm bored, and all that is NOTHING compared to what Steve Bannon has said and done over the years as part of the Breitbart family.

Yeah, I say with confidence that Obama did nothing of that kind, ever. Neither did Bush or Clinton, I can't think further back, but I'd say Bush I and Reagan are safe too.

(02-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It's not all about attacking whoever is opposed to him, in the case of the Media it's about reporting on him out of context or falsely reporting in the first place. People attacking Baron (his 10 year old) and calling his wife a former professional escort (She sued that blogger and won the case btw),

I am not aware of these instances, but these are to be condemned. If Trump made this case in these instances, I'd agree with him.
Who did that though? Fake news CNN, failing NY times?

And it IS about attacking whoever is opposed. He does it with the precision of a mathematical equation. He likes those that praise him, he slams those that are critical of him. Schwarzenegger, Streep, O'Donnell and thousands more. Who is critical gets a response, as soon as that person is important enough to him.

(02-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: and spreading all kinds of other lies (such as idiots that compare him to Hitler/Mussolini) you'd be a little agitated as well.

I don't know... I said before that I agree, a Hitler comparison is not justified.
Right now the more accurate comparison would be Berlusconi :) with tendencies towards Nasarbajew.

(02-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You have a lot of Opinion in there as well.

No doubt.

(02-14-2017, 08:02 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So let's go for Truth.

What rights has he taken away from USC's?
What Protesters has he silenced?

Until now, he took away rights (rather, tried to) from Green Card holders and those who relied on promises of a right to stay in the US. That are not citizens, sure. From citizens, you're right, he has not, at least I'm not aware. All (I think valid) critizism aside, that holds true - until now.
The only decent tweet (there are some neutral ones like congratulating Brady though) was the one where he said he acknowledged the right to protest. If there were some more of these, I'd be a bit less alarmed.

[Dill]

(02-14-2017, 09:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's compare Hitler to Trump
Hitler: Born in Austria to a failed farmer, relocated to Germany, had no interest in education, served as a Soldier, joined various ideological political parties at a young age, and joined a coup to overtake Moscow
Trump: Native born citizen, went to College and became a business man
Hitler: Frequently denounced Capitalism
Trump: Internationally known Capitalist
Hitler: Rose to power by being a popular figure in his Nation's most powerful Political party
Trump: Rose to power by being hated by both political parties of his Nation
Hitler: Sought “living space” for his people by invading other countries
Trump: Sought a stronger country by expelling folks from other countries
Hitler: A life-long Bachelor
Trump: Married 3 times
Hitler: Rose to power through a life of politics at 44
Trump: Political outsider elected to his first government position at 70
But it is "fair" (use whatever meaning for the word you wish) to compare the two because they both say the same rhetoric that 10s of thousands of Politicians have said throughout the history of politics.
Would it have been fair to compare Obama to Pol Pot because they both wanted change and screwed up medical care to there citizens.

Hitler was a bachelor and Trump was not, so is it really "fair" to point out that both thought they were smarter than the generals, hated liberals, called the press "liars" in toto, wanted to boot out immigrants, secure their borders, and embrace militarism? Yes, since those behaviors suggest a shared mindset--one NOT SHARED by tens of thousands of politicians in liberal democracies.
Does the fact that Hitler rose to power at a younger age than Trump undo the comparison? Why ever would it, since age was not the basis of comparison?

And let's look closely at some of your "contrasting" claims:

Hitler: Rose to power by being a popular figure in his Nation's most powerful Political party
Trump: Rose to power by being hated by both political parties of his Nation

Hitler was hated by many as he rose to power in a MINORITY PARTY in a parliamentary system. (E.g., in the presidential election of 1932, he lost to von Hindenburg, 53% to 37%, though his party finally won a plurality in the Reichstag for the first time.  In the '33 elections his party won 33% plurality. Nazis became a majority only AFTER Hitler was declared "Fuehrer" and other parties were outlawed.) Trump could not have risen to power without the support of millions of people who did NOT hate him--mostly one party, but also some from the other. Both figures were "hated", but they were not elected because they were hated. They were elected because each had a base of enough people who hated liberals and the press and wanted to secure borders and kick out immigrants--people who felt ignored by their government.  And because others were tired of voting.  So it is a false contrast to claim one rose to power by being popular and the other by being hated--both were loved by people who put their country "first" both hated by people who thought them vulgar and a danger to democracy.

Let's check another of your matched sets:

Hitler: Frequently denounced Capitalism
Trump: Internationally known Capitalist

What Hitler denounced was not "capitalism" per se, but "international capitalism", which he associated with Jews, domination by foreign business, and Big Banks--finance capital. What he wanted was a capitalism which served HIS NATION FIRST. I.e., get rid of unequal "free trade" which cost Germans jobs. Make deals that put Germans first. Use tax cuts to get the economy going. Like Mr. Trump, he believed that if you took over another nation by force, then you could take its resources. And eventually that's what he did. And what happened to his buddy Ernst Roehm for denouncing capitalism once the Nazis had won power?--Google "Night of the Long Knives."

So how did Hitler and "capitalism" get along after he was in power? Quite well, apparently. The wealthy capitalists came kissing up to Hitler. Unions were disbanded. The State railroad company (among others) was privatized, and Nazi economists began experimenting with Tariffs and subsidizes and tax breaks for the rich and middle class.

[*bfine32*]

(02-14-2017, 02:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

(02-15-2017, 01:38 AM)Dill Wrote: Hitler was a bachelor and Trump was not, so is it really "fair" to point out that both thought they were smarter than the generals, hated liberals, called the press "liars" in toto, wanted to boot out immigrants, secure their borders, and embrace militarism? Yes, since those behaviors suggest a shared mindset--one NOT SHARED by tens of thousands of politicians in liberal democracies.
Does the fact that Hitler rose to power at a younger age than Trump undo the comparison? Why ever would it, since age was not the basis of comparison?

And let's look closely at some of your "contrasting" claims:

Hitler: Rose to power by being a popular figure in his Nation's most powerful Political party

Trump: Rose to power by being hated by both political parties of his Nation

Hitler was hated by many as he rose to power in a MINORITY PARTY in a parliamentary system. (E.g., in the presidential election of 1932, he lost to von Hindenburg, 53% to 37%, though his party finally won a plurality in the Reichstag for the first time.  In the '33 elections his party won 33% plurality. Nazis became a majority only AFTER Hitler was declared "Fuehrer" and other parties were outlawed.) Trump could not have risen to power without the support of millions of people who did NOT hate him--mostly one party, but also some from the other. Both figures were "hated", but they were not elected because they were hated. They were elected because each had a base of enough people who hated liberals and the press and wanted to secure borders and kick out immigrants--people who felt ignored by their government.  And because others were tired of voting.  So it is a false contrast to claim one rose to power by being popular and the other by being hated--both were loved by people who put their country "first" both hated by people who thought them vulgar and a danger to democracy.

Let's check another of your matched sets:

Hitler: Frequently denounced Capitalism
Trump: Internationally known Capitalist

What Hitler denounced was not "capitalism" per se, but "international capitalism", which he associated with Jews, domination by foreign business, and Big Banks--finance capital. What he wanted was a capitalism which served HIS NATION FIRST. I.e., get rid of unequal "free trade" which cost Germans jobs. Make deals that put Germans first. Use tax cuts to get the economy going. Like Mr. Trump, he believed that if you took over another nation by force, then you could take its resources. And eventually that's what he did. And what happened to his buddy Ernst Roehm for denouncing capitalism once the Nazis had won power?--Google "Night of the Long Knives."

So how did Hitler and "capitalism" get along after he was in power? Quite well, apparently. The wealthy capitalists came kissing up to Hitler. Unions were disbanded. The State railroad company (among others) was privatized, and Nazi economists began experimenting with Tariffs and subsidizes and tax breaks for the rich and middle class.

[Dill]

(02-14-2017, 09:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Would it have been fair to compare Obama to Pol Pot because they both wanted change and screwed up medical care to there citizens.

Sure it is fair to compare Obama to Pol Pot. Both had two eyes and a nose. Neither was white.

 But the contrasts are telling here. One was "militaristic" and the other got healthcare coverage for millions who'd been previously uncovered.

No Obama supporter is going to get wound up about a Pol Pot comparison because the critical correlations just aren't there.

[hollodero]

(02-15-2017, 01:51 AM)Dill Wrote: Sure it is fair to compare Obama to Pol Pot. Both had two eyes and a nose. Neither was white.

 But the contrasts are telling here. One was "militaristic" and the other got healthcare coverage for millions who'd been previously uncovered.

No Obama supporter is going to get wound up about a Pol Pot comparison because the critical correlations just aren't there.

Well sure, Trump is closer to Hitler as Obama is to Pol Pot. Probably. 
Far be it from me to open friendly fire. But the Hitler comparison is really a bit of a stretch. It's exactly the kind of thing where the so-called other side can point to unwarranted exaggeration and kind of have a half-decent argument when doing so. Hence, you're not too persuasive to those who don't agree with you in the first place.
Trump does not resemble Hitler too much. One obvious reason, Hitler laid out his plans quite openly in Mein Kampf, which appeared around 1926 or so. I don't know what Trump wrote several years ago. Probably nothing.* But the fascist background isn't quite there. Plus, Hitler was many evil things, but he was not exactly dumb. Another major difference.

And I say that fully aware that the authoritarian aspects are there - like using "national security" as a legitimate reason to overthrow the balance of powers and decrease the influence of other branches like the judiciary one. Which is exactly what he tries to does and what Stephen Miller aimed at. Or like establishing a personality cult, trying to shut up critics, keeping ties to private business and appointing family members to influential positions. Sure, all that and more. But Hitler?

It might be more fruitful to compare Bannon to Goebbels.

* I did some research. He wrote "the art of the deal" and called it the second best book ever written after the Bible. Take that, great Gatsby.

[samhain]

(02-14-2017, 08:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Wow, you angry or what? Did Trump file bankruptcy on your business and get out of paying you?

In another post I said it would be great if they would post numbers. This shit's been going on for years. Illegals, dead people, immigrants. I had no trust of the system long before Trump came along.

I didn't watch the Miller video so I had nothing to comment about it. Do you have a transcript?

Nazi references, Godwin's law wins again.

Lies about botched Yemen raid? Pretty sure there was no lies about it, if you think that's on Trump, you better talk to your military boys here. That had to be approved by the Local and Regional officers, then on up a long chain of people before it even was signed by Trump. And yes there can be casualties and still be a successful raid. If you disagree, then you better talk with the military boys here. Trump certainly didn't hide behind the body, he greeted it at the Airport.

Inflated crime statistics? Point them out. There has been truth in most of them. In fact, didn't the FBI back Trumps claims?

Bowling green was not a lie, the massacre part didn't happen, but 2 Iraqi refugees were arrested buying weapons and gathering up cash to send to Iraq. She even admitted she made a mistake about it. Them saying the media is underreporting is their opinion. I do know that there is things I haven't seen much on the MSM about, that has been downplayed.

Yes, still no numbers, just propaganda.

Miller's interview was on meet the press, which is hard to find if you know, you live in a cave or something.

It was a botched raid.  The main target escaped and thumbed his nose at the U.S. after the fact for killing a bunch of little kids.  And Spicer absolutely dove behind the body when McCain criticized the handling of the action.  He said any critique of the raid was an attack on the dead soldier.  Human shit right there.  Literal pile of feces in my book.

What truth?  That crime is the worst it's been since 1971?  What a load of nonsense.  

Bowling Green was a lie because she called it a massacre, which you agree it wasn't.  That's called lying.  As in making stuff up to advance a false narrative and sow fear to consolidate power.

I'll post links and numbers when you post electoral fraud numbers.  I have a feeling I'll be waiting a while, since they don't exist.  Takes a lot of nerve to demand anything of that sort when one of the main points of your argument has have weeks to be substantiated and even officials at the highest levels of government and state electoral boards have virtually nothing in the way of numbers.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(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.

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.

[hollodero]

(02-15-2017, 08:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: 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.

 I'm sorry, but that I find to be hilarious. For he basically just did that. The only thing "more complex" was that he stated no more muslims from these countries allowed. And then he was done with it.
And after it blew up left and right because it was so poorly prepared and so borderline uncostitutional, he did not even have the decency, the effing decency to say, ok, my bad, sorry to all the green card holders and the brave men that served in our army, of course we will be decent and let you come to the US as promised. 
Nope, not this guy. He instead turns hysterical, attacks everything he thinks is to blame and tweets out his slogan. Jeez, that was a shabby thing to do and (all in my humble opinion) I have a hard time imagining that there's much disagreement on that specific one, really. Strange choice to commend Trump.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(02-14-2017, 10:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well. As you said, highly speculative. Which should be enough cause to refrain giving out numbers like "at least 3 million" as a given, like Trump did. Or to claim that there are buses full of illegal voters coming to New Hampshire, what even GOP members from New Hampshire sharply rejected.


There are other pictures too.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2pHhT3XAAAOePz.jpg

- In fact, I do not care about the crowd size, and neither should Trump, that kind of is my point. Have you seen that interview where he shared his feelings when "by accident" zapping to a network covering the inauguration? His voice was so dramatic, effect-seeking, as if he was the victim of a huge complot. I don't know which film it was where someone said "are you such a big loser that you don't even recognize when you've won?" - nope. His public hunger for appreciation tops all other notions of this man. All other notions. That alone really is hard to argue and should worry people.
It's the whole pettiness behind it. As I said, topped by letting poor Spicer run out and say there are no numbers and it was the biggest crowd ever, period! One of these sentences being a lie, logically. Then Trump has the nerve to talk more about crowd size in front of the CIA wall. And allegedly to several world leaders, where his own popularity always is an issue. There's a time and a place, even if his claims were correct (which according to almost everybody they aren't).

As for facts on that one, they are obviously hard to come by, but I saw even very cautious people that said 2008 crowd was definitely bigger.
And what else? No one would have cared. It means nothing except to him.



This was the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period. There is not much wiggle room for interpretation in that statement.
But this "as usual" part gets a habit. I do not envy you, having to interpret everything Trump or one of his minions says in a way he more or less clearly did not say it.

Can't defend or dispute it until something comes out with a head count.
I can tell you this though, even with Hillary having all of her Celebrities out there doing her work for her, that Trump's crowds dwarfed her crowds. Hell Trump had overflow crowds at Stadiums and didn't have any Celebrities. Hillary struggled filling High School Gyms.

With that said, it's no small wonder that he had a big turnout, and it probably would've been even bigger if it wasn't on a workday and idiots weren't blocking people from trying to attend.

(02-14-2017, 10:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: ...which makes the term "perfectly" a bit vague. Denying Green Card holders - and iraqi US war fighters who were granted right of residence for their service - entrance was not following the law "perfectly".
Even Neil Gorsuch called Trumps response to the judges "demoralizing". You can hardly blame him for playing "political games" there.

Well, good for them.
(I do not kow what MSM means, though, so I can not respond)

Technically, he does have the right even for Green Card Holders. They are not USC's and USC's were not blocked. The Ninth Circuit is run by Curly, Larry and Moe. Those guys put politics ahead of the Constitution. They just did it again with the Gun Control crowd today!

MSM is Main Stream Media (Such as CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc)

(02-14-2017, 10:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: Not like that.
I mentioned the stuff, from the birther thing to false murder allegiations (CentralPark5 or whatever they were called), threatening Hillary with jailtime, calling newspapers "failing" and CNN "fake news", calling for the cancellation of SNL, Stephen Miller talking about judicial usurpation and enormous POTUS power not to be questioned, Kellyanne with her massacre invention (I'm sorry, I can't see that as a simple "mistake"), claiming the "so-called" judge is to blame for any terror attacks happening, and so on. And I will add his campaign claims about how the US is losing, in peril, laughed at and taken advantage of by every single country, how the american dream is dead, Ted Cruz' father is connected to the JFK murder, the golden star wife might not be allowed to talk, how second amendment people could do something about Hillary, how Mexico sends rapists, how he would bring back torture and kill families of alleged terrorists, sending the feds to chicago, going after Rosie O'Donnell, Meryl Streep, Ariana Huffington with truely hurtful comments, how China invented Climate change, how he would likely not accept a loss at the election, the wrong unemployment rates (over 40%), ok I was there already... and I stop because I'm bored, and all that is NOTHING compared to what Steve Bannon has said and done over the years as part of the Breitbart family.

Again his persona, you either like him or don't or don't care. I don't care about the little tirades, he's going to have them because that's who he is. As I keep telling people, he enjoys being in the Media Spotlight and knows exactly how to play the media and they just keep on falling for it.

(02-14-2017, 10:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, I say with confidence that Obama did nothing of that kind, ever. Neither did Bush or Clinton, I can't think further back, but I'd say Bush I and Reagan are safe too.

Too bad I don't have enough time right now to properly research that, but I can definitely give you some examples from each former POTUS.

(02-14-2017, 10:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: I am not aware of these instances, but these are to be condemned. If Trump made this case in these instances, I'd agree with him.
Who did that though? Fake news CNN, failing NY times?

The blogger worked for the Daily Mail is the one that got sued for libel and lost.
NYTimes reporter was just caught recently. Look up Jacob Bernstein.
Rosie O'Donnell thinks Baron has Autism. Got Sued and backtracked like a whale out of water.
Saturday Night Live writer thinks Baron will be the first home school mass shooter. Writer was suspended.
Harassment of Ivaanka on a plane while with her family and children. the 2 harassers were thrown off plane.

And he's only been on the job for 3 weeks now.

(02-14-2017, 10:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: And it IS about attacking whoever is opposed. He does it with the precision of a mathematical equation. He likes those that praise him, he slams those that are critical of him. Schwarzenegger, Streep, O'Donnell and thousands more. Who is critical gets a response, as soon as that person is important enough to him.

Have you noticed that he doesn't attack people unless they attack him first?

(02-14-2017, 10:01 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know... I said before that I agree, a Hitler comparison is not justified.
Right now the more accurate comparison would be Berlusconi :) with tendencies towards Nasarbajew.

No doubt.

Until now, he took away rights (rather, tried to) from Green Card holders and those who relied on promises of a right to stay in the US. That are not citizens, sure. From citizens, you're right, he has not, at least I'm not aware. All (I think valid) critizism aside, that holds true - until now.
The only decent tweet (there are some neutral ones like congratulating Brady though) was the one where he said he acknowledged the right to protest. If there were some more of these, I'd be a bit less alarmed.

Exactly, he hasn't taken away any rights of USC's. He can't with out Congress backing and I might be able to believe the Berlusconi comparison more so than the others.

[GMDino]

(02-15-2017, 09:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Trump said it....so I believe it.


Also his tic to yell and cry about every perceived slight or criticism is only because people pick on him.

That's all I heard while reading it.... 

[hollodero]

(02-15-2017, 09:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Can't defend or dispute it until something comes out with a head count.
I can tell you this though, even with Hillary having all of her Celebrities out there doing her work for her, that Trump's crowds dwarfed her crowds. Hell Trump had overflow crowds at Stadiums and didn't have any Celebrities. Hillary struggled filling High School Gyms.

Yeah I did not argue about any of that. No one serioulsy takes it away from him that he has big crowds. Of course he has big crowds. That's not the point, though.
The point is that he put it in the nation's - and the world's - focus as if it was a matter of national interest. So even if someone said something inaccurate. This is the president of the United States, inexperienced and in dire need to catch up on a few things, having a pointless feud and going on ond on about his crowd size instead. That's what's it about.
Is that playing the media perfectly? If so, start doing something else perfectly! It's playing with misinformation and lies, and not even hidden ones. On a truely petty subject. And it results in worldwide ridicule. That's not a president's play.

(02-15-2017, 09:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: With that said, it's no small wonder that he had a big turnout, and it probably would've been even bigger if it wasn't on a workday and idiots weren't blocking people from trying to attend.

From the bottom of my heart: Yeah, sure, whatever.
I get the motive for him to be so obsessed with crowd size.
I do not get why it's of any importance to you, though.
It's not like you have a case. You basically went from "media lie" to saying "yeah well, maybe there indeed were less people, but Trump was still technically correct to attack the media for not calling it the biggest inauguration crowd ever because there would have been way more people wouldn't they have been blocked."
Seriously, why would you do that? For anyone?

(02-15-2017, 09:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Again his persona, you either like him or don't or don't care. I don't care about the little tirades, he's going to have them because that's who he is. As I keep telling people, he enjoys being in the Media Spotlight and knows exactly how to play the media and they just keep on falling for it.

Yeah cool trick Donald, if it really is one.
I think your take is not accurate, but I know I have not the abilities to persuade you.
I'd just say maybe it's time to see things from another perspective. One that has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal or dem or rep or left or right or tea party or for a wall. Or with being strongly opposed to one of these groups. One that lets you stand wherever you stand, from which you just take a good, honest look at this guy and his administration. And re-evualate some things. Consider the chance that this indeed is a con man stunt based on lies, populism, incompetence and vanity that is heading for disaster and at some point a vast majority will reach that conclusion. Including those who jumped ship in time.
If this will happen, I do yet not know. But there sure is a growing number of clear signs.

(02-15-2017, 09:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The blogger worked for the Daily Mail is the one that got sued for libel and lost.
NYTimes reporter was just caught recently. Look up Jacob Bernstein.
Rosie O'Donnell thinks Baron has Autism. Got Sued and backtracked like a whale out of water.
Saturday Night Live writer thinks Baron will be the first home school mass shooter. Writer was suspended.
Harassment of Ivaanka on a plane while with her family and children. the 2 harassers were thrown off plane.

And he's only been on the job for 3 weeks now.

I looked up Jacob Bernstein. That was not an acceptable comment. He apologized... which might not be sufficient, I agree, but Trumps team actually doesn't get to complain about that. Because they say Kellyanne "apologized" for inventing a massacre so everything's good now and the topic is done, period.
The rest, I don't know and I don't feel like looking these things up. Parts of your media never were too fine and noble to begin with, I can not really argue that one. Nothing basically wrong with condemning things that indeed go too far.
If he did just that, well, ok.

On the other hand, a president really shouldn't let so much stuff get to him. Not even in San Marino, way less in the US. The job comes with much opposition. But it's not the kind of job where you could or should just easily have 10.000 personal twitter feuds with whomever. A president engaging in shit talk about Mark Cuban or Arnie (he's Australian, Donald), Meryl Streep, or judges or reporters or politicians or whoever on a more or less daily basis would largely be deemed as being rather unfit for the job. If it were a hypothetical question asked two years ago, at least.

(02-15-2017, 09:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Have you noticed that he doesn't attack people unless they attack him first?

Maybe so. So what?

[Dill]

(02-15-2017, 02:16 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well sure, Trump is closer to Hitler as Obama is to Pol Pot. Probably. 
Far be it from me to open friendly fire. But the Hitler comparison is really a bit of a stretch. It's exactly the kind of thing where the so-called other side can point to unwarranted exaggeration and kind of have a half-decent argument when doing so. Hence, you're not too persuasive to those who don't agree with you in the first place.
Trump does not resemble Hitler too much. One obvious reason, Hitler laid out his plans quite openly in Mein Kampf, which appeared around 1926 or so. I don't know what Trump wrote several years ago. Probably nothing.* But the fascist background isn't quite there. Plus, Hitler was many evil things, but he was not exactly dumb. Another major difference.

And I say that fully aware that the authoritarian aspects are there - like using "national security" as a legitimate reason to overthrow the balance of powers and decrease the influence of other branches like the judiciary one. Which is exactly what he tries to does and what Stephen Miller aimed at. Or like establishing a personality cult, trying to shut up critics, keeping ties to private business and appointing family members to influential positions. Sure, all that and more. But Hitler?

It might be more fruitful to compare Bannon to Goebbels.

* I did some research. He wrote "the art of the deal" and called it the second best book ever written after the Bible. Take that, great Gatsby.

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 1960s. 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.
 

[Dill]

(02-15-2017, 09:33 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Have you noticed that he doesn't attack people unless they attack him first?

No, I have not noticed that.

Have you noticed that he responds to legitimate policy questions as if attacked?