Trump, Adolf Hitler “did some good things,”

[XenoMorph]

(03-12-2024, 08:30 PM)Dill Wrote: ??   So it's NOT about checks and balances then, and rule of law?

The right guy in charge of North Korea and who knows?


You'd agree that Trump and Biden handled COVID differently, wouldn't you?

One defunded our emergency response before the pandemic,

then refused to recognize the danger for months and then wouldn't wear a mask.

He ramped up vaccine production, but then began tweeting anti-vaxx messages.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103119302628

In consequence, his supporters experienced significantly higher rates of infection.

The other one was Biden, who treated the emergency like an emergency.

we just didnt get gaslight into injecting an unknown substance in are bodys.


no shot no covid here

you mean they CREATED an emergency to try and seize more power

[*Nately120*]

(03-14-2024, 03:48 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: we just didnt get gaslight into injecting an unknown substance in are bodys.

GUMMINT: Take this vaccine.

AMERICANS: No, we don't just put random substances into our bodies.

GUMMINT:  Ok fair enough, how about we propose regulations so manufacturers of consumer products you consume and breathe are free from carcinogenic and otherwise harmful chemicals?

AMERICANS: No, we don't like regulations.  I can't tell you what 99% of the things on a food label actually are, and I like it that way.  Maybe I'm not getting enough.....trichl...oroethy....lene? 

[Dill]

(03-14-2024, 03:48 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: we just didnt get gaslight into injecting an unknown substance in are bodys.


no shot no covid here

you mean they CREATED an emergency to try and seize more power

Umm yeah. THAT'S what I meant.

There was no COVID emergency. 

Nobody died. 

Good plan but didn't work because MAGA saw through it.

[Dill]

(03-14-2024, 03:08 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: would he have handled it differently? 
We don't know for sure as it's all hindsight now.
But somethings you have to decide for yourself and that was one of them. Relying on the Gov to tell you want to do is rarely a good thing.
But if you want to really play that game. Would Trump have handled the Immigrant Problem better?? We don't really know, it all depends on how much HE does and how much Congress Lets him do.

You're asking me to believe we don't know for sure whether Biden would have responded to the emergency
as soon as first warnings appeared, or claimed it would disappear by summer?

We don't know if he'd have refused to wear a mask, tweeted antivaxx messages, and touted false cures,
and undermined medical authorities?

You write as if there is no contrasting track record to go by as we "decide for ourselves,"

like people who seriously wonder if Gore would have invaded Iraq. 

Not sure what you mean by "relying on the government to tell you what to do."
We live in a democracy. We vote in leaders to represent us. They make laws.
Then we are supposed to obey the laws created by legislators we authorized.
Is that what you mean the Gov. telling us what to do?

[BigPapaKain]

(03-14-2024, 08:27 PM)Dill Wrote: Umm yeah. THAT'S what I meant.

There was no COVID emergency. 

Nobody died. 

Good plan but didn't work because MAGA saw through it.

They can't even see through their candidate's bull shit.

[SunsetBengal]

(03-15-2024, 03:34 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: They can't even see through their candidate's bull shit.

Just like some can't see through their own party's bullshit..

[*Nately120*]

(03-15-2024, 06:40 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Just like some can't see through their own party's bullshit..

People prefer bullshit.

[BigPapaKain]

(03-15-2024, 06:40 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Just like some can't see through their own party's bullshit..

Of course they can't. Reading one person is hard enough.

Glad we agree on this.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-12-2024, 08:30 PM)Dill Wrote: ??   So it's NOT about checks and balances then, and rule of law?

The right guy in charge of North Korea and who knows?

Yes the right person in charge in NK could turn them into an economic power house. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-14-2024, 08:36 PM)Dill Wrote: You're asking me to believe we don't know for sure whether Biden would have responded to the emergency
as soon as first warnings appeared, or claimed it would disappear by summer?

We don't know if he'd have refused to wear a mask, tweeted antivaxx messages, and touted false cures,
and undermined medical authorities?

You write as if there is no contrasting track record to go by as we "decide for ourselves,"

like people who seriously wonder if Gore would have invaded Iraq. 

Not sure what you mean by "relying on the government to tell you what to do."
We live in a democracy. We vote in leaders to represent us. They make laws.
Then we are supposed to obey the laws created by legislators we authorized.
Is that what you mean the Gov. telling us what to do?

Like Biden follows the laws when it comes to Immigrants. *shesh  

OFC We follow the laws, but if it's non mandated, then it's more up to us to decide what we want, like the Flu shot, some get it some don't. That's called Freedom. 

I didn't treat the COVID as some national disaster, i treated it the same as the flu. Keep my distance from others and kept my hands clean. Didn't get it once until my kid went back to school and he got it from his class mates and brought it home.. 

[Dill]

(03-19-2024, 12:47 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Like Biden follows the laws when it comes to Immigrants. *shesh  

OFC We follow the laws, but if it's non mandated, then it's more up to us to decide what we want, like the Flu shot, some get it some don't. That's called Freedom. 

I didn't treat the COVID as some national disaster, i treated it the same as the flu. Keep my distance from others and kept my hands clean. Didn't get it once until my kid went back to school and he got it from his class mates and brought it home.. 

How is Biden not following the laws when it comes to immigrants? (I hear that on Fox quite a bit.)

And what does that have to do with my question about the difference between Trump and Biden's
handling of COVID? You said we have no idea what Biden would have done were he president when
COVID hit. I say we do have a good idea--he would not be undermine his own science team, or
science itself.

YOU didn't treat COVID as a national disaster, but shouldn't the president? 
Over a million dead, thousands of small businesses went under, supply chains disrupted, etc.

When it comes to pandemics, it is always possible that health measures will or should be mandated--not like the flu.
That means government "telling us what to do," like get polio and smallpox vaccinations.

In this case, Trump as president, in charge of protecting the US, undermined his own science team,
catering to the anti-vaxx anti-science crowd.

[Dill]

(03-19-2024, 12:37 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yes the right person in charge in NK could turn them into an economic power house. 

So a totalitarian system would be "good" then if it became an economic power house?

And that would work with the right guy in charge?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-19-2024, 09:49 AM)Dill Wrote: So a totalitarian system would be "good" then if it became an economic power house?

And that would work with the right guy in charge?

How they treat their people is more important than that. 

It can provide a sense of stability and order to society. 
Government is able to make swift decisions and implement changes faster than a democratic one. (Look at us, 40 years later and still haven't fixed immigration)

Now that's a couple of the good things that can come from it, i didn't say it was the best or better, i said all types have pros. If you want to focus on the cons, go for it, but I won't be a part of that conversation cause that is not what i said at all. 

[*pally*]

(03-20-2024, 03:45 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: How they treat their people is more important than that. 

It can provide a sense of stability and order to society. 
Government is able to make swift decisions and implement changes faster than a democratic one. (Look at us, 40 years later and still haven't fixed immigration)

Now that's a couple of the good things that can come from it, i didn't say it was the best or better, i said all types have pros. If you want to focus on the cons, go for it, but I won't be a part of that conversation cause that is not what i said at all. 

Name a “good” totalitarian government

[Dill]

(03-20-2024, 03:45 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: How they treat their people is more important than that. 

It can provide a sense of stability and order to society. 
Government is able to make swift decisions and implement changes faster than a democratic one. (Look at us, 40 years later and still haven't fixed immigration)

Now that's a couple of the good things that can come from it, i didn't say it was the best or better, i said all types have pros. If you want to focus on the cons, go for it, but I won't be a part of that conversation cause that is not what i said at all. 

Well then focusing on the "pros" . . . 

You said, in post #20, "relying on the Gov to tell you want to do is rarely a good thing."
But the bolded above represents that as a "pro" of totalitarian governments.

Such governments achieve their "sense of stability and order" by demanding total obedience,
at the expense of what you were calling "freedom." That's how they "treat their people." 
"Swift decisions" protect the government from its own people, for the most part.

I think maybe you are confusing "totalitarian" with "authoritarian." 
Authoritarian governments may have a majority/plurality fine with the milder trade off of freedom for security,
usually because the loss of freedom is experienced more by out groups, like Roma in Hungary.

I'm trying to think of "pros" of totalitarian society, but I can't include "security" unless the alternative is total
absence of government amidst groups of armed and violent gangs. 

Anyway, this started with your claim that we could not know how Biden would have handled COVID were he in
charge at the beginning. I'm saying we can know that he would not have dismissed it and undermined his
science team. He would have led a response rather than refusing recognition and leadership responsibility. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-20-2024, 06:29 AM)Dill Wrote: Well then focusing on the "pros" . . . 

You said, in post #20, "relying on the Gov to tell you want to do is rarely a good thing."
But the bolded above represents that as a "pro" of totalitarian governments.

Such governments achieve their "sense of stability and order" by demanding total obedience,
at the expense of what you were calling "freedom." That's how they "treat their people." 
"Swift decisions" protect the government from its own people, for the most part.

I think maybe you are confusing "totalitarian" with "authoritarian." 
Authoritarian governments may have a majority/plurality fine with the milder trade off of freedom for security,
usually because the loss of freedom is experienced more by out groups, like Roma in Hungary.

I'm trying to think of "pros" of totalitarian society, but I can't include "security" unless the alternative is total
absence of government amidst groups of armed and violent gangs. 

Anyway, this started with your claim that we could not know how Biden would have handled COVID were he in
charge at the beginning. I'm saying we can know that he would not have dismissed it and undermined his
science team. He would have led a response rather than refusing recognition and leadership responsibility. 

Totalitarian is Extreme Authoritarian. 
It can start with the right intentions, but usually doesn't end well because the leader ends up becoming power hungry and loses and will eliminate anyone that threatens that security. 
Napoleon checks the Totalitarian boxes, but most seem to refer to him as an Authoritarian Imperial Regime (which is most likely the father of Totalitarian). 

[*pally*]

(03-20-2024, 10:42 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Totalitarian is Extreme Authoritarian. 
It can start with the right intentions, but usually doesn't end well because the leader ends up becoming power hungry and loses and will eliminate anyone that threatens that security. 
Napoleon checks the Totalitarian boxes, but most seem to refer to him as an Authoritarian Imperial Regime (which is most likely the father of Totalitarian). 

so I'll ask again....name 1 good totalitarian government?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-20-2024, 02:22 PM)pally Wrote: so I'll ask again....name 1 good totalitarian government?

Ask all you want, what you are asking has nothing to do with what i said. Dill is the one that said "good", not me.

I'll repeat it again, there is good and bad aspects to each type. 

[Dill]

(03-20-2024, 10:42 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Totalitarian is Extreme Authoritarian. 
It can start with the right intentions, but usually doesn't end well because the leader ends up becoming power hungry and loses and will eliminate anyone that threatens that security. 
Napoleon checks the Totalitarian boxes, but most seem to refer to him as an Authoritarian Imperial Regime (which is most likely the father of Totalitarian). 

Napoleon wasn't totalitarian, but maybe the Committee of Public Safety under Robespierre was, or was striving to be.

What distinguishes totalitarian from authoritarian government is that the former strives to TOTALLY erase any distinction between
the state and civil society, e.g., private organizations, and personal life. It is based on an ideology which explains/interprets everything.

That's why totalitarian systems like Hitler's Nazi regime and Stalin's USSR control education and religion and sports.
Nazis even had a proper German way of gardening, painting, and doing science (not the "Jewish" materialist way!).
Such systems also breed a network people who spy on each other, and pressure everyone to conform.
There is a range of success here. Probably the most thoroughgoing would be North Korea and the now defunct Khmer Rouge.
The latter forced everyone in cities into the country to work in rice paddies, arranged all marriages, and killed people who
had eyeglasses and western haircuts. For me, it's hard to imagine a good guy getting control of one of those governments.

Authoritarians tend to control the police and army to squash opposition, but let the rest of civil society be. A lot of South American
regimes fit this model--Pinochet, Samosa, the Junta in Argentina. Again, this is a spectrum though. Some are rather mild,
others near totalitarian.  There are also hybrid regimes teetering between democracy and full on authoritarian, like Turkey.
Key to signalling authoritarianism and moving towards autocratic government from liberal democracy is control of or de-legitimation of the press.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-20-2024, 05:04 PM)Dill Wrote: Napoleon wasn't totalitarian, but maybe the Committee of Public Safety under Robespierre was, or was striving to be.

What distinguishes totalitarian from authoritarian government is that the former strives to TOTALLY erase any distinction between
the state and civil society, e.g., private organizations, and personal life. It is based on an ideology which explains/interprets everything.

That's why totalitarian systems like Hitler's Nazi regime and Stalin's USSR control education and religion and sports.
Nazis even had a proper German way of gardening, painting, and doing science (not the "Jewish" materialist way!).
Such systems also breed a network people who spy on each other, and pressure everyone to conform.
There is a range of success here. Probably the most thoroughgoing would be North Korea and the now defunct Khmer Rouge.
The latter forced everyone in cities into the country to work in rice paddies, arranged all marriages, and killed people who
had eyeglasses and western haircuts. For me, it's hard to imagine a good guy getting control of one of those governments.

Authoritarians tend to control the police and army to squash opposition, but let the rest of civil society be. A lot of South American
regimes fit this model--Pinochet, Samosa, the Junta in Argentina. Again, this is a spectrum though. Some are rather mild,
others near totalitarian.  There are also hybrid regimes teetering between democracy and full on authoritarian, like Turkey.
Key to signalling authoritarianism and moving towards autocratic government from liberal democracy is control of or de-legitimation of the press.

By your own definitions that distinguish Totalitarian vs Authoritarian 
Napoleon did the Concordat of 1801 which gave the State power over Religion and Education.
Then there is the famous lists of top 600 taxpayers of each department that were favored over others. 
He also kept a tight control over society (a model that both Hitler and Stalin would later use).
Of course seeks power thru conquests like any good Totalitarian leader and just like most others, War was his downfall.
Because of his sensitivities, he was trying to build up an image of power and censored the press and removed any rivals that spoke against him in the legislative assemblies. 

How these are not considered Totalitarian methods?