The Road to World War III

[IMPress Polly]

Flanked by ten military officers (a highly irregular development, for those who don't know), America's first fascist president delivered a diatribe of threats, lies, and intimidations that passed for an inaugural address a week ago Friday, the character of which can be aptly summed up in a contrast of key lines vis-a-vis Franklin Roosevelt's. On his inauguration day, Roosevelt famously proclaimed amidst the Great Depression that the American people had "nothing to fear but fear itself." Trump, by contrast, proclaimed that "We fear the world, but the whole world must be made to fear us." The former of these statements is one of liberalism, which revolves around the instilling of (often false) hope in working people. The other is the complete opposite: a fascistic lament that boasts of fear as a weapon, declaring the whole rest of the world to be enemies who must be terrorized into submission. The very next day, this event was greeted by the largest protest in American history, attended by more than 3 million people (at least 1% of the population) nationwide, dwarfing the new president's "inaugural" turnout of just 600,000 or so. The new administration responded by declaring explicit war on the press and pledging to systematically supply the public with "alternative facts" in which to believe instead of the real ones. (Another victory for campus postmodernism. :rollseyes:)

Both amidst and since these developments, intimidated media commentators and Congressional "representatives" have somewhat desperately tried to keep up the facade of normality as a means of validating the new president's supposed election victory wherein he won by a "landslide" margin of negative two points, but the nervous deceit cannot be maintained any longer. In one week, the new president has declared the whole world his enemy in a thousand ways, from ordering the construction of a wall spanning the entire U.S.-Mexico border to completely banning refugees from entering the United States to reaffirming his support for a Russian takeover of Europe (something conspiratorially agreed upon by all of the European fascists) to the proclamation of "safe zones" (a.k.a. no-fly zones) in Syria that threaten war with Russia, to an executive pledge to launch a second nuclear arms race to threats to reopen CIA black sites across open that were closed by the previous administration and "take the oil" away from the Iraqi government (perhaps with intent of delivering that country's nationally owned oil business specifically to ExxonMobil, as the CEO of that company is set to become the new U.S. Secretary of State), to assuring Japan that the U.S. will guarantee their control over the South China Sea (which is called that for a reason) from any Chinese challenge (and such challenges are occurring), to initiating construction of oil pipelines on sovereign Native American land, to the launch of a cynical "investigation" into everyone who voted against him with the not-so-concealed aim of banning us from ever voting again in the future, to threatening declarations of martial law on all of America's major cities, and far beyond. He does all of this even while simultaneously running what can only be described as a system of organized bribery through the Trump Organization, and one which clearly and directly violates the emoluments clause of the United States Constitution, constituting not only the first ever for-profit American presidency, but also an impeachable offense. (Republicans control the government, however, so he won't be impeached.) There is nothing whatsoever normal about any of this. It all points in one direction: to the most nakedly, nauseatingly corrupt and tyrannical regime of capitalists, generals, and religious fanatics ever to assume power in American history (also the wealthiest in American history, by the way) that aims to abolish what's left of democracy, rule by terror, and start a new world war. That is what fascists are and what they do. That is how they rule. And that is where are headed.

Going along with all this, the Congressional Democrats have so far allowed the king's cabinet nominees to sail through to confirmation with little challenge. Only one sitting Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, has has the guts to vote against each of our new dictator's choices, as is definitely necessary. In their defense, the Democrats explain that they are voting to surround the new president with "sane people". To characterize the actual level of sanity that is actually involved in Mr. Trump's picks, the most agreed-upon "sane" nominee, Mattis, is a general (which should be problematic by itself, as that is not legal, being as it threatens civilian control over the military!) who goes by a nickname with the term "mad" in it. And that, they tell us, is the most sane person the new president has selected for his cabinet. Consequently, in the unlikely event that there ever is another genuinely contested election in this country, Gillibrand has just become the only sitting Senator with the credibility to earn my vote in the future. But this is not a time for worrying about future elections that probably won't happen. This is a time for us to resist!

To the above end, I would like to highlight that ongoing resistance exists. There are two overlapping things going on on the left right now that jointly have become known as the Resistance (capital R):

1) There are people all across the nation taking an ongoing grassroots approach to organizing against the Trump regime and agenda by pressuring their local members of Congress to vote against confirmations and against his executive orders and legislation (theoretically there will be some legislation in the future anyway and he won't just continue to rule by decree indefinitely). These people are utilizing something called the Indivisible guide, which was created by members of Congress as an explanation of the tactics that the Tea Party movement successfully employed under President Obama. This scene's actions are occurring on an ongoing, sustained basis, with protests around specific issues occurring daily and uniform actions occurring weekly, on every Tuesday in your local community. AND...

2) There are also people all across the nation who are taking the more direct approach of confronting the president directly through a series of massive, nationwide demonstrations occurring at irregular intervals. The first of these was the Women's March on Washington, which of course took place the day after Trump's inauguration. The overwhelming success of this action, which saw turnout exceeding the organizer's expectations by a factor of several times, has inspired a second, analogous day of national (and perhaps even international) protest slated for some time in March over a different set of issues called the March for Science on Washington. 260,000 people have already committed to attending it on Facebook. For comparison's sake, 225,000 had committed to attending the Women's March on Washington by the day it happened, whereupon actual turnout exceeded 3 million. In other words, it's possible that this even could be even bigger than the Women's March! Indeed, I would anticipate further, similar marches to be scheduled regularly from here on.

There is a large amount of overlap between both of these scenes and they tend to come together around the word "resist", which is why they are adopting the term Resistance as the semi-official name of the anti-Trump movement overall. I would urge everyone to research these two scenes -- the Indivisible scene and the Marches on Washington -- right now to see how you can get involved. The time is short and we can't count on the Democrats.

[rcfieldz]

Obama tried to make the White House the rainbow house but it didn't stick.

[Peter1469]

FDR was considered to be a political brother to Mussolini who told Hitler than FDR was one of us. FDR didn't care for Hitler but he greatly admired Mussolini.


Roosevelt never had much use for Hitler, but Mussolini was another matter. "'I don't mind telling you in confidence,' FDR remarked to a White House correspondent, 'that I am keeping in fairly close touch with that admirable Italian gentleman'" (p. 31). Rexford Tugwell, a leading adviser to the president, had difficulty containing his enthusiasm for Mussolini's program to modernize Italy: "It's the cleanest … most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I've ever seen. It makes me envious" (p. 32, quoting Tugwell).

The 1930s saw a soft fascism rise in the US.


When Roosevelt took office in March 1933, he received from Congress an extraordinary delegation of powers to cope with the Depression.

The broad-ranging powers granted to Roosevelt by Congress, before that body went into recess, were unprecedented in times of peace. Through this "delegation of powers," Congress had, in effect, temporarily done away with itself as the legislative branch of government. The only remaining check on the executive was the Supreme Court. In Germany, a similar process allowed Hitler to assume legislative power after the Reichstag burned down in a suspected case of arson on February 28, 1933. (p. 18).


The Nazi press enthusiastically hailed the early New Deal measures: America, like the Reich, had decisively broken with the "uninhibited frenzy of market speculation." The Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, "stressed 'Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,' praising the president's style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler's own dictatorial Führerprinzip" (p. 190).

Trump may well follow in FDR's foot steps, but we must understand history if we want to understand what is going on in the present.

[Crepitus]

Fortunately for us even the republicans in congress have more sense than our Tweeter in Chief and there is a lot they can do to keep him in hand.

[Peter1469]

Fortunately for us even the republicans in congress have more sense than our Tweeter in Chief and there is a lot they can do to keep him in hand.

Yes, and if each of the three branches of government are operating, the US can't by definition be fascistic.

[Crepitus]

Yes, and if each of the three branches of government are operating, the US can't by definition be fascistic.

Individuals within our government can and do have fascist tendencies, particularly Hair Furor.

[Peter1469]

Individuals within our government can and do have fascist tendencies, particularly Hair Furor.

An untruth.

However, public schools have expanded the definition of the word fascist to make it meaningless to those who don't know what the word actually means.

[Crepitus]

An untruth.

However, public schools have expanded the definition of the word fascist to make it meaningless to those who don't know what the word actually means.

OK Pete. I quit.

http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/trump-Hitler-TIME-faux-1.jpg

[rcfieldz]

Hair furor..god I'm loosin' it. LOL

[IMPress Polly]

Crepitus wrote:
Fortunately for us even the republicans in congress have more sense than our Tweeter in Chief and there is a lot they can do to keep him in hand.

I'm not sure you're grasping the magnitude of the current situation. The Congress is afraid of the president. (Who isn't to some degree?) This fear goes so deep that even the Democrats are overwhelmingly going along with the Trump agenda! In that context, what do you seriously think the odds are of him facing any kind of challenge at all from his own party?


Peter wrote:
FDR was considered to be a political brother to Mussolini who told Hitler than FDR was one of us. FDR didn't care for Hitler but he greatly admired Mussolini.

That view was agreed-upon by both the left and the right initially, but I think the trajectory of Father Coughlin's assessment of FDR is instructive, since the infamous radio host organized a personality cult to support Nazi Germany during this period. Coughlin was initially supportive of the New Deal over the course of the same period that the Communist Party fought it. By the second half of the decade though, Coughlin was denouncing FDR and by the end of 1941 he (Roosevelt) had been critically embraced by the Communist Party. There is a trajectory here. Roosevelt was supported by the American fascists and opposed by the Communists during the period when he was promoting the rule of commerce by business associations (mandated by the National Recovery Act), which was very similar to the way Italy and Germany organized their economies, albeit a bit more liberal in that Roosevelt's version offered the unions a role (albeit a subservient one). But by the mid-'30s, the belligerence of the Supreme Court toward his actions had transformed Roosevelt into a genuine populist, whereupon he focused on advocating more bottom-up approaches to economic reform and achieved the at first tacit, then explicit support of the Communists and the enmity of Coughlin and his cult. I see no such directional likelihood from the Trump Administration, being as it is starting out in a position to shape the ideological balance of the Supreme Court.

[FindersKeepers]

In one week, the new president has declared the whole world his enemy in a thousand ways, from ordering the construction of a wall spanning the entire U.S.-Mexico border to completely banning refugees from entering the United States to reaffirming his support for a Russian takeover of Europe (something conspiratorially agreed upon by all of the European fascists) to the proclamation of "safe zones" (a.k.a. no-fly zones) in Syria that threaten war with Russia..."

You wrote so very much that I'm having to select small portions to reply to. Btw, I've been meaning to thank you for the video game recommendation -- it's my niece's favorite! She simply loves it and she hasn't finished it yet because her mother limits the time she can play. :love5:

On the safe zone, that might be a mistake, but it's a mistake Hillary also swore to make. Safe zones take a lot of manpower to ensure and, with the inability to tell the bad guys from the good guys on the ground, it could be useless. It would have to have the agreement of Russia, but, that's unlikely.

The best option for citizens of Syria is to pull out all our support of the rebels, allow Assad and Russia to put down the resistance and then help the refugees return to a safe nation.



He does all of this even while simultaneously running what can only be described as a system of organized bribery through the Trump Organization, and one which clearly and directly violates the emoluments clause of the United States Constitution, constituting not only the first ever for-profit American presidency, but also an impeachable offense. (Republicans control the government, however, so he won't be impeached.) There is nothing whatsoever normal about any of this. It all points in one direction: to the most nakedly, nauseatingly corrupt and tyrannical regime of capitalists, generals, and religious fanatics ever to assume power in American history (also the wealthiest in American history, by the way) that aims to abolish what's left of democracy, rule by terror, and start a new world war. That is what fascists are and what they do. That is how they rule. And that is where are headed.

The foreign emolument clause will have to be examined carefully in light of Trump's divestitures. Obama violated the domestic emolument clause and no one really cared about that. I think Trump should comply, however. It's in the best interest of our nation. We're not approaching fascism, however.


Going along with all this, the Congressional Democrats have so far allowed the king's cabinet nominees to sail through to confirmation with little challenge. Only one sitting Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, has has the guts to vote against each of our new dictator's choices, as is definitely necessary. In their defense, the Democrats explain that they are voting to surround the new president with "sane people". To characterize the actual level of sanity that is actually involved in Mr. Trump's picks, the most agreed-upon "sane" nominee, Mattis, is a general (which should be problematic by itself, as that is not legal, being as it threatens civilian control over the military!) who goes by a nickname with the term "mad" in it. And that, they tell us, is the most sane person the new president has selected for his cabinet. Consequently, in the unlikely event that there ever is another genuinely contested election in this country, Gillibrand has just become the only sitting Senator with the credibility to earn my vote in the future. But this is not a time for worrying about future elections that probably won't happen. This is a time for us to resist!

There is nothing so far to resist. The election was constitutional, and if Trump tries anything unconstitutional, Congress (and the courts) can remedy it. Simply not liking his policies is not a reason to create a revolution.


To the above end, I would like to highlight that ongoing resistance exists. There are two overlapping things going on on the left right now that jointly have become known as the Resistance (capital R):

1) There are people all across the nation taking an ongoing grassroots approach to organizing against the Trump regime and agenda by pressuring their local members of Congress to vote against confirmations and against his executive orders and legislation (theoretically there will be some legislation in the future anyway and he won't just continue to rule by decree indefinitely). These people are utilizing something called the Indivisible guide, which was created by members of Congress as an explanation of the tactics that the Tea Party movement successfully employed under President Obama. This scene's actions are occurring on an ongoing, sustained basis, with protests around specific issues occurring daily and uniform actions occurring weekly, on every Tuesday in your local community. AND...

2) There are also people all across the nation who are taking the more direct approach of confronting the president directly through a series of massive, nationwide demonstrations occurring at irregular intervals. The first of these was the Women's March on Washington, which of course took place the day after Trump's inauguration. The overwhelming success of this action, which saw turnout exceeding the organizer's expectations by a factor of several times, has inspired a second, analogous day of national (and perhaps even international) protest slated for some time in March over a different set of issues called the March for Science on Washington. 260,000 people have already committed to attending it on Facebook. For comparison's sake, 225,000 had committed to attending the Women's March on Washington by the day it happened, whereupon actual turnout exceeded 3 million. In other words, it's possible that this even could be even bigger than the Women's March! Indeed, I would anticipate further, similar marches to be scheduled regularly from here on.

There is a large amount of overlap between both of these scenes and they tend to come together around the word "resist", which is why they are adopting the term Resistance as the semi-official name of the anti-Trump movement overall. I would urge everyone to research these two scenes -- the Indivisible scene and the Marches on Washington -- right now to see how you can get involved. The time is short and we can't count on the Democrats.


Unless Trump does something truly destructive, these people are just bandwagon riders. Like Nate Silver effectively pointed on on his 538 blog, the women's march was virtually a reflection of the people who voted for Hillary.

The question is why they are being such sore losers. Why do they feel entitled to try and undermine the democratic process by which our leaders are elected?

Hillary was steeped in corruption, but I doubt the Right would have thrown such a hissy fit had she won. And, given her history of jingoism in Libya and the rest of the Middle East, I think we can safely say we'd be much closer to WWIII had she won.

[Subdermal]

FDR was considered to be a political brother to Mussolini who told Hitler than FDR was one of us. FDR didn't care for Hitler but he greatly admired Mussolini.



The 1930s saw a soft fascism rise in the US.



Trump may well follow in FDR's foot steps, but we must understand history if we want to understand what is going on in the present.

That is about as crushing a rebuttal as I remember in recent memory.



Liberals/communists really believe that a peaceful climate is created in exactly the opposite manner that it actually happens.


It's an odd dissonance, really, since every communist on the planet lives under the crushing fist of a despot.

[Mini Me]

Yes, and if each of the three branches of government are operating, the US can't by definition be fascistic.
WRONG! The Rethugs have both houses of Congress, the Executive, and a pliant USSC!

What we have now is FASCISM, and will become apparent to all who have eyes to see, soon!

[Docthehun]

Yes, and if each of the three branches of government are operating, the US can't by definition be fascistic.

The real question, is whether the other branches are willing to take a stand, knowing retribution could be swift. History has shown that being silent can have disastrous implications.

[Green Arrow]

Individuals within our government can and do have fascist tendencies, particularly Hair Furor.
I don't agree with the characterization of Trump as a fascist, but "Hair Furor" made me choke on my tea.

[Green Arrow]

The question is why they are being such sore losers. Why do they feel entitled to try and undermine the democratic process by which our leaders are elected?
Probably something to do with the fact that it wasn't democratic.

Hillary was steeped in corruption, but I doubt the Right would have thrown such a hissy fit had she won.
Considering how they treated Obama after he won both times and all the "lock her up!" rhetoric I don't agree. At all. In fact, I think she would have been treated worse than Obama.

[Peter1469]

Sounds good. Statists such as fascists are on the same team and our liberal statists in America.


OK Pete. I quit.

[Peter1469]

Very good summary of fascism in America in the second paragraph!


I'm not sure you're grasping the magnitude of the current situation. The Congress is afraid of the president. (Who isn't to some degree?) This fear goes so deep that even the Democrats are overwhelmingly going along with the Trump agenda! In that context, what do you seriously think the odds are of him facing any kind of challenge at all from his own party?



That view was agreed-upon by both the left and the right initially, but I think the trajectory of Father Coughlin's assessment of FDR is instructive, since the infamous radio host organized a personality cult to support Nazi Germany during this period. Coughlin was initially supportive of the New Deal over the course of the same period that the Communist Party fought it. By the second half of the decade though, Coughlin was denouncing FDR and by the end of 1941 he (Roosevelt) had been critically embraced by the Communist Party. There is a trajectory here. Roosevelt was supported by the American fascists and opposed by the Communists during the period when he was promoting the rule of commerce by business associations (mandated by the National Recovery Act), which was very similar to the way Italy and Germany organized their economies, albeit a bit more liberal in that Roosevelt's version offered the unions a role (albeit a subservient one). But by the mid-'30s, the belligerence of the Supreme Court toward his actions had transformed Roosevelt into a genuine populist, whereupon he focused on advocating more bottom-up approaches to economic reform and achieved the at first tacit, then explicit support of the Communists and the enmity of Coughlin and his cult. I see no such directional likelihood from the Trump Administration, being as it is starting out in a position to shape the ideological balance of the Supreme Court.

[Peter1469]

WRONG! The Rethugs have both houses of Congress, the Executive, and a pliant USSC!

What we have now is FASCISM, and will become apparent to all who have eyes to see, soon!
Sorry. Wrong so far.

In English words have meanings. One does not look at the clear cloudless sky and claim that the sky is green. That is what you are doing with the word fascism. Like so many others.

[Peter1469]

The real question, is whether the other branches are willing to take a stand, knowing retribution could be swift. History has shown that being silent can have disastrous implications.

As I said, we shall see.

[Peter1469]

Of course Hillary would have been treated worse. She committed crimes while in office.Obama was a sissy, but he never committed any crimes so far as I know.


Probably something to do with the fact that it wasn't democratic.

Considering how they treated Obama after he won both times and all the "lock her up!" rhetoric I don't agree. At all. In fact, I think she would have been treated worse than Obama.

[DGUtley]

WRONG! The Rethugs have both houses of Congress, the Executive, and a pliant USSC! What we have now is FASCISM, and will become apparent to all who have eyes to see, soon!
Your lack of faith in our adherence to law is astounding. We do not have fascism. Your histrionics will be seen as silly in 4 years. We are a nation of laws.

[Ransom]

Flanked by ten military officers (a highly irregular development, for those who don't know), America's first fascist president delivered a diatribe of threats, lies, and intimidations that passed for an inaugural address a week ago Friday, the character of which can be aptly summed up in a contrast of key lines vis-a-vis Franklin Roosevelt's. On his inauguration day, Roosevelt famously proclaimed amidst the Great Depression that the American people had "nothing to fear but fear itself." Trump, by contrast, proclaimed that "We fear the world, but the whole world must be made to fear us." The former of these statements is one of liberalism, which revolves around the instilling of (often false) hope in working people. The other is the complete opposite: a fascistic lament that boasts of fear as a weapon, declaring the whole rest of the world to be enemies who must be terrorized into submission. The very next day, this event was greeted by the largest protest in American history, attended by more than 3 million people (at least 1% of the population) nationwide, dwarfing the new president's "inaugural" turnout of just 600,000 or so. The new administration responded by declaring explicit war on the press and pledging to systematically supply the public with "alternative facts" in which to believe instead of the real ones. (Another victory for campus postmodernism. :rollseyes:)

Both amidst and since these developments, intimidated media commentators and Congressional "representatives" have somewhat desperately tried to keep up the facade of normality as a means of validating the new president's supposed election victory wherein he won by a "landslide" margin of negative two points, but the nervous deceit cannot be maintained any longer. In one week, the new president has declared the whole world his enemy in a thousand ways, from ordering the construction of a wall spanning the entire U.S.-Mexico border to completely banning refugees from entering the United States to reaffirming his support for a Russian takeover of Europe (something conspiratorially agreed upon by all of the European fascists) to the proclamation of "safe zones" (a.k.a. no-fly zones) in Syria that threaten war with Russia, to an executive pledge to launch a second nuclear arms race to threats to reopen CIA black sites across open that were closed by the previous administration and "take the oil" away from the Iraqi government (perhaps with intent of delivering that country's nationally owned oil business specifically to ExxonMobil, as the CEO of that company is set to become the new U.S. Secretary of State), to assuring Japan that the U.S. will guarantee their control over the South China Sea (which is called that for a reason) from any Chinese challenge (and such challenges are occurring), to initiating construction of oil pipelines on sovereign Native American land, to the launch of a cynical "investigation" into everyone who voted against him with the not-so-concealed aim of banning us from ever voting again in the future, to threatening declarations of martial law on all of America's major cities, and far beyond. He does all of this even while simultaneously running what can only be described as a system of organized bribery through the Trump Organization, and one which clearly and directly violates the emoluments clause of the United States Constitution, constituting not only the first ever for-profit American presidency, but also an impeachable offense. (Republicans control the government, however, so he won't be impeached.) There is nothing whatsoever normal about any of this. It all points in one direction: to the most nakedly, nauseatingly corrupt and tyrannical regime of capitalists, generals, and religious fanatics ever to assume power in American history (also the wealthiest in American history, by the way) that aims to abolish what's left of democracy, rule by terror, and start a new world war. That is what fascists are and what they do. That is how they rule. And that is where are headed.

Going along with all this, the Congressional Democrats have so far allowed the king's cabinet nominees to sail through to confirmation with little challenge. Only one sitting Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, has has the guts to vote against each of our new dictator's choices, as is definitely necessary. In their defense, the Democrats explain that they are voting to surround the new president with "sane people". To characterize the actual level of sanity that is actually involved in Mr. Trump's picks, the most agreed-upon "sane" nominee, Mattis, is a general (which should be problematic by itself, as that is not legal, being as it threatens civilian control over the military!) who goes by a nickname with the term "mad" in it. And that, they tell us, is the most sane person the new president has selected for his cabinet. Consequently, in the unlikely event that there ever is another genuinely contested election in this country, Gillibrand has just become the only sitting Senator with the credibility to earn my vote in the future. But this is not a time for worrying about future elections that probably won't happen. This is a time for us to resist!

To the above end, I would like to highlight that ongoing resistance exists. There are two overlapping things going on on the left right now that jointly have become known as the Resistance (capital R):

1) There are people all across the nation taking an ongoing grassroots approach to organizing against the Trump regime and agenda by pressuring their local members of Congress to vote against confirmations and against his executive orders and legislation (theoretically there will be some legislation in the future anyway and he won't just continue to rule by decree indefinitely). These people are utilizing something called the Indivisible guide, which was created by members of Congress as an explanation of the tactics that the Tea Party movement successfully employed under President Obama. This scene's actions are occurring on an ongoing, sustained basis, with protests around specific issues occurring daily and uniform actions occurring weekly, on every Tuesday in your local community. AND...

2) There are also people all across the nation who are taking the more direct approach of confronting the president directly through a series of massive, nationwide demonstrations occurring at irregular intervals. The first of these was the Women's March on Washington, which of course took place the day after Trump's inauguration. The overwhelming success of this action, which saw turnout exceeding the organizer's expectations by a factor of several times, has inspired a second, analogous day of national (and perhaps even international) protest slated for some time in March over a different set of issues called the March for Science on Washington. 260,000 people have already committed to attending it on Facebook. For comparison's sake, 225,000 had committed to attending the Women's March on Washington by the day it happened, whereupon actual turnout exceeded 3 million. In other words, it's possible that this even could be even bigger than the Women's March! Indeed, I would anticipate further, similar marches to be scheduled regularly from here on.

There is a large amount of overlap between both of these scenes and they tend to come together around the word "resist", which is why they are adopting the term Resistance as the semi-official name of the anti-Trump movement overall. I would urge everyone to research these two scenes -- the Indivisible scene and the Marches on Washington -- right now to see how you can get involved. The time is short and we can't count on the Democrats.
Suit up, Susie, we're sending you in to count enemy guns. Practice ducking on the flight.

[Ransom]

WRONG! The Rethugs have both houses of Congress, the Executive, and a pliant USSC!

What we have now is FASCISM, and will become apparent to all who have eyes to see, soon!

Hysterics obviously hasn't been outlawed yet. Dr.....you're in rare form, even for you. Your indigestion gives me joy.

You're going to be politically removed from relevance, was there something you wanted to say on the way out?

[IMPress Polly]

FindersKeepers wrote:
Btw, I've been meaning to thank you for the video game recommendation -- it's my niece's favorite! She simply loves it and she hasn't finished it yet because her mother limits the time she can play. :love5:

Excellent! Glad to hear that! :smiley: You're certainly welcome! I was just a liiiiitle worried that the semi-open-world format might not have been of interest, but I thought it was an improvement over the traditional Super Mario Bros. type format and I'm glad she apparently has found that to be the case as well!

Well anyway, I'll surely have more to say about video games in the near future over the Geek Out Zone, as I think we've entered into an interesting time for the medium.


The question is why they are being such sore losers. Why do they feel entitled to try and undermine the democratic process by which our leaders are elected?

I'm tired of these sanctimonious lectures from the right that pretend the Tea Party movement didn't exist when YOUR side was out of power. Why do we feel entitled to protest after (ostensibly) losing an election? Because (for now anyway) this is still a democracy! In a democracy, losing an election doesn't mean you lose all your rights, believe it or not! Here's reality: the Republicans currently control not just one, but ALL the levers of government. As you may recall from that 2009-10 period your side experienced, feeling totally disenfranchised is no fun, to which end you'd better get used to protests because they're unlikely to stop until somebody other than the Republicans controls at least one chamber of Congress or something. People are (for now) still allowed to disagree with the president in this country and to make our dissenting voices heard. Get over it.

And I am equally tired, for that matter, of people lecturing the left for impoliteness in protest. (Yeah I saw your recent telling Women's Marchers to "stay classy" in lieu of vagina/uterus themed costumes and whatnot, as just one of many examples.) Not so long ago, you were spending most of your time lamenting "PC culture", were you not? You wanted political correctness (i.e. politeness, civility, respect: the foundations of civilization) done away with, did you not? That was part of why you were attracted to a rude, crude, and vicious person like Donald Trump, as I recall, or so many rightists have told me. Well, with Trump's "election", you got your wish! You won! Civility is abolished! This is what it looks like. Not happy? Then maybe you shouldn't whine so much about politeness in the future! To speak for those Women's Marchers I mentioned a minute ago, many women feel demeaned, violated, and even somewhat traumatized by the fact that a man who has sexually assaulted at least a dozen women and openly boasted about it got rewarded for doing so with the most powerful office on Earth, and by his (and your) obsession with controlling our reproductive functions in that and a thousand other ways. Sexual violence is certainly personal to me, as I'm sure you know! We have the right to express that opinion. It's called the First Amendment. (That's right, there are constitution amendments besides just the second one!)

[Bethere]

Your lack of faith in our adherence to law is astounding. We do not have fascism. Your histrionics will be seen as silly in 4 years. We are a nation of laws.
Fascism is an economics term, not a legal or poli sci one. It's government controlled by corporations or as mussolini, the creator of fascism, called it, "the nexus of corporate and government power."

That is a very good description of what we have now. Goldman sachs helped crash our economy just a few years ago. Now they own multiple seats on the cabinet.

Corporations are people.

We have multiple generals on the cabinet. We just elected a charismatic populist leader who is obsessed with borders, nationalism, and major increases in defense spending. There is little political opposition.

These are frequently traits of fascist states.

Some might argue that this is what fascism looks like.

[NapRover]

You must have heard a different speech than I did. The one I heard featured positive changed we hoped for when we voted him in.

[patrickt]

FDR was considered to be a political brother to Mussolini who told Hitler than FDR was one of us. FDR didn't care for Hitler but he greatly admired Mussolini.



The 1930s saw a soft fascism rise in the US.



Trump may well follow in FDR's foot steps, but we must understand history if we want to understand what is going on in the present.
He admired Stalin and the Soviets more. Churchill didn't. That's why our communist president tossed the bust of Churchill out and compared himself to President Roosevelt.

[Green Arrow]

He admired Stalin and the Soviets more. Churchill didn't. That's why our communist president tossed the bust of Churchill out and compared himself to President Roosevelt.

The bust of Churchill never left the White House, it just got moved to the trophy room and the bust of an American hero, Martin Luther King Jr., took its place in the Oval.

[ripmeister]

Excellent! Glad to hear that! :smiley: You're certainly welcome! I was just a liiiiitle worried that the semi-open-world format might not have been of interest, but I thought it was an improvement over the traditional Super Mario Bros. type format and I'm glad she apparently has found that to be the case as well!

Well anyway, I'll surely have more to say about video games in the near future over the Geek Out Zone, as I think we've entered into an interesting time for the medium.



I'm tired of these sanctimonious lectures from the right that pretend the Tea Party movement didn't exist when YOUR side was out of power. Why do we feel entitled to protest after (ostensibly) losing an election? Because (for now anyway) this is still a democracy! In a democracy, losing an election doesn't mean you lose all your rights, believe it or not! Here's reality: the Republicans currently control not just one, but ALL the levers of government. As you may recall from that 2009-10 period your side experienced, feeling totally disenfranchised is no fun, to which end you'd better get used to protests because they're unlikely to stop until somebody other than the Republicans controls at least one chamber of Congress or something. People are (for now) still allowed to disagree with the president in this country and to make our dissenting voices heard. Get over it.

And I am equally tired, for that matter, of people lecturing the left for impoliteness in protest. (Yeah I saw your recent telling Women's Marchers to "stay classy" in lieu of vagina/uterus themed costumes and whatnot, as just one of many examples.) Not so long ago, you were spending most of your time lamenting "PC culture", were you not? You wanted political correctness (i.e. politeness, civility, respect: the foundations of civilization) done away with, did you not? That was part of why you were attracted to a rude, crude, and vicious person like Donald Trump, as I recall, or so many rightists have told me. Well, with Trump's "election", you got your wish! You won! Civility is abolished! This is what it looks like. Not happy? Then maybe you shouldn't whine so much about politeness in the future! To speak for those Women's Marchers I mentioned a minute ago, many women feel demeaned, violated, and even somewhat traumatized by the fact that a man who has sexually assaulted at least a dozen women and openly boasted about it got rewarded for doing so with the most powerful office on Earth, and by his (and your) obsession with controlling our reproductive functions in that and a thousand other ways. Sexual violence is certainly personal to me, as I'm sure you know! We have the right to express that opinion. It's called the First Amendment. (That's right, there are constitution amendments besides just the second one!)

Oh yea, the bully does his thing and then when someone stands up to it he whines about it. Polly is right on in her analysis. The Trumpians had a disdain for PC. Now they are reaping what they have sown. The most disgusting thing IMO in all of this is tools like Paul Ryan and Cruz who had the backbone to challenge Trump back in the campaign are now suddenly kissing his ass. What a bunch of gutless, dare I say pussies.

[Safety]

Yes, and if each of the three branches of government are operating, the US can't by definition be fascistic.

Jez, where was this calm and cool headedness when Obama was in office?

[Tahuyaman]

OK Pete. I quit.

http://www.greanvillepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/trump-Hitler-TIME-faux-1.jpg

Will liberals ever get tired of the Hitler meme? Every president they disagree with, they portray as Hitler. It's especially odd seeing that Hitler was a big government leftist just like them.

[Peter1469]

Jez, where was this calm and cool headedness when Obama was in office?

I never heard Obama described as fascist.

And again, not you Safety, someone above doesn't know the difference between corporatism and fascism.

[Peter1469]

Will liberals ever get tired of the Hitler meme? Every president they disagree with, they portray as Hitler. It's especially odd seeing that Hitler was a big government leftist just like them.

They don't know what fascism means. They use it to make themselves feel good or something.

[Safety]

I never heard Obama described as fascist.

And again, not you Safety, someone above doesn't know the difference between corporatism and fascism.

Although I quoted you, I was referring to some of our "esteemed" colleagues of the forum that treated everything teh O'bama did as the end of the Republic.

[Bethere]

Yes, and if each of the three branches of government are operating, the US can't by definition be fascistic.


Sounds good. Statists such as fascists are on the same team and our liberal statists in America.


I never heard Obama described as fascist. And again, not you Safety, someone above doesn't know the difference between corporatism and fascism.

Here's a quote from YOU implying Obama is a fascist.

And a fully functional Großdeutscher Reichstag gave hitler everything he wanted making Germany a fascist state.

[hanger4]

Although I quoted you, I was referring to some of our "esteemed" colleagues of the forum that treated everything teh O'bama did as the end of the Republic.

There are definitely plenty of those on both sides on all political forums.

[Mister D]

Oh, for the love of God...would these fucking imbeciles look up the definition of corporatism.

[Tahuyaman]

Here's a quote from YOU implying Obama is a fascist.

And a fully functional Großdeutscher Reichstag gave hitler everything he wanted making Germany a fascist state.


Evidently you have reading comprehension issues. None of those comments suggested that he considered Obama a fascist.

[rcfieldz]

Trump is trying to protect Americans and America while making America great again. Seems the sheeple should be more concerned with the enemies of America, who have been around alot longer and the corrupt nations that just don't give a damn or can't depose their evil leaders.

[Green Arrow]

Will liberals ever get tired of the Hitler meme? Every president they disagree with, they portray as Hitler. It's especially odd seeing that Hitler was a big government leftist just like them.

Yes, because no conservative called Hillary "Hitlery" and there were no memes of Obama as Hitler.

[rcfieldz]

That's a strong argument...

[Bethere]

Oh, for the love of God...would these $#@!ing imbeciles look up the definition of corporatism.

17081

[Mister D]

17081
Now look up what Mussolini meant by "corporation", genius.

[Bethere]

Now look up what Mussolini meant by "corporation", genius.

What part of fascism = corporatism eludes your computer mind?

[Mister D]

What part of fascism = corporatism eludes your computer mind?
:facepalm:

Dayton, "corporatism" doesn't mean what you think it means. Read. It helps.

[Bethere]

:facepalm:

Dayton, "corporatism" doesn't mean what you think it means. Read. It helps.

Corporatism according to Mussolini, the creator of fascism, is fascism.

This is what you get for carrying water for Pete--who left you holding the empty bucket long ago.

[Mister D]

Corporatism according to Mussolini, the creator of fascism, is fascism.

This is what you get for carrying water for Pete--who left you holding the bucket long ago.

That's nice but you don't understand what corporatism means. lol Imbeciles...

[Tahuyaman]

Yes, because no conservative called Hillary "Hitlery" and there were no memes of Obama as Hitler.

So, you want to get even with em. Got it.

[Ethereal]

...to reaffirming his support for a Russian takeover of Europe (something conspiratorially agreed upon by all of the European fascists)...

I was sort of with you until you threw in this outlandish whopper.

You are just regurgitating neocon and neoliberal propaganda that has zero basis in reality.

You realize that this Russo-phobic narrative is the reanimated corpse of McCarthyite hysteria, warmed over by the partisan delusions of Democrats who simply cannot accept the fact that their corrupt and unlikable candidate lost the election?

I mean, you present yourself as a progressive right? Yet you are disseminating an obvious falsehood cooked up in imperialist think-tanks. What gives? Do you hate Trump so much that you're willing to poison US-Russian relations even further? To what end? Please, I'm dying to know how you would deal with the imaginary threat of a Russian "takeover" of Europe.

[Bethere]

I was sort of with you until you threw in this outlandish whopper.

You are just regurgitating neocon and neoliberal propaganda that has zero basis in reality.

You realize that this Russo-phobic narrative is the reanimated corpse of McCarthyite hysteria, warmed over by the partisan delusions of Democrats who simply cannot accept the fact that their corrupt and unlikable candidate lost the election?

I mean, you present yourself as a progressive right? Yet you are disseminating an obvious falsehood cooked up in imperialist think-tanks. What gives? Do you hate Trump so much that you're willing to poison US-Russian relations even further? To what end? Please, I'm dying to know how you would deal with the imaginary threat of a Russian "takeover" of Europe.

We see Russia no differently than we did before. Instead, we are concerned about our president's political teamwork with Russia and view it with SERIOUS concern, skepticism.

[Ethereal]

Individuals within our government can and do have fascist tendencies, particularly Hair Furor.
Oh, so NOW you're skeptical of the government and its fascist tendencies. How very interesting.

[Ethereal]

We see Russia no differently than we did before. Instead, we are concerned about our president's political teamwork with Russia and view it with SERIOUS concern, skepticism.
You're just throwing a temper tantrum because you lost the election; and you've clung to a piece of imperialist propaganda out of convenience and desperation.

[Ethereal]

Corporatism according to Mussolini, the creator of fascism, is fascism.

This is what you get for carrying water for Pete--who left you holding the empty bucket long ago.

This guy can't even read properly, yet he acts like he's the smartest person around.

[Crepitus]

Will liberals ever get tired of the Hitler meme? Every president they disagree with, they portray as Hitler. It's especially odd seeing that Hitler was a big government leftist just like them.

Hitler was an authoritarian ultra right wing fascist.

[Ethereal]

FDR bans the private ownership of gold via an executive order + conscripts Americans into a war + throws over a 100K Japanese-Americans into "internment" camps + sanctions the indiscriminate bombing of millions of civilians + turns away Jewish refugees fleeing the Holocaust = Populist Hero

Trump bans some foreign Muslims from entering the country = Evil Fascist Dicatator

[Ethereal]

Hitler was an authoritarian ultra right wing fascist.
And, yet, his party was called the National Socialist Party.

[Crepitus]

Oh, so NOW you're skeptical of the government and its fascist tendencies. How very interesting.

Read what I wrote, not what you wish I had.

[Mister D]

This guy can't even read properly, yet he acts like he's the smartest person around.

In his defense, greater minds than his have adopted this confused terminology.

[Ethereal]

Read what I wrote, not what you wish I had.
You think that by throwing "individuals" in there that it somehow changes the underlying sentiment you're expressing, which is that you are now fearful of the US government's potential for fascism? I mean, you've already admitted that you believe Trump to be a Russian agent who has designs on American democracy. So why not just admit that you think the US government is now headed up by fascist elements who are beholden to a hostile foreign power?

[Tahuyaman]

Hitler was an authoritarian ultra right wing fascist.

No, he was a big government socialist. Live with it.

when you can't even admit the mistakes of liberalism, you are destined to repeat them.

[MisterVeritis]

Hitler was an authoritarian ultra right wing fascist.
That is what liberals tell us. Hitler was a national socialist. He was a leftist. Your team.

[Green Arrow]

So, you want to get even with em. Got it.

I didn't say that. To quote Rhett Butler, quite frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. I'm just pointing out lies and hypocrisy.

[Crepitus]

And, yet, his party was called the National Socialist Party.


The basis of the conflation of nazism and socialism is the term "National Socialism," a self description of the Nazis. "National Socialism" includes the word "socialism", but it is just a word. Hitler and the Nazis outlawed socialism, and executed socialists and communists en masse, even before they started rounding up Jews. In 1933, the Dachau concentration camp held socialists and leftists exclusively. The Nazis arrested more than 11,000 Germans for "illegal socialist activity" in 1936.


Nazism is a right wing ideology. It is violently racist, anti-socialist, and it targets the political left for extermination. This is underscored by Albert Einstein's embrace of socialism throughout his life -- and in particular in his 1949 essay, Why Socialism? -- along with the fact that Einstein's name was included on a nazi death list with a bounty of $50,000 offered for his assassination. If nazism really is socialism, why would Einstein have identified himself as a socialist a scant four years after WWII?

The current right wing conflation of nazism and the left is sleazy. A more informed population would view this as completely idiotic, but unfortunately this propaganda is becoming increasingly effective.




http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/NazismSocialism.html

Tahuyaman, @Mr Veritus

[Crepitus]

You think that by throwing "individuals" in there that it somehow changes the underlying sentiment you're expressing, which is that you are now fearful of the US government's potential for fascism? I mean, you've already admitted that you believe Trump to be a Russian agent who has designs on American democracy. So why not just admit that you think the US government is now headed up by fascist elements who are beholden to a hostile foreign power?

Actually yes, the word individuals changes it.

[Mister D]

You think that by throwing "individuals" in there that it somehow changes the underlying sentiment you're expressing, which is that you are now fearful of the US government's potential for fascism? I mean, you've already admitted that you believe Trump to be a Russian agent who has designs on American democracy. So why not just admit that you think the US government is now headed up by fascist elements who are beholden to a hostile foreign power?

Good God this shit gets confused. We have a fascist clique running the most powerful country in the world but they are somehow beholden to a second rate power like Russia. Makes perfect sense...

[Tahuyaman]

?..I'm just pointing out lies and hypocrisy.. Except your own.

[Mister D]

http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/NazismSocialism.html

@Tahuyaman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1365), @Mr Veritus
Such a random source. lol

[Tahuyaman]

http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/NazismSocialism.html

@Tahuyaman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1365), @Mr Veritus

This is why leftists are destined to repeat their mistakes.

[Mister D]

This is why leftists are destined to repeat their mistakes.


Don't let the .edu fool you. David Klein is a mathematician who, apparently, has an interest in left wing causes.

[Crepitus]

Such a random source. lol

California state northridge. So?

[Crepitus]

Cool. Attack the source when you can't refute the content.

[Mister D]

Cool. Attack the source when you can't refute the content.
The content is no more worth reading or credible than your own posts. We both know you grabbed the first "source" that you saw and posted it as an "expert" analysis. Turns out it was just some kook whose specialty is math not history or political science.

[Tahuyaman]

Don't let the .edu fool you. David Klein is a mathematician who, apparently, has an interest in left wing causes.

Duh......

[Mister D]

Duh......
OK

[Tahuyaman]

OKin case you couldn't tell, I agreed with you.

[Mister D]

in case you couldn't tell, I agreed with you.

I couldn't tell. That was obvious. I guess we're clear now.

[Mister D]

Anyway, who is more like Hitler is the sort of discussion matter one can expect at tPF.

[Green Arrow]

And, yet, his party was called the National Socialist Party.

No offense, but by that logic, North Korea is a people's republic. Hitler's chief opposition in the Reichstag was the Social Democrats, the actual socialists. In fact, Hitler regularly leaned on the advice of pro-business advisors.

[Green Arrow]

Hitler was an authoritarian ultra right wing fascist.
He wasn't exactly that, either.

[Safety]

http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/NazismSocialism.html

Tahuyaman, @Mr Veritus

Expect the source to be castigated now. Oops, too late.

If you don't want your source questioned by clowns, you should only post negative things about minorities, then it will be nothing but crickets from them.

[Green Arrow]

. Except your own.

Feel free to point to such an example.

[Ethereal]

http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/NazismSocialism.html

@Tahuyaman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1365), @Mr Veritus
The Nazis did not like OTHER socialists, it's true. But that does not change the fact that the Nazis were socialists themselves. The difference between national socialism and other competing forms of socialism (you agree there is more than one kind of socialism, right?) was the former's emphasis on nationalism and Aryan identity, whereas the latter forms of socialism tended to be more internationalist and cosmopolitan in their outlook.

[Ethereal]

Actually yes, the word individuals changes it.
In what way?

[Mister D]

Expect the source to be castigated now. Oops, too late.

If you don't want your source questioned by clowns, you should only post negative things about minorities, then it will be nothing but crickets from them.

Of what value is this source? Is this David Klein a historian? What exactly is his expertise? Save yourself the embarrassment...oops too late. lol

[Ethereal]

No offense, but by that logic, North Korea is a people's republic. Hitler's chief opposition in the Reichstag was the Social Democrats, the actual socialists. In fact, Hitler regularly leaned on the advice of pro-business advisors.
I don't base my analysis purely on the name, though, but on the Nazi's general conformity to socialist economics which promotes centralization of the means of production with the state. You're right that the Nazis persecuted other socialists, but that was largely over differences in the scope and identity of the socialism they practiced and not necessarily because of a fundamental disagreement over socializing wealth via the state.

[Mister D]

The Nazis did not like OTHER socialists, it's true. But that does not change the fact that the Nazis were socialists themselves. The difference between national socialism and other competing forms of socialism (you agree there is more than one kind of socialism, right?) was the former's emphasis on nationalism and Aryan identity, whereas the latter forms of socialism tended to be more internationalist and cosmopolitan in their outlook.
Here I would make a distinction between Nazism and Hitler's own personal agenda. The revolutionary and socialist character of Nazism is undeniable but it's also clear that Hitler subordinated everything to his brand of racist imperialism.

[Peter1469]

It does no such thing. I merely stay statists are related.


Here's a quote from YOU implying Obama is a fascist.

And a fully functional Großdeutscher Reichstag gave hitler everything he wanted making Germany a fascist state.

[Safety]

Of what value is this source? Is this David Klein a historian? What exactly is his expertise? Save yourself the embarrassment...oops too late. lol

What does it matter, we have his work and his name and what do we have to take you on your word? Are you a historian? What are your credentials?

Dismissed.

[Mister D]

What does it matter, we have his work and his name and what do we have to take you on your word? Are you a historian? What are your credentials?

Dismissed.
:laugh: When someone cites my work here you might have a point. Stop embarrassing yourself.

[Ethereal]

Here I would make a distinction between Nazism and Hitler's own personal agenda. The revolutionary and socialist character of Nazism is undeniable but it's also clear that Hitler subordinated everything to his brand of racist imperialism.

I agree, but it's hard to separate the socialist character of Nazism from Hitler's fixation on Aryan identity since he saw socialism as an economic means of promoting Aryan supremacy and well-being. That isn't to imply that socialism and Aryan identity are somehow inextricable, but in that particular context they were linked. We could say the same thing about capitalism in early America. Many of the founders who supported the US Constitution, for example, were heavily invested in white supremacy, yet they would have also seen capitalism as a means of promoting and ensuring it via the privatization of land and other forms of capital.

[Mister D]

I agree, but it's hard to separate the socialist character of Nazism with Hitler's fixation on Aryan identity since he saw socialism as an economic means of promoting Aryan supremacy and well-being. That isn't to imply that socialism and Aryan identity are somehow inextricable, but in that particular context they were linked. We could say the same thing about capitalism in early America. Many of the founders who supported the US Constitution, for example, were heavily invested in white supremacy, yet they would have also seen capitalism as a means of promoting and ensuring it via the privatization of land and other forms of capital.

Agreed. You can't make any neat distinctions. The two were entangled but it is true that the primary motivation behind the "Night of the Long Knives" was the fear that elements of the Nazi Party were pushing too hard for a social revolution that threatened to seriously delay or even jeopardize Hitler's war aims. His focus was on rearmament and he thought the sort of politics espoused by the Strasser brothers among others presented an unacceptable diversion.

[Safety]

:laugh: When someone cites my work here you might have a point. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Exactly. Until that time, stay in the corner sulking.

[Mister D]

Exactly. Until that time, stay in the corner sulking.

lol

Did you have anything to add on the topic, Safety?

[Crepitus]

He wasn't exactly that, either.

Ok, but he was a lot closer to that than to a liberal.

[Crepitus]

Expect the source to be castigated now. Oops, too late.

If you don't want your source questioned by clowns, you should only post negative things about minorities, then it will be nothing but crickets from them.

Yup.

[Green Arrow]

Ok, but he was a lot closer to that than to a liberal.

I don't agree. Hitler was whatever he thought best at the time to accomplish his racial empire.

[Crepitus]

In what way?

There is a difference between a few individuals within an organization acting badly, and the whole organization being bad.

[Crepitus]

I don't agree. Hitler was whatever he thought best at the time to accomplish his racial empire.
I can even agree with that, but that isn't a liberal ideology.

[Hal Jordan]

So, you want to get even with em. Got it.

That might make sense if he was one of the ones doing it. He's not, and said in this thread that he doesn't agree with it.

[Ethereal]

There is a difference between a few individuals within an organization acting badly, and the whole organization being bad.
When those "few individuals" are in positions to direct the whole, it makes little meaningful difference.

[Crepitus]

When those "few individuals" are in positions to direct the whole, it makes little meaningful difference.

You do have a point, but that wasn't the case until recently, which kinda undermines the point you were trying to make originally.

[Ethereal]

...but that wasn't the case until recently...

Only if you ignore the litany of horrible things the US government did before Donald Trump became the President.

[Crepitus]

Only if you ignore the litany of horrible things the US government did before Donald Trump became the President.

I'm not ignoring anything but it seems to me that most of the "terrible things" didn't start until then. Yes, I know the Obama administration was far from perfect but IMHO things just got a lot worse.

[Ethereal]

I'm not ignoring anything but it seems to me that most of the "terrible things" didn't start until then. Yes, I know the Obama administration was far from perfect but IMHO things just got a lot worse.

You're ignoring a great many things, as it turns out. The war on drugs; mass surveillance; the war in Iraq; the war in Vietnam; police militarization; torture; rendition programs; dozens of CIA coups; and on and on and on.

[Crepitus]

You're ignoring a great many things, as it turns out. The war on drugs; mass surveillance; the war in Iraq; the war in Vietnam; police militarization; torture; rendition programs; dozens of CIA coups; and on and on and on.

I get it E, you hate the government, to you almost everything they do is bad, and they are all evil no matter who is in charge.

Good night Sir.

[Bethere]

You're ignoring a great many things, as it turns out. The war on drugs; mass surveillance; the war in Iraq; the war in Vietnam; police militarization; torture; rendition programs; dozens of CIA coups; and on and on and on.

The war on drugs? Reagan.
mass surveillance? Bush.
iraq? Bush.
Vietnam? LBJ, Nixon.
Police militarization? Bush.
Torture? Bush.
Rendition? Bush.
CIA coups? Everyone.

You have a convoluted style of thinking.

[Ethereal]

I get it E, you hate the government, to you almost everything they do is bad, and they are all evil no matter who is in charge.

I never said they were all evil. In case you forgot, I was in the government for four years. Most of the people I served with were not evil people. But as I noted earlier, all it takes is a few individuals in key positions to change the complexion of an entire government. That's how a bunch of working and middle class Americans end up invading and occupying and subsequently destroying an entire country based on false premises and exaggerated hysteria.

In any case, you're essentially no different now that Trump has become the president. You view the US government with same kind of suspicion and distrust that I do. In fact, you might even be more extreme given your belief that Trump is actually an agent of Russia. That's about as radical as believing that 9/11 was an inside job.

[Crepitus]

I never said they were all evil. In case you forgot, I was in the government for four years. Most of the people I served with were not evil people. But as I noted earlier, all it takes is a few individuals in key positions to change the complexion of an entire government. That's how a bunch of working and middle class Americans end up invading and occupying and subsequently destroying an entire country based on false premises and exaggerated hysteria.

In any case, you're essentially no different now that Trump has become the president. You view the US government with same kind of suspicion and distrust that I do. In fact, you might even be more extreme given your belief that Trump is actually an agent of Russia. That's about as radical as believing that 9/11 was an inside job.

I did not intend to include the men a women in our armed forces in that statement, my apologies.

I do not believe the government is evil, or bad, or whatever you choose to call it. Only that trump is. Normally I wouldn't even be to excited about that, but with the Russian involvement, both houses in his hands, and his planned stacking of the supreme court I believe all the things that would usually serve as checks on such a person have been nullified. That worries me.

[Ethereal]

The war on drugs? Reagan.

Actually, the "war on drugs" began with Nixon. However, drug prohibition dates back to the early 1900's.


mass surveillance? Bush.

Mostly true, although there were some historical precursors dating back to as early as WWI. Wartime monitoring and censorship are as American as apple pie.


iraq? Bush.

No argument there.


Vietnam? LBJ, Nixon.

Again, no argument there. But I would add that JFK also played a role in the genesis of the Vietnam war. However, he started having second thoughts and even began making plans to reverse course. Coincidentally, he was assassinated under mysterious circumstances.


Police militarization? Bush.

I would argue that police militarization started with Nixon's "war on drugs" and grew from there. We see a substantial increase in the use of SWAT teams and paramilitary raids after it began.


Torture? Bush.

CIA torture programs predate Bush by decades, but Bush was certainly guilty of continuing them.


Rendition? Bush.

Again, those kinds of practices predate Bush by decades, but he was definitely guilty of using them.


CIA coups? Everyone.

Indeed. The US government thinks it owns the world and can do whatever it wants to whoever it wants.


You have a convoluted style of thinking.

How so?

[Ethereal]

I did not intend to include the men a women in our armed forces in that statement, my apologies.

There is nothing to apologize for. My only point is that I never said all the government was evil. I said that evil individuals in positions of power can direct the whole towards evil ends. And that is evinced by decades of US government policies. Just look at Iraq or Vietnam, for example. Most of the people who fought in those wars were not evil, yet they were undoubtedly participating in an evil campaign.


I do not believe the government is evil, or bad, or whatever you choose to call it. Only that trump is. Normally I wouldn't even be to excited about that, but with the Russian involvement, both houses in his hands, and his planned stacking of the supreme court I believe all the things that would usually serve as checks on such a person have been nullified. That worries me.

Like I keep saying, all it takes is for a few individuals in key positions to direct an otherwise ethical government towards evil ends. And that has happened many, many times in our history. It's not a "conspiracy theory".

[Crepitus]

There is nothing to apologize for. My only point is that I never said all the government was evil. I said that evil individuals in positions of power can direct the whole towards evil ends. And that is evinced by decades of US government policies. Just look at Iraq or Vietnam, for example. Most of the people who fought in those wars were not evil, yet they were undoubtedly participating in an evil campaign.



Like I keep saying, all it takes is for a few individuals in key positions to direct an otherwise ethical government towards evil ends. And that has happened many, many times in our history. It's not a "conspiracy theory".

OK, lets just say that I don't believe it has happened as often as you do, but I think that's where we are headed at the moment.

[valley ranch]

Listen fellows and the soft and lovely ladies. We now have a president who is doing what he thinks is needed, and many, many Americans, who voted for and elected him to do just that.

We've had a long run of stupid, ill meaning, is at least one case, governmental mismanagement and business as we want to, without listening to the American Peoples input, the taking and quoting of POLLS that didn't include a great percentage of America, Polls are nothing when they ask just those who agree without reason.
Let our President Donald Trump do his job, he's not shown himself to be what the creepiest and loudest Jackarses decide.

Let our president do what he promised. Ya, you can rag on with the confirmed rats or just watch as loyal Americans. There is no need to go outside yourself for justification or urging against the president or those who voted for him. Watch things come together for the betterment of this fine country of ours.

[Ethereal]

OK, lets just say that I don't believe it has happened as often as you do, but I think that's where we are headed at the moment.
US history is literally overflowing with examples of US government corruption, deceit, and criminality. US government policies in Vietnam and Iraq alone have probably caused the deaths of somewhere around five or six million people, to say nothing of the trillions of tax dollars that were flushed down the toilet.

[Hal Jordan]

What does it matter, we have his work and his name and what do we have to take you on your word? Are you a historian? What are your credentials?

Dismissed.

You're right. You can look at his credentials. I'll help.

http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/

This isn't in his area of expertise, or even in his interests.

[Safety]

You're right. You can look at his credentials. I'll help.

http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/

This isn't in his area of expertise, or even in his interests.

Um, thanks? It was close to the point I was making, somewhat.

[Tahuyaman]

That might make sense if he was one of the ones doing it. He's not, and said in this thread that he doesn't agree with it.

the partisan types often say a lot of dishonest things.

[Hal Jordan]

the partisan types often say a lot of dishonest things.
What does that have to do with anything?

[Green Arrow]

What does that have to do with anything?

Nothing, he just likes to read his own typing.

[Mister D]

You're right. You can look at his credentials. I'll help.

http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/

This isn't in his area of expertise, or even in his interests.
Safety is now on record suggesting that if it's on the Internet it's credible. lol

[Cannons Front]

Again, no argument there. But I would add that JFK also played a role in the genesis of the Vietnam war. However, he started having second thoughts and even began making plans to reverse course.

The road to the Vietnam war started with Truman; In September 1950, President Truman sent the Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) to assist the French. The President claimed they were not sent as combat troops, but to supervise the use of $10 million worth of equipment to support the French in their effort to fight the Viet Minh forces. By 1953, aid increased dramatically to $350 million to replace old military equipment owned by the French. Our aid and forces continued to grow from there. So Really you have Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ and Nixon on the hook. Nixon does get credit for the first true effort to reduce out forces, it is reported that JFK wanted us out but was killed before making it happen.

[donttread]

Flanked by ten military officers (a highly irregular development, for those who don't know), America's first fascist president delivered a diatribe of threats, lies, and intimidations that passed for an inaugural address a week ago Friday, the character of which can be aptly summed up in a contrast of key lines vis-a-vis Franklin Roosevelt's. On his inauguration day, Roosevelt famously proclaimed amidst the Great Depression that the American people had "nothing to fear but fear itself." Trump, by contrast, proclaimed that "We fear the world, but the whole world must be made to fear us." The former of these statements is one of liberalism, which revolves around the instilling of (often false) hope in working people. The other is the complete opposite: a fascistic lament that boasts of fear as a weapon, declaring the whole rest of the world to be enemies who must be terrorized into submission. The very next day, this event was greeted by the largest protest in American history, attended by more than 3 million people (at least 1% of the population) nationwide, dwarfing the new president's "inaugural" turnout of just 600,000 or so. The new administration responded by declaring explicit war on the press and pledging to systematically supply the public with "alternative facts" in which to believe instead of the real ones. (Another victory for campus postmodernism. :rollseyes:)

Both amidst and since these developments, intimidated media commentators and Congressional "representatives" have somewhat desperately tried to keep up the facade of normality as a means of validating the new president's supposed election victory wherein he won by a "landslide" margin of negative two points, but the nervous deceit cannot be maintained any longer. In one week, the new president has declared the whole world his enemy in a thousand ways, from ordering the construction of a wall spanning the entire U.S.-Mexico border to completely banning refugees from entering the United States to reaffirming his support for a Russian takeover of Europe (something conspiratorially agreed upon by all of the European fascists) to the proclamation of "safe zones" (a.k.a. no-fly zones) in Syria that threaten war with Russia, to an executive pledge to launch a second nuclear arms race to threats to reopen CIA black sites across open that were closed by the previous administration and "take the oil" away from the Iraqi government (perhaps with intent of delivering that country's nationally owned oil business specifically to ExxonMobil, as the CEO of that company is set to become the new U.S. Secretary of State), to assuring Japan that the U.S. will guarantee their control over the South China Sea (which is called that for a reason) from any Chinese challenge (and such challenges are occurring), to initiating construction of oil pipelines on sovereign Native American land, to the launch of a cynical "investigation" into everyone who voted against him with the not-so-concealed aim of banning us from ever voting again in the future, to threatening declarations of martial law on all of America's major cities, and far beyond. He does all of this even while simultaneously running what can only be described as a system of organized bribery through the Trump Organization, and one which clearly and directly violates the emoluments clause of the United States Constitution, constituting not only the first ever for-profit American presidency, but also an impeachable offense. (Republicans control the government, however, so he won't be impeached.) There is nothing whatsoever normal about any of this. It all points in one direction: to the most nakedly, nauseatingly corrupt and tyrannical regime of capitalists, generals, and religious fanatics ever to assume power in American history (also the wealthiest in American history, by the way) that aims to abolish what's left of democracy, rule by terror, and start a new world war. That is what fascists are and what they do. That is how they rule. And that is where are headed.

Going along with all this, the Congressional Democrats have so far allowed the king's cabinet nominees to sail through to confirmation with little challenge. Only one sitting Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, has has the guts to vote against each of our new dictator's choices, as is definitely necessary. In their defense, the Democrats explain that they are voting to surround the new president with "sane people". To characterize the actual level of sanity that is actually involved in Mr. Trump's picks, the most agreed-upon "sane" nominee, Mattis, is a general (which should be problematic by itself, as that is not legal, being as it threatens civilian control over the military!) who goes by a nickname with the term "mad" in it. And that, they tell us, is the most sane person the new president has selected for his cabinet. Consequently, in the unlikely event that there ever is another genuinely contested election in this country, Gillibrand has just become the only sitting Senator with the credibility to earn my vote in the future. But this is not a time for worrying about future elections that probably won't happen. This is a time for us to resist!

To the above end, I would like to highlight that ongoing resistance exists. There are two overlapping things going on on the left right now that jointly have become known as the Resistance (capital R):

1) There are people all across the nation taking an ongoing grassroots approach to organizing against the Trump regime and agenda by pressuring their local members of Congress to vote against confirmations and against his executive orders and legislation (theoretically there will be some legislation in the future anyway and he won't just continue to rule by decree indefinitely). These people are utilizing something called the Indivisible guide, which was created by members of Congress as an explanation of the tactics that the Tea Party movement successfully employed under President Obama. This scene's actions are occurring on an ongoing, sustained basis, with protests around specific issues occurring daily and uniform actions occurring weekly, on every Tuesday in your local community. AND...

2) There are also people all across the nation who are taking the more direct approach of confronting the president directly through a series of massive, nationwide demonstrations occurring at irregular intervals. The first of these was the Women's March on Washington, which of course took place the day after Trump's inauguration. The overwhelming success of this action, which saw turnout exceeding the organizer's expectations by a factor of several times, has inspired a second, analogous day of national (and perhaps even international) protest slated for some time in March over a different set of issues called the March for Science on Washington. 260,000 people have already committed to attending it on Facebook. For comparison's sake, 225,000 had committed to attending the Women's March on Washington by the day it happened, whereupon actual turnout exceeded 3 million. In other words, it's possible that this even could be even bigger than the Women's March! Indeed, I would anticipate further, similar marches to be scheduled regularly from here on.

There is a large amount of overlap between both of these scenes and they tend to come together around the word "resist", which is why they are adopting the term Resistance as the semi-official name of the anti-Trump movement overall. I would urge everyone to research these two scenes -- the Indivisible scene and the Marches on Washington -- right now to see how you can get involved. The time is short and we can't count on the Democrats.

Come on now Polly, your a smart woman. You know that the seeds of WW 3 have been sown since the end of WW 2 . Some wished to turn on allied Russia immediately, we had the over blown cold war and even duked it out in other people's back yards. Then came our imperialistic, interventioist, murderous, control freak, megacorp appeasing reign of wars and coups and political shit stick stirring and drone bombing villiages in allied territory, in the ME. We 've been itching for WW 3 since 1945 . But those damn nukes make direct invasion of a nuclear nation suicide, so until we find our way around that we have to settle for just bullying weaker countries into submission. There is a cost however, look how many enemies we have made . It could basically be most of Europe, America and Austrailia against the world. I suppose we could count Canada but they don't exactly strike fear into the hearts of armies. Japan and S. Korea might help but we have restricted their military capabilities so , limited help.
Some reading this are proving that you have not learned the lesson by saying "We could take em all" . Maybe , but if goes nuclear what's left to take? Even if it doesn't if there is one lesson we have learned in the last few decades it is that defeating an army and controling their country are two completly different things.
A so called Super Power should be able to produce it's own daily staple needs , therefore I for one do not consider America a true superpower although our oil production may take us there and alternate energy certainly would. But alas , alternate energy will never reach it's potenial until they figure out to feed megacorps , our true masters, from it.