The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are obviously different gradations of dictatorship Marcos, where leaders enter office in relatively benign circumstances then gradually drift into authoritarianism over time, and once they do, they've violated enough rules, norms, and laws to where they are incentivized to continue cracking down to prevent all dissent in order to avoid being overthrown and brought to justice. Trump is obviously at the very beginning of this process, and if left unchecked, will continue down a clear authoritarian path.
that i understand, but as i said, i don't think he can turn into that because you have very strong institutions that will prevent something like that happen

of course you should control the president -trump or whomever- to move in that direction, that`s why having a strong press, judiciary and congress is so important and that's why i dont think he can move that way

and as i said before, he is a bully, but far from the dictatorships i've seen, and it really makes the word "dictatorship" loose the maligne meaning it has
 
that i understand, but as i said, i don't think he can turn into that because you have very strong institutions that will prevent something like that happen

of course you should control the president -trump or whomever- to move in that direction, that`s why having a strong press, judiciary and congress is so important and that's why i dont think he can move that way

and as i said before, he is a bully, but far from the dictatorships i've seen, and it really makes the word "dictatorship" loose the maligne meaning it has
I think you overestimate the strength of the US's institutions. Barr (Attorney-General) is already showing that he can control federal law enforcement in ways nobody considered possible. Other Trump secretaries have put together a federal police force that they can now deploy at will. Congress can't hold anyone from the government accountable because they can simply not show up or invoke executive privilege and ignore questions. Trump is already significantly meddling with the elections. And if Trump gets his Supreme Court nominee through, the court will be conservative for a very long time, thus stacking the judiciary that way as well.

I agree it's not a dictatorship, and indeed nowhere near one right now, but Trump and his cronies are taking the US much further in that direction that anyone imagined possible. So in that sense, I think we are seeing a gradual descent towards a dictatorship, which will continue if Trump gets another term. I would agree that there would probably have to be a violent event to establish an actual dictatorship, but I don't think that's impossible either. After 9/11, you could see that the US could spring into ugly patriotism very quickly (radio stations were voluntarily banning songs!). If Trump gets another term, moves things along a bit more, and then gets the right occasion or pretext - I wouldn't exclude anything.

still, no racist if it isnt hate against a race
I think you have a very narrow definition of 'racist'. It sounds like you would only count instances where someone explicitly says 'I do this because I hate Black people'. That's not how it works. Everyone knows you can't be openly racist anymore, so they use coded language to say the same kind of thing. So when Trump abolishes a social housing law that aims to increase social diversity in neighbourhoods, and he promotes this move by saying that he is 'protecting people in the suburbs from an invasion by the poor', he is really saying 'I'm protecting Whites from having to live alongside Blacks'. That probably sounds exaggerated or simply wrong to you, but don't take it from me, take it from a GOP strategist explaining this exact mechanism:

Lee Atwater in 1981 said:
You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' -- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me -- because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger.'
(Lee Atwater was an important person in the GOP in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. See here for a full discussion of this quote.)

I'm talking the equality of outcome type of socialism. What Norway has (and a few other northern European countries, including my own) is capitalism with a solid social welfare system. It's the best we have but it's only possible if the income side of the equation is taken care of, i.e. an economy that produces a surplus. An oil rich nation like Norway is in a very good place compared to most of the world. On top of that they are not part of the EU or the Euro - which panned out very well for you guys. That same system would not work in today's Greece, Spain or Italy.
I have no idea where you are coming from with any of this. Norway does not at all stand alone in its social welfare system: you get pretty much the exact same stuff in Sweden, Denmark, and Finland, all of which are in the EU, and none of which have huge natural resources. Finland also has the Euro. Similar systems (but somewhat less developed) are in place in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and Austria, all of which are in the EU and have the Euro, and Canada (for a completely different context). Yes, Greece, Italy, and Spain would need some reforms to establish the full social welfare system, but what would be the argument why it simply 'would not work', as you claim? And same for the US, of course, to bring this back on topic.
The guy follows Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson and The O’Reilly Factor on Facebook :lol: I‘d just ignore.
@Marcosdeto - not to call you out, but I mentioned previously that I feel your views of the US Democratic party might come from your choice of news sources. If this here is where you get your news from, then I would again recommend adding something non-right-wing to the mix. This stuff is very blinkered. (Not saying other stuff isn't, but if all your sources have the exact same blinkers, then obviously you're world view is going to be pretty skewed.)

Trump has been talking about having 'good genes' since forever btw. I don't think he is necessarily an eugenicist, I think it's just his way of expressing stuff like 'coming from a good family'.
 
I think you overestimate the strength of the US's institutions. Barr (Attorney-General) is already showing that he can control federal law enforcement in ways nobody considered possible. Other Trump secretaries have put together a federal police force that they can now deploy at will. Congress can't hold anyone from the government accountable because they can simply not show up or invoke executive privilege and ignore questions. Trump is already significantly meddling with the elections. And if Trump gets his Supreme Court nominee through, the court will be conservative for a very long time, thus stacking the judiciary that way as well.

I agree it's not a dictatorship, and indeed nowhere near one right now, but Trump and his cronies are taking the US much further in that direction that anyone imagined possible. So in that sense, I think we are seeing a gradual descent towards a dictatorship, which will continue if Trump gets another term. I would agree that there would probably have to be a violent event to establish an actual dictatorship, but I don't think that's impossible either. After 9/11, you could see that the US could spring into ugly patriotism very quickly (radio stations were voluntarily banning songs!). If Trump gets another term, moves things along a bit more, and then gets the right occasion or pretext - I wouldn't exclude anything.


I think you have a very narrow definition of 'racist'. It sounds like you would only count instances where someone explicitly says 'I do this because I hate Black people'. That's not how it works. Everyone knows you can't be openly racist anymore, so they use coded language to say the same kind of thing. So when Trump abolishes a social housing law that aims to increase social diversity in neighbourhoods, and he promotes this move by saying that he is 'protecting people in the suburbs from an invasion by the poor', he is really saying 'I'm protecting Whites from having to live alongside Blacks'. That probably sounds exaggerated or simply wrong to you, but don't take it from me, take it from a GOP strategist explaining this exact mechanism:


(Lee Atwater was an important person in the GOP in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. See here for a full discussion of this quote.)


I have no idea where you are coming from with any of this. Norway does not at all stand alone in its social welfare system: you get pretty much the exact same stuff in Sweden, Denmark, and Finland, all of which are in the EU, and none of which have huge natural resources. Finland also has the Euro. Similar systems (but somewhat less developed) are in place in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and Austria, all of which are in the EU and have the Euro, and Canada (for a completely different context). Yes, Greece, Italy, and Spain would need some reforms to establish the full social welfare system, but what would be the argument why it simply 'would not work', as you claim? And same for the US, of course, to bring this back on topic.

@Marcosdeto - not to call you out, but I mentioned previously that I feel your views of the US Democratic party might come from your choice of news sources. If this here is where you get your news from, then I would again recommend adding something non-right-wing to the mix. This stuff is very blinkered. (Not saying other stuff isn't, but if all your sources have the exact same blinkers, then obviously you're world view is going to be pretty skewed.)

Trump has been talking about having 'good genes' since forever btw. I don't think he is necessarily an eugenicist, I think it's just his way of expressing stuff like 'coming from a good family'.
thank you Cheinmoon, a lot of good points

i only want to add that when i said "not racist" i was being precious, as the use of the term "racist"

My fault, and i dit it only because when i said "trump made some countries sign a peace treaty" all hell broke loose. Is like you have to measure your words with a microscope when you say something that might be good about Trump, but if you are against him you can call him a dictator, a racist or whatever with no burden of proof
 
Why the hell are people trying to change the narrative around "Trump is moving dangerously close to fascism" into "Trump is fascist"? Nobody has said that he's a fascist. Nobody has said the US is a fascist nation right now. If you can't argue a point don't just change it so it fits your needs.
 
Damn. I logged in and saw this thread had jumped 5 pages and hoped he had followed RBG out (but on the down escalator). Instead we are comparing "you think your leader is bad" dicks. Awesome.
 
My fault, and i dit it only because when i said "trump made some countries sign a peace treaty" all hell broke loose. Is like you have to measure your words with a microscope when you say something that might be good about Trump, but if you are against him you can call him a dictator, a racist or whatever with no burden of proof
Well, yeah - I don't know how it was before, but in the years I've been lurking here, the Current Events forum has been a fairly liberal/progressive/leftist (pick your favorite) place. So nobody really minds if someone goes in hard against 'the other side', but people immediately get defensive when you do something similar against the left. So you're going to need a bit more nuanced and provide a more arguments for those kinds of views. It's not fair I suppose (although I'm a leftist myself, so it doesn't hinder me as much), but it's the social dynamic of the place.
 
Damn. I logged in and saw this thread had jumped 5 pages and hoped he had followed RBG out (but on the down escalator). Instead we are comparing "you think your leader is bad" dicks. Awesome.
You're not comforted that you guys turn out to have the smaller dick?
 
You're not comforted that you guys turn out to have the smaller dick?

Please, if American's obsession with guns is not the quintessential example of small penis compensation I don't know what is. We literally made it the second most important thing in our constitution.
 
Please, if American's obsession with guns is not the quintessential example of small penis compensation I don't know what is. We literally made it the second most important thing in our constitution.
Now I kinda have to check if penises are in there anywhere, don't I...
 
googled "trump discriminating against black people in apartment buildings" and there was an article saying that this was said by hillary in her debate with Trump and that she was talking about him and his father being sued for that
it was in 1973 and the case was settled with no admition of guilt
i really had no idea what you were talking about till i googled it
Funny, because when I copy and pasted your apparent Google search into Google the very first result was a New York Times article about it with comments from his accusers. The second was a Politico article stating that the FBI had released files on the incidents as well.

So unless you

a) have a filter that gets rid of "fake news" and only shows you real stuff like InfoWars or Wicker Basket Monthly

Or

B) were selective in what you personally deem as fact

Either way it's pointless trying to argue because it doesn't look you're doing it in good faith. But, yes, Trump is undoubtedly racist and he IS a borderline fascist. The only thing stopping him is the checks and balances that still exist in the US democratic system. All of this can be proven. If anyone needs me I'll be counting cans in my bunker.
 
Last edited:
Funny, because when I copy and pasted your apparent Google search into Google the very first result was a New York Times article about it with comments from his accusers. The second was a Politico article stating that the FBI had released files on the incidents as well.

So unless you

a) have a filter that gets rid of "fake news" and only shows you real stuff like InfoWars or Wicker Basket Monthly

Or

B) were selective in what you personally deem as fact

Either way it's pointless trying to argue because it doesn't look you're doing it in good faith. But, yes, Trump is undoubtedly racist and he IS a borderline fascist. The only thing stopping him is the checks and balances that still exist in the US democratic system. All of this can be proven.
yes, very suspicious

to be fair, i came to the same articule SirAf point me to

it was second after the NYtimes, wich doesnt allow me to read it for not being a suscriber
 
yes, if it's true, is pretty damning
Non troll - that’s pretty damning.

Troll / supporter - yes, if it’s true, is pretty damning.

You have a federal lawsuit that was filed against Plump & his father. There are court records. There is nothing ‘fake news’ about it. All sides have acknowledged the validity of this.

Why the ‘if it’s true?’ Why put that into a response if you weren’t trolling or not a supporter?
 
Non troll - that’s pretty damning.

Troll / supporter - yes, if it’s true, is pretty damning.

You have a federal lawsuit that was filed against Plump & his father. There are court records. There is nothing ‘fake news’ about it. All sides have acknowledged the validity of this.

Why the ‘if it’s true?’ Why put that into a response if you weren’t trolling or not a supporter?
yes. sorry i didnt write that the exact way you would like me to

sorry

sorry

sorry
 
muslim ban is racist? i thought he did it to prevent terrorist from getting in the usa, and muslim is not a race
the conspiracy that Obama wasnt born in the US isn't racist (however stupid), unless you think that anything derogatory said against someone that is not white, is racist or comes from a racist perspective
and i have no idea what you are talking about black people in his apartment buildings, but for what i read, there were allegations, but nothing was proven

btw, i'm not trolling, and if you don't like to read different opinions, maybe a forum is not for you
The simple fact that you cannot see the racism in both is utterly shocking. The Obama conspiracy started over a decade ago. To try to say that racism wasn’t involved in the creation of that theory is aggressively ignorant.
 
yes. sorry i didnt write that the exact way you would like me to

sorry

sorry

sorry
Not saying that you needed to write it differently, just pointing out the facts of the words you had the time to conjure up & use in your post. If you want to mean something different, use better words. Don’t act like a scorned child when the exact words you use are construed differently by others, you put them out there.
 
Oh come off it. Obama being black is the only reason it was an issue to begin with
I'd argue it was multi-tiered racism - perhaps just general xenophobia. Trump and his racist cronies emphasised Obama's middle name (Hussein) deliberately to also flame anti-Islamic sentiment. A black Muslim guy not born in the US couldn't have the US best interests at heart, right?

Just abhorrent, no matter how you cut it.
 
Not saying that you needed to write it differently, just pointing out the facts of the words you had the time to conjure up & use in your post. If you want to mean something different, use better words. Don’t act like a scorned child when the exact words you use are construed differently by others, you put them out there.
please, your opinion is very important to me, keep it coming
 
Hah, silly yanks think their attormey general is bad? Ours got married and hugged his in-laws, which is against corona rules. We're basically Cylons.

(sorry Im rewatching BSG)
 
i said what i think
what you think is irrelevant for me
sorry
Not just what I think. You saying what you think is perfectly fine, just expect to be called out on it when it crosses the ignorance line.

You can google ‘playing chess with a pigeon,’ it won’t be conveniently behind a paywall.
 
While Trump is not a dictator, he has consistently undermined democratic institutions within the United States and relied upon nationalistic rhetoric which has often guided policy, all the while enriching himself and those close to him.

When @Rob called Trump a borderline dictator, he was spot on. Trump is demonstrating that authoritarianism is a path he is willing to explore, and it is clear that he will hold on to power at all costs. These are some of the hallmarks of a successful dictatorship, so dismissing Trump as a potential dictator just because "historically there have been worse instances of dictatorships" is ill-advised.
 
I'm talking the equality of outcome type of socialism. What Norway has (and a few other northern European countries, including my own) is capitalism with a solid social welfare system. It's the best we have but it's only possible if the income side of the equation is taken care of, i.e. an economy that produces a surplus. An oil rich nation like Norway is in a very good place compared to most of the world. On top of that they are not part of the EU or the Euro - which panned out very well for you guys. That same system would not work in today's Greece, Spain or Italy.

What about countries that are not rich with oil, and are members of the EU, like Sweden? Or a country that has all this, and a domestic currency pegged to the Euro, like Denmark. Or a country that outright uses the Euro, like Finland?

As an aside, this whole "equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome" thing is a misnomer that for some reason have conquered mostly the Internet. The people saying that they want equality of opportunity instead of equality of outcome doesn't actually want equality of opportunity (no one does, it's insanely restrictive and physically impossible. The tiniest and easiest requirement would be to want a 100 % inheritance tax, and most people balk even at this small concession), and they say it as an attack against people who actually doesn't want equality of outcome (no one does, "even" Marx argued against it. All forms of socialism leaves room for individual differences).
 
Last edited:
While Trump is not a dictator, he has consistently undermined democratic institutions within the United States and relied upon nationalistic rhetoric which has often guided policy, all the while enriching himself and those close to him.

When @Rob called Trump a borderline dictator, he was spot on. Trump is demonstrating that authoritarianism is a path he is willing to explore, and it is clear that he will hold on to power at all costs. These are some of the hallmarks of a successful dictatorship, so dismissing Trump as a potential dictator just because "historically there have been worse instances of dictatorships" is ill-advised.

well, in my book, dictators shut the press and only allows official news to be released, they shut the congress and put five guys to dictate the laws they require, they incarcerate opponents, they forbid books, movies, music

and that with the help of an army

Trump might be a bully, might be a narcisist, might want everyone to love him, but he is far from any of those actions
 
well, in my book, dictators shut the press and only allows official news to be released, they shut the congress and put five guys to dictate the laws they require, they incarcerate opponents, they forbid books, movies, music

and that with the help of an army

Trump might be a bully, might be a narcisist, might want everyone to love him, but he is far from any of those actions

Speaking of which

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...o-denounce-focus-on-slavery-racism-in-schools

Trump basically wants to «whitewash» US history.
 


Wow, just wow!

This smashes his infamous 'nuclear' explanation/rant that everyone loves to quote so often.

Pure fecking gibberish. Gobbledegook. Nonsense. The ramblings of a fecking lunatic.

But yeah, he got some peace deals signed :lol:

Can't believe that actually made sense to me. Seems like I'm one of the few. He's obviously talking (in a ranting way of course) of catapult systems in aircraft carriers where US Navy is trying out new electromagnetic systems over the erstwhile steam ones

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_catapult
 
Status
Not open for further replies.