If you say so! But I really enjoy laughing. Israelis, nonetheless. You brought it up. I'm just discussing it. What you are actually doing...is getting all heated up over nothing. I do not do "believing." And I also do not take myself nearly as seriously as you take you. Perhaps. But I have not addressed that subject...and it is not the topic of this thread.
Except that wasn't my argument. Authoritarians like you have created Trump, whether he's your guy or not. You wanted a powerful president who would give you everything you want at the expense of strangers and their freedom. Now, when it happens to be programs you don't like from a president exercising power you wanted him to have, you (*)(*)(*)(*) and moan about him being too powerful. As I said, you reap what you sow. Not that I would expect a suppliant to state power to understand his own folly.
I've never wanted that...and frankly, that is about as dark a presentation of "trying to make things a bit more fair" as I've ever heard. But...if "wanting to make things a bit more fair" bothers you to the point where you have to characterize it as obtaining it "at the expense of strangers and their freedom"...go for it. I hope I never get to that point. I've not said that he is too powerful. I have said I consider him to be a dangerous clown and buffoon unfit for the office he now holds...and in general a narcissistic, self-absorbed, erratic, vindictive, arrogant, pompous, bullying megalomaniac. But that is all.
The attitude of Democrats in all levels of government the last 8 years did this. Thank goodness the American people are waking up before it's too late.
1- "Dangerous clown and buffoon? Hillary would have been far more dangerous by throwing open America's door to muslims and mexicans, and constantly poking Putin with a stick, but Don's just chummed up with him to end the threat of nuclear armageddon! As for being a "clown and buffoon"- "The great secret of the successful fool is that he's no fool at all" - (Isaac Asimov referring to the jester in King Lear) 2- "narcissistic, self-absorbed, erratic, vindictive, arrogant, pompous, bullying megalomaniac." Yup that's why we love him to bits.. Other great men in history have been called the same thing such as Gen Patton, Montgomery, Curtiss LeMay, Jimmy Doolittle, William Travis, Churchill etc etc, but they got the job done..
I see. You can make up arguments for me, but it's wrong if I do it for you. And he wields a great deal of power that has accrued to the office of the President because of people like you who want things to be a "bit more fair" and think that the best way to enforce your moral view is through the violence of the police powers of the state.
What policy has he proposed which you find Hitleresqe? I have plenty of reasoned disagreements with the man, but to compare him to Hitler is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing ridiculous, you know that right? Last I checked he isn't even going full FDR. Supporters rarely question their leaders. Did the left give a (*)(*)(*)(*) when Obama was renewing the Patriot Act or signing the NDAA? What about when he orchestrated a series of murderous coups across the Middle East? This is how politics works. Trump is not all that "out there", in fact on many issues he wants a return to Progressive era politics - on infrastructure for instance. I disagree with him on using government to eliminate unemployment. In fact, that is actually something Hitler did. Yet I don't go around calling him Hitler because when you call someone Hitler they invariably think of the brutal murder of 6 million innocent Jews. That is the association you are trying to make here, and it's wrong. It belittles the horror of that regime. For shame.
I consider him to be a dangerous clown and buffoon unfit for the office he now holds...and in general a narcissistic, self-absorbed, erratic, vindictive, arrogant, pompous, bullying megalomaniac. I am not saying he is Hitler. But his election...and some of the comments here in support of him...is giving me an insight into what happened in Germany during the early 1930's. If you do not see it...okay with me.
So, you think he's a dangerous clown and buffoon, a narcissistic, self-absorbed, erratic, vindictive, arrogant, pompous, bullying megalomaniac with the appropriate amount of power?
I think he is a dangerous clown and buffoon, a narcissistic, self-absorbed, erratic, vindictive, arrogant, pompous, bullying megalomaniac with exactly the same amount of power any president has, even the ones who are not narcissistic, self-absorbed, erratic, vindictive, arrogant, pompous, bullying megalomaniacs. They have what they have. I'm trusting the checks and balances of our system to keep ALL presidents in check.
If you equate electing a president from the other party with waking up... I don't know, you may need some coffee... or a defibrillator.
For most people who trust the checks and balances, there is nothing that could happen that would prove those checks and balances inadequate. For example, one may believe a given act of congress unconstitutional until the SC rules that it is constitutional, at which point they will change their minds and believe it constitutional on that appeal to authority. Are you like those people, or can you think of a way to falsify your belief in the adequacy of those checks and balances?
With this president, yes. He's basically a 1990s Reform Party candidate rather than an actual Republican. And I loves me some 1990s Reform Party. Trump's economic/trade posture is basically a carbon copy of H. Ross Perot. And I don't need a defibrillator. I'm in sinus rhythm.
If a law is determined to be constitutional or unconstitutional by the SCOTUS...it is so no matter what I think or you think. The SCOTUS can change that determination...but tries not to do so; the principle of stare decisis normally is observed...although not always. I do not do "believing"...but if the congress passes laws and the president signs them...they are laws. If the SCOTUS finds a law does not pass muster with the Constitution...the law has to be rescinded...or more often, revised.
A law cannot be rendered constitutional or unconstitutional post hoc by a court decision. Such a decision only means the law will continue to be enforced whether it is allowable under the language of the constitution or not. What usually happens is the law is reinterpreted by a lower court so as to appear more consistent with the constitution. Cases of unconstitutional law actually making it to the SC usually result in the constitution being construed so as to allow for it by embarrassing acts if intellectual contortions we call "mental gymnastics" when done by anyone not wearing a ritualistic costume and holding "High Office". The word you used was "trust" which connotes blind faith. When I used "belief"(which is precisely synonymous with "think" as you just used it), I was giving you more credit than you gave yourself. So anyway, I'll take your answer as a no; nothing could happen that would betray your blind faith in the powers that be which are appointed by those elected by the same impressionable idiots you're ranting about in this thread.
Frankly, I couldn't care less how you take my answer. My answer was clear...and it was correct. You apparently have an agenda that requires throwing horse manure at it. Okay...haves a ball.
he's delivering on the wall and keeping Muslims out, just fine! Just those 2 things, and putting 3 conservatives on the Supremes (which he will do, cause stevens and ginsberg can barely walk) and we'll do fine. 30 million illegals gone will be 5 million jobs for US citizens (without a doubt). The agricultural jobs will be mechanized once the farmers can't use illegals to do those jobs, and the machinery will be made in the US, and it will be run by US citizens.
Yup...you guys got control of everything. Gonna be interesting to see how things are in a couple of years! I suspect the moaning and groaning will continue, because things will not be better, and most likely will be worse...and somehow it will all be the fault of liberals...even though you control everything!
While there is a part of me that sympathizes with what the poster has said, Trump is still a long way of from fascism or the Nazis. From Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism, "Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity. It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts (*)The rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual (12). And if liberty is to he the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people." Yeah, I don't see Trump advocating this extreme form of Statism (not any more than any other politician anyway!).
Welcome to the forum, Shosty. I am the "poster"...the originator of this thread. The point of the OP was not about Trump, actually...it was about the people who are anxious to give a man like him the reins of awesome power possessed by the president. I honestly have wondered how the Germans were willing to give someone like Hitler and his cronies the power they gave him. Watching what is happening in our country right now...is helping me to understand how it can happen. It is not a one-for-one comparison. Trump at the moment is a long way from Hitler. For now. We'll where this goes. My guess...my hope...is that the structure of our system will prevent him from indulging his narcissism and need to bully. Boy...do I ever hope I am correct! If I am not...we could be in big trouble.
Thank you! Ok, I see. I misunderstood when you wrote, "Yeah. I'm sure that is what the Hitler fans (and Mussolini fans) said when they were warned." There are some parallels. I have always believed that the rise of someone like a Hitler or Mussolini can happen anywhere, including the U.S. All it takes is the right combination of events, like the perfect storm, for it to happen. Many supported Hitler too, not because they particularly liked him, but because he was better than the communists.
Be thankful I didn't call it terrorism. That's what it is. And to answer your question, if some variant of socialist carries out the revolution. Are you talking about Mussolini here? - - - Updated - - - Did I say don't compare him? No, find a better example.
Sure, but that doesn't mean we have to sully our hands with talk about Hitler. Bring up ancient Rome and how its republic fell. Talk about the triumvirate, the Gracchuss brothers, Gaius Marius, Felix. A much better fall than the one we have now.
The talk about Germany...and how it was seduced by Hitler...IS appropriate. Hitler ran on an idea of making Germany great again. Germans bought into that. A big mistake! It didn't work out well for them. Anyone in America who does not have that at least in the back of his/her mind...IS MAKING THAT SAME MISTAKE.
