Trump, Mussolini, Nazis and the 2nd Amendment

[volinbham]

The best defense against a fascist government is to not elect the fascist government in the first place.

Guess what - we don't. Those little things called checks and balances work. So even if Trump were elected we wouldn't be elected a fascist government.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

A matter of perspective.

Just as being rich doesn't mean you are part of the "problem" nor does being Muslim. If you believe the "rich" are the problem then you are every bit as prejudiced as someone who thinks Mexicans are the problem.

Both are simplistic characterizations.

One is PC; one isn't but at the core it's the same principle. That group that you don't belong to is the problem and I'm going to get them for you so your life will be better.

It's not about being rich. It's about abusing your wealth at the expense of the lower classes.

This isn't a debate for this thread though. At its base, you cannot compare the hatred of Trump to the tax plans of Bernie. It's ridiculous. It's surprising to me that you think that, given that I consider you one of the most reasonable cats around here.

I'll bow out of this before I'm met with further disappointment. Good day.

 

[Burhead]

So Trump tells us he loves uneducated voters and all his critics say "see, it's just dumb racists that like him".

Then some of those critics trot out the comparisons to Mussolini, Hitler, etc. Hell, the Wall Street Journal today has a piece about Trump's rise being very similar to Mussolini.

So a couple thoughts. 1) Isn't it uneducated (or at least gross oversimplification and paranoia) to link Trump to those guys and
2) if these people really belief Trump is the second coming of Fascism then shouldn't those critics be full throated supporters of the 2nd Amendment? Isn't an armed populace the best defense against a fascist government.

I'm rambling but it's funny and sad to me how seemingly intelligent people go immediately to the Hitler/Mussolini card when they don't like an R candidate.

He isn't Hitler nor is he even Mussolini. Probably the best modern day politician to compare him to is Italy's Silvio Berlusconi. A Trump Presidency in all likely hood wouldn't save nor destroy the Republic like both sides claim.

 

[volinbham]

Where has Sanders promoted violent revolution? His revolution is a peaceful one. How does his comments on saying the rich should pay Reagan era marginal tax rates equate to "we must kill terrorist's family members"? Did he say that all rich people are rapists? Or that we should make them wear identification? Does he shout down protestors and whip his crowd into a frenzy?

I never said violent.

Trump has not promoted a violent revolution either.

Trump has made tough comments about war enemies but that is not the same as promoting violent revolution.

Trump did not say all Mexicans are rapists and suggesting all Bernie is saying is Reagan era marginal rates are both mischaracterizations of positions.

They are both populists. They are both saying the system is broken. They are both pointing to minority groups that are the problem. They are both tapping into voter anger against the system and the role of these groups within the system.

Trump is crude, crass and an ass. Bernie is more civilized.

 

[RobsPics]

Guess what - we don't. Those little things called checks and balances work. So even if Trump were elected we wouldn't be elected a fascist government.

Checks and balances do not prevent the populace from electing a fascist government.

 

[volinbham]

It's not about being rich. It's about abusing your wealth at the expense of the lower classes.

This isn't a debate for this thread though. At its base, you cannot compare the hatred of Trump to the tax plans of Bernie. It's ridiculous. It's surprising to me that you think that, given that I consider you one of the most reasonable cats around here.

I'll bow out of this before I'm met with further disappointment. Good day.

You've missed my point or I haven't communicated it correctly.

 

[volinbham]

Checks and balances do not prevent the populace from electing a fascist government.

Define fascist government. Do you think electing a POTUS who is fascist constitutes a fascist government?

 

[DinkinFlicka]

You've missed my point or I haven't communicated it correctly.

Perhaps the latter because I don't appear to be the only one misunderstanding you.

I'd certainly hope that's the case.

 

[volinbham]

He isn't Hitler nor is he even Mussolini. Probably the best modern day politician to compare him to is Italy's Silvio Berlusconi. A Trump Presidency in all likely hood wouldn't save nor destroy the Republic like both sides claim.

My point precisely. Massive over reaction and fantasy world view of what he could or would do.

I just find it ironic that those who call his supporters dumb turn around and use dumb arguments like the Hitler/Mussolini meme to attack him.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

It's not about being rich. It's about abusing your wealth at the expense of the lower classes.

This isn't a debate for this thread though. At its base, you cannot compare the hatred of Trump to the tax plans of Bernie. It's ridiculous. It's surprising to me that you think that, given that I consider you one of the most reasonable cats around here.

I'll bow out of this before I'm met with further disappointment. Good day.

Exactly. Targeting the wealthy (of all races, religions, etc.) is not comparable to targeting people based on their race, disability, nationality, or religion.

 

[Burhead]

Define fascist government. Do you think electing a POTUS who is fascist constitutes a fascist government?

When millennials constantly throw around the term fascist it definitely lessens it's meaning.

 

[Burhead]

My point precisely. Massive over reaction and fantasy world view of what he could or would do.

I just find it ironic that those who call his supporters dumb turn around and use dumb arguments like the Hitler/Mussolini meme to attack him.

When the comparisons are made I instantly ignore the person. Both Hitler and Mussolini were by far smarter and more charismatic than Trump could ever hope to achieve.

 

[volprof]

Even if we were allowed to keep our AR15s and other various weapons, or whatever, we'd still have no chance against the US military's training, weapons, and technology. This isn't the 1700s where we were on more equal footing with our military. Having said that, I really do not see it ever coming to the military preempting civilians. Where is the coup taking place? Who is this mob going after? Military bases? The White House? Because, in the small chance the military does decide to retaliate or defend, we are SOL, regardless of pistols or machine guns.

Unless our military is brainwashed, they won't take orders to kill what may be their friends and family.

Good post. I'll add that, while I understand the desire to use European examples as "what-if" scenarios here, as some people do, the American system was set up in a manner so as to avoid things like what we've seen in Europe (rise of autocrat, confiscation of guns, military against the people, etc.). Our society is constructed fundamentally different from those societies, making it extremely unlikely that anything like what we've seen in Europe would ever happen here, even with an individual far worse than Trump at the helm.

Now, that's not to say that we don't have some native elements that desire such things, but for them to co-opt and takeover the entire system to do their bidding would be far more improbable (and I mean by factors of hundreds, most likely) than what happened in, say, Italy or Germany 80-plus years ago.

That's why I never get too bent out of shape about the "first they took our X, then they took our Y, and then they came for our Z" narratives, because things just don't work that simplistically here. That's not to say we shouldn't remain vigilant, however.

 

[RobsPics]

Define fascist government. Do you think electing a POTUS who is fascist constitutes a fascist government?

Electing a fascist POTUS is one of the first steps.

 

[volinbham]

Perhaps the latter because I don't appear to be the only one misunderstanding you.

I'd certainly hope that's the case.

If you believe the rich are the problem you are prejudiced against the rich and are assuming they will abuse their power. The reality is while some can and do, most do not.

If you believe Syrian refugees are the problem you are prejudiced against them for their nationality and religion and assume they will be terrorists. The reality is that some can and do but most do not.

Finally, suggesting Bernie's message is simply about raising taxes on the rich misses his message. He's OWS - the 1% are the problem.

 

[Persian Vol]

Checks and balances do not prevent the populace from electing a fascist government.

We cannot elect a fascist government. We can elect a president that believes in fascist principles, but that does not mean our government will turn fascist. In the end nothing will get done.

 

[volinbham]

Electing a fascist POTUS is one of the first steps.

How many steps are there? What's the progression?

 

[RobsPics]

We cannot elect a fascist government. We can elect a president that believes in fascist principles, but that does not mean our government will turn fascist. In the end nothing will get done.

It's entirely possible for the populace to elect a fascist government. POTUS is not the only elected office. Whip up a nationalistic frenzy, and other offices could get affected.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

If you believe the rich are the problem you are prejudiced against the rich and are assuming they will abuse their power. The reality is while some can and do, most do not.

If you believe Syrian refugees are the problem you are prejudiced against them for their nationality and religion and assume they will be terrorists. The reality is that some can and do but most do not.

Finally, suggesting Bernie's message is simply about raising taxes on the rich misses his message. He's OWS - the 1% are the problem.

I see what you're trying to say, but there is still much more clout to one argument than the other. One is riddled with emotional appeal and fear, while the other can be numerically mapped out and reasoned.

I don't necessarily agree with his policies, but there is something to discuss when a small percentage of the population controls a vast majority of the wealth.

Wouldn't be an issue if lobbyists weren't running the show and money wasn't determining elections.

 

[RobsPics]

How many steps are there? What's the progression?

I'm not a fortune teller. Fascism hasn't taken hold in this country. But electing a fascist POTUS is one of the first step. At that point the fascist POTUS could have other evil plans that have not been considered by the puplci yet.

That's why I said not electing a fascist government is the best defense against a fascist government. That's a lot better than relying on the 2nd amendment, because at that point the fascist government has already taken hold.

 

[Vol8188]

So Trump tells us he loves uneducated voters and all his critics say "see, it's just dumb racists that like him".

Then some of those critics trot out the comparisons to Mussolini, Hitler, etc. Hell, the Wall Street Journal today has a piece about Trump's rise being very similar to Mussolini.

So a couple thoughts. 1) Isn't it uneducated (or at least gross oversimplification and paranoia) to link Trump to those guys and
2) if these people really belief Trump is the second coming of Fascism then shouldn't those critics be full throated supporters of the 2nd Amendment? Isn't an armed populace the best defense against a fascist government.

I'm rambling but it's funny and sad to me how seemingly intelligent people go immediately to the Hitler/Mussolini card when they don't like an R candidate.

You blame the media, yet trump links himself to those guys.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

I never said violent.

Trump has not promoted a violent revolution either.

Trump has made tough comments about war enemies but that is not the same as promoting violent revolution.

Trump did not say all Mexicans are rapists and suggesting all Bernie is saying is Reagan era marginal rates are both mischaracterizations of positions.

They are both populists. They are both saying the system is broken. They are both pointing to minority groups that are the problem. They are both tapping into voter anger against the system and the role of these groups within the system.

Trump is crude, crass and an ass. Bernie is more civilized.

You mentioned 1917 Russia earlier, and I though you were implying a Soviet style take over by Sanders. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

Trump made comments about killing the families of war enemies, which would be a war crime.

Trump said all that Mexico is sending us is criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc. During Reagan's first 6 years, marginal tax rates were around 50% on incomes over 1.4 million. Sanders would be that on 10 million+, so you're right, they'd be less progressive than they were in the mid '80s.

Yes, they are both populists, except one is catering to people of all races, national backgrounds, sexes, etc who are in the lower and middle class, and the other is an ass who caters to angry white guys with underlying racial and religious tensions.

 

[volprof]

When millennials constantly throw around the term fascist it definitely lessens it's meaning.

I don't think it's just millennials that are relegated to the misuse of the term "fascist." I think that cuts across generational lines, although older Europeans may tend to use it far more accurately than most do here.

As far as Trump is concerned, he is no fascist, not in any coherent or concrete sense of that term. I think that, as some others have said, he possesses some fascistic thinking (limiting the freedom of the press [I don't care if he was joking or not, because I can't tell when he's joking or being serious, and that is his fault for being such a clown], using thuggery to silence opposition, seemingly seeking a more static notion of "America" than what it actually is, etc.). I also think that, as has been suggested in the press, that he has studied popular demagogues from the past, most notably Mussolini (the popular, lovable, and powerful buffoon), to determine how they became so popular and in order to mimic some of their speech mannerisms and patterns. (Apparently there is a video or article being circulated around that does comparisons of Trump's and Mussolini's facial expressions, which tend to be identical, which may explain why Trump's facial expressions often seem so bizarre and unnatural.)

But, even so, Trump is no "fascist." He's far too incoherent to be a fascist. It should not surprise us, however, that he has the endorsements of numerous fascists, including Dugin, the world's preeminent fascist.

I don't fear a Trump presidency so much out of concern over how greatly he will change America, because our system is largely set up to prevent him from doing so. What I fear most about Trump are his foreign policy stances (because that is the one area a president admittedly has limited checks and balances working against him, outside of making war and treaties) and the effect upon the American mindset that he will have. If people think that Obama has been divisive (which I still have to scratch my head about whenever I hear), then you ain't seen nothing yet. Trump will create the worst state of relations among Americans that has existed since any time after the Civil Rights Era. Plus, I just think he is a buffoon and an idiot, and I don't want to see him up there in the office of the presidency making a mockery out of that office and out of the nation and its people.

Just my two cents.

 

[G0 BIG 0RANGE]

I don't think it's just millennials that are relegated to the misuse of the term "fascist." I think that cuts across generational lines, although older Europeans may tend to use it far more accurately than most do here.

As far as Trump is concerned, he is no fascist, not in any coherent or concrete sense of that term. I think that, as some others have said, he possesses some fascistic thinking (limiting the freedom of the press [I don't care if he was joking or not, because I can't tell when he's joking or being serious, and that is his fault for being such a clown], using thuggery to silence opposition, seemingly seeking a more static notion of "America" than what it actually is, etc.). I also think that, as has been suggested in the press, that he has studied popular demagogues from the past, most notably Mussolini (the popular, lovable, and powerful buffoon), to determine how they became so popular and in order to mimic some of their speech mannerisms and patterns. (Apparently there is a video or article being circulated around that does comparisons of Trump's and Mussolini's facial expressions, which tend to be identical, which may explain why Trump's facial expressions often seem so bizarre and unnatural.)

But, even so, Trump is no "fascist." He's far too incoherent to be a fascist. It should not surprise us, however, that he has the endorsements of numerous fascists, including Dugin, the world's preeminent fascist.

I don't fear a Trump presidency so much out of concern over how greatly he will change America, because our system is largely set up to prevent him from doing so. What I fear most about Trump are his foreign policy stances (because that is the one area a president admittedly has limited checks and balances working against him, outside of making war and treaties) and the effect upon the American mindset that he will have. If people think that Obama has been divisive (which I still have to scratch my head about whenever I hear), then you ain't seen nothing yet. Trump will create the worst state of relations among Americans that has existed since any time after the Civil Rights Era. Plus, I just think he is a buffoon and an idiot, and I don't want to see him up there in the office of the presidency making a mockery out of that office and out of the nation and its people.

Just my two cents.

Excellent break down, Prof 👍🏻

 

[volinbham]

I'm not a fortune teller. Fascism hasn't take hold in this country. But electing a fascist POTUS could be the first step.

That's why I said not electing a fascist government is the best defense against a fascist government. That's a lot better than relying on the 2nd amendment, because at that point the fascist government has already taken hold.

whole lotta if's there.

Do you consider Obama to be fascist? How about his "Attack Watch" program where he recruited volunteers to report people that were saying "untrue" things about him and his policies and his Truth Team that also recruited volunteers to send out counter messages to "untruths"?

Talk about brown shirts, sheesh!