45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. (Vol 4)
Discussion
Interesting piece in the Irish TImes today, that trial runs for fascism are in full flow!
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-...
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-...
Eric Mc said:
That's the issue. Getting enjoyment out of watching others being wound up is pretty pathetic, in my opinion. And, to quote a certain D Trump, that applies to "both sides".
Just to point out that you're hardly setting a shining example, and have now started engaging in the same pointless tit-for-tat that you're complaining about from others. esxste said:
Eric Mc said:
That's the issue. Getting enjoyment out of watching others being wound up is pretty pathetic, in my opinion. And, to quote a certain D Trump, that applies to "both sides".
Just to point out that you're hardly setting a shining example, and have now started engaging in the same pointless tit-for-tat that you're complaining about from others. Time to move on.
Trump's just had a win in the courts, by the way.Maybe some of his supporters might like to comment - without attacking other posters.
Kinky said:
Interesting piece in the Irish TImes today, that trial runs for fascism are in full flow!
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-...
You're not doing this right kinky.https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-...
You posted an interesting and factual link. And then to compound things, you didn't denigrate another poster.
Get with the programme!!
Edited by Gameface on Tuesday 26th June 16:14
Kinky said:
Interesting piece in the Irish TImes today, that trial runs for fascism are in full flow!
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-...
Thanks for the link... really interesting opinion piece. https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-...
Greg66 said:
Well, no, that's right. Were Trump to become a dictator, he'd be his own sort of dictator.
Much of the time the two sides of this discussion seem to me not to engage. One side is saying: "here's a spectrum from white to black. We are moving increasingly from the white end to the black end, and we're closer to the black end than we've ever been". Whereas the other side is saying "We're not at the black end".
Both sides are right, but that's not really the point.
As Eric says, the dismantling of a democracy takes time. Look at what Erdogan has done in Turkey. It's taken him the best part of 15 years, and he's not finished yet.
As I see it, the concerns that people have about Trump are based (legitimately, I think) on his approach to power. Throughout his business career he hasn't had to answer to anyone*. He's not had stockholders questioning his running of the company. On the contrary: his company, his rules, his say so. Automony is his thing.
Then look at who he says openly he admires. Putin. KYU. Xi. Erdogan. People who are the focus of a huge amount of power, and who are essentially answerable to no one. That's where by instinct it looks like Trump would like to be.
Then look at how he likes to run things. His preference is Executive Orders. No doubt because that's something he can get done without having to get bogged down in dealing with other people. Just like he would have done when running his business.
And then look at how he positively undermines the FBI and the Justice Department, calling them "corrupt", "crooked" and so on. Ditto judges in the early days of the challenges to the travel ban EO. Having a President positively undermining the integrity of some fundamental organs of a democracy is extraordinary. I have no issue with him challenging findings or decisions that go against him, but to allege that the institutions themselves are corrupt - before any findings have been made, so as to pre-emptively discredit - is an entirely different thing. How is a population supposed to respect law enforcement and the courts when the President is telling them that those institutions are corrupt?
(ETA: Also - and don't know how I overlooked this - his attacks on the press, labelling anything that he doens't like as "fake news", and relying on Fox News as a principal source of fact, leading to a symbiotic relationship between him and Fox bordering on Fox becoming a quasi-government news outlet).
He claims to be the great deal maker, but the reality is that for him a deal is a means to break an opponent. I think he is very much of the zero sum game when it comes to deals: there's a winner and a loser. A deal in which both sides win is, to him, a deal in which he loses. Because to him if the other guy is doing well out of the deal, Trump could have done better. So collaborative or collegiate decision making isn't his style. The deal making skill he boasts of isn't a skill that he can deploy to run a government, because intrinsically in his hands that skill is one that is antithetical to the smooth running of a government.
And finally, a reference back to yesterday's quote from the West Wing: "I'm the President of the United States, not the President of the people who agree with me". Well that couldn't be more wrong for Trump. I think he genuinely doesn't care about trying to appeal to the people who don't agree with him. And worse, he will try to demonise or denigrate them in order to whip up his own base further.
So for myself I think it perfectly legitimate to say that Trump has authoritarian tendencies which are far more in keeping with (but for now more moderate than, and not given full rein) those of genuine dictators. Whether Trump would ever be allowed to exercise the sort of autonomy that I suspect he naturally prefers is very questionable. But that's more to do with what's surrounding him than it is to do with him. And yes, I think the US has moved increasingly from the white end to the black end of the spectrum, and that it's closer to the black end than it's ever been.
*I'll caveat that with creditors. Ultimately his companies' creditors put some of his companies into bankruptcy. But he has a well documented habit of screwing over smaller creditors by no paying them and then burying them with spurious counterclaims if they dare sue to be paid. And he has an equally well documented way of borrowing sufficiently large sums from banks that can lead to him, rather than the bank, having the whip hand in negotiations (see Deutsche Bank, forex).
Good post. I'd suspect the Constitution will stop Trump getting anywhere near Hitler though in "results" shall we say though. He's also unlikely in the same state mentally either - Trump probably uses a lot of the anti-xyz to get support, rather than believing it and trying to get more support for it. His beliefs are to get power, not getting power to force his beliefs on others. The same strong belief in the constitution that keeps guns allowed etc will almost certainly result in Trump having to stand down in a few or 6 years. The big question is how much damage has he done in terms of people trusting intuitions (politics/ government agencies etc). If people don't trust them enough it's when big unintended consequences can happen. Much of the time the two sides of this discussion seem to me not to engage. One side is saying: "here's a spectrum from white to black. We are moving increasingly from the white end to the black end, and we're closer to the black end than we've ever been". Whereas the other side is saying "We're not at the black end".
Both sides are right, but that's not really the point.
As Eric says, the dismantling of a democracy takes time. Look at what Erdogan has done in Turkey. It's taken him the best part of 15 years, and he's not finished yet.
As I see it, the concerns that people have about Trump are based (legitimately, I think) on his approach to power. Throughout his business career he hasn't had to answer to anyone*. He's not had stockholders questioning his running of the company. On the contrary: his company, his rules, his say so. Automony is his thing.
Then look at who he says openly he admires. Putin. KYU. Xi. Erdogan. People who are the focus of a huge amount of power, and who are essentially answerable to no one. That's where by instinct it looks like Trump would like to be.
Then look at how he likes to run things. His preference is Executive Orders. No doubt because that's something he can get done without having to get bogged down in dealing with other people. Just like he would have done when running his business.
And then look at how he positively undermines the FBI and the Justice Department, calling them "corrupt", "crooked" and so on. Ditto judges in the early days of the challenges to the travel ban EO. Having a President positively undermining the integrity of some fundamental organs of a democracy is extraordinary. I have no issue with him challenging findings or decisions that go against him, but to allege that the institutions themselves are corrupt - before any findings have been made, so as to pre-emptively discredit - is an entirely different thing. How is a population supposed to respect law enforcement and the courts when the President is telling them that those institutions are corrupt?
(ETA: Also - and don't know how I overlooked this - his attacks on the press, labelling anything that he doens't like as "fake news", and relying on Fox News as a principal source of fact, leading to a symbiotic relationship between him and Fox bordering on Fox becoming a quasi-government news outlet).
He claims to be the great deal maker, but the reality is that for him a deal is a means to break an opponent. I think he is very much of the zero sum game when it comes to deals: there's a winner and a loser. A deal in which both sides win is, to him, a deal in which he loses. Because to him if the other guy is doing well out of the deal, Trump could have done better. So collaborative or collegiate decision making isn't his style. The deal making skill he boasts of isn't a skill that he can deploy to run a government, because intrinsically in his hands that skill is one that is antithetical to the smooth running of a government.
And finally, a reference back to yesterday's quote from the West Wing: "I'm the President of the United States, not the President of the people who agree with me". Well that couldn't be more wrong for Trump. I think he genuinely doesn't care about trying to appeal to the people who don't agree with him. And worse, he will try to demonise or denigrate them in order to whip up his own base further.
So for myself I think it perfectly legitimate to say that Trump has authoritarian tendencies which are far more in keeping with (but for now more moderate than, and not given full rein) those of genuine dictators. Whether Trump would ever be allowed to exercise the sort of autonomy that I suspect he naturally prefers is very questionable. But that's more to do with what's surrounding him than it is to do with him. And yes, I think the US has moved increasingly from the white end to the black end of the spectrum, and that it's closer to the black end than it's ever been.
*I'll caveat that with creditors. Ultimately his companies' creditors put some of his companies into bankruptcy. But he has a well documented habit of screwing over smaller creditors by no paying them and then burying them with spurious counterclaims if they dare sue to be paid. And he has an equally well documented way of borrowing sufficiently large sums from banks that can lead to him, rather than the bank, having the whip hand in negotiations (see Deutsche Bank, forex).
Edited by Greg66 on Tuesday 26th June 10:21
Also in terms of using presidential powers - Obama was I think the one who really started that. It really annoyed the republicans anyway. However it seems that this is basically "needed", as things are so divided between Democrats/ Republicans that it's basically impossible to pass anything via the senate/congress. So these days it's more up to the president to get stuff passed. This is the fault of both sides.
That article is confusing, is Trump an ignoramus or is he some evil genius capable of hijacking the world's proudest democracy and turning it into a fascist dictatorship?
When he refers to the rigging of Brexit I presume he's talking about the UK Government spending taxpayers money on pushing Remain?
When he refers to the rigging of Brexit I presume he's talking about the UK Government spending taxpayers money on pushing Remain?
Davos123 said:
That article is confusing, is Trump an ignoramus or is he some evil genius capable of hijacking the world's proudest democracy and turning it into a fascist dictatorship?
When he refers to the rigging of Brexit I presume he's talking about the UK Government spending taxpayers money on pushing Remain?
There's 90-odd comments below the article. It's possible some of these points may have been raised there ..... or why not raise them yourself When he refers to the rigging of Brexit I presume he's talking about the UK Government spending taxpayers money on pushing Remain?
NRS said:
Greg66 said:
...Good post...
...I'd suspect the Constitution will stop Trump getting anywhere near Hitler though in "results" shall we say though. He's also unlikely in the same state mentally either - But Hitler was not the only person to inflict great misery on the world, and Trump is treading the familiar path of many other dictators. That much is obvious and way past the point of debate. The question is whether the US system can cope with it.
Davos123 said:
That article is confusing, is Trump an ignoramus or is he some evil genius capable of hijacking the world's proudest democracy and turning it into a fascist dictatorship?
Why on earth is that confusing? It's perfectly possibly to be both an ignoramous and capable of, perhaps with a little outside help, rousing enough rabble to get elected. The evidence of both co-existing in the same manbaby is in front of your nose.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff