USA Sinks into Authoritarinism

[WestCanMan]

26 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I disagree...a Canadian PM with a ruling majority can get away with a lot.   Party leadership does not depend on primary elections in each province.

 

 

They are as bulletproof as they ever can be.   That's why they are called "lame ducks" in the last year.  Trump certainly cannot do the equivalent of canceling elections or confidence votes in Parliament.

There’s still a selection process for party leadership which is voted on.

 

Oir PM can’t cancel an election, and we can have a PM with a minority government which is the most lame duck scenario possible 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

There’s still a selection process for party leadership which is voted on.

 

By who ?

 

Quote

Oir PM can’t cancel an election, and we can have a PM with a minority government which is the most lame duck scenario possible 

 

Worse than that, a Canadian PM actually dismissed Parliament when faced with a no-confidence vote, and the "authoritarian" action was blessed by the Queen's GG.

But Trump is the bad guy ?

[Guest]

4 hours ago, dialamah said:

1. Then we are talking about different things and thats pointless.

2.  As this comment demonstrates.

Fair enough.  Next time then.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, ReeferMadness said:

Yes.  Because if history teaches us one thing, it's that you should always wait until AFTER tyrants have seized power and has established complete control over courts, police, military and other centers of power before you even think about being concerned.  Otherwise, when they make a movie about what happened, it will suck.

You know I used to think the Germans must have been dumb as rocks to get behind a raving lunatic like Hitler.  Now I see MAGA morons drooling over a guy who sounds just like someone's drunken, racist, senile uncle at a dinner party, I think that being dumb as rocks is just natural to about half the population.   There must be a god because there's no way Homo Sapiens has survived this long based on intelligence.

 

Are you one of those who bangs on and on about how Islamic immigration is going to lead to Sharia Law for all of us?

[ReeferMadness]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

You're just assuming I never read it, I actually did read some of it before I came to the conclusion that it has no merit.

I was merely commenting on the fact that it's perfectly reasonable for OftenWrong to call it drivel and save the 2 minutes that I wasted on it. You also had no cause to be so insulting towards him/her.

Oh.  Of course.  You think it's "perfectly reasonable" for someone to throw sarcastic comments at something they haven't read.  Fair enough.

I think it's "perfectly reasonable" to heap scorn on people who comment on something they clearly don't understand.  I'm going to edit out the things I would say about people who comment on an article they didn't even bother to f*cking read!

The petty, inane, sarcastic, sniveling, dismissive comments are thread derailment, pure and simple.  if you don't want to have your life views challenged, why even bother showing up here?  Just record your mother telling you how smart and handsome you are and put it on a loop.  Done.  You can go back to youtube cat videos.

And as for that one person who shows up at every thread in this category, looks for any hint of negative commentary and posts the equivalent of a six year old saying in a whiny voice "Well Canada does that too you know!", I have one simple request.  Go away.  Leave my threads alone.  Start a topic called "Canada does that too" and post all of your claptrap there.

 

 

 

[ReeferMadness]

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Are you one of those who bangs on and on about how Islamic immigration is going to lead to Sharia Law for all of us?

Could you point out a time I've done that?

Or how about this for a reply.  Are you one of those that beat your kids all the time?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ReeferMadness said:

Could you point out a time I've done that?

Or how about this for a reply.  Are you one of those that beat your kids all the time?

No, because you haven't.  And I have never beaten my kids.  Of course, history says nothing about me beating my kids.

You, on the other hand, did say, sarcastically, that "if history teaches us one thing, it's that you should always wait until AFTER tyrants have seized power and has established complete control over courts, police, military and other centers of power before you even think about being concerned. "

I would have thought that comment was perfectly suited to Islamic immigration and Sharia law, if one was a little bit paranoid.  As those who think Trump is the new Hitler are.  In my very  humble opinion, of course.

That's not to say neither can happen.  I just think it's a little early to be breaking out the ammo, is all.

 

[Wilber]

I see Trump as more of a new Mussolini than a new Hitler. I think Hitler is huge stretch but his MO is right out of Joseph Goebbel's playbook.

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, Wilber said:

I see Trump as more of a new Mussolini than a new Hitler. I think Hitler is huge stretch but his MO is right out of Joseph Goebbel's playbook.

 

That's great, because FDR was a big Mussolini guy too.   All is well....

[OftenWrong]

7 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

We enjoy the pageantry of the monarch and the GG and see the monarch as the symbolic family.  We like them on our tea cups and seeing them visit hospitals and our military, putting medals on lapels and visiting with indigenous chiefs as fellow heads of state.

No, "we" don't. Many Canadians do not.

Quote

 There are many good things about having a monarchy as long as it has virtually no political authority, like in Canada.

Many Canadians feel that a symbolic position having no authority, should not require a $23M annual budget. Even if it makes you feel sentimental about Merry Olde England.

[OftenWrong]

5 hours ago, ReeferMadness said:

You didn't read the article, did you?  Have someone explain the big words to you.

Exactly what part of "I read some of that link..." do you not understand? Have you been sipping that old bong water again... Yes, I actually bothered to read the drivel you posted, just to have a look at whatever it is that sets you people off. Trump is the next Hitler... Brilliant. Yes I see it now. No doubt he'll get around to overthrowing the American Republic between his rounds of golf, binging on TV, and tweeting curses at Don Lemon.

 

 

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

No, "we" don't. Many Canadians do not.

Many Canadians feel that a symbolic position having no authority, should not require a $23M annual budget. Even if it makes you feel sentimental about Merry Olde England.

Well you may not, but most Canadians do: Dec 26, 2016 - The Queen's overall approval rating remained high in this latest poll, with eight in 10 Canadians agreeing that she has done a good job in her role as monarch. (Global News)

I don't have any special affinity for the monarch or her rep the Governor General, except that I think it's sensible to separate the political head from the figurehead, and the GG does valuable work recognizing the accomplishments of Canadians and building relationships with domestic and international leaders.  The GG is basically a well-respected, non-partisan public figure who deals with inevitable state work: welcoming and hosting foreign heads of state, recognizing people who have made contributions to the country, ensuring that the parliament doesn't go rogue and act counter to the public interest.

[Hal 9000]

Separation of people based on identity, a society that values one identity over another, restricted (and now forced) language, media who is complicit with the political party, radical groups storming the streets and colleges attacking people who think and speak differently, dependancy on gov't, destruction of traditional values (marriage, church, family, service groups etc.) that ensure dependancy on the gov't., taking away from one group to give to another. 

Those are all democrat traits, the same traits common in Nazi Germany.  The problem, and the reason the left is freaking out is because they've worked very hard to get to this point and Obama nearly put them over the top, and Hillary surely would've.  Trump sets their Marxist/Socialist agenda back a few years.    

Edited October 8, 2018 by Hal 9000

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, ReeferMadness said:

Oh.  Of course.  You think it's "perfectly reasonable" for someone to throw sarcastic comments at something they haven't read.  Fair enough.

I think it's "perfectly reasonable" to heap scorn on people who comment on something they clearly don't understand.  I'm going to edit out the things I would say about people who comment on an article they didn't even bother to f*cking read!

The petty, inane, sarcastic, sniveling, dismissive comments are thread derailment, pure and simple.  if you don't want to have your life views challenged, why even bother showing up here?  Just record your mother telling you how smart and handsome you are and put it on a loop.  Done.  You can go back to youtube cat videos.

And as for that one person who shows up at every thread in this category, looks for any hint of negative commentary and posts the equivalent of a six year old saying in a whiny voice "Well Canada does that too you know!", I have one simple request.  Go away.  Leave my threads alone.  Start a topic called "Canada does that too" and post all of your claptrap there.

 

 

 

I’ll type this really slowly so that you can read it. 

It’s perfectly fine for someone to guess that your article was crap, and not worth reading, just by looking at the title. And they were 100% correct.

It’s just more leftist hyperbole. “Hillary didn’t win and Trump is the devil and here’s what I came up with to undermine the presidency while I was bawling like a baby”. 

You can’t handle the fact that people don’t get sucked in by the same BS that you do. Get used to it. 

Here’s what you need to understand: Kavanaugh’s appointment was a success for America, because if one woman’s baseless accusations can change the fate of an entire nation that is not a victory for anyone - it’s a recipe for future failures.

BK’s appointment is also a success for the whole American democracy because Judge Kavanaugh is a man who operates properly within their constitutional framework. FYI judges are not supposed to make laws, or change laws, they’re supposed to interpret the statutes and legal precedents that are already in the books. Changing laws is a job for elected officials, not judges with lifetime appointments, period. That’s called ruling from the bench.

Therefor the appointment of Kavanagh despite a baseless allegation wasn’t an erosion of a public institution or whatever that moron called it. It’s the opposite. The appointment of a Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who makes decisions based on what she personally feels America should be like, is an erosion of all institutions at the same time: congress, the senate, the presidency, and even elections in general. What’s the point of going to the trouble to elect all those people and make new laws if RBG is just going to do whatever she wants until the day she dies anyways? 

 

 

 

[ReeferMadness]

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Exactly what part of "I read some of that link..." do you not understand? Have you been sipping that old bong water again... Yes, I actually bothered to read the drivel you posted, just to have a look at whatever it is that sets you people off. Trump is the next Hitler... Brilliant. Yes I see it now. No doubt he'll get around to overthrowing the American Republic between his rounds of golf, binging on TV, and tweeting curses at Don Lemon.

 

 

Well.  Maybe instead of asking did you read the article, I should have asked whether you understood the article.  Did the article say, as you claim

Quote

Trump is the next Hitler

Well, let's have a look.

Quote

Now, as Browning points out, “Trump is not Hitler and Trumpism is not Nazism.” The biggest and most important difference is that Hitler was an open and ideological opponent of the idea of democracy, whereas neither Trump nor the GOP wants to abolish elections.

No.  It says the exact opposite.

Now, you shouldn't feel too bad.  I know some of the big words are tough.  Just have someone explain them to you.

[ReeferMadness]

4 hours ago, Wilber said:

I see Trump as more of a new Mussolini than a new Hitler. I think Hitler is huge stretch but his MO is right out of Joseph Goebbel's playbook.

The article did not say Trump is the new Hitler.

Quote

Now, as Browning points out, “Trump is not Hitler and Trumpism is not Nazism.” The biggest and most important difference is that Hitler was an open and ideological opponent of the idea of democracy, whereas neither Trump nor the GOP wants to abolish elections.

Nor did I.

Quote

That's not to say Trump is like Hitler - Trump is a puppet and a moron.

 

Edited October 8, 2018 by ReeferMadness

[ReeferMadness]

6 hours ago, bcsapper said:

No, because you haven't.  And I have never beaten my kids.  Of course, history says nothing about me beating my kids.

You, on the other hand, did say, sarcastically, that "if history teaches us one thing, it's that you should always wait until AFTER tyrants have seized power and has established complete control over courts, police, military and other centers of power before you even think about being concerned. "

I would have thought that comment was perfectly suited to Islamic immigration and Sharia law, if one was a little bit paranoid.  As those who think Trump is the new Hitler are.  In my very  humble opinion, of course.

That's not to say neither can happen.  I just think it's a little early to be breaking out the ammo, is all.

 

I'm going to repeat this as many times as necessary.  Neither the article nor I said Trump is the new Hitler.  Look up one post.  Nuance is, well, nuanced; but I don't see the value in arguing against that which you don't understand.

In other words, you've accused me of hate mongering based on something I didn't say and a highly questionable assumption that the two are somehow associated.

Edited October 8, 2018 by ReeferMadness

[Lerxst]

On 10/6/2018 at 9:02 PM, OftenWrong said:

Read a headline today, US unemployment rate lowest in like 50 years. That's unprecedented. Or should I say, "Un-Presidented".

Yep! McDonalds, WalMart and Dunkin Donuts are really thriving! IT, Healthcare and public schools, not so much though. None of those stats tell you about the PhDs stuck in retail jobs, or the 60 year olds spending their final working days as a WinDixie cashier.

[ReeferMadness]

48 minutes ago, Lerxst said:

Yep! McDonalds, WalMart and Dunkin Donuts are really thriving! IT, Healthcare and public schools, not so much though. None of those stats tell you about the PhDs stuck in retail jobs, or the 60 year olds spending their final working days as a WinDixie cashier.

Stop making excuses.  Right wingers understand that it's the function of every person to hold a job from the age of 4 to whenever sweet death finally sweeps you away from a world of misery and pain.  Wages aren't important - in fact the lower the better.  The only thing that matters is that an arbitrary number comprised of all the money exchanged during a year keeps growing.  If people spend their money on opiates, guns and bullets to plan a mass shooting or porn, nobody really cares.  But let that magic number drop, even by a tiny amount, and the entire right wing loses its mind like they see the rapture coming or something.

[dialamah]

Right-wingers here:  let's not bother reading the article, assume what it says and then argue against our assumptions.  Because if there is anything right wingers are good at, it's arguing against what wasn't said and what hasn't happened.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, ReeferMadness said:

I'm going to repeat this as many times as necessary.  Neither the article nor I said Trump is the new Hitler.  Look up one post.  Nuance is, well, nuanced; but I don't see the value in arguing against that which you don't understand.

In other words, you've accused me of hate mongering based on something I didn't say and a highly questionable assumption that the two are somehow associated.

I didn't read the article, and I didn't accuse you of anything.  I used a question to show how paranoid your words were.  Words that certainly applied in the example I gave, but words you wouldn't dream of using in that case because of your biases.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Right-wingers here:  let's not bother reading the article, assume what it says and then argue against our assumptions.  Because if there is anything right wingers are good at, it's arguing against what wasn't said and what hasn't happened.

Or left wingers.  Remember, I didn't read it either.

[dialamah]

15 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Or left wingers.  Remember, I didn't read it either.

You stump for right-wingers so often, I don't really consider you left-wing.  

[dialamah]

19 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I didn't read the article, and I didn't accuse you of anything.  I used a question to show how paranoid your words were.  Words that certainly applied in the example I gave, but words you wouldn't dream of using in that case because of your biases.

The difference between Muslim immigrants = Sharia Law and the article and essay referenced in the OP is that there are specific similarities between the political situation in America today and the political situation in Germany prior to the rise of Hitler.

The author doesn't say that America is headed for Nazism or about to commit genocide, but that the way in which republicans have stacked the deck in their favor by gerrymandering and now, the SCOTUS, among other things, puts them in position to become the party in control, permanently - or at least until a revolution happens I guess.  Would such a party support, uphold or progress rights for women, gays, minorities or the working class?   

There's a pretty big difference between fear-of-sharia based on some hyped up news stories, and an historian, an expert in his field, noting similarities in two different time periods.  

[Guest]

Just now, dialamah said:

You stump for right-wingers so often, I don't really consider you left-wing.  

No I don't.  I'm about as socially liberal as they come.  I was against Trump and his SC nomination, to speak solely to this thread.

I'll argue pro-choice, for both abortion and assisted suicide, pro gay rights, (I do think some of the current Trans stuff is pretty dumb, and I agree with a lot of feminists on that issue) pro environment, etc, all day long.  I believe in gun control.  I believe in helping people who can't help themselves with my tax dollars.  I believe in keeping non violent prisoners out of prison, all that stuff.  (I do believe in keeping violent offenders in, which in some cases can put me on the right (wrong?) side of things)

The thing is, I also argue against religious excesses, and the freedom from them, which to my mind is a left wing position (think: Republicans), but as I take in other religions too, often in proportion to those excesses, I am seen as right wing.

I'm also pro freedom of speech and expression, which I always figured was a left wing thing (Of course both Hitler and Stalin were having none of it, so who knows?).  Also, the current crop of supposed left wingers has left me in grave doubt as to the left's position  on freedom of speech.  Nevertheless, I'm still going to count myself as left for supporting it.  Others probably won't.

I do believe that in the case of violent response to peaceful demonstration, the violence is always wrong.  I suppose that might paint me as a fascist.