Rachel Maddow has this theory...........

[berg80]

The rise of Trump is predicated on the crappiness of Obama. What you folks call lies is merely an excuse to ignore the disaster that Obama created.

The rise of Trump was, in part, due to the color of Obama's skin.

 

[DBA]

So what? We're talking about state directed social engineering. That's not what government is for.

Exactly what has been happening in academics for decades. They have “educated” a couple of generations of people to believe that the US, despite all of her obvious successes, is a terrible place and must be completely overhauled to mirror the rest of the less successful world. It takes a very indoctrinated and/or a very ignorant person to buy into that nonsense. The US would be a better place if more people would learn to think for themselves instead of blindly accepting the pot induced pontifications of idealistic professors, most of which have never held a significant job outside of academia.

 

[berg80]

She’s right. But without the history, it comes off as opinion. After WW1, Germany had to agree to crushing reparations for the cost of the war. There was no way they could recover from that. The next 20 years of a depression level economy, made the citizens vulnerable to any government, or strongman that could make their lives better.

Yes. A case could be made that much less severe conditions in the USA lead to Trump's rise. Some of which have been observed on the thread.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

.......that I thought would be interesting to discuss. Boiled down to its essence it is that Trump is not the essential element animating Trumpery. Trumpery being defined (by me) as the rise of nativism, the advent of power concentrated in the hands of the nation's leader, challenging the prior constitutional order, an isolationist bent, targeting minorities as being responsible for a variety of societal ills, and sloganeering as a substitute for nuanced policy.

She recently did a town hall style meeting with Chris Hayes during which he asked her why it is, in her opinion, that some authoritarian figures in history fail to gain support while others succeed. IOW, can success or failure of these figures be predicted. Her answer was the country, any country, has to be previously receptive to the message being projected. That no one can start from ground zero and orchestrate an authoritarian movement unless citizens in the country, some of them at least, are ready for it.

Probably the best example of this being Germany before Hitler (I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler). The seeds for being receptive to fascism were planted by the onerous terms Germany was forced to submit to after WW I.

So what was happening here that allowed for the sublimated acceptance of, if not desire for, autocracy to bubble to the surface? Technological advances bringing about economic instability? The "browning" of the country causing anxiety among certain factions?

Or is Rachel's theory just wrong?

This is a perfect example of why liberals are so damn stupid. Stupid being defined (by me) as failing to use the intellectual resources (be it personal intelligence, known information, or easily learnable information) that are readily available.

Elitist liberals have a habit of taking bits and pieces of wisdom, thoughtfully acquired, and using them as caveman clubs to try to beat people into forcibly settling on their beliefs. Let's take Maddow's statement that a country has to first be receptive an authoritarian's message for the authoritarian to be successful.

Well, no duh!

That's true for EVERYONE who believes or agrees with ANYTHING subsequent to having been told that thing by ANYONE. It's true for the first graders listening to their teacher explain i before e except after c. It's such an obvious fundamental truth inherently necessary that it's downright tautological--axiomatic, even. But Maddow presents it as some kind of inspired revelation.

The thing is, Rachel Maddow is an intelligent and educated woman. So why does she spout something so simplistic as if it's an advanced concept? Well that's simple. Because this is MSNBC. They have an agenda. They want to move the needle of American society and politics. So they want to get buy in from people by saying simplistic things people will easily agree with, and tying those simplistic truths to things that evoke strong emotions in people. This creates a conditioned response in the listener that can easily whip them up into a fury and manipulated by their passions.

In other words, Maddow is doing the exact same thing as the authoritarians like Donald and Hitler, who she's deriding. (By the way I AM comparing Maddow, Donald, and Hitler to each other, because if the shoe fits then wear it.)

 

[konradv]

So what? We're talking about state directed social engineering. That's not what government is for.

That’s your opinion. No government plan whatsoever is anarchy.

 

[DBA]

The rise of Trump was, in part, due to the color of Obama's skin.

I think it is safe to say that sensible folks despise Biden as much as they did Obama, if not more. Obama did have a lot to do with this downward trajectory, but that has nothing to do with the color of his skin, but more to do with his underlying hate for the US.

 

[dblack]

That’s your opinion. No government plan whatsoever is anarchy.

Nope. Read a dictionary.

 

[konradv]

Nope. Read a dictionary.

Pretty thin argument. I’ll go with ‘you’re full of shit’.

 

[BrokeLoser]

the rise of nativism

WTF….Cool word….but ”nativism” has always lied at the very core of America and American values. All soverign nations practice nativism. Nativism like nationalism is a positive thing for a nation.

the advent of power concentrated in the hands of the nation's leader

WTF….did Trump write his very own immigration policy? Did he create his very own personal type of citizenship like DACA or something?

challenging the prior constitutional order

WTF….did Trump work with media and social media to silent and oppress opposing views?

an isolationist bent, targeting minorities as being responsible for a variety of societal ills

Minorities ARE responsible for MOST of our societal ills. Why do you fragile/emotional folks deny known facts? Why would you have disdain for a POTUS who gives it to you straight?

sloganeering as a substitute for nuanced policy.

“Sloganeering“ gets the point across quickly and concisely. Why do you prefer word games and a bunch of bullshit rhetoric? To soften the blow of harsh realities?
REAL problem solvers simplify all things while those who solve nothing pretend everything is complex and requires “nuanced policy”. Fuck that!

 

[MinTrut]

Maddow has some valid points BUT she has no idea how this needs addressed.

Yes, Trump used the hatred of many for anything that is different than themselves to get elected. Maddow also supported a guy that promised Hispanics he would address their problems but then did nothing other than deport them.

It's odd to me that Obama actually did what Trump promised to do (Obama even voted for money for the wall) but he was disliked by many who support Trump.

Why? I'd say because they perceive a difference in him they do not with Trump.

^ Gets it.

 

[berg80]

We can't discuss this unless you can be honest.

That much is true. If, for example, you can't admit there has never been a left wing media equivalent to Faux fomenting the Big Lie there's no point in continuing.

 

[MinTrut]

With Reagan, Conservatives seized the party and drove the liberals out and appealed to the uneducated masses

A lot of Democrats DID vote for Reagan...

 

[berg80]

WTF….Cool word….but ”nativism” has always lied at the very core of America and American values. All soverign nations practice nativism. Nativism like nationalism is a positive thing for a nation.

True, to an extent. It can be a negative thing when "those not like us" become targets for victimization.

 

[MinTrut]

There was rioting, flash mobs and shoplifting during the Trump administration.

Well it's about time we disagreed about something!

I mean yes, there were, but this was a result of the grotesque/criminal Democrat-led covid lockdowns.

It had NOTHING to do with Trump.

I'll never vote Democrat again as a result - that's how repulsed I was by policies that burned down COC.

 

[BrokeLoser]

True, to an extent. It can be a negative thing when "those not like us" become targets for victimization.

Who was victimized and by whom were they victimized?

 

[kyzr]

That much is true. If, for example, you can't admit there has never been a left wing media equivalent to Faux fomenting the Big Lie there's no point in continuing.

LOL!! MSDNC, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC all show bias against Republicans. FNC is the LEAST BIASED based on SCIENCE.

Harvard Study reveals media bias

Every news outlet in the study was negative more often than positive.

www.studentnewsdaily.com

 

[skews13]

This is a perfect example of why liberals are so damn stupid. Stupid being defined (by me) as failing to use the intellectual resources (be it personal intelligence, known information, or easily learnable information) that are readily available.

Elitist liberals have a habit of taking bits and pieces of wisdom, thoughtfully acquired, and using them as caveman clubs to try to beat people into forcibly settling on their beliefs. Let's take Maddow's statement that a country has to first be receptive an authoritarian's message for the authoritarian to be successful.

Well, no duh!

That's true for EVERYONE who believes or agrees with ANYTHING subsequent to having been told that thing by ANYONE. It's true for the first graders listening to their teacher explain i before e except after c. It's such an obvious fundamental truth inherently necessary that it's downright tautological--axiomatic, even. But Maddow presents it as some kind of inspired revelation.

The thing is, Rachel Maddow is an intelligent and educated woman. So why does she spout something so simplistic as if it's an advanced concept? Well that's simple. Because this is MSNBC. They have an agenda. They want to move the needle of American society and politics. So they want to get buy in from people by saying simplistic things people will easily agree with, and tying those simplistic truths to things that evoke strong emotions in people. This creates a conditioned response in the listener that can easily whip them up into a fury and manipulated by their passions.

In other words, Maddow is doing the exact same thing as the authoritarians like Donald and Hitler, who she's deriding. (By the way I AM comparing Maddow, Donald, and Hitler to each other, because if the shoe fits then wear it.)

Right. So after 30 years of AM right wing talk radio, Fox News, and a wholly owned conservative media, it’s Maddie that’s over the top?

Yes. Rachel Maddie and Hitler. Exactly the same.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Right. So after 30 years of AM right wing talk radio, Fox News, and a wholly owned conservative media, it’s Maddie that’s over the top?

Where did I say the others aren't as well?

 

[Lesh]

The rise of Trump was, in part, due to the color of Obama's skin.

In LARGE part

 

[Dragonlady]

.......that I thought would be interesting to discuss. Boiled down to its essence it is that Trump is not the essential element animating Trumpery. Trumpery being defined (by me) as the rise of nativism, the advent of power concentrated in the hands of the nation's leader, challenging the prior constitutional order, an isolationist bent, targeting minorities as being responsible for a variety of societal ills, and sloganeering as a substitute for nuanced policy.

She recently did a town hall style meeting with Chris Hayes during which he asked her why it is, in her opinion, that some authoritarian figures in history fail to gain support while others succeed. IOW, can success or failure of these figures be predicted. Her answer was the country, any country, has to be previously receptive to the message being projected. That no one can start from ground zero and orchestrate an authoritarian movement unless citizens in the country, some of them at least, are ready for it.

Probably the best example of this being Germany before Hitler (I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler). The seeds for being receptive to fascism were planted by the onerous terms Germany was forced to submit to after WW I.

So what was happening here that allowed for the sublimated acceptance of, if not desire for, autocracy to bubble to the surface? Technological advances bringing about economic instability? The "browning" of the country causing anxiety among certain factions?

Or is Rachel's theory just wrong?

What happened in the USA was the decline and fall of US manufacturing and the displacement of low skill Anerican workers. Combined with the Republican transfer of wealth from working and middle class Americans to the wealthy, and the economic fallout from the Covid pandemic, working people are broke and angry. Republicans put all of the blame for their misguided economic policies on Democrats and immigrants

Hilter blamed the Jews. The Jew bankers sold us out. The rich Jews destroyed Germany. Hilter vowed to make Germany great again. The people were tired, broke and angry and bought into it. That’s the valid parallel to Nazi Germany.

The parallel isn’t a comparison to Trump and Hitler. There is no one who compares to Hitler. The comparison is to the economic circumstances, driving the rise of fascism, and there are a number of parallels to the rise of fascism today.

In the USA, successive economic crashes under Reagan, W and Trump further impoverished working Americans. With the destruction of labour unions the middle class started declining under Reagan. It’s been a long slow process but your ready for a takeover.

Your minimum wage hasn’t been raised since 2009. Workers have to pay for their own retraining. No wonder working men and women are angry at the government.

Democrats give them long, winded explanations about trade deals and global markets and yada, yada yada. Republicans tell the people the Democrats and the illegals did it to them. They see the browning of America and believe it. Build that wall.

Covid has accelerated the rise of fascism in the USA in the same way that the Great Depression accelerated it in Weimar Germany. Further destabilizing the economy and trust in government.

Fascists and authoritarians keep it simple. Find a scapegoat for all of your nation’s problems and blame the “others”. Covid was China’s fault. Trump didn’t botch the American response, lie to the people or fail to take action the moment he heard about it. It’s all China’s fault and Dr. Fauci.

The fascist authoritarians claim to be the answer to all your problems. “I alone can fix it.” The problem is that no nation in world history has ever enjoyed either “freedom” or “prosperity” under an authoritarian dictator. XI, Putin, Erdogan, Orban, Kim Assad None of their nations are thriving. Their people live in police states where so much as criticizing the government land you in jail.

Trump wants to pass similar laws in the USA. Is that really how you want life your country to be?

Ordinary Russians are currently living in fear. Now that homosexuality is illegal in Russia, the beatings and murder of gays there are increasing. All political opposition is murdered, and people live in fear.

What is most concerning about the rise of fascism in the United States is not hate crimes against both racial minorities and religious minorities are rapidly rising and out of control.

Fascism needs the breakdown of law and order so that the people demand a strong leader to take control of the country and restore peace and civility.

Those who would trade their freedom for security, will have neither.