The rise of fascism, nationalism and populism today

[owebo]

But they were not on it, hence they were not registered. But they did have something in common...Islam.

Hmmm....they also have guns in common.

Not the bombers or 9/11 hijackers.

Look at the huge amount of mass shooting deaths that occur. What do they have in common?

Dead people. Made so by a terrorist.

All mass shootings are conducted by terrorists?

Not all liberals are shooters, but all shooters are liberals.....

 

[TNHarley]

So you are bitching about taking the American rights of foreigners away from them? LMAO
Its pretty silly to compare halting immigration for national security to the atrocities of WW2.
Muslim registry will never happen. THIS IS AMERICA. They took over more than economies, they took over the government.
ATTENTION : It aint gonna happen. Not to mention we have hundreds of millions of gun owners. And luckily, we will continue to have gun owners.
You people really think hundreds of employees are gonna sign away their jobs and the future of the country because some guy said they anted him to? Give me a break.

IMO, one of the atrocities of WWII is that we closed our doors to German Jews begging to flee Hitler. So they were exterminated; we could have helped. It's true they weren't American citizens, so apparently you don't care, but I DO. You see what is happening in Aleppo and Mosul. Picture living in it. You've maybe seen what living conditions are like in the refugee camps for families, sometimes for years. So yes, I am bitching that Trump is in favor of closing our doors because of "national security." It is EXACTLY the same excuse we used to keep out the Jews. Should there be a registry of Muslims "for security reasons?" That is what we did in order to collect the Japanese and send them to prison camps. We confiscated their property, their businesses, everything. AND THEY WERE BORN HERE.
I wish you were right, TN, but I don't know what makes you think "it won't happen here." Listen to the people around you. America's done it's share of shit hole stuff, and we are more than capable of doing it again.

Completely different circumstances. You are assuming a HUGE threat would have to happen for POTUS to get that kind of power. Have you ever heard of separation of powers?
We shouldn't register citizens, of course not.
One could never convince me that emotion is better suited to run a country, ESPECIALLY its safety of 320M people than actual safety and logical thought.

It's not "emotion," TN, it is one of our core values and traditions, to welcome people to our free country from other lands. The circumstances are not different at all. America is threatened, has been at war for fifteen solid years against radical Islam/ISIS. We are doing exactly what we did before. Or we will, if we don't put on the brakes. Do you think Trump's administration and a Republican dominated Congress, Senate and soon to be majority conservative Supreme Court will not have its way in these matters? Really?

We cant declare war on a terror group.
Shit happens during war. It is absolutely emotion. Because ANY logical thought would include them abusing Good.

On September 18, 2001, Congress enacted into law, and President George W. Bush signed, what is arguably the broadest declaration of war in our nation’s history. “Whereas on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States,” begins the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF),

The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.

Constitutionally, the 9-18-01 Act is a Declaration of War.

Declarations of War confers special powers to the President, AUMFs do not. They are NOT the same. AUMFs are just more traditional now.

 

[Coyote]

Hmmm....they also have guns in common.

Not the bombers or 9/11 hijackers.

Look at the huge amount of mass shooting deaths that occur. What do they have in common?

Dead people. Made so by a terrorist.

All mass shootings are conducted by terrorists?

Not all liberals are shooters, but all shooters are liberals.....

Nice try but we don't give out participation trophies.

 

[Edgetho]

So what are you actually proposing for constitutional amendments?

Free Beer every Friday Night.

 

[Coyote]

So what are you actually proposing for constitutional amendments?

Free Beer every Friday Night.

You got my vote.

 

[owebo]

Not the bombers or 9/11 hijackers.

Look at the huge amount of mass shooting deaths that occur. What do they have in common?

Dead people. Made so by a terrorist.

All mass shootings are conducted by terrorists?

Not all liberals are shooters, but all shooters are liberals.....

Nice try but we don't give out participation trophies.

No, you just shoot us.....

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

But they were not on it, hence they were not registered. But they did have something in common...Islam.

Hmmm....they also have guns in common.

Not the bombers or 9/11 hijackers.

Look at the huge amount of mass shooting deaths that occur. What do they have in common?

Dead people. Made so by a terrorist.

All mass shootings are conducted by terrorists?

Yes, such actions are terrorism and are therefore committed by terrorists. Unless one happens to be an Islamic US military officer with Barry as president - then it's called workplace violence.

 

[jc456]

But they were not on it, hence they were not registered. But they did have something in common...Islam.

Hmmm....they also have guns in common.

Not the bombers or 9/11 hijackers.

Look at the huge amount of mass shooting deaths that occur. What do they have in common?

Dead people. Made so by a terrorist.

All mass shootings are conducted by terrorists?

If those who did it say they are

 

[Edgetho]

Declarations of War confers special powers to the President, AUMFs do not. They are NOT the same. AUMFs are just more traditional now.

I don't know about all that.

There is no wording for a DecofWar.

An AUMF is no different than a DecofWar, AFAIK.

 

[Coyote]

Hmmm....they also have guns in common.

Not the bombers or 9/11 hijackers.

Look at the huge amount of mass shooting deaths that occur. What do they have in common?

Dead people. Made so by a terrorist.

All mass shootings are conducted by terrorists?

Yes, such actions are terrorism and are therefore committed by terrorists. Unless one happens to be an Islamic US military officer with Barry as president - then it's called workplace violence.

Umh...I don't think so. (by the way, it wasn't Obama that labeled it "workplace violence" it was the Pentagon)

 

[Coyote]

Look at the huge amount of mass shooting deaths that occur. What do they have in common?

Dead people. Made so by a terrorist.

All mass shootings are conducted by terrorists?

Not all liberals are shooters, but all shooters are liberals.....

Nice try but we don't give out participation trophies.

No, you just shoot us.....

Hold still please....

 

[The Original Tree]

No, it doesn't....you do understand what a right is, don't you?

Yes. I do.

Do try again and tell us......since you were clueless the first time....

Rights (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Stanford.....coupled with this...

"There are two leading philosophical approaches to explaining which fundamental rights of conduct there are,"

Tells me you still don't have a fucking clue......

So you're trying to claim that your right to something allows you to deprive others of their rights?

A right to own land is fundamental, and by purchasing land you become the rightful owner and are depriving others of access to use the land you own.
Individual Rights are exactly that.....INDIVIDUAL. It allows an individual to be successful materially, to pursue happiness as he sees fit by the sweat and ingenuity of his own brow.

This Collectivist Rights Bullshit IS PURE EVIL. Just because one man has a right to obtain something does not mean another man is deprived of that right.

The Land owner is not depriving another citizen of Owning Land, just taking ownership of the land he owns, legally and legally obtained. The Individual (butt hurt lazy lefty) can still go out and Purchase his Own Land.

Collectivism is the most ASININE philosophy that ever existed. Collectivist Rights mean this..... NO INDIVIDUAL HAS A RIGHT TO ANYTHING, therefore ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE EQUALLY DEPRIVED of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Only group rights and faux equality exists. Equivalent Poverty.

You don't deprive another individual of any rights by asserting your own. You are simply saying to that other individual, "If you want what I have, go out and earn it like I did"

And if you want to have MORE THAN WHAT I HAVE, you have the right to out work me, and out compete me for it.

COLLECTIVIST RIGHTS are for the lazy, unmotivated and morally corrupt. These types of societies almost always collapse under their own weight of trying to create artificial equality, income equality, climate justice, and group rights where none really exists.

WEALTH WITHOUT WORK is the biggest hoax the Left ever Invented.

 

[TNHarley]

Declarations of War confers special powers to the President, AUMFs do not. They are NOT the same. AUMFs are just more traditional now.

I don't know about all that.

There is no wording for a DecofWar.

An AUMF is no different than a DecofWar, AFAIK.

DoW confers special domestic, foreign trade, economic, communications etc etc powers to the President he doesn't normally have. Like Japanese internment. AUMFs do no such thing.

 

[Coyote]

Yes. I do.

Do try again and tell us......since you were clueless the first time....

Rights (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Stanford.....coupled with this...

"There are two leading philosophical approaches to explaining which fundamental rights of conduct there are,"

Tells me you still don't have a fucking clue......

So you're trying to claim that your right to something allows you to deprive others of their rights?

A right to own land is fundamental, and by purchasing land you become the rightful owner and are depriving others of the right to use the land you own.
Individual Rights are exactly that.....INDIVIDUAL.

This Collectivist Right Bullshit IS PURE EVIL. Just because one man has a right to obtain someone does not mean another man is deprived of that right. The Land owner is not depriving another citizen of Owning Land, just taking ownership of the land he owns. The Individual can still go out and Purchase his Own Land.

Collectivism is the most ASSININE philosophy that ever existed. Collectivist Rights mean this..... NO INDIVIDUAL HAS A RIGHT TO ANYTHING, therefore ALL ARE EQUALLY DEPRIVED of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

You don't deprive another individual of any rights by asserting your own. You are simply saying to that other individual, "If you want what I have, go out and earn it like I did"
And if you want to have MORE THAN WHAT I HAVE, you have the right to out work me, and out compete me for it.

COLLECTIVIST RIGHTS are for the lazy, unmotivated and morally corrupt. These types of societies almost always collapse under their own weight of trying to create artificial equality, and group rights where none really exists.

So...you are depriving no one else of their rights if you decide to:

assert your right to freedom of assembly by calling for a riot that destroys local business?
assert your right of free speech by inciting a lynch mob to attack another person?
assert your right to freedom of religion by conducting sexual orgies on another's private property?

 

[TNHarley]

Edgetho
I guess that a POTUS could ask for certain powers in their AUMFs but Congress might not want to vote on it. Like they didn't when Obama wanted to declare war on ISIS.
But DoW are automatic.

 

[Edgetho]

DoW confers special domestic, foreign trade, economic, communications etc etc powers to the President he doesn't normally have. Like Japanese internment. AUMFs do no such thing.

Dewd..... They can if they want to.

If Congress wants to give the CinC those powers, they can.

All they have to do is use the wording. Something like, "Kick some ass and we don't how you do it."

My kind of AUMF. A DecofWar is just an all-encompassing AUMF.

Not quibbling, just sayin'

 

[TNHarley]

Do try again and tell us......since you were clueless the first time....

Rights (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Stanford.....coupled with this...

"There are two leading philosophical approaches to explaining which fundamental rights of conduct there are,"

Tells me you still don't have a fucking clue......

So you're trying to claim that your right to something allows you to deprive others of their rights?

A right to own land is fundamental, and by purchasing land you become the rightful owner and are depriving others of the right to use the land you own.
Individual Rights are exactly that.....INDIVIDUAL.

This Collectivist Right Bullshit IS PURE EVIL. Just because one man has a right to obtain someone does not mean another man is deprived of that right. The Land owner is not depriving another citizen of Owning Land, just taking ownership of the land he owns. The Individual can still go out and Purchase his Own Land.

Collectivism is the most ASSININE philosophy that ever existed. Collectivist Rights mean this..... NO INDIVIDUAL HAS A RIGHT TO ANYTHING, therefore ALL ARE EQUALLY DEPRIVED of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

You don't deprive another individual of any rights by asserting your own. You are simply saying to that other individual, "If you want what I have, go out and earn it like I did"
And if you want to have MORE THAN WHAT I HAVE, you have the right to out work me, and out compete me for it.

COLLECTIVIST RIGHTS are for the lazy, unmotivated and morally corrupt. These types of societies almost always collapse under their own weight of trying to create artificial equality, and group rights where none really exists.

So...you are depriving no one else of their rights if you decide to:

assert your right to freedom of assembly by calling for a riot that destroys local business?
assert your right of free speech by inciting a lynch mob to attack another person?
assert your right to freedom of religion by conducting sexual orgies on another's private property?

Speech includes assault?
assert your right to freedom of religion by conducting sexual orgies on another's private property
Someone is getting their rights violated
At least try to act like you know what is being discussed

 

[TNHarley]

DoW confers special domestic, foreign trade, economic, communications etc etc powers to the President he doesn't normally have. Like Japanese internment. AUMFs do no such thing.

Dewd..... They can if they want to.

If Congress wants to give the CinC those powers, they can.

All they have to do is use the wording. Something like, "Kick some ass and we don't how you do it."

My kind of AUMF. A DecofWar is just an all-encompassing AUMF.

Not quibbling, just sayin'

#275

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Fascism is loosely defined as a form of extreme “authoritarian nationalism” identified with Italy’s Mussolini. It’s principle attributes were an aggressive nationalism, a militarized society, a populist charismatic leader and prolific promises to cure every political and economic ill. It was particularly appealing to an economically depressed post-war society that had seen its way of life and culture turned upside down. Fascism promised action, not diplomacy, not nuance, even if it could not in reality deliver on those promises.

Mussolini was the “anti-establishment outsider” who became the voice of all those disillusioned with the government, the democratic process, and the economy. His rhetoric attracted the unemployed, the economically disenfranchised, veterans, and nationalists. In 1922, when Italy’s king called on Mussolini to form a government he had no idea what that entailed other than fulfilling a personal ambition for power.

In 1938, fascism took on distinctly racist/anti-semitic overtones when it began to collaborate with the Nazi’s. Italy passed it’s “Italian Racial Laws”. These laws codified what had previously been a campaign conducted in the media with the publication of the “Manifesto of Race” Manifesto of Race - Wikipedia This manifesto declared Italians to be of a superior race, and targeted other races as “inferior” - notably Jews and immigrants from Italy’s colonies. They were banned from marrying Italians, and from positions in banking, education, government and their property was confiscated.

Fascism, extreme nationalism and ideas of racial, ethnic, cultural or religious superiority are closely entertwined. Almost every country that has seen a rise in populist movements, such as fascism, has also seen a rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, legislation targeting specific racial, ethnic or religious groups and a rise in “justified” violence or special restrictions aimed at those groups.

World War 2 saw increased nationalistic fervor after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. American citizens of Japanese were first required to register. Then, their assets were frozen. Then they were ordered to “assembly points” and interned. Their property was confiscated. American citizens of Italian and German descent joined them. Is it so impossible for people to conceive of the fact that American citizens regardless of their ancestry are Americans first? Apparently it is.

We want to say “that was then, this is now”. That today is somehow different. But is it?

Look at the rise of populist rightwing movements across Europe and with the recent election of Donald Trump.

Geert Wilders, recently in the news again and with a very real chance of winning a government now with a coalition. What is the platform for his Party for Freedom?

They include the predictable anti-immigrant/Islam rhetoric, including completely banning an entire religion, closing all mosques and banning the Koran, the withdrawal of all residence permits granted to asylum seekers, and some rather obscurely defined planks such as:

Ban of overall Muslim expressions that are against the public order (defined how?)
Preventive incarceration of radical Muslims (determined how?).​

They also include populist promisies that likely can't be delivered upon:

The Netherlands will reclaim its independence. Therefore, we leave the EU.
Direct democracy: binding referendums, citizens have the power.
Deductible/excess in healthcare insurance is eliminated
Rents to be lowered
No more money for foreign aid, windmills, art, innovation, public broadcasters, etc.
Plenty extra funds for defense and police
Lower income taxes
50% reduction for vehicle ownership taxes​

Donald Trump campaigned on deporting immigrants and halting immigration, registries for Muslims, border security, tax cuts, bringing jobs back and increased defense. Supporters don’t rule out internment camps and banning entire religions. Mussolini attacked the leftwing media and attempted to close them down, a few managed to continue to operate under difficult conditions. We've heard Trump rail about the media and we've heard him propose legislation against them and creating his own media service.

I think these are truly dangerous times for civil liberties and freedoms throughout the western world.

I think you are absolutely right. And this victory "thank you" tour Trump is taking is ridiculous. He should be going to PA and CA and NY and offering olive branches. Maybe go on a "listening tour" but instead he's going for air time in places where he won. And he's surrounding himself with some TRUE deplorables in his cabinet and advisors. People who deal in fake news.

From Rolling Stone Online, sums it up nicely:

They're already building the inaugural stand on the west side of the Capitol building. In six weeks, Donald Trump will stand on it, in front of thousands, and take the oath of office to become the 45th president of the United States.




Donald Trump, Loser-in-Chief
Our next president cannot stand that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote – and America will suffer for it

What happens next is anyone's guess. But here's what we do know.

We know Trump has named as his chief counselor a man who runs a website read and appreciated by the most virulent racists in America, a man who, according to court documents, told his wife he didn't want his children going to school with Jews and who reportedly thought it would be "not such a bad thing" if fewer African-Americans voted.

We know Trump named as his national security adviser a man who, days before the election, promulgated a conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton and sex crimes with children. (But not "Pizzagate," yet another conspiracy theory involving Clinton and child sex crimes – it was Flynn's son and chief of staff who tweeted about that one.) We also know that national security adviser called Islam a "political ideology" and said the religion is like a "malignant cancer."

We know Trump nominated for attorney general a man the Senate refused to confirm as a federal judge for being too racist in 1986, a year when it was still openly debated whether apartheid was all that bad.

We know he appointed a secretary of housing and urban development who knows nothing about housing or urban development. We know he appointed an education secretary who has made it her life's work to dismantle her state's public school system. We know he's appointed a Treasury secretary who foreclosed on thousands of homes during the housing crisis. We know he's appointed an EPA administrator who has sued the EPA to stop it from protecting the environment and bragged that he's a "leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda."

We know he's inexperienced and ignorant enough to cause genuine harm to America's interests. Trump's recent call with Taiwan's leader caused a genuine international furor. He endorsed the campaign of extrajudicial murder the president of the Philippines launched against his country's drug trade. These are irresponsible actions with real consequences.

We know Trump has business interests all over the world. We know diplomats are planning events at his new Washington, D.C., hotel. We know his daughter Ivanka sat in on a meeting with Trump and the Japanese prime minister as she was wrapping up a deal with a Japanese clothing company owned in part by the state. We know his plan to "divest" himself of his business interests by giving control to his children is meaningless – foreign investors and governments will know exactly how to influence him.

We know the next president of the United States uses his powerful platform to take revenge on individual citizens. He attacked Alec Baldwin for parodying him on Saturday Night Live, threatened to cancel a contract with Boeing because its CEO questioned his trade policy and called a union leader "terrible" for pointing out Trump lied in his characterization of the Carrier deal.

We know he doesn't understand or care about the most fundamental constitutional rights, after he threatened to revoke the citizenship of anyone who burned a flag. We know he's suggested using the power of his office to go after the press for vigorously reporting on what he says and does. (Quote him, and he'll call you a liar.)

Add it all up, and what do you see? A child who reacts to the slightest perceived attack with vicious vitriol. A vengeful president who is willing to violate basic rights. A government run by incompetents, racists, bullies and conspiracy-mongers.

It's a formula for tragedy.

No one can predict the future – we learned that lesson the hard way a month ago. But if you were to imagine what impending American fascism would look like, you couldn't place the pieces on the board any more neatly than they've been placed in the last year.

There is no reason to believe Donald Trump understands or will accept the checks on an American president's power. There is no reason to believe he won't trample over the Constitution when it suits him. How far will he go? Is it impossible to imagine that the man who talked about "opening up" libel laws could start tossing journalists in jail? How about the guy who makes fun of him on SNL? Or anyone who criticizes him?

How confident can we be that a man who spreads lies about illegal voters giving his opponent the popular-vote win and talks endlessly about rigged elections will give up power in four years if he loses? Or in eight years, just because some amendment says he's supposed to?

Who will stop him from grabbing power he's not entitled to? The madmen he's surrounded himself with? The weak-willed leaders of the Republican majority in Congress who have yet to provide hardly any resistance to the things he's said and done, no matter how outrageous or un-American?

We can't guess how bad it's going to get over the next four or eight years. We don't know what America will look like. But if you think things won't change because they never have, you aren't paying close enough attention to Donald Trump.

At the very least, we're being led by an unqualified man-boy who doesn't grasp even the most basic tenets of governance.

At worst, we're headed down an extraordinarily dark road where the things that make America America simply cease to exist. A president who won on a campaign of anti-immigrant furor, who believes in casting aside freedom like litter, who craves constant validation and can't abide criticism or satire – that's a tyrant in the making."""""""""""

 

[Edgetho]

So...you are depriving no one else of their rights if you decide to:

assert your right to freedom of assembly by calling for a riot that destroys local business?
assert your right of free speech by inciting a lynch mob to attack another person?
assert your right to freedom of religion by conducting sexual orgies on another's private property?

That is one HELL of a stretch.

Even for you