• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency?

This sequence of posts lists out perceived evils of non-left, spewing hate, manipulating minds, continued polarization, damage, alleged retardation of progress (that hasn't even been made yet BTW), ending up with accusation of fascism, and in doping so commits those very same evils, and ignoring those very same evils from the present leftist media, and then isn't self-aware enough to notice any of it.

I tip my hat. That's not easily accomplished.

Here's a tip: "All that is left isn't necessarily good".
Seems to be the flawed foundation here.

All that glitters isn't gold, it's orange.


I can do sound bites, too.

okay....

Your sig gets it wrong.

You're confusing contempt with hate.

Hate is what KKK does, it has no rational basis.

Contempt is not hatred because it has a rational basis ( you might not agree, but that's beside the point).

In politics, most contempt is based on extreme opposition to policies, or behaviour.

Contempt is based on empirical observation and data. Most people conflate or confuse the two.
 
Last edited:
All that glitters isn't gold, it's orange.


I can do sound bites, too.

okay....

Your sig gets it wrong.

That line in the sig is a link, follow it and read it sometime.

You're confusing contempt with hate.

Hate is what KKK does, it has no rational basis.

Contempt is not hatred because it has a rational basis ( you might not agree, but that's beside the point).

In politics, most contempt is based on extreme opposition to policies, or behaviour.

Contempt is based on empirical observation and data. Most people conflate or confuse the two.

OK.

I see the extremist policies and extremist behaviors of the left, and I am allowed to have contempt for them. Fair enough.

I see the leftist 'news' (political propaganda) media gaslighting for their favored leftist political agenda, and I am allowed to have contempt for them. Fair enough.

Point being in my post is that much the same contempt and acerbic overheated political rhetoric, ala Waters and her bullhorn rant, ala Red Hen and the denial of service (but the Christian Baker / Artisan can't?).

Gaslighting claims of fascism where none exists isn't going to help either, and falls to about the same validity as Waters and her bullhorn ranks.
Gaslighting claims of racism where none exists isn't going to help either for that matter.
When Hillary was at the lectern and made about as divisive a political statement as is possible to make, that didn't help matters either.

Some would say that the trend started far earlier, they may be right. But doesn't it take 2 to continue the fight?

Yes, all this overheated political rhetoric is dividing the country.
Yes, winner take all politics, destroy your political opponent 'by any means necessary' (an expressed value from some) is tearing the country apart.

Why not be the first to adjust away from that?

I have been, and will continue to, make an effort to NOT see the worst of all motivations in the political opposition.
How about you?
 
That line in the sig is a link, follow it and read it sometime.



OK.

I see the extremist policies and extremist behaviors of the left, and I am allowed to have contempt for them. Fair enough.

I see the leftist 'news' (political propaganda) media gaslighting for their favored leftist political agenda, and I am allowed to have contempt for them. Fair enough.

Point being in my post is that much the same contempt and acerbic overheated political rhetoric, ala Waters and her bullhorn rant, ala Red Hen and the denial of service (but the Christian Baker / Artisan can't?).

Gaslighting claims of fascism where none exists isn't going to help either, and falls to about the same validity as Waters and her bullhorn ranks.
Gaslighting claims of racism where none exists isn't going to help either for that matter.
When Hillary was at the lectern and made about as divisive a political statement as is possible to make, that didn't help matters either.

Some would say that the trend started far earlier, they may be right. But doesn't it take 2 to continue the fight?

Yes, all this overheated political rhetoric is dividing the country.
Yes, winner take all politics, destroy your political opponent 'by any means necessary' (an expressed value from some) is tearing the country apart.

Why not be the first to adjust away from that?

I have been, and will continue to, make an effort to NOT see the worst of all motivations in the political opposition.
How about you?

yes it is, and to move away from it, well....

If there were ever the wrong person to lead the country, to change the course that has been in place for decades, Trump is the wrong guy.

Firstly, I believe your use of the term, 'gaslighting', though has been used by a few in media this way, is incorrect. It means to intentionally being deceptive intense enough to cause someone to question their own sanity. I"m not seeing anyone doing this, but some might argue Trump is doing it. I know he loves to troll the left, does it just about every day. I do see, however, how putin would do it to America. In fact, Putin is gaslighting America, I'm sure of it, in Trump!

WE do have Fabian fascism, it's present in Trump. The path to fascism, I suppose, can occur in a number of ways, but here it's like a fruit tree, seedling, slow growth, then sudden fruition. Trump is a seedling, but like any seedling, it can be more easily thwarted at that stage. That's what i mean by fabian fascism.

WE do have racism in Trump. Heck, NY even sued him for it. In a recent poll, 49% said he was racist, 47% said he wasn't. Who came in second?

No one, no president has ever been asked that question. why not? Trump is the only guy who has said blatantly racist things on national TV, so it didn't occur to pollsters to ask previous presidents.

So you are wrong on both of those counts. In fact, acknowledging and identifying this in Trump will help us make sure the next person elected is neither of these things. So, you're wrong, there, as well,

Left and right is a spectrum. I listen to a number of people on the right, and the left. None are crazy like Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. There are some fringe lefties, but they do not have a national forum on TV, but some are in congress, politics, are celebs, and do get on TV. I'm selective. yes, Hillary was wrong for the deplorables comment, and Waters was wrong for advocating harassing repubs in restaurants. I'm not an apologist for everything on the left, but I find a lot more fault with the right, for what used to be fringe, is now mainstream. the current dominant crop of right wing remind me of the John Birchers back in the 60s, but the granddad of conservative, William Buckley, kicked them out. But, today, their equivalent, the alt right, T partiers, trumpians, etc, are mainstream, they are the Birchers of yesteryear, and that is sad. Dems are more progressive today, in one respect, but less so, on another, so the net shift isn't much.
 
Last edited:
That line in the sig is a link, follow it and read it sometime.


I read the forbes article. I could site as many examples of the right doing the same.

Here's the thing, the article is way too filled with generalities and anedotal evidence.

I'll pass on it's conclusion.
 
Re: Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency? (Part 1 of 2)

yes it is, and to move away from it, well....

If there were ever the wrong person to lead the country, to change the course that has been in place for decades, Trump is the wrong guy.

Firstly, I believe your use of the term, 'gaslighting', though has been used by a few in media this way, is incorrect. It means to intentionally being deceptive intense enough to cause someone to question their own sanity. I"m not seeing anyone doing this, but some might argue Trump is doing it.

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the target (person) and delegitimize the target's belief.[1][2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

Seems like the correct use of the term when applied to the constant barrage of the 'news' media's reporting on Trump, most often marginally substantiated by the famous 'anonymous sources' (so unsubstantiated in reality, rumor mongering) this is not factual reporting of political news, but agenda and narrative driven editorial decision making and political news reporting. It is no secret that press wants to destroy the Trump administration, or at least denying Trump any positive coverage, and this is seen by polling results of trust in, and belief of, the news media. They've destroyed their own credibility in this process, self inflicted damage.

I know he loves to troll the left, does it just about every day. I do see, however, how putin would do it to America. In fact, Putin is gaslighting America, I'm sure of it, in Trump!

Yes, Trump trolls the left, all the time. Sometimes deserved, and sometimes not and probably more than he should (as it too is a source of divisiveness in the electorate), but Trump isn't Putin's Manchurian candidate, any more so than Obama was Soro's.

The reality of recent campaigns and Russian connections is that both the right and the left, the Trump campaign and the Hillary campaign had connections to Russians. Not only as campaigns, but prior to the presidential campaigns as well. It seems that Russian connections reportage is distinctly one sided.

WE do have Fabian fascism, it's present in Trump. The path to fascism, I suppose, can occur in a number of ways, but here it's like a fruit tree, seedling, slow growth, then sudden fruition. Trump is a seedling, but like any seedling, it can be more easily thwarted at that stage. That's what i mean by fabian fascism.

Fabian. A new term to me. Looked it up. What I found was:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian

So I am unsure how you are applying this with a fascism modifier.

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce,[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[4] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I before it spread to other European countries.[4] Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[5][6][7][4][8][9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
I'm not seeing how this is applied to Trump. While, yes, there are some Trump supporters who foolishly claim that Trump can do no wrong (this is the same foolishness which made this same claim about every previous president as well), this is ridiculous as every human is a flawed human with their own strengths and weaknesses that they bring to every situation.
 
Re: Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency? (Part 2 of 2)

WE do have racism in Trump. Heck, NY even sued him for it. In a recent poll, 49% said he was racist, 47% said he wasn't. Who came in second?

No one, no president has ever been asked that question. why not? Trump is the only guy who has said blatantly racist things on national TV, so it didn't occur to pollsters to ask previous presidents.

What do you expect when the reporting on Trump is as it is?

I've watched the statements Trump has made on TV that have been claimed as racist, I think its an incorrect and inaccurate conclusion, especially when he's actions of placing minorities and women in positions of authority is considered (is this too typical of a racist?). The actions don't support the conclusion. Trump's statements that caused all this furor are clumsily written and clumsily delivered.

We are both aware of the left's over use of the racist accusation. Anything the lefts doesn't like, doesn't agree with, is immediately accused of being racist as a means to shutdown any debate, discussion or challenge to their favored position (the challenge itself then being called racist).

So you are wrong on both of those counts. In fact, acknowledging and identifying this in Trump will help us make sure the next person elected is neither of these things. So, you're wrong, there, as well,

Left and right is a spectrum. I listen to a number of people on the right, and the left. None are crazy like Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. There are some fringe lefties, but they do not have a national forum on TV, but some are in congress, politics, are celebs, and do get on TV.

There are just as many far left political commentary presenters as there are right, and, yes, they are just as crazy. Maddow, Mathews, Scarborough, Brzezinski, et. al. To pretend that they represent the mainstream and calling only the one on the right as crazy is just confirmation bias at play.

I'm selective. yes, Hillary was wrong for the deplorables comment, and Waters was wrong for advocating harassing repubs in restaurants. I'm not an apologist for everything on the left, but I find a lot more fault with the right, for what used to be fringe, is now mainstream.

Let's be brutally honest here. There is as much fault on the right as there is on the left, and the two feed off each other, escalating.

the current dominant crop of right wing remind me of the John Birchers back in the 60s, but the granddad of conservative, William Buckley, kicked them out. But, today, their equivalent, the alt right, T partiers, trumpians, etc, are mainstream, they are the Birchers of yesteryear, and that is sad. Dems are more progressive today, in one respect, but less so, on another, so the net shift isn't much.

Sorry, but I'm not seeing the far right wing of the past making a come back, nor would I include the Tea Party or Trump supporters as being among the far right.

Your opinion is that the Dem party isn't being dragged to the far hard left. Here we disagree.

There are multiple politicians aligned with the Dem party which are calling for socialist programs such as universal healthcare, universal free education, and some even calling for universal guaranteed government jobs. All of these programs are more in alignment with socialism more so than anything else.

If you look at DNC leadership, they too are aligning themselves with the more radical left elements of the party. Just consider the association with the well known racist and anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan that they have.

The Tea Party movement is an American conservative movement within the Republican Party. Members of the movement have called for a reduction of the national debt of the United States and federal budget deficit by reducing government spending, and for lower taxes.[1][2] The movement opposes government-sponsored universal healthcare[3] and has been described as a popular constitutional movement[4] composed of a mixture of libertarian,[5] populist,[6] and conservative activism.[7] It has sponsored multiple protests and supported various political candidates since 2009.[8][9][10] According to the American Enterprise Institute, various polls in 2013 estimate that slightly over 10 percent of Americans identify as part of the movement.[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

As previously stated, there are some, as there are within every political group, who take the believe that their candidate / politician and / or their policies are flawless, and also as stated, that's simply being foolish. There is no such thing as a flawless candidate / politician, just as there is no such thing as a flawless policy.

We have to agree to disagree on some of the above points, but that's OK. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, at least for now. Who knows? The left may get their way and suppress any dissenting opinions in the future.
 
"Pass some of the worst Legislation in the history of the country"

Hmm. Any particular legislation that was passed you had in mind?

Or is it that any legislation passed by a majority Republican congress and signed by Trump is by definition 'the worst Legislation in the history of the country'?

Legislation claimed to be Illegal Immigration Legislation that includes watershed changes to Legal Immigration that are wholly counterproductive to the good of the American people for one.
 
Legislation claimed to be Illegal Immigration Legislation that includes watershed changes to Legal Immigration that are wholly counterproductive to the good of the American people for one.

Hmm. The 'Goodlatte II' bill, the compromise bill, had some things that many have been calling for. Mandatory E-Verify, guest worker program for agricultural.

Would have to see what amendments to this bill were raised for consideration, and whom in congress raised them, and what they were trying to address, or if the congressional Dems just dismissed it out of hand.
 
Hmm. The 'Goodlatte II' bill, the compromise bill, had some things that many have been calling for. Mandatory E-Verify, guest worker program for agricultural.

Would have to see what amendments to this bill were raised for consideration, and whom in congress raised them, and what they were trying to address, or if the congressional Dems just dismissed it out of hand.

Actually the Republicans could not muster enough votes from their own caucus to pass either of the two bills presented. So the hard right can keep tossing these nonsense bills up there while stonewalling any effort to even bring reasonable legislation to the floor. But this is all on the GOP, every last bit of it.
 
Actually the Republicans could not muster enough votes from their own caucus to pass either of the two bills presented. So the hard right can keep tossing these nonsense bills up there while stonewalling any effort to even bring reasonable legislation to the floor. But this is all on the GOP, every last bit of it.

OK. The GOP needs to work harder at building a consensus for that, or similar, bills,so that the congressional Democrats can also add their amendments to it as well.

But just the fact that GOP leadership has challenges in building such consensus is already a bit reassuring in that the congressional GOP don't represent lock step thinking, as some would like to think.
 
if you don't believe that Trump has already succeeded in destroying America then I don't know what to tell you

have you seen the discourse in this nation? are you paying attention?

our reputation globally will never be reversed; Trump has also destroyed that .............


Our (the USA) reputation globally has been up and down since it's inception.

LOL...……..you and your cronies go running from one emotional panic to another while holding your panties.
 
Our (the USA) reputation globally has been up and down since it's inception.

LOL...……..you and your cronies go running from one emotional panic to another while holding your panties.

From my view that's rather to be expected, considering that the US should be focused on US interests and the other nation's leaders should be focused on their nation's interests.
 
Re: Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency? (Part 1 of 2)

[...]...the famous 'anonymous sources' (so unsubstantiated in reality, rumor mongering) this is not factual reporting of political news, [...] They've destroyed their own credibility in this process, self inflicted damage.
I don't share your sentiment. But, on the other hand, I don't automatically assume a narrative is correct, either, without checking on different sources, viewpoints, and so forth.

Now then,

Whenever a journalist does not reveal a source, it's because the source has requested anonymity, and they have an
obligation to respect it, for if they did not, sources would dry up.

Most journalists on WaPo, NYT, MSNBC, etc, use the 3 source rule. They can still get it wrong, but this idea it's "fake news", is fake propaganda promulgated by Trump, and you're playing into his game plan, if that's where your sentiment comes from. If that's not where your sentiment comes from, well, it has, for many.

Moreover, most of the "news" is not news, it's pundits giving their opinions, and so you cannot conflate the two.
If you watch CBS, NBC, ABC, you'll see a lot less of it than you would on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc.

I understand that when pundit gives an opinion, it's goes through his or her personal POV filter, so I watch a lot of shows, to get different takes on the same story, and form my own opinion. I'm always open to new facts I may have overlooked, if it is, indeed, a fact, which counters the narrative I'm accepting.

I also get opinions, for example,. on the Middle East by talking directly to officers and enlisted personnel who have been to the middle east, as I encounter them in my work, and I live in a town that have 9 military bases.

Trump has done many things, said many things, which, in my view, warrant contempt, and if the press at large, share that contempt, I'm okay with it. But there are fair minded conservatives who share that sentiment, as well. Its not a complete left thing. Shep Smith, of Fox, is a straight shooter on that channel, so I'll listen to him, and I'll listen to Scarborough, Schmidt, Wallace, Will, to get the conservative viewpoint. Most of the crazies on Fox are alt-right guys, and they are just not credible, given their propensity to promote debunked conspiracy theories, Hannity in particular. If there were ever an enemy of the people, he fits the bill.
I know he loves to troll the left, does it just about every day. I do see, however, how Putin would do it to America. In fact, Putin is gaslighting America, I'm sure of it, in Trump!

Yes, Trump trolls the left, all the time. Sometimes deserved, and sometimes not and probably more than he should (as it too is a source of divisiveness in the electorate), but Trump isn't Putin's Manchurian candidate, any more so than Obama was Soro's.
Well, how many times have I heard a right winger accuse Soros from being responsible for everything on the left? Not from the sensible, but from the right wingnuts, as I like to call them. You don't seem to be in that category.
The reality of recent campaigns and Russian connections is that both the right and the left, the Trump campaign and the Hillary campaign had connections to Russians. Not only as campaigns, but prior to the presidential campaigns as well. It seems that Russian connections reportage is distinctly one sided.
Let's make a distinction here. It's not illegal to contact Russia. It would be, if the purpose was to aid Russia in it's espionage and active measures. There is no evidence of that with Hillary. For Trump, there is only probable cause for a Special Counsel investigation, so we have to wait until Mueller is finished, to find out what the facts are.
Fabian. A new term to me. Looked it up. What I found was:

So I am unsure how you are applying this with a fascism modifier.

From wiki
The Fabian Society is a British socialist organization whose purpose is to advance the principles of democratic socialism via gradualist and reformist effort in democracies, rather than by revolutionary overthrow.

The term "Fabian" is usually associated with creeping socialism. I've just borrowed it for fascism.

I'm not seeing how this is applied to Trump. While, yes, there are some Trump supporters who foolishly claim that Trump can do no wrong (this is the same foolishness which made this same claim about every previous president as well), this is ridiculous as every human is a flawed human with their own strengths and weaknesses that they bring to every situation.

There numerous examples of Trump exhibiting alarming authoritarian impulses, more than any president in my 67 years of observing presidents. Therefore, fear of creeping fascism, which I call "fabian fascism", is, therefore, not unwarranted, because it's more than a flaw, it's cause for concern.
 
Last edited:
Re: Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency? (Part 1 of 2)

I don't share your sentiment. But, on the other hand, I don't automatically assume a narrative is correct, either, without checking on different sources, viewpoints, and so forth.

To be honest, I didn't think you would share the same sentiment, but such is the spice in life, I guess. ;)

Now then,

Whenever a journalist does not reveal a source, it's because the source has requested anonymity, and they have an
obligation to respect it, for if they did not, sources would dry up.

Most journalists on WaPo, NYT, MSNBC, etc, use the 3 source rule. They can still get it wrong, but this idea it's "fake news", is fake propaganda promulgated by Trump, and you're playing into his game plan, if that's where your sentiment comes from. If that's not where your sentiment comes from, well, it has, for many.

The three sources rule you cite doesn't seem to be observed since the Trump administration, as there have been a number of reports, stated as fact and based anonymous sources, which have been later established as not true. Take from that what you will.

Moreover, most of the "news" is not news, it's pundits giving their opinions, and so you cannot conflate the two.
If you watch CBS, NBC, ABC, you'll see a lot less of it than you would on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc.

I welcome both. What would be a significant improvement is the news broadcasts would clearly delineate which is what, which they are presently not doing. Further, it would be a significant improvement if there were less opinion and more facts in their coverage, and then we get the the editorial decision making where seemingly any positive coverage is reduced or eliminated completely in favor of some attack or indictment piece (even if the indictment is only what the editorial decision making is deciding).

I understand that when pundit gives an opinion, it's goes through his or her personal POV filter, so I watch a lot of shows, to get different takes on the same story, and form my own opinion. I'm always open to new facts I may have overlooked, if it is, indeed, a fact, which counters the narrative I'm accepting.

I also get opinions, for example,. on the Middle East by talking directly to officers and enlisted personnel who have been to the middle east, as I encounter them in my work, and I live in a town that have 9 military bases.

Trump has done many things, said many things, which, in my view, warrant contempt, and if the press at large, share that contempt, I'm okay with it. But there are fair minded conservatives who share that sentiment, as well. Its not a complete left thing. Shep Smith, of Fox, is a straight shooter on that channel, so I'll listen to him, and I'll listen to Scarborough, Schmidt, Wallace, Will, to get the conservative viewpoint.

From my perspective, Scarborough is misplaced in this list. I particularly respect Wallace and his interview style and questions. He seems to give neither side any 'easy' or softball questions, regardless of his political leanings.

Most of the crazies on Fox are alt-right guys, and they are just not credible, given their propensity to promote debunked conspiracy theories, Hannity in particular. If there were ever an enemy of the people, he fits the bill.

Well, how many times have I heard a right winger accuse Soros from being responsible for everything on the left? Not from the sensible, but from the right wingnuts, as I like to call them. You don't seem to be in that category.

The theme that Soros is behind much of the funding of any anti-right has been so often reported on air, seems like there's more to that than not, also given that Hungary has pretty much thrown him out.

[h=3]Soros Foundations Leaving Hungary Under Government Pressure ...[/h]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/15/.../soros-philanthropy-hungary-viktor-orban.html
May 15, 2018 - The government of Hungary has tried to convince voters that the billionaire financier George Soros is behind the country's troubles.

[h=3]Soros foundations to quit Hungary amid political hostility | Reuters[/h]https://www.reuters.com/...soros-hungary/soros-foundations-to-quit-hungary-amid-po...
Apr 19, 2018 - BUDAPEST (Reuters) - George Soros’ Open Society Foundations will close their office in Budapest and move their eastern European operations to Berlin, Austria’s Die Presse newspaper reported on Thursday. ... The Hungarian news web site 444.hu said the Open Society Foundations ...

If the nation of Hungary has deemed fit to throw Soro's 'Open Society Foundation' out, why is it reasonable that the US doesn't do the same?
 
Re: Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency? (Part 2 of 2)

Let's make a distinction here. It's not illegal to contact Russia. It would be, if the purpose was to aid Russia in it's espionage and active measures. There is no evidence of that with Hillary.


Umm, really? What possible US interest is served selling uranium to Russia, which has more natural sources for it than the US? So why did Hillary's DoS proceed to do exactly that? With Mueller transporting the samples to Moscow before the sale? Is it a quid quo pro for Bill's $1/2 million speech?


For Trump, there is only probable cause for a Special Counsel investigation, so we have to wait until Mueller is finished, to find out what the facts are. /quote]

To date there have been a number of high placed democrats in congress that have publicly stated there was no Trump / Russian collusion. That the left faithful, pinning their hopes on this, were going to be disappointed that none was found. Yet, you believe that the Mueller investigation, which also hasn't found any such collusion, is still legitimate?

There are some who are claiming that the Mueller investigation is little more than an Obama administration overstep and illegality clean up operation, leveraging the special console's criminal referral powers to silence witnesses to the same.

From my view, while plausible, I'm still at 'show me the money' and 'I'm from Missouri, show me' stage at this point. While the Machiavellian yard they spin is quite compelling, I'm not willing to take all of that with some 2nd and 3rd (and 4th) source which backs it up.


From wiki




The term "Fabian" is usually associated with creeping socialism. I've just borrowed it for fascism.






There numerous examples of Trump exhibiting alarming authoritarian impulses, more than any president in my 67 years of observing presidents. Therefore, fear of creeping fascism, which I call "fabian fascism", is, therefore, not unwarranted, because it's more than a flaw, it's cause for concern.


Yet, the same president continues to instigate congress to take their proper role, to take their constitutional authority, for congress to address the issues and business of the nation, where as the Fascism ideology is far more inclined to focus all the political power in a nation under a single leader, a single administration under an executive branch. The two simply don't add up. Perhaps you could detail what I'm missing, if I am.


No, I'm left with the impression that Trump is no Fascist at all, and this is yet another empty accusation from the left.


Where are the fascist (power centralizing in the administration) that has you concerned?
 
Re: Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency? (Part 1 of 2)

To be honest, I didn't think you would share the same sentiment, but such is the spice in life, I guess. ;)

The three sources rule you cite doesn't seem to be observed since the Trump administration, as there have been a number of reports, stated as fact and based anonymous sources, which have been later established as not true. Take from that what you will.
Like I said, anyone can get it wrong, 3 sources can be wrong, but they are just playing the odds, if 3 sources say the same thing, the greater the odds are the story is correct. There is no foolproof system.
I welcome both. What would be a significant improvement is the news broadcasts would clearly delineate which is what, which they are presently not doing. Further, it would be a significant improvement if there were less opinion and more facts in their coverage, and then we get the the editorial decision making where seemingly any positive coverage is reduced or eliminated completely in favor of some attack or indictment piece (even if the indictment is only what the editorial decision making is deciding).
Why would they have to do that? I should think it's fairly obvious. A news reporter stares directly into the camera reading off a prompter. pundits sit around facing each other and chat. How do you need to be told which is which? You're not making sense. If you want less opinions, and more reportage, stick to the major news, CBS nightly news, for example, and stay away from the pundit shows, CNN, Fox, etc. I"m not seeing the problem.
From my perspective, Scarborough is misplaced in this list. I particularly respect Wallace and his interview style and questions. He seems to give neither side any 'easy' or softball questions, regardless of his political leanings.
I was referring to Nicolle Wallace. Yes, Scarborough is a bit over the top at times, but right on, other times. He has some very good guests, though.
The theme that Soros is behind much of the funding of any anti-right has been so often reported on air, seems like there's more to that than not, also given that Hungary has pretty much thrown him out.
It's a theme spewed by the alt-right, the hard right, and I take everything from that crowd with a grain of salt, and so should you.
If the nation of Hungary has deemed fit to throw Soro's 'Open Society Foundation' out, why is it reasonable that the US doesn't do the same?
Soro's is a blind capitalist, like Trump (some would call this vulture capitalism). His biz decisions are based purely on monetary reason, having nothing to do with morality. In no way do I support some of his doings, like creating havoc in the markets with certain commodity purchases on a grand scale (like that British Pound affair), but he can do that. If it's legal, and he can profit, he'll do it. But, many investors are like him, they just don't have the power he holds. That's my opinion, anyway. The stuff on his "Nazi" past, is hyped up nonsense. You can't expect a boy of 14 to be a hero, so I accept his side of that particular story, for two reason: His age of 14 at time, is verifiable, and he admitted that he "looked the other way", so he didn't hide it or lie about it, obviously, he's not proud of it. If he were man at the time, more criticism would be warranted, but a boy of 14? He has a point.

Unlike Trump, he does back good causes, Trump merely pays lip service to it, and funnels much of the money from his "foundation", to himself and his family.

Hungary is an oppressive regime. I'm not going to hang an argument on what Hungary does, or does not do. More than likely, their treatment of the foundation is probably not as much against the foundation as it is against Soros. I can, accept, however, why they feel they way the do about Soros. He's a controversial figure.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/27/hungary-fought-for-freedom-now-its-content-with-tyranny/
 
Last edited:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazin...l-donald-trump-destroy-the-presidency/537921/

Donald trump is testing the institution of the presidency unlike any of his 43 predecessors. We have never had a president so ill-informed about the nature of his office, so openly mendacious, so self-destructive, or so brazen in his abusive attacks on the courts, the press, Congress (including members of his own party), and even senior officials within his own administration. Trump is a Frankenstein’s monster of past presidents’ worst attributes: Andrew Jackson’s rage; Millard Fillmore’s bigotry; James Buchanan’s incompetence and spite; Theodore Roosevelt’s self-aggrandizement; Richard Nixon’s paranoia, insecurity, and indifference to law; and Bill Clinton’s lack of self-control and reflexive dishonesty.
===================================================
I am curious as to where this country will be 2020 & hopeful at the same time.

The question itself is too absurd to merit a response, but that fact that you would even ask it shows you have traveled so far out into the fringes that you can no longer see the city lights.
 
Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency?

He's doing his best, but I have more faith in the Constitution than that. Admittedly, we have the best Government (big) money can buy, and have for far too long. But these United States keep chugging along none the less. Eventually the pendulum will swing back to the people as a whole instead of the privileged few.

Trump is just another bump in the road … unless we allow his defamation and degrading of our fundamental institutions, FBI, Justice, EPA, State, Free Press ..., to have real impact. Then he may become emboldened to actually try to give dictatorship "a shot", especially if Mueller finds that he violated our election laws. It would be his "style" to subvert the whole government rather than be taken down by lawful accusations. That's what he's prepping his base for, but I don't think he'll get away with it.

On the other hand whomever our next President is, their first and biggest task will be to restore dignity and respect to the Office of President of These United States.
 
Re: Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency? (Part 2 of 2)

Umm, really? What possible US interest is served selling uranium to Russia, which has more natural sources for it than the US? So why did Hillary's DoS proceed to do exactly that? With Mueller transporting the samples to Moscow before the sale? Is it a quid quo pro for Bill's $1/2 million speech?
Ahhh, eohnberger, I'm surprised you fall for that Uranium One story. It's been debunked many many times, noting that not one gram of US uranium has ever been shipped to Russia (UO does not have a US export license, nor will US authorities grant it ).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...scandal-are-a-real-empty-barrel/#d9270a87b559

Given that the story is bogus, your latter premise on which it is based is therefore moot, noting that former president's, all of them, get paid big bucks for speeches.

To date there have been a number of high placed democrats in congress that have publicly stated there was no Trump / Russian collusion.
I dunno about that. The times I've heard them say it it was in the context of "thus far". so, link to it, before I'm going to accept your premise.
That the left faithful, pinning their hopes on this, were going to be disappointed that none was found. Yet, you believe that the Mueller investigation, which also hasn't found any such collusion, is still legitimate?
This "left pinning their hopes on this", is right wing spin. No one is hoping for anything. There is probable cause, so, like all probablr causes, they have to be investigated to see if there is any truth to what a probable cause might suggest. Let the chips fall where they may. If Trump is innocent, I'm fine with that. If the left is hoping for anything, is that his criminal past will be brought to justice ( aiding and abetting Russian Oligarchs and Panamanian drug lords in their money laundering schemes going back some 20 years or more ).
There are some who are claiming that the Mueller investigation is little more than an Obama administration overstep and illegality clean up operation, leveraging the special console's criminal referral powers to silence witnesses to the same.

From my view, while plausible, I'm still at 'show me the money' and 'I'm from Missouri, show me' stage at this point. While the Machiavellian yard they spin is quite compelling, I'm not willing to take all of that with some 2nd and 3rd (and 4th) source which backs it up.
I've not seen any compelling evidence for this. It's not compelling at all, from what I can tell.
Yet, the same president continues to instigate congress to take their proper role, to take their constitutional authority, for congress to address the issues and business of the nation, where as the Fascism ideology is far more inclined to focus all the political power in a nation under a single leader, a single administration under an executive branch. The two simply don't add up. Perhaps you could detail what I'm missing, if I am.

No, I'm left with the impression that Trump is no Fascist at all, and this is yet another empty accusation from the left.
e fascist (power centralizing in the administration) that has you concerned?

No one is claiming he is a fascist, but there is plenty of evidence of authoritarian tendencies, more so than any prior president. I will go through the tedious effort of linking to all or many of them, videos, or quotes, if you want.
 
Re: Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency? (Part 1 of 2)

Like I said, anyone can get it wrong, 3 sources can be wrong, but they are just playing the odds, if 3 sources say the same thing, the greater the odds are the story is correct. There is no foolproof system.

Why would they have to do that? I should think it's fairly obvious. A news reporter stares directly into the camera reading off a prompter. pundits sit around facing each other and chat. How do you need to be told which is which? You're not making sense.

Even this, which should be straight up factual reporting, is interjecting editorializing. The presenter is reading off the prompter, true, and the contents of the prompter that they are reading from contains this editorializing.

If you want less opinions, and more reportage, stick to the major news, CBS nightly news, for example, and stay away from the pundit shows, CNN, Fox, etc. I"m not seeing the problem.

I was referring to Nicolle Wallace. Yes, Scarborough is a bit over the top at times, but right on, other times. He has some very good guests, though.

It's a theme spewed by the alt-right, the hard right, and I take everything from that crowd with a grain of salt, and so should you.

Done and done.

Soro's is a blind capitalist, like Trump (some would call this vulture capitalism). His biz decisions are based purely on monetary reason, having nothing to do with morality. In no way do I support some of his doings, like creating havoc in the markets with certain commodity purchases on a grand scale (like that British Pound affair), but he can do that. If it's legal, and he can profit, he'll do it. But, many investors are like him, they just don't have the power he holds. That's my opinion, anyway.

The stuff on his "Nazi" past, is hyped up nonsense. You can't expect a boy of 14 to be a hero, so I accept his side of that particular story, for two reason: His age of 14 at time, is verifiable, and he admitted that he "looked the other way", so he didn't hide it or lie about it, obviously, he's not proud of it. If he were man at the time, more criticism would be warranted, but a boy of 14? He has a point.

Unlike Trump, he does back good causes, Trump merely pays lip service to it, and funnels much of the money from his "foundation", to himself and his family.

The Nazi stuff was disproved. True. However, you seem to have missed his sizable influence buying in politics across the world, including US politics.

Political involvement - Wikipedia, which is the same sort of thing that Hungary kicked him and his foundation out for, their being a oppressive regime or not.

Hungary is an oppressive regime. I'm not going to hang an argument on what Hungary does, or does not do. More than likely, their treatment of the foundation is probably not as much against the foundation as it is against Soros. I can, accept, however, why they feel they way the do about Soros. He's a controversial figure.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/10/27/hungary-fought-for-freedom-now-its-content-with-tyranny/
 
Re: Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency? (Part 2 of 2)

Ahhh, eohnberger, I'm surprised you fall for that Uranium One story. It's been debunked many many times, noting that not one gram of US uranium has ever been shipped to Russia (UO does not have a US export license, nor will US authorities grant it ).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...scandal-are-a-real-empty-barrel/#d9270a87b559

Given that the story is bogus, your latter premise on which it is based is therefore moot, noting that former president's, all of them, get paid big bucks for speeches.

Ahh. Hmmm.


RUSSIA ROUTED MILLIONS TO INFLUENCE CLINTON IN URANIUM DEAL, INFORMANT TELLS CONGRESS
BY JESSICA KWONG ON 2/8/18 AT 3:48 PM
Russia Routed Millions to Influence Clinton in Uranium Deal, Informant Tells Congress

Moscow routed millions of dollars to the U.S. expecting the funds would benefit ex-President Bill Clinton’s charitable initiative while his wife, Hillary Clinton, worked to reset relations with Russia, an FBI informant in an Obama administration-era uranium deal stated.

In a written statement to three congressional committees, informant Douglas Campbell said Russian nuclear executives told him that Moscow hired American lobbying firm APCO Worldwide to influence Hillary Clinton, then secretary of state, among others in the Obama administration, The Hill reported on Wednesday.

Campbell said Russian nuclear officials expected APCO to apply its $3 million annual lobbying fee from Moscow toward the Clintons’ Global Initiative. The contract detailed four $750,000 payments over a year’s time.

This surely doesn't smell right. Rather unseemly millions flowing into the Clinton Foundation at the same time the US SoS is working to 'reset relations' with Russia.

I dunno about that. The times I've heard them say it it was in the context of "thus far". so, link to it, before I'm going to accept your premise.

This "left pinning their hopes on this", is right wing spin. No one is hoping for anything.

Fellow DP posters are posting a nearly continuous stream of 'wait until Mueller's investigation is finished, Trump will be impeached for collusion'. Surely you've seen these posts? if this isn't "pinning their hopes", how much more would it take to be so?

There is probable cause, so, like all probablr causes, they have to be investigated to see if there is any truth to what a probable cause might suggest. Let the chips fall where they may. If Trump is innocent, I'm fine with that. If the left is hoping for anything, is that his criminal past will be brought to justice ( aiding and abetting Russian Oligarchs and Panamanian drug lords in their money laundering schemes going back some 20 years or more ).

I've not seen any compelling evidence for this. It's not compelling at all, from what I can tell.


No one is claiming he is a fascist, but there is plenty of evidence of authoritarian tendencies, more so than any prior president. I will go through the tedious effort of linking to all or many of them, videos, or quotes, if you want.

There are quite a number of DP posters here who are claiming exactly that, that Trump's a fascist, and yet will defend AntiFa for using fascist tactics.

Not so sure he's as authoritarian as you might think. Trying to prompt congress into doing their jobs surely doesn't align with being an authoritarian, does it?
 
Re: Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency? (Part 2 of 2)

Ahh. Hmmm.

This surely doesn't smell right. Rather unseemly millions flowing into the Clinton Foundation at the same time the US SoS is working to 'reset relations' with Russia.

I don't doubt that Russians gave to the Clinton foundation with the expectation of some kind influence but I guarantee you it wasn't rewarded because Hillary was not party to the decision to approve the purchase that was done by 9 different commissions including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. UO does not have a US export license and they do not have control over any of US production which is very poor grade uranium at best. Additionally this can't be the reason that Russia purchased uranium one because uranium is all over the world, it's traded on the open markets. Now then, the real reason Russia purchased uranium one was because of its operations in kazakistan, and there you have it, the truth. All implications inthat Newsweek article have turned out to be hot air there's nothing there.
 
Re: Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency? (Part 2 of 2)

Ahh. Hmmm.




This surely doesn't smell right. Rather unseemly millions flowing into the Clinton Foundation at the same time the US SoS is working to 'reset relations' with Russia.



Fellow DP posters are posting a nearly continuous stream of 'wait until Mueller's investigation is finished, Trump will be impeached for collusion'. Surely you've seen these posts? if this isn't "pinning their hopes", how much more would it take to be so?



There are quite a number of DP posters here who are claiming exactly that, that Trump's a fascist, and yet will defend AntiFa for using fascist tactics.

Not so sure he's as authoritarian as you might think. Trying to prompt congress into doing their jobs surely doesn't align with being an authoritarian, does it?

I do not base my opinions on what DP posters do or say
 
Re: Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency? (Part 2 of 2)

Ahhh, eohnberger, I'm surprised you fall for that Uranium One story. It's been debunked many many times, noting that not one gram of US uranium has ever been shipped to Russia (UO does not have a US export license, nor will US authorities grant it ).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...scandal-are-a-real-empty-barrel/#d9270a87b559

Given that the story is bogus, your latter premise on which it is based is therefore moot, noting that former president's, all of them, get paid big bucks for speeches.


I dunno about that. The times I've heard them say it it was in the context of "thus far". so, link to it, before I'm going to accept your premise.

This "left pinning their hopes on this", is right wing spin. No one is hoping for anything. There is probable cause, so, like all probablr causes, they have to be investigated to see if there is any truth to what a probable cause might suggest. Let the chips fall where they may. If Trump is innocent, I'm fine with that. If the left is hoping for anything, is that his criminal past will be brought to justice ( aiding and abetting Russian Oligarchs and Panamanian drug lords in their money laundering schemes going back some 20 years or more ).

I've not seen any compelling evidence for this. It's not compelling at all, from what I can tell.


No one is claiming he is a fascist, but there is plenty of evidence of authoritarian tendencies, more so than any prior president. I will go through the tedious effort of linking to all or many of them, videos, or quotes, if you want.

He has been doing things his way his entire life and he is trying to do that as president. He does not understand that he works for the American people, not for business. His tendencies are toward dictators because they get what they want. He will not be a good president in any sense of what a president should be. We need to get out and vote in 2018 and 2020 and get rid of this unqualified man.
 
Re: Will Donald Trump Destroy the Presidency? (Part 1 of 2)

Even this, which should be straight up factual reporting, is interjecting editorializing. The presenter is reading off the prompter, true, and the contents of the prompter that they are reading from contains this editorializing.
One thing the news has always done, since I was a kid, and probably before, was that, for example, they would say "the market fell 200 points today, due to blah blah." And blah blah was an outright opinion. But, this type of thing was about as bad as it got. If you have a more egregious example than that, please supply it, and I'm talkin' straight up news programs.
Done and done.


The Nazi stuff was disproved. True. However, you seem to have missed his sizable influence buying in politics across the world, including US politics.

Political involvement - Wikipedia, which is the same sort of thing that Hungary kicked him and his foundation out for, their being a oppressive regime or not.

I'm not seeing anything in that link that is particularly bad, or alarming, all or mostly ho hum stuff.
 
Back
Top Bottom