quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
ME does like opinion pieces

Only when they agree with his demented purview.....


Poor old gal....


.

Okay, Jeffe, ya got me cornered.

Here it is:

https://youtube.com/shorts/Gzl...?si=mEvG9o1ykYX3Zy94

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...dcf17c9a5274e5&ei=26

A War on Blue America
Story by Ronald Brownstein • 13h

Editor’s Note: This article is part of “If Trump Wins,” https://www.theatlantic.com/ma...l&utm_campaign=share a project considering what Donald Trump might do if reelected in 2024.

During his term in the White House, Donald Trump governed as a wartime president—with blue America, rather than any foreign country, as the adversary. He sought to use national authority to achieve factional ends—to impose the priorities of red America onto Democratic-leaning states and cities. The agenda Trump has laid out for a second term makes clear that those bruising and divisive efforts were only preliminary skirmishes.

Presidents always pursue policies that reflect the priorities of the voters and regions that supported them. But Trump moved in especially aggressive ways to exert control over, or punish, the jurisdictions that resisted him. His 2017 tax bill, otherwise a windfall for taxpayers in the upper brackets, capped the federal deductibility of state and local taxes, a costly shift for wealthy residents of liberal states such as New York and California. He moved, with mixed success, to deny federal law-enforcement grants to so-called sanctuary cities that didn’t fully cooperate with federal immigration agents. He attempted to strip California of the authority it has wielded since the early 1970s to set its own, more stringent pollution standards.

[Read: Trump’s war on blue America] https://www.theatlantic.com/po...8381/?utm_source=msn

In Trump’s final year in office, he opened a new, more ominous front in his campaign to assert control over blue jurisdictions. As the nation faced the twin shocks of the coronavirus pandemic and the protests that followed the murder of George Floyd, Trump repeatedly dispatched federal law-enforcement agents to blue cities, usually over the opposition of Democratic mayors, governors, or both. Trump sent an array of federal personnel to Portland, Oregon, ostensibly to protect a federal courthouse amid the city’s chaotic protests; reports soon emerged of camouflage-clad federal agents without any identifying insignia forcing protesters into unmarked vans. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/0...A4Xb7&smid=url-share Trump responded to the huge racial-justice protests in Washington, D.C., by dispatching National Guard troops drawn from 11 states, almost all of them led by Republican governors. Later he sent other federal law-enforcement officers to combat rising crime in Kansas City and Chicago, a city Trump described as “worse than Afghanistan.”

Trump has signaled that in a second presidential term, he would further escalate his war on blue America. He’s again promising federal legislation that would impose policies popular in red states onto the blue states that have rejected them. He has pledged to withhold federal funding from schools teaching critical race theory and “gender ideology.” He says he will initiate federal civil-rights investigations into liberal big-city prosecutors (whom he calls “Marxist local District Attorneys”) and require cities to adopt policing policies favored by conservatives, such as stop-and-frisk, as a condition for receiving federal grants.

Even more dramatic are Trump’s open pledges to launch militarized law-enforcement campaigns inside blue cities. He has proposed initiatives that cumulatively could create an occupying federal force in the nation’s largest cities. Trump has indicated that “in cities where there’s been a complete breakdown of public safety, I will send in federal assets, including the National Guard, until law and order is restored.”

[Read: Why the 2020s could be as dangerous as the 1850s] https://www.theatlantic.com/po...6912/?utm_source=msn

Trump envisions an even more invasive door-to-door offensive against undocumented immigrants. In an early-2023 speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Trump said he “will use all necessary state, local, federal, and military resources to carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.” Stephen Miller, who was his top immigration aide in the White House, later added that Trump envisions establishing massive internment camps for undocumented immigrants awaiting deportation. Trump has also promised “to use every tool, lever, and authority to get the homeless off our streets,” and move them to camps as well. (On this front, Trump has said he would work with states, but in practice that would likely involve partnering with Republican governors to impose policies to clear the streets opposed by their own Democratic mayors.)

Michael Nutter, a former mayor of Philadelphia, told me that if a reelected Trump sought to implement these policies, the result would be “chaos, confusion,” and “massive demonstrations.” “Nobody is going to allow that to just happen,” Nutter said. “You are just going to see standoffs. It is going to be the Philadelphia Police Department versus the National Guard. Neighbors are going to be surrounding people’s houses. Folks are going to rush and seek safety in churches and synagogues and mosques and temples.”

Of course, Trump would face other obstacles in attempting to implement these plans. The president’s legal authority to deploy federal forces over the objections of local officials is murky. And the relatively small number of federal law-enforcement officers under his direct control at agencies such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection could limit his options, according to Richard Briffault, a professor at Columbia University Law School who studies relations among cities, states, and the federal government.

But in Trump’s final months in office, he got creative about augmenting the forces at his command by drawing on National Guard troops provided by sympathetic Republican governors. His advisers are already talking about doing the same to staff his deportation agenda, as well as using the emergency authority he cited to fund his border wall to build his camps for undocumented immigrants without congressional approval.

Briffault told me that the inevitable court challenges to any Trump-ordered projections of force into blue cities would likely pivot on the courts’ interpretation of how much authority the president possesses under various emergency statutes. His advisers have already discussed invoking the 19th-century Insurrection Act, for example. As legal scholars have pointed out, the scope of the president’s emergency powers is much broader than most Americans recognize, and Trump is clearly signaling that if he returns to the White House, he intends to test the outer boundaries of that authority. The question for the courts will be “to what extent can he engage directly in law enforcement and having militarized law enforcement in the United States, in the absence of a request by a governor or a mayor that there is a riotlike condition or civil disorder?” Briffault said. “Can he declare an emergency even though he’s not being asked for it?”

[From the January/February 2022 issue: Barton Gellman on how Trump’s next coup has already begun]

As president, Trump seemed to view himself less as the leader of a unified republic than as the champion of a red nation within a nation—one that constitutes the real America. If anything, Trump has assumed that factional role even more overtly in his 2024 campaign, promising that he will deliver “retribution” for his supporters and dehumanizing his opponents. Powered by such fetid resentments and grievances, the agenda Trump seeks to impose on blue cities and states could create the greatest threat to the nation’s cohesion since the Civil War.

This article appears in the January/February 2024 print edition with the headline “A War on Blue America.”

so, nothing?

okay, i'll tell you what *I* think
antisemitism
create political enemies of the state
"if it's not forbidden, then it is mandatory"
disrupt political opponents, commonly called "enemies"
have a flagrant, violent arm
demand adherence to party/government
Absolute power in the hands of the executive
control speech / press
out of round retaliation of those falling out of favor
huge propaganda
accepts huge abuses of power from "the State"


what did i miss?

quote:

what did i miss?

I assume you are trying to define Fascism?

Violence as a means
lies
zero-sum
Us vs them rhetoric and suppression/disfranchisement of "them"
Nationalism
Religious uniformity and demonizing
Dehumanization of "them" in various ways
Utter loyalty to the leader
pervert the rule of law
etc.

weird, you skipped antisemitism - literally a tenant of all three fascists governments that have ever existed.. i mean, WEIRD that you wouldn't make that your number 1, or even on this lists

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

what did i miss?

I assume you are trying to define Fascism?

Violence as a means

and i said/aligned with disrupt political opponents, commonly called "enemies"

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
lies

and i "HUGE ROPAGANDA" said/aligned with

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
zero-sum
Us vs them rhetoric and suppression/disfranchisement of "them"

and i said/aligned with
create political enemies of the state

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Nationalism

you are kidding, right? i mean there's like 12K, with $150k student loan debt that can unscramble that for you (that you don't know what historians mean by "nationalism" vs your understanding if same)

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Religious uniformity and demonizing

and i said/aligned with
antisemitism (is this where you lump those together, or did i just invent an alibi for you?)

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Dehumanization of "them" in various ways

and i said/aligned with a couple obvious points, but be sure to include "disrupt political opponents, commonly called "enemies"

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Utter loyalty to the leader

and i said/aligned with absolute power in the hands of the executive

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
pervert the rule of law

and i said/aligned with accepts huge abuse of power from "the State"

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
etc.

Do you have anything else to define fascism? anything at all?

You and I apparently like to argue.

There is one area where I don't like to argue and that's over definitions. Usually, definitions are easy. But with fascism it's not so easy. Most of the info I've read or listened to on fascism starts out with caveats.

So, I'm going back to appeal to authority.

https://youtu.be/CpCKkWMbmXU?si=kCQFos-9L6T5fqEF

I am just trying to understand what YOU mean by a fascist - using terms we can agree upon, and hopefully measure.

I mean, obviously, not each thing called fascist will exhibit all of these factors, as these are pretty common tools.

It's not arguing over definitions, it's defining and agreeing what terms mean.

Look, deep down in my mind i am a computer scientist, (among other things) and "undefined terms" drive me nuts, and sometimes delight me - clever word play like "may you live in interesting times, may you be recognized by powerful people, and may all your dreams come true" -- that clever word play, in which definitions change the result, amuse me

back to the topic, You (not ya'll, you, singular) use the word fascist a good bit to things that don't seem to be all that nazi. I am just trying to understand how you use the word, and maybe, just maybe, come to an understanding of what measure to use to say something is fascist.

Here is the definition of Fascim from Mussolini himself.

We also need to look at the tactics used by Hitler and Mussolini to come to power.

https://www.wm.edu/offices/aux...eoffascismedited.pdf

quote:

back to the topic, You (not ya'll, you, singular) use the word fascist a good bit to things that don't seem to be all that nazi.

That's probably correct, because when I used the F word I'm not thinking about Nazi or the historical context at all. I'm thinking about the tenants of Fascism in context of today.

And, from the stuff I've read and watched, Fascism is at least partially defined by sorting out what it is NOT. But what it is NOT may closely resemble, or partially incorporate, such things as dictatorship, authoritarianism, etc.

The key thing in the stuff I've read is that the very nature of a democracy is vulnerable to fascism, under certain conditions, to the sway of a populist demagogue like Trump. We can see it happening, like a Red Tide.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Here is the definition of Fascim from Mussolini himself.

We also need to look at the tactics used by Hitler and Mussolini to come to power.

https://www.wm.edu/offices/aux...eoffascismedited.pdf

The best word I can think of, re that link, is WOW.

It's long and requires a double-take. Word after word, and the scope and significance and persuasion, that humanity is and was lured, lustfully, like bugs to a bright light, is chilling.

The word "spiritually" really caught my eye, and the way he used it.

I am assuming that it indeed was factually written by Mussolini.

Would you, upon review, call FDR a fascist?
he put people in concentration camps
directly control the national economy
refused to follow the practice of 2 and out - literally we had to change our Constitution to prevent it from happening again
was, at the moment, the largest "Taker" government using Em.dom to take away businesses and property
used the draft to fight a war
demanded industry change everything they produced/how they produced to meet a government stand
funded mercenaries to attack other "legitimate" countries (look up the flying tigers)
outlawed private ownership of (too much) gold
forced people to sell their gold, to the government, at a government set price, to issue fiat dollars
created the PWA/CCC/WPA as the government being the employer of last resort
We could even delve into FDR's personal belief that only HE had the experience to handle the brewing world war (demagoguery) and that the voters went against all tradition to re-elect a perceived strongman/populist and his exercise of extraordinary powers of the potus

i could go on and on about using some of the tools of fascism by most presidents - but the FDR case is compelling, as it's interesting -

not trying to poop on FDR, but it's an interesting topic, that many things that today the Left would scream "fascism" at, where operating practices of he who was likely the greatest Dem President

quote:

but the FDR case is compelling, as it's interesting

That about sums it up.

WWII was happening then, as you know.

I think the Trump case is compelling and interesting, and concerning.

I think there are distinctions comparatively, but don't have the time to think about it now.

Reading the quoted link…

Way too many edits and improper word choices/misspellings for that link to be an actual scholarly or official translation of Mussolini’s doctrine of Fascism.

While it may be accurate, the errors indicate sloppy work that is likely done for ideological reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Here is the definition of Fascim from Mussolini himself.

We also need to look at the tactics used by Hitler and Mussolini to come to power.

https://www.wm.edu/offices/aux...eoffascismedited.pdf

It is his Dr. Butler

You can find it all over the place. I choose William and Mary.

We read it in College in a level 400 class.

https://sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda...trine-of-Fascism.pdf

Hear it again, from another university.

How about Fordham

https://sourcebooks.fordham.ed...ussolini-fascism.asp

The SJSU one was the better one. At least it wasn't edited. That looked like a scholarly translation (except for the continuous use of an obvious misspelling...). The Fordham one was pretty edited as well. Note reading the CV (which is attached) of the Fordham PhD who put the system on line, that is a pretty biased source.

I assume that a lot of the nonsense in the SJSU one was either translation issues or it was quite plain that Mussolini was not very bright. Maybe both. That basically said that anything is Fascism. It is full of internal contradictions.

Of course, saying so in Italy in 1935 would likely have put me in prison.

The first one was all but unreadable. How even a bovine would have been persuaded by that is questionable.

I don't deny that it was Mussolini's writings. However, it was not what the state operated on in those days- that was a poor attempt to write philosophy by a man who felt that philosophy was important apparently. While its an attempt to state what Fascism is, its not really a definition as it does not really define the term, but rather if you take him at his words, it seems to be that he feels fascism is beyond definition other than it is "good."

You made the note that we also need to look at the tactics that Hitler and Mussolini used to gain power.

The other thing about Hitler and Mussolini's tactics that modern leftists like to forget is that they did not occur in a vacuum.

I do agree that there are similarities. One being that both sides were becoming unpalatable to the moderate individual and they were eventually forced to choose one or the other. The disengagement of the moderates from the political system caused a lot of what occurred.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...c13d4795be0fd&ei=101

Why the GOP Doesn’t Really Want a Deal on Ukraine and the Border

The Biden administration has sent Congress a request for $61 billion in new funds for Ukraine and $14 billion to help Israel defend itself against Hamas and Hezbollah. The package also includes humanitarian assistance to people displaced by the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as assistance to Indo-Pacific allies, and $14 billion for border security (for a total of $111 billion).

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Here is the definition of Fascim from Mussolini himself.

We also need to look at the tactics used by Hitler and Mussolini to come to power.

https://www.wm.edu/offices/aux...eoffascismedited.pdf

Unvarnished and unapologetic. Sheesh...

"Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity"

You could see this applied to some of Trump's handlers, but it's doubtful that Trump himself has a political philosophy.

I can't see Trump sacrificing himself for the benefit of the State. Square peg, round hole.

Never let a good catastrophe go to waste.

Once upon a time we had congress vote yea or nay on individual decisions.

The GOP is playing on Ukraine to get Biden to agree to border security.

Biden is using the border to get his way on a myriad of “human rights” issues.

They should go back to clean bills.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...c13d4795be0fd&ei=101

Why the GOP Doesn’t Really Want a Deal on Ukraine and the Border

The Biden administration has sent Congress a request for $61 billion in new funds for Ukraine and $14 billion to help Israel defend itself against Hamas and Hezbollah. The package also includes humanitarian assistance to people displaced by the wars in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as assistance to Indo-Pacific allies, and $14 billion for border security (for a total of $111 billion).

This article makes your point.

But I hope the headline is true:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...d08b5fb51bcb3&ei=157

House Speaker after talk with Zelenskyy: 'We stand with him against Putin's brutal invasion'
Story by Natalia Dirieieva • 1h


Johnson said he reiterated to Zelenskyy that they (members of the House of Representatives - ed.) "stand with him against Putin’s brutal invasion.” As the article says, Johnson's statements once again indicated that Republicans in Congress will condition any assistance to Ukraine on changes to the American-Mexican border.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...57cda143a0afb6&ei=21

The New Face of the ‘Great Replacement’
Opinion by Adam Serwer
•
4h

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...edee46d936ebc7&ei=66

Why Trump Won’t Win

you can't/won't define fascist - but continue onwards claiming trump is one -

IMO, the continued use of terms like fascist relating to Trump only increases the likelihood that he will get elected.

That’s part of why I object to it so much.

It’s very inaccurate but it plays well with the democrat base.

Trump is Trump.

Call his political movement MAGA or Trumpism if you must. It’s just as bad regardless of your label.

If it acts like a duck, quacks like a duck, thinks he's the king duck, leads a duck cult, it's probably a fascist duck.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...d783217def6ae5&ei=38

Republican Issues Dire Warning to FBI Leaders

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...hI5?ocid=socialshare

Liz Cheney raises alarm over Trump and authoritarianism

In an interview with CBS News, former Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney said 2024 Republican frontrunner and former President Donald Trump uses the same tools as tyrants, fascists and authoritarians. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, professor of history at New York University, joins to discuss how authoritarianism takes shape in U.S. and global politics.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/s...and-authoritarianism

Trump’s ramped-up rhetoric raises new concerns about violence and authoritarianism
Nov 13, 2023 6:35 PM EST

PBS NEWSHOUR

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/s...and-authoritarianism

Trump’s ramped-up rhetoric raises new concerns about violence and authoritarianism
Nov 13, 2023 6:35 PM EST

PBS NEWSHOUR

How many of his planned loyalist appointments can be blocked by the Senate?

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/s...and-authoritarianism

Trump’s ramped-up rhetoric raises new concerns about violence and authoritarianism
Nov 13, 2023 6:35 PM EST

PBS NEWSHOUR

How many of his planned loyalist appointments can be blocked by the Senate?

They've already said that they plan to go around the Senate using "Acting" appointments.

Only those who require senate approval, and it depends on senate majority.