Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Carfacemandog wrote: »1. There is no difference between Nazi and Hitler, given Hitler founded and led the Nazi party through basically it's entire existence barring a brief period after his suicide, and did so as the undisputed, unquestioned 'leader'. That you are trying to use "Mattis compared Trump to the NAZIS not HITLER is astounding though entirely expected, to be honest.
Nowhere did I find Mattis use the term Hitler. But you conflated it to mean Nazi and Hitler. Because it sounds even worse.
Yes, there is difference between a Nazi and Hitler as anyone with even a cursory knowledge of history would know. There were 8.5 million members of the Nazi party in Germany by the 1940’s.
Were they all like Hitler? Even the main party’s hierarchy showed different motivations while being a member of the party. From the rabid anti-Semite Heinrich Himmler, to the opportunistic Albert Speer. There are of course the compassionate and brave such as Oskar Schindler. Ironically, Albert Goring a compassionate and brave man who saved countless Jews, was denied recognition after the war because of his family name. People associated it with his brother Hermann. Guilt by association.
You are falling into the trap of a logical fallacy it is called the association fallacy. Or more specifically the fallacy of guilt by association.
You look for any common denominator – in this case membership of the Nazi party and assume all Nazis were like Hitler. Which is patently untrue. It would be like calling Pope Benedict XVI Hitler/a Nazi because he was a member of the Hitler youth.
You do the same when comparing Hitler to Trump looking for similarities rather than the substantive differences. Focusing only on the similarities aids your conformation bias. It would be like me saying that a vegetarian who likes dogs is like Hitler. Merely because Hitler liked dogs and was a vegetarian!
You ignore the substantive differences. Hitler was anti-American and anti-capitalist, especially in his early years. He would have despised Trump something in common with you (does that make you the same as Hitler?
)
Trump does not have any racist ideology; Hitler had a racist ideology.
Hitler instigated wars. Trump does not. In fact, he wants to keep America away from ‘forever wars’ from the past and wants to take troops home which were send there by previous administrations
Trump does not want to destroy all other political opposition. I could go on, but you get the picture.
I will agree with you on this. But in Trump’s reality tv mind he ‘essentially’ fired him. I think that means he did not ask him to reconsider or did not refuse to accept his resignation.2. Mattis did not jump before being pushed, as John Kelly who was Chief of Staff has asserted. You might not like that but it is what it is. Serving under this administration is an embarrassment, a tarnishing on your record, and he had had enough.3. Criticising Trump is not 'angling for political position', the fact that you can't see past this again shows a reflexive need to ignore the facts or reality. You will need to show how he has been looking to get into political positions, which political positions, and how in order to have any credibility in this statement whatsoever.
It is the manner of Mattis criticism he is clearly trying to get attention and be sensationalist (see the spurs Vietnam comments later).It is incredibly how easy it is to predict responses from Trump's defenders hence why I pre-empted this correctly, only to see you try it anyway with the goalposts shifted to (quelle surprise) whataboutism of previous presidents. So now tell me, which of these presidents had their own secretarial appointees comparing them to Hitler and the Nazis?
Firstly, it is ironic that you mention ‘whataboutisms’ and copy and paste an entire page of them comparing Hitler’s ‘tactics’ to Trump.
No doubt Mattis was the first former defense secretary to call his President fascist. But he is also the first former defense secretary to say his President only admires one military man Colonel Sanders.
While also slagging him off for avoiding service in Vietnam.
It is not lost on me that Muhammed Ali is hailed as a hero for not serving in Vietnam – ‘the no vietcong etc….’ Yet trump is slagged off. Interesting differences in narrative I think.
It is interesting when you are stuck for a reply you call it strawman. I have not read the no voting posts. I have merely stated that I am not American and have no vote in it one way or anotherAgain back to a straw man about 'no voting' which we covered only a few posts back. There is nothing realistic in your posts made on this subject, as you have not backed them up with anything of worth nor note.
Looking at the article you have copied and pasted below is failing into the association fallacy that I mentioned above. Where the author is trying desperately to find similarities between Trump and Hitler. Ignoring all the differences and conflating/twisting those that confirm the bias.
Or more simply ‘Reductio ad Hitlerum’
You also call the author Jay Willis a fascist expert
“Jay Willis is a staff writer at GQ covering news, law, and politics. Previously, he was an associate at law firms in Washington, D.C. and Seattle, where his practice focused on consumer financial services and environmental cleanup litigation. He studied social welfare at Berkeley and graduated from Harvard Law School in 2013.”
Jay Willis also the same person who came out with sensationalist hyperbolic phrases such as the following on the Barton and Barr case.:
“Pathetic Attempt To Avoid Moral Responsibility For Advancing Trump Administration’s White Nationalist, Anti-Immigrant Agenda — Their Treachery & Cowardice Will NOT be Forgotten!”
https://immigrationcourtside.com/2020/04/30/barton-v-barr-j-r-five-jettisons-principles-fudges-facts-in-pathetic-attempt-to-avoid-moral-responsibility-for-advancing-trump-administrations-white-nationalist-anti-im/
It does not sound like a ‘fascist expert’ to me but a person who is not very objective has a clear agenda, and is prone to hyperbolic language.
Under the rules of statutory interpretation in law any legislative act can be assessed under the following rules.
Literal – as the act was written
Golden Rule –where there is an ambiguity or where it would result in an absurdity
Mischief Rule - The mischief rule attempts to determine the legislator’s intention and is used to interpret a statute that was passed to remedy a common law loophole (mischief)
The author’s Willis main gripe appears to be that the Majority decision used an interpretation that he was not happy with. As it does not align with his political viewpoint.
Trump was elected to be tough on the rule of law and tough on immigrant crime and immigrant law.
https://ballotpedia.org/Barton_v._Barr
“Andre Martello Barton, a native of Jamaica, was admitted to the United States on May 27, 1989. In 1992, he became a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. In 1996, Barton was arrested, charged, and convicted of aggravated assault, criminal damage to property, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. In 2007 and 2008, Barton was charged and convicted of violating the Georgia Controlled Substances Act”
If I was in America as a foreigner and committed such crimes in such a short period.
I would only feel I was chancing my arm by claiming my removal could be cancelled because of ‘the stop time rule’. That is the truth of it. Personally, I found the legal argument fair in the majority decisions and it will make immigrants in America less likely to commit crimes in the USA as they would be more likely to be deported.
The Barton v Barr case is only an extension on the foundation already laid in place by George W Bush and Barrack Obama when it comes immigration law. (more on the deportations later_
Regardless of the colour or creed of any individual it is a country’s right to be tough on crime or illegal immigrants. Or have the right to deport any immigrant who has committed a crime either in the USA or their country of origin. I believe that those who have children in the USA are merely using them as a ‘shield’ in the hope that the optics will allow them to stay. I would have no sympathy for Keith Byrne from Cork (for example) who has spent 12 years living and working in the USA illegally. It is extremely cynical in my view.Running through their shared fascist tendencies with a mix of copy/paste from this article by experts on fascism, and my own words: https://www.gq.com/story/is-america-heading-towards-fascism1. An Era of Social Upheaval - Fascism tends to arise out of a very specific set of circumstances: when a group of people that once felt politically and economically secure suddenly finds themselves feeling marginalized. After World War I, devastating hyperinflation and unemployment exacerbated the humiliation of Germany’s defeat, fomenting widespread disillusionment among its citizens. In his review of historian Hannah Arendt’s classic work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Isaac describes a “generalized crisis of legitimacy” throughout post-war Europe in which “large numbers of people felt dispossessed, disenfranchised, and disconnected from dominant social institutions,” unsure how they fit into the emerging world order—if at all anymore. This a perfect descriptor for a lot of Trump's modern day support, especially 'rust belters'.
So, using this logic you can assume that SF are going to lead to their own brand of totalitarianism because they got votes from the marginalised. Or in the case of the economic crash when FG were voted in government, they formed their own brand of fascism?
Or Brexit will result in similar in the UK?
Hitlers and Nazi’s all? SF – FG – Brexit?2. A Nostalgia for a Lost, Glorious Past - German dictator Adolf Hitler cast his Third Reich as the successor to the pre-war German Empire, and to the Holy Roman Empire before that vs Trump's "Make America Great Again" (compared to when, exactly?)
‘Make America Great’ not a new phrase Reagan has used that slogan.
And in the past it Bill Clinton has said Make America great again back in 1991!
https://i.imgur.com/BIonamH.mp43. The Scapegoating of Minority Groups
Once a group has identified a problem, they must identify a way to fix it. And this, says Dumm, is a key moment in the emergence of fascism. “When people are feeling insecure about their status, they can go one of two ways,” he explains. “They can say, ‘We have to work together to make things better.’ But the fascist response is to find scapegoats, and build the idea things will be better if these people are marginalized and dealt with.” ... Academic studies of 2016 Trump voters suggest that white Christian males were more motivated by the perceived loss of their group's dominant status than by economic well-being. Scapegoating enables people to duck their collective responsibility to solve hard problems, or to even think about what causes foundational economic shifts in the first place. It is easier, for example, to blame immigrants and refugees for disappearing jobs than it is to grapple with the intertwined complexities of globalization, climate change, and the steady accumulation of corporate power.
Again, this is the association fallacy in full swing.
All governments find scapegoats after a crisis. After the 2008 economic crash the people of Ireland found their scapegoats.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280771457_Scapegoating_During_a_Time_of_Crisis_A_Critique_of_Post-Celtic_Tiger_Ireland
I suppose the Irish people are now all like the Nazi’s and Hitler because of the use of scapegoats after the 2008 economic crash?4. A Strongman Savior - fascism relies on a strong, charismatic authoritarian figure, uniquely equipped to do what must be done to solve the problem without allowing pesky institutions to stand in the way. The leader becomes the vessel for the authentic will of the people, and any dissenters become enemies of the state. ... Egomaniacal, almost messianic declarations are common among fascist strongmen. ... Hitler declared himself the true representative of “have-nots” everywhere. “I know that the whole German nation is behind me,” he said. “I am the guardian of its future, and I act accordingly.” ... While accepting his party’s presidential nomination at the Republication National Convention in 2016, Trump declared his own political uniqueness. “Nobody knows the system better than me,” he told attendees, “which is why I alone can fix it.”
Association fallacy again, linking Hitler to Trump to diminish him and his electorate
Using the phrase ‘strongman’ is deliberate by the author. Conjuring up images of juntas and cult of personality and so on.
Interestingly Maggie Thatcher and Winston Churchill are not labelled with the ‘strongman trope’ because it has negative connotations. Instead Maggie Thatcher is labelled as an ‘Iron Lady’ a strong leader. Nothing negative about it. Churchill is viewed as leader and a statesman.
Yet Trump is given the negative ‘Strongman’ moniker as a pejorative. The tactic is obvious.5. The Stifling of Dissent - Hitler consolidated power by suspending civil liberties and cutting the legislature out of the lawmaking process. We are seeing this today in Trump's attempts to completely undermine the law, primarily through William Barr who was appointed on the back of a 19 page letter explcitly arguing the law does not apply to Trump, with mail in voting rights (mail in voting that Trump uses) being the latest of many examples ... He has, for example, referred to journalists as “the enemy of the people,” frequently calling out specific outlets and reporters who publish stories he does not like. He has also advocated for the imprisonment of political rivals, asserted that Democratic politicians "hate America," and dismissed as illegitimate any attempts to exercise oversight over his administration’s alleged wrongdoing.
This is another falsehood as Trump has not censored all media opposed to him from press conferences for example. Could you imagine Hitler having any journalists critical of him at a press conference?
There is a lot of gamesmanship from both sides of the political divide going on I will give you that. Trump with his mail voting rights issue. Or an anti-Trump reporter implying that the ‘ask China’ remark by Trump was only said to her because she was of Asian origin.
She either cynically pretending it is a race issue and/or took personal offence. The’ why did you say that to me’ indicated she reacted emotionally. But Trump has been very consistent on blaming China for covid19. Of course, the media outlets can jump on it makes a good spin to attack Trump. There is a game on both sides. In fact, he got accused of being racist because he called it the China virus. But the fact is it is a China virus, as that was where its origin was. Unlike the erroneously named Spanish flu from 1918. I have never heard people claim that is racist why is that I wonder?
Also, Trump has been consistent in his belief that China exercises too much influence in WHO and it has been demonstrated in this pandemic in his view. His ‘ask China’ remark encapsulates his perceived frustrations with the country.6. Ritualistic Communal Bonding - Rallies are integral to the strength of fascism because they reiterate its core promises: that the nation must be restored to its rightful place in the world, and the leader is solely capable of bringing about that result. ... In Nazi Germany, rallies were choreographed affairs that built party loyalty and glorified nationalistic might. Hitler wrote of the “suggestive ecstasy” that comes with having one’s views affirmed by thousands of fellow rally-goers, and relied heavily on stage lighting and other theatrical effects to enthrall audiences with spectacle. Trump, a show business and social media personality before entering politics, understands the importance of spectacle, too. His “Make America Great Again” rallies are televised rituals in which he encourages attendees to join one another—and him—in acts of cathartic release. (In a recent op-ed, the New York Times’s Jamelle Bouie attributed Trump’s “unbreakable bond" with supporters to the permission he gives them to “express their sense of siege.”
This is not the first time this has been done by an American President. I do have to look too far back either
‘Yes we can’ Obama supporters:
Not forgetting the ‘call and response’ slogan popularised by Obama
Fired Up! – Ready to go!
@00:58
It sounds like the author is merely negatively framing Trump engaging with the electorate to me. And yet again using the association fallacy to link it to Hitler. I have yet to see thousands of pillars of light at a Trump rally. This point sounds like projection on behalf of the author. And almost bitterness that the alternative to Trump are unable to engage with the electorate like a decent politician would. Obama managed it unlike Hillary. That is the game it is politics.
Some leaders of Irish political parties have also been known to encourage ‘communal bonding’ through song about their leader
Does this mean they want to create a totalitarian state?
You only must look at the phrasing from the black lives matter website
https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/
“ build and nurture a beloved community that is bonded together through a beautiful struggle that is restorative, not depleting.”
“We are unapologetically Black in our positioning”
Is the whole of the USA going to collapse because of Black Lives Matter and their communal bonding?
Or the theatrical painting of Black Lives Matter on the street leading to the white house?
---Expanding further in my own words with a few other examples, including but absolutely not limited to:
Moving beyond that, we have the fact that Trump wedged his way into the public consciousness using a new medium that could reach the masses which most other politicians had not fully latched on to, and which would allow him to shout down others and create an echo chamber, namely social media and especially Twitter. This is also true of Hitler, as the inventor of the megaphone went to his grave feeling somewhat responsible for the rise of the Nazi party due to Hitler's (and Goebbels') masterful use of it, while many other politicians were simply shouting from the top of their lungs at much smaller gatherings.
This is yet AGAIN more association fallacy I am afraid. You are trying to link the use of Trump to Hitler/Goebbels merely because he is adept at using a relatively new medium.
You are merely confirming your own biases and it is a fallacious argument.
So, because Trump is effective in his use of Twitter a relatively new medium, he is similar to Goebells?
This again is you framing guilt by association.
JFK was far more effective on TV debates than his rivals does that mean he was like Goebells as well?
Obama was also heralded to be the first digital president – see the following book:
Yes We Did! An inside look at how social media built the Obama brand (Voices That Matter) Paperback – 20 May 2009
“The Obama campaign’s mastery of social media for everything from fundraising to volunteer coordination has been widely reported. Until now, there hasn’t been an in-depth analysis of how they did it.”
Synopsis:
“In Yes We Did, new media strategist and campaign headquarters volunteer Rahaf Harfoush gives us a behind the-scenes look at the campaign’s use of technology, from its earliest days through election night. She reveals strategic insights organizations can apply to their own brands. Discover how unwavering strategic vision and collaborative technologies–email, blogs, social networks, Twitter, and SMS messaging–empowered a formidable online community to help elect the world’s first “digital” President.”
Does this make Obama and his supporters like Goebbell’s?
Maybe Hillary Clinton should have read the book by the way?We have the systemic use of concentration camps for some of the vilified minorities upon whom societies problems can be blamed, from above. Sure it's 'their rapists and murderers' that are coming to the southern US border, who cares if they get thrown into concentration camps, children separated from their parents and all in the process? Thankfully Trump's are not on the scale nor murderous tendencies of Hitler's, but to be honest at this point I would not find myself all that surprised if he were to attempt to use similar for protesters seen on the street, or if he were to escalate their 'uses'.
Obama has even been called the ‘Deporter in Chief’ by CNN
Obama is a believer in the Rule of Law when it comes to immigration
In fact, he has deported more than any other president in 20th century put together
Two thirds of those cases were for minor offences.
He has even deported children because he respects the rule of law.
(2014) “U.S. President Barack Obama pledged earlier this month to speed up the process of returning the children to their home countries, after the number of arrivals created a humanitarian crisis at the border with Mexico. The problem has sparked intense political debate in Washington. Zlatica Hoke reports”
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGsbg3-7pbQ[/youtube]
Your phraseology is deliberately trying to evoke Nazi Germany
Yet it was Trump not Obama who deported the last Nazi criminal out of the USA! Quelle surprise!Trump also literally borrows language and phrases used by explicit supporters of Hitler and the Nazi party during the 1930s and 40s in the US, particularly 'America First'.
Original meaning of America First is isolationist meaning as used during WWII.
Would Quaker Robert Douglas Stuart Jr (founder of the America first committee) be similar to Hitler and Naazi’s based on your logic?
By your logic you could claim the old ‘Buy Irish’ campaign is similar in tone. Which then had to be changed to ‘Love Irish’ because of an EU ruling (free movement of goods)
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61981CJ0249
https://webstroke.co.uk/law/cases/case-24981-buy-irish-1982
I have no problem with a protectionist or Isolationist policy if that is what the electorate of country wishes. Trump has been clear on this.Then you have the fact that Trump's administration has been found to have actual white supremacists and neo Nazis within it, perhaps most notably Stephen Miller, which is why they actual U.S Justice Department were sending links to anti-Semitic websites to prominent Jewish groups, in other words not even trying to hide it - https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2019/08/23/federal-judges-received-link-an-anti-semitic-blog-post-it-came-justice-department/ . Trump refuses to so much as acknowledge any of this, never mind act against it.
Steve Miller is Jewish for a start I am not familiar that many neo Nazi’s or white supremacist!
Ilhan Omar is a person who has claimed that Miller is a white nationalist back in April. But then this is the same woman who has said the Israel has hypnotised the world.
It was not the last time Omar has also been accused of anti-semitism in the past. She had to backtrack and hastily apologise before
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/11/politics/ilhan-omar-aipac-backlash/index.html
This contrasts with the cynical political move off twenty-five Jewish Democratic members of Congress called on Trump to remove Miller. Just because they were Jewish, they thought it would help the optics.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/20/politics/jewish-members-of-congress-stephen-miller/index.html
Yet the irony is not lost on me that Israel has one of most stringent and sectarian immigration policies in the world.
https://www.visa-law.co.il/en/immigration-to-israel-and-israeli-citizenship/
I would be interested to know those 25 members of congress views on the standards of immigration to Israel and the difficulty asylum seekers have there.
I notice that there were notably no calls form the democrats for Omar to be removed in her scenario. However, such a move is made against Miller who has not used any racist language that I can see in any of those emails.
His stance is merely to be tough on immigrant law as the previous administration was.
OK if there was racist language used by Miller in those emails, I agree he should resign. But I have not viewed transcripts of any such comments.
Certainly, nothing as blatantly racist as Charlie Rangel said should be permitted. Where he said he thought cracker was a term of endearment
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/charlie-rangel-cracker-term-of-endearment_n_6136028You also have the dehumanisation and attempts to paint those politically opposed to him as 'violent animals' and the likes, while glossing over and ignoring the violence of his own 'very fine' supporters, something Hitler and the Nazis used to great effect to silence opposition and even frame their own supporters acts of violence as committed by others. For all his eagerness to call in the actual army to slaughter protesters in recent days, it was only a few weeks ago that Trump was actively calling for armed uprisings to 'liberate' states with Democratic governors who refused to reopen for him.
The liberate states comments were stupid I agree. But you are again falling back to the guilt by association fallacy. You have used a phrase silence the opposition something Trump has never done for instance. We all know that CNN and Fox are both hardly impartial dispensers of News in America as they like to sensationalise as private institutions to make money. Yet both operate in tandem that is just the way their media works. Democrat CNN and Republican Fox. Personally, I find both laughable and hard to take seriously. Hillary Clinton called Trump supporters deplorables to denigrate them. How dismissive and dehumanising was that comment is that in trying to silence people.
I also think the black lives matter protests are ridiculous to have during a pandemic. It is just as baffling to me as the protesters who wanted their state governors to remove restrictions early because they are in the ‘land of the free.’The aggressive stuffing of the federal courts with judges based on nothing more than political ideology (many of whom have been entirely under-qualified, some even without a single trial's worth of experience) and subjecting them to executive oversight (e.g. "don't step out of line") fits in perfectly with Gleichschaltung, as the Nazi's had a bit of an obsession with trying to do just about everything that the Weimar administration before them had put in place just as Trump is with Obama.
Again, this is more of the guilt by association fallacy. Associating Trump appointing judiciary with the Nazis. Every newly formed government appoints its own judiciary, they do so in Ireland.
Max Barrett was one of the youngest judicial appointment in Ireland aged 42
https://www.thejournal.ie/new-high-court-judges-1254870-Jan2014/#:~:text=At%2042%2C%20Max%20Barrett%20is,Bank%20Ireland%20and%20Rabobank%20Ireland.
Judges were also appointed in Ireland with prolife stances to placate some of the electorate
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/two-new-judges-had-pivotal-pro-life-roles-26260197.html
Plus, Trump promised to overturn Roe v Wade during the election. Now you or I may not agree with it. But it is his entitlement to do what the electorate voted him in for.
You speak of inexperience, were you worried about the appointment of a two term Senate President in Obama aged 47? Or did you view it as OK because if you were in America you would have voted for him?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-obama/obama-hits-back-on-charge-of-inexperience-idUSN1639513320070816
It is very dangerous using your own prejudice to try and shout down a argument. Trying to bring in white nationalist angle and using a guilt by association fallacy.
Using such prejudices in an argument to make assumptions has been shown to backfire spectacularly.
White privilege etc making being white itself almost as pejorative and excusing failure to succeed simply on the colour of persons skin.
In my view it has turned into an industry to make things seem worse than they are.
For example, Adam Serwer’s constant opinion pieces in the Atlantic remind me of a Brooker T Washington quote.
Brooker T. Washington:
“There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”
Some of Adam Serwer’s opinion pieces from the Atlantic:
https://www.theatlantic.com/author/adam-serwer/?page=1
https://www.theatlantic.com/author/adam-serwer/?page=2
They all go one way all on the negative attacking Trump in some way or another.
Thankfully not all African American commentators agree with this ‘poor me’ narrative based on skin colour.
Such as Coleman Hughes question whether there is systemic racism in the USA.
He contrasts how well second-generation black West Indians in the USA do in comparison to African AmericansThe list could go on and on, but it largely revolves around:
- Build populist, angry following on a vague sense of nostalgia and anger about the present, directing said anger towards particular groups who can be blamed for all of societies wrongs rather than looking at the wider picture.
- Unify this following with constant engagement, rallies, and contact to reinforce these ideas, vilify all opposition as 'liars' and create a siege mentality so that any dissenting voices will not be listened to regardless of their validity. This also makes it clear to all within that stepping out of line will create serious issues for anyone who dates (the recent movie Jojo Rabbit captured this quite well). Place yourself as an infallible strong man with all the answers for any issue that might arise, and anyone who dissents as merely jealous of your glory or an enemy of the people.
- Use this anger to mobilise your voter base, both to the booth and out into the public to intimidate and threaten anyone who dares speak against you.
- If/when this escalates into violence, ensure to blame the opposition wherever possible and avoid doing so with your own supporters. Downplay your own supporters instances of violence while using any and all from the opposition as reasons to further impose your own authority, preferably with structures in place to do so with minimal obstruction (courts under your control, a congress that will refuse to convict you even when they admit you are guilty, etc). Wherever possible, blow up any institution that might not be willing to submit to you as such (typically referred to as purges, though they can also be mass resignations)/
- If the opportunity to escalate the violence and tensions in instances involving opposition occurs, always always always take it.
- Never let an opportunity pass to sow division among any who speak out against you in any capacity whatsoever, even when it might seem unnecessary to the casual onlooker. If two separate groups in the opposition have their own disagreements but believe they can still work together and very much see you as the common enemy, make sure you and your support are at all instances shouting how "the [opposition] are eating each other!" and use this to reinforce your dehumanisation of them as uncivil, inferior, and entirely unfit to rule.
- Inch by inch, use the above tactics to try and take over every facet of government, and as many aspects of public and private life as possible. Turn up the temperature as appropriate - what your supporters might not agree with today, they can be convinced are perfectly acceptable tomorrow or the day after (which has very much been a feature of the last 3-4 years of the Trump presidency, predictions of his actions his supporters would have given a "lol yeah right!" response to in 2016 or 2017, they in 2020 will instead respond to with "yeah, and he is right").
I would not compare Black Lives Matter to Hitler or the Nazi’s as it would be ridiculous. Even if supporters of BLM have been known to share platforms with the Nation of Islam for instance.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/farrakhan-justice-or-else-rally-reaches-beyond-black-lives-matter/2015/10/10/f14ee6b0-6f95-11e5-91eb-27ad15c2b723_story.html
And at the same time Farrakhan has twisted his own anti-Semitic views upon Trump. And Farrakhan claimed to support him at one stage!
https://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/louis-farrakhan-donald-trump-220021
Does this mean that Trump is an anti-Semite and an advocate of violence?
At the same time black political activists associate with the Nation of Islam
https://abcnews.go.com/US/womens-march-president-tamika-mallory-discusses-controversial-relationship/story?id=60362553
“I didn’t call him the greatest of all time because of his rhetoric," Mallory responded. "I called him the greatest of all time because of what he’s done in black communities."
Does this mean that Mallory is an anti-semite and an advocate of violence?
It is noticeable that the leader of the nation of Islam Farrakhan has now changed his tune on Trump
https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/detroit-city/2020/02/23/farrakhan-america-trump-detroit-speech-nation-islam/4851891002/
He had a vision that Trump is going to ‘going to war’ and threatened him to be careful.
As you can see American politics is not as black and white as you are trying to paint it.
Coleman Hughes also has an interesting view on white guilt in American
He also has an interesting take on the slavery reparations question
--
You should look at facts rather than falling prey to the logical fallacy of association.
About one in ten African American males voted for Trump yet he is called a racist by others
Back in March of this year 24% of black men approved of Trump.
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/9/21151095/black-women-trump-gop-conservatism-gap-2020
65% of white women voted for Trump despite the narrative of some portraying him as a misogynist.
These women viewed Trump as a businessman and family man.
However, I do see you are well meaning in your post. There are many others who attack Trump for the sake of it.
Like a journalist putting ‘troubled’ before a person name the implication is there.
There have been examples of this in the American media. Such as questioning Trump’s mental health where there is no proof of diminished health or mental capacities. I find it interesting to view such comments in the light of how JFK’s actual health issues were covered up. Or how Reagan may have had Alzheimer’s during office, but this was never brought up at the time.
I understand that people do not like Trump but if you are going to make criticisms of him at least make them sensible. The fallacy of association may seem a clever and convenient way to tar Trump with a Hitler brush. But I prefer to deal in facts.Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.
0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement