Octopus Overlords

GreenGoo, man, a little less anger, please. At least direct it where it belongs.

We're on the same side. Are you somehow under the impression that I hate Trump and what he's doing any less than you do? The implication that the rest of us don't care about this is pretty insulting.

Holman wrote:GreenGoo, man, a little less anger, please. At least direct it where it belongs.

We're on the same side. Are you somehow under the impression that I hate Trump and what he's doing any less than you do? The implication that the rest of don't care about this is pretty insulting.

It's true that I am angry. First, I'm in a bad mood, so there's that. I can walk away and I'm about to.

Second, I'm not any more interested in comparisons to Hitler than you are. As I said the first time, the word Hitler makes everything go off the rails and no one pays attention to what actually matters, which, presumably in this case, are Trump's positions and whether they are good or bad.

Lastly, you know how I crapped all over a Grinch joke recently? I get that I am overly pedantic and nitpicky about stuff that no one cares about but picking on humour is a victimless crime. When I see you in here spending time and energy defending a position that most people don't hold, and the few that do are causing very little harm by holding it (aside from their own personal reputation, as people will view them as dumbasses).

I see the marketplace of ideas starting to produce the "wrong" ideas as "winners". When that happens, we need MORE talk about why Trump's ideas are wrong, not more talk about why Trump isn't nearly as bad as Hitler was. It's distracting and gives the impression of supporting Trump (I realize it doesn't support him). So that makes me grumpy. When I'm already grumpy patience can go out the window.

My hostility is not actually due solely to this conversation but it was directed at you and for that I apologize. I will take a break just so I don't say anything else angry and mean. I have no personal problem with you Holman nor do I feel that comparisons to Hitler are particularly apt, even if the fact that the nomination frontrunner of a modern western country spouting this shit feels like it could be. If some angry nightmare dude was experiencing a popular upswing because he was spouting hate in South America, that's one thing. But this is the US of A, dude. You're supposed to be better than that.

Watching this happen is the very definition of watching the Terrorists win. And it pisses me off.

GreenGoo wrote: When I see you in here spending time and energy defending a position that most people don't hold, and the few that do are causing very little harm by holding it

(I think you meant attacking instead of defending?)

Disagreed. Comparing Trump (or X, where X is not a genocidal dictator) to Hitler is hyperbolic and trivializes Hitler, the Nazis and their horror. It's foolish and it's a disservice to all those who suffered under their regime.

GreenGoo wrote:

Holman wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

Defiant wrote: Lets leave the Hitler comparisons for those actually committing mass genocide.

What genocides did Hitler commit before he became the leader of the country? Compare apples to apples. Hitler's rise was based on the same sort of crap that Trump is coddling.

Hitler's rise was based on gangs of thugs burning the houses and beating the skulls of his opponents before the elections ever occurred. The Nazis--not an army, just the toughs who fought in the streets for the party--already had barracks stocked with weapons in the early 1920's. Hitler attempted an actual violent coup in 1923, leading to his arrest and a treason trial. Things went on like this with Weimer politics becoming essentially lawless for another decade before Hitler took real power.

Passionate’ Trump fans behind homeless man’s beating?

Are you suggesting that militia groups and white supremists that like what Trump is saying aren't already armed? Are you suggesting that Trump isn't tapping into hatred that already exists, for his own gains?

Let's be clear. Trump isn't Hitler incarnate and this isn't some weird parallel universe where every single step, political move and result is identical to Hitler's rise to power. Arguing that because Trump and Hitler are not identical comparisons are unreasonable is a straw man.

For me personally, I don't think Trump actually hates anyone, not in the way Hitler did anyway. That doesn't mean he isn't playing fire that is humanity's worst traits.

Can you imagine the absolute shit storm that would follow a Trump arrest? Being Martyr'd by the state would almost certainly result in Hitler-like popularity beyond what he is currently experiencing.

Criticizing Trump does not require invoking Hitler, but there are certainly aspects that seem similar. Unfortunately just the name Hitler makes everyone lose their shit, and that results in arguments about how Trump is or isn't exactly like Hitler, like this one. And that's a distraction and beside the point.

People have guns!!! Oh no!!!

GreenGoo wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:YK - I feel your pain. I don't think that all of the Republican candidates are blithering idiots, just the ones that the GOP primary voters seem to favor.

In other words, the problem isn't the candidates. The problem is the people choosing them.

I hate to say it (I really do), but I think this is the natural result of a party that campaigns on anti-intellectualism, educators as ivory tower residents out of touch with reality and that scientists and their science are what they are because they hate america.

This doesn't get talked about much (at least not where I see it) but it's an aspect of Conservatism (there's a touch of this in Canada too) that I despise, mainly because I value education and knowledge so much. I can't treat any group seriously that portrays education as a negative trait and something to be ridiculed. The drive for mankind to better itself has been almost universally through education and science. When I hear that being educated is a trait to be ashamed of, all I hear is people trying to keep Humanity down. And fuck those people. That they are pushing this for personal/political gain is that much worse. Double fuck those people.

And now we have Trump leading the polls followed closely by an overly religious (not extremist) person.

Your portrayal of conservatives as uneducated and ignorant is repulsive.

Your bias is showing.

Thanks for your reply, GreenGoo.

My going off about Hitler comparisons is entirely about the quality of the argument: the hyperbole is enough to weaken the criticism. (I'm allowed to be nitpicky there because it's my job, and I've spent the past 72 hours grading essays for Eng 101.)

If some angry nightmare dude was experiencing a popular upswing because he was spouting hate in South America, that's one thing. But this is the US of A, dude. You're supposed to be better than that.

I couldn't agree more. It's nauseating and horrifying, and all the more so because it's happening now. Many of us--I still think most of us--look with dismay and disgust at the Trump phenomenon. But I believe we'll stop it with votes because it represents a dead end rather than a viable American future.

GreenGoo wrote:

Holman wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Holman wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

Defiant wrote: Lets leave the Hitler comparisons for those actually committing mass genocide.

What genocides did Hitler commit before he became the leader of the country? Compare apples to apples. Hitler's rise was based on the same sort of crap that Trump is coddling.

Hitler's rise was based on gangs of thugs burning the houses and beating the skulls of his opponents before the elections ever occurred. The Nazis--not an army, just the toughs who fought in the streets for the party--already had barracks stocked with weapons in the early 1920's. Hitler attempted an actual violent coup in 1923, leading to his arrest and a treason trial. Things went on like this with Weimer politics becoming essentially lawless for another decade before Hitler took real power.

Passionate’ Trump fans behind homeless man’s beating?

Are you suggesting that militia groups and white supremists that like what Trump is saying aren't already armed? Are you suggesting that Trump isn't tapping into hatred that already exists, for his own gains?

See Wallace comparison above.

Let's be clear. Trump isn't Hitler incarnate and this isn't some weird parallel universe where every single step, political move and result is identical to Hitler's rise to power. Arguing that because Trump and Hitler are not identical comparisons are unreasonable is a straw man.

It's not just that they're "not identical;" it's that they're a couple of orders of magnitude apart. You really can't read anything about Weimar Germany and not see that Hitler comparisons (even pre-war Hitler comparisons) are overblown.

For me personally, I don't think Trump actually hates anyone, not in the way Hitler did anyway.

"Not hating anyone" pretty much disqualifies you as Hitler, doesn't it?

That doesn't mean he isn't playing fire that is humanity's worst traits.

Humanity has lots of awful traits, but we can at least be grateful that racial eliminationism isn't in play this time around.

Can you imagine the absolute shit storm that would follow a Trump arrest? Being Martyr'd by the state would almost certainly result in Hitler-like popularity beyond what he is currently experiencing.

Arresting Trump would be pretty weird, but then again he hasn't tried a coup via assassinations and a private army.

Criticizing Trump does not require invoking Hitler, but there are certainly aspects that seem similar. Unfortunately just the name Hitler makes everyone lose their shit, and that results in arguments about how Trump is or isn't exactly like Hitler, like this one. And that's a distraction and beside the point.

The only way in might be possible to compare Hitler and Trump as populist demagogues is in very specific, very particular ways, and there's not much of that going on.

Beyond this, all Hitler comparisons make Trump's critics look silly and hyperbolic--which only helps Trump. It turns the criticism into a cartoon. We can identify all the similarities we want (both stoked racism, both appealed to patriotism, both had peculiar hair), but there's no getting around the fact that all Hitler comparisons imply that the object represents the extreme limits of political evil imaginable in the modern world.

I think Trump is awful, probably the nastiest thing and the greatest risk we've seen in American politics since the rise of the modern Radical Right. I think pretty much everything he says is wrong and is calculated to play to Americans' fears and worst qualities. I do believe he is stoking racism and nativism to frightening effect, and I fear that it will only get worse. But criticize Trump as Trump. There's more than enough material there.

Are you seriously going to go point for point with this? Geezus.

Trump is calling for the outlawing of all people of a specific religion but you think it's a worthwhile endeavour to clarify all the ways that Trump isn't like Hitler? Who gives a shit? It's 2015 and we have decades of recent examples of why this crap is awful and leads to awful things. When our PM was asked why it was important to have an equal gender government, he replied "because it's 2015". Listening to your politicians, its sounds an awful lot like the ramp up to WWII. And that's why Trump is being compared to Hitler. Not because he's Hitler, but because it's 2015 and the west should be long, long past this sort of nonsense. Order of magnitude is only important if he starts rounding up Muslims (which, if he had any government power whatsoever, he might actually try). The comparisons are not because X=Y. The comparisons are because X plus a little more hate mongering could = Y.

"Not hating anyone" pretty much disqualifies you as Hitler, doesn't it?

.

Yes, it does. But it doesn't disqualify comparisons to Hitler. Personal motivations for fascist positions are only useful on the psychiatrist's couch, not when discussing politics. I'm not sure you understand why comparison is a valuable tool. If things were identical then there would be no need for comparison. Unless you think people are suggesting that Trump is literally Hitler. Enjoy arguing that non-position.

While I've enjoyed your history lesson on why Trump is not Hitler, I'm actually not all that interested in a dead guy. My concern (and let's face it, the world as a whole) is that you might put this bozo in a position to actually implement some of the things he's saying. So instead of focusing on why Trump isn't Hitler, maybe spend some of that energy in the market place of ideas to get some of his supporters to realize what they are supporting.

Everyone understands he's not Hitler. I'm sorry if feel the comparison is not apt because Trump hasn't managed to do the things he says he wants to do, yet.

Bullshit. Trump hasn't called for outlawing any religions. He has called for halting an immigration program while they figure out how to fix their ineffective vetting. When he starts suggesting we burn down the mosques and exile all the muslims already here wake me up.

To say he has called for outlawing Islam is about as genuine as saying Obama has called for outlawing guns. Hypebole.

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Holman wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Holman wrote:

Jeff V wrote:

Defiant wrote:Stuff

Stuff

Stuff

Stuff

Stuff

Stuff

Stuff

There's a delete button on your keyboard (or a cut option when right clicking) for a reason. Just saying.

Fine. He wants to stop new Muslims arriving so there will be less of them when he starts up the furnaces.

If that's a distinction that lets you sleep at night Rip, have at it.

In all seriousness Rip, it's clear Trump (along with the American people) is playing into the Terrorists hands by turning on Muslims in general. Despite how many consume their media, Trump's sound bites don't exist in a vacuum, and all it takes is paying attention to realize what he's saying.

It's not like Muslims were his first target, it's just that they make an easier one than Mexicans right now.

Trump wrote:total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

But I'm not sure what he's referring to here. What is there to figure out? Syrian refugees are being crushed under the war between rebels and Assad. They need a new home. If it's not Syrian refugees he's referring to, then each Muslim immigrating to the US will have his/her/their own reasons. What's Trump expecting be done here? What changes does he want and what is driving his apparent need for these changes?

There's nothing to figure out because there is no problem with Muslims immigrating to the US. The entire thing is a smear campaign against people who follow Islam, and it's successful because radicals use Islam as their rallying cry, not because Muslims are a "problem" that needs to be solved.

Geezus.

Time for video games.

Rip wrote:
Your portrayal of conservatives as uneducated and ignorant is repulsive.

Your bias is showing.

You mistake my point.

Conservatives are not uneducated and ignorant, they promote those qualities as assets while undermining education and knowledge often.

That's repulsive. I have no problem with lack of education or ignorance. I have a MAJOR problem with promoting their absence.

It could be argued that ignorance is the root of all evil in this world. I'd appreciate it if the Conservative leadership didn't contribute to it and call it a good thing.

Defiant wrote:

GreenGoo wrote: When I see you in here spending time and energy defending a position that most people don't hold, and the few that do are causing very little harm by holding it

(I think you meant attacking instead of defending?)

I did, thank you.

Defiant wrote: Disagreed. Comparing Trump (or X, where X is not a genocidal dictator) to Hitler is hyperbolic and trivializes Hitler, the Nazis and their horror. It's foolish and it's a disservice to all those who suffered under their regime.

I'm saying I don't give two shits about trivializing Hitler while talking about Trump. This isn't about the holocaust and it's not the 1940's. Trump is a problem for the here and now so making sure someone doesn't invoke Hitler incorrectly is not high on my list of priorities at the moment.

I see what could possibly be the worst presidency in my lifetime approaching and that scares me a lot more than a history lesson from 70+ years ago that does nothing to resolve anything except to make sure we understand just how bad a man Hitler was and how Trump is "orders of magnitude less bad" in comparison. If I had my way Hitler would never have been mentioned in the first place, but I think the reasons he has been mentioned are not completely insane.

Who gives a shit in this context? What's the net gain or loss for politics in America right now if we fully understand Trump is not Hitler? If anything, being over cautious with a hate spewing populist like Trump because Hitler was once a thing is better than being cavalier because no one is as bad as Hitler so don't worry about it.

GreenGoo wrote: Who gives a shit in this context? What's the net gain or loss for politics in America right now if we fully understand Trump is not Hitler?

What was that about valuing education and knowledge?

If anything, being over cautious with a hate spewing populist like Trump because Hitler was once a thing is better than being cavalier because no one is as bad as Hitler so don't worry about it.

If every scary person/thing is "OMFG, Hitler!", no one is Hitler.

Holman wrote:Thanks for your reply, GreenGoo.

My going off about Hitler comparisons is entirely about the quality of the argument: the hyperbole is enough to weaken the criticism. (I'm allowed to be nitpicky there because it's my job, and I've spent the past 72 hours grading essays for Eng 101.)

I understand that, and on a cooler day I could even appreciate it. Today I've even allowed myself to fall into a discussion about Hitler's relevance instead of focusing on Trump, so even understanding that invoking Hitler derails any discussion has not prevented me from being derailed by an invocation of Hitler. He's that powerful a thing.

The "nitpicky" part is just that I feel we're "wasting time" debating Hitler's relevancy while Trump is out there gaining ground. I realize that you feel people who invoke Hitler are doing the same thing (wasting time while Trump is out there gaining ground). Intellectuals (I include myself in this group, although as I age I'm less and less confident about it) have a bad habit of debating facts not pertinent to the situation while the world burns down around them. I got that vibe from this discussion.

I realize we're just a small community board and nothing we say or do will necessarily have any real world impact, and politics is not normally about urgency anyway, so just attribute my impressions to my bad mood and that'll be that.

Seriously now, I need to go do something else before I ruin my whole day.

Again, nothing personal Holman. I apologize again for being overly rude and confrontational.

GreenGoo wrote:Again, nothing personal Holman. I apologize again for being overly rude and confrontational.

You should catch me on my worst days of Trump Rage! It will get worse before it gets better.

Defiant wrote:

GreenGoo wrote: Who gives a shit in this context? What's the net gain or loss for politics in America right now if we fully understand Trump is not Hitler?

What was that about valuing education and knowledge?

See, I knew this was coming. First, context. I didn't say history sucks and don't pay attention to it. I asked how is it useful in this context from a practical standpoint. Second, I would prefer Hitler never be mentioned, but since he was, I would prefer time and energy not be wasted convincing people that Trump isn't Hitler, and instead be spent explaining why Trump is a bad man in his own right.

Defiant wrote:

If anything, being over cautious with a hate spewing populist like Trump because Hitler was once a thing is better than being cavalier because no one is as bad as Hitler so don't worry about it.

If every scary person/thing is "OMFG, Hitler!", no one is Hitler.

But by never being allowed to invoke Hitler, the next Hitler will be upon us and self evident and any preventative lessons we might have learned and used are lost.

Hitler has reached the level of magic at this point. We can't take practical steps based on useful historical lessons from him because any time we try we get to hear how "only Hitler is Hitler" but also because as you say, the manager at the local Grocery store is not Hitler because he wouldn't accept your week expired coupon.

At which point, how is Hitler useful or relevant? If we can't look at similarities in our currently unfolding history to precedents set by Hitler, and we shouldn't call on Hitler just because someone was mean to me, what's the point?

And that's where I am now. Trump is a bad man in his own right and doesn't need to have a boogeyman invoked just so people can understand that. I don't agree that specific comparisons to certain aspects of Hitler aren't apt though, just that they can't be discussed without a circus taking over the discussion.

GreenGoo wrote: Criticizing Trump does not require invoking Hitler, but there are certainly aspects that seem similar. Unfortunately just the name Hitler makes everyone lose their shit, and that results in arguments about how Trump is or isn't exactly like Hitler, like this one. And that's a distraction and beside the point.

Trump is campaigning as a fascist and Hitler was the poster boy for fascism, so the comparison is inevitable. Whether Trump actually believes in anything or just says whatever will keep the media spotlight trained upon him is another question. "Make America great again" is a lot more flexible than National Socialism was...I don't see Trump painting himself into an ideological corner; if the hate speech stops scoring points, he can seamlessly pivot to some fresh outrage.

GreenGoo wrote:Fine. He wants to stop new Muslims arriving so there will be less of them when he starts up the furnaces.

See this is where you come off as obtuse. Do you really think he wants to burn muslims in furnaces? Or do you just think this rhetoric strengthens your position?

If that's a distinction that lets you sleep at night Rip, have at it.

It isn't a truth that helps me sleep at night, it is a truth that separates reality from that mystical make believe place where it appears your mind dwells.

In all seriousness Rip, it's clear Trump (along with the American people) is playing into the Terrorists hands by turning on Muslims in general. Despite how many consume their media, Trump's sound bites don't exist in a vacuum, and all it takes is paying attention to realize what he's saying.

We aren't turning on Muslims we are at war with radical islamists as should be all muslims who are not radical. Not ever muslims is a radical islamist but every radical islamist is a muslim.

Where we turning on Italians when we went after the Mafia? On Irishman when we went after the IRA?

It's not like Muslims were his first target, it's just that they make an easier one than Mexicans right now.

So to go after illegal immigration is to go after Mexicans? You know the Mexico who has an immigration policy that makes ours look welcoming?

Trump wrote:total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

But I'm not sure what he's referring to here. What is there to figure out? Syrian refugees are being crushed under the war between rebels and Assad. They need a new home. If it's not Syrian refugees he's referring to, then each Muslim immigrating to the US will have his/her/their own reasons. What's Trump expecting be done here? What changes does he want and what is driving his apparent need for these changes?

There's nothing to figure out because there is no problem with Muslims immigrating to the US. The entire thing is a smear campaign against people who follow Islam, and it's successful because radicals use Islam as their rallying cry, not because Muslims are a "problem" that needs to be solved.

Geezus.

Time for video games.

Trying to figure out how we can vet people like the San Bernardino killer bride only to find out afterwards that she was radicalized and had been practicing hatred and looking to attack our way of life before she even came here.

It isn't just refugee vetting that needs to get better but all immigration vetting.

Kraken wrote:

GreenGoo wrote: Criticizing Trump does not require invoking Hitler, but there are certainly aspects that seem similar. Unfortunately just the name Hitler makes everyone lose their shit, and that results in arguments about how Trump is or isn't exactly like Hitler, like this one. And that's a distraction and beside the point.

Trump is campaigning as a fascist and Hitler was the poster boy for fascism, so the comparison is inevitable. Whether Trump actually believes in anything or just says whatever will keep the media spotlight trained upon him is another question. "Make America great again" is a lot more flexible than National Socialism was...I don't see Trump painting himself into an ideological corner; if the hate speech stops scoring points, he can seamlessly pivot to some fresh outrage.

To call Trump a fascist just minimalizes the atrocities of the real fascists.



If there are any real fascists left they are working for Daesh.

People aren't fascist because they shoot people in the back of the head. That's a result of fascism. Not fascism itself. Symptoms are not the illness.

Fascism is a philosophy. One that Trump very much seems to be embracing and endorsing.

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Fine. He wants to stop new Muslims arriving so there will be less of them when he starts up the furnaces.

See this is where you come off as obtuse. Do you really think he wants to burn muslims in furnaces?

No. And you can tell because 2 lines later I say "In all seriousness Rip" which is typically used to imply what was said prior was not "in all seriousness". I put clues like that in my writing to help the reader decide what I mean to be taken literally and what is rhetoric. They are more like road signs than clues, I guess.

Rip wrote: Trying to figure out how we can vet people like the San Bernardino killer bride only to find out afterwards that she was radicalized and had been practicing hatred and looking to attack our way of life before she even came here.

It isn't just refugee vetting that needs to get better but all immigration vetting.

Well that's an easy one. You can't.

Not all questions have answers and not all problems have solutions. Honestly Rip, if you can just accept that the cost of owning guns is having the occasional murder spree, I don't see why you can't accept that the cost of having immigration is that sometimes a bad apple is going to get through.

While it's certainly possible to catch some bad apples, it's not possible to catch all of them. Not because of the sheer number of bad apples, but because some bad apples have absolutely no indicators that they are bad. None. Not in a practical sense anyway. Or that can be discovered in a practical way. The idea that Muslim immigration into the US is a problem is less true than gun ownership is a problem. And I don't think gun ownership is a problem that can be solved either. You want nothing done about mass shootings each year but you will stop the presses completely because one of those shootings has a radical motivation instead of a domestic one? Are you high?

So the bottom line is that Trump is grasping at ghosts and you (along with a large number of people who seem hell bent on hating) seem to think it's a good idea.

I'm not saying Terrorists aren't real. I am saying that the UK has way, way more trouble with radicals than the US, and they think Trump is a buffoon for the things he says and wants. I'm saying that jumping at ghosts is exactly what Terrorists want. They WANT the west to persecute every muslim so that the idea that the US is in a holy war with Islam becomes true AFTER the fact. Terrorists want an extreme, overreaching response to their limited, weak attacks (yes, limited, weak) on the US so that the US itself will push more muslims into radicalism.

Let's face it Rip, terrorists are smarter than you are and are playing you like an instrument. Dance puppet, dance.

Rip wrote:
Where we turning on Italians when we went after the Mafia? On Irishman when we went after the IRA?

Did we seriously talk about a war on Italians, or try to ban all immigration by Italians, or completely lose our shit over some Italian women and children refugees? The whole point is that the right is doing everything that can to tar all Muslims with the dangerous extremist brush.

GreenGoo wrote:While it's certainly possible to catch some bad apples, it's not possible to catch all of them. Not because of the sheer number of bad apples, but because some bad apples have absolutely no indicators that they are bad. None. Not in a practical sense anyway. Or that can be discovered in a practical way. The idea that Muslim immigration into the US is a problem is less true than gun ownership is a problem. And I don't think gun ownership is a problem that can be solved either. You want nothing done about mass shootings each year but you will stop the presses completely because one of those shootings has a radical motivation instead of a domestic one? Are you high?

This +1000.

GreenGoo wrote:People aren't fascist because they shoot people in the back of the head. That's a result of fascism. Not fascism itself. Symptoms are not the illness.

Fascism is a philosophy. One that Trump very much seems to be embracing and endorsing.

Instead of breaking down the reason he isn't, I will just point you to something that does it for me. By someone who is far from a fan of his, BTW.


http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... mp-fascism

GreenGoo wrote:

Rip wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:Fine. He wants to stop new Muslims arriving so there will be less of them when he starts up the furnaces.

See this is where you come off as obtuse. Do you really think he wants to burn muslims in furnaces?

No. And you can tell because 2 lines later I say "In all seriousness Rip" which is typically used to imply what was said prior was not "in all seriousness". I put clues like that in my writing to help the reader decide what I mean to be taken literally and what is rhetoric. They are more like road signs than clues, I guess.

Rip wrote: Trying to figure out how we can vet people like the San Bernardino killer bride only to find out afterwards that she was radicalized and had been practicing hatred and looking to attack our way of life before she even came here.

It isn't just refugee vetting that needs to get better but all immigration vetting.

Well that's an easy one. You can't.

Not all questions have answers and not all problems have solutions. Honestly Rip, if you can just accept that the cost of owning guns is having the occasional murder spree, I don't see why you can't accept that the cost of having immigration is that sometimes a bad apple is going to get through.

While it's certainly possible to catch some bad apples, it's not possible to catch all of them. Not because of the sheer number of bad apples, but because some bad apples have absolutely no indicators that they are bad. None. Not in a practical sense anyway. Or that can be discovered in a practical way. The idea that Muslim immigration into the US is a problem is less true than gun ownership is a problem. And I don't think gun ownership is a problem that can be solved either. You want nothing done about mass shootings each year but you will stop the presses completely because one of those shootings has a radical motivation instead of a domestic one? Are you high?

So the bottom line is that Trump is grasping at ghosts and you (along with a large number of people who seem hell bent on hating) seem to think it's a good idea.

I'm not saying Terrorists aren't real. I am saying that the UK has way, way more trouble with radicals than the US, and they think Trump is a buffoon for the things he says and wants. I'm saying that jumping at ghosts is exactly what Terrorists want. They WANT the west to persecute every muslim so that the idea that the US is in a holy war with Islam becomes true AFTER the fact. Terrorists want an extreme, overreaching response to their limited, weak attacks (yes, limited, weak) on the US so that the US itself will push more muslims into radicalism.

Let's face it Rip, terrorists are smarter than you are and are playing you like an instrument. Dance puppet, dance.

I do but just like you and the people who want more gun control it is a matter of doing it better without expecting perfection. I've agreed that we need some more control over gun purchases and ownership. Is asking for better immigration vetting and border security such a huge thing to ask for?

Your reaction to this is just like the crazy guy hoarding guns in fear of Obama coming to take them.

Trump isn't the antichrist and and America will not start interning muslims just because Trump gets elected.

Although I still expect you to leave the continent if he gets elected.

gbasden wrote:

Rip wrote:
Where we turning on Italians when we went after the Mafia? On Irishman when we went after the IRA?

Did we seriously talk about a war on Italians, or try to ban all immigration by Italians, or completely lose our shit over some Italian women and children refugees? The whole point is that the right is doing everything that can to tar all Muslims with the dangerous extremist brush.

Bullshit. I know a number of Muslims and a mosque right here in Lafayette. No one is suggesting they should face any special scrutiny. If he is tarring them all, he is missing massive numbers of them.

GreenGoo wrote:While it's certainly possible to catch some bad apples, it's not possible to catch all of them. Not because of the sheer number of bad apples, but because some bad apples have absolutely no indicators that they are bad. None. Not in a practical sense anyway. Or that can be discovered in a practical way. The idea that Muslim immigration into the US is a problem is less true than gun ownership is a problem. And I don't think gun ownership is a problem that can be solved either. You want nothing done about mass shootings each year but you will stop the presses completely because one of those shootings has a radical motivation instead of a domestic one? Are you high?

This +1000.

I do want to see improved gun controls(although maybe not the same ones you want). Can you say the same about improved border security and immigration vetting? So who is really the one who refuses to do anything to solve the problem(s)?

GreenGoo wrote:People aren't fascist because they shoot people in the back of the head. That's a result of fascism. Not fascism itself. Symptoms are not the illness.

Fascism is a philosophy. One that Trump very much seems to be embracing and endorsing.

I said that Trump is running as a fascist, meaning only that he talks the talk. I also said IDK if he believes it in a committed way, or if he merely discovered that it's expedient. I'm not sure that Trump believes in anything beyond himself and I'm pretty sure he'll say anything to sell himself.

We won't find out if he walks the fascist walk unless he's elected, and the odds of that happening are vanishing small IMO, although a major terror attack on American soil leading up to next November could raise those odds.

Rip wrote:
Instead of breaking down the reason he isn't, I will just point you to something that does it for me. By someone who is far from a fan of his, BTW.


http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... mp-fascism

Well, I'm not wedded to the F word if "right-wing populist" is more appropriate. I'm no political scientist, although I do think that Trump fits the common impression of fascism if not the scholarly definition presented in that link. The popularity of his hateful, racist, xenophobic nationalism worries me a lot more than what label best fits it.

Griffin, who is a professor of history and political theory at Oxford Brookes University, puts it best: "You can be a total xenophobic racist male chauvinist bastard and still not be a fascist."

Yes, but where is he on the trains running on time?

Kraken wrote: Well, I'm not wedded to the F word if "right-wing populist" is more appropriate. I'm no political scientist, although I do think that Trump fits the common impression of fascism if not the scholarly definition presented in that link. The popularity of his hateful, racist, xenophobic nationalism worries me a lot more than what label best fits it.

This is why I keep pointing back to George Wallace and the homegrown political brutality that's always available for the right kind of demagogue. Trump appeals to that same nativism, racism, xenophobia, reactionary anger and resentment. Whether we call it "fascism" or not hardly matters; we know what it is already.

Jaymann wrote:Yes, but where is he on the trains running on time?

They will be the hugest, most beautiful trains! And they will be so on time that it will make your head spin! And--get this, people--we're going to make Mexico pay for them.

Kraken wrote:
Well, I'm not wedded to the F word if "right-wing populist" is more appropriate. I'm no political scientist, although I do think that Trump fits the common impression of fascism if not the scholarly definition presented in that link. The popularity of his hateful, racist, xenophobic nationalism worries me a lot more than what label best fits it.

Normally I'm as pedantic as anyone, and often more than most, in this case I'm not overly concerned with whether the label fits him like a glove or not. If "making America great again" by uniting it behind a seething ball of hate and fear for specific minorities is not enough to get him a full blown Fascist label with a capital F, I think it covers one of the tenets closely enough for him to be called fascist with a lower case f. Whether he's a fascist or just has fascist-like tendencies makes for great intellectual discussion, but does little to find solutions for the political dangers Trump brings to this election.

As Kraken said, finding the right label for Trump is an exercise for political scientists that come later, perhaps even the next generation.

So if we can all agree that he's not Hitler, and only exhibits one of the 3 tenets of facism, can we move on from what to call him and get on with getting rid of him? How people can argue that he's better than the status quo is beyond me.

GreenGoo wrote: So if we can all agree that he's not Hitler, and only exhibits one of the 3 tenets of facism, can we move on from what to call him and get on with getting rid of him? How people can argue that he's better than the status quo is beyond me.

We feel like we live in scary times (even though most times have been scarier). Frightened people are vulnerable, and demagoguery plays on that. When it finds its moment the narrative is really really seductive, but I think we're going to find that this isn't the 1930's after all.

You won't find more than a handful of people on OO remotely positive on Trump. (The only vocal one is Rip, who might be trolling us anyway--to him Trump is just the anti-Hillary, and that's all he really needs to play his forum game.) Most of want to see him trounced, as I really believe he will be.

Holman wrote:

Kraken wrote: Well, I'm not wedded to the F word if "right-wing populist" is more appropriate. I'm no political scientist, although I do think that Trump fits the common impression of fascism if not the scholarly definition presented in that link. The popularity of his hateful, racist, xenophobic nationalism worries me a lot more than what label best fits it.

This is why I keep pointing back to George Wallace and the homegrown political brutality that's always available for the right kind of demagogue. Trump appeals to that same nativism, racism, xenophobia, reactionary anger and resentment. Whether we call it "fascism" or not hardly matters; we know what it is already.

Jaymann wrote:Yes, but where is he on the trains running on time?

They will be the hugest, most beautiful trains! And they will be so on time that it will make your head spin! And--get this, people--we're going to make Mexico pay for them.

Pay for them?

Hell no, Trump will have them turning a profit!!!

Holman wrote:

GreenGoo wrote: So if we can all agree that he's not Hitler, and only exhibits one of the 3 tenets of facism, can we move on from what to call him and get on with getting rid of him? How people can argue that he's better than the status quo is beyond me.

We feel like we live in scary times (even though most times have been scarier). Frightened people are vulnerable, and demagoguery plays on that. When it finds its moment the narrative is really really seductive, but I think we're going to find that this isn't the 1930's after all.

You won't find more than a handful of people on OO remotely positive on Trump. (The only vocal one is Rip, who might be trolling us anyway--to him Trump is just the anti-Hillary, and that's all he really needs to play his forum game.) Most of want to see him trounced, as I really believe he will be.

To be clear I am no Trump fan.

That said I would take him over Hillary ALL DAY!

GreenGoo wrote: As Kraken said, finding the right label for Trump is an exercise for political scientists that come later, perhaps even the next generation.

One hopes that he will be a quickly forgotten footnote, like that other guy that nobody remembers. Or, if history does remember him, it will be as the catalyst that forced the R Party to purge and reform itself. Most likely, though, he'll be the Ross Perot figure who cost the R's the 2016 election. Then, because a wingnut didn't lose under his own power, they'll go through the same self-destructive dynamic again in '20...quite possibly with the same cast of characters.

Or maybe the party bosses will override that whole messy democratic process and install one of their own at the convention.

Sure is shaping up to be an interesting election cycle.

Rip wrote:

Holman wrote:

GreenGoo wrote: So if we can all agree that he's not Hitler, and only exhibits one of the 3 tenets of facism, can we move on from what to call him and get on with getting rid of him? How people can argue that he's better than the status quo is beyond me.

We feel like we live in scary times (even though most times have been scarier). Frightened people are vulnerable, and demagoguery plays on that. When it finds its moment the narrative is really really seductive, but I think we're going to find that this isn't the 1930's after all.

You won't find more than a handful of people on OO remotely positive on Trump. (The only vocal one is Rip, who might be trolling us anyway--to him Trump is just the anti-Hillary, and that's all he really needs to play his forum game.) Most of want to see him trounced, as I really believe he will be.

To be clear I am no Trump fan.

That said I would take him over Hillary ALL DAY!

Why?

Rip wrote:To be clear I am no Trump fan.

That said I would take him over Hillary ALL DAY!

You'll just wake up the morning after your hot steamy affair with a pounding headache, wondering how drunk/high you were before allowing Trump to rape your precious freedom.

Trump shouldn't have to be "just like Hitler" to ping your danger sense.

Combustible Lemur wrote: Why?

If I've followed Rip through this entire thing, and lord help me I've tried, it's because Hillary is an amoral career politician with absolutely no integrity who is willing to say or do anything to get elected, just like her husband.

Unlike Trump, who actually believes that a wall around the US will keep the bad people away, unless he just says wild and crazy shit to get votes, but that can't be possible because that's exactly what Rip hates most of all in politicians, particularly the Clintons.

Also, because physical attractiveness has been a important platform this election, and Trump is angelic, while Hillary is, well, you've seen the pictures.

GreenGoo wrote:

Combustible Lemur wrote: Why?

If I've followed Rip through this entire thing, and lord help me I've tried, it's because Hillary is an amoral career politician with absolutely no integrity who is willing to say or do anything to get elected, just like her husband.

Unlike Trump, who actually believes that a wall around the US will keep the bad people away, unless he just says wild and crazy shit to get votes, but that can't be possible because that's exactly what Rip hates most of all in politicians, particularly the Clintons.

Also, because physical attractiveness has been a important platform this election, and Trump is angelic, while Hillary is, well, you've seen the pictures.

That's silly, and while RIP is also silly, Trump is clearly not a Beleiver.

Combustible Lemur wrote: That's silly, and while RIP is also silly, Trump is clearly not a Beleiver.

Are you suggesting that the Donald would say things he does not believe in so as to secure public support? I'm shocked. Shocked I say, that you would suggest that Trump possesses the very characteristics that make Hillary so vile to Rip.

Trump is a paragon of sincerity. He must be. How else do you explain Rip putting Trump on a pedestal when compared to the vile Hilary?

I should be sleeping. Double tap.

The problem is that Rip hasn't yet realized just how much Hillary is like Nixon. When he does, he'll change his tune.