Do you think that Donald Trump is a fascist?

[Mr. Reactionary]

If you think that list is a 'joke' then provide your definition of fascism.

That list is the standard definition of fascism used by many academic historians, though I have no doubt they debate aspects off it.  Again, the idea that the list can be applied to the likes of Obama is based on false equivalence.  There may be the odd example of Obama's eight year's in the White House that can fit into some of those 14 items, and a few more examples that can be stretched to fit, but there is nothing to the degree of Trump who acts as an 'aspirational fascist' virtually every day.

Fascism was an early 20th century Italian non-Marxist authoritarian restorationist movement. I'd hardly call meanie-head Trump reauthorizing government programs that were in existence under Bush and Clinton as having anything to do with Italian authoritarianism. I know you are being deliberately obtuse but it's still pretty amusing to see someone try and argue that Obama's military budget was somehow massively different than Trump's, or that Obama didn't start a bunch of foreign wars, or defend overzealous police tactics at the Supreme Court whenever it came up, or have disdain for human rights akin to Trump (FISA Courts; PRISM Spying; wiretapping the press corps; attacking the Supreme Court for protecting free speech; calls for gun bans; drone executions; eschewing due process in college hearings; regulatory takings; investigation parade floats and rodeo clowns; intrusive reporting requirements; etc.), or scapegoat bitter clingers and obstructionist rightwing terrorists who won't raise the debt ceiling, or protect the corporations he liked (Goldman-Sachs; University of Phoenix; Silicon Valley; Green Tech; Boeing; Etc.), or continue the steady march of the government towards criminalizing everything, and so on and so on.

The list on page 1 is a joke. The "characteristics" are so broad that they absolutely apply to pretty much any modern President. And it is an absolute fallacy to claim that because something is red and has 4 wheels and seatbelts, that it MUST be a Dodge Dakota pickup truck. I mean, I'm the conservative and you are the progressive. Why is it that I'm the one having to explain to you that sometimes new political ideologies can develop and that not everything must be a pre-existing belief set. You are basing your argument on the fact that Trump is re-implementing policies that were law 10 years. That is not Fascism, that's just him doing something you don't like. Not everyone you hate is literally Hitler.

Anyway, feel free to respond. I won't read it, because there is nothing more to say. You clearly have a warped, kindergarten understanding of what muh Fascism! is, so there really is no point in continuing.

[Friend]

I think this is a case of perception vs. reality. Maybe some see Trumps rhetoric as fascist like but nothing he done compares to truly fascist governments. Also its important to differentiate between what fascists promised in order to get into power and they actual did. Most of Trumps similarities are with the former.

Trump has actually does a lot of extreme things that the media generally doesn't report on because they focus on his extreme comments.  In addition to the list from Amy Siskind, Politico publishes a weekly "Five things Trump did this week while you weren't looking."

Any specific examples of fascism though? Extreme does not mean fascist either.

From September 1
1. Police can buy military equipment again - (re) militarizing the police
3. The fiduciary standard gets delayed for more than a year - Crony capitalism  (oddly crony capitalism is not on the list provided here, it is on the ones I've seen.)

From Amy Siskind's latest list
17. US Army recruiters are canceling contracts with hundreds of immigrant recruits, exposing some to deportation. Recruiters claim the move is to eliminate onerous background investigations from the enlistment process. - fear of difference

19. McClatchy reported the Trump regime is considering a policy which would fast-track the deportation of thousands of unaccompanied Central American teenagers who arrived at the southern border.
20. More than 150k children who arrived at the southern border, escaping violence and poverty in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, would be sent back when they turn 18, without seeing an immigration judge first.

1 is the only policy i would consider fascist. The policies that deal with illegals enforce laws already in place which is the executive's job. If you believe these are to promote a racist fascist agenda thats just your opinion not a fact.

It's consistent with other racist policies and statements from Trump and the Trump Administration.  Certainly though most racist statements and government actions are not inherently fascist.

Item 20 is not U.S law in terms of those escaping violence as those people have the right to seek refugee status.

Racist policies such as???

Not a neutral website, but I think it's hard to dispute the 'facts' of a single item, and taken together they certainly point to clear racism:
List of policies enacted by Trump administration to further white supremacy: Travel-ban executive order; border-protection executive order; Presidential Voter Integrity Commission executive order; repealed federal regulations against reporting pay discrimination; law-enforcement protection executive order; reinstated mandatory minimums; repealed Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA; created commission to investigate affirmative action lawsuits; pardoned former Maricopa County, Ariz.,

Just because a policy affects a specific group more dies not make it unfair if the rules are apllied to everyone. Fairness is equal application of rules, not equal results. Mandatory minimums, aa lawsuits, voter id laws, immigration laws, and travel bans all seek to resolve legitimate issues.  All races must abide by them. No policy will affect every demographic equally.  Again it's your opinion to declare these policies racist. It is not an undisputed fact. I do not believe any of them to be racist or fascist. I'm sure you'll argue these policies counter minorities but I don't see how applying equal standards targets anyone other than those who break the law or put the public in danger. Racist policies would give different rights or privileges to different groups, kind of like affirmative action 😉. Arpaio should be in jail though.

[136or142]

If you think that list is a 'joke' then provide your definition of fascism.

That list is the standard definition of fascism used by many academic historians, though I have no doubt they debate aspects off it.  Again, the idea that the list can be applied to the likes of Obama is based on false equivalence.  There may be the odd example of Obama's eight year's in the White House that can fit into some of those 14 items, and a few more examples that can be stretched to fit, but there is nothing to the degree of Trump who acts as an 'aspirational fascist' virtually every day.

Fascism was an early 20th century Italian non-Marxist authoritarian restorationist movement. I'd hardly call meanie-head Trump reauthorizing government programs that were in existence under Bush and Clinton as having anything to do with Italian authoritarianism. I know you are being deliberately obtuse but it's still pretty amusing to see someone try and argue that Obama's military budget was somehow massively different than Trump's, or that Obama didn't start a bunch of foreign wars, or defend overzealous police tactics at the Supreme Court whenever it came up, or have disdain for human rights akin to Trump (FISA Courts; PRISM Spying; wiretapping the press corps; attacking the Supreme Court for protecting free speech; calls for gun bans; drone executions; eschewing due process in college hearings; regulatory takings; investigation parade floats and rodeo clowns; intrusive reporting requirements; etc.), or scapegoat bitter clingers and obstructionist rightwing terrorists who won't raise the debt ceiling, or protect the corporations he liked (Goldman-Sachs; University of Phoenix; Silicon Valley; Green Tech; Boeing; Etc.), or continue the steady march of the government towards criminalizing everything, and so on and so on.

The list on page 1 is a joke. The "characteristics" are so broad that they absolutely apply to pretty much any modern President. And it is an absolute fallacy to claim that because something is red and has 4 wheels and seatbelts, that it MUST be a Dodge Dakota pickup truck. I mean, I'm the conservative and you are the progressive. Why is it that I'm the one having to explain to you that sometimes new political ideologies can develop and that not everything must be a pre-existing belief set. You are basing your argument on the fact that Trump is re-implementing policies that were law 10 years. That is not Fascism, that's just him doing something you don't like. Not everyone you hate is literally Hitler.

Anyway, feel free to respond. I won't read it, because there is nothing more to say. You clearly have a warped, kindergarten understanding of what muh Fascism! is, so there really is no point in continuing.

Most of the items on your list that describe Obama as a fascist are silly half-truths.  If these characteristics are truly that broad, why did you have to do that in order to claim Obama has fascist tendencies?

[136or142]

I think this is a case of perception vs. reality. Maybe some see Trumps rhetoric as fascist like but nothing he done compares to truly fascist governments. Also its important to differentiate between what fascists promised in order to get into power and they actual did. Most of Trumps similarities are with the former.

Trump has actually does a lot of extreme things that the media generally doesn't report on because they focus on his extreme comments.  In addition to the list from Amy Siskind, Politico publishes a weekly "Five things Trump did this week while you weren't looking."

Any specific examples of fascism though? Extreme does not mean fascist either.

From September 1
1. Police can buy military equipment again - (re) militarizing the police
3. The fiduciary standard gets delayed for more than a year - Crony capitalism  (oddly crony capitalism is not on the list provided here, it is on the ones I've seen.)

From Amy Siskind's latest list
17. US Army recruiters are canceling contracts with hundreds of immigrant recruits, exposing some to deportation. Recruiters claim the move is to eliminate onerous background investigations from the enlistment process. - fear of difference

19. McClatchy reported the Trump regime is considering a policy which would fast-track the deportation of thousands of unaccompanied Central American teenagers who arrived at the southern border.
20. More than 150k children who arrived at the southern border, escaping violence and poverty in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, would be sent back when they turn 18, without seeing an immigration judge first.

1 is the only policy i would consider fascist. The policies that deal with illegals enforce laws already in place which is the executive's job. If you believe these are to promote a racist fascist agenda thats just your opinion not a fact.

It's consistent with other racist policies and statements from Trump and the Trump Administration.  Certainly though most racist statements and government actions are not inherently fascist.

Item 20 is not U.S law in terms of those escaping violence as those people have the right to seek refugee status.

Racist policies such as???

Not a neutral website, but I think it's hard to dispute the 'facts' of a single item, and taken together they certainly point to clear racism:
List of policies enacted by Trump administration to further white supremacy: Travel-ban executive order; border-protection executive order; Presidential Voter Integrity Commission executive order; repealed federal regulations against reporting pay discrimination; law-enforcement protection executive order; reinstated mandatory minimums; repealed Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA; created commission to investigate affirmative action lawsuits; pardoned former Maricopa County, Ariz.,

Just because a policy affects a specific group more dies not make it unfair if the rules are apllied to everyone. Fairness is equal application of rules, not equal results. Mandatory minimums, aa lawsuits, voter id laws, immigration laws, and travel bans all seek to resolve legitimate issues.  All races must abide by them. No policy will affect every demographic equally.  Again it's your opinion to declare these policies racist. It is not an undisputed fact. I do not believe any of them to be racist or fascist. I'm sure you'll argue these policies counter minorities but I don't see how applying equal standards targets anyone other than those who break the law or put the public in danger. Racist policies would give different rights or privileges to different groups, kind of like affirmative action 😉. Arpaio should be in jail though.

I don't dispute that as an abstract argument, but that's not the reality.  'Carding' (I believe it has a different term in the U.S - the police stopping people at random on the street) in abstract can be applied to everybody equally but it is, in Ontario anyway, used against a random black person three times as often as it is used against a random white person, even though there in no inherent reason for that to happen.

That is just one of multiple examples of where 'equal' laws are applied differently on the basis of race, financial status, gender...  

[Friend]

I think this is a case of perception vs. reality. Maybe some see Trumps rhetoric as fascist like but nothing he done compares to truly fascist governments. Also its important to differentiate between what fascists promised in order to get into power and they actual did. Most of Trumps similarities are with the former.

Trump has actually does a lot of extreme things that the media generally doesn't report on because they focus on his extreme comments.  In addition to the list from Amy Siskind, Politico publishes a weekly "Five things Trump did this week while you weren't looking."

Any specific examples of fascism though? Extreme does not mean fascist either.

From September 1
1. Police can buy military equipment again - (re) militarizing the police
3. The fiduciary standard gets delayed for more than a year - Crony capitalism  (oddly crony capitalism is not on the list provided here, it is on the ones I've seen.)

From Amy Siskind's latest list
17. US Army recruiters are canceling contracts with hundreds of immigrant recruits, exposing some to deportation. Recruiters claim the move is to eliminate onerous background investigations from the enlistment process. - fear of difference

19. McClatchy reported the Trump regime is considering a policy which would fast-track the deportation of thousands of unaccompanied Central American teenagers who arrived at the southern border.
20. More than 150k children who arrived at the southern border, escaping violence and poverty in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, would be sent back when they turn 18, without seeing an immigration judge first.

1 is the only policy i would consider fascist. The policies that deal with illegals enforce laws already in place which is the executive's job. If you believe these are to promote a racist fascist agenda thats just your opinion not a fact.

It's consistent with other racist policies and statements from Trump and the Trump Administration.  Certainly though most racist statements and government actions are not inherently fascist.

Item 20 is not U.S law in terms of those escaping violence as those people have the right to seek refugee status.

Racist policies such as???

Not a neutral website, but I think it's hard to dispute the 'facts' of a single item, and taken together they certainly point to clear racism:
List of policies enacted by Trump administration to further white supremacy: Travel-ban executive order; border-protection executive order; Presidential Voter Integrity Commission executive order; repealed federal regulations against reporting pay discrimination; law-enforcement protection executive order; reinstated mandatory minimums; repealed Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA; created commission to investigate affirmative action lawsuits; pardoned former Maricopa County, Ariz.,

Just because a policy affects a specific group more dies not make it unfair if the rules are apllied to everyone. Fairness is equal application of rules, not equal results. Mandatory minimums, aa lawsuits, voter id laws, immigration laws, and travel bans all seek to resolve legitimate issues.  All races must abide by them. No policy will affect every demographic equally.  Again it's your opinion to declare these policies racist. It is not an undisputed fact. I do not believe any of them to be racist or fascist. I'm sure you'll argue these policies counter minorities but I don't see how applying equal standards targets anyone other than those who break the law or put the public in danger. Racist policies would give different rights or privileges to different groups, kind of like affirmative action 😉. Arpaio should be in jail though.

I don't dispute that as an abstract argument, but that's not the reality.  'Carding' (I believe it has a different term in the U.S - the police stopping people at random on the street) in abstract can be applied to everybody equally but it is, in Ontario anyway, used against a random black person three times as often as it is used against a random white person, even though there in no inherent reason for that to happen.

That is just one of multiple examples of where 'equal' laws are applied differently on the basis of race, financial status, gender...  

Blacks may be tageted more but they statically commit more crimes. In fact the rate the two occur is nearly identical. Now are they being treated unfairly??
https://infogram.com/us-crime-in-black-and-white-1gzxop49q0okmwy

[136or142]

I think this is a case of perception vs. reality. Maybe some see Trumps rhetoric as fascist like but nothing he done compares to truly fascist governments. Also its important to differentiate between what fascists promised in order to get into power and they actual did. Most of Trumps similarities are with the former.

Trump has actually does a lot of extreme things that the media generally doesn't report on because they focus on his extreme comments.  In addition to the list from Amy Siskind, Politico publishes a weekly "Five things Trump did this week while you weren't looking."

Any specific examples of fascism though? Extreme does not mean fascist either.

From September 1
1. Police can buy military equipment again - (re) militarizing the police
3. The fiduciary standard gets delayed for more than a year - Crony capitalism  (oddly crony capitalism is not on the list provided here, it is on the ones I've seen.)

From Amy Siskind's latest list
17. US Army recruiters are canceling contracts with hundreds of immigrant recruits, exposing some to deportation. Recruiters claim the move is to eliminate onerous background investigations from the enlistment process. - fear of difference

19. McClatchy reported the Trump regime is considering a policy which would fast-track the deportation of thousands of unaccompanied Central American teenagers who arrived at the southern border.
20. More than 150k children who arrived at the southern border, escaping violence and poverty in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, would be sent back when they turn 18, without seeing an immigration judge first.

1 is the only policy i would consider fascist. The policies that deal with illegals enforce laws already in place which is the executive's job. If you believe these are to promote a racist fascist agenda thats just your opinion not a fact.

It's consistent with other racist policies and statements from Trump and the Trump Administration.  Certainly though most racist statements and government actions are not inherently fascist.

Item 20 is not U.S law in terms of those escaping violence as those people have the right to seek refugee status.

Racist policies such as???

Not a neutral website, but I think it's hard to dispute the 'facts' of a single item, and taken together they certainly point to clear racism:
List of policies enacted by Trump administration to further white supremacy: Travel-ban executive order; border-protection executive order; Presidential Voter Integrity Commission executive order; repealed federal regulations against reporting pay discrimination; law-enforcement protection executive order; reinstated mandatory minimums; repealed Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA; created commission to investigate affirmative action lawsuits; pardoned former Maricopa County, Ariz.,

Just because a policy affects a specific group more dies not make it unfair if the rules are apllied to everyone. Fairness is equal application of rules, not equal results. Mandatory minimums, aa lawsuits, voter id laws, immigration laws, and travel bans all seek to resolve legitimate issues.  All races must abide by them. No policy will affect every demographic equally.  Again it's your opinion to declare these policies racist. It is not an undisputed fact. I do not believe any of them to be racist or fascist. I'm sure you'll argue these policies counter minorities but I don't see how applying equal standards targets anyone other than those who break the law or put the public in danger. Racist policies would give different rights or privileges to different groups, kind of like affirmative action 😉. Arpaio should be in jail though.

I don't dispute that as an abstract argument, but that's not the reality.  'Carding' (I believe it has a different term in the U.S - the police stopping people at random on the street) in abstract can be applied to everybody equally but it is, in Ontario anyway, used against a random black person three times as often as it is used against a random white person, even though there in no inherent reason for that to happen.

That is just one of multiple examples of where 'equal' laws are applied differently on the basis of race, financial status, gender...  

Blacks may be tageted more but they statically commit more crimes. In fact the rate the two occur is nearly identical. Now are they being treated unfairly??
https://infogram.com/us-crime-in-black-and-white-1gzxop49q0okmwy

Do they actually commit more crime?  Or are they arrested and convicted more due to them being more targeted and/or that the 'crimes' that blacks commit are more likely to be illegal?  I don't want to sensationalize one single high profile event, but if you look at the 'white collar' crime (no pun intended) that led to the financial meltdown of 2008, not only did a single banker not go to jail, but in many cases, the fraud they committed wasn't even illegal.

[Friend]

I think this is a case of perception vs. reality. Maybe some see Trumps rhetoric as fascist like but nothing he done compares to truly fascist governments. Also its important to differentiate between what fascists promised in order to get into power and they actual did. Most of Trumps similarities are with the former.

Trump has actually does a lot of extreme things that the media generally doesn't report on because they focus on his extreme comments.  In addition to the list from Amy Siskind, Politico publishes a weekly "Five things Trump did this week while you weren't looking."

Any specific examples of fascism though? Extreme does not mean fascist either.

From September 1
1. Police can buy military equipment again - (re) militarizing the police
3. The fiduciary standard gets delayed for more than a year - Crony capitalism  (oddly crony capitalism is not on the list provided here, it is on the ones I've seen.)

From Amy Siskind's latest list
17. US Army recruiters are canceling contracts with hundreds of immigrant recruits, exposing some to deportation. Recruiters claim the move is to eliminate onerous background investigations from the enlistment process. - fear of difference

19. McClatchy reported the Trump regime is considering a policy which would fast-track the deportation of thousands of unaccompanied Central American teenagers who arrived at the southern border.
20. More than 150k children who arrived at the southern border, escaping violence and poverty in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, would be sent back when they turn 18, without seeing an immigration judge first.

1 is the only policy i would consider fascist. The policies that deal with illegals enforce laws already in place which is the executive's job. If you believe these are to promote a racist fascist agenda thats just your opinion not a fact.

It's consistent with other racist policies and statements from Trump and the Trump Administration.  Certainly though most racist statements and government actions are not inherently fascist.

Item 20 is not U.S law in terms of those escaping violence as those people have the right to seek refugee status.

Racist policies such as???

Not a neutral website, but I think it's hard to dispute the 'facts' of a single item, and taken together they certainly point to clear racism:
List of policies enacted by Trump administration to further white supremacy: Travel-ban executive order; border-protection executive order; Presidential Voter Integrity Commission executive order; repealed federal regulations against reporting pay discrimination; law-enforcement protection executive order; reinstated mandatory minimums; repealed Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA; created commission to investigate affirmative action lawsuits; pardoned former Maricopa County, Ariz.,

Just because a policy affects a specific group more dies not make it unfair if the rules are apllied to everyone. Fairness is equal application of rules, not equal results. Mandatory minimums, aa lawsuits, voter id laws, immigration laws, and travel bans all seek to resolve legitimate issues.  All races must abide by them. No policy will affect every demographic equally.  Again it's your opinion to declare these policies racist. It is not an undisputed fact. I do not believe any of them to be racist or fascist. I'm sure you'll argue these policies counter minorities but I don't see how applying equal standards targets anyone other than those who break the law or put the public in danger. Racist policies would give different rights or privileges to different groups, kind of like affirmative action 😉. Arpaio should be in jail though.

I don't dispute that as an abstract argument, but that's not the reality.  'Carding' (I believe it has a different term in the U.S - the police stopping people at random on the street) in abstract can be applied to everybody equally but it is, in Ontario anyway, used against a random black person three times as often as it is used against a random white person, even though there in no inherent reason for that to happen.

That is just one of multiple examples of where 'equal' laws are applied differently on the basis of race, financial status, gender...  

Blacks may be tageted more but they statically commit more crimes. In fact the rate the two occur is nearly identical. Now are they being treated unfairly??
https://infogram.com/us-crime-in-black-and-white-1gzxop49q0okmwy

Do they actually commit more crime?  Or are they arrested and convicted more due to them being more targeted and/or that the 'crimes' that blacks commit are more likely to be illegal?  I don't want to sensationalize one single high profile event, but if you look at the 'white collar' crime (no pun intended) that led to the financial meltdown of 2008, not only did a single banker not go to jail, but in many cases, the fraud they committed wasn't even illegal.

It's impossible to say but seeing how most criminals are reported not caught through random searches, it would be hard to rationalize blacks higher crime rate as solely the product of racism. I am not denying that there are some racist cops and judges put there but to say it's the norm is quite a stretch. I don't believe that enforcement of the law should be compromised because we need an equal amount of each race being charged. As for the white collar criminals, i think almost anyone would say their positions of power benefited them far more than their race. The fraud they committed was not illegal because of the lobbying power they had in creating laws.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

He definitely has the mindset of a fascist but thankfully checks and balances keeps him from governing like one.

[wolfsblood07]

He is not a fascist.  He's the best president since Reagan.  He is fixing problems.  He'll deport illegal aliens and end the ridiculous anchor baby loophole.  The old ways of coddling people who break the law are over.  This is a new day.

[Mr. Smith]

Nah, too lazy and thus somehow even more incompetent than the typical fascist dictator.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     No, and the concept implicitly pedalled in this thread that any right-wing nationalist agenda is fascist cheapens the term significantly. Many of these alleged indicators of fascism (e.g. disproportionate focus on the military) are standard policies of the United States government going back decades. He is disturbingly authoritarian, but fortunately this sort of thing is what the Constitution is for.

[136or142]

     No, and the concept implicitly pedalled in this thread that any right-wing nationalist agenda is fascist cheapens the term significantly. Many of these alleged indicators of fascism (e.g. disproportionate focus on the military) are standard policies of the United States government going back decades. He is disturbingly authoritarian, but fortunately this sort of thing is what the Constitution is for.

Cheapens which term 'right wing nationalist' or 'fascist'?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     No, and the concept implicitly pedalled in this thread that any right-wing nationalist agenda is fascist cheapens the term significantly. Many of these alleged indicators of fascism (e.g. disproportionate focus on the military) are standard policies of the United States government going back decades. He is disturbingly authoritarian, but fortunately this sort of thing is what the Constitution is for.

Cheapens which term 'right wing nationalist' or 'fascist'?

     A valid question, isn't it? To say that it cheapens the word "fascist" would imply that its usage has meant anything since 1945.

[136or142]

     No, and the concept implicitly pedalled in this thread that any right-wing nationalist agenda is fascist cheapens the term significantly. Many of these alleged indicators of fascism (e.g. disproportionate focus on the military) are standard policies of the United States government going back decades. He is disturbingly authoritarian, but fortunately this sort of thing is what the Constitution is for.

Cheapens which term 'right wing nationalist' or 'fascist'?

     A valid question, isn't it? To say that it cheapens the word "fascist" would imply that its usage has meant anything since 1945.

People in Spain who lived under Franco might disagree with you on that.

[pbrower2a]

If you think that list is a 'joke' then provide your definition of fascism.

That list is the standard definition of fascism used by many academic historians, though I have no doubt they debate aspects off it.  Again, the idea that the list can be applied to the likes of Obama is based on false equivalence.  There may be the odd example of Obama's eight year's in the White House that can fit into some of those 14 items, and a few more examples that can be stretched to fit, but there is nothing to the degree of Trump who acts as an 'aspirational fascist' virtually every day.

Fascism was an early 20th century Italian non-Marxist authoritarian restorationist movement. I'd hardly call meanie-head Trump reauthorizing government programs that were in existence under Bush and Clinton as having anything to do with Italian authoritarianism. I know you are being deliberately obtuse but it's still pretty amusing to see someone try and argue that Obama's military budget was somehow massively different than Trump's, or that Obama didn't start a bunch of foreign wars, or defend overzealous police tactics at the Supreme Court whenever it came up, or have disdain for human rights akin to Trump (FISA Courts; PRISM Spying; wiretapping the press corps; attacking the Supreme Court for protecting free speech; calls for gun bans; drone executions; eschewing due process in college hearings; regulatory takings; investigation parade floats and rodeo clowns; intrusive reporting requirements; etc.), or scapegoat bitter clingers and obstructionist rightwing terrorists who won't raise the debt ceiling, or protect the corporations he liked (Goldman-Sachs; University of Phoenix; Silicon Valley; Green Tech; Boeing; Etc.), or continue the steady march of the government towards criminalizing everything, and so on and so on.

The list on page 1 is a joke. The "characteristics" are so broad that they absolutely apply to pretty much any modern President. And it is an absolute fallacy to claim that because something is red and has 4 wheels and seatbelts, that it MUST be a Dodge Dakota pickup truck. I mean, I'm the conservative and you are the progressive. Why is it that I'm the one having to explain to you that sometimes new political ideologies can develop and that not everything must be a pre-existing belief set. You are basing your argument on the fact that Trump is re-implementing policies that were law 10 years. That is not Fascism, that's just him doing something you don't like. Not everyone you hate is literally Hitler.

Anyway, feel free to respond. I won't read it, because there is nothing more to say. You clearly have a warped, kindergarten understanding of what muh Fascism! is, so there really is no point in continuing.

All of the traits that Britt attributes to fascism are pathologies of a political order, excusable only if the historical situation (such as the danger of conquest by a hostile power) mandates them. Obviously such a society as Churchill's wartime Britain will exploit nationalism, curtail some freedom of expression (official secrets),  find scapegoats (Nazis, obviously), and control the media to some extent. One can excuse this because Churchill did not create the danger. Fascist regimes (which range from conservative authoritarianism with brutal means of command and control, like Pinochet's Chile, to genocidal monstrosities as horrific as Nazi Germany) create the climate of fear or maintain it.

There traits were all present with Dubya -- and they are again so with Trump. Some came in on little cat's feet with Reagan, but Reagan at the least believed like most conservatives of the time in limited government. If Reagan was hostile to the welfare state he was also hostile to patronage on the assumption that those already rich needed no help. With Dubya the spigot of patronage through sweetheart deals with corporate favorites was turned on and kept on. With Trump such is the objective.  Clinton and Obama may have scaled some of them back, which demonstrates that they were not fascists. 

And it is an absolute fallacy to claim that because something is red and has 4 wheels and seatbelts, that it MUST be a Dodge Dakota pickup truck.

It is easy to look at some left-wing regimes like Romania under Ceausescu, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, Mao's China, and of course contemporary North Korea and see traits out of Britt's list. Likewise with Ba'athist regimes in Iraq and Syria that cannot be easily identified as Left or Right, the insane despotism of Idi Amin, the Taliban regime of Afghanistan, or Daesh/ISIS. So are Commie regimes 'fascist'? No -- they are Marxist-Leninist.  The elder Bush steered clear of using the word fascist to describe Iraq under Saddam Hussein even if it might have been expedient. Idi Amin's mad despotism recalls Ivan the Terrible far better than it recalls fascist regimes that have a well-developed ideology.   

Is the Klan fascist? Which Klan? The 1865 Klan had obvious similarities, but that would bring an extreme anachronism.  The 1915 Klan shared much the same bigotry as Hitler would show (but then Hitler had yet to become political, and Mussolini had yet to style himself as a fascist, let alone establish what fascism was. By adopting  neo-Nazi symbolism and rhetoric that Klan thugs of the 1960s eschewed because WWII veterans wanted nothing to do with the Nazi regime that they fought, contemporary Kluxists may be full-blown fascists. I have no question that those KKK fascists would set up torture chambers, shooting pits, and horrific equivalents of the KZ-Lager of Nazi Germany.

"Fascism" is the political F-word. It is best used sparingly to describe regimes that have torture chambers, mass killings, and horrific camps. Fascists may adopt Marxist-Leninist techniques of propaganda, terror, and repression, but they already have a very different word for themselves and have a very different ideology. (Like liberals, Marxist-Leninists are internationalists; fascists are pathological nationalists).

Donald Trump has taken steps down the fascist road. But we do not yet have full-blown fascism yet in America. There is plenty of resistance, and it is much more effective than experts might have  expected from an American public that has become quite placid in recent years. 

[136or142]

If you think that list is a 'joke' then provide your definition of fascism.

That list is the standard definition of fascism used by many academic historians, though I have no doubt they debate aspects off it.  Again, the idea that the list can be applied to the likes of Obama is based on false equivalence.  There may be the odd example of Obama's eight year's in the White House that can fit into some of those 14 items, and a few more examples that can be stretched to fit, but there is nothing to the degree of Trump who acts as an 'aspirational fascist' virtually every day.

Fascism was an early 20th century Italian non-Marxist authoritarian restorationist movement. I'd hardly call meanie-head Trump reauthorizing government programs that were in existence under Bush and Clinton as having anything to do with Italian authoritarianism. I know you are being deliberately obtuse but it's still pretty amusing to see someone try and argue that Obama's military budget was somehow massively different than Trump's, or that Obama didn't start a bunch of foreign wars, or defend overzealous police tactics at the Supreme Court whenever it came up, or have disdain for human rights akin to Trump (FISA Courts; PRISM Spying; wiretapping the press corps; attacking the Supreme Court for protecting free speech; calls for gun bans; drone executions; eschewing due process in college hearings; regulatory takings; investigation parade floats and rodeo clowns; intrusive reporting requirements; etc.), or scapegoat bitter clingers and obstructionist rightwing terrorists who won't raise the debt ceiling, or protect the corporations he liked (Goldman-Sachs; University of Phoenix; Silicon Valley; Green Tech; Boeing; Etc.), or continue the steady march of the government towards criminalizing everything, and so on and so on.

The list on page 1 is a joke. The "characteristics" are so broad that they absolutely apply to pretty much any modern President. And it is an absolute fallacy to claim that because something is red and has 4 wheels and seatbelts, that it MUST be a Dodge Dakota pickup truck. I mean, I'm the conservative and you are the progressive. Why is it that I'm the one having to explain to you that sometimes new political ideologies can develop and that not everything must be a pre-existing belief set. You are basing your argument on the fact that Trump is re-implementing policies that were law 10 years. That is not Fascism, that's just him doing something you don't like. Not everyone you hate is literally Hitler.

Anyway, feel free to respond. I won't read it, because there is nothing more to say. You clearly have a warped, kindergarten understanding of what muh Fascism! is, so there really is no point in continuing.

All of the traits that Britt attributes to fascism are pathologies of a political order, excusable only if the historical situation (such as the danger of conquest by a hostile power) mandates them. Obviously such a society as Churchill's wartime Britain will exploit nationalism, curtail some freedom of expression (official secrets),  find scapegoats (Nazis, obviously), and control the media to some extent. One can excuse this because Churchill did not create the danger. Fascist regimes (which range from conservative authoritarianism with brutal means of command and control, like Pinochet's Chile, to genocidal monstrosities as horrific as Nazi Germany) create the climate of fear or maintain it.

There traits were all present with Dubya -- and they are again so with Trump. Some came in on little cat's feet with Reagan, but Reagan at the least believed like most conservatives of the time in limited government. If Reagan was hostile to the welfare state he was also hostile to patronage on the assumption that those already rich needed no help. With Dubya the spigot of patronage through sweetheart deals with corporate favorites was turned on and kept on. With Trump such is the objective.  Clinton and Obama may have scaled some of them back, which demonstrates that they were not fascists.  

And it is an absolute fallacy to claim that because something is red and has 4 wheels and seatbelts, that it MUST be a Dodge Dakota pickup truck.

It is easy to look at some left-wing regimes like Romania under Ceausescu, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, Mao's China, and of course contemporary North Korea and see traits out of Britt's list. Likewise with Ba'athist regimes in Iraq and Syria that cannot be easily identified as Left or Right, the insane despotism of Idi Amin, the Taliban regime of Afghanistan, or Daesh/ISIS. So are Commie regimes 'fascist'? No -- they are Marxist-Leninist.  The elder Bush steered clear of using the word fascist to describe Iraq under Saddam Hussein even if it might have been expedient. Idi Amin's mad despotism recalls Ivan the Terrible far better than it recalls fascist regimes that have a well-developed ideology.    

Is the Klan fascist? Which Klan? The 1865 Klan had obvious similarities, but that would bring an extreme anachronism.  The 1915 Klan shared much the same bigotry as Hitler would show (but then Hitler had yet to become political, and Mussolini had yet to style himself as a fascist, let alone establish what fascism was. By adopting  neo-Nazi symbolism and rhetoric that Klan thugs of the 1960s eschewed because WWII veterans wanted nothing to do with the Nazi regime that they fought, contemporary Kluxists may be full-blown fascists. I have no question that those KKK fascists would set up torture chambers, shooting pits, and horrific equivalents of the KZ-Lager of Nazi Germany.

"Fascism" is the political F-word. It is best used sparingly to describe regimes that have torture chambers, mass killings, and horrific camps. Fascists may adopt Marxist-Leninist techniques of propaganda, terror, and repression, but they already have a very different word for themselves and have a very different ideology. (Like liberals, Marxist-Leninists are internationalists; fascists are pathological nationalists).

Donald Trump has taken steps down the fascist road. But we do not yet have full-blown fascism yet in America. There is plenty of resistance, and it is much more effective than experts might have  expected from an American public that has become quite placid in recent years.  

I thought I would just let this go because I was getting tired of the topic and was just enjoying here bantering back and forth, but since you brought it up...

The reason I keep saying "Is there evidence of a pattern?" (or whatever I wrote) and "With Trump I think there clearly is"  

1.People of different ideologies can do the exact same thing but for completely different reasons:  I mentioned the (re)authorizing of surplus military equipment for use by the police.  With a mostly pragmatic President like Barack Obama, his thinking was probably along the lines of "We have surplus military equipment that we'd just have to throw out, we have local police forces begging for more money to buy equipment... a lot of military equipment can be used for policing purposes.  Why not sell it to them cheap?"

I highly doubt President Obama even looked at the equipment before authorizing the fire sale.  

With an authoritarian/aspirational fascist like Trump the thinking is almost certainly much more like "The police need as much force as possible to keep the riff raff down."

2.So, given that people with different ideologies enact the same policies, this is why we need to ask: is there a pattern to their behavior that suggests a consistent ideological belief (or in Trump's case, something that begins to approach a consistent ideological belief) to distinguish between two leaders who, on occasion, enact the same policies.  In Obama's case, I think it was clearly pragmatism combined with establishment liberalism.

While it's hard to quantify that, I'd say that there needs to be one thing that President Trump does or says every week that fits the list of 14 characteristics.  It's not just that there are 14 characteristics that may or may not be specific that define a fascist, it's that there are these items that a leader will consistently follow while largely excluding anything else.  So, it's not just 'is there some kind of vague general fit' but 'what is the degree of fit' (or 'goodness of fit')

So, One item or week over an eight year Presidency would be 416 acts of some kind, or nearly 30 acts for each of those 14 characteristics.  I think it's hard to argue that if that strong a pattern emerges that this is a case of  'any Presidential Administration can be made to fit into these vague characteristics."  Only a fool who has no clue of mathematics or statistics could argue that.

I also don't know where this nonsense of 'fascism was a specific type of ideology practiced by Mussolini in Italy' comes from.  It seems to be some quasi intellectual defense of Trump from pseudo intellectual conservatives  In addition to Franco in Spain who was clearly a fascist (I've read both Paul Preston and Stanley Payne), the modern European far right is frequently referred to by political scientists as 'neo fascists.' Is there really a big difference between the original fascists and the 'neo fascists'?

Not only does Trump, or his more coherent thinkers like Stephen Bannon not represent any brand new ideology, but Bannon himself would clearly agree that his views are mostly if not entirely consistent with the views of the European far right. (neo fascists)

I don't disagree that Trump is mostly talk, which is why I agree that he is mostly, to this point anyway, an 'aspirational fascist' (though as the lists of the Trump Administration's activities show, it has done a fair bit, especially in dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency - which isn't fascist, unless it could be argued as 'crony capitalism') but I certainly think more than one thing that Trump has done or said each week on average could be properly referred to as fascist.

Trump is clearly more than a right wing nationalist, he is, at a minimum, an authoritarian right wing white nationalist, and combining authoritarianism with identifying with ethnicity and with nationalism is the beginning point of a fascist.

[pbrower2a]

I thought I would just let this go because I was getting tired of the topic and was just enjoying here bantering back and forth, but since you brought it up...

The reason I keep saying "Is there evidence of a pattern?" (or whatever I wrote) and "With Trump I think there clearly is"

I like to believe that I am good with seat-of-the-pants statistical analysis, especially with outliers.  Professional statisticians usually have more sophisticated tools at their disposal. Donald Trump is an outlier in many ways as a President. Sure, the melanin count is off the chart with Obama, Eisenhower is the only career military officer since the 19th century, and Truman is the only one without a college degree... Trump really is an outlier in his message, his methods, and his agenda.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Selling off public assets for budgetary reasons is a very different deed than selling them at a fire sale to cronies who then get to use them for monopoly gouging. The first probably gets the best deal possible either in price or terms. The second gets what he can get away with.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is a big difference, and the disparagement of Barack Obama (and to a lesser extent John McCain) indicates that President Trump wants to impose radical changes upon America. It is easy for me to deprecate those changes because those suggest an authoritarian order in which most people suffer for a self-selecting, exclusive, rapacious, and reckless elite.

Maybe I see the dark side of American history just under the cover of institutional reform and cultural change. I have no illusion about any predictable goodness of human nature. Not liking Donald Trump, I see those tendencies in him. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Britt didn't mention violence or brutality -- but much of that is done beyond the eyes of prying people. Hitler made sure that such violence as the Kristallnacht and the Night of the Long Knives seemed like aberrations and was embarrassed when his "euthanasia" program was exposed for what it was. Hitler made sure that the mass killing of Jews was one away from the eyes of most Germans, which explains why it was done under the fog of war in Russia and the Baltic countries or after shipping Jews off to killing centers in Poland, where the surrounding people could do nothing to stop the horrorl. But violence is in fact a cornerstone of government policy in all fascist regimes.

Of course violence might fit the criterion of "denial of the value of human rights" to an extreme degree.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it might be sexism one week, saber-rattling another, anti-intellectualism another, crony capitalism another, excoriating scapegoats another...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fascism has become a portmanteau for various manifestations of inhuman, anti-egalitarian ideology. I am not certain that a fascist regime needs all fourteen signs in place: Pinochet had no desire for imperial expansion, and Vidkun Quisling wasn't particularly sexist. But they are generally considered fascists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you have a child who admires Wild-West outlaws like Billy the Kid or Frank and Jesse James, bootleggers like Al Capone, Depression-era bank robbers like John Dillinger or the Barrow-Parker gang, serial killers from Jack the Ripper to John Gacy, or narcotic kingpins like Pablo Escobar or Carlos Lehder.. you would be scared. you would probably insist that he get psychiatric help before he does something horrible. When I heard Donald Trump exhort people to commit violence, brag about grabbing women by their crotches, accuse non-white or non-Christian people of being terrorists, rapists, drug traffickers, and murderers, and praising dictators I was scared.  I would not have been so scared of a Republican Presidential nominee who spoke of the need to unleash the full power of free enterprise by cutting taxes, gutting unions, and softening regulation; at least such would be honest expression.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Crony capitalism flourishes in fascist regimes in which scrutiny of the elites is impossible and in which consequences for misconduct are slight so long as it has protection by the Leader as it cannot do in places with reporters who do not expect to be drummed out of the profession or killed for exposing that the Prime Minister took an estate from the government after it was confiscated from a political enemy or religious pariah. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Precisely. Ronald Reagan was a piece of work, but he made clear that Klansmen and Nazis were not 'good people'.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     No, and the concept implicitly pedalled in this thread that any right-wing nationalist agenda is fascist cheapens the term significantly. Many of these alleged indicators of fascism (e.g. disproportionate focus on the military) are standard policies of the United States government going back decades. He is disturbingly authoritarian, but fortunately this sort of thing is what the Constitution is for.

Cheapens which term 'right wing nationalist' or 'fascist'?

     A valid question, isn't it? To say that it cheapens the word "fascist" would imply that its usage has meant anything since 1945.

People in Spain who lived under Franco might disagree with you on that.

     Touche. Would that the Anglophones have considered that before throwing the word fascist around as a cheap insult and making light of the horrors of the fascist regimes.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

He's not alert enough to have a political ideology.

[136or142]

     No, and the concept implicitly pedalled in this thread that any right-wing nationalist agenda is fascist cheapens the term significantly. Many of these alleged indicators of fascism (e.g. disproportionate focus on the military) are standard policies of the United States government going back decades. He is disturbingly authoritarian, but fortunately this sort of thing is what the Constitution is for.

Cheapens which term 'right wing nationalist' or 'fascist'?

     A valid question, isn't it? To say that it cheapens the word "fascist" would imply that its usage has meant anything since 1945.

People in Spain who lived under Franco might disagree with you on that.

     Touche. Would that the Anglophones have considered that before throwing the word fascist around as a cheap insult and making light of the horrors of the fascist regimes.

Probably no more so than those who make a cheap insult of referring to liberals as 'communists' or 'communists/socialists.'

Of course, referring to Trump as an 'aspirational fascist' is not a cheap insult, but is, as I've argued here, a plain statement of fact.

[elcorazon]

Do you think he is?

I think he definitely is.

yes

[Associate Justice PiT]

     No, and the concept implicitly pedalled in this thread that any right-wing nationalist agenda is fascist cheapens the term significantly. Many of these alleged indicators of fascism (e.g. disproportionate focus on the military) are standard policies of the United States government going back decades. He is disturbingly authoritarian, but fortunately this sort of thing is what the Constitution is for.

Cheapens which term 'right wing nationalist' or 'fascist'?

     A valid question, isn't it? To say that it cheapens the word "fascist" would imply that its usage has meant anything since 1945.

People in Spain who lived under Franco might disagree with you on that.

     Touche. Would that the Anglophones have considered that before throwing the word fascist around as a cheap insult and making light of the horrors of the fascist regimes.

Probably no more so than those who make a cheap insult of referring to liberals as 'communists' or 'communists/socialists.'

Of course, referring to Trump as an 'aspirational fascist' is not a cheap insult, but is, as I've argued here, a plain statement of fact.

     He aspires to lead an ethno-state with society itself organized along militaristic lines and a planned economy geared towards maximizing efficiency? I never would have guessed he had such ideological vision.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

     No, and the concept implicitly pedalled in this thread that any right-wing nationalist agenda is fascist cheapens the term significantly. Many of these alleged indicators of fascism (e.g. disproportionate focus on the military) are standard policies of the United States government going back decades. He is disturbingly authoritarian, but fortunately this sort of thing is what the Constitution is for.

Cheapens which term 'right wing nationalist' or 'fascist'?

     A valid question, isn't it? To say that it cheapens the word "fascist" would imply that its usage has meant anything since 1945.

People in Spain who lived under Franco might disagree with you on that.

     Touche. Would that the Anglophones have considered that before throwing the word fascist around as a cheap insult and making light of the horrors of the fascist regimes.

Probably no more so than those who make a cheap insult of referring to liberals as 'communists' or 'communists/socialists.'

Of course, referring to Trump as an 'aspirational fascist' is not a cheap insult, but is, as I've argued here, a plain statement of fact.

He aspires to lead an ethno-state with society itself organized along militaristic lines and a planned economy geared towards maximizing efficiency? I never would have guessed he had such ideological vision.

He and much of his base would aspire for the bolded part, and planned economies aren't a defining feature of fascist governments.

[TheSaint250]

This thread...*sigh*

[Associate Justice PiT]

    No, and the concept implicitly pedalled in this thread that any right-wing nationalist agenda is fascist cheapens the term significantly. Many of these alleged indicators of fascism (e.g. disproportionate focus on the military) are standard policies of the United States government going back decades. He is disturbingly authoritarian, but fortunately this sort of thing is what the Constitution is for.

Cheapens which term 'right wing nationalist' or 'fascist'?

     A valid question, isn't it? To say that it cheapens the word "fascist" would imply that its usage has meant anything since 1945.

People in Spain who lived under Franco might disagree with you on that.

     Touche. Would that the Anglophones have considered that before throwing the word fascist around as a cheap insult and making light of the horrors of the fascist regimes.

Probably no more so than those who make a cheap insult of referring to liberals as 'communists' or 'communists/socialists.'

Of course, referring to Trump as an 'aspirational fascist' is not a cheap insult, but is, as I've argued here, a plain statement of fact.

He aspires to lead an ethno-state with society itself organized along militaristic lines and a planned economy geared towards maximizing efficiency? I never would have guessed he had such ideological vision.

He and much of his base would aspire for the bolded part, and planned economies aren't a defining feature of fascist governments.

     Allegedly he aspires. He says a great deal to contradict that notion. It is pretty clear to me that he has no consistent ideology beyond self-promotion (much like Mussolini, actually).

     Sure it's not defining in that other ideologies also embrace central planning (including some to a greater extent, as in communism), though the reasoning typically differs. Fascists were intensely critical of consumerist tendencies in capitalism and pursued strongly authoritarian policies to root out "parasitic" elements. Being a fascist and opposing economic planning as outlined above is a contradiction of terms, as that planning is critical to enacting the fascist program.