Trump Is an Ideological Authoritarian

[Grand Vol]

I'll largely plead ignorance on how those issues came about ... particularly the Saudi one ... I rarely read the articles because I get bored by the partisanship before I get a paragraph or two deep.

As far as bump sticks go, fully automatic weapons are illegal ... as in you can't even buy a surplus M14 because a selector could be manufactured apparently. Actually an M14 on full automatic is fairly safe in a crowd because by the third shot you are generally shooting at airplanes and tall buildings ... but that's immaterial here anyway. I guess if the thought is that a selector could be manufactured to circumvent the law, that it makes perfect sense that bump stocks fall in a similar category and should be illegal. Look at it this way bump stocks were deemed illegal rather than ARs themselves because they could be made illegal with a bump stock.

As long as there are judges, and particularly the 9th circuit court, Trump will never be an authoritarian ... a wannabe perhaps in your eyes. If you are looking for authoritarian (ie, without checks and balances) in our government, look no further than the judicial branch.

It isn't just the M14. Remember when Obama denied the Garands and M1 Carbines coming back from South Korea because he wanted to "keep military grade firearms off the streets"?

 

[Burger]

Trump is an Ideological Troll. Don't take the bait guys.

 

[Orange_Crush]

So, just to be clear, this thread lost its scare factor as it went from:

"Trump's a fascist."

to

"Trump's an authoritarian."

to

"Trumps one of the billions of people that prefer others do what they want them to do."



About cover it?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'll largely plead ignorance on how those issues came about ... particularly the Saudi one ... I rarely read the articles because I get bored by the partisanship before I get a paragraph or two deep.

...

I don't read the articles anymore due to the media that cried wolf too many times. I've seen the endless lists that proved Trump is a racist and every one of them were claiming he said something he didn't say. The media has lost any platform to tell me who or what Trump is. I just don't believe them.

For that matter, they've lost any platform to tell me anything. Like the fact that Catholic school kids are racists who abuse poor, innocent Native Americans. Or how our supreme court houses a guy that ran a rape service at college parties. Or...fill in the blank.

 

[1972 Grad]

I don't read the articles anymore due to the media that cried wolf too many times. I've seen the endless lists that proved Trump is a racist and every one of them were claiming he said something he didn't say. The media has lost any platform to tell me who or what Trump is. I just don't believe them.

For that matter, they've lost any platform to tell me anything. Like the fact that Catholic school kids are racists who abuse poor, innocent Native Americans. Or how our supreme court houses a guy that ran a rape service at college parties. Or...fill in the blank.

I'm with you. I am skeptical of anything put out by the news media now.

 

[DC_Vol]

I don't read the articles anymore due to the media that cried wolf too many times. I've seen the endless lists that proved Trump is a racist and every one of them were claiming he said something he didn't say. The media has lost any platform to tell me who or what Trump is. I just don't believe them.

For that matter, they've lost any platform to tell me anything. Like the fact that Catholic school kids are racists who abuse poor, innocent Native Americans. Or how our supreme court houses a guy that ran a rape service at college parties. Or...fill in the blank.

The media’s credibility was partially eroded during the Obama years. They lost all of it during the 2016 election and the first few years of the Trump administration.

The best part? The media have no one to blame but their own bias, but anyone who points it out is accused of attacking the press (and 1st amendment by proxy).

 

[n_huffhines]

So, just to be clear, this thread lost its scare factor as it went from:

"Trump's a fascist."

to

"Trump's an authoritarian."

to

"Trumps one of the billions of people that prefer others do what they want them to do."

About cover it?

No. Trump's an ideological fascist became ideogical authoritarian (subtle semantic distinction). Why try to make it something else? Just address what it is or move along.

 

[n_huffhines]

The media’s credibility was partially eroded during the Obama years. They lost all of it during the 2016 election and the first few years of the Trump administration.

The best part? The media have no one to blame but their own bias, but anyone who points it out is accused of attacking the press (and 1st amendment by proxy).

I would say it goes back much further than that.

 

[AM64]

It isn't just the M14. Remember when Obama denied the Garands and M1 Carbines coming back from South Korea because he wanted to "keep military grade firearms off the streets"?

I don't, but I'll certainly take your word for it. I can't see that it makes a lot of difference whether someone is shot with a "military grade" weapon or a Saturday night special ... unless we're counting something like an M79; a hit in a vital place is bad news either way. Funny thing is that an illegal Saturday night special might not have the fire rate of something like an M1 or M14 but they sure are a lot less bulky and maneuverable in a crowded spot and easier to hide, and most shootings that stir people up are close up and personal, and most of those shooters would likely be miserable snipers.

 

[DC_Vol]

I would say it goes back much further than that.

Don’t disagree. I would restate it hit a tipping point during the Obama administration.

 

[AM64]

I would say it goes back much further than that.

True, just ask Nixon ... if he were around today, but the bias went on steroids with the Obama clown show.

 

[AM64]

No. Trump's an ideological fascist became ideogical authoritarian (subtle semantic distinction). Why try to make it something else? Just address what it is or move along.

Actually a lot of "fascist" definitions include terms like "anti communist" or "anti socialist", so the left love the term "fascist" (drummed up Mussolini). Somehow it soothes their fevered minds to be able to claim someone is a "fascist" really meaning "authoritarian" simply because Hitler could be called a "fascist" and a socialist/communist hero like Stalin could only be an "authoritarian" ... like it makes a huge whopping difference to their victims.

 

[Orange_Crush]

No. Trump's an ideological fascist became ideogical authoritarian (subtle semantic distinction). Why try to make it something else? Just address what it is or move along.

I addressed exactly what it was as your vocabulary and definitions evolved in this ridiculous thread.

You started out claiming that Trump is an ideological fascist.When you gave the "proof" of this, it was pointed out that the claims were in no way pointing out fascism. It was also pointed out that your "ideological" accusations were toothless, as all you're really doing is pointing out that Trump doesn't think and speak the way you prefer.

You laughed the second point off and changed your vocabulary to "authoritarian".

When it was pointed out that people refuse to do what the supposed authoritarian tells them to, you said, "Good thing, huh?" Which means he's not an authoritarian.

Your response is to remind us that he's an "ideological" authoritarian. Which is nothing more than you agreeing that he's not an authoritarian. He's one of the billions of people on this planet that would prefer others do what they tell them to do, but allows them whatever freedom they have in their context to tell them to kick rocks.

So, that's the evolution of your shrill, ridiculous, fear-mongering thread. From us having an "ideological" "fascist" president, to us having a president that prefers people do what he says while allowing them the liberties built into the system to refuse him.

I'd say, in that regard, he's like the majority of the presidents that came before him.

Now, I've addressed exactly what it is, yet again. It hasn't got any less embarrassing for you this time either.

 

[Grand Vol]

I don't, but I'll certainly take your word for it. I can't see that it makes a lot of difference whether someone is shot with a "military grade" weapon or a Saturday night special ... unless we're counting something like an M79; a hit in a vital place is bad news either way. Funny thing is that an illegal Saturday night special might not have the fire rate of something like an M1 or M14 but they sure are a lot less bulky and maneuverable in a crowded spot and easier to hide, and most shootings that stir people up are close up and personal, and most of those shooters would likely be miserable snipers.

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/m1-rifle-antique-south-korea-import/

 

[Grand Vol]

I addressed exactly what it was as your vocabulary and definitions evolved in this ridiculous thread.

You started out claiming that Trump is an ideological fascist.When you gave the "proof" of this, it was pointed out that the claims were in no way pointing out fascism. It was also pointed out that your "ideological" accusations were toothless, as all you're really doing is pointing out that Trump doesn't think and speak the way you prefer.

You laughed the second point off and changed your vocabulary to "authoritarian".

When it was pointed out that people refuse to do what the supposed authoritarian tells them to, you said, "Good thing, huh?" Which means he's not an authoritarian.

Your response is to remind us that he's an "ideological" authoritarian. Which is nothing more than you agreeing that he's not an authoritarian. He's one of the billions of people on this planet that would prefer others do what they tell them to do, but allows them whatever freedom they have in their context to tell them to kick rocks.

So, that's the evolution of your shrill, ridiculous, fear-mongering thread. From us having an "ideological" "fascist" president, to us having a president that prefers people do what he says while allowing them the liberties built into the system to refuse him.

I'd say, in that regard, he's like the majority of the presidents that came before him.

Now, I've addressed exactly what it is, yet again. It hasn't got any less embarrassing for you this time either.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Meh... all politicians are authoritarians. Its in the job description...

To hell with ALL of them.

 

[n_huffhines]

I addressed exactly what it was as your vocabulary and definitions evolved in this ridiculous thread.

You started out claiming that Trump is an ideological fascist.When you gave the "proof" of this, it was pointed out that the claims were in no way pointing out fascism. It was also pointed out that your "ideological" accusations were toothless, as all you're really doing is pointing out that Trump doesn't think and speak the way you prefer.

You laughed the second point off and changed your vocabulary to "authoritarian".

When it was pointed out that people refuse to do what the supposed authoritarian tells them to, you said, "Good thing, huh?" Which means he's not an authoritarian.

Your response is to remind us that he's an "ideological" authoritarian. Which is nothing more than you agreeing that he's not an authoritarian. He's one of the billions of people on this planet that would prefer others do what they tell them to do, but allows them whatever freedom they have in their context to tell them to kick rocks.

So, that's the evolution of your shrill, ridiculous, fear-mongering thread. From us having an "ideological" "fascist" president, to us having a president that prefers people do what he says while allowing them the liberties built into the system to refuse him.

I'd say, in that regard, he's like the majority of the presidents that came before him.

Now, I've addressed exactly what it is, yet again. It hasn't got any less embarrassing for you this time either.

The only thing I changed was fascist to authoritarian. Lie to yourself if it makes the topic more palatable. I used the word "ideological" from the beginning. If that strikes fear in you, fine. If you don't care because we have checks and balances, fine.

The fact that you think it's embarrassing that I walked back a word you guys were right about is all you need to know about your approach to discourse here.

The fact that he can't do what he wants to do does not refute my original point. Thanks for playing

 

[Grand Vol]

The only thing I changed was fascist to authoritarian. Lie to yourself if it makes the topic more palatable. I used the word "ideological" from the beginning. If that strikes fear in you, fine. If you don't care because we have checks and balances, fine. But the only thing I changed about my original point was the word fascist to authoritarian.

The fact that he can't do what he wants to do does not refute my original point. Thanks for playing

We call this "moving the goal posts."

 

[n_huffhines]

We call this "moving the goal posts."

It's funny how hard you're trying to argue with me (in two threads) all the while talking about how much I like to argue

 

[Orange_Crush]

The only thing I changed was fascist to authoritarian. Lie to yourself if it makes the topic more palatable. I used the word "ideological" from the beginning. If that strikes fear in you, fine. If you don't care because we have checks and balances, fine. But the only thing I changed about my original point was the word fascist to authoritarian.

The fact that he can't do what he wants to do does not refute my original point. Thanks for playing

I'm not even sure you know what your original point was. It wasn't, "Trump is like everyone else, in that he'd prefer they do what he wants. However, he allows people the freedom to refuse him."

That just doesn't have the same "panache" as "ideological fascist", now does it? It definitely doesn't sound entitled to its own thread, among the others of its ilk on here, if we're just being frank with one another.

 

[Grand Vol]

It's funny how hard you're trying to argue with me (in two threads) all the while talking about how much I like to argue

What's the other thread?

Regardless, pointing out you have, since the start of the thread, changed your terminology as well as the conditions is not arguing. It's merely stating a fact.

 

[Orange_Crush]

What's the other thread?

Regardless, pointing out you have, since the start of the thread, changed your terminology as well as the conditions is not arguing. It's merely stating a fact.

As to the "wants to kill terrorist families to end terrorism" bit, we could blow this board up if we said that Trumps just been reading the Old Testament.

 

[n_huffhines]

What's the other thread?

Regardless, pointing out you have, since the start of the thread, changed your terminology as well as the conditions is not arguing. It's merely stating a fact.

I changed one word. What else specifically changed?

 

[n_huffhines]

I'm not even sure you know what your original point was. It wasn't, "Trump is like everyone else, in that he'd prefer they do what he wants. However, he allows people the freedom to refuse him."

That just doesn't have the same "panache" as "ideological fascist", now does it? It definitely doesn't sound entitled to its own thread, among the others of its ilk on here, if we're just being frank with one another.

My original point was he's an ideological authoritarian. You're saying he's just like everyone else. You're saying he allows them to refuse him. I just said they refuse him. The limits of his powers are what enables them.

 

[Orange_Crush]

My original point was he's an ideological authoritarian. You're saying he's just like everyone else. You're saying he allows them to refuse him. I just said they refuse him. The limits of his powers are what enables them.

So... Your point in all of that? The point of this thread was merely to point out that Trump wants people to do what he wants people to do, but doesn't force them to?

Now that you've pointed that out, I feel like my day has been validated. Thanks.