Trump Is A Fascist, Does Anyone Really Deny That?

[stevestojan]

6 hours ago, JFKjr said:

They're in LOVE with vaccine mandates though!

 

 

 

⬆️ Hoax 

 

(you couldn’t have googled for 3 seconds to find this yourself? Tends to make people think everything you post is conspiracy garbage) 

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-frenchnews-mannequin/fact-check-screenshot-of-french-news-clip-altered-to-include-image-of-hospital-training-with-mannequin-idUSL1N2TQ14T/

Edited May 29 by stevestojan

[JDHillFan]

A question regarding the thread title. Is the bad orange man a FASCIST or is he a CHRISTOFASCIST? I’ve seen both and I just want to get it right. 

[stevestojan]

7 hours ago, JDHillFan said:

A question regarding the thread title. Is the bad orange man a FASCIST or is he a CHRISTOFASCIST? I’ve seen both and I just want to get it right. 

 

[Homelander]

 

[4th&long]

Pos

[Homelander]

 

[4th&long]

Trump’s moves to tighten power and punish enemies draw comparisons to places where democracy faded

https://flip.it/_9f2KT

Maga supports all of it. 

[Niagara Bill]

1939, people in Germany didn't believe concentration camps existed or were infact death camps. So much hatred existed inside the country and against other countries who were said to have punished Germany and had taken advantage of the German people. Enemies within and outside existed.

Troups in the street. People disappearing, financially things looked better, cultural purity was promised, speeches were given against the rest of Europe, deals were made with Russia. Persecution of political enemies, assassinations enraged the population. Older military leaders were banished. The leader was constantly praised by his supporters. 

Soon elections disappeared, a neighboring country was vilified and invaded. 

Hmmm

 

[Hank II]

48 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

1939, people in Germany didn't believe concentration camps existed or were infact death camps. So much hatred existed inside the country and against other countries who were said to have punished Germany and had taken advantage of the German people. Enemies within and outside existed.

Troups in the street. People disappearing, financially things looked better, cultural purity was promised, speeches were given against the rest of Europe, deals were made with Russia. Persecution of political enemies, assassinations enraged the population. Older military leaders were banished. The leader was constantly praised by his supporters. 

Soon elections disappeared, a neighboring country was vilified and invaded. 

Hmmm

 

You scared?

[IrishLass]

59 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

1939, people in Germany didn't believe concentration camps existed or were infact death camps. So much hatred existed inside the country and against other countries who were said to have punished Germany and had taken advantage of the German people. Enemies within and outside existed.

Troups in the street. People disappearing, financially things looked better, cultural purity was promised, speeches were given against the rest of Europe, deals were made with Russia. Persecution of political enemies, assassinations enraged the population. Older military leaders were banished. The leader was constantly praised by his supporters. 

Soon elections disappeared, a neighboring country was vilified and invaded. 

Hmmm

 

 

Need MOAR Trump!

 

 

[Neo]

There is not a more efficient, more concise, more clear demonstration of understanding neither Donald Trump or Nazism than to link the two.

 

Trump isn’t a fascist, and saying so weakens whatever other argument you may have against him.   Further, I hope we all see how dangerous the uninformed or disingenuous argument can be.

 

Few political labels carry as much rhetorical firepower as “fascist.”  It is an indictment loaded with history’s heaviest baggage, invoking images of Mussolini’s jackboots, Hitler’s concentration camps, and the annihilation of democratic societies.  When that term is applied casually, even frequently, to President Trump, it demands a pause for critical thinking.  One can support Trump or not, but if we value honest argument, we can’t keep calling him something he demonstrably is not.

 

Trump’s presidencies are disruptive.  He challenges norms, attacks the press, casts doubt on electoral outcomes, and uses populist rhetoric to consolidate support. These actions stir legitimate alarm, particularly among academics, journalists, and progressives.  But here’s the rub: not everything that alarms us is fascism, and calling it so weakens both the critique and the credibility of those making it.

 

Fascism Is a specific ideology, not a synonym for strong man politics.

 

Historically, fascism is not merely authoritarian or nationalist.  It is a tightly defined political ideology marked by:  1) state control, including the dissolution of democratic institutions, and; 2) single-party regime that eliminates all opposition, and; 3) militarized expansionism, glorifying violence as a national cleansing force, and; 4) cult of personality, in which the leader is the mystical embodiment of the national will, and; 5) and; suppression of individual rights, free speech, and press not just in practice, but in principle.

 

I will entertain a conversation around cult of personality and antipathy toward the press.   Neither, however, is unique to Trump.

 

Whatever you think of Trump, the United States under his leadership retains multiple centers of democratic power.  The courts rule against him.  The press stays free and relentless.  Political opposition thrives, and elections continue (including one in which he lost and was removed from office).  If this is fascism, it is fascism with term limits, Supreme Court rulings, free elections and Saturday Night Live sketches. In other words, it isn’t fascism.

 

It’s tempting to focus on Trump’s authoritarian style and his disregard for norms.  He has shown a preference for loyalty over expertise and uses brash rhetoric toward political enemies. But authoritarian tendencies exist across the political spectrum.  So does ultra-nationalism.  History is replete with left-wing strongmen who centralized power, suppressed opposition, and wrapped their movements in national glory.  Stalin, Mao, and Castro were not fascists.  They were authoritarians of the left.  Their methods overlapped, but their ideologies were different.

 

Fascism is not merely “authoritarianism we don’t like.”  To confuse the two is to dilute both terms until they mean nothing.  If Trump is a fascist, so too were Woodrow Wilson, FDR (who interned citizens), and Andrew Jackson (who defied the courts).

 

Words like “fascist” should not be used as cudgels in political debate.  They are powerful, yes, but that power comes when their precision is used correctly, not when their volume is used incorrectly.  When scholars and journalists abandon the precision of language in favor of emotional resonance, they cease to inform and begin to incite.

 

If everything is fascism, then nothing is.  Worse, when the real thing arises, and history warns that it always can, we will have spent our credibility crying wolf.  We will have alienated those who might otherwise have joined a thoughtful, principled resistance.

 

Opposing Trump, as many Americans reasonably do, does not require historical distortion.  There is ample ground to challenge his policies, criticize his conduct, and question his fitness for office.  But calling him a fascist is not analysis. It’s theater.  That’s my problem with the left.   Absent confronting ideas, it tosses out thoughtless labels.

 

If we are going to defend liberal democracy we must be better than that.  We must name threats accurately, not emotionally.  That means rejecting the lazy comfort of exaggerated labels, and instead embracing the harder works of truth and honesty.

 

I leave this for readers to consider.

[Big Blitz]

4 hours ago, 4th&long said:

Trump’s moves to tighten power and punish enemies draw comparisons to places where democracy faded

https://flip.it/_9f2KT

Maga supports all of it. 

 

Cool story Mr. Low Info headline reader guy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Niagara Bill]

2 hours ago, Hank II said:

You scared?

Not scared of you if that is what you mean. Concerned for children, concerned for rule of law, concerned for their freedom. I know many people who once lived under dictators. Free enterprise will disappear.

Don't enjoy thinking of war between friends...but it has happened before around the world.

1 hour ago, IrishLass said:

 

Need MOAR Trump!

 

 

Don't need more trump, you need border patrols to do their job, you need to enforce the laws. 

But after 2 posts we are suppose to accept your fake news...just like the exploding microphone..

 

[Hank II]

5 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

Not scared of you if that is what you mean. Concerned for children, concerned for rule of law, concerned for their freedom. I know many people who once lived under dictators. Free enterprise will disappear.

Don't enjoy thinking of war between friends...but it has happened before around the world.

I don't think of Canada as a friend. I think of Canada as a little brother whom we protect, and we give to was more than receive. 

[Big Blitz]

 

[Niagara Bill]

2 hours ago, Hank II said:

I don't think of Canada as a friend. I think of Canada as a little brother whom we protect, and we give to was more than receive. 

You think wrong. You give nothing to us. We have supported you  traded equally with you....on a per capital basis we purchase 8 times more from youth and you buy from us. We sell you oil which you president says is better than green energy, at a 15% discount world markets. We have saved your diplomats, fought side by side, cooperated and collaborated on world safety  issues and was a trusted friend, sharing critical info and military systems.

Either way you cut it, friend or little brother, your president and your country is sh##Ing on us and the world. But shortly  that won't matter to you...you will not be able to debate your own situation unless the government gives you permission. Imagine a second rate comedian being the focus of your government. Imagine your president hating a second rate comedian more than the commie  leader of Russia. 

Imagine, the public focused on this issue, focused on Epstein, focused on a budget, as the government institutions of justice, Military, elections are moving to take control.

 

[Niagara Bill]

3 hours ago, Neo said:

There is not a more efficient, more concise, more clear demonstration of understanding neither Donald Trump or Nazism than to link the two.

 

Trump isn’t a fascist, and saying so weakens whatever other argument you may have against him.   Further, I hope we all see how dangerous the uninformed or disingenuous argument can be.

 

Few political labels carry as much rhetorical firepower as “fascist.”  It is an indictment loaded with history’s heaviest baggage, invoking images of Mussolini’s jackboots, Hitler’s concentration camps, and the annihilation of democratic societies.  When that term is applied casually, even frequently, to President Trump, it demands a pause for critical thinking.  One can support Trump or not, but if we value honest argument, we can’t keep calling him something he demonstrably is not.

 

Trump’s presidencies are disruptive.  He challenges norms, attacks the press, casts doubt on electoral outcomes, and uses populist rhetoric to consolidate support. These actions stir legitimate alarm, particularly among academics, journalists, and progressives.  But here’s the rub: not everything that alarms us is fascism, and calling it so weakens both the critique and the credibility of those making it.

 

Fascism Is a specific ideology, not a synonym for strong man politics.

 

Historically, fascism is not merely authoritarian or nationalist.  It is a tightly defined political ideology marked by:  1) state control, including the dissolution of democratic institutions, and; 2) single-party regime that eliminates all opposition, and; 3) militarized expansionism, glorifying violence as a national cleansing force, and; 4) cult of personality, in which the leader is the mystical embodiment of the national will, and; 5) and; suppression of individual rights, free speech, and press not just in practice, but in principle.

 

I will entertain a conversation around cult of personality and antipathy toward the press.   Neither, however, is unique to Trump.

 

Whatever you think of Trump, the United States under his leadership retains multiple centers of democratic power.  The courts rule against him.  The press stays free and relentless.  Political opposition thrives, and elections continue (including one in which he lost and was removed from office).  If this is fascism, it is fascism with term limits, Supreme Court rulings, free elections and Saturday Night Live sketches. In other words, it isn’t fascism.

 

It’s tempting to focus on Trump’s authoritarian style and his disregard for norms.  He has shown a preference for loyalty over expertise and uses brash rhetoric toward political enemies. But authoritarian tendencies exist across the political spectrum.  So does ultra-nationalism.  History is replete with left-wing strongmen who centralized power, suppressed opposition, and wrapped their movements in national glory.  Stalin, Mao, and Castro were not fascists.  They were authoritarians of the left.  Their methods overlapped, but their ideologies were different.

 

Fascism is not merely “authoritarianism we don’t like.”  To confuse the two is to dilute both terms until they mean nothing.  If Trump is a fascist, so too were Woodrow Wilson, FDR (who interned citizens), and Andrew Jackson (who defied the courts).

 

Words like “fascist” should not be used as cudgels in political debate.  They are powerful, yes, but that power comes when their precision is used correctly, not when their volume is used incorrectly.  When scholars and journalists abandon the precision of language in favor of emotional resonance, they cease to inform and begin to incite.

 

If everything is fascism, then nothing is.  Worse, when the real thing arises, and history warns that it always can, we will have spent our credibility crying wolf.  We will have alienated those who might otherwise have joined a thoughtful, principled resistance.

 

Opposing Trump, as many Americans reasonably do, does not require historical distortion.  There is ample ground to challenge his policies, criticize his conduct, and question his fitness for office.  But calling him a fascist is not analysis. It’s theater.  That’s my problem with the left.   Absent confronting ideas, it tosses out thoughtless labels.

 

If we are going to defend liberal democracy we must be better than that.  We must name threats accurately, not emotionally.  That means rejecting the lazy comfort of exaggerated labels, and instead embracing the harder works of truth and honesty.

 

I leave this for readers to consider.

You no longer have the ability to defend liberal democracy. The opposing party (Dems) are not capable. They refuse to drop issues that caused this revolution. Right about now...is too late. When the president can use the military at will against its own citizens, a military that is the strongest in the world, the discourse is over. 

Strange, when China uses the military to quell dissidents the US population becomes unhinged. 

[Neo]

2 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

You no longer have the ability to defend liberal democracy. The opposing party (Dems) are not capable. They refuse to drop issues that caused this revolution. Right about now...is too late. When the president can use the military at will against its own citizens, a military that is the strongest in the world, the discourse is over. 

Strange, when China uses the military to quell dissidents the US population becomes unhinged. 

 

There is something to your post.   Progressive impotence invites conservative over reach.  That said, I consider one transgression to be part of a party’s organizing philosophy and the other transgression to be one individual clapping back excessively.  Progressives gave the world Donald Trump, not conservatives.  Trump is not a disease.  He is a symptom.

[Hank II]

59 minutes ago, Niagara Bill said:

You think wrong. You give nothing to us. We have supported you  traded equally with you....on a per capital basis we purchase 8 times more from youth and you buy from us. We sell you oil which you president says is better than green energy, at a 15% discount world markets. We have saved your diplomats, fought side by side, cooperated and collaborated on world safety  issues and was a trusted friend, sharing critical info and military systems.

Either way you cut it, friend or little brother, your president and your country is sh##Ing on us and the world. But shortly  that won't matter to you...you will not be able to debate your own situation unless the government gives you permission. Imagine a second rate comedian being the focus of your government. Imagine your president hating a second rate comedian more than the commie  leader of Russia. 

Imagine, the public focused on this issue, focused on Epstein, focused on a budget, as the government institutions of justice, Military, elections are moving to take control.

 

We provide you safety and security with our military, affording you the luxury of your higher than should be tax dollars to fund your free health care system instead of national defense. Case in point, when Trump demanded NATO countries pay 5%, you had politicians say "we can't afford to pay 5% and fund our public Healthcare, and we choose Healthcare".  I don't begrudge you that, it's noble. But it's the security we provide you that allows you to do that, so no, in my view we don't get close to what we should from Canada for what we provide. 

 

As an aside, it's difficult for me to respect a country that has a monarch of another country on their federal currency. 

[Niagara Bill]

2 hours ago, Hank II said:

We provide you safety and security with our military, affording you the luxury of your higher than should be tax dollars to fund your free health care system instead of national defense. Case in point, when Trump demanded NATO countries pay 5%, you had politicians say "we can't afford to pay 5% and fund our public Healthcare, and we choose Healthcare".  I don't begrudge you that, it's noble. But it's the security we provide you that allows you to do that, so no, in my view we don't get close to what we should from Canada for what we provide. 

 

As an aside, it's difficult for me to respect a country that has a monarch of another country on their federal currency. 

Wrong, never suddenly healthcare stopped military spending. You know nothing about our system. Each province is different. I do know that much of your population cannot afford to get sick, that your healthcard providers are the richest in the world  that your drug prices are the most expensive in the world. 

You may not respect monarchs, but Canada,  Australia, New Zealand, Scotland Wales etc are proud to have the monarchy symbol. King Charles is not king of another country, so little you know. 

Btw, you can stop providing military help anytime you want. It is your choice. Nobody forced you, nobody begged you.