This is how fascism comes to America

[PC2]

Kind of confused why anyone would be pro Trump if they support liberty and pretty much the entirety of the first amendment.

Both candidates are bad on the issue of liberty as well as not being emotionally offended by critical speech.

[Bollocks]

Gheeze. Who is the perfect candidate now? Each has their stances , you ether agree with most of it or you do not. Does not mean you have to agree with them totally on every single thing. And everyone, every candidate has said dumb things. And yeah, it is subjective what those are based on your own values. But it remains to be true no matter. My preference for him over Hillary are based on what his platform is as a whole versus hers. If anything, according to the polls, he is less popular than she is. :P

Well what is the difference between him and Hillary? They both have corporations behind them, both change speeches whenever they want. If you refer to the core tenants of Trump's policy that differ from Hillary's I assume you are talking about his stance on climate change, his stance on building a wall, his ideas of commiting war crimes, forcing a country a weaker country to his will, declaring a trade war agaisnt one of the biggest US trade partners with no plan whatsoever. If that is what you like about Trump then I guess more power to you.

- - - Updated - - -

They hate him but they vote for socialists... so no I don't think they know much if anything about hitler beyond the jew thing.

If you think Hitler was a socialist, then I must tell you are wrong. If anything Hitler was pro-corporations, you should know that before accusing people of ignorance.

[Ghostpanther]

Kind of confused why anyone would be pro Trump if they support liberty and pretty much the entirety of the first amendment.

He is a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. And appears to be more into allowing the States to decide on some social issues. I strongly support those, If he tries to do the things which are violation of the first amendment, he will get his hands slapped.

[PC2]

If you think Hitler was a socialist, then I must tell you are wrong. If anything Hitler was pro-corporations, you should know that before accusing people of ignorance.

No, Hitler couldn't care less about corporations compared to his purity based ideas and quest for personal power. If corporations or socialism could further his main goal than he would use them to his advantage, but they would be a means to an end for him.

[Bollocks]

He has been very consistent about the major topics which are appealing to a lot of people now in this country. He understands no president can ever get all of his ideas pushed thru Congress.

Do you believe he can push his core believes thru the congress? A trade war against China, building a wall, deporting all illegal inmigrants (600 billion dollars in cost), commiting war crimes, banning all muslims. This are his core tenents, perhaps he is going to pass that law to reduce taxes and increase salaries, oh wait he contradicted himself on that as well. Most of his ideas are totally inconsistent he has changed positions in regards to abortion three times in a weekened, the core tenant make no sense. I don't plan to invoke Godwin's law here but the similiraties with shitty populist candidates (to not say dictators) is worrysome. He really reminds of Pinochet or Fujimori google them BTW and see how they ascended to power.

- - - Updated - - -

No, Hitler couldn't care less about corporations compared to his racially motivated ideas and quest for personal power. If corporations or socialism could further his main goal than he would use it to his advantage, but they would be a means to an end.

His policies were pro-corporations. In 1937 if I can recall properly he abandoned the little socialist policies he had implemented and pushed even more pro-corporation policies, I agree on you on that regard that he used corporations as tools for a bigger picture. But in order to achieve said goal he became pro-corporation.

[Ghostpanther]

Well what is the difference between him and Hillary? They both have corporations behind them, both change speeches whenever they want. If you refer to the core tenants of Trump's policy that differ from Hillary's I assume you are talking about his stance on climate change, his stance on building a wall, his ideas of commiting war crimes, forcing a country a weaker country to his will, declaring a trade war agaisnt one of the biggest US trade partners with no plan whatsoever. If that is what you like about Trump then I guess more power to you.

- - - Updated - - -

He wants fair trade with other countries. He wants companies which move their production lines and factories out of the US to pay penalties to encourage them to stay here. He wants to build up the Military so no one will test us. He wants to renegotiate the Iran deal. He is pro life.

He is a strong supporter for the second amendment. He wants education and some social issues to be back in the hands of the states. He wants better care for veterans. He wants to appeal Obama Care. He wants to enforce our illegal immigration laws and make a strong effort to reduce the number coming into this country illegally. And these are just some off the top of my head.

And those are some which I do not think Hillary supports or has made any public strong stance on.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you believe he can push his core believes thru the congress? A trade war against China, building a wall, deporting all illegal inmigrants (600 billion dollars in cost), commiting war crimes, banning all muslims. This are his core tenents, perhaps he is going to pass that law to reduce taxes and increase salaries, oh wait he contradicted himself on that as well. Most of his ideas are totally inconsistent he has changed positions in regards to abortion three times in a weekened, the core tenant make no sense. I don't plan to invoke Godwin's law here but the similiraties with shitty populist candidates (to not say dictators) is worrysome. He really reminds of Pinochet or Fujimori google them BTW and see how they ascended to power.

- - - Updated - - -

He did not say ban ALL Muslims. He said any Muslim who is a US citizen could come back freely and even some exceptions could be made. And yeah, he can do all those. Of course Congress has to approve it. And what did he change on abortion?

[PC2]

His policies were pro-corporations. In 1937 if I can recall properly he abandoned the little socialist policies he had implemented and pushed even more pro-corporation policies, I agree on you on that regard that he used corporations as tools for a bigger picture. But in order to achieve said goal he became pro-corporation.

That sounds pretty reasonable for anyone who has a goal. Whether you are seeking war or ending world hunger, using a particular organizational entity to support you is ethically and morally neutral.

[alexw]

He has been very consistent about the major topics which are appealing to a lot of people now in this country. He understands no president can ever get all of his ideas pushed thru Congress.

No he hasn't he has been all over the place. Hell his muslim ban is now only a "suggestion". Its been like that with just about everything. Minimum wage -first he says wages are too high meaning he wants to get rid of it, then he wants to raise it, now he wants to leave it to the states. He used to be for allowing abortions, then when he became a republican he was against it, then for punishing women who had abortions, until he saw it angered a lot of republicans and now isn't for punishing women who have them. Then there are his tax plans, supposedly he wanted to raise taxes on the wealthy, now he doesn't and instead he wants to cut them but apparently not as much as his plans indicate. Then there are his statements about being self-funding. He supposedly wasn't in the pockets of donors because he was self-funding and was not going to take donations from big money donors, but now he is for taking donations from the super-rich and corporations.

On and on it goes. He has been extremely inconsistent on everything and has developed a cult of personality around himself where it doesn't matter what he says or does his cult stays with him. Heck I bet everything I have just said you will defend or find some way to justify.

He is exactly as bollocks says he is. Populist nonsensical ideas and random blaming and scapegoating that won't solve anything but using that as a means to get power, while making menacing statements about what he will do when he has power.

[Breccia]

The US Govt is so faceted and inefficient it is impossible for ANYONE to crown themself dictator anymore. No matter their intentions or platform.

However, when the GOP frontrunner has
-- risen to power on by demonizing a religious minority and/or immigrants
-- runs on nationalist pride more than any specific, coherent plan or platform
-- has an undercurrent of violence to his rhetoric
-- takes deliberate care to alienate other allied countries on literally every continent except maybe the Antartic
-- threatens to sue people who disagree with him and/or run against him
-- flat-out promises torture and war crimes
then the GOP should be very concerned about the comparisons. Because, in the 21st century, these are solely the traits of their current candidate. None of the other candidates in any 2000-2016 election can say all of these. I don't even think they can say half of these.

Remember: even Bush, who went to war against Afghanistan and Iraq, did not demonize Islam.

[Xar226]

It's an interesting read. It won't change a single mind, but then I don't suppose the author imagined it would.

That said, despite how much I hate Donald Trump and worry about where his narcissism may lead, I am getting beyond tired of the hyperbole. Much as Hillary Clinton and the Democrats would like us to believe otherwise, the world is not going to end if Donald Trump becomes president. Likewise, as much as Trump and the Republicans want us to believe, the country will not be destroyed if Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders) becomes president. I'm not saying it's unimportant; of course it is important. It's just not nearly as consequential as people would have us believe.

Whether or not these "popular passions" were created or were tapped into by a Trump candidacy, they did not come from nowhere. I believe it is exactly this kind of hyperbolic fear-mongering that engenders it. When issues are nothing more than things about which reasonable people may disagree, you don't get the levels of passion and concern that allow a candidacy that is nothing more than "I am the best, look how the best I am" to thrive. But, well, if the entire country is at stake, our entire way of life, everything that is good, why, imagine how important it must be! If the entire system is out to get us, why should anything be off the board! Violence and threats are a small price to pay to save everything we love! We stoke these political fires when it suits us, Republican and Democrats both, and never heed the possibility that one day it may escape beyond our control.

Maybe the author is right. Maybe this is finally the end of the line and only catastrophe awaits. If so, it will be because of all the protestations of impending catastrophe in the years and decades leading up to it; fires built to burn with the arrogant belief that we could control them. Personally I think it's far more sensible to assume there is still something to be done before this dystopian future, and it starts with stopping this fucking hyperbolic nonsense.

[tj119]

Comparing Trump (and any candidate actually) to Hitler is retardation at it's finest.

[Kaleredar]

TL;DR. Trainwreck trump, shillary, and shamders are all fucking worthless. And none of his promises will come to fruition if he's elected. so i dont know why this is even an issue.

"Elect the guy into office and hope he doesn't do the batshit crazy things he says he'll do"


Yeah I don't buy that.

[Bollocks]

He wants fair trade with other countries. He wants companies which move their production lines and factories out of the US to pay penalties to encourage them to stay here. He wants to build up the Military so no one will test us. He wants to renegotiate the Iran deal. He is pro life.

He is a strong supporter for the second amendment. He wants education and some social issues to be back in the hands of the states. He wants better care for veterans. He wants to appeal Obama Care. He wants to enforce our illegal immigration laws and make a strong effort to reduce the number coming into this country illegally. And these are just some off the top of my head.

And those are some which I do not think Hillary supports or has made any public strong stance on.

- - - Updated - - -



He did not say ban ALL Muslims. He said any Muslim who is a US citizen could come back freely and even some exceptions could be made. And yeah, he can do all those. Of course Congress has to approve it. And what did he change on abortion?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...s-on-abortion/ My bad five positions.
Hillary hasn't stated anything against the second ammendment .
Yeah I get that he has good intentions but you should know by now how he plans to achieve said things.

He wants fair trade with other countries

By engaging in a trade war with them.

He wants companies which move their production lines and factories out of the US to pay penalties to encourage them to stay here.

You mean "repatriation", what will happen if they refuse? Also a decrease in all taxes awfully ressembles trickle down policies.

He wants better care for veterans

That is on Hillary and Bernie as well
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/veterans/
https://berniesanders.com/issues/car...-our-veterans/

He wants to enforce our illegal immigration laws and make a strong effort to reduce the number coming into this country illegally.

You mean the wall. You know that thing that will pass through graveyards, private property, affect wildlife and have little to no effect if they do not spend extraordinary amounts of money in keeping it.

He did not say ban ALL Muslims.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donal...ry?id=35631255
I think the exceptions were made to very priviledged people, so if you are a medium class muslim you are banned from the USA and if you are remotely associated to a terrorist be prepared to be executed.

Also how you know which policy is going through? Is he going to continue with his idea of ignoring climate change as an issue. What you are doing and judging from previuos statements is voting for him or supporting him in the hopes he passes the things you like but the aberrations he says won't.

[Kaleredar]

He wants fair trade with other countries. He wants companies which move their production lines and factories out of the US to pay penalties to encourage them to stay here. He wants to build up the Military so no one will test us. He wants to renegotiate the Iran deal. He is pro life.

He is a strong supporter for the second amendment. He wants education and some social issues to be back in the hands of the states. He wants better care for veterans. He wants to appeal Obama Care. He wants to enforce our illegal immigration laws and make a strong effort to reduce the number coming into this country illegally. And these are just some off the top of my head.

And where do pro-torture, restrictions on free speech, religious discrimination, and putting muslims on watch lists fall into that?


Or is that all just stuff you can "safely glaze over?"


Oh, and sorry, the 20 billion dollar money pit does not constitute "strong efforts to reduce the numbers of illegal immigrants," seeing as the majority of illegal immigrants enter the country legally and Trump himself admitted you could beat the wall if you had a ladder and a rope.

Neverminding how Mexico isn't going to pay for it.

[Bushtuckrman]

It's an insult to the millions and millions of people who lost their lives during that time period. But hey regressive's love throwing around 'nazi', 'racist' and other buzzwords too that once meant something so I guess this type of trash is to be expected.

[PC2]

And where do pro-torture, restrictions on free speech, religious discrimination, and putting muslims on watch lists fall into that?

Or is that all just stuff you can "safely glaze over?"

Oh, and sorry, the 20 billion dollar money pit does not constitute "strong efforts to reduce the numbers of illegal immigrants."

Putting Muslims on a concern list isn't inherently wrong, it should be based on statistics, context, and resource limitations. Christians, Jews, and atheists could also be on a list of citizens of interest in numbers based on the adjusted relative likelihood of causing a problem. Immigration could also be legitimately limited based on regions where studies show a very high percent of people hold values antithetical to Western society. None of these ideas are bigoted.

[Jinpachi]

"Elect the guy into office and hope he doesn't do the batshit crazy things he says he'll do"


Yeah I don't buy that.

Don't know where you got that from, im not voting for him.

[Kaleredar]

Putting Muslims on a concern list isn't inherently wrong, it should be based on statistics, context, and resource limitations. Christians, Jews, and atheists could also be on a list of citizens of interest in numbers based on the adjusted relative likelihood of causing a problem. Immigration could also be legitimately limited based on regions where studies show a very high percent of people hold values antithetical to Western society. None of these ideas are bigoted.

Except it isn't based on facts or statistics beyond the knee jerk "there are muslims that are terrorist."

You can't retroactively ho-hum an explanation with weasel words about "well if the data WERE to exist..." and then just follow it up with "so it's best to pretend that it does."

It's an extremely clear fear mongering, scape-goating tactic. Which is what makes it bigoted. Same deal with the money pit wall.

It solves no problems, addresses no issues, is not based in logic, but appeals to people scared of "the other" by convincing them that some nebulous group is out to kill them or rape them or steal their jobs, and that big, chest-thumping solutions are the only answer because it makes them feel safe. It's literally dick overcompensation, but for politics.

[Bollocks]

It's an insult to the millions and millions of people who lost their lives during that time period. But hey regressive's love throwing around 'nazi', 'racist' and other buzzwords too that once meant something so I guess this type of trash is to be expected.

Bloody hell, no one called Trump a nazist or racist. The article just deals with the similarities with him and other populist politicians in the past. Nazis and Hitler are only tangencial to the issue.

[PC2]

Except it isn't based on facts or statistics beyond the knee jerk "there are muslims that are terrorist."

You can't retroactively ho-hum an explanation with weasel words about "well if the data WERE to exist..." and then just follow it up with "so it's best to pretend that it does."

It's an extremely clear fear mongering, scape-goating tactic. Which is what makes it bigoted. Same deal with the money pit wall.

It solves no problems, addresses no issues, is not based in logic, but appeals to people scared of "the other" by convincing them that some nebulous group is out to kill them or rape them or steal their jobs, and that big, chest-thumping solutions are the only answer because it makes them feel safe. It's literally dick overcompensation, but for politics.

Your saying Trump's ideas or implementations are bad, which is fine. My point is that some of the general ideas really do have good logic behind them regardless of Trump. Such as using profile statistics in airport policy or migration discrimination against Islamists and people who think gays should be executed.