Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26295
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SecondTalon » Thu Jun 28, 2018 11:34 pm UTC

Fuck it, I'm tired of reading this trashfire.

If you post an opinion or fact, post a link you're using as evidence or that shaped your opinion.

heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1848
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Trump presidency

Postby natraj » Fri Jun 29, 2018 1:54 am UTC

anyway for the revolting hateful "this isn't fascism just because you don't like it" "there's totally legit reasons for this court inhumane treatment that have nothing to do with racism" crowd (whoever is still left, hopefully won't be left for long), please explain to me the completely not fascist reason that the dhs is blatantly signaling ACTUAL NAZI SLOGANS in their page about securing the border.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2018/02/15/we- ... safe-again

if you don't get it, google the "14 words" and if afterwards you are still trying to debate whether or not this is a slide into facism, go punch yourself repeatedly in the face.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7212
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:47 am UTC

I, uh...

Like, okay: I tend to be extremely skeptical about this because it's super-easy to find dog-whistling where it doesn't exist (and, in fact, I can't help but imagine that right-wing fringe groups encourage this behavior, because it makes anyone who notices it come off as hyper-sensitive and hyperbolic).

That being said...
DHS Page wrote: On average, out of 88 claims that pass the credible fear screening, fewer than 13 will ultimately result in a grant of asylum.


...on average, out of 88? Who on earth would use 'out of 88' when calculating an average? Why not 100, like any sane, rational person? And those numbers (14 and 88) carry special significance for white supremacists.

Like, my first conclusion here wouldn't be "The DHS has been infiltrated by numerous white supremacists", but this certainly makes me wonder if someone who's involved in the production of their websites or press-releases isn't at least familiar with this, and is actively trying to gas-light people who would recognize the dog-whistles.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:07 am UTC

This article also goes through some of the ways immigration differs utterly from the straightforward "like my ancestors" version a lot of people have in mind, but more concerning than that public ignorance is the complete disregard for due process Trump has.

There is no reason to believe that Trump has ever understood the basic precepts of due-process protection. Commitment to due process would have been fundamentally incompatible with Trump’s record as a casino magnate, a New York City landlord, or an authoritarian game show host given unlimited license to “fire” contestants at whim.

Trump has signaled the likely place of due process in his immigration system by promising to immediately deport 2 to 3 million “criminal aliens.” This staggering number, nearly the entire urban population of Chicago, would represent more deportations than Obama (the current record-holder) completed in eight years, and more than twice as many as were carried out during Operation Wetback.

It also exceeds the number of non-citizens presently in the United States with criminal histories, by the Department of Homeland Security’s own count. But Trump has already signaled that he’s prepared to expand the definition of “criminal” to include those with arrests. For millions of unsuspecting people, “innocent until proven guilty” will be quietly amended to “innocent until proven foreign.”

https://thebaffler.com/outbursts/strang ... cruel-land
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10009
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:38 am UTC

I read every word of that.
I'm so depressed, I can barely type.

Don't get depressed, too.
Get fired up!

Fight for out Brothers and Sisters.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Jun 29, 2018 2:36 pm UTC

ucim wrote:We are clearly not there yet, but neither was Germany in the late 1930s.
Nazi Germany was a dictatorship under Hitler starting in 1934. If your personal definition of fascism doesn't include that, your definition is ahistorical and wrong.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6587
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Fri Jun 29, 2018 5:20 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Nazi Germany was a dictatorship under Hitler starting in 1934. If your personal definition of fascism doesn't include that, your definition is ahistorical and wrong.
My mistake - I meant the late 20s, not the late 30s. 1933 was the year I remember, but I remembered it wrong.
wikipedia wrote:Through the late 1920s and early 1930s, the Nazis gathered enough electoral support to become the largest political party in the Reichstag, and Hitler's blend of political acuity, deceptiveness and cunning converted the party's non-majority but plurality status into effective governing power in the ailing Weimar Republic of 1933.
And yes, my personal definition of fascism does include the Hitler dictatorship.

My point was that we are not yet in a dictatorship. The future is not looking very good though.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Yablo » Fri Jun 29, 2018 11:07 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I, uh...

Like, okay: I tend to be extremely skeptical about this because it's super-easy to find dog-whistling where it doesn't exist (and, in fact, I can't help but imagine that right-wing fringe groups encourage this behavior, because it makes anyone who notices it come off as hyper-sensitive and hyperbolic).

That being said...
DHS Page wrote: On average, out of 88 claims that pass the credible fear screening, fewer than 13 will ultimately result in a grant of asylum.


...on average, out of 88? Who on earth would use 'out of 88' when calculating an average? Why not 100, like any sane, rational person? And those numbers (14 and 88) carry special significance for white supremacists.

Like, my first conclusion here wouldn't be "The DHS has been infiltrated by numerous white supremacists", but this certainly makes me wonder if someone who's involved in the production of their websites or press-releases isn't at least familiar with this, and is actively trying to gas-light people who would recognize the dog-whistles.

You know, I'm really skeptical about things like that, too. At first, it seemed to me like a pretty big reach that you might find in the same place as the recent story (which I heard a couple people discussing in all seriousness) about how the Pope had been arrested for crimes against humanity, but of course, "they'll never report it. It's too big!"

Then, as you point out, there's a sample size of 88. Like I said, I'm pretty skeptical in general, but there's no legitimate reason I can think of for a sample size of 88. If it does happen to be a code for Nazis, that would make sense. I would expect anyone leaving coded messages for that caliber of person would have to be as sneaky as a middle-schooler about it.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26295
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SecondTalon » Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:13 am UTC

The FBI said white supremacists had been interested in infiltrating law enforcement for decades and had instances of some who had... in 2006.

Do you really think that’s changed?
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:16 am UTC

Yeah, the thing that's changed is now they feel emboldened enough to put their dog whistles on official government websites, but they'd already been in those organizations for years.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
cyanyoshi
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:30 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby cyanyoshi » Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:36 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I, uh...

Like, okay: I tend to be extremely skeptical about this because it's super-easy to find dog-whistling where it doesn't exist (and, in fact, I can't help but imagine that right-wing fringe groups encourage this behavior, because it makes anyone who notices it come off as hyper-sensitive and hyperbolic).

That being said...
DHS Page wrote: On average, out of 88 claims that pass the credible fear screening, fewer than 13 will ultimately result in a grant of asylum.


...on average, out of 88? Who on earth would use 'out of 88' when calculating an average? Why not 100, like any sane, rational person? And those numbers (14 and 88) carry special significance for white supremacists.

Like, my first conclusion here wouldn't be "The DHS has been infiltrated by numerous white supremacists", but this certainly makes me wonder if someone who's involved in the production of their websites or press-releases isn't at least familiar with this, and is actively trying to gas-light people who would recognize the dog-whistles.

Perhaps someone in the administration is just a grand piano enthusiast and they imagine each claim as its own piano key?... Yeah, most other reasonable explanations for the number 88 being there sound like a real stretch.

I guess it's also possible they nicked that number from some source that did intend it to be a dog whistle, without DHS realizing it as such. Same effect, but mostly being oblivious rather than malicious.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7516
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zamfir » Sat Jun 30, 2018 7:01 am UTC

From a 2017 Newsweek article http://www.newsweek.com/trump-guideline ... ers-558520
Interviews to assess credible fear are conducted almost immediately after an asylum request is made, often at the border or in detention facilities by immigration agents or asylum officers, and most applicants easily clear that hurdle. Between July and September of 2016, U.S. asylum officers accepted nearly 88 percent of the claims of credible fear, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services data.

So, the 88 appears to have an innocent reading: [out of 100 applicants, 88 pass the credible fear interview] On average, out of 88 claims that pass the credible fear screening, fewer than 13 will ultimately result in a grant of asylum

The "we must secure" heading on the other hand, is exactly the kind of game that internet Nazis love to play.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10009
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:10 am UTC

Oh! Good Grief!
That's a new one!

When I clicked on a link that might not be flattering to our Orangutan.
My machine started BEEPING! and a virus warning was on screen.

3 Virus are located
You must act immediately!
Click Here for scan.


I was able to close the tab.

Good Grief....
That will keep me OFF links with negative news of our Orangutan.

The worst.
Him and everything about him.

Dang!
I'm not Prejudice!

After what seems like an eternity of Orange Shenanigans;
I'm simply Judgmental...
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jul 02, 2018 12:14 pm UTC

In further "they have been lying about ports of entry" news.

But the practice of separating families appears to have begun accelerating last year, long before zero tolerance was announced in the spring. Among these cases, according to records and interviews, are many that happened at ports of entry.

Administration officials have said repeatedly that asylum seekers who don’t want to be separated from their children should present themselves at a port of entry. Doing so is the legal way to ask for asylum, they said.

But court filings describe numerous cases in recent months in which families were separated after presenting themselves at a port of entry to ask for asylum


http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

dg61
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby dg61 » Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:18 pm UTC

TBF, you could argue that by the early 30s Germany wasn't really a democracy and even before the Nazis came to power given the use of the Presidential powers to wholly circumvent the Parliament and the centralization of power by Bruening and other conservative chancellors(von Sleicher, Papen, etc) as well as the Pruessenschlag.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:04 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:(1) CRIMINALIZATION of unlawful presence in the United States: White supremacy writ into law. For past 228 years, simply *being in U.S.* w/o permission was a civil offense w/no consequence other than deportation.
(NB: This was quickly rejected in 2005, but much more likely now)


Isn't this already the case? Illegal entry is a crime, yes? Is this increasing the criminal status or what not? Or are we increasing penalties(say, imprisonment instead of deportation?)

dg61 wrote:TBF, you could argue that by the early 30s Germany wasn't really a democracy and even before the Nazis came to power given the use of the Presidential powers to wholly circumvent the Parliament and the centralization of power by Bruening and other conservative chancellors(von Sleicher, Papen, etc) as well as the Pruessenschlag.


There was definitely some troubles, starting at least as far back as WW1 that laid some of the groundwork, yes. Still, you've got to draw a line somewhere, and I think "Hitler rises to power" is a reasonable enough line for things going horribly wrong and the country being overtly facist.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10268
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:07 pm UTC

Look, I don't think we should wait until after the mass killings have occurred to determine if someone is a fascist.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:11 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:(1) CRIMINALIZATION of unlawful presence in the United States: White supremacy writ into law. For past 228 years, simply *being in U.S.* w/o permission was a civil offense w/no consequence other than deportation.
(NB: This was quickly rejected in 2005, but much more likely now)
Isn't this already the case?

It says RIGHT THERE in the quote what has been the case for the past 228 years...
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:16 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Look, I don't think we should wait until after the mass killings have occurred to determine if someone is a fascist.


Hitler and company were definitely fascists before they conducted the mass killings. When they took over power, Germany became a fascist state. Waiting until post-genocide to determine identity seems wildly unnecessary.

gmalivuk wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:(1) CRIMINALIZATION of unlawful presence in the United States: White supremacy writ into law. For past 228 years, simply *being in U.S.* w/o permission was a civil offense w/no consequence other than deportation.
(NB: This was quickly rejected in 2005, but much more likely now)
Isn't this already the case?

It says RIGHT THERE in the quote what has been the case for the past 228 years...


I'm asking what the change is, not what the status quo is.

Is this just a change from entry to presence, to better capture other methods, like visa overstays? Or are we looking at more draconian changes as part of this proposal?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:18 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Isn't this already the case?

I'm asking what the change is, not what the status quo is.
Do you not know what the word "already" means?

Is this just a change from entry to presence, to better capture other methods, like visa overstays? Or are we looking at more draconian changes as part of this proposal?
Do you also not know the difference between civil and criminal offenses?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

dg61
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby dg61 » Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:21 pm UTC

Basically the difference is between a civil versus a criminal offense. A Civil offense is still an illegal thing, but it's not strictly speaking a crime and wouldn't e.g. affect things like sentences(and I don't think you can be imprisoned for civil offenses). An example would be violating a city noise ordinance and having to pay a fine versus assault and battery; they're both illegal acts but one is defined as actually a crime and the other isn't. Practically speaking, a civil offense has a more limited range of possible penalties.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:37 pm UTC

And I get that not everyone is aware of the difference, but it seems like someone who just recently posted about "decriminalization" would have known what that word (and its antonym) meant.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:40 pm UTC

dg61 wrote:Basically the difference is between a civil versus a criminal offense. A Civil offense is still an illegal thing, but it's not strictly speaking a crime and wouldn't e.g. affect things like sentences(and I don't think you can be imprisoned for civil offenses). An example would be violating a city noise ordinance and having to pay a fine versus assault and battery; they're both illegal acts but one is defined as actually a crime and the other isn't. Practically speaking, a civil offense has a more limited range of possible penalties.


Eh, the range of punishments is narrower for civil court, but they are still fairly broad. Can include jail if it includes contempt, but as a practical matter, far less likely to do so.

Civil Court vs Criminal Court is a difference, but generally, Criminal Court offers more protections for the defendant. Lower standard of proof is the biggie.

So, criminalization isn't necessarily bad...but it *could* be, depending on the exact nature of the changes. If, for instance, they want to fill jails instead of deport folks, that has a lot of consequences that follow from that.

Note that improper entry is already a crime. Not a civil thing, but a criminal thing. They can most definitely already send you to a criminal court, then jail you, for illegal immigration at present. In practice, jailing everyone to the maximum extent of the law would be very costly, and return on investment would likely be poor. Deportation is generally a lot cheaper.

Now, simply being in the United States without having immigrated is not specifically illegal...but that's often covered by the entry, save for specific cases. I'm interested in the actual delta caused by this.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26533
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:50 pm UTC

Up to six months in jail for a first offense.

Edit: the original Goodlatte bill is available at https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... -bill/4760

In section 2206, they wrote:“(2) CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—Any alien who violates any provision under paragraph (1)—

“(A) shall, for the first violation, be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both;
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

dg61
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby dg61 » Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:59 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:(1) CRIMINALIZATION of unlawful presence in the United States: White supremacy writ into law. For past 228 years, simply *being in U.S.* w/o permission was a civil offense w/no consequence other than deportation.
(NB: This was quickly rejected in 2005, but much more likely now)


Isn't this already the case? Illegal entry is a crime, yes? Is this increasing the criminal status or what not? Or are we increasing penalties(say, imprisonment instead of deportation?)

dg61 wrote:TBF, you could argue that by the early 30s Germany wasn't really a democracy and even before the Nazis came to power given the use of the Presidential powers to wholly circumvent the Parliament and the centralization of power by Bruening and other conservative chancellors(von Sleicher, Papen, etc) as well as the Pruessenschlag.


There was definitely some troubles, starting at least as far back as WW1 that laid some of the groundwork, yes. Still, you've got to draw a line somewhere, and I think "Hitler rises to power" is a reasonable enough line for things going horribly wrong and the country being overtly Fascist.


I mean it was fascist starting with Hitler but I was specifically referring to the collapse of democracy in Weimar before that, as the gridlock of the parliament shifted to Chancellor Heinrich Bruening ruling by decree after 1930 and a series of conservative chancellors after him, with the cooperation of/by gaining control of Paul von Hindenburg. This was all prior to Hitler assuming any sort of power.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:04 pm UTC

Yeah, in that period, it was not yet fascist, but it was certainly a good deal less democratic, and more authoritarian. No argument there, I just want to keep the lines of "authoritarian" and "fascist" distinct.

dg61
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby dg61 » Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:10 pm UTC

Agreed. But it's important not to pretend it was "democracy===>hitler", not least because that can make quite a few things sound different.

dg61
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby dg61 » Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:23 pm UTC

Anyhow I've long thought an American dictatorship wouldn't be like Hitler, it'd be more like PRIist Mexico.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:50 pm UTC

dg61 wrote:Agreed. But it's important not to pretend it was "democracy===>hitler", not least because that can make quite a few things sound different.


Agreed. Hitler didn't even get a majority vote. He did get enough to be taken seriously when power got doled out, certainly, but Hitler isn't exactly a direct failing of democracy. Indirect, at most.

It is also likely that we won't exactly echo history, though of course, there'll be historical parallels. Folks love to compare everything to Nazi Germany, or to Rome, but the US isn't really either of those. Sure, good lessons to be learned, but every country manages to screw itself up a bit differently.

dg61
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby dg61 » Mon Jul 02, 2018 7:57 pm UTC

My standing theory again is more that if the US slides into authoritarianism it'll be more like the various one-party states. See for example PRI Mexico, or other state where power was transferred within a dominant party.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:10 pm UTC

Why and how would the US become a one party state?

It hasn't seemed to trend that way for the last coupla hundred years. The voting system seems to push it hard towards a two party system. No more, no less. Sure, the parties themselves can change, but it would be odd if there were not two.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6587
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Jul 03, 2018 12:06 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Why and how would the US become a one party state?
One path would be the Dems remain disorganized, pulled on one hand towards socialsim (Bernie) and on the other hand towards more central views (new people fired up by the present situation). The new people can't quite topple the old guard, but instead there is lots of infighting. Sound familiar?

Meanwhile, there's another SCOTUS appointee, maybe two, and Congress tilts a bit more Republican. The Republicans fall in line behind Trump, fearing for their reelection, and soon we have a Supreme Leader, a Supreme Council, and a Supreme Court. Gerrymander away and it's all over.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10009
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:32 am UTC

As I fall into the depths of despair;
I see the water closing over us all.

Possibly very accurate.
Thanks Loads, Jose.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

dg61
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby dg61 » Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:09 am UTC

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Why and how would the US become a one party state?
One path would be the Dems remain disorganized, pulled on one hand towards socialsim (Bernie) and on the other hand towards more central views (new people fired up by the present situation). The new people can't quite topple the old guard, but instead there is lots of infighting. Sound familiar?

Meanwhile, there's another SCOTUS appointee, maybe two, and Congress tilts a bit more Republican. The Republicans fall in line behind Trump, fearing for their reelection, and soon we have a Supreme Leader, a Supreme Council, and a Supreme Court. Gerrymander away and it's all over.

Jose


That would seem to me to indicate more a LDP esque one party state than a classically authoritarian one party state, given taht I can only see factionalism last so long .

EDIT: Didn't read carefully, now see hwat you mean. That would lean to a authoritarian one-party state(see South Africa, maybe Emergency India IDK, Mexico under the PRI idk) I suppose. There's also "Dems go outright socialists and not just social democratic/progressive like they trend currently, this freaks out enough moderates that they back republicans while pulling it back from brink and expanding tent, and we have a situation where it's notionally one party but it covers most current American ideological ground and is united mainly by keeping the socialists out of power".

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10009
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:07 am UTC

Anti-Social is a Psychological Diagnosis.
I Hope and Pray we don't go that way.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:28 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Why and how would the US become a one party state?
One path would be the Dems remain disorganized, pulled on one hand towards socialsim (Bernie) and on the other hand towards more central views (new people fired up by the present situation). The new people can't quite topple the old guard, but instead there is lots of infighting. Sound familiar?


These conditions sound very similar to those existing when the Republican party rose to power.

It's possible that, if one party were to choke hard enough, another could rise to take it's place. That's happened before. The one party thing hasn't.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6587
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:39 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:These conditions sound very similar to those existing when the Republican party rose to power.
Yes, but look at the second half. Did those conditions exist the last time?

I don't say this is the future; I say that this is one path. It is by no means obvious that we will avoid this fate.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:43 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:These conditions sound very similar to those existing when the Republican party rose to power.
Yes, but look at the second half. Did those conditions exist the last time?

I don't say this is the future; I say that this is one path. It is by no means obvious that we will avoid this fate.

Jose


One party divided into two factions, neither side able to prevail, ultimately losing power as a result?

Yes, that precisely describes the Whigs at the time of their failing, with Slavery as the great divisive issue. Thus, Republicans took over, and the Whigs were displaced.

Edit: That doesn't mean that the Democrats MUST fail. Simply that, if they somehow manage to do so, we have every reason to suspect a replacement will arise.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6587
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Jul 03, 2018 4:11 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:One party divided into two factions, neither side able to prevail, ultimately losing power as a result?
No. A single party having control over congress, the presidency, and the Supreme Court. A president who has an uncanny ability to rally that party around him, personally. A pervasive surveillance of the populace, and the ability to use this data to affect elections.

Did that exist last time? Because you are right; a fragmented party (by itself) could be replaced. But these other elements line up to take advantage in a way that I don't think has ever happened before in this country.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jul 03, 2018 4:17 pm UTC

Oddly enough, Lincoln would be your best candidate for that.

Anyways, if you look at it over time, it's pretty clear that we trend extremely strongly towards a two party system, and that the balance trends more towards 50/50 over time, not towards one party having all the power. One can always talk up technological developments and such to claim that now is different, but that was true for the last many elections as well, and in practice, we're definitely a two party system, and it seems highly unlikely to change.

Image


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests