Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
...and furthermore, what's this US "on the road" to facism bs?

Before I answer, note I don't think the US is on the road to fascism. I'm just explaining why people are seeing that path.

Fascism places a single, unifying figure at the core of the movement. This person is assigned the voice of the real people, the one who is able to declare what is true, and what the people want and believe. All voices in opposition to that, whether they're government institutions, other political parties or the media are deemed liars, traitors and conspirators.

All of that matches Trump perfectly.

However, I don't think that makes Trump a fascist, and it doesn't mean the US is on the road to fascism. Trump is more like the corporate remake of fascism two decades after the first movie. He hits all the beats but without the purpose or meaning, he's just mimicking what worked last time, without any understanding why. Trump lacks the context and purpose that made the original so powerful. If Mussolini was the original Wicker Man, then Trump is the Nicholas Cage remake.

Okay... that's pretty damn spot on.

Even the Nick Cage reference.

Dear Gawd stop with that horrid movie!

 thekingofkings wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
...and furthermore, what's this US "on the road" to facism bs?

Before I answer, note I don't think the US is on the road to fascism. I'm just explaining why people are seeing that path.

Fascism places a single, unifying figure at the core of the movement. This person is assigned the voice of the real people, the one who is able to declare what is true, and what the people want and believe. All voices in opposition to that, whether they're government institutions, other political parties or the media are deemed liars, traitors and conspirators.

All of that matches Trump perfectly.

However, I don't think that makes Trump a fascist, and it doesn't mean the US is on the road to fascism. Trump is more like the corporate remake of fascism two decades after the first movie. He hits all the beats but without the purpose or meaning, he's just mimicking what worked last time, without any understanding why. Trump lacks the context and purpose that made the original so powerful. If Mussolini was the original Wicker Man, then Trump is the Nicholas Cage remake.

Okay... that's pretty damn spot on.

Even the Nick Cage reference.

Dear Gawd stop with that horrid movie!

It fits man! :waves hand: Trump Presidency - An American Horror Story!

 feeder wrote:
No, I think it was more pronounced than that. It wasn't constructed by state run media, but there was definitely "an idealized, heroic, and worshipful image of a leader, often through unquestioning flattery and praise." He rode a wave of "Hope" and "Change" and "Feth Bush" to the presidency, for sure.

I mean, yeah it's not a textbook Cult of Personality, like with Mao, but I remember an atmosphere of overwhelming adulation.

Americans in general have a fawning attitude to their president. The stuff about 'respecting the office' is generally pretty unhealthy. However putting that only on Obama is false, and it is even more false to claim that by itself it is a fascist thing.

That fawning attitude can potentially be used by a fascist to dismantle democracy, but that is not the same thing as saying that attitude itself is fascist.

I think the US system, maybe more than other system, is setup in a way that requires a certain level of narcicism to become POTUS. “I think I’m the best person to become the leader of the biggest economy and military in the world!”

And the many “God wants me to run” folks out there.

 skyth wrote:
My opinions on guns has evolved due to some posters on here. Now I just think the people that feel the need to have them are largely idiots rather than them being something that needs to be heavily restricted.

My opinion on gun control has changed dramatically partly due the users on this forum. I went from just taking my parents hard anti-gun opinions to moving far more moderate to even supportive of certain loosening of control (such as streamlining the NFA process, and making Supressors/Silencers not restricted).

Wicker man?

 whembly wrote:
It is my firm belief that that the fascism we've seen in Europe is untennable to the US... partly because there's enough contrarian who would *try* to stop it.

That's my opinion...

Just like it's your opinion that if the US *could* go fascist some of the armed citizenry wouldn't oppose.

Arguing that the US wouldn't become fascist because of a 'contrarian' culture among US citizens is an opinion as you say, but importantly it is a totally different opinion than the one you were giving previous to this. You tried to argue that US firearms would prevent fascism, and now you're claiming US culture would stop it. These are different arguments.

And sure, it is just my opinion that US firearms wouldn't stop a move to fascism. But it is important to note the argument that they're all just opinions is bunk. Not all opinions are equal. Some opinions are coherently formed and backed by the historical record, and others are not. Countries that fell to fascism were not disarmed, in fact they were full of guns. The fascists won the Spanish Civil War - they won it with guns. Mussolini's capture of the valley and the March on Rome was undertaken by men with guns. The Freikorps and SA were essential to Hitler's rise - they were armed paramilitaries.

The idea that democracy is safe because the people have arms is farcical. This doesn't mean guns are bad, it simply means they are not the safeguard some people wish they were.

Funny... the consumers don't see any of these savings...

Look at this ridiculous two card trick. whembly claims it is okay to get cents in immediate benefit for dollars in new national debt, because that's what every bit of major legislation does. I point out the last major legislation before this was ACA, which is set to save about a trillion over 20 years.

whembly completely ignores his previous claim about the deficit, and complains about consumers not getting that saving.

I.ONLY.MADE.THE.POINT.THAT.THE.NAZI.STOPPED.JEWS.FROM.OWNING.GUNS.

I didn't make any point about Nazis, firearms and guncontrol.

Jesus, it's like ya'll don't read what I wrote and automatically assumes the worst. It's my own damn fault for being pithy.

You weren't pithy, you were talking around the point. The vast majority of Germans had more gun rights under Nazism than they had previously. They didn't take up arms to stop Nazism. Trying to talk around this by talking only about the Jews is trying to actively ignore the point - the people with the power to back fascism in to power are also thee people with the power to own the guns, as such if the people with power want fascism, the people with guns won't stop them because it is the same group of people.

So you're dodging too?

I'm not dodging a thing. I'm asking you why if citizens with guns can stop Nazism, why didn't the citizens with guns in Germany stop Nazism?

Good luck getting the majority gun owners in the US to be part of the fascism movement.

Well done missing the point. I am not saying the US is moving to fascism. I have been explicit in stating I do not believe that is happening, nor do I think it likely to happen.

What I am explaining to you is that fascism is not stopped by people with guns. This isn't because gun owners are fascist or any stupid nonsense like that. It is because for fascism to be viable, it must be backed by the classes with economic and cultural power. If the people with economic and cultural power decide fascism is the way to go, they are also the people who own the majority of guns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Okay... that's pretty damn spot on.

Even the Nick Cage reference.

I mean, if Trump just started shouting 'the bees, oh god the bees' at his next rally, would anyone think that was unusual, or out of character?

 d-usa wrote:
Wicker man?

sooooo awful.

On Roseanne Barr's firing - I have 7quite liked the new episodes of her show. To me it felt like it was making a pretty genuine look at modern American life from the view of a working class family.

It wasn't perfect, Roseanne's timing was way off, and the new episodes seemed a little self-consciously topical - 'this week we're doing islamaphobia', but despite those faults what came through was the empathy the show felt for its working poor family. These were people dealing with life on the bottom rung of society, and in this new series they added the additional kick in the guts that for all the work put in to raising their kids and hoping they would go on to something better, if anything they were worse off than their parents. How many shows do you know where a woman in her 60s is working for uber to make ends meet? In terms of the real issues facing Americans, isn't Roseanne closer to the reality of life in America than, say, Modern Family?

Roseanne Barr might be a giant dumpster fire of racism and conspiracy nonsense in her own life, but that voice didn't come through in the show. This is why I was pretty disappointed when a lot of left aligned media starting attacking the tv show, not because of its own politics, but because of Roseanne Barr's politics (Trump attaching himself to it didn't help). The Roseanne reboot could have even been seen as something of a Trojan Horse, Roseanne drew in a conservative audience, who then watched the family come to support the grandson as he chose to wear girl's clothes.

None of which really has that much to do with Roseanne getting fired, to be honest. She's a walking PR nightmare, and ABC is an enormous company owned by an even more enormous company, Disney. A hit sitcom is nice, but this is 2017 and Disney has billions upon billions tied up in movie franchises and affiliated TV spread across the planet, they're not going to risk any harm to those assets for the sake of a free to air sitcom.

As to whether Roseanne should be fired... I don't know to be honest. One thing this should tell everyone is that there are consequences for having unpopular opinions. In the case of Roseanne they were ugly, racist, crazy opinions, but what happened to her is what happens to lots of people who upset the apple cart. Colin Kaepernick doesn't have a contract while his record showed he was more than deserving on a slot on an NFL list.

To me the issue is whether free speech should be seen as something more than just the absence of government penalty. Should we as a society should let people speak their mind without fear of losing their job? Even when we really don't like what they have to say? Obviously it would be near impossible and a generally bad idea for government to regulate that, what would be needed instead is a cultural value - a person who simply speaks their mind should be able to do so without being economically penalised. This wouldn't mean giving people platforms for those ideas, but that's why I started by talking about how the show Roseanne was quite different to the actual person Roseanne Barr. The show wasn't a platform for her hatred and craziness, it wasn't giving a platform to her nastier ideas.

I mean, imagine a world where ABC came out and said 'Roseanne's opinions are not shared by ABC, and we will not support such ideas being put in the show, but in her personal life she is free to speak her mind', while the NFL came out and said 'Players are free citizens and are able to act as they please during the anthem because we don't seek to control the lives of our players outside of the actual game'... and the public at large accepted and respected organisations that didn't try to control their employee's private lives... wouldn't that be a better world?

 d-usa wrote:
I think the US system, maybe more than other system, is setup in a way that requires a certain level of narcicism to become POTUS. “I think I’m the best person to become the leader of the biggest economy and military in the world!”

And the many “God wants me to run” folks out there.

The 'God wants to me to run' stuff is pretty messed up, that's true. But outside of that I think there's a certain level of narcissism involved in wanting to be in charge of any country.

What's really different about the US system is that you have combined a popular election with control of most of government and the formal head of state. To compare to the Australian system, for instance, our Prime Minister isn't popularly elected, but is actually chosen by the majority party in parliament, he is not 'of the people', and can't claim some kind of authority outside of normal political practice. On top of that, he isn't actually the formal head of state, that position goes to the Governor General and the Queen, even though all actual power rests with the Prime Minister.

As a result, neither the Prime Minister nor his office is given any particular level of respect. A few years ago one PM was walking through a school, and one of the kids chucked a piece of fruit at her. He didn't do it out of any political conviction, the target might have been any government official or celebrity that might take a tour through a school, the kid just thought it was funny to throw a piece of fruit at a famous person. The general response was somewhere between people thinking it was pretty funny, and people saying it was wrong to throw fruit not because it was the PM, but because you really shouldn't throw fruit at anyone.

I think that kind of thing would play out extremely differently in the US, where the President is viewed very differently.

 sebster wrote:
To me the issue is whether free speech should be seen as something more than just the absence of government penalty. Should we as a society should let people speak their mind without fear of losing their job? Even when we really don't like what they have to say? Obviously it would be near impossible and a generally bad idea for government to regulate that, what would be needed instead is a cultural value - a person who simply speaks their mind should be able to do so without being economically penalised. This wouldn't mean giving people platforms for those ideas, but that's why I started by talking about how the show Roseanne was quite different to the actual person Roseanne Barr. The show wasn't a platform for her hatred and craziness, it wasn't giving a platform to her nastier ideas.

The problem is that some ideas just cross the line and make a person too toxic to deal with. Imagine if you're a black coworker of hers, could you honestly work with someone who has appalling racist opinions about you? It would be a massive workplace disruption even if she only expressed those opinions on twitter. You'd still know all about the whole mess, and know that she's just staying quiet at work to keep her job. Or, to give an even clearer example, imagine your coworker was a literal nazi. Nazi flag waving, Hitler saluting, "kill them all" nazi. Could you set aside that knowledge and work with them? I doubt it. I'd share your point of view if it was about things like punishing someone for being a fan of your favorite football team's rival, but some beliefs are not acceptable in society and the people who hold them are not entitled to economic success.

It's especially a problem in the case of a high-profile employee. This isn't an anonymous janitor or factory worker or whatever, it's someone with a major role as the face of a company. No matter how many PR press releases you put out saying "I don't endorse this" people are still going to believe otherwise, those awful opinions are going to be all over the news, and your other employees are going to know all about it. At that level you just don't have a private life that you can wall off and keep isolated from having any effect on your job performance.

I think that kind of thing would play out extremely differently in the US, where the President is viewed very differently.

To be fair, in this era the kid would probably be gunned down by the president's security before the fruit landed and their family would be shipped off to a secret prison as "enemy combatants".

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah I don't care which way we're doing it, but I don't currently understand how it's supposed to be done.

Schrodinger's topic. It both is and isn't on topic until a mod sees it.

That is true to a degree.

We don't have precise rules because that leads to people working out how to evade them.

Since there is a functional gun thread in the form of the Santa Fe school massacre discussion, I suggest it's best to concentrate your gun points there.

 Spinner wrote:
Holy crap, we're back to 'the Nazis banned guns'? Already? I thought we'd just talked about this.

And rifles sure are big help against M1A2 Abrams and Apaches and whatnot

Yey. Let's revolt against goverment with rifles.

 whembly wrote:

Good luck getting the majority gun owners in the US to be part of the fascism movement.

Well, it won't be called "The Fascism Movement". It will have a catchy name that stirs up nationalistic sentiment and can be shortened to a couple of letters that fit on a baseball hat #MAGA

mikosan wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Good luck getting the majority gun owners in the US to be part of the fascism movement.

Well, it won't be called "The Fascism Movement". It will have a catchy name that stirs up nationalistic sentiment and can be shortened to a couple of letters that fit on a baseball hat #MAGA

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

Very few people start out as genocidal sociopaths, there’s a whole process of radicalisation, dehumanisation and peer pressure that happens. I’ve even heard theories that Hitler actually didn’t have much personal belief in antisemitism; the Jews were just a convenient target that allowed him to exploit people’s anger about the social and economic conditions in Germany and thus consolidate power.

And that’s the problem with Trump, Brexit, etc. The people currently involved may not be fascists, but they are normalising the ideas that all of the problems in society can be blamed on “others” and those “others” are defined solely by their religion and/or ethnicity. That is a very very slippery slope.

I wouldn't put much trust in those theories. Antisemitism wasn't huge in Germany, to the extent that Hitler had to downplay the antisemitic element of the Nazi party in elections because it went too far. If you asked anyone at the turn if the 20th century where the Nazi Germany type of antisemitism would show up people would have guessed France before Germany. Hitler was as true a believer as they come when it comes to antisemitism.

The same is true for Trump, he isn't just doing it for the crowd to have a scapegoat, he is a genuine hardcore racist.

whembly wrote:
It is my firm belief that that the fascism we've seen in Europe is untennable to the US... partly because there's enough contrarian who would *try* to stop it.

That's my opinion...

Just like it's your opinion that if the US *could* go fascist some of the armed citizenry wouldn't oppose.

*snip*

Good luck getting the majority gun owners in the US to be part of the fascism movement.

I do agree that US fascism wouldn't be a carbon copy of that which was done in the past, but I very much disagree with your last statement. . . Just look at the NFL flag "issue" and all the other issues which the Right wants to bleat about on social media. . . A simple click on the profiles of pretty much any random sample of pro "forced patriotism" profiles show eerily similar things: pro-NRA, pro- "blue lives matter", pro troop, anti- librul, anti-1A (by virtue of the "you WILL stand for the flag/song" rhetoric), pro-birth, anti-immigration, WASP/evangelical leaning. . . yeah, they may factually be in the minority, but they are a VERY vocal one at that, and currently hold most of the power while simultaneously proclaiming that they've lost ALL their power.

sebster wrote:
Americans in general have a fawning attitude to their president. The stuff about 'respecting the office' is generally pretty unhealthy. However putting that only on Obama is false, and it is even more false to claim that by itself it is a fascist thing.

That fawning attitude can potentially be used by a fascist to dismantle democracy, but that is not the same thing as saying that attitude itself is fascist.

During my second tour in Iraq, I had an interesting conversation with one of the embedded journalists with my unit. Now, he was NOT Hunter S. Thompson, but he was the spitting image of the guy. . . I was sent to the public affairs office for a quick fix, and ended up spending about three hours with "Mr. Thompson"

One main point, really it was a tirade on his part, was when some news show came onto the television in the office about an SNL skit or some other comedic show basically making fun of W. His tirade essentially boiled down to: you can make fun of the president, but only in certain ways that remain respectful of the Office of President. He took great offense at the humor being displayed by whichever skit show this was, because he perceived that they were making fun of W in a "taboo" way (I dont remember if it was the personal mannerisms that were off limits, or the policy that was, at this point. . . it was literally 10 years ago)

To a certain extent I can see the logic. I mean, this was a journalist who, after I asked him about this view he had, informed me that he hasn't liked a single president since Ford (and even then, he was quick to point out, this was a personality thing, not a policy thing) He had a clear understanding, in covering politics since Nixon, that there were stresses within the Office that most of us will never understand, and as such "should" respect the Presidential Office, even if we don't respect the personage holding said office.

I think that resepct for the office of president should start with the holder of that office respecting it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think that resepct for the office of president should start with the holder of that office respecting it.

Lol, absolutely zero arguments from me there

I don't generally contribute to this thread, but reading it is always informative, but I will say one thing on this whole fascism debate: how many times in history have people been like "it can't possibly happen here because of x, y, and z" and then it proceeds to happen?

My own grandparents described similar feelings regarding the partition of India, up until it actually got partitioned and they ended up on the wrong side of the border. Sure we can argue "looking back, there was evidence for x, y, and z if we see it" but really, that's all in hindsight from better perspectives. How much do you bet that should this turn into some sort of authoritarian nationalist rule that people will look back on it and say "well obviously the whole MAGA thing was a sign, how did they not see it then?"

This isn't to say that fascism will happen in the US: it's just to say that we shouldn't ignore signs and the start of the process as others have said.

Here is an interesting piece of research into American social attitudes and the erosion of democratic values of the rule of law, etc.

http://svmiller.com/research/white-outgroup-intolerance-democratic-support/

I haven't pulled this one out for a while here. Here is the summary of the 1935 novel by Sinclair Lewis called It Can't Happen Here who pretty much hits the nail on the head....

"In 1936 Senator Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip, a charismatic and power-hungry politician, wins the election as President of the United States on a populist platform, promising to restore the country to prosperity and greatness, and promising each citizen $5,000 a year. Portraying himself as a champion of traditional U.S. values, Windrip easily defeats his opponents, Senator Walt Trowbridge and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Though having previously foreshadowed some authoritarian measures in order to reorganize the United States government, Windrip rapidly outlaws dissent, incarcerates political enemies in concentration camps, and trains and arms a paramilitary force called the Minute Men, who terrorize citizens and enforce the policies of Windrip and his "corporatist" regime. One of his first acts as president is to eliminate the influence of the United States Congress, which draws the ire of many citizens as well as the legislators themselves. The Minute Men respond to protests against Windrip's decisions harshly, attacking demonstrators with bayonets. In addition to these actions, Windrip's administration, known as the "Corpo" government, curtails women's and minority rights, and eliminates individual states by subdividing the country into administrative sectors. The government of these sectors is managed by "Corpo" authorities, usually prominent businessmen or Minute Men officers. Those accused of crimes against the government appear before kangaroo courts presided over by "military judges". Despite these dictatorial (and "quasi-draconian") measures, a majority of Americans approve of them, seeing them as necessary but painful steps to restore U.S. power. Others, those less enthusiastic about the prospect of corporatism, reassure themselves that fascism cannot "happen here", hence the novel's title.

Open opponents of Windrip, led by Senator Trowbridge, form an organization called the New Underground, helping dissidents escape to Canada in manners reminiscent of the Underground Railroad and distributing anti-Windrip propaganda. One recruit to the New Underground is Doremus Jessup, the novel's protagonist, a traditional liberal and an opponent of both Corpoism and communist theories, which Windrip's administration suppresses. Jessup's participation in the organization results in the publication of a periodical called The Vermont Vigilance, in which he writes editorials decrying Windrip's abuses of power. Shad Ledue, the local district commissioner and Jessup's former hired man, resents his old employer and eventually discovers his actions and has Jessup sent to a concentration camp. Ledue subsequently terrorizes Jessup's family and particularly his daughter Sissy, whom he unsuccessfully attempts to seduce. Sissy does, however, discover evidence of corrupt dealings on the part of Ledue, which she exposes to Francis Tasbrough, a one-time friend of Jessup and Ledue's superior in the administrative hierarchy. Tasbrough has Ledue imprisoned in the same camp as Jessup, where inmates he had sent there organize his murder. Jessup escapes, after a relatively brief incarceration, when his friends bribe one of the camp guards. He flees to Canada, where he rejoins the New Underground. He later serves the organization as a spy in the Northeastern United States, passing along information and urging locals to resist Windrip.

In time, Windrip's hold on power weakens as the economic prosperity he promised does not materialize and increased numbers of disillusioned Americans, including Vice President Perley Beecroft, flee to both Canada and Mexico. He also angers his Secretary of State, Lee Sarason, who had served earlier as his chief political operative and adviser. Sarason and Windrip's other lieutenants, including General Dewey Haik, seize power and exile the president to France. Sarason succeeds Windrip, but his extravagant and relatively weak rule creates a power vacuum in which Haik and others vie for power. In a bloody putsch, Haik leads a party of military supporters into the White House, kills Sarason and his associates, and proclaims himself president. The two coups cause a slow erosion of Corpo power, and Haik's government desperately tries to arouse patriotism by launching an unjustified invasion of Mexico. After slandering Mexico in state-run newspapers, Haik orders a mass conscription of young U.S. men for the invasion of that country, infuriating many who had until then been staunch Corpo loyalists. Riots and rebellions break out across the country, with many realizing that the Corpos have misled them.

General Emmanuel [see forum posting rules], among Haik's senior officers, defects to the opposition with a large portion of his army, giving strength to the resistance movement. Though Haik remains in control of much of the country, civil war soon breaks out as the resistance tries to consolidate its grasp on the Midwest. The novel ends after the beginning of the conflict, with Jessup working as an agent for the New Underground in Corpo-occupied portions of southern Minnesota."

 deltaKshatriya wrote:
I don't generally contribute to this thread, but reading it is always informative, but I will say one thing on this whole fascism debate: how many times in history have people been like "it can't possibly happen here because of x, y, and z" and then it proceeds to happen?

My own grandparents described similar feelings regarding the partition of India, up until it actually got partitioned and they ended up on the wrong side of the border. Sure we can argue "looking back, there was evidence for x, y, and z if we see it" but really, that's all in hindsight from better perspectives. How much do you bet that should this turn into some sort of authoritarian nationalist rule that people will look back on it and say "well obviously the whole MAGA thing was a sign, how did they not see it then?"

This isn't to say that fascism will happen in the US: it's just to say that we shouldn't ignore signs and the start of the process as others have said.

The moment people say something can't happen is the moment from which it can happen.

tneva82 wrote:

 deltaKshatriya wrote:
I don't generally contribute to this thread, but reading it is always informative, but I will say one thing on this whole fascism debate: how many times in history have people been like "it can't possibly happen here because of x, y, and z" and then it proceeds to happen?

My own grandparents described similar feelings regarding the partition of India, up until it actually got partitioned and they ended up on the wrong side of the border. Sure we can argue "looking back, there was evidence for x, y, and z if we see it" but really, that's all in hindsight from better perspectives. How much do you bet that should this turn into some sort of authoritarian nationalist rule that people will look back on it and say "well obviously the whole MAGA thing was a sign, how did they not see it then?"

This isn't to say that fascism will happen in the US: it's just to say that we shouldn't ignore signs and the start of the process as others have said.

The moment people say something can't happen is the moment from which it can happen.

Yea, Imo it just shows that people are very willing to take a lot of institutions, rules, etc. for granted and assume them to be infallible/unbreakable. Like I said, it's not that I think that we as a nation are absolutely headed that way, but I do believe that we shouldn't be complacent by telling ourselves "it can't happen here".

Watching Trump's nashville speech yesterday, and much more ominously, the crowd's reaction, it should leave no doubt that Fascism in America is possible.

When theyre openly booing John McCain, *still* chanting "lock her up", as Trump bounced between unrelated topics and counterfactual boasts literally every 30 seconds to rapturous applause, it was not an inspiring picture of the American civil process.


These people legitimately terrify me.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Watching Trump's nashville speech yesterday, and much more ominously, the crowd's reaction, it should leave no doubt that Fascism in America is possible.

When theyre openly booing John McCain, *still* chanting "lock her up", as Trump bounced between unrelated topics and counterfactual boasts literally every 30 seconds to rapturous applause, it was not an inspiring picture of the American civil process.


These people legitimately terrify me.

At what point do these people become fake Americans? I feel like they are starting to skate pretty close to that point

 Ustrello wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Watching Trump's nashville speech yesterday, and much more ominously, the crowd's reaction, it should leave no doubt that Fascism in America is possible.

When theyre openly booing John McCain, *still* chanting "lock her up", as Trump bounced between unrelated topics and counterfactual boasts literally every 30 seconds to rapturous applause, it was not an inspiring picture of the American civil process.


These people legitimately terrify me.

At what point do these people become fake Americans? I feel like they are starting to skate pretty close to that point

Fake American?

Isn't that how we go the fascism route? Otherizings disfavored groups?

 Vaktathi wrote:
Watching Trump's nashville speech yesterday, and much more ominously, the crowd's reaction, it should leave no doubt that Fascism in America is possible.

When theyre openly booing John McCain, *still* chanting "lock her up", as Trump bounced between unrelated topics and counterfactual boasts literally every 30 seconds to rapturous applause, it was not an inspiring picture of the American civil process.


These people legitimately terrify me.

We've been seeing this pattern of behavior for a while. Basically since he started campaigning. I'm absolutely terrified by the hardcore supporters, more now than I have been since day one since we've seen pretty irrefutable proof that Trump is incompetent and corrupt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Watching Trump's nashville speech yesterday, and much more ominously, the crowd's reaction, it should leave no doubt that Fascism in America is possible.

When theyre openly booing John McCain, *still* chanting "lock her up", as Trump bounced between unrelated topics and counterfactual boasts literally every 30 seconds to rapturous applause, it was not an inspiring picture of the American civil process.


These people legitimately terrify me.

At what point do these people become fake Americans? I feel like they are starting to skate pretty close to that point

Fake American?

Isn't that how we go the fascism route? Otherizings disfavored groups?

Trump has already been doing this for almost 2 years with disfavored groups on the basis of race and religion. As I understand Ustrello's point, though maybe not the best word choice, is that many of those screaming for "Making America Great Again" are very much disavowing some of the core values of America that make it 'great'. Just my take though, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong Ustrello.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Watching Trump's nashville speech yesterday, and much more ominously, the crowd's reaction, it should leave no doubt that Fascism in America is possible.

When theyre openly booing John McCain, *still* chanting "lock her up", as Trump bounced between unrelated topics and counterfactual boasts literally every 30 seconds to rapturous applause, it was not an inspiring picture of the American civil process.


These people legitimately terrify me.

At what point do these people become fake Americans? I feel like they are starting to skate pretty close to that point

Fake isnt the right word, these views and groups exist in every nation, and use common national and cultural trappings/history/regalia to drape their authoritarianism in.

The issue is that in functioning societies, they arent cultivated and encouraged, theyre left to the fringes and are acknowledged for the extremism they represent, not encouraged and supported.

We should know better, and it's not hard to see through, but the fact that so many do not, or are actively on board, is what is worrying.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Watching Trump's nashville speech yesterday, and much more ominously, the crowd's reaction, it should leave no doubt that Fascism in America is possible.

When theyre openly booing John McCain, *still* chanting "lock her up", as Trump bounced between unrelated topics and counterfactual boasts literally every 30 seconds to rapturous applause, it was not an inspiring picture of the American civil process.


These people legitimately terrify me.

At what point do these people become fake Americans? I feel like they are starting to skate pretty close to that point

They aren't fake Americans, they are very much Americans. Americans who are very much in favor of an authoritarian/fascist government.

I find optimism in that the GOP policies disproportionately hurt their own base and their race/sex-ism puts them on the wrong side of demographics.