Political Roundtable Part XI

[Zonkerbl]

Have spent the past few days puzzling over the word "fascism." It's kind of like obscenity - I recognize it when I see it. But what if someone says "this is not obscene, this is fine" how do you respond?

Umberto Eco wrote an essay about "Ur-fascism" in 1995 that does a good job, I think, representing both sides of the issue. He discusses the slipperiness of the word, and proposes that there is a thing called fascism that can happen when certain elements are present, and lists 14 of them. It's very fuzzy - many of the elements of Ur-fascism are clearly present today. But is it enough to fairly be labeled fascism?

He finishes by reminding us that the singular purpose of the United States, as described by FDR, is to constantly battle against fascism. To flag in that battle is to betray Democracy.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

Happy Thanksgiving everybody! That's about as conciliatory as I'm going to get so enjoy it!

[nate33]

Let's also not forget that Trump was a dramatically flawed candidate with a long history of controversial remarks as well as the looming issue of his inexperience in government.

It will be interesting to see how things look in 2020. If Trump is reasonably competent as a President, will the issues of his 14-year-old sexist remarks and his government inexperience no longer apply in 2020?

Trump has locked down his right flank except for the neocon crowd (who have only pundits, not actual voters), and he stands firmly in the center on economic issues like trade, social security and health care, and he's fairly centric on social issues like gay rights. Take away the character issues, and Trump gets 58% of white women, not merely 53%. Couple that with his current 63%-37% edge in the white male vote and his advantage may be insurmountable.

[nate33]

Have spent the past few days puzzling over the word "fascism." It's kind of like obscenity - I recognize it when I see it. But what if someone says "this is not obscene, this is fine" how do you respond?

Umberto Eco wrote an essays about "Ur-fascism" in 1995 that does a good job, I think, representing both sides of the issue. He discusses the slipperiness of the word, and proposes that there is a thing called fascism that can happen when certain elements are present, and lists 14 of them. It's very fuzzy - many of the elements of Ur-fascism are clearly present today. But is it enough to fairly be labeled fascism?

He finishes by reminding us that the singular purpose of the United States, as described by FDR, is to constantly battle against fascism. To flag in that battle is to betray Democracy.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

Happy Thanksgiving everybody! That's about as conciliatory as I'm going to get so enjoy it!

I'll check that out.

Regarding fascism, which I agree has a slippery definition, I ask you, can one be a nationalist without being a fascist?

[Zonkerbl]

Have spent the past few days puzzling over the word "fascism." It's kind of like obscenity - I recognize it when I see it. But what if someone says "this is not obscene, this is fine" how do you respond?

Umberto Eco wrote an essays about "Ur-fascism" in 1995 that does a good job, I think, representing both sides of the issue. He discusses the slipperiness of the word, and proposes that there is a thing called fascism that can happen when certain elements are present, and lists 14 of them. It's very fuzzy - many of the elements of Ur-fascism are clearly present today. But is it enough to fairly be labeled fascism?

He finishes by reminding us that the singular purpose of the United States, as described by FDR, is to constantly battle against fascism. To flag in that battle is to betray Democracy.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

Happy Thanksgiving everybody! That's about as conciliatory as I'm going to get so enjoy it!

I'll check that out.

Regarding fascism, which I agree has a slippery definition, I ask you, can one be a nationalist without being a fascist?

I'd respond this way - White nationalism is an ingredient of fascism. If you normalize white nationalism, you are one step closer to fascism.

[nate33]

Have spent the past few days puzzling over the word "fascism." It's kind of like obscenity - I recognize it when I see it. But what if someone says "this is not obscene, this is fine" how do you respond?

Umberto Eco wrote an essays about "Ur-fascism" in 1995 that does a good job, I think, representing both sides of the issue. He discusses the slipperiness of the word, and proposes that there is a thing called fascism that can happen when certain elements are present, and lists 14 of them. It's very fuzzy - many of the elements of Ur-fascism are clearly present today. But is it enough to fairly be labeled fascism?

He finishes by reminding us that the singular purpose of the United States, as described by FDR, is to constantly battle against fascism. To flag in that battle is to betray Democracy.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

Happy Thanksgiving everybody! That's about as conciliatory as I'm going to get so enjoy it!

I'll check that out.

Regarding fascism, which I agree has a slippery definition, I ask you, can one be a nationalist without being a fascist?

I'd respond this way - White nationalism is an ingredient of fascism. If you normalize white nationalism, you are one step closer to fascism.

I think that's fair. And I think there are definitely white nationalists that support Trump. However, I truly do believe that Trump himself is not in the slightest bit racist and truly aspires to be an American nationalist, not a white nationalist. Perhaps that still sets us on a path to fascism under some future President, but it won't be from Trump.

[Zonkerbl]

I think Trump is a political opportunist, which in my mind makes it worse, since he more closely resembles Mussolini that way. It doesn't really matter what Trump himself thinks, since he simply sways with the winds blown by his supporters. So it is really the beliefs/behavior of his supporters that matters.

[nate33]

I think Trump is a political opportunist, which in my mind makes it worse, since he more closely resembles Mussolini that way. It doesn't really matter what Trump himself thinks, since he simply sways with the winds blown by his supporters. So it is really the beliefs/behavior of his supporters that matters.

Interesting. I don't get that impression of Trump at all. I think Trump is remarkably resistant to being pushed by his supporters (as evidenced by his confrontational campaigning style contrary to all political conventions). Trump's handlers can barely even smooth out the roughest edges of his persona, I seriously doubt they are guiding his ideology.

I will say that Trump's core competency fairly narrow - mostly on issues of trade, immigration, and non-interventionalism. I believe our policies on those issues will directly reflect Trump's core beliefs, with minimal manipulation by his handlers. However, he may cede control of other issues like education and health care to his supporters. Trump won't be writing the bill that replaces Obamacare.

His foreign policy will be interesting. He obviously has a core reflex to disengage from foreign entanglements, but that's always easier said than done. Given his lack of experience in foreign policy, he may be mislead by advisors because Trump himself doesn't have the knowledge to know when he is being mislead. Finding advisors that he can trust and who line up with his core beliefs will be critical. He needs a Pat Buchanan type on his foreign policy team.

[popper]

Regarding fascism or any other ism I'd recommend we use some dictionary definition (Websters?) so that we can debate from a commonly understood foundation. Otherwise the discussion becomes amorphous as we each pluck our favored definition from here or there.

[JWizmentality]

Hmm. Didn't think Clinton would jump on the recount bandwagon. Think she would avoid the political embarrassment unless she had credible evidence. Something's amiss.

[Induveca]

Hmm. Didn't think Clinton would jump on the recount bandwagon. Think she would avoid the political embarrassment unless she had credible evidence. Something's amiss.

"Anybody not willing to accept the results of an election is a danger to democracy" - Hillary Clinton November 7th on Twitter

Since deleted.

Desperate and delusional, or simply in denial. Even Obama administration has said *today* there was no hacking and elections were fair.

After collecting hundreds of millions in donations from very powerful entities, I suspect she has had intense pressure to exhaust all options since Nov 9th.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I think Trump is a political opportunist, which in my mind makes it worse, since he more closely resembles Mussolini that way. It doesn't really matter what Trump himself thinks, since he simply sways with the winds blown by his supporters. So it is really the beliefs/behavior of his supporters that matters.

This.

He wanted to be president and he got what he wanted. I see a 70 year old man who has a huge ego. I believe his eldest daughter and the people around him are the ones who are going to sway him whichever way he goes.

I also will not be surprised if he does not fare well.



Sent from my LG-H345 using RealGM mobile app

[verbal8]

I think Trump is a political opportunist, which in my mind makes it worse, since he more closely resembles Mussolini that way. It doesn't really matter what Trump himself thinks, since he simply sways with the winds blown by his supporters. So it is really the beliefs/behavior of his supporters that matters.

This.

He wanted to be president and he got what he wanted. I see a 70 year old man who has a huge ego. I believe his eldest daughter and the people around him are the ones who are going to sway him whichever way he goes.

I also will not be surprised if he does not fare well.

Sent from my LG-H345 using RealGM mobile app

I don't care that much about how things turn out for Trump himself. One area where I do wish him luck is navigating the ethical minefield of his business interests and the presidency. While I am hoping for a 1 term Trump presidency, I don't think the damage to the country of an impeachment is worth removing Trump from office.

One scenario I can being somewhat bad for Trump, but good for the country would be for him to tire of being president and not seek a 2nd term.

[closg00]

Hmm. Didn't think Clinton would jump on the recount bandwagon. Think she would avoid the political embarrassment unless she had credible evidence. Something's amiss.

"Anybody not willing to accept the results of an election is a danger to democracy" - Hillary Clinton November 7th on Twitter

Since deleted.

Desperate and delusional, or simply in denial. Even Obama administration has said *today* there was no hacking and elections were fair.

After collecting hundreds of millions in donations from very powerful entities, I suspect she has had intense pressure to exhaust all options since Nov 9th.

Wasn't it Trump who whined throughout the campaign that the election was "rigged"? They would have to take away his Twitter account again if the situation were reversed, his lawyers would have recounts going in every closely contested state and now he is hypocritically whining like a baby. So Thank you Donald, let's find out if your Russian friends were of further assistance to you on November 8th.

[verbal8]

Hmm. Didn't think Clinton would jump on the recount bandwagon. Think she would avoid the political embarrassment unless she had credible evidence. Something's amiss.

"Anybody not willing to accept the results of an election is a danger to democracy" - Hillary Clinton November 7th on Twitter

Since deleted.

Desperate and delusional, or simply in denial. Even Obama administration has said *today* there was no hacking and elections were fair.

After collecting hundreds of millions in donations from very powerful entities, I suspect she has had intense pressure to exhaust all options since Nov 9th.

Wasn't it Trump who whined throughout the campaign that the election was "rigged"? They would have to take away his Twitter account again if the situation were reversed, his lawyers would have recounts going in every closely contested state and now he is hypocritically whining like a baby. So Thank you Donald, let's find out if your Russian friends were of further assistance to you on November 8th.

I read an article it isn't so much that Clinton is supporting the recount as she is making sure she is represented in the recounts.

Trump on the other hand is claiming that Illegal votes caused him to lose the popular vote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/27/donald-trumps-new-explanation-for-losing-the-popular-vote-a-twitter-born-conspiracy-theory/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_fix-trump-tweet-530pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

[closg00]

We have a President who follows and believes fake news, what could go wrong?

[Zonkerbl]

I have mixed feelings about a recount. On the one hand, I think a careful recount will uncover some fundamental flaws in the technology being used now and that would be useful to fix. Having a recount that reaffirms Trump's victory would be a huge waste of time. If the recount overturns Trump's victory that will show we have fundamental, terrifying problems that are waaaaay more important than the actual results of the election. It means our ability to defend ourselves from hackers is so flimsy that a bunch of hate filled 13 year olds can throw our presidential elections. I really, really, really, really, really don't want that to be true.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[nate33]

:dontknow:

Read on Twitter

Read the whole NYTimes article here. There are at least 5 or 6 quotes from various long-term associates who stated adamantly than Bannon is not a racist, white supremacist or anti-Semite. There is one single hearsay quote from the self-admittedly "very liberal" long term associate Julia Jones, who worked with him from the early 90's through 2004, where she said that Bannon once made a remark that the vote should be restricted to property owners and it didn't seem to bother Bannon that such a rule would disproportionately affect blacks. Jones goes on to say that explicitly that "Steve is not a racist".

So Bannon has worked closely with dozens of blacks and Jews, his Breitbart Network was founded and run by Jews, he has several black colleagues who support him completely, and even most of his "enemies" like Ben Shapiro refuse to label him a racist or anti-Semite. But because of one oblique quote, recalled by a self-admitted "very liberal" colleague, that may have taken place up to 23 years ago, we are supposed to believe that Bannon is a raging Nazi.

[Zonkerbl]

If mother Theresa ran breitbart I'd hate her guts for the vile garbage her publication spews into the intertubes.

Doesn't matter if she was anti Semitic or whatever herself.

Don't know what nytimes is trying to accomplish here. Get clicks maybe.