Trump files lawsuit against NY Times

[Revoltingest]

Yes, the distinction is clear. Did anyone claim that he is a dictator because he is using the court to sue for libel?

No.

I don't think anyone has definitively claimed that Trump is a dictator right now. I think the fear is that he will try to use and abuse the system in order to achieve that level of power. Personally, I don't believe that to be the case, although I can see where some might see it that way.

I've read many claims that he aspires to be dictator.
And a few that he already is...the death of democracy & all.

 

[Cooky]

If the inference of your comment is not that it would be unlike dictators to use legal methods to consolidate their power, what did you mean? Offer a reason that would explain why the fact that Trump avails himself of legal means to combat his enemies should tell us that he isn't the wannabe dictator that I think he is.

Is everybody who sues a dictator?

...Seriously, I just want to understand your logic.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is everybody who sues a dictator?

...Seriously, I just want to understand your logic.

I hereby hand that hornet's nest over to you.

 

[Stevicus]

No.

I've read many claims that he aspires to be dictator.
And a few that he already is...the death of democracy & all.

Yeah, I've seen that too. I'll admit that some of it does come off a bit too melodramatic, but that's US politics for you.

But by the same token, the idea of a dictator just doesn't fit in to US politics in any real way.

It was different in Germany and Russia, since they still had their Kaiser and Tsar in recent memory (both titles derived from "Caesar") when Stalin and Hitler took over. So, the idea of a dictator just seemed like the natural thing within the overall political culture of those societies.

But in the US, it just doesn't work. The whole idea of a "dictator" is just so alien to most people's way of thinking.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, I've seen that too. I'll admit that some of it does come off a bit too melodramatic, but that's US politics for you.

But by the same token, the idea of a dictator just doesn't fit in to US politics in any real way.

It was different in Germany and Russia, since they still had their Kaiser and Tsar in recent memory (both titles derived from "Caesar") when Stalin and Hitler took over. So, the idea of a dictator just seemed like the natural thing within the overall political culture of those societies.

But in the US, it just doesn't work. The whole idea of a "dictator" is just so alien to most people's way of thinking.

I agree completely.
But the justification for fearing that Trump is Hitler is that it's better to
be fearful than not. And it's not just the loonies doing this....even NPR
had a segment on how Trump is like Hitler. It's impossible to argue
against preventing Hitler.

I see it as a kind of cheerleading....enuf chanting in the echo chamber
about something makes the something feel real. The troops of the tribe
become unified for all out war against the personification of evil.
Dang....I'm tempted to grab a pitchfork myself.

 

[joe1776]

Going off my recollection. Point me in the right direction and I’ll do a more thorough analysis.

Here are his statements.

(1) So many claim that Trump aspires to be dictator...the next Hitler.
He's destroying democracy...he'll remain in office illegally...etc.
And yet, how many dictators pursue legal remedies in the courts
for libel or slander?

(2) Trump is using usual legal means to address what he believes
to be libel. This does not indicate his being a dictator.

The first offers a bogus reason to deny that Trump is a wannabe dictator. The second, given only after he insisted that the error was mine, states the obvious: that suing people isn't evidence on its own that Trump is a wannabe dictator.

 

[joe1776]

Is everybody who sues a dictator?

...Seriously, I just want to understand your logic.

Read my post 86 addressed to another poster.

 

[joe1776]

I've read many claims that he aspires to be dictator. And a few that he already is...the death of democracy & all.

I make the claim that Trump is a wannabe dictator because dictators throughout history have typically been extremely arrogant men who demand absolute loyalty and obedience from the people they appoint to their inner circle, who cannot be trusted to tell the truth or keep their end of agreements, who seem to think that moral rules exist only for ordinary people and do not apply to them and who get livid when they are accused of making even insignificant errors. Trump fits the personality profile.

Psychiatrists have been publicly saying the same thing.

We're fortunate that our nation's current political situation is unlike Germany's in 1933.

 

[Stevicus]

I agree completely.
But the justification for fearing that Trump is Hitler is that it's better to
be fearful than not. And it's not just the loonies doing this....even NPR
had a segment on how Trump is like Hitler. It's impossible to argue
against preventing Hitler.

I see it as a kind of cheerleading....enuf chanting in the echo chamber
about something makes the something feel real. The troops of the tribe
become unified for all out war against the personification of evil.
Dang....I'm tempted to grab a pitchfork myself.

I guess I find it somewhat mystifying. I mean, I've always been rather cynical about the government; I was raised that way ever since the Nixon era. So, I can understand perfectly why someone would have opposition towards the government. I get that.

But those who are going on and on about "Trump is Hitler" seem to be insinuating that the government has been good all along; it's only Trump who is bad. It's this view that I take issue with.

This relates to a criticism I have regarding how current events and world history are often presented to the people. For example, some people would have us believe that Germany was previously a peaceful, angelic nation of choir boys and choir girls, yet Hitler made a few speeches and somehow magically turned them all into a bunch of rage-driven homicidal maniacs. In other words, the entire focus is solely on the personality of Adolf Hitler, as if nobody else had any responsibility whatsoever.

It's also the same with Trump. It's all about Trump, and no one else.

 

[joe1776]

I guess I find it somewhat mystifying. I mean, I've always been rather cynical about the government; I was raised that way ever since the Nixon era. So, I can understand perfectly why someone would have opposition towards the government. I get that.

But those who are going on and on about "Trump is Hitler" seem to be insinuating that the government has been good all along; it's only Trump who is bad. It's this view that I take issue with.

I don't know how you jumped to that conclusion. Opinions about Trump and opinions about the quality of the government without Trump are unrelated issues.

This relates to a criticism I have regarding how current events and world history are often presented to the people. For example, some people would have us believe that Germany was previously a peaceful, angelic nation of choir boys and choir girls, yet Hitler made a few speeches and somehow magically turned them all into a bunch of rage-driven homicidal maniacs. In other words, the entire focus is solely on the personality of Adolf Hitler, as if nobody else had any responsibility whatsoever. It's also the same with Trump. It's all about Trump, and no one else.

I've never heard anyone make that claim. In my opinion, Germany in 1933 presented a unique opportunity for a dictator to make a power grab that hopefully will never happen again in a nation capable of building a formidable army...

The German people were susceptible because they are human. They have their arrogant side like the rest of us. Hitler's appeal to their arrogant side that they belonged to a Master Race and were therefore entitled to dominate lesser races was eagerly accepted in that day and age. He used other appeals to arrogance as well:

Our nation is superior to theirs!
Our religion is superior to theirs!
Our race is superior to theirs!

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, recently denounced nationalism as being morally wrong. She would have been shot for saying that in 1935.

Trump appeals to the arrogance in American citizens by saying that American interests should always be first; that America's problems are because of immigrants; that white supremacists are good people; and that the positions of Christian evangelicals should be politically supported.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't know how you jumped to that conclusion. Opinions about Trump and opinions about the quality of the government are unrelated issues.

Because the primary focus is on Trump and not on the larger picture. Even here, as you say they're "unrelated issues," you're trying to bring the focus back on Trump and disregard everything else. They're most certainly not "unrelated issues."

I've never heard anyone make that claim.

Really? You've never heard anyone ask "What would happen if you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he rose to power?" Such a question (and usually the answers) make the implied claim that history would have been different if such were to come to pass. Usually, it's implied within the general presentation of how events and individuals are often portrayed, particularly when it comes to pop culture history. (I'm not suggesting that actual historians make such claims, but the political perceptions of the masses don't generally come from historians anyway.)

In my opinion, Germany in 1933 presented a unique opportunity for a dictator to make a power grab that hopefully will never happen again in a nation capable of building a formidable army...

The German people were susceptible because they are human. They have their arrogant side like the rest of us. Hitler's appeal to their arrogant side that they belonged to a Master Race and were therefore entitled to dominate lesser races was eagerly accepted in that day and age. He used other appeals to arrogance as well:

Our nation is superior to theirs!
Our religion is superior to theirs!
Our race is superior to theirs!

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, recently denounced nationalism as being morally wrong. She would have been shot for saying that in 1935.

Maybe, although there was nothing particularly new or unique about Hitler's message, as there have been nationalists in Germany for quite some time, even before Hitler was born. His ideas were already present in their political culture, so the idea of making it all about Hitler or the superficial trappings and symbolism of Nazism tends to miss the point entirely.

It's just part of a general trend in our culture which focuses on symptoms, symbols, and superficialities, while intentionally seeking to avoid the real problem.

Trump appeals to the arrogance in American citizens by saying that American interests should always be first; that America's problems are because of immigrants; that white supremacists are good people; and that the positions of Christian evangelicals should be politically supported.

We probably could have avoided that if Americans' principles had properly shifted towards a more anti-nationalist, anti-patriotic, anti-war, pro-civil rights stance that we briefly flirted with in the 1960s and 70s. Americans themselves chose to reject that, instead embracing a resurgence in patriotism and an even more intensive love of war and capitalism than this country had ever seen before. I would say that Reagan and his robotic followers (which included many Democrats) set us away from our previous ideals and put us on a path which has culminated with Trump. Even Clinton seemed to embrace that ideal.

 

[joe1776]

Because the primary focus is on Trump and not on the larger picture. Even here, as you say they're "unrelated issues," you're trying to bring the focus back on Trump and disregard everything else. They're most certainly not "unrelated issues."

I have an opinion on Trump. I have an opinion about the government that was formed when Trump was not a part of it. I can't imagine why you think those opinions are necessaruly related.

Really? You've never heard anyone ask "What would happen if you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he rose to power?" Such a question (and usually the answers) make the implied claim that history would have been different if such were to come to pass. Usually, it's implied within the general presentation of how events and individuals are often portrayed, particularly when it comes to pop culture history. (I'm not suggesting that actual historians make such claims, but the political perceptions of the masses don't generally come from historians anyway.

You can count me among the many people who think that killing Hitler would have changed the course of history. However, I've never heard anyone make the claim that the German people were blameless and that only a few speeches corrupted them --- as you stated earlier.

Maybe, although there was nothing particularly new or unique about Hitler's message, as there have been nationalists in Germany for quite some time, even before Hitler was born. His ideas were already present in their political culture, so the idea of making it all about Hitler or the superficial trappings and symbolism of Nazism tends to miss the point entirely.

The notion that people generally make it all about Hitler is a strawman argument. I've never heard that claim.

We probably could have avoided that if Americans' principles had properly shifted towards a more anti-nationalist, anti-patriotic, anti-war, pro-civil rights stance that we briefly flirted with in the 1960s and 70s. Americans themselves chose to reject that, instead embracing a resurgence in patriotism and an even more intensive love of war and capitalism than this country had ever seen before. I would say that Reagan and his robotic followers (which included many Democrats) set us away from our previous ideals and put us on a path which has culminated with Trump. Even Clinton seemed to embrace that ideal.

There are people who take the notion of political correctness much too far. They're a pain in the ***. However, there are always going to be people whose latent racism will show itself if given encouragement. Trump own racism as the leader of his country encourages that latent racism and other weak attitudes to surface in American citizens.

 

[ecco]

*Note what Trump is not doing -- Using the government in a fascist, dictatorial way by abusing his position as president... Rather, he's doing it independently like all citizens do.

GOLLY! I guess this is more important to Der Trump than, oh I don't know, running the Country.

But it's really a good thing for two reasons:
I give him less time to actually do anything like running the Country.
It shows that He can be involved in law suits while President. That should set a legal precedent allowing Trumpp to be sued while president.

Win - win.

 

[Revoltingest]

I make the claim that Trump is a wannabe dictator because dictators throughout history have typically been extremely arrogant men who demand absolute loyalty and obedience from the people they appoint to their inner circle, who cannot be trusted to tell the truth or keep their end of agreements, who seem to think that moral rules exist only for ordinary people and do not apply to them and who get livid when they are accused of making even insignificant errors. Trump fits the personality profile.

Psychiatrists have been publicly saying the same thing.

We're fortunate that our nation's current political situation is unlike Germany's in 1933.

We can agree that he has an authitorian streak,
& that he is not an honorable man,

 

[ecco]

But those who are going on and on about "Trump is Hitler" seem to be insinuating that the government has been good all along; it's only Trump who is bad. It's this view that I take issue with.

Not at all. Nixon also put legalities aside to further his presidency.

The difference between then and now is that back then, Republicans in Congress put Country ahead Loyalty to a corrupt president.

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess I find it somewhat mystifying. I mean, I've always been rather cynical about the government; I was raised that way ever since the Nixon era. So, I can understand perfectly why someone would have opposition towards the government. I get that.

I remember that era well. It spawned my hatred of government.
Caution: Curmudgeonerie to follow.
Dang kids these days...they don't know how good they have it.
They whine about getting triggered by some speaker saying something
they disagree with, or not getting free college. But they don't have to
face getting a low draft lottery number, & then going off to kill or be killed
in a poorly managed useless foreign war for an ungrateful public.

But those who are going on and on about "Trump is Hitler" seem to be insinuating that the government has been good all along; it's only Trump who is bad. It's this view that I take issue with.

Aye, Trump isn't the problem.
He's cog in the machinery, & the face of a much larger problem.
His fervent foes forget that he's in office only because someone
arguably even worse was the voters' alternative.

This relates to a criticism I have regarding how current events and world history are often presented to the people. For example, some people would have us believe that Germany was previously a peaceful, angelic nation of choir boys and choir girls, yet Hitler made a few speeches and somehow magically turned them all into a bunch of rage-driven homicidal maniacs. In other words, the entire focus is solely on the personality of Adolf Hitler, as if nobody else had any responsibility whatsoever.

It's also the same with Trump. It's all about Trump, and no one else.

We're fortunate to have a political system which will
survive Trump, just as it survived his predecessors.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would say that Reagan and his robotic followers.....

I wonder about that criticism....
Which President's followers were not robotic?

 

[joe1776]

We can agree that he has an authitorian streak,
& that he is not an honorable man,

That's cool.

I didn't vote for Trump in 2016 because I knew his type. I've dealt with real estate developers and lawyers in my two careers with similar personalities. But I can understand why some people voted for him rather than Hillary.

Hillary represented the establishment and Trump anti-establishment. Voters wanted someone who would shake up the establishment and I don't blame them. Voters didn't realize that Trump was lying about the kind of changes he'd make. Or, maybe they did but most politicians lie.

I hope voters in November realize now that trust is the most important factor in selecting a president. Making deals with people you can't trust is just asking for trouble.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's cool.

I didn't vote for him in 2016 because I knew his type. I've dealt with real estate developers and lawyers in my two careers with similar personalities. But I can understand why some people voted for him rather than Hillary.

I've been in real estate development, & I know that the most
dangerous animal alive is a lawyer...especially an injured lawyer.

Hillary represented the establishment and Trump anti-establishment. Voters wanted someone who would shake up the establishment and I don't blame them. Voters didn't realize that Trump was lying about the kind of changes he'd make. Or, maybe they did but most politicians lie.

I hope voters in November realize now that trust is the most important factor in selecting a president. Making deals with people you can't trust is just asking for trouble.

When running for Prez, Trump was a big unknown.
He has a record in office now. All should consider it.

 

[halbhh]

'There will be more coming': Trump signals additional libel lawsuits after suing New York Times



Well, this should be interesting. It looks like the NY Times is ready to go to court.



Trump campaign files libel suit against New York Times over Russia story

whoa. Must be an interesting piece the NYTimes published!

I'll look it up and read it. Thanks!