Trump like Mussolini -- the slow evolution of a dictatorship

[ecco]

That's because they are Americans who have been educated about the problems with dictatorships.

That's really funny. What education about the problems with dictatorships? What high school classes are you referring to. Most Americans believe the Germans in WWII were all dirty atheists.

I saw the question, and it was a set up. They said basically "After you lose this election will you accept a peaceful transition?" His response was basically "I'm not going to lose." He never asserted anything beyond that,

"He never asserted anything beyond that". If that is the extent of your knowledge on the subject, then it is understandable why you are not concerned.


Barr and Trump have been sowing distrust of the election results for quite a while...

Fact check: Echoing Trump, Barr misleads on voter fraud to attack expanded vote-by-mail
Sept. 19, 2020, 5:09 AM EDT
By Jane C. Timm


Attorney General William Barr in recent weeks has made a series of misleading or unfounded claims about the U.S. elections, vote by mail and voter fraud, alarming civil rights advocates who fear his comments will undermine confidence in the election and the rule of law.

Barr’s remarks — ranging from the debunked assertion that mail voting fraud is widespread to warning without evidence that foreign countries could possibly counterfeit ballots — are largely baseless, according to election experts and researchers interviewed by NBC News, and echo falsehoods pushed by President Donald Trump. The president has for months denigrated the increased use of mail voting during the coronavirus pandemic despite having voted by mail himself as recently as August.​

Trump himself said...

Trump's "transfer of power" quote will grab the headlines. But his full statement is way scarier.
At President Trump’s Wednesday evening news conference, a reporter asked the president, “Will you commit to making sure that there is a peaceful transferral of power after the election?”

In normal times, the answer would be obvious. But under Trump, such questions are seemingly designed to elicit an authoritarian response.

“Well, we’re gonna have to see what happens,” Trump replied, echoing his previous unwillingness to state definitively that he would accept the results of the 2020 election. This reply immediately got attention online.

But Trump’s refusal to answer the question wasn’t nearly as scary as what came after.

“Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a peaceful—there won’t be a transfer, frankly,” Trump continued. “There’ll be a continuation.”​

Are you OK with getting rid of the ballots? I remember four years ago he asked Putin/Wikileaks to release emails. Damaging emails were released.

Who is going to get rid of the ballots? Trump supporters who don't think he is authoritarian?



Perhaps you are not familiar with what his chief of staff said to CBS last Friday.

Meadows made several references to election problems and the fairness of the voting.

When asked specifically if Trump would accept the results of the election, Meadows responded: ..."and that the winner on November 3rd"...

Meadows is very much aware that all the mail-in ballots will not be counted by November 3rd. The Trump campaign is quite certain that most of the in-person votes will be for Trump.

Source:

You can believe what you want, but, in the future, you cannot honestly say...

His response was basically "I'm not going to lose." He never asserted anything beyond that​

They excuse him and overlook these, but they don't believe in authoritarian government.

Millions excused Mussolini.

 

[Brickjectivity]

That's really funny. What education about the problems with dictatorships? What high school classes are you referring to. Most Americans believe the Germans in WWII were all dirty atheists.




"He never asserted anything beyond that". If that is the extent of your knowledge on the subject, then it is understandable why you are not concerned.


Barr and Trump have been sowing distrust of the election results for quite a while...

Fact check: Echoing Trump, Barr misleads on voter fraud to attack expanded vote-by-mail
Sept. 19, 2020, 5:09 AM EDT
By Jane C. Timm


Attorney General William Barr in recent weeks has made a series of misleading or unfounded claims about the U.S. elections, vote by mail and voter fraud, alarming civil rights advocates who fear his comments will undermine confidence in the election and the rule of law.

Barr’s remarks — ranging from the debunked assertion that mail voting fraud is widespread to warning without evidence that foreign countries could possibly counterfeit ballots — are largely baseless, according to election experts and researchers interviewed by NBC News, and echo falsehoods pushed by President Donald Trump. The president has for months denigrated the increased use of mail voting during the coronavirus pandemic despite having voted by mail himself as recently as August.​

Trump himself said...

Trump's "transfer of power" quote will grab the headlines. But his full statement is way scarier.
At President Trump’s Wednesday evening news conference, a reporter asked the president, “Will you commit to making sure that there is a peaceful transferral of power after the election?”

In normal times, the answer would be obvious. But under Trump, such questions are seemingly designed to elicit an authoritarian response.

“Well, we’re gonna have to see what happens,” Trump replied, echoing his previous unwillingness to state definitively that he would accept the results of the 2020 election. This reply immediately got attention online.

But Trump’s refusal to answer the question wasn’t nearly as scary as what came after.

“Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a peaceful—there won’t be a transfer, frankly,” Trump continued. “There’ll be a continuation.”​

Are you OK with getting rid of the ballots? I remember four years ago he asked Putin/Wikileaks to release emails. Damaging emails were released.

Who is going to get rid of the ballots? Trump supporters who don't think he is authoritarian?



Perhaps you are not familiar with what his chief of staff said to CBS last Friday.

Meadows made several references to election problems and the fairness of the voting.

When asked specifically if Trump would accept the results of the election, Meadows responded: ..."and that the winner on November 3rd"...

Meadows is very much aware that all the mail-in ballots will not be counted by November 3rd. The Trump campaign is quite certain that most of the in-person votes will be for Trump.

Source:

You can believe what you want, but, in the future, you cannot honestly say...

His response was basically "I'm not going to lose." He never asserted anything beyond that​

Millions excused Mussolini.

I appreciate your post. Thirty years ago a lot of people probably did think that the Nazis were atheists, but partly contrary to your opinion I think most Americans don't just think that the Nazis were dirty atheists and understand there was a progression of loss of freedoms and are concerned about things like that happening here. The #1 most obvious is public concern (and mutual Party dismissal of that concern) over the Patriot Act. In general people worry this is not good.

The public views this as alarming, and it is. The parties, however, support it with their votes. They support lots of foreign wars and interventions. They support our global empire. They oppose restructuring our national police force. They distrust the public increasingly. They oppose more realistic tax structures and spending. The public is well aware that freedoms have been lost in an advancing fashion and discusses it often. The parties ignore this and downplay it.

Thing is, Democrats think Republicans don't know about the encroaching loss of freedoms. That's unfortunate. Your comments reinforce this. Republicans think Democrats want an encroaching loss of freedoms. That's also unfortunate. Everybody pretty much wants the same things...ballpark. Its mostly just ignorance of the other side that's hurting us enabling parties to pit Americans against each other. This is their fight, not ours, not really.

Trump's refusal to answer the question. Not good. I agree its not good, but that's all. Its not surprising, nor do I think he can create any problems that the parties can't either quell or fan into flames.

 

[ecco]

most Americans ... understand there was a progression of loss of freedoms

Most Americans have no idea about what led up to Hitler.

What Americans Know About the Holocaust​

Fewer than half of Americans (43%), however, know that Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany through a democratic political process.
​

most Americans are concerned about things like that happening here.

Sure. They don't want Hitler. But they (Trump Republicans) are OK with an authoritarian person who lies and intimidates to get what he wants.

Thing is, Democrats think Republicans don't know about the encroaching loss of freedoms. That's unfortunate. Your comments reinforce this.

That is not at all unfortunate. What's unfortunate is that they (Trump Republicans) are OK with an authoritarian person who lies and intimidates to get what he wants.

Its not surprising, nor do I think he can create any problems that the parties can't either quell or fan into flames.

The Republicans in Congress have shown no signs of reigning him in. Not even people like Cruz. Trump accused Cruz's father of being complicit in the murder of JFK, yet Cruz now licks his boots.


I don't share your optimism about Trump and I don't share your confidence in (half of) the American people.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Most Americans have no idea about what led up to Hitler.

What Americans Know About the HolocaustFewer than half of Americans (43%), however, know that Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany through a democratic political process.

Thanks for the citation. We have polls on RF, and the most common complaint (even with five or more options) is that there aren't enough choices. Notice the Pew question is vague, and that could explain why 28% say 'Not sure' while 25% say 'by violently overthrowing the government' which is partially correct. The Hitler takeover wasn't an entirely peaceful process. It was mixed. Why didn't that 43% mark 'violent'? Maybe because it wasn't entirely violent and was partially democratic? Maybe if there had been an option that said 'Both' you'd have seen 71%.

That is not at all unfortunate. What's unfortunate is that they (Trump Republicans) are OK with an authoritarian person who lies and intimidates to get what he wants.

You still think there is a best person to vote for. Trump doesn't do it as politely, plus he seems crazy, but don't try to tell me Democrat nominees aren't intimidating and liars barely hanging onto reality. Remember how Biden swung his weight around in Ukraine. This election appears to be about political planks but is not even about that. The Democrats and Republicans won't compromise, because they don't need to. If they did they could swing the vote towards center. At the party level this election seems to be just a lottery or game: your life as a game and mine, and the crap comes down from the top. None of us knows who will win, and that is how the parties like it.

You are Ok with the above? You have no problem whatsoever with an intimidating liar becoming president so long as its a Democrat? You are so different from Republican voters!

That is not at all unfortunate. What's unfortunate is that they (Trump Republicans) are OK with an authoritarian person who lies and intimidates to get what he wants.

Yes, that's so terrible. ONLY REPUBLICANS would ever fall for such a terrible trap.

The Republicans in Congress have shown no signs of reigning him in. Not even people like Cruz. Trump accused Cruz's father of being complicit in the murder of JFK, yet Cruz now licks his boots.

Thank your sweet luck that Cruz isn't the president. He'd have done everything Trump did but more effectively. He'd have dismantled all of Obama's changes, silenced the BLM protests quietly. We'd be in new wars, and you'd have prayer in school, creationism mandated in school, abortion bans, taxes paying for churches and more government surveillance. The only difference would be you'd like him more.

I don't share your optimism about Trump and I don't share your confidence in (half of) the American people.

I'm not optimistic about Trump, either. I just don't think he could become a dictator without getting himself killed, first. Not here. We'll put up with only so much.

 

[ecco]

Remember how Biden swung his weight around in Ukraine.

No, I don't remember. Please explain it to me in your own words with supporting docs.

Trump doesn't do it as politely, plus he seems crazy, but don't try to tell me Democrat nominees aren't intimidating and liars

Trump is the only politician in history with so many lies - 20,000 and counting. No one is even close.

Thank your sweet luck that Cruz isn't the president.

I wasn't talking about Cruz becoming President. I commented on the fact that Trump accused his father of being complicit in the assination of JFK. I commented on how spineless Cruz caved to Trump.

Thank your sweet luck that Cruz isn't the president. He'd have done everything Trump did but more effectively. He'd have dismantled all of Obama's changes, silenced the BLM protests quietly. We'd be in new wars, and you'd have prayer in school, creationism mandated in school, abortion bans, taxes paying for churches and more government surveillance. The only difference would be you'd like him more.

That's your unsubstantiated opinion.

I'm not optimistic about Trump, either. I just don't think he could become a dictator without getting himself killed, first. Not here. We'll put up with only so much.

It really depends on how you define dictator. Moa and Kim openly had opposition members executed. Putin does it discretely. None of the three called themselves dictators.

The Supreme Court soon will be stacked to do Trump's bidding. The Senate has refused Trump almost nothing. If he were to get a Repub majority in the House, what would there be to stop him from doing most anything? It seems that, in your mind, if he doesn't call himself Dictator Trump, he isn't one. Dare I say, that's very naive.

 

[Brickjectivity]

No, I don't remember. Please explain it to me in your own words with supporting docs.

I'm not making this up. Here's a 1 minute youtube video where he talks about it on camera. His son was involved in something questionable in Ukraine, and so Senator Biden used political threats to get the prosecutor fired. The only redeeming factor is that its his own son, however its not redeeming enough to excuse him like the Democrats do. He is just as potentially dangerous, and you can believe he'll break rules if it favors him. I do. I expect it. The fact you think Trump is more dangerous...well its a mistake to think so. They are both. How long has Biden been seeking this position? A long time.

It really depends on how you define dictator. Moa and Kim openly had opposition members executed. Putin does it discretely. None of the three called themselves dictators.

The Supreme Court soon will be stacked to do Trump's bidding. The Senate has refused Trump almost nothing. If he were to get a Repub majority in the House, what would there be to stop him from doing most anything? It seems that, in your mind, if he doesn't call himself Dictator Trump, he isn't one. Dare I say, that's very naive.

All of the dictators you've referred to are warhawks. Remember too that Trump has been in for four years without starting any new wars while Biden has a record of being a warhawk, and Trump had no government experience before his presidency.

One supreme court judge has been replaced and only because of a natural death. The other eight judges are a continuation of previous administrations, so the court is not stacked "To do Trump's bidding." No, its not going to just rubber stamp him like the Republican Senate did.

 

[ecco]

His son was involved in something questionable in Ukraine,

What Were The Bidens Doing In Ukraine? 5 Questions Answered

2. What role did Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden play in Ukraine?

In the spring of 2014, as Joe Biden began his trips to Ukraine, Hunter Biden took a position on the board of the country's largest private gas company, Burisma. He was reportedly paid up to $50,000 a month.

The question of a possible conflict of interest — with Hunter Biden profiting in a country where his father was actively working with the government — was raised publicly at the time.​

Senator Biden used political threats to get the prosecutor fired

I asked for specifics, in your own words, as to what Biden did wrong. I guess you think the vague assertions quoted above meet that criteria. They don't.

I asked for documentation to support your allegations. You provided nothing.
The following is excerpted from an NPR article.

What Were The Bidens Doing In Ukraine? 5 Questions Answered

​

1. So what did Joe Biden do in Ukraine?

Ukraine had a revolution in February 2014...pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych ... fled to Russia

A pro-Western president, Petro Poroshenko, took over. But they [European governments and international institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.]were all concerned about the country's endemic corruption

Also, the Obama administration actually supported investigations into corruption.

This is what Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, are suggesting. But they have not provided evidence of illegal actions. Multiple fact checks have called Trump's accusations of corruption by the Bidens misleading.

Joe Biden has actually boasted about his work in Ukraine as a spokesperson for the White House and the West generally. He called for the ouster of the top Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, for what was widely seen as his failure to investigate corruption.

At an event at the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018, Biden said that on one of his many trips to Ukraine, he told the country's leaders that they had to get rid of the prosecutor if they wanted $1 billion in U.S. aid.


The prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, was dismissed by Ukraine's parliament on March 29, 2016.

4. How do Trump and his supporters see Joe Biden's work?

They argue that Joe Biden wanted the prosecutor ousted to protect his son from being investigated. But there has been no evidence of wrongdoing, and Joe Biden was tasked as vice president with helping to weed out corruption in Ukraine.

The key figure in pushing the corruption narrative appears to be Giuliani.

"My qualifications and work are being attacked by Rudy Giuliani and his minions for transparent political purposes," Hunter Biden said in a statement at the time.

​

So, your "accusation"...
Brickjectivity said: ↑

Senator Biden used political threats to get the prosecutor fired
...is somewhat true.​

The Vice President, as an official representative of the United States, told the new leaders of Ukraine that they had to clean up corruption if they expected to get $1 billion in U.S. aid.


Why do you have a problem with that?

​

 

[Brickjectivity]

What Were The Bidens Doing In Ukraine? 5 Questions Answered

2. What role did Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden play in Ukraine?

In the spring of 2014, as Joe Biden began his trips to Ukraine, Hunter Biden took a position on the board of the country's largest private gas company, Burisma. He was reportedly paid up to $50,000 a month.

The question of a possible conflict of interest — with Hunter Biden profiting in a country where his father was actively working with the government — was raised publicly at the time.​

I asked for specifics, in your own words, as to what Biden did wrong. I guess you think the vague assertions quoted above meet that criteria. They don't.

I asked for documentation to support your allegations. You provided nothing.
The following is excerpted from an NPR article.

What Were The Bidens Doing In Ukraine? 5 Questions Answered

​

1. So what did Joe Biden do in Ukraine?

Ukraine had a revolution in February 2014...pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych ... fled to Russia

A pro-Western president, Petro Poroshenko, took over. But they [European governments and international institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.]were all concerned about the country's endemic corruption

Also, the Obama administration actually supported investigations into corruption.

This is what Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, are suggesting. But they have not provided evidence of illegal actions. Multiple fact checks have called Trump's accusations of corruption by the Bidens misleading.

Joe Biden has actually boasted about his work in Ukraine as a spokesperson for the White House and the West generally. He called for the ouster of the top Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, for what was widely seen as his failure to investigate corruption.

At an event at the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018, Biden said that on one of his many trips to Ukraine, he told the country's leaders that they had to get rid of the prosecutor if they wanted $1 billion in U.S. aid.


The prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, was dismissed by Ukraine's parliament on March 29, 2016.

4. How do Trump and his supporters see Joe Biden's work?

They argue that Joe Biden wanted the prosecutor ousted to protect his son from being investigated. But there has been no evidence of wrongdoing, and Joe Biden was tasked as vice president with helping to weed out corruption in Ukraine.

The key figure in pushing the corruption narrative appears to be Giuliani.

"My qualifications and work are being attacked by Rudy Giuliani and his minions for transparent political purposes," Hunter Biden said in a statement at the time.
​

So, your "accusation"...
Brickjectivity said: ↑

Senator Biden used political threats to get the prosecutor fired
...is somewhat true.​

The Vice President, as an official representative of the United States, told the new leaders of Ukraine that they had to clean up corruption if they expected to get $1 billion in U.S. aid.


Why do you have a problem with that?

​

I must recant my accusation and thank you for dispelling a harmful rumor! Indeed it is a relief, because they had me thinking he was dirty.

 

[ecco]

One supreme court judge has been replaced and only because of a natural death.

Seriously?

United States Supreme Court - Trump

Neil Gorsuch Nominated February 1, 2017 Confirmed April 7, 2017 Sworn in April 10, 2017
Brett Kavanaugh Nominated July 10, 2018 Confirmed October 6, 2018 Sworn in October 6, 2018
Amy Coney Barrett Nominated September 29, 2020

​

Two confirmed. Barrett will be confirmed by the Senate.

How is it you don't know this?

 

[Valjean]

l bet a lot of people at this point wish they'd taken Sanders more seriously.

 

[metis]

l bet a lot of people at this point wish they'd taken Sanders more seriously.

I've long taken him seriously, and I still do. However, since he's not running, I'll vote for Joe.