Well... it's Trump... again. #47, here we go.

[Swammerdami]

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. How does any of that follow from the post you're responding to?

Where do I start?? Do you think zero equals sixty-five?

 

[Politesse]

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. How does any of that follow from the post you're responding to?

Where do I start?? Do you think zero equals sixty-five?

Well, no. Nor did I say as such.

 

[Swammerdami]

Hitler? Mahatma Gandhi? What the F**k's the difference?

Newsome's proposed gerrrymandering may be strategically useless but I applaud all opposition to fascism.
At this point the "same-same" mentality when comparing the Trumpists destroying American democracy with those opposing the fascist take-over shows complete ignorance of history, and total lack of common-sense. @Politesse : Do you even see a difference between Hitler and Gandhi?

Where do I start?? Do you think zero equals sixty-five?

Well, no. Nor did I say as such.

So your intent is a word-by-word babbling of useless incomplete sentences posing as surrejoinders and sur-surrejoinders, ad infinitum?
That may be de rigueur here at iidb, but include me out.

 

[lostone]

I do not believe this ridiculous excuse Hegpeth has given for the Tuesday meeting of the top brass. I think it is just a cover story and that the real reasons for this meeting are more ominous. We will soon see.

'Pathetic': Military experts rip Pentagon head after reason for generals' meeting revealed

Speculation has been swirling after U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth abruptly ordered roughly 800 top officers from around the globe to return to the U.S. next week for a meeting — with no explanation or agenda provided.“Hegseth’s orders,” The Washington Post reported on Friday in an...

www.alternet.org

 

[bilby]

I do not believe this ridiculous excuse Hegpeth has given for the Tuesday meeting of the top brass. I think it is just a cover story and that the real reasons for this meeting are more ominous.

I completely believe it. It's exactly the kind of clueless middle management horseshit I would expect from the Trump maladministration.

The primary purpose is to demonstrate that Hegseth has the authority to make all these Generals and Admirals do something stupid and pointless. It's straight out of Office Space.

I believe it was Margaret Thatcher who remarked that being in power was like being a lady - If you have to tell people that you are, you aren't.

 

[Swammerdami]

Is there any precedent for today's U.S. government? France during the Reign of Terror qualifies, but what else? Even Hitler didn't surround himself with the very stupidest drunks and crooks he could find the way Trump has done. And of course Hitler was a vigorous and intelligent man who had deep "moral" motives compared with the doddering and narcissistic brat infesting our Oval Office.

I suppose the guiding political "philosophy" of the MAGA movement can be described as a hybrid of kleptocracy, idiocracy, and demonocracy, but the single word kakistocracy may sum up our new form of government, at least using Wikipedia's definition:

Kakistocracy is government by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous people.​

What fills me with doubt and dismay is the degradation of the moral tone. Is it or is it not a result of Democracy? Is ours a 'government of the people by the people for the people,' or a Kakistocracy rather, for the benefit of knaves at the cost of fools?

I do not believe this ridiculous excuse Hegpeth has given for the Tuesday meeting of the top brass. I think it is just a cover story and that the real reasons for this meeting are more ominous. We will soon see.

Hegseth may trot out a new arm salute "Hail to Trump the Beloved" and fire all the generals whose arm extension doesn't pass muster. It won't be quite this blatant, but something along this line won't surprise me.

 

[southernhybrid]

Has anyone mentioned this you can't make this shit up regarding how the little orange toddler went nuts because the escalator stopped after he stepped on it? Who but the orange toddler would get upset over an escalator stopping after he got on. Of course, he's not used to having to deal with stairs and it's been said that it was his own guy who accidentally stopped the escalator. Oh no! That can't be true. It must have been a plot organized by the UN.

https://www.npr.org/2025/09/25/nx-s1-5553272/trump-escalator-united-nations-investigation

President Trump is alleging "triple sabotage" of his speech at the U.N. General Assembly, demanding an investigation into back-to-back mishaps with an escalator, a teleprompter and a sound system — for which the U.N. is at least partially blaming the White House.

"A REAL DISGRACE took place at the United Nations yesterday — Not one, not two, but three very sinister events!" Trump wrote in a Wednesday Truth Social post. "This wasn't a coincidence, this was triple sabotage at the UN. They ought to be ashamed of themselves … No wonder the United Nations hasn't been able to do the job that they were put in existence to do."

Trump visited the U.N.'s headquarters in New York City on Tuesday to speak to a room of world leaders. The trouble began pretty much the moment he stepped on the escalator, just behind first lady Melania Trump.

​

The escalator stopped abruptly mere seconds into their ride, leaving the couple briefly stranded. Video of the incident, which some are calling "Escalatorgate," shows them walking up the rest of the stairs while holding onto the handrails.

A short while later, as Trump took the podium to begin his remarks, he observed that his teleprompter wasn't working. He said he didn't mind, adding that "I can only say that whoever's operating this teleprompter is in big trouble," which drew laughs from the crowd.

 

[lostone]

Is there any precedent for today's U.S. government? France during the Reign of Terror qualifies, but what else? Even Hitler didn't surround himself with the very stupidest drunks and crooks he could find the way Trump has done. And of course Hitler was a vigorous and intelligent man who had deep "moral" motives compared with the doddering and narcissistic brat infesting our Oval Office.

I suppose the guiding political "philosophy" of the MAGA movement can be described as a hybrid of kleptocracy, idiocracy, and demonocracy, but the single word kakistocracy may sum up our new form of government, at least using Wikipedia's definition:

Kakistocracy is government by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous people.​

What fills me with doubt and dismay is the degradation of the moral tone. Is it or is it not a result of Democracy? Is ours a 'government of the people by the people for the people,' or a Kakistocracy rather, for the benefit of knaves at the cost of fools?

I do not believe this ridiculous excuse Hegpeth has given for the Tuesday meeting of the top brass. I think it is just a cover story and that the real reasons for this meeting are more ominous. We will soon see.

Hegseth may trot out a new arm salute "Hail to Trump the Beloved" and fire all the generals whose arm extension doesn't pass muster. It won't be quite this blatant, but something along this line won't surprise me.

The comparison to France gives some reason for us to be hopeful. Aren't we due some Thermidorian response to Trump's excesses, some sort of backlash from the people? As happened in, France in response to the Terror? A rejection of that excess?

 

[Politesse]

Hitler? Mahatma Gandhi? What the F**k's the difference?

Newsome's proposed gerrrymandering may be strategically useless but I applaud all opposition to fascism.

If you actually read my posts before responding to them, you'd already know that I fervently oppose Trump and his fascist project. But the idea that all strategies of countering fascism are equally good or equally effective is wrong. Weakening democratic institutions in order to gain an edge on Trump may advance a single short-term interest, but the long-term cost is serious, and ultimately makes us more vulnerable for a slip into fascist government, and indeed will be give a direct benefit to Trump himself in the 2028 "election" if he needs it. Trump is not the first would-be-dictator to occupy the White House, and he will not be the last. Giving up rights we cannot easily win back just to briefly inconvenience him is not a good trade. Trump is not actually a great leader, but he is a good hype man, and excels at provoking opponents into rash or stupid actions that ultimately benefit his faction and his investors. If you wish to be his enemy, you need to have a backbone, and notice when you're being played. If this action is, as you say, strategically useless, then it is not worth the collective cost.

At this point the "same-same" mentality when comparing the Trumpists destroying American democracy with those opposing the fascist take-over shows complete ignorance of history, and total lack of common-sense.

For Brigid's sake, Swammerdammi. Read before posting. I have never, not in my entire posting career, and certainly not anywhere in this thread said anything remotely supportive of fascism, nor do I oppose anti-fascism. You're the one trying to push me to give up on established law because a powerful leader and his $27 million advertising blitz say it's the right thing to do. Sound familiar? Ever read a history book? The anti-fascists aren't generally then ones saying, "let's set democracy aside while we deal with this Temporary Emergency that never seems to end".

@Politesse : Do you even see a difference between Hitler and Gandhi?

Gandhi had better hair, and never committed genocide directly. Are you being fucking serious, here?

So your intent is a word-by-word babbling of useless incomplete sentences posing as surrejoinders and sur-surrejoinders, ad infinitum?

You're giving me a word salad of bullshit made up probabilities, Hitler, and Ghandi that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and you're complaining that I'm babbling? Your posts don't even follow themselves logically, and they certainly don't logically follow mine. If you want to elevate the tenor of the argument, how about addressing any of the actual, tangible arguments that I made?

 

[ideologyhunter]

Dr. Donald Trump gives advice.

Remember, nothing bad can happen, it can only good happen.

Christ, all we need is Trump as an OB-GYN.
MedStar Washington, 11 a.m.
(Denise is in hospital gown, sitting on exam table. Tap-tap at door. Trump enters.)
Trump: How are we doing this morning?
Denise: Wait, you're -- you're the President.
Trump: Donald J. Trump, twice-elected President of the United States.
Denise: I'm here for an examination.
Trump: I'm here to examine you. Lie back, put your feet in the spurs.
Denise: Wait, where's Doctor Herman?
Trump: I know more than the doctors. Trust me. I know how a woman's body works. Lie back, that's right, feet in the spurs.
Denise: The stirrups?
Trump: Some people say spurs, same thing. Now relax, you're too tense.
Denise: I don't know...
Trump: Examining the Albanias, major and minor. They look fine.
Denise: The Albanias?? The...labia?
Trump: I used the insider's term. Okay. Examining the clittervix.
Denise: Cervix?
Trump: Looks a little messy.
Denise: Doctor Herman treated me for a yeast infection.
Trump: I'd say rabies. You can get it down there if you take Tylenol. Do you take Tylenol? Don't take Tylenol. Don't feed it to your babies. Just don't take Tylenol. Fight like hell not to take Tylenol, unless it's absolutely necessary. Mess you up. Don't take it. Don't mix a drink with it. Don't have it in your house. Don't take Tylenol. I need you to hear me. Don't take Tylenol.
Denise: You just said that, like twenty times.
Trump: Don't take Tylenol. Okay, we're done here. You're a little loose, you might have busted a gasket in there, time will tell.
Denise (sitting up) Are you allowed to do all this?
Trump: Part of my Presidential duties, keeping my finger on the public health. Supreme Court.
Denise: So, you can just...I don't know...examine women, but not have a medical license?
Trump: Ask Billy Bush. (chuckles) Bush!! Have a nice day. Check with the receptionist on the way out.

 

[Swammerdami]

Newsome's proposed gerrrymandering may be strategically useless but I applaud all opposition to fascism.

If you actually read my posts before responding to them,

I DO read your posts. I even clicked LIke! on a recent post on this topic; and followed up here by EXPLICITLY agreeing that "Newsome's proposed gerrrymandering may be strategically useless." It was always your claim that it was MORALLY wrong that was erroneous, and with which I disagreed. Perhaps it is YOU who should work harder to understand the posts you respond to.

The Proposition explicitly calls for the Commission to resume its normal duties in 2031. But you claimed that the chance that the Democrats would follow their own law and do this was ZERO! (Will you need a cite that that is what you wrote?)

This is why I accused you of playing the "same-same" game. Republicans cheat, so you assume Democrats will also.

Perhaps your "ZERO" mention was to make your writing "more colorful." In Politesse-speak, perhaps "ZERO" means "15%." If that's what happened, I'll make these points

• Idiotic opinions are the rule these days, not the exception. It's a poor idea to write "ZERO" as a "colorful" way to express "about 15%." How are we to know that you're kidding?
• Off the top of my head I guessed 70% as the chance the Ds will follow the law, and it's probably higher than that.
• Therefore and more importantly, your assumption that the Dems will certainly find a way to cheat implies that you find the Dems just as anti-democratic as the Trumpists. Others of your remarks have the same implication. This makes your disapproval of Trumpism seem luke-warm and calls into question your political stance.

you'd already know that I fervently oppose Trump and his fascist project.

Of course. We wouldn't be speaking to each other if I thought you were a fascist idiot. Though now, your apparent belief that the Ds are cheaters just like the Rs calls that assumption into question.

But the idea that all strategies of countering fascism are equally good or equally effective is wrong. Weakening democratic institutions in order to gain an edge on Trump may advance a single short-term interest, but the long-term cost is serious, and ultimately makes us more vulnerable for a slip into fascist government, and indeed will be give a direct benefit to Trump himself in the 2028 "election" if he needs it.

Two errors here:
(1) We agree that the California plan may fail STRATEGICALLY, the debate is about morality.
(2) You grossly underestimate the extent to which U.S.G. has already been corrupted and usurped. It's like you're on the Titanic while it's sinking and you're spending your energy writing a letter to British White Star Line to recommend a change in life-boat configuration for the next voyage.

Trump is not the first would-be-dictator to occupy the White House, and he will not be the last.

Interesting. What prior President was comparable?

 

[Politesse]

The Proposition explicitly calls for the Commission to resume its normal duties in 2031. But you claimed that the chance that the Democrats would follow their own law and do this was ZERO! (Will you need a cite that that is what you wrote?)

And I continue to maintain that. All of the reasons they cite as justification now - it's an emergency, we need the power, Trump is a unique evil, Texas started it but we have to finish it, it's temporary until we win back all the branches of government someday, etc - will be just as true in 2030 as they are now, if not more so. They will extend the "temporary" law and make it effectively a permanent law. Which, because the law words things so anemically, probably won't even need another ballot proposition to accomplish.

No, that doesn't mean that both sides are just as bad as Ghandi or whatever, it's just facts. Californians should not vote for Prop 50 unless they are comfortable with it as a permanent change to the law. But then, that is my position on most "temporary emergency measures". History teaches us that power is much easier to seize than to voluntarily relinquish.

 

[Politesse]

Trump is not the first would-be-dictator to occupy the White House, and he will not be the last.

Interesting. What prior President was comparable?

Of those who actually held the office, Roosevelt and Nixon have come the closest to otherthrowing or simply ignoring the democratic process. The latter more so, the more I learn about the Nixon presidency, the more I feel that the largely coincidental scandal and impeachment preserved our Constitutional government more effectively than any Supreme Court case of the same era. It's harder to assess some of the other earlier close calls, because our Constitutional safeguards were much stronger and the White House much more limited before the World Wars. Trump's hero Andrew Jackson surely would have ruled this country as an autocrat, but the idea would have been risible at the time.

 

[Politesse]

Two errors here:
(1) We agree that the California plan may fail STRATEGICALLY, the debate is about morality.
(2) You grossly underestimate the extent to which U.S.G. has already been corrupted and usurped. It's like you're on the Titanic while it's sinking and you're spending your energy writing a letter to British White Star Line to recommend a change in life-boat configuration for the next voyage.

I do not agree that the efficacy of a strategy should be considered irrelevant to morality. But if we're solely talking morality, I also see gerrymandering as a moral wrong in and of itself. I was proud when California voted to take a clear and unequivocal stand against it, making national history, and I'm dismayed to be asked to abandon our principles so soon after we declared them.

Why you think I don't know the government is corrupt is a mystery. We're discussing a proposal to make specific form of corruption legal, in response to another state already having done so. This would not even be up for debate in a healthy democracy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

His idiocy, The Trumpkucker, has turned the USA into a pariah state.

Well, at least they are making it easy to leave. My wife renewed her passport--and the new one just showed up, 5 days after the application. (Mine's still in the mail.)

I renewed my passport a couple years ago. I wish I'd ordered a passport card with it to keep in my wallet.

We did, but more about having ID without an address. Use it to check into a hotel or the like and you don't leave a record of where there's an empty house. I do not think any document you carry on your person would be of much use if you encounter the Gestapo.

 

[crazyfingers]

His idiocy, The Trumpkucker, has turned the USA into a pariah state.

Well, at least they are making it easy to leave. My wife renewed her passport--and the new one just showed up, 5 days after the application. (Mine's still in the mail.)

I renewed my passport a couple years ago. I wish I'd ordered a passport card with it to keep in my wallet.

We did, but more about having ID without an address. Use it to check into a hotel or the like and you don't leave a record of where there's an empty house. I do not think any document you carry on your person would be of much use if you encounter the Gestapo.

Maybe. They can always steal it. But I would feel better. Besides a photo of my passport and birth certificate, and my mom and dad's birth and death certificates on my phone, I have my passport book in a ziplock in the bottom of my rucksack that I take everywhere.

I still wish I had a passport card. And I'm white as they come. 8 and 11 generations of grandparents from Maine and Cape Cod respective.y. Hell, I have 8 Mayflower Ancestors.

 

[Swammerdami]

Trump is not the first would-be-dictator to occupy the White House, and he will not be the last.

Interesting. What prior President was comparable?

Of those who actually held the office, Roosevelt and Nixon have come the closest to otherthrowing or simply ignoring the democratic process. The latter more so, the more I learn about the Nixon presidency, the more I feel that the largely coincidental scandal and impeachment preserved our Constitutional government more effectively than any Supreme Court case of the same era....

One thing that this discussion has demonstrated is that I have a much more pragmatic approach than you do. One might even exaggerate slightly and say that you favor authoritarianism, so long as the authority is The Law™. What would you say about Martin Luther King, Jr. who deliberately broke laws and was arrested 29 times? The same could be said of Gandhi; would you comment on more than his hair?

And the examples you give of other "would-be-dictators occupying the White House" are ridiculous. FDR fought AGAINST Fascism, which was gaining a foothold in the U.S. Nixon did much to temper the excesses of Communist totalitarian regimes.

Franklin Roosevelt did not use his power for personal profit and was never charged with a crime. Like many Presidents he tried to use the power of his office to further the well-being of the Nation to which he had sworn an oath. AFAIK he adhered to the limits placed on his power by Congress and the Supreme Court. He certainly didn't appoint charlatans, criminals and nincompoops to high office. He was the exact opposite of Trump in many MANY ways. That you compare him, even indirectly to Trump is ... unfortunate.

Richard Nixon was also never officially charged with any crime (he was mentioned as an "unindicted co-conspirator") though we can agree he was a "criminal." BUT, again, he did not use his powers for personal profit. He operated unethically against perceived "enemies" but that is NOT the same as attempting to become a dictator. His operations against Daniel Ellsberg were NOT because he thought Ellsberg was an enemy of Nixon, but because he viewed him as a traitor revealing bad behavior of the JFK and LBJ Administrations!

It seems extraordinarily silly to compare Nixon with Trump. In some ways he was a great statesman, responsible for Recognition of China, Détente with the Soviet Union (and SALT), Key moves during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and of course protecting the U.S. Dollar from an attack by France!

There is one "crime" that BOTH your candidates committed. I doubt it is why you chose them as examples, but both FDR and Nixon directed the U.S. Treasury to renege on its promise to sell gold for paper dollars at a fixed price ($20.67 and $35 per troy ounce respectively). THAT is the FDR "crime" that many right-wingers are STILL ranting about, nearly a century later.

To be blunt, your examples stink. You might have done SLIGHTLY better with Andrew Jackson, although historians agree that the quote "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" was apocryphal.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Dr. Donald Trump gives advice.

Remember, nothing bad can happen, it can only good happen.

Tylenol already had a recommendation not to take it while pregnant on the box...

 

[GenesisNemesis]

And the examples you give of other "would-be-dictators occupying the White House" are ridiculous. FDR fought AGAINST Fascism, which was gaining a foothold in the U.S.

Oh come on just because Trump is worse doesn't mean we can ignore FDR's internment camps. Also stop blindly praising presidential figures or putting them on pedestals.

 

[Politesse]

Trump is not the first would-be-dictator to occupy the White House, and he will not be the last.

Interesting. What prior President was comparable?

Of those who actually held the office, Roosevelt and Nixon have come the closest to otherthrowing or simply ignoring the democratic process. The latter more so, the more I learn about the Nixon presidency, the more I feel that the largely coincidental scandal and impeachment preserved our Constitutional government more effectively than any Supreme Court case of the same era....

One thing that this discussion has demonstrated is that I have a much more pragmatic approach than you do. One might even exaggerate slightly and say that you favor authoritarianism, so long as the authority is The Law™. What would you say about Martin Luther King, Jr. who deliberately broke laws and was arrested 29 times? The same could be said of Gandhi; would you comment on more than his hair?

And the examples you give of other "would-be-dictators occupying the White House" are ridiculous. FDR fought AGAINST Fascism, which was gaining a foothold in the U.S. Nixon did much to temper the excesses of Communist totalitarian regimes.

Franklin Roosevelt did not use his power for personal profit and was never charged with a crime. Like many Presidents he tried to use the power of his office to further the well-being of the Nation to which he had sworn an oath. AFAIK he adhered to the limits placed on his power by Congress and the Supreme Court. He certainly didn't appoint charlatans, criminals and nincompoops to high office. He was the exact opposite of Trump in many MANY ways. That you compare him, even indirectly to Trump is ... unfortunate.

Richard Nixon was also never officially charged with any crime (he was mentioned as an "unindicted co-conspirator") though we can agree he was a "criminal." BUT, again, he did not use his powers for personal profit. He operated unethically against perceived "enemies" but that is NOT the same as attempting to become a dictator. His operations against Daniel Ellsberg were NOT because he thought Ellsberg was an enemy of Nixon, but because he viewed him as a traitor revealing bad behavior of the JFK and LBJ Administrations!

It seems extraordinarily silly to compare Nixon with Trump. In some ways he was a great statesman, responsible for Recognition of China, Détente with the Soviet Union (and SALT), Key moves during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and of course protecting the U.S. Dollar from an attack by France!

There is one "crime" that BOTH your candidates committed. I doubt it is why you chose them as examples, but both FDR and Nixon directed the U.S. Treasury to renege on its promise to sell gold for paper dollars at a fixed price ($20.67 and $35 per troy ounce respectively). THAT is the FDR "crime" that many right-wingers are STILL ranting about, nearly a century later.

To be blunt, your examples stink. You might have done SLIGHTLY better with Andrew Jackson, although historians agree that the quote "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" was apocryphal.

You seem confused as to the topic. I was discussing authoritarianism and the strength of Constitutional law. Not whether any of the people mentioned were "good people". That is, or at least should be, irrelevant to the discussion. The definition of authoritarianism is not "being a bad person", but rather the centralization of government powers in a regime, and it is generally popular leaders who are able to do that. I like FDR in many respects, but that doesn't mean his twelve years of barely restrained power did not represent a shift in how Americans think about the White House, and a deterioration of the checks and balances meant to curb the unique projects of the president.

And you know, not everything he did with those novel powers was good. I live ten miles away from one of his concentration camps. They use it to exhibit chicken and geese and stuff these days, for the county fair. In those days, they put children in there as a punishment for belonging to a fundamentally wicked and deceitful race. That seem right to you? And that's just the Japanese kids here! He just straight up melted the faces off the ones in Japan, set their clothes on fire and melted their skin into a red paste. Many instinctively ran for the river to stop the burning, only to find piles of corpses blocking their access at the river's edge, and water that had been made deadly poisonous in manner new to hunan history. Even if you manage to wrangle that into a moral category of "justified by circumstance", if you can actually talk yourself into calling those things "good" we have very different systems of morality.