Are we now in full blown fascist totalitarianism?

[RVonse]

--he pardoned those acting at his command.

You don't know that.

It is more likely they had nothing to do with his command.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The fire is suspicious, that concludes all we know about the fire at this point.

Then why is it ridiculous to observe that the fire is, you know, obviously suspicious?

IT is being

A Judge’s Home Exploded

There's no evidence it was a politically motivated bombing. And that video is cringe conspiracy theory bullshit by some edgelord dork who's watched too many movies, but wouldn't actually fight if needed. There are already enough real things happening that are of grave concern. We don't need this nonsense.

You realize that makes you sound as naive as those who genuinely believe that Putin's critics just so happen to fall deadly ill with rare disases right after saying something that offended him?

Common sense makes it likely

No, common sense says nothing other than newish house burning up is not common.

 

[laughing dog]

He's still replacing the control structures with those loyal to him rather than to the law. But he's not encountering any meaningful opposition in doing so.

How is he doing that? This is stuff I keep hearing but nobody has explained it to me

One recent example is when the DOJ lawyers refused to indict James Comey, because it was obvious to anyone with prosecutorial experience that there was no case, he fired those people and replaced them with his own personal attorney (likely an illegal appointment), who was woefully unqualified for the position. That person then indicted Comey on the flimsiest of charges, which will quite likely be dismissed due to vindictive prosecution if not just for simply using no evidence of a crime.

So, this is exactly a case where he replaced those loyal to the law with someone only loyal to him.

And the Biden administration didn't do this? Or even the Obama administration for that matter?

No, they did not force out career civil servants. There are political appointments and civil service positions. The former serve the POTUS, the latter serve the country.

You mean there weren't Republicans complaining about Obama going after them for taxes? Or even any other administration during my lifetime? You think POTUS appointments are for people loyal with the laws they don't want inforced? Of course they fill these agencies with people who are loyal to them...and that was a big weakness for Trump during his first term because he had not yet had experienced or procured enough politically minded people he could trust.

I greatly despise lawfare. And there was a time when I would even be against Trump for going after Comey. But not anymore. I'm still against lawfare if the Trump administration does it against someone who hasn't yet committed lawfare themselves. But in the case with Comey he has been so dirty with his own lawfare...I'm just fine with it for him. Its still not the correct way to run a government, but what else can Trump do to disincentive people so corrupt as Comey?

Comey deserves everything he gets including all the legal fees and other inconvenience (if he gets off with no prison).

Comey didn’t prosecute anyone - he investigated. So he did not commit “lawfare” And recall, he helped Trump during his first campaign with his well-timed revelations about Hillary Clinton’s email controversy close to the election.

Mr Comey’s alleged corruption pales in comparison to Mr Trump’s proven corruption.

FFS, his administration pressured the director if the Eisenhower Presidential library for refusing to break the law!!! Add that to his felony convictions, his shutdown of the special prosecutor investigation, his pardoning of rioters, etc…

You condone lawfare against those you feel deserve it and despise it when it is against those who you feel don’t. That is not hate but hypocrisy.

 

[Swammerdami]

The inanity, ignorance and stupidity in this thread is ... disappointing. I'll not point fingers at the specific imbeciles -- they know who they are.

I don't know if there's ANY path to progress in discourse here, but the question in thread title begs for a definition of fascism. But coming up with a consensus definition of that word might be like catching a slippery eel with your bare hands.

One Infidel pointed to a Wikipedia page called "Definitions of Fascism" or such and claimed that Trump couldn't be a Fascist because he hasn't resorted to violence. This post demonstrated extreme imbecility on several grounds:

• Said Infidel failed to notice the S in the Wikipedia page's very name: DefinitionS of Fascism. The Wikipedia page gave thirty-four (34) different definitions of Fascism of which only one (1) mentioned violence.
• Even that definition didn't make "violence" a prerequisite; it just mentioned that violence was used by Fascists circa 1930.
• Thirty-two of the 34 definitions didn't mention "violence" at all. The remaining one mentioned only "violent rhetoric", not quite the same as "violence."
• Said Infidel with faulty cognition ignored that Trump has deployed BOTH violent rhetoric and actual violence to further his fascism.

Madeleine Albright, whose smallest toe-nail knows more than all the imbecilic MAGGOT apologists here summed together, gives her own useful definition of fascism in her book titled -- can you guess? -- Fascism.

So ... should we take time out to finally define this word on which we've wasted more than 1300 posts? Perhaps that could be a non-partisan project for which hominins from "both sides of the aisle" could reach out and join in an intellectual cooperation.

 

[RVonse]

He's still replacing the control structures with those loyal to him rather than to the law. But he's not encountering any meaningful opposition in doing so.

How is he doing that? This is stuff I keep hearing but nobody has explained it to me

One recent example is when the DOJ lawyers refused to indict James Comey, because it was obvious to anyone with prosecutorial experience that there was no case, he fired those people and replaced them with his own personal attorney (likely an illegal appointment), who was woefully unqualified for the position. That person then indicted Comey on the flimsiest of charges, which will quite likely be dismissed due to vindictive prosecution if not just for simply using no evidence of a crime.

So, this is exactly a case where he replaced those loyal to the law with someone only loyal to him.

And the Biden administration didn't do this? Or even the Obama administration for that matter?

No, they did not force out career civil servants. There are political appointments and civil service positions. The former serve the POTUS, the latter serve the country.

You mean there weren't Republicans complaining about Obama going after them for taxes? Or even any other administration during my lifetime? You think POTUS appointments are for people loyal with the laws they don't want inforced? Of course they fill these agencies with people who are loyal to them...and that was a big weakness for Trump during his first term because he had not yet had experienced or procured enough politically minded people he could trust.

I greatly despise lawfare. And there was a time when I would even be against Trump for going after Comey. But not anymore. I'm still against lawfare if the Trump administration does it against someone who hasn't yet committed lawfare themselves. But in the case with Comey he has been so dirty with his own lawfare...I'm just fine with it for him. Its still not the correct way to run a government, but what else can Trump do to disincentive people so corrupt as Comey?

Comey deserves everything he gets including all the legal fees and other inconvenience (if he gets off with no prison).

Comey didn’t prosecute anyone - he investigated. So he did not commit “lawfare” And recall, he helped Trump during his first campaign with his well-timed revelations about Hillary Clinton’s email controversy close to the election.

Mr Comey’s alleged corruption pales in comparison to Mr Trump’s proven corruption.

FFS, his administration pressured the director if the Eisenhower Presidential library for refusing to break the law!!! Add that to his felony convictions, his shutdown of the special prosecutor investigation, his pardoning of rioters, etc…

You condone lawfare against those you feel deserve it and despise it when it is against those who you feel don’t. That is not hate but hypocrisy.

Comey did not prosecute anyone yet he did interfere in a POTUS election in a material way. You don't have to be a lawyer in court just to commit lawfare if you are head of the justice department IMO. Lets take (a hopefully unbiased look) at what google AI says:

Former FBI Director James Comey signed three of the four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant applications to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in 2016 and 2017. After a Justice Department Inspector General (IG) report in 2019 identified 17 "significant inaccuracies and omissions" in the FBI's applications, Comey publicly admitted there was "real sloppiness" and said he was "wrong" to have been overconfident in the FBI's procedures.
The FISA warrant controversy
The IG report detailed serious flaws in the FISA warrant process, though it did not find evidence that political bias motivated the overall investigation.

• Reliance on the Steele dossier: The FBI's applications relied heavily on information from the unverified "Steele dossier," while failing to disclose exculpatory information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).
• False claims and omissions: An FBI attorney, Kevin Clinesmith, pleaded guilty to altering an email used in a FISA renewal application for Page, stating that Page was "not a source" for another government agency when he was.
• Comey's admission: Following the report's release, Comey told Fox News Sunday that he was "overconfident" and "wrong" about the FBI's procedures, and conceded there was "real sloppiness".
• Backlash and reform: The IG's findings drew sharp condemnation from the FISC and led to commitments from the Justice Department and FBI to reform their FISA processes and increase oversight.

So Comey even admits he was overconfident and wrong about the FBI's procedures?!! What bullshit!! Comey knew good and well Hillary's dossier was pure crap yet still took (at tax payer expense) the FBI into a kangaroo mission based on it!

That is the spirit of lawfare just as bad as if he were a prosecutor filing charges.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Fascism is a very sinister ideology. Let's pay attention to the actual fascists. They're a much more serious threat

He is a serious enough threat. You think we should wait till he gets full control, impossable to fight? FRACK YOU.

I won't argue with that. But he's not running on a fascist platform. It would then be wrong to call him fascist. Most of his followers aren't fascist. I doubt most Proud Boys are fascist either

It doesn't matter how much he's fascist secretly in his head.

 

[ZiprHead]

He's the president. If he was a racist then he would probably pass racist laws.

Do you not understand how our system works?

The President can't pass laws. If both House and the Senate pass a measure he can sign it, making it law. Or he can veto it, but a 2/3 vote of both House and Senate can override this veto. Is there any democratic system where the top person passes laws??

Then why did we call it "Obama Care"?

It's a nickname created by republicans to slur the ACA.

Damn! Why does this shit need to be explained to you over and over.

Without your technical legalese most of the rest of us probably figured out what DrZoid meant. If Trump was a racist we would have even more racist laws (like affirmative action) even though the POTUS does not technically create these laws he in fact spearheads them.

He's removing black history from national museums. He had the govt web page of the only black medal of honor recipient removed.

 

[ZiprHead]

Comey did not prosecute anyone yet he did interfere in a POTUS election in a material way. You don't have to be a lawyer in court just to commit lawfare if you are head of the justice department IMO. Lets take (a hopefully unbiased look) at what google AI says:

Former FBI Director James Comey signed three of the four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant applications to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in 2016 and 2017. After a Justice Department Inspector General (IG) report in 2019 identified 17 "significant inaccuracies and omissions" in the FBI's applications, Comey publicly admitted there was "real sloppiness" and said he was "wrong" to have been overconfident in the FBI's procedures.
The FISA warrant controversy
The IG report detailed serious flaws in the FISA warrant process, though it did not find evidence that political bias motivated the overall investigation.

• Reliance on the Steele dossier: The FBI's applications relied heavily on information from the unverified "Steele dossier," while failing to disclose exculpatory information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).
• False claims and omissions: An FBI attorney, Kevin Clinesmith, pleaded guilty to altering an email used in a FISA renewal application for Page, stating that Page was "not a source" for another government agency when he was.
• Comey's admission: Following the report's release, Comey told Fox News Sunday that he was "overconfident" and "wrong" about the FBI's procedures, and conceded there was "real sloppiness".
• Backlash and reform: The IG's findings drew sharp condemnation from the FISC and led to commitments from the Justice Department and FBI to reform their FISA processes and increase oversight.

So Comey even admits he was overconfident and wrong about the FBI's procedures?!! What bullshit!! Comey knew good and well Hillary's dossier was pure crap yet still took (at tax payer expense) the FBI into a kangaroo mission based on it!

That is the spirit of lawfare just as bad as if he were a prosecutor filing charges.

How did that interfere in the election if the information about it happening didn't come out until after the election?

There's far more evidence of election interference based on the release of the information about more Hillary emails being found just weeks before the election, something that is prohibited from disclosure by DOJ rules. That did real damage and quite possibly cost her the election.

 

[ZiprHead]

Fascism is a very sinister ideology. Let's pay attention to the actual fascists. They're a much more serious threat

He is a serious enough threat. You think we should wait till he gets full control, impossable to fight? FRACK YOU.

I won't argue with that. But he's not running on a fascist platform. It would then be wrong to call him fascist. Most of his followers aren't fascist. I doubt most Proud Boys are fascist either

It doesn't matter how much he's fascist secretly in his head.

Holy fuck! We have the military invading several US cities based on nothing but the fantasies in Trump's melon.

 

[TomC]

It's a nickname created by republicans to slur the ACA.

Damn! Why does this shit need to be explained to you over and over.

It's more complicated than that.

The basic concepts that the ACA was built on were first proposed by the very Republican institution, Heritage Foundation. It was the Republican alternative to the UHC proposed by the Clinton administration, AKA HillaryCare.
HillaryCare went nowhere, while the federal government was busy investigating a blow job. But the Heritage Foundation plan was instituted, at the state level. This was done by Republican governor Mitt Romney. When Obama proposed it as a national healthcare reform, it suddenly became a Terrible Thing. Because the Republicans were dead set against anything that improved the lives of Americans if Obama and the Democrats could take credit for it.

I honestly believe that the biggest reason Romney lost in 2012 was that the Republicans had made ACA their cause. Romney couldn't say anything important against it without a flood of videos of him extolling every aspect of It. Because he did.

The reason I am a straight ticket Democrat voter is because it's obvious to me that the Republicans have only gotten worse. Anything benefiting American people is "Woke" and must be destroyed.
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

He's still replacing the control structures with those loyal to him rather than to the law. But he's not encountering any meaningful opposition in doing so.

How is he doing that? This is stuff I keep hearing but nobody has explained it to me

One recent example is when the DOJ lawyers refused to indict James Comey, because it was obvious to anyone with prosecutorial experience that there was no case, he fired those people and replaced them with his own personal attorney (likely an illegal appointment), who was woefully unqualified for the position. That person then indicted Comey on the flimsiest of charges, which will quite likely be dismissed due to vindictive prosecution if not just for simply using no evidence of a crime.

So, this is exactly a case where he replaced those loyal to the law with someone only loyal to him.

And the Biden administration didn't do this? Or even the Obama administration for that matter? You mean there weren't Republicans complaining about Obama going after them for taxes? Or even any other administration during my lifetime? You think POTUS appointments are for people loyal with the laws they don't want inforced? Of course they fill these agencies with people who are loyal to them...and that was a big weakness for Trump during his first term because he had not yet had experienced or procured enough politically minded people he could trust.

I greatly despise lawfare. And there was a time when I would even be against Trump for going after Comey. But not anymore. I'm still against lawfare if the Trump administration does it against someone who hasn't yet committed lawfare themselves. But in the case with Comey he has been so dirty with his own lawfare...I'm just fine with it for him. Its still not the correct way to run a government, but what else can Trump do to disincentive people so corrupt as Comey?

Comey deserves everything he gets including all the legal fees and other inconvenience (if he gets off with no prison).

You are welcome to provide examples of Biden or Obama doing this but you don’t just get to assume they did.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem being that in a fundamentally racist society*, such as that of the United States, there are no programs "based purely on meritocracy and performance"; Just programs based on the attititudes and biases of employers and managers.

The "Inclusive programs" you deride are necessary to prevent that underlying racism from coming to the fore, and most of those clamouring for their removal (including the current President) have racist motives for doing so. (The rest are "useful idiots").








* And I use the word 'fundamentally' in both senses; The USA (like South Africa and Australia) was founded on racist ideas and actions; And racism continues to be a driver of much decision making at every level in these nations.

Why do you say we are fundamentally racist? Most people of the current generation are not. What we are seeing is it being resurrected as something to blame to climb to power.

 

[Politesse]

The problem being that in a fundamentally racist society*, such as that of the United States, there are no programs "based purely on meritocracy and performance"; Just programs based on the attititudes and biases of employers and managers.

The "Inclusive programs" you deride are necessary to prevent that underlying racism from coming to the fore, and most of those clamouring for their removal (including the current President) have racist motives for doing so. (The rest are "useful idiots").








* And I use the word 'fundamentally' in both senses; The USA (like South Africa and Australia) was founded on racist ideas and actions; And racism continues to be a driver of much decision making at every level in these nations.

Why do you say we are fundamentally racist? Most people of the current generation are not. What we are seeing is it being resurrected as something to blame to climb to power.

And yet, it's always white people saying shit like this. Usually while trying to justify a tepid or ineffective response to the "return" of racist actions, misinformation, or ideologies. Funny, that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Im not Dr.Zoidberg but to me he is absolutely correct on the hyperbole with the terms directed at Trump. And all this does is cause confusion and even more discourse than necessary. It certainly does not change hearts and minds on the other side in the least. Why the need to call Trump rapist when he has never even been indicted on that charge? And yes there is a serious difference between being called a sexual predator and a rapist.

We call him a rapist because we are satisfied with the evidence that he committed an act which in many states (including mine) meets the definition of rape. He was not charged because of the statute of limitations but it was tried in the civil suit--for him to be guilty of libel means that he's guilty of the underlying act. Yes, it was considered sexual assault in the place it happened but I'm fine with using "rape" as had it happened here it would meet the definition of rape.

Everyone calls Jan 6 "an insurrection" when that event obviously wasn't even remotely close to that. Everyone on the left calls it an insurrection yet no one had guns except for the police. If this was an insurrection how come no one was indicted or found guilty of insurrection? Yet another example of abrasive and caustic language the left chooses to use to further inflame people who should be on the same side of freedom and liberty.

Proving insurrection is much harder than proving the actions that did happen.

And insurrection doesn't have to be a bloody battle. J6 was an attempt to subvert the election, success would have been possible without firing a shot.

The left shoots themselves in the foot more than Barney Fife with all their ridiculous hyperbole.

Calling it ridiculous doesn't make it go away. Countries don't suddenly fall into dictatorship, the systems are undermined. And we see that undermining happening.

 

[crazyfingers]

post hmm. Been trying to reply for an hour.

Nope. It still won't let me quote and provide a URL.

 

[laughing dog]

He's still replacing the control structures with those loyal to him rather than to the law. But he's not encountering any meaningful opposition in doing so.

How is he doing that? This is stuff I keep hearing but nobody has explained it to me

One recent example is when the DOJ lawyers refused to indict James Comey, because it was obvious to anyone with prosecutorial experience that there was no case, he fired those people and replaced them with his own personal attorney (likely an illegal appointment), who was woefully unqualified for the position. That person then indicted Comey on the flimsiest of charges, which will quite likely be dismissed due to vindictive prosecution if not just for simply using no evidence of a crime.

So, this is exactly a case where he replaced those loyal to the law with someone only loyal to him.

And the Biden administration didn't do this? Or even the Obama administration for that matter?

No, they did not force out career civil servants. There are political appointments and civil service positions. The former serve the POTUS, the latter serve the country.

You mean there weren't Republicans complaining about Obama going after them for taxes? Or even any other administration during my lifetime? You think POTUS appointments are for people loyal with the laws they don't want inforced? Of course they fill these agencies with people who are loyal to them...and that was a big weakness for Trump during his first term because he had not yet had experienced or procured enough politically minded people he could trust.

I greatly despise lawfare. And there was a time when I would even be against Trump for going after Comey. But not anymore. I'm still against lawfare if the Trump administration does it against someone who hasn't yet committed lawfare themselves. But in the case with Comey he has been so dirty with his own lawfare...I'm just fine with it for him. Its still not the correct way to run a government, but what else can Trump do to disincentive people so corrupt as Comey?

Comey deserves everything he gets including all the legal fees and other inconvenience (if he gets off with no prison).

Comey didn’t prosecute anyone - he investigated. So he did not commit “lawfare” And recall, he helped Trump during his first campaign with his well-timed revelations about Hillary Clinton’s email controversy close to the election.

Mr Comey’s alleged corruption pales in comparison to Mr Trump’s proven corruption.

FFS, his administration pressured the director if the Eisenhower Presidential library for refusing to break the law!!! Add that to his felony convictions, his shutdown of the special prosecutor investigation, his pardoning of rioters, etc…

You condone lawfare against those you feel deserve it and despise it when it is against those who you feel don’t. That is not hate but hypocrisy.

Comey did not prosecute anyone yet he did interfere in a POTUS election in a material way. You don't have to be a lawyer in court just to commit lawfare if you are head of the justice department IMO. Lets take (a hopefully unbiased look) at what google AI says:

Former FBI Director James Comey signed three of the four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant applications to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in 2016 and 2017. After a Justice Department Inspector General (IG) report in 2019 identified 17 "significant inaccuracies and omissions" in the FBI's applications, Comey publicly admitted there was "real sloppiness" and said he was "wrong" to have been overconfident in the FBI's procedures.
The FISA warrant controversy
The IG report detailed serious flaws in the FISA warrant process, though it did not find evidence that political bias motivated the overall investigation.

• Reliance on the Steele dossier: The FBI's applications relied heavily on information from the unverified "Steele dossier," while failing to disclose exculpatory information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).
• False claims and omissions: An FBI attorney, Kevin Clinesmith, pleaded guilty to altering an email used in a FISA renewal application for Page, stating that Page was "not a source" for another government agency when he was.
• Comey's admission: Following the report's release, Comey told Fox News Sunday that he was "overconfident" and "wrong" about the FBI's procedures, and conceded there was "real sloppiness".
• Backlash and reform: The IG's findings drew sharp condemnation from the FISC and led to commitments from the Justice Department and FBI to reform their FISA processes and increase oversight.

So Comey even admits he was overconfident and wrong about the FBI's procedures?!! What bullshit!! Comey knew good and well Hillary's dossier was pure crap yet still took (at tax payer expense) the FBI into a kangaroo mission based on it!

Let me get this straight. Comey deserves to be “lawfared” for allegedly lying to Congress about the Trump’s campaign alleged ties to Russia because of a sloppy investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.

That is the spirit of lawfare just as bad as if he were a prosecutor filing charges.

No, charges require defense but investigations need not result in any action.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

post hmm. Been trying to reply for an hour.

Nope. It still won't let me quote and provide a URL.

I had this problem before because something in-between the website and my computer were stalling. Try making some text into a link rather than an auto-unfurl link. Like "Click here to read" and then maybe make a paragraph quote from the source without expecting the site to do it. That should give you a workaround.