In my neighbourhood a couple recently moved in - it's largely an area for families, but these guys don't have any kids, but are still living near a school. The curtains are almost always drawn, the man is often seen walking by the school (clearly he doesn't have a job) and the woman always leaves and arrives under cover of darkness, covered in mud. Should I report them for being the next Fred and Rose West / equivalent pair of killers for an American audience?
I doubt the police would take me seriously, but Hell, maybe I should turn myself in anyway
[Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The problem with trying to ascribe either specifically racist/fascist notions or (alternatively) benefits of the doubt to many (not all) of Trump's statements is that he's sort of invented a new kind of dogwhistle. If he were a more sophisticated (or maybe I just mean traditional) orator, he'd be doing regular dogwhistling, where troubling statements are disguised in other language that then become shibboleths for the in-crowd. But he either doesn't know how to do that or isn't interested in it, and it doesn't match his style anyway, which seems to be much more improvisational and stream-of-consciousness. Instead he makes statements that are either ambiguous or totally vague and leaves it to the listener to fill in the gaps with either hatemongering or innocuousness, depending on the perspective of the audience. It's Schroedinger's dogwhistling.
This is why, for instance, people in this thread interpreted the "People move into a house a block down the road, you know who’s going in" quote variably as referring to either Mexicans, blacks, Muslims, terrorists, or young people.
See also the time he got away with not-quite-saying Megyn Kelly was just mad at him because she was on the rag by saying there was blood coming out of her "wherever", or the time he was unfairly maligned for saying Megyn Kelly was mad enough at him to shoot blood out of her "wherever", depending on your point of view.
Of course he's said and done many explicitly terrible things; but also an interesting number of vague/ambiguous things that lets him play to multiple intended audiences, lets him pander to racists (and antagonize the left for fun and media exposure) while providing supporters with enough linguistic cover that they can argue with a straight face that Trump was just talking about what to do when obvious terrorists move in next door.
This is absolutely deliberate on Trump's part. It's cynical, but a natural progression of Goldwater's famous advice.
“Shallow campaigns that depend on bombast and divisive rhetoric do not succeed in New Hampshire, and I don’t expect that they will now,” Horn told the Boston Globe about billionaire Donald Trump, whom the Globe noted holds a “commanding lead” in her state, in a phone interview on the day before Thanksgiving.
“In New Hampshire, historically, the truth is, people really don’t make their final decisions until very, very close until Election Day,” Horn added.
Uh huh, polls don't matter at this point, the usual.
“People are probably underestimating [New Jersey Governor] Chris Christie. And, certainly, [former Florida governor Jeb] Bush is working very, very hard in New Hampshire,” Horn was quoted as saying.
The Globe wrote that Horn also, in their interview, was “noting that U.S. Senator Marco Rubio has been climbing in state polls.”
Horn further attacked the voters who attend Trump’s rallies.
“Big rallies are a lot of fun, but in New Hampshire voters are looking to have that real conversation with a candidate,” Horn said.
Chris Christie and Jeb? Seriously? At least say Rubio, that's more belieavable.
So, the guy that leads Trump's campaign on NH, Steve Stepanek, called for her head:
“It doesn’t matter if it’s Donald Trump or Ted Cruz or anyone else,” Stepanek told WMUR.com. “I’d still be calling for her resignation because she is violating the bylaw and hurting the Republican Party of New Hampshire and the New Hampshire primary.”
Basically, what the Trump guy is saying that the chairwoman of the GOP on a state is supposed to be a neutral party on the primary, and Horn is pretty much about anybody but Trump. It goes for a while, Horn has critiziced some of Trump's more outrageous statements, and the Trump team firing back.
I'm not sure why you would call the police about young people living in the suburbs.
If you ain't a family, get out?
I actually had this exact thing happen to me.
In college, I moved in with some friends to a house in a moderately wealthy gated community full of the kinds of people who think they're all a lot richer than they actually are.
We were the only non-family house in the area, but we are all in grad school, so we kept it quiet and low key. We followed the HOA rules, we never threw a single party, and we kept the house in good condition.
We had the cops and HOA called on us constantly. We would wake to find parking stickers on our cars that are parked completely normally. We would receive notices that our grass was too high the day after we mowed it. Meanwhile, houses around us would be throwing parties and get-togethers (like people do, I'm not saying there is or was anything wrong with their parties) and nobody ever said a damn peep about them.
I'm not sure why you would call the police about young people living in the suburbs.
If you ain't a family, get out?
I actually had this exact thing happen to me.
In college, I moved in with some friends to a house in a moderately wealthy gated community full of the kinds of people who think they're all a lot richer than they actually are.
We were the only non-family house in the area, but we are all in grad school, so we kept it quiet and low key. We followed the HOA rules, we never threw a single party, and we kept the house in good condition.
We had the cops and HOA called on us constantly. We would wake to find parking stickers on our cars that are parked completely normally. We would receive notices that our grass was too high the day after we mowed it. Meanwhile, houses around us would be throwing parties and get-togethers (like people do, I'm not saying there is or was anything wrong with their parties) and nobody ever said a damn peep about them.
So yes, if you ain't a family get out.
But it's fine, I'm sure your neighbors had very pressing concerns that were ameliorated by constantly reporting you to the authorities. Even though they were always wrong, it's okay. Keep fighting the good fight, suburbia.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
The New York Times is angry that Donald Trump mocked one of its reporters who has a physical disability.
Trump waved his arms in an awkward manner to lampoon Serge Kovaleski at a rally in South Carolina Tuesday night. Kovaleski has a chronic condition called arthrogryposis, which limits the movement of his arms.
[...]
Trump used an exaggerated voice and arm action as he pretended to be Kovaleski.
"Now the poor guy, you've got to see this guy: 'Uhh, I don't know what I said. I don't remember.' He's going, 'I don't remember. Maybe that's what I said,' " Trump said.
The New York Times is angry that Donald Trump mocked one of its reporters who has a physical disability.
Trump waved his arms in an awkward manner to lampoon Serge Kovaleski at a rally in South Carolina Tuesday night. Kovaleski has a chronic condition called arthrogryposis, which limits the movement of his arms.
[...]
Trump used an exaggerated voice and arm action as he pretended to be Kovaleski.
"Now the poor guy, you've got to see this guy: 'Uhh, I don't know what I said. I don't remember.' He's going, 'I don't remember. Maybe that's what I said,' " Trump said.
The New York Times is angry that Donald Trump mocked one of its reporters who has a physical disability.
Trump waved his arms in an awkward manner to lampoon Serge Kovaleski at a rally in South Carolina Tuesday night. Kovaleski has a chronic condition called arthrogryposis, which limits the movement of his arms.
[...]
Trump used an exaggerated voice and arm action as he pretended to be Kovaleski.
"Now the poor guy, you've got to see this guy: 'Uhh, I don't know what I said. I don't remember.' He's going, 'I don't remember. Maybe that's what I said,' " Trump said.
He's a high school bully jock running for student body president.
I'm pretty sure that the only difference between the high school bully jock and a fascist is the level of power that they office they're running for happens to hold.
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
The New York Times is angry that Donald Trump mocked one of its reporters who has a physical disability.
Trump waved his arms in an awkward manner to lampoon Serge Kovaleski at a rally in South Carolina Tuesday night. Kovaleski has a chronic condition called arthrogryposis, which limits the movement of his arms.
[...]
Trump used an exaggerated voice and arm action as he pretended to be Kovaleski.
"Now the poor guy, you've got to see this guy: 'Uhh, I don't know what I said. I don't remember.' He's going, 'I don't remember. Maybe that's what I said,' " Trump said.
The New York Times is angry that Donald Trump mocked one of its reporters who has a physical disability.
Trump waved his arms in an awkward manner to lampoon Serge Kovaleski at a rally in South Carolina Tuesday night. Kovaleski has a chronic condition called arthrogryposis, which limits the movement of his arms.
[...]
Trump used an exaggerated voice and arm action as he pretended to be Kovaleski.
"Now the poor guy, you've got to see this guy: 'Uhh, I don't know what I said. I don't remember.' He's going, 'I don't remember. Maybe that's what I said,' " Trump said.
He's a high school bully jock running for student body president.
I'm pretty sure that the only difference between the high school bully jock and a fascist is the level of power that they office they're running for happens to hold.
Except you don't need to hold office to continue being a bully. His entire thing is punching down and attacking targets that can't or won't fight back. And if they do, he falls back to 'I know you are but what am I?'
His whole thing at this point is a massive 'Why are you hitting yourself?' To the media and to the voters.
The New York Times is angry that Donald Trump mocked one of its reporters who has a physical disability.
Trump waved his arms in an awkward manner to lampoon Serge Kovaleski at a rally in South Carolina Tuesday night. Kovaleski has a chronic condition called arthrogryposis, which limits the movement of his arms.
[...]
Trump used an exaggerated voice and arm action as he pretended to be Kovaleski.
"Now the poor guy, you've got to see this guy: 'Uhh, I don't know what I said. I don't remember.' He's going, 'I don't remember. Maybe that's what I said,' " Trump said.
He's a high school bully jock running for student body president.
I'm pretty sure that the only difference between the high school bully jock and a fascist is the level of power that they office they're running for happens to hold.
Except you don't need to hold office to continue being a bully. His entire thing is punching down and attacking targets that can't or won't fight back. And if they do, he falls back to 'I know you are but what am I?'
His whole thing at this point is a massive 'Why are you hitting yourself?' To the media and to the voters.
And a frightening number of people think this is what being a strong leader looks like
Or we could be more charitable and say that if the people moving in are really out of step for the area, like a group of young men in a suburb that is all families and they keep to themselves and have larges numbers of people coming and going, that vague suspicion should be enough to go on, instead of letting it sit in the back of your mind but not calling.
That's not what Trump said. He stated:
“People move into a house a block down the road, you know who’s going in,” Trump continued. “You can see and you report them to the local police. You’re pretty smart, right?”
Trump is referring to people moving in to a house and calling the police based on how they look. There is not a charitable way to interpret that. Especially not coming from the man calling most illegal immigrants rapists and thieves, lying that he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey, and posts made up statistics claiming African Americans are responsible for the vast majority of white homicides. Pretending this time he's totally not being racist is opting to ignore reality.
Why are you stopping before the most important line:
We know if there’s something going on, report them. Most likely you’ll be wrong, but that’s OK.
Something going on is the key phrase in my mind. I read his statement as a call to err on the side or reporting something suspicious, not an instruction to call in all minorities moving in.
That something being the suspicious people moving in to a house. Which is what Trump was talking about. Please stop trying to change what he was referring to. If you think it's okay to call the cops because you're suspicious of the people moving in to their home, which is what Trump suggested, feel free to defend why. But stop making up what you want him to have actually said.
+9
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Or we could be more charitable and say that if the people moving in are really out of step for the area, like a group of young men in a suburb that is all families and they keep to themselves and have larges numbers of people coming and going, that vague suspicion should be enough to go on, instead of letting it sit in the back of your mind but not calling.
That's not what Trump said. He stated:
“People move into a house a block down the road, you know who’s going in,” Trump continued. “You can see and you report them to the local police. You’re pretty smart, right?”
Trump is referring to people moving in to a house and calling the police based on how they look. There is not a charitable way to interpret that. Especially not coming from the man calling most illegal immigrants rapists and thieves, lying that he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey, and posts made up statistics claiming African Americans are responsible for the vast majority of white homicides. Pretending this time he's totally not being racist is opting to ignore reality.
Why are you stopping before the most important line:
We know if there’s something going on, report them. Most likely you’ll be wrong, but that’s OK.
Something going on is the key phrase in my mind. I read his statement as a call to err on the side or reporting something suspicious, not an instruction to call in all minorities moving in.
That something being the suspicious people moving in to a house. Which is what Trump was talking about. Please stop trying to change what he was referring to. If you think it's okay to call the cops because you're suspicious of the people moving in to their home, which is what Trump suggested, feel free to defend why. But stop making up what you want him to have actually said.
You are not Donald Trump so you are not the final arbiter of an ambiguous statement made by him. I disagree that the statement means to just call people in for being non-white. That is an abhorrent view and if it is what he meant then it is despicable. But if we follow what I think is the more obvious reading, then he is saying that if you see something a little bit suspicious then call it in, instead of erring on the side of not calling it in at all. I think that is a reasonable and positive message.
Or we could be more charitable and say that if the people moving in are really out of step for the area, like a group of young men in a suburb that is all families and they keep to themselves and have larges numbers of people coming and going, that vague suspicion should be enough to go on, instead of letting it sit in the back of your mind but not calling.
That's not what Trump said. He stated:
“People move into a house a block down the road, you know who’s going in,” Trump continued. “You can see and you report them to the local police. You’re pretty smart, right?”
Trump is referring to people moving in to a house and calling the police based on how they look. There is not a charitable way to interpret that. Especially not coming from the man calling most illegal immigrants rapists and thieves, lying that he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey, and posts made up statistics claiming African Americans are responsible for the vast majority of white homicides. Pretending this time he's totally not being racist is opting to ignore reality.
Why are you stopping before the most important line:
We know if there’s something going on, report them. Most likely you’ll be wrong, but that’s OK.
Something going on is the key phrase in my mind. I read his statement as a call to err on the side or reporting something suspicious, not an instruction to call in all minorities moving in.
That something being the suspicious people moving in to a house. Which is what Trump was talking about. Please stop trying to change what he was referring to. If you think it's okay to call the cops because you're suspicious of the people moving in to their home, which is what Trump suggested, feel free to defend why. But stop making up what you want him to have actually said.
You are not Donald Trump so you are not the final arbiter of an ambiguous statement made by him. I disagree that the statement means to just call people in for being non-white. That is an abhorrent view and if it is what he meant then it is despicable. But if we follow what I think is the more obvious reading, then he is saying that if you see something a little bit suspicious then call it in, instead of erring on the side of not calling it in at all. I think that is a reasonable and positive message.
I'll go ahead and disagree that when he says call the cops on people moving in to houses he means something other than call the cops on people moving in to houses. I don't know why you're defending his racism once again but I'm not interested in pursuing it any further.
Or we could be more charitable and say that if the people moving in are really out of step for the area, like a group of young men in a suburb that is all families and they keep to themselves and have larges numbers of people coming and going, that vague suspicion should be enough to go on, instead of letting it sit in the back of your mind but not calling.
That's not what Trump said. He stated:
“People move into a house a block down the road, you know who’s going in,” Trump continued. “You can see and you report them to the local police. You’re pretty smart, right?”
Trump is referring to people moving in to a house and calling the police based on how they look. There is not a charitable way to interpret that. Especially not coming from the man calling most illegal immigrants rapists and thieves, lying that he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey, and posts made up statistics claiming African Americans are responsible for the vast majority of white homicides. Pretending this time he's totally not being racist is opting to ignore reality.
Why are you stopping before the most important line:
We know if there’s something going on, report them. Most likely you’ll be wrong, but that’s OK.
Something going on is the key phrase in my mind. I read his statement as a call to err on the side or reporting something suspicious, not an instruction to call in all minorities moving in.
That something being the suspicious people moving in to a house. Which is what Trump was talking about. Please stop trying to change what he was referring to. If you think it's okay to call the cops because you're suspicious of the people moving in to their home, which is what Trump suggested, feel free to defend why. But stop making up what you want him to have actually said.
You are not Donald Trump so you are not the final arbiter of an ambiguous statement made by him. I disagree that the statement means to just call people in for being non-white. That is an abhorrent view and if it is what he meant then it is despicable. But if we follow what I think is the more obvious reading, then he is saying that if you see something a little bit suspicious then call it in, instead of erring on the side of not calling it in at all. I think that is a reasonable and positive message.
And Donald Trump has been nothing if not reasonable and positive
The problem with trying to ascribe either specifically racist/fascist notions or (alternatively) benefits of the doubt to many (not all) of Trump's statements is that he's sort of invented a new kind of dogwhistle. If he were a more sophisticated (or maybe I just mean traditional) orator, he'd be doing regular dogwhistling, where troubling statements are disguised in other language that then become shibboleths for the in-crowd. But he either doesn't know how to do that or isn't interested in it, and it doesn't match his style anyway, which seems to be much more improvisational and stream-of-consciousness. Instead he makes statements that are either ambiguous or totally vague and leaves it to the listener to fill in the gaps with either hatemongering or innocuousness, depending on the perspective of the audience. It's Schroedinger's dogwhistling.
This is why, for instance, people in this thread interpreted the "People move into a house a block down the road, you know who’s going in" quote variably as referring to either Mexicans, blacks, Muslims, terrorists, or young people.
See also the time he got away with not-quite-saying Megyn Kelly was just mad at him because she was on the rag by saying there was blood coming out of her "wherever", or the time he was unfairly maligned for saying Megyn Kelly was mad enough at him to shoot blood out of her "wherever", depending on your point of view.
Of course he's said and done many explicitly terrible things; but also an interesting number of vague/ambiguous things that lets him play to multiple intended audiences, lets him pander to racists (and antagonize the left for fun and media exposure) while providing supporters with enough linguistic cover that they can argue with a straight face that Trump was just talking about what to do when obvious terrorists move in next door.
This is absolutely deliberate on Trump's part. It's cynical, but a natural progression of Goldwater's famous advice.
Atwater, not Goldwater.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
SKFM, several weeks ago I was genuinely baffled as to why someone like you would ever consider voting Trump. With the recent line of discussion I can now see why you would. Thanks for clarifying I guess.
+3
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
yeah literally all he covers is SEEING them GO IN
so it has to be things you could judge just by SEEING THEM and the fact they live near you
not a long list of thing you could judge just by SEEING someone. maybe a few physical features.
but I guess if you're pretty smart you could tell a whole lot just from SEEING some physical features.
so it has to be things you could judge just by SEEING THEM and the fact they live near you
not a long list of thing you could judge just by SEEING someone. maybe a few physical features.
but I guess if you're pretty smart you could tell a whole lot just from SEEING some physical features.
you're pretty smart, right?
You're emphasizing the wrong word here. Of course people can make calls based only on what they see.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The "Is Trump a fascist?" question would probably seem more pertinent if the forums weren't in the habit of labeling pretty much every prominent Republican presidential candidate ever a fascist. In the end, it just seems like a way to come up with an officially sanctioned insult for the opposing party.
Is Trump a fascist? I dunno. Does it really matter? If he is, does it make his positions any worse? More relevantly, do we expect anyone to take the word seriously when it gets thrown around so cavalierly? "Okay, before we were just being hyperbolic, but this time we're serious."
There's another hypothesis that fits those facts, you know.
SKFM, several weeks ago I was genuinely baffled as to why someone like you would ever consider voting Trump. With the recent line of discussion I can now see why you would. Thanks for clarifying I guess.
I would not consider voting for him. I just think that people are too quick to jump into hyperbole mode when discussing Republican candidates around here. He has said plenty of horrible things that are unambiguously horrible on their faces. No need to reach to make all his statements equally horrible when the genuinely horrible blue ones are right there.
The time that I mentioned possibly voting for him was all the way back before he had started saying anything really. It was before the Mexican comment, even. I was purely be retested in him because all there really was to him at the time was extreme outsider status. I cannot see myself voting in this election. I wish everyone could lose.
spacekungfuman on
+2
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Or we could be more charitable and say that if the people moving in are really out of step for the area, like a group of young men in a suburb that is all families and they keep to themselves and have larges numbers of people coming and going, that vague suspicion should be enough to go on, instead of letting it sit in the back of your mind but not calling.
That's not what Trump said. He stated:
“People move into a house a block down the road, you know who’s going in,” Trump continued. “You can see and you report them to the local police. You’re pretty smart, right?”
Trump is referring to people moving in to a house and calling the police based on how they look. There is not a charitable way to interpret that. Especially not coming from the man calling most illegal immigrants rapists and thieves, lying that he saw thousands of Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey, and posts made up statistics claiming African Americans are responsible for the vast majority of white homicides. Pretending this time he's totally not being racist is opting to ignore reality.
Why are you stopping before the most important line:
We know if there’s something going on, report them. Most likely you’ll be wrong, but that’s OK.
Something going on is the key phrase in my mind. I read his statement as a call to err on the side or reporting something suspicious, not an instruction to call in all minorities moving in.
That something being the suspicious people moving in to a house. Which is what Trump was talking about. Please stop trying to change what he was referring to. If you think it's okay to call the cops because you're suspicious of the people moving in to their home, which is what Trump suggested, feel free to defend why. But stop making up what you want him to have actually said.
You are not Donald Trump so you are not the final arbiter of an ambiguous statement made by him. I disagree that the statement means to just call people in for being non-white. That is an abhorrent view and if it is what he meant then it is despicable. But if we follow what I think is the more obvious reading, then he is saying that if you see something a little bit suspicious then call it in, instead of erring on the side of not calling it in at all. I think that is a reasonable and positive message.
That statement was not made in a vacuum. It was made as part of a longer speech, of which a significant portion was dedicated to calling Syrian refugees terrorists who want to destroy us, doubling down on his 9/11 American-Muslim celebration claims, calling for surveillance of all mosques, recounting stories of illegal immigrants raping and murdering young women in a way that portrays all illegal immigrants as rapists and murderers, and overall fear mongering about ethnic and religious minorities.
If someone spends the better part of an hour lecturing you about how minorities want to rape and/or murder you, and are secretly plotting to destroy this country, and then adds that if "People move into a house a block down the road, you know who's going in. You can see.” “Report them!” “Most likely you’ll be wrong, and that’s okay. But let the local police go in and check out [sic], and you’ll get rid of this stuff. That’s the best way. Everybody’s their own cop, in a way — I mean, you gotta do it, you gotta do it.”, thinking that he's referring to people who's activities you find "suspicious", as opposed to the people he's been warning you about for the past hour, is absurd. It only makes sense if you purposeful ignore everything he's been saying before and after that segment.
so it has to be things you could judge just by SEEING THEM and the fact they live near you
not a long list of thing you could judge just by SEEING someone. maybe a few physical features.
but I guess if you're pretty smart you could tell a whole lot just from SEEING some physical features.
you're pretty smart, right?
Well, to be fair, you know how clever criminals are. They break into a place, plant pictures of themselves and their families everywhere, secretly install cable, phone, and internet services under their own name, pay the utility bills for the real owners using their credit card, get an actor to pretend to be the realtor who sold them the house, forge a mortgage signed by all parties involved in the sale of the house, hack into the bank to create fake records showing that they've made down payments for the loan. By the time they rob the house and murder its real owners, no one would ever suspect a thing.
He's pretty much using his vague statements to see what he can get away with saying, since he can inmediatly backpedal when it's convenient. He's a slippery one.
so it has to be things you could judge just by SEEING THEM and the fact they live near you
not a long list of thing you could judge just by SEEING someone. maybe a few physical features.
but I guess if you're pretty smart you could tell a whole lot just from SEEING some physical features.
you're pretty smart, right?
Well, to be fair, you know how clever criminals are. They break into a place, plant pictures of themselves and their families everywhere, secretly install cable, phone, and internet services under their own name, pay the utility bills for the real owners using their credit card, get an actor to pretend to be the realtor who sold them the house, forge a mortgage signed by all parties involved in the sale of the house, hack into the bank to create fake records showing that they've made down payments for the loan. By the time they rob the house and murder its real owners, no one would ever suspect a thing.
The "Is Trump a fascist?" question would probably seem more pertinent if the forums weren't in the habit of labeling pretty much every prominent Republican presidential candidate ever a fascist. In the end, it just seems like a way to come up with an officially sanctioned insult for the opposing party.
Is Trump a fascist? I dunno. Does it really matter? If he is, does it make his positions any worse? More relevantly, do we expect anyone to take the word seriously when it gets thrown around so cavalierly? "Okay, before we were just being hyperbolic, but this time we're serious."
There's another hypothesis that fits those facts, you know.
But I would say that the question "Is Trump a fascist" is only worth asking to the extent that it helps us predict what sort of policies he would support. If you only know one or two of his ideas for governing, then an answer of "Yes, he's a fascist" would help you divine the rest.
But we already know his general principals in almost every area; the answer doesn't tell us anything. So who cares? It's just a way to give him a pithy label.
If the question is, say, "What would Trump do on immigration?" the best way to answer is not, "well, he's a fascist." The best answer is what Trump has actually said on the subject.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The "Is Trump a fascist?" question would probably seem more pertinent if the forums weren't in the habit of labeling pretty much every prominent Republican presidential candidate ever a fascist. In the end, it just seems like a way to come up with an officially sanctioned insult for the opposing party.
Is Trump a fascist? I dunno. Does it really matter? If he is, does it make his positions any worse? More relevantly, do we expect anyone to take the word seriously when it gets thrown around so cavalierly? "Okay, before we were just being hyperbolic, but this time we're serious."
There's another hypothesis that fits those facts, you know.
But I would say that the question "Is Trump a fascist" is only worth asking to the extent that it helps us predict what sort of policies he would support. If you only know one or two of his ideas for governing, then an answer of "Yes, he's a fascist" would help you divine the rest.
But we already know his general principals in almost every area; the answer doesn't tell us anything. So who cares? It's just a way to give him a pithy label.
If the question is, say, "What would Trump do on immigration?" the best way to answer is not, "well, he's a fascist." The best answer is what Trump has actually said on the subject.
I think it's also very helpful in highlighting exactly the kind of policies he is advocating and what that means re: people supporting him.
Mostly it seems people are looking at his continued support despite this kind of rhetoric as reflecting dangerous and worrisome movements within the american political body.
The "Is Trump a fascist?" question would probably seem more pertinent if the forums weren't in the habit of labeling pretty much every prominent Republican presidential candidate ever a fascist. In the end, it just seems like a way to come up with an officially sanctioned insult for the opposing party.
Is Trump a fascist? I dunno. Does it really matter? If he is, does it make his positions any worse? More relevantly, do we expect anyone to take the word seriously when it gets thrown around so cavalierly? "Okay, before we were just being hyperbolic, but this time we're serious."
There's another hypothesis that fits those facts, you know.
But I would say that the question "Is Trump a fascist" is only worth asking to the extent that it helps us predict what sort of policies he would support. If you only know one or two of his ideas for governing, then an answer of "Yes, he's a fascist" would help you divine the rest.
But we already know his general principals in almost every area; the answer doesn't tell us anything. So who cares? It's just a way to give him a pithy label.
If the question is, say, "What would Trump do on immigration?" the best way to answer is not, "well, he's a fascist." The best answer is what Trump has actually said on the subject.
I think it's also very helpful in highlighting exactly the kind of policies he is advocating and what that means re: people supporting him.
Mostly it seems people are looking at his continued support despite this kind of rhetoric as reflecting dangerous and worrisome movements within the american political body.
Remember - it's been said that fascism coming to the US will drape itself in the flag and carry a Bible.
The "Is Trump a fascist?" question would probably seem more pertinent if the forums weren't in the habit of labeling pretty much every prominent Republican presidential candidate ever a fascist. In the end, it just seems like a way to come up with an officially sanctioned insult for the opposing party.
Is Trump a fascist? I dunno. Does it really matter? If he is, does it make his positions any worse? More relevantly, do we expect anyone to take the word seriously when it gets thrown around so cavalierly? "Okay, before we were just being hyperbolic, but this time we're serious."
There's another hypothesis that fits those facts, you know.
But I would say that the question "Is Trump a fascist" is only worth asking to the extent that it helps us predict what sort of policies he would support. If you only know one or two of his ideas for governing, then an answer of "Yes, he's a fascist" would help you divine the rest.
But we already know his general principals in almost every area; the answer doesn't tell us anything. So who cares? It's just a way to give him a pithy label.
If the question is, say, "What would Trump do on immigration?" the best way to answer is not, "well, he's a fascist." The best answer is what Trump has actually said on the subject.
I think it's also very helpful in highlighting exactly the kind of policies he is advocating and what that means re: people supporting him.
Mostly it seems people are looking at his continued support despite this kind of rhetoric as reflecting dangerous and worrisome movements within the american political body.
Remember - it's been said that fascism coming to the US will drape itself in the flag and carry a Bible.
Well, the particulars may change, but essentially it's about appealing to the patriotism of a specific class of citizen against the other classes. Even better if you can word your statements to appeal to multiple classes even if you're otherwise demonising them at the same time. Fascism doesn't just happen.
Posts
I doubt the police would take me seriously, but Hell, maybe I should turn myself in anyway
This is absolutely deliberate on Trump's part. It's cynical, but a natural progression of Goldwater's famous advice.
Uh huh, polls don't matter at this point, the usual.
Chris Christie and Jeb? Seriously? At least say Rubio, that's more belieavable.
So, the guy that leads Trump's campaign on NH, Steve Stepanek, called for her head:
Basically, what the Trump guy is saying that the chairwoman of the GOP on a state is supposed to be a neutral party on the primary, and Horn is pretty much about anybody but Trump. It goes for a while, Horn has critiziced some of Trump's more outrageous statements, and the Trump team firing back.
I actually had this exact thing happen to me.
In college, I moved in with some friends to a house in a moderately wealthy gated community full of the kinds of people who think they're all a lot richer than they actually are.
We were the only non-family house in the area, but we are all in grad school, so we kept it quiet and low key. We followed the HOA rules, we never threw a single party, and we kept the house in good condition.
We had the cops and HOA called on us constantly. We would wake to find parking stickers on our cars that are parked completely normally. We would receive notices that our grass was too high the day after we mowed it. Meanwhile, houses around us would be throwing parties and get-togethers (like people do, I'm not saying there is or was anything wrong with their parties) and nobody ever said a damn peep about them.
So yes, if you ain't a family get out.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
But it's fine, I'm sure your neighbors had very pressing concerns that were ameliorated by constantly reporting you to the authorities. Even though they were always wrong, it's okay. Keep fighting the good fight, suburbia.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Trump's not a fascist.
He's a high school bully jock running for student body president.
I'm pretty sure that the only difference between the high school bully jock and a fascist is the level of power that they office they're running for happens to hold.
These are not mutually exclusive.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Except you don't need to hold office to continue being a bully. His entire thing is punching down and attacking targets that can't or won't fight back. And if they do, he falls back to 'I know you are but what am I?'
His whole thing at this point is a massive 'Why are you hitting yourself?' To the media and to the voters.
And a frightening number of people think this is what being a strong leader looks like
That something being the suspicious people moving in to a house. Which is what Trump was talking about. Please stop trying to change what he was referring to. If you think it's okay to call the cops because you're suspicious of the people moving in to their home, which is what Trump suggested, feel free to defend why. But stop making up what you want him to have actually said.
You are not Donald Trump so you are not the final arbiter of an ambiguous statement made by him. I disagree that the statement means to just call people in for being non-white. That is an abhorrent view and if it is what he meant then it is despicable. But if we follow what I think is the more obvious reading, then he is saying that if you see something a little bit suspicious then call it in, instead of erring on the side of not calling it in at all. I think that is a reasonable and positive message.
I'll go ahead and disagree that when he says call the cops on people moving in to houses he means something other than call the cops on people moving in to houses. I don't know why you're defending his racism once again but I'm not interested in pursuing it any further.
And Donald Trump has been nothing if not reasonable and positive
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Atwater, not Goldwater.
so it has to be things you could judge just by SEEING THEM and the fact they live near you
not a long list of thing you could judge just by SEEING someone. maybe a few physical features.
but I guess if you're pretty smart you could tell a whole lot just from SEEING some physical features.
you're pretty smart, right?
You're emphasizing the wrong word here. Of course people can make calls based only on what they see.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
There's another hypothesis that fits those facts, you know.
Did he....just talked about himself on third person?
I just would like to highlight this one. This is why you should be sure of what you're saying before you click 'post reply'.
I would not consider voting for him. I just think that people are too quick to jump into hyperbole mode when discussing Republican candidates around here. He has said plenty of horrible things that are unambiguously horrible on their faces. No need to reach to make all his statements equally horrible when the genuinely horrible blue ones are right there.
The time that I mentioned possibly voting for him was all the way back before he had started saying anything really. It was before the Mexican comment, even. I was purely be retested in him because all there really was to him at the time was extreme outsider status. I cannot see myself voting in this election. I wish everyone could lose.
That statement was not made in a vacuum. It was made as part of a longer speech, of which a significant portion was dedicated to calling Syrian refugees terrorists who want to destroy us, doubling down on his 9/11 American-Muslim celebration claims, calling for surveillance of all mosques, recounting stories of illegal immigrants raping and murdering young women in a way that portrays all illegal immigrants as rapists and murderers, and overall fear mongering about ethnic and religious minorities.
If someone spends the better part of an hour lecturing you about how minorities want to rape and/or murder you, and are secretly plotting to destroy this country, and then adds that if "People move into a house a block down the road, you know who's going in. You can see.” “Report them!” “Most likely you’ll be wrong, and that’s okay. But let the local police go in and check out [sic], and you’ll get rid of this stuff. That’s the best way. Everybody’s their own cop, in a way — I mean, you gotta do it, you gotta do it.”, thinking that he's referring to people who's activities you find "suspicious", as opposed to the people he's been warning you about for the past hour, is absurd. It only makes sense if you purposeful ignore everything he's been saying before and after that segment.
Well, to be fair, you know how clever criminals are. They break into a place, plant pictures of themselves and their families everywhere, secretly install cable, phone, and internet services under their own name, pay the utility bills for the real owners using their credit card, get an actor to pretend to be the realtor who sold them the house, forge a mortgage signed by all parties involved in the sale of the house, hack into the bank to create fake records showing that they've made down payments for the loan. By the time they rob the house and murder its real owners, no one would ever suspect a thing.
He's pretty much using his vague statements to see what he can get away with saying, since he can inmediatly backpedal when it's convenient. He's a slippery one.
"I love disabled people! When the government forced me to follow regulations, I totally followed the law!"
and that fact that he can't resist mentioning that he 'spent tens of millions of dollars' to do so.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
Well neither can the entirety of the Republican Party, so at least you're not alone in this feeling.
But I would say that the question "Is Trump a fascist" is only worth asking to the extent that it helps us predict what sort of policies he would support. If you only know one or two of his ideas for governing, then an answer of "Yes, he's a fascist" would help you divine the rest.
But we already know his general principals in almost every area; the answer doesn't tell us anything. So who cares? It's just a way to give him a pithy label.
If the question is, say, "What would Trump do on immigration?" the best way to answer is not, "well, he's a fascist." The best answer is what Trump has actually said on the subject.
I think it's also very helpful in highlighting exactly the kind of policies he is advocating and what that means re: people supporting him.
Mostly it seems people are looking at his continued support despite this kind of rhetoric as reflecting dangerous and worrisome movements within the american political body.
Remember - it's been said that fascism coming to the US will drape itself in the flag and carry a Bible.
Well, the particulars may change, but essentially it's about appealing to the patriotism of a specific class of citizen against the other classes. Even better if you can word your statements to appeal to multiple classes even if you're otherwise demonising them at the same time. Fascism doesn't just happen.