Look at this forum that is being handed to parents whose children have been taken. They are being given two choices: 1.) Your child can have an asylum hearing, but you will be deported and ostensibly never see them again. Or 2.) You can reunite with the child, and they will be denied the hearing. This is just straight-up kidnapping, extortion, and hostage taking at this point. Happy 4th of July:
Look at this forum that is being handed to parents whose children have been taken. They are being given two choices: 1.) Your child can have an asylum hearing, but you will be deported and ostensibly never see them again. Or 2.) You can reunite with the child, and they will be denied the hearing. This is just straight kidnapping, extortion, and hostage taking at this point:
And the child concentration cages, I've heard them called Trump camps, are but one reason Trump is described as having nazi tendencies. Also he retwees and employs (and pardoned) people with white supremacist alt right racist anti-Semitic ties. Not to mention his "there's some good people" on the nazi side equivacation about Charlottesville.
If you don't want to be compared to a nazi, don't do the nazi stuff. It's simple. I get some people want to like him because he's ostensibly on your team. He's not. He's on his own side and will happily toss your interests aside when it suits him.
Look at this forum that is being handed to parents whose children have been taken. They are being given two choices: 1.) Your child can have an asylum hearing, but you will be deported and ostensibly never see them again. Or 2.) You can reunite with the child, and they will be denied the hearing. This is just straight kidnapping, extortion, and hostage taking at this point:
And the child concentration cages, I've heard them called Trump camps, are but one reason Trump is described as having nazi tendencies. Also he retwees and employs (and pardoned) people with white supremacist alt right racist anti-Semitic ties. Not to mention his "there's some good people" on the nazi side equivacation about Charlottesville.
If you don't want to be compared to a nazi, don't do the nazi stuff. It's simple. I get some people want to like him because he's ostensibly on your team. He's not. He's on his own side and will happily toss your interests aside when it suits him.
Honestly. WTF IS Nazi stuff?
His daughter is a Jew. His son in-law is a Jew. He works with and has Jewish colleagues. He is trying to push the ownership of Jerusalem into the Jewish state. He praises Israel as friend and only Democracy in the middle east.
Has Trump gassed anyone? No Has he put any of Americas legal citizens into death camps? No Has he made a minority in the U.S. to wear specific identifiers? No
When we get to a fascist state in America I will be the first to let you know.
Look at this forum that is being handed to parents whose children have been taken. They are being given two choices: 1.) Your child can have an asylum hearing, but you will be deported and ostensibly never see them again. Or 2.) You can reunite with the child, and they will be denied the hearing. This is just straight kidnapping, extortion, and hostage taking at this point:
And the child concentration cages, I've heard them called Trump camps, are but one reason Trump is described as having nazi tendencies. Also he retwees and employs (and pardoned) people with white supremacist alt right racist anti-Semitic ties. Not to mention his "there's some good people" on the nazi side equivacation about Charlottesville.
If you don't want to be compared to a nazi, don't do the nazi stuff. It's simple. I get some people want to like him because he's ostensibly on your team. He's not. He's on his own side and will happily toss your interests aside when it suits him.
What's your upper limit on how many people can enter the USA?
It's a quite straightforward question.
Also, why should there be any more consideration given to those who enter from a country next door as opposed to say a continent across a body of water that in this day and age can be crossed easily?
Europe is suffering from an influx of people from Africa. Africa's population is exploding and climate change is having an effect. How many, to the nearest million, do you think the USA should allow to enter the country? They have the money to fly to the USA, the money they pay to people smugglers is far higher than a plane ticket. So if you stop people flying to the USA using visa restrictions, what's the difference with a land border?
Perhaps if you gave an answer and laid out what you see as the future population of the US and explained how you will accomodate the x millions who will arrive, then people would listen.
@UnderstandMouseMagic Trump had fewer votes, and won anyway due to how our country counts votes. That alone is going to tick a lot of people off. Trump has done a LOT to be unliked. Its not even a party lines thing, people on all sides of the political spectrum don't like him. Sometimes when people are disliked, they EARNED that dislike.
@UnderstandMouseMagic Trump had fewer votes, and won anyway due to how our country counts votes. That alone is going to tick a lot of people off. Trump has done a LOT to be unliked. Its not even a party lines thing, people on all sides of the political spectrum don't like him. Sometimes when people are disliked, they EARNED that dislike.
As far as I can tell he won the election as the rules stood. Were they changed recently, just before the election, so people weren't aware of how the system worked for the last election?
I'm not seeing dislike in this thread, I'm seeing hysteria.
And the question has to be, where does anybody see this ending? Civil war?
As far as I can tell he won the election as the rules stood. Were they changed recently, just before the election, so people weren't aware of how the system worked for the last election?
I'm not seeing dislike in this thread, I'm seeing hysteria.
And the question has to be, where does anybody see this ending? Civil war?
Nope. Rules werent changed. He won. However - between losing the popular vote and the concerns of Russian meddling in the election, the US population is rightfully skeptical of his victory. He absolutely won, but because he won approximately 100,000 votes spread across 3 states, providing an electoral college victory without winning the popular vote. Keep in mind, a US president has been elected without winning the popular vote only 4 times in history, and the last time (2000, Bush) ended in an unmitigated disaster.
As to hysteria - Trump elicits strong reactions. whether it's separating children from their families at the border, seemingly wanton corruption in his administration, and his callous disregard for the truth, it has hit a nerve.
Obviously there wont be a civil war. Nothing will cause that, short of a president refusing to hand over power after an election.
As a side note - The reaction to children being taken from their families and placed in facilities with no plan in place to ensure reunification should be hysteria. There's no justification for it whatsoever.
As far as I can tell he won the election as the rules stood. Were they changed recently, just before the election, so people weren't aware of how the system worked for the last election?
I'm not seeing dislike in this thread, I'm seeing hysteria.
And the question has to be, where does anybody see this ending? Civil war?
Nope. Rules werent changed. He won. However - between losing the popular vote and the concerns of Russian meddling in the election, the US population is rightfully skeptical of his victory. He absolutely won, but because he won approximately 100,000 votes spread across 3 states, providing an electoral college victory without winning the popular vote. Keep in mind, a US president has been elected without winning the popular vote only 4 times in history, and the last time (2000, Bush) ended in an unmitigated disaster.
As to hysteria - Trump elicits strong reactions. whether it's separating children from their families at the border, seemingly wanton corruption in his administration, and his callous disregard for the truth, it has hit a nerve.
Obviously there wont be a civil war. Nothing will cause that, short of a president refusing to hand over power after an election.
Hit a nerve?
What's coming from his opponents sounds like stuff you would hear in a school playground.
If you believe in democracy, then you have to shut up and put up when you lose.
Democracy absolutely depends on accepting losing. The reason democracy doesn't work in many countries is because that basic principle isn't accepted. And people reach for the guns and the tanks roll in.
The main reason I hate what I'm reading in this thread is because it's being mirrored in the UK and no Trump will ever threaten democracy as much as people believing that they shouldn't/mustn't/cannot lose because they believe themselves to be morally superior.
What's coming from his opponents sounds like stuff you would hear in a school playground.
If you believe in democracy, then you have to shut up and put up when you lose.
Democracy absolutely depends on accepting losing. The reason democracy doesn't work in many countries is because that basic principle isn't accepted. And people reach for the guns and the tanks roll in.
The main reason I hate what I'm reading in this thread is because it's being mirrored in the UK and no Trump will ever threaten democracy as much as people believing that they shouldn't/mustn't/cannot lose because they believe themselves to be morally superior.
Is that what you think a democracy is? The loser just goes home and sleeps for 4 years (Enter number that suits your nation here) until the next election? That's not how it works, and is never how it worked. The opposition has a responsibility to try to influence and mitigate the policies put in place. Also, if you think we sound like kids on a school ground, I guess you havent been watching American politics (I wouldnt blame you) for the past 10 years. Obama's presidency had the same issue from the other side. It's hyper partisanship.
You also scooted right around the fact that there are still very relevant questions to if the victory was aided by foreign meddling. If you lose an election, and it turns out the other side cheats - do you just go home then? I think not.
Sorry the UK isnt exactly what you want it to be. As far as I can tell, the conservative party in the UK has been in power a hell of a lot longer in the last 50 years than the other side. Actually, until I looked at it just now, I didnt realize how monopolized it has been.
Also. Both sides always consider themselves morally superior, because so many political issues are made into moral ones. That's not new.
Look at this forum that is being handed to parents whose children have been taken. They are being given two choices: 1.) Your child can have an asylum hearing, but you will be deported and ostensibly never see them again. Or 2.) You can reunite with the child, and they will be denied the hearing. This is just straight kidnapping, extortion, and hostage taking at this point:
And the child concentration cages, I've heard them called Trump camps, are but one reason Trump is described as having nazi tendencies. Also he retwees and employs (and pardoned) people with white supremacist alt right racist anti-Semitic ties. Not to mention his "there's some good people" on the nazi side equivacation about Charlottesville.
If you don't want to be compared to a nazi, don't do the nazi stuff. It's simple. I get some people want to like him because he's ostensibly on your team. He's not. He's on his own side and will happily toss your interests aside when it suits him.
Honestly. WTF IS Nazi stuff?
His daughter is a Jew. His son in-law is a Jew. He works with and has Jewish colleagues. He is trying to push the ownership of Jerusalem into the Jewish state. He praises Israel as friend and only Democracy in the middle east.
Has Trump gassed anyone? No Has he put any of Americas legal citizens into death camps? No Has he made a minority in the U.S. to wear specific identifiers? No
When we get to a fascist state in America I will be the first to let you know.
Fascism is characterized by nationalism, authoritarianism, corporatism, militarization and hostility towards both liberalism and Marxism. I agree it's clear that the US is not a fascist state, but it also seems clear to me that there has been progress in that direction over the last couple of years - so it doesn't seem unreasonable for people not comfortable with that to worry about the future direction.
As for nazism there's nothing in the political philosophy that requires anti-semitism. The doctrine of racial purity includes the belief that some humans are better than others, but doesn't require the persecution of any particular group. It's perfectly reasonable to interpret Trump's words and actions as signs that he believes that some humans are better than others (characterizing whole peoples as animals, rapists, infesting our country etc).
For clarity I'd better say that I'm referring to the political philosophy of nazism - Hitler's Germany clearly was anti-semitic. The Jews in Germany made a good target because the history of anti-semitism made it easy to whip up sentiment against them (and the opportunity to confiscate their wealth was important in the pre-war years).
Did Americans call Obama a nazi too. Didn't know that.
Cant tell if this is a question or not. Do a google search for "Obama Nazi", and you'll return a litany of images that were commonly brought to tea-party rallies in 2010+.
I wont repost them, since they're utterly distasteful - but it gets the idea across.
If you believe in democracy, then you have to shut up and put up when you lose.
Democracy absolutely depends on accepting losing. The reason democracy doesn't work in many countries is because that basic principle isn't accepted. And people reach for the guns and the tanks roll in.
Democracy never means having to shut up; it merely means accepting the results of a democratic election. And if you will recall, everyone from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama to her voters in this very thread, including myself, recognized Trump's victory the very day after the results came in, and we explicitly wished Trump and the nation the best of luck and expressed our support for the democratic process, even though it put into power a man whom we strongly opposed.
You imply that we did not accept Trump's victory. This is false. We did accept it. And again, this happened the very day afterward; it's not like it was some tortured process where the Democratic party had to argue with itself over whether American democracy was legitimate. As Clinton said during the campaign, she would accept the results of the election whether she won or not. Sure enough, she did--as did the rest of us. From the Democratic leadership to the rank and file to individual voters, we did it, just like we said we would.
But accepting the results of American democracy as legitimate does not mean we need to "shut up."
We have the exact same right to criticize the president as we always have. And yes--Trump's dishonesty, his corruption, his incompetence, his lack of foresight, his lack of attention to detail, his lack of personal dignity, his lack of respect for his fellow Americans, his callous disregard for our allies, his unexplained support for our enemies, his record-breaking vacation days, his inability to accept criticism, and his obstruction of justice are all valid issues. We are right to call attention to these things.
Did Americans call Obama a nazi too. Didn't know that.
I'm not sure if this was intended as a response to me, but it was very common for Obama to be compared to Hitler or nazis. This article (from a neutral media watch group) refers to some of the multitude of such comparisons in the first couple of years following Obama's election.
If you believe in democracy, then you have to shut up and put up when you lose.
Democracy absolutely depends on accepting losing. The reason democracy doesn't work in many countries is because that basic principle isn't accepted. And people reach for the guns and the tanks roll in.
Democracy never means having to shut up; it merely means accepting the results of a democratic election. And if you will recall, everyone from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama to her voters in this very thread, including myself, recognized Trump's victory the very day after the results came in, and we explicitly wished Trump and the nation the best of luck and expressed our support for the democratic process, even though it put into power a man whom we strongly opposed.
You imply that we did not accept Trump's victory. This is false. We did accept it. And again, this happened the very day afterward; it's not like it was some tortured process where the Democratic party had to argue with itself over whether American democracy was legitimate. As Clinton said during the campaign, she would accept the results of the election whether she won or not. Sure enough, she did--as did the rest of us. From the Democratic leadership to the rank and file to individual voters, we did it, just like we said we would.
But accepting the results of American democracy as legitimate does not mean we need to "shut up."
We have the exact same right to criticize the president as we always have. And yes--Trump's dishonesty, his corruption, his incompetence, his lack of foresight, his lack of attention to detail, his lack of personal dignity, his lack of respect for his fellow Americans, his callous disregard for our allies, his unexplained support for our enemies, his record-breaking vacation days, his inability to accept criticism, and his obstruction of justice are all valid issues. We are right to call attention to these things.
And I'll remind everyone again (since his behavior during the campaign has totally disappeared from view) that Trump stated fairly blatantly, from a Presidential debate stage no less in front of the entire country, that he DIDN'T believe the results would be valid if he lost, citing phantom "millions of illegal voters". I mean, I had forgotten how ridiculous this answer was. He not only doesn't commit to accepting the results of the election, he explicitly states Hillary should not have been ALLOWED to run for President. Watching this now pisses me off even more than it did at the time. He was this way the entire campaign. Of COURSE his Presidency has followed suit. In any sane country, these two answers juxtaposed would have been the end of him. Honestly, if you go back and watch any series of clips from the 3 debates, you will see just how goddamn spot-on Hillary was about nearly everything she said about him and what he would do if he attained the Presidency:
So then American politics is all about crying wolf then. Since Obama nor Trump are/where Nazis. No wonder America is the laughing stock of the world.
Also let me clarify what I mean by crying wolf. The loosing side crying, complaining and playing the victim till they convince enough people to change their vote/political view whether better or worse until the next election.
Instead of coming together and fixing the problems, let's just bitch and moan till nothing gets done. You may google Canada, Sweden, Norway and Iceland to see how much more civil societies deal with issues in their own countries first before they start tackling big boy issues like social injustice. ( even though Canada has been lacking lately in that department, especially with our groping man child Prime Minister.)
Did Americans call Obama a nazi too. Didn't know that.
I'm not sure if this was intended as a response to me, but it was very common for Obama to be compared to Hitler or nazis. This article (from a neutral media watch group) refers to some of the multitude of such comparisons in the first couple of years following Obama's election.
I don't specifically attack people because of their view or political slant. I'm not special nor is it snowing in July.
So then American politics is all about crying wolf then. Since Obama nor Trump are/where Nazis. No wonder America is the laughing stock of the world.
Also let me clarify what I mean by crying wolf. The loosing side crying, complaining and playing the victim till they convince enough people to change their vote/political view whether better or worse until the next election.
Instead of coming together and fixing the problems, let's just bitch and moan till nothing gets done. You may google Canada, Sweden, Norway and Iceland to see how much more civil societies deal with issues in their own countries first before they start tackling big boy issues like social injustice. ( even though Canada has been lacking lately in that department, especially with our groping man child Prime Minister.)
Thanks for the Ad Hominem attack.
The US is in the midst of some really bad hyperpartisanship, but brushing it all under the rug as "playing the victim" is beyond the pale. There are real issues, and it does a disservice to those dealing with those issues if we just ignore them.
To be honest - I'm rather proud that Americans arent just laying down and accepting the current state of affairs.
So then American politics is all about crying wolf then. Since Obama nor Trump are/where Nazis. No wonder America is the laughing stock of the world.
Also let me clarify what I mean by crying wolf. The loosing side crying, complaining and playing the victim till they convince enough people to change their vote/political view whether better or worse until the next election.
Instead of coming together and fixing the problems, let's just bitch and moan till nothing gets done. You may google Canada, Sweden, Norway and Iceland to see how much more civil societies deal with issues in their own countries first before they start tackling big boy issues like social injustice. ( even though Canada has been lacking lately in that department, especially with our groping man child Prime Minister.)
That's because even the farthest right-wing politicians in those countries would never dare attack the social safety net, especially health-care. In America, we have one party who wants to practically eliminate it entirely (or kill it by 1000 cuts), and one who just struggles to salvage the bare minimum that is already in place. The ruling party in the US spent most of last year determined to TAKE AWAY health care from up to 24 million people. And I'm sure the rest of the world views that as insane, because it is.
So then American politics is all about crying wolf then. Since Obama nor Trump are/where Nazis. No wonder America is the laughing stock of the world.
Also let me clarify what I mean by crying wolf. The loosing side crying, complaining and playing the victim till they convince enough people to change their vote/political view whether better or worse until the next election.
Instead of coming together and fixing the problems, let's just bitch and moan till nothing gets done. You may google Canada, Sweden, Norway and Iceland to see how much more civil societies deal with issues in their own countries first before they start tackling big boy issues like social injustice. ( even though Canada has been lacking lately in that department, especially with our groping man child Prime Minister.)
Thanks for the Ad Hominem attack.
The US is in the midst of some really bad hyperpartisanship, but brushing it all under the rug as "playing the victim" is beyond the pale.
To be honest - I'm rather proud that Americans arent just laying down and accepting the current state of affairs.
Alot of them are not American, that's something your President is trying to tell you.
So then American politics is all about crying wolf then. Since Obama nor Trump are/where Nazis. No wonder America is the laughing stock of the world.
Also let me clarify what I mean by crying wolf. The loosing side crying, complaining and playing the victim till they convince enough people to change their vote/political view whether better or worse until the next election.
Instead of coming together and fixing the problems, let's just bitch and moan till nothing gets done. You may google Canada, Sweden, Norway and Iceland to see how much more civil societies deal with issues in their own countries first before they start tackling big boy issues like social injustice. ( even though Canada has been lacking lately in that department, especially with our groping man child Prime Minister.)
That's because even the farthest right-wing politicians in those countries would never dare attack the social safety net, especially health-care. In America, we have one party who wants to practically eliminate it entirely (or kill it by 1000 cuts), and one who just struggles to salvage the bare minimum that is already in place. The ruling party in the US spent most of last year determined to TAKE AWAY health care from up to 24 million people. And I'm sure the rest of the world views that as insane, because it is.
Stephen Harper tried in Canada. Also they tried to pass a Bill that would make you have to get a prescription from you family physician for over the counter Vitamins. I do not recall Stephen Harper getting called a nazi in any of these cases.
Look at this forum that is being handed to parents whose children have been taken. They are being given two choices: 1.) Your child can have an asylum hearing, but you will be deported and ostensibly never see them again. Or 2.) You can reunite with the child, and they will be denied the hearing. This is just straight kidnapping, extortion, and hostage taking at this point:
And the child concentration cages, I've heard them called Trump camps, are but one reason Trump is described as having nazi tendencies. Also he retwees and employs (and pardoned) people with white supremacist alt right racist anti-Semitic ties. Not to mention his "there's some good people" on the nazi side equivacation about Charlottesville.
If you don't want to be compared to a nazi, don't do the nazi stuff. It's simple. I get some people want to like him because he's ostensibly on your team. He's not. He's on his own side and will happily toss your interests aside when it suits him.
Honestly. WTF IS Nazi stuff?
His daughter is a Jew. His son in-law is a Jew. He works with and has Jewish colleagues. He is trying to push the ownership of Jerusalem into the Jewish state. He praises Israel as friend and only Democracy in the middle east.
Has Trump gassed anyone? No Has he put any of Americas legal citizens into death camps? No Has he made a minority in the U.S. to wear specific identifiers? No
When we get to a fascist state in America I will be the first to let you know.
Fascism is characterized by nationalism, authoritarianism, corporatism, militarization and hostility towards both liberalism and Marxism. I agree it's clear that the US is not a fascist state, but it also seems clear to me that there has been progress in that direction over the last couple of years - so it doesn't seem unreasonable for people not comfortable with that to worry about the future direction.
As for nazism there's nothing in the political philosophy that requires anti-semitism. The doctrine of racial purity includes the belief that some humans are better than others, but doesn't require the persecution of any particular group. It's perfectly reasonable to interpret Trump's words and actions as signs that he believes that some humans are better than others (characterizing whole peoples as animals, rapists, infesting our country etc).
For clarity I'd better say that I'm referring to the political philosophy of nazism - Hitler's Germany clearly was anti-semitic. The Jews in Germany made a good target because the history of anti-semitism made it easy to whip up sentiment against them (and the opportunity to confiscate their wealth was important in the pre-war years).
So you are telling me that Trump is a Marxist, he is trying to bring in social change.
"Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist workers revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries America, unite!"
Drain the swamp remember.
Also here is when Marx chimed in on immigration and how it effected the working class of England.
Look at this forum that is being handed to parents whose children have been taken. They are being given two choices: 1.) Your child can have an asylum hearing, but you will be deported and ostensibly never see them again. Or 2.) You can reunite with the child, and they will be denied the hearing. This is just straight kidnapping, extortion, and hostage taking at this point:
And the child concentration cages, I've heard them called Trump camps, are but one reason Trump is described as having nazi tendencies. Also he retwees and employs (and pardoned) people with white supremacist alt right racist anti-Semitic ties. Not to mention his "there's some good people" on the nazi side equivacation about Charlottesville.
If you don't want to be compared to a nazi, don't do the nazi stuff. It's simple. I get some people want to like him because he's ostensibly on your team. He's not. He's on his own side and will happily toss your interests aside when it suits him.
Honestly. WTF IS Nazi stuff?
His daughter is a Jew. His son in-law is a Jew. He works with and has Jewish colleagues. He is trying to push the ownership of Jerusalem into the Jewish state. He praises Israel as friend and only Democracy in the middle east.
Has Trump gassed anyone? No Has he put any of Americas legal citizens into death camps? No Has he made a minority in the U.S. to wear specific identifiers? No
When we get to a fascist state in America I will be the first to let you know.
Fascism is characterized by nationalism, authoritarianism, corporatism, militarization and hostility towards both liberalism and Marxism. I agree it's clear that the US is not a fascist state, but it also seems clear to me that there has been progress in that direction over the last couple of years - so it doesn't seem unreasonable for people not comfortable with that to worry about the future direction.
As for nazism there's nothing in the political philosophy that requires anti-semitism. The doctrine of racial purity includes the belief that some humans are better than others, but doesn't require the persecution of any particular group. It's perfectly reasonable to interpret Trump's words and actions as signs that he believes that some humans are better than others (characterizing whole peoples as animals, rapists, infesting our country etc).
For clarity I'd better say that I'm referring to the political philosophy of nazism - Hitler's Germany clearly was anti-semitic. The Jews in Germany made a good target because the history of anti-semitism made it easy to whip up sentiment against them (and the opportunity to confiscate their wealth was important in the pre-war years).
So you are telling me that Trump is a Marxist, he is trying to bring in social change.
"Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist workers revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries America, unite!"
Drain the swamp remember.
I'm afraid that I can't understand your train of thought. While I don't expect you to care about that, you've made several posts recently that seem very cryptic. If you'd like your ideas discussed, it might be helpful to explain them in a bit more detail.
Look at this forum that is being handed to parents whose children have been taken. They are being given two choices: 1.) Your child can have an asylum hearing, but you will be deported and ostensibly never see them again. Or 2.) You can reunite with the child, and they will be denied the hearing. This is just straight kidnapping, extortion, and hostage taking at this point:
And the child concentration cages, I've heard them called Trump camps, are but one reason Trump is described as having nazi tendencies. Also he retwees and employs (and pardoned) people with white supremacist alt right racist anti-Semitic ties. Not to mention his "there's some good people" on the nazi side equivacation about Charlottesville.
If you don't want to be compared to a nazi, don't do the nazi stuff. It's simple. I get some people want to like him because he's ostensibly on your team. He's not. He's on his own side and will happily toss your interests aside when it suits him.
Honestly. WTF IS Nazi stuff?
His daughter is a Jew. His son in-law is a Jew. He works with and has Jewish colleagues. He is trying to push the ownership of Jerusalem into the Jewish state. He praises Israel as friend and only Democracy in the middle east.
Has Trump gassed anyone? No Has he put any of Americas legal citizens into death camps? No Has he made a minority in the U.S. to wear specific identifiers? No
When we get to a fascist state in America I will be the first to let you know.
Fascism is characterized by nationalism, authoritarianism, corporatism, militarization and hostility towards both liberalism and Marxism. I agree it's clear that the US is not a fascist state, but it also seems clear to me that there has been progress in that direction over the last couple of years - so it doesn't seem unreasonable for people not comfortable with that to worry about the future direction.
As for nazism there's nothing in the political philosophy that requires anti-semitism. The doctrine of racial purity includes the belief that some humans are better than others, but doesn't require the persecution of any particular group. It's perfectly reasonable to interpret Trump's words and actions as signs that he believes that some humans are better than others (characterizing whole peoples as animals, rapists, infesting our country etc).
For clarity I'd better say that I'm referring to the political philosophy of nazism - Hitler's Germany clearly was anti-semitic. The Jews in Germany made a good target because the history of anti-semitism made it easy to whip up sentiment against them (and the opportunity to confiscate their wealth was important in the pre-war years).
So you are telling me that Trump is a Marxist, he is trying to bring in social change.
"Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist workers revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries America, unite!"
Drain the swamp remember.
Also here is when Marx chimed in on immigration and how it effected the working class of England.
Drain the swamp. How's that been going anyway? It must mean something different to the cult of trump because the rest of us aren't seeing it.
Draining the swamp must mean tax cuts for the rich. Trump's children in government positions literally taking bribes for government action. Goldman Sachs officials running the government. The ceo of Exxon was approved Secretary of State. That's draining the swamp huh.
For the record: Almost all liberals would be totally fine with a Daily Show equivalent for the right. No one has any issues with that. As long as they arent lying constantly (A la Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones).
NOT "almost all" - I've seen plenty of people claim that the right shouldn't be given a comparable platform as the left.
"Poland Purges Supreme Court, and Protesters Take to Streets
WARSAW — Poland’s government carried out a sweeping purge of the Supreme Court on Tuesday night, eroding the judiciary’s independence, escalating a confrontation with the European Union over the rule of law and further dividing this nation. Tens of thousands took to the streets in protest.
Poland was once a beacon for countries struggling to escape the yoke of the Soviet Union and embrace Western democracy. But it is now in league with neighboring nations, like Hungary, whose leaders have turned to authoritarian means to tighten their grip on power, presenting a grave challenge to a European Union already grappling with nationalist, populist and anti-immigrant movements.
The forced retirements of up to 27 of 72 Supreme Court justices, including the top judge, and the creation of a judicial disciplinary chamber were the latest in a series of steps by Poland’s right-wing Law and Justice Party to take over the justice system.
For years, the party has demonized judges as unreconstructed Communists and obstructionists. After coming to power in 2015, it took control of the Constitutional Tribunal, which is tasked with ensuring that laws do not violate the Constitution, and gave authority over the country’s prosecutors to the Ministry of Justice. Most recently, it asserted new powers to select judges. In recent days, judges who have spoken out against the changes have reported being harassed and intimidated.
Each move has been greeted with international condemnation and angry demonstrations.
Hours before the purge took effect at midnight, Poles again took to the streets in more than 60 cities and towns around the country. As the sun set in Warsaw, crowds gathered in front of a memorial dedicated to those who died in the city’s 1944 uprising against Nazi Germany, chanting an old but familiar refrain: “Solidarnosc.”
But now, calls for solidarity were not directed at an occupying force — or at Communist rule, which the labor-backed Solidarity movement brought down in 1989 — but at a democratically elected government, albeit one the demonstrators fear is undermining the system they fought so hard to build.
“We are here because of the destruction of the judiciary in Poland,” said Kamila Wrzesinska, who stood amid a sea of Polish and European Union flags. Organizers passed out placards with one word: “Constitution.”
In an interview just days ago, the leader of the Supreme Court, Malgorzata Gersdorf, expressed deep concern about her country’s direction.
“I don’t want to say that I am terrified,” she said, “but without a doubt this is not a direction I would like to go in, nor support, as I think it destroys what has been built over the last 25 years.”
The new law passed by Parliament requires that judges retire when they turn 65 unless they appeal to the country’s president, Andrzej Duda, who has sole discretion over whether they can remain.
Justice Gersdorf, who is 65, and more than a dozen others have refused to make such appeals, saying that the law itself was unconstitutional. Their supporters say the law was aimed at certain judges and had little to do with age, an argument that was bolstered when the government named Justice Gersdorf’s replacement: the 66-year-old judge Jozef Iwulski.
The ousted justices vowed to show up for work Wednesday morning, setting the stage for a possible confrontation with the authorities.
Officials with the governing party say they are simply overhauling a corrupt system that obstructs popular will. But critics, both in Poland and abroad, contend they are building one in which the courts are subservient to politicians.
In his zeal to create what he calls a Fourth Republic, free of any vestige of Communist rule and vest the state with ever greater power, the party’s leader, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, has also set the nation on a collision course with the European Union. The bloc views the changes as a threat to the rule of law and the Western values at the heart of the treaty binding the union of nations.
But the European Union’s failure to curb Hungary’s drift toward authoritarianism has emboldened other leaders in the region, where right-wing nationalism and populism are on the rise. Right-wing governments have taken power recently in Austria and Italy, while Chancellor Angela Merkel, a guardian of liberal Western values, just agreed to build camps on Germany’s borders to process migrants.
If Poland is not made to pay a high price for its actions, critics and outside legal experts worry, currents unraveling democracy in member states will be further strengthened.
It is far from clear how much more the European Union can do. For the first time in its history, it has turned to the so-called nuclear option, invoking Article 7 of its founding treaty. Poland could lose its voting rights as part of that process, although that would require a unanimous vote by the 28 member nations — a highly unlikely result, considering its strong backing from other countries that have moved in an authoritarian direction.
European officials also announced on Monday that a so-called infringement procedure had been started against Poland, which could result in the matter being referred to the European Court of Justice. The court could declare the judicial overhaul unconstitutional, but it cannot stop it.
For now, many of the country’s 10,000 judges remain united in their opposition to the government’s measures. And counter-pressures are building in Poland’s vibrant civil society.
Lech Walesa, who led the Solidarity movement that ended Communist rule in Poland and then served as president from 1990 to 1995, vowed on Sunday to lead a campaign of civil disobedience if Justice Gersdorf and other judges were removed.
“I am saying a definite ‘enough’ to this,” he wrote on Facebook. “If they raise their paws against the Supreme Court, then I am going to Warsaw.”
Judges who have spoken out publicly against the purge have reported being threatened, harassed and intimidated.
Waldemar Zurek, a former spokesman for the National Council of the Judiciary and a district court judge in the city of Krakow, has been openly critical of the changes. In response, he says, both he and his family have been subject to intense pressure and abuse, including death threats.
Judge Zurek said he was dismissed as a spokesman for the courts, threatened with disciplinary sanctions over fabricated allegations, and harassed by government agents, including at his home. His financial records were improperly disclosed, he has faced what he calls a trumped-up investigations about a long-ago real-estate transaction, and he has gotten scores of threatening emails and letters.
“All those who stand in the way of the minister become public enemies,” he said. “They are spat on.”
Justice Gersdorf, whose title is first president of the Supreme Court, said she thought that the mandatory retirement age was set with her in mind. Backed by 63 other judges on the court, who voted last week that she should stay in office, Justice Gersdorf said that she would continue to show up for work.
“I have no intention of resigning, since my term of office is six years,” she said.
Such defiance is the latest and most high-profile development in a confrontation that has been building for months.
In December, the Venice Commission, which is responsible for monitoring rule of law for the European Union, expressed “grave concerns” that the judicial overhaul put “at serious risk the independence of all parts of the Polish judiciary.”
Poland was given until the end of June to make changes that would satisfy those concerns. But no agreement was reached in meetings last week in Luxembourg, and Polish leaders vowed to press ahead.
“In essence, this is the end,” Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said on Thursday after meeting with European leaders. “We do not intend to withdraw from this reform.”
Mr. Kaczynski, the governing party’s leader, has not hidden his intentions.
“In a democracy, the sovereign is the people, their representative in Parliament and, in the Polish case, the elected president,” he said in a 2016 speech. “If we are to have a democratic state of law, no state authority, including the Constitutional Tribunal, can disregard legislation.”
Lacking the two-thirds majority needed in Parliament to change the Constitution, the party instead took control of the tribunal. After that, the tribunal approved laws, like those restructuring the courts, that critics have called unconstitutional.
The party then gave the Minister of Justice the role of prosecutor general, which had previously been independent, and it took over the National Council of the Judiciary, which is responsible for appointing judges.
Parliament also created a new disciplinary chamber that the opposition says would be used to attack judges who displeased the party.
“Judges in this disciplinary chamber will be earning 40 percent more than the justices on the Supreme Court,” Justice Gersdorf said. “It has to be emphasized that this is political bribery.”
One of Poland’s great accomplishments after 1989 was restoring public faith in the courts, she said, but it “will require years of rebuilding” to undo the damage being done to that achievement.
She shrugged off concerns that she might have to pay a high price for her defiance.
“They are not putting people in jail yet,” she said."
Comments
Comment rescinded. There is no point.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4573309-Separated-Parent-Removal-Form.html
If you don't want to be compared to a nazi, don't do the nazi stuff. It's simple. I get some people want to like him because he's ostensibly on your team. He's not. He's on his own side and will happily toss your interests aside when it suits him.
His daughter is a Jew.
His son in-law is a Jew.
He works with and has Jewish colleagues.
He is trying to push the ownership of Jerusalem into the Jewish state.
He praises Israel as friend and only Democracy in the middle east.
Has Trump gassed anyone? No
Has he put any of Americas legal citizens into death camps? No
Has he made a minority in the U.S. to wear specific identifiers? No
When we get to a fascist state in America I will be the first to let you know.
It's a quite straightforward question.
Also, why should there be any more consideration given to those who enter from a country next door as opposed to say a continent across a body of water that in this day and age can be crossed easily?
Europe is suffering from an influx of people from Africa.
Africa's population is exploding and climate change is having an effect.
How many, to the nearest million, do you think the USA should allow to enter the country?
They have the money to fly to the USA, the money they pay to people smugglers is far higher than a plane ticket.
So if you stop people flying to the USA using visa restrictions, what's the difference with a land border?
Perhaps if you gave an answer and laid out what you see as the future population of the US and explained how you will accomodate the x millions who will arrive, then people would listen.
Were they changed recently, just before the election, so people weren't aware of how the system worked for the last election?
I'm not seeing dislike in this thread, I'm seeing hysteria.
And the question has to be, where does anybody see this ending?
Civil war?
Nope. Rules werent changed. He won. However - between losing the popular vote and the concerns of Russian meddling in the election, the US population is rightfully skeptical of his victory. He absolutely won, but because he won approximately 100,000 votes spread across 3 states, providing an electoral college victory without winning the popular vote. Keep in mind, a US president has been elected without winning the popular vote only 4 times in history, and the last time (2000, Bush) ended in an unmitigated disaster.
As to hysteria - Trump elicits strong reactions. whether it's separating children from their families at the border, seemingly wanton corruption in his administration, and his callous disregard for the truth, it has hit a nerve.
Obviously there wont be a civil war. Nothing will cause that, short of a president refusing to hand over power after an election.
As a side note - The reaction to children being taken from their families and placed in facilities with no plan in place to ensure reunification should be hysteria. There's no justification for it whatsoever.
What's coming from his opponents sounds like stuff you would hear in a school playground.
If you believe in democracy, then you have to shut up and put up when you lose.
Democracy absolutely depends on accepting losing.
The reason democracy doesn't work in many countries is because that basic principle isn't accepted. And people reach for the guns and the tanks roll in.
The main reason I hate what I'm reading in this thread is because it's being mirrored in the UK and no Trump will ever threaten democracy as much as people believing that they shouldn't/mustn't/cannot lose because they believe themselves to be morally superior.
Is that what you think a democracy is? The loser just goes home and sleeps for 4 years (Enter number that suits your nation here) until the next election? That's not how it works, and is never how it worked. The opposition has a responsibility to try to influence and mitigate the policies put in place. Also, if you think we sound like kids on a school ground, I guess you havent been watching American politics (I wouldnt blame you) for the past 10 years. Obama's presidency had the same issue from the other side. It's hyper partisanship.
You also scooted right around the fact that there are still very relevant questions to if the victory was aided by foreign meddling. If you lose an election, and it turns out the other side cheats - do you just go home then? I think not.
Sorry the UK isnt exactly what you want it to be. As far as I can tell, the conservative party in the UK has been in power a hell of a lot longer in the last 50 years than the other side. Actually, until I looked at it just now, I didnt realize how monopolized it has been.
Also. Both sides always consider themselves morally superior, because so many political issues are made into moral ones. That's not new.
As for nazism there's nothing in the political philosophy that requires anti-semitism. The doctrine of racial purity includes the belief that some humans are better than others, but doesn't require the persecution of any particular group. It's perfectly reasonable to interpret Trump's words and actions as signs that he believes that some humans are better than others (characterizing whole peoples as animals, rapists, infesting our country etc).
For clarity I'd better say that I'm referring to the political philosophy of nazism - Hitler's Germany clearly was anti-semitic. The Jews in Germany made a good target because the history of anti-semitism made it easy to whip up sentiment against them (and the opportunity to confiscate their wealth was important in the pre-war years).
Did Americans call Obama a nazi too. Didn't know that.
I wont repost them, since they're utterly distasteful - but it gets the idea across.
You imply that we did not accept Trump's victory. This is false. We did accept it. And again, this happened the very day afterward; it's not like it was some tortured process where the Democratic party had to argue with itself over whether American democracy was legitimate. As Clinton said during the campaign, she would accept the results of the election whether she won or not. Sure enough, she did--as did the rest of us. From the Democratic leadership to the rank and file to individual voters, we did it, just like we said we would.
But accepting the results of American democracy as legitimate does not mean we need to "shut up."
We have the exact same right to criticize the president as we always have. And yes--Trump's dishonesty, his corruption, his incompetence, his lack of foresight, his lack of attention to detail, his lack of personal dignity, his lack of respect for his fellow Americans, his callous disregard for our allies, his unexplained support for our enemies, his record-breaking vacation days, his inability to accept criticism, and his obstruction of justice are all valid issues. We are right to call attention to these things.
So then American politics is all about crying wolf then. Since Obama nor Trump are/where Nazis. No wonder America is the laughing stock of the world.
Also let me clarify what I mean by crying wolf. The loosing side crying, complaining and playing the victim till they convince enough people to change their vote/political view whether better or worse until the next election.
Instead of coming together and fixing the problems, let's just bitch and moan till nothing gets done.
You may google Canada, Sweden, Norway and Iceland to see how much more civil societies deal with issues in their own countries first before they start tackling big boy issues like social injustice.
( even though Canada has been lacking lately in that department, especially with our groping man child Prime Minister.)
The US is in the midst of some really bad hyperpartisanship, but brushing it all under the rug as "playing the victim" is beyond the pale. There are real issues, and it does a disservice to those dealing with those issues if we just ignore them.
To be honest - I'm rather proud that Americans arent just laying down and accepting the current state of affairs.
I really dont know what you're trying to say.
"Let the ruling classes tremble at a
communistworkers revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen ofall countriesAmerica, unite!"Drain the swamp remember.
Also here is when Marx chimed in on immigration and how it effected the working class of England.
https://monthlyreview.org/2017/02/01/marx-on-immigration/
Draining the swamp must mean tax cuts for the rich. Trump's children in government positions literally taking bribes for government action. Goldman Sachs officials running the government. The ceo of Exxon was approved Secretary of State. That's draining the swamp huh.
Meanwhile, Poland is on fire:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/poland-purges-supreme-court-and-protesters-take-to-streets/ar-AAzxZBi?li=BBnbcA1
"Poland Purges Supreme Court, and Protesters Take to Streets
WARSAW — Poland’s government carried out a sweeping purge of the Supreme Court on Tuesday night, eroding the judiciary’s independence, escalating a confrontation with the European Union over the rule of law and further dividing this nation. Tens of thousands took to the streets in protest.
Poland was once a beacon for countries struggling to escape the yoke of the Soviet Union and embrace Western democracy. But it is now in league with neighboring nations, like Hungary, whose leaders have turned to authoritarian means to tighten their grip on power, presenting a grave challenge to a European Union already grappling with nationalist, populist and anti-immigrant movements.
The forced retirements of up to 27 of 72 Supreme Court justices, including the top judge, and the creation of a judicial disciplinary chamber were the latest in a series of steps by Poland’s right-wing Law and Justice Party to take over the justice system.
For years, the party has demonized judges as unreconstructed Communists and obstructionists. After coming to power in 2015, it took control of the Constitutional Tribunal, which is tasked with ensuring that laws do not violate the Constitution, and gave authority over the country’s prosecutors to the Ministry of Justice. Most recently, it asserted new powers to select judges. In recent days, judges who have spoken out against the changes have reported being harassed and intimidated.
Each move has been greeted with international condemnation and angry demonstrations.
Hours before the purge took effect at midnight, Poles again took to the streets in more than 60 cities and towns around the country. As the sun set in Warsaw, crowds gathered in front of a memorial dedicated to those who died in the city’s 1944 uprising against Nazi Germany, chanting an old but familiar refrain: “Solidarnosc.”
But now, calls for solidarity were not directed at an occupying force — or at Communist rule, which the labor-backed Solidarity movement brought down in 1989 — but at a democratically elected government, albeit one the demonstrators fear is undermining the system they fought so hard to build.
“We are here because of the destruction of the judiciary in Poland,” said Kamila Wrzesinska, who stood amid a sea of Polish and European Union flags. Organizers passed out placards with one word: “Constitution.”
In an interview just days ago, the leader of the Supreme Court, Malgorzata Gersdorf, expressed deep concern about her country’s direction.
“I don’t want to say that I am terrified,” she said, “but without a doubt this is not a direction I would like to go in, nor support, as I think it destroys what has been built over the last 25 years.”
The new law passed by Parliament requires that judges retire when they turn 65 unless they appeal to the country’s president, Andrzej Duda, who has sole discretion over whether they can remain.
Justice Gersdorf, who is 65, and more than a dozen others have refused to make such appeals, saying that the law itself was unconstitutional. Their supporters say the law was aimed at certain judges and had little to do with age, an argument that was bolstered when the government named Justice Gersdorf’s replacement: the 66-year-old judge Jozef Iwulski.
The ousted justices vowed to show up for work Wednesday morning, setting the stage for a possible confrontation with the authorities.
Officials with the governing party say they are simply overhauling a corrupt system that obstructs popular will. But critics, both in Poland and abroad, contend they are building one in which the courts are subservient to politicians.
In his zeal to create what he calls a Fourth Republic, free of any vestige of Communist rule and vest the state with ever greater power, the party’s leader, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, has also set the nation on a collision course with the European Union. The bloc views the changes as a threat to the rule of law and the Western values at the heart of the treaty binding the union of nations.
But the European Union’s failure to curb Hungary’s drift toward authoritarianism has emboldened other leaders in the region, where right-wing nationalism and populism are on the rise. Right-wing governments have taken power recently in Austria and Italy, while Chancellor Angela Merkel, a guardian of liberal Western values, just agreed to build camps on Germany’s borders to process migrants.
If Poland is not made to pay a high price for its actions, critics and outside legal experts worry, currents unraveling democracy in member states will be further strengthened.
It is far from clear how much more the European Union can do. For the first time in its history, it has turned to the so-called nuclear option, invoking Article 7 of its founding treaty. Poland could lose its voting rights as part of that process, although that would require a unanimous vote by the 28 member nations — a highly unlikely result, considering its strong backing from other countries that have moved in an authoritarian direction.
European officials also announced on Monday that a so-called infringement procedure had been started against Poland, which could result in the matter being referred to the European Court of Justice. The court could declare the judicial overhaul unconstitutional, but it cannot stop it.
For now, many of the country’s 10,000 judges remain united in their opposition to the government’s measures. And counter-pressures are building in Poland’s vibrant civil society.
Lech Walesa, who led the Solidarity movement that ended Communist rule in Poland and then served as president from 1990 to 1995, vowed on Sunday to lead a campaign of civil disobedience if Justice Gersdorf and other judges were removed.
“I am saying a definite ‘enough’ to this,” he wrote on Facebook. “If they raise their paws against the Supreme Court, then I am going to Warsaw.”
Judges who have spoken out publicly against the purge have reported being threatened, harassed and intimidated.
Waldemar Zurek, a former spokesman for the National Council of the Judiciary and a district court judge in the city of Krakow, has been openly critical of the changes. In response, he says, both he and his family have been subject to intense pressure and abuse, including death threats.
Judge Zurek said he was dismissed as a spokesman for the courts, threatened with disciplinary sanctions over fabricated allegations, and harassed by government agents, including at his home. His financial records were improperly disclosed, he has faced what he calls a trumped-up investigations about a long-ago real-estate transaction, and he has gotten scores of threatening emails and letters.
“All those who stand in the way of the minister become public enemies,” he said. “They are spat on.”
Justice Gersdorf, whose title is first president of the Supreme Court, said she thought that the mandatory retirement age was set with her in mind. Backed by 63 other judges on the court, who voted last week that she should stay in office, Justice Gersdorf said that she would continue to show up for work.
“I have no intention of resigning, since my term of office is six years,” she said.
Such defiance is the latest and most high-profile development in a confrontation that has been building for months.
In December, the Venice Commission, which is responsible for monitoring rule of law for the European Union, expressed “grave concerns” that the judicial overhaul put “at serious risk the independence of all parts of the Polish judiciary.”
Poland was given until the end of June to make changes that would satisfy those concerns. But no agreement was reached in meetings last week in Luxembourg, and Polish leaders vowed to press ahead.
“In essence, this is the end,” Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said on Thursday after meeting with European leaders. “We do not intend to withdraw from this reform.”
Mr. Kaczynski, the governing party’s leader, has not hidden his intentions.
“In a democracy, the sovereign is the people, their representative in Parliament and, in the Polish case, the elected president,” he said in a 2016 speech. “If we are to have a democratic state of law, no state authority, including the Constitutional Tribunal, can disregard legislation.”
Lacking the two-thirds majority needed in Parliament to change the Constitution, the party instead took control of the tribunal. After that, the tribunal approved laws, like those restructuring the courts, that critics have called unconstitutional.
The party then gave the Minister of Justice the role of prosecutor general, which had previously been independent, and it took over the National Council of the Judiciary, which is responsible for appointing judges.
Parliament also created a new disciplinary chamber that the opposition says would be used to attack judges who displeased the party.
“Judges in this disciplinary chamber will be earning 40 percent more than the justices on the Supreme Court,” Justice Gersdorf said. “It has to be emphasized that this is political bribery.”
One of Poland’s great accomplishments after 1989 was restoring public faith in the courts, she said, but it “will require years of rebuilding” to undo the damage being done to that achievement.
She shrugged off concerns that she might have to pay a high price for her defiance.
“They are not putting people in jail yet,” she said."