• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Ed The Fascism Checklist, Trump 2025

You don't think there'll be Republicans absolutely gitty when Elon sets his knife on government regulation and waste?
Of course the very rich ones will be "giddy". They have enough money to protect themselves and know that the roadblocks to them making more money are being removed. This will do very little for the anerage American.
 
Of course the very rich ones will be "giddy". They have enough money to protect themselves and know that the roadblocks to them making more money are being removed. This will do very little for the anerage American.
Ah, zero-sum thinking. Will we ever be spared of it?
 
This. 'Illegal immigrant' has joined the other words that have lost all meaning over the years thanks to far-right groupthink. You know, like 'communists', 'woke', and 'leftist'. Even people entering the country to seek asylum, which is, as we all know, they have every right to and isn't against US law, are 'illegal immigrants' in the fascist MAGA world.

The person you're responding to trying to placate us with 'oh but the Konzentrationslager are only temporary, you know, they'll go away once we've gotten rid of all the Untermench' was chilling, too. They're moving more and more away from the dog whistles and saying the quiet parts out loud :( . 2024-
2028will be a horror show.

Edit: The way they pretend there were no peaceful protests that were attacked by police forces in 2020 is disturbing, too. They're already rewriting recent history and declaring their support for violent crackdowns on peaceful protests.

I predicted before the election that if Dump won, we'd soon have discussions in Europe about how many American refugees we could afford to take in.
2028? I admire your optimism, though I fear it is misplaced. It would not surprise me at all if it turns out America has had its last election for a very long time.
 
2028? I admire your optimism, though I fear it is misplaced. It would not surprise me at all if it turns out America has had its last election for a very long time.
It would for me. The individual states run the elections, and they're mandated by the constitution. I doubt even Trump's sympathetic Supreme Court would let him cancel elections that have been held every two and four years for over two centuries.

There have been cases where despots have unilaterally suspended the constitution. However, most of those were in places where democratic institutions were weak. Currently in the USA they're not as strong as I would like them to be, as shown by the very factional Congress and a Supreme Court whose justices are chosen by the president based on their right/left leanings as opposed to their judicial prudence, but they should be strong enough to prevent an outright takeover by hard right Republicans.

Having said that, who gets to stay in power ultimately depends on the military. Officers and soldiers swear an oath to the Constitution, but when push comes to shove we may be in the unpleasant situation of finding out just where the loyalties of the top generals lie.
 
It would for me. The individual states run the elections, and they're mandated by the constitution. I doubt even Trump's sympathetic Supreme Court would let him cancel elections that have been held every two and four years for over two centuries.

And if the hard-red, Republican & Christian fundamentalist-dominated states decide not to hold elections, because Trump is mandated by God, who is going to stop them?
There have been cases where despots have unilaterally suspended the constitution. However, most of those were in places where democratic institutions were weak. Currently in the USA they're not as strong as I would like them to be, as shown by the very factional Congress and a Supreme Court whose justices are chosen by the president based on their right/left leanings as opposed to their judicial prudence, but they should be strong enough to prevent an outright takeover by hard right Republicans.

You also need to factor in Project 2025. This is an explicit blueprint for taking over the judiciary and the military. Once they control the courts and the various law enforcement agencies, they will be essentially unopposed- i.e. no-one will have the power to force them to hold elections.
Having said that, who gets to stay in power ultimately depends on the military. Officers and soldiers swear an oath to the Constitution, but when push comes to shove we may be in the unpleasant situation of finding out just where the loyalties of the top generals lie.
By which time it will be too late.
Add on to that the large numbers of the American people who will be easily swayed into accepting that elections will be fixed by the Satanists, so it's better not to have any for the time being.
Then add the fact that the Democrats will be far too weak to actually mount any kind of offense against this coup.
I hope you're wrong- but I fear the worst.
 
It would for me. The individual states run the elections, and they're mandated by the constitution. I doubt even Trump's sympathetic Supreme Court would let him cancel elections that have been held every two and four years for over two centuries.

There have been cases where despots have unilaterally suspended the constitution. However, most of those were in places where democratic institutions were weak. Currently in the USA they're not as strong as I would like them to be, as shown by the very factional Congress and a Supreme Court whose justices are chosen by the president based on their right/left leanings as opposed to their judicial prudence, but they should be strong enough to prevent an outright takeover by hard right Republicans.

Having said that, who gets to stay in power ultimately depends on the military. Officers and soldiers swear an oath to the Constitution, but when push comes to shove we may be in the unpleasant situation of finding out just where the loyalties of the top generals lie.
Hate to break it to you but the US isn't one of those places, as what it has are republican institutions. And as history has shown us republican institutions are generally broken by the first despot with a mob at his back.
 
There are all sorts of ways to cancel elections.

The Constitutionn says state legislatures cast the electoral votes. If some Republican legislature (with a Republican governor and secretary of state, and state-level Republican SC)decided “the vote totals from those Democrat districts look hinky so we’ll not count them until things get sorted out - meanwhile we cast all our EC votes for DJT,” then who exactly will stop that? Especially if the Republicans cause enough chaos or confusion in those districts.

If a state has a law that says voters can take as much time as they want looking at the ballot, then what’s to stop a D-leaning precinct from being targeted by a few hundred Republicans who each want to stand in the voting booth for an hour?

They learned a lot from 2020. They plan on not making the same mistakes when challenging crap.

Or if DJT says the week before the election, there are so many stories of upcoming voter fraud we have to postpone the election.
 
The trickling-down delusion has dominated economics since the 1980s.
As has been demonstrated conspicuously this month, the reality of trickle down is the world's richest man pissing on ordinary people.
The only trickle-down happening is the rich pissing on the poor per usual.
 
Hate to break it to you but the US isn't one of those places, as what it has are republican institutions. And as history has shown us republican institutions are generally broken by the first despot with a mob at his back.
Please define, show, or demonstrate the difference between a "democratic" institution and a "republican" institution. The institutions I have in mind are parliament/congress, the courts, the military, and the media.
 
And if the hard-red, Republican & Christian fundamentalist-dominated states decide not to hold elections, because Trump is mandated by God, who is going to stop them?
There are presidential elections and congressional elections. The courts are supposed to be able to force the government to do things mandated by the constitution, but if courts in individual states have been stacked with people who aren't prepared to defend the constitution, then that's a serious situation indeed.

You also need to factor in Project 2025. This is an explicit blueprint for taking over the judiciary and the military. Once they control the courts and the various law enforcement agencies, they will be essentially unopposed- i.e. no-one will have the power to force them to hold elections.
I had forgotten about that. Trump says he's not aware of Project 2025, but I see little reason to take his word for it. And the people he's putting into place in government are in many cases the same people who wrote various chapters of the project.

By which time it will be too late.
Add on to that the large numbers of the American people who will be easily swayed into accepting that elections will be fixed by the Satanists, so it's better not to have any for the time being.
That will work in only a small number of states or even places within states. Congress itself may find something within its rules to prevent an illegitimate person (one whose seat was not formally won in a biennial election) from sitting or being recognized when votes within the chambers are counted.

Then add the fact that the Democrats will be far too weak to actually mount any kind of offense against this coup.
True, unless they can get their act in gear and start pushing back hard against the anti-democratic changes.

I hope you're wrong- but I fear the worst.
Unfortunately this is what a smidge over 50% of the US population voted for when they elected Trump as president. It will be both interesting and scary to watch all this play out over the next four years.
 
Last edited:
The only trickle-down happening is the rich pissing on the poor per usual.
Musk’s wishes to have more workers that work longer hours for less is pissing on the poor, and represents a zero-sum thinking.

That he happens to provide an accurate description of the MAGA population is really ironic.
 
Musk’s wishes to have more workers that work longer hours for less is pissing on the poor, and represents a zero-sum thinking.

That he happens to provide an accurate description of the MAGA population is really ironic.
Musk wants the same type of workers he used to have slaving away at the bottom of his daddy's emerald mines in South Africa under apartheid.
 
I wonder if causing an economic depression is a good part of facism. Trump is already telegraphing that it will happen and is already trying to blame Biden and democrats for it
 
I wonder if causing an economic depression is a good part of facism. Trump is already telegraphing that it will happen and is already trying to blame Biden and democrats for it
Covering his bases.

If his tariffs don't actually crash the economy then it's all down to his brilliance. If they do, then it's the Democrats' fault.

Looking at the level of competence in his administration then IMO the latter is the more likely scenario.
 
Please define, show, or demonstrate the difference between a "democratic" institution and a "republican" institution. The institutions I have in mind are parliament/congress, the courts, the military, and the media.
The difference is that in a democracy everybody is equal,in a republic some people are more equal than others. Every institution in the US was designed to ensure that the will of the rich triumphed over the will of the people.
 
I am not sure this is found in the definitions of democracy and republic. Or are you confusing republic and monarchy?
Technically, rule of the rich is a plutocracy. In modern terms a republic is just anything that isn't a monarchy.
 
I am not sure this is found in the definitions of democracy and republic. Or are you confusing republic and monarchy?
No I'm not, I'm simply looking at the differences between republican and democratic forms of government down through the centuries. Every republican form of government heavily privileged the rich in society, from Rome having the Patrician class vote first while the Plebians who turned up having to habg around all day, through the property and income voting requirements of the medieval republics right down to the legality of buying votes and politicians in the present day US.
 
Ah, trickle down thinking. Will we ever be spared of it?
If you view it as trickle down, you will always be poor. One criticism of lefty economic thinking that seems to stick, is that lefties have no notion of how to create wealth. They've got plenty of ideas about how to take from others and "redistribute," but wealth creation is something they have no interest in. Wealth arises when individuals create goods and services that other people want. Government doesn't do that. But government taxes and regulations can certainly stamp out that initiative and keep everyone poor. I mean, when the Soviet Union allowed 2-3% private farm plots, those plots greatly outperformed the collective farms.
 
Last edited:
No I'm not, I'm simply looking at the differences between republican and democratic forms of government down through the centuries. Every republican form of government heavily privileged the rich in society, from Rome having the Patrician class vote first while the Plebians who turned up having to habg around all day, through the property and income voting requirements of the medieval republics right down to the legality of buying votes and politicians in the present day US.
Every society has hierarchy. That's part of the human condition. Can't be avoided.
 
There is no difference between a republic and a democracy.
Gulliver Foyle: can you name some countries that you consider to be democracies but not republics? It would make your point more comprehensible, as we could then make some informed comparisons.
The UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, of the top of my head. Not that you asked me.. None of them are republics, all are democracies, notably also monarchies.
 
One criticism of lefty economic thinking that seems to stick, is that lefties have no notion of how to create wealth.
In your example you've equated “left” with totalitarian Russia. The truth is there is room on the left, just as there is room on the right (the current US right wing is looking uncomfortably fascist these days.)

Canada and a lot of European countries, as well Australia and New Zealand, are politically left of the United States, but they are also creating wealth through capitalistic means. They try to reduce the excesses of capitalism through strong regulation. One can see the result in average vs. median wealth.

For example, in the United States the average individual wealth was $565,000 in 2023, while Canada's was only ⅔ of that at $376,000 ($US.) But the average is pulled up by the great hoarding of wealth by the 1%. If you look at median wealth, the situation is reversed: individual wealth in Canada is $143,000 ($US, 2023) while the US lags behind at $112,000.

 
Whenever someone says the US is a Republic and not a democracy, I usually reply "I don't drive a car, I drive an Audi!"

The US is a republic and a democracy.
Norway is a monarchy and a democracy.
russia is a republic and a dictatorship.
Saudi-Arabia is a monarchy and a dictatorship.
 
that depends on how the rest of the wealth and power is distributed - the Gini coefficient of a country with a rich and powerful monarchy, but otherwise rather egalitarian socio-economic society would be quite good.

Intellectually, people will not compare themselves to Monarchs, because they can never be one - unlike with a billionaire, who is only different because he has more money,
 
If you view it as trickle down, you will always be poor. One criticism of lefty economic thinking that seems to stick, is that lefties have no notion of how to create wealth. They've got plenty of ideas about how to take from others and "redistribute," but wealth creation is something they have no interest in. Wealth arises when individuals create goods and services that other people want. Government doesn't do that. But government taxes and regulations can certainly stamp out that initiative and keep everyone poor. I mean, when the Soviet Union allowed 2-3% private farm plots, those plots greatly outperformed the collective farms.
It's callled trickle down economics because that's how right wingers described it. The belief that making the wealthy even wealthier will over flow the coffers so that money trickles down to the rest of society STUPID, considering we have decades of evidence showing otherwise. You should stop reading Ayn Rand, it's poison for the brain.
 
If you view it as trickle down, you will always be poor. One criticism of lefty economic thinking that seems to stick, is that lefties have no notion of how to create wealth. They've got plenty of ideas about how to take from others and "redistribute," but wealth creation is something they have no interest in. Wealth arises when individuals create goods and services that other people want. Government doesn't do that. But government taxes and regulations can certainly stamp out that initiative and keep everyone poor. I mean, when the Soviet Union allowed 2-3% private farm plots, those plots greatly outperformed the collective farms.
Wealth also arises from people relentlessly and mercilessly screwing over anyone they can. Not everyone can be the boss. By definition, some have to be the workers, too. And the wealth never trickled down to them. The boss saw to that with low wages.
 
It's callled trickle down economics because that's how right wingers described it. The belief that making the wealthy even wealthier will over flow the coffers so that money trickles down to the rest of society STUPID, considering we have decades of evidence showing otherwise. You should stop reading Ayn Rand, it's poison for the brain.
It amazes me that someone that's supposedly educated cannot grasp the simple concept that ◊◊◊◊ rolls down hill. When you tax big business the increase is added to consumer pricing and that can only mean the consumer pays for the tax increase in the end. There has never been an economy in the history of the world that was taxed into prosperity.
 
Yes, I did consider that. However, GF's claim was that democracies were more egalitarian than republics. A monarchy is, by definition, not egalitarian.
Only if the monarchs in said monarchy hold more wealth and power than everyone else, which they typically don't.

e.g. the UK king has no political power and exactly the same voting power as any other citizen. He is the 258th richest person in the UK, so there are 257 richer people than him.

Sounds pretty egalitarian to me. :)
 
It amazes me that someone that's supposedly educated cannot grasp the simple concept that ◊◊◊◊ rolls down hill. When you tax big business the increase is added to consumer pricing and that can only mean the consumer pays for the tax increase in the end. There has never been an economy in the history of the world that was taxed into prosperity.
Well, apart from the USA, of course, in the 1950s, largely considered the boom years for that country, when it became the global superpower.


Tax rates up to 90% for the richest. Seemed to do pretty well, didn't it?
 
Well, apart from the USA, of course, in the 1950s, largely considered the boom years for that country, when it became the global superpower.


Tax rates up to 90% for the richest. Seemed to do pretty well, didn't it?
Right up until the 1970's when interest rates hit record highs and the economy was brought to a standstill by the failed Democrat economic policies of Jimmy Carter. That's when the "No Gas Today" signs were posted at most filling stations. That ended Jimmy Carter's tour of duty in 1980. The economy recovered under Reagan's trickle down economics and interest rates were lowered. I lived it. That's why Reagan won in a landslide in 1984.
 
Right up until the 1970's when interest rates hit record highs and the economy was brought to a standstill by the failed Democrat economic policies of Jimmy Carter. That's when the "No Gas Today" signs were posted at most filling stations. That ended Jimmy Carter's tour of duty in 1980. The economy recovered under Reagan's trickle down economics and interest rates were lowered. I lived it. That's why Reagan won in a landslide in 1984.
So the boom years when the US gained its greatest prosperity were during the high tax rates. And, starting in 1964, income tax rates declined, this decline continued until 1987, through the point at which you are complaining about.

So, in fact, the USA during its period of higher taxation was its boom years.

Or do you not consider the 1950s and 60s boom time?
 
Only if the monarchs in said monarchy hold more wealth and power than everyone else, which they typically don't.

They don't have to be the single richest person in the country. To be a member of a class that rules by right of birth, to be among a whole class of the super-rich, to own all of the land of a country, to enjoy privileges not open to ordinary people- these all indicate inequality.
e.g. the UK king has no political power and exactly the same voting power as any other citizen. He is the 258th richest person in the UK, so there are 257 richer people than him.

Not actually true. The monarch does have significant political power- they just choose not to exercise it. As for voting, whilst the monarch is technically allowed to vote, in practice they don't. Firstly, the royal family is supposed to be above party politics. Secondly, members of the aristocracy are not allowed to vote if they are in the House of Lords. As a part of the aristocracy, there is an assumption/understanding that the royals should not vote. This is nowhere near the same situation as the average man on the Clapham omnibus.
Sounds pretty egalitarian to me. :)
I assume this is sarcasm?
 
Right up until the 1970's when interest rates hit record highs and the economy was brought to a standstill by the failed Democrat economic policies of Jimmy Carter. That's when the "No Gas Today" signs were posted at most filling stations. That ended Jimmy Carter's tour of duty in 1980. The economy recovered under Reagan's trickle down economics and interest rates were lowered. I lived it. That's why Reagan won in a landslide in 1984.
There is so much wrong with this. Except maybe the “I lived,” but I’m taking your word for it, so can’t be 100% sure of that.
 
Back
Top Bottom