All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[InformationGeek]

SNL really dug into the Trump administration. Shots at Trump, Banon, the ban, and this spectacular and insane reenactment of a Sean Spicer briefing.

[worstblogever]

Two years ago on this date, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” posted a profile of John Johnston, who was a former Marine and member of the NSA who was a candidate for District 10 of the Indiana State Senate in 2014. At first, it seemed like he might be a good challenger to incumbent Democrat Chuck Mosely... until Johnston went on social media to rant about America's social safety net, and how he wanted to cut it, lamenting that in dealing with the poor, that "no one has the guts to just let them wither and die". The media asked him if he would like to retract that statement, and instead, Johnston doubled down, comparing the downtrodden on welfare to "like training a child". Predictably, he lost the election after that, and has not made a run for office since.

One year ago today, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” posted a profile of Tim Donnelly, a former two terms member of California State Assembly from 2011-2015, in spite of the fact that Donnelly was featured as an anti-immigrant goon trying to "fix the fence" on the Colbert Report back in 2006. During his 2010 campaign, he was speaking at Cal State University at Fresno, and called for the resignation of the student body president because he was an undocumented immigrant on the school's dean list (which only made the crowd gathered heckle Donnelly) and made it a personal quest once in office to see them kicked out of the country. If nothing else, though, Tim Donnelly had great aspirations, and felt like his place in the California legislature wasn't enough, getting ballsy enough to run for Governor of California in the hopes that he could win the GOP nomination to challenge the legendary Jerry Brown in the 2014 elections. However, Los Angeles times uncovered a speech delivered by Donnelly in 2006 when he was running around with the Minutemen militia, and he compared illegal immigration to warfare, with some proud reflections on our ancestors killing Mexicans. Somehow, though, Donnelly got even more xenophobic in May, getting on social media to link to an article by radical anti-Muslim commentator Frank Gaffney, that claimed his primary opponent Neel Kashkari, a former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury for Financial Stability, who worked on helping the American economy recover from the 2007-2008 banking crisis, and a Hindu... was part of a secret plot to institute Sharia Law upon the American financial system. In spite of being a politician in California, Donnelly campaigned against the ban of the sale of the Confederate flag in state-owned souvenir shops. At this point, Donnelly only floats around the fringe of California politics from outside the legislature, trying to prevent people from being required to give their kids their vaccinations before they go to public school. Donelly actually ran for U.S. House to represent California’s 8th Congressional District in 2016, but finished third in the primary with only 21% of the vote, far behind Rep. Paul Cook. Since we don’t think there’s much of a chance of someone as insane as him being elected again in California any time soon, we’ll go ahead and set aside his profile so we can take a look at a different kooky Republican on this date instead. (Current crazy/stupid scoreboard, is now 558-20, since this was established in July 2014.)


Clayton Fiscus
Welcome to the 558th original "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" profile, where our discussion will focus on Clayton Fiscus, a now former member of the Montana House of Representatives from 2013 through 2017. And boy, was he a handful for those two terms in office. Heck, even prior to being sworn into office, he was off the rails. Just after the 2012 election, Fiscus went on record, and stated his desire to try and pass a bill to have intelligent design taught in public school classrooms, in spite of the fact that repeatedly, such legislation has always been overturned as a violation of the separation of church and state. Shortly after his re-election in 2014, Fiscus tried yet again to strike a blow for Creationists, with a bill to allow students to challenge the theories of evolutionary biology, under the guise of “critical thinking skills”, without any irony.

But let’s not let that one issue be the only thing in Fiscus’ voting record we take exception to. The rest of it has some equally frustrating stances:

• February 27th, 2013: Clayton Fiscus votes for HB 384, a bill that would have made it legal for children to bring their guns to school. (Hell of a way to respond to the Newtown Massacre, only a few weeks earlier, right?)
• April 10th, 2013: Fiscus votes against SB 107, which would repeal Montana’s law that any sexual contact between two individuals of the same sex should be considered “deviate sexual relations”. Yeah, effectively, he was standing for homosexuality still being a crime, go figure.
• January 12th, 2015: Fiscus introduces HB 200, an attempt to begin drug testing welfare recipients in Montana.A reminder, though, these laws are always eventually overturned by the courts as unconstitutional violations of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, and prior to them being thrown out, they catch barely any drug use by people on government assistance. They waste a fortune on drug testing, with the only outcome being that poor people have their Constitutional rights ignored so conservatives can shame them.
• March 25th, 2015: Clayton Fiscus votes for HB 245, one of those bizarre Republican efforts to legalize the sale of raw milk.
• March 25th, 2015: Fiscus votes for HB 479, a bill that if it was not vetoed, would have required a woman receiving an abortion to receive fetal anesthesia if they were at 20-24 weeks. Now, most abortions don’t occur at this later stage of pregnancy, but if they did, the fetus still cannot feel pain.

We’re not exactly sure why Clayton Fiscus decided to not run for re-election in 2016, but frankly, Montana will be a lot better off without him making decisions on its behalf, with him wanting religious indoctrination taking precedence over science in school.

[mojotastic]

Ok, ok i did a mistake anyway, i have been thinking on the list of those 14 signs of fascism, it has been bugging me because they seem to broad and general and i am putting in doubt the credibility of the author, for one he is not a political scientist, the author list fails the test of logic that states that things similar in many elements are not necessarily identical. Britt’s entire essay is without any value in terms of defining fascism.

The reason creating this definition was important for Britt is because he had self-published a novel entitled June 2004 about the United States descending into a Fascist state under George W. Bush. In essence, the 14 signs are little more than an ex post facto fitting of terms to match the events in his fictional thriller, and to get people to buy his book.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/june...itt/1002951724

One of the major problems i have with the signs themselves is that the characteristics are hardly limited to only fascist states. like: "Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism." Which, yes, is a sign of fascism--but it's also a sign of a country having a strong sense of national identity, and can be seen in modern Mexico, much of Europe specially east Europe, many South American and African nations, Japan and numerous other first and third world countries. This virtue was also used by the countries who fought against Fascist in WW2. The idea that demonstrations of nationalism are a meaningful indicator of fascism is absurd, and prone to reading a false positive.

The second sign is even more general: "Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause" is more of a sign of human nature than fascism, it could be an entity such as terrorist, mafias or a non entity such corruption, poverty, miminun wage.

The seventh sign: "Obsession with national security" is yet another sign that fits nearly every state that has ever existed. Just look at Switzerland, one could say their country has an obsession with national security since it is a country with universal service, a massive bunker network that protect almost all the population against nuclear attacks, hidden military installations everywhere, and a major arms manufacturing industry. Are the Swiss fascists?

"Power of corporations protected" is a characteristic of nearly every non-communist state in the world, even countries like Venezuela try to protect their non state companies such as maltin, which is a company that produce sodas and whose resources are running out. "Obsession with crime and punishment" fits basically any modern state committed to policing and protecting the population.

One could say a lot of these sign are false equivalences, there is also things like "Disdain for the importance of human rights" and "Power of labor suppressed or eliminated" and "rampant sexism" are just the author picking out bad staff and associating it with both fascism and the Bush administration.

I better example on early sign of Fascism are the ones wrote by Umberto Eco who lived during mussolini regime, while you might find some similarities you can also find some other important point that the other author missed, should you be alarmed? kinda since Trump still falls under some of these categories.

http://interglacial.com/pub/text/Umb...l_Fascism.html

I apologize for the any grammar mistake and if you find one please let me know

[IheartBatman]

No -- what's "sad" is watching someone try to continually blame the "left" for the actions of anarchists, while simultaneously trying to equate "Antifa" with "Nazis" and likewise trying to equate the "left" with "Antifa".

If you're going to take a stand against "hypocrisy" then at least get your terms and facts straight before doing so.

Btw -- making the claim that Trump is "far from a fascist" destroys a lot of your credibility, when there is plenty of evidence that proves otherwise.

That image actually applies to Hillary and Obama, as well.

Also.
Attachment 44745
Attachment 44746

[Shining Trapezohedron]

That image actually applies to Hillary and Obama, as well.

Also.

Start listing up for both where they did those points.

[IheartBatman]

Start listing up for both where they did those points.

Drones, increased NSA, lust for increased military presence in Middle East(Hillary), mass incarceration of African Americans (Hillary), dismissal and harrasment of women victims(Hillary)
Drones, lots of brown people bombed, mass deportation of illegal aliens (2.4 million), ban on refugees into the US from certain countries, bailout of Wall Street, when they should have been arrested and jailed for massive fraud that nearly toppled the global economy.

[Cold Water]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7561066.html

Welp.

I'm sure the woman's body would have "shut down" the pregnancy if she didn't want it.

(I wish I was kidding, but wasn't this what Republicans literally said a few years ago?)

[Shining Trapezohedron]

Drones, increased NSA, lust for increased military presence in Middle East(Hillary), mass incarceration of African Americans (Hillary), dismissal and harrasment of women victims(Hillary)
Drones, lots of brown people bombed, mass deportation of illegal aliens (2.4 million), ban on refugees into the US from certain countries, bailout of Wall Street, when they should have been arrested and jailed for massive fraud that nearly toppled the global economy.

Maybe I should have said to also provide facts for that, instead of merely right-wing twitter memes and talking points.

[Cold Water]

Maybe I should have said to also provide facts for that, instead of merely right-wing twitter memes and talking points.

Um, I think I've hit the point where I'm just going to be posting memes in this thread when I participate.
Some people supporting an administration in here who thinks absolutely nothing of me and my body, well, they get nothing but memes from me.

[aja_christopher]

Ok, ok i did a mistake anyway, i have been thinking on the list of those 14 signs of fascism, it has been bugging me because they seem to broad and general and i am putting in doubt the credibility of the author, for one he is not a political scientist, the author list fails the test of logic that states that things similar in many elements are not necessarily identical. Britt’s entire essay is without any value in terms of defining fascism.

Actually, I respect the fact that you did your research on this enough not to even try to counter your main point here (that it's a very generalized list) but with that said, you also have to admit that some governments demonstrate many -- or even all -- of those traits more than others.

This comes back to the issue of false equivocation -- you can't argue that just because many governments share some of these traits, that makes them all equally guilty of fascism.

Certainly you can find certain elements of this list in each and every government, but -- objectively speaking -- Trump's ideologies are extremely fascist in many respects and trying to pretend otherwise is at best dishonest and at worst simply nihilistic.

Simply put: if a government exhibits two or three of these traits then you can argue that they may or may not be "fascist" by definition, but when you try to argue that a government that exemplifies ten or more of these traits isn't "fascist" then it becomes obvious that you are not being truly objective, and are simply arguing terminology.

If you choose to not see his behavior as "fascist" then that is your choice... but I doubt you'll convince anyone otherwise by debating the term "fascist".

[JCAll]

Whether Trump is Fascist or not, it might be best not to directly argue the point with his supporters. Words have power, psychologically speaking, and it's becoming increasingly clear that certain words can shut down a debate about the ideas behind those words just by their presence. Sort of like how "Climate Change" completely shuts down any talk of the actual effect of manmade pollution of the longterm viability and stability of our planet.

Donald Trump is a petty, cruel, narcissistic, incompetent, hopelessly corrupt asshole. Taking the time with the non-fanatical Republicans to paint his actions as petty, cruel, narcissistic, and hopelessly corrupt has the potential to turn them against him, whereas just calling him a "Fascist" will certainly turn them against YOU. Because the human mind is weird, and we must work around that rather than through it if we want to turn the tide against the current regime before it's too late. Unless it's already too late...which it probably is...damn...

[Cold Water]

Whether Trump is Fascist or not, it might be best not to directly argue the point with his supporters. Words have power, psychologically speaking, and it's becoming increasingly clear that certain words can shut down a debate about the ideas behind those words just by their presence. Sort of like how "Climate Change" completely shuts down any talk of the actual effect of manmade pollution of the longterm viability and stability of our planet.

Donald Trump is a petty, cruel, narcissistic, incompetent, hopelessly corrupt asshole. Taking the time with the non-fanatical Republicans to paint his actions as petty, cruel, narcissistic, and hopelessly corrupt has the potential to turn them against him, whereas just calling him a "Fascist" will certainly turn them against YOU. Because the human mind is weird, and we must work around that rather than through it if we want to turn the tide against the current regime before it's too late. Unless it's already too late...which it probably is...damn...

It is.
They are already outlawing my right to MY BODY in at least one state which is still illegal, but they do not care.
Sorry, you might want to find a non-targeted person to attempt to be nice, and talk sense into, his supporters.
Because that's not me.

[aja_christopher]

Whether Trump is Fascist or not, it might be best not to directly argue the point with his supporters. Words have power, psychologically speaking, and it's becoming increasingly clear that certain words can shut down a debate about the ideas behind those words just by their presence. Sort of like how "Climate Change" completely shuts down any talk of the actual effect of manmade pollution of the longterm viability and stability of our planet.

Donald Trump is a petty, cruel, narcissistic, incompetent, hopelessly corrupt asshole. Taking the time with the non-fanatical Republicans to paint his actions as petty, cruel, narcissistic, and hopelessly corrupt has the potential to turn them against him, whereas just calling him a "Fascist" will certainly turn them against YOU. Because the human mind is weird, and we must work around that rather than through it if we want to turn the tide against the current regime before it's too late. Unless it's already too late...which it probably is...damn...

Which is one of the main reasons I'm done trying to "reason" with the unreasonable.

I call it like I see it, and if they can't deal then that's their problem, not mine.

It is.
They are already outlawing my right to MY BODY in at least one state which is still illegal, but they do not care.
Sorry, you might want to find a non-targeted person to attempt to be nice, and talk sense into, his supporters.
Because that's not me.

Exactly -- we are dealing with a government that wants to give people the rights to more guns, but not the right to choose what happens to their own body.

Likewise, as a black male who would be negatively affected by whatever racially profiling "stop and frisk" nonsense Trump wants to put into effect, I refuse to try to "talk nice" in an effort to convince other Americans that my civil rights are worth protecting.

Hell, if Obama couldn't do it then I'm not going to waste my time with it -- he's a much better speaker than I am, and a lot more patient than I ever wanted to be.

[mojotastic]

Actually, I respect the fact that you did your research on this enough not to even try to counter your main point here (that it's a very generalized list) but with that said, you also have to admit that some governments demonstrate many -- or even all -- of those traits more than others.

This comes back to the issue of false equivocation -- you can't argue that just because many governments share some of these traits, that makes them all equally guilty of fascism.

Certainly you can find certain elements of this list in each and every government, but -- objectively speaking -- Trump's ideologies are extremely fascist in many respects and trying to pretend otherwise is at best dishonest and at worst simply nihilistic.

Simply put: if a government exhibits two or three of these traits then you can argue that they may or may not be "fascist" by definition, but when you try to argue that a government that exemplifies ten or more of these traits isn't "fascist" then it becomes obvious that you are not being truly objective, and are simply arguing terminology.

If you choose to not see his behavior as "fascist" then that is your choice... but I doubt you'll convince anyone otherwise by debating the term "fascist".

First thank for the kind words in the first paragraph, and yes that why I said Trump fall on some of this categories, as Umberto Eco said (AND yes i checked he actually said this" "Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances", and there is a lot of people pointing out Trump actions which give me a relief.

[aja_christopher]

First thank for the kind words in the first paragraph, and yes that why I said Trump fall on some of this categories, as Umberto Eco said (AND yes i checked he actually said this" "Life is not that simple. Ur-Fascism can come back under the most innocent of disguises. Our duty is to uncover it and to point our finger at any of its new instances", and there is a lot of people pointing out Trump actions which give me a relief.

To add to your research on the subject, there have been quite a few studies comparing Trump to Mussolini that seem to echo your thoughts on the matter.

-----
"Trump is not a Fascist. He does not aim to establish a one-party state.

Yet he has created a one-man-led political movement that does not map onto traditional U.S. party structures or behave in traditional ways.

This is how Fascism began as well."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-trump/495263/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ike-mussolini/
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cul...iar-with-trump