a discussion of the causes of the divergence of American politics and culture

[Cassius Critzer]

So I pretty much pointed out Alex Jones has no credibility regarding political commentary...
...then liberals jump on Alex Jones and similar conspiracy theory a definitive proof that it is much ado about nothing.

I see. You leap to false conclusions this is racially motivated when I am in fact not white. So one gathers that I am a racist minority which is nearly an oxymoron.

You leap to conclusions that Obama merely substituted alphabet organizations and did not one whit more.

I see. Is that critical thinking or wishing that were true?

The autocorrect here stinks.

 

[Lexicus]

So everything I said was pretty much correct, thanks. Let's move on.

I mean, not really. But okay.

How does American imperialism lend itself to fascism? You haven't even attempted to explain this, and I can't really respond until you do so.

American imperialism (or rather, imperialism generally) does lend itself to fascism but that has nothing to do with what I'm arguing at the moment.

 

[Kyriakos]

LOL...I did read it. That's how I know what a bald faced whopping lie your posts are parroting. The changes made under the Obama administration did exactly what I said...replaced obsolete terms with "Department of Homeland Defense." The order has been standing for DECADES, and until a black president changed a few words no one gave it any particular concern, because it never has merited any. But when Obama did the same updating and housekeeping in the file of standing executive orders as every president before him did, "conservatives" flipped out. Why is that, do you think?

I like how the issue is whether Obama was unfairly attacked for maintaining the doorway to a police-state, but maintaining the doorway to a police-state "never has merited any" concern

 

[Cassius Critzer]

Obama absolutely maintained horrible policies under Bush, but then exacerbated them like drone strikes TEN FOLD. Then campaigned on various issues then reneged on this and made them worse. Then pointed out the validity of torture being horrible, but only stopped the CIA from doing it, and contracting it out to foreigners.

You cannot understand how bad it was and how demoralized the military was and the DEA and INS without reading and understanding Exec Order 13603. Every bizarre change under Obama was bad enough, but then these military and law enforcement groups would then end up oppressing US citizens in times of national emergency.

He basically took a hot steaming dump on the Constitution. And each soldier and law enforcement agent is sworn to defend the Constitution against foreign or domestic enemies. Their entire oath is precisely to protect US citizens and the Constitution, yet they were told to ignore genuine legislation and just follow policy. And then in the event of essentially a nation wide emergency ( in totally generic terms) do the polar opposite of their oath.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You leap to conclusions that Obama merely substituted alphabet organizations and did not one whit more.

No, I actually compared Obama's order to the previous order to verify what Snopes had to say. They are a known reliable source, but I anticipated that someone would attack their credibility without cause so I took the time. Thanks for proving me right.

I like how the issue is whether Obama was unfairly attacked for maintaining the doorway to a police-state, but maintaining the doorway to a police-state "never has merited any" concern

It never merited any concern because it never happened. There is no "open door to a police state." The whole story is a wild leap into nonsense that started with a false claim based on a misreading, which was very quickly retracted. Unfortunately, once a false claim was made against Obama it immediately become unshakable 'fact' in the kind of circles where some people get their "news."

The order as it was originally written in 1939 amounted to "guidelines for how the US can mobilize for a war in Europe should it become necessary to do so." Guess what, those guidelines were in fact called upon, so claiming that having them around was just an 'uncalled for assault on liberty' is plainly false. They have been kept up to date ever since, adapting to different global theaters, and different bureaucratic structures. This whole piece of nonsense that our "new" member dragged in here is the ultimate nothingburger.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

Snopes! Oh you are killin' me. That micky mouse outfit is horribly partisan, but worse it's run by people with a dubious embarrassing past that as a gentleman I refuse to expose.

Thanks for the laugh.

Try reading something evaluating his ability as Commander in Chief of the military. Or how people were just quitting out of outright disgust as instead of interdicting illegals, they were forced to facilitate illegal immigration.

Or heck people outraged at the agent level in the FBI at covering up scandals by Democrats.

Look up Kim Lacapria's past as a liberal blogger and studies of extreme way way way out of balanced bias. They are not fair at all by design and used dubious writers with sordid pasts. Young people make mistakes; that is all I will say. God bless 'em.

 

[Hygro]

If you laugh at snopes it suggests of being on its false side too often...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Snopes! Oh you are killin' me.

I already thanked you for proving me right when I anticipated someone making a groundless attack on their credibility. They provide a link to the previous text of the order as well as the order as issued by Obama so anyone who is interested can verify their finding for themselves. I did.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Maybe this will help.

The National Defense Resources Preparedness executive order (Executive Order 13603) is an order of the United States' President signed by President Barack Obama on March 16, 2012.[1] The purpose of this executive order is to delegate authority and address national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950.[2] Executive Order 13603 provides the framework and authority for the allocation or appropriation of resources, materials, and services to promote national defense.[3]

A number of viral emails claimed that the executive order "creates martial law."[4] Similar claims were repeated by Texas congresswoman Kay Granger of Texas in a constituent newsletter; she later retracted her statements.[4] In reality, the order updated long-existing directives that have been issued ever since the Truman administration. Such presidential directives update the resources covered under the Defense Production Act, which was enacted in the 1950s and is reauthorized by Congress every few years.[4] The act "allows presidents to delegate authority to various federal departments and agencies. For example, Obama’s order authorizes the secretaries of Defense and the Interior 'to encourage the exploration, development, and mining of strategic and critical materials and other materials.'"[4] The fact-checking website Snopes.com noted: "Despite claims that the executive order provided the President with unprecedented new powers such as declaring martial law, seizing private property, implementing the rationing of food, gasoline, and drugs, restarting peacetime conscription, and nationalizing American industry, merely by declaring a national emergency, the National Defense Resources Preparedness EO issued by President Obama was simply a minor updating of a similar order issued by President Bill Clinton in 1994 (which itself had decades-old predecessors) and amended several times since."[5] In particular, this executive order removes the name of the Federal Emergency Management Agency from previous orders, and replaces it with references to branches of the Department of Homeland Security, in order to bring the previous orders up to date with changes in the structure of the Federal Government.[5]

Here is a link to the order itself:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=100050

 

[Mouthwash]

American imperialism (or rather, imperialism generally) does lend itself to fascism but that has nothing to do with what I'm arguing at the moment.

What are you arguing at the moment? A working theory and definition of fascism is useful for comparing it to the beliefs of Donald Trump voters, no?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Please delete this double post.

Best post you've made. By the way, there have been some changes around here and you can delete it yourself now.

WAIT!!!!

That change was made before you even joined the site. Okay, I'm puzzled....

 

[Broken_Erika]

The delete function came with XenForo.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Cassius Critzer

Please help me put your positions in today's context.

From what you know, do you think that Mueller was correct in his indictments so far?
Do you think that Trump's campaign staff were hiding (by not revealing) their assorted contacts with various Russians during 2016 and early 2017?
Do you think Mike Flynn had the best interests of the US in mind while he was working for either the Trump Campaign or the people of the US?
Do you think that President Trump's personally owned businesses should profit from his presidency during that presidency?
What should happen to Trump and his family if Mueller finds evidence of money laundering in his past business practices?
Should Trump release his tax returns?
Do you think it is OK for Jared Kushner to have tried to set up a secret, hidden from the US government, back channel of communications with Russians?
Should any government official be allowed such a communications channel?

Thanks.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The delete function came with XenForo.

Cool! I didn't know that.

 

[Lexicus]

What are you arguing at the moment? A working theory and definition of fascism is useful for comparing it to the beliefs of Donald Trump voters, no?

I'm arguing that your objections to my characterization of Donald trump and his supporters as fascists rely on confusing the essential features of fascism with factors specific to a particular historical time and place. My larger point is that fascism doesn't necessarily have to look exactly like it did in Europe between the wars.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Cool! I didn't know that.

I did, but I guess a lot of people were unaware of that aspect of the change. Like our new friend apparently didn't notice...

But, he wasn't even here before the change to XenForo. Sure is odd that he would use such an anachronism.

I guess some mysteries can just never be solved.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm arguing that your objections to my characterization of Donald trump and his supporters as fascists rely on confusing the essential features of fascism with factors specific to a particular historical time and place. My larger point is that fascism doesn't necessarily have to look exactly like it did in Europe between the wars.

But what about Trump and his supporters looks at all like Europe between the wars? More so than any other pseudo-populist demagogue? Is Putin a fascist? Is Berlesconi a fascist? Were Reagan and Thatcher fascists?

It's not as if fascism was the only flavour of right-wing populism flourishing in interwar Europe. Huge swathes of Central and Eastern Europe were ruled by authoritarian, right-wing but explicitly non-fascist regimes- in Poland, in Hungary, in Greece and Portugal, in most of the Balkan and Baltic States. These regimes are only credibly "fascist" in a Marxist sense, which involves a lot of theorising around class dynamics in the aftermath of a stillborn revolution, something which just doesn't apply in a contemporary context, really anywhere in the world, let alone the United States.

Whether or not you can generalise "fascism", whether this is something tied to a specific time and place, or whether it's a recurring characteristic of capitalist society, when it's generalised to the point of just meaning "jingoistic authoritarian dickheads", most governments through most of the modern era are discovered to be "fascist".

edit: for the record, that middle bit was edited in after the initial posting. you guys know how i work by now.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What about Trump and his supporters looks at all like Europe between the wars? More so than any pseudo-populist demagogue?

Is Putin a fascist? Is Berlesconi a fascist? Were Reagan and Thatcher fascists?

Whether or not you can generalise "fascism", whether this is something tied to a specific time and place, or whether it's a recurring characteristic of capitalist society, when it's generalised to the point of just meaning "jingoistic authoritarian dickheads", most governments through most of the modern era are discovered to be "fascist".

I am extremely satisfied with referring to them as JADs instead of Fascists. Calling Trumpists Fascist seems to give them credit for greater effectiveness than I think they will ever exhibit.

 

[Lexicus]

most governments through most of the modern era are discovered to be "fascist".

Well, yeah, i would basically agree with this. The differences are of degree, not of kind - not to say that differences of degree are unimportant.
Strictly speaking trump and his trumpets aren't "literal" fascists. But they represent a political dynamic that leads straight to literal fascism. I'm posting from my phone atm so don't want to go into detail but will elaborate on this when i can post from a computer.

I am extremely satisfied with referring to them as JADs instead of Fascists. Calling Trumpists Fascist seems to give them credit for greater effectiveness than I think they will ever exhibit.

"Effective" isn't really a word that springs to mind when i think about hitler or mussolini's regimes, though.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

Maybe this will help.


Here is a link to the order itself:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=100050

Scroll back. I already did this so people could decide themselves.
K
And the number and complexity of your questions...really? Do you want a complete answer t
o all of those? Why?

By the way, there are also other Obama executive orders and similar policy statements which sidestep executive orders. I don't think Trump should use any executive orders because it is a flawed loophole of presidents interfering in legislation rather than letting Congress decide.

The sneaky way is to bypass executive orders and issue presidential memoranda. In my opinion, both ways should be scrutinized by the Supreme Court and perhaps a Congressional Amendment should create a check on such loopholes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_memorandum
Added a link as most Americans, based upon conversations I have had over decades, have no idea about these abuses.

One fair way to evaluate a president's legacy is to examine all of their executive orders and presidential memoranda and see how rigorously they adhered to limiting their own power or overstepped legislation by ignoring the Law.