Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Just to clarify, are you indicating Democrats, which many of you claim are leftists are also fascists?

The reason I ask is based on the definition in a dictionary:

fascist
/fshst/

noun
An advocate or adherent of fascism.
A reactionary or dictatorial person.
An adherent of fascism or similar right-wing authoritarian views.

Just hoping you can clarify why you and some others are doing this.

---

Jonah Goldberg wrote an excellent, if controversial, book about the Marxian and leftist origins of fascism. I highly recommend it.

Goldberg also assumed that American conservatives were immune to fascist tendencies because conservatives are not on the so-called "left" side of politics. He now understands that he was wrong. Historian has not yet figured this out.

https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfile/what-i-got-wrong-about-fascism/

---

The American right has almost nothing to do with classical fascism.

Because of the American Revolution its probably one of the most "anti-centralist" and "anti-State" rightwing movements on Earth.

[Benito Mussolini, who was the first to use the term for his political party in 1915, described fascism in The Doctrine of Fascism, published in 1932, as follows:

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.]

[In a speech before the Chamber of Deputies on
26 May 1927, Mussolini said:
Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. (Italian: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato)]

---

When fascism comes to America, it won't be wearing jackboots..

---

Then it won't be fascism…at least not its classical form

The State as absolute…the State as a spiritual ideal.

The cult of modernity infused with this ideal as well.

That is all alien to American Conservatism.

American conservatism is practically anti-state….very regionalist (states rights)…..religious (Christian and Jewish)…and more reactionary than revolutionary

BUDOS said:

---

So to clarify, you are saying that the "American right/conservative" at the time of our founding fathers fits today's "American right/conservative"?

---

Not really. He's just pointing out that the classic definition of Fascist is almost 180 degrees from what the Founding Fathers wanted and built into our Constitution.

And the American Right today basically carries the same revulsion to absolute Government control.

BUDOS said:

---

Just to clarify, are you indicating Democrats, which many of you claim are leftists are also fascists?

The reason I ask is based on the definition in a dictionary:

fascist
/fshst/

noun
An advocate or adherent of fascism.
A reactionary or dictatorial person.
An adherent of fascism or similar right-wing authoritarian views.

Just hoping you can clarify why you and some others are doing this.

---

That's a common myth (begin by Stalin) because many people do not understand fascism or know what it is. Apparently this includes your dictionary. Fascism is and always has been a movement on the Left, not the right. Officially, Mussolini was the first fascist, a party he started after he left the Socialist Party. Hitler took over the National Socialist German Worker's Party (aka the Nazis) and used it to take over Germany. They all are variations on socialism, an economic system of the Left.

In terms of their ideology and tactics modern Leftists or fascists or Democrats (all are equally valid labels) more resemble historic fascists and some of the radical socialists and communists of the past century in several respects: their desire for more power, their desire to control more & more aspects of people's lives, their control of information and the media, their use of censorship, their use of political violence, their willingness to use war as a tool for greater domestic power (Ukraine anyone?), their use of political terror, and so on.

The biggest difference between socialists and fascists is that the socialists seek to eliminate private property while the fascists are ok with you owning your business. But they will bleed you with taxes, regulations, rules, bureaucratic red tape, etc. And many modern fascists are willing to behave like the SS against innocent Americans. The leaders feign ignorance of the more violent tendencies of their foot soldiers or excuse them, while egging them on and refusing to prosecute.

The current terror campaigns against all things Tesla very much resemble what the black shirts and brown shirts did a century ago in Italy & Germany. Before their Musk Derangement Syndrome, it was TDS and the terror campaigns of antifa & BLM.

It's also very Orwellian in so many ways.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Just to clarify, are you indicating Democrats, which many of you claim are leftists are also fascists?

The reason I ask is based on the definition in a dictionary:

fascist
/fshst/

noun
An advocate or adherent of fascism.
A reactionary or dictatorial person.
An adherent of fascism or similar right-wing authoritarian views.

Just hoping you can clarify why you and some others are doing this.

---

Jonah Goldberg wrote an excellent, if controversial, book about the Marxian and leftist origins of fascism. I highly recommend it.

Goldberg also assumed that American conservatives were immune to fascist tendencies because conservatives are not on the so-called "left" side of politics. He now understands that he was wrong. Historian has not yet figured this out.

https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfile/what-i-got-wrong-about-fascism/

---

Liberal Fascism is an excellent book on the subject. However, I have figured out that Jonah Goldberg has allowed TDS to lead him to draw some crazy conclusions.

I do not believe that the right is immune to corruption or abuses of power but that does not make them fascists. If conservatives ever do go down that path, either they were never all that conservative or they flipped sides for one reason or another. American "conservatism" today is really classical liberalism. Key tenets of classical liberalism include: individual liberty & moral responsibility, limited government, rule of law, free markets (capitalism), etc. These ideas are pretty much the opposite of socialism, communism, or fascism.

I should add that I created an entire thread on this some time ago with much of this same explanation. There are links to some useful sources of information for anyone that is interested.

Thanks for adding the quote.

Fascists often seem to be worshipping the state, which the leaders will gladly encourage. Anything to add to their power.

Hmmm, thank you. I have some spare time coming up so do you have a primary source that I might check into?
How do you think Trump and his beliefs fit into all this?

BUDOS said:

---

So to clarify, you are saying that the "American right/conservative" at the time of our founding fathers fits today's "American right/conservative"?

---

No. The Founding Fathers were classical liberals. They embraced the ideas of liberalism: freedom, limited government, economic liberalism (capitalism), etc. The infused our founding documents with these ideas. Anyone who reads the Declaration of Independence cannot miss it clearly. These ideas are also in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers.

See my post above.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

From the Declaration of Independence

The Constitution created a system of checks & balances which embody these ideas quite well. The Electoral College is a brilliant example of these ideas and relates them to the states (federalism, states rights) as does the original method of choosing senators.

Anyone who wants to understand the constitution more completely should read some of the Federalist: a collection of 85 essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, & John Jay about various topics related to the constitution. The goal was to answer the critics and promote ratification in New York. Each one is only a few pages but they are not easy. And they are brilliant.

Much of this is actually basic high school civics. Or at least it should be taught in government classes.

The funny thing is, there is an actual danger to Trump, but it's not Fascism.

Trump's weakness has always been his inexperience in government. He started his second term more effectively than his first, in part because Trump was smart enough to learn from his first term.

But you may recall that in his first term, Trump trusted some of the wrong people, and gave some slack to people he ought to have tossed. That brings up the question of the motives of Trump's team, their true allegiance, and what happens the first time Trump loses a big battle.

A second issue is what happens if, hypothetically, Trump is on the money on all the issues. Can he establish a foundation that will continue beyond 2028? And whoever carries on the plan. whether its Vance or someone else, how can we be sure Trump's successor won't be a disappointment the way Bush was to Reagan?

Sorry, I have not read most of the comments. I will say this. I believe the law President Trump is basing his deportation actions on says that the President has total discretion in naming the threat and his discretion cannot be challenged by the courts. Therefore Judge Boasberg is without question usurping the power delegated to the Executive Branch and is by this reading taking unconstitutional actions. However, if President Trump ignores the court ruling, the left will use his actions as a reason for impeachment and therefore is not a wise move in my opinion. That is what all these radical activist judges are shooting for I believe; some trap to get Trump on some move he makes after their improper decisions.

I was incensed to see Chief Justice Roberts make a public statement defending this activist who put on a black robe against impeachment, which was a political act. When did Roberts come to Judge Cannon's defense in Florida when she ruled for Trump and the left was threatening her and using their usual tactics when someone goes against them on any issue? Not a peep out of him then, was there? Not that it mattered, but I was moved to write the Chief Justice a letter sent through the postal service over my displeasure with his statement backing this judge who is so far outside of his lane.

Later I found out all the connections between some of these judges behind the scenes and Judge Boasberg's daughter's legal work with the non-profit that provides legal advice to illegals. Roberts is so compromised and is nothing short of a deep state elitist that hates President Trump. He will only do the right thing if his entire reputation is on the line. The swamp is so much wider and deeper than I could have ever imagined.

If we all write, call and speak up it could force the fence sitters to agree with the obviously correct legal decision on removing these illegals who broke into the country to begin with. After all, who would want to bring murderers, rapists, drug dealers and thieves who should not have been allowed into the country, back into the country now? Looks like these Obama and Biden Judges actions will be decided by the US Supreme Court.

I never sell President Trump short. He's a pretty smart man.

Thank you! Here's something it appears I can agree with! And you are so right about your civics comments!
Interesting that in many states that a student has to take US History 4-6 semesters but only one about how it's supposed to work and our role and responsibilities in it.

Thank you! I'm glad we can find common ground on something.

historian said:

---

---

Here's the problem, very basically stated. Nobody had standing to challenge the fly in. Some people arguably had standing to challenge the fly out. That is an imbalance of power and policy that cannot continue. If it does, our structure will crack. So one way or another, the judiciary, and the executive will have to sort out that imbalance.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Just to clarify, are you indicating Democrats, which many of you claim are leftists are also fascists?

The reason I ask is based on the definition in a dictionary:

fascist
/fshst/

noun
An advocate or adherent of fascism.
A reactionary or dictatorial person.
An adherent of fascism or similar right-wing authoritarian views.

Just hoping you can clarify why you and some others are doing this.

---

Jonah Goldberg wrote an excellent, if controversial, book about the Marxian and leftist origins of fascism. I highly recommend it.

Goldberg also assumed that American conservatives were immune to fascist tendencies because conservatives are not on the so-called "left" side of politics. He now understands that he was wrong. Historian has not yet figured this out.

https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfile/what-i-got-wrong-about-fascism/

---

The American right has almost nothing to do with classical fascism.

Because of the American Revolution its probably one of the most "anti-centralist" and "anti-State" rightwing movements on Earth.

[Benito Mussolini, who was the first to use the term for his political party in 1915, described fascism in The Doctrine of Fascism, published in 1932, as follows:

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.]

[In a speech before the Chamber of Deputies on
26 May 1927, Mussolini said:
Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. (Italian: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato)]

---

When fascism comes to America, it won't be wearing jackboots..

---

American conservatism is practically anti-state….very regionalist (states rights)…..religious (Christian and Jewish)…and more reactionary than revolutionary

---

I tend to agree. And if so then Trumpism is by no means conservative.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

So to clarify, you are saying that the "American right/conservative" at the time of our founding fathers fits today's "American right/conservative"?

---

Not really. He's just pointing out that the classic definition of Fascist is almost 180 degrees from what the Founding Fathers wanted and built into our Constitution.

And the American Right today basically carries the same revulsion to absolute Government control by anyone except Trump.

---

FIFY

Your hatred has made you a very dishonest person, Sam.

Would that depend upon what a person believes is true or false? Honesty these days seems to depend upon what one believes is true but in actuality may be false. If they believe it is true then are they dishonest or the source that initially and knowingly the false information ? Does truth really matter if we think we know the truth but we really don't know? Or do we not want to really know because of what that would mean if our core beliefs were the ones which were wrong?
Perhaps someone would prefer a cute deflective comment?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Just to clarify, are you indicating Democrats, which many of you claim are leftists are also fascists?

The reason I ask is based on the definition in a dictionary:

fascist
/fshst/

noun
An advocate or adherent of fascism.
A reactionary or dictatorial person.
An adherent of fascism or similar right-wing authoritarian views.

Just hoping you can clarify why you and some others are doing this.

---

Jonah Goldberg wrote an excellent, if controversial, book about the Marxian and leftist origins of fascism. I highly recommend it.

Goldberg also assumed that American conservatives were immune to fascist tendencies because conservatives are not on the so-called "left" side of politics. He now understands that he was wrong. Historian has not yet figured this out.

https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfile/what-i-got-wrong-about-fascism/

---

The American right has almost nothing to do with classical fascism.

Because of the American Revolution its probably one of the most "anti-centralist" and "anti-State" rightwing movements on Earth.

[Benito Mussolini, who was the first to use the term for his political party in 1915, described fascism in The Doctrine of Fascism, published in 1932, as follows:

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.]

[In a speech before the Chamber of Deputies on
26 May 1927, Mussolini said:
Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. (Italian: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato)]

---

When fascism comes to America, it won't be wearing jackboots..

---

American conservatism is practically anti-state….very regionalist (states rights)…..religious (Christian and Jewish)…and more reactionary than revolutionary

---

I tend to agree. And if so then Trumpism is by no means conservative.

---

"Trumpism" is just populist conservatism of the Pat Buchanan style.....but under a much more Hollywood style magnetic leader

Its far from the European fascism of the WWI war veterans....Italian or Nazi

[To put it plainly, Pat Buchanan was the living link between the nativist, isolationist, and protectionist paleoconservative tradition in GOP politics, which most observers thought had died in the 1950s, and the MAGA conservatism associated with Donald Trump. Both these strains of right-wing thought substituted nativism and economic nationalism for the free-market ideology that prevailed in the last half of the twentieth century]

Notice that one of the biggest Trump ideas is tearing down Federal power....through gutting Federal agencies....that is of course not what Fascism does....Fascism builds up agencies and centralized power

Speaking of Judge Boasberg's behavior during the deportation case. Aren't judges supposed to recuse themselves for even the slightest hint of a conflict of interest? Well we have actual proof of a conflict in his case. Boasberg's daughter, Katherine Boasberg, works for Partners For Justice, "a non-profit organization that provides legal support to criminal illegal aliens and gang members". This raises serious concerns, as her father's rulings have a direct benefit to her employer and therefore her.

76% of the organizations funding comes from federal government grants. They actively oppose deportations, mass incarceration, as well as laws targeting violent gangs. They take credit for helping eliminate approximately 5,000 years of prison time since 2018 which is extraordinary.

With Schumer bragging about approving 235 Biden nominated judges, we can assume most are of the caliber of this judge Boasberg if not worse. That means we have quite a problem on our hands. And it looks like our only two options are one for Trump to ignore these overstepping judges which in my opinion would concede the high ground and give legal ground for more impeachment calls from the left including the media. This takes him off message if nothing else. Second option is relying on one of these cases or more taken by the U.S. Supreme Court where we must count on Roberts and Barrett to vote with Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch to put the judicial activists back in their lane. Call me very afraid of both options. We are in real trouble.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Just to clarify, are you indicating Democrats, which many of you claim are leftists are also fascists?

The reason I ask is based on the definition in a dictionary:

fascist
/fshst/

noun
An advocate or adherent of fascism.
A reactionary or dictatorial person.
An adherent of fascism or similar right-wing authoritarian views.

Just hoping you can clarify why you and some others are doing this.

---

Jonah Goldberg wrote an excellent, if controversial, book about the Marxian and leftist origins of fascism. I highly recommend it.

Goldberg also assumed that American conservatives were immune to fascist tendencies because conservatives are not on the so-called "left" side of politics. He now understands that he was wrong. Historian has not yet figured this out.

https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfile/what-i-got-wrong-about-fascism/

---

The American right has almost nothing to do with classical fascism.

Because of the American Revolution its probably one of the most "anti-centralist" and "anti-State" rightwing movements on Earth.

[Benito Mussolini, who was the first to use the term for his political party in 1915, described fascism in The Doctrine of Fascism, published in 1932, as follows:

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.]

[In a speech before the Chamber of Deputies on
26 May 1927, Mussolini said:
Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. (Italian: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato)]

---

When fascism comes to America, it won't be wearing jackboots..

---

American conservatism is practically anti-state….very regionalist (states rights)…..religious (Christian and Jewish)…and more reactionary than revolutionary

---

I tend to agree. And if so then Trumpism is by no means conservative.

---

"Trumpism" is just populist conservatism of the Pat Buchanan style.....but under a much more Hollywood style magnetic leader

Its far from the European fascism of the WWI war veterans....Italian or Nazi

[To put it plainly, Pat Buchanan was the living link between the nativist, isolationist, and protectionist paleoconservative tradition in GOP politics, which most observers thought had died in the 1950s, and the MAGA conservatism associated with Donald Trump. Both these strains of right-wing thought substituted nativism and economic nationalism for the free-market ideology that prevailed in the last half of the twentieth century]

Notice that one of the biggest Trump ideas is tearing down Federal power....through gutting Federal agencies....that is of course not what Fascism does....Fascism builds up agencies and centralized power

---

Buchanan was the bridge, but we're in new territory now. What I think we'll find when Trump is through dismantling the bureaucracy is not less government power, but less accountability. All the power that's now dispersed throughout the various agencies will be centered in the president himself. The implications of this are obvious. In addition you have Trump's attacks on the courts, removing security details from political enemies, sowing paranoia and conspiracy theories, and encouraging violent mobs, all of which resemble fascist rather than conservative tactics. It remains to be seen whether Trump's populist rhetoric translates to any real benefit to American workers. His record is not especially pro-labor, and his tax policy seems to favor big corporations. I expect many services of government agencies will be privatized after those agencies are gutted, providing a wealth of opportunity for corrupt exploitation by Trump and his cronies.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Just to clarify, are you indicating Democrats, which many of you claim are leftists are also fascists?

The reason I ask is based on the definition in a dictionary:

fascist
/fshst/

noun
An advocate or adherent of fascism.
A reactionary or dictatorial person.
An adherent of fascism or similar right-wing authoritarian views.

Just hoping you can clarify why you and some others are doing this.

---

Jonah Goldberg wrote an excellent, if controversial, book about the Marxian and leftist origins of fascism. I highly recommend it.

Goldberg also assumed that American conservatives were immune to fascist tendencies because conservatives are not on the so-called "left" side of politics. He now understands that he was wrong. Historian has not yet figured this out.

https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfile/what-i-got-wrong-about-fascism/

---

The American right has almost nothing to do with classical fascism.

Because of the American Revolution its probably one of the most "anti-centralist" and "anti-State" rightwing movements on Earth.

[Benito Mussolini, who was the first to use the term for his political party in 1915, described fascism in The Doctrine of Fascism, published in 1932, as follows:

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.]

[In a speech before the Chamber of Deputies on
26 May 1927, Mussolini said:
Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. (Italian: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato)]

---

When fascism comes to America, it won't be wearing jackboots..

---

American conservatism is practically anti-state….very regionalist (states rights)…..religious (Christian and Jewish)…and more reactionary than revolutionary

---

I tend to agree. And if so then Trumpism is by no means conservative.

---

"Trumpism" is just populist conservatism of the Pat Buchanan style.....but under a much more Hollywood style magnetic leader

Its far from the European fascism of the WWI war veterans....Italian or Nazi

[To put it plainly, Pat Buchanan was the living link between the nativist, isolationist, and protectionist paleoconservative tradition in GOP politics, which most observers thought had died in the 1950s, and the MAGA conservatism associated with Donald Trump. Both these strains of right-wing thought substituted nativism and economic nationalism for the free-market ideology that prevailed in the last half of the twentieth century]

Notice that one of the biggest Trump ideas is tearing down Federal power....through gutting Federal agencies....that is of course not what Fascism does....Fascism builds up agencies and centralized power

---

Buchanan was the bridge, but we're in new territory now. What I think we'll find when Trump is through dismantling the bureaucracy is not less government power, but less accountability. All the power that's now dispersed throughout the various agencies will be centered in the president himself. The implications of this are obvious. In addition you have Trump's attacks on the courts, removing security details from political enemies, sowing paranoia and conspiracy theories, and encouraging violent mobs, all of which resemble fascist rather than conservative tactics. It remains to be seen whether Trump's populist rhetoric translates to any real benefit to American workers. His record is not especially pro-labor, and his tax policy seems to favor big corporations. I expect many services of government agencies will be privatized after those agencies are gutted, providing a wealth of opportunity for corrupt exploitation by Trump and his cronies.

---

Yeah it's hard for anyone other than the resident zealots to see Trump fighting with the courts to expand the power of the executive branch, and diminish the ability of the courts to chrleck that power, or for the legislative branch to legislate these agencies Congress created, and see Trump as the guy who believes in limited government power.

He is vastly expanding upon the power granted to him by the Constitution, and in 4 years, the mere idea that a Democrat could exercise the same power will be anathema to so called conservatives.

Any adult wants checks on the President's power, because the President will not always be on your team. Conservative zealots are completely unable to defend this wholesale power grab. That's why they talk so much about TDS.

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Just to clarify, are you indicating Democrats, which many of you claim are leftists are also fascists?

The reason I ask is based on the definition in a dictionary:

fascist
/fshst/

noun
An advocate or adherent of fascism.
A reactionary or dictatorial person.
An adherent of fascism or similar right-wing authoritarian views.

Just hoping you can clarify why you and some others are doing this.

---

Jonah Goldberg wrote an excellent, if controversial, book about the Marxian and leftist origins of fascism. I highly recommend it.

Goldberg also assumed that American conservatives were immune to fascist tendencies because conservatives are not on the so-called "left" side of politics. He now understands that he was wrong. Historian has not yet figured this out.

https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfile/what-i-got-wrong-about-fascism/

---

The American right has almost nothing to do with classical fascism.

Because of the American Revolution its probably one of the most "anti-centralist" and "anti-State" rightwing movements on Earth.

[Benito Mussolini, who was the first to use the term for his political party in 1915, described fascism in The Doctrine of Fascism, published in 1932, as follows:

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.]

[In a speech before the Chamber of Deputies on
26 May 1927, Mussolini said:
Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. (Italian: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato)]

---

When fascism comes to America, it won't be wearing jackboots..

---

American conservatism is practically anti-state….very regionalist (states rights)…..religious (Christian and Jewish)…and more reactionary than revolutionary

---

I tend to agree. And if so then Trumpism is by no means conservative.

---

"Trumpism" is just populist conservatism of the Pat Buchanan style.....but under a much more Hollywood style magnetic leader

Its far from the European fascism of the WWI war veterans....Italian or Nazi

[To put it plainly, Pat Buchanan was the living link between the nativist, isolationist, and protectionist paleoconservative tradition in GOP politics, which most observers thought had died in the 1950s, and the MAGA conservatism associated with Donald Trump. Both these strains of right-wing thought substituted nativism and economic nationalism for the free-market ideology that prevailed in the last half of the twentieth century]

Notice that one of the biggest Trump ideas is tearing down Federal power....through gutting Federal agencies....that is of course not what Fascism does....Fascism builds up agencies and centralized power

---

Buchanan was the bridge, but we're in new territory now. What I think we'll find when Trump is through dismantling the bureaucracy is not less government power, but less accountability. All the power that's now dispersed throughout the various agencies will be centered in the president himself. The implications of this are obvious. In addition you have Trump's attacks on the courts, removing security details from political enemies, sowing paranoia and conspiracy theories, and encouraging violent mobs, all of which resemble fascist rather than conservative tactics. It remains to be seen whether Trump's populist rhetoric translates to any real benefit to American workers. His record is not especially pro-labor, and his tax policy seems to favor big corporations. I expect many services of government agencies will be privatized after those agencies are gutted, providing a wealth of opportunity for corrupt exploitation by Trump and his cronies.

---

Yeah it's hard for anyone other than the resident zealots to see Trump fighting with the courts to expand the power of the executive branch, and diminish the ability of the courts to chrleck that power, or for the legislative branch to legislate these agencies Congress created, and see Trump as the guy who believes in limited government power.

He is vastly expanding upon the power granted to him by the Constitution, and in 4 years, the mere idea that a Democrat could exercise the same power will be anathema to so called conservatives.

Any adult wants checks on the President's power, because the President will not always be on your team. Conservative zealots are completely unable to defend this wholesale power grab. That's why they talk so much about TDS.

---

What power grab? The statute drafted by Congress granted the power to the President some 200 years ago.

Trump didn't just create some new authority.


Maybe the law is unconstitutional as written and, as such, the president does not have the power to deport terrorists without proving to the judiciary that the terrorists are in fact terrorists. - but it certainly is not a power grab to follow the law as written.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Just to clarify, are you indicating Democrats, which many of you claim are leftists are also fascists?

The reason I ask is based on the definition in a dictionary:

fascist
/fshst/

noun
An advocate or adherent of fascism.
A reactionary or dictatorial person.
An adherent of fascism or similar right-wing authoritarian views.

Just hoping you can clarify why you and some others are doing this.

---

Jonah Goldberg wrote an excellent, if controversial, book about the Marxian and leftist origins of fascism. I highly recommend it.

Goldberg also assumed that American conservatives were immune to fascist tendencies because conservatives are not on the so-called "left" side of politics. He now understands that he was wrong. Historian has not yet figured this out.

https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfile/what-i-got-wrong-about-fascism/

---

The American right has almost nothing to do with classical fascism.

Because of the American Revolution its probably one of the most "anti-centralist" and "anti-State" rightwing movements on Earth.

[Benito Mussolini, who was the first to use the term for his political party in 1915, described fascism in The Doctrine of Fascism, published in 1932, as follows:

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.]

[In a speech before the Chamber of Deputies on
26 May 1927, Mussolini said:
Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. (Italian: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato)]

---

When fascism comes to America, it won't be wearing jackboots..

---

American conservatism is practically anti-state….very regionalist (states rights)…..religious (Christian and Jewish)…and more reactionary than revolutionary

---

I tend to agree. And if so then Trumpism is by no means conservative.

---

"Trumpism" is just populist conservatism of the Pat Buchanan style.....but under a much more Hollywood style magnetic leader

Its far from the European fascism of the WWI war veterans....Italian or Nazi

[To put it plainly, Pat Buchanan was the living link between the nativist, isolationist, and protectionist paleoconservative tradition in GOP politics, which most observers thought had died in the 1950s, and the MAGA conservatism associated with Donald Trump. Both these strains of right-wing thought substituted nativism and economic nationalism for the free-market ideology that prevailed in the last half of the twentieth century]

Notice that one of the biggest Trump ideas is tearing down Federal power....through gutting Federal agencies....that is of course not what Fascism does....Fascism builds up agencies and centralized power

---

Buchanan was the bridge, but we're in new territory now. What I think we'll find when Trump is through dismantling the bureaucracy is not less government power, but less accountability. All the power that's now dispersed throughout the various agencies will be centered in the president himself. The implications of this are obvious. In addition you have Trump's attacks on the courts, removing security details from political enemies, sowing paranoia and conspiracy theories, and encouraging violent mobs, all of which resemble fascist rather than conservative tactics. It remains to be seen whether Trump's populist rhetoric translates to any real benefit to American workers. His record is not especially pro-labor, and his tax policy seems to favor big corporations. I expect many services of government agencies will be privatized after those agencies are gutted, providing a wealth of opportunity for corrupt exploitation by Trump and his cronies.

---

Yeah it's hard for anyone other than the resident zealots to see Trump fighting with the courts to expand the power of the executive branch, and diminish the ability of the courts to chrleck that power, or for the legislative branch to legislate these agencies Congress created, and see Trump as the guy who believes in limited government power.

He is vastly expanding upon the power granted to him by the Constitution, and in 4 years, the mere idea that a Democrat could exercise the same power will be anathema to so called conservatives.

Any adult wants checks on the President's power, because the President will not always be on your team. Conservative zealots are completely unable to defend this wholesale power grab. That's why they talk so much about TDS.

---

What power grab? The statute drafted by Congress granted the power to the President some 200 years ago.

Trump didn't just create some new authority.


Maybe the law is unconstitutional as written and, as such, the president does not have the power to deport terrorists without proving to the judiciary that the terrorists are in fact terrorists. - but it certainly is not a power grab to follow the law as written.

---

Say in 4 years, a lefty President hires 10k USAID workers, and restates their budget to what it was before. Ignoring anything Congress does with the budget. Are you going to say "fair play" or "executive overreach?"

Porteroso said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Just to clarify, are you indicating Democrats, which many of you claim are leftists are also fascists?

The reason I ask is based on the definition in a dictionary:

fascist
/fshst/

noun
An advocate or adherent of fascism.
A reactionary or dictatorial person.
An adherent of fascism or similar right-wing authoritarian views.

Just hoping you can clarify why you and some others are doing this.

---

Jonah Goldberg wrote an excellent, if controversial, book about the Marxian and leftist origins of fascism. I highly recommend it.

Goldberg also assumed that American conservatives were immune to fascist tendencies because conservatives are not on the so-called "left" side of politics. He now understands that he was wrong. Historian has not yet figured this out.

https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfile/what-i-got-wrong-about-fascism/

---

The American right has almost nothing to do with classical fascism.

Because of the American Revolution its probably one of the most "anti-centralist" and "anti-State" rightwing movements on Earth.

[Benito Mussolini, who was the first to use the term for his political party in 1915, described fascism in The Doctrine of Fascism, published in 1932, as follows:

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.]

[In a speech before the Chamber of Deputies on
26 May 1927, Mussolini said:
Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. (Italian: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato)]

---

When fascism comes to America, it won't be wearing jackboots..

---

American conservatism is practically anti-state….very regionalist (states rights)…..religious (Christian and Jewish)…and more reactionary than revolutionary

---

I tend to agree. And if so then Trumpism is by no means conservative.

---

"Trumpism" is just populist conservatism of the Pat Buchanan style.....but under a much more Hollywood style magnetic leader

Its far from the European fascism of the WWI war veterans....Italian or Nazi

[To put it plainly, Pat Buchanan was the living link between the nativist, isolationist, and protectionist paleoconservative tradition in GOP politics, which most observers thought had died in the 1950s, and the MAGA conservatism associated with Donald Trump. Both these strains of right-wing thought substituted nativism and economic nationalism for the free-market ideology that prevailed in the last half of the twentieth century]

Notice that one of the biggest Trump ideas is tearing down Federal power....through gutting Federal agencies....that is of course not what Fascism does....Fascism builds up agencies and centralized power

---

Buchanan was the bridge, but we're in new territory now. What I think we'll find when Trump is through dismantling the bureaucracy is not less government power, but less accountability. All the power that's now dispersed throughout the various agencies will be centered in the president himself. The implications of this are obvious. In addition you have Trump's attacks on the courts, removing security details from political enemies, sowing paranoia and conspiracy theories, and encouraging violent mobs, all of which resemble fascist rather than conservative tactics. It remains to be seen whether Trump's populist rhetoric translates to any real benefit to American workers. His record is not especially pro-labor, and his tax policy seems to favor big corporations. I expect many services of government agencies will be privatized after those agencies are gutted, providing a wealth of opportunity for corrupt exploitation by Trump and his cronies.

---

Yeah it's hard for anyone other than the resident zealots to see Trump fighting with the courts to expand the power of the executive branch, and diminish the ability of the courts to chrleck that power, or for the legislative branch to legislate these agencies Congress created, and see Trump as the guy who believes in limited government power.

He is vastly expanding upon the power granted to him by the Constitution, and in 4 years, the mere idea that a Democrat could exercise the same power will be anathema to so called conservatives.

Any adult wants checks on the President's power, because the President will not always be on your team. Conservative zealots are completely unable to defend this wholesale power grab. That's why they talk so much about TDS.

---

What power grab? The statute drafted by Congress granted the power to the President some 200 years ago.

Trump didn't just create some new authority.


Maybe the law is unconstitutional as written and, as such, the president does not have the power to deport terrorists without proving to the judiciary that the terrorists are in fact terrorists. - but it certainly is not a power grab to follow the law as written.

---

Say in 4 years, a lefty President hires 10k USAID workers, and restates their budget to what it was before. Ignoring anything Congress does with the budget. Are you going to say "fair play" or "executive overreach?"

---

This thread is about the federal court blocking deportation.

If you want to discuss the executive's power to spend money not allocated to it, let us start a new conversation. But here is what we know - the executive cannot spend money it does not have. So a president cannot just create an agency.

Whether or not a president has the right not to spend money allocated to it has always been debated. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Buchanan was the bridge, but we're in new territory now. What I think we'll find when Trump is through dismantling the bureaucracy is not less government power, but less accountability. All the power that's now dispersed throughout the various agencies will be centered in the president himself. The implications of this are obvious. In addition you have Trump's attacks on the courts, removing security details from political enemies, sowing paranoia and conspiracy theories, and encouraging violent mobs, all of which resemble fascist rather than conservative tactics. It remains to be seen whether Trump's populist rhetoric translates to any real benefit to American workers. His record is not especially pro-labor, and his tax policy seems to favor big corporations. I expect many services of government agencies will be privatized after those agencies are gutted, providing a wealth of opportunity for corrupt exploitation by Trump and his cronies.

---

He definitely ran on a populist platform, and I never thought he'd shrink government / reform the administrative branch, especially after watching his first term, but here we are and he's trying like hell. I suppose, thanks to Elon, that those of us in favor of limited government are getting some surprise wins here.

There could not be less accountability. If anything, there would be more. We actually elect the President. No one knows the names of the countless bureaucrats buried in admin agencies. who apparently have had a vast amount of latitude to do as they like, so long as they don't get crosswise with the bureaucratic machine, then covered with the thick warm blanket of Chevron deference.

The executive fighting with the courts is as old as time, and the questions being raised now are fairly minimal compared to what they once were and have been at times.

Which conspiracy theories? Like the lab leak theory? The reason "conspiracy theories" get so much traction now is that people realize they've been lied to over and over and over again. This is the reckoning.

You, as a lover of authority, rules, and institutions don't understand this, but lots (a majority?) of people saw the Great Oz behind the curtain through the covid debacle, and they don't want him back in charge.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Just to clarify, are you indicating Democrats, which many of you claim are leftists are also fascists?

The reason I ask is based on the definition in a dictionary:

fascist
/fshst/

noun
An advocate or adherent of fascism.
A reactionary or dictatorial person.
An adherent of fascism or similar right-wing authoritarian views.

Just hoping you can clarify why you and some others are doing this.

---

Jonah Goldberg wrote an excellent, if controversial, book about the Marxian and leftist origins of fascism. I highly recommend it.

Goldberg also assumed that American conservatives were immune to fascist tendencies because conservatives are not on the so-called "left" side of politics. He now understands that he was wrong. Historian has not yet figured this out.

https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfile/what-i-got-wrong-about-fascism/

---

The American right has almost nothing to do with classical fascism.

Because of the American Revolution its probably one of the most "anti-centralist" and "anti-State" rightwing movements on Earth.

[Benito Mussolini, who was the first to use the term for his political party in 1915, described fascism in The Doctrine of Fascism, published in 1932, as follows:

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.]

[In a speech before the Chamber of Deputies on
26 May 1927, Mussolini said:
Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. (Italian: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato)]

---

When fascism comes to America, it won't be wearing jackboots..

---

American conservatism is practically anti-state….very regionalist (states rights)…..religious (Christian and Jewish)…and more reactionary than revolutionary

---

I tend to agree. And if so then Trumpism is by no means conservative.

---

"Trumpism" is just populist conservatism of the Pat Buchanan style.....but under a much more Hollywood style magnetic leader

Its far from the European fascism of the WWI war veterans....Italian or Nazi

[To put it plainly, Pat Buchanan was the living link between the nativist, isolationist, and protectionist paleoconservative tradition in GOP politics, which most observers thought had died in the 1950s, and the MAGA conservatism associated with Donald Trump. Both these strains of right-wing thought substituted nativism and economic nationalism for the free-market ideology that prevailed in the last half of the twentieth century]

Notice that one of the biggest Trump ideas is tearing down Federal power....through gutting Federal agencies....that is of course not what Fascism does....Fascism builds up agencies and centralized power

---

Buchanan was the bridge, but we're in new territory now. What I think we'll find when Trump is through dismantling the bureaucracy is not less government power, but less accountability. All the power that's now dispersed throughout the various agencies will be centered in the president himself. The implications of this are obvious. In addition you have Trump's attacks on the courts, removing security details from political enemies, sowing paranoia and conspiracy theories, and encouraging violent mobs, all of which resemble fascist rather than conservative tactics. It remains to be seen whether Trump's populist rhetoric translates to any real benefit to American workers. His record is not especially pro-labor, and his tax policy seems to favor big corporations. I expect many services of government agencies will be privatized after those agencies are gutted, providing a wealth of opportunity for corrupt exploitation by Trump and his cronies.

---

Yeah it's hard for anyone other than the resident zealots to see Trump fighting with the courts to expand the power of the executive branch, and diminish the ability of the courts to chrleck that power, or for the legislative branch to legislate these agencies Congress created, and see Trump as the guy who believes in limited government power.

He is vastly expanding upon the power granted to him by the Constitution, and in 4 years, the mere idea that a Democrat could exercise the same power will be anathema to so called conservatives.

Any adult wants checks on the President's power, because the President will not always be on your team. Conservative zealots are completely unable to defend this wholesale power grab. That's why they talk so much about TDS.

---

What power grab? The statute drafted by Congress granted the power to the President some 200 years ago.

Trump didn't just create some new authority.


Maybe the law is unconstitutional as written and, as such, the president does not have the power to deport terrorists without proving to the judiciary that the terrorists are in fact terrorists. - but it certainly is not a power grab to follow the law as written.

---

Say in 4 years, a lefty President hires 10k USAID workers, and restates their budget to what it was before. Ignoring anything Congress does with the budget. Are you going to say "fair play" or "executive overreach?"

---

This thread is about the federal court blocking deportation.

If you want to discuss the executive's power to spend money not allocated to it, let us start a new conversation. But here is what we know - the executive cannot spend money it does not have. So a president cannot just create an agency.

Whether or not a president has the right not to spend money allocated to it has always been debated. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

---

You are right, this is the wrong thread for that discussion. And I do think the President has the power to deport these people unilaterally if the case against each is strong enough.

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Just to clarify, are you indicating Democrats, which many of you claim are leftists are also fascists?

The reason I ask is based on the definition in a dictionary:

fascist
/fshst/

noun
An advocate or adherent of fascism.
A reactionary or dictatorial person.
An adherent of fascism or similar right-wing authoritarian views.

Just hoping you can clarify why you and some others are doing this.

---

Jonah Goldberg wrote an excellent, if controversial, book about the Marxian and leftist origins of fascism. I highly recommend it.

Goldberg also assumed that American conservatives were immune to fascist tendencies because conservatives are not on the so-called "left" side of politics. He now understands that he was wrong. Historian has not yet figured this out.

https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfile/what-i-got-wrong-about-fascism/

---

The American right has almost nothing to do with classical fascism.

Because of the American Revolution its probably one of the most "anti-centralist" and "anti-State" rightwing movements on Earth.

[Benito Mussolini, who was the first to use the term for his political party in 1915, described fascism in The Doctrine of Fascism, published in 1932, as follows:

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.]

[In a speech before the Chamber of Deputies on
26 May 1927, Mussolini said:
Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. (Italian: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato)]

---

When fascism comes to America, it won't be wearing jackboots..

---

American conservatism is practically anti-state….very regionalist (states rights)…..religious (Christian and Jewish)…and more reactionary than revolutionary

---

I tend to agree. And if so then Trumpism is by no means conservative.

---

"Trumpism" is just populist conservatism of the Pat Buchanan style.....but under a much more Hollywood style magnetic leader

Its far from the European fascism of the WWI war veterans....Italian or Nazi

[To put it plainly, Pat Buchanan was the living link between the nativist, isolationist, and protectionist paleoconservative tradition in GOP politics, which most observers thought had died in the 1950s, and the MAGA conservatism associated with Donald Trump. Both these strains of right-wing thought substituted nativism and economic nationalism for the free-market ideology that prevailed in the last half of the twentieth century]

Notice that one of the biggest Trump ideas is tearing down Federal power....through gutting Federal agencies....that is of course not what Fascism does....Fascism builds up agencies and centralized power

---

Buchanan was the bridge, but we're in new territory now. What I think we'll find when Trump is through dismantling the bureaucracy is not less government power, but less accountability. All the power that's now dispersed throughout the various agencies will be centered in the president himself. The implications of this are obvious. In addition you have Trump's attacks on the courts, removing security details from political enemies, sowing paranoia and conspiracy theories, and encouraging violent mobs, all of which resemble fascist rather than conservative tactics. It remains to be seen whether Trump's populist rhetoric translates to any real benefit to American workers. His record is not especially pro-labor, and his tax policy seems to favor big corporations. I expect many services of government agencies will be privatized after those agencies are gutted, providing a wealth of opportunity for corrupt exploitation by Trump and his cronies.

---

Yeah it's hard for anyone other than the resident zealots to see Trump fighting with the courts to expand the power of the executive branch, and diminish the ability of the courts to chrleck that power, or for the legislative branch to legislate these agencies Congress created, and see Trump as the guy who believes in limited government power.

He is vastly expanding upon the power granted to him by the Constitution, and in 4 years, the mere idea that a Democrat could exercise the same power will be anathema to so called conservatives.

Any adult wants checks on the President's power, because the President will not always be on your team. Conservative zealots are completely unable to defend this wholesale power grab. That's why they talk so much about TDS.

---

If you think Trump is going after too much power then fine…but if a judge who has a major conflict of interest that's trying to bring back criminal illegal aliens doesn't bother you more, then you've gone off the deep end.

Why aren't you ***n pissed off at this judge?

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BUDOS said:

---

Just to clarify, are you indicating Democrats, which many of you claim are leftists are also fascists?

The reason I ask is based on the definition in a dictionary:

fascist
/fshst/

noun
An advocate or adherent of fascism.
A reactionary or dictatorial person.
An adherent of fascism or similar right-wing authoritarian views.

Just hoping you can clarify why you and some others are doing this.

---

Jonah Goldberg wrote an excellent, if controversial, book about the Marxian and leftist origins of fascism. I highly recommend it.

Goldberg also assumed that American conservatives were immune to fascist tendencies because conservatives are not on the so-called "left" side of politics. He now understands that he was wrong. Historian has not yet figured this out.

https://thedispatch.com/newsletter/gfile/what-i-got-wrong-about-fascism/

---

The American right has almost nothing to do with classical fascism.

Because of the American Revolution its probably one of the most "anti-centralist" and "anti-State" rightwing movements on Earth.

[Benito Mussolini, who was the first to use the term for his political party in 1915, described fascism in The Doctrine of Fascism, published in 1932, as follows:

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.]

[In a speech before the Chamber of Deputies on
26 May 1927, Mussolini said:
Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State. (Italian: Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato)]

---

When fascism comes to America, it won't be wearing jackboots..

---

American conservatism is practically anti-state….very regionalist (states rights)…..religious (Christian and Jewish)…and more reactionary than revolutionary

---

I tend to agree. And if so then Trumpism is by no means conservative.

---

"Trumpism" is just populist conservatism of the Pat Buchanan style.....but under a much more Hollywood style magnetic leader

Its far from the European fascism of the WWI war veterans....Italian or Nazi

[To put it plainly, Pat Buchanan was the living link between the nativist, isolationist, and protectionist paleoconservative tradition in GOP politics, which most observers thought had died in the 1950s, and the MAGA conservatism associated with Donald Trump. Both these strains of right-wing thought substituted nativism and economic nationalism for the free-market ideology that prevailed in the last half of the twentieth century]

Notice that one of the biggest Trump ideas is tearing down Federal power....through gutting Federal agencies....that is of course not what Fascism does....Fascism builds up agencies and centralized power

---

Buchanan was the bridge, but we're in new territory now. What I think we'll find when Trump is through dismantling the bureaucracy is not less government power, but less accountability. All the power that's now dispersed throughout the various agencies will be centered in the president himself. The implications of this are obvious. In addition you have Trump's attacks on the courts, removing security details from political enemies, sowing paranoia and conspiracy theories, and encouraging violent mobs, all of which resemble fascist rather than conservative tactics. It remains to be seen whether Trump's populist rhetoric translates to any real benefit to American workers. His record is not especially pro-labor, and his tax policy seems to favor big corporations. I expect many services of government agencies will be privatized after those agencies are gutted, providing a wealth of opportunity for corrupt exploitation by Trump and his cronies.

---

Yeah it's hard for anyone other than the resident zealots to see Trump fighting with the courts to expand the power of the executive branch, and diminish the ability of the courts to chrleck that power, or for the legislative branch to legislate these agencies Congress created, and see Trump as the guy who believes in limited government power.

He is vastly expanding upon the power granted to him by the Constitution, and in 4 years, the mere idea that a Democrat could exercise the same power will be anathema to so called conservatives.

Any adult wants checks on the President's power, because the President will not always be on your team. Conservative zealots are completely unable to defend this wholesale power grab. That's why they talk so much about TDS.

---

What power grab? The statute drafted by Congress granted the power to the President some 200 years ago.

Trump didn't just create some new authority.


Maybe the law is unconstitutional as written and, as such, the president does not have the power to deport terrorists without proving to the judiciary that the terrorists are in fact terrorists. - but it certainly is not a power grab to follow the law as written.

---

The judge is following the law as written.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Buchanan was the bridge, but we're in new territory now. What I think we'll find when Trump is through dismantling the bureaucracy is not less government power, but less accountability. All the power that's now dispersed throughout the various agencies will be centered in the president himself. The implications of this are obvious. In addition you have Trump's attacks on the courts, removing security details from political enemies, sowing paranoia and conspiracy theories, and encouraging violent mobs, all of which resemble fascist rather than conservative tactics. It remains to be seen whether Trump's populist rhetoric translates to any real benefit to American workers. His record is not especially pro-labor, and his tax policy seems to favor big corporations. I expect many services of government agencies will be privatized after those agencies are gutted, providing a wealth of opportunity for corrupt exploitation by Trump and his cronies.

---

He definitely ran on a populist platform, and I never thought he'd shrink government / reform the administrative branch, especially after watching his first term, but here we are and he's trying like hell. I suppose, thanks to Elon, that those of us in favor of limited government are getting some surprise wins here.

There could not be less accountability. If anything, there would be more. We actually elect the President. No one knows the names of the countless bureaucrats buried in admin agencies. who apparently have had a vast amount of latitude to do as they like, so long as they don't get crosswise with the bureaucratic machine, then covered with the thick warm blanket of Chevron deference.

The executive fighting with the courts is as old as time, and the questions being raised now are fairly minimal compared to what they once were and have been at times.

Which conspiracy theories? Like the lab leak theory? The reason "conspiracy theories" get so much traction now is that people realize they've been lied to over and over and over again. This is the reckoning.

You, as a lover of authority, rules, and institutions don't understand this, but lots (a majority?) of people saw the Great Oz behind the curtain through the covid debacle, and they don't want him back in charge.

---

The bureaucracy is accountable through the courts and administrative processes. Trump will try to change that, with this case being a prime example.

He has a conspiracy theory for just about every occasion, but I was referring to his fraudulent claims about the election in 2020.

Is it ok to have conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories? Must be.

Sam Lowry said:

---

The bureaucracy is accountable through the courts and administrative processes. Trump will try to change that, with this case being a prime example.

He has a conspiracy theory for just about every occasion, but I was referring to his fraudulent claims about the election in 2020.

---

The judiciary had largely abdicated its role in policing the bureaucrats. Combine rulemaking (legislative), enforcement, and adjudicative function in many of these agencies, then slap Chevron deference over the top, and they could basically do whatever they wanted.

Well, yeah. That one in particular is his massive ego and toddler-like tendencies. But people have gotten so used to government and mass media lying to them that all conspiracy theories will get more traction these days.

Robert Wilson said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The bureaucracy is accountable through the courts and administrative processes. Trump will try to change that, with this case being a prime example.

He has a conspiracy theory for just about every occasion, but I was referring to his fraudulent claims about the election in 2020.

---

The judiciary had largely abdicated its role in policing the bureaucrats. Combine rulemaking (legislative), enforcement, and adjudicative function in many of these agencies, then slap Chevron deference over the top, and they could basically do whatever they wanted.

Well, yeah. That one in particular is his massive ego and toddler-like tendencies. But people have gotten so used to government and mass media lying to them that all conspiracy theories will get more traction these days.

---

Even if you were right about the judiciary, giving Trump the kind of power he's seeking would only make it worse. It's the opposite of a solution. Likewise, the prevalence of conspiracy theories is no justification for an executive to exploit them.

gtownbear said:

---

Speaking of Judge Boasberg's behavior during the deportation case. Aren't judges supposed to recuse themselves for even the slightest hint of a conflict of interest? Well we have actual proof of a conflict in his case. Boasberg's daughter, Katherine Boasberg, works for Partners For Justice, "a non-profit organization that provides legal support to criminal illegal aliens and gang members". This raises serious concerns, as her father's rulings have a direct benefit to her employer and therefore her.

---

No, it's neither necessary nor is it possible for judges to avoid the slightest hint of conflict. They're supposed to avoid anything that would make a reasonable person conclude that their impartiality is impaired. This is not reasonable grounds for such a conclusion, much less is it actual proof.