"Extremism" and "Radical"

1,205 Views | 27 Replies | Last: 5 hrs ago by Oldbear83
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pardon Captain Obvious, but one of the Orwellian tactics the left regularly employs is to use emotional, hysterical histrionics to generate emotional reactions versus actually discussion issues and specifics. One of the worlds most used is "extreme" and "radical" to describe anything they disagree with.

Although I do not expect to get any responses, curious to read from our TDSers:

1. How do you define "extreme" or "radical"

2. Can you name three of Trump's policies that are actually "extreme" or "radical?"
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

Pardon Captain Obvious, but one of the Orwellian tactics the left regularly employs is to use emotional, hysterical histrionics to generate emotional reactions versus actually discussion issues and specifics. One of the worlds most used is "extreme" and "radical" to describe anything they disagree with.

Although I do not expect to get any responses, curious to read from our TDSers:

1. How do you define "extreme" or "radical"

2. Can you name three of Trump's policies that are actually "extreme" or "radical?"

1. Charging every single country (which includes our allies) a tariff to do business in the USA is extreme. These are ultimately paid mostly by Americans and American companies. This administration is going back to 1913. The result so far has been a huge drag on the world economy.

2. The U.S. buying shares of companies undermines free enterprise and Capitalism. Private companies and businesses should not have to compete with the U.S. government. This is closer to Socialism than anything I have seen a U.S. President embrace in my lifetime. Radical and extreme.

3. Supporting crypto currencies from a governmental policy standpoint is in direct conflict with the U.S. dollar. Investing in this while holding office is a conflict of interest, unconscionable, radical , and extreme.

4. Unilateral military actions (Venezuela and Iran) without seeking the approval of Congress is radical and extreme. Cuba and Greenland had better buckle up.

At the beginning of Trump's term I scoffed at those who accused Trump of being a dictator. After year 2, it turns out they were right and I was wrong. Where the Hell has 2016 Trump gone? He no longer exists.

Call it a tax, the people are outraged! Call it a tariff, the people get out their checkbooks and wave their American flags!!!
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I would suggest that RD2's post above counts as 'radical and extreme'.

It is also blind to History in pretending Presidents have not always initiated military actions. RD2 seems to think the military just goes off on it's own and Congress just happens to usually agree with the generals.

The other claims made are absent context and other actors.

RD2 did get one thing right: He is wrong.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
BUDOS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Pardon Captain Obvious, but one of the Orwellian tactics the left regularly employs is to use emotional, hysterical histrionics to generate emotional reactions versus actually discussion issues and specifics. One of the worlds most used is "extreme" and "radical" to describe anything they disagree with.

Although I do not expect to get any responses, curious to read from our TDSers:

1. How do you define "extreme" or "radical"

2. Can you name three of Trump's policies that are actually "extreme" or "radical?"

1. Charging every single country (which includes our allies) a tariff to do business in the USA is extreme. These are ultimately paid mostly by Americans and American countries. This administration is going back to 1913. The result so far has been a huge drag on the world economy.

2. The U.S. buying shares of companies undermines free enterprise and Capitalism. Private companies and businesses should not have to compete with the U.S. government. This is closer to Socialism than anything I have seen a U.S. President embrace in my lifetime. Radical and extreme.

3. Supporting crypto currencies from a governmental policy standpoint is in direct conflict with the U.S. dollar. Investing in this while holding office is a conflict of interest, unconscionable, radical , and extreme.

4. Unilateral military actions (Venezuela and Iran) without seeking the approval of Congress is radical and extreme. Cuba and Greenland had better buckle up.

At the beginning of Trump's term I scoffed at those who accused Trump of being a dictator. After year 2, it turns out they were right and I was wrong. Where the Hell has 2016 Trump gone? He no longer exists.



In my opinion I would say "Ditto"
Below I have my three. I goofed on my first by not including Iran--DUHHHH!!!!
I have others about which I am more emotionally and personally attached, so, for at least for now, I tried to focus on more objective "extreme" or "radical" rather than getting caught up in his "character." Anyone who is aware of my past posts may be surprised that I left out January 6.


First, his January 2026 military raid in Venezuela in which he seized President Nicols Maduro and installed an interim government under U.S. supervision is one of his more extreme actions. Trump, by making his unilateral decision, combined regime change, territorial control and resource extraction, which are actions far beyond traditional foreign policy norms. It is my understanding of international law that this violated international law and reminded me of the colonialism of the 1800s. His intent to run Venezuela and attempt to encourage major U.S. oil companies to move in, raises concerns about resource exploitation. His efforts to initiate and put his "Trump Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine signals a significant expansion of us expanding our power unilaterally. To me, this was illegal, colonial, and unprecedented.

Second. Trump's proposal for the U.S. to take over Gaza and later to govern it through a "Board of Peace" chaired by himself (of course). This appears to be nothing more than "imperialism masquerading as a peace process" and, again another reminder of colonialism. By Trump personally appointing himself chief of a foreign territory's governance, is not a method to win international support. This put direct US governance over a foreign population, which we ceased doing over 100 years ago. I see this action as both imperialistic and structurally colonial.

Third. Trump's unprecedented unilateralism, often bypassing Congress and traditional legal and ethical constraints. In many of his executive actions, he chose to brazenly defy constitutional and statutory boundaries. His National Security Strategy appears to have been framed using policies as tools for redefining presidential power, more than advancing policy goals. Having done graduate work on the authoritarian personality, such actions reflect fascist political mechanisms, including concentration of executive authority and erosion of institutional checks and balances as stated in our Constitution and confirmed via the Federalist Papers. These actions mark a structural shift in how presidential power is conceivedtreating policy as a vehicle for expanding executive authority, the opposite of traditional practice.

Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

I would suggest that RD2's post above counts as 'radical and extreme'.

It is also blind to History in pretending Presidents have not always initiated military actions. RD2 seems to think the military just goes off on it's own and Congress just happens to usually agree with the generals.

The other claims made are absent context and other actors.

RD2 did get one thing right: He is wrong.

I think the inherent challenge is there is not given definition of "extreme" or "radical" so it becomes hard to really glean whether those would be considered either.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Pardon Captain Obvious, but one of the Orwellian tactics the left regularly employs is to use emotional, hysterical histrionics to generate emotional reactions versus actually discussion issues and specifics. One of the worlds most used is "extreme" and "radical" to describe anything they disagree with.

Although I do not expect to get any responses, curious to read from our TDSers:

1. How do you define "extreme" or "radical"

2. Can you name three of Trump's policies that are actually "extreme" or "radical?"

1. Charging every single country (which includes our allies) a tariff to do business in the USA is extreme. These are ultimately paid mostly by Americans and American countries. This administration is going back to 1913. The result so far has been a huge drag on the world economy.

2. The U.S. buying shares of companies undermines free enterprise and Capitalism. Private companies and businesses should not have to compete with the U.S. government. This is closer to Socialism than anything I have seen a U.S. President embrace in my lifetime. Radical and extreme.

3. Supporting crypto currencies from a governmental policy standpoint is in direct conflict with the U.S. dollar. Investing in this while holding office is a conflict of interest, unconscionable, radical , and extreme.

4. Unilateral military actions (Venezuela and Iran) without seeking the approval of Congress is radical and extreme. Cuba and Greenland had better buckle up.

At the beginning of Trump's term I scoffed at those who accused Trump of being a dictator. After year 2, it turns out they were right and I was wrong. Where the Hell has 2016 Trump gone? He no longer exists.



"At the beginning of Trump's term I scoffed at those who accused Trump of being a dictator. After year 2, it turns out they were right and I was wrong. Where the Hell has 2016 Trump gone? He no longer exists."

He's a malignant narcissist/sociopath who has excelled at being a con. Malignant narcissist/sociopaths don't change, they're hardwired with that psychological disorder. They can't change. That's what makes them so dangerous. This time he has more enablers around him and has little to no constraints. He just has the freedom to express himself more this term.



“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

I would suggest that RD2's post above counts as 'radical and extreme'.

It is also blind to History in pretending Presidents have not always initiated military actions. RD2 seems to think the military just goes off on it's own and Congress just happens to usually agree with the generals.

The other claims made are absent context and other actors.

RD2 did get one thing right: He is wrong.

You would suggest that. Spoken like a good fascist.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

I would suggest that RD2's post above counts as 'radical and extreme'.

It is also blind to History in pretending Presidents have not always initiated military actions. RD2 seems to think the military just goes off on it's own and Congress just happens to usually agree with the generals.

The other claims made are absent context and other actors.

RD2 did get one thing right: He is wrong.

You would suggest that. Spoken like a good fascist.

Funny how your choice of epithets disqualifies you early on here,
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
El Oso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So is your rebuttal
A)RD2 is wrong because democrat presidents have done this, so if they've been extreme and radical, Trump can be too. Or
B)RD2 is wrong because I said so?
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
El Oso said:

So is your rebuttal
A)RD2 is wrong because democrat presidents have done this, so if they've been extreme and radical, Trump can be too. Or
B)RD2 is wrong because I said so?

Try re-reading the post, I said 'also' when noting how Presidents have acted historically, without being considered 'extreme'.

Again, context matters.

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

I would suggest that RD2's post above counts as 'radical and extreme'.

It is also blind to History in pretending Presidents have not always initiated military actions. RD2 seems to think the military just goes off on it's own and Congress just happens to usually agree with the generals.

The other claims made are absent context and other actors.

RD2 did get one thing right: He is wrong.

Quite an impressive word salad. Kamala Harris would be impressed. You are one of Trump's followers that blindly follow him, never question him, and thinks he can do no wrong. This group of Trump supporters, I think, may be even more dangerous than Democrats. Let that sink in.

You never actually refuted the 4 examples that I listed.
Call it a tax, the people are outraged! Call it a tariff, the people get out their checkbooks and wave their American flags!!!
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
El Oso said:

So is your rebuttal
A)RD2 is wrong because democrat presidents have done this, so if they've been extreme and radical, Trump can be too. Or
B)RD2 is wrong because I said so?

I think in this particular case, the comparison is potentially valid.

Although no one has been able to define either term - because a specific definition would prevent the flexibility that Orwellian disinformation requires - it seems reasonable (I think most would agree outside of a tribal argument) that a position adopted by both parties by definition would actually be the opposite of "extreme" or "radical" ... but I may be wrong.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I did refute them. Or do you not know how Reagan, Johnson, FDR and others used the military without first asking Congress?

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

I did refute them. Or do you not know how Reagan, Johnson, FDR and others used the military without first asking Congress?



So you are gung ho with a President declaring war without consulting Congress? "December7th, 1941. A date which will live in infamy. "Not even close to the same. I am shocked your wife is not busting your balls for this post. You should be ashamed.
Call it a tax, the people are outraged! Call it a tariff, the people get out their checkbooks and wave their American flags!!!
El Oso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So A
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A tantrum from RD2. In English, that means I am right again and he's mad again.

As has been the case for over a year now .

Funny how so many have no knowledge or understanding of History. And no, that doesn't mean I agree with all his actions, I just don't exaggerate or make up my own facts like some.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
BUDOS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

I did refute them. Or do you not know how Reagan, Johnson, FDR and others used the military without first asking Congress?



Oldbear, I do agree that there are some similarities, but there are also some differences. What is your take on the following? Do you perceive them as significant differences or nuances?

It appears that there are some differences in Trump's conflict with Iran, compared to major historical military engagements of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Ronald Reagan.

One example, is that it appears to have because it lacks a unifying grand-purpose narrative, and was not given prior congressional authorization for a preventative strike, as it relied heavily on unilateral executive decision-making rather than building a formalized domestic coalition.

Although some may not consider it a major difference, there also appear to be what some term as strategic and narrative differences.

FDR: Mobilized the country following a direct, undeniable attack, uniting the public around a clear existential defense of democracy.

LBJ: Secured the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution from Congress and framed the conflict within a structured Cold War containment strategy, at least initially.

Reagan (Lebanon/Gulf operations): Utilized localized, limited deployments (peace-keeping or escort duties) framed around superpower stability, eventually seeking congressional engagement.

Trump: Launched preventative joint strikes with Israel in February 2026 based on preventative assessments and executive instincts rather than a formalized public crusade or unified congressional declaration, resulting in a uniquely narrow and contested domestic rationale.

Related to legal & constitutional approach:
FDR: Sought and received a formal, constitutional declaration of war from Congress.

LBJ: Relied on explicit congressional statutory backing (the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution) to expand troop levels.

Reagan: Operated under Commander-in-Chief authorities but engaged with Congress for authorization frameworks like the War Powers Resolution context.

Trump: Initiated major combat operations via executive directive alongside Israel without a formal congressional declaration or prior legislative authorization, reflecting a modern reliance on unconstrained executive war powers.

Obviously there are differences in public support and coalition building:

FDR, LBJ, and Reagan: All initially invested heavily in structured White House messaging to construct a broad consensus across bipartisan lines before or immediately during the escalation of major hostilities.

Trump: Pursued a high-intensity campaign that faced immediate, sharp partisan division, low baseline public approval, and continuous friction with lawmakers over the lack of a long-term strategic exit plan.
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There was nothing more extreme or radical than flooding our country with millions of illegals - and then gaslighting the American people that it was not happening.
BUDOS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ok, don't get bent out of shape, as I say the following mostly in humor: I wonder if the Native Americans thought something similar. ;/)
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump is in a different situation from former Presidents. Prior to 2000, Presidents generally were accepted to have authority to initiate hostilities, going all the way back to Jefferson's Administration. In the second Bush Administration, however, Democrats began to actively oppose and interfere with military actions, and it's notable that Obama simply took actions, including military attacks, without any prior discussion and only reported later his version of events. I have no doubt Trump decided to copy that behavior, although his style of reporting is unique and sometimes tone deaf.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
BUDOS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I can agree with a lot of what you said. Do think any of their actions were equal to starting the war, especially against the advice of just about all of his generals and staff? Having said that, I realize that we have had presidents attempt to start wars and finance them.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

I would suggest that RD2's post above counts as 'radical and extreme'.

It is also blind to History in pretending Presidents have not always initiated military actions. RD2 seems to think the military just goes off on it's own and Congress just happens to usually agree with the generals.

The other claims made are absent context and other actors.

RD2 did get one thing right: He is wrong.

You would suggest that. Spoken like a good fascist.

Funny how your choice of epithets disqualifies you early on here,

Funny how an epithet so easily captures your character.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BUDOS said:

Ok, don't get bent out of shape, as I say the following mostly in humor: I wonder if the Native Americans thought something similar. ;/)

Certainly they did. As did the Mexicans when they invited the Anglos into Texas.

History repeats often.
BUDOS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Excellent comeback! Nice job.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

TexasScientist said:

Oldbear83 said:

I would suggest that RD2's post above counts as 'radical and extreme'.

It is also blind to History in pretending Presidents have not always initiated military actions. RD2 seems to think the military just goes off on it's own and Congress just happens to usually agree with the generals.

The other claims made are absent context and other actors.

RD2 did get one thing right: He is wrong.

You would suggest that. Spoken like a good fascist.

Funny how your choice of epithets disqualifies you early on here,

Funny how an epithet so easily captures your character.


You are wrong yet again.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.