Trump is the battle cry of Traditional America !

That "un-beholden" rhetoric worked in the primary so far, but he is planning to take money from donors to fund his campaign in the general election, and to pay himself back for the $17MM he has loaned to his primary campaign. He has actually only donated something around $250,000 to his campaign. The rest is a loan that he expects to be paid back. Will you still feel he isn't obligated to special interests and donors when he takes money just like every other candidate?

This link is from an hour ago, so it's current. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/donald-trump-fundraising-republican-nomination/index.html

 

So if this is true then we have no-one left (Democratic or Republic) and "tax paying" Americans will continue to get screwed.

 

It is true.

The way I see it, Trump has been telling everyone all along that he isn't really a serious candidate, but people wanted to believe differently.

 

I doubt Trump would waste his time if he was't serious.

 

Excuse please.

Trump appears to show distinct shades of fascism. Strong Nationalism, strong military, exclusion of those that "don't belong", talk of walls, all with no mention of Congress implying Presidential Power, implied government intervention in business on behalf of American Manufacturing. Sounds disturbingly like fascism to me.

I was under the impression that fascism is the strongest form of anti-socialism movement. On a traditional Cold War scale, it would be about as far Right as you could get. I understand that both ends of that scale imply a strong government which puts it in direct conflict with Libertarianism. It's kind of the problem with using terms like Right and Left. Perhaps we need new definitions.

 

He's a marketer and a reality TV star. He loves being in the public eye and couldn't buy the kind of exposure he's gotten from his candidacy. I have no doubt he will write another book and probably get another TV show based on it. However, I'll stop and not jade your opinion in this election cycle. I'm old. I've seen all kinds of dirty political tricks and snake oil salesmen. If you want to believe in Trump, go ahead. Just remember this one thing- politics is a nasty, dirty game played for power and power corrupts.

 

I have not made up my mind except but I won't be voting for Hillary. I don't look to any politician to legislate my prosperity. It would be nice is they'd get their fingers out of my pocket. It's hard enough already. I'm tired of all of them robbing hard working American people.

 

Then I would suggest you look into the candidate that wants to grow the economy. As long as the economy isn't growing at a better rate and more jobs aren't available, the government is going to have to continue to supplement those economically marginalized.

 

Fascism? I'm sorry, but if that is all you have, you not only have nothing, but you just sound ignorant.

Although I will comment on one thing though because it does illuminate major differences between left and right. This week there was another thread called, Democrats don't chant USA. It was basically calling out liberals for not being patriotic. Liberals promptly went to the thread to prove that very point. Nationalism, patriotism, love of country, are all concepts that the left finds abhorrent, and I've no doubt you do as well. The ignorance part comes in when you bizarrely link patriotism with authoritarianism; or fascism if you prefer.

The childish logic seems to go like this. "Hitler loved his country, so loving your country...NAZI!"

If you guys didn't despise your own country so much you could have gotten a lot further along in collectivizing it. As it is, I can't recall any pushback from the left on Obama's administrative dictats. When the left holds the pen and the phone, fascism seems to be great.

 

Economically marginalized? If you allow yourself to be "economically marginalized" then it's you're fault. Otherwise it's just an excuse. No politician is going to legislate your prosperity. Get used to it and look to yourself.

The only time a politician cares about you is when "they need your vote". Wake up.

 

If you are familiar with the Carrier company moving to Mexico, then you know those 1400 people plus their families had no say in their jobs being taken from them. If another employer doesn't come in to hire those 1400 workers, they will have to move elsewhere (if they can afford to move and can find work elsewhere) or take a job that pays significantly less, since most new jobs in this country are low paying. Those with a mortgage won't be able to sell their house easily, as new people aren't going to be moving to a place with no jobs. Is that situation those workers' fault? Did they allow themselves to be marginalized because the corporate bosses could get cheaper labor in Mexico?

It's obvious that you've never had to face that kind of thing. I hope you never do, but if you do, you'll have empathy for them once you've been there. Ayn Rand rejected the government and railed against it in her writings. Then she got sick and old and ended up on Social Security, the very thing she rejected… right up until she needed it. Desperate people do desperate things. The government is there to keep those desperate things as minimal as possible. Be glad they do. You couldn't afford your insurance if they didn't.

 

sad how some folks think a Trump Presidency means it will be OPEN SEASON on Muslims, Hispanics, Progressives, Feminists.

Light the torches???? bring on the Pogrom?

I dont think so.

 

I've made sound decisions and understood that just because things are good today doesn't mean they'll be good tomorrow.

Unfortunately I've lost my sympathy for people claiming poverty because they vote to take more money from me and don't notice that government takes a huge handling fee and very little trickles down to them. When your president attacks people like me and demands more, yes I've lost sympathy. I need to take care of my own. because I will not qualify for help in my elderly years, I've got to make sure I can pay my way then too. I can't take care of my own, and yours and pay double Obamacare rates without hurting my ability to take care of my own.

 

My president attacks people like you? I'm afraid you are confused or on some kind of ideological roll… I can't even...

It is unfortunate that you've lost your sympathy and concern for others. It's one of those things that connects us to each other and let's us work together to better our communities, make life better for everyone. I do have empathy for others, but not because I have fallen on hard times personally. I've been lucky. My parents could send me to college and graduate school. In turn, I was able to do the same for my children. I never lost a job or had one shipped out of the country on me. I've never had to face personal disaster and start over.

I sincerely hope you never face adversity. If you do, please don't be a hypocrite and ask for help from the government. Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps and find a way to carry on. Like you said, just because things are good today, doesn't guarantee a thing about tomorrow.

 

Oh I did face adversity and I got myself out. If I waited for government to save me I'd still be there. Thank god I had enough sense to understand that government would not legislate my prosperity, in fact as I was making my own way, I've learned government stands in the way.

 

Hate to interject reality into the discussion, but I also know my history. It's not me that notes Trump's fascist tendencies, it's political scientists, politicians, and the Neo-Nazi movement. The analysis is straight forward; playing on Nationalism and fear; build up of the military; xenophobia; calls for government intervention on behalf of Business; denouncing the press or any other critic that opposes you, even a friendly quote from Mussolini, the Father of Fascism. I have yet to hear Trump mention that his agenda depends on cooperation from Congress, he acts like they don't exist which sounds pretty Authoritarian to me. The basis for his supposed expertise is that Government and Business is the same and they should cooperate.

Before we can discuss the merits or pitfalls of his agenda, we should at least be able to agree on a term that describes it. Fascism is the best description of Trump's political philosophy that I have heard, Bernie readily accepts the Socialist label for his agenda, which I think is similarly appropriate. It's not a judgement, it's simply an apt description.

 

I see you've decided to double down on your original ignorant point, so I don't really know where to go with this. I don't associate nationalism and authoritarianism, and if you do, that means you implicitly oppose the nation state, including your own. I think that actually plays into Mr. Trump's argument. If you are of a globalist mindset, and want something else to supersede the nation state, at least be honest about it. And if you want to say you oppose Trump because he's pro American, and to be pro American is implicitly fascist in your eyes, then I certainly hope Hillary makes that argument this fall, because that's an opinion that virtually no one in the US shares, save some crazed college kids and aged hippies.

 

Well, we are part way.

I didn't say that you had to associate nationalism and authoritarism, it is just Trump happens to support both as does the definition of fascism. We had the American answer to "Extremism in Defense of Liberty is No Vice" argument in 1964 in a remarkably similar GOP contest. It turned out that 49 states thought, "Why, yes it is." Apparently, the lesson was lost on Trump and his supporters.

There has always been a difference between Nationalism and Patriotism. A Nationalist is one who thinks, "My Country, Right or Wrong." This follow-the-leader attitude has doomed any number of nations in a March to disaster. A Paitriot wants his country to be the best it can be and live up to its potential. If a Patriot sees something wrong with his country, he works to correct it and make his nation better. Both the Nationalist and the Patriot love their country but believe in different agendas and obligations of the citizens. A Nationalist who would presume to lead his country would have citizens abdicate their own vision for the country and blindly follow the country's leader, a.k.a. Him. That would make him Authoritarian by my definition.

Authoritarian Nationalist does not necessarily mean Fascist. Here we must look to the tools, methods, and beliefs of the leader to make them more than simply an aspiring dictator. Fascism also implies a xenophobic view of the country; a mistrust and demonization of critics and/or the free press; promotion of fear and division; intolerance of those that do not conform or are different or a minority. A fascist also sees a very close relationship between Govenment and Business, each complimenting the other. And the modern signature of fascism is military dominance of all other countries making them subservient to the Leader's Nation. From media reports, all of these characteristics can be found in the rhetoric of Trump.

Thirty second sound bytes can be misleading and perhaps the hundreds of media outlets that have played Trump quotes for the last several months have somehow all been out of context. Since Trump has repeated and defended his views on numerous occasions, I find universal misrepresentation highly unlikely. Given accuracy of his views, I would most certainly identify Trump as a philosophical fascist, or at the very least that being the closest description of his political views.

So here I have laid open my reasoning for calling Trump a Fascist. It is not some throw away insult or judgement, it is simply what I believe to be an accurate summary of Trump's political views. Please feel free to convince me there is some other, more accurate description.

 

Well I don't think I'll be able to convince you of anything. Since you didn't respond to my inquiries about globalism or the nation state, I suspect the answer is one that we both know already. Instead you've decided to make up your own definition of fascism that conveniently fits someone you oppose politically. The fact that you define it by not defining it, "Here we must look to the tools, methods, and beliefs of the leader to make them more than simply an aspiring dictator." So that basically says that you make the call.

Secondly, a "xenophobic view of the country." That really means nothing, but what I suspect you are trying to imply is that anyone who opposes illegal immigration and wants to keep them out suffers from "xenophobia." A medical condition that you need to consult your doctor about.

"a mistrust and demonization of critics and/or the free press." All Republicans and conservatives are critical of the press, so therefore, all Republicans are fascist? Why would that even be part of a fascist system? If a Democrat criticizes the press, is he a fascist too?

"A fascist also sees a very close relationship between Govenment and Business, each complimenting the other" Here you are actually on firmer ground, since that's part of the historical relationship between government and a private economy in the handful of fascist systems we have to examine, although it's not exclusive to fascism, unless you regard Japan's industrial policy as fascist as well. But if you do, then you are dumbing fascism down. And if it's true I would expect to scroll through these pages and see references of Obamacare, the Stimulus, the GM bailout, and subsidies of Solyndra as well as the subsidizing of other politically connected companies as examples of Fascism.

But I bet I won't find that will I?

 

After seeing Trump's responses and performance tonight, I'm convinced that anyone who will support him needs to have their head examined.

 

First, my views of Globalization and the Nation State doesn't really enter in to it, but if you insist. I am a Moderate, so naturally I don't fully support either view. I think isolationism is a folly that is both impractical and harmful to the country. I think Free Trade, as currently being implemented, is bad policy for the American Worker and ultimately the American Consumer. But then again, I disagree with some of the economic fundamentals of the American Economy and like to see several regulatory and legal reforms which would naturally seep into trade policy. Just as an aside, I don't like any of the current candidates economic policies, but I am not a single issue voter. I will say that I believe Isolationism is the weakest and most objectionable of the options offered.

Xenophobia is not simply an immigration policy. It goes to the fear of domestic minorities such as Muslims presenting a danger to the public, Black Lives Matter as a racist threat, all them there Mexicans here to Take Our Jobs, and those Cubans here for the Welfare checks. It seemed to take Trump advisors a day or two to explain a David Duke endorsement is not a good thing. I'm trying to remember a minority group that Trump has not insulted or demonized.

I did not say that critizing the Press is unique to Fascists. It does seem to be a popular pastime of Republicans, Fox News aside, but is one of the traits of a Fascist. Nor is a public/private partnership unique to a fascist. Indeed none of the individual issues or stances alone define Fascism, but instead the sum of the positions. I believe the legal term is "preponderance of evidence." Like all such labels, it is not meant as a precise description, simply the best fit of those definitions available. Again, if you have a more apt alternative I'd like to hear the rationale.

I have to say I am surprised at the venomous offense you seem to attach to the characterization. Far Right, Anti-Socialist, I would think you would embrace the description. It is simply a point of description on a linear, loosely defined scale of political options. If my intent as to simply demonize or trivialize Trump I could find much more effective characterizations.
.

 

Although I agree that there are easier ways to demonize Trump, but you've chosen to associate him with a system that doesn't represent any candidate currently running in the US election. Again, as I've said previously, you've tailored a unique definition that conveniently suits who you want to attack. You don't seem to be able to make a connection between Trump and some of your points. Attacking the press has nothing to do with Fascism. But in this case...it does because Trump.

I've no idea what Trump said about Cubans, so I don't know where you are going with this, nor do I know what BLM has to do with anything Trump said, but at least with Muslims there are ample public statements to go by, so I assume you don't want to stop Muslims coming to this country. I've noticed that those on the left, who, like yourself don't regard US sovereignty as legitimate, don't feel that the US has the right to to tell anyone they can't come here. Again, I welcome Hillary making that argument this fall.

I don't find anything "moderate" at all about your positions, but the fact that you do show how far you are from the American mainstream. The gist of what you are doing is a lot simpler than your finely tailored personal definition that fits the one person you want to demonize; this is simply a low grade Godwin's law attack. You don't use the word "Hitler" but that's implicit in using a term like fascism that has nothing to do with Trump's political program. That's why your definitions don't seem to apply to a current chief executive who has demonized political enemies and has usurped constitutional authority with his pen and phone but it does to a candidate who has two main pillors of his campaign; renegotiating bad trade deals and keeping illegal aliens out.

And that's "fascist" to you.

 

Education in America has far greater problems than anyone's opposition to evolution teaching. And it isn't Christians who've screwed up education. It's stupid liberals who think teaching kids how to be gay and worship Mother Earth.

 

Uh... what?...

 

Priorities.