When do you stop fascism from happening?

[ivwshane]

During Obama's presidency and now with trumps presidency many people said the US was turning into a dictatorship or becoming fascist. For the sake of this thread lets not make this about either president.

Everyone likes to say that if they had a time machine they would go back and kill Hitler when he was a baby. Well we don't have a time machine so what's the next best, reality based, solution?

When do those who oppose either fascism or dictatorships, start fighting back? And by fighting back I'm referring to public displays from citizens of dissent.

If we use historical examples of either, when would have been the appropriate time to start mobilizing an offensive against either from happening? When laws are passed that start discriminating against particular groups of people? When leaders use nationalistic language? When leaders single out groups as the cause for societies ills? When laws are broken by those at the top in government and are not punished? When personnel throughout government are replaced with a leaders "team"? When two of the above happen in a short period of time? When three, four, or more happen in a short period of time?

Was there particular points in history that historians can look back to and say that at that particular point in time, after the leader did these actions it should have been a red flag.

Or is it something that cannot be stopped once the wheels are in motion?

Is it something that can only be stopped after the fact or is that too late?

 

[yllus]

I've been thinking about this as well, and I think my resolution is: In the next four years, at some point Trump or his people will use financial or legal pressure to shut down or significantly harm press organizations like CNN or the Washington Post. (My guess is through use of a gooned-up Justice Department.) At that point, freedom loving Americans need to stage weeks (multiple I suspect) of general strikes to shut down the national economy until political action to remove Trump occurs. This is no other option; without a strong response, it will be the beginning of the end of a truly independent press.

The question is if there are enough people secure in their jobs and willing to lose them for their ideals to make this happen. The weakness of unions and job security in general in the United States bodes ill for this.

 

[MongGrel]

It is really a moot point trying to make it non partisan.

There have already been very large public non violent displays of dissent.

But that has been has been railed about in other threads.

 

[ivwshane]

I've been thinking about this as well, and I think my resolution is: In the next four years, at some point Trump or his people will use financial or legal pressure to shut down or significantly harm press organizations like CNN or the Washington Post. (My guess is through use of a gooned-up Justice Department.) At that point, freedom loving Americans need to stage weeks (multiple I suspect) of general strikes to shut down the national economy until political action to remove Trump occurs. This is no other option; without a strong response, it will be the beginning of the end of a truly independent press.

The question is if there are enough people secure in their jobs and willing to lose them for their ideals to make this happen. The weakness of unions and job security in general in the United States bodes ill for this.

To clarify: you think the time to act is when a leader try to shut down the press via legal or financial means?

If a leader signed a law that said the press has to be accurate or face penalties, would that count?

If a leader brought up a lawsuit against a particular press organization for defamation whose loss would cause said institution to go bankrupt, would that count?

Does it need to happen only once or at least multiple times?

 

[ivwshane]

It is really a moot point trying to make it non partisan.

There have already been very large public non violent displays of dissent.

But that has been has been railed about in other threads.

The current displays of dissent haven't been about or with regards to the president being a fascist or a dictator.

 

[cubby1223]

At that point, freedom loving Americans need to stage weeks (multiple I suspect) of general strikes to shut down the national economy

This plan dis-proportionally affects minorities who fill the low income brackets most fragile to economic disruptions. What are you, racist? Minorities must suffer so that you can achieve your goals?

 

[MrSquished]

"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette,

 

[ivwshane]

"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette,

Yes but what does that suppression look like? How would we recognize it? When Obama's DOJ was investigating a fox news reporter citing the espionage act, would that have been a red flag? Would that have warranted protest?

 

[MongGrel]

The current displays of dissent haven't been about or with regards to the president being a fascist or a dictator.

If you are serious, you apparently do not know the definition of those terms to begin with.

Stop and think about it a minute.

 

[Moonbeam]

Can you imagine a question like this coming up about a US President. Are w there yet?

 

[glenn1]

I particularly dislike Trump and he was my absolute last choice for POTUS this election but you folks need to take a few deep breaths or do some meditation or something because he ain't a fascist or dictator. Berlusconi style idiot and buffoon yes, the next coming of Hitler or Mussolini no.

 

[ivwshane]

I particularly dislike Trump and he was my absolute last choice for POTUS this election but you folks need to take a few deep breaths or do some meditation or something because he ain't a fascist or dictator. Berlusconi style idiot and buffoon yes, the next coming of Hitler or Mussolini no.

Do you have trouble with reading the OP? I specially said this wasn't about Obama or trump.

The question, whether you think it pertains to the current POTUS or not is always relevant in democracies like ours. So feel free to address the question or exit the thread thinking its only about hysterics.

 

[glenn1]

Do you have trouble with reading the OP? I specially said this wasn't about Obama or trump.

The question, whether you think it pertains to the current POTUS or not is always relevant in democracies like ours. So feel free to address the question or exit the thread thinking its only about hysterics.

Okay, I'll take your word for it the OP was in no way inspired by Trump and is entirely a rhetorical question.

That being said, IMHO worrying about "fascism" is completely overblown unless/until truly exceptional circumstances exist such as:

1. The government starts taking actions or policy positions that are way outside any historical norms and precedents absent some truly exceptional circumstances like the immediate aftermath of 9-11. Not just "way to the far end of the liberal/conservative spectrum" but completely off the spectrum chart altogether. Like suggesting that all firearms be confiscated, or that sharia or other religious laws be implemented, or that core civil rights protections were no longer valid for all citizens or entire classes of people.

2. Key government officials rewrite laws to entrench themselves or eliminate restrictions on their powers, such as seeking to get the 22nd Amendment nullified so the POTUS could run for additional terms.

3. The POTUS starts routinely asserting the separation of powers or checks and balances no longer applies or should be weakened systematically and across the board (not minor tweaks like suggesting line-item veto)

4. POTUS uses his inherent powers to attempt to make the executive "above the law," such as applying prospective blanket pardons to his cabinet members and then ordering them to take illegal actions under the logic they can't be prosecuted for them given the pardons in effect.

 

[ivwshane]

Okay, I'll take your word for it the OP was in no way inspired by Trump and is entirely a rhetorical question.

That being said, IMHO worrying about "fascism" is completely overblown unless/until truly exceptional circumstances exist such as:

1. The government starts taking actions or policy positions that are way outside any historical norms and precedents absent some truly exceptional circumstances like the immediate aftermath of 9-11. Not just "way to the far end of the liberal/conservative spectrum" but completely off the spectrum chart altogether. Like suggesting that all firearms be confiscated, or that sharia or other religious laws be implemented, or that core civil rights protections were no longer valid for all citizens or entire classes of people.

2. Key government officials rewrite laws to entrench themselves or eliminate restrictions on their powers, such as seeking to get the 22nd Amendment nullified so the POTUS could run for additional terms.

3. The POTUS starts routinely asserting the separation of powers or checks and balances no longer applies or should be weakened systematically and across the board (not minor tweaks like suggesting line-item veto)

4. POTUS uses his inherent powers to attempt to make the executive "above the law," such as applying prospective blanket pardons to his cabinet members and then ordering them to take illegal actions under the logic they can't be prosecuted for them given the pardons in effect.

Thank you.

So if a leader does just one of those things then it should be a red flag or do they need to do a combo of things?

 

[sandorski]

Okay, I'll take your word for it the OP was in no way inspired by Trump and is entirely a rhetorical question.

That being said, IMHO worrying about "fascism" is completely overblown unless/until truly exceptional circumstances exist such as:

1. The government starts taking actions or policy positions that are way outside any historical norms and precedents absent some truly exceptional circumstances like the immediate aftermath of 9-11. Not just "way to the far end of the liberal/conservative spectrum" but completely off the spectrum chart altogether. Like suggesting that all firearms be confiscated, or that sharia or other religious laws be implemented, or that core civil rights protections were no longer valid for all citizens or entire classes of people.

2. Key government officials rewrite laws to entrench themselves or eliminate restrictions on their powers, such as seeking to get the 22nd Amendment nullified so the POTUS could run for additional terms.

3. The POTUS starts routinely asserting the separation of powers or checks and balances no longer applies or should be weakened systematically and across the board (not minor tweaks like suggesting line-item veto)

4. POTUS uses his inherent powers to attempt to make the executive "above the law," such as applying prospective blanket pardons to his cabinet members and then ordering them to take illegal actions under the logic they can't be prosecuted for them given the pardons in effect.

#1 and #2 are happening right now to varying degrees. Although #2 has only happened at State level.

 

[ivwshane]

Here's an interesting read that shows a timeline via photos. I'm not sure how it would apply in today's world. Via slogans maybe?


https://timeline.com/these-photos-s...r-fascism-looked-like-72944c31f5ce#.mp5atvceq

 

[disappoint]

During Obama's presidency and now with trumps presidency many people said the US was turning into a dictatorship or becoming fascist. For the sake of this thread lets not make this about either president.

Everyone likes to say that if they had a time machine they would go back and kill Hitler when he was a baby. Well we don't have a time machine so what's the next best, reality based, solution?

Everyone? I am one of those everyone but I have never and would never say that. By everyone I think you mean a lot of people say that. A lot have. Often, a lot of people that agree are wrong.

I wouldn't go back in time and kill Hitler even if I could and get away with it. Even if I would be celebrated a hero.

The reason is because what Hitler did taught us a very valuable lesson. A lesson that if we had never learned could happen later. With possibly, even very likely more disastrous results. Think about it. You kind of got off pretty easy. Only 6 million killed and a lesson learned on what not to tolerate from leaders: Hate.

If you kill Hitler in the past, then this lesson of non tolerance of hatred from leadership doesn't get learned when it did. Technology makes going through that at a later date very likely more disastrous. Think WWII with the arsenal of today's nuclear weapons instead of conventional weapons.

I'm not trying to downplay the tragedy of 6 million people being mistreated under horrible conditions and killed, genocide, at all. It was a disaster and a tragedy of such proportion and magnitude no one will ever forget. But it could have been, and likely would have been even worse had it been fought later. The price to pay for this lesson is a high price indeed. 6 million people. But it's a smaller price than what could have been if things didn't happen as they did.

By killing Hitler 1) You make him a martyr for his cause and maybe strengthen his cause of genocide as a solution. 2) You delay the inevitable WWII until later when it is far more deadly at possibly a time with nuclear weapons as well as more powerful conventional weapons.

No thanks. WWII was bad enough as it is. I wouldn't chance making it worse.

 

[glenn1]

#1 and #2 are happening right now to varying degrees. Although #2 has only happened at State level.

Bullsh!t. I dislike Trump's policies also but nothing he's doing is outside historical precedents. Again this is why it's basically impossible to have a serious discussion on this topic, because inevitably half the people are like "Politician X is already acting that way" just because they disagree with their policies and think Republicans/Democrats are already fascists or communists. It's stupid and childish.

 

[Gryz]

Come on, Trump is not a fascist. He's a clown. A clueless clown even. But not a fascist.

Now look at Steve Bannon. Trump just put him in your National Security Council. And Bannon is a true fascist indeed. Until yesterday the dangerous people were all in positions of marketing, public image, communication. Pretty harmless. People like KellyAnn Conway, Sean Spicer, Roger Stone and even Steve Bannon were all in positions where they didn't set policy. They would just be "the face of the Trump administration". Very helpful, because it clearly showed what a clown show your new government is.

But yesterday you got the first fascist in a position of power.
I'd be afraid, if I were you.

 

[Sunburn74]

I particularly dislike Trump and he was my absolute last choice for POTUS this election but you folks need to take a few deep breaths or do some meditation or something because he ain't a fascist or dictator. Berlusconi style idiot and buffoon yes, the next coming of Hitler or Mussolini no.

But he surrounds himself with people who potentially are.
Just ask yourself if Bannon was president what would he do? And then think that Bannon gets to directly whisper into Trump's ear.

 

[glenn1]

But he surrounds himself with people who potentially are.
Just ask yourself if Bannon was president what would he do? And then think that Bannon gets to directly whisper into Trump's ear.

I don't care if Bannon was created in a lab using DNA harvested from Hitler himself, unless and until Trump starts doing actual fascist sh!t your side needs to grow up, stop incorrectly equating policy differences with "fascism", and start working on a winning platform the next election. Trump is a buffoon and idiot but he doesn't have some secret ideology he's trying to impose on us all so he can execute his "final solution," he's just a self-aggrandizing blowhard.

Also, as a political strategy to oppose Trump, saying "President ____ is a fascist/communist/whatever" is a terrible play - it didn't work to defeat Obama, Dubya, Reagan, or any other president ever and won't stop Trump now. When you use that argument It just makes you look like a naive 15 year old who's just discovered the concept on 4chan and wants to repeat it every chance he gets.

 

[1prophet]

When the so called elites, power brokers, establishment politicians continually blow smoke up the peoples asses by pretending to care for them but instead take care of the corporate elites and their pet social issues eventually the anger and frustration reaches a point that a guy like Trump becomes a viable alternative, no matter how irrational it may seem to the ivory tower establishment elitists.

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them,

. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not,

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Barack Obama April 2008

 

[sandorski]

Bullsh!t. I dislike Trump's policies also but nothing he's doing is outside historical precedents. Again this is why it's basically impossible to have a serious discussion on this topic, because inevitably half the people are like "Politician X is already acting that way" just because they disagree with their policies and think Republicans/Democrats are already fascists or communists. It's stupid and childish.

You don't think what he's doing is outside the Norm?

 

[norseamd]

As of right now, the federal courts need to order the Federal Marshals into action, and have them enforce the courts decisions, and arrest the DHS and CBP agents that are disobeying the court decisions.

In the long run, Jerry Brown needs to consider the possibility he may have to call up the California National Guard. I am wondering if he has the resolve to do that.

 

[glenn1]

You don't think what he's doing is outside the Norm?

Not really. His social policies mirror most GOP norms although he's far more crude than the average slick politician in articulating them. On immigration his policy is much closer to the historical norms and recent presidents like Obama are truly the outliers and even Obama and Carter used refugee restrictions at times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/world/middleeast/13baghdad.html