The rise of American authoritarianism

a reply to: madmac5150

Glad to hear it. Thanks for not taking my comment personally.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: madmac5150

I'm not saying they would nuke the United states I'm saying that the minute they began moving their military the USA would launch their nuclear arsenal.

Actually, we would not. OR, we should not. We have the power to destroy life on this planet. I don't think we should. I would rather have a million gun owners fighting for our rights, than one nuclear weapon. Think about it.

a reply to: mOjOm

They recently backed the yuan with gold. Destabilizing the economy is phase one.

a reply to: madmac5150

So if the USA were about to be invaded by foreign countries you would rather the military let them invade and then have a bloody war on both sides than nuke Russia or China?

a reply to: Joecanada11

That's the only sensible option really. Once you start poppin off nukes it's going to come down to Extinction. Nukes aren't any good tactically unless you're the only one who has them.

Now that others have them and together we all have a bunch of them, they are only good for 2 things. Threatening places who don't have them and destroying the planet.

a reply to: mOjOm
These authoritarian candidates are composites of what they think their followers want them to be. They are illusions. They say, I can be who you want me to be. I can say the things you want me to say. I can be your voice. Now hear me. I speak for you, I lead for you, I suffer for you. Follow me and I will follow you. It's all cultish behavior.
The cult of Donald.
I'ts no joke.
The cult of Hillary.
That,s no joke either.

a reply to: mOjOm

I think a designer virus would be a much better option. Give the vaccine in the countries yearly flu vaccine and then unleash on target country.

I don't see how they plan on getting through Alaska either. They would then have to go through northern Canada. It's an absolute logistical nightmare. And those that come to the coast would be wiped out by fighter jets with missiles.

a reply to: NthOther

It's one-sided propaganda intended to associate authoritarianism with Trump and his supporters.

I wouldn't characterize it as a "hit piece" if for no other reason than for me at least, "hit piece" has certain connotations that I don't think apply such as being deliberately misleading or knowingly inaccurate.

The other reason would be that it seems to me that "hit piece" is being used quite a lot currently in relation to the coverage of Trump as a way of inoculating him against negative press.

However, I can't argue that it isn't reasonable for you to call it propaganda given the broad nature and actual pervasiveness of propaganda and the fact that the other I'm sure isn't without political bias.

ETA: And I think (and we may actually be in agreement on this) we do ourselves a great disservice when we fail to acknowledge that the vise is being squeezed from both sides.

Yes, I do agree to this. I believe that authoritarianism is a universal threat and when you consider the authoritarian regimes that exist in the world today, quite a number of them began with left-wing political movements, particularly communism and socialism.

Of course, as I believe I pointed out in my earlier response (they're starting to run together a bit now), the US's reaction to communism and socialism — aka the first and second "Red Scares" — was itself authoritarian. I posted a response in a thead a couple days ago in which I detailed some of the important points on the timeline of free speech in the US. I don't think people adequately appreciate how much more free speech we have today than at any prior period in our nation's history nor do they realize how close we came to not having it due to the authoritarianism in the name of silencing communists, socialists, anarchists, members of the labor movement, anti-war protesters/flag burners, etc.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: madmac5150

So if the USA were about to be invaded by foreign countries you would rather the military let them invade and then have a bloody war on both sides than nuke Russia or China?

I would much rather we drive them back... with conventional weapons. Have you ever seen the destruction of a nuclear weapon? Can you imagine how many would die? Billions of dead in a full exchange. Could you live with that decision?

An armed populace is more effective.

Less radiation.

a reply to: madmac5150

That's a tough one but I would tend to agree. My first thought was "well what about the deterrent effect" but then it immediately occurred to me that conventional warfare certainly hasn't ceased and if anything, this threat of nuclear proliferation has itself led to additional war.

a reply to: Joecanada11

Sure that is another option. Although the problem with a virus or things like that is they mutate real quick. So what cure you have for it today may not work tomorrow and even the people who think of using that method don't want to be left with a world they also can't survive in because of a modified virus that they can't kill floating around.

That's the problem with nature is she's tough to control and contain. Nature is king when it comes to finding ways to survive. It's been fighting the Nothingness for a long time. She can take a massive hit and even if it kills off practically everything, give her a few million years and she'll be back greener than ever.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: madmac5150

That's a tough one but I would tend to agree. My first thought was "well what about the deterrent effect" but then it immediately occurred to me that conventional warfare certainly hasn't ceased and if anything, this threat of nuclear proliferation has itself led to additional war.

1. Nuclear weapons will kill MILLIONS in one shot.

2. Millions of Americans are armed, and can kill in one shot.

What is better? The 2nd Amendment, or fallout radiation?

We are on that precipice now, and this administration scares the Hell out of me.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: madmac5150

That's a tough one but I would tend to agree. My first thought was "well what about the deterrent effect" but then it immediately occurred to me that conventional warfare certainly hasn't ceased and if anything, this threat of nuclear proliferation has itself led to additional war.

I am a military veteran, and I have to say... as a civilized nation we can NEVER use nuclear weapons. EVER. I would rather fight off enemies with a bayonet, than ever detonate a nuke.

I would rather die, than have my children be faced with that decision.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

That's a good point though on the balance, I still think Hillary has taken on less authoritarian positions. If anything, she keeps trying to appear more liberal to close the distance between herself and Bernie on numerous issues.

Her voting record on the other hand, ia distinctly more neoliberal than Bernie's and also decidedly more authoritarian. Still, at the end of the day, if she gets the nomination I will vote for her and hope that there's been enough of a rekindling of more liberal ideology that she if for no other reason than she wants to be reelected in 2020, she can be kept in check.

Though, as I alluded to in my first response in this thread, I do believe that her position (and other Democrats) on gun control is essentially authoritarian, illiberal and I not something I can support.

Even though I find Bernie lacking in several areas, I keep going back to the 7% of the time he didn't vote the same way as the majority of the Democrats he caucuses with, including the then Senator from NY, Hillary Clinton. Overall, I'm not at all inspired by this election.

In my opinion, the biggest problem our nation faces is employment with a post-industrialized economy and I don't believe that any of the candidates is really addressing that in any meaningful way. Trump is promising to "bring back" jobs which means he's either completely clueless or as with other positions, simply lying. Bernie is pushing education, infrastructure, minimum wage increases, etc and Hillary is somewhere in between though obviously closer to Bernie in her rhetoric than Trump. Unfortunately, none of that addresses the fundamental problem either.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

That's a good point though on the balance, I still think Hillary has taken on less authoritarian positions. If anything, she keeps trying to appear more liberal to close the distance between herself and Bernie on numerous issues.

Her voting record on the other hand, ia distinctly more neoliberal than Bernie's and also decidedly more authoritarian. Still, at the end of the day, if she gets the nomination I will vote for her and hope that there's been enough of a rekindling of more liberal ideology that she if for no other reason than she wants to be reelected in 2020, she can be kept in check.

Though, as I alluded to in my first response in this thread, I do believe that her position (and other Democrats) on gun control is essentially authoritarian, illiberal and I not something I can support.

Even though I find Bernie lacking in several areas, I keep going back to the 7% of the time he didn't vote the same way as the majority of the Democrats he caucuses with, including the then Senator from NY, Hillary Clinton. Overall, I'm not at all inspired by this election.

In my opinion, the biggest problem our nation faces is employment with a post-industrialized economy and I don't believe that any of the candidates is really addressing that in any meaningful way. Trump is promising to "bring back" jobs which means he's either completely clueless or as with other positions, simply lying. Bernie is pushing education, infrastructure, minimum wage increases, etc and Hillary is somewhere in between though obviously closer to Bernie in her rhetoric than Trump. Unfortunately, none of that addresses the fundamental problem either.

Hillary Clinton is a felon that has yet to be charged.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: madmac5150

First off if his real name was Soetoeo why the hell would he change it to Obama? You have your facts wrong my man.

Secondly how is it his fault if Russia or China tried to invade? He didn't take away your precious guns.

I always wondered why he changed it but it was impolite to ask him, I guess.

But they be coming through canada first, joe. lol!

There won't be a Normandy style invasion.

Hope you guys stock up on ammo.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: madmac5150

First off if his real name was Soetoeo why the hell would he change it to Obama? You have your facts wrong my man.

Secondly how is it his fault if Russia or China tried to invade? He didn't take away your precious guns.

I always wondered why he changed it but it was impolite to ask him, I guess.

But they be coming through canada first, joe. lol!

There won't be a Normandy style invasion.

Hope you guys stock up on ammo.

I have 1000 rounds in reserve... and two hungry Belgian Malinois...

I would worry about the Belgians

Have you ever seen a Belgian Mali take someone down?

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: neo96

Oh I am willing.

You're more than willing and we all know that. However that isn't the topic though is it. This topic is focused on the Right and not the Left. So basically all you're doing is derailing this topic for your own. That is not only rude but dishonest as well. You're completely free to make your own thread on the Authoritarian Left though and that is fine. But as far as this thread goes your options are basically to counter the OP's argument and show how his info is incorrect. Or to side with the OP and include more info adding more evidence to his argument. Or you can go make your own about the Left doing the same.

But just saying the OP is wrong and the the Left is doing what the OP is saying the Right is doing isn't an argument against his. It's just adding an additional subject along with his. This shows your bias as well.

But I'm sure had this OP been about the Authoritarian Left you would have been unbiased in your response and said, "Well, wait. What about the Authoritarian Right." Or are you saying that there is no such symptoms of Authoritarianism on the Right at all???

Gotta admit the article is a classic splinter in one eye and a plank in the other.

Btw, Trump is not authoritarian and neither are his supporters, no matter how many times it is said, it doesn't make it true.

He is used to leading, that's what he does, not dictating.

a reply to: theantediluvian

In my opinion, the biggest problem our nation faces is employment with a post-industrialized economy and I don't believe that any of the candidates is really addressing that in any meaningful way.

The America Trump promises to bring us back to was built on that industrial might. The only industrial country left at the end of World War II. That confluence was singular and cannot be revived. The right it seem to me is still focused on the economy of the fifties when there was no competition in the world. All of that is gone. Promising to bring it back is if not madness, then a skillfully manipulated con.

Smells like a fear driven idea.
Sorry about the death of P.C. but I don't loose.
NOW lets see if we can stop a overly RIGHT wing shift.