False News, Absurd Reality Present Challenges For Satirists (apnews.com)

Between reality and the bubble of fantasy news stories, these are tough times for satirists. From a report on AP, submitted by several readers: The New Yorker magazine recently took steps to distinguish Andy Borowitz's humor columns from politically motivated false stories circulating online. His editor said the New Yorker was getting email asking if there was a difference between the two. So they changed the tagline for "The Borowitz Report" from "the news, reshuffled" to "not the news" on the magazine's website. When the stories are shared online, they are more clearly identified as satire, said Nicholas Thompson, editor of NewYorker.com. Borowitz's columns take the form of news stories, like one headlined this week, "Trump fires attorney general after copy of Constitution is found on her computer." One story last week: "Trump enraged as Mexican president meets with Meryl Streep instead." Thompson admits: "It's a weird problem to have."

Comments

Today satire requires Marxism

[For a Free Internet]

Everything else falls to the level of vulgar sarcasm, or base hatred.

Re:Today satire requires Marxism

[epyT-R]

No.. it's PC tards like yourself that have ruined humor with your delicate snowflake mentalities.

Re:Today satire requires Marxism

[Layzej]

The best satire today is simply to publish official communications verbatim. Some good examples are:

McSweeneys "My very good black history month tribute to some of the most tremendous black people"

or Tina Fey as Sarah Palin

The politicians are writing the material. The satirists just need to point out how rediculous it is by republishing it.

Indeed!

[nospam007]

Real news lately look like a version of The Onion.

As a German satirist recently remarked, the US should look to Germany, they already did all of it.

They voted for a Chancellor that promised better infrastructure and he actually built many Autobahns and military airports. He made Germany great again, even bigger than their previous borders, at least for a couple of years. He had yuuuuuge approval numbers (on pain of death) and everybody liked him, if they were asked.
They also tried religious discrimination like nobody else, ever.

They also have done the Wall-building thingie a bit later, throughout the whole country and they even got the Russians to pay for it. (If you're lucky, you can even bid for a piece of that wall on eBay.)

Re:Indeed!

[Freischutz]

Real news lately look like a version of The Onion.

As a German satirist recently remarked, the US should look to Germany, they already did all of it.

They voted for a Chancellor that promised better infrastructure and he actually built many Autobahns and military airports. He made Germany great again, even bigger than their previous borders, at least for a couple of years. He had yuuuuuge approval numbers (on pain of death) and everybody liked him, if they were asked. They also tried religious discrimination like nobody else, ever.

They also have done the Wall-building thingie a bit later, throughout the whole country and they even got the Russians to pay for it. (If you're lucky, you can even bid for a piece of that wall on eBay.)

Speaking of satire, under that chancellor, you could actually get disappeared for telling a treasonous joke.

Re:Indeed!

[fahrbot-bot]

They voted for a Chancellor that promised ...

Apparently, so did Trump voters. :-)

Re:Indeed!

[Oswald McWeany]

Insightful double plus.

Re: Indeed!

[hackwrench]

Hitler breathed air. You breathe air. Therefore you are literally Hitler. None of the things you explicitly mentioned that Hitler did are the thigs Hitler did with certainty wrong. You hint at things he did wrong, but killing millions of people who are of a certain religious pursuasion, is nothing substantiality like prioritizing one religion over another. You may have a valid criticism about the religious prioritizing, but trying to say it is of the same issue as what Hitler did is nonsense.

Re:Indeed!

[epyT-R]

Yeah, and obama supporters voted for 'hope and change'. They got a basketball playing george bush, at least as far as civil liberties go.

Re:Indeed!

[houghi]

Is your nickname Captain Obvious?

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler didn't start day 1 exterminating the Jews, Homosexuals, and Gypsies. That's the sort of things you build up to with steps like touting one religion over another, otherising a group(s) who "don't hold our values," that are taking our jobs, that are human filth, that must be tracked, that are subhuman, that must be removed so we can be great again.

Re:Indeed!

[Tablizer]

Real news lately look like a version of The Onion.

Trump actually prayed for better ratings for a show his trust owns at a national prayer breakfast. He out-Onioned the Onion.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope he started with exterminating the handicapped, then moved on to the gays, then the Jews and other deplorables.

Re: Indeed!

[Nidi62]

Hitler breathed air. You breathe air. Therefore you are literally Hitler. None of the things you explicitly mentioned that Hitler did are the thigs Hitler did with certainty wrong. You hint at things he did wrong, but killing millions of people who are of a certain religious pursuasion, is nothing substantiality like prioritizing one religion over another. You may have a valid criticism about the religious prioritizing, but trying to say it is of the same issue as what Hitler did is nonsense.

The argument is more that the themes Hitler played on to get to power are the exact same themes Trump has used. Vilification of "the other" (Jews vs Latinos/Muslims) as undermining the values and success of the country, proclaiming a desire to return the country to an idealized "golden age" (Third Reich vs Make America Great Again), vowing to end treaties that have damaged the ability for the country to go and prevent the creation of jobs (Versailles vs.....NAFTA/free trade I guess?-Trump has really played up the negative effects these treaties have had on his power base), building up the "exceptionalism" of the majority of the powerbase and thereby heaping suspicion and scorn on "outsiders" (immigrants or those perceived to not be part of the superior members of the powerbase), and finally decrediting and sowing distrust toward the establishment and those deemed to be working with/acting as agents of the establishment ("Drain the swamp", MSM, "alternative facts).

Fascist, and authoritarian in general, leaders (assuming they haven't come into power through violent means such as revolution or coup) gain power through building up their powerbase, telling them that they are special, superior, and the backbone of the country while pointing towards a chosen enemy(sometimes internal, sometimes foreign) and using that enemy as the scapegoat for why the powerbase has been held down or otherwise been unable to achieve or capitalize off their innate superiority. Once that enemy is identified and targeted, the leader tries to identify himself as one of the people, part of the powerbase, then proclaims that he alone has the capability of removing the roadblocks and obstacles of the enemy and allowing the powerbase to finally achieve their heretofore unattainable (or lost) superiority. This is often accompanied by creating a cult of personality around the leader along with an inner circle whose job is to provide en echo chamber for the leader as well as make sure the information released to the public maintains the cult of personality and stays on message.

Re:Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should read up on the Night of the Long Knives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives and see how that compares with current events. Comparisons of the current administration with 1930s Germany is ignorance at the highest level. Or just read Hitler's bio. He was a socialist and hated capitalism (as well as communism). All fascist are going to be socialist or communist because that is the only way you can consolidate enough power to be a dictator. All historical fascists have been leftist based on the current definition of "left".

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

it was someone to blame(or at least rally against to distract from real issues) for big issues in that country at that time. its much easier to look outside than it is within.

Re: Indeed!

[myowntrueself]

Hitler didn't start day 1 exterminating the Jews, Homosexuals, and Gypsies. That's the sort of things you build up to with steps like touting one religion over another, otherising a group(s) who "don't hold our values," that are taking our jobs, that are human filth, that must be tracked, that are subhuman, that must be removed so we can be great again.

In fact in 1933 Nazi Germany started sponsoring Jews to emigrate to Palestine. This went on until 1939 when the war made it logistically impossible. It was called 'The Transfer Program' and made the formation of the modern state of Israel possible.

So no, he didn't start exterminating Jews from day 1.

Re: Indeed!

[AmiMoJo]

Breathing air is not a bad thing. It doesn't demonstrate bad character, or bad intent. Following a pattern of bad behaviour is definitely something to be worried about though, especially as when unchallenged it tends to lead to escalation.

Considering that actual neo-Nazis seem to strongly approve of Trump's actions, going as far as to give him a Nazi salute while shouting "hail Trump", it's reasonable to be worried about this. Plus, his advisers and staff associate with neo-Nazis as well, and Bannon in particular is seen as a key figure in the alt-right movement.

Re:Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler also had a well defined ideology and concrete plans on how to achieve it.

Trump and Hitler comparisons always miss this point. Trump hasn't a clue what he is doing, or why he is doing it.

Re:Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

They voted for a Chancellor that promised ...

Apparently, so did Trump voters. :-)

And so did Hillary voters. And so did Johnson voters. And so did Stein voters. And so did voters of the last election cycle, and the one before that, and the one before that, and...

EVERYONE who votes, is voting for someone who promises something. How do I know this? Because no one knows the future. It is impossible to vote for someone because you know that they will have done something. All you can do, is vote for someone based on what you expect/hope they will do.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

No he started by executing all of his opposition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

Re:Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because granting other Americans more rights for those that were persecuted, in your eyes, is not an increase in civil liberties. So let me guess...homophobe who is upset that negros can use the same drinking fountains as whites.

Re:Indeed!

[Opportunist]

That's fake news!

They only had perpetual competitions for the best political jokes and the winners got sent to holiday camps.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Vilification of "the other" (Jews vs Latinos/Muslims) " is fake news and only believe by people that did not really listen to what he was saying. i.e. a characterization created by his political opponents. The equivalent of saying Obama is a Kenyan born Muslim communist. You can only believe this by taking sound bytes and out of context information and molding it into a fake message.

I believe the "alternative facts" are a way of manipulating the media. For example Russia hacking the election and 3 million illegal votes for Hillary have the exact same basis in reality (almost none). By promoting the illegal voting issue and having the media take the bait showed how ridiculous the Russian hacking 24/7 news cycle had been.

I believe Trump is the one taking on the authoritarian regime that has been developing in the US for many years. I am not sure how long he can keep it up but it is fun to watch.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you use TOR?

Re: Indeed!

[Nidi62]

"Vilification of "the other" (Jews vs Latinos/Muslims) " is fake news and only believe by people that did not really listen to what he was saying. i.e. a characterization created by his political opponents.

"Criminals and rapists", "bad hombres", "Bowling Green Massacre", "thousands of Muslims cheering in the streets of New Jersey" after 9/11. If that's not vilification I don't know what is.

Re: Indeed!

[thegarbz]

but killing millions of people who are of a certain religious pursuasion, is nothing substantiality like prioritizing one religion over another

Hitler started with prioritization as well. You don't go from inauguration to gassing overnight. But so far Trump and Hitler are very similar in approach, reasoning, and how he approaches the public.

Even at todays level of "WTF" stories coming out of America it is still part of a slippery slope. There's a long way to go to the bottom, but there's no arguing that we're on our way down.

Re: Indeed!

[Rakarra]

In fact in 1933 Nazi Germany started sponsoring Jews to emigrate to Palestine. This went on until 1939 when the war made it logistically impossible. It was called 'The Transfer Program' and made the formation of the modern state of Israel possible.

Which explains how Breitbart can be both anti-Semitic and extremely pro-Israel at the same time. Bannon and the alt-right founder Spenser are white nationalists. They don't hate Black people and Jews like the KKK or the Nazis, but they do think each race should have their own lands, and should stick to their own lands. So they love the notion of Jews leaving for Israel, and of Israel as an entirely Jewish state.

Re: Indeed!

[Rakarra]

"Vilification of "the other" (Jews vs Latinos/Muslims) " is fake news and only believe by people that did not really listen to what he was saying. i.e. a characterization created by his political opponents. The equivalent of saying Obama is a Kenyan born Muslim communist. You can only believe this by taking sound bytes and out of context information and molding it into a fake message.

I don't actually think that Trump is a white nationalist, but it's a little weird that he hangs out with and is so chummy with people who are.

Re: Indeed!

[FatdogHaiku]

No he started by executing all of his opposition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

That's getting the title reworked to:
An Evening of Very Pointy Criticism
The outcome is the same but the perceptual change is Huuuge!

Re:Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir, are a retard.

You can NOT look at a specific event, and then say "this has not happened, therefore these events are not related". History never repeats exactly, but it does go in cycles. And if you look at how the Asstrumpeters took power, and match it against how Hitler got into power, there are way, way, WAY more things that correlate than not.

Hitler was a screaming monkey, a narcissistic psychopath, a mental person living in a dream world, surrounded by stooges and insulated from the world and the consequences of his actions. The Asstrumpet is just the same, and he, or the people behind him is literally copying the modus operandi, to a T. The fact that there hasn't been a bloodbath - yet at least - has way more to do with the fact that US politics of today, no matter how bad they may seem - are not the German politics of the 1920's and 30's.

And btw, Hitler was not a socialist, you arguing so only underlines further that you are a retard who apparently happened to open a book once, and never understood one iota of it. If you want to know what happened to the Socialists in the National Socialist Party, read again about the "night of the long knives", and the Strassers.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

What a load of over-generalised crap. Here, let me change just a few of your words to show you how full of it you've become.

Liberals, and Democrat in general, leaders (assuming they haven't come into power through violent means such as revolution or coup) gain power through building up their powerbase, telling them that they are special, superior, and the backbone of the country while pointing towards a chosen enemy called the Right (sometimes internal, sometimes foreign) and using that enemy as the scapegoat for why the powerbase has been held down or otherwise been unable to achieve or capitalize off their innate superiority. Once that enemy is identified and targeted, the leader tries to identify himself as one of the people, part of the powerbase, then proclaims that he alone has the capability of removing the roadblocks and obstacles of the enemy and allowing the powerbase to finally achieve their heretofore unattainable (or lost) superiority. This is often accompanied by creating a cult of personality around the leader along with an inner circle whose job is to provide en echo chamber for the leader as well as make sure the information released to the public maintains the cult of personality and stays on message.

Two words changed and two words added. Now it's talking about Obama.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fascist, and authoritarian in general, leaders (assuming they haven't come into power through violent means such as revolution or coup) gain power through building up their powerbase, telling them that they are special, superior, and the backbone of the country while pointing towards a chosen enemy(sometimes internal, sometimes foreign) and using that enemy as the scapegoat for why the powerbase has been held down or otherwise been unable to achieve or capitalize off their innate superiority. "

So, you mean Obama.

Re: Indeed!

[myowntrueself]

In fact in 1933 Nazi Germany started sponsoring Jews to emigrate to Palestine. This went on until 1939 when the war made it logistically impossible. It was called 'The Transfer Program' and made the formation of the modern state of Israel possible.

Which explains how Breitbart can be both anti-Semitic and extremely pro-Israel at the same time. Bannon and the alt-right founder Spenser are white nationalists. They don't hate Black people and Jews like the KKK or the Nazis, but they do think each race should have their own lands, and should stick to their own lands. So they love the notion of Jews leaving for Israel, and of Israel as an entirely Jewish state.

And many Israelis. I've heard more than once"

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian. They are just Arabs and should be happy to live anywhere in the Arab world. Israel is not part of the Arab world so they shouldn't be living there."

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you talking about white males?

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

So where does he stand on Europeans going back to Europe, and leaving native North Americans to their lands?

Yeah, thought so.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler breathed air. You breathe air. Therefore you are literally Hitler. None of the things you explicitly mentioned that Hitler did are the thigs Hitler did with certainty wrong. You hint at things he did wrong, but killing millions of people who are of a certain religious pursuasion, is nothing substantiality like prioritizing one religion over another. You may have a valid criticism about the religious prioritizing, but trying to say it is of the same issue as what Hitler did is nonsense.

The argument is more that the themes Hitler played on to get to power are the exact same themes Trump has used. Vilification of "the other" (Jews vs Latinos/Muslims) as undermining the values and success of the country, proclaiming a desire to return the country to an idealized "golden age" (Third Reich vs Make America Great Again), vowing to end treaties that have damaged the ability for the country to go and prevent the creation of jobs (Versailles vs.....NAFTA/free trade I guess?-Trump has really played up the negative effects these treaties have had on his power base), building up the "exceptionalism" of the majority of the powerbase and thereby heaping suspicion and scorn on "outsiders" (immigrants or those perceived to not be part of the superior members of the powerbase), and finally decrediting and sowing distrust toward the establishment and those deemed to be working with/acting as agents of the establishment ("Drain the swamp", MSM, "alternative facts).

Fascist, and authoritarian in general, leaders (assuming they haven't come into power through violent means such as revolution or coup) gain power through building up their powerbase, telling them that they are special, superior, and the backbone of the country while pointing towards a chosen enemy(sometimes internal, sometimes foreign) and using that enemy as the scapegoat for why the powerbase has been held down or otherwise been unable to achieve or capitalize off their innate superiority. Once that enemy is identified and targeted, the leader tries to identify himself as one of the people, part of the powerbase, then proclaims that he alone has the capability of removing the roadblocks and obstacles of the enemy and allowing the powerbase to finally achieve their heretofore unattainable (or lost) superiority. This is often accompanied by creating a cult of personality around the leader along with an inner circle whose job is to provide en echo chamber for the leader as well as make sure the information released to the public maintains the cult of personality and stays on message.

But, in this case, the US voted against the candidate with a track record of warmongering and authoritarianism (three strikes ring a bell?). The comparisons would be more apt if we didn't choose Trump over an even MORE authoritarian candidate. How does that fit into the Hitler narrative?

Re: Indeed!

[Nidi62]

So, you mean Obama.

Obama was a populist. Mixing nationalism with populism like Trump has is what takes you down the road toward fascism.

Re:Indeed!

[davidwr]

They voted for a Chancellor

Wow, only two threads into the discussion. That didn't take long.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you mean Obama.

Obama was a populist. Mixing nationalism with populism like Trump has is what takes you down the road toward fascism.

We've been on the road to fascism since they killed Kennedy. Don't blame the American populace for trying a different brand. The Clinton/Bush clan and their buddies (Obama, for example) are the real fascists, and they have a proven track record. Hell, the Bush family is treasonous, fascist and Nazis. This is all based on their actions, not speculation. And, the Clintons are basically their best buddies. We voted for Trump because he seemed like the LEAST fascist based on actions (not just words and conjecture).

Re:Indeed!

[tepples]

Secretary Clinton, Governor Johnson, and Dr. Stein didn't have quite as obvious parallels with Hitler's rise to power, as explained in articles by Adam Tod Brown and Robert Evans.

Re: Indeed!

[Nidi62]

But, in this case, the US voted against the candidate with a track record of warmongering and authoritarianism (three strikes ring a bell?). The comparisons would be more apt if we didn't choose Trump over an even MORE authoritarian candidate. How does that fit into the Hitler narrative?

Your post reminds me I forgot something else in my post, thanks. All criticism of the leader must immediately be deflected. It's really more of a subset of vilification of the other and part of discrediting the enemy. If you disagree with or criticize the leader then you must automatically be against him and therefore with the enemy. It doesn't help matters that in our current situation the leader is notoriously thin-skinned when it comes to criticism.

While you are trying to push a dichotomy that "the other person is bad, therefore we must be good", the reality was much closer to "one person is bad, the other is slightly less bad". Even if you align with the "slightly less bad" you have still chosen bad.

Re:Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

AC you ignorant slut! I am not looking at a specific event, such as killing all of your opposition, but many events. Anyone with at least one brain cell of critical thinking ability will see there is no relation between Hitler and Trump. Hitler was absolutely a socialist, you should read his bio or at least his Wikipedia page. You might learn something. His history reads like a typical radical leftest, he was a wannabe artist, was homeless for a while, never really finding his way until he hooked up with some political radicals.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your post reminds me I forgot something else in my post, thanks. All criticism of the leader must immediately be deflected. It's really more of a subset of vilification of the other and part of discrediting the enemy. If you disagree with or criticize the leader then you must automatically be against him and therefore with the enemy."

Are you talking about Obama now? you RACIST!!!

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

BS - Fascism isn't nationalist and you're disingenuous by trying to make it out so. Obama achieved his aims through telling his side that they were special and then ramrodded and consolidated his power base by doing so do the detriment of others. The riots we've seen to the mere discussion of opposing ideas over the past 2 weeks is evidence of the fascist power base Obama established.

A TRUE populist wouldve built legislative political consensus which Obama never did.

Re: Indeed!

[quantaman]

Hitler breathed air. You breathe air. Therefore you are literally Hitler. None of the things you explicitly mentioned that Hitler did are the thigs Hitler did with certainty wrong. You hint at things he did wrong, but killing millions of people who are of a certain religious pursuasion, is nothing substantiality like prioritizing one religion over another. You may have a valid criticism about the religious prioritizing, but trying to say it is of the same issue as what Hitler did is nonsense.

I think the Hilter/Trump comparisons are mostly overblown.

But I'd feel a lot more comfortable if the weird associations didn't start popping up, all the white supremacist and neo-Nazi support for Trump, demonization of minority groups, and the reluctance of the GOP to stand up to any of it. Not to mention the refusal to accept that he lost the popular vote.

Is Trump going to do mass extermination of Muslims? Of course not.

But might he try to authorize the deportation of legal resident Muslims? The shutting down of Mosques he deems extremist? Legal restrictions of the rights of Muslims? I wouldn't be shocked.

And he won't accept the result in the election he just won, what happens if he loses a close election in 2020? What happens if the President loses and refuses to concede?

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your post reminds me I forgot something else in my post, thanks. All criticism of the leader must immediately be deflected."

Like, Obama was a populist...

Re: Indeed!

[epyT-R]

Nutballs showing up at a rally does not invalidate the candidate's positions. Anyone with a sufficiently large audience will draw them.

Re: Indeed!

[MightyMartian]

I think Howard Stern may have nailed it, and since Stern is someone who has known Trump for a long time, I tend to accept his view that Trump's politics really are fairly Democrat and liberal, but that he's just feeding the base what they want. There's no way you can jive whose previously stated views with the views he espouses now, without suggesting either some sort of severe psychiatric episode or brain injury.

Re:Indeed!

[PCM2]

They also have done the Wall-building thingie a bit later, throughout the whole country and they even got the Russians to pay for it.

Correction: the Berlin Wall was throughout the whole city.

Re:Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

He made Germany great again, even bigger than their previous borders, at least for a couple of years. He had yuuuuuge approval numbers (on pain of death) and everybody liked him, if they were asked.

Right...lets group together all leaders using national pride as a motivational cause to rally the people and reduce them down to be identical to the worst example in written history.

Instead of tearing down maybe you could take your ideas and help shape the future in a positive way. Help make America great again by making sure it is unified in the positive and not fragmented and divided in the negative.

Re: Indeed!

[Nidi62]

BS - Fascism isn't nationalist and you're disingenuous by trying to make it out so.

Modern, post-war fascism has a very strong nationalist component. In fact that is what has allowed it to spread so much lately. By focusing the discussion on the nationalist portions of the ideology and keeping more fascist rhetoric toned down or in the shadows, they are able to bring in a lot more support without immediately turning people off like such overtly fascist ideologies and groups like the KKK or other groups tend to do.

Re:Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump has won the War On Satire.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, now it's paranoid ranting.

Re: Indeed!

[mmell]

There's no way you can jive whose previously stated views with the views he espouses now, without suggesting either some sort of severe psychiatric episode or brain injury.

Okay - but you know, there's no reason to reject out of hand the possibility. I'm not a trained psychologist or psychiatrist, nor do I have direct access to the President to perform the appropriate tests, but much of his behavior could readily be described as maniacal. Perhaps sleeping no more than four hours per night has caused permanent psychological or even physical damage. How often have we heard of the wealthy and powerful in the US successfully concealing mental disease (for example, addiction, eating disorders, bipolar disorder, autism, etc.). In this particular instance, I find it likely we're looking at an undiagnosed incident of ADHD or perhaps an autism-spectrum disorder. When DJD was young, such diagnoses would have been impossible and as a wealthy adult he would use his resources to prevent even the possibility of such a determination.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama is done. We don't have to speculate about the path he didn't go down. It's in the past and it wasn't an authoritarian fascist regime. There were no civil wars, no collapse of society, no sweeping persecution of the right, and a peaceful transition of power.

I can't say what is going to happen, other than Trump has these tendencies many fold. It's been 2 weeks, we've got about 40 lawsuits, social unrest, zero tolerance of dissent, unfounded attempts to undermine the electoral process (accusations of massive fraud), a new phrase: "alternative facts", a political adviser in a national security role, and nearly every single ally pissed off at us. Jesus Christ, what's the world going to look like in 2 months?

Re: Indeed!

[serviscope_minor]

Nutballs showing up at a rally does not invalidate the candidate's positions. Anyone with a sufficiently large audience will draw them.

Indeed but when the nutballs who are well known for hodling reprehensible views like what you're doing, it's worth a little introsepction.

Re:Indeed!

[XxtraLarGe]

Yeah, and obama supporters voted for 'hope and change'. They got a basketball playing george bush, at least as far as civil liberties go.

Oh, come on! Obama was greater than Bush in every possible metric, including drone bombings. The thing is, what Bush did was absolutely terrible, and needs to be condemned, but when Obama did it, it was great--or are you a racist?!?

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is absolute nonsense for several reasons:

1.) The Nazis operated terrorist campaigns. They bombed places and assassinated people, including the Chancellor of Austria. The 20s and 30s were a violent time for all political parties. Even Social Democrats had militant wings.

2.) Fascists and Nazis didn't necessarily get along. That Chancellor mentioned above was a fascist allied with Mussolini. Mussolini initially opposed Hitler, playing both France and Germany against each other (Hitler made some overtures and Mussolini eventually sided with him).

3.) Fascists and (especially) Nazis wanted to reclaim lost territory or unite an ethnic group. For Italy, that was some territory in Yugoslavia*. For Germany, that the German diaspora in Eastern Europe (Austrians, Baltic Germans, Danube Germans, Volga Germans, and so on). Nazi Germany accepted immigrants from South America and Mexico as long as they had German blood (Germans who immigrated in the 18th/19th centuries, then returned to Germany).

How on earth do you accuse Trump of being a Fascist? Trump has mode no territorial/ethnic-nationalist claims (chiefly, there is no American diaspora at all). He's put temporary, 90-day halt on immigration/visas from countries with a terrorist problem (which Obama once blocked for six months). Opposing open borders/free trade isn't fascism (India, Brazil, China, and others all have import tariffs on foreign goods) and our country was protectionist in the past. It can't be political violence because the people currently smashing store windows and trying to shut down speeches are anarchists/communists.

Calling Trump a fascist is only to deflect criticism from the current state of affairs. The quality of life is going down for Americans by a host of metrics: earnings down, life expectancy dropping, the age of US cars increasing (buying less). Trump was elected to break the deadlock in government (corporate and political interests are too in line with each other, open borders floods the market with too much labor that benefits business and politicians, but hurts citizens).

*Mussolini did set out to conquer parts of the Mediterranean and Africa. This was in part with his idea of recreated the Roman Empire which was multi-ethnic and didn't quite square with Germany's blood-purity ideal. Italians were considered "lesser" in the Nazi Germany philosophy, but they eventually solved the problem by declaring Northern Italians Aryan and Southern Italians not.

Re: Indeed!

[Oswald McWeany]

Nope he started with exterminating the handicapped, then moved on to the gays, then the Jews and other deplorables.

In Trump's case he's already getting rid of medicine for the terminally ill who don't have insurance... so he's already following the pattern.

Gays are next.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

BS - it was very much an authoritarian fascist regime. There WERE civil wars and collapse of society (you might've seen a few like Ferguson?) sweeping persecution of the right (ranging from the IRS denying or suing right-wing political groups to christian bakery owners to forcing nuns to pay for abortions or face federal imprisonment.)

It wasn't much of a peaceful transition of power either with threats of recounts and attempts to throw the electoral college.

But, of course, you want to forget all that as "that's the past" (10 days ago).

Re: Indeed!

[XxtraLarGe]

In Trump's case he's already getting rid of medicine for the terminally ill who don't have insurance...

Of course he is!

Re:Indeed!

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

The Nazis were not unique in their religious discrimination - in scale, okay, yes, but genociding a different religion was hardly novel. There have been plenty of religious or ethnic cleansings in history.

Re: Indeed!

[firewrought]

Funny enough, he was actually executing many of his supporters. The SA's/brownshirts helped Hitler rise to power; they were the Nazi party's own paramilitary wing.

However, they were also a political liability. As mostly working-class people (often left jobless in the lurch of the Great Depression), they wanted Hitler to follow thru on his promises of redistributing wealth. This brought them into the conflict with middle/upper classes and the army (which had deep root in the Prussian aristocracy). Taking out key SA leaders gained him massive approval from the army (which, as chancellor, he had not previously been able to control). Shortly after, he justified his action against "treasonous ringleaders" and passed retroactive legislation authorizing the killings.

Re:Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: around the western part of the city.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

No one's views ever change as they age...

Re: Indeed!

[Dripdry]

The above might be a little on the extreme side, but is nearly what I was going to write.

We chose the better of the two options in Trump, and I am very afraid of what Trump will do.

America has been on this path for 50 years; the billionaires have perhaps killed their golden goose. I would laugh very hard (if I weren't running for my life) seeing the U.S. economy and world clout evaporate over the next couple years, understanding that we could have had it better. We could have done something, and millions of people have tried in vain.

The experiment failed.

Re:Indeed!

[balbeir]

Right, and the iron curtain outside the city was something that you could just stroll through.

If you were very good at avoiding mines, climbing electrified fences, and being invisible to border guards with guns.

Re: Indeed!

[MightyMartian]

Views may change, but we're not talking about views he apparently held thirty years ago, but rather views he seems to have held until a few years ago.

Re: Indeed!

[Dripdry]

You're both saying the same thing. Girls, girls, you're both beautiful...

But yeah, the comparisons to the rise of Evil Dictators is hard to ignore.

Get used to saying "King Trump."

Re:Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

The left once again shows why Trump won the election.

Re:Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. Hitler didn't amass vast wealth by selling his political office to the highest bidder. Hillary still had him beat there.

Re:Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

aaaaahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

You must be new here!

Phew, that was a knee-slapper.

Good one, Anon.
Yes, let's start a positive future on an internet forum. In an argument thread.
ah, kids these days...

Re:Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can turn invisible, as long as no one looks at me.

Re: Indeed!

[Nidi62]

How on earth do you accuse Trump of being a Fascist?

I didn't. I simply stated that he is utilizing a lot of the same tools fascist and authoritarian leaders use to rise to power.

As for #1, you are comparing an already established movement in the Nazis to a much more nascent ideology in the US. Hitler didn't go out and have Kristallnacht, the Munich Putsch, or the Chancellory bombing all on the first day. While we've had nationalist groups in the, it's been a while since it's been this mainstream. Now, I am certainly not saying that this is the direction we are headed by any means, but whether you are building a skyscraper or digging a mine you still start with digging a hole in the ground. #2, well, how keen would you really be on working with the leader of another country that basically says they are better than you and will eventually take you over? You'll oppose them until it's better to make a deal with the devil. With #3 it's not about reclaiming territory(although it seems like a lot of the rhetoric is about taking back America) but about reclaiming an idealized version of America that's never coming back and never really existed in the first place.

With quality of life going down for the average American, well, does does getting rid of Wall Street regulation help that? How does gutting healthcare reform help with declining life expectancy? You don't break down the connection between politics and corporations by voting in a billionaire (so he claims-what ever happened to releasing tax returns after the election by the way?)who built his wealth on the backs of loans from various massive banks and is bringing in people with very strong ties to big business to be in his Cabinet? Break deadlock? The current administration will simply use their majority to ram anything they want through Congress, guaranteeing that when the Democrats win back at least one branch of Congress in either the midterms or the next full cycle they will do nothing but obstruct and stonewall (which is precisely what the Republicans did with Obama by the way). Trump getting elected is the national equivalent of a guy with a crappy job who keeps getting passed over for promotion at work and has a boss who mistreats him going home and taking out his frustration on his wife. It's done out of anger and frustration, isn't thought through at all, but ends up in disastrous results for everyone.

Re:Indeed!

[Tablizer]

He made it redundant.

Re: Indeed!

[dgatwood]

... Fascism isn't nationalist ...

Allow me to quote Google's definition of fascism:

fascism — n. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

So yeah, it is.

Re:Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear idiot.

I'm afraid the one who's ignorant is you, who apparently neither knows the purpose of the event you're referring to yourself, nor of the Strasser brothers. You claim there is no relation between Hitler and Trump, but you offer no evidence for this, other than that "Hitler was a socialist", a statement which is so hilariously ridiculous you have to be an American to believe it. And holy Jesus, "his Wikipedia page", is that Breitbart you're referring to? Your rantings about him being homeless and a political radical only shows that you know nothing about the social and political turmoil the German and former Astro-Hungarian society went through post WWI with hyper-inflation and what not - not to mention that you completely disregard that he obviously wasn't right in the read, which btw isn't evidence that he was a socialist either.

Let me finish this by clearly stating that I have quite probably read a whole lot more about this topic than you have, and what's more, I understood it, which apparently you didn't. I also know what "socialism" is, which you apparently don't. Adolf Hitler was not by ANY means a socialist, he was a pragmatist, and what he wanted was unlimited, uninhibited power, by any means. The NSDAP, and the SA *had* socialist leanings from the start, hence "the night of the long knives". The night of the long knives were necessary to get the support of the generals, AND to rid of the socialist elements to get the support of major capitalists like the Krupps, who sponsored the Nazi party extensively. Now, what kind of capitalists sponsor a rabid socialist fronting for a socialist party....? Oh right, he wasn't a socialist! He banned trade unions and replaced them with completely state (crony) controlled organizations, threw the old leaders of the unions in jail and banned strikes! Yeah, that's totally something a socialist would do!

Fucking moron, go back to school, learn to read and think, and THEN go back to the books.

Re: Indeed!

[dgatwood]

... the Clintons are basically their best buddies.

At least up until this election season, Trump and the Clintons were good friends as well. So by your definition, Trump is a real fascist with a proven track record.

Oops.

Re: Indeed!

[Nidi62]

There WERE civil wars and collapse of society (you might've seen a few like Ferguson?)

You want to see what civil war and collapse of society looks like, go to Yemen, Aleppo, Mosul, (I almost said eastern Ukraine, but we all know that's really Ukraine fighting Russia). Ferguson? Ferguson was nothing.

Re: Indeed!

[HiThere]

You have more faith that his stated views mean anything than I do. To me is seems as if he just says whatever he things will lead him to more power. When he say the opportunity to gain power by jumping on racism, xenophobia, and "populism", he did so, and ignored his previously stated positions...which were intended to gain power in an environment that was "more liberal".

So, no, I don't think he's a racist. But I also don't think he minds acting like one if he sees that as a way to gain either power or wealth (though I think he just sees wealth as one manifestation of power). And I think he's basically amoral, in a quite thorough way.

Re: Indeed!

[TrumpShaker]

I agree! I can't remember exactly what Stern said, but didn't he suggest it would be terrible for Trump's mental state staying president long-term? Trump can't make everybody happy, and I think not even able to make a simple majority happy is driving him a slight bit nuts!

Re:Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's actually a fair point, to a degree. Trump actually in that regard makes you think more of Mussolini, who once asked something along the line of what was most important to him, and replied "That I get to make the decisions!"

However, that only goes so far, and the point isn't that Trump doesn't have a plan or an ideology, because it's quite obvious that even if Trump doesn't have a plan, someone has. And that someone has been reading from Hitlers manual basically from day one, and it has been astoundingly effective in a way it could only have been in a country where nobody knows one lick of real history.

That's the point: So far Trump hasn't really done anything Hitler didn't, while Hitler did somethings Trump haven't done (yet), presumably because the US 2016 isn't exactly a Germany 1920's-30's level of disaster.

When Hitler got to power they had already experienced hundreds of thousands dead in the Spanish flu on top of losing WWI and huge areas of land, the Kaiser had fallen, economic depression and hyper-inflation, a Communist coup, Polish military attacks trying to acquire more land, frequent and widespread street-fights between bands of Nazis and Communists, AND someone (the Nazis) had burned down their Reichstag (think Capitol Hill).

That's EPIC levels of misery, so Hitler had a bit more room to maneuver. What plans Trump has is anyone's guess, but do not be surprised to see the US get further destabilized, and drawn in further conflicts abroad, because all of that will be beneficial for someone who wants more power, and is exactly in line with how Hitler did it.

Re:Indeed!

[Grishnakh]

They also have done the Wall-building thingie a bit later, throughout the whole country and they even got the Russians to pay for it. (If you're lucky, you can even bid for a piece of that wall on eBay.)

Huh? This is just plain wrong. It was East Germany (and their puppetmasters in Russia) who built the walls separating east and west Germany. And they had good reason to: their people were trying to escape to the west. So they built walls, and had armed guards posted who would shoot anyone who tried to escape. The western side was happy to accept anyone who could make it there.

Re:Indeed!

[HiThere]

My guess is that the problem here is that US school texts don't really cover the rise of Hitler. I went to school in the US 40 years ago. and they didn't cover it then. I pretty much got most of what I learned about it from reading "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" on my own. Certainly movies didn't help, not even the ones from the late 1940s or early 1950s, when you'd expect them to have access to the facts, sufficient interest, and a knowledgeable audience.

It is my belief that Hitler *was* a socialist, of a rather narrow and peculiar kind, But I've got to admit I don't really understand him, and perhaps he was only a socialist because Bismark was, and only to the extent that Bismark was...or perhaps a bit less. This doesn't imply he wasn't on good terms with the corporate managers. (Not as good as Mussolini, but not far below.) And it seems clear that his real goal was power, whatever he cloaked it with...so he could get along quite well this those powerful entities that facilitated his access to power. I can't even tell whether he like them.

Re: Indeed!

[TrumpShaker]

BS -

C'mon AC, quit saying BS - before every comment you make. Quit being weak and log in with a real account. You are a puppet, with a bag over it's head.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler did not personally do any of the things he is blamed for any more than Charles Manson personally killed anyone. People who follow a mad leader are to blame, and get off the hook when so many try to blame the leader alone. If America becomes the next Third Reich and commits atrocities, many will deserve blame for it, not just Donald Trump.

Re: Indeed!

[Scroatzilla]

Political correctness is fascism. Ironic that you would equate facism to Trump, when the liberals-- who control the mainstream media-- are decrying free speech. In fact, it's beyond political correctness. The mainstream narrative (which, for some reason, is self-titled "news" rather than "opinions originating from lazy and unbalanced journalism") is empowering people to thumb their noses at those who might dig a little more deeply and not fall for the hyperbole that characterizes them as racist anti-semite xenophobes.

What scares me is the revelation that the mainstream media has been blatantly compromised by the Democrats; and, further, that the source of that information became the issue, rather than the horrifying reality that this compromised media is currently ushering in.

Look in the mirror before pulling out the old "Hitler fascist" argument.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel shouldn't be there either. If the excuse is it was theirs 2000 years ago, Rome might as well claim it as theirs since it was part of the empire.

Re: Indeed!

[Rakarra]

So where does he stand on Europeans going back to Europe, and leaving native North Americans to their lands?

Yeah, thought so.

Which he? Trump? Bannon? Spencer? I don't have any way of asking them, but my guess is that they like people having their own lands, but not necessarily their "native" lands. That is, white Europeans basically conquered the US lands. They won and it's theirs, and they're the majority.
Things get REALLY muddy for their rationale (though I haven't heard them address this) when it comes to the southwestern US, where Hispanics might outnumber white folks in some areas, and have certainly lived there longer.

Re:Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say that East and West Germany had a pretty effective barrier otherwise, even though the wall itself was pretty much just around West Berlin.

Re:Indeed!

[david_thornley]

However, the only recent candidate who looks Hitler-like to this amateur historian is Trump. Fortunately, Trump is much less intelligent and generally capable than Hitler, and has no impulse control.

Re: Indeed!

[david_thornley]

The life of a Jew in Nazi Germany was not all roses until 1939, of course. The anti-Semitism started pretty much immediately and got worse.

Re: Indeed!

[david_thornley]

Fascism isn't nationalist

Why don't you actually look at some fascist movements? Aside from the definitions you'll find if you look up fascism, I'm aware of quite a few fascist movements, and they are or were all nationalistic. (In some cases, race has been used to mean "nation", and it has often been used to separate out the Bad Guys, whoever they are (minority religions are popular here), but it's basically nationalism.)

Re: Indeed!

[david_thornley]

Liberals aren't decrying free speech any more than conservatives are. Both have large sections that don't want it, but they generally are against different speech. This can be difficult to notice if you're so far up an ideology's asshole, of course, since $YOUR_SIDE's positions are all completely reasonable and demands justified, whereas $OTHER_SIDE insists on completely unreasonable demands.

Re: Indeed!

[david_thornley]

I think the Hitler/Trump comparisons are mostly overblown.

I've studied Hitler's rise to power. I don't think the comparisons are overblown. I've been reading things on Trump supporters written by people sympathetic to them, and they sound an awful lot like Nazi supporters: generally racist disaffected people who don't want to think and blame others. Obviously, not all Trump supporters are like that, but enough.

Is Trump going to do mass extermination of Muslims? Of course not.

If you'd asked someone in Germany in 1934 if Hitler was going to do mass extermination of Jews, I suspect you'd get something like "of course not". Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist German Worker's Party at that time, but didn't have firm control over it yet.

Re:Indeed!

[david_thornley]

And I used to have such a good record at telling whether a headline was from the New York Times or the Onion, too.

Re:Indeed!

[david_thornley]

Hitler did not have a well-defined ideology. National Socialism was not particularly coherent. You can pick out a lot of individual things they strongly believed, but you can do that with Trump.

My best conclusions are that the Nazis didn't believe in rationality and thought, but rather in emotions and an evil form of mysticism. Try picking something coherent out of it besides things like "Jews are evil", "We need to make Germany great again", "we must obey the Leader", and stuff like that.

Re: Indeed!

[swb]

I think the "neo-Nazi and white supremacist support for Trump" idea itself is overblown.

How many people actively are engaged in those ideologies in any serious way? I'm thinking if there were 25,000 serious, involved white power supporters in this country, 500 per state, I'd be really surprised.

I think the number of pretty openly racist people who aren't ideological about it is much larger, but those people aren't the "white nationalists" associated with the Trump/Nazi support meme.

I also don't believe too much in the slippery slope concept, either -- visa bans today, camps tomorrow. American society has grown so much more liberal than it was 50 years ago and I think it was such an evolutionary process that you can't go back. Trump will overplay his hand too often and the public will lose interest in his policies and finally see through him.

The existential risk, of course, is that Trump's policies actually work, and that some level of official discrimination against Islamic immigrants is shown to be useful and effective.

Re:Indeed!

[david_thornley]

Hitler was not a socialist. The Nazis got along swimmingly with German industrialists, and allowed them to retain ownership and control of their enterprises and profit from them. The German labor union was mostly powerless and existed primarily for cosmetic effect. Hitler never did take the "socialist" and "worker" out of the name of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, and Mein Kampf discusses why you keep the propaganda consistent when you change the political realities. There was a socialist wing in the NSDAP, and that was eliminated with extreme prejudice in the 1930s.

Which bio were you referring to? When I was digging into this, Kershaw's was generally considered the best.

Re:Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

My personal guess is that it's because history education just plain sucks, and is suffering from "snippification", along with being *way* too aligned with what's politically acceptable. This means that the events never get any real context. You're taught about a whole bunch of things, but the background for them are rarely explained, or the explanation you get is usually obviously a semi-truth, left out or just plain wrong.

For instance, I don't think my teachers ever really spoke about the Holy Roman Empire (HRE). Which is kind of important to understand the dynamics of European politics the following 200 years or so. I think the Franco-Prussian War got two lines.

Another example would be why on earth the US, or indeed the Brits felt the need to get involved in WWI, which basically didn't concern them at all. Not until Winston Churchill saw an opportunity to get involved in some shooting, and then the Brits starting to borrow so much money in the US to foot the war bills that the US couldn't afford them losing. Not one word about this, because it's not the politically acceptable "truth", instead we get some bullshit about some supposed "conflicts over colonies". This, BTW, is the same reasons why your late 40's and 50's movies doesn't help with the second world war. A) New facts would reveal that what you had been told before was lies, and B) there was no reason to change the established dogmas, since they were good for business.

Whether Bismarck was a socialist or not, I don't think we'll ever agree on, since we seem to have vastly different opinions of what constitute "socialism". Bismarck was conservative monarchist and a power-player, whose main goal was basically to make Germany a great power. His welfare-state was more a design to keep the masses from the real socialists than anything else.

It is possible that Hitler initially felt some attraction to the socialist ideas, but that went out the window quite early, for reasons I've already mentioned. I seem to remember a quote somewhere to the effect that he realized that he had no use for those ideas and could gather neither the economical nor the political support he needed as long as he and the party held on to them, so they had to go. His goal was to reinstate the HRE (You know, "the Reich that will stand for a thousand years"? It's a reference.), and expand Germany to the east, so much is stated already in Mein Kampf. Everything else is subordinated this plan.

I don't think he cared about these sponsors as such, since he was such a narcissist. However, he loved being the center of attention, and I'm sure he was at least initially flattered by having all these rich and important people listening to him, but ultimately it was all about money and power. The moment he didn't need them to run the Reich, they would have gone into some camp just the same as everyone else.

I'm really sorry for the novella, but I feel very strongly that this is something which causes grief and confusion beyond all reason, and the established "facts" does nothing to prevent a repeat. Rather, they facilitate one by obscuring the real events.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, Hitler's best friend was gay! That's right, one of the founders of the Nazi party and the man closest to Hitler -- the only one who could get away with calling him Adolf -- was a homosexual and nobody cared. At least, he was up until he was executed by the SS in 1934 on falsified charges of treason. It was only then that gays were persecuted.

Yeah, when Hitler was first elected, he was a gay-loving Zionist. So any discussion about how Trump isn't going to persecute some group of people simply because he isn't currently persecuting them will in no way preclude any comparisons to Hitler.

People point to Ivanka and her husband as reasons that Trump won't persecute Jews, but there's no guarantee of how long that will last. All it takes is for Steve Bannon to arrange for them to die in a car accident (think Princess Di), or maybe hire some Arabs to murder them in a suicide bombing. With Trump's Jewish side of the family eliminated, there's no longer any reason for him to care about Jews, and the persecution can go unhindered. And if he can frame Muslims, that adds even more fuel to the fire for war. This would be Bannon's "burning the Reichstag" moment.

dom

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fascism is historically socialist movement.
Mussolini was a known communist agitator before he made his own socialist party, the Italian fascist party.

Mussolini was a known communist community agitator who glued communist posters in different Italian cities. Made "fiery" speeches in workers places and so on.
He was aplauded by the italian communist party.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump's politics really are fairly Democrat and liberal, but that he's just feeding the base what they want.

His politics is defined by his actions: nobody cares what Trump thinks or feels when he is sitting on the toilet, as executive power the only important thing is what he does.

Re:Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

The part of the wall outside the city had another name: the iron curtain.

Re:Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

I only read the first one but it was at least one of the more interesting reads I've had for a while. Even so, all it tells me is that 'liberals' can dream up conspiracy theories even MORE detailed and convoluted than conservatives.

IF you take the position that you'll compare someone to Hitler I bet you could do that with almost ANYONE. It would certainly not be hard to do so for Hillary (that I think such a comparison is valid...no, but picking out & framing some of the things she's done as 'similar to Hitler' would be quite easy).

Seriously, the fact that someone reads HItler's self-published sequel to Mein Kampf doesn't make that person in to Hitler any more than believing people who read Catcher in the Rye are all going to go 'postal' on us.

And who EXACTLY is going around right now with violent demonstrations? You know some of the FIRST things Hitler did with his 'brown shirts'? Who is physically intimidating people in to not exercising their freedom of speech? Heck, even as I write this let me add to your little conspiracy theory for you.

Let's assume that the 'violent protesters' (such as at Berkley recently) are actually being paid off or doing their work at the behest of Trump, everyone else is just there 'protesting peacefully'. Let's further presume this continues & escalates but the 'right wing fascists' you worry about just hold their tung for a bit simply screaming that "we're being intimidated in not being able to exercise our free speech rights this has to stop or else"...leaving the 'or else' to hang in the air. But here's the 'or else', Berkley told the organizers of Milo's talk that THEY had to pay for 'extra security'...apparently it wasn't enough...OOPPS...so NOW they start taking donations to hire their own 'security forces big enough to stop this kind of thing'....and there's your 'brown shirts' for you.

But of course I don't believe that for an instant. Even so the BEST way to combat someone like Trump if you feel he's doing something wrong is to hold your own rallies & IGNORE the likes of Milo Y...just ignore him. Let him talk or 'talk back' BUT do it in an INTELLIGENT way not "he's a racist, sexist homophobe trying to take away our rights"...and yet at the same time organize a Women's March co-chaired by a racist & sexist and using whacked-out celebrities shouting "I'M A NASTY WOMAN" & hurling insults (Ashley Judd). Yeah, that's REALLY smart that's going to convince moderate people (the vast majority of the country) not to 'pick sides'.

Re:Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not very surprising, considering that their "ideologues" were rarely very coherent to begin with, and much of the ideology that exist, exist for the purpose of giving Hitler (and by extension his cronies) as much power as possible. But there actually exist an ideological basis, I presume that's where your "evil mysticism" comes in, along with the social Darwinism, the nihilism, the Fuhrer worshiping and the "Germanic Religion" which AFAIK was based in ariosophy and Armanism.

The weird part is that they did believe in rationality, but first you had to abandon sanity and subscribe to their twisted logic according to which it was more important to spend transportation resources to get Jews to the camps, than getting ammunition and food to the front for the army. Willpower alone could win battles and it was better to die defending some absolutely useless and pointless foxhole than to retreat and fight another day. If you look at Trump's supporters, it's not hard to find similarly off the rails logic, where something is true because you want it to be, and letting go of something you can't hold on to anyway just isn't an option.

Of course they didn't believe in thought, that's why they had a Fuhrer and were supposed to obey orders at all costs; someone might notice the whole thing was a sham otherwise.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fascism is a movement to try to force your political ideas on a state. Fascism isn't the end state of the country, it is the way to achieve whatever system you have in mind. Fascists use violence, they are well organized and have their own uniforms. They all agree with the same politics and no opposition is allowed. Trump isn't a fascist. Even Hitler didn't use fascism anymore after he came to power. He used some fascist elements to unite the divided nationalist and socialist parties with him as leader. He created his personal army which he gave the old uniforms of the customs of the no longer existing Austrian-Hungarian empire, the 'brown-shirts'. After he came to power he got rid of his fascist personal army in the "night of the long knives" (and of the communists, conservatives, and anti-NAZI people) to consolidate the trust he got from the public. After coming to power in a fascist way he became some kind of enlightened despot with crazy ideas.

Trump didn't use violence to become elected. Trump also didn't use the media to become elected. In fact it was the media who was anti-Trump and very pro-Democrats. This is just a sign how little respect people have for the media at this time. Instead of looking where and when they failed, the most vocal among them claim it are alt-right sites with fake news who made the democrats lose. This is just wrong. Clinton was just too unlikable for too many people for whatever reason. She was a good politicians but not a good president (who should appeal to people all over the country and not just the coastal states).
 
Someone like Michael Moore gets a lot of attention, but he is a dangerous person. I've seen a documentary of him where he claims that the Cuban healthcare is better than the US health care. This is simply a lie. But still, he is a celebrated documentary maker. I simply can't understand why people don't see through this guys lies? No, he is anti Trump so he has to be "good". He makes claims just like in his documentaries, and just like in his documentaries he doesn't care for the truth. He just tries to mobilize people. That's exactly what demonizing means and which might lead to fascism when he can rally enough people to form a paramilitary organization that uses violence to force their anti-Trump/pro-socialism rhetoric on the population. I don't say that Moore is a fascist, but the way he tries to play the public is very dangerous and if he really is a communist instead of an opportunist documentary maker (which I suspected until his anti-Trump speeches lately) he is one of the many dangers coming from the left side (among others, I just used him as an example because I just read a headline about him where he asks people to revolt for 100 days).

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people who criticized Trump are put in jail? How many did he order to kill? How many television channels and news papers have been nationalized and turned into propaganda channels? Oh, he simply says what he thinks and uses free speech as a president? That's something new. A president who in the day of mass media just says what comes up on his mind, even on social media. But still, it isn't like Hitler.

It seems that when you don't agree that Trump is the reincarnation of Hitler you are considered a Trump supporter. I don't like Trump either, I don't like his ideas. But really, he is not Hitler. Why do I have to defend some asshole like Trump? Probably because I'm worried about how polarized the world has become because of those anti-polarization politics. It is the first time in the era of mass media that a president isn't 'professional' in his speech. Yes, he offends people. Be happy that this is possible in your country, that's the strength of democracy. Be worried when he really silences the opposition through force (or signatures), not when he just verbally attacks the opposition through words and twitter. And really, make a distinction between Americans and none Americans. The people of the 7 countries he banned are all countries that were already banned by Obama before. They don't have any rights in the US, the US can only grant some limited rights (like offering a limited time to stay, a green card or whatever). Libya, Syria and Somalia don't even have a government that controls their own country. If those countries can't even trust their own people, why would the US? This isn't a sign of fascism either. If our country had banned people from Libya and Syria a few hundred people wouldn't have been killed during the terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels. All those people have been radicalized by terrorists trained in Syria who used the 'refugees routes' to travel back to Europe (or even went their themselves).

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny enough, he was actually executing many of his supporters.
The SA's/brownshirts helped Hitler rise to power; they were the Nazi party's own paramilitary wing.

Depends on perspective. Stalin took care of his "supporters" as well. Problem was Stalin didn't support what they thought he did.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

You have more gun rights at the end of the Obama presidency than at the end of George II. So there's that...

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Who EXACTLY is 'prioritizing one religion over another'? It is THAT kind of rhetoric that actually contributes to the issue. I presume you DO know that US refugee law allows as one of the reasons to claim refugee status 'real or feared persecution due to religious beliefs'...but how was this applied to Syria by Obama? 99% of the refugees were Muslim, 1% were Christian, in a country with 90% Muslim, 10% Christians...hmm, something seems a 'tad' off there. Am I allowed to ask WHY? Or is that 'racist'?

Who labeled Trump's Immigration EO a 'Muslim Ban'? When it CLEARLY was not regardless of what you believe as to his motives. Object to the ban if you want, but using 'identity politics' as your objection ends any 'reasonable discussion' before it begins. Consider for instance that the EO still allows for up to 50,000 refugees from ANY other than the 7 countries on the 'temporary banned list'...how does THAT jive with people's belief that he's a 'racist' and against 'immigration' & 'refugees'? It doesn't...at least NOT yet. But rather than engage on what the policy SAID they take issue with the policy as a whole, label Trump a racist/xenophobe and make no effort to 'work with him'...no lets just lob insults at the President of the US. Dig in their heals & never give 1 single inch with any concept that even makes some sense. I'll agree the execution REALLY sucked.

The point is that continuing to play 'identify politics' and throwing around terms like 'racist', 'sexist', 'xenophobe' or calling him other names isn't going to get anywhere...or worse yet WILL make the US a 'fascist state'.

For instance, banning women from a "Women's March" because they have VALID differing opinions about abortion than you do is not a good way to engage 'intellectual discussion' or promote inclusiveness. This from a GUY who has paid for 2 of them neither of which had ANYTHING to do with ME...e.g. 'friends in trouble'. So don't even TRY to lob a 'sexist' label at me because I believe there are 'valid opinions' differing from the feminist agenda of "abortions are a woman's right" which brooks 0 differing opinions simply because they can't face the idea that they may actually be terminating a human life and can't deal with the ramifications...rather then wanting everyone to believe that a 'fetus' is simply "part of a woman's body"...oh and just to top it off I'm an Atheist...so my opinion isn't even formed by any mystical attachment to a 'soul'...Push comes to shove the racists, sexists and 'genderists' are those people yelling & screaming that THEIR opinion is the only valid opinion, anyone else is labeled with these terms...funny that.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump isn't Hitler, despite having actual Nazis in his administration.

Trump is the second coming of Silvio Berlusconi.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

I would never call Trump a fascist. Bannon, yes. Trump, no.

Trump is entirely in this for himself. He has no noble ideals whatsoever. His end goal is self-gratification and self-enrichment. If that means hiring fascists, that's what happens.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

HHHEEY there, how DARE you throw facts in to a good lynching!...of course I'm taking a 'wait & see' approach before I use this as possible evidence that Trump isn't as heartless as people think.

Re: Indeed!

[Pseudonym]

You said "Trump" and "reasoning" in the same sentence. Satire detected.

Re: Indeed!

[myowntrueself]

The life of a Jew in Nazi Germany was not all roses until 1939, of course. The anti-Semitism started pretty much immediately and got worse.

The Nazis presumably wanted to encourage them to take advantage of the transfer program, which wasn't instituted because Hitler liked Jews and wanted them to recover their historical homeland...

I'm not saying the Nazis were ever nice to Jews just that the Nazis were instrumental in the formation of the modern state of Israel in so many ways and more deeply than any modern Israeli would ever like to admit. When you look at how Israel treats Palestinians I have to wonder...

Re:Indeed!

[Cute Fuzzy Bunny]

You can vote based on what someone has done previously, and that isn't that complicated to figure out.

Trump lied, stole and cheated people to the extent where he has been sued more than anyone else, probably in the history of the world, after which US banks and many others refused to lend him money or support his "projects", which often crashed and burned, costing investors tons of money. Yet he always walked away with his pockets full. His patterns are well established from 50+ years of observation. Based on those, he'll lie, cheat and steal whatever isn't nailed down. And...ta da...

Clinton's hubs presided over the greatest economic expansion in most of our lives. She tried to bring everyone health care back in the 90's. She served very well as first lady, secretary of state and in the senate. Based on her historic patterns, we'd have gotten fair, reasonable and competent leadership. We'd have enjoyed far better relations with other countries. We'd have not tried to implement an illegal travel ban. We wouldn't be undoing the financial regulations that protect us from wall street psychos trying to smash the world economy into the ground, again. We wouldn't have put people like Tillerson on the cabinet.

Did ya know that Tillerson is working to revive the $500B arctic oil deal with Russia and Exxon, and that Russia "sold" 19% of their state run oil company through a series of shell companies that can't be traced, and that the "golden showers" dossier put together last summer said that Putin had promised 19% of the company to Trump if he became president and revoked the sanctions so that deal could go through? And the Russian who gave the tip to the spy that made the dossier showed up murdered in the back seat of his car about the same time the deal went through, around a week ago?

Trump already doubled his net worth on that deal and I'm sure he'll be on the Russian gravy train for many, many decades. Until Putin kills him, that is.

Re: Indeed!

[Cute Fuzzy Bunny]

The refugees sent back to Syria and other countries will face almost certain death, and Trump is indisputably responsible for that.

Brought to you by the people who think a fertilized egg is a person, while a living child is a throw away.

Re: Indeed!

[Imrik]

I wouldn't say indisputably responsible, he shares responsibility, but ultimately the responsibility belongs to the people that kill them.

Re: Indeed!

[Imrik]

He didn't say that Trump wasn't, just that he was the least fascist of the available options.

Re: Indeed!

[Cute Fuzzy Bunny]

Yes. If I throw someone under a bus, its the bus that killed them. I only share responsibility. If I shoot someone, its the bullet that killed them. The gun is an accessory. I'm just sharing responsibility. If I come across someone in white water rapids and elect to not let them into my boat, and they're killed by rocks, its the rocks that killed them, the water an accessory. I bear no responsibility as I didn't do anything that wouldn't have happened had I not been there.

We need look no further than the US sending back Jewish refugees in world war II, where most were killed. While the Nazi's were to blame for their death, our actions made us just as complicit if not moreso. Had we taken them, they wouldn't have been killed. When a result is a practical surety and ones actions can negate or fulfill that result, the one taking the action bears responsibility.

When you're able to prevent injury or ameliorate it at low cost and low risk to yourself, you're a hero. When you refuse or make the problem worse, you're a dunce.

And I'm sure that bringing light on these folks, having them sell or discard all of their belongings, bringing them to an airport under surveillance and then sending them back to that same surveillance...only with nothing and nowhere to go...certainly looks like we made things worse for them by the action.

Re: Indeed!

[david_thornley]

Okay. Put the idiot propaganda down and back away slowly. Mussolini was a socialist before he became a fascist, true, but that's about where your truth ends.

Socialism is anti-corporation. Fascism was pro-corporation. Socialism is anti-nationalist. Fascism is nationalist.

Re: Indeed!

[Rakarra]

Israel shouldn't be there either. If the excuse is it was theirs 2000 years ago, Rome might as well claim it as theirs since it was part of the empire.

The excuse is that they have it now,and that the original inhabitants who lost their land in the 40s are pretty much all gone. I detested Russia's takeover of the Crimea, but in 70 years if the Ukraine invaded and took the Crimea back, it would be just as horrible an act.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another victim, loudly proclaiming their victimhood. Oh, boo-hoo, the Mainstream Media! You are so oppressed you won the election!

Your victim narrative is boring, self-involved, and shows no honesty, integrity, or originality. Whether or not it's true stopped mattering a long time ago. It's your insistence that your self-described problems are other people's problems. A grown-up, mature personality declines to dwell on their difficulties or challenges. You revel in negativity, boogeymen, and victim blaming.

Sad.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

I did say his execution REALLY sucked. Though I bet the same amount of vile would be spewed at him if his EO had been 'existing Visa's good, no new Visas to be issued for 90/120 days' (from these seven countries). Though it will take longer the EO could also had a direction to 'investigate & create a proposal for setting up safe zones (including costs)'.

Beyond that what EXACTLY is wrong with a President ordering changes to immigration policy from areas of the world that have little hope of providing valid government records until his people have been given an opportunity to review & set up rules they are comfortable with?

And where's your outrage for the ~1200 refugees stuck on islands near Australia? Their only 'crime' being they escaped by boat. Why is no one yelling & screaming about those racist & xenophobic Australian's?

Push comes to shove arguing the details of the orders is fine, attempting to play 'identity politics' with this is just wrong.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you're unsure if your boat will hold 2 are you a hero or a dunce for perhaps wanting to worry about your own life?

Suspending the existing Visas was just wrong as those are the ones 'in the boat' already...but that isn't the primary objections I'm hearing & the rhetoric is extreme, not at all 'intelligent objections'...

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm...there hasn't been a single President or US political party in my lifetime (53 years) that has NOT claimed the "US is the best country on the face of the planet'...yadda, yadda, yadda...e.g. they have ALL played the 'nationalist card'...and what party or US President has not argued they'd focus on the problems in the US first? Seriously, Obama didn't run around saying he was going to put the needs of people & countries other than the US first? Had he done that he'd NEVER have been elected.

'Nationalism' is of little consequence in the definition of a political thought process.

Re: Indeed!

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're throwing in the towel? Do you have a better idea than a country defined by a Bill of Rights & Constitution?

O, and its been a lot longer than 50 years that the US 'forgot' the point, at least 100 years, pretty much ever since it became impossible to amend the Constitution short of Civil War. Rather than passing a few rules about freeing slaves they should have passed a more useful rule for amending the constitution. Not so easy as to make it changeable by any party in control of House, Senate & Presidency but not so hard as it requires everyone to ignore the clear wording of the damn thing to force their bellefs through.

Remember part of the experiment is that you have a UNION of equal states allowed to run things how they like provided they respect Citizen's rights...it wasn't supposed to be the Federal Government telling all the states how to run their own affairs. Does that make it harder to come to consensus on some rather obvious ideals? Sure, but it also means the power of the federal government & especially the President would be greatly reduced in affecting the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

Re: Indeed!

[shutdown -p now]

For what it's worth, the first concentration camp in Germany (Dachau) was established on March 22, 1933. Hitler was appointed chancellor on January 30, 1933. So, it took less than 2 months. Granted, it wasn't an extermination camp then, and was used at first for political prisoners (and publicly advertised as such - they weren't really trying to sugar-coat it).

Re: Indeed!

[shutdown -p now]

The Strasser brothers - the ones who were actually the ideologues behind the "socialism" part of "national socialism" - also come to mind.

Re: Indeed!

[Cute Fuzzy Bunny]

The boat can hold millions.

At least they're restoring the visa's they cancelled.

Re:Indeed!

[Ol Olsoc]

Yeah, and obama supporters voted for 'hope and change'. They got a basketball playing george bush, at least as far as civil liberties go.

Because Basketball playing George Bush somehow is worse than the Bowling Green Massacre.

You seriosly need to put out a newsletter citizen, because you obviously think correctly.

Re: Indeed!

[Coren22]

"Criminals and rapists"

I can't say much about the rest of these, but did you actually listen to what he said, or the sound bite version? He said that there were many criminals and rapists coming into the country illegally, and that many of the people who were coming in were being assaulted by same. This is verifiable fact that was published by a Univision owned magazine, that Trump was taking the information from. He didn't say that they were all criminals and rapists, he said that there were many there though. So, you start off with the fake news version, and continue from there. This makes me not want to believe the others, that I am not even clear what you are speaking of.

Re: Indeed!

[Coren22]

I live very near Baltimore, and I can't honestly say I saw much of a difference during the riots.

I suppose you could say that no outside power was bombing the shit out of Baltimore...but that isn't much.

Related links: satire, fake news, or real.

[Anonymous Coward]

Related links list down below:

Donald Trump Wins US Presidency

VC, Entrepreneur Says Basic Income Would Work Even If 90% People 'Smoked Pot' and Didn't Work

Yelp Employee Posts Open Letter About Cost Of Living And Low Wages, Gets Fired

Universal Basic Income Programs Arrive

Russia Unveils 'Satan 2' Missile Powerful Enough To 'Wipe Out UK, France Or Texas'

'nuff said.

Re:Related links: satire, fake news, or real.

[Anonymous Coward]

Related links list down below:

Donald Trump Wins US Presidency

VC, Entrepreneur Says Basic Income Would Work Even If 90% People 'Smoked Pot' and Didn't Work

Yelp Employee Posts Open Letter About Cost Of Living And Low Wages, Gets Fired

Universal Basic Income Programs Arrive

Russia Unveils 'Satan 2' Missile Powerful Enough To 'Wipe Out UK, France Or Texas'

'nuff said.

really ?
score 0 ??
cmmon, best comment of this year up to now.
  recursive sarcasm, for trump's shake.
Not that often lately...

History lesson

[PopeRatzo]

On April 28, 1945, the Italian people killed their fascist leader and then desecrated his corpse in a public square.

Re:History lesson

[bobbied]

Assisted by a foreign led invasion force. That guy wasn't going willingly and if you read history, fell into the wrong hands though a series of fortunate happenstances. Had he been a little bit more lucky, he would have escaped into exile with his family.

Not to mention... Shame what happened to his family.. Now that was totally uncalled for.

So, am I reading this right? You are advocating for similar activity today? If so, you are an idiot.. Death and destruction follow such activity just as sure as night follows dusk. It is the poor and innocent that pay the most.

Re:History lesson

[clonehappy]

Good thing the fascists lost in our most recent national election.

Although it's fun watching them flame out spectacularly (no pun intended, see: Berkeley), the true fascists are still out beating innocent people up, destroying property, and otherwise using violence to shut down free speech like they always do, and that saddens me.

At least you're thinly veiling your allusions to sedition, most of your ilk aren't that smart and will find out the hard way what happens when you advocate such things.

Re:History lesson

[PopeRatzo]

Death and destruction follow such activity just as sure as night follows dusk.

I'm pretty sure in the case of Mussolini, the death and destruction preceded his ignoble demise.

Re:History lesson

[PopeRatzo]

At least you're thinly veiling your allusions to sedition

Why would you think I'm alluding to sedition? You read a simple historical fact about Mussolini and immediately think it has some similarities to current events?

Re:History lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

On April 28, 1945, the Italian people killed their fascist leader and then desecrated his corpse in a public square.

May other people learn from the example set by the wise Italians.

Re:History lesson

[clonehappy]

You read a simple historical fact about Mussolini and immediately think it has some similarities to current events?

The only similarities I see between then and now is that the tools of fascism haven't changed. All you have to look at is see who is being physically violent against who to know who the good guys and the bad guys are.

But yeah, you're right. You we're just giving a "history lesson" in a thread completely unrelated to WWII-era dictators. I'd stick to that story too, if I were you.

Re:History lesson

[squiggleslash]

I didn't read a threat, just a warning to fascists that history hasn't shown positive outcomes for two of the three European examples. The other one, FWIW, killed himself in a bunker just after telling his underlings to destroy his country. Fascism takes a certain course, always towards destruction.

I'm not sure why it should be necessary to post this on Slashdot, or warn people in general. I think, really, a sizable number of Trump supporters are in denial about what he represents. Many - from experience - don't even follow the news, and had little idea of what he was before they voted for him, just looking at him as "Not Clinton."

Those in denial won't recognize the warning, because they don't want to believe that it applies. From their point of view, Trump is just another President. They've never heard of Bannon. On the odd occasion they've heard something worrying about Trump, it's been "balanced" by an exaggeration of something done by "the other side".

Will Trump end up hung on meathooks by an angry mob? I hope it won't go that far. I hope Congress will impeach him long before he can set up a Reichstag event that'll make him impossible to remove.

Re:History lesson

[serviscope_minor]

Ah the old "Donald Trump is fine because other people are doing things I don't like".

I do love how even the most ardent of Trumpanzees are utterly unable to actually provide words of support. That's quite telling.

Re:History lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

Having read the US Constitution, I have to remind you that speech is not, and never has been considered sedition or treason. May I suggest that you read it? Article III, Section 3? "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Re:History lesson

[bobbied]

Death and destruction follow such activity just as sure as night follows dusk.

I'm pretty sure in the case of Mussolini, the death and destruction preceded his ignoble demise.

True, but it surely didn't stop with his departure but ground on for a few more years as the country sorted itself out with the Allies help... However, I'd like to point out that we are in no way in a situation that even remotely resembles the circumstances leading to Mussolini's demise, at least not in this country...

Re: History lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

Donald Trump isn't beating people within inches of their lives and burning down university buildings because people say things he doesn't agree with, you ignorant fuck.

How was the OP supposed to respond that would have appeased you? There's no winning your straw man arguments and goal post moving yet you think you're intellectually superior. Telling.

Re: History lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

do not forget the french as well while are at it. there have been countless others as well hell even coos can be seen as the same.

Re:History lesson

[bobbied]

Now that's just sad. Comparing Trump to Hitler? Seriously?

He may not be the model of decorum in his personal behavior and may have a brash personality that rubs folks who oppose him the wrong way, but that doesn't mean his policies are anywhere close to Hitler's or that the country is now in danger of falling into anything that resembles pre-WWII Germany. To even say such garbage cheapens history. This is like comparing the concentration camps where millions of Jews died to a summer camp for kids. It's offensive and shows both a lack of understand of history and current events and betrays the partisanship that drives all this pointless rhetoric used to divide the right from the left in this country.

The real problem though, is the truth is hard to hide and is becoming apparent. Trump nominates an "originalist" to the Supreme court, a guy who says that he must interpret the laws as they where INTENDED by the original authors and decide the issues based on that, not his personal feelings. Had Trump wanted to take over, he would need a judge who was free to decide cases based on political positions, not the law, because the law in this country pretty much precludes dictators from taking power.

Then there is the Executive Order issue.... Name ONE of Trump's orders that has attempted to expand the power of the presidency or make a new law? (Hint: there isn't one as of this writing). You won't find one. I encourage you to go read these orders and quote them here to prove me wrong. You can find them all on the White House's web site if you cannot find them elsewhere... (You won't find them on any news site I've found, including CNN, FOX or MSNBC, but you will find a LOT of commentary about them..) I think you will be surprised to learn that a lot of stuff you THINK is there, isn't. Go find the Muslim ban, I dare you to try because I know you will fail.

So, you have a choice... Back up your claims here with some kind of actual evidence from original sources, or take your partisanship and ugly talk and go away. Trump isn't "like" Hitler and claiming so makes it obvious you don't know history nor current events well enough to be listened too. Stop falling for all this garbage you are hearing, go to the original sources and think critically. Remember the press doesn't tell you things that don't generate advertising dollars, so the mundane and uninteresting stuff doesn't get air time, but violent protests and hyperbolae sure will. You got to dig a bit for the truth, but it's out there.

Re:History lesson

[dwillden]

Trump is just another President, Bannon is irrelevant.

Unlike Hitler and Mussolini Trump faces an insurmountable obstacle to becoming a true tyrant and dictator. The Constitution and the designed in Checks and Balances. Hitler was able to achieve his position of power due to great flaws in the design of the government of the Weimar republic. There was nothing to stop him when as Chancellor the President died and he just took over the office. Further He came into office with his own private military/police force that engaged in the more dubious acts of his government.

There is no means for Trump to seize more power in our government. And he does not have a private military/police force to enforce his will. Additionally Trump is not beloved of the GOP establishment. That means neither side of the aisle in the legislative branch really trusts him. So far he is just fulfilling campaign promises so he mostly has their support. But should he start straying he will lose that support in a hurry. Neither party trusts him. (That's actually good, it means he will have to negotiate to get the stuff he's promising that require laws to be passed.) Neither party will stand for it if he were to try to exceed his constitutional authorities and limits.

Trump is not Hitler. He can't be. Hitler couldn't have been Hitler under our form of government. At most he could have been FDR and Interned citizens (but not exterminated them).

Re:History lesson

[dwillden]

But calling for a coup is sedition and is a crime under federal law.

Re:History lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

Thus far, Trump has used words and his opponents are rioting over them. Trumps powerbase has of course done some things here and there, we are literally talking one off instances, where as we have riots all over the country and outright violence at places of higher learning.

Trump and Clinton are both horrible choices for president. Trump literally got elected because of the terrible effects globalization has been having on the US population for the past 30 years. Both R's and D's pushed for it, as both parties have many people that love the idea of globalization and all the power it gives them.

Had the DNC not been so hell bent on putting Clinton in the White House, they probably could of won the election with Bernie or Warren and gone with actual helpful socialistic policies that would of helped THIS country. DNC would rather push for more globalization though.

Now we are going to get more corporate solutions and maybe some more jobs, but likely just more corporate solutions. We might get a one off tax break too. That's actually more then Obama ever did for me though. He just increased my taxes and didn't actually offer up one single policy that made life better for me. I didn't vote for Trump, but I certainly hope some of his policies make life better. If nothing else, it's nice to see the media and other globalist cry bloody murder.

Re:History lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah the old "Donald is Hitler because he does things I don't like"

I do love how even the more ardent of Trumphaters are utterly unable to actually provide anything other than name calling. That's quite telling"

It is easy to parrot talking points about "Chaos" and "Hitler".

Can you tell me the difference between the Black bloc "Protest" and a Woman's March on DC "Protest"? besides the violence and outfits?

Re:History lesson

[davidwr]

If you are advocating assassination, this is wrong in so many ways.

This man is our duly elected President.

We have a functioning court system which has already put some of his possibly-illegal orders on hold pending legal review.

We have a duly-elected, functioning Congress with the power to impeach him for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

We will have elections in two years which can elect a new House of Representatives and replace 1/3 of the Senate. This new Congress will have the power to impeach him for any impeachable offense he has made since taking office.

In short, unless or until the soapbox, the ballot box, and the jury box (impeachment process) are all impossible (e.g. a President prevents elections or effectively suspends free speech/press/assembly/etc. - neither of which I see happening in the lifetime of anyone alive today unless an armed insurrection or state-government-led secession effort happens first) we should all avoid the ammo box and stay withing the bounds of legal methods to protest government decisions that we do not like.

A reminder to anyone who contemplates violating the law in the name of civil disobedience - whether it is something "minor" like blocking a street or something major like high treason/assassination: Civil disobedience may be morally justified in certain circumstances only to the extent that 1) it is a last resort (use the other 3 boxes first - the "soapbox" is not a license to block traffic) and 2) you are willing to accept the legal consequences of your actions, specifically, being arrested, going to trial, and, if convicted, accepting the final (after appeals are exhausted) sentence handed down by a properly-functioning court system.

A far better way to handle things is
* write your lawmakers and encourage others to do the same,
* publish well-written, convincing arguments that speak against Trump's proposals and encourage others to do the same,
* peaceably assemble and peaceably protest, and encourage others to do the same,
* find and recruit good, solid candidates to run for local, state, and national office, and
* do the other things that have been a hallmark of the American Experiment for well over two centuries.

Re:History lesson

[davidwr]

Having read the US Constitution, I have to remind you that speech is not, and never has been considered sedition or treason. May I suggest that you read it? Article III, Section 3? "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

At the time our Constitution was adapted, the Bill of Rights wasn't included.

"adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" could arguably include speeches that support enemies.

However, since the bill of rights was added later, it logically has superior effect, which means even if a judge were to be convinced that a political speech "gave aid and comfort" to an enemy, he would also have to come up with a reason why such speech would not be under the umbrella of "free speech" in order for it not to be protected by the Constitution.

Having said that, there are some forms of speech that courts have declared to be "not protected," such as obscenities, child pornography, and publishing someone else's works without their permission (trade secret laws, copyright laws, publishing state secrets etc.). Given our nation's history and how highly we value political speech, I do not see any original political speech that doesn't use someone else's protected works being declared anything other than "protected speech" during peacetime, at least not in my lifetime. Even during wartime, it would be a big stretch.

Re: History lesson

[Tablizer]

Donald Trump isn't beating people within inches of their lives and burning down university buildings because people say things he doesn't agree with

I wouldn't elect those hoodlums and vandals either. Bottom line: don't elect jerks.

Re:History lesson

[sexconker]

Ah the old "Donald Trump is fine because other people are doing things I don't like".

I do love how even the most ardent of Trumpanzees are utterly unable to actually provide words of support. That's quite telling.

No, Donald Trump is fine because so far he hasn't done anything unconstitutional or even wrong.
He's done things he's promised to do. Yes, he's an ass and a clown. So what?

Until he does something that's actually unconstitutional or reprehensible, shut the fuck up. Disagreeing with the new border control policies doesn't make him a tyrant. You people are actively sowing dissent and the seeds of violence. Where were you when Obama expanded the gitmo torture program? Where were you when Obama executed an American citizen via drone strike without due process?

Re:History lesson

[DarkOx]

I didn't read a threat, just a warning to fascists that history hasn't shown positive outcomes for two of the three European examples.

It absolutely was a threat , it was plain call for a military coup, with execution of the current leader as baked into the plan. The left is so concerned about 'causal violence' but they don't apparently listen to the violence implicit in their own rhetoric. Now do I think spouting off on social media and awards shows is likely to lead to a riot or violence, no so it does not meet the standards for which speech can or should be restrained. It was neither a credible threat nor is it likely to provoke action. Kinda like all the stuff people upset with a decade of Obama rule have said. Recall though the left has demanded they be silenced, created safe spaces, and generally advocated for a culture of fear, its their bed and now as a conservative I am more than happy they should lie in it.

I think, really, a sizable number of Trump supporters are in denial about what he represents. Many - from experience - don't even follow the news, and had little idea of what he was before they voted for him, just looking at him as "Not Clinton."

Interesting I think a sizable number, a large majority actually, of Trump detractors are in denial about what he represents. Many - from experience - don't even watch the news, they watch the Daily Show, read a collection of facebook posts, and unresearched buzz feed blogs and tell themselves how informed they are, they had little idea of who what Trump was before they voted against him (if they bothered to vote at all). They only knew about a few bits he did for entertainment programs and a bunch of context free soundbites.

Those in denial won't recognize the warning, because they don't want to believe that it applies. From their point of view, Trump is just another President. They've never heard of Bannon. On the odd occasion they've heard something worrying about Trump, it's been "balanced" by an exaggeration of something done by "the other side".

I would suggest most of the people worried about Trump are in denial, they don't want to believe what it implies. From their point of view, they are so much smarter than everyone else. Loosing the election implies that might not be true, their certainty of victory right up until election evinces there ability to be very wrong. It suggest their other unexamined but cherished beliefs about how the world works and underlying philosophy might also be counter factual. They can't admit that. So they create daemons like Bannon who has to be one of these terrible racist, sexist, bigots, or homophobes because everyone knows you don't have to listen to those people, but even though nobody listens to them they are still all powerful and wield their secret privilege to control the nation. Never mind that nobody can find actual evidence of Bannon doing anything conventionally thought of as racist, sexist, or homophobic, nope his publication ran some clickbait headlines once upon a time where he wasn't even the by line; but they got his number, he is a scary bigoted Illuminati member!

Will Trump end up hung on meathooks by an angry mob?

No. he won't, just like the right-wing survivalist militia types never actually led any bloody siege on Washing DC dragging the Obama's from the beds under the cover of darkness!

I hope it won't go that far.

I am not sure I believe that in general but I'll take you at your word you personally would not want that. A lot of anti-trump folks like yourself though are seemingly happy to see antifa types pepper spraying young women who disagree with you. Violence is fine if the victim has a "Make America Great Again" hat on.

I hope Congress will impeach

That would be both unlike and pretty sad day for our democratic republic. Trump is more inside the

Re:History lesson

[DarkOx]

Really, hmm you have done much research. That isn't surprising, I would not except the sort to call Trump supporters monkeys goes far out of his way to find alternative view points.

Go read the dailywire, or stream.org, or even the weeklystandard. There are lots of articles and lots of comments on those articles by people who are pretty happy Trump is keeping promises he made on the campaign trail. Support his foreign policy both in terms of style and agenda, support his trade policy, see gains being made in the direction of returning to our values of religious freedom.

There are critics on those sites too naturally because no thinking person would agree on everything the president does even if he is 'their guy'.

Re:History lesson

[serviscope_minor]

No, Donald Trump is fine because so far he hasn't done anything unconstitutional or even wrong.

So he didn't set up a fraudlent university, bust into women's changing rooms, grab anyone by the pussy or lose a lawsuit about discriminating against black tennants?

Until he does something that's actually unconstitutional or reprehensible, shut the fuck up.

First amendment motherfucker, do you know it?

You people

You people, eh?

Where were you when Obama expanded the gitmo torture program

I was busy reading news stories about how Obama was trying to shut the place down but the Republicans kept on blocking it in the Senate and Congress. Why, where were you?

Where were you when Obama

Ah yes, Trump is OK because Obama did something you don't like. Right, got it.

Re:History lesson

[iceaxe]

Now that's just sad. Comparing Trump to Hitler? Seriously?

Unfortunately, for many people this seems entirely appropriate, especially those who fall into one of the many groups of people who feel threatened by Trump and his power base. And yes, I mean threatened like concentration camps and gas chambers. The first has happened in the USA before, and the jubilant hatred coming from many Trump supporters renders the second sadly believable.

He may not be the model of decorum in his personal behavior and may have a brash personality that rubs folks who oppose him the wrong way, but that doesn't mean his policies are anywhere close to Hitler's or that the country is now in danger of falling into anything that resembles pre-WWII Germany. To even say such garbage cheapens history.

History is the measuring stick, and while Trump doesn't yet measure up (down?) to Hitler, and hopefully never will, it is entirely appropriate to do the measuring and then speak and act to prevent bad things if possible.

This is like comparing the concentration camps where millions of Jews died to a summer camp for kids.

No, it's like comparing the vile spew of Nazis to the vile spew of Trump and the even viler spew of many of his supporters, and finding them disturbingly similar, even though I agree the actions are orders of magnitude different so far.

It's offensive and shows both a lack of understand of history and current events and betrays the partisanship that drives all this pointless rhetoric used to divide the right from the left in this country.

The "right" has been dividing itself from the "left" and vice versa in the USA since long before the current political parties existed. Indeed, the political parties themselves have swapped sides, no doubt seeking greener pastures in their quest for power independent of any so-called values. I abhor such oversimplified labels as right and left, but those are your terms. Both major parties are coalitions of wildly disparate interest groups, banding together in the hope of gaining enough power to force their narrow goals on everyone, and if they have to go along with the [insert orthogonal interest] wackos, so be it.

The real problem though, is the truth is hard to hide and is becoming apparent. Trump nominates an "originalist" to the Supreme court, a guy who says that he must interpret the laws as they where INTENDED by the original authors and decide the issues based on that, not his personal feelings. Had Trump wanted to take over, he would need a judge who was free to decide cases based on political positions, not the law, because the law in this country pretty much precludes dictators from taking power.

Remind me who gets to decide what the original authors intended, without injecting any personal perspective.

Then explain to me why the original authors included an amendment process if they never intended anything to change and adapt with the times.

I am right royally sick of the idea that the US Constitution is scripture handed down verbatim by the almighty, never to be questioned or altered, especially by someone who has a different opinion. It is and was a compromise, a word apparently out of favor in these times.

For that matter, I am right royally sick of a Supreme Court that is utterly and absolutely partisan, such that the opinions of most justices can often be predicted before the cases are presented based entirely on the political positions of the presidents that appointed them. I don't trust any of them.

Then there is the Executive Order issue.... Name ONE of Trump's orders that has attempted to expand the power of the presidency or make a new law? (Hint: there isn't one as of this writing). You won't find one. I encourage you to go read these orders and quote them here to prove me wrong. You can find them all on the White House's we

Re:History lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

checks and balances? We have a Republican controlled house and congress; I don't expect any checks nor balances from them...even the supreme court is leaning conservative, so I'd say the checks are probably the weakest they've ever been for a long time...

Re:History lesson

[PopeRatzo]

If you are advocating assassination, this is wrong in so many ways.

Again, I ask you why you think my post had anything to do with the president. It was nothing more than a historical fact about a democratically-elected elected prime minister of Italy.

Whatever else you read into it is on you.

Re:History lesson

[davidwr]

Please understand that your post was indistinguishable from someone who wanted to suggest an action against our current President without actually saying so.

Please also understand that in the current political environment, a betting man would put the odds of someone making a statement like the one you made as being intended to carry such a "read between the lines" meaning at better than 50/50.

I made the same calculation. I'm very happy to be mistaken.

But please understand that when you make a statement that can be interpreted as having an unstated meaning, AND the environment in which you make the statement is one in which others are likely to intentionally use the same words you use but with the extra unstated meaning, you will very likely be mis-interpreted by more than a few people.

Re:History lesson

[PopeRatzo]

Please understand that your post was indistinguishable from someone who wanted to suggest an action against our current President without actually saying so.

Except for the fact that it didn't "suggest" anything at all. It just pointed out a historical fact.

Re:History lesson

[bobbied]

First, being an originalist does NOT preclude making amendments to the constitution.... Your argument on that is a clever fallacy, but so is the rest ofyour argument..

You admit that although you see qualities in Trump that *remind* you of Hitler, he's not actually anywhere near the historical figure in actions... Yet... You just figure that he might try so you are going to oppose ALL he attempts? You seem to agree he's not done anything like this yet...

Let me remind you of what I see as the real essence of evil that Hitler was engaged in and the progression of his rise to power so you can ask yourself, where are we along this continuum?

Hitler was elected and gained power though clever use of intimidation, usurpation of law and violence. He gained power largely though the usurpation of the German constitution using quasi legal means to suppress many basic human rights. He used various "emergencies" to declare marshal law, imprison his political foes and then change the laws of the land while his opponents could not stop him (either because they where dead, in jail or missing). He then took all authority for himself, writing laws by decree and effectively becoming the sole ruler of the country with the death of Hindenburg. After that, it was all over but the war as Hitler had total control of the country as a dictator.

Where are we? Our constitution remains in full force, with the bill of rights firmly in place. Congress remains fully in charge of writing laws and our courts still have power to adjudicate the laws. The president is still unable to make laws on his own and if he tried (such as when Obama did) the courts would not let him. What power does Trump have to change this arrangement? None... Our constitution is still in force and will remain as it is, Trump is powerless to change that, just like all past presidents. Trump can not amend the constitution himself, that takes 2/3rds of the states, and beyond suggesting amendments he'd like cannot officially even do that without congress or the states.

Or do you believe that Trump is somehow unaware of the limited power he has or that he is somehow grasping for more than he's allowed? In which case, I ask you to kindly supply examples of this usurpation of power you are so afraid of.

It's easy to accuse somebody of being "like" someone or something you don't care for, especially if you don't personally or politically like what they are doing. However, your argument here is a classic association fallacy and thus invalid.

However, PLEASE, please, contact me when Trump actually does something to usurp his constitutional authority so I can join you in opposition to such an action. Be prepared with hard evidence of this because I'm not inclined to believe you given your past logical fallacies. So far, he's done nothing that I am aware of that usurps his constitutional limits as the original framers put forth and hasn't made any moves to change the constitution (much less suggested it needs any). (Which is why I point to his nomination to the Supreme court as proof you are wrong).

Re:History lesson

[Mike Van Pelt]

Now that's just sad. Comparing Trump to Hitler? Seriously?

Unfortunately, for many people this seems entirely appropriate, especially those who fall into one of the many groups of people who feel threatened by Trump and his power base.

"Feel" trumps facts. (Argh, didn't notice the pun until after I'd typed it.) That's 90% of the problem right there.

As much of a jackass as Trump is (I refused to vote for him no matter who he was running against) people who think it's a good idea to riot until they get the results of an election overturned are a far, far greater threat to the nation than anything His Orangeness is at all likely to do.

Unless the left actually starts a shooting revolution. Then all bets are off.

Re:History lesson

[HiThere]

Checks and balances are good, but everything has a breaking strain. The presidency has been getting increasingly powerful ever since the Civil War (1865...) and probably before then. (Jackson had some very unpleasant things said about his overreach.) And the current president isn't someone who is reluctant to take chances...so I wouldn't be surprised if he stepped still further into the "Imperial Presidency" role. Perhaps far enough to definitively break the system. The opposition to his doing so is weaker than it has been since FDR. I'm not sure that his meager popularity matters much, as most of those opposed are too far from any levers of power.

I'm really hoping we can avert a replay of Marius vs. Sulla.

Re:History lesson

[HiThere]

Well, the Republicans are in power in both the House and the Senate, so impeachment is quite unlikely no matter how blatant he is. (And he is taking money from foreign governments.)

The ballot box is unavailable for quite some time. Only the House will be available within the next two years, and even that is two years away.

The soap box is being used extensively, but seems to have minor effect. The entire process of the selection of the candidates is so corrupt that it is generally ignored.

OTOH, anything more active is bound to have extensive negative effects. So much so that currently it seems better to let things lie, no matter the costs....which aren't currently quite clear, and are more in prospect than in current presence.

That said, it seems clear that attempts to compromise would be worse than useless, even though the Republicans hold clearly dominant power. If the Democrats could stand unitedly against every encroachment, then the Republicans would need to maintain unity. Unfortunately, much of the Republican plan is tacitly supported by many Democratic legislators, even though most of them won't admit it. (Which explains the selection of Hillary as the Democratic candidate last election cycle.)

There isn't a political party in the country that appears to be worth any trust at all. And this is profoundly discouraging.

Re:History lesson

[iceaxe]

I hear you, but I think history provides ample proof that "feel" has always triumphed over facts when determining what most people will do. Such as voting for a con man, for example.

As for rioting to overturn an election, I'm not in favor of it, but it has worked in many places and times, to one degree or another. Usually resulting in more chaos and damage than just waiting for the next election, but see my statement above. *sigh*

And again, I have to object to calling people "left" or "right" as if these were monoliths. I don't think this mythical "left" has enough coherence to form any kind of unified revolt, or even unified demands. It's emotional reaction to perceived injustice. Same as the people on the other side, pointing fingers at them.

Re:History lesson

[davidwr]

Please understand that your post was indistinguishable from someone who wanted to suggest an action against our current President without actually saying so.

Except for the fact that it didn't "suggest" anything at all. It just pointed out a historical fact.

Let me re-phrase:

If a person wanted to suggest action against our President in a read-between-the-lines manner, he might have said exactly what you said, knowing that many people who read his words would see his intent.

Unfortunately, when someone like you uses those same exact words without any such implied/suggested meaning, many people will see an intent that is not there.

This is especially true when you say them in context they were said in - namely a few days after Trump issued executive orders that have caused others to already draw parallels to mid-20th-century dictators including another person posting in this same Slashdot thread an hour and 5 minutes before you did.

Re:History lesson

[iceaxe]

First, being an originalist does NOT preclude making amendments to the constitution.... Your argument on that is a clever fallacy, but so is the rest ofyour argument..

I think you misunderstand or mis-characterize my intent. Since the original intent of the Constitution includes the amendment process, it's plain that amendment is included in "originalism". My argument is with the great many people who "call" themselves originalists or some variation on that idea, and yet oppose any change not in alignment with their own personal interests on the grounds that it wasn't part of the original intent - which included change. Indeed, the interpretations of "original intent" can vary widely in some areas. To finish my thoughts on that topic, I further don't believe that someone is an originalist just because they call themselves that. I think that most people will grab onto any argument that supports them getting what they want.

(Also, don't expect flawless logic in off-hand slashdot discussions. We're chatting here, not formulating formal formulae.)

You admit that although you see qualities in Trump that *remind* you of Hitler, he's not actually anywhere near the historical figure in actions... Yet... You just figure that he might try so you are going to oppose ALL he attempts? You seem to agree he's not done anything like this yet...

I oppose many things Trump has done - that I've heard of - not because it reminds me of Hitler, but because I think he's wrong. I'm sure he's done some innocuous business that incited no remark or concern, as well as being an utter ass-clown most days so far. The fact that his behavior is emotionally disturbing due to some similarities with the German Nazis is merely a side note. I'm not out rioting, either, just expressing my opinions from the shabby safety of an anonymous website account.

Let me remind you of what I see as the real essence of evil that Hitler was engaged in and the progression of his rise to power so you can ask yourself, where are we along this continuum?

Hitler was elected and gained power though clever use of intimidation, usurpation of law and violence. He gained power largely though the usurpation of the German constitution using quasi legal means to suppress many basic human rights. He used various "emergencies" to declare marshal law, imprison his political foes and then change the laws of the land while his opponents could not stop him (either because they where dead, in jail or missing). He then took all authority for himself, writing laws by decree and effectively becoming the sole ruler of the country with the death of Hindenburg. After that, it was all over but the war as Hitler had total control of the country as a dictator.

Yep. Sounds a lot like Trump's verbally expressed wish list. I do not particularly fear that such will actually occur, not least because so many are so vocally opposing it, but also because we do have some checks and balances in place in the US. Thank the founders. As you go on to describe very well:

Where are we? Our constitution remains in full force, with the bill of rights firmly in place. Congress remains fully in charge of writing laws and our courts still have power to adjudicate the laws. The president is still unable to make laws on his own and if he tried (such as when Obama did) the courts would not let him. What power does Trump have to change this arrangement? None... Our constitution is still in force and will remain as it is, Trump is powerless to change that, just like all past presidents. Trump can not amend the constitution himself, that takes 2/3rds of the states, and beyond suggesting amendments he'd like cannot officially even do that without congress or the states.

Thanks, I agree, and thank goodness. Also, please don't mistake me for an Obama apologist. I was quite disturbed by some of the actions of his administration.
Nonetheless, I s

Re:History lesson

[BlackPignouf]

Fun fact : In 1933, German journalists were also laughing at anyone saying Hitler was dangerous.

Re:History lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

You should look further back... like please remind me what Andrew Jackson did?

Re:History lesson

[PopeRatzo]

If a person wanted to suggest action against our President in a read-between-the-lines manner, he might have said exactly what you said, knowing that many people who read his words would see his intent.

Unfortunately, when someone like you uses those same exact words without any such implied/suggested meaning, many people will see an intent that is not there.

Maybe we should have a moratorium on all historical facts relating to fascists, white supremacists and all-around jackoffs as long as Trump is president, just to be safe, right?

I guess any mention of how Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Ikki Kita or Corneliu Zelea Codreanu came to violent deaths can be construed as a threat on Trump, so maybe we should redact those sections of the encyclopedia until Trump is safely out of office. Because people might misconstrue.

Re:History lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that Trump is not Hitler. And (God Help Us), he never becomes Hitler.

However let's not forget that Hitler wasn't Hitler, not originally. Hitler was always a nasty character, but he appealed to the German sense of order, and he used a certain sense of national superiority (Deutchesland Uber Alles). He had a built-in advantage in that he could contrast himself to the chaos of the Weimar Republic for instance.

And for all that, I believe it's true that the average German citizen had little or no awareness of the death camps. The average German citizen had little or no awareness of his savage campaigns against Slavic peoples. They might have suspected the worst, or feared the worst, or even welcomed the worst. But the Nazis kept the darkest stuff under wraps.

And in the biggest cautionary lesson of all, Hitler was elected. He used goon tactics, Brown Shirts, xenophobia and all the rest, but he got himself elected. Therefore, before you get all self-confident with "...insurmountable obstacle to becoming a true tyrant [...] The Constitution [...] Checks and Balances", just remember that Germany had all that too. They were a democracy, recognizable and Western, and the German people elected the National Socialist party with Hitler as their leader.

Also, it's Trump today. Who's to say that an even worse leader will emerge post-Trump? In the past I would have poo-poohed this idea, but we now have the legacy of millions of Trump supporters, willing to downplay, overlook or deny Trump's character flaws. They called Clinton a liar but is Trump any better? They said Clinton was corrupt but is Trump any better?

This is the legacy of the US failing to reform it's electoral system. Not the Electoral College, that's small potatoes. The elephants in the room that need to be slayed are gerrymandered districting and the money rules. Money isn't free speech and I reject all assertions to the contrary. There is no evidence at all that unlimited spending produces better electoral results, and evidence everywhere that the constant search for money is corrosive and antithetical to good governance.

Re:History lesson

[david_thornley]

Now that's just sad. Comparing Trump to Hitler? Seriously?

Yup, seriously. His base is composed largely of disaffected white people who blame their problems on minorities. He stirs race and national and religious hatred. He has no regard for the truth. He shows strong authoritarian and us-vs.-them tendencies. He's strongly nationalist at the same time he makes the state of the US sound as bad as he can. The feel of Trump and his campaign is much like the feel of Hitler and his campaign. Read some history.

Fortunately, Trump is a lot less competent than Hitler, and has much worse impulse control. As you note, it's harder to become a tyrant in the US than in Weimar Germany, although legal barriers are only as strong as their enforcement. You do realize that some border agents defied the court ruling about the entry ban, don't you?

Trump nominates an "originalist" to the Supreme court, a guy who says that he must interpret the laws as they where INTENDED by the original authors and decide the issues based on that, not his personal feelings.

And, of course, nobody connected to Trump has ever lied, right? Hint: Everybody nominated to the Supreme Court interprets the laws as they were intended. Just ask them.

Name ONE of Trump's orders that has attempted to expand the power of the presidency or make a new law? (Hint: there isn't one as of this writing)

The travel ban might be illegal; we'll have to let the courts decide that. If so, it's either an attempt to expand the power of the Presidency or make a new law. And "as of this writing" is two weeks after Trump became President. Give him time.

In the meantime, I'd bet that he's violated the Constitution, in that I think it very likely that a government has had dealings with part of the Trump empire. Trump is going to make it as hard as possible to find out for sure, of course.

Re:History lesson

[david_thornley]

What I don't know is who rioted. I've become increasingly suspicious of possible agents provocateur over time. Who benefited form rioting? Clearly Trump supporters, who could blame leftists for violence.

Re:History lesson

[david_thornley]

Who are you arguing with? The comment was about Mussolini. If Trump gets the degree of control Mussolini did, or screws the US up like Mussolini screwed up Italy, then I'll approve of assassinating him (although I'd rather he was deposed and tried).

Other than that, I agree with you.

Re:History lesson

[Xyrus]

Trump is just another President, Bannon is irrelevant.

Unlike Hitler and Mussolini Trump faces an insurmountable obstacle to becoming a true tyrant and dictator. The Constitution and the designed in Checks and Balances. Hitler was able to achieve his position of power due to great flaws in the design of the government of the Weimar republic. There was nothing to stop him when as Chancellor the President died and he just took over the office. Further He came into office with his own private military/police force that engaged in the more dubious acts of his government.

That's incorrect. Hitler was elected on a platform of populism, then the population and his supporters slowly eroded away the protections in place until he could successfully be granted unilateral power.

The Constitution is only as powerful as the people willing to stand for it's principles. When you have a majority willing to piss on the Constitution, putting power and ideology before the good of the nation, then the Constitution just becomes a piece of inconvenient paper. Soon you'll be hearing how the Constitution is too limiting to deal with the challenges of today's world.

There is no means for Trump to seize more power in our government. And he does not have a private military/police force to enforce his will.

Oh yes there is. And you don't need a private military force when you have cult following who thinks your the second coming of Christ.

Additionally Trump is not beloved of the GOP establishment. That means neither side of the aisle in the legislative branch really trusts him. So far he is just fulfilling campaign promises so he mostly has their support. But should he start straying he will lose that support in a hurry. Neither party trusts him. (That's actually good, it means he will have to negotiate to get the stuff he's promising that require laws to be passed.) Neither party will stand for it if he were to try to exceed his constitutional authorities and limits.

That's irrelevant. The GOP is more than happy to use and abuse Trumps ham-fisted methods to further their own agenda and ramrod what they want through Congress, including expansion of powers. And just like Hitler did to his supporters when they started thinking he was going too far, Trump would have no qualms doing the same.

The ends do not justify the means. Making deals with the devil, even with the best intentions, never ends well.

Trump is not Hitler. He can't be. Hitler couldn't have been Hitler under our form of government. At most he could have been FDR and Interned citizens (but not exterminated them).

You really don't understand how this works, do you? Populism is a cult. No piece of paper or set of laws matter. Get enough followers and they'll be cheering as you burn the Constitution.

Re:History lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

By the end of WWII, Il Duce was universally despised by Italians.

Trump currently has an approval rating of 44% (http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/trump-enters-office-historically-low-rating-n708071). And, that's even coming from the same people who said Hillary was ahead by 20% in the days leading up to the election. So, more than likely, his approval rating is even higher than that.

Roughly half the country approves of the job Trump is doing. That's a far cry from being universally despised.

Re:History lesson

[Imrik]

In the meantime, I'd bet that he's violated the Constitution, in that I think it very likely that a government has had dealings with part of the Trump empire. Trump is going to make it as hard as possible to find out for sure, of course.

Unless the dealings involved gifts of some kind instead of exchanges of similar value there's no violation. Past presidents have put their assets into a blind trust to avoid having to deal with such, but it is by no means required.

Re:History lesson

[Imrik]

Trump is just another President, Bannon is irrelevant.

Unlike Hitler and Mussolini Trump faces an insurmountable obstacle to becoming a true tyrant and dictator. The Constitution and the designed in Checks and Balances. Hitler was able to achieve his position of power due to great flaws in the design of the government of the Weimar republic. There was nothing to stop him when as Chancellor the President died and he just took over the office. Further He came into office with his own private military/police force that engaged in the more dubious acts of his government.

That's incorrect. Hitler was elected on a platform of populism, then the population and his supporters slowly eroded away the protections in place until he could successfully be granted unilateral power.

The Constitution is only as powerful as the people willing to stand for it's principles. When you have a majority willing to piss on the Constitution, putting power and ideology before the good of the nation, then the Constitution just becomes a piece of inconvenient paper. Soon you'll be hearing how the Constitution is too limiting to deal with the challenges of today's world.

Then it's a good thing he appointed a supreme court justice that believes the opposite of that.

Re: History lesson

[Imrik]

So you're saying we shouldn't vote?

Re:History lesson

[Imrik]

Among the exceptions is imminent lawless action, which is unlikely to apply to advocating a coup due to the lack of immediacy, but could easily apply to some other kinds of "political" speeches I've heard.

Re:History lesson

[Imrik]

He is getting paid for goods and services by foreign powers, which, while troubling, is not unconstitutional or even illegal.

The senate is also available in two years.

The soap box is being used, but only to express dissatisfaction, not to propose alternatives.

Re:History lesson

[david_thornley]

I think you'll find that's not what the courts say about emoluments. The primary meaning I found was pay for service.

Re:History lesson

[jwhitener]

There is no means for Trump to seize more power in our government.

It just takes one "super scary" attack or other incident, and martial law and other things could be granted by congress. Remember, this the congress that puts "cause jesus said so" types in charge of science committees....

When large percentages of the population are willing to believe blatant lies, even lies that are very easy to disprove with a simple google search, the populace is primed to allow pretty much anything, if their "strong man" authoritarian leader commands it.

This seems like Hunter S. Thompson territory

[H3lldr0p]

When the going gets weird, the weird turns pro.

Along those lines, I think it may be time to return to the grotesque, detailed art that came from Zap Comixs, R. Crumb, and the other underground creators. Those are going to be the people closest to the metal (so to speak) in what the crowds are feeling. Hopefully the shocking expressions will be enough to get people unsettled enough to keep up the protests and calling their congress critters.

It does make a difference.

Re:This seems like Hunter S. Thompson territory

[Registered Coward v2]

When the going gets weird, the weird turns pro.

Along those lines, I think it may be time to return to the grotesque, detailed art that came from Zap Comixs, R. Crumb, and the other underground creators. Those are going to be the people closest to the metal (so to speak) in what the crowds are feeling. Hopefully the shocking expressions will be enough to get people unsettled enough to keep up the protests and calling their congress critters.

It does make a difference.

Where is George Carlin when the country really needs him...

Re: This seems like Hunter S. Thompson territory

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Carlin would have many insightful things to say about this election.

Absurd reality

[burtosis]

I believe the term is now "alternative fact therapist", not satirist.

Re:Absurd reality

[ClickOnThis]

We need real news to inform us. And we need "news" from satirists to help us cope with the real kind.

We do not need fake news, alternative facts, or deceptions by any other name.

Satire comes from satirists. Fake news comes from fake reporters. Poe's law notwithstanding, you can and must learn to spot the difference.

How about these?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump sleeps through attack on consulate and Bannon tells troops to stand down and not defend the action then throws Michal Moore in jail for a youtube video claiming it incited the attack.

Trump disregards federal judges order that his immigration actions are unlawful and continues his immigration strategy?

Trump orders Jeff Sessions to not defend federal law he personally disagrees with?

Do you mean that kind of satire?

Re:How about these?

[d34thm0nk3y]

Trump sleeps through attack on consulate and Bannon tells troops to stand down...

Man, that sounds crazy, maybe someone should investigate that nine times.

Re:How about these?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah and the Republican political leadership, with majority votes on the committees, will ask for evidence from Trump's administration officers and hand picked leadership positions who will present cherry picked evidence and all testify Trump and Bannon did nothing wrong. All the while never investigating the actual people involved.

But I note that's the only one you could even flailingly attempt to defend...

What difference at this point does it make anyway?

Facebookers are trigger happy

[halivar]

Every time the Borowitz Report comes out, I have to correct a handful of outraged friends who share it seriously. We are, altogether, no longer skeptical readers.

Re:Facebookers are trigger happy

[Registered Coward v2]

Every time the Borowitz Report comes out, I have to correct a handful of outraged friends who share it seriously. We are, altogether, no longer skeptical readers.

Who needs skepticism when we can get all the alternative facts we want 24 x 7 with no need for real ones to creep in...

Poe's Law is a bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

Poe's Law is all fun and games, until both major parties totally and completely fail, to the embarrassment of everyone, to nominate real candidates. They had a race to see who could lose the worst, and the Democrats won. The obvious problem, is that everyone now has to live with it.

Let this be a lesson to Democrats and Republicans: never trust your party again. Democracy means you have to do something; you can't just assume someone else will take care of things. "They won't let that happen," should never come out of your mouth. Either force your party to run a real candidate next time, or leave them and join a part that better represents your views. People say that's a way to lose, but remember: you also lose if you don't do it (ask any Republican), and if enough people do it, you can win.

Not a problem for satirists

[The-Ixian]

This is not a problem for satirists. I would say that this is a golden age for satirists.

This is a problem for news outlets that also have a satire column.

Re:Not a problem for satirists

[Spazmania]

As the satirist who runs whitehouse.net, I disagree. Satire has to be something that seems in character with what's happening but definitely wouldn't actually happen. If it's not in character, it's not funny. If there's a realistic chance it could happen, it's scary not funny.

Trump makes it really hard to find that sweet spot where it's something amusing you could actually see Trump doing yet definitely not something Trump will end up doing next week.

Re:Not a problem for satirists

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost. You are right that this is not a satirists problem. It's a journalism problem. They are either wilfully promoting demonstrably false information, or they are not able to check their sources - also known as doing your job.

Re: Not a problem for satirists

[Anonymous Coward]

this a issue with mainstream media. i am not saying i agree with one or the other im not bipartision what i am saying is maybe they will get to their roots and be unbiased. news should report not sway. opinions are fine of course but a lot of time there are a lot of retorical and other presentation outlooks created.

Re:Not a problem for satirists

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you lack imagination.

But then you've lacked imagination for the last 8 years because you satirists didn't want to make Obama look bad...

Re:Not a problem for satirists

[Anonymous Coward]

whitehouse.net still has Bush as president..

Re: Not a problem for satirists

[Anonymous Coward]

i do not agree sometimes satire is a way of laughing at hard things and yes true things.

Re:Not a problem for satirists

[thegarbz]

I would say that this is a golden age for satirists.

In a world where satire looks like the normal news it's not the golden age. It's like saying right now is the Golden age for photographers because everyone has a digital camera. No it's a golden age for pictures. That's not the same thing.

Re:Not a problem for satirists

[Spazmania]

I found Obama to be mostly boring. So yeah, my muse went AWOL.

Re:Not a problem for satirists

[Anonymous Coward]

Satire works best at the border of the improbable and the impossible. Too far in the impossible direction and it can be dismissed without any thought (Weekly World News). Too far in the probable direction and it just looks like poor journalism (or gets mistaken for actual fact). Our reality has pushed the improbable/impossible boundary out so far that there isn't much left to work with. Try taking jokes from the George W. Bush era and try adapting them to the Trump era. How many still hit the sweet spot and how many resemble actual reporting (real or fake)? I'll make one up now that you can filter through both sets of lenses.

WASHINGTON DC - Today, the White House announced that it will be instituting extreme vetting for all persons associated with the group known as "Al Yankovic." In a statement released to the press, the President explained the urgent need for this action. "They've been operating within our borders for decades and we still know little about them. The material they've produced has been in so many styles and formats that it defies categorization. We've seen this sort of chameleon-esque behavior from some very, very bad groups in the past as they constantly reinvent themselves to appeal to broader demographics and recruit followers for terrible, awful purposes. Some of the messages we've uncovered so far could indicate a desire to harm our food supply, exploit our popular culture, and possibly even destroy our very way of life. A credible threat of the use of weapons of mass destruction on Christmas has also been made, possibly involving small rodents of unknown origin. They have also made claims of having infiltrated federal agencies, claims we take very seriously. We need to know exactly who they are, where they've been, what they're up to, and how to stop them before it's too late."

The statement concludes with a cautionary tale to indicate the severity of this situation. "We have uncovered documents where they call themselves 'weird.' Cat Stevens was also kind of weird and he turned out to be literally Islam. We cannot allow ourselves to be caught by surprise by this sort of insidious threat again."

I blame maintream media

[Anonymous Coward]

for peddling their fake news and attempting to pass them off as the truth.

Falst like NYTimes omitting leftist violence?

[Anonymous Coward]

NY Times headline:

“Berkeley Cancels Milo Yiannopoulos Speech, and Donald Trump Tweets Outrage”

Kinda leaves out the fact that the speech was cancelled because leftist thugs rioted and torched things.

That kind of "false"?

Re:Falst like NYTimes omitting leftist violence?

[tekrat]

Bah... Milo Yiannopouls should go back to whatever country he came from!

Re:Falst like NYTimes omitting leftist violence?

[Anonymous Coward]

More like false flag. . . note not one single arrest when 150 anarchists quite literally set the sidewalk on fire. . . they wanted a spectacle.

Re:Falst like NYTimes omitting leftist violence?

[davidwr]

That kind of "false"?

More like "headline was short, important details omitted."

The opening sentence includes the VERY relevant details about the riot:

BERKELEY, Calif. - A speech by the divisive right-wing writer Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California, Berkeley, was canceled on Wednesday night after demonstrators set fires and threw objects at buildings to protest his appearance. [emphasis added]

While that paragraph doesn't come out and say that the speech was canceled because of the violence, the implication is obvious: NOT canceling the event would have put people's safety at risk and canceling, moving, or postponing the event was the rational thing to do.

Near the end, the article makes it explicitly clear that the event was canceled over security concerns and that the cancellation was not the desire of the university's administration, saying:

His scheduled speech at U.C. Davis last month devolved into a tense standoff between protesters and the police. It was called off before it could begin over security concerns.

and

The university "deeply regrets" the cancellation of the event, said Dan Mogulof, a spokesman.

Note: quoted text from The New York Times has been modified to change an "m-dash" to a hyphen and to change "curly quotes" to "straight quotes." This was necessary due to limitations of the Slashdot web site.

Distasteful

[Oswald McWeany]

It's distasteful that so many people are bashing Trump and talking about Fake News at a time when events like the Bowling Green Massacre take place every day.

Can we all come together please, forget our partisanship and different religions, and agree to offer a prayer to all those that died in Bowling Green like good Baptists. May they rest in peace and go to Baptist heaven.

Re:Distasteful

[GameboyRMH]

I was shocked to see that even the most trusted repository of alternative facts, Conservapedia, did not have a page covering the Bowling Green Massacre. This must be addressed at once!

Re:Distasteful

[Anonymous Coward]

May they rest in peace and go to Baptist heaven.

KFC?

(disclaimer: I am a Baptist. I'm just being silly here.)

FUD people.

[argStyopa]

I know "fake news" is getting us all worked up right now, but

"...fake news did not change the result 2016 presidential election, according to a study by researchers at Stanford and New York University released Thursday. ..."

Story: http://thehill.com/homenews/me...

Study: https://web.stanford.edu/~gent...

Like the "Russia hacked the election" story the original threat being discussed was specifically hacking of electronic voting machines. When that was proved ridiculous, the phrase was re-framed to something more vague, saying that Russia "manipulated" the results by media...you know, exactly like the Martin Sheen "dump Trump" video attempted to do (and failed). https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:FUD people.

[Oswald McWeany]

What a ridiculous study. There is no way for them to know how many fake news stories in total are out there and how many people actually read them. To claim only 8% of people read a fake news story is a bizarre claim, since I think we all encountered numerous.

Re: FUD people.

[Anonymous Coward]

where did it say they did?

Re:FUD people.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry buddy but we're talking about right now. The election is over.

The trouble is everyone (Everyone sane at least) assumed things would calm down once Trump got in to office. That this was all some sort of new political ploy and we'd be in for a run-of-the-mills GOP administration with a colorful man at the head.

Instead, it's gotten much much much worse. The rhetoric has been amped up and the gross majority of the information that comes directly out of the Trump administration has been 100% USDA disapproved grade AA batshit nutty. Not unconventional. Not "pushing over the establishment". Seriously, very strange and unhinged signals.

Trump's devoted base eats it all up because they don't understand anything pas the campaign slogans but everyone with two brain cells to rub together is at least starting to think "Something is quite wrong here" and we're only two weeks in.

Re:FUD people.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't really need "fake news" when the Wikileaks and Comey letters were more than enough to cost Hillary three states.

Re:FUD people.

[Anonymous Coward]

And your comment is a perfect example of FAKE NEWS. The sort of FAKE NEWS you accuse others of promoting.

There was no "...story the original threat being discussed was specifically hacking of electronic voting machines". That was Trump, after his inauguration! Trump was trying to bolster his electoral credibility and tried to change the subject to "hacking of electronic voting machines".

That was FAKE NEWS, and political spin.

The original story is, was and always will be how (likely Russian) hackers preferentially targeted the Democrats and released dirt on them. Congratulations on being a prime source of doublethink. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. In fact your credibility is now damaged for having said it. And we are all dumber for having listened.

Re:FUD people.

[david_thornley]

hacking of electronic voting machines. When that was proved ridiculous

It was never proved ridiculous. Some of those voting machines are very hackable, and some people found some statistical evidence that they had been hacked. We know Russia favored Trump and is quite willing to hack into US stuff (I assume we return the favor), so we have motive, method, and opportunity. What we don't have is anything like solid proof that it happened.

They're screwed

[clonehappy]

True satire can't exist in an environment where no one can take a joke.

Even Jerry Seinfeld realized two years ago that comedy and the perpetually offended crowd can't mix. Now think how much worse it's gotten in those two years.

Between the crazed liberal snowflakes and the persecution complex on the right, I'm surprised comedy clubs aren't looked at the same as Klan meetings by now.

People just need to relax and realize that life really isn't this serious.

Re:They're screwed

[Mike Van Pelt]

One of my favorite Pogo quotes: "You can't take life too serious, it ain't nohow permanent."

/r/nottheonion

[brewthatistrue]

Looking at some headlines from https://www.reddit.com/r/notth...
we find

"Stop making memes of our dead gorilla, Cincinnati Zoo pleads"

"Spotify offers Barack Obama a job as 'President of Playlists'"

"People have paid a company more than $80,000 to dig a hole for absolutely no reason"

"Venezuela's currency value depends largely on one guy at an Alabama Home Depot"

"Anti-Defamation League Declares Pepe the Frog a Hate Symbol"

"Pilot 'congratulates' passengers for drinking all alcohol on plane"

"Nebraska flag flew upside down at Capitol for 10 days and 'nobody noticed,' says senator who wants design change"

etc.

Re:/r/nottheonion

[Anonymous Coward]

> Pepe the Frog a Hate Symbol

Because that Nazi symbol is a hate symbol. The people that use it hate us and want us to die. That's why, for example, one Friday night I got off of the bus in downtown Seattle headed home from work, and a white person wearing a Pepe shirt was trying to hit brown people with a shovel. That's how their kind be. They hate us so much.

Re: /r/nottheonion

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of those white people want us to die. That is why their kind supports racists like Trump and Hillary. She called us super predators. As a 100# guy, no one that has ever met me would call me that. She doesn't know me.

Re:/r/nottheonion

[Anonymous Coward]

As a green cartoonish frog, I get regularly beaten in the face with a shovel by crybaby snowflake liberals.

Re:/r/nottheonion

[Pascoea]

"People have paid a company more than $80,000 to dig a hole for absolutely no reason"

One of these things is not like the other. They were off on the dollar amount, but that one actually happened. CAH Holiday Hole

Unless I'm an idiot and the others are all true as well...

Re:/r/nottheonion

[FFOMelchior]

NotTheOnion is all true news stories. The general gist is that the headline/premise is so ludicrous that one's first thought is "It must be The Onion", but then it's not. In reference to GP's headlines, I've heard at least 4 of them, but the Venezuela one threw me for loop. Here's the article, if anyone is interested: https://www.pri.org/stories/20...

Re:/r/nottheonion

[RockDoctor]

"People have paid a company more than $80,000 to dig a hole for absolutely no reason"

I'd forgotten to wonder what had happened to the CAH hole. And now I know.

Some of the best satire

[Tyrannicsupremacy]

I never realized what a good comedian Sarah Silverman was until I saw this..

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3...

Re:Some of the best satire

[Anonymous Coward]

she's not good. She's a partisan hack.

Re:Some of the best satire

[RobotRunAmok]

When I heard, at first cursorily, about the Berkeley riots *against* free speech, I was certain someone was describing a new South Park plot or Onion jibe. Imagine my surprise...

Re:Some of the best satire

[xevioso]

You don't get to be free from the consequences of your speech. Free Speech only means the government can't (or legally shouldn't) censor you. It does not mean that if you speak Nazi-like remarks that you won't get a fist thrown at you.

Why is this so hard for conservatives and Trump voters to understand?

Re:Some of the best satire

[spire3661]

Shes really sharp, and i dont even like her comedy.

Re:Some of the best satire

[spire3661]

Im sorry, i thought this was a nation of laws. What happened to 'I may hate what you say, but i will defend to the DEATH your right to say it'. The consequences you mention are supposed to be CIVILIZED REACTIONS, not barbarism and lawlessness. If you throw a fist at me, I might toss hot lead back at you. Maybe we should just be civilized and agree to disagree instead of someone getting hurt.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Anonymous Coward]

Completely agreed. So why do you think the protesters wanted to stop the speech? (Certainly not all of them did, but enough). I'd prefer to let the rat bastard speak - to an almost empty house - and get booed. After all, ideas cannot, in and of themselves, be dangerous. Allowing that a-hole Milo to speak would not have harmed anyone. Nobody listening to him would be swayed to his cause unless they were already pretty much in that camp. Does the guy suck? Damn right. Should we defend his right to free speech? Yes, yes we should. Should a college provide a microphone and a hall for him? Well - that's where it gets iffy. They really should provide exposure to all types of thought - even the ones most find abhorrent.

Re:Some of the best satire

[danudwary]

I agree with you. I work near the Berkeley campus, and it's awful what happened.

However, nearly all of us have been conditioned from a very young age that Nazis need to be destroyed at all costs, or the world only gets worse. I wonder how many video game Nazis I've killed in my lifetime? If you're going to demonize people on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual preference, as Milo does regularly, then it shouldn't be a surprise to be compared to a Nazi and have people trying to stop you at all costs. Either figure out why you're coming across that way to others and alter your message to convey what you really intend (whatever that is, I don't actually even know), or continue to be an asshole provocateur and be prepared to receive the conflict you've elicited.

Re:Some of the best satire

[liquid_schwartz]

You don't get to be free from the consequences of your speech. Free Speech only means the government can't (or legally shouldn't) censor you. It does not mean that if you speak Nazi-like remarks that you won't get a fist thrown at you.

Because if free speech means, to your example, getting beaten by a mob then it isn't very free. Redefining free speech to fit your mob justice mentality is just an example of a lack of critical thinking. If speaking your mind means you get fired, beaten, black listed, or other serious consequences then speech isn't very free now is it? There was a time when the prevailing logic was everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You didn't have to agree with other's opinions but it was their choice and it was considered rude to insist others think exactly like you. Now we live in times of fear, when any stray comment may get you into trouble. This will only go on so long before it boils over.

Why is this so hard for conservatives and Trump voters to understand?

I guess I could ask why following the law and keeping your hands to yourself is so hard for liberals to understand. Or why a competing view is so threatening that you must attack it with violence. My observation is that violence is the first resort of the ignorant. Your observation is that it is a fitting form of enforcing your group think. Is that really who you are and what you want to be known for xevioso?

Re:Some of the best satire

[Tyrannicsupremacy]

If by sharp you mean "lives in a deluded fantasy world" then yes.

Re:Some of the best satire

[liquid_schwartz]

If you're going to demonize people on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual preference, as Milo does regularly, then it shouldn't be a surprise to be compared to a Nazi and have people trying to stop you at all costs.

So anyone who demonizes, for example, a white Christian male who is straight must be a Nazi. I think the Huffinfton Post has at least two articles a day demonizing this demographic. I guess the left really are Nazis based on your criteria. I always suspected ;-)

Re:Some of the best satire

[RobotRunAmok]

>>Free Speech only means the government can't (or legally shouldn't) censor you. It does not mean that if you speak Nazi-like remarks that you won't get a fist thrown at you.

Correct. But about a dozen other laws will get you tossed into jail if you throw a fist at me because you disagree with what I am saying. Not to mention all the fire-starting, window-smashing and random property damage.

Now that I think about it... geez... why is everyone on the Left so violent? Left-wing thought has *owned* college campuses for the last 40-50 years. Are you guys really so fragile and insecure that one guy giving voice to a different point of view throws you into a tailspin? If y'all are trying to move past that "snowflake" stereotype, pepper-spraying people with whom you disagree is really the wrong approach...

Re:Some of the best satire

[MightyMartian]

That being said, universities, within reason, should be places where free exchange of ideas happens in an environment free of overt violence or threat of violence. I find Milo to be a vile and evil human being, but that being said, he has as much right to say his piece as I do mine, and the fact that a pack of spoiled malcontents would transform themselves into a liberal version of Brown Shirts means as repugnant as Milo is, they're all the worse.

Seriously, what could Milo have possibly said that would have justified this idiocy? And in the end all these moronic protesters did was to give Milo the kind of legitimacy and influence he craves. A better response would have been just not to show up. If the room was half-filled, that would have sent a far better message than being a bunch of goons.

Re:Some of the best satire

[MightyMartian]

Precisely. If everyone had just stayed away, then Milo would have largely ended up talking to himself.

Unless, of course, the protesters' real fear is that the house would have been packed, and the violence wasn't as much about preventing Milo from speaking as it was to prevent anyone who wanted to listen from hearing (maybe even some of them). I find the latter in some ways far more disturbing than the former.

As for myself, I'm secure enough in my own views that I can go to right-wing online forums and read the posts, though I don't really often contribute. As much as I find many of the ideas expressed range from the naive and absurd to the outright vile and bigoted, I think it's still important that I not be utterly ignorant of what other people believe. And it does happen that you will find someone who is intelligent on these forums and he'll present an actual challenge to my preconceptions, that forces me to re-evaluate my own views. The fact is that no ideology has an absolute lock on the Truth.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Ogive17]

I consider myself a civilized person. I am not violent and prefer a "live and let live" lifestyle. I'm straight and do not smoke but I have no problem if my neighbors were gay and smoke marijuana every night in their house.

What I don't like, and what really boils my blood, are public acts of ignorance towards the world we share. In my head, I would love the chance to smack around some of these people that perpetuate lies. Remember as kids, when we did something wrong we'd get spanked? Why can't we do the same thing with adults? :)

I don't understand why, as Americans, we feel the need to always voice our opinions as if they are fact. As someone who has traveled a significant amount around the world, I would always argue against the ignorant American stereotype by saying the average American is no more or less ignorant than the average _____ (fill in the blank of the local nationality).. however the average American just likes to let everyone know when they are ignorant on a specific subject.

Ignorance is the social norm, now. We no longer defer to those with experience or knowledge.. everyone believes themselves to be experts on everything.

Re:Some of the best satire

[spire3661]

"I don't understand why, as Americans, we feel the need to always voice our opinions as if they are fact. "

Why do you accept what they have to say as fact? People are going to be ignorant, we cant change that, it hasnt changed in 4000 years. Even Einstein gave up on humanity's ignorance, and i consider him a profound humanist. Asimov had some choice words on anti-intellectualism too.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see them specifically demonizing them for being white, christian and male. They're demonizing them for what they're saying and their behaviour. Very different.

"Taxes should be lower" vs "Taxes should be higher" is grounds for debate. "Taxes should be higher" vs "You should be ethnically cleansed" is grounds for a beating.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

No, the First Amendment only applies to the government. Free speech, the concept, also includes non-state actors, and it is antithetical to free speech to say "the government won't throw you in jail, but you'll get your ass kicked". In addition, many of the people who were assaulted or whose property was destroyed at Berkeley were *not* saying anything Nazi-like, nor were they even trying to attend Milo's talk.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Dripdry]

Ok, how about this? A man stands up and talks to a cheering crowd about fucking young children, raping animals, and blowing up your house.
He's allowed to say *whatever* he wants, right? How about when a critical mass of those people gets together and eventually decides that it's normalized and ok to fuck children and animals, and blow up your house.
They decide to pass a law making it ok to do all these things.
It's legal now. What are you gonna do, buddy?

You're ignoring the SPIRIT of the law in favor of the LETTER.
Harboring a culture of hatred, letting it be acceptable to let those kinds of ideas flourish, ones in which someone wants to kill people (entire races of people, in fact), is not acceptable. It is not what this country was founded on or was ever intended to defend. It's been shown time and again in countless parts of history how destructive that idea is, and you're here to defend it?

Harboring a culture in which violence and hatred can foment is not honoring the SPIRIT of the country. It is hewing to a very narrow interpretation of the LETTER of it, though.

That is why it is acceptable that this person got punched. If someone isn't going to stand up and draw a line in the sand, then we're in for a lot more bloodshed than a namby-pamby fist-fight.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Does Milo demonize people based on race or sexual preference? He's a gay Jewish man with a black boyfriend. He's certainly demonized women for their gender, and he regularly demonizes Islam, but I hadn't seen race/sexual preference before. Admittedly, I also try to avoid him in general, so it's certainly possible I missed it.

Re: Some of the best satire

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you hate freedom?

Re:Some of the best satire

[Anonymous Coward]

"You should be ethnically cleansed" is grounds for a beating.

No it's not. You're full of shit. All censorship is evil. That is an absolute. Attempting censorship is definitely grounds for a beating, or even a killing. Fuck you...

Re:Some of the best satire

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it is. And you attempting to saying that I deserve a beating (or a killing) deserve a beating. Fuck you harder.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you not see the irony in you saying that he/she deserves a beating, or even a killing for censorship because he/she says that people advocating ethnic cleansing should be beaten by censoring them for saying it?

Re:Some of the best satire

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a white Christian straight male, I assume you don't know what it is like to be actually demonized. "Being demonized" is not the same thing as being called out on your bullshit. It's getting arrested after being stopped for speeding because that car is too expensive for you to have been able to afford. It's getting hung for having a relationship with another human being. Or people calling you cracker, lily, honky, snow flake, any other derogatory term for walking down the street.

Re:Some of the best satire

[liquid_schwartz]

I don't see them specifically demonizing them for being white, christian and male. They're demonizing them for what they're saying and their behaviour. Very different.

They are demonized for being exactly what I stated and if you don't see it then it's because you are willfully blind. Maybe I'll jokingly call this your "PC privilege" is blinding you to the obvious. You can tell yourself that you are not targeting them for having different beliefs than you but you're only fooling yourself AC.

"Taxes should be lower" vs "Taxes should be higher" is grounds for debate. "Taxes should be higher" vs "You should be ethnically cleansed" is grounds for a beating.

You really like beatings as a method of communication. Is your favorite leader Stalin or Mao?

Re:Some of the best satire

[HiThere]

Unfortunately, this isn't new. Read actual history as opposed to what they teach in elementary/high school. Trumps voters are a resurgence of the Know-Nothings. It's claimed that this is due to an intentional conspiracy of powerful people, but the only real evidence that this is truer than usual is that he was elected...and that could be reasonably laid at the foot of continued economic problems, just as in 1930's Germany. Much of the rhetoric seems to have been swiped from the Know-nothings, but I suspect (due to reports that Trump idolizes Hitler) that it has a more recent vintage.

Expect things to get worse. Automation is increasing to the point that Chinese workers are being priced out of jobs. China is reported to be intending to compete on the international market by using increasing amounts of automation, aspiring to become the most roboticised country in the world. (Currently that's South Korea. The US is reportedly 7th...and prices of robots are dropping, and their capabilities are increasing.)

These tensions are a part of the lead-up to the Technological Singularity. May we survive it. I suspect that this is a major constituent of "The Great Filter". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... The problem is, the alternatives appear worse.

Re:Some of the best satire

[RobotRunAmok]

>>Harboring a culture of hatred, letting it be acceptable to let those kinds of ideas flourish, ones in which someone wants to kill people (entire races of people, in fact), is not acceptable

See, and I call that Abortion Culture, and there are millions like me, but if I walked up onto the platform during the Abortion March a few weeks back and expressed my opinion by punching creepy old Madonna, I'd have been arrested. As would be proper. Because this is a nation of laws, and we do not end one form of barbarism by resorting to another.

Re:Some of the best satire

[HiThere]

I wasn't there, I haven't read the coverage, but...

If someone is trying to stir up a mob to kill/molest/injure you or someone you are defending, what do you suggest? Law doesn't enter into this, though ethics and morals do, and reasonable estimation of results.

P.S.: I am opposed to censorship by those with power, but that's because there is so much history where analogous organizations have misused the capability. This doesn't mean I think it should be defensible to, say, publish the simple steps for releasing a dangerous plague...it's that I don't trust the potential regulators.

Re:Some of the best satire

[HiThere]

The reason that there are so many violent characters on college campuses is that about half of them are young males. Political orientation is nearly irrelevant here.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Nethemas the Great]

If "civilized" consequences for irresponsible, harmful speech existed, then barbaric ones would be less likely. What recourse do people have whom witness irresponsible/evil actors corrupting and manipulating the ignorant and naive? We have laws against physical corruption, but precious few for intellectual.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Nethemas the Great]

You mean pointing out statistics related behavior/beliefs that give witness to their being endemic within certain demographics? In other contexts we'd call that first steps to troubleshooting.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Darinbob]

True. However Berkeley is a university, the goal of which is to educate people, prepare them for the real world, and so forth. Prohibiting free speech flies against that principle. You MUST learn about different viewpoints to be well educated, if you live in a bubble of only comfortable thoughts that you already agree with then you will be very poorly educated. It is better to debate ideas one disagrees with than try to shut down out.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Darinbob]

Can you point to one such article from the Huffington Post that demonizes white Christian males?

Re:Some of the best satire

[SeaFox]

Im sorry, i thought this was a nation of laws. What happened to 'I may hate what you say, but i will defend to the DEATH your right to say it'. The consequences you mention are supposed to be CIVILIZED REACTIONS, not barbarism and lawlessness.

Yes, and we have completely separate laws to deal with uncivilized reactions.
As xevioso said, Free Speech simply means the government cannot censor you. It doesn't mean people are required to provide you a venue to speak your mind, listen to your viewpoint, or like your viewpoint. The consequence of hate speech might be that someone punches you, but that person is not "infringing on your first amendment freedoms" -- they are assaulting you, and we have laws against assault. Same as if you got into an argument in a bar about sportsball and a fight broke out. We also have laws against property damage that have nothing to do with the First Amendment or Alt-Right.

Milo Yiannopoulos is just pissy that his speech was cancelled as a result of the rioting. Berkeley didn't have to cancel it, but they didn't have to host him to start with, either. And even if they had continued people didn't have to come listen. Berkeley owes him nothing and Yiannopoulos doesn't understand what the First Amendment really means.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Grishnakh]

What happened to 'I may hate what you say, but i will defend to the DEATH your right to say it'.

Nothing's happened to it. You still have the legal right to say whatever the heck you want.

Other people may throw punches at you, but we still have a legal system which will (attempt to) apprehend them and charge them with assault and throw them in prison for it.

If you're expecting people on the street to rush to your defense so you can spout hate speech, good luck with that. We, as a society, employ police and prosecutors and judges and corrections officers to hold the punchers accountable, and it's their job to deal with that. That's as far as we're going to go though. Just like I'm not going to get personally involved in a husband-and-wife squabble in public, and will leave the police to take care of that, I'm not risking myself for some neo-nazi either, and will leave the police to take care of that too. If some people decide to shoot the neo-nazi, there again I'll let the police take care of that. I really don't care about the neo-nazi and am not going to risk myself for him, the way I would for a group of innocent children being threatened by someone violent when a policeman isn't around.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Grishnakh]

why is everyone on the Left so violent?

It's not just the far left that's violent. The Bundy incidents have shown that the right wing is far more violent. When the leftists get violent in the US, some neo-nazis get punched, and some windows get broken, and there's some noisy protests. When right-wingers get violent, they organize into militias with heavy weaponry and take over public places at gunpoint.

Re:Some of the best satire

[RobotRunAmok]

Really? That young blonde girl getting pepper-sprayed in the Berkeley footage was a neo-Nazi? The owner of the Starbucks that had its windows smashed... he was a neo-Nazi too?? Man o man, California must be crawling with neo-Nazis! Who knew?

And Bundy was a cattle rancher who believed the government was taking his land. It was a legal property dispute, not an ideological debate. Most importantly, neither Bundy nor anyone who took up his cause hurt anyone or destroyed anything! You're just proving my point with that citation, son. Thanks for playing...

Re:Some of the best satire

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm quite sure Voltaire believed that humans were fundamentally good, and would never imagine that someone would stand up and deliberately spread lies and deceit. I'm very skeptical to him offering to fight to the death for the "right" to spread darkness instead of enlightenment.

I love how people think they can break the rules (deliberate lies and deceit, sorry, alternate facts isn't civilized behaviour), but still expect to receive all the benefits from them. Funny people.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Khyber]

"What happened to 'I may hate what you say, but i will defend to the DEATH your right to say it'."

The majority of you assholes just sit at your computers and do nothing effective, which eroded the shit out of our rights, so guess what only recourse is left for those that aren't sitting behind a keyboard?

Your 'words' sure haven't changed the direction this country was headed. Too bad you can't even think of something that logically simple.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."

Looks like the founders of this country had more brains than most of you sitting at your keyboards. They knew words weren't going to get your ass anywhere.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Khyber]

"Most importantly, neither Bundy nor anyone who took up his cause hurt anyone or destroyed anything!"

That's a lie as the next standoff proved, where they destroyed Indian artifacts. Keep on cherry-picking, though. I'll be right here to make sure you swallow the pit.

Re:Some of the best satire

[liquid_schwartz]

You mean like this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/a... Yet if I turn the tables and ask for a free space from black people then I'm a horrible racist. Another example is my Google search turned up a slew of "Dear White People" style articles. There's even a movie. These types of things are only directed at white people in general as all other people are protected classes. I wonder what would happen if there was an article like "Dear Black People, stop murdering at 7x the rate of everyone else" (fact if you're curious) or "Dear Gay people, stop adding ever more letters after your special interest groups". Hmm, probably would get called every bad name in the PC playbook. I'm a fairly simple person, one set of rules that everyone uses sounds pretty reasonable. If saying a given thing about one group would be racist then saying it about another should be held to that same standard.

Re:Some of the best satire

[david_thornley]

The Pope covered that a while back, in that, while you should never get punched, there are situations in which you can expect it.

Also, not all crime victims are sterling citizens. Some invite the crime to benefit from the results.

Re:Some of the best satire

[david_thornley]

I often state my opinions as fact because it's simpler that way. Even I sometimes feel the desire to eliminate meaningless words. If you don't agree with me, well, you're wrong, but other than that I don't see it's any big deal.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Anonymous Coward]

You really like beatings as a method of communication. Is your favorite leader Stalin or Mao?

Maybe it's this guy.

I heard a lot of people are inspired by him. Believe it or not, not everybody is an idiot, unfamiliar with the Bible.

There's even a movie.

There's another movie you should see.

Well, actually, it's a documentary about a movie.

Watch it, I dare you.

I wonder what would happen if there was an article like "Dear Black People, stop murdering at 7x the rate of everyone else" (fact if you're curious) or "Dear Gay people, stop adding ever more letters after your special interest groups".

There are dozens of those articles, some people make it a business to take advantage of the rich and prolific market for ears that want to hear that sort of thing. Yeah, sure you'd be competing with Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump, but there's plenty of business there.

You could write a book. Be famous. Do interviews. Rake in the dough. It's VERY popular.

Hmm, probably would get called every bad name in the PC playbook.

And? You'd get called every bad name in the anti-PC playbook if you wrote the opposite article. Call for reparations. Point out racism in the right-wing. Denounce conservative bullshit.

Watch the letters roll in. Death threats. Insults. Hate mail.

You could still make money though, it IS lucrative.

I'm a fairly simple person, one set of rules that everyone uses sounds pretty reasonable. If saying a given thing about one group would be racist then saying it about another should be held to that same standard.

That's cute. Too bad for you, the world is very complex, and its set of rules is very difficult to fathom. In fact, saying a given thing, doing a given thing, can be totally different, all depending on a variety of circumstances.

Sorry, you'll have to wise up. You've spent a long time in this thread playing your own "victim card" but I suspect you don't realize that the only people who validate it are the ones who have serious problems with their own conduct.

Robot Santa was a chump. And real St. Nicholas looked nothing like a certain Fox News personality purported.

Re:Some of the best satire

[RobotRunAmok]

Indian artifacts? Really? Well, gosh, I guess that makes everything even-Steven then, doesn't it...?

Re:Some of the best satire

[AutodidactLabrat]

In a nation of laws, students DO get to oust obnoxious hate-mongers and if they won't leave, use such force as necessary
No first amendment issues involved.
Too tough for you to grasp?

Re:Some of the best satire

[AutodidactLabrat]

Lie of course
NO censors involved, no censorship
There is NO government intrusion here, why lie about it?

Re:Some of the best satire

[Prien715]

How are the anti-Milo demonstrators any different than the anti-Westboro baptist church demonstrators that follow them around? Counterprotests are part of free speech too. And aside from black bloc, those Berkeley protesters was peaceful.

We never did figure out a way to make sure no one beat up Westboro Baptist Church, but if you've got an idea, I'm open to it. Just remember, you can't control the people who show up to protest with you -- that's part of freedom too.

Re:Some of the best satire

[danudwary]

OK. I'll stand corrected, if that's the case. He's said some provocative things about BLM, but that's not race per se. And I became familiar with him through a video in which he was pretty vicious to a transgender woman, but that's not sexual preference. My bad. I won't back down from his demonization of Islam or women, though.

Re:Some of the best satire

[eaglesrule]

I couldn't find any credible source for the destruction of indian artificts. Digging a shallow latrine pit does not count, nor does ruffling through some old forgotten box of junk in a basement.

What I find interesting though, is the shear zeal in which leftist media and bloggers bent over backwards to demonize the Bundys and their supporters, using tactics from race-baiting to ridiculing them over their religion. I don't have to share the occupiers ideology or approve of their tactics in order to observe the left's powerful smear machine operate at full force.

So when smug pedants like Khyber use a microscope to point out examples like that, while at the same time ignoring political rallies being shut down by violent (and organized) opposition 'protesters' and voters being filmed being dragged from their car and beaten over a bumper sticker, I always have to wonder at the source behind it.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Khyber]

"while at the same time ignoring political rallies being shut down by violent"

I'm not ignoring shit. When a smug assumptive shit like you starts talking about me like you fucking know me, I have to wonder what bullshit point you're trying to make and prove.

By the way, Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats, I hate you all. Given half a chance, I'd Nazi-punch every last one of you ignorant fucks into the ground.

Re: Some of the best satire

[kenai_alpenglow]

Then don't attend the speech. They probably think your words are also hate speech. By saying it's ok to punch someone you disagree with kinda proves their point.

Re: Some of the best satire

[Anonymous Coward]

That "free speech" that Milo was supposedly going to do was going to involve a lot of outing of, and inciting violence towards, students. Much like Milo does at many of his talks. Plus, an altcuck actually shot a leftie last time and got away with it. Lefties break things. Alt-righty-whities shoot people.

Those idiots in black masks probably prevented something even worse.

But I'm sure Milo will cry about how butthurt silenced he feels in his new book that you can pre-order right now at all good online outlets.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm quite sure Voltaire believed that humans were fundamentally good

Don't be. Voltaire wrote Candide, who famously believed that everything was for the best, as a satire. He was an often-bitter, sceptical man who supported individual freedom and free speech, but would certainly have cried foul at the malicious travesties spouted in the Jacobin newspapers, for example.

He was an anti-democrat, who believed that strong leaders were necessary to good governance. Catherine the Great of Russia was a longtime correspondent of his. He was anti-Christian... and anti-Muslim, and anti-Judaism.

He also hated intolerance in all its forms. I don't doubt for a second that Voltaire would have been there in Berkeley demonstrating against Milo, while at the same time decrying anyone who advocated violence against him.

Re: Some of the best satire

[Pseudonym]

The fear was that Milo was going to do exactly what he said he'd do: out, and incite violence towards, undocumented immigrant students all behind a thin veil of implausible deniability.

If he had any balls he'd post it on Breitbart where he risks getting sued out of existence (like Gawker) if any of his "speech" about those students is factually incorrect.

Re: Some of the best satire

[Pseudonym]

Seriously, what could Milo have possibly said that would have justified this idiocy?

Based on everything he said in the previous week, it's pretty clear that he was going to out students he thought were undocumented immigrants. And if this went the same way as it did the last time he outed trans students, he knew full well that he would be inciting violence against those students.

Vigilantism breeds vigilantism, basically.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

I won't back down from his demonization of Islam or women, though.

And there's no reason you should; that's certainly on the record and really easy to verify. I could also definitely see him being transphobic, so that's something you could add in for various reasons to dislike him.

Re:Some of the best satire

[shutdown -p now]

It does not mean that if you speak Nazi-like remarks that you won't get a fist thrown at you.

You don't get to be free from the consequences of punching someone, either. That's usually known as "assault", and if you actually manage to hit them, "battery" - and is a crime.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Coren22]

When you demonize a whole group of people as "know nothings" I have to say that it is very likely you are the ignorant one.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Coren22]

There are civilized responses that can be made instead of resorting to barbarism, you could start by using your own free speech to point out the intellectual errors in the other person's speech, and explain why the thought processes involved are somehow wrong.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Coren22]

So, you are trying to equate being male to being violent? Isn't that kind of sexist?

Re:Some of the best satire

[Coren22]

I find that comparison interesting. Can you please point to the people who were injured in the Bundy incident? Can you point to the property destroyed/damaged in the Bundy incident?

Re:Some of the best satire

[Coren22]

But, that is not what the protesters were saying. They were calling for his speech to be banned by the government (Berkeley is the government, being a public university), for being insensitive. This is wrong, it isn't speaking against his speech, but trying to prevent him from saying it. Do you see the difference?

Re:Some of the best satire

[Grishnakh]

There's plenty of reports of them bulldozing over sacred burial grounds while they were there. But obviously no one got hurt by them, but they really were treated with kid-gloves for some reason; if it had been a group of black militants carrying rifles, do you really think it would have gone so well for them? They should have been dealt with by a military commando team and shot on sight. Armed takeover of federal land is a treasonous offense.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Coren22]

Do you have a citation for this bulldozing event? I never heard anything about this.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Coren22]

I was not able to find any MSM citations for what you talked about, so I looked at Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

During the occupation, the militants illegally dug a new road using a government-owned excavator, expanded a parking lot, dug trenches, destroyed part of a USFWS-owned fence, and removed security cameras.[106][202] Some of the refuge's pipes broke, after which the militants, officials said, defecated "everywhere."[200] Investigators found "significant amounts of human feces" at "two large trenches and an improvised road on or adjacent to grounds containing sensitive artifacts" of the Burns Paiute Tribe.[203] A USFWS spokesperson said that the damage risked "the destruction and desecration of culturally significant Native American sites" and called it "disgusting, ghoulish behavior."[106] The Burns Paiute Tribe condemned the damage;[204] tribal council member Jarvis Kennedy described it as if "someone went to Arlington National Cemetery and went to the bathroom on the graves and rode a bulldozer over them."[205] Two of the militants, Sean Larry Anderson and Jake Edward Ryan, were subsequently indicted for "depredation of government property," an offense that carries a potential ten-year jail sentence.[182][206]

It sounds like you are confusing two separate incidents. They used a bulldozer to expand the parking lot and to dig trenches; and they defecated in a ditch and along a road that goes through the burial site (after the plumbing broke). It does not say that they used the bulldozer to make the road through the site, but that there was a road there.

Re:Some of the best satire

[Grishnakh]

Here's an NPR article that mentions it:

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/27/...

"When the occupiers took over the refuge last January, the Burns Paiute people watched in dismay. Ancient artifacts stored there were handled and moved. At one point the militants bulldozed through sacred burial grounds while trying to build a road."

you got that right

[Anonymous Coward]

> crazed liberal snowflakes and the persecution complex on the right

The liberal snowflakes make far more noise than their numbers would suggest. The persecuted righties far outnumber them. Both camps are annoying purity trolls and [FLAME BAIT] there are disturbing elements of truth floating around both their commodes of discourse.

Re:you got that right

[Opportunist]

And why do we actually give any limelight to those idiots? Ignore both groups 'til they learned that they are actually insignificant and utterly meaningless to 99% of the people out there.

Telling Real News From Fake News

[Anonymous Coward]

Headlines for all real news articles need to be appended with the phrase, 'NO BULLSHIT!' That should settle the matter once and for all.

Borowitz has been fooling people for years

[damn_registrars]

Back in 2013 I knew someone who was 100% convinced that Obama called Putin a jackass in public. I don't suspect that Borowitz was actually trying to fool anyone with this, but the distortion was so high for some people at the time that they would believe almost anything that was damning about the POTUS.

Re:Borowitz has been fooling people for years

[tomhath]

Obama called Putin a jackass in public

That was in response to Putin stealing Michelle Obama's engagement ring.

I you like your satire, you can keep your satire.

[Anonymous Coward]

I you like your satire, you can keep your satire.

Those of us with broader and more inclusive minds will say "no thank you" to your attempts to femsplain the overton window.

Trump, Umberto Eco, Ur-fascism

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler breathed air. You breathe air. Therefore you are literally Hitler. [...]

First, I think you need to look up the definition of the word "literally" (though I heard it has changed recently). Unless there's been a break through in human cloning.

Second, there is a point to be made about fascism more generally:

When Italian author Umberto Eco wrote “Ur-Fascism” for The New York Review of Books in 1995, he sought to give the world a guide to recognize the ideology when it reared its ugly head again. [...]

For Eco, fascism wasn’t a concrete political system, but a collection of behaviors that, taken together, forged something vile. “Fascism was a fuzzy totalitarianism,” he wrote. “A collage of different philosophical and political ideas, a beehive of contradictions.”

Fascism adapts and changes, but some things remain constant. [...]

Despite the fuzzy nature of fascism, it does have features that distinguish it from other political ideologies. Eco described them in his essay. Trumpism lines up with all 14 of Eco’s features of eternal fascism.

* https://warisboring.com/yes-trump-is-a-fascist-heres-the-checklist-1920ad4d8163
* http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

Re: I continued on

[hackwrench]

I continued on to point out that none of the other things that it was mentioned that Hitler did were of the things that were clearly wrong.

Sheer Volume of Cruft

[Lodragandraoidh]

Imagine if you will, a haystack. That haystack represents all the 'information' flowing from various 'news' sources on the Internet. Inside of that haystack are needles - that represent stories about the Trump administration: several gold needles - real news stories, several silver needles - bona fide comedic satire, and rusty needles which appear to be real news stories - but are fake...click bait and possible propaganda.

People are so overloaded with the cruft coming inbound from so many sources, some of this being retweeted or relinked stories (facebook) - they are losing track of what is real and what is not. It becomes even more difficult when news outlets that are ostensibly real, end up addressing the fake stories as well - either through mistakes and presenting as real news, or to debunk. Ultimately it is a news blitz caused by the confluence of a number of things: Trump's propensity to tweet and countertweet, his administration's rate of deployment of changes, confusion about sharing information from the administration (mixed messages), overlayed with all the satire and click bait.

Clearly indicating what is and is not satire will go a long way to avoiding satire bubbling up through multiple layers as true news stories.

His history and actions say otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't actually think that Trump is a white nationalist, but it's a little weird that he hangs out with and is so chummy with people who are.

His past discrimination against blacks in housing, his treatment of our first black president (the "birther" nonsense), and, as you noted, the company he keeps, all suggest otherwise. Actions speak louder than words, and all his actions indicate deep misogyny and racism at the very least, and are very suggestive that he is, in fact, a white supremacist.

Re:His history and actions say otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

And how does setting the number of refugees from any other country than these 7 jibe with this 'white supremacist' narrative of yours? A number roughly equivalent to the majority of Obama's reign.

Seriously, 'picking & choosing' those actions that support your narrative but ignoring others just so you can lob epithets at someone to make yourself feel better doesn't take any level of intelligent thought.

I died at the Bowling Green Massacre

[WillAffleckUW]

Along with most of the cavalry in the First Unicorn Brigade.

Cry for me, America!

Cry for all the rainbow unicorns who died that day!

#NeverRemember

Re: Whoosh!

[hackwrench]

I was attempting to illustrate that his assertions were as nonsensical as the assertions I made and were similar to something out of the mind of someone who would say unironicly, "literally Hitler".

Re: similar

[hackwrench]

All people come to power using questionable means. The means Hitler used to come to power has more to do with the nature of the ganeral tools of rising to power than it does about the general outcome of the situation after any given person rises to power.

Shit or get off the pot, you coward

[Anonymous Coward]

On April 28, 1945, the Italian people killed their fascist leader and then desecrated his corpse in a public square.

As if you got the balls

A Message to the Angry Leftists from an American Infantryman

...

I see you there, in Portland In Chicago In San Francisco In Bumfuck Directional School Liberal Arts College You’re having your temper tantrums because ever since mommy dropped you off at Daycare 20 years ago you’ve been throwing them to get your way. Now you’re super pissed about the results of a presidential election where the other guy (and the only guy in the race for that matter) won.

...

I also know you’re a coward.

I know this because you keep screaming, and blogging, and protesting, and even rioting but you won’t start this “uprising” you keep going on and on about. If you really believe that your cause is just, that the majority supports you, and that the United States needs to be overthrown to make way for your Progressive social utopia of sunshine and free shit pick up a gun and start your revolution like every other communist group in history. See, I come from an organization that spent the better part of the last century training to fight a bunch of little commie heathens, and I have a pretty healthy respect for any Ivan who was willing to pick up an AK47 and parachute onto the continent ready to overthrow the USA. That takes some guts. You’re not like him though. You’re quite different actually. Ivan was in shape. You’re a bunch of ‘fat acceptance’ advocates who complain airline seats are too small for your 9,000 calories per day diet. Ivan was a proud masculine man. You have drag queens and fat feminist women with green hair. Ivan grew up mining coal and hunting wolves in the Urals. You want socialism because you’re upset that you can’t get a 6-figure job at age 24 with the bullshit arts degree you spent all that loan money on and haven’t done a day of physical labor in your life. Ivan was a veteran of Stalingrad, Afghanistan, and a dozen bush wars. You think “Call of Duty” is too violent and sexist. Ivan packed an AK47 and knew how to use it. Those among you leftists now who even have weapons ditch them after you rob the liquor store or 7/11 and go hide out at your aunt’s Section 8 housing. You don’t have the discipline Ivan did, at least he used the sights. Ivan killed jihadists by the thousands. You make excuses for them and want to invite them into our country.

... You keep saying you want a revolution, secession, a new Civil War and the election of “Racist/sexist/homophobic/Republican/Nazi/xenophobic/dictator/Islamophobic/rich guy asshole” Donald Trump is the catalyst for you to take action and destroy every evil you perceive this country to stand for

Well We’re waiting. Shit or get off the pot.

Well, PopeRatzo...

SHIT OR GET OFF THE POT

Do it. Grow a pair. REALLY fight for what you feel is right and what you claim everyone else wants.

Or just STFU.

Intolerant Liberals

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do the liberals hate gays so much?

It seems every time a gay speaks up for Trump (Milo or Thiel) or any other Republican they are the most evil person on the planet, according to liberals.
Are liberals the most intolerant people in the country? Seems that way with how I see them treating gays.

Man...

[ckatko]

Man... Slashdotters can't congratulate themselves enough on their witty Trump bashes.

Too bad they were too busy to do something that actually matters, like vote again him in the general elections.

Keep them zingers comin'!

Re:Man...

[stinerman]

Alas, my state does not allow me to register a vote against a candidate. Only for one.

Please put down your KoolAid and re-enter reality

[LeftCoastThinker]

First, to all the liberal progressive mods, if you are so right in your beliefs, write a post and show where I am wrong. -1 Overrated is not your personal censorship tool for views you disagree with. You are supposed to champion tolerance of others, live it. I am not a huge fan of Trump, I voted against him in the primary, but as a rational human being, the cognitive dissonance from the progressive left wing is too massive to let go unchallenged.

So Trump upholds the constitution, appoints a constructionist supreme court judge who will protect the constitution and bill of rights as written (not an activist judge who believes that the constitution can mean whatever the hell he wants it to), and you are comparing him to Hitler? You are taking the few good things that Hitler did for the Germans, like building roads and airports (many other good leaders have also built roads and airports for their countries the world over) and using that as justification to compare Trump to Hitler? By your logic Dwight D. Eisenhower was just like Hitler, because he championed the US interstate freeway system. Please tell me you are not really this stupid?

Take a look at the list of actions he has taken thus far and tell me which ones have hurt you (not traumatized you emotionally based on Democrat demagoguery). Which of these actions send brown shirts to your house in the middle of the night? Which ones force everyone to like Trump (have you turned on a TV in the last year, hatred for Trump is on 90% of the channels), or outlaw a religion (as far as I know, only the progressive left and Obama tried to attack freedom of religion by forcing Little Sisters of the Poor to support abortion and Christian bakers to support homosexual marriages or lose their business). (It is interesting that this was not tried with a Muslim bakery, I wonder why). Which executive actions authorize incarceration of innocent people? (Sorry, illegal aliens are criminals, by entering the country without permission they have committed a crime, no mater how hard you wish that were not the case.)

Trump has signed executive orders to:
- Kill TPP
- Protecting LGBT from workplace discrimination
- Banned fed officials from becoming lobbyists for 5 years
- Lifetime ban on WH officials becoming lobbyists for foreign countries
- 120 day travel ban (not permaban) on visitors from terrorist hotbeds (Obama banned travelers/refugees from the same countries for 6 months after they found to terrorists had made it through the vetting process)
- Authorized the border "wall" that democrats voted for many years ago but never funded, a wall similar to walls all non-island nations have to protect their borders. Check out how Mexico treats illegal entry at it's southern border.
- Approved the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, so you don't have to pay $4/gal for gas like you did under Obama, which was essentially a tax on poor working people who have to commute longer on average

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

If popular support for unpermitted immigration was so high, progressives could easily change the laws to eliminate our borders completely, but only the loonytoon left wants that. Every country must control its borders. The US still allows over 1,000,000 immigrants a year, the most immigrants of any nation on the planet. Australia won't accept any illegal immigrants and it takes its illegal immigrants and detains them indefinitely on an island with conditions so bad that they are setting themselves on fire. (But there is no moral outrage on the left for this apparently, only that Trump doesn't want to take in potential terrorists that Australia doesn't want).

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

Hardcore Islam is at war with America, we for

Is it too soon?

[Patent Lover]

Is it too soon to talk about the Bowling Green Massacre? So many lives lost. Trump will avenge us.

Re:Is it too soon?

[Lodragandraoidh]

Kellyanne said she meant to say Bowling Green Tourists .

Re:Is it too soon?

[david_thornley]

Way too soon to talk about it. We need to wait until it happens.

Russia has the Trump stopper

[Anonymous Coward]

One pee pee tape goes a long way to prevent history from repeating itself.

Re: similar

[thegarbz]

All people come to power using questionable means.

Neither Hitler nor Trump came to power using questionable means. The only thing questionable is the result of their actions [long] after they came to power.

Re:Please put down your KoolAid and re-enter reali

[david_thornley]

So Trump upholds the constitution,

Sweeping assertion with no support whatsoever. If any part of his business empire does business with foreign or domestic governments, he's violating the Constitution. (This doesn't apply to foreign private citizens or corporations, although a state-owned corporation probably counts as government). He's awfully secretive about his finances for a guy who didn't put his assets in a blind trust.

appoints a constructionist supreme court judge who will protect the constitution and bill of rights as written

Hint: The Supreme Court nominee $YOU agree with is going to protect and enforce the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The one #YOU disagree with will trample on it. A casual statement like yours strongly suggests that you're being highly partisan.

Take a look at the list of actions he has taken thus far and tell me which ones have hurt you

I'm a white cis straight upper-middle-class male of northwest European descent and Protestant heritage. Aside from screwing things up in general, Trump's not going to hurt me any time soon. However, I'm of the "First they came for the Muslims, and I said 'Not this time, motherfucker!'" persuasion.

Which of these actions send brown shirts to your house in the middle of the night?

Um, you do realize that Hitler took some time to consolidate power, don't you? Trump's been in office two weeks, and the situations are somewhat different.

Which executive actions authorize incarceration of innocent people?

So you're telling me that legitimate visa holders from all countries were allowed to leave the airport and go about their business? A person from the Middle East with a US visa has been vetted up the wazoo already.

120 day travel ban (not permaban) on visitors from terrorist hotbeds (Obama banned travelers/refugees from the same countries for 6 months after they found to terrorists had made it through the vetting process)

Odd that no citizen of any of the listed countries has killed anyone in a terrorist act in the US, then, while citizens of similar countries not on the list have. Also, Obama delayed the granting of visas. He didn't suddenly arbitrarily and possibly illegally block normal entry into the US of people who had visas.

If popular support for unpermitted immigration

Which has nothing to do with Trump's actions, since every person he barred entry has been checked thoroughly and found not to be a significant threat - otherwise, they wouldn't have visas.

Hardcore Islam is at war with America

That's cute. This is a great country, regardless of what Trump says. We'll deal with hardcore Islamists pretty much as we like until one of them manages to kill almost as many people as die in accidents in about a month, and then they'll find out that the US isn't weak at all. Osama bin Laden got our attention, and we invaded his refuge country and eventually hunted him down and killed him. Al-Qaida was mostly ineffective until we invaded Iraq and revitalized them. This is what a great terrorist success looks like: you get your organization trashed, and you hide for as many years as you can while the US hunts you down like a dog. Lucky guys.

We are America and we have our own culture and when you come to America, we expect you to become an American, not some hyphenated class who enjoys the economic benefits and peace while still wishing you were in your homeland.

Have you ever looked at any history of immigration? This is how it's always worked. There's a lot of nationalities that have been assimilated, but that's because they've been here for generations. We'll assimilate the Arabs just like we assimila

BETER Satire maybe?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just read the one about the AG being fired for having a copy of the Constitution, its NOT good satire...Satire should be funny AND make a VALID point potentially pointing out the absurdity of the REAL situation.

Reading this hit piece you'd be expected to believe that Trump's firing of his AG was over a 'trivial' issue and/or 'just wrong'.

Whatever you believe about Trump's immigration Executive Order the firing of the AG was PROPER. If I go against my bosses wishes I fully expect to be fired, end of story.

The ONLY people who can decide if something is 'constitutional' or not is the Supreme Court. And the ONLY person who can decide if an EO is 'good for the country' or 'proper' such that it be followed by the President's employees is the PRESIDENT.

A PROPER satire column would have been 'AG fires Trump because he ignored her feelings about the color pink.' or some such thing. Of course this would be immediately seen as 'satire' NOT 'false news' because nobody would believe that the AG could fire the President nor even something as trivial as the color 'pink' but rather that the AG had no right to impose her 'feelings' in to this in the first place.

You want to write satire then write good satire & everyone will be able to distinguish it easily from 'fake news'. You want to right a 'hit piece' & pass it off as satire then find a different job.

Re: disastrous results

[hackwrench]

I suppose if you're the guy's wife. Otherwise nothing really changes. My life hasn't really changed all that much the 40-odd years I've lived it.

So enlighten me..

[Anonymous Coward]

Who are these all knowing guardians of REALITY? Is it Big brother? It scares me when all these mindless drones start there liitle s-r response confirmation bs. Its Ok guys you CAN think differently. What's that you scared to stand out awwww. Ok here go back to abusing trump, or anyone you disagrees with you by calling them Hitler. Does it make you feel better? Now vote for some war mongering cunt who will make plenty of dead and displaced people. Great job done you are a true hero and defender of reality.

Mods please rate incorrect posts no higher than +4

[Anonymous Coward]

>(You won't find them on any news site I've found, including CNN, FOX or MSNBC, but you will find a LOT of commentary about them..)

You can find the text of executive orders on several news sites. I Googled "executive order" and "text of executive order" and sites include Yahoo News, Business Insider, and The New York Times.

"Below you'll find the full text"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pre...

"You can read the full text of the executive order below"
http://www.businessinsider.com...

"The full text can be found here"
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

Re:Please put down your KoolAid and re-enter reali

[LeftCoastThinker]

Trumps pick for supreme court is down the line constructionist. You may disagree with constructionist judges, but that is a fact that no one is disputing, unless you are a fringe lunatic. That means he will protect the constitution as written, and as Trump nominated him, that means Trump is also a constructionist. That may mean that imaginary/pulled out of the ass rights like abortion go away unless progressives can get actual laws passed, which is the way that it is supposed to work in our democracy: Legislature passes laws/amendments and the courts interpret them... (see all the other laws and constitutional amendments ever.) I happen to like the plain language of the constitution, progressives have hated parts of it (freedom of religions that they disagree with, freedom of speech they disagree with, right to bear arms by people other than themselves/their bodyguards) and have consistently tried to end run around the constitution by placing activist judges who pull shit out of their ass in their rulings instead of reading the words on the page and doing their job of interpreting them.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfro...

Regarding immigration, the countries temporarily barred from entry have internal records/vetting problems that make the investigations around the visa granting process uncertain (basically all Obama was doing was getting them in a room and asking them if they were a terrorist... obviously they are going to lie if they are).

Furthermore, if you were telling the truth, you would not call it a Muslim ban because there are still dozens of other Muslim countries that are allowed to come and go in the US with a valid visa. It is a ban on immigration from unstable Muslim countries with active terrorism and conditions which make normal visa vetting processes less reliable. The current visa vetting process was not even able to review social media postings of visa candidates (as of the date of the San Bernadino massacre), and consisted primarily of what the home country had in it's records, combined with an interview which consisted of an investigator asking the candidate if they were a terrorist... not exactly up the wazoo as you call it... Further, waiting to get hit with a terrorist attack is what the Clinton and Obama administration did. The current administration does not find it acceptable to wait until American blood runs in the streets to take action. If you can't understand that, I can't help you. The 9-11 attack that Osama Bin Laden perpetrated on the US cost about $3.3 trillion when you take into account the lost productivity of everyone who died, all the added security, lost productivity etc. It would have cost the US a few billion dollars to better screen immigrants from Muslim countries and deny the 911 hijackers entry in the first place.

As far as assimilation goes, it worked in the past because for the most part our immigrants were from European countries who all had similar values. Islam is not just a backwards, violent religion, it is also a form of government, known as Sharia. It is medieval and is fascist, and it supports some very heinous and illegal things such as subjugation of women, rape, statutory rape, honor killings, murder of homosexuals, and the list goes on. It is fundamentally incompatible with our western values and constitution and no amount of time will make it compatible.

Regarding terrorism vs mental illness, those are just the facts. Dont act like a smart ass and then provide zero facts to support any other conclusion. The last real non-Muslim terrorist attack that we had in the US was the Oklahoma Federal building in 1995 in direct response to the murder of over 80 people including women and children at the Branch Dividian compound in Waco, Texas by Janet Reno and the FBI. Every mass casualty event since then has either been driven by Islam or mental illness.