Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Are you folks really listening?



"Decius takes perverse pride in having been late to come around to Trump; as a populist, he likes the fact that everyday American voters recognized Trump’s potential before he did. When Decius started paying serious attention, around January, he discerned the outlines of a simple and, in his view, eminently sensible political program: “less foreign intervention, less trade, and more immigration restrictions.” Decius cited, as one unlikely precursor, the 2004 Presidential campaign of Dick Gephardt, the Democratic congressman, who ran as a fierce opponent of nafta and other free-trade agreements. (During one debate, Gephardt argued, “We have jobs leaving South Carolina, North Carolina, Missouri—my home state—that originally went to Mexico; they’re now going from Mexico to China, because they can get the cheapest labor in the world in China.”) In his “Flight 93” essay, Decius called Trump “the most liberal Republican nominee since Thomas Dewey,” and he didn’t mean it as an insult. Trump argues that the government should do more to insure that workers have good jobs, speaks very little about religious imperatives, and excoriates the war in Iraq and wars of occupation in general. Decius says that he isn’t concerned about Trump’s seeming fondness for Russia; in his view, thoughtless provocations would be much more dangerous. In his telling, Trump is a political centrist who is misconstrued as an extremist."


A long read...but a good one.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/ ... -for-trump

I read this. Less lefty snark than usual from The New Yorker. It always puzzles me why political writers insist on trying to make an ideology out of random policy provisions. Trump may be remaking the Republican Party -- which, like the Democratic Party, will say and do anything to stay in power -- but he's not remaking conservatism. "Trumpism" could be called "Mussolini-ism" because of its statism, its national greatness overtones, its emphasis on huge public works projects, and political "strongman" hero worship.

Ivytalk wrote:I read this. Less lefty snark than usual from The New Yorker. It always puzzles me why political writers insist on trying to make an ideology out of random policy provisions. Trump may be remaking the Republican Party -- which, like the Democratic Party, will say and do anything to stay in power -- but he's not remaking conservatism. "Trumpism" could be called "Mussolini-ism" because of its statism, its national greatness overtones, its emphasis on huge public works projects, and political "strongman" hero worship.

Talk about lefty snark!

But I agree.

Ivytalk wrote:I read this. Less lefty snark than usual from The New Yorker. It always puzzles me why political writers insist on trying to make an ideology out of random policy provisions. Trump may be remaking the Republican Party -- which, like the Democratic Party, will say and do anything to stay in power -- but he's not remaking conservatism. "Trumpism" could be called "Mussolini-ism" because of its statism, its national greatness overtones, its emphasis on huge public works projects, and political "strongman" hero worship.

Fascism is so 1920s.

Ivytalk wrote:I read this. Less lefty snark than usual from The New Yorker. It always puzzles me why political writers insist on trying to make an ideology out of random policy provisions. Trump may be remaking the Republican Party -- which, like the Democratic Party, will say and do anything to stay in power -- but he's not remaking conservatism. "Trumpism" could be called "Mussolini-ism" because of its statism, its national greatness overtones, its emphasis on huge public works projects, and political "strongman" hero worship.

So Trumpism/Mussolini-ism is a non-belligerent Fascism

Fascism without the military adventures is not something we've seen before

CID1990 wrote:
So Trumpism/Mussolini-ism is a non-belligerent Fascism

Fascism without the military adventures is not something we've seen before

Fascism is a tough term that noone agrees on... so, you may not consider Franco to have been fascist...

but, he was a fascist with a pretty non-belligerent foreign policy, imo. At least for the first couple of decades..

CID1990 wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:I read this. Less lefty snark than usual from The New Yorker. It always puzzles me why political writers insist on trying to make an ideology out of random policy provisions. Trump may be remaking the Republican Party -- which, like the Democratic Party, will say and do anything to stay in power -- but he's not remaking conservatism. "Trumpism" could be called "Mussolini-ism" because of its statism, its national greatness overtones, its emphasis on huge public works projects, and political "strongman" hero worship.

So Trumpism/Mussolini-ism is a non-belligerent Fascism

Fascism without the military adventures is not something we've seen before

We dropped bombs in at least half a dozen countries last year, none of whom we're at war with. That number doesn't seem likely to get smaller.

CID1990 wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:I read this. Less lefty snark than usual from The New Yorker. It always puzzles me why political writers insist on trying to make an ideology out of random policy provisions. Trump may be remaking the Republican Party -- which, like the Democratic Party, will say and do anything to stay in power -- but he's not remaking conservatism. "Trumpism" could be called "Mussolini-ism" because of its statism, its national greatness overtones, its emphasis on huge public works projects, and political "strongman" hero worship.

So Trumpism/Mussolini-ism is a non-belligerent Fascism

Fascism without the military adventures is not something we've seen before

So what will turn out to be Trump's Ethiopia? Mussolini couldn't beat anyone else.

Ivytalk wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
So Trumpism/Mussolini-ism is a non-belligerent Fascism

Fascism without the military adventures is not something we've seen before

So what will turn out to be Trump's Ethiopia? Mussolini couldn't beat anyone else.

Who did Obomba beat? Qadaffi? Big deal. Obomba couldn't even beat Assad.

Who did Bush beat? Saddam? Big deal.

And how did those events turn out?

A flood of refugees.

Win?

Cluck U wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: So what will turn out to be Trump's Ethiopia? Mussolini couldn't beat anyone else.

Who did Obomba beat? Qadaffi? Big deal. Obomba couldn't even beat Assad.

Who did Bush beat? Saddam? Big deal.

And how did those events turn out?

A flood of refugees.

Win?

Irony. Learn it.

Ivytalk wrote:

Cluck U wrote:
Who did Obomba beat? Qadaffi? Big deal. Obomba couldn't even beat Assad.

Who did Bush beat? Saddam? Big deal.

And how did those events turn out?

A flood of refugees.

Win?

Irony. Learn it.

My bad.

I forgot you are retired...I thought you were still litigating.

...is a clueless, mentally ill buffoon.

And now he's our President.

Cluck U wrote:

Ivytalk wrote: Irony. Learn it.

My bad.

I forgot you are retired...I thought you were still litigating.

You know, I don't miss the practice of law one bit. I've been retired less than a month, and I'm having fun and learning something new every day.

I just wish I hadn't made that foolish New Year's resolution to stay out of JSO's grill.