Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Then what terms can be used to describe the unsubtle takeover by an authoritarian if we can't use the word "authoritarian"? What word means the same but is inoffensive?
You've chosen to not answer the question I asked. It was a sincere question - I still hope you will answer it.Okay, and nobody is disputing this.
McChrystal was pressured to resign for insubordination, particularly for insulting the VP, and also in a dispute on how the was in Afghanistan should be conducted. Obama allowed him to retain his rank in retirement even though he had not held it for the requisite time before retirement. Gen. Mattis is from Trump's first term - I'm not sure of the relevance here?
Sure, not necessarily, but purging the top brass of the military in one swell foop for ideological rather than for military reasons is leaning rather heavily into whatever term you want to substitute.
www.theglobalist.com
Agree, totally.
Firing the head of BLS for reporting numbers he found unfavorable does fit the description of fascist behavior - she was not fired for any wrongdoing but for intimidation of current and future bureaucrats. There were also the mass firings of government workers without regard for performance or for regulations, not for efficiency, but for consolidation of his own power. He also dismantled agencies set up by Congress, which his job was to oversee, not take over.
Most of what comes our of the White House now is an insult to intelligence. It is all so unbelievable.
And MAGA is glutting like ants sucking down Terro.
Also, there is his deploying the military on "enemy" cities, i.e. Democratic run cities, allowing masked men to kidnap people off the streets, deporting people to war zones and concentration camp-like prisons (CECOT), demanding tributes from corporations such as Paramount, demanding private law firms to donate their services on his behalf, demanding a piece of ownership of private companies in exchange for their being able to conduct business internationally, directing investigations and prosecutions against his perceived enemies, interfering with the running and administration of private universities, undermining the judicial system by appointing ill-qualified DAs and going after judges, enriching himself and his family through his office - that's all just off the top of my head.
Left-wing Propoganda. Hey, you asked the question.
What is your goal? If your objective is to call President Trump names like fascist, dictator, or authoritarian, then go ahead and continue doing so.
Oh well, meanwhile....
Okay, and nobody is disputing this.
McChrystal was pressured to resign for insubordination, particularly for insulting the VP, and also in a dispute on how the was in Afghanistan should be conducted. Obama allowed him to retain his rank in retirement even though he had not held it for the requisite time before retirement. Gen. Mattis is from Trump's first term - I'm not sure of the relevance here?
Sure, not necessarily, but purging the top brass of the military in one swell foop for ideological rather than for military reasons is leaning rather heavily into whatever term you want to substitute.
Trump's Ultimate Power Grab: Purging the U.S. Military - The Globalist
In the ultimate power grab, the U.S. President wants to use the U.S. Army as his personal police force.On the evening of Friday, February 21, Trump abruptly fired Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., the head of the Air Force and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.Trump also fired five other senior Pentagon officials, including:– Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to lead the Navy.– Gen. James Slife, the vice chief of the Air Force.– The top lawyers for the Army, Navy and Air Force.Just getting started...Firing the military’s top lawyers is also profoundly troubling, because they advise the armed forces on whether the President’s orders are lawful, or not. The President will presumably replace them with the kind of lackeys he has installed in the Department of Justice.This is a profound, extraordinary shake-up of the U.S. military establishment.
Gen. Charles Q. Brown:
Although Hegseth had been meeting regularly with Brown since the former Fox News host took over the top Pentagon job last month, he had openly questioned whether Brown had been named chair because he was Black. “Was it because of his skin color? Or his skill? We’ll never know, but always doubt – which on its face seems unfair to CQ. But since he has made the race card one of his biggest calling cards, it doesn’t really much matter,” Hegseth wrote in one of his books.Brown had been praised, including by Time, for breaking racial barriers in the military and for his “warfighter” credentials. When he was sworn in as the air force chief of staff in 2020, during the first Trump administration, Brown acknowledged previous US military service members who had been denied advancement because of their race, Time reported. “It is due to their trials and tribulations in breaking barriers that I can address you today as the air force chief of staff,” Brown said....{Brown's replacement, Dan Caine's] military service includes combat roles in Iraq, special operations postings and positions inside some of the Pentagon’s most classified special access programs. However, it does not include key assignments that were identified in law as prerequisites for the job, with an exemption for the president to waive them if necessary in times of national interest.The 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act states that to be qualified, a chair must have served previously as either the vice-chair, as a combatant commander or a service chief – but that requirement could be waived if the “president determines such action is necessary in the national interest”.What was the national interest beyond Trump's personal preference? The top women fired appear to have been fired for their gender.
Agree, totally.
Firing the head of BLS for reporting numbers he found unfavorable does fit the description of fascist behavior - she was not fired for any wrongdoing but for intimidation of current and future bureaucrats. There were also the mass firings of government workers without regard for performance or for regulations, not for efficiency, but for consolidation of his own power. He also dismantled agencies set up by Congress, which his job was to oversee, not take over.
But, once more, what term means autocratic, Banana Republic-like but is inoffensive enough to be used in this discussion?
How do you propose we talk about the President's actions then? I hope we can all agree that his actions are - collectively - unprecedented and appear to be calculated to push and expand the limits of Presidential power. Once we get past that point though, where does the conversation go? What are the implications of what he's doing (or trying to do)?
It's been over a hundred years since we've had a real, active president. This is what it's like.
So if you honestly think Trump is an authoritarian you should just keep quiet instead of explaining yourself?
No, my goal in pointing out these very alarming things he's doing is to talk about where he is going with this.
Which is why I asked what the acceptable term is to discuss these things. This makes the third time I've asked without getting anywhere.
Calvin Coolidge? I don't recall that he deployed the military against US civilians,
If you don't want to hear negative yet valid things, the problem is you. Disagreeing with facts is weird. Of course, you may disagree with the analysis, what it means, and that is worth discussing, but simply dismissing facts (fake news! alternate facts!) seems like willful ignorance.
Do you believe “pointing out these very alarming things he's doing” is working? Americans who support President Trump hear him being labeled as a dictator, does it influence them to reconsider their support or work with Democrats to alter the direction of the country?
Not sure how that relates to what I said.
Again I ask you, how should we be talking about it? Saying "You're doing it wrong!" without offering an alternative or a solution is not helpful or productive.
I don't think that labelling Donald Trump is the root of the problems facing the Democratic Party. The disconnect with the voting public seems to largely be tied to the economy and "culture war" issues, and their poor messaging on those fronts. They've also had difficulty with developing candidates since Obama.
I don't think that, at this point, anyone who can seriously look at what Trump has done and is doing and not see that he's a problem could ever possibly be persuaded to support or work with Democrats. This isn't necessarily about specific policies or actions, but the collection of the whole as well as the man. Even if you agree with the idea that, for example, we need to drastically reduce illegal immigration and get rid of illegal immigrants already in the country, it's pretty clear that the way that Trump is going about doing it and the rhetoric that he and his administration are using are not good. And if you can't see that, and you think that everything he's doing is perfectly reasonable, I don't see any point in trying to change your mind at this juncture.
