Per wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:49 am Danes are really pissed off by Fox network's fake news lies about Denmark:
https://www.thelocal.dk/20180814/comple ... -broadside
The danes responded with facts:
Moderator: Referees
Per wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 10:49 am Danes are really pissed off by Fox network's fake news lies about Denmark:
https://www.thelocal.dk/20180814/comple ... -broadside
He hasn’t yet. But he has expressed wishes to do so. It could stem more from a lack of understanding of the American constitution than a genuine agenda, but still. He is constantly challenging the freedom of the press, and has suggested changing libel laws so that more journalists would go to jail. He is frequently showing contempt for the judiciary branch, and has stated that a judge, born and raised in the USA but with a Hispanic name, could not give him a fair trial. He has suggested that it is treasonous to not applaud when he speaks. He is very impressed by dictators and how much their people loves them. He wants more military parades. He is sending out very strong signals that - at least here in Europe - make people think of Mussolini and other fascist leaders. He has fired one FBI director for investigating the Russia link, and he has talked of firing Mueller as well.UWSaint wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:22 pmTrump is not dismantling liberal democracy with his policies. You can like his policies or disagree with his policies, but they are not illiberal (in terms of a challenge to the democratic state). The idea that he is some kind of fascist strongman is one born of imagination, not evidence. Moreover, American democratic institutions are *very* strong; it is the oldest form of this kind of government after all.
I agree. Truth is important. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.UWSaint wrote: ↑Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:22 pmThe only thing I blame Trump for is that he is cavalier with facts. To the extent that people trust the press like the village trusts (or does not) trust Peter, this is bad long term. Because truth matters and truth is a democracy-stabilizing force.
---
Trump's biggest problems in 2016 to any voter who would consider voting R were two-fold: (1) his character (e.g., statements about women, impulsive constitution, etc.); (2) his experience (it was difficult to imagine him being President). (2) is no longer an obstacle -- and as is the case with most things causing anxiety, the then-future was scarier than the actual-present.
Per, you make a lot of fair points. One of the more interesting points (actually two points, but related) is that some states have laws that make felonies out of pretty routine behavior and that governments can also apply what are essentially regulatory laws (with felony penalties) in order to take out the political opposition if there is a disenfrachisement penalty.Per wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 3:05 amYay! My favourite republican enters the fray!
We may not always see eye to eye on matters, which I guess is almost a prerequisite for a good debate, but you always raise the level of discourse here, so I truly appreciate having you back.
....
I agree. What confuses me is the claim that many people in the US lack valid photo ID.
How do these people survive? Heck, the most common type of ID used in Sweden is your driver’s license. Most places I’ve been in the US, it is really hard to get by without a car. It puzzles me.
And really, people ask for photo ID for all kinds of services here in Sweden.
I don’t understand how you can get by without it.
Although, we can actually buy groceries without presenting it…..
He is constantly challenging the press, not the freedom of the press. As for libel laws, America's are by far the least restrictive on speech in the world. That Trump might think we'd be better off with a more European model would be a reasonable position -- if Europe were reasonable. But I don't know the quote that you are referring to, and I think that you put too much stock in a general statement about press-frustration as an actual policy prescription.Per wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:55 am He is constantly challenging the freedom of the press, and has suggested changing libel laws so that more journalists would go to jail.He hasn’t yet. But he has expressed wishes to do so. It could stem more from a lack of understanding of the American constitution than a genuine agenda, but still. He is frequently showing contempt for the judiciary branch, and has stated that a judge, born and raised in the USA but with a Hispanic name, could not give him a fair trial. He has suggested that it is treasonous to not applaud when he speaks. He is very impressed by dictators and how much their people loves them. He wants more military parades. He is sending out very strong signals that - at least here in Europe - make people think of Mussolini and other fascist leaders. He has fired one FBI director for investigating the Russia link, and he has talked of firing Mueller as well.
Right. That's why I believe so much of the Trump-is-a-Fascist is imagination that depends on interpretation -- it is in the listener's heads.
And that's why we needn't exercise the precautionary principle when it comes to Trump. Power remains checked and divided in this country. On top of that, we don't even have the conditions (mass unemployment, a major foreign threat, a revolutionary internal threat etc.) that precedes the fall of less stable democratic institutions.
I love the digression! And yes, I can see the argument... But the United States is simply different in that it is a nation birthed both (1) in democracy and (2) without monarchy. And while I understand consitutional monarchies as being variations on democracy, the United States model is the first truly classical liberal model. Of course it was imperfect. The US had slavery and restrictions on who could vote. But at its core, it is the same as it has been since the ratification of the Constitution.Per wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:55 am A question mark for “it is the oldest form of this kind of government after all” though.
[History of Scandinavian governments]
But I digress. What I meant is, the oldest form of this kind of government depends a bit on how you define it. I think most people agree that Iceland is the oldest still functioning democracy around. But throughout Scandinavia and on the British Isles, parliamentary traditions go way back.
Who says I buy into Trump's personal attributes or don't think they are relevant?Per wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:55 am What puzzles me though is how the republican party and voter base, that traditionally has been very strong on moral issues, as well as on free trade, can form rank behind a figure such as Donald Trump.
Basically a con man, who has built his fortune on scamming contractors and banks, has known mob ties, has cheated on all of his wives (sometimes with his next-to-be wife) insists on insulting pretty much everyone - whether they be war veterans, traditional republicans, women, minorities, heads of state, long time allies or whatever – and now is starting a trade war based on outdated mercantilistic ideas.
I just don’t understand how a traditional republican, like yourself, can buy into this.
Yes, the Trump is Hitler meme. No better example of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
But Iceland was founded by people fleeing Norway, precisely because they did not accept the rule of king Harald Fair Hair, who was the first King to rule over all of Norway. The Icelanders did not have a king till 1262 or 1397. Not really sure of the alliance in 1262 meant they accepted the Norwegian king as theirs or not. The 1397 Kalmar Union that united all Scandinavian countries definitely put them under the Danish crown though. But only till 1944.UWSaint wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:46 amI love the digression! And yes, I can see the argument... But the United States is simply different in that it is a nation birthed both (1) in democracy and (2) without monarchy. And while I understand consitutional monarchies as being variations on democracy, the United States model is the first truly classical liberal model. Of course it was imperfect. The US had slavery and restrictions on who could vote. But at its core, it is the same as it has been since the ratification of the Constitution.Per wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:55 am A question mark for “it is the oldest form of this kind of government after all” though.
[History of Scandinavian governments]
But I digress. What I meant is, the oldest form of this kind of government depends a bit on how you define it. I think most people agree that Iceland is the oldest still functioning democracy around. But throughout Scandinavia and on the British Isles, parliamentary traditions go way back.
Not saying Trump is Hitler. I actually think Hitler was smarter and had more of a plan of what he wanted to achieve.
That presumes that the true ideals of the German people were not to dominate Europe and rid themselves in one way or another of all jews and most gypsies, slavs, and gays. To that presumption, I offer that there is a fair argument to be made that there are no Nazis (gaining power) without Germany (and the Germany's history, people, culture, and ideals). Not all cultural conditions are equally prone to radicalism, and it is more than economics. Let's not forget there were many fascist states in Europe (Italy, Spain, Portugal), but none approximated Naziism. And let's not forget that Germany never really embraced enlightenment ideals (whether Scottish or Continental) and that romanticism (and mysticism) had significant currency in Germany. By ascribing the romantic vision of the individual to German society as a whole, Naziism resolved the inherent contradiction between romanticism and mass movements. Boom. Dangerous.
My cultural point is that their art and philosophy--which was sometimes beyond great--also contributed to conditions that made Naziism more likely. Converting the individual greatness of romantics into a national-collectivist German gestalt. That was the pre WW-2 zeitgeist....
Sure they were bad in Germany. They were bad in a lot of places. And bad conditions make political revolution and extremism more likely, whether that's fascism, communism, anarchism, what have you. But only in Germany was it Naziism. And Naziism was orders of magnitude different that Italian, Spanish, or Portuguese fascism.
I know that racism isn't uniquely German. That's part of my point as to why Naziism needed Germany. It isn't that Germans were necessarily more racist than other Europeans, it is that the cultural conditions in Germany (which are not inherently racist, but are uniquely unbound) enabled racism to become part of a mass movement that resulted in extraordinary discrimination, state-sanctioned terrorism, and ultimately the systematic killing of millions -- and not even to preserve power (which is why Stalin was fond of killing lots of people).Per wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 12:57 pm And I don't think that racism was a unique German trait.
Look at what the Belgians did in Congo, the Turks did to the Armenians and Kurds or the British in eg India or Australia.
Or what the French did in Algeria and Vietnam.Nationalism and racism were commonplace in the 19th and early 20th century.
Heck, when Norwegian gypsies were released from the concentration camps in Germany/Poland at the end of WW2, Norway refused to let them return home...
I concede that America is great. I like Canada a fair bit, too.... As for Sweden, I've never visited. But I like many of your hockey players and enjoyed your attempt to sack Paris in 815 or whenever that was. Thinking big!
Agreed.Island Nucklehead wrote: ↑Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:36 pm This Per/UW back and forth has been great.
Thanks to both!
Nah, he'll just do what he always does. Stir things up to get maximum media exposure,sign a lot of deals that he never intends to make good on, siphon of as much money as possible to himself, declare bankrupcy, walk away and let someone else pick up the pieces. He's just a con man, but a good con man, people actually believe in him despite his track record.
Yeah, the sack of Paris...