Americans

[Davin]

[...]are you really calling president Trump a "Fascist dictator" and a "tyrant?"

Definitely fascist and tyrant at least by definition. Dictator is a little more fuzzy, but the guy clearly wanted to be.

[Asmodean]

How does president Trump have enough power over the nation to be a tyrant? (For that matter, dictator. Many of the pre-requisites overlap)

How does president Trump's term fit into the Fascist dogma of "nothing above the state?" How is Trump economically Socialist? How does he move towards a totalitarian top-down government? The only tenet of Fascism which I can pin on president Trump, is passionate and unashamed Nationalism. It's not a small one at that, but it along does not a Fascist make.

[Davin]

How does president Trump have enough power over the nation to be a tyrant? (For that matter, dictator. Many of the pre-requisites overlap)

For one, there are a lot of people legally seeking asylum that have been oppressed and had their children taken away from them and lost.

How does president Trump's term fit into the Fascist dogma of "nothing above the state?" How is Trump economically Socialist? How does he move towards a totalitarian top-down government? The only tenet of Fascism which I can pin on president Trump, is passionate and unashamed Nationalism. It's not a small one at that, but it along does not a Fascist make.

I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this so I'll only be supporting my claim.

I'll go off of this definition of fascism:

Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy[.]

far-right: In the interests of my time, I'm going to assume there is no disagreement that Trump is far-right since there are an abundance of quotes, videos, and tweets from him available.

authoritarian ultranationalism by dictatorial power: Also in the interests of my time, and the thousands of available tweets and other ultranationalistic statements available from Trump, so I'll skip to the second part. Bill Barr and the Republicans who were the only people who could have reigned in Trump's overreaches, fell behind a Unitary doctrine when it came to presidential power, and allowed Trump to do whatever and considered that (and in effect) within the powers of the president. Which by definition is dictatorial and using dictatorial powers.

forcible suppression of opposition: There are a few instances of such. In Portland, against the wishes of the leaders of the state and city, the federal government sent in military personnel that attacked peaceful protestors and black bagged people (some of which were just people walking down the street, not even protestors).  Another instance, Trump had protestors forcibly removed from an area for a photo-op at a church he doesn't even attend. He had encouraged and dog whistled for his followers to do some voter intimidation and a lot of Trump supporters did so. Including running the bus of their opposition off the road and ramming cars.

strong regimentation of society and of the economy: I suppose this gets a little fuzzy here. Republicans have a history of trying regimentize society and people's economic powers. Trump took that over and pushed it forward at least a little bit. But it gets complicated and time consuming to present decent evidence to back it up. So 3.1 out of four main points is good enough in my book.

[Asmodean]

For one, there are a lot of people legally seeking asylum that have been oppressed and had their children taken away from them and lost.

A tyrant is a ruler who has usurped power and (shared with dictator from here on) has direct control over all branches of government. This has nothing to do with asylum seekers, minorities or children. (Fascism tends to glorify youth. A minor point. Just thought it interesting to mention)

President Trump satisfies neither prerequisite.

I'll go off of this definition of fascism:
Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy[.]

That helps, thanks.

I was going by the tenets of capital F Fascism, which is... Yeah. It sort-of fits, but is not a far-right ideology. (It is, but only in systems which measure Authoritarianism as being right-wing, and only by virtue of that) It does not fit to president Trump though, as the only thing I can readily pin on him, is Nationalism.

Going by your definition,

I'm going to assume there is no disagreement that Trump is far-right since there are an abundance of quotes, videos, and tweets from him available.

As seen from the centre (That being a position equally influenced by left-leaning politics as it is by right-leaning ones, and by authoritarian-leaning politics as much as libertarian-leaning ones) he's just a lightly Libertarian-leaning right-winger. Certainly, seen from the point of view of for example a Socialist (Democratic or otherwise), he would be far right. However, the absolute centrist would, from that same perspective, be closer to president Trump than to the abovementioned individual.

Also in the interests of my time, and the thousands of available tweets and other ultranationalistic statements available from Trump, so I'll skip to the second part. Bill Barr and the Republicans who were the only people who could have reigned in Trump's overreaches, fell behind a Unitary doctrine when it came to presidential power, and allowed Trump to do whatever and considered that (and in effect) within the powers of the president. Which by definition is dictatorial and using dictatorial powers.

Trump is a Nationalist. Being the leader of the world's only remaining superpower, I'm not certain if there is a meaningful distinction between Nationalism and Ultranationalism.

In any case, we do not strongly disagree (if at all) on this point.

There are a few instances of such. In Portland, against the wishes of the leaders of the state and city, the federal government sent in military personnel that attacked peaceful protestors and black bagged people (some of which were just people walking down the street, not even protestors).  Another instance, Trump had protestors forcibly removed from an area for a photo-op at a church he doesn't even attend. He had encouraged and dog whistled for his followers to do some voter intimidation and a lot of Trump supporters did so. Including running the bus of their opposition of the road and ramming cars.

People don't necessarily get to riot, loot, pillage or otherwise disturb the peace unopposed - political opposition or no.

How did the president forcibly suppress the Democratic party in Congress? The House successfully impeached him, for pity's sake!

strong regimentation of society and of the economy: I suppose this gets a little fuzzy here. Republicans have a history of trying regimentize society and people's economic powers. Trump took that over and pushed it forward at least a little bit. But it gets complicated and time consuming to present decent evidence to back it up. So 3.1 out of four main points is good enough in my book.

It is a tiny bit fuzzy indeed, but do remember that the economy bit refers to strict top-down (State to company/individual) control. Fascism is fine with private enterprise, as long as that enterprise directly serves the interests of the state. President Trump is far closer to Laissez-Faire Capitalism than to that. The regimentation of society refers to direct top-down control over what is and is not socially acceptable. Taken to its logical extreme, it means that serving the state is your reason for being. If anything, president Trump is self-serving, and he does not appear to have much of an issues with others being that either.

So yeah. Three out of four may be pushing it, and I doubt that even full-throated three out of four would necessarily make the president a Fascist. How so? Well, I give you the following to consider: I stand for equality under the law, the right to basic education, some economic guarantees and safeguards against falling on hard times, lean towards the right to basic healthcare and accept the necessity of some degree of progressive taxation. Am I a Socialist?

I would say categorically "no," as I also happen to be a staunch Individualist in areas, which make my world view incompatible with (if not near-opposed to) Socialism.

[Davin]

For one, there are a lot of people legally seeking asylum that have been oppressed and had their children taken away from them and lost.

A tyrant is a ruler who has usurped power and (shared with dictator from here on) has direct control over all branches of government. This has nothing to do with asylum seekers, minorities or children. (Fascism tends to glorify youth. A minor point. Just thought it interesting to mention)

President Trump satisfies neither prerequisite.

There's a lot wrong in there.

Trump has the power of the presidential branch, the power of the legislative branch by controlling the power with the majority in the senate, and the power of the judicial branch by having 6 out of nine judges that vote primarily his party lines. That's all three branches of the US government.

And that's not even the definition of a tyrant, which is a cruel and oppressive ruler. His oppressive and cruel behavior is what satisfies the definition of tyrant.

This "usurping power" requirement is odd to me, where does that come from? Certainly tyrants have usurped power, but I don't think that is a requirement.

I'll go off of this definition of fascism:
Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy[.]

That helps, thanks.

I was going by the tenets of capital F Fascism, which is... Yeah. It sort-of fits, but is not a far-right ideology. (It is, but only in systems which measure Authoritarianism as being right-wing, and only by virtue of that) It does not fit to president Trump though, as the only thing I can readily pin on him, is Nationalism.

Don't confuse things fascists commonly do or say (what some fascists have done or said), with the definition of fascism. That only leads to useless vagaries.

Going by your definition,

I'm going to assume there is no disagreement that Trump is far-right since there are an abundance of quotes, videos, and tweets from him available.

As seen from the centre (That being a position equally influenced by left-leaning politics as it is by right-leaning ones, and by authoritarian-leaning politics as much as libertarian-leaning ones) he's just a lightly Libertarian-leaning right-winger. Certainly, seen from the point of view of for example a Socialist (Democratic or otherwise), he would be far right. However, the absolute centrist would, from that same perspective, be closer to president Trump than to the abovementioned individual.

I'd like to see you support that. If we take a stance away from perspective and note that "far-right" has certain views, and "far-left" has certain views, we don't have rely on the shaky hypothetical grounds of what one person with a certain perspective might or might not view things.

Also in the interests of my time, and the thousands of available tweets and other ultranationalistic statements available from Trump, so I'll skip to the second part. Bill Barr and the Republicans who were the only people who could have reigned in Trump's overreaches, fell behind a Unitary doctrine when it came to presidential power, and allowed Trump to do whatever and considered that (and in effect) within the powers of the president. Which by definition is dictatorial and using dictatorial powers.

Trump is a Nationalist. Being the leader of the world's only remaining superpower, I'm not certain if there is a meaningful distinction between Nationalism and Ultranationalism.

In any case, we do not strongly disagree (if at all) on this point.

OK.

There are a few instances of such. In Portland, against the wishes of the leaders of the state and city, the federal government sent in military personnel that attacked peaceful protestors and black bagged people (some of which were just people walking down the street, not even protestors).  Another instance, Trump had protestors forcibly removed from an area for a photo-op at a church he doesn't even attend. He had encouraged and dog whistled for his followers to do some voter intimidation and a lot of Trump supporters did so. Including running the bus of their opposition of the road and ramming cars.

People don't necessarily get to riot, loot, pillage or otherwise disturb the peace unopposed - political opposition or no.

True. But one has to wonder why you're trying to poison the well here.

How did the president forcibly suppress the Democratic party in Congress? The House successfully impeached him, for pity's sake!

One, the democratic side of the senate has been oppressed since Obama's second year.

Two, oppression is rarely ever successful 100%.

A weak and inane point that should not have passed even the lightest of scrutiny. This is disappointing.

strong regimentation of society and of the economy: I suppose this gets a little fuzzy here. Republicans have a history of trying regimentize society and people's economic powers. Trump took that over and pushed it forward at least a little bit. But it gets complicated and time consuming to present decent evidence to back it up. So 3.1 out of four main points is good enough in my book.

It is a tiny bit fuzzy indeed, but do remember that the economy bit refers to strict top-down (State to company/individual) control. Fascism is fine with private enterprise, as long as that enterprise directly serves the interests of the state. President Trump is far closer to Laissez-Faire Capitalism than to that. The regimentation of society refers to direct top-down control over what is and is not socially acceptable. Taken to its logical extreme, it means that serving the state is your reason for being. If anything, president Trump is self-serving, and he does not appear to have much of an issues with others being that either.

Yes, while not there yet, that is what the Republicans have been legislating towards. Not every fascist government starts out that way. And I also again disagree with your peculiar inclusions into the definitions of things.

So yeah. Three out of four may be pushing it, and I doubt that even full-throated three out of four would necessarily make the president a Fascist. How so? Well, I give you the following to consider: I stand for equality under the law, the right to basic education, some economic guarantees and safeguards against falling on hard times, lean towards the right to basic healthcare and accept the necessity of some degree of progressive taxation. Am I a Socialist?

I would say categorically "no," as I also happen to be a staunch Individualist in areas, which make my world view incompatible with (if not near-opposed to) Socialism.

If you support socialist institutions it makes you, at least in part, a socialist. I.E.: a person who advocates for or participates in socialism. But if we have to put people into buckets, Trump's fascism bucket certainly outweighs all the other buckets.

[Asmodean]

Trump has the power of the presidential branch, the power of the legislative branch by controlling the power with the majority in the senate, and the power of the judicial branch by having 6 out of nine judges that vote primarily his party lines. That's all three branches of the US government.

And yet they are not under his control. Aligned interests are something different.

And that's not even the definition of a tyrant, which is a cruel and oppressive ruler. His oppressive and cruel behavior is what satisfies the definition of tyrant.

Well, that's an incomplete definition. for instance, the word "absolute" should make an appearance in one way or another, and this is me being overly-technical, but the difference between a tyrant and a dictator does reside in how they achieved power.

Certainly tyrants have usurped power, but I don't think that is a requirement.

If not for the way they came to power, "tyrant" and "dictator" are as near as makes no difference synonyms. It's not a major point - I tagged it on to differentiate the two in order to steel-man the original statement.

Don't confuse things fascists commonly do or say (what some fascists have done or said), with the definition of fascism. That only leads to useless vagaries.

I am not. I am familiar with the core tenets of Fascism, and I go by those. (Largely derived from writings by Mussolini, Marx and Gentile)

I'd like to see you support that. If we take a stance away from perspective and note that "far-right" has certain views, and "far-left" has certain views, we don't have rely on the shaky hypothetical grounds of what one person with a certain perspective might or might not view things.

Far-right values include those of Capitalist, collectivist, nationalist, traditionalist, theocratic, racial supremacist, social Darwinist, oligarchic and hierarchic nature. Far-right policies include segregation, suppression of individual freedom (speech first out of the window - just like Far Left), state clergy, forced homogeny, isolationism, inequality under the law among equally-abled citizens and more.

An important aspect of this is the magnitude. For instance, you can be as staunch a white supremacist as they come, and yet not be "far-right."

Far-left values include those of Socialist, collectivist, anti-property, internationalist, anti-hierarchic, progressive, humanitarian, racial and anarchist nature.

Far-left policies include forced redistribution/abolition of wealth, limiting of personal freedom, state/collective ownership of land, resources and productive capabilities thereof, forced diversity, international cointegration (fancy way of saying "no borders"), inequality under the law of equally-abled citizens and others.

The same aside as above applies. You can be a staunch proponent of open borders, and still not be Far Left.

True. But one has to wonder why you're trying to poison the well here.

Not at all. I'm sure there are otherwise fine people on both sides.

President Trump did not forcefully suppress protests. For one, if he had, there would either be as good as no protest or a full-blown civil war at this point. (The US is more like Paris - somewhat on fire - then it is like the Arab spring states - broken and bloodied, or turned (more-)authoritarian) For two, there is a difference between suppressing the opposition (As in, not letting the opposition's message to come through) and suppressing unrest. For three, even were I to concede this one unconditionally, suppressing the opposition is far from exclusive to Fascism. Communists are just as renowned for that, if not more. For four, and mostly just for fun, why, oh why did he not run a column of tanks right over that separatist enclave in that one city somewhere up North? (Portland... Or was it?) What kind of dictator is he?! 

One, the democratic side of the senate has been oppressed since Obama's second year.

No. They are just in minority. Until they win a majority in an election, they can expect to be out-voted, but they do get to vote.

Two, oppression is rarely ever successful 100%.

If you have the agency to do something, but not the real world means to succeed, you still have that freedom.

For instance, you are free to vote (assuming you are otherwise eligible) even though there is no bus going from your house to the polling station. You are free to vote AND you are free to figure out your own logistics of how to do so.

A weak and inane point that should not have passed even the lightest of scrutiny. This is disappointing.

You, my friend, used bloody asylum seekers in your defence of the tyrant argument - they are not even citizens of your nation, for crying out loud, and here you are, calling my point "weak?" Pot. Kettle. N-word. 

Yes, while not there yet, that is what the Republicans have been legislating towards. Not every fascist government starts out that way. And I also again disagree with your peculiar inclusions into the definitions of things.

Those inclusions are particular of Fascism. I, too, disagree with them on an ideological level.

If you support socialist institutions it makes you, at least in part, a socialist. I.E.: a person who advocates for and participates in socialism. But if we have to put people into buckets, Trump's fascism bucket certainly outweighs all the other buckets.

What if I support exactly as many Laissez-Faire Capitalist institutions just as strongly?

Ah, don't let me provoke you into a lengthy semantic argument. I see what you are saying, and I partly agree in a weird different-angle sort of way;

It is a matter of buckets. It is also a matter of where the fulcrum is on the scale; does Trump have some Fascist or Fascist-like attitudes and values? Yeah. Sure. But then, any-one who ever said "good morning" in German was probably quoting Hitler. The latter is not an example of a realistic fulcrum, I suppose, but it illustrates what I'm saying.

[Davin]

Trump has the power of the presidential branch, the power of the legislative branch by controlling the power with the majority in the senate, and the power of the judicial branch by having 6 out of nine judges that vote primarily his party lines. That's all three branches of the US government.

And yet they are not under his control. Aligned interests are something different.

And that's not even the definition of a tyrant, which is a cruel and oppressive ruler. His oppressive and cruel behavior is what satisfies the definition of tyrant.

Well, that's an incomplete definition. for instance, the word "absolute" should make an appearance in one way or another, and this is me being overly-technical, but the difference between a tyrant and a dictator does reside in how they achieved power.

Certainly tyrants have usurped power, but I don't think that is a requirement.

If not for the way they came to power, "tyrant" and "dictator" are as near as makes no difference synonyms. It's not a major point - I tagged it on to differentiate the two in order to steel-man the original statement.

No need to steel-man it at all though.

The point was in classifying Trump as a tyrant, and I provided an example that matches that definition. What you did was try to change the means of classifying so that you could attempt to say that Trump is not a tyrant or at least to criticize those that do by telling them they should not. If you want to continue to try to change the definition of terms, I'm not interested in that kind of dead end discussion.

The point is: it's fine to call Trump a tyrant because he did tyrannical things. I'm bored of this now, so unless I see something of substance that goes against that, I consider this done.

Don't confuse things fascists commonly do or say (what some fascists have done or said), with the definition of fascism. That only leads to useless vagaries.

I am not. I am familiar with the core tenets of Fascism, and I go by those. (Largely derived from writings by Mussolini, Marx and Gentile)

You're doing exactly as I have described while denying doing it. That is a little funny.

I'd like to see you support that. If we take a stance away from perspective and note that "far-right" has certain views, and "far-left" has certain views, we don't have rely on the shaky hypothetical grounds of what one person with a certain perspective might or might not view things.

Far-right values include those[...]

No one is 100% one thing. It makes discussion useless to only discuss absolutes because almost nothing is. If this is the kind of thing you're into, congratulations, nothing means anything and discussion is meaningless.

The point is Trump is far-right because he espouses and enacts far-right values far more than any other. It's actually quite odd to hear anyone argue against Trump being far-right as that's usually only heard of from the crazies.

True. But one has to wonder why you're trying to poison the well here.

Not at all. [...]

The point is, that 90+% of the protests were/are peaceful, even when the police came in to shoot them with rubber bullets and use tear gas and pepper spray on them. And then your counter-point to peaceful protestors being oppressed, is to bring up looters, rioters... etc. If we're being honest, that's not an honest take. The most charitable interpretation that makes sense, is that take was taken in ignorance.

But even if was in ignorance why even do that when my point was talking about peaceful protestors, unless some shady shit was intended. I'm reserving judgment but this is the same kind of thing bad faith arguers pull.

One, the democratic side of the senate has been oppressed since Obama's second year.

No. They are just in minority. Until they win a majority in an election, they can expect to be out-voted, but they do get to vote.

On paper, sure. But hopefully no-one is that naive. In the past, the minority had been able to get things to the floor and to sway the majority part and still get things passed. That however changed in 2010. In practice, the minority party has had no power. In actually one of the real states of near 100% oppression that does fit your definition, you try to say they are not oppressed. Seems like you have some introspection that needs doing.

Two, oppression is rarely ever successful 100%.

If you have the agency to do something, but not the real world means to succeed, you still have that freedom.

Effectively you do not. But that avoids my point rather than addresses it.

Do you think that oppression must be 100% successful 100% of the time to be considered oppression?

If you agree that it doesn't have to be 100% successful 100% of the time then you are wrong and should accept it. If you think it must be 100% successful 100% of the time to be considered oppression, then you will remain being wrong without admitting it. Either case, you are wrong and there is no point discussing this point any further.

A weak and inane point that should not have passed even the lightest of scrutiny. This is disappointing.

You, my friend, used bloody asylum seekers in your defence of the tyrant argument - they are not even citizens of your nation, for crying out loud, and here you are, calling my point "weak?" Pot. Kettle. N-word. 

Not even close here, you're a lot in the wrong here.

I provided an example of his behavior that matches the definition of a tyrant to justify calling him a tyrant. In contrast here, you're trying to say that because there was some dissent he couldn't be oppressive. You're wrong here, it's OK to admit it and to grow.

Yes, while not there yet, that is what the Republicans have been legislating towards. Not every fascist government starts out that way. And I also again disagree with your peculiar inclusions into the definitions of things.

Those inclusions are particular of Fascism. I, too, disagree with them on an ideological level.

My agreement or disagreement with the odd inclusions you irrationally brought in to poison the well doesn't matter, nor does yours. It's still illogical.

If you support socialist institutions it makes you, at least in part, a socialist. I.E.: a person who advocates for and participates in socialism. But if we have to put people into buckets, Trump's fascism bucket certainly outweighs all the other buckets.

What if I support exactly as many Laissez-Faire Capitalist institutions just as strongly?

Ah, don't let me provoke you into a lengthy semantic argument. I see what you are saying, and I partly agree in a weird different-angle sort of way;

It is a matter of buckets. It is also a matter of where the fulcrum is on the scale; does Trump have some Fascist or Fascist-like attitudes and values? Yeah. Sure. But then, any-one who ever said "good morning" in German was probably quoting Hitler. The latter is not an example of a realistic fulcrum, I suppose, but it illustrates what I'm saying.

I wouldn't say simply saying "guten Morgen" makes a fascist, but the concentration camps for primarily Jews and the concentration camps for primarily Hispanic people is not a stretch to define as a sign of fascism.

[Davin]

I'd like to see you support that. If we take a stance away from perspective and note that "far-right" has certain views, and "far-left" has certain views, we don't have rely on the shaky hypothetical grounds of what one person with a certain perspective might or might not view things.

Far-right values include those of Capitalist, collectivist, nationalist, traditionalist, theocratic, racial supremacist, social Darwinist, oligarchic and hierarchic nature. Far-right policies include segregation, suppression of individual freedom (speech first out of the window - just like Far Left), state clergy, forced homogeny, isolationism, inequality under the law among equally-abled citizens and more.

An important aspect of this is the magnitude. For instance, you can be as staunch a white supremacist as they come, and yet not be "far-right."

Far-left values include those of Socialist, collectivist, anti-property, internationalist, anti-hierarchic, progressive, humanitarian, racial and anarchist nature.

Far-left policies include forced redistribution/abolition of wealth, limiting of personal freedom, state/collective ownership of land, resources and productive capabilities thereof, forced diversity, international cointegration (fancy way of saying "no borders"), inequality under the law of equally-abled citizens and others.

The same aside as above applies. You can be a staunch proponent of open borders, and still not be Far Left.

Well that got lost in my reply somewhere.

This is all fine and good but what I want to see you support is: how real people with various political views, do not see Trump as far-right. With real data.

[Asmodean]

The point was in classifying Trump as a tyrant, and I provided an example that matches that definition. What you did was try to change the means of classifying so that you could attempt to say that Trump is not a tyrant or at least to criticize those that do by telling them they should not. If you want to continue to try to change the definition of terms, I'm not interested in that kind of dead end discussion.

Does not fulfil the absolute ruler criteria. Not a tyrant or a dictator.

He may still be a mean or even cruel leader, but absolute control of government is required by definition

The point is: it's fine to call Trump a tyrant because he did tyrannical things. I'm bored of this now, so unless I see something of substance that goes against that, I consider this done.

Here is Aristotle's definition of tyranny then;

Any sole ruler, who is not required to give an account of himself, and who rules over subjects all equal or superior to himself to suit his own interest and not theirs, can only be exercising a tyranny.

You're doing exactly as I have described while denying doing it. That is a little funny.

The tenets of Fascism are what separates a Fascist movement from a non-Fascist one.

No one is 100% one thing. It makes discussion useless to only discuss absolutes because almost nothing is. If this is the kind of thing you're into, congratulations, nothing means anything and discussion is meaningless.

What on earth are you talking about?! What precise thing am I alleged to be "into" here? Where does this 100% come from? My example included a single value, held vehemently, not making a person "far right." It relates to president Trump's Nationalism. That just makes him a Nationalist.

The point is, that 90+% of the protests were/are peaceful, even when the police came in to shoot them with rubber bullets and use tear gas and pepper spray on them. And then your counter-point to peaceful protestors being oppressed, is to bring up looters, rioters... etc. If we're being honest, that's not an honest take. The most charitable interpretation that makes sense, is that take was taken in ignorance.

Actually, the "mostly peaceful" narrative is being disputed, but I don't even mind. I will happily enough buy that most protesters were peaceful. As for most protests, what I'm saying is that IF there is rioting and looting and general unrest (to specify, the kind of unrest that is likely to result in injury and property damage) force may be justified. It may suppress the opposition. But it may be justified.

Fascistically suppressing one's political opposition requires either that the opposition's right to voice an opinion or to cast a ballot in a lawful fashion (or similar) is suppressed, or that laws are being passed which specifically or disproportionally target the opposition's ability to do that. It's actually a pretty narrow definition in the context of Fascism. Look at the bloody Internet - there is opposition opinion absolutely everywhere.

Which sanctions can you expect for disagreeing with me on the ever-virtue of the glorious God-Emperor?

But even if was in ignorance why even do that when my point was talking about peaceful protestors, unless some shady shit was intended. I'm reserving judgment but this is the same kind of thing bad faith arguers pull.

Doesn't matter. There were fine people on both sides. On both sides. Still, there were riots, looting, attacks on civilians and law enforcement and attempts at separatism/domestic terrorism.

On paper, sure. But hopefully no-one is that naive. In the past, the minority had been able to get things to the floor and to sway the majority part and still get things passed. That however changed in 2010. In practice, the minority party has had no power. In actually one of the real states of near 100% oppression that does fit your definition, you try to say they are not oppressed. Seems like you have some introspection that needs doing.

De jure is not always de facto.

What you describe next is a deep polarization of society. I find that regrettable. That said, minority party having no power may be the consequence of a two-party system, rather than [Fascist] oppression. In my country, no one party can govern alone (could, by obtaining 50% plus one representative, but it's been a long time since the last time, and will likely be longer still until the next), and that results in the opposite phenomenon - the smallest parties can end up with the most power per seat, as without them... No one party can govern.

Effectively you do not. But that avoids my point rather than addresses it.

It addresses you point. Having the freedom to do something is not the same as being capable of doing it or being able to follow it through to a satisfying conclusion.

I am free to try and become an astronaut. I have no real-world capability of doing so what-so-ever, but I DO have that freedom. As such, I am not being oppressed by the institution of space travel.

Do you think that oppression must be 100% successful 100% of the time to be considered oppression?

I don't measure oppression in points, units and percent. I am not an intersectionalist.

In broad terms, you are oppressed if you are legally/socially prevented from doing something the "common man" gets to do.

Does the "common man" get to vote? Well, then so do you. Does the "common man" have to live with the results of said vote? Well, then so do you. Does the "common man" get to have a gun, choose his own faith, apply for a job, compete in the Olympics, tick the minority box on an application form, buy a house... Do you? If your answer is different from his, you might make a case for oppression.

It's not perfectly nuanced, as I have ignored the class divide in this example, but I can account for it upon a chance of getting somewhere, which I frankly do not see.

If you agree that it doesn't have to be 100% successful 100% of the time then you are wrong and should accept it. If you think it must be 100% successful 100% of the time to be considered oppression, then you will remain being wrong without admitting it. Either case, you are wrong and there is no point discussing this point any further.

I reject your way of measuring oppression.

Not even close here, you're a lot in the wrong here.

Pot. Kettle. N-word. Again. Why do you assume that you are correct?

I provided an example of his behavior that matches the definition of a tyrant to justify calling him a tyrant. In contrast here, you're trying to say that because there was some dissent he couldn't be oppressive. You're wrong here, it's OK to admit it and to grow.

Disregarded a disqualifying factor. Again, why do you assume that you are correct here?

My agreement or disagreement with the odd inclusions you irrationally brought in to poison the well doesn't matter, nor does yours. It's still illogical.

"Illogical." A bold claim. Please explain what specifically goes against logic in what I said? What does the regimentation of society and economy mean in the context of Fascism? Pretty much what I said. If you call logical fallacies, then call them out so I can evaluate and address them.

I wouldn't say simply saying "guten Morgen" makes a fascist,

Nono, of course not. I was not suggesting that you did. I was illustrating how moving the fulcrum can have the same kind of effect on the scales as altering the weight of the bucket.

but the concentration camps for primarily Jews and the concentration camps for primarily Hispanic people is not a stretch to define as a sign of fascism.

I'm not too inclined to just hand you the definition of "concentration camp" as calling de-glorified prisons for people illegally crossing your borders such somehow cheapens the term, but I think we have enough on our plate as it is, so I'll just finish by saying that concentration camps are also a Communist phenomenon. Chinese Uyghurs are a fine recent example.

[Asmodean]

This is all fine and good but what I want to see you support is: how real people with various political views, do not see Trump as far-right. With real data.

Oh!

This one from Pew, and handles how the US is percieved in largely left-leaning Europe with some other major "Western" nations;

Spoiler: ShowHide

Grain of salt, because the question is about the country, not the president specifically, so at best this is indirect. What's interesting here is that the US is perceived favourably by about +20 right on average, but that the relative position of the Centre dot is more or less mid-way between the left and the Right opinion in four out of ten statistically significant countries, with three having a favourable Centrist bias and three having an unfavourable centrist bias.

This puts the US in a pretty Centre-Right position.

I do not have a poll of where people in the world pin the president on the political scale (In Norway, it's mostly just as "Republican" and/or "Populist" by and large, maybe because our right/left distinction is Socialist/non-Socialist. Doesn't exactly apply to the "classical" US model with two non-Socialist wings. Example from our version of Encyclopaedia Britannica below) so I do infer from data like the above, dealing with favourability or confidence in relation to the political opinions of the pool. This puts the president sort-of in the middle of the right field.

Spoiler: ShowHide

From: Store Norske Leksikon
Google Translate unaltered for posterity. Link to source in Norwegian below quote.

Political point of view
Ideologically, Trump doesn't let himself be easily placed. In economic policy, he has combined traditional market thinking from the Conservatives with some acceptance of public support schemes, including for health care. The 2017 tax reform was characterized by traditional Republican core issues such as easing corporate taxation and the notion that tax relief for the most affluent will provide greater investment and thus benefit broadly through economic growth.

Trump has supported increased defense spending, but also criticized america's willingness to use military force on other continents. His choice of Gorsuch as Supreme Court justice satisfied the Christian right, but Trump has not spoken in depth about his own religious convictions.

In his 2016 election campaign, there were elements typical of right-wing populist parties in many countries. Central to the depiction of a conflict between peoples and elites, a restrictive immigration policy, an appeal to national pride, demands for a stronger military system and an assertion that American workers would get better conditions through less free trade and harsher confrontations in trade policy.

https://snl.no/Donald_Trump

EDIT: I forgot to link to source in the Pew thing. It's from here: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/09/15/us-image-plummets-internationally-as-most-say-country-has-handled-coronavirus-badly/

I also think I have a similar study, though not in English, from around 2018 bookmarked somewhere on my work laptop. Will post if find.

[Davin]

[...]
He may still be a mean or even cruel leader, but absolute control of government is required by definition
[...]

By definition it is not required. Nice that Trump also satisfies Aristotle's definition. Nothing of substance so nothing to talk about.

You're doing exactly as I have described while denying doing it. That is a little funny.

The tenets of Fascism are what separates a Fascist movement from a non-Fascist one.

Oh my, this is basic stuff, but here we go: We have definitions for things so that we can apply those terms to things. Those things can then have their own tenets, but tenets are not required to be defined as a thing. I said you were confusing what fascists did or said with the definition of fascism, and you continue to do so. It is kind of funny for you to keep doing a thing I said you're doing, while denying doing it at the same time. There is nothing new of substance here, this line of discussion is ended as well.

No one is 100% one thing. It makes discussion useless to only discuss absolutes because almost nothing is. If this is the kind of thing you're into, congratulations, nothing means anything and discussion is meaningless.

What on earth are you talking about?! What precise thing am I alleged to be "into" here? Where does this 100% come from? My example included a single value, held vehemently, not making a person "far right." It relates to president Trump's Nationalism. That just makes him a Nationalist.

It's looking a lot like you don't know what terms are, how to apply them, what they mean, or anything about them. Like it's a basic language usage thing and now I'm not even sure if you're even saying what you think you're saying because I've lost confidence in your ability to understand what terms are. And at this point it's kinda funny.

The point is, that 90+% of the protests were/are peaceful, even when the police came in to shoot them with rubber bullets and use tear gas and pepper spray on them. And then your counter-point to peaceful protestors being oppressed, is to bring up looters, rioters... etc. If we're being honest, that's not an honest take. The most charitable interpretation that makes sense, is that take was taken in ignorance.

Actually, the "mostly peaceful" narrative is being disputed, but I don't even mind.

Actually the "the "mostly peaceful" narrative is being disputed" is being disputed, but I don't even mind.

Like what the fuck stupid weak ass shit point is that? You have to just be fucking with me now because this shit is hilarious.

If one dumbass on the internet somewhere disputes something then you think that's valid?

[...]what I'm saying is that IF there is rioting and looting and general unrest (to specify, the kind of unrest that is likely to result in injury and property damage) force may be justified. It may suppress the opposition. But it may be justified.

Great, this is muddying the waters. Why bring up such a stupid point in counter to peaceful protestors being shot and maced?

Effectively you do not. But that avoids my point rather than addresses it.

It addresses you point.[...]

It does not and the rest is useless.

Do you think that oppression must be 100% successful 100% of the time to be considered oppression?

I don't measure oppression[...]

Are you having trouble reading? It's a basic question.

If you agree that it doesn't have to be 100% successful 100% of the time then you are wrong and should accept it. If you think it must be 100% successful 100% of the time to be considered oppression, then you will remain being wrong without admitting it. Either case, you are wrong and there is no point discussing this point any further.

I reject your way of measuring oppression.

What the fuck does that even mean? Are you OK? I didn't provide a way of measuring oppression. There were only two ways to go about this, and you choose to remain wrong.

Not even close here, you're a lot in the wrong here.

Pot. Kettle. N-word. Again. Why do you assume that you are correct?

I clearly explained it.

I provided an example of his behavior that matches the definition of a tyrant to justify calling him a tyrant. In contrast here, you're trying to say that because there was some dissent he couldn't be oppressive. You're wrong here, it's OK to admit it and to grow.

Disregarded a disqualifying factor. Again, why do you assume that you are correct here?

Because that's how using terms works, what the fuck is going on here? Do I have to explain how to use words?

Asmodean: How can you call that thing "red?"
Davin: Because it's red.
Asmodean: And what makes you think you're right?

Like this is hilarious but what the fuck, dude.

My agreement or disagreement with the odd inclusions you irrationally brought in to poison the well doesn't matter, nor does yours. It's still illogical.

"Illogical." A bold claim. Please explain what specifically [...]

See the explanation I already gave. No need for me to repeat myself.

but the concentration camps for primarily Jews and the concentration camps for primarily Hispanic people is not a stretch to define as a sign of fascism.

I'm not too inclined to just hand you the definition of "concentration camp" as calling de-glorified prisons for people illegally crossing your borders such somehow cheapens the term, but I think we have enough on our plate as it is[...]

Most were legally crossing the border. That's how you seek asylum, legally. You cross the border and then ask for asylum. It's the legal process. You've fallen for the stupid bullshit narrative presented by bad faith actors. Try not being so gullible.

[...]so I'll just finish by saying that concentration camps are also a Communist phenomenon. Chinese Uyghurs are a fine recent example.

Some definitions share things with other definitions sometimes. That's why I covered all the criteria. As funny as this is to me, it feels a lot like most of this "discussion" is me telling you how English and using words works, and you demonstrating that you don't understand how English and using words works.

[Davin]

This is all fine and good but what I want to see you support is: how real people with various political views, do not see Trump as far-right. With real data.

Oh![...]

Look at my sentence, then look at what you provided. It doesn't match up.

[Recusant]

A reminder that personal remarks are not helpful to a productive discussion

[Asmodean]

By definition it is not required. Nice that Trump also satisfies Aristotle's definition. Nothing of substance so nothing to talk about.

"Any sole ruler, who is not required to give an account of himself..."

Not "any elected official who refuses to..." or "any mean-spirited leader protected by..." Any sole ruler, who is not required to give account of himself.

I'm taking this point in the name of The Asmo.

...this line of discussion is ended as well.

Fine, I'm grabbing this one too then.

It's looking a lot like you don't know what terms are, how to apply them, what they mean, or anything about them. Like it's a basic language usage thing and now I'm not even sure if you're even saying what you think you're saying because I've lost confidence in your ability to understand what terms are. And at this point it's kinda funny.

Not an argument. Are we dropping this one as well?

Actually the "the "mostly peaceful" narrative is being disputed" is being disputed, but I don't even mind.

Indeed. It matters not to the underlying principle of the thing.

Like what the fuck stupid weak ass shit point is that? You have to just be fucking with me now because this shit is hilarious.

Actually, only a tiny bit. In reality, you don't have much of a point in regards to this being an example of Fascist suppression of the opposition.

If one dumbass on the internet somewhere disputes something then you think that's valid?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It depends on whether or not I care, who the dumbass is and whether or not the dispute changes the nature of the original claim.

Great, this is muddying the waters. Why bring up such a stupid point in counter to peaceful protestors being shot and maced?

Because under the same flag, there were riots. And looting. And assault on law enforcement. And separatism. Because any self-respecting Fascist, or even tyrant for that matter, would have rolled out the artillery (actual wartime artillery) for far less. He [Fascist] would have to. Nothing above the state - and nothing against the state.

Are you having trouble reading? It's a basic question.

You are either oppressed by x, in which case you are "100%" oppressed by it, or you are not - in which case you are "0%" oppressed by it.

What I'm saying is that I do not see being "78% oppressed" as a legitimate state. I do not measure oppression - it is, or it is not. The matter of degrees comes in specifically what kind of oppression you are and are not willing to live with.

What the fuck does that even mean? Are you OK? I didn't provide a way of measuring oppression. There were only two ways to go about this, and you choose to remain wrong.

What is "100% [successful] 100% [of the time]," if not measurement of success rate per time interval?

I clearly explained it.

Well, not really, but I'm content to never-mind.

Because that's how using terms works, what the fuck is going on here? Do I have to explain how to use words?

Yes, that's precisely how it works. A man is an adult human male. If he's not adult, he's not a man. (Boy) If he's not human, he's not a man. (Bull, for example) The third condition is necessary for the narrowest definitions only, but the first two are disqualifying if not met.

You do logic. You have to know this..?

Most were legally crossing the border. That's how you seek asylum, legally.

Actually...

You cross the border and then ask for asylum. It's the legal process. You've fallen for the stupid bullshit narrative presented by bad faith actors. Try not being so gullible.

...You cross the border into the closest safe  region, then seek asylum there. Or you do it from the nearest embassy of the nation in which you are seeking asylum. While your claim is being processed, you do not have the legal right to cross into the country in question unless that right has been granted to you by relevant authorities in said country.

But let us assume that they indeed cross the border legally. For all I know, the United States has a law that specifically permits entry into the country upon the submission of an asylum request.

My question is this: a person requests asylum at a point of entry. Their asylum request has not been addressed at this point. Why should they be allowed to proceed beyond that point of entry freely? Personally, I'd consider solving that through the use of GPS ankle bracelets - maybe that's being done, but has some severe limiting factors. Sounds like a better idea than tent cities and guarded compounds, anyways.

Some definitions share things with other definitions sometimes. That's why I covered all the criteria. As funny as this is to me, it feels a lot like most of this "discussion" is me telling you how English and using words works, and you demonstrating that you don't understand how English and using words works.

I am not a native speaker, so perhaps I don't. I do understand, however, that there are conditions which disqualify a given term from being applicable to something.

[Asmodean]

Look at my sentence, then look at what you provided. It doesn't match up.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no such polling data for the World, by ideology of the participants.

How am I wrong to infer what I do, based on the data I do have? The article I provided calls the president many labels, but not once Far-Right. The positive favourability of the country under his leadership leans right, but on average, the difference between the Left and Centre and the Right and Centre is about the same. There is a similar trend in confidence in the president, although the Centre is skewed more towards the left there.