Donald Trump the Megathread part II - mod warnings in OP, Updated 06/06/25

Any chance you could address my post, in response to your statement that Trump isn't a fascist?

It's a kind of important distinction to make.

And Canada for example does believe he's very much so serious in his targeting of their sovereignty. As a direct result of that and tariffs, the US relationship with Canada is at an all time low.

In terms of his egging on of genocide in Gaza, I'd say Israel view themselves to have carte blanche. Then his pulling of intelligence to Ukraine, that once again benefited a war monger in the form of Putin.

On top of that USAID cuts are estimated to have cost 300,000 lives to date. So basically you can say he's all talk but the man is very much so responsible for many deaths.

So given your complete silence on these issues, one can conclude you simply don't care. In the case of Russia you've even been sympathetic towards the invasion and tried to imply it was justified. So I guess helping the Russians out isn't so bad.

You didn't really "address it", you posted this article from the Guardian which prompts as many questions as answers.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/21/is-donald-trump-a-fascist

Now, as you cited the article, if posted in good faith, it means you accept the bona fides of the experts and author of that article, according to which he is either:

Robert O Paxton, an authority on the historical definition of fascism, argued in 2017 that, despite many overlaps, Trump did not ultimately fit the bill: he was too much of a poser, too lacking in a coherent political programme and too much of a plutocrat. Hitler expropriated the wealthy; Trump sucks up to them. But after the events of 6 January 2021, Paxton changed his mind. In Newsweek a few days afterwards he wrote, “Trump’s incitement of the invasion of the Capitol … removes my objection to the fascist label. His open encouragement of civic violence to overturn an election crosses a red line.” Trump’s time in office, by implication, had not revealed him to be a fascist (he had, after all, failed to deliver on his promise to jail his main political rival, as he had failed to deliver on many of his promises). It was the manner of his refusal to leave office that had moved the dial.

OR

Tomasky argues it is possible to spend so much time bogged down in the impossible conundrum of Trump’s essential political personality that the basic threat he poses gets overlooked. He is a real and present danger to the American republic and the wider world.

OR

A victory for Trump could nevertheless be a cause of 21st-century fascism. Not because he is a fascist, but because he doesn’t know how to govern and good government is the only guarantee against the worst form of politics returning. Trump is not and never has been a genuine exponent of fascism. In the end, he is too much of a cynical asshole. But for that reason he could yet be one of its enablers.

So which is it, is Trump a fascist, or a real and present danger to the American republic and the wider world and\or is he incapable of good governance and therefore a potential fascist enabler?

That was one article I mentioned I also made reference to Trump not being a true Fascist on other occasions.

Anyway it doesnt matter what I say, no matter what I say you and others will say the exact opposite.

and I have been proven correct time and time again unlike so many others on this thread.

You've been right about 1 thing, that Trump would win the election, that's it, all of it. You've been wrong about pretty much everything else from what I remember of your posts.

Will you please stop twisting what I say.

I never ever said the invasion of Ukraine was justified, thats an outrageous lie.

If Trump meddles directly in the face-to-face war between Iran and Israel, he'll only get stabbed by both. Nothing good can come from Trump trying to hold them apart.

"And Canada for example does believe he's very much so serious in his targeting of their sovereignty. As a direct result of that and tariffs, the US relationship with Canada is at an all time low."

Trump did respond to Russia's invasion of Ukraine by describing it as "genius". That may mean he would follow Putin's methods in Canada and attempt to cut off little bits at a time . I think there are indeed parts of Canada that have support for becoming part of America. Trump may use that as leverage against Canada.

I wonder if in that event we might begin to see the fracturing of USA itself where individual States may assert an autonomy against what is shaping up to be a divisive central government.

Others have mentioned the phone issue where AI can in seconds designate the holder as a likely "enemy" or "friend "… Who has access to that information , will it inevitably be shared/leaked and is this starting to look like "Stasi-stan" on steroids?

Information/data is now crushing political power ?

@MisterAnarchy This is you saying the West and Ukraine were partially responsible for the invasion. Sounds like somewhat of a justification to me tbh.

It's absolutely an effort to justify the invasion and I think most would agree. You have a long history of posts for people to make conclusions on. It's also entirely debunked at this stage.

Its not an effort to justify the invasion.

How has it been debunked, what he predicted in the video happened almost exactly as he said. Its aged like fine wine.

The fact that other countries worldwide might take note of the way Trumps administration is categorizing their citizens and might respond in kind when US citizens approach airport flight travel doors or actual border crossing points does not seem to have occurred to the brainy ones in Trump's team and definitely not to the Dept which handles foreigners entering or travelling through the US.

I can't see him taking kindly to an official from abroad instructing him to turn over his electric Comms gear and passwords or his visa will be revoked, while travelling after he left office. Ditto for his former Admin team members. Maple Leaf trumps Stars and Stripes.

Slight difference between saying Donald trumpf is a prick and calling for immigrants to be burned alive in a hotel (to give 2 examples you could be detained for in different countries) don’t you think?

Might be interesting in passing to compare then previous members' of Trump's "administration" posts to the views they held or claimed to hold while in office?

Is privacy a quaint remnant of the pre-informatic age? (not suggesting that public figures pronouncements on public policy should be entitled to privacy from, for example "nasty journalists")