Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (9529)	2/4/2017 12:30:33 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361661

I did not label him a fascist. I don't think he is. In fact, if he has any ideology, he has hid it well. But, he undeniably ran a campaign with many fascist elements. I find it very disconcerting that so many people found it appealing.

To: Lane3 who wrote (9529)	2/6/2017 8:56:19 PM
From: Katelew	1 Recommendation Recommended By i-node Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361661

<<But he did "promise" to change the libel laws for journalists while on the stump, he continues to believe that they shouldn't be allowed to report anything that hurts his feelings, and he has a strong instinct to hit back. We are used to our leaders showing appreciation of the first amendment. Patriots are not supposed to even entertain the idea of chipping away at it. Regardless of how presidents really feel, they should know not to treat endorsement of the first amendment as mere political correctness rather than borderline un-American. >> I agree with your passion about journalistic freedom. So I'm curious what you think about the riots at Berkeley this weekend? The next night there was another riot at NYU, and Democrats again prevented a different conservative speaker from speaking. Do you feel as strongly about freedom of speech for everyone, or is it just for journalists? I was disappointed that not one major newspaper took up the cause defending freedom of speech. On Sunday morning I sincerely expected at least one of them would.

To: Lane3 who wrote (9529)	2/10/2017 1:26:57 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 361661

I see reason to be concerned but that's not unique to him. The main reason I'd be more concerned with him is that Trump may be more erratic and less predictable. I'm not so sure his central tendency if particularly fascist or is more likely to be abusive or to go beyond rightful federal and presidential powers than that of other top national politicians (say Hillary Clinton) but his variance around that central tendency might be larger and so when it happens to swing in a bad direction it may be worse. OTOH being more random it might be less solid. A new policy by a hypothetical president Clinton creating more restrictions on political communication, and found to be constitutional by her new supreme court appointments, might have more sticking power, becoming "the new normal." and he has a strong instinct to hit back At this point its just words. And for new more expansive libel laws to come in to effect they would have to be passed by congress, and then they would face court challenges. I don't see anything in Gorsuch's history that indicates he's for weaker 1st amendment protections. While Trump is hardly a zero threat to the 1st amendment I think he's less of a threat than Clinton would have been. I was not referring to the refusal to admit people. I was referring to Americans. Disfavored groups of Americans. The Pastor Niemoller version included unionists. So how is that different from journalists? Is Trump sending journalists to slave labor camps? If you were not referring to the refusal to admit people, what command or order or new policy from Trump fits with "first they came for..." (Not that refusing to admit people fits either but some people claim its fascist.) As for the severity of the outcome for the disfavored groups, sure, there is a huge difference. But the Nazis didn't start out killing Jews. They merely started by singling them out. Its not a different degree of the same basic thing. Death camps on one side and immigration restrictions, and vague talk about extending libel laws, are to far apart to be put together in the same category. As for "started by singling them out", they started by claiming they betrayed the country, by making threats, by forcing Jewish people to wear symbols, and intimidating them with threats of violence and some degree of actual violence even in the early days. The Enabling Act, giving Hitler total the power to rule by decree, passed on March 23rd 1933. A national boycott of Jewish businesses was declared on April 1st. A decree pushing "non-Aryans" out of the civil service was declared April 7th. On April 11th it was declared that anyone with even one Jewish parent or grandparent was considered "non-Aryan". A nationwide book burning was held on May 10th. The brownshirts were smashing the windows of Jewish store fronts years before the Nazi's gained power, and they were also parading the streets in mass and in uniform and beating up. and sometimes shooting political opponents. None of which means there isn't reason to be vigilant, but the vigilance is required to protect not against full blown fascism, which isn't manifesting or on the horizon, but against all sorts of much lesser but still negative things. And there is always a reason to be vigilant, not just because of or since Trump was elected.