Trump Redux: The Death of Democracy, or Overblown Hyperbole?

[Trollheart]

Please bring back the old avatar. It was by far the best on SCD.

I can't remember what it was, and it's been bugging me since you mentioned it.

[Lucem Ferre]

I can't remember what it was, and it's been bugging me since you mentioned it.

[jimmy jazz]

Please bring back the old avatar. It was by far the best on SCD.

As you have mentioned avatars, please have an avatar. You look naked.

[Trollheart]

Ah yes of course. I agree.

I also agree with JJ: we frown on nakedness here.  Google is watching!

[Jwb]

If it were just the 1488 thing then sure. But they do these dogwhistles so frequently (not always specifically Nazi ones but white nationalist and antisemitic ones certainly) that it's not something I feel like I can just dismiss or downplay. We've established that you and I differ on what we think is is proper to call a Nazi comparison, and for the record I don't necessarily disagree with you. I have acknowledged that the comparisons I make aren't intended to be one to one. I've agreed with you that I don't think they're trying to re-establish the Third Reich. But I also don't think it's correct to say that they haven't been inspired by the actions, rhetoric and techniques of the Nazis. Not exclusively, I agree with your call on Russia for sure. And it's probably a fair point that I'm less studied on other authoritarian regimes than Nazi Germany, I fully admit this.

I call out Nazi shit: A. when it's obvious Nazi signaling. Maybe you're right on the 1488 thing, I saw a bunch of people saying that they timed the 'antisemitism' order deliberately to fall on a number including 14 and 88, but even without that they do the Nazi signals all the time and I can provide plenty more examples. And B. When I analogize parallels and point out historical patterns that line up with the descent into authoritarianism that occurred in Germany in the 1930s. I've never meant to imply that I think that's the only place and time where those patterns occurred and those parallels can be drawn. But fair enough, I could probably make more accurate comparisons if I were more knowledgeable on other authoritarian regimes.

Well, to be clear,  I do think it's useful to have other authoritarian regimes or other historical examples to invoke, but it's not like I think that is going to save us from MAGA in any case.  In order for an example to carry water,  it has to be widely understood.  The lack of historical depth in the thinking of your average voter isn't going to change regardless of how well you fine tune your analogy. 

So at a certain point,  invoking the Nazis to illustrate the dangers of falling down the path of authoritarianism is a perfectly valid analogy,  even if you don't think the regime in question is as genocidal as the Nazis were. Unfortunately,  that creates room for doubt in someone like for example Piers Morgan to come in and drill down on whether you actually believe that Trump is going to set up death camps because you referred to him as a fascist,  or even because you made a Hitler comparison. 

If the comparison in question is only in regard to how he managed to hijack German democracy,  then it actually has no implication that you expect that because Trump is also trying to subvert democracy that means the next step after that is death camps.  But that's the inference that many if not most people will unwittingly make.

I think in some ways the right is empowered both by being called nazis and also by people being reluctant to call them nazis. They have somehow managed to benefit from both responses. On the one hand,  I'm convinced that when Elon does something like throw up a Nazi salute,  part of the aim is to signal to the far right that they are normalizing that sort of thing,  and the other part is to farm the outrage that will come from the left and paint them as the deranged ones for pointing out the obvious.  So it's not like I think it's wrong to even call them nazis.  But I think the sort of game they seem to be playing is worth being cognizant of.  In many cases they seem to be setting traps to spur arguments that they hope the left stumbles on and in doing so helps them move the Overton window to the right.

In addition to that,  I think that once you start looking for a specific pattern and trying to map everything on to that,  it can blind you to nuances that don't neatly comport with your narrative.  Like, for example,  say they did actually time the EO to have secret Nazi references as a signal to the actual Nazis who support them,  the last issue they would tie that to is an attempt to clamp down on criticism of Israel. Actual Nazis like Nick Fuentes hate how "cucked" the admin is to Israel.  So the messaging there really wouldn't make sense. 

In other words,  a predetermined narrative about how they are nazis that you want to expose as such can blind you to the factions and nuance that exists among the MAGA coalition.  It isn't only about being more accurate about historical examples. The real point is to know your enemy.

[Lexi Darling]

Well, to be clear,  I do think it's useful to have other authoritarian regimes or other historical examples to invoke, but it's not like I think that is going to save us from MAGA in any case.  In order for an example to carry water,  it has to be widely understood.  The lack of historical depth in the thinking of your average voter isn't going to change regardless of how well you fine tune your analogy. 

So at a certain point,  invoking the Nazis to illustrate the dangers of falling down the path of authoritarianism is a perfectly valid analogy,  even if you don't think the regime in question is as genocidal as the Nazis were. Unfortunately,  that creates room for doubt in someone like for example Piers Morgan to come in and drill down on whether you actually believe that Trump is going to set up death camps because you referred to him as a fascist,  or even because you made a Hitler comparison. 

If the comparison in question is only in regard to how he managed to hijack German democracy,  then it actually has no implication that you expect that because Trump is also trying to subvert democracy that means the next step after that is death camps.  But that's the inference that many if not most people will unwittingly make.

I think in some ways the right is empowered both by being called nazis and also by people being reluctant to call them nazis. They have somehow managed to benefit from both responses. On the one hand,  I'm convinced that when Elon does something like throw up a Nazi salute,  part of the aim is to signal to the far right that they are normalizing that sort of thing,  and the other part is to farm the outrage that will come from the left and paint them as the deranged ones for pointing out the obvious.  So it's not like I think it's wrong to even call them nazis.  But I think the sort of game they seem to be playing is worth being cognizant of.  In many cases they seem to be setting traps to spur arguments that they hope the left stumbles on and in doing so helps them move the Overton window to the right.

In addition to that,  I think that once you start looking for a specific pattern and trying to map everything on to that,  it can blind you to nuances that don't neatly comport with your narrative.  Like, for example,  say they did actually time the EO to have secret Nazi references as a signal to the actual Nazis who support them,  the last issue they would tie that to is an attempt to clamp down on criticism of Israel. Actual Nazis like Nick Fuentes hate how "cucked" the admin is to Israel.  So the messaging there really wouldn't make sense. 

In other words,  a predetermined narrative about how they are nazis that you want to expose as such can blind you to the factions and nuance that exists among the MAGA coalition.  It isn't only about being more accurate about historical examples. The real point is to know your enemy.

Valid points. Part of my eagerness to call out the Nazi dogwhistles is definitely rooted in my own sort of shock response, like I feel sometimes like I'm taking crazy pills that people are doing this stuff so brazenly and visibly at the highest level of government on the most widespread media platforms. And me posting on here calling them out is like my way of reaching out to others to affirm that I'm not crazy, that this shit just isn't normal. And I see your point that doing that makes me look like I'm taking their outrage bait. I'm really more just still stunned that all of this is the political reality currently, to be honest.

But i definitely understand and generally agree with your points and i appreciate you going in depth about it.

[Lisnaholic]

Anyone else enjoying the fiasco of the Attack Plans Group Chat ?
I said a while ago that one difference between the Nazis and the Trump admin is that the Nazis, in power, valued experience and knowledge, and hired people accordingly. The Trump admin hires loyalists and celebs without relevant expertise, and the consequence of that hiring policy is demonstrated by this latest blunder.

Caught off-guard, even the Trump admin's go-to policy of deny and deflect is failing them: Hesgeth's denial that any classified info was in the chat has only led to more damning content details being released by The Atlantic, (who had been commendably holding back some info until Hesgeth effectively gave them his "nothing classified" permission to release it).
And Helsgeth's other ploy, to denegrate journalist Jason Goldberg has only led to people shouting louder, "...then why was he in the chat ?!?"

The information Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth disclosed in the Signal chat were highly classified at the time he wrote it, especially because the operation had not even started yet, according to a US defense official familiar with the operation and another source who was briefed on it afterward.

"It is safe to say that anybody in uniform would be court-martialed for this," the official added. "We don't provide that level of information on unclassified systems, in order to protect the lives and safety of the service members carrying out these strikes. If we did, it would be wholly irresponsible. My most junior analysts know not to do this."

In light of the bolded, it'll be interesting to see if that idea of justice is carried over to the Trump admin in any way. Will anybody involved be chucked out, I wonder ?

[Buck_Mulligan]

Hopefully this is the first sign of voter resistance. Special elections in two separate districts...

In Pennsylvania, Democratic state Senate candidate James Malone won over Republican Josh Parsons on Tuesday by less than a single percentage point in Lancaster County, a largely GOP-held agricultural region west of Philadelphia. Donald Trump carried the district by 15 points not even five months ago. (Democrats also won a Pennsylvania House seat in Allegheny County that handed them a one-vote majority in the statehouse.)

Elections in Florida and Wisconsin up next.

[Trollheart]

Yeah, I know it's something (better that nothing), but "less than a percentage point" is hardly a ringing denouncement of the Republicans, is it? More a shrug than a fist in the air.

[Lexi Darling]

I'm going to be voting in the election here in Wisco. At least I will be if this garbage doesn't go into effect.

https://apnews.com/article/voting-elections-trump-executive-order-4e9edb53f47e61e241a43ceef8164022

[Buck_Mulligan]

Yeah, I know it's something (better that nothing), but "less than a percentage point" is hardly a ringing denouncement of the Republicans, is it? More a shrug than a fist in the air.

It's a 16 point swing. In 5 months, that's significant.

[Lexi Darling]

https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3llclkqz7rc2o

I'm going to fucking barf

[SGR]

https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3llclkqz7rc2o

I'm going to fucking barf

First he says his admin is off to a better start than Washington's, and now he says he is the "Fertilization President"? Everyone knows John Tyler is the "Fertilization President". He had 15 kids, and still has one living grandson today. Also, Tyler accomplished it with only two wives, while Trump has had three, so no excuses. If there were any John Tyler fans, they'd be very upset about this. 

[Lexi Darling]

First he says his admin is off to a better start than Washington's, and now he says he is the "Fertilization President"? Everyone knows John Tyler is the "Fertilization President". He had 15 kids, and still has one living grandson today. Also, Tyler accomplished it with only two wives, while Trump has had three, so no excuses. If there were any John Tyler fans, they'd be very upset about this. 

Oh he's the fertilization president alright, in that he's full of horseshit. 

[SGR]

Anyone else enjoying the fiasco of the Attack Plans Group Chat ?
I said a while ago that one difference between the Nazis and the Trump admin is that the Nazis, in power, valued experience and knowledge, and hired people accordingly. The Trump admin hires loyalists and celebs without relevant expertise, and the consequence of that hiring policy is demonstrated by this latest blunder.

Caught off-guard, even the Trump admin's go-to policy of deny and deflect is failing them: Hesgeth's denial that any classified info was in the chat has only led to more damning content details being released by The Atlantic, (who had been commendably holding back some info until Hesgeth effectively gave them his "nothing classified" permission to release it).
And Helsgeth's other ploy, to denegrate journalist Jason Goldberg has only led to people shouting louder, "...then why was he in the chat ?!?"

In light of the bolded, it'll be interesting to see if that idea of justice is carried over to the Trump admin in any way. Will anybody involved be chucked out, I wonder ?

Yeah Lisna, I don't know exactly how this one will shake out. It's definitely a huge opsec failure. I've never used the Signal app myself, so I'm somewhat curious how Jeffrey Goldberg was 'mistakenly' added to the chat. It's also quite funny, because if Trump had his choice of any journalist to be 'mistakenly' added to a chat like this, Goldberg would probably be at the absolute bottom of the list. 

They've had (or are having) hearings about it. I haven't quite caught up with all of that. But one thing I did notice is that beyond the fact that a complete opsec failure was exposed, there isn't much to add on to the scandal. In other words, if the operation went haywire because of this, or someone(s) got hurt due to the poor security adherence, it would be a much bigger scandal. To your question of justice, my guess is that whoever added Goldberg (and we're in the 'fog of war' info phase, but it sounds like it might've been a staffer for Waltz) to the chat will get axed. I'd be surprised if it really resulted in higher heads rolling like Waltz himself or Hegseth, even though many Dems are calling for that. Again though, 'fog of war', we're still getting info about this - if something directly incriminates either of them in this mistake, it could be possible - but at this point, I'd doubt it.

I also feel like the story doesn't have natural oxygen to sustain it beyond a weekly news cycle or two  (at least in the public's interest, legal cases might play out longer)- beyond the opsec failure, there's only a few illuminating tidbits in the chats I've seen (tell me if you think there is something I've missed). What does seem to be clear is that Trump's admin, based on the chat, has the same resentment towards Europe in private that they present in public. The only other interesting tidbit to me seemed to be that JD Vance seemed completely comfortable defying or at least questioning/opposing the strike on Yemen that Trump supported - in some sense, it's probably a good thing that the admin is comfortable defying Trump in private. Beyond that though, there are news stories about emojis that the chatters used, and if we're talking about emojis, then that's a signal that there's not a lot of juicier drama or internal conflict to ply from:

Trump team sparks fury with 'sickening' choice of emojis while describing their war plans in leaked Signal chat

All that being said, Trump promised a government of transparency, didn't he? I just don't think this was what anyone had in mind.