60,000 Nazis Marched in Poland this weekend

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Would Trump be similarly cunning in establishing his power and utilizing the weaknesses of the system to get his way?

Alone? No, but per my previous point he’s surrounded by people who could (and maybe already are).

Clear examples for me are what’s happening at the border (for example, the child separation policy was piloted in El Paso in 2017 and we never even heard about it) and also tariffs.

Lots of unilateral power there with no need for congressional support it legislation. 

9 minutes ago, CharonY said:

are the mechanisms in modern democracies resilient enough to withstand a ruthless dictator?

TBD

 

EDIT: And just to head Raider off at the pass, I’m not saying Trump is a ruthless dictator. Not yet, anyway...

Edited November 27, 2018 by iNow

[geordief]

10 minutes ago, CharonY said:

In some ways I wonder what would happen if one would transpose someone like Trump with dictators like e.g. Stalin. Would Trump be similarly cunning in establishing his power and utilizing the weaknesses of the system to get his way? Conversely, are the mechanisms in modern democracies resilient enough to withstand a ruthless dictator?

I don't know the answer ,but reckon you can cast your net wider when it comes to autocrats taking hold of or consolidating their power .

 

I doubt they all have to be especially able ,just up to the task of holding their ground and expanding it when called upon.

 

Wasn't Claudius (of I Claudius) an example as portrayed   of one  who wasn't cut out for deviousness.

 

There is also always the question  of which comes first ,the leader or the gap in the political market.

 

With Trump I fear it is a question of "give him an inch and he will take a mile"

Edited November 27, 2018 by geordief

[iNow]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

for example, the child separation policy was piloted in El Paso in 2017 and we never even heard about it

For anyone seeking evidence of the above, details and short video at this link: 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-family-separation-policy-mexican-border-60-minutes-investigation-greater-in-number-than-trump-administration-admits/

[Raider5678]

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

Think of it as degrees in similar directions rather than a simple binary (i.e. yes/no) type of situation.

That's not how I'm thinking about it as. I've broken it down repeatedly how I am looking at it and you're not even attempting to address any of those points. Do that, and I'll address yours. But until then I feel as though we're talking past each other. For example:

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

It is a general folly to assume that democratic systems in itself have perfect failsafes (the Weimar Republic serves as a clear example).

You've said this already. I've pointed out that's not what I'm saying. You said it again.

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

Trump, as I have mentioned before, clearly shows autocratic desires and a significant proportion of the populace is cheering him on.

I've also specifically taken this point, told you why I don't believe it, and you simply restated it. If you believe it, that's fine, but please justify why you believe a significant proportion of the populace is cheering him on for the specific goals you've mentioned. I've also specifically taken this point and said I don't feel that what Trump is doing is the same as the steps Hitler did, and I also said I don't think the population would still support him if he tried to do so. Again, you've seemingly simply repeated the position and didn't address any of the examples I raised. Address this, and I'll address you.

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

Your argument was mainly that the only (or at least main way) that folks like Hitler could get to power was due to  economic catastrophes. And my overall point is that it is not a requirement, otherwise we would not have such a far-right swing in much of Europe.

I've also specifically pointed out what my overall point is, many, many, many times. It was not this. Yet you say once again that's my main argument. Again, you're talking about a position I don't hold. Early on in the conversation, I mentioned economic conditions as a single factor. iNow brought up that just because the conditions are different, doesn't mean the feelings are the same. We had a discussion about whether the conditions affect the intensity of feelings or not. That was related to the economic conditions, but I wasn't saying it was the only possible way Hitler could rise to power. If you really want to say that, then quote me where I said that.

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

Or perhaps to put it more succinctly, folks  do not need to be in desperate situations in order to get radicalized. Often it is sufficient to make them feel that way (say, by drawing a hellscape of carnage and violence).

This is the only part of my argument you address, but only somewhat. I talked about feelings of desperation being the enabler, and you pointed out that people don't have to be in a desperate situation specifically, they only have to believe they are. So we agree on that.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Raider5678

[CharonY]

On 11/24/2018 at 9:07 PM, Raider5678 said:

I'd say not. The German economy, social life, and government structure was much much much worse then what we have today. That opened it up to Hitler swaying the masses and literally establishing himself as a supreme ruler, with relatively little pushback. There was pushback. There was a lot of it. But it was nowhere near what you'd see if Trump tried to do the same thing.

Doom and gloom get parties votes, but it isn't reality. As a country, we're doing quite well.

Is is specifically what you stated above. The way I read it is that you point out as key differences:

a) the economy, social life and government structure was much worse.

b) the above opened the path for Hitler so that he could become ruler

c) with comparatively little pushback .

I challenged every point of this particular quote and I do not think that I have made any assertions that did not in that post. Especially a) alludes governmental fail safes and economic misery as prerequisites (I omitted social life as I am not sure what you meant by that). While your point may be more nuanced than you have written, I will point out that your post does not provide much to express them. Rather it is a straightforward list of what you think are the major differences. If you want to add nuance, you have to try to incorporate them better.

You did clarify that you say that the mindset is completely different. However, you do not provide details in what specifically. As such some here (including myself) talk about trends and you seem to make categorical differences, but do not specify them.