Hillary really is a Nazi.

[DiogenesLamp]

Politicization of the FBI Threatens American Democracy

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, the storied FBI, is the world’s leading law enforcement agency, but it’s also America’s secret police—though most citizens don’t like to think of it that way. As such, the FBI has enormous power. Any democracy which wants to remain one needs to place strict controls on what the secret police can (and can’t) do—and above all, that they remain untainted by raw politics.

The Obama years have witnessed nothing less than the FBI becoming a partisan tool of the Democrats. This has been made painfully clear by the unprecedented hash that Director James Comey’s Bureau made of the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email problems as secretary of state. I’ve previously used the term “sham” to apply to the FBI’s highly irregular and unethical conduct in EmailGate, and with each new revelation of how the Bureau never really wanted to prosecute anyone in this sordid case, that conclusion gets reinforced.

http://observer.com/2016/10/politicization-of-the-fbi-threatens-american-democracy/



Hillary will turn the FBI and other agencies into her own personal Gestapo,  and people want to whine about what is wrong with Donald Trump?   


Some people have a nonsensical view of the problem. 

[endicom]

Hillary will turn the FBI and other agencies into her own personal Gestapo...

Done deal at the top of the agencies. HRC will just complete the job with a weeding out at the lower levels.

[skeeter]

Done deal at the top of the agencies. HRC will just complete the job with a weeding out at the lower levels.

You are right - from the military, to the FBI, to the IRS, to the judiciary, the fedgov has been thoroughly infected with little Obama-appointed clones.

Unless the next president sucks it up and discharges all of the moles planted over the past 8 years, enduring the media outcry that will result from their trying, then there will be very little difference in the effect of governance regardless of who wins.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are right - from the military, to the FBI, to the IRS, to the judiciary, the fedgov has been thoroughly infected with little Obama-appointed clones.

Unless the next president sucks it up and discharges all of the moles planted over the past 8 years, enduring the media outcry that will result from their trying, then there will be very little difference in the effect of governance regardless of who wins.

Did you see this?


Bill Clinton’s airport run-in with Loretta Lynch was no accident

“Bill said, ‘I want to bushwhack Loretta,’ ” the adviser recalled. “ ‘I’m going to board her plane. What do you think?’ And I said, ‘There’s no downside for you, but she’s going to take a pounding if she’s crazy enough to let you on her plane.’

“He knew it would be a huge embarrassment to Loretta when people found out that she had talked to the husband of a woman — the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party — who was under criminal investigation by the FBI,” the adviser continued. “But he didn’t give a damn. He wanted to intimidate Loretta and discredit [FBI Director James] Comey’s investigation of Hillary’s emails, which was giving Hillary’s campaign agita.”

Bill hung up the phone and turned to a Secret Service agent.

“As soon as her plane lands,” he said, “get the attorney general on the phone and say the president would like to have a word with her.”

http://nypost.com/2016/10/03/book-details-how-team-obama-schemed-to-let-hillary-skate/

[Suppressed]

She's an authoritarian, but not a Nazi. Nazis were big on nationalism and love of country.  She's not big on that.  Trump is closer to a Nazi; she's more a garden-variety socialist, or perhaps Marxist or Stalinist.

In any case, as dangerous as any authoritarian.

[DiogenesLamp]

She's an authoritarian, but not a Nazi. Nazis were big on nationalism and love of country.  She's not big on that.  Trump is closer to a Nazi; she's more a garden-variety socialist, or perhaps Marxist or Stalinist.

In any case, as dangerous as any authoritarian.

That is splitting hairs.  Nazi, schmazi,  it's all the same totalitarianism.  Whether one parts it's hair on the left and the other on the right,  does no matter in the overall scheme of things.   The Differences between the Nazis and the Communists are as deep as a coat of paint.


Their core belief in government domination and power are the same.   

[musiclady]

She's an authoritarian, but not a Nazi. Nazis were big on nationalism and love of country.  She's not big on that.  Trump is closer to a Nazi; she's more a garden-variety socialist, or perhaps Marxist or Stalinist.

In any case, as dangerous as any authoritarian.

Neither is Hitler.  Neither is Stalin.

But they're both leaning in the direction of authoritarianism, so they're both dangerous.

That's why I can't vote for either of them.

[dfwgator]

She's an authoritarian, but not a Nazi. Nazis were big on nationalism and love of country.  She's not big on that.  Trump is closer to a Nazi; she's more a garden-variety socialist, or perhaps Marxist or Stalinist.

In any case, as dangerous as any authoritarian.

Nazis were not nationalists, because they didn't respect other nations.  In fact, you could say that the Nazis were the forerunners of the EU, wanting to impose their order over the entire continent.

[Suppressed]

Neither is Hitler.  Neither is Stalin.

But they're both leaning in the direction of authoritarianism, so they're both dangerous.

That's why I can't vote for either of them.

Exactly my point. Perhaps I should have clarified that these authoritarian are as dangerous as any other authoritarians.  I.e., very dangerous.

[musiclady]

Exactly my point. Perhaps I should have clarified that these authoritarian are as dangerous as any other authoritarians.  I.e., very dangerous.

They are.  It would be nice if the people calling themselves 'conservative' who wholeheartedly support Trump and his authoritarian pronouncements would think about what they're really espousing.

[DiogenesLamp]

Neither is Hitler.  Neither is Stalin.

But they're both leaning in the direction of authoritarianism, so they're both dangerous.

That's why I can't vote for either of them.

One is lightning,  the other is a lightning bug.    Obviously they are equally dangerous.   

[musiclady]

One is lightning,  the other is a lightning bug.    Obviously they are equally dangerous.

If that were true, it would be funny.


Unfortunately, it's not even CLOSE to being the truth.


(Sarcasm loses something when it's mixed with ignorance).

[dfwgator]

They are.  It would be nice if the people calling themselves 'conservative' who wholeheartedly support Trump and his authoritarian pronouncements would think about what they're really espousing.

Trump will never be allowed to be "authoritarian",   Hillary will, with the aid of an adoring media.

[240B]

I agree. Monarchy.

Since congress and SCOTUS has devolved into a group of entirely corrupt chattering monkeys, there is nothing to save us from complete despotism.

That is what is coming. And everyone knows it.

Choose your new emperor.

And there Arose, in land of Egypt a new king, who did not know Et Joseph.

[Oceander]

She's an authoritarian, but not a Nazi. Nazis were big on nationalism and love of country.  She's not big on that.  Trump is closer to a Nazi; she's more a garden-variety socialist, or perhaps Marxist or Stalinist.

In any case, as dangerous as any authoritarian.

That's absolutely the case.  Nazis were nationalistic - hence, the "National" in "National Socialist Workers Party" or NSDAP - whereas communists and plain socialists are "internationalist" and wish to break down national boundaries and impose a world-wide dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Suppressed]

Nazis were not nationalists, because they didn't respect other nations.  In fact, you could say that the Nazis were the forerunners of the EU, wanting to impose their order over the entire continent.

The very basis of The Third Reich was nationalism.  What would you call the Heim ins Reich movement or if not nationalist?!  What was the point of the Anschluss Österreichs?  Again, the nationalistic goal of uniting the Germanic people.

Do you think the USSR would have been called part of Germany had it succumbed?  No way!  It would have been part of Das Reich, yet it would have been kept separate from Greater Germany.  No, boundaries would have been maintained, under the control of ein Führer.

Nazism has nationalism as one of its fundamental principles.

[Oceander]

Nazis were not nationalists, because they didn't respect other nations.  In fact, you could say that the Nazis were the forerunners of the EU, wanting to impose their order over the entire continent.

Nazis were absolutely nationalists.  They wished to impose a dictatorship of the Aryan nation - Germany, of course - on the entire world; they were not interested in a transnational dictatorship, but a German dictatorship.

[musiclady]

Trump will never be allowed to be "authoritarian",   Hillary will, with the aid of an adoring media.

That's a pretty big leap of faith you're taking dfw.

You have absolutely NO way of knowing he what he will or will not do, or get away with if he should become President.

At any rate, supporting a candidate because you don't think he'll "be allowed" to get away with the evil he intends to do isn't exactly what I would call reassuring.

He intends to be an authoritarian, and at least a third of the "Republican" party is cheering him on.

These are frightening days at the very least when the party of restraint has become a slobbering, screaming, angry mob.

[ABX]

That's absolutely the case.  Nazis were nationalistic - hence, the "National" in "National Socialist Workers Party" or NSDAP - whereas communists and plain socialists are "internationalist" and wish to break down national boundaries and impose a world-wide dictatorship of the proletariat.

I almost want to split that Communist/Socialist into two.

Communists were Imperialistic while traditional socialists are internationalist or nationalist depending on the country and the form. And even with the Communists, there were many forms, from the Leninists to the Trotsky types.

Either way, Nationalism, Imperialism, or Internationalism are all just forms of statism and opposed to individualism.

[Oceander]

I almost want to split that Communist/Socialist into two.

Communists were Imperialistic while traditional socialists are internationalist or nationalist depending on the country and the form. And even with the Communists, there were many forms, from the Leninists to the Trotsky types.

Either way, Nationalism, Imperialism, or Internationalism are all just forms of statism and opposed to individualism.

I agree that the essential divide is between statism/collectivism and individualism.  All of the isms mentioned are collectivist and authoritarian in nature, and are entirely antithetical to the freedom of the individual.

[ABX]

Trump will never be allowed to be "authoritarian",   Hillary will, with the aid of an adoring media.

Who would stop him?  The Republicans (with few exceptions*) couldn't even be counted on to stand up to Obama, and they were supposed to be the opposition party.

With Trump, they would have even less of a spine because they are supposed to support the party.

Add to that, Trump's history of cronyism, he has decades of experience learning how to and practicing buying off politicians. He would have no hesitation just buying the support he needs.

One more factor, the people who would likely oppose authoritarian type actions of big government, ie, the Right, for the most part, have shed that desire. One of the mantras is they want their own dictator now. They want someone who plays just like Obama, with a pen and a phone, but thinking they are fighting for them.  So even a large block of the so-called Conservative public wouldn't stand up if he acts that way, they would cheer him on with thunderous applause.

I wouldn't even count on the media to oppose him. He is the media's cash cow. Even though they feign opposition, they have admitted that he is good for business. Right from Les Moonves' mouth for example: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/leslie-moonves-donald-trump-may-871464


The thing that worries most of us though, even with all that being said, is Trump doesn't have the biggest opposition to acting like an authoritarian that would be necessary- his own core values.





*Updated with his addendum- even the Republicans who have a history of standing up to big government even when it isn't popular (like Ted Cruz and Tim Scott) have been all but destroyed by the Trump movement so those last bulwarks that have shown a spine have been rendered inept.
Time and time again, he has shown his own core values are as solid as quick sand and he'll change them to suit whatever purpose he needs. So he doesn't even have the core value of respecting the Constitutional nature of our Republic and limiting the power of government to keep his own conscience in check.


..and you wonder why so many of us worry about what he would do to our own side.

[Oceander]

Who would stop him?  The Republicans (with few exceptions) couldn't even be counted on to stand up to Obama, and they were supposed to be the opposition party.

With Trump, they would have even less of a spine because they are supposed to support the party.

Add to that, Trump's history of cronyism, he has decades of experience learning how to and practicing buying off politicians. He would have no hesitation just buying the support he needs.

One more factor, the people who would likely oppose authoritarian type actions of big government, ie, the Right, for the most part, have shed that desire. One of the mantras is they want their own dictator now. They want someone who plays just like Obama, with a pen and a phone, but thinking they are fighting for them.  So even a large block of the so-called Conservative public wouldn't stand up if he acts that way, they would cheer him on with thunderous applause.

I wouldn't even count on the media to oppose him. He is the media's cash cow. Even though they feign opposition, they have admitted that he is good for business. Right from Les Moonves' mouth for example: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/leslie-moonves-donald-trump-may-871464


The thing that worries most of us though, even with all that being said, is Trump doesn't have the biggest opposition to acting like an authoritarian that would be necessary- his own core values.

Time and time again, he has shown his own core values are as solid as quick sand and he'll change them to suit whatever purpose he needs. So he doesn't even have the core value of respecting the Constitutional nature of our Republic and limiting the power of government to keep his own conscience in check.


..and you wonder why so many of us worry about what he would do to our own side.

Could not have said it better myself!

[Sanguine]

I agree that the essential divide is between statism/collectivism and individualism.  All of the isms mentioned are collectivist and authoritarian in nature, and are entirely antithetical to the freedom of the individual.

And, the Nazi/Stalinist/communist/fascist argument are all European/global terms and don't work well in American terms.  I understand that many on the left identify more with the the Euroglobal ideologies than they do with American values.

[Oceander]

And, the Nazi/Stalinist/communist/fascist argument are all European/global terms and don't work well in American terms.  I understand that many on the left identify more with the the Euroglobal ideologies than they do with American values.

Not necessarily.  A lot of American history is small town communitarianism - for lack of a better word - where everyone pitched in to help everyone else.  The principal difference between communitarianism and the other isms is that the former is voluntary - people do the right thing because they want to do the right thing of their own accord, not because someone told them to - but that can be easily perverted into socialism/communism/nazism, where the individual is now coerced into doing the "right" thing (which itself has been corrupted and now means just what those in power think should be done).

[Sanguine]

Not necessarily.  A lot of American history is small town communitarianism - for lack of a better word - where everyone pitched in to help everyone else.  The principal difference between communitarianism and the other isms is that the former is voluntary - people do the right thing because they want to do the right thing of their own accord, not because someone told them to - but that can be easily perverted into socialism/communism/nazism, where the individual is now coerced into doing the "right" thing (which itself has been corrupted and now means just what those in power think should be done).

I think we just agreed.