First, a disclaimer. I am not seeking to insult or label people. My goal is to start a dialogue about a development that deeply concerns me. This development is not US-specific, but is occurring in Russia, Israel, Europe and undoubtedly other countries as well. However, since the US seems to be drawing a lot of attention lately, it seems logical to focus on the Trump administration.
Let’s start with the question in the title. During a previous discussion with TSZ-residents dazz and Erik, I initially resisted the “fascism” label for the Trump adminstration. In my opinion, that label is often applied too eagerly and I wanted to preserve the term for movements that objectively fit the term. The fascists from beginning of the 20th century were militarist and resorted to violence, for example through paramilitary forces such as the infamous Sturmabteilung in Germany. This is way more radical than their modern far-right counterparts, such as the German Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) or the French Rassemblement National, which mostly seek political influence through democratic and parliamentary means. But what then makes a political party or movement a fascist one? The characteristics of fascism I had to memorize for history class in high school were:
- Ultranationalism
- Admiration for strong charismatic leaders
- Preoccupation with racial purity
- Anti-liberalism
- Populism
- Militarism
The striving for racial purity is currently replaced by nativism, but otherwise the Trump administration is ticking a lot of boxes here. Still, I noted a lack of militarism (The “no new wars” claim). Also the fact that experts were not using that label weighed strongly in my opinion that it was premature to openly call modern far-right movements fascist. That time I said:
Of course, I am not a historian nor a politologist so once the experts start calling the Trump administration a fascist regime I will gladly follow suit.
Fast forward one year. The Trump regime broke its campaign promise and has started two illegal military conflicts, one in Venezuela and one in Iran. It has threatened both Canada and Denmark, two allied NATO members, with military action. The regime has also proved to be hostile towards its own citizens: Two peaceful demonstrants have been executed by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) during the Minneapolis protests. Note that ICE is beginning to look a lot like a paramilitary force. Also, i have since learned that the Department of Defense has been renamed “Department of War”. I cannot decide whether that is more creepy or more childish. So far for “no militarism”.
Importantly, I found that professional politologists started openly calling the Trump regime fascist. Recently, I read the book “Dit is Fascisme” (no translation needed, I trust) by Rosan Smits. Smits is a politologist who for years researched radicalization and violence in war zones. Currently, she is adjunct editor-in-chief at the online news platform De Correspondent. Her ideas are strongly influenced by historian Robert Paxton and philosopher Jason Stanley. Robert Paxton has been specializing in Vichy France and fascism. Like me, he initially resisted the “fascism” label for Trumpism, but changed his mind after the Capitol attack. Jason Stanly wrote the book “How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them” in which he outlined ten “pillars of fascism”. These people I definitely regard as experts in relevant fields. In the book, Rosan Smits argues that it is not useful to distinguish between radical right, right-wing extremism and fascism. Rather we should think of these movements as consecutive steps in a progression towards ever more radical fascism. She compares this to a plan-of-action (draaiboek) that all proto-fascist movements go through. She has no problem calling the Trump administration fascist. In fact, this is even the title of chapter 2 in the book: “Het fascistische regime-Trump”. Again, I trust this does not need translation.
So now I am not sure whether it is right to call the Trump administration fascist. There is little doubt that Trumpism sports several hallmarks of classical fascism, such as an appeal to a mythical past (Make America Great Again), anti-intellectualism, a culture of victimhood and violent hostility towards critical counterforces. Therefore, it seems defensible to call Trumpism a form of fascism. On the other hand, the term “fascism” seems to generate more heat than light, often rendering reasoned debate impossible. Therefore, it could be more useful to focus on the actions of the adminstration than trying to affix a label to it.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, I would appreciate if people could do their best to create a “reasoned debate” in the thread. That is, I would like to hear the reasons you have for agreeing or disagreeing with the premise of the post. A discussion that only feeds on fear and anger will only serve as fertile soil for fascism, whatever you take that to be.
keiths,
The facts you cited were correct.
The facts you cited were correct.
Silence…
Flint,
How do I feel 🙂
What do you suppose you were being asked? Fact: Trump lied. What is your reaction to this? Somehow you just can’t grasp what this question means. You conceded that the facts were correct, but you simply could not bring yourself to notice the obvious conclusion from those facts: Trump lied. Come on, man. Own up to your feelings about Trump’s habitual, flagrant lying.
Flint,
Hi Flint
Trump promised a hospital boat and it was not delivered. You are concluding he intentionally lied. This may or may not be true but you may have jumped to an assertion based primarily on your view of Trump. This is what I see continually on this post and other anti Trump posts. Jumping to assertions is the opposite of critical thinking. If you think I am wrong I will listen to your argument carefully if it is truly fact based.
This discussion will go a lot smoother if you could finally provide your highly anticipated alternative explanation (TM). keiths gave you several options:
1) Trump knew the hospital ship was not available, but lied about it
2) Trump genuinely believed the hospital ship would be available but failed to check.
3) Trump did check, was misinformed but failed to rectify when he found out.
If you don’t like any of the above, please provide your own:
4) Trump wasn’t lying, being careless or being a dick but something else, to wit [your explanation goes here]
I based this on two things. First, the hospital boat was demonstrably NOT where Trump said it was or doing what Trump said it was, and second, Trump lies habitually about everything. And these are facts not subject to rational denial. You say you’re willing to listen, but you never do. Trump was caught telling more than 30,000 lies during his first term. This term, he’s worse. Your response boils down to “prove it”. And sure enough, you can always find some reason why Trump’s falsehoods MIGHT have some excuse, however far-fetched. You have finally come around to the realization that what Trump says is commonly not true, but lying? That implies deliberate intent, which requires that we read his mind rather than observe his statements. Even after tens of thousands of falsehoods, you “can’t be sure he’s lying.”
Flint,
I listen when your arguments are factual.
Your bias here is you think Trump is a habitual liar. This is a media narrative that you have latched on to. After lots of discussion Keiths was able to prove a single lie among many accusations. No one has established that he is a habitual liar. Facts and reasonable proofs matter.
I think explanation number 2 is the most likely the case. He has lots of balls in the air and this mistake is a reasonable explanation. He usually delivers on what he commits as that is a key strategy of his.
But how can anyone make factual arguments without trusted sources? We have seen how you dismiss reports of tens of thousands of documented falsehoods as biased. For you, any source documenting Trump’s lies isn’t trustworthy, so you continue to demand proof and facts.
What is a “media narrative”? We’re talking about diligent, knowledgeable reporters who would lose their jobs if these reports were false. How do these reports become a “media narrative”? Because you don’t like them?
And why are documented reports from multiple trusted sources not “reasonable”?
Trump has worked hard to master the “big lie”. This is a psychological trick based on the fact that if a lie is told often enough for long enough and told confidently enough, it becomes true in the minds of those who want it to be true.
Yes, this is predictable. Trump isn’t dishonest, he’s sincerely confused, forgets facts, gets facts garbled, does this with grinding regularity, always confuses things in ways that support his delusions, and is always too busy to check his facts or correct anything.
Meanwhile, Trump promised with every campaign speech that he would end foreign wars and lower prices starting day one. Maybe he just didn’t realize that starting wars isn’t the same as ending them, or that tariffs would raise prices, and maybe in a year and a half nobody ever told him otherwise, right? Of course, tens of millions of voters believed him, but golly, they didn’t realize he had so many balls in the air that he couldn’t be expected to say anything that could be verified as true.
But hey, you might be right. Trump has deliberately surrounded himself with those who are both blindly loyal and functionally incompetent, and anyone who ever told him the truth was fired. So now he’s in a bubble he created himself, so he never needs to be offended by facts. If you are President, and also petty and vindictive and not very bright, who would dare tell you the truth?
colewd:
Fixed that for you. Your failure to acknowledge doesn’t mean that I failed to prove.
OK, so your position on the Greenland fiasco is that Trump is
1) so stupid that he decided to send a hospital ship to Greenland without checking to see if there were sick people there who would benefit from it;
2) so stupid that he made the decision to send it without discussing it with the Greenlandic government;
3) so stupid that he failed to check to see if the unneeded ship was available;
4) so stupid that he didn’t realize that failing to check all of the above would make him look like a total idiot, as it did;
5) so stupid that he forgot to explain to Greenland that the ship they didn’t need wasn’t coming after all because he had been too stupid to check all of the above.
In other words, your position seems to be that he is a moron, but an honest one. If not, what is your explanation for the clown show I just outlined above?
No. These are the same thing. Specifically, they are the same thing in the context of official EU framework of policies regarding (im)migrants and refugees. Learn the basics, will you.
Let’s see. Your tactic is to ban the word and hope that rational discussion follows somehow from meeting fascists halfway like this. On the example of colewd, how would you say this is going? Any success?
Invasions, such as Russian invasion of Ukraine, are a reality, from which it should be evident that there is no invasion of immigrants to USA. These two events do not compare, so there is no invasion to USA. Historically, the last time USA was invaded was in 1812 and those were not immigrants. Immigrants alone do not do invasions anyway.
Any rational discussion begins with framing the facts correctly – or, if it is a small preliminary discussion, at least aims to identify the facts and frame them correctly. With colewd, the discussion has been going on for years and we are far past that. He thinks all immigrants are illegal (straight-out fascism), that there was an open borders policy under Biden (Q/Trumpite propaganda) and so on.
So, he thinks American immigrants are doing an invasion, while you, shunning the word have no way to even begin to discuss this point of his, to at least point out that he is wrong. There go your tactics. How is this anything else but feeding the troll? colewd has lucidly demonstrated that he does not care about facts or truth – and you meet him halfway by denying some uncomfortable truths on your own part.
keiths,
This is your only alternative explanation 🙂
I don’t think any of keiths’ explanations is correct. I don’t think Trump is stupid in those ways. Trump does not spout continuous falsehoods because he doesn’t know any better, but not simply because he enjoys it. Instead, Trump says things to create news, get attention, please his base, and make himself feel good. We’re back to the distinction between lies and bullshit. Some of Trump’s falsehoods are indeed deliberate lies (that is, untrue statements intended to deceive in order to achieve some other purpose), but most of his falsehoods are just extemporaneous blather he feels like spouting at the time, for no further purpose than to create confusion and chaos. I’m aware that Trump knows nobody can believe anything he says without checking it out, and he wants it that way. Then when someone checks it out, he can call it “fake news” and we’re back to bullshit.
How about a little information here, for a change:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fact-check-the-many-lies-trump-told-the-new-york-post/ar-AA24M5Ay?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=02cff1851050446b85036f9222c99167&ei=119
I’m betting you can’t read the whole article.
Flint,
Why would he? It’s biased. A critical thinker like Bill doesn’t need no stinkin’ articles from biased left-leaning media. Produce something unbiased – Fox News, say – he might listen. Trump’s too busy stopping 8 wars and presenting himself as Dr Jesus to trouble himself with factual accuracy. But lying? Nah. Anything but that. Addled, ill-informed, stupid, clueless – all come before lying in the explanatory framework. That simply will not do.
Quite the psychological case study, is our Bill.
Flint,
Flint,
Hi Flint
I read the article and even though it makes unsupported claims I agree that Trump does exaggerate numbers.
An issue living in California is election integrity. The election was Tuesday. Why are they still counting votes?
Ever heard of Google? Here is one article:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/why-does-it-take-so-long-to-count-votes-in-california-heres-why-the-process-may-feel-even-slower-this-election/ar-AA24Rzij?ocid=BingNewsSerp
Here is another:
https://nypost.com/2026/06/05/us-news/why-counting-votes-in-california-takes-long-here-is-what-to-expect/
How many more do you want? Why can’t you do this?
Briefly, California is a big state with lots of different ways to vote, and no votes can be counted until polls close.
Flint,
I have heard this argument.
The better argument is that mail in voting where there are not good checks on voter legality is vulnerable to fraud. This is why politicians that are incompetent, corrupt and ruin Cities like Karen Bass get re elected.
We were able to overcome this in San Francisco with a non partisan organisation like grow SF that holds the local politicians accountable. The city is now getting cleaned up.
Thanks. That at least helps the conversation.
Oh, I didn’t realize that Trump released the unredacted Epstein files. Can you link to them please?
You portrayed the immigration of ethnic Russians into Sovjet states as a deliberate tactic to change the demographics of those regions. That is a different context than migrants seeking job opportunities. I am not sure how the “official EU framework of policies” turns these into the same thing. Please explain those basics to me.
That doesn’t make sense. I have already opposed colewd’s views on migration, even in this very thread.
I never had much hope of changing colewd’s mind. The most I was hoping to get out of his participation in this thread was getting some understanding of the reasons behind his devotion to Trump. That much I accomplished.
Corneel,
Have you made your own straw man argument here?. Let’s
have a real conversation instead of incorporating logical fallacies. Usually does not mean all just to be clear.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist. From my perspective, I can’t help but notice that he didn’t quite manage to end the Russo-Ukranian war either though.
But of course he delivered on some of his promises: He pardoned the january 6 insurrectionists, withdrew the US from the Paris climate agreement and started a ruthless deportation program. Well done! Which one is your favorite?
Corneel,
As far as commuting sentences of the protesters to time served I would need to understand if the time served matched the crime. Don’t know as not all acted the same during the protest.
As far as the Paris climate agreement I think this was wise. I think the evidence shows the hysteria over climate change has led to bad investments. I do strongly believe in Environmental regulation when it is managed responsibly as gas emissions have been.
Additional policies promised I support.
-Support of technology including Crypto and AI
-Support of our laws like immigration
-Fighting financial corruption in the States
-Securing the US position in the West
– Fighting drug and human trafficking.
-His clean up of DC has been impressive
I think the Democratic Party is badly out of control at this point. While I have supported 2 Democrats at the local and State controller level I do not see their policies at the upper State and National level as being good for our Country.
Trump is not a Nazi but it looks like the Democrats have found one to run for Senator in Maine.
I think the evidence may surface that there is massive election fraud in California.
Well, it’s certainly being examined in exhaustive detail. But we all notice that numerous elections (in Georgia, Colorado, Arizona, Michigan) were all counted, re-counted, re-re-counted, and/or audited. And while NO fraud was found, Trump supporters continue to claim fraud.
Clearly, fraud is not an observation, fraud is an assumption no amount of verification can change. Don’t be like that, OK?
Got it. Feeding hungry children? Bad. Making health insurance affordable? Bad. Preventing and fighting disease? Bad. Protecting the environment? Bad. Educating school children? Bad. Telling the truth about anything? Bad. Using the DoJ to attack political enemies rather than criminals? Good. Raising prices after promising to lower them? Good. Personally pocketing billions in bribes and every imaginable form of corruption? Great!
Flint,
All this would be good if it was reality. What I see is mass corruption. California spends the most on education with almost the worst results. Do you forget they used the DOJ to attack political enemies? This goes both ways. The problem is the party is moving too far left and we know that is not effective government. If the results were good you would not see people moving away from blue states.
colewd,
I really don’t care about your country’s party politics, but let me comment on the stuff that affects me:
The evidence shows that there is global anthropogenic warming, which is causing more extreme weather patterns, resulting in increased floodings, heat, droughts, disease, and ultimately large economic losses. The evidence also shows that the US is one of the biggest contributors to global carbon emissions. By pulling out of the Paris agreement the US is evading its responsibilities and leaving the problems you caused for other nations to solve. I think this is irresponsible and selfish behaviour.
If you do not care about that because of “America First”, consider that by investing heavily into the petrochemical industry, the US is wasting money on an industry that is rapidly becoming obsolete. This trend is accelerated by the high fossil fuel prices rocketing because somebody (not saying who) decided to start another war in the middle east leading to the blockade of one most important supply routes of fossil fuels. This neglect to invest in the energy transition will result in the US lagging even further behind in the development of renewable energy sources behind the current global leader, which is not Europe (I wish) but China.
I do not know what you consider “the West”, but if that includes Europe the very opposite is happening. European countries and industries are rapidly reducing their dependence on US military presence and economic ties. For example, the Dutch government has recently vetoed the acquisition of Solvinity by a US American party. Solvinity is the software company managing the platform for logging into various government websites. This demonstrates that the reputation of the US in European countries has plummeted because of the tariff wars and the US openly questioning its commitment to NATO.
Thanks for returning to the topic of the OP. Although I agree that Trump is not a Nazi, his administration is without question deeply undemocratic, to the point where I am considering calling it a fascist regime. As demonstrated on this site and other places many people, including experts, do not feel any reservations on this matter. This is a dangerous development. If your civil rights are being eroded and the counterforces (courts, journalists, political opposition) are made powerless, inevitably you will reach a point where it will start to become a risk not only for the “Democrats” , but also for you and your loved ones.
None so blind as those who will not see. Don’t like reality? Deny it and it just kind of goes away. Trump has used this approach successfully for everything from pandemic to rising prices. I see you have been taking notes.
(The other day, Neilson ratings said that Fox News was not only far and away the most watched network, but that 14 of the top 15 top news shows were on Fox News. Bill shows us what this means in practice.)
Corneel,
Hi Corneel
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I am not sure the facts support this however I will yield to your conclusion for arguments sake. The arguments on how much we focus on this are complicated. We are at a point where natural reduction in fossils fuels are a natural by product of electrical energy taking a stronger position and reducing carbon emissions.
This goes hand in hand with the war in Iran. I think the country that is the largest sponsor of terrorists having a nuclear bomb is problematic. Fighting the economically and reducing their military power seems prudent to me.
Corneel,
Hi Corneel
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I am not sure the facts support this however I will yield to your conclusion for arguments sake. The arguments on how much we focus on this are complicated. We are at a point where natural reduction in fossils fuels are a natural by product of electrical energy taking a stronger position and reducing carbon emissions.
This goes hand in hand with the war in Iran. I think the country that is the largest sponsor of terrorists having a nuclear bomb is problematic. Fighting them economically by getting more control over oil prices and reducing their military power seems prudent to me.
This is not a “natural by product” but a policy choice. The current administration is actively opposing initiatives to develop renewable energies.
And how did you envision reducing Iran’s military power? Do you still believe that military intervention is going to help? The US has one of the most advanced and powerful armies in the world and it has been incapable of toppling the regime.
Corneel,
It’s a natural product of electric cars being more compatible with self driving which is being adopted. It’s also a byproduct of Solid State batteries that charge faster and go longer distances.
As far a Military power degradation the campaign has been successful so far.
https://gemini.google.com/share/ad06e9ba00e6
It is good to see you are looking at other sources besides grok, but I would advise you to read through to the end next time.
Also, be sure to click through to the primary sources. I am not sure I trust the objectivity of Adolfo Franco “Republican political strategist, foreign policy analyst and former surrogate for Donald Trump’s 2016 and 2024 presidential campaigns.” or the “Jewish Institute for National Security of America” in this matter.
Although I doubt I can trust Iranian sources much more. All of the sources have become the canonical first casualty of war.
There is no EU framework of policies addressing Russians who migrated during USSR. There is an EU framework of policies for refugees, for people migrating after job opportunities, and for acquiring citizenship. You might assume that Russians who flooded smaller republics during USSR era/occupation with the specific goal of changing the demographics might be a different case where different policies are applicable, but no, it is the same according to EU.
Maybe I should not say that these are the basics that you should obviously know, but I hope that it’s obvious that when you don’t know this then you don’t know what you’re talking about, just as you did not know the proportion of Russians in Estonia and Latvia who had migrated this way under USSR. These are huge things to not know that obviously hamper your ability to discuss the topic competently.
Perhaps you at least know about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that divided the European countries between Nazi Germany and USSR, indicating how similar Nazi Germany and USSR were in terms of geopolitical aims and policies/methods regarding demographics – and those methods started in USSR earlier and were more far-reaching and ruthless there than in Nazi Germany. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is not as ridiculously insane as the treaty of Tordesillas that divided the world between Spain and Portugal, but still quite megalomaniacally colonial.
The origins of Hispanics in USA is similar. Until 1840s, everything from Texas to Oregon was Mexico. Then USA waged a colonial war against Mexico, starting by flooding Texas with white illegal immigrants. The result of the war was Hispanic population in current USA borders. Who did the invasion? Americans did. But since Americans are factless brainwashed morons proud of their fascist colonialism, they say immigrants are invading USA, especially Mexicans.
ETA: colewd is a fascist condoning the current fascist regime in USA, mostly by lying and spreading misinformation. He could easily fact-check things for himself, but being a brainwashed cultist he has his single source that he trusts. Being a fascist source, it is accordingly very biased and self-serving, but by means of projection colewd says everybody else is biased.
ETA2:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c802e7jk458o
Invasions are actually done by countries. USA has been the invader and colonialist throughout its history. The fascist script is to flip these basics around.
Don’t doubt: you can’t. But this seemed trivially true to me 🙂
I am still not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you trying to tell me that nativism is warranted when migration is used as a tactic to justify imperialist claims?
You will be delighted to learn that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is part of the standard curriculum of history classes in Western Europe, as well as the Holodomor, gulags and miscellaneous atrocities committed by the Sovjet regime under Stalin.
It is good to be aware of the deep roots of modern conflicts and developments, especially the dark pages of our own countries. All countries are rewriting history to portray themselves as the good guys, or sometimes victims. However, you should also be aware that there have been many changes in the geopolitical situation since then. For example, our former prime minister Mark Rutte and our king Willem-Alexander have both apologized on behalf of the state to the former colonies for our participation in slavery. Fascists are of course completely intolerant of such narratives that expose their country as historically colonial, racist or imperialist. The Trump administration clearly is guilty of this as well.
Bill Cole is doing exactly what he has been doing for years, which is idolizing one person who happens to say the stuff he likes and ignoring all criticisms. In his defense: he is one of the few pro-Trumpians showing up here at TSZ and exposing himself to critical opinions. If only he would listen to some it …
I haven’t quite decided whether the Trump administration as a whole qualifies as fascist, but I will gladly make an exception for the cockroach Hegseth.
I’m trying to tell you that it’s an imperialist thing to say that nativism by natives is invariably bad. Natives, native languages and native cultures exist and are worthy of protection. If you disagree, then you know who you are, and it’s bad enough that I have to explain this multiple times.
The easy example that I cited first and that should have been blindingly obvious is Native Americans versus whoever go under the label “Americans” right now. It’s the latter who are the problem, not the former. USA was founded by white British colonialists. They had a large black segment of population brought in by means of, in modern terms, human trafficking. The original native population barely registers statistically nowadays, i.e. in modern terms it has been genocided. For this kind of country to claim that they are being invaded by immigrants is utterly ludicrous. They have not been invaded by anyone since 1812 at least.
Examples like this abound whenever a larger nation came into a conflict with a smaller one. It’s always the bigger one who is said to be spreading civilization or democracy, while the smaller nation is said to be bogged down in narrow-minded nativism. The reality is that it’s the colonial imperialists who project their chauvinism and genocidal racism on the people whom they attack and oppress. Western Europeans still do it routinely in their political discourse (see Macron’s relations with all Sahel countries), while Russians routinely do it as a matter of government policy both inside Russia and in “near-abroad”.
Trump himself, Hegseth, Vance (who, like Hegseth, has done speeches in Europe lecturing us about how AfD and the like should rule freely), anti-vax RFK Jr, whoever now do Justice Dept, ICE, and FBI… I mean, take a count who in the Trump administration is *not* a fascist and see how many you get. Should not be too hard.
Not when this is essentially a qualification for office under Trump. In order, the three qualifications are loyalty, fascist, and looks good on TV.
Corneel,
What do you think is the reason for our different views? What you have identified is right and I see it on other sites also. There is a single point of view echo chamber as others with different views have lost interest.
BTW I consider myself not anti Trump as most on this site are.. I have voted for him and not voted for him depending on the situation.
The issues with idiotic statements like this are many. First, non-Americans don’t vote for or against Trump either way, so they are not anti-Trump in this sense. What they do is make a character assessment, which is relatively easy. Namely, Trump embodies all the hallmarks of a fascist dictatorial lunatic and there is no “depending on the situation” about it.
It’s not about being anti Trump, but being against fascism. You are enthusiastically in favour of fascism all the way to whole-heartedly adopting the lies of it, such as claims of open borders that were never a thing, and opposition to immigrants without realising that your ancestors are also quite recent immigrants. There is no correcting of this level of stupidity. You are unable to even cite gas prices factually.
Yesterday was Thursday and Trump TACOed again, even stronger than before, but it’s unusual for him to TACO on a Thursday. Also unusually, I was able to reconstruct from reporting (combining multiple sources though) what seems to be the full sequence of events yesterday.
1. Trump tweets on his Truth Social that he is going to hit Iran “very hard”, adding that he’d gladly take the Kharg island.
2. The leaders of the countries on the Persian Gulf, including at least Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar, plead with Trump to not do that. (These countries are directly on the path when bombs fall.)
3. Trump tweets out that he called off the attacks.
4. Later at the press conference Trump (seated while closely surrounded by his inner circle of enablers and worshippers who are standing) elaborates to the press that the deal is ready, that all sides, including Iran, Israel and Lebanon, are now agreed, and that Vance, Kushner and Witkoff would go to Europe to sign it on weekend.
5. Israel and Iran state that there is no agreement. No European country is known to prospectively host the signing.
That Trump lies is obvious, but there are bigger problems here, such as Trump’s delusions, including self-delusion, which is institutionally enabled and encouraged. There is nobody around to mitigate Trump’s insanity. Among those whose job it is to enforce constitutional guardrails, nobody is mentioning any guardrails, much less suggesting some appropriate action such as a jail or straitjacket.
colewd,
You display a quite weird reluctance to criticise the man. Erik, Corneel and I have no particular dog in this specific fight – it’s not “Trump or the Democrats” – but I’m damn sure we don’t give our own politicians the free ride you seem to give Trump. Your ‘criticisms’ of him are weedy. It is not necessary to despise him with quite the force we do. But your refusal to even countenance the fact that he lies, says dumb things, is a fascistic autocrat (say) are… weird.
I need someone to look at me as you do Trump.
Allan Miller,
The issue is I think I am just cautious criticising politicians when they are in the middle of doing the job they are elected to do. There is no actual policy with Trump where I do not see two sides of the argument and many where I think he is right. Trump has been up against nasty opposition and he is still standing. I respect this.
I have been critical of Newsome and may find out after the fact I am wrong but do not think so because I have lots of inside information here as I am friends with a family member.
I was critical of Clinton on economic issues and it turns out I was very wrong. So again given most situations I am in let them do their job and lets access when the facts are settled.
As far as the hyperbolic language I see that as part of political method. I have heard he is very different in person.
I believe the most interesting topics when we feel the wrong politicians are getting elected is discussing the system problems and not the person. Truth be known I think Newsom would be ok if the system was not corrupt.
colewd,
So you held off from criticising Biden, Obama, while in office? People here should not criticise Keir Starmer? Or, for that matter, Musk and Vance should lay off him?
This rationalisation makes it no less weird. You apply standards to Trump that I would bet you do not apply to anyone else on the planet. It is cult-like. Deliberately not criticising politicians when in office is giving them a free pass on accountability.
Allan Miller,
You misunderstand: Bill did not claim that he doesn’t criticize pols while they are in office, in fact he admitted that he does do it. He merely noted that he’s cautious about it, because he has a track record of being horribly wrong.
Rather than criticize Trump for saying that “there were good people on both sides” in Charlottesville (a claim he made about Friday night’s events and doubled down on) we need to wait and see how chanting “Jews will not replace us” and beating students with tiki torches pans out. It’s too soon to say.