President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Lost Student]

I'm most of the way through volume I of Richard J. Evans's non-fiction trilogy on the history of Nazi Germany, treating the rise of Nazi Germany. It's a good thing to read right now, with all the loose talk about fascism. It's actually put me at ease about all this identity politics. It seems clear to me that a pre-condition to fascism is a critical mass of the population--an overwhelming majority--who share a racial identity and connection to the soil. The shared Volk (blood) and soil were critical to success of the Nazi movement. Much the same, for that matter, was true of bolshevism (recently I read a great book on that movement). (The left uses Hitler as precedent to raise the specter that Trump could dismantle democracy and force us all into fascism against our will. This mis-understands Nazi history. Nazis overall followed Hitler willingly; in fact, as a practical matter, democracy was all but dead when Hindenburg appointed him Chancellor and Germans had had limited history with successful democracy. The Weimar Republic was blamed for taking a dive in WWI; for the Versailles treaty; and for the ensuing economic hell.)

The allure of the collective, to the extent that you are agreeable to sacrificing your separate identity, is that the commune has this shared history and blood. (I'm sure LDS can relate to this.) I continue to believe that capitalism's success is the strongest bulwark possible against totalitarianism, a pre-condition to which seems to be truly dire economic conditions that affects everyone. Hunger, homelessness, joblessness, on a mass scale, that sort of thing. We need to satisfy basic needs including education before liberty is attainable, history seems to teach. But I also think that our country's multiple sharply defined identities as well helps. Probably any one of these factions might try to establish fascism, but together it seems structurally impossible. Fascism could be possible in Utah, but not in the United States. There's so much diversity, and even its toxicity helps to defeat any successful movement toward a totalitarian collective.

I have always been a lot more concerned about creeping totalitarianism because of the left's political success than the right's.

LOL. SU is on point!

[Northwestcoug]

You mean like the ultra focus on the airport gaffe?

Huh?

[SeattleUte]

Huh?

I mean the guy gives a speech, and all the left wants to talk about is the gaffe. I haven't read it but I understand it had some worthy tributes to the armed services, etc. Such predictable (low) groupthink.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I mean the guy gives a speech, and all the left wants to talk about is the gaffe. I haven't read it but I understand it had some worthy tributes to the armed services, etc. Such predictable (low) groupthink.

Take away the stupid (and trivial) mistakes and I don't have a problem with the speech, mainly because he stuck to the script more than usual. But still, one has to laugh at his many mistakes, which he explained later as being the result of difficulties reading the teleprompter (and that's funny, given the number of times he ripped others about their teleprompter use).

[SeattleUte]

Take away the stupid (and trivial) mistakes and I don't have a problem with the speech, mainly because he stuck to the script more than usual. But still, one has to laugh at his many mistakes, which he explained later as being the result of difficulties reading the teleprompter (and that's funny, given the number of times he ripped others about their teleprompter use).

Good, thoughtful analysis.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Good, thoughtful analysis.

Is that what you're looking for? Here's the entire speech, in text and in recorded form, if you'd like provide your own. I'm sorry you don't find harmless gaffes funny. Covfefe.

[Northwestcoug]

I mean the guy gives a speech, and all the left wants to talk about is the gaffe. I haven't read it but I understand it had some worthy tributes to the armed services, etc. Such predictable (low) groupthink.

I wasn’t talking at all about his speech. I didn’t read it but I heard the gaffe, which is kind of funny. If only his presidency was just ‘funny’. If you think his continuous assault on normal political discourse is just leftist groupthink, well then I just don’t know what to say, man.

[Bo Diddley]

LOL. SU is on point!

We need to move some minorities here pronto! But seriously, there's nothing else about Utah that might preclude Fascism from taking hold?

[SeattleUte]

Is that what you're looking for? Here's the entire speech, in text and in recorded form, if you'd like provide your own. I'm sorry you don't find harmless gaffes funny. Covfefe.

I read the speech with some care. Permit me an objective exegesis. This is a postmodern speech. It’s not chronological, but moves back and forth through history. In postmodern writing, this is a common method of highlighting connections between past and present. I can see why the unsophisticated reader would think that “Continental Army” modifies “airports”. But that can’t be so because there were no airports in 1776. His narrative had introduced modern warfare and now his narrative was returning to speaking of the armed forces generally, through history.

[SeattleUte]

I wasn’t talking at all about his speech. I didn’t read it but I heard the gaffe, which is kind of funny. If only his presidency was just ‘funny’. If you think his continuous assault on normal political discourse is just leftist groupthink, well then I just don’t know what to say, man.

I wasn’t talking about you.

I think many of his most ardent foes are as impoverished as can be in their political discourse though certainly much of his is terrible.

[Northwestcoug]

I think many of his most ardent foes are as impoverished as can be in their political discourse though certainly much of his is terrible.

I agree. Some of those foes feel like they need to be as coarse as he is, just in the opposite direction.

[frank ryan]

I agree. Some of those foes feel like they need to be as coarse as he is, just in the opposite direction.

Sorry but unless you are media personalities, Trump remains unparalleled.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I read the speech with some care. Permit me an objective exegesis. This is a postmodern speech. It’s not chronological, but moves back and forth through history. In postmodern writing, this is a common method of highlighting connections between past and present. I can see why the unsophisticated reader would think that “Continental Army” modifies “airports”. But that can’t be so because there were no airports in 1776. His narrative had introduced modern warfare and now his narrative was returning to speaking of the armed forces generally, through history.

Lol. A laudable effort at defending a trivial mistake. I like that throughout that section of his address he adhered to chronological order (Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War--even the individual battles cited are cited in chronological order, WWI, etc.) but threw in the "It took over the airports" right in the middle his discussion about the 1814 Battle of Baltimore. It was a surprise rhetorical burp that I now understand is a staple of postmodern writing.

[SeattleUte]

Lol. A laudable effort at defending a trivial mistake. I like that throughout that section of his address he adhered to chronological order (Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War--even the individual battles cited are cited in chronological order, WWI, etc.) but threw in the "It took over the airports" right in the middle his discussion about the 1814 Battle of Baltimore. It was a surprise rhetorical burp that I now understand is a staple of postmodern writing.

The alleged gaffe occurred in frame 53; he had introduced the Air Force in frame 24.

[PaloAltoCougar]

The alleged gaffe occurred in frame 53; he had introduced the Air Force in frame 24.

Just another delightful Trumpian word salad.