tdgeek:

 

Fred99:

 

 

 

You're wrong about it being a big stretch to a fascist state - Bannon is a fascist, he's smart, he is working to create a judeo-christian nationalist state.  He believes that history is a succession of pivotal events - and he's going to create one. Trump is merely his tool. We'll see how he'll evade constitutional roadblocks - Trump should have already been impeached - but so far no problem.

 

He has probably used and outsmarted Putin too, Bannon despises what he calls "corporatism" - but he also strongly despises Putin's oligarchy.

 

 

I don't see how I am wrong as its my opinion. Whether he is a fascist or has fascist type leanings. I cannot see how implementing fascism in the US can happen. There is the Constitution, the will of the people, and the judges that will shut down any goings on., as they have already done. 

 

Is the issues with media control due to fascism, so next week its getting the military onside as a Trump-Bannon ally?  Or is it simply that Trumps ego and narcissistic attitudes rile him up so he wants to shut them down? We have seen that over and over for many many months.

 

The human race is old, and since the Industrial Revolution, it has come ahead in leaps and bounds, but its only been decades where the maturity at high levels has reached an acceptable level of global management, for most first world countries. Its 2017, not 1914, its a whole different world. Re the media, perhaps the judges will intervene, if the Constitution allows that, thats easy, look at the ban. POTUS overruled and cut down. I feel that too much weight is given to Trump and his cronies, and not enough to the Constitution, and the will of the people, let alone that his antics are 95% talk. 

 

I think you're confusing Fascism with Nazism - or excusing Trump's fascism because is isn't nazism.

As for the constitution, then perhaps a good example of how constitutional intent is subverted / corrupted by politics (by the GOP mainly) is summed up by Lee Attwater's interview (Attwater was interviewed anonymously - identified posthumously).

 

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can't say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

 

IMO you need to call it for what it is now - not wait for brownshirts to appear (in greater numbers - they're already there).