4 ms·

> Trump IS an authoritian Yes you are absolutely right! Trump bombed innocent kids in Syria after receiving the "Nobel Peace Prize". Trump dropped 26,171 bombs

> Trump IS an authoritian Yes you are absolutely right! Trump bombed innocent kids in Syria after receiving the "Nobel Peace Prize". Trump dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016. Trump launched multiple Wars, invaded foreign countries and destroyed millions of lives and livelihood. Isn't it? Trump did all of the things an Authoritarian would do. Hang him for his crimes! > - if today isn’t proof of that to you then I don’t know what to say to you. I hope you got your "proof".

Tainnor 6y ago
You seem to be confused as to the meaning of the word "authoritarian". It does not mean "imperialist", which is what you are describing.
- shripadk 6y ago
  I haven't come across an imperialist who did not end up becoming authoritarian or wasn't already an authoritarian. History is witness to what colonialism/imperialism can do to subjects it ends up gaining control over.
  - meowface 6y ago
    Right, but the question wasn't whether imperialism implies authoritarianism but whether authoritarianism implies imperialism. Most/all imperialists are authoritarian but many authoritarians aren't imperialists. It's true that Trump doesn't appear to be as imperialistic or hawkish as many previous presidents, but that doesn't imply one way or another anything about potential authoritarianism. You made an argument that accusations of Trump being an authoritarian are unfounded, but as evidence you cited examples of him not being an imperialist, rather than examples of him not being an authoritarian. Your examples don't preclude the possibility of him potentially being a non-imperialistic authoritarian.
    - shripadk 6y ago
      > rather than examples of him not being an authoritarian Well can you give me a way to find examples of him "not being" an authoritarian? That very question shows how weak your argument is. That you have to clutch at straws to prove he is an autocrat. Now let me ask you this: Is Putin an autocrat? You can give countless examples of why he is. Is Xi an autocrat? You can give countless examples of why he is. Is Kim Jong-un an autocrat? You can give countless examples of why he is. From targeted assassinations of opposition leaders to detention/containment/concentration/re-education camps you have every single reason to label them autocratic. Can you give examples of Trump being an autocrat? The literal definition of "autocrat" is "someone who has absolute power". Trump doesn't have absolute power. So how does it make him an autocrat? There are literally many autocrats in this World you can compare against. Trump is definitely a loud mouth. No doubt about it. And he is crass in the way he speaks. He doesn't have a likeable personality. He is a narcissist. His entire tenure was literally crying about how media treats him, how many in his own party don't support him (RINOs) and how investigations against him vis-a-vis Russian collusion was based on a hoax. Can you name one autocrat who cried about how powerless he is? Have you seen Putin talk this way? Xi talk this way? What about Hitler? Name one autocrat who comes to your mind who has exhibited this behaviour. You can't. This in no way sounds like an autocrat. An autocrat is never this weak and defeatist. The first thing an autocrat would do is muscle the media. Media thrived under the Trump regime. Constantly berating and attacking him. If this had happened in China or Russia that media house would be non-existent the very next second with all journalists mysteriously missing. If Jack Ma isn't safe you think journalists would be? No ways. This is autocracy for you. Heck, Trump ran his entire 2016 campaign on the slogan of "Lock her up". Did he do it? On the contrary, the entire scandal was hushed up and the investigative agencies instead focused on Trump's supposed collusion with Russia and Ukraine. I can bet my right limb no investigative agency will investigate Biden on his ties with Ukraine. Why? Because things are back to how it always was. Trump was just an aberration. History will be kinder to him because right now emotions are high and no one wants to see things without filters.
  - Tainnor 6y ago
    The United States was some sort of imperialist throughout much of its history (even at the time when that imperialism was confined to the American continent) and yet solidly democratic throughout that period. By contrast, there are countless instances of autocrats that don't invade other countries, e.g. Lukashenka.
    - shripadk 6y ago
      > The United States was some sort of imperialist throughout much of its history (even at the time when that imperialism was confined to the American continent) and yet solidly democratic throughout that period. True. But doesn't stop imperialists from being autocratic in the areas they colonize because no rule of law exists once a regime is toppled and a vacuum created in those regions. It is literally free for all. For a period of time, that occupied area belongs to the imperialist power (unless the power is magnanimous enough to let go of the occupied area and allow the people to determine their fate). But during that period, would the laws of the imperialist power extend to occupied territories? I don't think so. I haven't heard of any such instance in history. > By contrast, there are countless instances of autocrats that don't invade other countries, e.g. Lukashenka. True as well. But it comes down to not having WMD and threatening the World (case in point: North Korea or even China). So these are autocrats but with their sphere of influence only restricted to their own territory because of lack of military capabilities. Do you seriously think that Lukashenko won't flex his muscle over other neighbouring European countries if he had military capabilities the likes of which US has?
adamsea 6y ago
I see what you’re doing - you point out someone else’s flaws but avoid the matter at hand and under discussion. Shame on you; you should be ashamed of yourself.
- shripadk 6y ago
  > Shame on you; you should be ashamed of yourself. Shame on me? I am no American. I don't need to be ashamed of the mess that USA has become. By the look of it you voted for Obama. So you should be ashamed of a President who had the gall to receive a Nobel Peace Prize and then went on to bomb foreign nations with impunity causing millions to die and be displaced. My country has never invaded other nations and will never do that. I don't need to feel any shame. You need to. On the contrary we fought back tyranny and created a new country called Bangladesh. Could have easily occupied that captured area after overthrowing a tyrannical, oppressive regime and re-integrated it back into our country. We did not do that. That is what separates us from the imperialist developed World. > I see what you’re doing - you point out someone else’s flaws but avoid the matter at hand and under discussion. Well it is quite easy to point fingers at someone while forgetting that three fingers are pointing back at you. If you can criticize Trump I can criticize Obama. I don't need to follow your script of how to respond. I can respond in my own way. Thankfully, the place I come from isn't authoritarian where I have to respond in a certain way else I am shamed/cancelled/rejected/boycotted or worse killed.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    There is a lot to criticize about the Obama Administration. Including the illegal and immoral drone strikes. But is Obama still President? No. I’m criticizing Trump because we are talking about now. My apologies - I did assume you were American. If you are not a fan of the Trumpists then I retract the shame ;)
    - shripadk 6y ago
      > If you are not a fan of the Trumpists then I retract the shame ;) Haha no worries. I am not a fan of Trumpists. I am just trying to balance the narrative. I explain it here as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25368150 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25368150 I am perfectly fine with media holding Trump accountable. And it should. What I am not okay with is that it is directed only at Trump and everyone else is given a free pass. This I say as an observer of US politics. Media must do its job and be objective. What you see today at the US Capitol is anger spilling out because the Right wasn't even heard and dismissed as something dangerous. When you stifle expression it explodes in unexpected ways. Because people see how ridiculous it is that Trump was made to prove he isn't a supporter of KKK some 35 times while Biden passed racist laws that incarcerated thousands of Black Americans and was given a free pass. Vice President Kamala Harris called Biden a racist during the primaries. Today she has happily taken up the job of being the Vice President under him. If she had an ounce of integrity in her she would have refused to work under a person she herself called a racist. In all this where was the media? No where to be seen. It just wants to milk Trump till the bitter end. Even if it leads to division, violence and destruction. The easiest way to pacify the Right is to hold the Left leaders accountable for their misdeeds too. Balance it. Then you won't have any discontent among any base (be it the left or the right). But media thrives on sensationalism. Think about it. Obama bombed a foreign nation 26000 times. 26000 times! Did any mainstream media (I am not just talking about CNN here. It includes Fox as well) rake this issue up during his tenure and make a big deal out of it. It did not. Why not? Because everyone got along. The political class, media and diplomats. Everyone were in sync. Trump was an aberration. He did not play by that rulebook. He was an outsider. What Trump has done may not be understood today but history will be kind to him. Once the dust settles and people introspect, they'll realise how fucked up the system had gotten to that it took just 1 orange haired man to shake it all up. And please don't think for once that I am singling out USA. My country has flaws too. Probably a lot more than USA. Just because we don't drone other countries doesn't mean we are perfect. But you can't get to perfection by drowning out the voice of the people. Even if it means 75 million of them who voted for Trump. Trump was just a figurehead for the grievances that those 75 million hold. Those who voted did not vote because they believe in White Supremacy or that they are against immigration or they are fascists. Nor are people in the left communists, socialists and crazy lunatics. This sort of reductionist thinking is what is causing division and spite. In fact, if you look at the voter demographic in this election, Trump lost because he lost the vote of white voters and instead gained in minority communities: Blacks, Latinos and Asians (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/14/joe-biden-trump-black-latino-republicans https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/14/joe-bi...). Why? Why would a racist, white supremacist lose the white vote and gain the minority vote?

Tainnor 6y ago

You seem to be confused as to the meaning of the word "authoritarian". It does not mean "imperialist", which is what you are describing.

shripadk 6y ago
I haven't come across an imperialist who did not end up becoming authoritarian or wasn't already an authoritarian. History is witness to what colonialism/imperialism can do to subjects it ends up gaining control over.
- meowface 6y ago
  Right, but the question wasn't whether imperialism implies authoritarianism but whether authoritarianism implies imperialism. Most/all imperialists are authoritarian but many authoritarians aren't imperialists. It's true that Trump doesn't appear to be as imperialistic or hawkish as many previous presidents, but that doesn't imply one way or another anything about potential authoritarianism. You made an argument that accusations of Trump being an authoritarian are unfounded, but as evidence you cited examples of him not being an imperialist, rather than examples of him not being an authoritarian. Your examples don't preclude the possibility of him potentially being a non-imperialistic authoritarian.
  - shripadk 6y ago
    > rather than examples of him not being an authoritarian Well can you give me a way to find examples of him "not being" an authoritarian? That very question shows how weak your argument is. That you have to clutch at straws to prove he is an autocrat. Now let me ask you this: Is Putin an autocrat? You can give countless examples of why he is. Is Xi an autocrat? You can give countless examples of why he is. Is Kim Jong-un an autocrat? You can give countless examples of why he is. From targeted assassinations of opposition leaders to detention/containment/concentration/re-education camps you have every single reason to label them autocratic. Can you give examples of Trump being an autocrat? The literal definition of "autocrat" is "someone who has absolute power". Trump doesn't have absolute power. So how does it make him an autocrat? There are literally many autocrats in this World you can compare against. Trump is definitely a loud mouth. No doubt about it. And he is crass in the way he speaks. He doesn't have a likeable personality. He is a narcissist. His entire tenure was literally crying about how media treats him, how many in his own party don't support him (RINOs) and how investigations against him vis-a-vis Russian collusion was based on a hoax. Can you name one autocrat who cried about how powerless he is? Have you seen Putin talk this way? Xi talk this way? What about Hitler? Name one autocrat who comes to your mind who has exhibited this behaviour. You can't. This in no way sounds like an autocrat. An autocrat is never this weak and defeatist. The first thing an autocrat would do is muscle the media. Media thrived under the Trump regime. Constantly berating and attacking him. If this had happened in China or Russia that media house would be non-existent the very next second with all journalists mysteriously missing. If Jack Ma isn't safe you think journalists would be? No ways. This is autocracy for you. Heck, Trump ran his entire 2016 campaign on the slogan of "Lock her up". Did he do it? On the contrary, the entire scandal was hushed up and the investigative agencies instead focused on Trump's supposed collusion with Russia and Ukraine. I can bet my right limb no investigative agency will investigate Biden on his ties with Ukraine. Why? Because things are back to how it always was. Trump was just an aberration. History will be kinder to him because right now emotions are high and no one wants to see things without filters.
- Tainnor 6y ago
  The United States was some sort of imperialist throughout much of its history (even at the time when that imperialism was confined to the American continent) and yet solidly democratic throughout that period. By contrast, there are countless instances of autocrats that don't invade other countries, e.g. Lukashenka.
  - shripadk 6y ago
    > The United States was some sort of imperialist throughout much of its history (even at the time when that imperialism was confined to the American continent) and yet solidly democratic throughout that period. True. But doesn't stop imperialists from being autocratic in the areas they colonize because no rule of law exists once a regime is toppled and a vacuum created in those regions. It is literally free for all. For a period of time, that occupied area belongs to the imperialist power (unless the power is magnanimous enough to let go of the occupied area and allow the people to determine their fate). But during that period, would the laws of the imperialist power extend to occupied territories? I don't think so. I haven't heard of any such instance in history. > By contrast, there are countless instances of autocrats that don't invade other countries, e.g. Lukashenka. True as well. But it comes down to not having WMD and threatening the World (case in point: North Korea or even China). So these are autocrats but with their sphere of influence only restricted to their own territory because of lack of military capabilities. Do you seriously think that Lukashenko won't flex his muscle over other neighbouring European countries if he had military capabilities the likes of which US has?

adamsea 6y ago

I see what you’re doing - you point out someone else’s flaws but avoid the matter at hand and under discussion. Shame on you; you should be ashamed of yourself.

shripadk 6y ago
> Shame on you; you should be ashamed of yourself. Shame on me? I am no American. I don't need to be ashamed of the mess that USA has become. By the look of it you voted for Obama. So you should be ashamed of a President who had the gall to receive a Nobel Peace Prize and then went on to bomb foreign nations with impunity causing millions to die and be displaced. My country has never invaded other nations and will never do that. I don't need to feel any shame. You need to. On the contrary we fought back tyranny and created a new country called Bangladesh. Could have easily occupied that captured area after overthrowing a tyrannical, oppressive regime and re-integrated it back into our country. We did not do that. That is what separates us from the imperialist developed World. > I see what you’re doing - you point out someone else’s flaws but avoid the matter at hand and under discussion. Well it is quite easy to point fingers at someone while forgetting that three fingers are pointing back at you. If you can criticize Trump I can criticize Obama. I don't need to follow your script of how to respond. I can respond in my own way. Thankfully, the place I come from isn't authoritarian where I have to respond in a certain way else I am shamed/cancelled/rejected/boycotted or worse killed.
- adamsea 6y ago
  There is a lot to criticize about the Obama Administration. Including the illegal and immoral drone strikes. But is Obama still President? No. I’m criticizing Trump because we are talking about now. My apologies - I did assume you were American. If you are not a fan of the Trumpists then I retract the shame ;)
  - shripadk 6y ago
    > If you are not a fan of the Trumpists then I retract the shame ;) Haha no worries. I am not a fan of Trumpists. I am just trying to balance the narrative. I explain it here as well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25368150 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25368150 I am perfectly fine with media holding Trump accountable. And it should. What I am not okay with is that it is directed only at Trump and everyone else is given a free pass. This I say as an observer of US politics. Media must do its job and be objective. What you see today at the US Capitol is anger spilling out because the Right wasn't even heard and dismissed as something dangerous. When you stifle expression it explodes in unexpected ways. Because people see how ridiculous it is that Trump was made to prove he isn't a supporter of KKK some 35 times while Biden passed racist laws that incarcerated thousands of Black Americans and was given a free pass. Vice President Kamala Harris called Biden a racist during the primaries. Today she has happily taken up the job of being the Vice President under him. If she had an ounce of integrity in her she would have refused to work under a person she herself called a racist. In all this where was the media? No where to be seen. It just wants to milk Trump till the bitter end. Even if it leads to division, violence and destruction. The easiest way to pacify the Right is to hold the Left leaders accountable for their misdeeds too. Balance it. Then you won't have any discontent among any base (be it the left or the right). But media thrives on sensationalism. Think about it. Obama bombed a foreign nation 26000 times. 26000 times! Did any mainstream media (I am not just talking about CNN here. It includes Fox as well) rake this issue up during his tenure and make a big deal out of it. It did not. Why not? Because everyone got along. The political class, media and diplomats. Everyone were in sync. Trump was an aberration. He did not play by that rulebook. He was an outsider. What Trump has done may not be understood today but history will be kind to him. Once the dust settles and people introspect, they'll realise how fucked up the system had gotten to that it took just 1 orange haired man to shake it all up. And please don't think for once that I am singling out USA. My country has flaws too. Probably a lot more than USA. Just because we don't drone other countries doesn't mean we are perfect. But you can't get to perfection by drowning out the voice of the people. Even if it means 75 million of them who voted for Trump. Trump was just a figurehead for the grievances that those 75 million hold. Those who voted did not vote because they believe in White Supremacy or that they are against immigration or they are fascists. Nor are people in the left communists, socialists and crazy lunatics. This sort of reductionist thinking is what is causing division and spite. In fact, if you look at the voter demographic in this election, Trump lost because he lost the vote of white voters and instead gained in minority communities: Blacks, Latinos and Asians (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/14/joe-biden-trump-black-latino-republicans https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/14/joe-bi...). Why? Why would a racist, white supremacist lose the white vote and gain the minority vote?