Trump

[Brookie1973]

Trump becomes President.
Millions around the world get TDS and spend the next 4 years of their lives obsessing over his every move.
Trump still President.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

I do recommend SBS 8 part series Mussolini Son of the Century, just finished it yesterday.
It's not a doco, it's a drama (yep even sex and violence)(plenty of violence).
Luca Marinelli as Benito is outstanding, it's impossible to take your eyes off him. Not a film buff but the production was eyecatching, to me at least. Subtitles might put some off but didn't bother me at all.
Not suggesting trump is the modern Mussolini but as someone who'd heard a fair bit about Hitler but never much about Il duce I found it interesting, and definitely some modern themes reflected.
Which is why I posted it here!

Worth a look.

 

[Brookie1973]

I do recommend SBS 8 part series Mussolini Son of the Century, just finished it yesterday.
It's not a doco, it's a drama (yep even sex and violence)(plenty of violence).
Luca Marinelli as Benito is outstanding, it's impossible to take your eyes off him. Not a film buff but the production was eyecatching, to me at least. Subtitles might put some off but didn't bother me at all.
Not suggesting trump is the modern Mussolini but as someone who'd heard a fair bit about Hitler but never much about Il duce I found it interesting, and definitely some modern themes reflected.
Which is why I posted it here!

Worth a look.

I remember the great days of SBS where a young lad could look forward to some adult type enlightenment on a Friday and Saturday night. But I digress.

Ever wondered why the apparent obsession of western media with right wing mass murderers like Hitler, but the apparent disregard of left wing mass murderers such as Stalin (conservative estimate of 20 million deaths through purges and the like) and Pol Pot (estimated death of 25% of cambodia’s population)? It’s almost like there is a political objective at play, but that can’t be right, our media is completely unbiased, as we know.

 

[lsz]

I remember the great days of SBS where a young lad could look forward to some adult type enlightenment on a Friday and Saturday night. But I digress.

Ever wondered why the apparent obsession of western media with right wing mass murderers like Hitler, but the apparent disregard of left wing mass murderers such as Stalin (conservative estimate of 20 million deaths through purges and the like) and Pol Pot (estimated death of 25% of cambodia’s population)? It’s almost like there is a political objective at play, but that can’t be right, our media is completely unbiased, as we know.

Honest question

Are you saying that Stalin and Pol Pot are left wing because of the use of the word communism in their parties?

 

[Captain Moondog]

Stalin was a totalitarian dictator. Lenin was obviously of the left. By Stalins time political ideology was incidental. I doubt Stalin had any political leanings. Stalins overriding objective was consolidation of his own power.

 

[Brookie1973]

You blokes are just proving my point. The only bad extremism is right wing. The leader of the USSR was not really a communist. Pol pot wasn’t really a Marxist-Leninist who allied with the VC and North Vietnam to turn Cambodia into a socialist society based on collective farming and the purging of traditional Cambodian culture. You do realise you can be a totalitarian dictator and a communist right?

 

[lsz]

You blokes are just proving my point. The only bad extremism is right wing. The leader of the USSR was not really a communist. Pol pot wasn’t really a Marxist-Leninist who allied with the VC and North Vietnam to turn Cambodia into a socialist society based on collective farming and the purging of traditional Cambodian culture. You do realise you can be a totalitarian dictator and a communist right?

Honestly, I don't see extreme leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the North Korean Kims, or Idi Amin as belonging to either the left or right.

Yes, they may adopt elements we associate with "left" or "right," but they are extreme edge cases and not representative.

To me, Trump is an incredibly complex figure whose politics fundamentally clash with mine but that doesn’t make him a Nazi or the next Hitler.

Do I think he could move toward a more dictatorial style? Potentially, depending on how the next few months unfold, especially around court rulings and legal processes. But at this stage, he has been elected by the people of his country, so calling him a dictator is, at this point, a leap too far

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Do I think he could move toward a more dictatorial style? Potentially, depending on how the next few months unfold, especially around court rulings and legal processes. But at this stage, he has been elected by the people of his country, so calling him a dictator is, at this point, a leap too far

He's already moved toward 'a more dictatorial style'.
How far he can take it is the only question.
Meanwhile it's a tad bizarre to hear ideas along the lines, 'who cares if our main ally becomes a repressive authoritarian regime because that's happened before in other places.'
As though, right, and no harm ever came from that.

 

[Woodsie]

The battle is for ... who is in charge ... the elected government ... or the unelected judiciary .. might be a battle for democracy .. not authoritarism ..

 

[Brookie1973]

Honestly, I don't see extreme leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the North Korean Kims, or Idi Amin as belonging to either the left or right.

Yes, they may adopt elements we associate with "left" or "right," but they are extreme edge cases and not representative.

To me, Trump is an incredibly complex figure whose politics fundamentally clash with mine but that doesn’t make him a Nazi or the next Hitler.

Do I think he could move toward a more dictatorial style? Potentially, depending on how the next few months unfold, especially around court rulings and legal processes. But at this stage, he has been elected by the people of his country, so calling him a dictator is, at this point, a leap too far

My point is the leftist propaganda obsession with hitler and the by default association of anyone with conservative values as a nazi. It is violent, irresponsible rhetoric designed to further brainwash the population (particularly the young) into believing there is only one form of extremism and therefore anything they do to “combat” it is valid and morally justified. Ask any school age/ uni student if they know who hitler was, I can guarantee you almost all will say yes. But how many would know of Stalin, pol pot etc and their atrocities? I’d say very few.

 

[Brookie1973]

The battle is for ... who is in charge ... the elected government ... or the unelected judiciary .. might be a battle for democracy .. not authoritarism ..

Not just unelected judiciary, but unelected, politically appointed judiciary. The left like to see themselves as the champions of democracy, but are quite supportive of leftist judges impeding the actions of a democratically elected president implementing the agenda on which he was elected.

 

[lsz]

The battle is for ... who is in charge ... the elected government ... or the unelected judiciary .. might be a battle for democracy .. not authoritarism ..

I’m not sure I fully follow.

From what I can gather, there are a couple of things at play.

If we’re talking about federal judges, yes, they are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. So while they aren't directly elected by the public, there is still a review and confirmation process that is intended to reflect the will of the people through their elected representatives. (Although there’s definitely a discussion to be had around issues like term limits and how representative the system really is.)

Also, the very structure of the U.S. government is built on three separate but equal branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. Each is designed to act as a check on the others. The idea is that no single branch can dominate without being challenged by the others.

You could actually argue that ignoring or undermining the authority of the courts, one of those key checks, would itself be an authoritarian move. Again I can understand the feeling that the elected person should be the one in charge however that is not how their system is designed

 

[lsz]

My point is the leftist propaganda obsession with hitler and the by default association of anyone with conservative values as a nazi. It is violent, irresponsible rhetoric designed to further brainwash the population (particularly the young) into believing there is only one form of extremism and therefore anything they do to “combat” it is valid and morally justified. Ask any school age/ uni student if they know who hitler was, I can guarantee you almost all will say yes. But how many would know of Stalin, pol pot etc and their atrocities? I’d say very few.

As I have said many times here, I don't agree with the use of terms like "Nazi," so I am with you on that. However, I think much like when we are on ST talking about all things Manly, where we are only a very small subset of all supporters, the actual impact, reach, and influence of the people throwing around terms like "Nazi" is probably not as big as it might seem.

All that said, I am not sure I follow your next point about extremism.

Are you saying that extremism is being used to justify a "combat" style response?

Also, I am not sure how Stalin and Pol Pot are relevant to this discussion. To me, that feels more like a failing of the education system rather than anything directly related. Or are you suggesting they are considered "left," and that is why they are not discussed as much?

 

[Cliffy's Jockstrap]

Not just unelected judiciary, but unelected, politically appointed judiciary.

That is absolutely true: partisan politicised appointments are made, and the making of those appointments is then celebrated in partisan politicised news outlets. I think I recall right that President Trump in his first term affirmed a record number of federal judges; then President Biden affirmed an even greater number. I absolutely expect knock-on effects to follow from those numbers and from the appointments in Trump Season Two.

The underlying system logically needs to be taken into account when reviewing decisions and relationships.

 

[lsz]

Not just unelected judiciary, but unelected, politically appointed judiciary. The left like to see themselves as the champions of democracy, but are quite supportive of leftist judges impeding the actions of a democratically elected president implementing the agenda on which he was elected.

To be fair, it is the system they created.


As for the "leftist judges," I know you are not a fan of links, but this one would be worth it if you can manage to move your finger over and press on it:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/04/24/republican-judges-oppose-trump/


If not, here are some bits from it:


The most recent ruling came Tuesday, when Ronald Reagan-appointed U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth halted the administration’s attempt to shutter Voice of America, the government-funded global news broadcaster. Lamberth said the administration basically made no effort to comply with the law.

“It is hard to fathom a more straightforward display of arbitrary and capricious actions than the Defendants’ actions here,” he said.

Just a day after that ruling, it was a Trump appointee issuing a stark rebuke. U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden called the administration’s limits on the Associated Press’s White House access a “brazen” violation of the First Amendment, because it discriminated against AP solely based on its viewpoint.

“If there is a benign explanation for the Government’s decision, it has not been presented here,” McFadden said. He added, “all indicators point to retaliation.”

In fact, a recent review by Georgetown law scholar Stephen I. Vladeck found that Republican judges have ruled against Trump at a striking rate. While most of the injunctions this year have been issued by Democratic appointees, that’s largely because they have handled most of the cases. When cases were brought before Republican appointees, those judges issued injunctions 45 percent of the time.


Or there’s this:

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/24/politics/education-dei-policy-blocked/index.html

President Donald Trump’s efforts to crack down on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs suffered a major legal blow Thursday as three separate judges , two of them appointed by Trump, ruled against a Department of Education policy that threatened to withhold federal funding for schools engaging in DEI initiatives or incorporating race into student life in certain ways.


Now, if you are still reading, there are absolutely issues on both sides (see what I did there) when it comes to appointing political judges thankfully something we do not seem to have here. However, to say it is purely a "leftist agenda" is highly misleading.

 

[Woodsie]

I’m not sure I fully follow.

From what I can gather, there are a couple of things at play.

If we’re talking about federal judges, yes, they are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. So while they aren't directly elected by the public, there is still a review and confirmation process that is intended to reflect the will of the people through their elected representatives. (Although there’s definitely a discussion to be had around issues like term limits and how representative the system really is.)

Also, the very structure of the U.S. government is built on three separate but equal branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. Each is designed to act as a check on the others. The idea is that no single branch can dominate without being challenged by the others.

You could actually argue that ignoring or undermining the authority of the courts, one of those key checks, would itself be an authoritarian move. Again I can understand the feeling that the elected person should be the one in charge however that is not how their system is designed

So, Federal judges are political appointments. The issue is when their political bias over-rides their obligation to rule on the letter of the laws legislated by the elected Government.

The judicial is not an equal branch ... it is there solely to adjudicate cases according to the laws enacted by the other two branches. It is neither policy or legislative empowered. The issue is when Judges go rogue.

One would argue that NOT holding the Judiciary to task would be surrendering democracy.

 

[lsz]

So, Federal judges are political appointments. The issue is when their political bias over-rides their obligation to rule on the letter of the laws legislated by the elected Government.

The judicial is not an equal branch ... it is there solely to adjudicate cases according to the laws enacted by the other two branches. It is neither policy or legislative empowered. The issue is when Judges go rogue.

One would argue that NOT holding the Judiciary to task would be surrendering democracy.

That is not how they view it.

Branches of the U.S. government | USAGov

You could even argue the fact that most of the Trump policies, such as tariffs, are on very shaky legal grounds, as presidential decrees are somewhat of a murky area.

The President cannot decide or make laws — that’s Congress’s job.

• Congress (the Legislative Branch) writes and passes laws.
• The President (Executive Branch) can approve (sign) a law or reject (veto) it.
• If the President vetoes a law, Congress can still override the veto with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The President can also influence lawmaking by:

• Suggesting ideas for new laws
• Speaking publicly to push Congress to act
• Issuing executive orders (which are instructions for how existing laws should be carried out but they aren’t new laws themselves).

Again, to be clear one more time: I agree that the U.S. system has some fundamental flaws. However, it is built on a system of checks and balances between the three branches.

The judiciary is designed to be an equal branch under the Constitution, not subordinate to the others. precisely to act as a check and to help protect democracy, even when that means rulings that some may view as politically inconvenient.

 

[Cliffy's Jockstrap]

I’m not sure I fully follow.

From what I can gather, there are a couple of things at play.

If we’re talking about federal judges, yes, they are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. So while they aren't directly elected by the public, there is still a review and confirmation process that is intended to reflect the will of the people through their elected representatives. (Although there’s definitely a discussion to be had around issues like term limits and how representative the system really is.)

Also, the very structure of the U.S. government is built on three separate but equal branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. Each is designed to act as a check on the others. The idea is that no single branch can dominate without being challenged by the others.

You could actually argue that ignoring or undermining the authority of the courts, one of those key checks, would itself be an authoritarian move. Again I can understand the feeling that the elected person should be the one in charge however that is not how their system is designed

We seem to have crossed in the mail ... @Isz I am inclined to agree with your analysis of the intentions behind the structure of the American system; unfortunately for the Americans I think their inflamed politics have crossed over boundaries into their judicial sphere. How to re-separate them, and generally how to lower the temperature before lasting damage is done, those will be the problems they need to solve. Well, just as an outsider looking over the fence.

 

[Brookie1973]

As I have said many times here, I don't agree with the use of terms like "Nazi," so I am with you on that. However, I think much like when we are on ST talking about all things Manly, where we are only a very small subset of all supporters, the actual impact, reach, and influence of the people throwing around terms like "Nazi" is probably not as big as it might seem.

All that said, I am not sure I follow your next point about extremism.

Are you saying that extremism is being used to justify a "combat" style response?

Also, I am not sure how Stalin and Pol Pot are relevant to this discussion. To me, that feels more like a failing of the education system rather than anything directly related. Or are you suggesting they are considered "left," and that is why they are not discussed as much?

I think I have made my position quite clear. If I haven’t, there isn’t much more I can add unfortunately. I will say that I also think the education system is failing disastrously in western society, so that we can agree on. Whether it is deliberate or not I suspect we will not agree on.

 

[Woodsie]

I have a feeling that Paul Keating's famous slur about the Senate being "unrepresentative swill" is most appropriate for the US Federal judiciary.