From: ‘Charlie Kirk Miracle’ - the Authoritarianism discussion

[Whiskey]

None of these examples differentiate the sides or parties on an authority level. They’re just lists of things Trump did that you didn’t like.

On the contrary. I’ve offered no opinion on the ‘likeability’ of any of these.

You’re confusing authority with authoritarianism. The examples given stand.

If, say, the Administration decides to cut funding to a college based on specious reasoning serving a specific agenda or invented reasons, and in violation of the legal procedure, then the action is authoritarian.

If Trump decides to publicly and repeatedly threaten btroadcasters to ditch shows or employees that he just disfavors, to the extent that he threatens legal action or to use the power of the Federal Government to shut them down, then that’s authoritarian.

Take abortion. The Trump administration said the feds are out, let the states decide. That’s a clear “opt out” position.

This is still not relevant to the conversation. Neither position of the Federal government - to not protect a legal right, or to protect a legal right, is authoritarian.

On every other item you listed — tariffs, military use, investigations, media pressure, TikTok, deportations, both parties ultimately agree the federal government decides for the country.

The federal government decides actions within the limits of Federal law. If the law is ignored simply because it’s inconvenient to the person or entity who wants to ignore it, then that is authoritarian. These are often the sorts of actions that then end up being contested in court, to see if the Federal action in question abides by the existing rule of law or the Constitution.

The argument is about whether the authority itself should exist. So the outcome doesn’t differentiate the parties. In each case, it’s the same principle: the feds opt in and run the show.

You’re conflating authority with authoritarianism, again.

The existence of authority does not indicate the existence of authoritarianism.

If you want to prove the claim that there’s a structural difference between a “traditional party” and a “populist authoritarian movement,” you’ll need to show actual contrasts on federal authority itself, not just policy outcomes you dislike.

I’m not making that claim. That’s your straw man. But there’s a legit argument that the MAGA movement appears to incorporate a more authoritarian type of thinking - I.e., regarding ‘unitary executive’ power, and the anecdotes about how that cohort more strongly favors the implementation of a ‘dictator’ or ‘strongman’ president. This is by their own expressed opinion. Whether those attitudes represent a ‘structural difference’ is besides the point.

This is just goalpost moving, not fact. You’re rationalizing, not showing examples.

Again, there are no cases here where one side is asking the feds to opt out and the other asking the feds to opt in. Everything you listed is just a difference in which outcomes you find likeable. That’s not a structural difference, that’s taste. Your conclusions are not based in facts. It seems, frankly, that you are arguing for more fed participation if that will achieve the outcome you want. Though, my point does not differentiate how sad your feelings are on any given topic, it is that you have no examples where one side is asking the feds to opt in and the other asking the feds to opt out.

Until you can point to actual contrasts on federal authority itself, you’re proving my point.

[Kishkumen]

LMFAO! Kish you a comedian now too? We should be paying for this set. You here all night?

So let me get this strait. The guy who can't back his points with facts and just waves around “authoritarian populist” as a label is upset cause his dad calls him “progressive.” And now your claiming you know what “these guys” really believe even when they say they don't because you imagined it.

that's not an argument, its faith. You're literally doing the thing you say is so terrible. Projecting beliefs onto others then acting like your imagination is the truth. Its hysterical Kish. This routine writes itself.

What makes you so frustrating, Whiskey, is that you don't believe in conversations. You believe in a narcissistic performance in which you push everyone to pay attention to you. I don't know what happened in your life to make you this needy, narcissistic mess of a human being, but I am uninterested in being pushed around by you for your idle entertainment and to fill that hole in your psyche. No matter how poorly you behave, I refuse to engage with you on these terms.

[Kishkumen]

The original contrast was between a traditional American political party and a populist authoritarian movement. Anyone who wants to give Whiskey the Civics 101 class on the difference can be my guest. For your convenience, even AI does a fairly good job at distinguishing the two. Whiskey is incapable of extrapolating the difference from examples of what Trump is doing because he will try to tell you that the argument is circular. That is a rhetorical dodge, of course, but we can't blame MAGA people for missing what they already missed. Having already been conditioned into the Pavlovian reflex of crying "TDS" at every turn, MAGA folk will twist every use of a Trump example in similar ways.

[Whiskey]

LMFAO! Kish you a comedian now too? We should be paying for this set. You here all night?

So let me get this strait. The guy who can't back his points with facts and just waves around “authoritarian populist” as a label is upset cause his dad calls him “progressive.” And now your claiming you know what “these guys” really believe even when they say they don't because you imagined it.

that's not an argument, its faith. You're literally doing the thing you say is so terrible. Projecting beliefs onto others then acting like your imagination is the truth. Its hysterical Kish. This routine writes itself.

What makes you so frustrating, Whiskey, is that you don't believe in conversations. You believe in a narcissistic performance in which you push everyone to pay attention to you. I don't know what happened in your life to make you this needy, narcissistic mess of a human being, but I am uninterested in being pushed around by you for your idle entertainment and to fill that hole in your psyche. No matter how poorly you behave, I refuse to engage with you on these terms.

And you do online psychiatry? Congrats, Kishkufreud.

You are not being pushed around, Kish. That belief is victimization beyond the pale.

When you come on here and talk about "these guys" suggest some maga person will argue that the sun and the moon are the same heavenly body, suggest that populist authoritarianism ate your baby and ate your dingo, and hurl insults based on your mindreading - you are not a victim when those conditions are damned accepted. Neither is your diagnosis of the one giving you a reaction or response, on your terms no less, credible.

That is the difference, Kish. I have been on here enough to know what happens when one does not accept your conditions. I am doing the opposite in this case, I accept your conditions. If you want to make insane conclusions based on your faith and imagination, go for it. I accept your conditions. If you want to rant about authoritarianism, and act dismissive when pressed for examples, I accept your conditions. If you want to diagnose me, I accept your conditions. If you want to split hairs, parse words and change definitions, I accept your conditions. Anything else?

I do, however, reject your asinine conclusions even if I am amused.

[Some Schmo]

Using TDS to describe people who see Trump for who he is is a clear indicator that the speaker is a deranged “F” up. I honestly don't care what the liars tell themselves, largely because I don't want to sit in on their circle-jerks.

[Whiskey]

The original contrast was between a traditional American political party and a populist authoritarian movement. Anyone who wants to give Whiskey the Civics 101 class on the difference can be my guest. For your convenience, even AI does a fairly good job at distinguishing the two. Whiskey is incapable of extrapolating the difference from examples of what Trump is doing because he will try to tell you that the argument is circular. That is a rhetorical dodge, of course, but we can't blame MAGA people for missing what they already missed. Having already been conditioned into the Pavlovian reflex of crying "TDS" at every turn, MAGA folk will twist every use of a Trump example in similar ways.

I have an idea. How about you don't speak for others and you don't treat your imagination as a source of facts. Feel free to lay out the differences between the parties and whatever the hell this thing is that you are imagining is hurting you. Populism?

In the meantime - I will keep pointing out the hypocrisy and the dodge. Tell me, Kish. Tell me what party or group has asked the feds to opt in and lead or decide for the country where the other is asking the feds to opt out? You can't do it, can you? Why? Because the facts destroy your beliefs. Oh, the irony, in this community for bitching about Mormon apologists. Oh, the irony.

[Kishkumen]

And you do online psychiatry? Congrats, Kishkufreud.

You are not being pushed around, Kish. That belief is victimization beyond the pale.

Effing right I am not being pushed around. I refuse to be pushed around by a whiney bitch like you.

[Kishkumen]

I have an idea. How about you don't speak for others and you don't treat your imagination as a source of facts.

I have an idea, why don't you stop board nannying? Quitchyer whining, baby!

[Whiskey]

I have an idea. How about you don't speak for others and you don't treat your imagination as a source of facts.

I have an idea, why don't you stop board nannying? Quitchyer whining, baby!

This ain't board nannying, Kish. It is the opposite of that. I have said it clearly - I accept your conditions. I accept them. “F” is not clear about that?

This ain't whining, this is me pointing out the facts, you little bitch. You want to speak for "these guys," do it. I accept your conditions and politely tell you that when you do, I will make the point that you are making crap up again.

Just stop, Kish. I am not board nannying, I am not whining. I am just holding a flashlight here.

[Kishkumen]

This ain't board nannying, Kish. It is the opposite of that. I have said it clearly - I accept your conditions. I accept them? “F” is not clear about that?

This ain't whining, this is me pointing out the facts, you little bitch. You want to speak for these guys, do it. I accept your conditions and politely tell you that when you do, I will make the point that you are making crap up again.

Just stop, Kish. I am not board nannying, I am not whining. I am just holding a flashlight here.

Yeah, you're whining. I think everyone outside of your small, deluded MAGA club sees it. Pathetic.

It's OK. You can take a break, come back refreshed and ready to interact with people in a constructive way. Or, you can do what we all expect and keep up the neurotic, needy posting to attempt to push people around, unsuccessfully.