Trump Thread

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But that isn't true, and to the extent that it differs from America it might as well be parliamentary government as the factor.

If you are referring to Brexit, I disagree. When it comes down to it Brexit happened because of a lack of consultation on the surrender of parliamentary power to Europe (treaties signed without Referenda first). This caused disenfranchisement.

A lot of the resentment towards Eastern Europeans has to do with the fact that "we" didn't invite them in, "Europe" foisted them upon us.

As with other things, for the monarch to genuinely block a populist leader or government in some capacity they would have to sacrifice themselves in the process.

Debatable - the Queen has publicly intervened once and survived it. Supposedly she put the screws to Gordon Brown in 210, telling him if he didn't step aside and allow the LibCon Coalition she'd dissolve Parliament and call fresh elections.

No proof, though, of course.

You mean the Russians won't want us when we offer to join because we are too weak?
So your only option is to stay alone without being either The USA's or Russia's ally and without getting invaded by anyone?
Woah, that sounds like a big problem.

Just in case you misunderstood me and mean that Russian aggression is a problem, well, yes, but not as long as we stick together in NATO and/or the EU, so why did you just seemingly defend Trump for complaining? As long as NATO has a sufficient nuclear arsenal, the size of our regular armies is sufficient as well. As for the fair share of spending, I don't really believe it would somehow lower the spending of the US if all of Europe spent more on defense. More likely the US would spend more to stay #1. In fact they may secretly have liked the low EU spending levels as it makes us more dependent on them. If we began to spend loads of money and built a huge army, we'd probably get a lot of other complaints... We're already Hitler to the rest of Europe because we have so much power in the EU, I'm sure they'd all be quiet if we spent 6% of our GDP on tanks and also disbanded the EU and all our treaties with Poland. Why not also build border fortifications and talk about how they steal our jobs and cars and that their behavior has to have consequences. Aww man, I should go into politics.

No - I just mean you don't have enough tanks, or men. Germany is large, but the German army numbers just over 60,000 men.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army

More than last year - but still about half the size the army needs to be to contribute effectively to NATO and Germany's own defence. At the same time you're integrating the Dutch, Romanian and Czech armies into your own, increasing the area you are required to cover.

[Husar]

Is your english failing you again? The difference between believing something to be true and entertaining a possibility is much greater than mere semantics.

You said members of the trump admin believe it. Prove it or amend your statement.
Testimony of the demonstrateably unreliable and indicators of general ill intent are not proof and it certainly should not be enough for someone in Shepard Smith's profession to state as fact, yet there he is.

Ok, they think so.
As for Shepard Smith, he is about as professional as the President who states bullshit as facts all the time, so I guess the people get the level of professionalism they voted for.
Smith doesn't even call it a fact, he "only" doesn't pronounce any doubts on TV. While that may not be textbook journalism, it's far better than outright lying or presenting "alternative facts". You might as well complain about Stephen Miller not having shown up on all the shows that invited him when he clearly said on TV that he would repeat things on any show anywhere at any time. I mean what professional standard is that for a representative of the POTUS?
Your whole Smith outrage is obviously a smokescreen fueled by partisanship since you never get outraged by similar blunders of the Trump admin.

If you want to believe that the russians did it, I dont care, I dont even mind but dont blow smoke up my ass about it being proven. I mean the Seth Rich theory has a dead body found with valuables untouched but still labled a mugging by DC cops and it's the russian angle being pushed by the media?

Ugh, first you scold me for not using belief correctly and then you talk about me believing something when I clearly said I can't be sure. Is your logic failing you today or is it my fault again?
And what Seth Rich theory? Can you prove it? Can anyone?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...afa_story.html

All I see there is a bunch of speculation that offers no more proof than the Russian hacking theory. With the added bonus that even if he was the leak and/or murdered to cover the leak, it could still have been done by the Russians.

The Kim Jong-Un case has the escapees testimony to fall back on, the CIA's "this is how we think the russians hacked the DNC" has nothing of the sort.

Because it would make sense to publicly release the names of their Russian sources who secretly told them so?
And escapees are no proof, they're obviously not happy with the regime and are likely to lie to get asylum in other countries. Unless you can prove that they are not lying, NK is a paradise.

No - I just mean you don't have enough tanks, or men. Germany is large, but the German army numbers just over 60,000 men.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Army

More than last year - but still about half the size the army needs to be to contribute effectively to NATO and Germany's own defence. At the same time you're integrating the Dutch, Romanian and Czech armies into your own, increasing the area you are required to cover.

As I said, so you think we're not good enough for NATO, how about we just scratch the idea and work with the Russian Federation if we don't deserve NATO protection? Maybe Putin will agree to a cooperation without demanding that we spend more on defense. The Red Army can defend us effectively if the US Army does not want to.
And if neither of them want us, well, we have finally achieved complete independence with no threat, might as well disband the army completely to make them want us even less.

[Montmorency]

If you are referring to Brexit, I disagree. When it comes down to it Brexit happened because of a lack of consultation on the surrender of parliamentary power to Europe (treaties signed without Referenda first). This caused disenfranchisement.

A lot of the resentment towards Eastern Europeans has to do with the fact that "we" didn't invite them in, "Europe" foisted them upon us.

But why just Brexit? Populism has had trouble penetrating your national government over its history more because of inertia than any palpable pressure from the monarchy, because conservatives deferential to the monarchy have typically ruled over the national government, because your most significant populist movements have been ethno-national ones seeking dissociation rather than representation, because social authority was contested and compromised on the basis of landed aristocracy embracing market capitalism under state stewardship into the Industrial Revolution. These quirks, and their attendant norms, are smoothing out as time passes.

I don't think the monarchy continues to act as some primitive force distinguishing American results from British ones. Let's say the only discrete forms of democracy are party democracy, and populist democracy. Would you be surprised if there were a referendum towards dissolving aspects of the monarchy in your lifetime?

[Idaho]

Is it just from outside the US that people are pointing and laughing? Bowling green massacres, the Swedish attacks...

He's a laughing stock.

[Husar]

He's also very self-critical it seems:

[Husar]

John Oliver sums up what's weird about the Trump-Putin thing, small language warning for the song at the end.

[Viking]

Why isn't the Monarchy obsolete?

Trump.

Trump cannot be US president for more than 8 years. If there were a suitable UK heir apparent for him to marry, he could haven been close to the centre of power in the UK till his dying day; and his offspring would continue where he left off for generations to come.

[Crandar]

Meaningless as usual. What is an American value (I can easily mention many supposed Russian values, with which America would be gladly associated) and why are Americans supposed to care about Crimea and their country's foreign interests?

An ordinary American shouldn't care at all if their proxies do better than Russian proxies or if X random dictatorship is ruled by a pro-American or a pro-Russian despot. Only nationalists care, and these guys are by definition dump and easily manipulated.

Foreign relations are irrelevant to human rights and if John Oliver has some decency left, I expect the rest of his episodes to comment on America's friendly relations with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt, Azerbaijan, Pakistan and almost every sub-Saharan state. Jesus, McCarthy is long dead, you aren't gonna get these votes back by russophobic hysteria.

[Husar]

Meaningless as usual. What is an American value (I can easily mention many supposed Russian values, with which America would be gladly associated) and why are Americans supposed to care about Crimea and their country's foreign interests?

An ordinary American shouldn't care at all if their proxies do better than Russian proxies or if X random dictatorship is ruled by a pro-American or a pro-Russian despot. Only nationalists care, and these guys are by definition dump and easily manipulated.

Foreign relations are irrelevant to human rights and if John Oliver has some decency left, I expect the rest of his episodes to comment on America's friendly relations with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt, Azerbaijan, Pakistan and almost every sub-Saharan state. Jesus, McCarthy is long dead, you aren't gonna get these votes back by russophobic hysteria.

That seems like a somewhat meaningless post considering you make a lot of assumptions about John Oliver not caring about the diplomatic relations to Saudi Arabia etc. He has a 20 minute segment and has to cram a lot of content into it. He cannot explain the entire world and all the problems in one go. And he did cover it by the way when he said that the US are not perfect and even mentioned that he usually talks about the imperfections of the US.
In fact, instead of russophobic hysteria, you could call it a questioning of friendly relationships with countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia in general. The use of Russia as an example makes sense given that it is a current hot topic obviously.

As for caring about Crimea and foreign interests, I would agree that the foreign interest thing is a bit weird, especially when it comes to business interests that make foreign people suffer. It is however a topic that people do care about, see people talking about better relations with Russia to intensify trade and create more jobs and so on. Why should Americans not care about what happened to Crimea?

[Crandar]

They should care in the sense that the international law was stomped, but Oliver's propaganda is misleading, because I would personally care more about... let's say the will of the Egyptian people getting stomped.

He skips Saudi Arabia in twenty seconds and focuses on Russia using the cleverest and oldest trick in the book. Casually and quickly recognizing it as valid and then ignoring it for the rest of the episode with a simple "aside".

He didn't lie, even when he implied that Putler should be blamed for every assassination happening in Russia by circular reasoning or that the economy is going to fall (it isn't, it has stabilised and been projected to rise). Not that I'm gonna shed any tears on Boris Nemtsov, the oligarch who ruined Novgorod, but you get the picture.

I know that what I'm saying can easily be dismissed as whataboutism, but the whole russophobic paranoia becomes very fragile, when viewed inside context. Hillary "laughing at extra-judicial murders" Clinton tried to play the patriotic, bald eagle card, but she failed miserably, because Americans had been taught to hate commies, not Russians specificallt and they still remember all these coffins sent by Zarkawi, al-Douri and the rest of the gang.

The only thing I am hopeful for Trump is that he somewhat improves the relations for Russia, regardless of Oliver's condescending opinion about Russians. Look at all these ignorant peasants believing stories about jugs and hating gays. It's Kipling burden all over again, but with Slavs instead of Africans and Asians.

End of rant.

[Husar]

Look at all these ignorant peasants believing stories about jugs and hating gays.

Ugh, even Russia Today doesn't deny those:
https://www.rt.com/news/russia-gay-law-myths-951/

A law was passed earlier this summer that levies a fine of up to 50,000 rubles (about $1,500 dollars) on any individuals, and up to 1 million rubles (about $30,000) on any organizations engaged in “propaganda of non-traditional relationships to minors”. Non-traditional sexual relationships were informally defined by the lawmakers as those that cannot lead to the production of offspring. What constitutes propaganda is also unclear.
[...]
After several one-offs refusals to let them go ahead, and unsanctioned protest rallies, Moscow’s local parliament banned gay demonstrations for a 100 years in 2011, and again in 2012. They have been allowed to take place in St. Petersburg under the guise of human rights demonstrations. These have inevitably ended in bloodshed, as LGBT campaigners have been outnumbered by religious and radical right-wing counter-protesters, with police having to separate the groups.
[...]
According to a May survey conducted by Levada Center, only 21 percent of Russians believe that homosexuality is a sexual orientation people are born with. Forty five percent believe that it is a result of “being subjected to perversion or loose personal morals”, with 20 more believing that it is both a result of circumstances and nature. More than half of Russians believe that homosexuality should be either punished by law (13 percent) or treated medically (38 percent). According to a survey conducted shortly after the gay propaganda law was passed by Levada, 76 percent of Russians support it.

What the people Putin kills or has deconstructed in courts actually did is irrelevant if he only does it to secure his own power. The situation where a president sits out a term limit for one term and then runs again has also never been seen in the US by the way, especially with a close ally of his taking over for the one term while he even takes a different government position. What would you call it if Obama had become Clinton's secretary of state and then ran again as president in 2020?

I will give you that there is such a thing as russophobic paranoia, but the existence of that does not whitewash all the things that are actually "wrong" about Russia.

[AE Bravo]

I like John Oliver, but that was literally seventeen minutes of talking about Putin's personality. The real issues he only addressed in the last three minutes, including the pop song at the end which is actually a strong political statement.

This is the problem with western media right now, everybody focusing on Trump said this and said that instead of his policies.

[drone]

The situation where a president sits out a term limit for one term and then runs again has also never been seen in the US by the way, especially with a close ally of his taking over for the one term while he even takes a different government position. What would you call it if Obama had become Clinton's secretary of state and then ran again as president in 2020?

Against the law, as Obama cannot run again. The 22nd amendment limits a person to <2.5 presidential terms total, regardless of consecutiveness. Grover Cleveland "sat out" a term, winning the popular vote 3 times but losing the electoral college for the middle one.

[Crandar]

There's no proof that Putin killed Nemtsov other than that he didn't like him. Yes, he may have, but he also may not, and mob squabbling sounds much likelier than the president ordering someone to be murdered near Kremlin.

I am not denying that Russia is more homophobic and undemocratic than the US, but Oliver's tone was clearly condescending and borderline racist, treating Russians like some naive idiots, who are clearly not as clever like him and his audience. Why would they vote for Putler other than stupidly swallowing his propaganda?!

Finally, I have no problem with how Putin circumvented the Russian constitution, as he was elected fair and square. Still a noob compared to our Karamanlis who in exactly 40 years was prime-minister for 14 and president for 10 (and maybe more hadn't been for the king and the junta).

Meanwhile, a bunch of Democrats believe that Hillary was liquidated, because Putin hacked their system. If I were Trump, I would enjoy their paranoia, stopping them from seeing the real causes of their dismal failure.

[Husar]

Against the law, as Obama cannot run again. The 22nd amendment limits a person to <2.5 presidential terms total, regardless of consecutiveness. Grover Cleveland "sat out" a term, winning the popular vote 3 times but losing the electoral college for the middle one.

Yes, but that doesn't improve anything about the Russian situation.

There's no proof that Putin killed Nemtsov other than that he didn't like him. Yes, he may have, but he also may not, and mob squabbling sounds much likelier than the president ordering someone to be murdered near Kremlin.

Nemtsov is not the only Putin critic who happened to have an accident. Do such things never happen to his friends because they're all nice and all his critics are criminals? What a coincidence...

Finally, I have no problem with how Putin circumvented the Russian constitution, as he was elected fair and square. Still a noob compared to our Karamanlis who in exactly 40 years was prime-minister for 14 and president for 10 (and maybe more hadn't been for the king and the junta).

See above regarding the circumvention. Fair and square has to be a joke given that opposition is pretty much not allowed to exist. Almost every journalist or newspaper critical of the man is getting harassed and shut down, critical questions are almost absent from his press conferences and the opposition parties are led by his friends and acquaintances. That's like saying everybody loves Kim Jong Un because people show up to his parades and you never hear about demonstrations against him. Prove me wrong with hard proof.


As for his policies, they're mostly as bad as the things he says. Let's take these:
https://www.politiplatform.com/trump

Crime: Starts out okay, then come the gun things that I just won'rt ever understand as a nanny statist. Plus replace the meth heads with gang members.

Education: Don't improve the school system, just give more tax money to private schools.

Environment: Yeah, sure, by shutting down the EPA and making one of its worst nightmares the head of the EPA. How am I supposed to believe that? Will he invent Clean Oil? As for the pipelines, which are oh so safe: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/3rxqUXqPzog/maxresdefault.jpg

Families: Some okay ones, but generally geared towards a population increase = more consumers of resources we are not going to have anymore soon. Yay!

Foreign Policy: Don't have time to think about all of it, but we already know he basically says "America First", huge military increase (why do we need more again if they get more anyway?) and, very funny, no stealing of US tech, not like they would hamper or steal technologies of other countries. No reason for me as a foreigner to like any of this obviously.

Government: Yes, he also placed bankers all over his cabinet and his head advisor is a racist, fascist, fake-news-running ex-banker...

Healthcare: Hard to say on a whim, but I assume more privatization, I like #70, that sounds like a game-changer. I'm curious to see the US cover everyone well with more privatization. Which president didn't promise to fix the VA? (possibly a lot, not like I checked)

Immigration: #90 sounds good, should have been implemented before those entitled millenials automatically got the citizenship. I propose a citizenship exam at age 21, failures get thrown over the wall.

Jobs & Economy: Still waiting to see more Americans with a job while everyone gets a hefty price increase on everything that is or was imported. The lower consumption could be offset by all the babies/new consumers.

Science & Tech: Basically the NSA does not **** me enough yet by saving all my communication?

Taxes: Some of them sound good, want to see them in action though, especially given that he basically promised to tax his friends more when he recently seemed concerned that they can't get enough loans/money.

[CrossLOPER]

treating Russians like some naive idiots

You would be surprised what people are willing to believe. My relatives, for the longest time, could not differentiate between pedophiles and homosexuals. The way they saw it, is that what stops one from committing one lustful sin if they do another. It's just an example, but it is fairly easy to manipulate people with fear of some sort of punishment, whether from a divine source or some imbecile with access to explosives.

[Gilrandir]

Britain has an inbuilt immunity to Populism, our Monarch looms so large in the national consciousness that there's no room for a leader like Trump.

Wait till Charles III ascends the throne - I bet he won't loom that large.

We're already Hitler to the rest of Europe because we have so much power in the EU

Don't steal this title from Putin. He will take on so.

Not that I'm gonna shed any tears on Boris Nemtsov, the oligarch who ruined Novgorod, but you get the picture.

First of all, NIZHNY Novgorod.
Second of all, it is an exaggeration to call him an oligarch.
Third of all, as for Nemtsov being responsible for the "ruination" of"Novgorod" - a proof needed. Both for the fact of ruination and for the man being instrumental in it (if any).

[Sarmatian]

Non-traditional sexual relationships were informally defined by the lawmakers as those that cannot lead to the production of offspring.

So, getting a good old b-job after a hard day at work is out of the question?

I like John Oliver, but that was literally seventeen minutes of talking about Putin's personality. The real issues he only addressed in the last three minutes, including the pop song at the end which is actually a strong political statement.

This is the problem with western media right now, everybody focusing on Trump said this and said that instead of his policies.

Yeah, it was really weak. You can't really cover Putin in 20 minutes, anyway. He should have focused on a single, or at best a few aspects.

[Crandar]

Nemtsov is not the only Putin critic who happened to have an accident. Do such things never happen to his friends because they're all nice and all his critics are criminals? What a coincidence...

And a fallacy. Nemtsov's death can be used to blame Putin for another murder and so on, ad infinitum...

See above regarding the circumvention. Fair and square has to be a joke given that opposition is pretty much not allowed to exist. Almost every journalist or newspaper critical of the man is getting harassed and shut down, critical questions are almost absent from his press conferences and the opposition parties are led by his friends and acquaintances. That's like saying everybody loves Kim Jong Un because people show up to his parades and you never hear about demonstrations against him. Prove me wrong with hard proof.

Firstly, you changed the topic, because censoring the opposition is not the same with exchanging places with your underling. Secondly, should I really link any evidence about Putin's increased popularity?

He represses the opposition, but he would have won any way. That doesn't excuse his actions but neither does it delegitimise his presidency.

/snip

Alright. Anyway, my point was that Oliver's obsession with Russia is dishonest, misleading and after all irrelevant. Why should I defend Putin.

[Husar]

And a fallacy. Nemtsov's death can be used to blame Putin for another murder and so on, ad infinitum...

What?
Nemtsov is not required to be a murder for all the "accidents" of his enemies to make him look suspicious.

Firstly, you changed the topic, because censoring the opposition is not the same with exchanging places with your underling. Secondly, should I really link any evidence about Putin's increased popularity?

He represses the opposition, but he would have won any way. That doesn't excuse his actions but neither does it delegitimise his presidency.

I didn't change the topic, I gave the answer regarding him switching positions above and then commented on your saying that he won fair and square. To say he would have won anyway sounds incredibly cynical and cannot be proven obviously, just like the opposite. That he does all these things clearly shows that his presidency is more like a dictatorship than a presidency. There are probably other dictators who may get a lot of votes, even majorities, but that doesn't change anything about their ruthlessness or that they may have brainwashed to population to get there. It's like saying Hitler didn't need elections anymore because he would have won them anyway, he was just a popular chancellor and not a dictator.

Alright. Anyway, my point was that Oliver's obsession with Russia is dishonest, misleading and after all irrelevant. Why should I defend Putin.

I don't think he has an obsession with Russia and every time US shows say about European countries it is partially misleading, just like I have people on Facebook who say misleading things about the US. You have to see the overall picture and he's not so wrong about Russia there.
And they're not irrelevant, he used it to show why Trump's attitude towards Russia is morally and perhaps judicially questionable. Trump is the one who has some strange obsession with talking about how he wants to be friends with Russia.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But why just Brexit? Populism has had trouble penetrating your national government over its history more because of inertia than any palpable pressure from the monarchy, because conservatives deferential to the monarchy have typically ruled over the national government, because your most significant populist movements have been ethno-national ones seeking dissociation rather than representation, because social authority was contested and compromised on the basis of landed aristocracy embracing market capitalism under state stewardship into the Industrial Revolution. These quirks, and their attendant norms, are smoothing out as time passes.

I don't think the monarchy continues to act as some primitive force distinguishing American results from British ones. Let's say the only discrete forms of democracy are party democracy, and populist democracy. Would you be surprised if there were a referendum towards dissolving aspects of the monarchy in your lifetime?

There will never be a Referendum on dissolving "parts of the Monarchy", there might conceivably be a referendum on abolition but that is highly unlikely. It is far more Likely the monarch would see the writing on the wall and voluntarily abolish their position and usher in a Republic.

After all, the Monarch has been placed over us by God to Protect us. I'm not joking here, this is widely acknowledged to be the view of HM Queen. Abolition in the UK is unlikely though, the Queen is outstandingly popular, her son is also generally very popular and her grandson is possibly the post popular of the lot.

On the other hand, Abolition in her other Dominions is a real possibility, but it all depends on timing. The Australians have already rejected abolition under the current Monarch. It's possible that once Charles ascends abolition there and in Canada will move forward but not immediately after his coronation - it would take a few years at least to get going.

In that time he might prove an excellent King, and if he dies early and William ascends then abolitionists will be back to square one, I think.

[Gilrandir]

I didn't change the topic, I gave the answer regarding him switching positions above and then commented on your saying that he won fair and square. To say he would have won anyway sounds incredibly cynical and cannot be proven obviously, just like the opposite. That he does all these things clearly shows that his presidency is more like a dictatorship than a presidency.

A rumour:
http://24-my.info/putin-wants-to-rep...eader-media-2/

[Idaho]

So I see there are increasingly moves to outlaw public protest in the US:

http://tucson.com/news/local/crime/s...2062bd07b.html

I see that it's also being used to expand the civil forfeiture rules to... Nice!

So the state decides if you are allowed to protest, and if it decides that you aren't, it takes all your stuff.

If that isn't fascism, what the hell is it?

The civil forfeiture rules in the US are unbelievable. Any of you non Americans who haven't acquainted yourselves - here's a rogues gallery to give you a taste:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/listver...orfeiture/amp/

A novel way for law enforcement to boost their budgets by stealing off (mainly) black people.

[Greyblades]

Need more information, what are the criteria the police are using to identify those who should be arrested. What property is allowed to be siezed.

As it is we dont know if this isnt merely allowing cops to arrest the guy who showed up with a face mask' baseball bat and molotov before he starts causing damage or sieze his weapons without spending time getting a warrent.

[Idaho]

With the narcotics seizure rules, the police pretty much can decide if you are likely to be involved in the drugs industry, and then they can take anything that isn't nailed down.

In some counties the situation is getting extreme and is not necessarily drug related. Any local infraction incurs a large fine, which if you can't pay, results in more fines... Then prison. Consequently large numbers of young (mainly black) people owe the state lots of money they don't have and are in prison for trifling offences.

[Greyblades]

Such things can be contested, if you can prove in a court of law that what has been siezed was not aquired criminally or used in criminal activities (aka "that pile of cash they found under my bed that my job wouldnt pay me in 50 years of continuous labour isnt drug profits but inheritance, here's the will and bank records" or "I have that fertilizer because I am a farmer not a bomber, here's my licence") the property will be returned, fines cancelled or repaid and such misuse leaves the counties open for damage claims.

But this is an issue of the original law and the subject of another thread, what does this extension account for? Would it really extend to siezing people's houses while they are away protesting?

[Idaho]

Such things can be contested, if you can prove in a court of law that what has been siezed was not aquired criminally or used in criminal activities (aka "that pile of cash they found under my bed that my job wouldnt pay me in 50 years of continuous labour isnt drug profits but inheritance, here's the will and bank records" or "I have that fertilizer because I am a farmer not a bomber, here's my licence") the property will be returned, fines cancelled or repaid and such misuse leaves the counties open for damage claims.

But this is an issue of the original law and the subject of another thread, what does this extension account for? Would it really extend to siezing people's houses while they are away protesting?

Of course, because the people most affected by this not only have extensive resources to get legal help, but are also considered impartially by the US justice system.

Ah Tories... Things that affect people who don't look like them are irrelevant and uninteresting. While things that even hint at their privilege are beyond the pale and threaten the very fabric of the world

[Greyblades]

There are legal companies in america that offer "No win, No fee" rates on cases.
Again, what does this extension account for?

[Gilrandir]

When Trump was talking of Sweden, did he know anything beforehand?
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/21/eu...ockholm-riots/
Or had he traveled with Doc Brown and Marty McFly into the future?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So I see there are increasingly moves to outlaw public protest in the US:

http://tucson.com/news/local/crime/s...2062bd07b.html

I see that it's also being used to expand the civil forfeiture rules to... Nice!

So the state decides if you are allowed to protest, and if it decides that you aren't, it takes all your stuff.

If that isn't fascism, what the hell is it?

The civil forfeiture rules in the US are unbelievable. Any of you non Americans who haven't acquainted yourselves - here's a rogues gallery to give you a taste:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/listver...orfeiture/amp/

A novel way for law enforcement to boost their budgets by stealing off (mainly) black people.

That looks more like out-and-out corruption than Fascism.