Hillary's new book: "It Was My Turn"

[Michellebell]

Does anybody seriously think that Trump meant that Hillary should go to prison without first being tried and convicted of a crime? Please, give me a break!

I've uttered exactly those words on more than one occasion, and there's no greater believer in the constitutional justice system than I. We say these things because the uncontroverted evidence that has been presented to date is overwhelming and would most certainly have resulted in a prosecution against anyone but a Clinton or a Bush. That this comment would be offered as proof of Trump's "authoritarianism" is ridiculous.

And offering the opinion that NFL players should be fired for utilizing the spotlight to further their own political agenda--an agenda that is so reprehensible to a majority of Americans that it causes stadiums to go empty? If that's "authoritarian," then every employer I know suffers from the same personality trait. When somebody hires you to do a job, you don't shit on them. Seems simple enough.

You'll get no argument from me when it comes to Trump's character. But the sad fact is that none of the cast of characters among which the American people were allowed to choose--save Rand Paul and possibly one or two others who failed to win the nomination--had any character. At least Trump has ruffled the feathers of the establishment, has shone light upon many of the cockroaches that were hiding in the woodwork, and has galvanized the will of constitutional conservatives to return power to the people. In that sense, I regard Trump as a symbol more than anything else.

Well, I wasn't making any comment about his character. I thought about an authoritarian-libertarian axis and two actions (statements, at any rate) that displayed towards the authoritarian side, since stuper1 asked. It seemed pretty obvious that these were authoritarian statements; nobody has said anything that would make me think they were libertarian yet. If they were "good" or "bad" is a different aspect.

I guess we have a different idea of what authoritarianism is.

Maybe, did you mean something more like 'tyrannical' instead of authoritarian?

I always thought "authoritarian" referred to a "my-way-or-the-highway" style, often when referring to parenting styles. I think the word is appropriate for this conversation, but I don't think Trump was acting authoritarian in these situations. I think of these things as him just speaking his mind. And people who agree with him love it, whereas people who disagree hate it. In that sense, he does cause more division. But then again, anyone voicing strong opinions in public would cause division. I happen to agree with him on a lot of the things he says, like regarding the NFL.

[Kriegsspiel]

I always thought "authoritarian" referred to a "my-way-or-the-highway" style, often when referring to parenting styles. I think the word is appropriate for this conversation, but I don't think Trump was acting authoritarian in these situations. I think of these things as him just speaking his mind. And people who agree with him love it, whereas people who disagree hate it. In that sense, he does cause more division. But then again, anyone voicing strong opinions in public would cause division.

The way I see it, a libertarian stance on the NFL protests would be that they can do whatever they want, as long as they aren't hurting someone or taking their stuff. An authoritarian would be angry that they're defying a norm and being rebellious, and would demand that they get back in line. The "lock up Hillary" comment wasn't a good example, looking back on it now.

The other axis (Authoritarian–Libertarian) measures one's political opinions in a social sense, regarding the amount of personal freedom that one would allow: "libertarianism" is defined as the belief that personal freedom should be maximised, while "authoritarianism" is defined as the belief that authority should be obeyed.

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

[Maddy]

The way I see it, a libertarian stance on the NFL protests would be that they can do whatever they want, as long as they aren't hurting someone or taking their stuff. An authoritarian would be angry that they're defying a norm and being rebellious, and would demand that they get back in line. The "lock up Hillary" comment wasn't a good example, looking back on it now.

i think there would be an acknowledgement of the difference between what a citizen can do on their own time and what an employee can do on company time in the libertarian perspective, it doesn't seem anti libertarian in any way to me for a businessman to take the POV that the employer can set the rules which employment are contingent on, and that creating a rule against behaviors that hurt the brand and the bottom line are needed.. if trump came out in favor of a law against anyone taking a knee at any place the anthem is played = authoritarian.. but i don't get that from the statements he made, it seemed more like the above mentioned businessman perspective to me.

Obviously, Trump cannot fire these players. He cannot direct anyone to fire these players. Accordingly his comment could not be construed--and could never be construed--as anything more than a personal opinion directed to what the team owners should do. So I'm left shaking my head about how the term "authoritarian" applies--no matter how you define it. Is an employer "authoritarian" for demanding that an employee refrain from behaving in a manner that insults customers? For disparaging the business to the point where losses begin accruing? Perhaps so in the minds of those who regard individual liberties as meant only for them, but if that's the working definition of "authoritarianism," we've gone past the point where discussion makes any sense.