As was stated above, the research is inadequate. No mention is made of the potential for a financial collapse, which is far more fearful than any of the examples they cited. Who wouldn't want a strong leader in times like these. Again, a liberal view of the real issue condensed to the idea that we don't understand and are led by emotions. concluding we can't be trusted to take care of ourselves. (or am I reading to much into it?)

I'm sorry you missed my point. If the UN Agenda 21 types have their way, you and I won't necessarily be "American" citizens anymore, but part of a "North American Union" with NAU passports to travel freely between the NAU states, namely Mexico, the US and Canada. You can have all the responsibility, security, principles that you desire. I was pointing out it may, though, come from another form of government, because the US Constitution will effectively have to be dissolved. Have you ever asked yourself why this administration is legislating by treaties? Treaties supersede and subjugate the constitution. The NAU or North American integration, as the Mexican government calls it, is a treaty.

In case you haven't noticed, we are effectively living in an authoritarian state, with fear mongers and control freaks deciding how an American citizen should live. Every year there are thousands upon thousands of new regulations imposed upon the citizens of the country by nameless, faceless bureaucrats that take away some more of our liberties and property rights. From what kind of electricity can be generated to what kind of car you can drive, how much you're going to pay to drive that car, to what kind of house you are going to live in, where you're going to build it, where your kids are going to go to school, what they are taught,what they can eat when they get there, even down to what kind of health insurance you have to buy. Every internet exchange or phone call you make is being "Hoovered up" by a government agency in SLC. That's not to mention the antics of the NSA, TSA, EPA, BLM, HHS, IRS, Department of Education, etc. One can wax eloquently about all the rights in the constitution, but in reality they've been pretty much eliminated or subjugated by the authoritarian government that is already in place. They are only there on paper. I am reminded of something Theodore Roosevelt said in one of his writings that "people should be managed like cattle." Well we're just about there, living in George Orwell's "1984" where we can't go anywhere or say anything without being watched, except in the bathroom like the Russians used to do. All in the name of security. I am well aware of Franklin's statement that those that are willing to trade liberty for security deserve neither. Unfortunately, I didn't have any say in which liberties I was giving up, the Oligarch authoritarian politicians did.

Agreed

The progressive movement that dominates the Democrats has been socialist and statist for a hundred years.

I don't think you're getting Objectivism.

Are you an authoritarian?

Are you an authoritarian if:

-You expect everyone to obey the laws you are required to obey?

-You expect your neighbors to knock politely upon your door and ask to come in...whether it be your home or your country?

-You expect someone you hire to represent you to behave and do the job your hired them for?

do you expect that no one will force you or anyone else to do things we all know are wrong and if they do they should be punished?

Do you expect anyone from other countries to obey our laws, not to mow you down with gun fire or blow you to smithereens?

Do these things make YOU an authoritarian?

Note: History.- Karl Marx predicted that if enough chaos was injected into the American or any capitalistic Culture that the people would cry out for a strong man. And at that point...America would be over.

Indeed

You seem to get it.

The US was founded on the principles that All men are created equal with unalienable rights.. So I gather that not only do you desire denying that principle for any other men than US Americans but also have no problem giving those principles up for US Americans so they can have imagined security.

It's obvious that you and Savage are more concerned about being in control than in having liberty, unless you equate control and liberty. For myself, there are costs in order to maintain liberty. Taking full responsibility for myself, my life, my security, and my principles rather than handing them over to fear mongers and control freaks is maybe the most important.

this is definitely a dangerous trend -- the voters are
accepting, even encouraging, aggressive government
in general. . sure, we need to turn the ship of state in
a hurry, to keep from driving off the cliff, but when
the turn is done, how do we revert to gentleness
(breathe, Donald;;; breathe) in D.C.??? -- j
.

"Trump tells us to make our own country great."
I don't think it's just my patriotic bias in saying the US is great. It's built on ideas. There's no US "race" as there is a Japanese race. The US ideas mean when the average American hears "he ignored tradition and did it his own way," our first gut reaction is "cool, good for him.". In most places in the world there's more of "Well who does he think he is?" Eventually it depends on the details, but I love how our first reaction is to admire people doing something new.

"Took a liberty," or "that's a liberty!" means you did something wrong in Europe, but in US is sounds like something good. "Collaborate" means to give secrets to the enemy in Europe, yet it's positive in US. "Disruptive" sounds bad in Europe, but in US it means to bring a product or service to a market that previously couldn't get it. Many shopping centers, plazas, and hotels are called "royal" in Europe, but the word in US is mostly associated with "royal pain in the a$$"

When you look at Latin America and other parts of the world, things we now take for granted, like women being equal to men in basic rights, are just now being adopted.

So the US is great. My impression is Trump would like to make our view of these phrases more like Europe's, i.e. to take away some of our greatness.

When I listen to Trump talking about Mexico paying for it, I don't imagine Mexico writing a check -- as the nitwits seem to think. I see a businessman talking about the cash flow and the fact that there are many opportunities to utilize that to pay for the wall.

Mexico can't say no, it's the money already flowing from the U.S. that he intends to use.

I would characterize it as you say but exactly the opposite, with Republicans more collectivist and statist and Democrats saying they're not but having a laundry list of problems they want the gov't to solve, which takes us to statism as surely as Republican openly statist chest thumping.

Democrats have always been more ideologically collectivist and statist. That has never been more apparent than with Obama's "fundamental change". The Republicans are typically "me too but slower".

If Americans get this election wrong you may be eating your hat sooner than later if what the Mexican Finance Minister said in an interview carries any weight.

“Under no circumstance will Mexico pay for the wall that Mr. Trump is proposing,” said Mexico’s finance minister, Luis Videgaray, in a Reuters report.
“Building a wall between Mexico and the United States is a terrible idea. It is an idea based on ignorance and has no foundation in the reality of North American integration,” he said.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/mexico-no-....

Just roll that around and think of it's implications. "North American integration" does he mean "North American Union"? Trump may have been more right than he knows. As Michael Savage says: "Borders, Language, Culture" without those there is no United States.

Trump's 'man on the white horse' dictatorial nationalism is not "inspirational". The problem is the growing number of people who find fascism an inspiration.

As long as otherwise intelligent and knowledgeable people keep saying "both sides," as if our only choices were rotten bums A and rotten bums B, we will continue on this downward spiral.
Every state but Oklahoma will have other choices on the ballot.
Anyone actually wanting freedom, individual rights, limited government, a free market, seriously needs to start voting Libertarian.

"Explain how democrats have done more for you and your family"
Just to rephrase, technically I want to them to do less for me and my family, not more. Democrats at least claim to be less authoritarian. Above Nickursis and I discuss whether claiming it if they don't do it is a good thing. If you consider Libertarians to be independents, then they have much more than Ds or Rs in at least raising questions about the size and intrusiveness of gov't.

using military force against countries that threaten the US
Is Libya and example of that?

2. changing the constitution...
Some say that the constitution doesn't need to be changed, that the 14th amendment just needs to be interpreted properly.

3. imposing extra airport checks...
How many bombs have been found in YOUR shoes? Or your child's? Is it proper to inspect everyone, when ALL of the terrorist activity is coming from one group?

4. requiring a national ID card...
What do you think passports, driver's licenses and social security numbers are?!?

5. allowing scanning of phone calls for calls linked to terrorism...
At what point do you find probable cause?!?

true enough...my observations are of a general nature how civilization progresses from democracy to oligarchy to authoritarianism to fascism...when the state controls the method of education...and the press...and the monetary supply...it creates an atmosphere that "Trumps", "Obamas", "Bushes", & "Clintons" flourish in...

we are sliding into the abyss...it is only a question of "when" not "if"...prepare

Please explain how democrats have done more for you and your family than republicans, or independents, for that matter.

First off, if the study had been complete, it would have included ALL of the candidates. Secondly, it would have put the questions on a scale, not either-or. This is a case of "lies, damn lies and statistics." Notice the significance of the correlation showing authoritarianism with alignment with Trump. There should also be the same for all of the candidates; we don't know if there are similar correlations with the others. Further, in addition to "parenting," there should also be a measure of how much facts play a part in one's decision making vs. emotions. The study, as composed, is irredeemably flawed.

There are some MASSIVELY inadequate assumptions in the paper, among which is the idea that only fascists are "authoritarian." They totally fail to address communism and socialism, both of which require an "authoritarian" bent to support the robbery of others for a preferred outcome. By separating fascism from other left wing ideologies, they are attempting to infer that only fascism is the danger, rather than ALL statism. If they addressed STATISM, then they'd have to address the entire political spectrum, and would be forced to face the fact that their "work" would apply to more than just Trump. How authoritarian must you be to support Sanders, who wants to rob the rich (for a good cause, of course)? The underpinnings of their approach sounds eerily like Obama's complaint about folks clinging to their Bibles and guns. These "scholars" haven't even begun to research the subject.

Well stated!

An excerpt from the article:
"This "action side" of authoritarianism, he believed, was the key thing that distinguished Trump supporters from supporters of other GOP candidates. "The willingness to use government power to eliminate the threats — that is most clear among Trump supporters."

Authoritarians generally and Trump voters specifically, we found, were highly likely to support five policies:

Using military force over diplomacy against countries that threaten the United States
Changing the Constitution to bar citizenship for children of illegal immigrants
Imposing extra airport checks on passengers who appear to be of Middle Eastern descent in order to curb terrorism
Requiring all citizens to carry a national ID card at all times to show to a police officer on request, to curb terrorism
Allowing the federal government to scan all phone calls for calls to any number linked to terrorism

What these policies share in common is an outsize fear of threats, physical and social, and, more than that, a desire to meet those threats with severe government action — with policies that are authoritarian not just in style but in actuality. The scale of the desired response is, in some ways, what most distinguishes authoritarians from the rest of the GOP."

So if there's any support or even belief for _individual natural rights* in any of that, I'll eat my hat with salsa.