Jump to content

General US Politics


Ansem

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Lushen said:

That's just downright close minded and insulting.

 

You seem to believe that North Korea is a logical country.  I'd like you to skim through this page.  
http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/most-shocking/10-most-ridiculous-lies-north-koreans-are-made-to-believe/
Not on this list, and a personal favorite of mine, North Korea was the first country to land a man on the Sun.  The most important thing referenced above is the fact that Korean's people believe the US started the Korean war.  Hence, why Trump refers to his threats as a suicide mission - he's totally illogical.  

lol it's completely true, you don't have to look much further than prescott bush funding the nazis or hitler being really fascinated with how america treated black people or employed eugenics. 

north korea having a creepy cult of personality and domestic propaganda (like literally every other country in the latter case) has nothing to do with the fact that they don't want to get themselves blown up 

Edited by Radiant head
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 14.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

26 minutes ago, Radiant head said:

lol it's completely true, you don't have to look much further than prescott bush funding the nazis or hitler being really fascinated with how america treated black people or employed eugenics. 

Wow.

28 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Even China went on record saying that if they attack a US ally they are on their own.

Playing a game of chicken with Kim Jong Un still seems unwise. While they have threatened basically everyone around them for decades, they generally are not so loud when saber rattling is not happening. If you were going to do anything it should have probably been earlier instead of dicking around in Iraq.

I'll agree with some parts of this.  I do think America would be the country to escalate war, but I don't think they would start it.  I think it's important to look at how World War 1 started.  The assassination of Franz Ferdinand.  I don't think any country would say this was worth starting WW1 over, but that's the thing - it doens't take big countries to start big wars.  Small countries get into turmoil and the larger countries choose their sides.  It's not even a question of morals, it just happens.  If North Korea decides to bomb or nuke someone whether it be South Korea, Japan, a US Military Base, or some country I've never heard of it could still lead to a global war.  And it doesn't matter whose in the right, North Korea will get its allies, possibly China and many of the middle eastern countries.  

I will say your statements should reflect well on Trump, however.  Previous presidents on all sides of the political spectrum have caused serious problems in the middle east.  Obama said he was going to make some serious changes in the region and he did not. Bush started the majority of the issues but many of the problems existed before him.  Trump is the first one to actually do something about it.  For those not aware, he's trying to attack their economy which is how the soviet union fell.  

I didn't vote in the election, but one thing I was certain about Trump was, despite my objections to his border wall, muslim ban, etc., I knew he would be the only want to implement actual efforts in N Korea and the middle east, and I think he's doing that all very well so far.  

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is, North Korea is hemorrhaging human resource, meaning that if they don't stop the horrible things they are doing, they will either see their entire population dead in minutes or in years. It's telling just what North Korea was going for when Kim Il Sun let Kim Jong Il take his place, when said son killed his other brother at the age of 7 while swimming. Instead of addressing their problems, they pretend nothing is wrong and try to kill anyone who just wants to get out. They don't have any reason to want nuclear weapons because the US only was interested in them recently because of their nuclear power ambitions. Iran seems like it's making nukes, but it probably isn't, given how well documented their civil nuclear program is, but if they are, then they will be many times more careful with them, because they are keenly aware what America is capable of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nazism at its core was a hypernationalist movement based around the idea that Germany was supposed to be the greatest country in the world; if Germany wasn't the greatest country in the world and the German people weren't winning all the time, that meant something was wrong with the world order. Germany was being cheated; screwed; taken advantage of by its lessers. Nazism posited that Germany was in decline because it was being crippled from within by subversive elements--The globalists, the liberal academics, the communists, the homosexuals, the Jews--and that the way to make Germany great again was to purge these un-German elements out and make Germany culturally pure. Aryan. A Germany that would assume its rightful place as the greatest country in the world when populated and governed by "Real Germans," unencumbered by the degenerate influences of multiculturalism and diversity and inferior subcultures. If you can not see the likeness to the nationalist wing of the Republican Party, you are willfully blind. ("The Mexicans," "The Chinese," "The Muslims,"--all the hysteria--its all just the new Globalist Jew)

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lushen said:

I will say your statements should reflect well on Trump, however.  Previous presidents on all sides of the political spectrum have caused serious problems in the middle east.  Obama said he was going to make some serious changes in the region and he did not. Bush started the majority of the issues but many of the problems existed before him.  Trump is the first one to actually do something about it.  For those not aware, he's trying to attack their economy which is how the soviet union fell.  

I didn't vote in the election, but one thing I was certain about Trump was, despite my objections to his border wall, muslim ban, etc., I knew he would be the only want to implement actual efforts in N Korea and the middle east, and I think he's doing that all very well so far.  

It doesn't reflect so well on Trump as it reflects badly on previous US wars. I mean I know North Korea was named as one of the Axis of Evil countries but North Korea is more damaging to its own people than as an outward force, which is why previous presidents have not been so concerned with it. I also said that if you were going to do something, because it is an American tradition to wish to topple other countries. Embargos and sanctions are fine, but his rhetoric I cannot agree with.

Why do you think Trump is handling the Middle East well? He sent more troops into Afghanistan, the sixteen year war that is not gaining anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Why do you think Trump is handling the Middle East well? He sent more troops into Afghanistan, the sixteen year war that is not gaining anything.

The Syrian missile was a really great move.  Of course, Syria's closet allies condemned it but the rest of the world praised it.  Trump even got praise from the Muslim community.  There's a huge misconception where people seem to believe that Muslims don't want the US to fight terrorism or call out Muslim extremism.  Muslims are being oppressed by Islamic exterminates just as much as everyone else and many of them have been very vocal whenever the US treats them with aggression.

I think what he's doing with Israel and Palestine is promising.  Some critics are saying peace will never happen but I remember (I can't find a link to it) a situation where world leaders from both said Trump could be the first one to orchestrate true peace between them.  Wish I could find a link, it was quite a while ago.  

Sending more troops to Afghanistan doesn't really mean much.  Obama had originally planned to pull out but clearly that was not possible.  I think it was only natural to see more troops under any presidency.  And IIRC, despite Obama pulling more troops out the amount of US troop deaths skyrocketed under him.

Today him calling on the UN to participate more in the fight against terrorism could lead to some interesting developments.

He's also teased changes with the Iranian nuclear deal, but we won't know what those are for a while.  

I thought the adjective used to describe Clinton, 'the hawk' was rather concerning as well.  To me, I imagine a hawk firmly siting on a perch watching what's going on and doing nothing.  Basically, I expected her to do exactly what Obama did.

 

And to those comparing the right wing to the Nazi party.  You are completely clueless and disrespectful to both ~50% of the US and people who have suffered under the Nazi party.  Stop.

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Radiant head said:

yes i'm applying a little thing called subtext.  north korea isn't going to attack a us ally because they know that would assure their own destruction, and it's not even unreasonable for them to hold on to nuclear weapons since it's literally the only reason the us hasn't already entered the country the way we have done in iraq and libya.  the nk regime might be awful, but they get nothing out of attacking countries for no reason.  this is real life, not a fire emblem game. 

the gap between hitler and the american right wing has always been smaller than anyone would care to admit (how many people died in the iraq war for no reason?), trump is just making it even smaller.  if "the great awakening of nations" doesn't sound fascist as hell idk what does

That makes no sense, bluntly. There is, uh, a pretty significant overlap between North Korea not having nuclear weapons and America not invading North Korea. Frankly North Korea has given the US, South Korea, and Japan valid cases bellis many times over, the only reason we shouldn't go to war is that it would mean the destruction of Seoul.

The second part is foolish, bluntly. I understand you use the Marxist definition of Fascism, but the Marxist definition of Fascism is a) a convenient way of saying "Everyone who is slightly authoritarian and not us is a Fascist, the history of the world as a whole is a giant conspiracy against Marxists" and b) still not, generally, applicable to the Republican Party as the Marxist definition of a Fascism, correct me if I'm wrong, is when Capitalists support the abolition of a country's democracy because if democracy continues Marxists will come to power. This has not happened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

The second part is foolish, bluntly. I understand you use the Marxist definition of Fascism, but the Marxist definition of Fascism is a) a convenient way of saying "Everyone who is slightly authoritarian and not us is a Fascist, the history of the world as a whole is a giant conspiracy against Marxists" and b) still not, generally, applicable to the Republican Party as the Marxist definition of a Fascism, correct me if I'm wrong, is when Capitalists support the abolition of a country's democracy because if democracy continues Marxists will come to power. This has not happened. 

The true Right of the US is and always has been Libertarian to the extreme. They only vote for people that they feel will do nothing more than leave them be. As much as the mainstream media likes to say otherwise (and the internet likes to dramatize), the authoritarian Right in America is fringe and getting smaller as the ignorance is (very slowly) being educated out of people, and that those that find themselves unwelcome in modern society become recluses and seldom talk in public at all. I'm slowly finding out that a totally leftist ideology involves alienating everyone and everything you learned growing up, good or bad. To challenge your beliefs is one thing, but to be told they will out and out always be wrong only makes drones, and the fact that Ben Shapiro was rallied against for speaking his mind, of all things (he's wrong, but education shouldn't ever be biased) is disconcerting and concerning to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lushen said:

And to those comparing the right wing to the Nazi party.  You are completely clueless and disrespectful to both ~50% of the US and people who have suffered under the Nazi party.  Stop.

Yeahhhhhh; No. You don't get to play that card against me. Now calm yourself and use your head for a moment.

If I were to describe a NAZI by political belief and preferred policy. Without using the word NAZI, or any national or party identification. I would be describing:

An emphatic nationalist who believes that the greatest threat facing his country is the subversive influence of diversity and multiculturalism, and who would have his government take corrective action to increase ethnic homogeneity and limit the social and political power of minority outgroups. Preferred actions against target outgroups will include mass incarceration, mass deportation, physical exclusion from national entry or admission, and broadly permissive use of lethal force by persons wielding state police power.  

This is not a trick question. What segment of the American political spectrum does that correspond with?
___________

EDIT: You know who didn't think the comparison between the nationalist right and the Nazi party was "clueless and disrespectful?" The Americans who fought the fucking Nazis.
 


^
This is a 3 minute film produced by the United States government in 1943; educating citizens on how to identify a fascist politician and stop fascists from coming to power in America.

Please watch it. Its so, so relevant to whats going on today.


 

 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blah the Prussian said:

That makes no sense, bluntly. There is, uh, a pretty significant overlap between North Korea not having nuclear weapons and America not invading North Korea. Frankly North Korea has given the US, South Korea, and Japan valid cases bellis many times over, the only reason we shouldn't go to war is that it would mean the destruction of Seoul.

i mean that's the point, if north korea having weapons deters us going to war, it's not really an unreasonable strategy.  

Quote

The second part is foolish, bluntly. I understand you use the Marxist definition of Fascism, but the Marxist definition of Fascism is a) a convenient way of saying "Everyone who is slightly authoritarian and not us is a Fascist, the history of the world as a whole is a giant conspiracy against Marxists" and b) still not, generally, applicable to the Republican Party as the Marxist definition of a Fascism, correct me if I'm wrong, is when Capitalists support the abolition of a country's democracy because if democracy continues Marxists will come to power. This has not happened. 

lol

tbh if there's a "marxist definition of fascism" you know much more about it than i do, so can't help you out much here.  i know leon trotsky wrote a pamphlet about fascism but i have not really read it.   it's true in germany, the rise of nazism was specifically abetted by the weimar republic to crush communism, but i wouldn't take that to be the universal definition of the word. 

Edited by Radiant head
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Radiant head said:

i mean that's the point, if north korea having weapons deters us going to war, it's not really an unreasonable strategy.  

lol

tbh if there's a "marxist definition of fascism" you know much more about it than i do, so can't help you out much here.  i know leon trotsky wrote a pamphlet about fascism but i have not really read it.   it's true in germany, the rise of nazism was specifically abetted by the weimar republic to crush communism, but i wouldn't take that to be the universal definition of the word. 

No comment on the "marxist definition of facism."

...thats...

yeahhhhhhhhhh. I'm not touching that.

I'm ambivalent on all this talk of North Korea.

The dirty little secret in all of this (not even a secret--more like the 800 lb. gorilla in the room) is that America isn't holding the cards right now. This is China's sphere of influence. This is going to play out the way China wants it to play out.

Like as tough as Trump wants to talk here and as much as he loves going tit-for-tat on firey rhetoric with Kim-Jong, because its damn-good television and at the end of the day that's all Donald Trump really cares about. Short of North Korea actually attacking Japan or South Korea or a US territory, I just don't see us getting involved.

...Unless of course Trump just needs a good old-fashioned war to distract from impeachment talks, when Mueller publishes his report.

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah i don't really want to get into that stuff either, i make my views openly known, but i don't think it's worth talking about every time i enter this thread. 

as for north korea, i think chomsky is really good for explaining the context that's always left out of these discussions.  like i think everyone here can agree that north korea is a fucked up state, and the kims have done basically nothing good for their people, but that doesn't mean they're some chaotically evil government that wants to bomb japan or south korea for...no reason?  the way the us casually dehumanizes people in nk and threatens aggression, going back at least to when bush made his exis of evil speech, which put an end to the clinton nuclear deal that could have actually shown path towards peace.  

 

Edited by Radiant head
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Yeahhhhhh; No. You don't get to play that card against me. Now calm yourself and use your head for a moment.

If I were to describe a NAZI by political belief and preferred policy. Without using the word NAZI, or any national or party identification. I would be describing:

An emphatic nationalist who believes that the greatest threat facing his country is the subversive influence of diversity and multiculturalism, and who would have his government take corrective action to increase ethnic homogeneity and limit the social and political power of minority outgroups. Preferred actions against target outgroups will include mass incarceration, mass deportation, physical exclusion from national entry or admission, and broadly permissive use of lethal force by persons wielding state police power.  

This is not a trick question. What segment of the American political spectrum does that correspond with?
___________

EDIT: You know who didn't think the comparison between the nationalist right and the Nazi party was "clueless and disrespectful?" The Americans who fought the fucking Nazis.
 


^
This is a 3 minute film produced by the United States government in 1943; educating citizens on how to identify a fascist politician and stop fascists from coming to power in America.

Please watch it. Its so, so relevant to whats going on today.


 

 

And if I were to describe a Nazi from an economic standpoint, you would get something that sounds a lot like a socialist. What segment of the American political spectrum does that correspond with? Why don't we just call a spade a spade, a Republican a Republican, and a Nazi a Nazi. Because there is a HUGE difference, and it really is quite offensive to ignore it. 

Conservatives aren't racist by nature. Yeah, some of their policies affect some minorities more than others, but they don't have a platform that says that America is for white people only. They aren't campaigning to rid America of colored people. They aren't Nazis. End of story. Exaggerating things like that is how riots get started. Heck, that's how a lot of wars get started! 

If you're just referring to Trump and only inadvertently put millions of Americans in the same boat as Adolf Hitler, then you would do well to tread more carefully next time. @Lushen's post looks like it was referring to the entire right wing. I sincerely hope you weren't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

@Lushen's post looks like it was referring to the entire right wing. I sincerely hope you weren't. 

This is what I was responding to

8 hours ago, Radiant head said:

the gap between hitler and the american right wing has always been smaller than anyone would care to admit (how many people died in the iraq war for no reason?), trump is just making it even smaller.  if "the great awakening of nations" doesn't sound fascist as hell idk what does

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SullyMcGully said:

And if I were to describe a Nazi from an economic standpoint, you would get something that sounds a lot like a socialist.

Where the hell do you get that idea from? Just because they have the word 'Socialist' in their name doesn't make them actually socialist, especially considering the rampant anti-communist rhetoric

1 hour ago, SullyMcGully said:

Conservatives aren't racist by nature. Yeah, some of their policies affect some minorities more than others, but they don't have a platform that says that America is for white people only. They aren't campaigning to rid America of colored people. They aren't Nazis. End of story. Exaggerating things like that is how riots get started. Heck, that's how a lot of wars get started!

Yeah, you're right. I suppose it's just a coincidence that many GOP politicians employ racist dog-whistles, actively panders to racists, and that the current GOP President has the explicit support of White Nationalists/Supremacists and Neo-Nazis. I'm also sure that they have the best intentions in mind with their discriminatory voter-ID laws and gerrymandering, and I'm definitely sure that the numerous studies that demonstrated racism/sexism and other such beliefs were a far bigger predictor of support Trump than 'economic anxiety' are just fake news spouted by triggered libtard snowflakes who are just trying to slander our glorious God-Emperor Trump because muh safe spaces/PC Culture/EssJayDoubleUs.

Edited by Mortarion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mortarion said:

Yeah, you're right. I suppose it's just a coincidence that many GOP politicians employ racist dog-whistles, actively panders to racists, and that the current GOP President has the explicit support of White Nationalists/Supremacists and Neo-Nazis. I'm also sure that they have the best intentions in mind with their discriminatory voter-ID laws and gerrymandering, and I'm definitely sure that the numerous studies that demonstrated racism/sexism and other such beliefs were a far bigger predictor of support Trump than 'economic anxiety' are just fake news spouted by triggered libtard snowflakes who are just trying to slander our glorious God-Emperor Trump because muh safe spaces.

Your high horse looks mighty pissed right about now. I would get off. It doesn't help that the Archie Bunkers have been shouted down by the Boss Hogs. Also, which side were those built for? It wasn't the right. Which side runs most of the postsecondary education in my country? Not the right. If either side is shafted, an institution is well on its way to becoming an oppressive echo chamber of propaganda, like UC Berkeley, or Austin, Texas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Mortarion said:

Where the hell do you get that idea from? Just because they have the word 'Socialist' in their name doesn't make them actually socialist, especially considering the rampant anti-communist rhetoric

Yeah, you're right. I suppose it's just a coincidence that many GOP politicians employ racist dog-whistles, actively panders to racists, and that the current GOP President has the explicit support of White Nationalists/Supremacists and Neo-Nazis. I'm also sure that they have the best intentions in mind with their discriminatory voter-ID laws and gerrymandering, and I'm definitely sure that the numerous studies that demonstrated racism/sexism and other such beliefs were a far bigger predictor of support Trump than 'economic anxiety' are just fake news spouted by triggered libtard snowflakes who are just trying to slander our glorious God-Emperor Trump because muh safe spaces/PC Culture/EssJayDoubleUs.

There is a difference between a communist and a socialist. And the Nazis were arguably as anti-capitalist as anti-communist. A state where the state controls almost everything seems fairly socialist to me. 

And I don't really have a response for that last paragraph. If you really prefer thinking that me and 120 million other people in this country are that stupid and bigoted, then you obviously aren't going to change your mind because of anything I can say. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

There is a difference between a communist and a socialist. And the Nazis were arguably as anti-capitalist as anti-communist. A state where the state controls almost everything seems fairly socialist to me.

Socialism is not the state controlling everything. That's totalitarianism. Socialism is things being controlled by the community as a whole.

21 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

And I don't really have a response for that last paragraph. If you really prefer thinking that me and 120 million other people in this country are that stupid and bigoted, then you obviously aren't going to change your mind because of anything I can say. 

 

Except no, if you'd bothered to read anything I posted in the last 10 pages you'd know I have a great deal of sympathy and understanding for the 120 million. What I have expressed my hatred for is the right-wing media bubble #FuckMurdoch for lying to these people and drowning them in propaganda, and I hate the GOP politicians for being at best sell-outs who don't give a shit about the American citizens who's only priority is making the rich even richer at the expense of everyone else and at worst, outright fascists.

Edited by Mortarion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

There is a difference between a communist and a socialist. And the Nazis were arguably as anti-capitalist as anti-communist. A state where the state controls almost everything seems fairly socialist to me. 

And I don't really have a response for that last paragraph. If you really prefer thinking that me and 120 million other people in this country are that stupid and bigoted, then you obviously aren't going to change your mind because of anything I can say. 

The state "controlling" everything can be a totalitarian one which can be left or right, and economically, crony capitalism or corporatism (you could argue how corporatism could be similar to the idea of a socialist economy in some ways, but it is definitely a corrupted form of capitalism) would fall more to the right. The Nazis are generally placed as extremely authoritarian, slightly right of center - their fascism could be considered an offshoot of fascism from Italy for example. Italian fascism however, was far-right authoritarian ideology. For example, Mussolini said:

"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."

In regards to what he said, it's just that American conservatism (or specifically, the modern GOP) goes so far beyond the pale of traditional conservatism that it makes me think that compared to conservatives in other countries they lack even a basic sense of compassion or understanding why you would want to help other people. I just can't support the GOP in any way. 

7 hours ago, Lushen said:

The Syrian missile was a really great move.  Of course, Syria's closet allies condemned it but the rest of the world praised it.  Trump even got praise from the Muslim community.  There's a huge misconception where people seem to believe that Muslims don't want the US to fight terrorism or call out Muslim extremism.  Muslims are being oppressed by Islamic exterminates just as much as everyone else and many of them have been very vocal whenever the US treats them with aggression.

I think what he's doing with Israel and Palestine is promising.  Some critics are saying peace will never happen but I remember (I can't find a link to it) a situation where world leaders from both said Trump could be the first one to orchestrate true peace between them.  Wish I could find a link, it was quite a while ago.  

Sending more troops to Afghanistan doesn't really mean much.  Obama had originally planned to pull out but clearly that was not possible.  I think it was only natural to see more troops under any presidency.  And IIRC, despite Obama pulling more troops out the amount of US troop deaths skyrocketed under him.

Today him calling on the UN to participate more in the fight against terrorism could lead to some interesting developments.

He's also teased changes with the Iranian nuclear deal, but we won't know what those are for a while.  

I thought the adjective used to describe Clinton, 'the hawk' was rather concerning as well.  To me, I imagine a hawk firmly siting on a perch watching what's going on and doing nothing.  Basically, I expected her to do exactly what Obama did.

This post makes it seem as though you want the US to get involved in more war than its global status already is. Like, are you criticising Hillary for not being enough of a warmonger?

Who was pleased with the Syria strike? I mean Syria's enemies would be of course, and Assad probably isn't exactly well-liked, but what did it actually accomplish? I'm actually glad no on-the-ground war occurred because of it, but I don't even know what it achieved. The rebels, not the Assad government who is fighting the rebels, are the ones that are more likened with Muslim extremism.

The jury's out on it, but I don't think Trump has the solution to the deep seated Palestinian-Israeli conflict. They should have already left Afghanistan under Obama but sending more troops there seems like the last thing to do. What is the winning condition in Afghanistan? Isn't any progress just going to crumble when (if?) the US eventually pull out finally?

If Trump wanted to take a harsh stand against terrorism, he very well could have started by stopping the supply of Saudi Arabia with a massive arms deal. Instead, it was the foreign trip he seemed most excited for, even though they are committing illegal atrocities against Yemen at this moment.

I think US foreign policy has been a tragic mistake for a long time, and Obama certainly gets no praise from me there.

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

The true Right of the US is and always has been Libertarian to the extreme. They only vote for people that they feel will do nothing more than leave them be. As much as the mainstream media likes to say otherwise (and the internet likes to dramatize), the authoritarian Right in America is fringe and getting smaller as the ignorance is (very slowly) being educated out of people, and that those that find themselves unwelcome in modern society become recluses and seldom talk in public at all.

I'll ask you to clarify what you mean by "true Right", but the American right, which I'm defining for simplicity as the Repubican party and those who vote mainly for them, is not libertarian in the slightest. This is a party that is recently associated with:

-Laws punishing the use of drugs
-Mandatory minimum jail sentences (which result in the US having one of the highest per-capita prison populations in the world)
-Extending police (read: state use of force) power in general
-Increased military spending
-Laws which make it harder to vote
-Being anti-immigration and favouring deportation as a solution
-Laws governing who can marry whom
-Laws governing what bathroom people can use

The current Republican president goes even harder authoritarian than his party's average, supporting such things as greater trade barriers and building a literal fucking wall. Yes, you can come up with some issues where Republicans take a more libertarian stance than the Democrats (e.g. environmental regulations and gun control, for all that the practical difference between the parties is not that large on the latter), but they're the minority.

Totally contrary to what your opening statement implied, there's actually a fairly clear correlation between the economic right-wing and authoritarianism in the US. About the only prominent ccounter-example I can think of in recent years is Ron Paul, and he's definitely an exception to the Republican norm.

Given that they're basically unrepresented in US politics, I would argue that if anything it is the right-wing libertarians who are a fringe group in the US. Which is unfortunate, speaking as someone who leans libertarian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Totally contrary to what your opening statement implied, there's actually a fairly clear correlation between the economic right-wing and authoritarianism in the US. About the only prominent ccounter-example I can think of in recent years is Ron Paul, and he's definitely an exception to the Republican norm.

I mean, even the libertarian GOP members don't cleanly fit into the libertarian label. They're closer to Objectivism more than anything, which brings Paul Ryan saying Atlas Shrugged is required reading in his office to mind.

Edited by Mortarion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

This post makes it seem as though you want the US to get involved in more war than its global status already is. Like, are you criticising Hillary for not being enough of a warmonger?

Who was pleased with the Syria strike? I mean Syria's enemies would be of course, and Assad probably isn't exactly well-liked, but what did it actually accomplish? I'm actually glad no on-the-ground war occurred because of it, but I don't even know what it achieved. The rebels, not the Assad government who is fighting the rebels, are the ones that are more likened with Muslim extremism.

I don't want war.  I just don't want to sit idley by while Syria gas's it's own people (btw people, this is what Hitler and Nazi Germany did, and Trump took steps to stop it).  And I think everyone agrees that not doing anything w/ N Korea has only escalated our issues.  N Korea is pumping out missile tests like there's no tomorrow because we sat by and allowed them to develop their weapons. 

As for the Syrian strike, many democrats were in support of the Syrian missile.  Even the democratic candidate, Clinton, said it was what needed to be done (of course, this was before Trump did it - and afterwards she didn't give him any praise).  Arabs honored Trump for standing up to the Syrian gas attacks saying things like "Trump did in 8mo what Obama could not in 8yr".  http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39526653

What has it accomplished?  Well, I suppose we'll have to wait a few years to see exactly but I haven't heard about any more Syrian gas attacks since the missile.  And I know there were some before the one in question.  I do not wish to go to war, but if its to prevent human beings from being gassed by their gov't I think it could be an obligation.

I don't know if I would want Clinton to be more of a warmonger, but yes, I think she should have communicated that she would be hostile with countries that are hostile to humanity and not follow Obama's "Let's have dinner" retaliations.  

 

Edited by Lushen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Radiant head, my main problem with the idea that Capitalists abetted the Nazis is that the subtext is that the Capitalists had the power in the relationship. Basically, I think the Nazis could have come to power without the help of people like Papen I certainly don't think the Nazis were leftist, but I also wouldn't call them hard Capitalists. In economic policy Hitler was probably most similar to FDR, tbh.

2 hours ago, Mortarion said:

Socialism is not the state controlling everything. That's totalitarianism. Socialism is things being controlled by the community as a whole.

3 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

Not exactly true. Socialism is the Marxist phase of Dictatorship of the Proletariat where the state prepares society for a classless, stateless utopia. Communism is that utopia. All Communists are Socialists but not all Socialists are Communists; some want to stay in the dictatorship phase indefinitely. Either way the Nazis were by no means whatsoever Communist or Socialist; the Socialist part comes from when the party was more left wing under the Strassers and Ernst Rohm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its a not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles type deal.  Conservatism is not inherently fascist. But fascism is inherently conservative.

There are plenty of conservative schools of thought that attract good people and that aren't fascist; "conservatism" is a broad label for a number of loosely affiliated political ideas that sometimes overlap and sometimes don't.

...you've got your religious conservatives, and they don't necessarily give a shit about the nationalists or the fiscal conservatives
...you've got your fiscal conservatives, and they don't necessarily give a shit about the religious conservatives or the nationalists
...you've got your nationalists, and they don't necessarily give a shit about the religious conservatives or the fiscal conservatives

...and then you've got your Nazis. They're not THE right-wing. But the right-wing is their home. They live there.

10 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

And if I were to describe a Nazi from an economic standpoint, you would get something that sounds a lot like a socialist.

You would be describing government control of land, labor, capital, and means of production. This could be a description of Communism. Nazism. A tinpot dictatorship. A theocratic church-state. A feudal monarchy.

Pretty much any authoritarian government, left or right, ever devised by human minds. A common feature of authoritarianism is government control of land, labor, capital, and means of production...its what the people in charge in an authoritarian state do...

Framing fascism in this matter is  like being asked "What is a human?" and answering: "A hairy, milk-producing animal."

Okay. You're not technically wrong. But you just gave an answer that describes something like 5,000 different kinds of animals. You haven't described a human. You've described mammals. A BETTER answer would set forth the unique attributes that make humans--different. Distinguishable. Not just another big dumb animal. Maybe something about tools or complex language or abstract thought.

So what then is unique to fascism? We move beyond the blanket similarities in command-and-control economics common to every form of authoritarian and that does nothing to distinguish any of them into fascism's more defining traits: what is it that clinically makes a fascist a fascist?

...its that marriage of hypernationalism and outgroup scapegoating with the power of the authoritarian state.

Its: "[Country] is the greatest country, because it has the greatest people. We don't win. We have the greatest people; why don't we win? Its because THOSE PEOPLE are screwing you. The [insert litany of outgroups here]. We're gonna crack down on THOSE PEOPLE because we care about REAL [country]. The politicians...the media...the academics...all the guys telling you our ideas aren't serious--you know they're part of the problem, right? They don't care about REAL [country]."

...and then the policy of the fascist state flows from this manner of thinking. Thats what makes fascism different then other forms of authoritarian government; this overarching goal of the authoritarian state.

It is a distinct creature of the nationalist right. That is the ideological point-of-origin. That is where fascism comes from.

And this isn't just me being nitpicky. its important to get this right, because if you don't know where its coming from then you don't see it coming. That's how it sneaks up on you. And that's how you get a Donald Trump; when you have an electorate that knows its supposed to hate facism. But doesn't remember what fascism looks like or why it's bad.


 





 

Edited by Shoblongoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...