Do you have any cites to support these preposterously absurd claims? I really thought I’d seen it all, that nothing anybody posted anywhere on the entire world wide web could surprise me anymore, but you have managed to do that.
“Crypto-fascists”!
"It made no difference to anyone in Europe when [the fascists] got elected. "
I may just laugh myself to death at how bizarre this is. And if you knew anything about German history you would know that the National Socialists were never actually “elected” in any kind of fair election. Hitler came to power through a coalition government in which the other parties participating believed they’d be able to control him, and his party. They could not control him, and what happened later happened.
Since they took power, Trump and Elon have almost certainly killed far more people than the Israeli government, Hamas, and Iranian government combined.
I am not @griffin1977 and cannot speak for them etc., but my guess is that your own previous identification of this post as sarcastically intended was correct.
Though my use of crypto-facist was correct (to mean hidden fascist) its just in our godawful shit filled dumpster fire of a political system there is a whole new definition of the term to mean someone who is openly fascist but into cryptocurrency
The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God’s purpose is something different from the purpose of either party – and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true – that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds.
~Abraham Lincoln
This speaks to our debate, on levels both obvious and meta.
I didn’t ever claim “the Weimar Republic was just as fascist as the Nazis”. Just that it included fascists hence was fascist[1].
Griffin, for some reason, is pretending that when he said “Weimar”, only SPD-era Weimar was on the table, and hence when I said Weimar was fascist I was talking about the SPD. Which is, of course, absolute disingenuous bullshit, as I very specifically mentioned von Hindenburg.
By the well-established principle of Undecim Nazistae ad mēnsam↩︎
So, here’s something I am quite curious about. If there is a hidden Progressive majority in this country, and Dems only need to run to the left to tap onto that amazing energy and start winning races all over including in red states… Why is it that of well over 150 house races that have ended so far where the DSA has made an endorsement, only a single DSA endorsed candidate running in a deep blue district (Chris Rabb) has actually won the nomination?
First, due to the way that Americans have been trained the word “socialist” is poison; they’ll generally oppose it for the name alone even if they agree with it. Second, our system is built to be biased in favor of the right, it doesn’t matter who has the actual majority. Third, what matters for winning the nomination is how many people have that position in the Democratic party; not the whole country.
Fourth define “progressive”. I doubt that the people who call themselves “progressives” are even close to a majority, but there’s far more people who are more to the “left” than the Democratic leadership than who call themselves that name. And of course by Republican standards everyone much to the left of Hitler is a “progressive”.
It should also be kept in mind that by definition, most people are women or minorities and therefore targeted for death, persecution or enslavement at the hands of the Right. So in terms of self-interest at any rate most people are on the progressive side even if they don’t recognize it (they don’t get a choice, the Right won’t let them).
Hillary represented another step in the direction of a tradition of dynastic rule (Bush the Elder, Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton, Bush the Younger, Bush the Younger,…and now they wanted us to vote for Hillary Clinton? A couple times? Then who…Jenna? Chelsea?) The USA exists pretty much as a protest against dynastic rule. Democrats had nobody apart from a previous president’s wife? Did they not know an election was coming up?
Kamala was not selected in the Democratic primary, Joe Biden was. Remember that? The Party, who put Uncle Joe in the race, decided he wasn’t going to be the candidate after all and gave us Harris at the last minute. The old bait & switch? And when she didn’t win it was because of misogynistic racists on The Left, and absolutely not just principled people who disengage when they realize someone is trying to hoodwink them. I didn’t feel she was a particularly bad candidate, but I didn’t vote for her. I rolled my eyes, cursed the Democratic Party, and voted against Trump. Both parties are not the same, but they have the same goals. Republicans are the abusive dad. Democrats are the soothing mother who tends to your hurts while defending what your dad did to you.
It was always going to be Trump. The Democratic Party saw to that. But yeah, keep blaming people who had nothing to do with who ended up on the ballot. Pay attention OP. Our elections, even the presidency now, are just a puppet show to keep us distracted.
Fascinating - so Joe Biden won the primary, or “the party put Uncle Joe in the race”? Which was it?
At the time when Biden stepped down, you wanted the party to have a very late and very short primary? Really? What about all the fundraising implications that meant someone from the ticket had to stay on to count as the same campaign?
Kind of hard to win a primary if the party doesn’t let you run in it. The party let him run in it, and then pulled him after the people chose him. Did you forget there was a Democratic primary that Kamala did not win?
Right answer - there’s no one who “The Party” didn’t allow to run. Serious candidates simply didn’t want to throw away their political career on a primary challenge against a sitting president running for a nomination for his second term.
He also left out the Kennedys (if examples where a second memeber of the family ran but did not win count) and the Roosevelts.
“If I had a nickel for every time the United States elected two presidents from the same family, I’d have two nickels. Which isn’t a lot, but it’s weird that it happened twice.”
John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams.
William Henry Harrison and his grandson Benjamin Harrison.
Madison and Taylor were second cousins.
But, clearly the United States exists as a protest against dynastic rule for all of its history, and that, and that alone (although I’m quite certain, NOT), is why we shouldn’t have nominated Hillary Clinton.
Whatever dude.