Charming.
It is supposed to be. Love you as always and forever 
- Everyone - Please drop the hijack about what cultures consume which foods and the associated racism or lack thereof.
- No. This is tenuously close to insult/jerk territory. Do not personalize arguments in this fashion.
[/moderating]
You got that straight. I’m linking to this to anyone I know who thinks one side is better than the other.
OK, I apologize. I just get a little tired of the general lefty arguments that I don’t think make much sense. I only meant to insult ideas and not specific posters. We will live to argue about issues another day.
I have a reason to make statements against "Racist!’ and “Sexist!” rhetoric. My own young daughters are doing it now even though they have no idea what those words actually mean. I have to constantly explain that recognizing any cultural difference isn’t sexist or racist. It just means that someone grew up somewhere that isn’t Massachusetts including me. They can sort of understand it but not completely.
Actually, I don’t, although I don’t dispute that it probably happened. Interestingly, I do recall precisely those allegations being hurled at Obama, along with fear-stoking from the right that he would appoint himself dictator for life, set up detainment camps for conservatives, and that references to the senior heads of his various program initiatives as “czars” was proof that he was plotting a Soviet-style totalitarian regime.
This is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the serious use of a serious political label like “fascism” is justified in this particular extraordinary circumstance. I’ve cited ample evidence that it is. Are you really prepared to contradict your earlier statements and now claim that Trump’s behaviors, utterances, and policies, and some of his senior appointments, are just business as usual and in the same political milieu as Bush II or Obama? If not, then you should be prepared to examine them critically and call them out for what they are.
No, it means he knows more about economics than you do. Furthermore, I don’t think you understand what “politically motivated” means. It doesn’t mean the same thing as “having an informed opinion about a political matter”.
As you may recall, this bit of sidetrack began with Bricker chiding someone for applying the word “fascist” to Trump policies, which led to a separate discussion. You, however, tried to characterize the use of the word as just a meaningless insult bandied about by illiterates. I supplied you with an example of an award-winning journalist who described precisely why the word applies perfectly well, and another one eloquently pointing out the threats such ideology poses to American democracy, both writing for a premier publication renowned for the quality of its journalism.
You chose to decry those articles as “politically motivated” based on no evidence whatsoever, but merely the fact that these writers were saying mean things about Trump, about whom I gather you feel mean things should not be said. That I think is a fair summary of where we have arrived and where I think I’ll leave this discussion.
So your belief = certainty. But others whose beliefs oppose yours are automatically wrong.
Would those be the same neocons who were part of the NeverTrump movement?
Just because you make a claim that you call self-evident doesn’t mean it is. So please give concrete, cited examples supporting your assertion. So far there are none.
(a) You’re right. I’m not sorry. I am constitutionally incapable of being less sorry than I am at this moment.
(b) We have much greater insight into Hillary Clinton’s mind than we do into the mind of the average Trump voter because Hillary has been in the public eye for about 3 decades. In that time I, for one, have learned that, for all her faults, she is undeniably a very smart and well-informed lady. Far too smart and well informed to buy into Bush’s obviously bullshit case for invading Iraq. Since she voted to authorise the use of force anyway, I can only conclude that her vote was motivated by political expediency rather than an honest appraisal of the facts.
Beside that, we also have her voting record, which clearly shows that she was one of the most reliable war hawks in the entire Senate. So yeah. I stand by my previous remarks.
No, you haven’t.
I’m instead prepared to identify the flaw in your argument.
I certainly agree, as I have for some time, that Trump routinely breaches established political norms, and I regard that as disturbing.
But that’s not fascism.
You have not, in fact, justified the use of the term fascism except as hyperbole.
I’m perfectly in favor of mean things being said about Trump, but this argument is an appeal to authority. The journalists you cite are not economic experts; they are writers for a liberal publication with a strong interest in creating and sustaining an anti-Trump narrative. Their analyses are in no way sober and objective attempts to define fascism; indeed, the description used in one article – that fascism changes to fit the country – develops such a wide view of the term as to make it meaningless. In any event, I do not concede to that writer the license to redefine the word to fit his current narrative.
Yes, you hold that in reserve for Republican lawyers who redefine the word “torture” in order to give the Bush Administration cover for its treatment of prisoners.
I took the two articles to be more parody than anything else. From the first paragraph of the 2nd linked article:
It’s “impossible”? That’s a definitional failure right there. Not to besmirch the New Yorker or the author, but I hope these articles aren’t representative of the publication’s quality.
Seems to me, it’s predicated on the assumption that the reader agrees with the opening premise of the article, which clearly states:
If the reader disagrees with the premise, he/she will likely disagree with the limited range of possible reactions offered.
Seems to me that it is predicated on the assumption that there is no distinction between “Trump is likely to be a bad President” and “TRUMP IS A FASCIST!!!”
I don’t see how Godwinizing the political debate in America helps any more than it usually does on the Internet.
Regards,
Shodan
Their problem is that they spent eight years calling Bush a fascist. Now they want to call Trump a fascist, and say, in effect, “OK, we were just kidding around with Bush, but this time, we’re serious. Trump is for reals fascist.”
But then how would they describe a future political figure who literally proposed a totalitarian one-party state as the best way for America could resist armed attacks and survive economically?
“OK, super serious this time. THIS GUY is a fascist. 100% swear this time.”
Really? I love how conservatives always seem either to miss or gloss over the fact that all but seven Republicans in both houses voted for the war. So, by your rationale, they’re either all war hawks or they’re all too stupid to serve. And how exactly do you call one vote a ‘record?’
For everyone else, notice that he’s still right and everyone else is wrong.
Give me a break.
I’m not sure what the “problem” is. Some people (I assume) called GWB a fascist. Perhaps some of the same people are calling Trump a fascist. Maybe we’ll get a “true fascist” some time in the future. Each will be judged by the merits at the time. If the next guy is a fascist, I don’t think we’ll forgive that because someone cried wolf about Trump.
BTW, I don’t think Trump is an actual fascist. That’s probably the nicest thing I can say about him.
Why can’t they all be fascists? It’s not like you have to personally start a world war and successfully kill millions of people to keep your fascist membership card. Those are just the rock stars of fascism.
The idea is that when terms get watered down they lose meaning and impact. If there is a consistent accusation of fascism based on flimsy evidence, it dulls other accusations of fascism and makes them easier to dismiss - like I do with the New Yorker article. If the goal is like a rally to hype up the base of folks who are already inclined to agree with you, then great. If the goal is something more than that, then it’s ineffective.
No, but you have to advocate and advance a totalitarian one-party state. If you create one, you get to be a rock star.