That's a lot of words that don't actually say much. And what you did say is plainly historically incorrect. Fascism, socialism, and communism are all closely related -- Mussolini was very popular on the left in the 1920s. And, you know, "a response to" is another way of saying "an offshoot of". Fascism was, as its proponents called it, a Third Way, a movement rooted in socialism that sought to create a workable compromise with capitalism.
No. You don't get to make up history.Fascism was - in Italy, in Britain, in France, in Germany, and in Spain - an explicit, targeted, intentional counter to the policies of the socialist parties and Communist parties in those countries. It had the support of far-right-wing groups including authoritarians, traditional monarchists, Nazis, racist/xenophobic paramilitary groups, and was opposed by socialists, Communists, and select conservatives in some nations (e.g. Britain, though in Britain the fascists were a direct split off of the Conservative party). Fascist parties
intentionally adopted the word socialist into their party names in order to lessen opposition as - in the cases of Germany, Italy, and Spain - they literally outlawed, suppressed, and murdered members of the various socialist parties (e.g. the SPD in 1933, Germany). No actual historian, dictionary, or encyclopedia considers fascism to be a left-wing movement as the term was understood in that time period, nor is it considered a left-wing philosophy today. If you do, you are objectively incorrect.
Whatever I name is just going to be a target for you to shoot at, given that you've already set up your own target on the emails.
Ah, the "I'll say whatever I want but won't bother to back it up with facts" defense. Bold, and taking a leaf right out of your candidate's playbook. Unfortunately, we're not about to let you get away with it here. You were saying about Clinton's illegal actions?
You're mischaracterizing the response to the proposal. Trump got Mexico to agree that both countries had a right to build a wall. What was "never discussed" was the payment. But that's how negotiations work: they don't happen all at once; they happen in stages. First the wall, next the payment.
I'm not mischaracterizing it at all. Trump's campaign said they did not discuss who would pay for a wall. Mexico's President said he explicitly said Mexico will not (and indeed, Trump has absolutely no means to convince Mexico to do so under international law). Given the breathtaking frequency and boldness of Trump's lies to date - indeed, its usually easier to list when he's told the truth as of late - I'm inclined to trust the word of an actual elected leader over a blowhard of a failed, dishonest businessman.
But we know for a fact that others who have done the same things that Hillary did have not escaped punishment.
Citation required.
I don't think Trump's shady dealings have any legs to them. If they did, the media would be going after those
Unbelievable. The media has been publishing reports on Trump's abysmal business record and shady dealings on a monthly if not weekly basis. His base - as evidenced by your own reactions - doesn't care.
Trump wants to secure his place in history. If he succeeds in Making America Great Again, he will certainly deserve that place. If he walks back his promises, the backlash will be swift and severe. I'm sure he's not going to do that.
Wow. Do you know what this "Making America Great Again" nonsense is? Recollection bias. False memory. "Things were better in MY day" bull****. The United States of America is already a great country. It has its problems, and its weaknesses, but nothing Trump has said will actually make it better for average people, and in point of fact it will make it much worse.
By the way, I'm still waiting to hear what provisions of NAFTA have been bad for the United States.
