[Dragon]

Just a note, Putin didn't really praise Trump much (contrary to what Trump often claims). In the most referenced moment, he actually called him "flamboyant" or "colorful", but the word was mistranslated as "bright", which has different connotations. What he said was very cautious and amounted to "Well, he's certainly quite a persona", which is hard to disagree with. Trump, on the other hand, in a manner typical to his campaign, both praised and condemned Putin.

In the end, they do have many similarities, but one should remember that the US is a vastly different country to Russia. They need different kind of leaders. Putin is just the man to run a place like Russia, while the Americans needs Trump like they need a hole in the bridge, as we say in Poland.

[The E]

Personally, I anticipate no little amusement when the SJWs go apoplectic after the inevitable Trumpslide this November.

I wonder whether that'll be enough to stave off the sense of impending fascism for you.

[Goober5000]

Considering that fascism is a left-wing ideology, a Trump election would be a good step away from that.

[The E]

Considering that fascism is a left-wing ideology, a Trump election would be a good step away from that.

what strange definition of fascism are you using????

Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe, influenced by national syndicalism. Fascism originated in Italy during World War I and spread to other European countries. Fascism opposes liberalism, Marxism and anarchism and is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.

I'll have to warn you, if you're going to claim that the most prominent fascist governments in recent history were actually left-wing (using a contemporary definition of what left wing means), you're going to get an earful.

[MP-Ryan]

Hi there.

 

Here it appears we finally had something we all agreed on, and you guys had to go and ruin it. Sigh.

Personally, I anticipate no little amusement when the SJWs go apoplectic after the inevitable Trumpslide this November.

Yeah, it'd be hilarious when an incompetent racist narcissistic demagogue who's sole real achievement is looking out for himself at the expense of everyone else gets elected to the US Presidency and has to deal with a North Korea armed with - unbelievably as it may seems - functional nuclear missiles.  That'll be a riot.

I mean, this aside from the outright contempt Trump demonstrates for pretty much all of the Constitutional rights (2nd amendment possibly excluded, but remains unknown), his support for torture, his outright contempt for and complete lack of understanding about the US military ("we'll set up a court" OK genius), his attacks on both the independent investigative agencies and the judiciary, his attack on a Gold Star family, his outright racist and unconstitutional beliefs about banning Muslims, and the uproarious assertion that he'll not only get a wall built between the US and Mexico, but Mexico will pay for it.  No matter how bad Clinton is, Trump is demonstrably unfit.  The fact that there are Americans that can ignore all of that in their despise for Clinton or contempt for the "mainstream media" floors me.  Clinton and Trump have both lied, but this is not a difference of degrees.  Trump's lies are breathtaking fallacies, and it seems none of his supporters care.

And fascism is not a left-wing ideology.  Never has been.  Feel free to check the definitions.

[Goober5000]

what strange definition of fascism are you using????

The one promoted by its founders.  The Wikipedia definition you quoted is a common misconception -- probably because it's Wikipedia.  In addition to being an offshoot of socialism, the core principles outlined in the Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle - such as universal suffrage, an eight-hour workday, an progressive taxation - are left-wing.

I mean, this aside from the outright contempt Trump demonstrates for pretty much all of the Constitutional rights (2nd amendment possibly excluded, but remains unknown), his support for torture, his outright contempt for and complete lack of understanding about the US military ("we'll set up a court" OK genius), his attacks on both the independent investigative agencies and the judiciary, his attack on a Gold Star family, his outright racist and unconstitutional beliefs about banning Muslims, and the uproarious assertion that he'll not only get a wall built between the US and Mexico, but Mexico will pay for it.  No matter how bad Clinton is, Trump is demonstrably unfit.  The fact that there are Americans that can ignore all of that in their despise for Clinton or contempt for the "mainstream media" floors me.  Clinton and Trump have both lied, but this is not a difference of degrees.  Trump's lies are breathtaking fallacies, and it seems none of his supporters care.

Objections to Trump almost always take the form of "he said something bad".  Objections to Clinton almost always take the form of "she did something illegal".

"No matter how bad Clinton is" is an awfully cavalier way to sweep away violation of classification protocol, accepting funding from foreign governments, insider trading, perjury, co-opting media reporting, primary election fraud, and a long list of dead political opponents.

[The E]

what strange definition of fascism are you using????

The one promoted by its founders.  The Wikipedia definition you quoted is a common misconception -- probably because it's Wikipedia.  In addition to being an offshoot of socialism, the core principles outlined in the Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle - such as universal suffrage, an eight-hour workday, an progressive taxation - are left-wing.

This is hair-splitting. In practice, fascists spent quite as lot of energy on being not seen as socialist; Your use of this historical factoid, accurate though it is, is little more than a rhetorical cheap shot to deflect criticism.

Trump is an authoritarian. He is certainly not a "liberty" kind of guy. His political idols are fellow authoritarians like Vladimir Putin, for crying out loud. His various inadequacies in terms of his understanding of what democracy is and, specifically, what the american ideals of it are are well documented.

Your glee at the chance that this idiot might win and thus make people who you disagree with unhappy is ... baffling. You are seemingly (and I hope this is untrue) celebrating the chance that you're getting someone in the oval office who is deeply, utterly unsuited to the job because it will make liberals mad. Not because you're sold on his vision of a better america (because he doesn't have one). Not because you're taken in by his rhetorical skills (because, again, he doesn't have any). Only because he is going to troll the left.

Is that how petty, how utterly childish american politics are this season?

[Goober5000]

The one promoted by its founders.  The Wikipedia definition you quoted is a common misconception -- probably because it's Wikipedia.  In addition to being an offshoot of socialism, the core principles outlined in the Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle - such as universal suffrage, an eight-hour workday, an progressive taxation - are left-wing.

This is hair-splitting. In practice, fascists spent quite as lot of energy on being not seen as socialist; Your use of this historical factoid, accurate though it is, is little more than a rhetorical cheap shot to deflect criticism.

Eh, you're one to talk.  That entire paragraph is rhetoric.  Whereas I cited verifiable historical fact.

Trump is an authoritarian. He is certainly not a "liberty" kind of guy. His political idols are fellow authoritarians like Vladimir Putin, for crying out loud. His various inadequacies in terms of his understanding of what democracy is and, specifically, what the american ideals of it are are well documented.

Your glee at the chance that this idiot might win and thus make people who you disagree with unhappy is ... baffling. You are seemingly (and I hope this is untrue) celebrating the chance that you're getting someone in the oval office who is deeply, utterly unsuited to the job because it will make liberals mad. Not because you're sold on his vision of a better america (because he doesn't have one). Not because you're taken in by his rhetorical skills (because, again, he doesn't have any). Only because he is going to troll the left.

Is that how petty, how utterly childish american politics are this season?

It's not glee, it's schadenfreude grim satisfaction.  It's because if the shoe were on the other foot, the SJWs would not hesitate to crow about a Clinton victory.  Some of them are already saying that Trump needs to be so utterly and thoroughly defeated that he and his like will never be politically viable again.

Trump is, first and foremost, a nationalist.  Authoritarianism is secondary.  I support Trump because he is the first viable politician in quite some time to push back against the globalist agenda.  He's pushing back against US military adventurism which has pissed off allies and turned non-entities into threats.  He's pushing back against trade agreements like NAFTA which has crippled the economy and TPP which will.  And he's throwing political correctness to the wind, which is a refreshing change from the muzzling of free speech that has become so prevalent.

[666maslo666]

This is hair-splitting. In practice, fascists spent quite as lot of energy on being not seen as socialist;

Fascists usually call themselves National Socialists, so is that really true? I think it is much more accurate to say that they spend a lot of energy on being seen as NATIONAL socialists, in contrast with INTERNATIONAL socialists. Thats where the core difference lies. But both are arguably socialists.

But one has to be careful so that discussion like this does not degenerate into discussing semantics instead of politics, a very easy trap to fall into.

[AdmiralRalwood]

Fascists usually call themselves National Socialists, so is that really true?

Right, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is totally a democratic republic, because nobody ever names things in misleading ways ever.

[The E]

It's not glee, it's schadenfreude grim satisfaction.  It's because if the shoe were on the other foot, the SJWs would not hesitate to crow about a Clinton victory.  Some of them are already saying that Trump needs to be so utterly and thoroughly defeated that he and his like will never be politically viable again.

And the various chants about how Clinton should be incarcerated or killed are ok by you.

Trump is, first and foremost, a nationalist.  Authoritarianism is secondary.  I support Trump because he is the first viable politician in quite some time to push back against the globalist agenda.  He's pushing back against US military adventurism which has pissed off allies and turned non-entities into threats.  He's pushing back against trade agreements like NAFTA which has crippled the economy and TPP which will.  And he's throwing political correctness to the wind, which is a refreshing change from the muzzling of free speech that has become so prevalent.

How do you get any confidence about Trump's position on things, given how much he's wavered on all of them?

[Phantom Hoover]

'SJW' apparently now means 'the entire ****ing left'.

[Phantom Hoover]

Anyway, Goober, you may as well just **** off and go back to fiddling with the forum formatting out of spite, because you're going to have about as much luck defending your idiotic political views here as you did defending your young-earth creationism or your belief that women are primarily of value as brood mares. If, god forbid, Trump wins in November, I hope you at least get enough joy out of your week of smirking to make up for the subsequent four years as you realise you're right up there on the shortlist for the Chump Of The ****ing Century Award along with the other 130 million odd fools.

[666maslo666]

Trump is, first and foremost, a nationalist.  Authoritarianism is secondary.  I support Trump because he is the first viable politician in quite some time to push back against the globalist agenda.  He's pushing back against US military adventurism which has pissed off allies and turned non-entities into threats.  He's pushing back against trade agreements like NAFTA which has crippled the economy and TPP which will.  And he's throwing political correctness to the wind, which is a refreshing change from the muzzling of free speech that has become so prevalent.

We can only hope his authoritarian tendencies are secondary. He is too much of a wildcard to really know that. Trump's positions you enumerated are indeed very tempting, but does he really mean them, and will he prioritize them in practice more than the authoritarian stuff? At this point he can be chaotic good, chaotic neutral or chaotic evil, but chaotic he surely is a lot, and voting him in as a POTUS is thus a big global risk. That said, the other side is not much better and I would hate having to choose between Hillary and Trump, or Reps and Dems in general. Thank God for multi-party systems and actual political diversity.

[JCDNWarrior]

I prefer Trump over Clinton as President of the USA.

Not that I'm allowed to vote on it as a Western European.

What others believe or prefer is up to them. We'll just have to see in a few months who wins and what happens to the world as a result, for good or for worse.

[Goober5000]

It's not glee, it's schadenfreude grim satisfaction.  It's because if the shoe were on the other foot, the SJWs would not hesitate to crow about a Clinton victory.  Some of them are already saying that Trump needs to be so utterly and thoroughly defeated that he and his like will never be politically viable again.

And the various chants about how Clinton should be incarcerated or killed are ok by you.

If she is tried and convicted, she should certainly be incarcerated.  These are serious allegations and there appears to be sufficient evidence, by a wide margin, to prosecute.  I haven't heard of any chants saying she should be killed.

How do you get any confidence about Trump's position on things, given how much he's wavered on all of them?

He is a deal-maker, so he is going to say different things at different times to see what people feel strongly about and what they don't.  But his positions have been posted on his website for months and have remained consistent.

'SJW' apparently now means 'the entire ****ing left'.

There are SJWs on both the left and the right.  The term does not encompass the whole of either.

Anyway, Goober, you may as well just **** off and go back to fiddling with the forum formatting out of spite, because you're going to have about as much luck defending your idiotic political views here as you did defending your young-earth creationism or your belief that women are primarily of value as brood mares. If, god forbid, Trump wins in November, I hope you at least get enough joy out of your week of smirking to make up for the subsequent four years as you realise you're right up there on the shortlist for the Chump Of The ****ing Century Award along with the other 130 million odd fools.

Good, good, let the hate flow through you.

This is but a foretaste of the apoplexy I mentioned.

We can only hope his authoritarian tendencies are secondary. He is too much of a wildcard to really know that. Trump's positions you enumerated are indeed very tempting, but does he really mean them, and will he prioritize them in practice more than the authoritarian stuff? At this point he can be chaotic good, chaotic neutral or chaotic evil, but chaotic he surely is a lot, and voting him in as a POTUS is thus a big global risk. That said, the other side is not much better and I would hate having to choose between Hillary and Trump, or Reps and Dems in general. Thank God for multi-party systems and actual political diversity.

I think we saw a foretaste of President Trump with his trip to Mexico.  That went spectacularly well.

[MP-Ryan]

The one promoted by its founders.  The Wikipedia definition you quoted is a common misconception -- probably because it's Wikipedia.  In addition to being an offshoot of socialism, the core principles outlined in the Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle - such as universal suffrage, an eight-hour workday, an progressive taxation - are left-wing.

What a remarkable interpretation of history that is.

The Nazis, who popularized fascism following its invention in Italy, adopted the term National Socialism as an alternative term for fascism explicitly because of the ground gained by both Communists and Socialists in the preceding decades.  By co-opting a minor few socialist policies which were already being enacted in decidedly non-socialist (at the time) countries like Britain and the United States, they also were able to popularize authoritarian policies ordinarily considered right-wing at the time and in the decades since.  These include a decidedly social-conservative agenda which was not strongly enforced, particularly in Germany, prior to the rise of the Nazi Party, and a direct opposition toward human rights and equality.  Moreover, the notions of left and right politics did not carry the same type of meaning in the early 1900s that they do now, particularly in Europe then versus the modern US now.  However you slice it, fascism has virtually nothing in common with socialism or Communism, despite the intentional habit early Fascist leaders had of borrowing terms from both of those political movements that were popular.

Fascism was a response to, not a part of, the socialism of the 1900s-1930s.  This is literally the only definition accepted by reputable modern historians.

Objections to Trump almost always take the form of "he said something bad".  Objections to Clinton almost always take the form of "she did something illegal".

"No matter how bad Clinton is" is an awfully cavalier way to sweep away violation of classification protocol, accepting funding from foreign governments, insider trading, perjury, co-opting media reporting, primary election fraud, and a long list of dead political opponents.

I'm not typically a defender of the Clinton's, but in this case:  name one thing (just one) that Hillary Clinton has done that is verifiably illegal and should have been prosecuted.  Negative points awarded if you answer includes "emails" as that automatically means you're asserting you're more qualified to opine on the law than the combination of the FBI and the US Department of Justice.

Trump is, first and foremost, a nationalist.  Authoritarianism is secondary.  I support Trump because he is the first viable politician in quite some time to push back against the globalist agenda.  He's pushing back against US military adventurism which has pissed off allies and turned non-entities into threats.  He's pushing back against trade agreements like NAFTA which has crippled the economy and TPP which will.  And he's throwing political correctness to the wind, which is a refreshing change from the muzzling of free speech that has become so prevalent.

His push against military adventurism also appears to include firing all the current generals and then going adventuring after ISIS, which (though deplorable) poses no tangible threat to the United States.  NAFTA has been nothing but an economic positive for the US - you're certainly not shipping jobs to Canada or Mexico (tell me, do you know anything about NAFTA?  Trump certainly doesn't.  Any idea what its provisions actually provide for?).  As for throwing political correctness in the name of free speech, he's also the candidate who appears to believe the Khan's should not have had free speech, who has said flatly he wants to "open up libel laws," and who has no conceptual understanding of the powers or restrictions of the Constitution.  Half of what Trump proposes is both illegal and unconstitutional, and the other half is outlandish buffoonery guaranteed to harm the majority of the citizenry of the United States.  Trump's nationalism is little different than any authoritarian - it's a great way to get people to put you in power so you can put the boot on their necks.  Trump hasn't looked out for anyone other than Donald Trump in his entire existence; what makes you think he'll start now?  His economic "reforms" definitely aren't designed to help anyone who isn't a millionaire or billionaire already, and Trump's declarations about businesses moving offshore are pretty ****ing ironic considering he has done it with just as much vigor as anyone else.  Of course, we don't know quite to what extent since he won't release his tax returns (the first Presidential candidate in 40 years), but his son tells us they have quite a number of economic ties to Russia.  What could possibly go wrong?

I would say anyone willing to vote Trump deserves what they'd get, but unfortunately they're not the only ones that would get it.  The United States is better than this.  At least, I always thought it was.  Now I wonder.

I think we saw a foretaste of President Trump with his trip to Mexico.  That went spectacularly well.

You mean the visit where he failed to get the Mexican President to agree to his signature proposal, tried to lie about the fact by saying they never discussed it, and was laughed out of the room when the Mexican President proceeded to explain he said no.  That visit?  The one where Trump failed to stand up for the one drum he's been banging basically since he started in the primaries?

Holy hell.

[Phantom Hoover]

Anyway, Goober, you may as well just **** off and go back to fiddling with the forum formatting out of spite, because you're going to have about as much luck defending your idiotic political views here as you did defending your young-earth creationism or your belief that women are primarily of value as brood mares. If, god forbid, Trump wins in November, I hope you at least get enough joy out of your week of smirking to make up for the subsequent four years as you realise you're right up there on the shortlist for the Chump Of The ****ing Century Award along with the other 130 million odd fools.

Good, good, let the hate flow through you.

This is but a foretaste of the apoplexy I mentioned.

I suppose feeling joy at being called an idiot is a fulfilling way for an idiot to live his life. It will, at least, make it easier for you to put up with Trump as president.

[The E]

If she is tried and convicted, she should certainly be incarcerated.  These are serious allegations and there appears to be sufficient evidence, by a wide margin, to prosecute.  I haven't heard of any chants saying she should be killed.

Hillary Clinton is, by quite a margin, the one most scrutinized person in US politics. There have been numerous investigations that have all exonerated her.

Meanwhile, Trump's shady dealings get little media coverage. Why is that, I wonder?

Oh, and do you not remember this?

Or the very trollish way in which he said that "those second amendment people could do something about her".

Yes, I know. That could mean anything. It's the sort of weasely formulation internet trolls would use to not break forum rules.

He is a deal-maker, so he is going to say different things at different times to see what people feel strongly about and what they don't.  But his positions have been posted on his website for months and have remained consistent.

He is a dealmakeer, yes.

Not a good one, as it seems, going by his business performance.

That aside, what he actually is is someone who will say what gets him applause with the crowd. He doesn't care what he is saying, as long as it will allow him to win. Trump is, by quite a margin, the most dishonest (or ignorant, who knows) person in the race, and he is banking on his supporters a) being as ignorant as he is and b) being utterly taken in by right wing conspiracy theories.

[Goober5000]

The one promoted by its founders.  The Wikipedia definition you quoted is a common misconception -- probably because it's Wikipedia.  In addition to being an offshoot of socialism, the core principles outlined in the Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle - such as universal suffrage, an eight-hour workday, an progressive taxation - are left-wing.

What a remarkable interpretation of history that is.

The Nazis, who popularized fascism following its invention in Italy, adopted the term National Socialism as an alternative term for fascism explicitly because of the ground gained by both Communists and Socialists in the preceding decades.  By co-opting a minor few socialist policies which were already being enacted in decidedly non-socialist (at the time) countries like Britain and the United States, they also were able to popularize authoritarian policies ordinarily considered right-wing at the time and in the decades since.  These include a decidedly social-conservative agenda which was not strongly enforced, particularly in Germany, prior to the rise of the Nazi Party, and a direct opposition toward human rights and equality.  Moreover, the notions of left and right politics did not carry the same type of meaning in the early 1900s that they do now, particularly in Europe then versus the modern US now.  However you slice it, fascism has virtually nothing in common with socialism or Communism, despite the intentional habit early Fascist leaders had of borrowing terms from both of those political movements that were popular.

Fascism was a response to, not a part of, the socialism of the 1900s-1930s.  This is literally the only definition accepted by reputable modern historians.

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.

I'm not typically a defender of the Clinton's, but in this case:  name one thing (just one) that Hillary Clinton has done that is verifiably illegal and should have been prosecuted.  Negative points awarded if you answer includes "emails" as that automatically means you're asserting you're more qualified to opine on the law than the combination of the FBI and the US Department of Justice.

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.

I would say anyone willing to vote Trump deserves what they'd get, but unfortunately they're not the only ones that would get it.  The United States is better than this.  At least, I always thought it was.  Now I wonder.

Indeed, the US used to be better than this, but right now Trump is the best available option.

You mean the visit where he failed to get the Mexican President to agree to his signature proposal, tried to lie about the fact by saying they never discussed it, and was laughed out of the room when the Mexican President proceeded to explain he said no.  That visit?  The one where Trump failed to stand up for the one drum he's been banging basically since he started in the primaries?

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.

Hillary Clinton is, by quite a margin, the one most scrutinized person in US politics. There have been numerous investigations that have all exonerated her.

Meanwhile, Trump's shady dealings get little media coverage. Why is that, I wonder?

Hillary does have an unnatural ability to escape the consequences of her actions.  I wonder why that is too.  It might be that prosecution isn't justified, or it might be that the corruption is more widespread than just her.  But we know for a fact that others who have done the same things that Hillary did have not escaped punishment.

I don't think Trump's shady dealings have any legs to them.  If they did, the media would be going after those, not after whatever sexist comments he happened to make on a given day.

Oh, and do you not remember this?

Some interesting things I hadn't heard before.  For some of them I don't know the context, but all of them could be placed in the context of punishment taking place after a trial and conviction.

Or the very trollish way in which he said that "those second amendment people could do something about her".

Yes, I know. That could mean anything. It's the sort of weasely formulation internet trolls would use to not break forum rules.

It is.  It's interesting; Trump has a way of saying things that can mean different things to different people.  How you respond reveals how you think.

That aside, what he actually is is someone who will say what gets him applause with the crowd. He doesn't care what he is saying, as long as it will allow him to win. Trump is, by quite a margin, the most dishonest (or ignorant, who knows) person in the race, and he is banking on his supporters a) being as ignorant as he is and b) being utterly taken in by right wing conspiracy theories.

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.