Non-authoritarian fascism?I see Trump's act of trying to remain in office by overturning a fair election as corruption but not authoritarianism.
Non-authoritarian fascism?I see Trump's act of trying to remain in office by overturning a fair election as corruption but not authoritarianism.
The rabbit hole of Fascism is deep and there is no agreed upon 14 characteristics of Fascism. Some of the things on that 14 characteristic list are ahistorical wishful thinking. The most obvious example is labor power being suppressed. The exact opposite is true. We get the word “fascist” from the Partito Nazionale Fascista (PNF) of Italy. One of the defining characteristics of the governance of the PNF was that union membership was compulsory and all jobs were union jobs. There was no such thing as a non-union job in fascist Italy.Non-authoritarian fascism?
Because judges looked at what they were saying and said "You're right. This is illegal."? This happened not once, but 12 times. You are saying that people who believed a thing and just had a series of people with law degrees and judicial experience, and who deeply examined these issues agree, and that should make them feel stupid. Do I have correct what you are trying to say?Those at the start of this thread who defended the voter suppression laws must feel pretty stupid.
That doesn't make it okay.Because judges looked at what they were saying and said "You're right. This is illegal."? This happened not once, but 12 times. You are saying that people who believed a thing and just had a series of people with law degrees and judicial experience, and who deeply examined these issues agree, and that should make them feel stupid. Do I have correct what you are trying to say?
What was holding back a lot of these discriminatory and racist voting laws was the pre-clearance of the VRA. Once that's been gutted? The levee has broken and now Republican state legislatures are working in concert to cement their power with an ever diminishing base.Justice Ginsburg understood that the act was a levee keeping a whole press of problems at bay. Even though she couldn’t, as a justice in the minority, prevent the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act, she devised an analogy of such power that anyone who heard it understood why it was so important to keep the act in place. “Throwing out pre-clearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet,” she wrote.
If we’re making voting as easy and accessible as possible, then we should do away with voter registration. Everyone should be simply allowed to vote. Naturally it is easier to not verify identification than it is to verify identification, so if we’re making things as easy as possible then just let people vote and count the vote. For the vast majority it would be the most easy and accessible if you could cast your vote via a website on your computer or smartphone where no identification is checked and everyone is allowed to vote. If we are making voting as easy and accessible as possible then we have to do everything possible. It may have the side effect of allowing anyone anywhere in the world to cast a vote, or for machines to submit millions of votes per second but at least we’ll know that we made voting as easy and accessible as possible.Answer me this, why not make voting as easy and accessible as possible?
Were these empowered unions who represented the interests of the workers, or or state- and corporate-controlled unions that were designed to control them (hint: the unions were put under the control of the government)? The best way to suppress labor power is to take control of it and refuse to allow it to be exercised.The rabbit hole of Fascism is deep and there is no agreed upon 14 characteristics of Fascism. Some of the things on that 14 characteristic list are ahistorical wishful thinking. The most obvious example is labor power being suppressed. The exact opposite is true. We get the word “fascist” from the Partito Nazionale Fascista (PNF) of Italy. One of the defining characteristics of the governance of the PNF was that union membership was compulsory and all jobs were union jobs. There was no such thing as a non-union job in fascist Italy.
Nor was it primarily based on Sanders economic policies:The dirty secret of fascism is that it is a form of socialism. It is NOT Marxism, but is instead Sorelianism based on the works of Georges Sorel. Fascists and Marxists/Communists hate each other in the same way Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims hate each other. A good example of what fascism really looks like is Bernie Sanders. It is not by accident that Richard Spencer and his followers are all Bernie Bros.
www.voanews.com
At first glance, Sanders would appear as an improbable presidential choice for the far right. A self-described democratic socialist of Jewish faith, Sanders vowed last year that he would “go to war” against white nationalism if he is elected in November. Last week, Sanders expressed revulsion after a protester waved a Nazi flag at one of his campaign rallies.
But Sanders’ boosters among white nationalists have seized on his past tough-on-immigration statements to argue that the independent senator from Vermont deserves a close look.
In a recent online video, Jared Taylor, considered the “intellectual godfather” of white nationalism, argued that Sanders is not “the worst of the Democrats,” noting that Sanders had in the 1970s opposed allowing foreign guest workers into the country and as recently as 2016 called open borders “a Koch brothers proposal.”
I think I was pretty clear that I didn't consider Trump a full-on fascist. However, this is also a guy that wanted to use the military against American civilians, conduct military parades, etc. I agree that for Trump, it was about making Trump supreme, but he did treat the military as being very important.Beyond the 14 characteristics being part of an effort to rebrand fascism, I also think your YouTuber is reaching into the ridiculous. I wouldn’t call someone who attacks Gold Star Families, threatens to cancel the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, trashes the Bush’s for the wars they started, and publicly belittles Generals by proclaiming that he knows more than they do as “making the military supreme, the most important thing bar none”.
I've seen it.
It's hard to tell if you are deliberately mischaracterizing what The Thriller meant by "as possible", or if you really misunderstood him that badly.If you are willing to entertain the idea that we should probably have some system of checks to ensure the vote is limited to eligible US citizens and those citizens are only able to cast one ballot then we can talk about where to draw the line.
In fascist Italy, the labor unions were a component of the government and had governmental power. They weren't under the control of the government. They were the government. Mussolini and the Italian syndicalists were 'workers of the world unite' true believers, and were not taking direction from big business although business owners did have a voice. It functioned like closed shop unionized industry does but expanded to every part of the economy.Were these empowered unions who represented the interests of the workers, or or state- and corporate-controlled unions that were designed to control them (hint: the unions were put under the control of the government)?
The author of your piece has it backwards. Richard Spencer’s thoughts on the economy, even while he was supporting Trump, were always in line with Bernie Sanders and he’s been very open about that. In an interview from 2017, roughly 100 days after Trump’s inauguration Richard Spencer talks about:Nor was it primarily based on Sanders economic policies:
I ventured into the absurd to prove a point. I don’t want to speak for The Thriller, but I think he probably sees the wisdom of one person, one vote. The question isn’t only the in value of making voting easy, but in how to strike a proper balance between ease of voting and security to ensure a fair election. Both are important and both need to be taken into consideration.It's hard to tell if you are deliberately mischaracterizing what The Thriller meant by "as possible", or if you really misunderstood him that badly.
You make a lot of unfounded accusations in this post. You remind me a lot of @babe and you make me wonder if you're just an alternative account for him. You next post is going to be very crucial if you want to ever have a political discussion with me again because life is too short to waste on trolls.If we’re making voting as easy and accessible as possible, then we should do away with voter registration. Everyone should be simply allowed to vote. Naturally it is easier to not verify identification than it is to verify identification, so if we’re making things as easy as possible then just let people vote and count the vote. For the vast majority it would be the most easy and accessible if you could cast your vote via a website on your computer or smartphone where no identification is checked and everyone is allowed to vote. If we are making voting as easy and accessible as possible then we have to do everything possible. It may have the side effect of allowing anyone anywhere in the world to cast a vote, or for machines to submit millions of votes per second but at least we’ll know that we made voting as easy and accessible as possible.
Is that democracy? Is it okay for racks of computers to be able to cast votes in the billions if it means one person would have an easier time casting their one vote? Making voting as easy and accessible as possible would make free and fair elections impossible. It would immediately destroy any faith in the election. If you are willing to entertain the idea that we should probably have some system of checks to ensure the vote is limited to eligible US citizens and those citizens are only able to cast one ballot then we can talk about where to draw the line.
I was thinking more along the lines of making it easier to register and vote. Why not make registration available at local schools and libraries? Why not permit same-day registration? For example, in Texas one must register at least 30 days prior to election day. How does that make any sense? Here in Utah, we allow same day registration. Utah also permits no excuse mail-in balloting. Has voting fraud been rampant here?If we’re making voting as easy and accessible as possible, then we should do away with voter registration.
Have you ever read about how other countries conduct their voting? Is fraud rampant in Denmark or Norway? Many European and South American countries have automatic voter registration. I wasn't considering that an option, but why shouldn't it?Naturally it is easier to not verify identification than it is to verify identification, so if we’re making things as easy as possible then just let people vote and count the vote. For the vast majority it would be the most easy and accessible if you could cast your vote via a website on your computer or smartphone where no identification is checked and everyone is allowed to vote. If we are making voting as easy and accessible as possible then we have to do everything possible. It may have the side effect of allowing anyone anywhere in the world to cast a vote, or for machines to submit millions of votes per second but at least we’ll know that we made voting as easy and accessible as possible.
Politicians and parties picking their voters isn't a representative democracy. I'm for representative democracy.Is that democracy?
This is hyperbole and you're indulging in "The Big Lie." Overall, voting was as easy as it has been in years in 2020. Turnout was the highest it has been in almost a century. And Trump's own administration said that it was the, "cleanest election in years" and "most secure in history." If people like you feel less faithful in American elections because of this, then you're clearly not letting evidence drive your opinions.Making voting as easy and accessible as possible would make free and fair elections impossible. It would immediately destroy any faith in the election.