The Official Impeach tRump Thread

11,236 Views | 496 Replies | Last: 3 hrs ago by BearNIt
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Professor Turgeson Bear said:

Another Bear said:

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

Having said that, the election was not won because people bought into Trump's brand of crazy.
I'm not saying it was. I am saying that it didn't disqualify him in the Republican primary. In a Democratic primary it would.
You don't think Sanders is crazy?
I'm unaware of him ever having committed crimes or lying on a daily basis. There has to be more of a basis for calling someone crazy than "I don't like his policies."
What do you make of Bernie's heart attack?
I'm sorry, you must have confused me with someone who gives a flying **** about you.
He makes that mistake with everyone. Understandable, though, considering how much time he spends here and the importance of this board in his life. If this were your entire social circle, wouldn't you have to believe people here actually care about you?
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

GBear4Life said:

OBear073akaSMFan said:

These kind of content that threaten our democracy should be banned by youtube. For god's sake I just have been temporarily banned by twitter for advising the president for the good of the country he should put a bullet in his head. As a narcissist he would get the people coming out to celebrate in the streets..just like Bin Laden!

Exactly.

Just when I get creeped out by the idiots on the right, I read something like that and realize how creepy the idiots on the left are.
Yeah, the only difference is that an idiot on the left who said things like that couldn't win the presidential nomination.
Winning with idiots on the left who thought Clinton was worse than Trump and by those in the Rust Belt who had been neglected by the Democratic candidate.

Those on the far right and those on the far left are not going to change their viewpoints.

Falsely believing that Trump won because majority of the country is racists will only lead to more failure.

Trust me, I have no love for Trump and, if you read my post before the election, I was more supportive of Clinton than Trump. Having said that, the election was not won because people bought into Trump's brand of crazy.
I don't think that Trump won because a majority of the country are racists. I think he won because a majority of the country didn't care enough that he is racist.

Your last sentence may be how you feel and how you wish things to be, but Trump has among the highest approval ratings among Republicans of any president. That is not people who like you may just prefer what you see as his brand of crazy to what you see as Clinton's or some other Democrats brand of crazy. That is people who like him. Whether they are racist or not, they have bought into (your words) his brand of crazy.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:



I don't think that Trump won because a majority of the country are racists. I think he won because a majority of the country didn't care enough that he is racist.

Your last sentence may be how you feel and how you wish things to be, but Trump has among the highest approval ratings among Republicans of any president. That is not people who like you may just prefer what you see as his brand of crazy to what you see as Clinton's or some other Democrats brand of crazy. That is people who like him. Whether they are racist or not, they have bought into (your words) his brand of crazy.
Because culturally, fair or unfair, he personifies the rejection of mainstream culture (which I think is unequivocally dominated by the left i.e media, social cues etc). His rhetoric takes hold with people who the Left has forgotten (or simply ignore and downright loath). He touched on immigration, something many people of all ideologies think is important but many won't say publicly. You may think it's ignorant, but people overlook his flaws because he personified the rejection of Politically Correct public discourse, what someone called the "truths hiding in plain sight that we all see but ignore", much of this touches on issues of identity.

I don't think most people who voted for him think he's racist (though the ones that do, by definition, don't care (or care enough)).

One can support Obama without subscribing to his foreign policies and upholding of the Patriot Act. It's careless to define people this way.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

GBear4Life said:

OBear073akaSMFan said:

These kind of content that threaten our democracy should be banned by youtube. For god's sake I just have been temporarily banned by twitter for advising the president for the good of the country he should put a bullet in his head. As a narcissist he would get the people coming out to celebrate in the streets..just like Bin Laden!

Exactly.

Just when I get creeped out by the idiots on the right, I read something like that and realize how creepy the idiots on the left are.
Yeah, the only difference is that an idiot on the left who said things like that couldn't win the presidential nomination.
Winning with idiots on the left who thought Clinton was worse than Trump and by those in the Rust Belt who had been neglected by the Democratic candidate.

Those on the far right and those on the far left are not going to change their viewpoints.

Falsely believing that Trump won because majority of the country is racists will only lead to more failure.

Trust me, I have no love for Trump and, if you read my post before the election, I was more supportive of Clinton than Trump. Having said that, the election was not won because people bought into Trump's brand of crazy.
I don't think that Trump won because a majority of the country are racists. I think he won because a majority of the country didn't care enough that he is racist.

Your last sentence may be how you feel and how you wish things to be, but Trump has among the highest approval ratings among Republicans of any president. That is not people who like you may just prefer what you see as his brand of crazy to what you see as Clinton's or some other Democrats brand of crazy. That is people who like him. Whether they are racist or not, they have bought into (your words) his brand of crazy.
I argue with reasonable conservatives all the time on why I cannot support Trump. They don't argue that he is not racist. They don't argue that he is wise. They argue that his narcissism (wanting continued approval from the conservatives even if his professed conservative beliefs are fairly recent) will cause him to take conservative measures (whether appointing judges or deregulating) that are better for the country than the progressive policies. They argue that his brand of racism is borne out of ignorance and that it would never be embedded in actual law that gets passed.

They have not bought into his brand of crazy. They think he is crazy, but his craziness will do less harm to the society than tax and spend and destruction of capitalism would. His brand of craziness will do less harm than those who would police every single word and convict us for every belief that is not lockstep with the progressive mandate. I don't disagree with them. I just happen to hope that we will have a dignified alternative to both Trump's disgrace and destruction of our capitalism.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

calbear93 said:

dajo9 said:

calbear93 said:

Another Bear said:

OBear073akaSMFan said:

These kind of content that threaten our democracy should be banned by youtube. For god's sake I just have been temporarily banned by twitter for advising the president for the good of the country he should put a bullet in his head. As a narcissist he would get the people coming out to celebrate in the streets..just like Bin Laden!
I imagine after Trump is done and the Dems get control, they will pass legislation that limits social media use by the POTUS, congress and political operatives, especially twitter. There's been mention social media, twitter in particular, should become a public utility and regulated, for this very reason...and many more.
Why not just fully embrace the censorship embraced by extreme left countries like China and North Korea? You are almost there in your thinking. Just take the final step.

I would almost prefer anarchy over your type of bolshevik behavior control.
China and North Korea are no more far left than they are far right. I know they call themselves communist but they are in that extreme where far right fascism and far left communism meld into one. China, in particular, more emulates a far right fascist country in which businesses dominate subject to the direction of the authoritarian ruler.
Fascism is not an economic philosophy. China is more Bolshevik than they are fascist. Nazi Germany and Mussolini Italy were Fascists.

Censorship and authoritarians control is not limited to the right or the left. Libertarians, who share the same economic philosophy, would not want censorship. Likewise, anarchists who share economic philosophy with bolsheviks would not be in favor of censorship.




Fascism is not an economic philosophy but fascist countries have always empowered establishment businesses so long as they toe the political line (Trump does this). Fascist countries have always politicized law enforcement (Trump does this) and fascist countries have always scapegoated minorities and the disenfranchised (Trump does this). China is 100% a fascist country. Trump is a wannabe fascist but he is making progress on his goals.
I think what you mean by fascism is authoritarianism. What you describe is not particular to capitalism, which makes authoritarianism fascist. Bolshevik countries (including Stalin Russia and Pol Pot Cambodia) have also done what you wrote even though they were socialist, because they believed in authoritarian rule. Now, let me ask you this. Do you think only the far right is trying to have the state control belief, speech and behavior and punish those who do not march lockstep to the platform?
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Professor Turgeson Bear said:

Another Bear said:

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

Having said that, the election was not won because people bought into Trump's brand of crazy.
I'm not saying it was. I am saying that it didn't disqualify him in the Republican primary. In a Democratic primary it would.
You don't think Sanders is crazy?
I'm unaware of him ever having committed crimes or lying on a daily basis. There has to be more of a basis for calling someone crazy than "I don't like his policies."
What do you make of Bernie's heart attack?
I'm sorry, you must have confused me with someone who gives a flying **** about you.
What's da matter you butthurt from Putin coming down on you?

So you're not a Bernie bro...and you hate Warren. I guess you love Trump.

Have a nice day!
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Com'n your wing nuts...your posting is weak, WEAK!!! You're suppose to be taking up the news cycle slack Trump crap out last week.

Aren't you wing nuts up to the task?
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:


Do you think only the far right is trying to have the state control belief, speech and behavior and punish those who do not march lockstep to the platform?
I can confidently say their answer is yes.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

OaktownBear said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

GBear4Life said:

OBear073akaSMFan said:

These kind of content that threaten our democracy should be banned by youtube. For god's sake I just have been temporarily banned by twitter for advising the president for the good of the country he should put a bullet in his head. As a narcissist he would get the people coming out to celebrate in the streets..just like Bin Laden!

Exactly.

Just when I get creeped out by the idiots on the right, I read something like that and realize how creepy the idiots on the left are.
Yeah, the only difference is that an idiot on the left who said things like that couldn't win the presidential nomination.
Winning with idiots on the left who thought Clinton was worse than Trump and by those in the Rust Belt who had been neglected by the Democratic candidate.

Those on the far right and those on the far left are not going to change their viewpoints.

Falsely believing that Trump won because majority of the country is racists will only lead to more failure.

Trust me, I have no love for Trump and, if you read my post before the election, I was more supportive of Clinton than Trump. Having said that, the election was not won because people bought into Trump's brand of crazy.
I don't think that Trump won because a majority of the country are racists. I think he won because a majority of the country didn't care enough that he is racist.

Your last sentence may be how you feel and how you wish things to be, but Trump has among the highest approval ratings among Republicans of any president. That is not people who like you may just prefer what you see as his brand of crazy to what you see as Clinton's or some other Democrats brand of crazy. That is people who like him. Whether they are racist or not, they have bought into (your words) his brand of crazy.
I argue with reasonable conservatives all the time on why I cannot support Trump. They don't argue that he is not racist. They don't argue that he is wise. They argue that his narcissism (wanting continued approval from the conservatives even if his professed conservative beliefs are fairly recent) will cause him to take conservative measures (whether appointing judges or deregulating) that are better for the country than the progressive policies. They argue that his brand of racism is borne out of ignorance and that it would never be embedded in actual law that gets passed.

They have not bought into his brand of crazy. They think he is crazy, but his craziness will do less harm to the society than tax and spend and destruction of capitalism would. His brand of craziness will do less harm than those who would police every single word and convict us for every belief that is not lockstep with the progressive mandate. I don't disagree with them. I just happen to hope that we will have a dignified alternative to both Trump's disgrace and destruction of our capitalism.
I don't doubt that is your experience with conservatives you talk to. There is certainly a brand of conservative that holds those views. I expect they are prevalent in your social circles. I just don't think they are representative of the greater Republican Party.

If those are their views, why would they say they approve of him? Why wouldn't they support another candidate in the primary.? The polls are overwhelming on the question. I'm sorry. I think you have lost your party. I very much wish you hadn't. I may disagree with with conservatives, but their ideas have value and are in my opinion a necessary counterpoint in the discussion, especially on the economic side.

I have to say, though, the last paragraph is a little bit of a cop out for them. Whatever you want to say about Bernie or Warren, Clinton was not going to bring the destruction of capitalism. The most she was going to do was add a few percentage points to the highest income tax bracket MAYBE. I don't see where she was going to police every single word and "convict" you for every belief. Even as it pertains to the left, there is a difference between outspoken criticism of you vs. policing and convicting. And the difference between Trump and the Democrats is he is actually doing the things people said he would do.

If you want a better excuse for them, it would be that they didn't think he was really going to do what he said. They thought he was playing to the masses. This was pretty clear from his initial approval ratings. He did have an extraordinarily brief honeymoon period. He had a net positive approval rating when he started. When he announced the Muslim ban, his disapproval rating went up 9 percentage points immediately and never came down. Basically the conservative leaning independents realized from that act "oh hell. he IS going to do those things I thought he was only saying". But that came from independents. Not Republicans.

They have no excuse this time. They know what he is about.

Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Whoa...Fox News Poll, majority want Trump impeached and removed. Methinks the dam just broke or man bit dog and everything else.

GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:



I don't doubt that is your experience with conservatives you talk to. There is certainly a brand of conservative that holds those views. I expect they are prevalent in your social circles. I just don't think they are representative of the greater Republican Party.

If those are their views, why would they say they approve of him? Why wouldn't they support another candidate in the primary.? The polls are overwhelming on the question. I'm sorry. I think you have lost your party. I very much wish you hadn't. I may disagree with with conservatives, but their ideas have value and are in my opinion a necessary counterpoint in the discussion, especially on the economic side.

I have to say, though, the last paragraph is a little bit of a cop out for them. Whatever you want to say about Bernie or Warren, Clinton was not going to bring the destruction of capitalism. The most she was going to do was add a few percentage points to the highest income tax bracket MAYBE. I don't see where she was going to police every single word and "convict" you for every belief. Even as it pertains to the left, there is a difference between outspoken criticism of you vs. policing and convicting. And the difference between Trump and the Democrats is he is actually doing the things people said he would do.

If you want a better excuse for them, it would be that they didn't think he was really going to do what he said. They thought he was playing to the masses. This was pretty clear from his initial approval ratings. He did have an extraordinarily brief honeymoon period. He had a net positive approval rating when he started. When he announced the Muslim ban, his disapproval rating went up 9 percentage points immediately and never came down. Basically the conservative leaning independents realized from that act "oh hell. he IS going to do those things I thought he was only saying". But that came from independents. Not Republicans.

They have no excuse this time. They know what he is about.
A lot of people (most?) vote on culture and 1-2 key policy issues (reasonable or not, in your mind).

The "all or nothing" framing of the issue is a losing proposition for everybody. A framing that falsely (and condescendingly) indicts a large plurality of the country
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

OaktownBear said:



I don't think that Trump won because a majority of the country are racists. I think he won because a majority of the country didn't care enough that he is racist.

Your last sentence may be how you feel and how you wish things to be, but Trump has among the highest approval ratings among Republicans of any president. That is not people who like you may just prefer what you see as his brand of crazy to what you see as Clinton's or some other Democrats brand of crazy. That is people who like him. Whether they are racist or not, they have bought into (your words) his brand of crazy.
Because culturally, fair or unfair, he personifies the rejection of mainstream culture (which I think is unequivocally dominated by the left i.e media, social cues etc). His rhetoric takes hold with people who the Left has forgotten (or simply ignore and downright loath). He touched on immigration, something many people of all ideologies think is important but many won't say publicly. You may think it's ignorant, but people overlook his flaws because he personified the rejection of Politically Correct public discourse, what someone called the "truths hiding in plain sight that we all see but ignore", much of this touches on issues of identity.

I don't think most people who voted for him think he's racist (though the ones that do, by definition, don't care (or care enough)).

One can support Obama without subscribing to his foreign policies and upholding of the Patriot Act. It's careless to define people this way.
1. The media is center left on social issues - makes sense, they are predominantly urban and pro-free speech and it comes with the package. The media is center right on economic issues - makes sense - they are predominantly affluent.

2. I don't think it is ignorant. Ignorant means lack of knowledge.

3. Of course one can support Obama without supporting his foreign policies. However, it would be true to say that one then does not care enough about Obama's foreign policies to not vote for him. And as I said, one doesn't have to be racist to vote for Trump. One can disagree with his racist rhetoric. But as with Obama's foreign policy, one then doesn't care enough about Trump's racist rhetoric to not vote for him. IMO it is not a moral equivalent to overlook economic policies or foreign policies you don't agree with than to overlook Trump's rhetoric. To me there is a big difference between policy disagreements and looking a Mexican person in the face and saying you are going to vote for the guy that actively portrays their people as rapists and criminals to get a few votes.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

calbear93 said:

OaktownBear said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

GBear4Life said:

OBear073akaSMFan said:

These kind of content that threaten our democracy should be banned by youtube. For god's sake I just have been temporarily banned by twitter for advising the president for the good of the country he should put a bullet in his head. As a narcissist he would get the people coming out to celebrate in the streets..just like Bin Laden!

Exactly.

Just when I get creeped out by the idiots on the right, I read something like that and realize how creepy the idiots on the left are.
Yeah, the only difference is that an idiot on the left who said things like that couldn't win the presidential nomination.
Winning with idiots on the left who thought Clinton was worse than Trump and by those in the Rust Belt who had been neglected by the Democratic candidate.

Those on the far right and those on the far left are not going to change their viewpoints.

Falsely believing that Trump won because majority of the country is racists will only lead to more failure.

Trust me, I have no love for Trump and, if you read my post before the election, I was more supportive of Clinton than Trump. Having said that, the election was not won because people bought into Trump's brand of crazy.
I don't think that Trump won because a majority of the country are racists. I think he won because a majority of the country didn't care enough that he is racist.

Your last sentence may be how you feel and how you wish things to be, but Trump has among the highest approval ratings among Republicans of any president. That is not people who like you may just prefer what you see as his brand of crazy to what you see as Clinton's or some other Democrats brand of crazy. That is people who like him. Whether they are racist or not, they have bought into (your words) his brand of crazy.
I argue with reasonable conservatives all the time on why I cannot support Trump. They don't argue that he is not racist. They don't argue that he is wise. They argue that his narcissism (wanting continued approval from the conservatives even if his professed conservative beliefs are fairly recent) will cause him to take conservative measures (whether appointing judges or deregulating) that are better for the country than the progressive policies. They argue that his brand of racism is borne out of ignorance and that it would never be embedded in actual law that gets passed.

They have not bought into his brand of crazy. They think he is crazy, but his craziness will do less harm to the society than tax and spend and destruction of capitalism would. His brand of craziness will do less harm than those who would police every single word and convict us for every belief that is not lockstep with the progressive mandate. I don't disagree with them. I just happen to hope that we will have a dignified alternative to both Trump's disgrace and destruction of our capitalism.
I don't doubt that is your experience with conservatives you talk to. There is certainly a brand of conservative that holds those views. I expect they are prevalent in your social circles. I just don't think they are representative of the greater Republican Party.

If those are their views, why would they say they approve of him? Why wouldn't they support another candidate in the primary.? The polls are overwhelming on the question. I'm sorry. I think you have lost your party. I very much wish you hadn't. I may disagree with with conservatives, but their ideas have value and are in my opinion a necessary counterpoint in the discussion, especially on the economic side.

I have to say, though, the last paragraph is a little bit of a cop out for them. Whatever you want to say about Bernie or Warren, Clinton was not going to bring the destruction of capitalism. The most she was going to do was add a few percentage points to the highest income tax bracket MAYBE. I don't see where she was going to police every single word and "convict" you for every belief. Even as it pertains to the left, there is a difference between outspoken criticism of you vs. policing and convicting. And the difference between Trump and the Democrats is he is actually doing the things people said he would do.

If you want a better excuse for them, it would be that they didn't think he was really going to do what he said. They thought he was playing to the masses. This was pretty clear from his initial approval ratings. He did have an extraordinarily brief honeymoon period. He had a net positive approval rating when he started. When he announced the Muslim ban, his disapproval rating went up 9 percentage points immediately and never came down. Basically the conservative leaning independents realized from that act "oh hell. he IS going to do those things I thought he was only saying". But that came from independents. Not Republicans.

They have no excuse this time. They know what he is about.


I would guess that even some of those who believe Trump can do less harm than Sanders or Warren could be convinced to vote for someone like Delaney or Biden. Honestly, some of those supported Clinton over Trump, but now support Trump only because they believe he will be less destructive than the candidates reflecting the knee-jerk swing to the far left.

I don't think anyone but the far right thought he would actually do what he promised he would. He is a politician. They never do what they promise. Clinton would never have done the things she promised when she was catering to the far left special interest groups. Bill Clinton was one my favorite presidents because he was reasonable and was a moderate. I assumed that Hillary would be the same.

I am still a conservative but no longer a Republican. However, there is nothing I see from the "progressive" side that appeal to me. In fact, I do support many of the things that Trump has done. I support the justices that he appointed to the Supreme Court. I am glad that he is pushing back at the left's absolute hatred of all religion other than the most conservative religion of all (Islam). I support his corporate tax cut. I think Sanders and Warren would do even more harm. However, I do not support the more left policies he has adopted, including restriction on free trade and wanting to restrict immigration (which were always more left policies). I also believe his racist banter, even if not reflect in actual law, does great harm to the soul of our country. I hate people (including certain "progressive" members on this board) objectifying women and mocking disabled people (or using disability as an insult). As such, I would be willing to vote for any Democratic candidate who does not want to destroy capitalism. However, other than Biden, there is no other candidate from Democrats who fits that bill but still has a reasonable chance of winning the primary.

OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

OaktownBear said:



I don't doubt that is your experience with conservatives you talk to. There is certainly a brand of conservative that holds those views. I expect they are prevalent in your social circles. I just don't think they are representative of the greater Republican Party.

If those are their views, why would they say they approve of him? Why wouldn't they support another candidate in the primary.? The polls are overwhelming on the question. I'm sorry. I think you have lost your party. I very much wish you hadn't. I may disagree with with conservatives, but their ideas have value and are in my opinion a necessary counterpoint in the discussion, especially on the economic side.

I have to say, though, the last paragraph is a little bit of a cop out for them. Whatever you want to say about Bernie or Warren, Clinton was not going to bring the destruction of capitalism. The most she was going to do was add a few percentage points to the highest income tax bracket MAYBE. I don't see where she was going to police every single word and "convict" you for every belief. Even as it pertains to the left, there is a difference between outspoken criticism of you vs. policing and convicting. And the difference between Trump and the Democrats is he is actually doing the things people said he would do.

If you want a better excuse for them, it would be that they didn't think he was really going to do what he said. They thought he was playing to the masses. This was pretty clear from his initial approval ratings. He did have an extraordinarily brief honeymoon period. He had a net positive approval rating when he started. When he announced the Muslim ban, his disapproval rating went up 9 percentage points immediately and never came down. Basically the conservative leaning independents realized from that act "oh hell. he IS going to do those things I thought he was only saying". But that came from independents. Not Republicans.

They have no excuse this time. They know what he is about.
A lot of people (most?) vote on culture and 1-2 key policy issues (reasonable or not, in your mind).

The "all or nothing" framing of the issue is a losing proposition for everybody. A framing that falsely (and condescendingly) indicts a large plurality of the country
I didn't say they didn't. I didn't say it is an all or nothing proposition. I am making this statement. Republicans have overwhelming approved of Trump more than they have most other Republicans. They didn't vote against Democrats. They voted for Trump. I'm not saying every Republican loves everything he does. I'm saying they approve of the whole package overwhelmingly. This is not a lesser of two evils vote for them and it shouldn't be framed as such.

GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:


To me there is a big difference between policy disagreements and looking a Mexican person in the face and saying you are going to vote for the guy that actively portrays their people as rapists and criminals to get a few votes.
This is just not true. Framing it this way suggests an agenda -- 1/3 of the country would read your post and say "that's what I'm fighting against. A bunch of ivory tower elites indicting my character as racist because I want to curb immigration." Trump personifies that fight (to some). There are of course some number of hispanics who support/like Trump.

Trump's statement was ignorant -- "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people -- he's not saying Mexicans are racists.

Seriously, these are some of the weakest indictments of Trump yet they get peddled the hardest.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

OaktownBear said:

calbear93 said:

OaktownBear said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

GBear4Life said:

OBear073akaSMFan said:

These kind of content that threaten our democracy should be banned by youtube. For god's sake I just have been temporarily banned by twitter for advising the president for the good of the country he should put a bullet in his head. As a narcissist he would get the people coming out to celebrate in the streets..just like Bin Laden!

Exactly.

Just when I get creeped out by the idiots on the right, I read something like that and realize how creepy the idiots on the left are.
Yeah, the only difference is that an idiot on the left who said things like that couldn't win the presidential nomination.
Winning with idiots on the left who thought Clinton was worse than Trump and by those in the Rust Belt who had been neglected by the Democratic candidate.

Those on the far right and those on the far left are not going to change their viewpoints.

Falsely believing that Trump won because majority of the country is racists will only lead to more failure.

Trust me, I have no love for Trump and, if you read my post before the election, I was more supportive of Clinton than Trump. Having said that, the election was not won because people bought into Trump's brand of crazy.
I don't think that Trump won because a majority of the country are racists. I think he won because a majority of the country didn't care enough that he is racist.

Your last sentence may be how you feel and how you wish things to be, but Trump has among the highest approval ratings among Republicans of any president. That is not people who like you may just prefer what you see as his brand of crazy to what you see as Clinton's or some other Democrats brand of crazy. That is people who like him. Whether they are racist or not, they have bought into (your words) his brand of crazy.
I argue with reasonable conservatives all the time on why I cannot support Trump. They don't argue that he is not racist. They don't argue that he is wise. They argue that his narcissism (wanting continued approval from the conservatives even if his professed conservative beliefs are fairly recent) will cause him to take conservative measures (whether appointing judges or deregulating) that are better for the country than the progressive policies. They argue that his brand of racism is borne out of ignorance and that it would never be embedded in actual law that gets passed.

They have not bought into his brand of crazy. They think he is crazy, but his craziness will do less harm to the society than tax and spend and destruction of capitalism would. His brand of craziness will do less harm than those who would police every single word and convict us for every belief that is not lockstep with the progressive mandate. I don't disagree with them. I just happen to hope that we will have a dignified alternative to both Trump's disgrace and destruction of our capitalism.
I don't doubt that is your experience with conservatives you talk to. There is certainly a brand of conservative that holds those views. I expect they are prevalent in your social circles. I just don't think they are representative of the greater Republican Party.

If those are their views, why would they say they approve of him? Why wouldn't they support another candidate in the primary.? The polls are overwhelming on the question. I'm sorry. I think you have lost your party. I very much wish you hadn't. I may disagree with with conservatives, but their ideas have value and are in my opinion a necessary counterpoint in the discussion, especially on the economic side.

I have to say, though, the last paragraph is a little bit of a cop out for them. Whatever you want to say about Bernie or Warren, Clinton was not going to bring the destruction of capitalism. The most she was going to do was add a few percentage points to the highest income tax bracket MAYBE. I don't see where she was going to police every single word and "convict" you for every belief. Even as it pertains to the left, there is a difference between outspoken criticism of you vs. policing and convicting. And the difference between Trump and the Democrats is he is actually doing the things people said he would do.

If you want a better excuse for them, it would be that they didn't think he was really going to do what he said. They thought he was playing to the masses. This was pretty clear from his initial approval ratings. He did have an extraordinarily brief honeymoon period. He had a net positive approval rating when he started. When he announced the Muslim ban, his disapproval rating went up 9 percentage points immediately and never came down. Basically the conservative leaning independents realized from that act "oh hell. he IS going to do those things I thought he was only saying". But that came from independents. Not Republicans.

They have no excuse this time. They know what he is about.


I would guess that even some of those who believe Trump can do less harm than Sanders or Warren could be convinced to vote for someone like Delaney or Biden. Honestly, some of those supported Clinton over Trump, but now support Trump only because they believe he will be less destructive than the candidates reflecting the knee-jerk swing to the far left.

I don't think anyone but the far right thought he would actually do what he promised he would. He is a politician. They never do what they promise. Clinton would never have done the things she promised when she was catering to the far left special interest groups. Bill Clinton was one my favorite presidents because he was reasonable and was a moderate. I assumed that Hillary would be the same.

I am still a conservative but no longer a Republican. However, there is nothing I see from the "progressive" side that appeal to me. In fact, I do support many of the things that Trump has done. I support the justices that he appointed to the Supreme Court. I am glad that he is pushing back at the left's absolute hatred of all religion other than the most conservative religion of all (Islam). I support his corporate tax cut. I think Sanders and Warren would do even more harm. However, I do not support the more left policies he has adopted, including restriction on free trade and wanting to restrict immigration (which were always more left policies). I also believe his racist banter, even if not reflect in actual law, does great harm to the soul of our country. I hate people (including certain "progressive" members on this board) objectifying women and mocking disabled people (or using disability as an insult). As such, I would be willing to vote for any Democratic candidate who does not want to destroy capitalism. However, other than Biden, there is no other candidate from Democrats who fits that bill but still has a reasonable chance of winning the primary.


Well, 93, I think you are a man without a country.

1. Moderates are becoming an endangered species. Fact is that people on both sides are trending further to the opposite sides of the spectrum.

2. I think "Left" and "Right" are antiquated terms, but if the terms are going to be used, they have to evolve. I just don't think your conception of what is Left and Right matches today's world. Democrats were the Party of Labor and as such, they were anti-free trade and anti-immigration as Labor viewed those policies as harmful. Those days went bye bye with Bill Clinton. Bill pushed the party to pro-high tech industry and pro free trade and every Democratic presidential candidate has carried that mantle. On the flip side, the Republicans decided long ago that being socially conservative is more important than being fiscally conservative. I'd say there are Republicans who don't realize they are Democrats and Democrats who don't realize they are Republicans. But the clock isn't turning back. The Democrats are the party of free trade and immigration and the Republicans are the party of protectionism and anti-immigration. The Republicans aren't stuffing that genie back in the bottle. IMO, your Republican friends are going to have to decide at some point whether the smart thing to do is to join the Democrats and influence the candidates they spit out rather than hoping Democrats won't spit out an anti-corporate candidate. They will get anti-trade policies with Trump. Frankly, I don't see that a slightly lower tax rate is worth that. The great divide now is between urban populations and rural populations. Rural populations are very anti-Wall Street. They (wrongly in my opinion) see free trade and free economies as hurting them. Those aren't "left" policies anymore, my friend.

And, I don't hate religion. I want to leave others to their beliefs and have them leave me to mine.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

calbear93 said:

OaktownBear said:

calbear93 said:

OaktownBear said:

calbear93 said:

sycasey said:

calbear93 said:

GBear4Life said:

OBear073akaSMFan said:

These kind of content that threaten our democracy should be banned by youtube. For god's sake I just have been temporarily banned by twitter for advising the president for the good of the country he should put a bullet in his head. As a narcissist he would get the people coming out to celebrate in the streets..just like Bin Laden!

Exactly.

Just when I get creeped out by the idiots on the right, I read something like that and realize how creepy the idiots on the left are.
Yeah, the only difference is that an idiot on the left who said things like that couldn't win the presidential nomination.
Winning with idiots on the left who thought Clinton was worse than Trump and by those in the Rust Belt who had been neglected by the Democratic candidate.

Those on the far right and those on the far left are not going to change their viewpoints.

Falsely believing that Trump won because majority of the country is racists will only lead to more failure.

Trust me, I have no love for Trump and, if you read my post before the election, I was more supportive of Clinton than Trump. Having said that, the election was not won because people bought into Trump's brand of crazy.
I don't think that Trump won because a majority of the country are racists. I think he won because a majority of the country didn't care enough that he is racist.

Your last sentence may be how you feel and how you wish things to be, but Trump has among the highest approval ratings among Republicans of any president. That is not people who like you may just prefer what you see as his brand of crazy to what you see as Clinton's or some other Democrats brand of crazy. That is people who like him. Whether they are racist or not, they have bought into (your words) his brand of crazy.
I argue with reasonable conservatives all the time on why I cannot support Trump. They don't argue that he is not racist. They don't argue that he is wise. They argue that his narcissism (wanting continued approval from the conservatives even if his professed conservative beliefs are fairly recent) will cause him to take conservative measures (whether appointing judges or deregulating) that are better for the country than the progressive policies. They argue that his brand of racism is borne out of ignorance and that it would never be embedded in actual law that gets passed.

They have not bought into his brand of crazy. They think he is crazy, but his craziness will do less harm to the society than tax and spend and destruction of capitalism would. His brand of craziness will do less harm than those who would police every single word and convict us for every belief that is not lockstep with the progressive mandate. I don't disagree with them. I just happen to hope that we will have a dignified alternative to both Trump's disgrace and destruction of our capitalism.
I don't doubt that is your experience with conservatives you talk to. There is certainly a brand of conservative that holds those views. I expect they are prevalent in your social circles. I just don't think they are representative of the greater Republican Party.

If those are their views, why would they say they approve of him? Why wouldn't they support another candidate in the primary.? The polls are overwhelming on the question. I'm sorry. I think you have lost your party. I very much wish you hadn't. I may disagree with with conservatives, but their ideas have value and are in my opinion a necessary counterpoint in the discussion, especially on the economic side.

I have to say, though, the last paragraph is a little bit of a cop out for them. Whatever you want to say about Bernie or Warren, Clinton was not going to bring the destruction of capitalism. The most she was going to do was add a few percentage points to the highest income tax bracket MAYBE. I don't see where she was going to police every single word and "convict" you for every belief. Even as it pertains to the left, there is a difference between outspoken criticism of you vs. policing and convicting. And the difference between Trump and the Democrats is he is actually doing the things people said he would do.

If you want a better excuse for them, it would be that they didn't think he was really going to do what he said. They thought he was playing to the masses. This was pretty clear from his initial approval ratings. He did have an extraordinarily brief honeymoon period. He had a net positive approval rating when he started. When he announced the Muslim ban, his disapproval rating went up 9 percentage points immediately and never came down. Basically the conservative leaning independents realized from that act "oh hell. he IS going to do those things I thought he was only saying". But that came from independents. Not Republicans.

They have no excuse this time. They know what he is about.


I would guess that even some of those who believe Trump can do less harm than Sanders or Warren could be convinced to vote for someone like Delaney or Biden. Honestly, some of those supported Clinton over Trump, but now support Trump only because they believe he will be less destructive than the candidates reflecting the knee-jerk swing to the far left.

I don't think anyone but the far right thought he would actually do what he promised he would. He is a politician. They never do what they promise. Clinton would never have done the things she promised when she was catering to the far left special interest groups. Bill Clinton was one my favorite presidents because he was reasonable and was a moderate. I assumed that Hillary would be the same.

I am still a conservative but no longer a Republican. However, there is nothing I see from the "progressive" side that appeal to me. In fact, I do support many of the things that Trump has done. I support the justices that he appointed to the Supreme Court. I am glad that he is pushing back at the left's absolute hatred of all religion other than the most conservative religion of all (Islam). I support his corporate tax cut. I think Sanders and Warren would do even more harm. However, I do not support the more left policies he has adopted, including restriction on free trade and wanting to restrict immigration (which were always more left policies). I also believe his racist banter, even if not reflect in actual law, does great harm to the soul of our country. I hate people (including certain "progressive" members on this board) objectifying women and mocking disabled people (or using disability as an insult). As such, I would be willing to vote for any Democratic candidate who does not want to destroy capitalism. However, other than Biden, there is no other candidate from Democrats who fits that bill but still has a reasonable chance of winning the primary.


Well, 93, I think you are a man without a country.

1. Moderates are becoming an endangered species. Fact is that people on both sides are trending further to the opposite sides of the spectrum.

2. I think "Left" and "Right" are antiquated terms, but if the terms are going to be used, they have to evolve. I just don't think your conception of what is Left and Right matches today's world. Democrats were the Party of Labor and as such, they were anti-free trade and anti-immigration as Labor viewed those policies as harmful. Those days went bye bye with Bill Clinton. Bill pushed the party to pro-high tech industry and pro free trade and every Democratic presidential candidate has carried that mantle. On the flip side, the Republicans decided long ago that being socially conservative is more important than being fiscally conservative. I'd say there are Republicans who don't realize they are Democrats and Democrats who don't realize they are Republicans. But the clock isn't turning back. The Democrats are the party of free trade and immigration and the Republicans are the party of protectionism and anti-immigration. The Republicans aren't stuffing that genie back in the bottle. IMO, your Republican friends are going to have to decide at some point whether the smart thing to do is to join the Democrats and influence the candidates they spit out rather than hoping Democrats won't spit out an anti-corporate candidate. They will get anti-trade policies with Trump. Frankly, I don't see that a slightly lower tax rate is worth that. The great divide now is between urban populations and rural populations. Rural populations are very anti-Wall Street. They (wrongly in my opinion) see free trade and free economies as hurting them. Those aren't "left" policies anymore, my friend.

And, I don't hate religion. I want to leave others to their beliefs and have them leave me to mine.
Which of the leading Democratic candidates are for free trade? Maybe Biden but not Warren or Sanders. And Sanders definitely is not for free immigration.

Frankly, Trump is not a conservative. Most of the Republicans in Congress are for free trade. Even the Koch brothers you guys hate are for free trade and robust legal immigration.

Warren and Sanders are much more aligned with Trump on trade and restricting even legal immigration than most Republicans.

And you are not representative of the recent swing to the left from the Democratic party. You are way too moderate. If I had to guess, you are probably a true liberal who believes in live and let live. In that case, I guess you also need to decide if your party represents who you are.
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

OaktownBear said:


To me there is a big difference between policy disagreements and looking a Mexican person in the face and saying you are going to vote for the guy that actively portrays their people as rapists and criminals to get a few votes.
This is just not true. Framing it this way suggests an agenda -- 1/3 of the country would read your post and say "that's what I'm fighting against. A bunch of ivory tower elites indicting my character as racist because I want to curb immigration." Trump personifies that fight (to some). There are of course some number of hispanics who support/like Trump.

Trump's statement was ignorant -- "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people -- he's not saying Mexicans are racists.

Seriously, these are some of the weakest indictments of Trump yet they get peddled the hardest.
There were 16 candidates in the Republican primary that wanted to curb immigration. They chose the one that had to talk about it in the most assholic way possible. Stopping illegal immigration is a perfectly reasonable belief. Wanting less immigration overall is a perfectly reasonable belief. There were plenty of options that supported those reasonable beliefs.

When you get up and talk about a group of people as bringing crime and drugs and rapists, and that group of people does not have any more of those things than anyone else (and here I mean Mexican immigrants, not Mexicans in general) and hammer that message night after night, you are intentionally trying to get people to view that group in a negative way. They are only weak indictments to people who don't have to put up with the shyte that flows from doing that.

Segregationist used to say "I'm not racist. Not all N-words are bad. There are good N-words and bad N-words. And he's a bad N-word". Then they move to "Their are Blacks and there are N-words - he's an N-word." You don't have to indict every single member of a group when you can just have the same effect by portraying that group as a whole.

GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:



There were 16 candidates in the Republican primary that wanted to curb immigration. They chose the one that had to talk about it in the most assholic way possible. Stopping illegal immigration is a perfectly reasonable belief. Wanting less immigration overall is a perfectly reasonable belief. There were plenty of options that supported those reasonable beliefs.

When you get up and talk about a group of people as bringing crime and drugs and rapists, and that group of people does not have any more of those things than anyone else (and here I mean Mexican immigrants, not Mexicans in general) and hammer that message night after night, you are intentionally trying to get people to view that group in a negative way. They are only weak indictments to people who don't have to put up with the shyte that flows from doing that.

Segregationist used to say "I'm not racist. Not all N-words are bad. There are good N-words and bad N-words. And he's a bad N-word". Then they move to "Their are Blacks and there are N-words - he's an N-word." You don't have to indict every single member of a group when you can just have the same effect by portraying that group as a whole.


It appears your biggest beef is with T's arguably incendiary rhetoric, not his actual policies (well at least with immigration).

While I think it's perfectly reasonable to be put off by that, that is more cultural than political, isn't it? And thus isn't it reasonable for conservatives to be put off by what they consider incendiary rhetoric from those of a different cultural and political persuasion?

Republicans had done nothing to curb immigration (legal or otherwise) because while much of their base is in favor, those signing checks over to them do not (the uber rich). It's not irrational to see Trump as the only renegade on the issue among the Republican candidates. But I mean yeah primaries often select the "wrong" candidate.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

OaktownBear said:



There were 16 candidates in the Republican primary that wanted to curb immigration. They chose the one that had to talk about it in the most assholic way possible. Stopping illegal immigration is a perfectly reasonable belief. Wanting less immigration overall is a perfectly reasonable belief. There were plenty of options that supported those reasonable beliefs.

When you get up and talk about a group of people as bringing crime and drugs and rapists, and that group of people does not have any more of those things than anyone else (and here I mean Mexican immigrants, not Mexicans in general) and hammer that message night after night, you are intentionally trying to get people to view that group in a negative way. They are only weak indictments to people who don't have to put up with the shyte that flows from doing that.

Segregationist used to say "I'm not racist. Not all N-words are bad. There are good N-words and bad N-words. And he's a bad N-word". Then they move to "Their are Blacks and there are N-words - he's an N-word." You don't have to indict every single member of a group when you can just have the same effect by portraying that group as a whole.


It appears your biggest beef is with T's arguably incendiary rhetoric, not his actual policies (well at least with immigration).


Without speaking for Oaktown, I can say I definitely have a problem with the hastily-implemented travel ban, repurposing money for a useless "wall," and child separation at the border. As it turns out, his rhetoric was backed up by actual policies.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:



Without speaking for Oaktown, I can say I definitely have a problem with the hastily-implemented travel ban, repurposing money for a useless "wall," and child separation at the border. As it turns out, his rhetoric was backed up by actual policies.
He didn't campaign on any of those, except for the wall.

Won't get into the child separation thing as we don't agree to how that's been misreported.

And given he has not, and will not, be able to build a wall, his rhetoric has not resulted in actual policies. Rep had majority in both houses when he was elected and couldn't get health insurance or immigration off the ground. Why? Because Republican establishment actually don't want to touch those issues. Those are rhetoric-only issues. Establishment Republicans HATED Trump in 2016, and they HATE him now. They don't "support" him, only issues he raises that align with Rep establishment goals.

Tariffs and tax cuts are what he's accomplished and campaigned on.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:



Without speaking for Oaktown, I can say I definitely have a problem with the hastily-implemented travel ban, repurposing money for a useless "wall," and child separation at the border. As it turns out, his rhetoric was backed up by actual policies.
He didn't campaign on any of those, except for the wall.

He campaigned on harsh anti-immigration policies and that is what we got.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:



Without speaking for Oaktown, I can say I definitely have a problem with the hastily-implemented travel ban, repurposing money for a useless "wall," and child separation at the border. As it turns out, his rhetoric was backed up by actual policies.
He didn't campaign on any of those, except for the wall.

He campaigned on harsh anti-immigration policies
No he did not. He effectively campaigned on enforcing current federal immigration law, passed by BOTH parties over the years. But to say that publicly, in today's climate, is egregiously mischaracterized as xenophobic and bigoted for both partisan reasons and misinformed reasons.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:



Without speaking for Oaktown, I can say I definitely have a problem with the hastily-implemented travel ban, repurposing money for a useless "wall," and child separation at the border. As it turns out, his rhetoric was backed up by actual policies.
He didn't campaign on any of those, except for the wall.

He campaigned on harsh anti-immigration policies
No he did not.

LOL
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:



Without speaking for Oaktown, I can say I definitely have a problem with the hastily-implemented travel ban, repurposing money for a useless "wall," and child separation at the border. As it turns out, his rhetoric was backed up by actual policies.
He didn't campaign on any of those, except for the wall.

He campaigned on harsh anti-immigration policies
No he did not.

LOL
It is actually funny that you're soft
OaktownBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

OaktownBear said:



There were 16 candidates in the Republican primary that wanted to curb immigration. They chose the one that had to talk about it in the most assholic way possible. Stopping illegal immigration is a perfectly reasonable belief. Wanting less immigration overall is a perfectly reasonable belief. There were plenty of options that supported those reasonable beliefs.

When you get up and talk about a group of people as bringing crime and drugs and rapists, and that group of people does not have any more of those things than anyone else (and here I mean Mexican immigrants, not Mexicans in general) and hammer that message night after night, you are intentionally trying to get people to view that group in a negative way. They are only weak indictments to people who don't have to put up with the shyte that flows from doing that.

Segregationist used to say "I'm not racist. Not all N-words are bad. There are good N-words and bad N-words. And he's a bad N-word". Then they move to "Their are Blacks and there are N-words - he's an N-word." You don't have to indict every single member of a group when you can just have the same effect by portraying that group as a whole.


It appears your biggest beef is with T's arguably incendiary rhetoric, not his actual policies (well at least with immigration).

While I think it's perfectly reasonable to be put off by that, that is more cultural than political, isn't it? And thus isn't it reasonable for conservatives to be put off by what they consider incendiary rhetoric from those of a different cultural and political persuasion?

Republicans had done nothing to curb immigration (legal or otherwise) because while much of their base is in favor those signing checks over to them do not (the uber rich). It's not irrational to see Trump as the only renegade on the issue among the Republican candidates. But I mean yeah primaries often select the "wrong" candidate.


We aren't talking about my biggest beef with him. I have a lot of beefs with him of various degrees. Policy beefs are one thing. I've lived underRepublican presidents before and I will again. Don't misunderstand my statement that their ideas on immigration are reasonable as saying I agree with them. I don't. Legal immigration is very good for this country. I think their desired methods for reducing illegal immigration are misguided. (For one, those policies have often lead to more illegal immigration). That is a much longer discussion. But that is a policydifference. I only care about what is unusual about Trump. 1. Yes the rhetoric. 2. Using his power to screw over his enemies. 3. Using emergency powers for non emergency 4. Being a liar. 5. Believing stupid conspiracy theories and acting on them. 6. His whole deep state bull shyte attacks on anyone in government who tells him no. 7. Failing to be smart enough to listen to anyone so that he doesn't do moronic things like abandon our allies in a war zone.

We were talking about people who voted for him. My beef with them is 1, 4, and 7 were plainly obvious and they ignored it.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

dajo9 said:

calbear93 said:

dajo9 said:

calbear93 said:

Another Bear said:

OBear073akaSMFan said:

These kind of content that threaten our democracy should be banned by youtube. For god's sake I just have been temporarily banned by twitter for advising the president for the good of the country he should put a bullet in his head. As a narcissist he would get the people coming out to celebrate in the streets..just like Bin Laden!
I imagine after Trump is done and the Dems get control, they will pass legislation that limits social media use by the POTUS, congress and political operatives, especially twitter. There's been mention social media, twitter in particular, should become a public utility and regulated, for this very reason...and many more.
Why not just fully embrace the censorship embraced by extreme left countries like China and North Korea? You are almost there in your thinking. Just take the final step.

I would almost prefer anarchy over your type of bolshevik behavior control.
China and North Korea are no more far left than they are far right. I know they call themselves communist but they are in that extreme where far right fascism and far left communism meld into one. China, in particular, more emulates a far right fascist country in which businesses dominate subject to the direction of the authoritarian ruler.
Fascism is not an economic philosophy. China is more Bolshevik than they are fascist. Nazi Germany and Mussolini Italy were Fascists.

Censorship and authoritarians control is not limited to the right or the left. Libertarians, who share the same economic philosophy, would not want censorship. Likewise, anarchists who share economic philosophy with bolsheviks would not be in favor of censorship.




Fascism is not an economic philosophy but fascist countries have always empowered establishment businesses so long as they toe the political line (Trump does this). Fascist countries have always politicized law enforcement (Trump does this) and fascist countries have always scapegoated minorities and the disenfranchised (Trump does this). China is 100% a fascist country. Trump is a wannabe fascist but he is making progress on his goals.
I think what you mean by fascism is authoritarianism. What you describe is not particular to capitalism, which makes authoritarianism fascist. Bolshevik countries (including Stalin Russia and Pol Pot Cambodia) have also done what you wrote even though they were socialist, because they believed in authoritarian rule. Now, let me ask you this. Do you think only the far right is trying to have the state control belief, speech and behavior and punish those who do not march lockstep to the platform?
Fascism is a type of authoritarianism. It is not solely capitalism that makes an authoritarian country fascist, because fascists don't have true capitalism. In fascist countries you are allowed to be a successful capitalist if you are on the right side of politics. I wouldn't call that American style capitalism - you could maybe describe it as crony capitalism. To be fascist an authoritarian country must also have a scapegoat. A group of people to point to and demonize to create an "us vs. them" mentality. China currently has somewhere between 100,000 - 1,000,000 Uyghurs in concentration camps. They are also crony capitalists. China is a fascist country.

In regards to your last question, no I haven't seen anybody of relevance on the left trying to do those things.
An old white dude
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This talk of capitalism destroying Democrats and moderates versus the extremes really suffers from recency bias. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have essentially the same platform as Harry Truman (national health care, super cheap college education, social security expansion, etc.). Truman is considered a moderate.

Far from destroying capitalism, FDR and Harry Truman and the other Democrats of the era saved capitalism in the mid-20th century when laissez-faire capitalism was intent on destroying itself and giving ground to the real extremes of communism or fascism.
An old white dude
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fascism has to be looked at in historical context. It was a reaction to global spread of communism and regarded as a last stand of conservative elements against a global communist takeover. As such it promised a return to glory either real or mythical, nation first, expansionism to recover "lost territories" and a renewal of moral purity. Italy, Spain and Germany all incorporated these memes but with different economic nuances- many though incorporated many worker rights that Bernie Sanders could only dream of in an attempt to provide an alternative to communism- at least until they were elected.

These terms have some modern relevance but not the same context or meaning- there are fascistic elements in what is going on in Poland, Hungary and even in the US though to call Trump a fascist gives him way too much credit.

China was an authoritarian communist country. It is still ostensibly ruled by communists but with an authoritarian capitalist bent that is more like England during Dickens- all the socialist elements have been gutted. It is it's own paradigm
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Fascism has to be looked at in historical context. It was a reaction to global spread of communism and regarded as a last stand of conservative elements against a global communist takeover. As such it promised a return to glory either real or mythical, nation first, expansionism to recover "lost territories" and a renewal of moral purity. Italy, Spain and Germany all incorporated these memes but with different economic nuances- many though incorporated many worker rights that Bernie Sanders could only dream of in an attempt to provide an alternative to communism- at least until they were elected.

This would seem to carry some parallels with our current polarization.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Florida businessmen tied to Giuliani's Ukraine effort are arrested

https://mol.im/a/7558955



Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

This talk of capitalism destroying Democrats and moderates versus the extremes really suffers from recency bias. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have essentially the same platform as Harry Truman (national health care, super cheap college education, social security expansion, etc.). Truman is considered a moderate.

Far from destroying capitalism, FDR and Harry Truman and the other Democrats of the era saved capitalism in the mid-20th century when laissez-faire capitalism was intent on destroying itself and giving ground to the real extremes of communism or fascism.
Truman might have been considered moderate during his time, just like his historical participation in KKK was not viewed as disqualifying. Times have changed. Even though Truman's racist banter might have been viewed as moderate, even the less offensive banter from Trump is clearly racist (I agree it is racist). I will not argue, as you have, that what was moderate then is moderate now, and that Trump is even more progressive than the president you claim is still moderate.

Times have definitely changed. Milton Friedman's perspective in the 70s, the change from defined benefits to defined contribution with most of the ownership resting with institutional investors investing for retirement accounts, quick dissemination of information, easy trading, more robust disclosure required by the SEC, Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank as well as required fiduciary duties of institutional investor in voting their shares increasing executive and director accountability, and significant wealth generation (most of the people here would have been viewed as disgustingly rich during Truman days). What Warren is proposing with the Federal charter would destroy wealth for most of the middle class and upper middle class and not just the rich. Her wealth tax is not workable and would require maybe your wife to sell her diamond ring to pay taxes on the value of the ring.

While not exact comparison, it would be like using the current cost of medical expenses to justify that hospitals and doctors should be guided by a board comprised 40% of untrained patients and that the medical practice strategy should be driven by directives from patients. While we agree that cost of medical services is high and there are some bad doctors, I doubt giving patients controlling voice in the medical practice is the way to go and I refuse to say doctors are evil. It seems like a destructive populist strategy that sounds good but won't work.

Look, you and I come from completely different perspective on what is right for the country. I don't doubt you love your country just like I love my country, and I want what his best not only for this generation but for generations to come. Like you, I want my children to have at least the same opportunities that I have.

Having said that, you and I will never agree. We may benefit from the same wealth creation, but our approach to discharging our social responsibility is different. Let's be honest. You and I are both wealthy by any reasonable global standards. It seems like you feel guilty about your wealth. I don't feel guilty but I do feel the need to share with others on a more personal level through living a moderate lifestyle significantly below my income level and sharing my wealth with charitable organizations that I believe are efficient and effective with donations. It isn't about greed with me. I give more than what even Warren or Sanders would say I need to give (just to the government instead of to private non-profit). I just happen to believe that freedom of choice to do good instead of being forced and being able to reward more efficient organization with purpose I agree with are essentially important to me. Just as an FYI, I focus on donating to fund support for assistance to homeless, STEM training for inner city kids, and providing food for the poor, all the things I would hope progressives would support.

We don't need to go around in circles arguing the same thing over and over. We are different. That's a great thing about a diverse society. You can't want a diverse society and not accept that there will be diverse perspective. I don't want you to necessarily think like me. I will grant that you can certainly be a good person who loves his country even if you think what is right diverges from my view.

Good day, Dajo.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Fascism has to be looked at in historical context. It was a reaction to global spread of communism and regarded as a last stand of conservative elements against a global communist takeover. As such it promised a return to glory either real or mythical, nation first, expansionism to recover "lost territories" and a renewal of moral purity. Italy, Spain and Germany all incorporated these memes but with different economic nuances- many though incorporated many worker rights that Bernie Sanders could only dream of in an attempt to provide an alternative to communism- at least until they were elected.

These terms have some modern relevance but not the same context or meaning- there are fascistic elements in what is going on in Poland, Hungary and even in the US though to call Trump a fascist gives him way too much credit.

China was an authoritarian communist country. It is still ostensibly ruled by communists but with an authoritarian capitalist bent that is more like England during Dickens- all the socialist elements have been gutted. It is it's own paradigm
That is absolutely correct. Even when Soviet Union and China were truly communist, their authoritarian form of government (which was very closely aligned with fascist form of government), was the same. What we cannot lose sight of is that, while we might disagree on economic philosophy, we should all agree is that authoritarianism (which is not limited to the left or the right) is evil.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm wondering if the electorate is actually more polarized than ever. Technology (internet, social media, 24hr news cycle, instant access to information around the globe, everybody has a platform, etc) certainly makes the polarization that exists more visible and apparent to all of us, and probably pushes the ideological fundamentalists farther apart (more polarized), but I'm curious as to whether, overall, this idea of polarization isn't concentrated among a minority of citizens.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

I'm wondering if the electorate is actually more polarized than ever. Technology (internet, social media, 24hr news cycle, instant access to information around the globe, everybody has a platform, etc) certainly makes the polarization that exists more visible and apparent to all of us, and probably pushes the ideological fundamentalists farther apart (more polarized), but I'm curious as to whether, overall, this idea of polarization isn't concentrated among a minority of citizens.

Most Congressional districts are uncompetitive now. That wasn't always the case. Some of that is on gerrymandering, but mostly it's because the polarization is real. Urban vs. rural.
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.