Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Captain N]

Oh, and neither post mentioned the fallen troops who died for the freedoms he's taking away.

But why would he ever show respect for those he deemed "Suckers and Losers" who were captured or died?

[tehdang]

That you believe a word like "sexism" to be (your description) a "left-wing buzzword" compounds the problem. You introduce the question of subjectivity in order to muddy waters.

"Rampant sexism" being an "early warning sign of fascism" absolutely is. Which is sort of the issue here.

The buzzword membership is of the same form of "climate justice is Palestinian justice." You just throw a bunch of them into a mash, stir them up a bit, and out pops lefty conclusion. Sexism could be the cause of late-stage capitalism, or late-stage capitalism causes supremacy of the military, etc.

Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

Sounds like even the description tries to make this a trend from the institution of fascism, rather than an early warning sign of fascism. Less an early warning sign, and more of what to expect after fascism is established: they extend authoritarianism towards gender roles.

Fair enough if you're talking what happens after Mussolini or Hitler or Pinochet or the Empire of Japan. Not good for that document, and very poor work.

Tehdang arguing about people refusing to debate him when he runs away from breccia and endus ...

I've got some people on my ignore list.

Also, you don't have to debate me but the bullshit moderator pandering and accusations is quite the different thing. "I don't want to debate this person I think argues in bad faith" and "why won't the mods ban these [[left-wing derogatory adjectives]]" are not the same thing.

[david0925]

"Rampant sexism" being an "early warning sign of fascism" absolutely is. Which is sort of the issue here.

The buzzword membership is of the same form of "climate justice is Palestinian justice." You just throw a bunch of them into a mash, stir them up a bit, and out pops lefty conclusion. Sexism could be the cause of late-stage capitalism, or late-stage capitalism causes supremacy of the military, etc.

Sounds like even the description tries to make this a trend from the institution of fascism, rather than an early warning sign of fascism. Less an early warning sign, and more of what to expect after fascism is established: they extend authoritarianism towards gender roles.

Fair enough if you're talking what happens after Mussolini or Hitler or Pinochet or the Empire of Japan. Not good for that document, and very poor work.

I've got some people on my ignore list.

Also, you don't have to debate me but the bullshit moderator pandering and accusations is quite the different thing. "I don't want to debate this person I think argues in bad faith" and "why won't the mods ban these [[left-wing derogatory adjectives]]" are not the same thing.

Lol, you ignore them because you can't refute any of their points so you run from arguments to arguments every time sometimes people call you out on it. You can lie to yourself but everyone that you're trying to convince are watching, because they are still refuting your points for everyone else to see whether you want to play ostrich or not.

Practically anyone active in this subforum knows you are a disingenuous poster and they engage with your posts just so other peoples don't get misled by your misinformation.

[tehdang]

Lol, you ignore them because you can't refute any of their points so you run from arguments to arguments every time sometimes people call you out on it. You can lie to yourself but everyone that you're trying to convince are watching, because they are still refuting your points for everyone else to see whether you want to play ostrich or not.

Practically anyone active in this subforum knows you are a disingenuous poster and they engage with your posts just so other peoples don't get misled by your misinformation.

Same thing as before. Of course, I ignore the bad faith users, but the other people who ignore me are doing so because they can't refute my arguments and run!

It's politics. Both sides can play. There isn't a position of privilege. Sorry about that.

[Polgara]

Watching our two pro-rapist, anti-lgbtq, pro-genocide, anti-woman individuals jerk themselves off over bullshit because our Pro-Orban Hungarian Mod has decided that it's not malicious to push those views despite there being frequent posters in this forum who have been sexually assaulted, are transgendered, have friends and/or family members who are Palestinian, and more than a handful who are definitely women. But hey calling someone a troll is a big deal...right?

Unfortunately you have to learn that protecting the views of tender cis white males is the default setting, that's why we have Trump; not enough idiots copped disdain for being openly shitty, just coddled. "Debate me" edgelords became the philosophical thinkers of the time mixed with the obscene signal boosting of the internet and we have the "weak men create bad times" step.

Trump is just who they are but with a much smaller silver spoon. People like ned can whinge at trump, but that just feels like someone arguing with their mirror. Though -

So tell me...Is a Trans-Woman a Woman? Since you're so pro-woman?

I, too, would like an answer on this, but that's more morbid curiosity that the answer will be exactly what I think it will be. Hey, Mr feminist; anything to say?

[Corvus]

After Trump called pootie crazy, the russian response is to label Trump as 'emotional.' Given these hypermasculine right wing types like Trump and pootie only believe women can be emotional, you can guess what they are calling him.

[Breccia]

Translated: Oh, what does the Holocaust Museum know about fascism, anyhow?

You voted for someone who made campaign promises and/or has blatant public actions in all of those items in the list, and you voted for it anyhow. Or, I suspect, because of.

You're a traitor to your country and trying to handwave it with "sexism in fascism is correlation but not causation, by the way I voted for a blatantly sexist fascist".

[Belize]

"It's not Facism it's Authortarianism" said the exact same way weirdos say 'Uhm actually it's Hebephilia, not Pedophilia'.

I mean, it's the same people that have repeated ad nauseum that the U.S. wasn't a democracy, but a democratic republic.

Being pedantic fucks that bury the lede is the general modus operandum.

[Jastall]

This describes literally all authoritarian governments. China included. Is China fascist?

Kinda, yeah. Economically at least, they certainly have more in common with the "third way" espoused by fascist or fascist-adjacent regimes prior to WW2, emphasizing private industry that is nevertheless beholden to the interests of the Party and State, in opposition to the Capitalists letting capital run rampant as its own thing or the Communists dismissing the principle of private industry altogether from their ideology. They remind me of Imperial Japan somewhat in a variety of ways, albeit certainly without the suicidal bellicosity that characterized that particular regime.

I do think people are too quick to call everything they don't like fascism, but I'm also not going to pretend those fears are spawned out of thin air as far as Trump is concerned, especially from his second mandate onward. And let's not ignore that the right side of the American political aisle has happily been throwing the "communist" label at anything and everything the Democrats have done, thus I won't take any them reacting with shock and horror to the "fascist" label very seriously.

[Doomcookie]

Extreme nationalism, militarism and suppression of the opposition are the building blocks of any authoritarian government. Trump is authoritarian none will doubt you that. What type of authoritarian doesnt matter to me that much? If you ask me he is a maoist or more like kim jong un style. He is more of a leftist on that bend more than anything else, people just dont want to acknowledge that bc its an ugly mirror to look at. When Trump says that Walmart needs to eat the costs of the tariffs that is very much lefty rhetoric that would come out of Elizabeth Warrens mouth and the insistence of cutting on price gouging.

- - - Updated - - -



Anti Woman you insult me. I very much support feminism and feminist movements. They are the only people whose ideology perfectly describes the current administration and would have predicted it

The insistence on a macho bravado on tariffs being used to restored manliness, taking out abortion and insistence of a return to the 1950s family role is very spot on analysis from them.

It clearly matters to you, because you're the one whining when people call him a fascist.

If it didn't matter to you, then you wouldn't be trying to argue to defend him.

- - - Updated - - -

You have managed to pair ad-hominem attacks to the most obvious moderator-baiting imaginable. I haven't seen its equal.

Be a little less obvious that you hate debate and just wish to ban and demonize your opponents. There's plenty of people around that want to pretend opposition away so they can live in pretend world with less conflict.

Well, to be fair, you have openly bragged about your weird love of rapists and genocide.

- - - Updated - - -

"Rampant sexism" being an "early warning sign of fascism" absolutely is. Which is sort of the issue here.

The buzzword membership is of the same form of "climate justice is Palestinian justice." You just throw a bunch of them into a mash, stir them up a bit, and out pops lefty conclusion. Sexism could be the cause of late-stage capitalism, or late-stage capitalism causes supremacy of the military, etc.

Sounds like even the description tries to make this a trend from the institution of fascism, rather than an early warning sign of fascism. Less an early warning sign, and more of what to expect after fascism is established: they extend authoritarianism towards gender roles.

Fair enough if you're talking what happens after Mussolini or Hitler or Pinochet or the Empire of Japan. Not good for that document, and very poor work.

I've got some people on my ignore list.

Also, you don't have to debate me but the bullshit moderator pandering and accusations is quite the different thing. "I don't want to debate this person I think argues in bad faith" and "why won't the mods ban these [[left-wing derogatory adjectives]]" are not the same thing.

Why is the only defense against the truth, that they are "buzzwords?" No, the reason is that you and the rest of the Trump supporters have been that way so god-damned always, that you just hate that the truth keeps getting repeated.

Lying for rapists is pretty weird, bro.

[Breccia]

After Trump called pootie crazy, the russian response is to label Trump as 'emotional.' Given these hypermasculine right wing types like Trump and pootie only believe women can be emotional, you can guess what they are calling him.

But the president has always had a very odd conception of Vladimir Putin. I think he’s thought that he and Putin could be kind of friends and partners and could make deals together and so on.

I don’t think Putin has changed. I don’t know what the president’s talking about. This is the way Putin has always been. He’s always been a particularly brutal dictator willing to take whatever measures he thought necessary to advance his interests, whatever he thought he could get away with. He thought he could get away with invading Ukraine. He thought he could conquer Ukraine in a matter of days. He failed to do it. And he has been spending his own people’s blood and treasure for as long as he’s needed to after that. And now he seems more intent than ever. He’s the same old Vladimir Putin.

FOX News' Brit Hume *ding*

So, one of two things has happened.

1) Trump is somehow surprised that Putin hasn't changed. That's something you'd expect from someone senile and/or retarded.

2) Or, Trump had a phone call with Putin and told nobody about it.

Neither option is redeeming.

[Doomcookie]

Same thing as before. Of course, I ignore the bad faith users, but the other people who ignore me are doing so because they can't refute my arguments and run!

It's politics. Both sides can play. There isn't a position of privilege. Sorry about that.

You literally have a rapist as your avatar.

Does it get more "bad faith?"

[Breccia]

Lying for rapists is pretty weird, bro.

Let's also not forget that his best "defense" was "of the many items on the list that I support and voted for, I will attempt to say that one of them is not that bad."

Oh, and of course, what kind of person handwaves the Holocaust Museum with respect to fascism? You'd have better luck storming into my Calc II classroom and claiming some odd numbers aren't really all that odd.

[Endus]

Kinda, yeah. Economically at least, they certainly have more in common with the "third way" espoused by fascist or fascist-adjacent regimes prior to WW2, emphasizing private industry that is nevertheless beholden to the interests of the Party and State, in opposition to the Capitalists letting capital run rampant as its own thing or the Communists dismissing the principle of private industry altogether from their ideology. They remind me of Imperial Japan somewhat in a variety of ways, albeit certainly without the suicidal bellicosity that characterized that particular regime.

I do think people are too quick to call everything they don't like fascism, but I'm also not going to pretend those fears are spawned out of thin air as far as Trump is concerned, especially from his second mandate onward. And let's not ignore that the right side of the American political aisle has happily been throwing the "communist" label at anything and everything the Democrats have done, thus I won't take any them reacting with shock and horror to the "fascist" label very seriously.

It's also particularly silly to try and argue the Chinese economy as "communist" in the 21st Century, just on the basics.

"Communism", at its core, was predicated on the idea of the death of economic classes. Some forms (Stalinism in particular, and thus Maoism by extension) maintained political classes, which ended up being economically protected, but looking at modern China, is it the politicos who are the richest people? China is home to nearly as many billionaires as the USA. North of 800 for both. And these are the businessmen, in both cases, the owners of the means of production. Marx wouldn't consider modern China to be "communist" any more than we consider North Korea to be "Democratic", even if it's in the name.

China's something better described as "state capitalism", where the state itself is a major owner of means of production and involves itself very directly. It's highly authoritarian, but authoritarianism has nothing to do with communist theory, directly. Those political-class systems trended towards authoritarianism, yes; I'm not claiming Stalin wasn't a totalitarian psychopath here. But a hippie commune is also "communist", and a purer, more-Marxist version of communism at that.

"But powerful communist states tend to be authoritarian", they'll bleat. Scratch out "communist", and that sentence remains true. You're talking about the nature of power and control itself, not communism specifically. Democracy is no real barrier; democracy is the fertile breeding ground of fascism.

I'm not even a communist, ideologically, but I've never met a right-winger who could throw a mental dart at the concept of "communism" and even have the dart stick in the wall, let alone hit the actual dartboard.

[Doomcookie]

Let's also not forget that his best "defense" was "of the many items on the list that I support and voted for, I will attempt to say that one of them is not that bad."

Oh, and of course, what kind of person handwaves the Holocaust Museum with respect to fascism? You'd have better luck storming into my Calc II classroom and claiming some odd numbers aren't really all that odd.

What do they know about fascism at the Holocaust Museum?

[Tech614]

It's also particularly silly to try and argue the Chinese economy as "communist" in the 21st Century, just on the basics.

"Communism", at its core, was predicated on the idea of the death of economic classes. Some forms (Stalinism in particular, and thus Maoism by extension) maintained political classes, which ended up being economically protected, but looking at modern China, is it the politicos who are the richest people? China is home to nearly as many billionaires as the USA. North of 800 for both. And these are the businessmen, in both cases, the owners of the means of production. Marx wouldn't consider modern China to be "communist" any more than we consider North Korea to be "Democratic", even if it's in the name.

China's something better described as "state capitalism", where the state itself is a major owner of means of production and involves itself very directly. It's highly authoritarian, but authoritarianism has nothing to do with communist theory, directly. Those political-class systems trended towards authoritarianism, yes; I'm not claiming Stalin wasn't a totalitarian psychopath here. But a hippie commune is also "communist", and a purer, more-Marxist version of communism at that.

"But powerful communist states tend to be authoritarian", they'll bleat. Scratch out "communist", and that sentence remains true. You're talking about the nature of power and control itself, not communism specifically. Democracy is no real barrier; democracy is the fertile breeding ground of fascism.

I'm not even a communist, ideologically, but I've never met a right-winger who could throw a mental dart at the concept of "communism" and even have the dart stick in the wall, let alone hit the actual dartboard.

A common misconception about China is that it thinks or claims it's communist. China knows they aren't communist. If you read Xi's thought's on the matter for example he has always expressed the goal of the CCP is to one day achieve communism, not that they actually are communist right now.

So it's even more hilarious if right wingers point to the authoritarian regime as "look communism bad". The CCP themselves does not think they are communist or that they have ever achieved communism.

In the US we got a wannabe authoritarian in power, without even half of the social safety nets China has for it's population so go us, I guess.

[s_bushido]

I'm not even a communist, ideologically, but I've never met a right-winger who could throw a mental dart at the concept of "communism" and even have the dart stick in the wall, let alone hit the actual dartboard.

What do you mean? Communism is when da gub'mint does stuff! Duh!

[Endus]

A common misconception about China is that it thinks or claims it's communist. China knows they aren't communist. If you read Xi's thought's on the matter for example he has always expressed the goal of the CCP is to one day achieve communism, not that they actually are communist right now.

So it's even more hilarious if right wingers point to the authoritarian regime as "look communism bad". The CCP themselves does not think they are communist or that they have ever achieved communism.

In the US we got a wannabe authoritarian in power, without even half of the social safety nets China has for it's population so go us, I guess.

Yeah, I just saw it mentioned as "left-wing" earlier, and that comes entirely from assuming it's "communist", and it just ain't. Hasn't been for a very long time. China's a hard-right nation, politically.

Everyone should understand that the basic distinction between "left-wing" and "right-wing" ideologies centers on the concept of hierarchical structures in society, and whether they should be created/protected (right-wing), or if they should be broken down/mitigated (left-wing). Those hierarchies can be political (aristocracy vs peasantry), social (caste system in India is a super obvious example), economic (rich v. poor), or anything along those lines and in any admixture of these ideas. Any system unbalanced enough to create hundreds of billionaires while most of the population is in poverty cannot be argued to be "left-wing".

[DarkTZeratul]

It's also particularly silly to try and argue the Chinese economy as "communist" in the 21st Century, just on the basics.

"Communism", at its core, was predicated on the idea of the death of economic classes. Some forms (Stalinism in particular, and thus Maoism by extension) maintained political classes, which ended up being economically protected, but looking at modern China, is it the politicos who are the richest people? China is home to nearly as many billionaires as the USA. North of 800 for both. And these are the businessmen, in both cases, the owners of the means of production. Marx wouldn't consider modern China to be "communist" any more than we consider North Korea to be "Democratic", even if it's in the name.

There's a joke I heard that I think is relevant:

An American senator a Soviet premier, and a Chinese party official are in a car together when they come to a fork in the road. The sign says "Left: Communism. Right: Capitalism."
"We must turn right!" shouts the senator.
"We must turn left!" shouts the premier.
"We must turn right," shouts the party official, "But signal left."

[Azadina]

But why would he ever show respect for those he deemed "Suckers and Losers" who were captured or died?

It's absolutely baffling to me, how any servicemen/women can possibly be pro Drumpf after that one. Imagine a battlebuddy who died saving your life, and then you turn around cheering for a draft dodging coward who just calls your buddy a loser for having been killed in action. Just how and why in gods name..