[Pants-of-dog]

He seems to have been more than simply rude and imposing although that was also cited as evidence of Trump's disregard for the rule of law.

Again, Trump’s personality is irrelevant.

His deliberate refusal to follow congressional oversight is the issue.

That depends, actually, his lapdog did not but it would seem he did by de facto assuming official State capacity. He even drafted bills and seemingly presented them to the Louisiana Congress.

And how does this support a claim that this would lead to authoritarian socialism?

I didn't claim Long tried to subvert an election, though. I only claimed he was an authoritarian leftist who subverted democracy in the USA, at least in LA. This is clearly true (and yes, he was leftist, he would be now and was at the time to the extent that he was to the left of FDR).

A leftist that engaged in enriching himself through capitalism. That is an oxymoron.

So, your best example is one man from decades ago who did not actually use this rhetoric of what you claimed and does not seem to have tried to introduce authoritarianism.

From this, I can deduce that this threat is not realistic at this time while the threat of right wing authoritarianism is far more plausible.

[wat0n]

Was Long leftist, centrist or rightist to you, @Pants-of-dog? I see him as a leftist populist, rather than some ideological leftist like social-democrats or Marxists.

He quite evidently also disregarded legislative oversight at the LA level, indeed, it's as simple as noting his behavior during the impeachment launched against him in 1929.

[Pants-of-dog]

Was Long leftist, centrist or rightist to you, @Pants-of-dog? I see him as a leftist populist, rather than some ideological leftist like social-democrats or Marxists.

He quite evidently also disregarded legislative oversight at the LA level, indeed, it's as simple as noting his behavior during the impeachment launched against him in 1929.

Please see my last post. Thanks.

[Patrickov]

Since this does not contradict my point about the USA supporting right wing dictators, and my point about ow this support can translate into support for a local right wing dictator, I am just going to leave it at that.

It does. You want to emphasise that the USA is more evil than their enemies but I have presented thatit is the other way round.

[Pants-of-dog]

It does. You want to emphasise that the USA is more evil than their enemies but I have presented thatit is the other way round.

I am not making a comparison.

The actions of the USA are independent of the actions of other countries.

My argument would still be true even if we assume that (for example) China is a million times worse.

[Patrickov]

I am not making a comparison.

Sorry I made a mistake, it should be this:

You were rejecting @wat0n's claim that most dictatorships were left-wing. My statement was to back this claim and refute yours.

Your response to my statement was, therefore, an attempt to drift off.

[Pants-of-dog]

Sorry I made a mistake, it should be this:

You were rejecting @wat0n's claim that most dictatorships were left-wing. My statement was to back this claim and refute yours.

Your response to my statement was, therefore, an attempt to drift off.

The number of left wing dictatorships and how they measure up to the number of right wing dictatorships is completely irrelevant to my argument.

Even if we assume that there area kajillion times more left wing dictatorships, it would still be factually correct to claim that the USA has consistently supported right wing dictatorships and do so to this day.

And this support for right wing authoritarianism abroad makes it easier for the same populace to accept right wing authoritarianism at home.

[wat0n]

And this support for right wing authoritarianism abroad makes it easier for the same populace to accept right wing authoritarianism at home.

I find it interesting, let's apply this logic.

If the populace can find it easier to accept right wing authoritarianism at home if their elected government does so abroad, does it mean that:

1. Americans would be willing to accept an Islamist theocratic monarchy like the House of Saud at home?

2. Left-wing Americans who support regimes like Cuba or Venezuela are likely to accept left wing authoritarianism at home?

[Pants-of-dog]

I find it interesting, let's apply this logic.

If the populace can find it easier to accept right wing authoritarianism at home if their elected government does so abroad, does it mean that:

1. Americans would be willing to accept an Islamist theocratic monarchy like the House of Saud at home?

They might easily accept a Christian theocracy that was similar to SA.

[Patrickov]

it would still be factually correct to claim that the USA has consistently supported right wing dictatorships and do so to this day.

I fail to see this to be true, especially for the "to this day" part.

As the biggest example, Saudi Arabia is not actively supported by U.S., rather I would say they coerced the U.S. to be friendly with them.

The reason that the Saudis succeed in doing that? Any time the U.S. pulled out from incorrigible right-wing dictatorships, it seemed to only result in left-wing dictatorships eating up everybody, as was the case of the likes of Vietnam and Iraq / Iran.

The biggest mistake of the West has always been letting other places to go independent before ensuring the people are ready for it; or in the case of having the people ready for it (e.g. Hong Kong), handing it (or being coerced to hand it) to a less competent / deserving entity.

[Patrickov]

They might easily accept a Christian theocracy that was similar to SA.

Saudi Arabia is a rather special case, because the place in concern has always been so tribal that there's little distance between family and nation.

It's absurd to claim any civilised place in the world would accept a small family to have the ability of readily chopping other people's heads off for the most ridiculous excuses (e.g. sorcery)

[Pants-of-dog]

I fail to see this to be true, especially for the "to this day" part.

As the biggest example, Saudi Arabia is not actively supported by U.S., rather I would say they coerced the U.S. to be friendly with them.

I see. You think the world’s only superpower is being forced to do something by a country that needs Us military support for all its ventures.

The reason that the Saudis succeed in doing that? Any time the U.S. pulled out from incorrigible right-wing dictatorships, it seemed to only result in left-wing dictatorships eating up everybody, as was the case of the likes of Vietnam and Iraq / Iran.

The biggest mistake of the West has always been letting other places to go independent before ensuring the people are ready for it; or in the case of having the people ready for it (e.g. Hong Kong), handing it (or being coerced to hand it) to a less competent / deserving entity.

You seem to be saying that developing countries should not be allowed to have any sovereignty and should have capitalism imposed at gunpoint.

That the US should restrict the independence of countries that might choose anything else.

Can you see how this would translate to support of right wing authoritarianism?

Saudi Arabia is a rather special case, because the place in concern has always been so tribal that there's little distance between family and nation.

It's absurd to claim any civilised place in the world would accept a small family to have the ability of readily chopping other people's heads off for the most ridiculous excuses (e.g. sorcery)

Considering the high percentage of conservatives who believe in Young Earth Creationism and that Biden stole the election, it seems a lot of the US public are perfectly capable of believing ridiculous things.

[Patrickov]

You seem to be saying that developing countries...
1. should not be allowed to have any sovereignty and
2. should have capitalism imposed at gunpoint.

From what I see, 1 and 2 are actually not that identical.

To be more precise, sovereignty is only valid (there's no granting or such) when the people are capable of taking care of their own asses.

As seen in most African and Asian countries, if all sovereignty brings is another lunatic imposing whatever "non-capitalism" at gunpoint, then I fail to see why it's better than having capitalism imposed, because nowadays the West no longer do that indiscriminately at gunpoint.

I was born, and grew, and am living in a place where capitalism actually ensures my happiness and freedom, until a left-wing dictatorship comes and destroys everything. Don't try to lecture me on your proven false theory.

Considering the high percentage of conservatives who believe in Young Earth Creationism and that Biden stole the election, it seems a lot of the US public are perfectly capable of believing ridiculous things.

Not to an extent that they would believe somebody who are happy to chop their heads off. I have faith in their selfishness, if nothing else.

[Pants-of-dog]

From what I see, 1 and 2 are actually not that identical.

To be more precise, sovereignty is only valid (there's no granting or such) when the people are capable of taking care of their own asses.

As seen in most African and Asian countries, if all sovereignty brings is another lunatic imposing whatever "non-capitalism" at gunpoint, then I fail to see why it's better than having capitalism imposed, because nowadays the West no longer do that indiscriminately at gunpoint.

I was born, and grew, and am living in a place where capitalism actually ensures my happiness and freedom, until a left-wing dictatorship comes and destroys everything. Don't try to lecture me on your proven false theory.

None of this contradicts my argument. In fact, you are providing a good example of the exact dynamic I am discussing. Thank you.

Not to an extent that they would believe somebody who are happy to chop their heads off. I have faith in their selfishness, if nothing else.

I do not. The US electorate often eschews things that would benefit them, like public health care, paid parental leave, subsidized PSE, et cetera.

[Patrickov]

None of this contradicts my argument. In fact, you are providing a good example of the exact dynamic I am discussing. Thank you.

It does contradict your argument. I am saying that my city's recent history has proven your theory and propositions are downright wrong.
Sovereignty can be bullshit -- after all it's just ownership. Any entity who abuse their ownership has forfeited their right of such ownership.

You are just too brainwashed by your (induced) contempt of capitalism / the United States. I have seen both sides and therefore can make my choice. I am on the other side so I know how bullshit your belief are.

I do not. The US electorate often eschews things that would benefit them, like public health care, paid parental leave, subsidized PSE, et cetera.

That's totally different from endorsing something that can immediately chop their heads off.

This statement only prove those people are extremely short-sighted, but supporting a Saudi-like regime require them to be blind to literally everything, including the threat of them surviving even the very next day.

[Pants-of-dog]

It does contradict your argument. I am saying that my city's recent history has proven your theory and propositions are downright wrong.

Sovereignty can be bullshit. You are just too brainwashed by your (induced) contempt of capitalism. I have seen both sides and therefore can make my choice.

No. The recent history of HK does not, in any way, contradict my claim. US support of right wing authoritarianism exists independently of whether or not the USA should have intervened to save HK from evil Chinese tyranny.

That's totally different from endorsing something that can immediately chop their heads off. Your statement only prove those people are extremely short-sighted, but supporting a Saudi-like regime require them to be blind to the risk of them surviving even the very next day.

Their lack of gun control, their acceptance of police brutality, the failure to address the causes of mass shootings, all of these speak to a certain disregard for personal safety.

[Patrickov]

US support of right wing authoritarianism.

I don't see it is true. Besides you are arguing with more things than that. Stop moving goalposts.

Their lack of gun control, their acceptance of police brutality, the failure to address the causes of mass shootings, all of these speak to a certain disregard for personal safety.

Still does not mean they will support a regime who are very open to chop their heads off.

For example, lack of gun control can go two ways -- it can mean, say, I can shoot you, not just the other way round. Supporting a regime who can chop my head off but not the other way round is a totally different thing.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't see it is true.

https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/Lis ... ted_States

Still does not mean they will support a regime who are very open to chop their heads off.

For example, lack of gun control can go two ways -- it can mean, say, I can shoot you, not just the other way round. Supporting a regime who can chop my head off but not the other way round is a totally different thing.

Well, I have lower opinion of US citizens than you do.

I also seem to know more about US history.

[Tainari88]

I was always aware that if push went to shove in the USA political system--the fascist element would be prominent in all of the reactions. I find the USA repressive and oppressive in general and in many specific ways.

First this:

Fascism in the USA is about this too:

[Patrickov]

https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_supported_by_the_United_States

I don't think most of them qualify because for such a long list even nominal recognition of things they have "no power to control" is seen as support. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Of course, if the United States could go all Cecil Rhodes and rule them directly like Puerto Rico I am more than welcome.

Well, I have lower opinion of US citizens than you do.

I also seem to know more about US history.

The problem is you have severe bias against the West and I am your polar opposite.

I know what is bad about NOT having American influence.