Election 2020 - Page 595 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15159037
Verv wrote:He certainly was different than any previous candidates, by a mile, so I consider him to be anti-establishment, though if you twist my arm maybe I would laugh and say alt establishment? :lol:

Trump was not controlled by his party, unlike a Bush or Clinton or Biden. He worked Washington DC for his own private corporate advantages, but he was not himself Washington.

I'm sure he had his share of favors to repay but it wasn't on the same party-level, it was more ad-hoc where he himself was in control and making deals rather than owing favors to the party and its funders, therefore he could operate outside of those typical DC establishment confines. Him having a lot of money and free publicity (due to his control of the news cycle) would help with that, while someone like Hillary needs to depend largely on campaign donors.

A Bernie Sanders did it differently than Trump. He just straight up said he won't have a Super PAC or take big corporate dollars to be controlled. Corporate America backed Clinton and Biden (and others) on the Dem side because they could be influenced with money.
#15159039
Verv wrote:Marxism completely face-planted in terms of being a theory that could be implemented, murdering a magnificent pile of people... Yet, Communist writers & thinkers can be treated seriously and discussed open mindedly, while proto-Fascists and third position writers, whose ideas cannot be said to directy contribute to any violent regime in some cases, are treated like pariahs. It's a weird double standard.


I think a big difference is in the intentions of Marxists vs fascists. Fascists are racist dicks while Marxists are often seen as typically well-meaning but naive fools who "oops my agrarian policy just killed 8 million people". The Marxist dicks are typically the government leaders who are totalitarian but your typical laymen Marxists aren't typically jerks like that, unlike frothing at the mouth neo-nazis.

So in other words, many still feel Marxism is redeemable or fixable (however right or wrong that is) while fascism really isn't seen that way.
User avatar
By Verv
#15159048
B0ycey wrote:I am fully aware of it actually. Although I do not see it in America at all. Perhaps a few radical voices like Third Worldism but not enough to say they are making a significant difference to the views of the Capitalism in America.


There are a lot of people who talk about these things in the dissident right. Nick Fuentes even hinted at it in one of the Tweets I posted.


But I am also sure you have been taught about Nazism, eugenics, slavery, religious radicalisation and concentration camps - all ideas and all ideas that were harmful.


Yes... but, hold on here...

These are all different.

Some of these are ideas in the sense that we mean ideas and are particular (Nazism); some are broad concepts that can mean many things (eugenics, concentration camps, religious radicalization); some are just historic statuses that have many different manifestations (slavery, religious radicalization, arguably concentration camps).

I feel like this doesn't help us.

Nonetheless I assume you were also taught about hate speech in any case. If you hear any "idea" long enough without any form of fact check, you accept that idea as normal. That is dangerous unless you have the intelligence to ignore it. So in that sense you shouldn't associate with it. Or if you do, don't reference it. How you interpret something, someone else interprets it as something else, especially as these ideas are associated with white supremacy and have an agenda attached to them.


No, I am an American.

I was taught about the Heckler's veto being illegitimate and how the Nazi march through Skokie, Illinois was a protected action. I was taught Oliver Wendell Holmes' perspecitve on free speech as being the law.

Hate speech isn't a real category recognized by US law. It's an extralegal category. And, if it becomes a new legal category, it's against the classic interpretation of the First Amendment, and I am under the impression that the Constitution will be completely undermined since I was taught that the reason we must tolerate blasphemy, Communist propagandists, Nazis marching through Skokie, and p0rnography, is the First Amendment.

If we can choose to not tolerate certain categories, then everythign changes, and we are liable to see free speech continually redefined to suit the needs of the elites.
User avatar
By Verv
#15159049
Unthinking Majority wrote:I think a big difference is in the intentions of Marxists vs fascists. Fascists are racist dicks while Marxists are often seen as typically well-meaning but naive fools who "oops my agrarian policy just killed 8 million people". The Marxist dicks are typically the government leaders who are totalitarian but your typical laymen Marxists aren't typically jerks like that, unlike frothing at the mouth neo-nazis.

So in other words, many still feel Marxism is redeemable or fixable (however right or wrong that is) while fascism really isn't seen that way.


You would differentiate Stalinists and the Khmer Rouge from regular ideological or academic Communists, right? You wuold take the time to say there are some Communists that are just idealists with nuanced beliefs, and that the Khmer Rouge is completely evil or something, right?

Because it would not be difficult for people to say that the National Socialists, Falangists, Fascists, Iron Guard, Integralists, etc., are all quite different, and to treat Hitler and the SS like Pol Pot & the Khmer Rouge, and to treat Salazar, Primo de Rivera, and Plinio Correa de Olivera as rather different. All of them with their own faults and shortcomings, naturally.

The redeeming quality of them can be found in their desires to provide what Dugin refers to as an alternative modernity in which reality is not dictated through the marketplace or Socialism, and an idealistic world which preserves tradition alongside modern technology.

If you are willing to recognize the good that can exist in terms of Utopian Socialism and can thread the needle there, you can surely recognize the differences between different third positionist thinkers.

But hey, IDK, if that is too much for you, just scream "Nazi."

I will stop when I hear your safe word.
By B0ycey
#15159052
Verv wrote:Yes... but, hold on here...

These are all different.


I don't see how. They all begin with an ideas written down. They then manifest as something harmful. Hitler didn't just wake up one day and think gas chambers was a good idea. He built a whole movement and written about it in Mein Kampf beforehand. Then he spread his message and people listened and understood his POV no different to you now. They didn't understand they were being manipulated. They just understood that as things in the Weiner Republic was bad, something needed to change. They didn't understand what needed to change and who to blame. Jews were the target and they got the blame.

If we can choose to not tolerate certain categories, then everythign changes, and we are liable to see free speech continually redefined to suit the needs of the elites.


But we do tolerate all categories actually. Furentes has his voice. You think Communists have it easy? I don't know how many times I heard Easy vs West, Capitalism vs Socialism, Marxism supports mass murder. Nonetheless I am not a Communist by the way. I support Social Democracy. So this isn't meant as a defence. But the Communist Manifesto was commissioned to be written by Marx and most of his economic thinking was published in Das Kapital. And even then he didn't call for murder but for the proletariat to fight the system. I suspect he meant to down tools and only use force if no change was forthwith. And that isn't taking into account that 19th century England couldn't be described as democratic is any case. It was elitism at its heart. And today Marxism is manifesting into the teachings of the Frankfurt School. Today many Marxist (they aren't found in PoFo) don't call for revolution but democratic reform. So perhaps that is the difference in any case. Marxists are looking for the best interests of all and Groypers the best interests of White nationalists.
By Pants-of-dog
#15159084
Verv wrote:That makes sense to think of him as part of the establishment in that regard. Indeed, he even talked about how he was someone who used to buy politicians. It is what he himself admits. However, he did admit this in terms of saying he would not be like that.


He can say whatever he wants, but his actions (i.e. continuing the exact same thing when he was in charge) shows that he was lying.

Yet, it is said that he was partly bought out by Sheldon Adelson, not necessarily in terms of collecting money... but in terms of using Adelson's influence for other things, and therefore he had to back Israel.

But that's all inside baseball. I don't know.

He certainly was different than any previous candidates, by a mile, so I consider him to be anti-establishment, though if you twist my arm maybe I would laugh and say alt establishment? :lol:


How was he different?

He seems pretty establishment to me. This idea of him being not part of the establishment seems like one of the many lies that his supporters believe.
User avatar
By MadMonk
#15159118
Rancid wrote:The answer is a very clear no.


Perhaps. It's possible that this was a short-term hit that could have long-term improving consequences. Trump might become 'a shot across the bow before the fleets open fire'.

Biden needs to create some form of uniformity in vision, limited as it will be. He will largely fail but as Trump has shown us, failing and Hell is all about degrees. :eek:
User avatar
By Beren
#15159126
Verv wrote:This is why I follow Nick Fuentes:



Because you're like them? Or identify with them? It'd be cool to be there chanting with them?
#15159155
Rancid wrote:Whether he was different or not, doesn't matter. The question is, was he good for the country and the world.

The answer is a very clear no.


No he wasn't good for the country at all.

The sad part is that he's damaged populism. He took some good ideas, mixed with some bad ideas, and presented them with his massive ego and terrible rhetoric and racism.

Besides the obvious racists on the American right, we can only assume there's many Americans who still want stringent immigration reform, getting tougher on China, avoiding wars in the middle east and elsewhere, a cessation of selling out American jobs overseas, and generally an "America first" policy.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of these positions generally, but now they've all been tainted with Trump's mammoth stains of bullshit and the people and politicians advocating any of the above can be accused of being a Trumpster (whether they are or aren't).

What the GOP needs is somebody far more reasonable to put forward an "America First" agenda and they'd probably walk away with the next election. But who knows if the party or its supporters are that smart. We seem to be dealing in extremes lately.
By late
#15159156
Unthinking Majority wrote:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of these positions generally...



Incorrect.

They are reactionaries, and they have a talent for taking a bad situation, and making it a lot worse.
#15159159
late wrote:Incorrect.

They are reactionaries, and they have a talent for taking a bad situation, and making it a lot worse.

Name something specifically wrong with any of the positions I mentioned.

There's nothing "reactionary" about wanting to clamp down on illegal border crossers, getting tougher on China, and having less wars in the middle east etc. None of these are intrinsically linked to being an alt-right neo-facist.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15159160
Unthinking Majority wrote:
No he wasn't good for the country at all.

The sad part is that he's damaged populism. He took some good ideas, mixed with some bad ideas, and presented them with his massive ego and terrible rhetoric and racism.

Besides the obvious racists on the American right, we can only assume there's many Americans who still want stringent immigration reform, getting tougher on China, avoiding wars in the middle east and elsewhere, a cessation of selling out American jobs overseas, and generally an "America first" policy.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of these positions generally, but now they've all been tainted with Trump's mammoth stains of bullshit and the people and politicians advocating any of the above can be accused of being a Trumpster (whether they are or aren't).

What the GOP needs is somebody far more reasonable to put forward an "America First" agenda and they'd probably walk away with the next election. But who knows if the party or its supporters are that smart. We seem to be dealing in extremes lately.


Spot on. In fact, I want many of those things. I'm like one of the biggest CCP haters on pofo! :lol:
By late
#15159185
Unthinking Majority wrote:
Name something specifically wrong with any of the positions I mentioned.

There's nothing "reactionary" about wanting to clamp down on illegal border crossers, getting tougher on China, and having less wars in the middle east etc. None of these are intrinsically linked to being an alt-right neo-facist.



We rely on immigrants to do agricultural work. Before they would come here for a while, make some money, then go home.

When Trump unleashed his crazies, the families that could, came up here, and had to stay, of course.

We need a sane, rational immigration policy. Preferably one that doesn't kill and torture children..

About China, on the big issues, plagues, war, regional relations, etc, they ALL require cooperation. We have a complicated relationship, acting like an angry drunk does not improve matters.

"Less wars" is BS. We are stuck there. There are some lunatics that want a war with Iran, but they've been trying to get a war started there for a couple decades, unsuccessfully. We do need to smarten up, but that will likely require a Progressive era.

Not exactly something reactionaries are going to support.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15159433
@Unthinking Majority said:

The sad part is that he's damaged populism. He took some good ideas, mixed with some bad ideas, and presented them with his massive ego and terrible rhetoric and racism.

Besides the obvious racists on the American right, we can only assume there's many Americans who still want stringent immigration reform, getting tougher on China, avoiding wars in the middle east and elsewhere, a cessation of selling out American jobs overseas, and generally an "America first" policy.


Spot on. Trump has severely damaged American conservatism which was severely wounded before him. It has truly morphed into an armed band of brown shirts and malcontents. It should be the very opposite of that. It is about time we did adopt an "America First" policy. We can always behave benevolently toward others but we need to take care of our own first. In the process of forgetting this we have thrown our own middle class in the dust bin. Call it collateral damage.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15159436
@Drlee, @Unthinking Majority

SHUTUP!!!

March 4th! Today is the day Biden is arrested!

(for anyone reading this in the distance future, it's sarcasm. Qanon and soveriegn citizens are a bunch of mouth breathing morons.)
#15159476
Drlee wrote:Spot on. Trump has severely damaged American conservatism which was severely wounded before him. It has truly morphed into an armed band of brown shirts and malcontents. It should be the very opposite of that. It is about time we did adopt an "America First" policy. We can always behave benevolently toward others but we need to take care of our own first. In the process of forgetting this we have thrown our own middle class in the dust bin. Call it collateral damage.

I think the problem is that there might be some reasonable people on the right in the US, but they aren't the mainstream right. If you look at the polling post Capital riot, it's clear that about half of GOP supporters are deplorable morons still supporting Trump, still thinking the election was rigged, and don't condemn the rioters. 50% of GOP supporters is a lot, that's 25% of the voting public. When politicians on the right have to appeal to that 50% of the GOP base to get votes for re-election, you're effed. You're not appealing to reason, you're appealing to conspiracy theorists and racists etc. It doesn't mean they're all horrible people, but it does mean they're too dumb to be cured.

So half of voters thinking "well, I want to get tough on China, I want some manufacturing jobs back, maybe I'll vote for Trump Nov. 2020", and the other half is like "OMG QAnon, omg vaccines cause autism, omg Obama is a Muslim".
  • 1
  • 593
  • 594
  • 595
  • 596
  • 597
  • 598

No need to google what is easily observable. How[…]

That's insane. Millions cross that border, and t[…]

Pax Britannica, Pax Americana are all examples o[…]

It's been cleaned up as well as possible, so if […]