TRUMP - Some people think......... How do you feel?

[Delightful Life]

Don’t start

I'm trying 2 help :3

Steelmanning is a real word

And there are people here who are trying to help you and not destroy you or are your enemies. Please stop being afraid and paranoid?

Peace to you,
Inannawhimsey

 

[Delightful Life]

Capitalism and free market can serve fascism’s aims. Fascism is a shapeshifter, rather than a static ideology - in different times and places, it picks up whatever elements of the culture it can wield more power with to secure authoritarian dominance over people...but its hallmarks are anti-immigrant, anti-feminist, anti-minority in general; harkening back to a mythical great time when a nation had no problems - “before those__ (whatever outsider or new idea) showed up and wrecked our perfect nation” - often rallying loyalists around folklore, legend and hero mythology that often involves military conquest - a great battle. So, it’s not about “just because they disagree with my version of intersectionality”. It is because they are against the social progress and social justice aims that theorists of intersectionality and other progressive social theorists have, and against solving the social inequality they point to. And they would like to roll back social progress gains for the marginalized “outgoups” because they see those groups as the ruination of “their people”. This obviously presents a danger to the marginalized who they deem to be getting in the way of their artificially elevated great nation.

By the way, Pinochet was a free market fascist.

Again, you should b careful with terms like facist. The term actually has meaning and can't mean "oh, this fits for me". If you want your propositions taken seriously and want to be understood, that is. If you just want to slam anything that makes you uncomfortable with that label, that's your business, not mine.

Btw Pinochet depending on what Fascist theory you abscribe to wasn't fascist. Authoritarian, sure. He liberalized his economy, was for free markets and removed tarriff protections? According to one fascist theory, Fascists are against that. They are also against socialism.

In your own words, when you used Fascism above, what exactly do you mean?

I'm still learning this stuff. It is very complicated lol

Peace b to you,
Inannawhimsey

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Again, you should b careful with terms like facist. The term actually has meaning and can't mean "oh, this fits for me". If you want your propositions taken seriously and want to be understood, that is. If you just want to slam anything that makes you uncomfortable with that label, that's your business, not mine.

Btw Pinochet depending on what Fascist theory you abscribe to wasn't fascist. He liberalized his economy, was for free markets and removed tarriff protections? According to one fascist theory, Fascists are against that. They are also against socialism.

In your own words, when you used Fascism above, what exactly do you mean?

I'm still learning this stuff. It is very complicated lol

Peace b to you,
Inannawhimsey

Fascism is not a static theory. It is more of a tactic or set of tactics for political repression. And in its it’s hallmark toolbox are nativist, anti-immigrant, anti-feminist, anti-minority ideas. It often rallies the masses around hero mythology, revering a historical battle which promotes militarism, and a falsely elevated idea of a return to a once great nation. And, it often attacks liberal and progressive thinkers and curriculum...goes after progressive intelligentsia at universities, seeks to suppress progressive ideas, and seeks to replace them completely with traditional “great books” and theories that support its nationalistic or supremacist narrative.

 

[Ritafee]

 

[Delightful Life]

Fascism is not a static theory. It is more of a tactic or set of tactics for political repression. And in its it’s hallmark toolbox are nativist, anti-immigrant, anti-feminist, anti-minority ideas. It often rallies the masses around hero mythology, revering a historical battle which promotes militarism, and a falsely elevated idea of a return to a once great nation. And, it often attacks liberal and progressive thinkers and curriculum...goes after progressive intelligentsia at universities, seeks to suppress progressive ideas, and seeks to replace them completely with traditional “great books” and theories that support its nationalistic or supremacist narrative.

Ty Kimmio. That presents some factuals that can b helpful for people here. So now I know what you mean whenever u write the term Fascism here.

Now we can look at that and then look at what you call Fascist or not and be better able to determine what is what :3

Better Communication Engaged,
Inannawhimsey

 

[Delightful Life]

Look forward 2 meeting him in Heaven
(Tho not to stay for too long...his puritanism streak would probably start getting 2 me after a while...)

Forwardly Backward,
Inannawhimsey

 

[Delightful Life]

Here's a twister for y'all,

Now Progressivism...

Doesn't Progressivism eventually stop being Progressivism as time goes on?

Staying on the Mean,
Inannawhimsey

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Ty Kimmio. That presents some factuals that can b helpful for people here. So now I know what you mean whenever u write the term Fascism here.

Now we can look at that and then look at what you call Fascist or not and be better able to determine what is what :3

Better Communication Engaged,
Inannawhimsey

Attacking journalist that report on the regime’s activities and creating a propaganda arm that puts out counter narratives is another one. Calling journalists who report the real facts “lugenpresse” was a tactic Hitler resorted to.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Here's a twister for y'all,

Now Progressivism...

Doesn't Progressivism eventually stop being Progressivism as time goes on?

Staying on the Mean,
Inannawhimsey

No. Progressivism is sociopolitical. So, not if there’s still progress to be made.

 

[Mendalla]

Doesn't Progressivism eventually stop being Progressivism as time goes on?

The basic notion of moving forward, of progressing towards something better, will always be there.

What is considered to be progress changes with time. In the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries the development of capitalism and the idea that power could be based on wealth rather than birth and land ownership was progressive. Now, capitalism and power based on wealth are considered conservative.

In the sixties, not throwing gays in jail was radical. Thengay marriage was radical. Now, we're at the point where gay rights are the norm, at least in Canada, and its trans rights that are radical.

So progressivism in the sense of focussing on moving society forward in an radical way never stops being progressivism. But the details of what is considered "progressive" and "radical" certainly do, and yesterday's progressive can be tomorrow's conservative.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Progressivism only remains progressive if it is constantly adjusting its goals.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

On another Trump related tangent...the blue wave is not rolling in as strongly as hoped. When do the early votes and absentee votes get tallied? There was apparently a big upsurge in several states this year, with early voting.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Looks like Dems won the House as predicted, with some fresh progressive faces, and a couple of self declared socialists. They will be able to keep Trump in check now.

 

[Mendalla]

Looks like Dems won the House as predicted, with some fresh progressive faces, and a couple of self declared socialists. They will be able to keep Trump in check now.

And Scott Walker, the asshat governor of Wisconsin got replaced with a Democrat.

And Colorado elected the first openly gay state governor (and probably only the second in North America after Wynne in Ontario).

And a Muslim refugee from Somalia who wears hijab won a House seat.

Lots of interesting and good news.

Alas, the GOP increased its hold on the Senate, but some had predicted that possibility. The one third of Senate seats up this year were mostly Dem incumbents so they were the most vulnerable on that front.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

It was pretty much what was predicted. One would think that if the outgoing senators were Dem, people would favour incoming Dem senators. Honestly...don't understand how the GOP didn't get significantly flipped out of both houses, under these circumstances. Even 60/ 40 in favour of Dems, even 80/20 is too many for the Republicans under Trump. It shows how many suburban centrists will vote for their money and sell out their principles - even as racist and horrible these times are becoming. "It's the economy, stupid."

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

So, I'm happy the house was won back, but not overjoyed that there wasn't an overwhelming flip of both houses - given the circumstances.

 

[Mendalla]

So, I'm happy the house was won back, but not overjoyed that there wasn't an overwhelming flip of both houses - given the circumstances.

An overwhelming flip was never going to happen. With only 1/3 of seats in play in the Senate, switching one bare majority for another was the likely winning scenario for the Dems, though my sense was it might end up status quo. The fact that the GOP increased their majority was a worst case scenario from the standpoint of the Dems.

That said, the Dems can still do a lot of damage in control of the House. After all, legislation has to pass both houses even if it originates from the White House and the House and its committees do have investigative powers. The main thing they don't have is control over appointments since only the Senate is required to confirm cabinet and court appointees.

However, they need to start speaking with a unified voice. If the more moderate Democrats who overlap with the GOP in areas like government spending and tax reform start clashing with the Bernie Sanders social democrats, they may end more focussed on fighting each other than on fighting the GOP. And that's going to be a real risk as 2020 approaches and both factions start putting forward candidates for the nomination.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Only Americans would organize their government in such as a way as to ensure a perpetual state of anxiety for all involved.

I'm getting to the point where I'm wondering if we should try a re-do of 1812, and reclaim all of Turtle Island.

 

[Mendalla]

Only Americans would organize their government in such as a way as to ensure a perpetual state of anxiety for all involved.

Yeah, this whole mid-term elections thing is a bit mind-blowing to me. If we had a US-style congressional system here, I'd want to just have elections every four years. If you want to spread things out, then have the Senate elections mid-term and House & Presidential elections on term. Both would be every four years, though (e.g. if we had House/Presidential elections this year and 2022, then Senate elections would be in 2020 and 2024). The current US system is just too complicated and means some politicians, esp. in the House, are perpetually campaigning.

 

[revsdd]

After watching and reading up on the US election results last night, just a few thoughts. The Democrats are putting on a brave face, but I think they're disappointed in their showing. The Republicans strengthened their control of the Senate, and the Democrats picked up fewer seats in the House than would normally be expected for an opposition party in a mid-term election. They took control of the House, but with a Republican Senate their influence on policy will be minimal. And I'm concerned that they might overplay their hand. I hear people talking about "a slew" of investigations and subpoenas and even possibly impeachment. If I were them I'd focus on getting his tax returns and otherwise trying to look positive by being bi-partisan and trying to accomplish a few things. I don't think Trump will care too much about losing the House. The man doesn't have a firm ideological bone in his body, and while he likes the trappings of power - he likes "being" president - I've never really believed that he cares that much about the exercise of power; about actually "governing." He's found a formula (the outrageous populist standing up for the little guy) that, as logically ridiculous as it is, is working for him. Pretty much everyone agrees that his rallies made big differences in several Senate races that were seen as potential Democratic wins. So if there's gridlock there's gridlock. It will just give him another opponent to attack. There may be more investigations by Congress now, but unless there's a real and undebatable "crime" found, the Senate results make Trump pretty safe from removal from office. His ultra-conservative supporters will be happy because stronger control of the Senate means easier appointment of anti-abortion judges. They don't care about "governing" either - they care about judicial appointments. He proved that he can fire up his base enough to turn statewide elections in the Senate races, and to me the Senate now looks not just more Republican, but more "Trump Republican." And his ability to fire up his base enough to make a difference in statewide races bodes well for him in 2020, when his re-election will be a factor of winning the Electoral College, and pretty much all of the Electoral College is elected in state wide votes. I'm certainly no fan of his as I've made very clear, but based on these results I'll be very surprised if Trump is not re-elected in 2020, which is basically what I've been saying since he was elected in 2016. He'll be difficult to unseat.

If he is re-elected, I think someone should start a pool on how long it takes him to start musing about why he can't seek a third term and about possibly amending the Constitution to allow it.