FAKE NEWS EXPOSED: A Service of PoliticalChat.com

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Yet another one of your "Don't confuse me with the facts" posts. These are some of the most esteemed historians and political scientists on the planet in the field of fascism and authoritarianism.

And the above is another one of your "I'm being an ass" posts. Their opinions are not relevant because you're misapplying them, as you often do. Here's and example:

Originally Posted by finnbow

Per the Oxford English Language Dictionary, Soci@lism is defined as "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

By this definition, even the furthest left of Democrats (e.g., Bernie, AOC) are not soci@lists nor advocates of soci@lism.

Bullshit. First, Sanders is a self-described Democratic-Socializt. You'd split hairs by suggesting that Sanders doesn't define himself as a "so************************t", therefore he isn't one. Except that most folks don't see a nickel's worth of difference between those two terms. Whether Democratic-Socializt or garden-variety Socializt, they both have a central tenet the surrender of individual freedom.

And as far as AOC goes, she doesn't dispute she's a full-on Socializt. Frankly, listening to her talk about classisn and economics, she sounds like more like a Marxist.
https://www.dsausa.org/democratic-left/aoc/

So screw Oxford, because it doesn't seem to understand these two far leftists, and apparently neither do you.

Originally Posted by finnbow

As for the question of "are all on the political right fascist?" I most certainly have not said that. Folks like Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, Asa Hutchinson, Larry Hogan and Mitch McConnell are not fascist. OTOH, given Trump's obvious fascist proclivities, those who still support and defend him are either fascist, protofascist (Biden's "semi-fascist" moniker) or at least fascism-tolerant. If I had to attach a label to you, it would be the latter.

While you've not said it, others of your peers here certainly have. And if I had to attach a label to you, it would be "wrong".

Originally Posted by finnbow

Are you really ready to argue that extreme elements of the MAGA movement aren't at least semi-fascist? If so, you really need to study up a bit more on political science and history and eschew the wingnut news sources that obviously color your thinking. Meanwhile, you don't take issue with Trump calling democrats fascists. That is far more counterfactual than Biden calling extreme MAGAts "semi-fascist" (which happens to be objectively true, if uncomfortable to people like you).

PS - Did you see Tommy Tuberville defending white nationalism yesterday?

Tuberville is an idiot, who at worst didn't know the meaning of the term "white nationalist". He couldn't "defend" white nationalist because its obvious from what he said he has no clue what the term actually means.

Which is, I guess, the difference between you and me. You need to "label" and lie or distort what someone like Tuberville says because its your only means to succeeding in a debate like this. Look at what Tuberville actually says and then tell me if you think he's defending it, or if he's just clueless about it. Example:

Collins, however, pressed Tuberville again on whether he believes white nationalists should be able to serve in the U.S. military.

"If people think that a white nationalist is racist, I agree with that," Tuberville said.

"A white nationalist is someone who believes that the white race is superior to other races," Collins replied.

Tuberville took issue with her definition, saying it was just "some people's opinion."

"My opinion of a white nationalist — if somebody wants to call them a white nationalist — to me, is an American. It's an American," he said. "Now, if that white nationalist is a racist, I’m totally against anything that they want to do, because I am 110% against racism."

When I watch/reach this, it's obvious to me that he doesn't even know what the term "white nationalist" or "white nationalism" actually means. And he comes out looking like a fool. Is this an example of racism or fascism? Not hardly.

To your question: Are you really ready to argue that extreme elements of the MAGA movement aren't at least semi-fascist? Specifically who are these people that you're referring to? Let's take a few off the list, 'cuz I know you just reflexively hate them: Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and probably Comer. So, who are these people and what have they done to earn your "semi-fascist" label (whatever that means)?

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by whell

Tuberville is an idiot, who at worst didn't know the meaning of the term "white nationalist". He couldn't "defend" white nationalist because its obvious from what he said he has no clue what the term actually means.

He's one of many, many fools in the Repube party, which millions of fools like you vote for, time after time. SMH.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Bullshit. First, Sanders is a self-described Democratic-Socializt. You'd split hairs by suggesting that Sanders doesn't define himself as a "so************************t", therefore he isn't one. Except that most folks don't see a nickel's worth of difference between those two terms. Whether Democratic-Socializt or garden-variety Socializt, they both have a central tenet the surrender of individual freedom.

And as far as AOC goes, she doesn't dispute she's a full-on Socializt. Frankly, listening to her talk about classisn and economics, she sounds like more like a Marxist.
https://www.dsausa.org/democratic-left/aoc/

So screw Oxford, because it doesn't seem to understand these two far leftists, and apparently neither do you.

And you obviously count yourself among those who don't understand the difference between a soci@list and a social democrat (the former being autocratic, the latter democratic).

Also, FWIW, what people call themselves isn't necessarily accurate. Trump called himself "the most honest human being, perhaps, that God ever created." That doesn't make it so.

So, who are these people and what have they done to earn your "semi-fascist" label (whatever that means)?

My label is protofascist. As you don't know what it means, I'll allow Encyclopedia Britannica to define it for you:

"Protofascism is a political movement that predates and usually contributes to the emergence of fascism in a given country, sometimes by evolving into a fascist movement itself. The term protofascism is also used in a slightly more general sense to refer to any political movement whose activities make the emergence of fascism more likely. By definition, protofascist movements display some of the common characteristics of fascism—such as the scapegoating of ethnic or religious minorities, the glorification of violence, and the promotion of the Führerprinzip (“leadership principle”), the belief that the party and the state should have a single leader with absolute power...

Protofascism has been applied to contemporary (post-World War II) political movements and parties that are not clearly fascist or neofascist but which resemble historical fascist movements and regimes in certain respects. Protofascist in this sense is sometimes used interchangeably with semifascist, quasifascist, and borderline fascist...

In the second decade of the 21st century, protofascist and neofascist parties and movements in Europe enjoyed a surge of popularity, fueled in part by a large influx of Muslim immigrants following the Arab Spring revolts in 2010–11. At about the same time, a similar wave of right-wing populism spread across the United States, leading in 2016 to the election of Republican Pres. Donald Trump, whose campaign had gained the support of right-wing militias, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis—none of whom he disavowed. In the estimation of some scholars, Trump was properly categorized as a protofascist or borderline fascist, because his behaviour and attitudes resembled in relevant respects those of historical fascist leaders. Such similarities included demagoguery, appeals to racism, the exploitation of scapegoats, and contempt for democratic values and the rule of law—as demonstrated most dramatically in Trump’s incitement of the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, the goal of which was to overturn the 2020 election of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden."

At a minimum, Trump, those in Congress, his administration and campaign who tried to steal the election; his Brownshirts (Proud Boys, III Percenters, Oathkeepers, Patriot Front, other militias) and other violent participants in Jan 6 (and Charlottesville); and those in Congress (and elsewhere) who continue to defend/support them are protofascists. This includes MTG, Gosart, Biggs, Scott Perry, Jeff Clark, Steve Bannon and many others. If you support and defend what happened on Jan 6, it applies to you too.

Pro tip: Just because you don't know or understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't true.

Let me make it simple for you. Democratic soci@lism is not the same as soci@lism. Protofascism is not the same as fascism. The difference, however, is that Democratic Soci@lism is still democratic and protofascism is not. Pick your side.

[finnbow]

Oh, and as far as advocating political violence, here's Dear Leader advocating for the execution of Hunter Biden. I don't recall Biden calling for the death penalty for DJTJr or Eric for their charity and tax swindles.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

And you obviously count yourself among those who don't understand the difference between a soci@list and a social democrat (the former being autocratic, the latter democratic).

Also, FWIW, what people call themselves isn't necessarily accurate. Trump called himself "the most honest human being, perhaps, that God ever created." That doesn't make it so.

And you claim you're a moderate, which makes me laugh out loud. With tripe like you posted above, you attempt to position yourself as knowledgable about " the difference between a soci@list and a social democrat (the former being autocratic, the latter democratic)." Bullshit.

The difference between a soci@list and a social democrat is leftist word-play, and a means to an end. Whether you want to talk about it includes forms of libertarian socializm, market socializm, reformist socializm, revolutionary socializm, ethical socializm, liberal socializm, social democracy, or what the hell every socializm, the end goal is the same.

Don't take my word for it. Friedrich Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom" makes the case quite convincingly. His fundamental thesis is that you can't separate individual freedom and economic freedom. In a free society, these two freedoms are unbreakably linked. Every step away from the free market and toward government planning represented a compromise of human freedom generally and a step toward a form of dictatorship--and this is true in all times and places. He demonstrated this against every claim that government control was really only a means of increasing social well-being. Hayek said that government planning would make society less liveable, more brutal, more despotic. Socializm in all its forms is contrary to freedom.

Originally Posted by finnbow

My label is protofascist. As you don't know what it means, I'll allow Encyclopedia Britannica to define it for you:e state should have a single leader with absolute power...

More Bullshit. You can lie to me all you want. But at least have some self-respect and quit lying to yourself. "Your label" was "semi-fascist", and no, I don't know what that means. It's probably yet another euphemism coined by the left but it certainly has no precise definition that I'm aware of. What really cracks me up is that you wasted 3 or 4 paragraphs describing a term that you didn't use! LOL!

Originally Posted by finnbow

Are you really ready to argue that extreme elements of the MAGA movement aren't at least semi-fascist?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

And you claim you're a moderate, which makes me laugh out loud. With tripe like you posted above, you attempt to position yourself as knowledgable about " the difference between a soci@list and a social democrat (the former being autocratic, the latter democratic)." Bullshit.

The difference between a soci@list and a social democrat is leftist word-play, and a means to an end. Whether you want to talk about it includes forms of libertarian socializm, market socializm, reformist socializm, revolutionary socializm, ethical socializm, liberal socializm, social democracy, or what the hell every socializm, the end goal is the same.

Don't take my word for it. Friedrich Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom" makes the case quite convincingly...

Hayek and his Austrian School are not the last word on economics. I wonder what he'd say about the fact that Scandanavian countries have the highest standards of living in the world as well as the highest level of happiness of their citizens while scoring higher on the Freedom Index than the US does.

Indeed, the most cited criticism of the Austrian School is that it "lacks scientific rigor and rejects scientific methods and the use of empirical data in modelling economic behavior." In other words, real world economic data and performance don't support Hayek's theories. Citing Hayek as the determinate voice on economics is akin to holding Ayn Rand as the determinate voice on political science (which, given your take on most things, makes sense).

Your argument is that North Korea and Denmark have effectively the same economic and social models (or that Denmark's will ultimately evolve into North Korea's). Indeed, the contrast between the two illustrates my very point. Soci@lism is an authoritarian doctrine and Social Democracy is not. So, the key difference between the far left in the Democratic Party and the far right of the Republican Party (actually the majority nowadays) is the Democratic fringe is still democratic whereas a significant portion of the Republican Party embraces authoritarianism.

The distillation of your argument (i.e., that Trumpism represents freedom and not authoritarianism) is so ridiculous as to be laughable. In fact, the United States became measurably less free under Trump.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Hayek and his Austrian School are not the last word on economics. I wonder what he'd say about the fact that Scandanavian countries have the highest standards of living in the world as well as the highest level of happiness of their citizens while scoring higher on the Freedom Index than the US does.

Indeed, the most cited criticism of the Austrian School is that it "lacks scientific rigor and rejects scientific methods and the use of empirical data in modelling economic behavior." In other words, real world economic data and performance don't support Hayek's theories. Citing Hayek as the determinate voice on economics is akin to holding Ayn Rand as the determinate voice on political science (which, given your take on most things, makes sense).

Your argument is that North Korea and Denmark have effectively the same economic and social models (or that Denmark's will ultimately evolve into North Korea's). Indeed, the contrast between the two illustrates my very point. Soci@lism is an authoritarian doctrine and Social Democracy is not. So, the key difference between the far left in the Democratic Party and the far right of the Republican Party (actually the majority nowadays) is the Democratic fringe is still democratic whereas a significant portion of the Republican Party embraces authoritarianism.

The distillation of your argument (i.e., that Trumpism represents freedom and not authoritarianism) is so ridiculous as to be laughable.

[Rajoo]

Social Democrat is a capitalist who wants the federal programs such as social security, medicare and other social programs to help the society we live in. A Soshialist on the other hand does not believe in capitalism, wants an economy (soshialism) which does not allow private ownership of business enterprises and the economy is based on command rather than market forces.

Biden called MAGA Republicans proto-Fascists and its seems to have irked the MAGAts in more ways than one.

[Rajoo]

Leonard Pitts: Trying to persuade Trump Republicans is a waste of time

MAGA Republicans think Joe Biden is being mean to them.

You read that right. Followers of Donald Trump, a man who denigrates his rivals as SOBs, sickos, dummies, losers, wackos and scum, a man who has accused Biden of corruption and cognitive decline, say they are affronted at the way Biden has treated them.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy even demanded an apology after Biden said MAGA Republicans embrace “semi-fascism.” Then came last week’s fiery speech from Independence Hall in Philadelphia in which Biden said MAGA Republicans -- he’s always careful to draw that distinction -- represent “an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.” Given the republic is still reeling from the day Trump sent armed MAGA Republicans to attack the Capitol, that would seem inarguable. But the right still pronounced itself insulted. Trump himself called the speech “vicious, hateful and divisive.”

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/comme...ying-persuade/

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Social Democrat is a capitalist who wants the federal programs such as social security, medicare and other social programs to help the society we live in. A Soshialist on the other hand does not believe in capitalism, wants an economy (soshialism) which does not allow private ownership of business enterprises and the economy is based on command rather than market forces.

Biden called MAGA Republicans proto-Fascists and its seems to have irked the MAGAts in more ways than one.

Exactly, but by Whell's lights, social security, Medicare, public schools and infrastructure (roads, bridges, parks) are all telltale signs of tyranny.