It’s Time We Called It What It Is: Fascism

[Bomb#20]

On the other hand everybody not a Trump voter also know and have certified this current election was among most uncorrupt votes Americans have ever had. All authorities including republican authorities and judges have so certified.

Why do you make absurd claims to knowledge you can't possibly have? I'm not a Trump voter and I don't know that. Neither do you. Neither do "All authorities". How many of those "All authorities" are in a position to measure the corruption-level of the 1788 election, or the 1846 election, or the 1902 election? What we're in a position to know is that the margin was wide enough this time that there wasn't enough corruption to account for Biden winning.

What you are trying to compare is the whines of two losers.

Not at all. I'm comparing the inferences that a typical extremist ideologue like Freeman draws from the whines of two losers. When the other side whine that an election was rigged, it follows that they're trying to set up a dictatorship. When his own side whine that an election was rigged, it follows that they're engaging in perfectly legitimate political activism.

 

[Bomb#20]

... Don't you remember 2016? About 70 million people apparently believed Trump rigged the election. The mainstream media was even egging them on with weasel-worded reports of Russian "interference" that millions took to mean Putin hacked into our voting machines. Surely you must remember the consensus conclusion, that everybody who believed the election was rigged wanted Clinton installed as dictator. Sauce for the goose...

It appears Mr. Bomb doesn't even know that there unquestionably was significant Russian interference in the 2016 election. Is that what comes of living in the FoxNews bubble?

Hardly ever watch it; and you need to work on your reading comprehension. I didn't say there wasn't interference; I said "interference" is a weasel word. Much like its companion word, "meddling". Report after report from that period used those words, referring to propaganda and disinformation, i.e., to free speech. Millions of Americans saw the headlines of those TL/DR reports and believed the media was telling them that Russia tampered with the vote count. Maybe it was deliberate; maybe it was merely irresponsible incompetence; either way it was appallingly bad journalism.

@ Mr. Bomb: Do you have a citation for the bolded clause?

The sarcasm impairment is strong with this one.[/yoda]

Total revisionist hogwash.

This one and with.[/yoda]

There was stunned silence from the majority electorate.

There's always silence from the majority. Lets people read whatever they please into the silence.

 

[Metaphor]

No, 70 million Americans don't want to overturn the election and install Trump as dictator. The polled number is merely 40 or 45 million.

What poll?

 

[Elixir]

No, 70 million Americans don't want to overturn the election and install Trump as dictator. The polled number is merely 40 or 45 million.

What poll?

An old (post election, pre-certification) VOX Poll said "34 percent of likely Republican voters and 23 percent of all likely voters said that Trump didn’t need to concede even after states certify their results". I think there's been some wavering in both directions. 75 percent of likely Republican voters said they believed voter fraud took place during the election that benefited Biden. Maybe a few of those have since decided that Trump should be installed despite the electoral results.
It is manifestly NOT the case that 70 - or even 45 - million Trump voters wish to do away with the electoral system so Trump can remain President. This, despite Trump's best effort to "rally" people to The Cause. I do think that there are maybe 50+ million who really really want a YUUUGE investigation into the massive voter fraud they believe took place.

More recently -
At Least Three-Quarters of Americans Know Joe Biden Won the Election

"A Reuters/Ipsos poll finds that about 60 percent of Republicans believe Biden “won the election,” which would suggest that only 40 percent at most believe Trump won it. On the other hand, a YouGov/Economist poll finds that about 60 percent of Republicans say they think that Trump’s legal challenges will lead to the results of the election being overturned, and a Politico/Morning Consult poll finds that 70 percent of Republicans “don’t believe the 2020 election was free and fair.”"

So it looks to me like the propaganda is still working, though Slate says not even Republicans are buying Trump's "low-energy coup attempt".

 

[Metaphor]

No, 70 million Americans don't want to overturn the election and install Trump as dictator. The polled number is merely 40 or 45 million.

What poll?

An old (post election, pre-certification) VOX Poll said "34 percent of likely Republican voters and 23 percent of all likely voters said that Trump didn’t need to concede even after states certify their results". I think there's been some wavering in both directions. 75 percent of likely Republican voters said they believed voter fraud took place during the election that benefited Biden. Maybe a few of those have since decided that Trump should be installed despite the electoral results.
It is manifestly NOT the case that 70 - or even 45 - million Trump voters wish to do away with the electoral system so Trump can remain President. This, despite Trump's best effort to "rally" people to The Cause. I do think that there are maybe 50+ million who really really want a YUUUGE investigation into the massive voter fraud they believe took place.

Thank you for the additional links.

I have always understood 'concede' to mean:

concede
/kənˈsiːd/
Learn to pronounce
verb
verb: concede; 3rd person present: concedes; past tense: conceded; past participle: conceded; gerund or present participle: conceding

1.
admit or agree that something is true after first denying or resisting it.

So even if you expressed the view that Trump should not concede, that doesn't mean you think it's justified to 'install' him as 'dictator'. In fact, Trump himself has already expressed it's hard for him to admit defeat. But that doesn't mean he won't take defeat.

The point of my questioning of the sentence was not to talk about how many millions of people may or may not want Trump to be installed as a dictator. The point is that making a joint claim from two unevidenced claims--that 70 million people believe the election was rigged and that those people want Trump to stay in office as a dictator--is, frankly speaking, the kind of outrageous claim that left-leaning commentators make so easily and it never gets called out on this site.

And people jump down my throat for calling it out and call me 'one-sided'--as if there are not multiple dozens of people on this site that will call out any right-leaning claim they find remotely whiffy, and will defend any claim from the left.

 

[Elixir]

So even if you expressed the view that Trump should not concede, that doesn't mean you think it's justified to 'install' him as 'dictator'. In fact, Trump himself has already expressed it's hard for him to admit defeat. But that doesn't mean he won't take defeat.

Heh - he will "take" defeat when it is rammed down his throat while he is being held down. And that's what is happening.
Concession has been routine when an election is over, except in a case where the election is so close that is would be decided by a very few votes in one State, such as happened in 2000. And even then, Gore graciously conceded once the SCOTUS intervened to decide that 600 votes in Florida favored Bush. It's "just a custom" because we never had a criminal mobster as a President before whose very life depended on the protections provided by the office. Now concession is going to have to be codified somehow so Presidents cannot intentionally harm US interests by trying to interfere with an incoming administration.

The point is that making a joint claim from two unevidenced claims--that 70 million people believe the election was rigged and that those people want Trump to stay in office as a dictator--is, frankly speaking, the kind of outrageous claim that left-leaning commentators make so easily and it never gets called out on this site.

Really? Didn't I do just that?

And people jump down my throat for calling it out and call me 'one-sided'--as if there are not multiple dozens of people on this site that will call out any right-leaning claim they find remotely whiffy, and will defend any claim from the left.

I am not going to bring up the plethora of examples that bear this out, but it is stunning that you indulge in the level of hyperbole that seems to be your trademark while demanding that those with whom you disagree maintain strict adherence to literal Truth.
The point is that Trump is a craven unethical shitgibbon who would gladly sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans in a Civil War if he was sure he could rig it so he personally wouldn't get hurt, and there are literally millions of gullible rubes who would support that.

 

[Metaphor]

Heh - he will "take" defeat when it is rammed down his throat while he is being held down. And that's what is happening.
Concession has been routine when an election is over, except in a case where the election is so close that is would be decided by a very few votes in one State, such as happened in 2000. And even then, Gore graciously conceded once the SCOTUS intervened to decide that 600 votes in Florida favored Bush. It's "just a custom" because we never had a criminal mobster as a President before whose very life depended on the protections provided by the office. Now concession is going to have to be codified somehow so Presidents cannot intentionally harm US interests by trying to interfere with an incoming administration.

You don't need to codify 'concession'. You need to make sure an outgoing president can't sabotage an incoming one.

Nobody needs to force Trump to say "Biden won the presidency and I accept the result".

Really? Didn't I do just that?

You didn't call it out--I did. But you did agree it was a ridiculous statement after I had called it out. ZiprHead didn't. ZiprHead tried to dismiss me instead of addressing the claim.

I am not going to bring up the plethora of examples that bear this out, but it is stunning that you indulge in the level of hyperbole that seems to be your trademark while demanding that those with whom you disagree maintain strict adherence to literal Truth.

I don't demand anything of the sort. I am saying if the standard is that people can be selective in what they decide to call out, then I have the right to be selective about it, too.

And I'm saying on a message board where multiple people are willing to pounce and shred any remotely whiffy right-leaning claim, I hardly think it's a problem to have one or two voices that are willing to do the same for whiffy left-wing claims.

The point is that Trump is a craven unethical shitgibbon who would gladly sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans in a Civil War if he was sure he could rig it so he personally wouldn't get hurt, and there are literally millions of gullible rubes who would support that.

My calling out was not about Trump's personal beliefs or ethics or behaviour, but the idiotic claim made so casually about 70 million people.

EDIT: And, I expected ZiprHead to react exactly as he did. Delibately quote an idiotic, slanderous, sweeping claim about tens of millions of people, and then attack the person calling it out.

 

[ZiprHead]

You don't need to codify 'concession'. You need to make sure an outgoing president can't sabotage an incoming one.

Nobody needs to force Trump to say "Biden won the presidency and I accept the result".



You didn't call it out--I did. But you did agree it was a ridiculous statement after I had called it out. ZiprHead didn't. ZiprHead tried to dismiss me instead of addressing the claim.

I am not going to bring up the plethora of examples that bear this out, but it is stunning that you indulge in the level of hyperbole that seems to be your trademark while demanding that those with whom you disagree maintain strict adherence to literal Truth.

I don't demand anything of the sort. I am saying if the standard is that people can be selective in what they decide to call out, then I have the right to be selective about it, too.

And I'm saying on a message board where multiple people are willing to pounce and shred any remotely whiffy right-leaning claim, I hardly think it's a problem to have one or two voices that are willing to do the same for whiffy left-wing claims.

The point is that Trump is a craven unethical shitgibbon who would gladly sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans in a Civil War if he was sure he could rig it so he personally wouldn't get hurt, and there are literally millions of gullible rubes who would support that.

My calling out was not about Trump's personal beliefs or ethics or behaviour, but the idiotic claim made so casually about 70 million people.

EDIT: And, I expected ZiprHead to react exactly as he did. Delibately quote an idiotic, slanderous, sweeping claim about tens of millions of people, and then attack the person calling it out.

Sure, luv.

 

[Elixir]

You don't need to codify 'concession'. You need to make sure an outgoing president can't sabotage an incoming one.

In this case, that would constitute CONCESSION.

You didn't call it out--I did.

All you did was complain. I provided chapter and verse so you could accurately assess the gap between the hyperbolic statement and the state of affairs that inspired it.
IOW, you WHINED, I called it out.

ZiprHead tried to dismiss me instead of addressing the claim.

See above. Your hypocrisy makes you unworthy of response.

I don't demand anything of the sort. I am saying if the standard is that people can be selective in what they decide to call out, then I have the right to be selective about it, too.

Is someone restricting your speech? Can you show me on this doll where they are hurting you?



If you can't take the heat, stay out of the fucking kitchen.

My calling out whining was not about Trump's personal beliefs or ethics or behaviour, but the idiotic exaggerated claim made so casually about 70 million people idiots...

FIFY

 

[RVonse]

When the economy in a democratic but capitalist country fails, there are two alternatives.

Who has been saying the US economy is failing? Which media? Personally, I think the economy is failing but I would never know this watching any media. I would never know this listening to the US fed, or looking at the government GDP, inflation stats, or unemployment stats either.

The other alternative is where the economic system (capitalism) is retained but the political system (democracy) is discarded and replaced with authoritarianism. This is fascism and is what happened in Germany, also in the 1930s.

Honest question here. If authoritarianism plus capitalism = facism then why do we not call the Chinese Communist Party fascist? China is using capitalism and they also are a government based on authoritarianism. At present, the CCP is claimed to have concentration camps just like the Nazis did if not worse.

This is a very serious question that gets absolutely no discussion anywhere. Because if the CCP is just like the Nazis, you would never know it by what you observe or hear in the media. You would never know it by what our Democrat politicians do either. All we ever hear from CNN and Democrats is that Russia is very bad and China is our friend.

 

[Swammerdami]

... everybody who believed the election was rigged wanted Clinton installed as dictator. Sauce for the goose...

@ Mr. Bomb: Do you have a citation for the bolded clause?

The sarcasm impairment is strong with this one.[/yoda]

There's no way that the bolded clause would be interpreted as sarcastic in its context.
Instead, Mr. Bomb faced with the accusation of spouting nonsense, pretends just like his Orange Idol, that the falsity was a joke!

@ Bomb: I think there are openings in the Cabinet. Sec State, Atty Gen, DHS? Is there some job you want for the next three weeks?

 

[TomC]

It is not unfair to say that as Dubya did, the election was stolen in 2016. The difference is that 1: We have EVIDENCE of irregularities re: 2016; and 2: ultimately the election was allowed to stand without significant legal challenge and people accepted the irregularities as incapable of actually turning the election.

Here, we have someone losing BADLY, with no evidence of irregularities, and throwing a goddamned tantrum that is ripping apart our whole government.

This quite sums up my reasons for becoming a straight ticket Democrat voter. It's not that I'm especially impressed by the Clintons and Bidens of the world. I'm not. But the modern, TeaParty, Republicans are so much worse I cannot in good conscience vote for one. If the last two months of the Trump administration don't make it clear, I don't know what will. A corrupt billionaire ignoring what the USA needs because it doesn't stroke his ego.


What will it take to convince the TeaParty that American interests matter more than their partisan politics? What will it take to convince real Republicans that TeaParty idiots are burying their party?

I don't know. My guess is that RINOS have successfully taken over the GOP. Trump is solid evidence. He's not a Republican. And lots of Republicans pointed this out back in 2016, like Romney and Ryan and the Bushes and Cruz to name a few.
But people like McConnell have already sold the Republican soul the devil. They were already going down the tubes in 2008. I doubt that they can resurrect themselves in 2021, given the Trump administration's reaction to getting booted out of the White House. Trump is a worse disaster than Bush II.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

In this case, that would constitute CONCESSION.

No, it wouldn't.

All you did was complain. I provided chapter and verse so you could accurately assess the gap between the hyperbolic statement and the state of affairs that inspired it.
IOW, you WHINED, I called it out.

You have no idea what state of affairs inspired it just as I did not, because the statement did not have any references.

See above. Your hypocrisy makes you unworthy of response.

Even if I were the most notorious hypocrite in the world, that does not mean that false statements shouldn't be called out.

Is someone restricting your speech?

On this board? Mildly, but I accept the rules by posting here.

In Australia, certainly, since the government can punish you for certain speech.

In the case I was talking about, no. My speech isn't "restricted" and I didn't claim it was.

Can you show me on this doll where they are hurting you?

View attachment 31034

If you can't take the heat, stay out of the fucking kitchen.

Are you proud of this response?

 

[ZiprHead]

When the economy in a democratic but capitalist country fails, there are two alternatives.

Who has been saying the US economy is failing? Which media? Personally, I think the economy is failing but I would never know this watching any media. I would never know this listening to the US fed, or looking at the government GDP, inflation stats, or unemployment stats either.

The other alternative is where the economic system (capitalism) is retained but the political system (democracy) is discarded and replaced with authoritarianism. This is fascism and is what happened in Germany, also in the 1930s.

Honest question here. If authoritarianism plus capitalism = facism then why do we not call the Chinese Communist Party fascist? China is using capitalism and they also are a government based on authoritarianism. At present, the CCP is claimed to have concentration camps just like the Nazis did if not worse.

This is a very serious question that gets absolutely no discussion anywhere. Because if the CCP is just like the Nazis, you would never know it by what you observe or hear in the media. You would never know it by what our Democrat politicians do either. All we ever hear from CNN and Democrats is that Russia is very bad and China is our friend.

Yes, I would say China is fascist, communist fascist. And Saudi Arabia is religio fascist. Happy now in your derail?

 

[Angry Floof]

Who has been saying the US economy is failing? Which media? Personally, I think the economy is failing but I would never know this watching any media. I would never know this listening to the US fed, or looking at the government GDP, inflation stats, or unemployment stats either.

Honest question here. If authoritarianism plus capitalism = facism then why do we not call the Chinese Communist Party fascist? China is using capitalism and they also are a government based on authoritarianism. At present, the CCP is claimed to have concentration camps just like the Nazis did if not worse.

This is a very serious question that gets absolutely no discussion anywhere. Because if the CCP is just like the Nazis, you would never know it by what you observe or hear in the media. You would never know it by what our Democrat politicians do either. All we ever hear from CNN and Democrats is that Russia is very bad and China is our friend.

Yes, I would say China is fascist, communist fascist. And Saudi Arabia is religio fascist. Happy now in your derail?

I would say that as well, and also that the article says "economic system," not capitalism per se. You don't need capitalism to have a fascist state. Any economic system will do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is someone restricting your speech? Can you show me on this doll where they are hurting you?

View attachment 31034

No butt on that doll.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When the economy in a democratic but capitalist country fails, there are two alternatives.

Who has been saying the US economy is failing? Which media? Personally, I think the economy is failing but I would never know this watching any media. I would never know this listening to the US fed, or looking at the government GDP, inflation stats, or unemployment stats either.

The other alternative is where the economic system (capitalism) is retained but the political system (democracy) is discarded and replaced with authoritarianism. This is fascism and is what happened in Germany, also in the 1930s.

Honest question here. If authoritarianism plus capitalism = facism then why do we not call the Chinese Communist Party fascist? China is using capitalism and they also are a government based on authoritarianism. At present, the CCP is claimed to have concentration camps just like the Nazis did if not worse.

This is a very serious question that gets absolutely no discussion anywhere. Because if the CCP is just like the Nazis, you would never know it by what you observe or hear in the media. You would never know it by what our Democrat politicians do either. All we ever hear from CNN and Democrats is that Russia is very bad and China is our friend.

The CCP isn't really using their power to support business, just themselves.

 

[Bomb#20]

The sarcasm impairment is strong with this one.[/yoda]

There's no way that the bolded clause would be interpreted as sarcastic in its context.
Instead, Mr. Bomb faced with the accusation of spouting nonsense, pretends just like his Orange Idol, that the falsity was a joke!

I'm getting the impression English isn't your first language; I'll try to make allowances. Yes, of course it was sarcastic; nobody who's a competent reader of English would have missed that. I do not have an Orange Idol; I despise the mental-two-year-old and am looking forward to the spectacle of the same Secret Service agents who would take a bullet for him on January 19 dragging him kicking and screaming to the front of the White House on January 20 and throwing him out the door. And no, I did not claim the falsity was a joke. It was not a joke. It was sarcasm. Look it up. Never mind, I'll do it for you:

"Sarcasm refers to the use of words that mean the opposite of what you really want to say, especially in order to insult someone, or to show irritation, or just to be funny. ... Most often, sarcasm is biting, and intended to cause pain." -- Merriam-Webster​

Apparently you need me to walk you through it. I was irritated by the OP article, so I was insulting Mr. Freeman for having written such drivel. I agree with Metaphor's overall position and the post of his I replied to; but I was dissatisfied with the way he presented the case and felt I could do it better: specifically, Metaphor was far too polite and respectful of the opinion he was criticizing, given how phenomenally imbecilic it is. So I proceeded to lay out what would need to have been the case in order for Freeman to have been right. Readers were supposed to recall for themselves the actual history -- that the army of left-wing idiots who are deducing that Trump's whiners want him to be dictator did not, in fact, likewise deduce in 2016 that Clinton's whiners wanted her to be dictator -- and recognize that said left-wing idiots evidently have a double-standard in their thought-processes. I intended this to draw readers' attention to the fact that Freeman is a damn fool -- and, I have to admit it, perhaps to cause a painful bite of internal embarrassment in any readers who'd imagined Freeman was right, as a way to hopefully encourage them in the future to apply a bit more critical thought when they read their political allies' screeds.

@ Bomb: I think there are openings in the Cabinet. Sec State, Atty Gen, DHS? Is there some job you want for the next three weeks?

So it turns out you can grasp sarcasm, when you set your mind to it. Keep up the good work!

 

[Swammerdami]

... Honest question here. If authoritarianism plus capitalism = facism then why do we not call the Chinese Communist Party fascist? China is using capitalism and they also are a government based on authoritarianism. At present, the CCP is claimed to have concentration camps just like the Nazis did if not worse.

If "authoritarianism plus capitalism = fascism" then China is indeed fascist; nobody argues differently. For discussions on this message-board, this simplistic definition of fascism might be "good enough" and we would ask "what is the debate about?" Moreover — as depicted by the quote which segues from "fascism" to "concentration camps" — the "debate" here might rely on an identity like "fascism = bad." Simplifications can be good, but with over-simplification discussion loses focus and posters "talk past" each other.

In fact — though it might be a digression to discuss in a thread like this — terms like "fascist" have connotations slightly more complex than the juxtaposition of two binary characters. For example, here is an article claiming China isn't "fascist". It argues that China, while authoritarian, has decentralized authority. It also argues that Chinese political philosophy is as much a result of centuries-old Chinese values (e.g. respect for family) as it is a result of modern trends. But this needn't bear directly on whether China's government is "good" or "bad"; it's just a caution to be careful of terminology.

This is a very serious question that gets absolutely no discussion anywhere. Because if the CCP is just like the Nazis, you would never know it by what you observe or hear in the media. You would never know it by what our Democrat politicians do either. All we ever hear from CNN and Democrats is that Russia is very bad and China is our friend.

Honest question: Do you have a cite for the bolded sentence? Russia and China have VERY different systems right now — never mind which is "better" or "worse" — and an intelligent U.S.A. should deal with them very differently. But unless "We can negotiate with China" and "China is our friend" are synonyms in this over-simplified discussion then, again, I will ask for a cite.

 

[Swammerdami]

Text-based communication is different from face-to-face verbal communication; misunderstandings often result when we can't detect tone of voice.

This is a general request to all of you, to help evaluate my reading skill. I quote a post by Bomb#20 in which he is being sarcastic, but I completely missed that it was sarcastic. Would others have done better? On another message-board I am often the one who detects sarcasm that others miss; but I failed in this instance.

One clue, of course, is that Bomb's claim is completely wrong. If I were familiar with his posts I might have concluded that he was far more likely to post an untruth as sarcasm rather than due to ignorance. But I'm not; and untruths written in earnest are not uncommon on the 'Net.

Now, even if 70 million people think the election was 'rigged', where is the evidence that these people believe Trump should be 'installed' as an 'effective dictator'? You can believe the election had problems, rigged, or was outright stolen, and that does not mean you think Trump should be 'installed' as an 'effective dictator'.

Of course it does. Don't you remember 2016? About 70 million people apparently believed Trump rigged the election. The mainstream media was even egging them on with weasel-worded reports of Russian "interference" that millions took to mean Putin hacked into our voting machines. Surely you must remember the consensus conclusion, that everybody who believed the election was rigged wanted Clinton installed as dictator. Sauce for the goose...

So: Is it obvious that Bomb's rejoinder here is sarcastic?

In any event, I do apologize to Bomb for misinterpreting this quote. I do not apologize for suggesting that his remarks elsewhere about Russian interference in the 2016 election are, at best, misleading.