I'll illustrate how bizarrely absurd your reasoning is...

Trump handling neo-nazi thugs in Charlottesville with kid gloves = BADBADBADBADBAD!!!!!!!

Obama actively supporting neo-nazis in Ukraine = problem? what problem?

See the Grand Canyon sized disconnect there?


The neocons have infiltrated the Democratic Party, but all the Democrats do is obsess over Trump tweets and whatnot. So yes, "we" are the enemy.

There's nothing you're illustrating about my reasoning given I haven't mentioned anything about Obama - a figure the left is very critical of, including the two figures I linked in my previous post Chomsky and Thomas Frank.

It seems you like punching at fictions you create yourself.

"The left" is a tiny fringe group, not the counterpart of the Republican rank and file.

deleted

You seem to make a habit of presenting red herrings.

How big or small the left is - is beside the point. You failed to distinguish between the dominance of propagandist media narratives about Russia with the number of people that actually believe it was the smoking gun that cost the election.

Likewise you somehow think the democratic base is equally culpable for supporting Obama due to an issue which received hardly any coverage in the US media as compared to the widely known and seen events of Charlottesville - of which the republican Trump approval poll I cited was in direct relation to. A false equivalence.

Bulltwinkle. The rank and file of *both* parties take party narratives at face value, so the only false equivalence here is your own.

Our electoral politics is a failed institution, but rather than address that, peeps like you waste precious time and energy arguing over which side is more to blame.

My false equivalence over what? Feel free to point to any two different things in my posts that I tried to equate as the same. This is just a failure to account for your own flawed beliefs with obfuscation and nonsense.

Further you're presenting another red herring by trying to move the conversation to failed institutions.

You were the one that started this topic on the culpability of partisans and those on the right have a solid record of vocally supporting (both at the base and at the leadership level) all of the things I've already outlined (wars based on lies, torture, spying, tax cuts, climate change denial, hatred directed at various minorities - immigrants, muslims, gays etc. etc.), and the other side doesn't.

Obama was elected on a platform of 'hope and change' so his failures to live up to that like say bailing out Wall St., not ending the wars, expanding surveillance etc are not representative of the beliefs of the people that supported him. You can't say the same about "build a wall, mexicans are rapists" Trump. If anything the disconnect here is that Trump hasn't been fascist enough. Roy Moore would be another example of this kind of parity between the base and leadership.

The notion you keep repeating that recognizing the differences between those on the left and right is somehow "a waste of time" - is both absurd and dangerous - as it helps to normalize and provide cover to some of the most horendous groups of people that are responsible for the malignancy that is Trump.

Anyway it's apparent at this point you're not capable of acknowledging the failings of these flimsy and unsupported beliefs you continue to espouse, so let's leave it at - 'you disagree because of some new "wack" red herring.'

You seem to have forgotten that I referenced a "systemic similarity" to Nazism, and then pointed out that partisans never seem to recognize systemic issues, which should have tipped you off that I wasn't referring to either of the two parties, but rather, the system per se.

Your false equivalency is the mistaken belief that only Republicans have commonality with Nazis, which is easily disproven by the history of US foreign policy and intervention, which is a matter of public record. The similarity is exactly as I stated, systemic, and since you mentioned Chomsky, whom I happen to be very familiar with, I'll tell you that he's made reference to CIA involvement with Nazi ex-pats in Latin America, one example of which is Paul Schafer, a pedophile and sadist who ran the infamous Colonia Dignidad in Chile during Pinochet's reign. The CIA set up a telex on the premises, to facilitate the transfer of persons wanted for interrogation, and these sorts of activities occurred irrespective of which party controlled the executive branch.

If you really think Trump's disgusting rhetoric is on par with human rights abuses that constitute crimes against humanity, perhaps you ought to take a good, hard look at yourself, and rethink what you think you know, but clearly don't.

Yeah you made an absurdly ambiguous statement that I clearly got baited into believing you were reaching out to genuinely engage positively with what I said about a lack of sympathy for "proud fascist enablers" referencing Trump supporters.

Fascism is a reaction to the left, something even a dullard should know yet you by the end of your post here conflate that with a specific type of fascism (Nazism) and then falsely associate what I've said about republicans and fascism - with republicans and Nazism - an incredible feat considering I linked a video in my previous post that was against tying republicans with Nazism but rather TO fascism. Again I'll ask. What explains this kind of gross inepitude? Stupidity or trolling?

Given you failed to engage the conversation in good faith, and continue with not much more than obvious posturing - what you wish anyone 'tried' to understand in what you failed to say isn't worth anyone's effort.

That's neither what I said nor would it even qualify as a false equivalence. Again this is more fiction writing on your part - and I'll link the definition of a false equivalence below since you've now managed to screw this up more than once. It's a failure to recognize a distinction between two different things not a failure to see a commonality between two like things. Again is the repeated failure here on your part stupidity or trolling?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Considering how lazy you're thinking and posting is here I hardly believe you've actually taken the effort to read Chomsky but it's beside the point. Your point that both democratic and republican presidents have overseen awful things has already been addressed. It's a failure on your part to acknowledge the distinction between a democratic base that is against these 'awful things' and a republican one that foams at the mouth for them.

Again more fictitious claims written to distract from what's actually been said because having an argument and supporting it on what's actually been written by me is something you consistently fail to do. And just the obvious stupidity of such a ludicrous statement is self-evident.

Why would anyone simply go after Trump or Bush's rhetoric as 'crimes against humanity' etc. as opposed to the actual crimes against humanity, war, torture spying, obscene tax cuts for the rich, global warming denial and treaty sabotage, pardons for racist sheriffs, the staffing of protective government agencies with corporate cronies - on and on.

Is there an end to the embarrassment you'd like to make for yourself?

Dewd, the video you linked directly referenced Hitler -- in the title, and in the video itself, comparing Trump's rhetoric to Nazi rhetoric, and went on to call it "American fascism*.

The Democratic base is *not* against the disgusting abuses I referenced, because they keep voting for a party that's 100% committed to maintaining the neoliberal status quo -- which has morphed into the neoconservate status quo.

As for "ambiguity", is it really my fault that you don't understand what "systemic" means? And yes, it's a false equivalence to assert that Trump supporters are fascists, because *both* parties support economic and foreign policy that is blatantly consistent with fascism. The major difference between them is that the Republicans do it more openly, and the best analogy for the relationship between them is good cop-bad cop, because at the end of the day they are *both* sworn to uphold the status quo.

So embarrassment it is:

Yes and apparently you are either a complete idiot or blatanly illiterate as the title was: "TRUMP ISN'T HITLER"

Yes - fascism - NOT Nazism as you claimed. Each post you write is even more of a joke than the last at how badly you fail to follow anything that's been written or referenced.

This flimsy point of yours has - yet again - already been debunked. It's a failure of yours in making even the most basic of distinctions.

There's parity in the policies republicans support and the actions of their candidates Trump, Bush etc - there's not with people like Obama. Obama ran and was elected as a voice of change and became a status quo neo-liberal. There wasn't even much of a record he had at the time to say he was a fraud. Hillary on the other hand along with Gore, Kerry etc all ran as status quo neo-liberals and they all lost by failing to turn out the base. So not only is your claim blatantly false it's pretentiously stupid.

If that were the problem no. It's your fault you can't articulate a thought with any semblance of competenece, or knowledge.

Again false equivalences have nothing to do with recognizing similarities between two things but their differences. Your stubbornness and inability to recognize a basic mistake in terminology is apropos to the stupidity you consistently display.

Democrats are not monolithically the same as republicans. There is a neo-liberal dominance to be sure but if it were as hegemonic as you keep insisting there would be no Sanders or Cortez right now. The democratic party is engaged in a civil war after the very failures of Obama to live up to his rhetoric.

You simply carry a black and white narrative around because as has been shown over and over again - you fail to make the most basic distinctions.

So by your own admission the Democratic base is better conned by the leadership yet you would still try to say the Democratic base is "*not* against the disgusting abuses."

Brilliant...

How can anyone not agree with this flaccid thinking of yours?

Honest people understand that arguing semantics for the purpose of misrepresenting what someone is communicating is disengenuous and ignoble. You either don't understand this, or don't value your dignity enough to argue honestly.

It makes no difference at all that the title is "Trump Isn't Hitler", because Hitler has been invoked, and the video continues on in this vein. I'm quite sure that you'd acknowledge this if the tables were turned and I posted a similar sort of video linked as "proud fascist enablers", and said "why should there be safe spaces for proud fascist enablers?" in reference to an Obama supporter. You'd be outraged.

BTW, how exactly is a person supposed to "respond in good faith" to a partisan flame?

By means of that video you implied an equivalence between Trump, and Hitler and fascism, and I correctly pointed out that it's false because it's blatantly partisan. No, that's technically not the definition of the equivalence falacy, but it *is* grammatically correct.

Obama's history in Illinois politics leaves no doubt that "Hope and Change" was exactly the sort of shite that "Make America Great Again" is. He was annointed by Daley, a man who turned a blind eye to decades of police brutality, including torture, and is as crooked as they come in the US. So no, the Democratic faithful are no less complicit than their Republican counterparts when it comes to fascism in America -- and let it be noted that willful ignorance is moral cowardice.

Just for those of you on the left, "evil racists" like Stefan Molyneux and Dr. Jordan Peterson are extending a hand out to you to talk about issues in a civilized manner and/or working together to expose the mainstream media and certain social media platforms for the very things you're complaining about. I'm open for leaving IDpol, and simply accepting the labels as only partially useful, but we kinda need people from all the IDpol camps to come out and say enough is enough with IDpol, selective censorship, etc. We need to talk and accept that arguments should stand on their own merit independent of "slippery slope," "argument from authority," and other known fallacies pretending to be logical counter-arguments, and we need to accept that by silencing someone, we don't get rid of their opinion, we only make their opinion cooler like some occult practice, thus giving it even more power, where as if you really hate someone's idea, you should give them the largest platform possible, so everyone can see how stupid their idea really is.

I'm game if you are.
I'm going to be flat out honest, here, and point out there was one reason and one reason only that i voted for Trump: He's not a politician, and I'm sick of politics as they are. Sure, he's rich, so he's not a regular Joe, but he was closer than anyone else in the republican primary, let alone comparing that to the democrat primary. I met alot of democrats who switched parties just so Trump could win the primary and consequently the presidency. So far, i have more reasons to vote for him, even if he failed many of my expectations, he also did great things that I didn't expect. I hope for someone more intelligent, yet down to earth, than Trump, but expecting that of someone of a political position is like expecting to meet a single, caring man in your 30s with no baggage and is emotionally accessible, yet enough business sense that he makes a salary that's enough for you to be a stay at home mother; or, for those of us who like women, that smart college graduate woman with C-cup or better, who's equally hot in every other way, respects actual equality, is a virgin, totally won't mess around on you, and has little to no expectations of what you bring to the table. In other words, without some major shakedowns in the establishment, regular people aren't going to be running the show any time soon, so someone like Trump is the best we're gonna get, even if the CIA is leading him on a leash.

Who isn't?