Huh? Most prominent Jihadist groups are Salafist. They want to purge Islam of modernism and impose an ultraconservative theocracy. The whole point of ISIS was that they were attempting to found a new state. It's extremely political.
One of the basic tenets of the United States of America is that there are separate branches of government with the different branches providing checks and balances.
Donald Trump has decided he doesn't want to do that and to cover his own ass he's decided to go full authoritarian (instead of the half measures he'd been doing.)
So he's been on a 24 hour rage filled tweet storm binge watching Fox News. halso apparently ordered the Treasury to deny laws that require the IRS to turn over his tax forms.
He has launched a lawsuit to prevent Congress from seeing his financial documents.
He ordered a former White House staffer to ignore a subpoena on a matter of national security.
Trump is deliberately bringing on a collision with Congress and he might get away with it because Mitch McConnell has been filling the judiciary with far right loonies like Bart Kavanaugh, conspiracy theorists, bloggers, and ghost hunters.
Because clearly, the House only has Trump's best interests in mind. I'm sure they only want to scrutinize his tax returns to make sure he got his full refund last year. It'd be a cold day in Hell before I willingly gave anybody my tax returns and I can't blame Trump for doing the same. Every fucking Democrat tax lawyer in the country will be going through it with a fine toothed comb with the sole purpose of making him look bad. Our tax code is so ridiculously complex that I doubt anybody making serious money that wants to pay as little as possible would come out looking squeaky clean...
Edit: If there was anything criminal in those tax returns, especially in the years before he was president, he'd have been charged already. This is just another fishing expedition to try and make Trump look bad. I'd sue their asses too. If they want his tax returns they can win their court case...
One of the basic tenets of the United States of America is that there are separate branches of government with the different branches providing checks and balances.
Donald Trump has decided he doesn't want to do that and to cover his own ass he's decided to go full authoritarian (instead of the half measures he'd been doing.)
So he's been on a 24 hour rage filled tweet storm binge watching Fox News. halso apparently ordered the Treasury to deny laws that require the IRS to turn over his tax forms.
He has launched a lawsuit to prevent Congress from seeing his financial documents.
He ordered a former White House staffer to ignore a subpoena on a matter of national security.
Trump is deliberately bringing on a collision with Congress and he might get away with it because Mitch McConnell has been filling the judiciary with far right loonies like Bart Kavanaugh, conspiracy theorists, bloggers, and ghost hunters.
Because clearly, the House only has Trump's best interests in mind. I'm sure they only want to scrutinize his tax returns to make sure he got his full refund last year. It'd be a cold day in Hell before I willingly gave anybody my tax returns and I can't blame Trump for doing the same. Every fucking Democrat tax lawyer in the country will be going through it with a fine toothed comb with the sole purpose of making him look bad. Our tax code is so ridiculously complex that I doubt anybody making serious money that wants to pay as little as possible would come out looking squeaky clean...
Edit: If there was anything criminal in those tax returns, especially in the years before he was president, he'd have been charged already. This is just another fishing expedition to try and make Trump look bad. I'd sue their asses too. If they want his tax returns they can win their court case...
It's not a request, it's a demand, by law. And there is NOTHING in the law that exempts the President from it. Nothing. And yeah, Trump sues lots of people. Including regular working people who he didn't pay for their labor to scare them into taking less money.
But I absolutely love this theory of absolutely ZERO accountability for ANYTHING that has emerged on the right. You wanna give the order to fire someone investigating you?? Perfectly fine. Support a candidate who is the only person in modern history to not release his tax returns to the public so they can see where his conflicts of interest might lie?? Absolutely wonderful so long as it makes Democrats upset. What is the line?? But you don't need to answer that, because it is clear as day there IS NO line.
Which in turn was said to be in retaliation for things like the truck attack here in Stockholm. Which in turn etc. etc... I swear, if these terrorists were actually interested in avenging people killed in other terrorist attacks, you'd think they'd have a go at each other instead. In the end, I think jihadists and far right terrorists would get along just fine with each other. Seeing how much they have in common in how little they care for the victims and how much they care about creating needless suffering.
Jihadists are far right terrorists.
Disagree. I don't think they give a shit about the political spectrum...
It doesn't matter what they think or care. They are far right terrorists, because they occupy the far right of their ideologies. Its their actions that brand them.
Which in turn was said to be in retaliation for things like the truck attack here in Stockholm. Which in turn etc. etc... I swear, if these terrorists were actually interested in avenging people killed in other terrorist attacks, you'd think they'd have a go at each other instead. In the end, I think jihadists and far right terrorists would get along just fine with each other. Seeing how much they have in common in how little they care for the victims and how much they care about creating needless suffering.
Jihadists are far right terrorists.
Disagree. I don't think they give a shit about the political spectrum...
It doesn't matter what they think or care. They are far right terrorists, because they occupy the far right of their ideologies. Its their actions that brand them.
I disagree again. These people are not pro-capitalism in any way shape or form. They're only far right because that's what you want to label them. At best they're neutral - conservative on social issues, liberal on economic...
One of the basic tenets of the United States of America is that there are separate branches of government with the different branches providing checks and balances.
Donald Trump has decided he doesn't want to do that and to cover his own ass he's decided to go full authoritarian (instead of the half measures he'd been doing.)
So he's been on a 24 hour rage filled tweet storm binge watching Fox News. halso apparently ordered the Treasury to deny laws that require the IRS to turn over his tax forms.
He has launched a lawsuit to prevent Congress from seeing his financial documents.
He ordered a former White House staffer to ignore a subpoena on a matter of national security.
Trump is deliberately bringing on a collision with Congress and he might get away with it because Mitch McConnell has been filling the judiciary with far right loonies like Bart Kavanaugh, conspiracy theorists, bloggers, and ghost hunters.
Because clearly, the House only has Trump's best interests in mind. I'm sure they only want to scrutinize his tax returns to make sure he got his full refund last year. It'd be a cold day in Hell before I willingly gave anybody my tax returns and I can't blame Trump for doing the same. Every fucking Democrat tax lawyer in the country will be going through it with a fine toothed comb with the sole purpose of making him look bad. Our tax code is so ridiculously complex that I doubt anybody making serious money that wants to pay as little as possible would come out looking squeaky clean...
Edit: If there was anything criminal in those tax returns, especially in the years before he was president, he'd have been charged already. This is just another fishing expedition to try and make Trump look bad. I'd sue their asses too. If they want his tax returns they can win their court case...
It's not a request, it's a demand, by law. And there is NOTHING in the law that exempts the President from it. Nothing. And yeah, Trump sues lots of people. Including regular working people who he didn't pay for their labor to scare them into taking less money.
But I absolutely love this theory of absolutely ZERO accountability for ANYTHING that has emerged on the right. You wanna give the order to fire someone investigating you?? Perfectly fine. Support a candidate who is the only person in modern history to not release his tax returns to the public so they can see where his conflicts of interest might lie?? Absolutely wonderful so long as it makes Democrats upset. What is the line?? But you don't need to answer that, because it is clear as day there IS NO line.
Then 'by law' they should win their court case hands-down. Trump is not a career politician so he hadn't worried about his 'reputation' before. Don't get me wrong, I don't like him, but it doesn't bother me as much as it does you that he doesn't 'appear' as white as snow like our typical politicians. I don't trust any of them any more than I trust Trump.
One of the basic tenets of the United States of America is that there are separate branches of government with the different branches providing checks and balances.
Donald Trump has decided he doesn't want to do that and to cover his own ass he's decided to go full authoritarian (instead of the half measures he'd been doing.)
So he's been on a 24 hour rage filled tweet storm binge watching Fox News. halso apparently ordered the Treasury to deny laws that require the IRS to turn over his tax forms.
He has launched a lawsuit to prevent Congress from seeing his financial documents.
He ordered a former White House staffer to ignore a subpoena on a matter of national security.
Trump is deliberately bringing on a collision with Congress and he might get away with it because Mitch McConnell has been filling the judiciary with far right loonies like Bart Kavanaugh, conspiracy theorists, bloggers, and ghost hunters.
Because clearly, the House only has Trump's best interests in mind. I'm sure they only want to scrutinize his tax returns to make sure he got his full refund last year. It'd be a cold day in Hell before I willingly gave anybody my tax returns and I can't blame Trump for doing the same. Every fucking Democrat tax lawyer in the country will be going through it with a fine toothed comb with the sole purpose of making him look bad. Our tax code is so ridiculously complex that I doubt anybody making serious money that wants to pay as little as possible would come out looking squeaky clean...
Edit: If there was anything criminal in those tax returns, especially in the years before he was president, he'd have been charged already. This is just another fishing expedition to try and make Trump look bad. I'd sue their asses too. If they want his tax returns they can win their court case...
It is not the IRS's job to charge people with crimes, save only those involved with taxes. The IRS is quite explicit that they will take money for taxes on illegal activity. Although I am pretty sure that they would then report you to the FBI or the DEA or whatever. Their job, and their authority, is to help collect the money raised to fund the government.
There shouldn't even be a damned court case, it should be laughed out of any federal court, the case against Trump is that solid. The part of the tax code regarding administration, and the history of WHY that became so, is because of previous corruption. EXACTLY why Congress (or at least House Democrats, because the partisan hacks among the Republicans are too craven to call out their own) is demanding Trump's tax returns.
THIS is why ALL candidates, save Trump, have publicized their tax returns, for the last 40 years.
I mean FFS, after the Mueller report, bad can be catastrophic bad. I EXPECT there to be money laundering, I expect piles and piles of tax evasion, because that is the only reason to be screaming this much. There must be something INCREDIBLY damning, Trump has NEVER wavered on his refusal to see even the slightest glimpse into his financial situation.
Lest we talk past each other, I'm going to quote Wikipedia here.
Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism, nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies.
The term is often used to describe Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, anti-communist, or reactionary views. These can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state or ultraconservative traditional social institutions.
That's how the term is most often used. It's not about being pro-capitalist.
Then 'by law' they should win their court case hands-down. Trump is not a career politician so he hadn't worried about his 'reputation' before. Don't get me wrong, I don't like him, but it doesn't bother me as much as it does you that he doesn't 'appear' as white as snow like our typical politicians. I don't trust any of them any more than I trust Trump.
So on the one hand, you don't trust politicians because they "appear" to be nice and clean, and (sometimes) turn out to be total trash underneath the facade.
But then you DON'T want to investigate Trump, because you KNOW he's not nice and clean, you KNOW he is total trash underneath no facade whatsoever.
Why not? You don't want to see how far down the rabbit-hole the filth goes?
Lest we talk past each other, I'm going to quote Wikipedia here.
Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism, nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies.
The term is often used to describe Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, anti-communist, or reactionary views. These can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state or ultraconservative traditional social institutions.
That's how the term is most often used. It's not about being pro-capitalist.
That's bullshit though. The Soviet Union did all off that yet they're not considered 'far right'. There is no 'neutral' anymore for some weird reason. Everything is black or white in this country and that's a load of horse hockey...
Then 'by law' they should win their court case hands-down. Trump is not a career politician so he hadn't worried about his 'reputation' before. Don't get me wrong, I don't like him, but it doesn't bother me as much as it does you that he doesn't 'appear' as white as snow like our typical politicians. I don't trust any of them any more than I trust Trump.
So on the one hand, you don't trust politicians because they "appear" to be nice and clean, and (sometimes) turn out to be total trash underneath the facade.
But then you DON'T want to investigate Trump, because you KNOW he's not nice and clean, you KNOW he is total trash underneath no facade whatsoever.
Why not? You don't want to see how far down the rabbit-hole the filth goes?
Honestly, I don't really expect politicians to be squeaky clean. I'd rather they don't try to appear to be one of us to begin with. It's a bunch of shit. Squeaky clean isn't reality. I'd rather have everything up-front and let us (the voters) decide what we can live with and what we can't. If a politician makes some money that's fine by me as long as he helps us regular folks out along the way. I'm not one of those people who thinks life is 'fair' and expects my representatives to be Mother Theresa (and I hear even she had skeletons in her closet). Total transparency would be my preference, but most people wouldn't be able to handle reality in my opinion...
Lest we talk past each other, I'm going to quote Wikipedia here.
Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism, nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies.
The term is often used to describe Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, anti-communist, or reactionary views. These can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state or ultraconservative traditional social institutions.
That's how the term is most often used. It's not about being pro-capitalist.
That's bullshit though. The Soviet Union did all off that yet they're not considered 'far right'. There is no 'neutral' anymore for some weird reason. Everything is black or white in this country and that's a load of horse hockey...
The Soviet Union did a lot of bad stuff, but they weren't primarily driven by the ideologies described above. If I'm remembering correctly, they weren't anti-communist, for example.
I'm all for shades of gray, but it's just really hard to make a case that ISIS is 'neutral.'
Lest we talk past each other, I'm going to quote Wikipedia here.
Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism, nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies.
The term is often used to describe Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, anti-communist, or reactionary views. These can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state or ultraconservative traditional social institutions.
That's how the term is most often used. It's not about being pro-capitalist.
That's bullshit though. The Soviet Union did all off that yet they're not considered 'far right'. There is no 'neutral' anymore for some weird reason. Everything is black or white in this country and that's a load of horse hockey...
The Soviet Union did a lot of bad stuff, but they weren't primarily driven by the ideologies described above. If I'm remembering correctly, they weren't anti-communist, for example.
I'm all for shades of gray, but it's just really hard to make a case that ISIS is 'neutral.'
Bullshit! The Soviet Union demonized 'the Other' just as much as the so-called far-right. Just ask the Jews and the Christians...
It's true that we do currently have a lot more far-right extremists these days than far-left ones. Whether it's jihadis or the Proud Boys or the Hindutva movement or militarism in China, the extremist movements these days tend to be socially conservative, xenophobic, tradition-bound, and regressive in their politics. It's not inherently that way; that's just a factor of the age we live in.
If we went back a few decades, then most of the extremists on the world stage would probably be "far-left" due to the influence of communism and the demise of Nazi Germany. With communism more or less discredited, there aren't as many far-left extremists as there used to be, and since the Third Reich was so much further back in time compared to the Soviet Union, the backlash against Nazism has faded... which might be why we've seen an apparent resurgence in Nazism in the U.S. and E.U. recently.
I'm guessing the pendulum will swing the other way sometime during my life, and extremist groups will skew far-left instead of far-right. Right now, though, that's not the world we live in.
It's probably going to be a while before we see it swing the other way. The closest thing to a far-left extremist movement I've seen these days is "a guy on the Internet is being too PC." Meanwhile, we've got rising hate crime levels from white nationalists in the U.S., xenophobic movements in Europe, anti-Muslim and anti-Christian violence in India, warmongering from China, and Islamic terrorism in the Middle East. None of those things seems to be abating, either.
Since no one has pointed it out yet: just because there are more far-right extremists than far-left ones these days doesn't tell us anything about moderate right-wing or left-wing folks. Extremists, after all, are outliers; they don't represent the majority of people.
It's true that we do currently have a lot more far-right extremists these days than far-left ones. Whether it's jihadis or the Proud Boys or the Hindutva movement or militarism in China, the extremist movements these days tend to be socially conservative, xenophobic, tradition-bound, and regressive in their politics. It's not inherently that way; that's just a factor of the age we live in.
If we went back a few decades, then most of the extremists on the world stage would probably be "far-left" due to the influence of communism and the demise of Nazi Germany. With communism more or less discredited, there aren't as many far-left extremists as there used to be, and since the Third Reich was so much further back in time compared to the Soviet Union, the backlash against Nazism has faded... which might be why we've seen an apparent resurgence in Nazism in the U.S. and E.U. recently.
I'm guessing the pendulum will swing the other way sometime during my life, and extremist groups will skew far-left instead of far-right. Right now, though, that's not the world we live in.
It's probably going to be a while before we see it swing the other way. The closest thing to a far-left extremist movement I've seen these days is "a guy on the Internet is being too PC." Meanwhile, we've got rising hate crime levels from white nationalists in the U.S., xenophobic movements in Europe, anti-Muslim and anti-Christian violence in India, warmongering from China, and Islamic terrorism in the Middle East. None of those things seems to be abating, either.
Anti-religion is not a far-right philosophy. Where does that belief come from? Nazism was anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-Muslim and anti-any religion really, but so was Marxism.
I value your opinions, @Balrog99, but repeatedly calling my posts bullshit isn't really in the spirit of this thread. Maybe we can resume this discussion sometime when you're feeling more mellow.
I value your opinions, @Balrog99, but repeatedly calling my posts bullshit isn't really in the spirit of this thread. Maybe we can resume this discussion sometime when you're feeling more mellow.
Sorry, I know I'm breaking the forum rules (as I do from time-to-time). It's nothing personal. It just seems to me that calling any extremists far-right or far-left is missing the point. Labeling isn't helpful in my opinion. Does it make it any worse or better if the extremists are on your side or not? It doesn't to me. They're all assholes...
So.....the White House doesn't want the guy who testified under oath to Mueller's team that Trump ordered him to fire the Special Counsel to do so in front of the entire country so they can hear it for themselves in a House hearing. Can't imagine why that would be. But while we're at it, why don't we just say f**k it. Why make anyone who works at the White House ever appear before any House panel again?? Shit, let's just GET RID of the House of Representatives while the Democrats hold it, and then bring it back whenever Republicans take control of it again.
Then 'by law' they should win their court case hands-down. Trump is not a career politician so he hadn't worried about his 'reputation' before. Don't get me wrong, I don't like him, but it doesn't bother me as much as it does you that he doesn't 'appear' as white as snow like our typical politicians. I don't trust any of them any more than I trust Trump.
So on the one hand, you don't trust politicians because they "appear" to be nice and clean, and (sometimes) turn out to be total trash underneath the facade.
But then you DON'T want to investigate Trump, because you KNOW he's not nice and clean, you KNOW he is total trash underneath no facade whatsoever.
Why not? You don't want to see how far down the rabbit-hole the filth goes?
Honestly, I don't really expect politicians to be squeaky clean. I'd rather they don't try to appear to be one of us to begin with. It's a bunch of shit. Squeaky clean isn't reality. I'd rather have everything up-front and let us (the voters) decide what we can live with and what we can't. If a politician makes some money that's fine by me as long as he helps us regular folks out along the way. I'm not one of those people who thinks life is 'fair' and expects my representatives to be Mother Theresa (and I hear even she had skeletons in her closet). Total transparency would be my preference, but most people wouldn't be able to handle reality in my opinion...
So you DO want to see the tax returns, which falls under "total transparency" and "rather have everything up-front"?
So.....the White House doesn't want the guy who testified under oath to Mueller's team that Trump ordered him to fire the Special Counsel to do so in front of the entire country so they can hear it for themselves in a House hearing. Can't imagine why that would be. But while we're at it, why don't we just say f**k it. Why make anyone who works at the White House ever appear before any House panel again?? Shit, let's just GET RID of the House of Representatives while the Democrats hold it, and then bring it back whenever Republicans take control of it again.
Better yet, let's get rid of both parties altogether and vote on each candidate's individual viewpoints. I know, 'Imagine all the people, voting for what's best. Yoohoo, ooh, ooh, ooh, you may say I'm a dreamer...'
Then 'by law' they should win their court case hands-down. Trump is not a career politician so he hadn't worried about his 'reputation' before. Don't get me wrong, I don't like him, but it doesn't bother me as much as it does you that he doesn't 'appear' as white as snow like our typical politicians. I don't trust any of them any more than I trust Trump.
So on the one hand, you don't trust politicians because they "appear" to be nice and clean, and (sometimes) turn out to be total trash underneath the facade.
But then you DON'T want to investigate Trump, because you KNOW he's not nice and clean, you KNOW he is total trash underneath no facade whatsoever.
Why not? You don't want to see how far down the rabbit-hole the filth goes?
Honestly, I don't really expect politicians to be squeaky clean. I'd rather they don't try to appear to be one of us to begin with. It's a bunch of shit. Squeaky clean isn't reality. I'd rather have everything up-front and let us (the voters) decide what we can live with and what we can't. If a politician makes some money that's fine by me as long as he helps us regular folks out along the way. I'm not one of those people who thinks life is 'fair' and expects my representatives to be Mother Theresa (and I hear even she had skeletons in her closet). Total transparency would be my preference, but most people wouldn't be able to handle reality in my opinion...
So you DO want to see the tax returns, which falls under "total transparency" and "rather have everything up-front"?
I'm sorry, but this whole theory about the system being so corrupt that the only solution was to elect the most absolutely corrupt person imaginable to hold the office is so ass-backwards that it doesn't even deserve a analysis. What is the end-game goal of that line of thinking?? Because if the goal was that Trump's corruption would be so blatant it would snap everyone out of it and force the change necessary is just complete horseshit. Because the opposite is happening. Trump is just PARADING it around on a daily basis, and has been for two years, and the only thing that has happened is that the public has become numb to it and we are fast approaching the tipping point where it becomes 100% clear that our system of government has no way of stopping someone who is hell-bent on destroying it to their own ends. The mechanisms are failing.
I value your opinions, @Balrog99, but repeatedly calling my posts bullshit isn't really in the spirit of this thread. Maybe we can resume this discussion sometime when you're feeling more mellow.
Sorry, I know I'm breaking the forum rules (as I do from time-to-time). It's nothing personal. It just seems to me that calling any extremists far-right or far-left is missing the point. Labeling isn't helpful in my opinion. Does it make it any worse or better if the extremists are on your side or not? It doesn't to me. They're all assholes...
To put on my moderator hat for a moment, if you did break the forum rules from time to time, you probably wouldn't be here for very long! In all seriousness, the thread has been pretty stable for a long time. Seems like every month, this thread gets easier to moderate.
Then 'by law' they should win their court case hands-down. Trump is not a career politician so he hadn't worried about his 'reputation' before. Don't get me wrong, I don't like him, but it doesn't bother me as much as it does you that he doesn't 'appear' as white as snow like our typical politicians. I don't trust any of them any more than I trust Trump.
So on the one hand, you don't trust politicians because they "appear" to be nice and clean, and (sometimes) turn out to be total trash underneath the facade.
But then you DON'T want to investigate Trump, because you KNOW he's not nice and clean, you KNOW he is total trash underneath no facade whatsoever.
Why not? You don't want to see how far down the rabbit-hole the filth goes?
Honestly, I don't really expect politicians to be squeaky clean. I'd rather they don't try to appear to be one of us to begin with. It's a bunch of shit. Squeaky clean isn't reality. I'd rather have everything up-front and let us (the voters) decide what we can live with and what we can't. If a politician makes some money that's fine by me as long as he helps us regular folks out along the way. I'm not one of those people who thinks life is 'fair' and expects my representatives to be Mother Theresa (and I hear even she had skeletons in her closet). Total transparency would be my preference, but most people wouldn't be able to handle reality in my opinion...
So you DO want to see the tax returns, which falls under "total transparency" and "rather have everything up-front"?
I'm sorry, but this whole theory about the system being so corrupt that the only solution was to elect the most absolutely corrupt person imaginable to hold the office is so ass-backwards that it doesn't even deserve a analysis. What is the end-game goal of that line of thinking?? Because if the goal was that Trump's corruption would be so blatant it would snap everyone out of it and force the change necessary is just complete horseshit. Because the opposite is happening. Trump is just PARADING it around on a daily basis, and has been for two years, and the only thing that has happened is that the public has become numb to it and we are fast approaching the tipping point where it becomes 100% clear that our system of government has no way of stopping someone who is hell-bent on destroying it to their own ends. The mechanisms are failing.
Honestly though, I'm not the only one who voted against Hillary rather than voting for this asshole. Selecting Clinton may go down in history as one of the worst mistakes by any political party in my lifetime. Democrats need to own that and rectify that error. Stop whining and pick somebody better next time.
I value your opinions, @Balrog99, but repeatedly calling my posts bullshit isn't really in the spirit of this thread. Maybe we can resume this discussion sometime when you're feeling more mellow.
Sorry, I know I'm breaking the forum rules (as I do from time-to-time). It's nothing personal. It just seems to me that calling any extremists far-right or far-left is missing the point. Labeling isn't helpful in my opinion. Does it make it any worse or better if the extremists are on your side or not? It doesn't to me. They're all assholes...
To put on my moderator hat for a moment, if you did break the forum rules from time to time, you probably wouldn't be here for very long! In all seriousness, the thread has been pretty stable for a long time. Seems like every month, this thread gets easier to moderate.
Only because you ignore my colorful metaphors on occasion @semiticgod! Or maybe it's just because you're just used to me now...
Then 'by law' they should win their court case hands-down. Trump is not a career politician so he hadn't worried about his 'reputation' before. Don't get me wrong, I don't like him, but it doesn't bother me as much as it does you that he doesn't 'appear' as white as snow like our typical politicians. I don't trust any of them any more than I trust Trump.
So on the one hand, you don't trust politicians because they "appear" to be nice and clean, and (sometimes) turn out to be total trash underneath the facade.
But then you DON'T want to investigate Trump, because you KNOW he's not nice and clean, you KNOW he is total trash underneath no facade whatsoever.
Why not? You don't want to see how far down the rabbit-hole the filth goes?
Honestly, I don't really expect politicians to be squeaky clean. I'd rather they don't try to appear to be one of us to begin with. It's a bunch of shit. Squeaky clean isn't reality. I'd rather have everything up-front and let us (the voters) decide what we can live with and what we can't. If a politician makes some money that's fine by me as long as he helps us regular folks out along the way. I'm not one of those people who thinks life is 'fair' and expects my representatives to be Mother Theresa (and I hear even she had skeletons in her closet). Total transparency would be my preference, but most people wouldn't be able to handle reality in my opinion...
So you DO want to see the tax returns, which falls under "total transparency" and "rather have everything up-front"?
Yes, ideally I'd like to see them. I don't think it's in Trump's best interest to do that in this current political reality, however. The general voter lives in La La Land so I don't think that a rich person who tries to pay the least amount of tax possible will come out looking very good. Personally, if I were Trump, and likely if any of us were, I'd try to pay as little as possible too. I'm not a hippocrite who thinks he should behave any different than I would...
Labeling isn't helpful in my opinion. Does it make it any worse or better if the extremists are on your side or not? It doesn't to me. They're all assholes...
I think I disagree with this. You cannot have an informed conversation about why people do these sorts of things (Be they terrorists, governments, politicians or all of the above) without looking at their ideology and understanding where they come from, philosophically.
Also - I would generally agree with @joluv 's definition of far-right terrorism (and, incidentally - far right-anything). Comparisons to specific situations without considering context can be dangerous.
My favorite example of this is that in French Revolution - it was the Reactionaries and the Conservatives trying to keep the monarchy in place, and the "far left" trying to destroy the Monarchy. On the face of it, that doesnt exactly comport with the left wanting a larger centralized government and the right wanting a smaller government as the situation applies in the US (then and now, although I'm careful in that the parties were less defined then than now).
Labeling isn't helpful in my opinion. Does it make it any worse or better if the extremists are on your side or not? It doesn't to me. They're all assholes...
I think I disagree with this. You cannot have an informed conversation about why people do these sorts of things (Be they terrorists, governments, politicians or all of the above) without looking at their ideology and understanding where they come from, philosophically.
Also - I would generally agree with @joluv 's definition of far-right terrorism (and, incidentally - far right-anything). Comparisons to specific situations without considering context can be dangerous.
My favorite example of this is that in French Revolution - it was the Reactionaries and the Conservatives trying to keep the monarchy in place, and the "far left" trying to destroy the Monarchy. On the face of it, that doesnt exactly comport with the left wanting a larger centralized government and the right wanting a smaller government as the situation applies in the US (then and now, although I'm careful in that the parties were less defined then than now).
Extremist ideologies are eerily similar though. They're pretty much in a class of their own. There are normal people's ideological differences, and then there are radical/reactionary beliefs. Neither of the extremes represent many normal people and the philosophies don't really differ a whole lot except who they want to eradicate; the rich on the left, the minority races in their home countries on the right, and the religious people that don't agree with them on both sides. Not a whole lot of difference in my opinion. China is persecuting Muslim and Christian minorities and they're supposedly on the left. Extremists don't give a damn about politics in my opinion...
Lest we talk past each other, I'm going to quote Wikipedia here.
Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extreme nationalism, nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies.
The term is often used to describe Nazism, neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, anti-communist, or reactionary views. These can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state or ultraconservative traditional social institutions.
That's how the term is most often used. It's not about being pro-capitalist.
That's bullshit though. The Soviet Union did all off that yet they're not considered 'far right'. There is no 'neutral' anymore for some weird reason. Everything is black or white in this country and that's a load of horse hockey...
The Soviet Union did a lot of bad stuff, but they weren't primarily driven by the ideologies described above. If I'm remembering correctly, they weren't anti-communist, for example.
I'm all for shades of gray, but it's just really hard to make a case that ISIS is 'neutral.'
Bullshit! The Soviet Union demonized 'the Other' just as much as the so-called far-right. Just ask the Jews and the Christians...
The Soviet Union was far right. Sure it was founded to be a left wing ideology what with the workers being in charge but it never was that because Stalin just turned it into a dictatorship.
It was taken over by right wing ideologues who, like Trump and Hitler, demonized the others. It was not communist it was government run corruption and opportunism for the party like the current Russian government or the Republican party. There was no left wing ideology there. No brotherhood of man, it was just corruption, and right wing politics.
I've got more news, Nazis weren't socialists either even though it's in the name (national socialists). North Korea isn't a republic either despite the name being Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Left leaning governments these days are the democracies in Europe and Canada.
The Soviet Union was left-wing totalitarian. Totalitarianism is not solely a right-wing phenomenon. I hate to burst your bubble...
Edit: Millions of people died in Russia and China of famine because all of the woes were blamed on 'rich landowners'. There is no equivalent to that due to 'right-wing extremism' in the US or anywhere else. Period!
Comments
Because clearly, the House only has Trump's best interests in mind. I'm sure they only want to scrutinize his tax returns to make sure he got his full refund last year. It'd be a cold day in Hell before I willingly gave anybody my tax returns and I can't blame Trump for doing the same. Every fucking Democrat tax lawyer in the country will be going through it with a fine toothed comb with the sole purpose of making him look bad. Our tax code is so ridiculously complex that I doubt anybody making serious money that wants to pay as little as possible would come out looking squeaky clean...
Edit: If there was anything criminal in those tax returns, especially in the years before he was president, he'd have been charged already. This is just another fishing expedition to try and make Trump look bad. I'd sue their asses too. If they want his tax returns they can win their court case...
It's not a request, it's a demand, by law. And there is NOTHING in the law that exempts the President from it. Nothing. And yeah, Trump sues lots of people. Including regular working people who he didn't pay for their labor to scare them into taking less money.
But I absolutely love this theory of absolutely ZERO accountability for ANYTHING that has emerged on the right. You wanna give the order to fire someone investigating you?? Perfectly fine. Support a candidate who is the only person in modern history to not release his tax returns to the public so they can see where his conflicts of interest might lie?? Absolutely wonderful so long as it makes Democrats upset. What is the line?? But you don't need to answer that, because it is clear as day there IS NO line.
It doesn't matter what they think or care. They are far right terrorists, because they occupy the far right of their ideologies. Its their actions that brand them.
I disagree again. These people are not pro-capitalism in any way shape or form. They're only far right because that's what you want to label them. At best they're neutral - conservative on social issues, liberal on economic...
Then 'by law' they should win their court case hands-down. Trump is not a career politician so he hadn't worried about his 'reputation' before. Don't get me wrong, I don't like him, but it doesn't bother me as much as it does you that he doesn't 'appear' as white as snow like our typical politicians. I don't trust any of them any more than I trust Trump.
It is not the IRS's job to charge people with crimes, save only those involved with taxes. The IRS is quite explicit that they will take money for taxes on illegal activity. Although I am pretty sure that they would then report you to the FBI or the DEA or whatever. Their job, and their authority, is to help collect the money raised to fund the government.
There shouldn't even be a damned court case, it should be laughed out of any federal court, the case against Trump is that solid. The part of the tax code regarding administration, and the history of WHY that became so, is because of previous corruption. EXACTLY why Congress (or at least House Democrats, because the partisan hacks among the Republicans are too craven to call out their own) is demanding Trump's tax returns.
THIS is why ALL candidates, save Trump, have publicized their tax returns, for the last 40 years.
I mean FFS, after the Mueller report, bad can be catastrophic bad. I EXPECT there to be money laundering, I expect piles and piles of tax evasion, because that is the only reason to be screaming this much. There must be something INCREDIBLY damning, Trump has NEVER wavered on his refusal to see even the slightest glimpse into his financial situation.
That's how the term is most often used. It's not about being pro-capitalist.
So on the one hand, you don't trust politicians because they "appear" to be nice and clean, and (sometimes) turn out to be total trash underneath the facade.
But then you DON'T want to investigate Trump, because you KNOW he's not nice and clean, you KNOW he is total trash underneath no facade whatsoever.
Why not? You don't want to see how far down the rabbit-hole the filth goes?
That's bullshit though. The Soviet Union did all off that yet they're not considered 'far right'. There is no 'neutral' anymore for some weird reason. Everything is black or white in this country and that's a load of horse hockey...
Honestly, I don't really expect politicians to be squeaky clean. I'd rather they don't try to appear to be one of us to begin with. It's a bunch of shit. Squeaky clean isn't reality. I'd rather have everything up-front and let us (the voters) decide what we can live with and what we can't. If a politician makes some money that's fine by me as long as he helps us regular folks out along the way. I'm not one of those people who thinks life is 'fair' and expects my representatives to be Mother Theresa (and I hear even she had skeletons in her closet). Total transparency would be my preference, but most people wouldn't be able to handle reality in my opinion...
The Soviet Union did a lot of bad stuff, but they weren't primarily driven by the ideologies described above. If I'm remembering correctly, they weren't anti-communist, for example.
I'm all for shades of gray, but it's just really hard to make a case that ISIS is 'neutral.'
Bullshit! The Soviet Union demonized 'the Other' just as much as the so-called far-right. Just ask the Jews and the Christians...
If we went back a few decades, then most of the extremists on the world stage would probably be "far-left" due to the influence of communism and the demise of Nazi Germany. With communism more or less discredited, there aren't as many far-left extremists as there used to be, and since the Third Reich was so much further back in time compared to the Soviet Union, the backlash against Nazism has faded... which might be why we've seen an apparent resurgence in Nazism in the U.S. and E.U. recently.
I'm guessing the pendulum will swing the other way sometime during my life, and extremist groups will skew far-left instead of far-right. Right now, though, that's not the world we live in.
It's probably going to be a while before we see it swing the other way. The closest thing to a far-left extremist movement I've seen these days is "a guy on the Internet is being too PC." Meanwhile, we've got rising hate crime levels from white nationalists in the U.S., xenophobic movements in Europe, anti-Muslim and anti-Christian violence in India, warmongering from China, and Islamic terrorism in the Middle East. None of those things seems to be abating, either.
Anti-religion is not a far-right philosophy. Where does that belief come from? Nazism was anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, anti-Muslim and anti-any religion really, but so was Marxism.
Sorry, I know I'm breaking the forum rules (as I do from time-to-time). It's nothing personal. It just seems to me that calling any extremists far-right or far-left is missing the point. Labeling isn't helpful in my opinion. Does it make it any worse or better if the extremists are on your side or not? It doesn't to me. They're all assholes...
So.....the White House doesn't want the guy who testified under oath to Mueller's team that Trump ordered him to fire the Special Counsel to do so in front of the entire country so they can hear it for themselves in a House hearing. Can't imagine why that would be. But while we're at it, why don't we just say f**k it. Why make anyone who works at the White House ever appear before any House panel again?? Shit, let's just GET RID of the House of Representatives while the Democrats hold it, and then bring it back whenever Republicans take control of it again.
So you DO want to see the tax returns, which falls under "total transparency" and "rather have everything up-front"?
Better yet, let's get rid of both parties altogether and vote on each candidate's individual viewpoints. I know, 'Imagine all the people, voting for what's best. Yoohoo, ooh, ooh, ooh, you may say I'm a dreamer...'
I'm sorry, but this whole theory about the system being so corrupt that the only solution was to elect the most absolutely corrupt person imaginable to hold the office is so ass-backwards that it doesn't even deserve a analysis. What is the end-game goal of that line of thinking?? Because if the goal was that Trump's corruption would be so blatant it would snap everyone out of it and force the change necessary is just complete horseshit. Because the opposite is happening. Trump is just PARADING it around on a daily basis, and has been for two years, and the only thing that has happened is that the public has become numb to it and we are fast approaching the tipping point where it becomes 100% clear that our system of government has no way of stopping someone who is hell-bent on destroying it to their own ends. The mechanisms are failing.
Honestly though, I'm not the only one who voted against Hillary rather than voting for this asshole. Selecting Clinton may go down in history as one of the worst mistakes by any political party in my lifetime. Democrats need to own that and rectify that error. Stop whining and pick somebody better next time.
Only because you ignore my colorful metaphors on occasion @semiticgod! Or maybe it's just because you're just used to me now...
Yes, ideally I'd like to see them. I don't think it's in Trump's best interest to do that in this current political reality, however. The general voter lives in La La Land so I don't think that a rich person who tries to pay the least amount of tax possible will come out looking very good. Personally, if I were Trump, and likely if any of us were, I'd try to pay as little as possible too. I'm not a hippocrite who thinks he should behave any different than I would...
I think I disagree with this. You cannot have an informed conversation about why people do these sorts of things (Be they terrorists, governments, politicians or all of the above) without looking at their ideology and understanding where they come from, philosophically.
Also - I would generally agree with @joluv 's definition of far-right terrorism (and, incidentally - far right-anything). Comparisons to specific situations without considering context can be dangerous.
My favorite example of this is that in French Revolution - it was the Reactionaries and the Conservatives trying to keep the monarchy in place, and the "far left" trying to destroy the Monarchy. On the face of it, that doesnt exactly comport with the left wanting a larger centralized government and the right wanting a smaller government as the situation applies in the US (then and now, although I'm careful in that the parties were less defined then than now).
Extremist ideologies are eerily similar though. They're pretty much in a class of their own. There are normal people's ideological differences, and then there are radical/reactionary beliefs. Neither of the extremes represent many normal people and the philosophies don't really differ a whole lot except who they want to eradicate; the rich on the left, the minority races in their home countries on the right, and the religious people that don't agree with them on both sides. Not a whole lot of difference in my opinion. China is persecuting Muslim and Christian minorities and they're supposedly on the left. Extremists don't give a damn about politics in my opinion...
The Soviet Union was far right. Sure it was founded to be a left wing ideology what with the workers being in charge but it never was that because Stalin just turned it into a dictatorship.
It was taken over by right wing ideologues who, like Trump and Hitler, demonized the others. It was not communist it was government run corruption and opportunism for the party like the current Russian government or the Republican party. There was no left wing ideology there. No brotherhood of man, it was just corruption, and right wing politics.
I've got more news, Nazis weren't socialists either even though it's in the name (national socialists). North Korea isn't a republic either despite the name being Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Left leaning governments these days are the democracies in Europe and Canada.
Edit: Millions of people died in Russia and China of famine because all of the woes were blamed on 'rich landowners'. There is no equivalent to that due to 'right-wing extremism' in the US or anywhere else. Period!