It's Really Bad Now.

[zymurgy]

it will take a war to overthrow our economic system at the level Bernie is seeking

individuals have rights - and they aren't removed at the ballot box

[Into the Night]

^Sounds just like Communism. The Fascists in the Democratic Party of the Jackass hate elections they don't win.

There is actually a difference between fascism and communism, though they are both socialism.

Fascism is an economic system where the government operates your business, though you still own the business. Examples are: telling a business owner who he can sell to, who he can buy from, what product is is going to sell, how much he is going to sell if for, etc.
Communism is an economic system where the government just outright takes the business. The government now owns it outright.

In other words, in fascism, you go through the hard part of starting the business and getting a product to sell to market, then the government comes in and takes over the operation of it. In communism, the government won't let you even start a business. They own everything.

Fascism is on the road to communism. Both are theft of wealth. They can only be implemented by dictatorships and oligarchies.

[Truth Detector]

There is actually a difference between fascism and communism, though they are both socialism.

Fascism is an economic system where the government operates your business, though you still own the business. Examples are: telling a business owner who he can sell to, who he can buy from, what product is is going to sell, how much he is going to sell if for, etc.
Communism is an economic system where the government just outright takes the business. The government now owns it outright.

In other words, in fascism, you go through the hard part of starting the business and getting a product to sell to market, then the government comes in and takes over the operation of it. In communism, the government won't let you even start a business. They own everything.

Fascism is on the road to communism. Both are theft of wealth. They can only be implemented by dictatorships and oligarchies.

In other words, there is very little difference between them.

[StoneByStone]

One channel vs. a mostly liberal media.

The point is that when conservative media did things like this, Obama supporters controlled themselves. They didn't explode in a frothing anger like Trump supporters do. That's the real TDS.

[StoneByStone]

We've been expanding the power of the executive since long before Trump. I'm not saying I like this, but Trump getting re-elected will not change the trend in either direction.

We've never had a president try to cheat in an election and then have his lawyer use the argument that the president should be allowed to do whatever they want to get reelected.
In the past, the government often overstepped its boundaries, but it was done in moderation so as not to cause a rebellion. If Trump is reelected, the president will be able to openly do whatever they want because we have now accepted this as the new norm.

[ThatOwlWoman]

If you want to talk about redefining words to manipulate narratives, look at how racism is now defined by the left as "power + privilege" in order to further the ridiculous idea that minorities can't be racist or that you can't be racist against white people.

Institutional racism by its very nature (as is true of all forms of bigotry) has inherent in its definition the concept that it has no "bite" unless the racist person has some sort of power over the targeted group. Even if that power is merely the power of numbers, it is still racism. For instance, even racists who aren't in a position to sell or rent a residence, or to hire a new employee, would still be racists if they support the ability of others to discriminate against the targeted group. In this way, a woman who is against other women striving for better positions in their careers by competing against males -- even to the point of believing that other women shouldn't even have careers outside the home -- would rightfully be considered sexist.

So yep -- a black person who hates white people who urges his family/friends/coworkers to hate them too -- is a racist. I'm not sure where you get the idea from that minorities can't be bigots too.

[Saudade]

The point is that when conservative media did things like this, Obama supporters controlled themselves. They didn't explode in a frothing anger like Trump supporters do. That's the real TDS.

Yes, they just instead claimed even legitimate criticisms were "racism" and either censored many individuals or effectively ostracized them. Granted, they weren't as bad about it as SJWs have now become with anything related to their preferred narratives.

[Saudade]

We've never had a president try to cheat in an election and then have his lawyer use the argument that the president should be allowed to do whatever they want to get reelected.
In the past, the government often overstepped its boundaries, but it was done in moderation so as not to cause a rebellion. If Trump is reelected, the president will be able to openly do whatever they want because we have now accepted this as the new norm.

When considering that Democrats continually try to obstruct the administration with constant investigations and that the courts are pretty active in blocking many administration policies, I'm not sure where you get this impression.

Regardless of whether Trump is actually breaking any laws or not, the opposition has been pretty constant against him. I really don't see him being able to do much in terms of overreach.

[Saudade]

Institutional racism by its very nature (as is true of all forms of bigotry) has inherent in its definition the concept that it has no "bite" unless the racist person has some sort of power over the targeted group. Even if that power is merely the power of numbers, it is still racism. For instance, even racists who aren't in a position to sell or rent a residence, or to hire a new employee, would still be racists if they support the ability of others to discriminate against the targeted group. In this way, a woman who is against other women striving for better positions in their careers by competing against males -- even to the point of believing that other women shouldn't even have careers outside the home -- would rightfully be considered sexist.

So yep -- a black person who hates white people who urges his family/friends/coworkers to hate them too -- is a racist. I'm not sure where you get the idea from that minorities can't be bigots too.

I'm glad we agree on this then, because there are many on the left that would disagree with you. I'm surprised you haven't encountered this narrative before. I see it all the time.

[StoneByStone]

Yes, they just instead claimed even legitimate criticisms were "racism" and either censored many individuals or effectively ostracized them. Granted, they weren't as bad about it as SJWs have now become with anything related to their preferred narratives.

There were a few people like that, but they were a minority among Obama supporters. Many of them even criticized Obama for failing to follow through on his promises. That's something Trumpcucks don't have the balls to do.

[Saudade]

There were a few people like that, but they were a minority among Obama supporters. Many of them even criticized Obama for failing to follow through on his promises. That's something Trumpcucks don't have the balls to do.

In recent years, we've seen Obama receive more criticism from the left, although the criticisms sometimes just seem to be a matter of leftists thinking he wasn't far enough left.

It's a pretty clear indication that a large portion of the Democratic party has gone extremist.

[StoneByStone]

When considering that Democrats continually try to obstruct the administration with constant investigations and that the courts are pretty active in blocking many administration policies, I'm not sure where you get this impression.

Regardless of whether Trump is actually breaking any laws or not, the opposition has been pretty constant against him. I really don't see him being able to do much in terms of overreach.

People criticize the media for constant negative coverage of Trump. But the thing is, Trump actually does do terrible things constantly. So it's not that the media is biased against him, it's that he is that bad. And it's the same thing with the Democrats' investigations of Trump. None of the investigations have been illegitimate, they've been needed.

His lawyer made the argument that the president can do whatever he wants if he feels it's in the public interest. In other words, the president can be a dictator. And as fucking crazy as it is to have a president like this in America, this president is being acquitted after getting caught trying to cheat in an election. So the president can be a dictator and one of the two main political parties agrees.
The opposition can do whatever they can, they can impeach him next time he does something like this, but it won't matter because the RNC has gone full Fascist.

[Saudade]

People criticize the media for constant negative coverage of Trump. But the thing is, Trump actually does do terrible things constantly. So it's not that the media is biased against him, it's that he is that bad. And it's the same thing with the Democrats' investigations of Trump. None of the investigations have been illegitimate, they've been needed.

His lawyer made the argument that the president can do whatever he wants if he feels it's in the public interest. In other words, the president can be a dictator. And as fucking crazy as it is to have a president like this in America, this president is being acquitted after getting caught trying to cheat in an election. So the president can be a dictator and one of the two main political parties agrees.
The opposition can do whatever they can, they can impeach him next time he does something like this, but it won't matter because the RNC has gone full Fascist.

If you believe that all of the investigations have been legitimate, then we fundamentally disagree on what constitutes legitimacy. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[StoneByStone]

In recent years, we've seen Obama receive more criticism from the left, although the criticisms sometimes just seem to be a matter of leftists thinking he wasn't far enough left.

It's a pretty clear indication that a large portion of the Democratic party has gone extremist.

Is it extremist to say we should stop using taxes to bomb countries for Israel and start using taxes to fund universal healthcare?

[Saudade]

Is it extremist to say we should stop using taxes to bomb countries for Israel and start using taxes to fund universal healthcare?

I wouldn't say that is extremist, but when it comes to many social policies on the left, there are definitely some extremist ones being pushed. There are some economic ones that are extreme as well.

Abolishing ICE and detainment is extreme and would be pretty stupid. Taxing the heck out of the rich would be pointless, since they have numerous ways to hide money or offshore it. Also, the nominal tax rate for the rich is easy to deduct down to the AMT for the top 1%.

Treating all semiautomatic weapons as "assault weapons" is also extreme (as shown by Virginia).

And we've already discussed some of the trans insanity that is being forwarded by the left.