• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

General political chat

Gomer

Well-Known Member
I largely agree with this. I’m sorry if my earlier posts were unclear: I did not mean to imply that either extreme is a teleological outcome of normal left- or right-leaning thought. Both are deplorable perversions.
Yeah, I don't disagree with anything you are saying from an academic standpoint. On the spectrum scale, communism has more in common with the left and fascism the right. But people (especially on the internet) are defensive and will react as if the two are being conflated, even when they are not. So, from a practical standpoint, it's usually counterproductive to introduce those extremes as part of the natural political spectrum as they are such clear aberrations. But that's just my opinion.
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
Because Naziism bears as much resemblance to modern American right politics as Communism does to the left. Nazis had components of today's far-right philosophy but it was a bastardization of those things into an oppressive system of government.

I think its overly reductive to compare the two. Where I have trouble with Mr. Buscuit is in the hypocrisy of taking the worst case scenario of left leaning politics as his examples of why it is dangerous and un-American, while only looking at the purest form of right wing philosophy as some bastion of personal liberty. We need to be consistent. If we look at leftism and modern American socialism as benign in comparison to oppressive Communism, I think its only fair to do the same when it comes to modern nationalism in comparison to fascism.
Well said ad very fair....want to like this multiple times.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
You don’t get to twist my words and then leave it at agreeing to disagree. I have been vocally opposed to Nazi comparisons on many, many occasions in this thread, so don’t pretend I was saying something I wasn’t.
I’m not twisting. You asked “why would it be insulting..” ...”it doesn’t represent mainstream conservatism..”

Yet, people are pretending it does almost daily. Not sure why you would need to ask that question.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
On an important note, Is anyone else bothered by what this investigation has uncovered so far?

I am. Greatly. Can you imagine if all businesspeople/politicians were under this kind of investigative scrutiny? Do you think we would see a large portion with skeletons in their closet?

It’s growing more concerning by the minute, imo.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
I’m not twisting. You asked “why would it be insulting..” ...”it doesn’t represent mainstream conservatism..”

Yet, people are pretending it does almost daily. Not sure why you would need to ask that question.
Accepting that Nazism was/is a far-right ideology is not the same as labelling all right-wing politics Nazi. That others may engage in such conflation has no bearing on what I said.
 

Gomer

Well-Known Member
On an important note, Is anyone else bothered by what this investigation has uncovered so far?

I am. Greatly. Can you imagine if all businesspeople/politicians were under this kind of investigative scrutiny? Do you think we would see a large portion with skeletons in their closet?

It’s growing more concerning by the minute, imo.
Maybe a system that allows for so many skeletons is one that should be exposed. And if people with so many skeletons can be so integrally involved in our political system, its time for that to be exposed as well.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
Not to muddy the waters. but there are ACTUAL nazi's who are identifying as "the right". Some of those Antifa counterprotests were actually against Nazis. It's dangerous to forget that these people exist and have chosen to latch on to Trump's populism and nationalism as a way to further their agenda.

And before you flip out on me, I am not saying Trump (or republicans for that matter) is a Nazi. But perhaps if he did more to distance them and not make them fell welcome under his "big tent" there would be less of those accusations. The same holds true for the left and any of the numerous examples you'll likely try to throw at me about violent or hateful people not being disowned by the Democrats. It seems these days we like to treat the opposition as the sum of their worst possible components as opposed to assuming those people to be an outlier. And our leaders are complicit in that by not distancing themselves from these people for fear of losing their support.
I agree. Even if the “actual Nazis” were a very small number in reality. I do see one side pandering more to extremism though, but we’ll probably disagree on who that is.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
Maybe a system that allows for so many skeletons is one that should be exposed. And if people with so many skeletons can be so integrally involved in our political system, its time for that to be exposed as well.
So will this become a tax payer supported norm? Against every administration?
 

Gitson Shiggles

There was me, that is Mickey, and my three droogs
But the philosophies in their ideal or pure state is not what is oppressive. It is the way they are implemented that become oppressive. That's why I find them impractical. At a large scale, there is no way to institute either without becoming oppressive. But at a smaller scale, (let say a small remote community or island where all citizens buy into the philosophy) they are possible.
I totally agree with the last part of your comment. Communes come closer to pure communism than any Communist state that has existed, but even they have rules. Those who do not pull their own weight are asked to leave.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Yeah, I don't disagree with anything you are saying from an academic standpoint. On the spectrum scale, communism has more in common with the left and fascism the right. But people (especially on the internet) are defensive and will react as if the two are being conflated, even when they are not. So, from a practical standpoint, it's usually counterproductive to introduce those extremes as part of the natural political spectrum as they are such clear aberrations. But that's just my opinion.
To be fair to me, I was not the one who introduced the topic, and I agree it adds little (if anything) to the more usual debates going on here. I accept responsibility for engaging with the far-fetched assertions of another poster, and I will endeavour not to do so in future.
 

Gomer

Well-Known Member
To be fair to me, I was not the one who introduced the topic, and I agree it adds little (if anything) to the more usual debates going on here. I accept responsibility for engaging with the far-fetched assertions of another poster, and I will endeavour not to do so in future.
And my comments were much more aimed at that poster's tendency to engage in those sort of far-fetched assertions while not ever entertaining the idea that not every philosophy you disagree with is inherently evil and not every person who ascribes to it is the worst case scenario you feel. Sorry for the friendly fire. :)
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
Isn't criminal justice usually footed by the tax payer? Besides Trump ran on draining the swamp didn't he? I doubt he imagined this would be how he'd go about it. But he is certainly (and quite unintentionally) exposing a lot of that swamp here.
Not in this way. You think this is normal?
Do you think this should be standard moving forward.. or should we go backwards... Everyone in and everyone associated with the last administration?.. maybe the one before that as well?
 

Gomer

Well-Known Member
Not in this way. You think this is normal?
Do you think this should be standard moving forward.. or should we go backwards... Everyone in and everyone associated with the last administration?.. maybe the one before that as well?
Lets not pretend there was no inciting reason for this investigation. There was interference in our election by a foreign government that required an investigation. Trump had some corrupt people working for him. And he did some corrupt things while trying to protect his reputation during an election. If those were inadvertently exposed because of the investigation, I don't see that as a bad thing. And would think the same regardless of who was president.
 

Bairstow

Well-Known Member
Isn't criminal justice usually footed by the tax payer? Besides Trump ran on draining the swamp didn't he? I doubt he imagined this would be how he'd go about it. But he is certainly (and quite unintentionally) exposing a lot of that swamp here.
When Trump talked about the "Swamp", he was talking about officials in the federal government who oppose his agenda, not corruption generally. Trump is largely in favor of corruption at the federal level, and his cabinet picks (Pruitt, Zinke, Devos, etc.) and his own trade moves regarding China and ZTE/Lido City affair bear this out.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
Lets not pretend there was no inciting reason for this investigation. There was interference in our election by a foreign government that required an investigation. Trump had some corrupt people working for him. And he did some corrupt things while trying to protect his reputation during an election. If those were inadvertently exposed because of the investigation, I don't see that as a bad thing. And would think the same regardless of who was president.
The interference happened under the previous administration though, right?
 

gsam4ever

Well-Known Member
Big deal. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Hillary Clinton all lied this past week in relation to a SC hearing. And Trump ran his mouth about PR. And you're worried about Eric Trump boasting about the economy? People lie, boast, use hyperbole.

Be thankful we are in a strong economy rather than a recession. Goodness...
Oh I am. But it's fun to poke people on the right with silliness like this. It's Friday, Manafort is flipping, and life is good.
 

Gomer

Well-Known Member
The interference happened under the previous administration though, right?
And? The investigation was into the interference, not the president. The fact that the president has gotten caught up in crossfire is no ones fault but his own. If there was any wrongdoing under the previous administration I'm sure Mueller ( A Republican) would not hesitate to add that to his investigation as well.
 

aw14

Well-Known Member
And? The investigation was into the interference, not the president. The fact that the president has gotten caught up in crossfire is no ones fault but his own. If there was any wrongdoing under the previous administration I'm sure Mueller ( A Republican) would not hesitate to add that to his investigation as well.
The only issue I have with this thought, is that it has been speculated frequently that the previous admin knew this was going on and did not intervene. Not sure if that would constitute an illegal act on the part of the previous admin, but there is ample filth to be thrown around at many people.
 

Gomer

Well-Known Member
The only issue I have with this thought, is that it has been speculated frequently that the previous admin knew this was going on and did not intervene. Not sure if that would constitute an illegal act on the part of the previous admin, but there is ample filth to be thrown around at many people.
And speculation is all that it is....for now. As I said before. If anyone in the previous administration was complicit for political reasons, they should be prosecuted too. The thing is, we know so little of what's actually going on in Mueller's offices. Yet we all speculate on the little that has leaked out or happened publicly. We can't really make any judgments one way or another until the whole thing wraps up. Until then, you just have the two sides speculating. Everything from Trump has been in cohoots with Putin for a decade and this was all part of a master plan....all the way to this is a vast conspiracy of the deep state out to stop Trump from draining the swamp and upending the status quo. And all the various levels in between. But none of us has proof either way. SO, considering what is at stake here if some real nefarious stuff was going down, its in all of our best interest to let the investigation run its course. If we squash it for political reasons with no proof, we only risk undermining our own democracy. If we let it finish, all we lose is money.
 
Top Bottom