Modern democrats do not fit the definition of fascism. You are factually incorrect in this claim.
I think they would allow genocide to preserve the interests of the state. maybe you don't know what fascism is.
The Wikipedia definition is probably the most concise
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
As you can see, the Democrats do not qualify. I don't disagree that they wouldn't allow a genocide to preserve the interests of the state, but that is literally every government.
As you can see, the Democrats do not qualify.
i flatly disagree. the fact that the democrats threw out their own primary votes in favor of a coronation indicates a centralized autocracy, tehy support militarism, they've arrested political opponents, certianly subordinated individual interests for the percieved good of the nation (usa patriot act and all its progeny), and promoted a strong regimentation of society and the economy.
you can't disagree with the facts, only the interpretation. just because you don't consider it fascism, doesn't mean a reasonable person can't disagree.
The Democrats are not a far right party even by the most expensive definition:
The Democrats are not authoritarian in that they promote democracy, protect human rights, and promote political plurality.
Neither Biden nor his cabinet have absolute power so he does not qualify as a dictator and the government does not qualify as an autocracy.
Democrats do not forcibly suppress the opposition.
Democrats do not believe in a natural social hierarchy.
Democrats do not believe in the subordination of personal interest for the perceived good of the nation or race. You could maybe say that some environmental policies count as subordination of personal interest, but that is for the benefit of all humanity, not one race or nation.
Democrats do not believe in a strong regimentation of society.
One could argue that many Democrats believe in strong regimentation of the economy, but that quality alone is common in various types of governments other than fascism.
As you say, you can't disagree with facts and the fact is that US Democrats are not fascist.
The Democrats are not authoritarian in that they promote democracy, protect human rights, and promote political plurality.
that's a lie: "vote blue no matter who" and accusations against the green party highlight this. tehy also arrested jill stein at the debate in 2012.
Vote blue no matter who is a political slogan, not an order with any weight. It's not like people are prevented from voting Republican in any way.
Stein was arrested because she didn't meet the polling threshold to be eligible to be considered as a candidate and then tried to force her way on stage. It's no different than you or I going to hear a band play and trying to force our way on stage because we thought we could play guitar better.
again, it's a matter of interpretation. you making excuses for it would look bad if the prevailing opinion matched mine.
Facts are facts. She was not a political opponent because she did not get enough support to even participate in the debate. She was arrested for breaking the law, not for being a political opponent
she was a political opponent. she opposed them politically and challenged them for election.
She challenged them the same way a fly challenges an F-16.
this is just rhetorical posturing. she had opposing political positions and was denied a platform with others vying for the same seat.
Denied because she had insufficient support to qualify. That's a requirement in every democracy on the planet to be considered a serious candidate.
Democrats do not forcibly suppress the opposition.
tehy literally arrest political opponents.
Like who?
jill stein, 2012.
They arrested her because she was trespassing and causing a disturbance, not because she was a political opponent. It's not like she posed any threat to their power. She had 0% chance of becoming president. It's completely absurd to think they needed to arrest her to beat her. She didn't get enough votes to participate and she threw a Karen fit.
the voters were disenfranchised by being denied a legitimate voice. she was systematically excluded from every media platform. the debate was just one example in a long series of disenfranchisement. her arrest there was clearly to prevent her from challenging them.
Candidates must have a requisite amount of supporters to participate in a debate. This prevents candidates who have zero mathematical chance of winning from wasting everyone's time. Stein did not meet the requirements. Her supporters were not disenfranchised. Their candidate just lost. She had already lost when she was arrested, so it had no impact on enfranchisement.
debates are gatekept on arbitrary criteria to prevent candidates who the gatekeepers don't like from participating in democracy. stein was disfavored by the gatekeepers, and when she challenged the legitimacy of that gatekeeping, they arrested her.
Having supporters is not an arbitrary criteria. She had bad ideas and was a bad candidate. That is why she had insufficient support to be considered a legitimate candidate. You can blame others all you want, but she is a failure all on their own without any interference from Democrats.
Democrats do not believe in a natural social hierarchy.
sure they do: look at how they endorse the capitalist system of haves-and-have-nots.
That is a developed social hierarchy, not a natural one. An example of a natural social hierarchy is the belief that whites are naturally a superior race of that women are inherently subordinate to men.
i don't think you know anything about theories of hierarchy or even the natural world. what you've written here is incoherent.
Let me simplify. You used the example of Democrats believing in haves and have nots. Observing that some people are more wealthy than others is reality, not belief in a hierarchy. Believing that rich people are rich because they are innately better and poor people are poor because they are innately worse is a belief in a natural social hierarchy.
they don't simply observe the disparity, they actively enforce it.
That's not the same thing as believe by it is an inmate quality.
regardless of belief, enforcing the unjust hierarchy is what is wrong
That is certainly an argument you can make, but it does not qualify for the definition of fascism.
Neither Biden nor his cabinet have absolute power so he does not qualify as a dictator and the government does not qualify as an autocracy.
but the democrats would have it if they could. their philosophy is autocratic even if they still lack the means of effecting that policy.
I don't think your claim can be proven
i don't want to test it.
Claims made without evidence can be discarded without evidence.
surely.
Democrats do not believe in the subordination of personal interest for the perceived good of the nation or race. You could maybe say that some environmental policies count as subordination of personal interest, but that is for the benefit of all humanity, not one race or nation.
oh? seems to me the curtailing of gun rights is a major part of their platform, as well as constant incursions into my right to digital privacy.
Those are not examples of subordination of personal interest. Those are balancing the rights and personal interests of one group of citizens vs another. One group has right to guns, another has a right not to get shot to death. The same goes for digital rights. Your right to privacy has to be balanced with others right now to be the victim of crime/terrorism.
as i said, this is a matter of interpreting the facts, but the facts are indisputable.
The prime indisputable fact is that Democrats do not meet the definition of fascist.
that's not a fact. it's a matter of interpretation.
It's a fact. Fascism is always a far right movement. Democrats are not far right by any stretch of the truth.
if that is the only aspect where they fail, then it makes no difference: they are fascist.
You haven't proven they meet any criteria for fascism.
As you say, you can’t disagree with facts and the fact is that US Democrats are not fascist.
this is some gymnastic bullshit. you are ignoring facts and then claiming they support your interpretation of them.
It's the definition, not my interpretation. Words have meanings.
the facts must be interpreted to determine whether they fit the definition. words do have meanings, and i'm willing to believe that you honestly don't think the facts point to fascism, but i would say that's a failure in your ability to interpret the facts, where i recognize you probably feel the same about my interpretation.
And yet only one of our interpretations fits reality. The other is completely wrong no matter how much you believe it.
surely you can recognize that we both feel that way.
Modern democrats do not fit the definition of fascism. You are factually incorrect in this claim.
I think they would allow genocide to preserve the interests of the state. maybe you don't know what fascism is.
The Wikipedia definition is probably the most concise
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
As you can see, the Democrats do not qualify. I don't disagree that they wouldn't allow a genocide to preserve the interests of the state, but that is literally every government.
i flatly disagree. the fact that the democrats threw out their own primary votes in favor of a coronation indicates a centralized autocracy, tehy support militarism, they've arrested political opponents, certianly subordinated individual interests for the percieved good of the nation (usa patriot act and all its progeny), and promoted a strong regimentation of society and the economy.
you can't disagree with the facts, only the interpretation. just because you don't consider it fascism, doesn't mean a reasonable person can't disagree.
The Democrats are not a far right party even by the most expensive definition:
The Democrats are not authoritarian in that they promote democracy, protect human rights, and promote political plurality.
Neither Biden nor his cabinet have absolute power so he does not qualify as a dictator and the government does not qualify as an autocracy.
Democrats do not forcibly suppress the opposition.
Democrats do not believe in a natural social hierarchy.
Democrats do not believe in the subordination of personal interest for the perceived good of the nation or race. You could maybe say that some environmental policies count as subordination of personal interest, but that is for the benefit of all humanity, not one race or nation.
Democrats do not believe in a strong regimentation of society.
One could argue that many Democrats believe in strong regimentation of the economy, but that quality alone is common in various types of governments other than fascism.
As you say, you can't disagree with facts and the fact is that US Democrats are not fascist.
that's a lie: "vote blue no matter who" and accusations against the green party highlight this. tehy also arrested jill stein at the debate in 2012.
Vote blue no matter who is a political slogan, not an order with any weight. It's not like people are prevented from voting Republican in any way.
Stein was arrested because she didn't meet the polling threshold to be eligible to be considered as a candidate and then tried to force her way on stage. It's no different than you or I going to hear a band play and trying to force our way on stage because we thought we could play guitar better.
again, it's a matter of interpretation. you making excuses for it would look bad if the prevailing opinion matched mine.
Facts are facts. She was not a political opponent because she did not get enough support to even participate in the debate. She was arrested for breaking the law, not for being a political opponent
she was a political opponent. she opposed them politically and challenged them for election.
She challenged them the same way a fly challenges an F-16.
this is just rhetorical posturing. she had opposing political positions and was denied a platform with others vying for the same seat.
Denied because she had insufficient support to qualify. That's a requirement in every democracy on the planet to be considered a serious candidate.
tehy literally arrest political opponents.
Like who?
jill stein, 2012.
They arrested her because she was trespassing and causing a disturbance, not because she was a political opponent. It's not like she posed any threat to their power. She had 0% chance of becoming president. It's completely absurd to think they needed to arrest her to beat her. She didn't get enough votes to participate and she threw a Karen fit.
the voters were disenfranchised by being denied a legitimate voice. she was systematically excluded from every media platform. the debate was just one example in a long series of disenfranchisement. her arrest there was clearly to prevent her from challenging them.
Candidates must have a requisite amount of supporters to participate in a debate. This prevents candidates who have zero mathematical chance of winning from wasting everyone's time. Stein did not meet the requirements. Her supporters were not disenfranchised. Their candidate just lost. She had already lost when she was arrested, so it had no impact on enfranchisement.
debates are gatekept on arbitrary criteria to prevent candidates who the gatekeepers don't like from participating in democracy. stein was disfavored by the gatekeepers, and when she challenged the legitimacy of that gatekeeping, they arrested her.
Having supporters is not an arbitrary criteria. She had bad ideas and was a bad candidate. That is why she had insufficient support to be considered a legitimate candidate. You can blame others all you want, but she is a failure all on their own without any interference from Democrats.
sure they do: look at how they endorse the capitalist system of haves-and-have-nots.
That is a developed social hierarchy, not a natural one. An example of a natural social hierarchy is the belief that whites are naturally a superior race of that women are inherently subordinate to men.
i don't think you know anything about theories of hierarchy or even the natural world. what you've written here is incoherent.
Let me simplify. You used the example of Democrats believing in haves and have nots. Observing that some people are more wealthy than others is reality, not belief in a hierarchy. Believing that rich people are rich because they are innately better and poor people are poor because they are innately worse is a belief in a natural social hierarchy.
they don't simply observe the disparity, they actively enforce it.
That's not the same thing as believe by it is an inmate quality.
regardless of belief, enforcing the unjust hierarchy is what is wrong
That is certainly an argument you can make, but it does not qualify for the definition of fascism.
but the democrats would have it if they could. their philosophy is autocratic even if they still lack the means of effecting that policy.
I don't think your claim can be proven
i don't want to test it.
Claims made without evidence can be discarded without evidence.
surely.
oh? seems to me the curtailing of gun rights is a major part of their platform, as well as constant incursions into my right to digital privacy.
Those are not examples of subordination of personal interest. Those are balancing the rights and personal interests of one group of citizens vs another. One group has right to guns, another has a right not to get shot to death. The same goes for digital rights. Your right to privacy has to be balanced with others right now to be the victim of crime/terrorism.
as i said, this is a matter of interpreting the facts, but the facts are indisputable.
The prime indisputable fact is that Democrats do not meet the definition of fascist.
that's not a fact. it's a matter of interpretation.
It's a fact. Fascism is always a far right movement. Democrats are not far right by any stretch of the truth.
if that is the only aspect where they fail, then it makes no difference: they are fascist.
You haven't proven they meet any criteria for fascism.
this is some gymnastic bullshit. you are ignoring facts and then claiming they support your interpretation of them.
It's the definition, not my interpretation. Words have meanings.
the facts must be interpreted to determine whether they fit the definition. words do have meanings, and i'm willing to believe that you honestly don't think the facts point to fascism, but i would say that's a failure in your ability to interpret the facts, where i recognize you probably feel the same about my interpretation.
And yet only one of our interpretations fits reality. The other is completely wrong no matter how much you believe it.
surely you can recognize that we both feel that way.