POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[Cappytaino]

I think that all of you in this thread just posting stuff like "looooool" with no evidence apart from what you believe to be "conventional wisdom" are loving tools. Logic or gtfo. Quit the ad-hominem horsestuff.

national socialistsm was not quite the far right movement that you all are attempting to generalize it as. It draws majorly from both sides of the political spectrum.

For instance, one of the key tenets of Fascism, use of violence or intimidation to silence opposing viewpoints, is more often associated with radical progressivism, at least in American politics today (see: Black Lives Matter as a huge example, in Ferguson, Dallas, Baltimore, etc.). I don't recall a violent right-wing protest on the scale of any of those in the past five or ten years.

national socialistsm does draw from right wing policies as well as left, but people are often very confused and just assume National Socialism = right wing.

Another thing going on today is the infiltration and subversion of the Media by the Clinton campaign. It's something straight out of the USSR, or if you'd prefer to still connect this brown townogy to national socialists, very Goebbels-esque.

The issue isn't as black and white as you all make it seem, it is much more grey, and spouting baseless conjecture in place of facts and reason is useless if you're trying to persuade.

[Ad Bot]

[Magus]

This stems from the Horseshoe Effect, the concept that extremist ideologies on both sides (i.e. the alt right and left) are more similar to each other than to more moderate stances.

If you're allowed to accuse somebody of mass censorship without being censored, you might be wrong.

[Nonnel]

For instance, one of the key tenets of Fascism, use of violence or intimidation to silence opposing viewpoints, is more often associated with radical progressivism, at least in American politics today (see: Black Lives Matter as a huge example, in Ferguson, Dallas, Baltimore, etc.). I don't recall a violent right-wing protest on the scale of any of those in the past five or ten years.

intimidation is decisively authoritarian, not right or left leaning. fascists generally advocate for mixed economies
and of course saying that "national socialism" means that they were socialist because it's in the name is just ignorant.

[LeisureSuit912]

national socialistsm was not quite the far right movement that you all are attempting to generalize it as. It draws majorly from both sides of the political spectrum.

For instance, one of the key tenets of Fascism, use of violence or intimidation to silence opposing viewpoints, is more often associated with radical progressivism, at least in American politics today (see: Black Lives Matter as a huge example, in Ferguson, Dallas, Baltimore, etc.). I don't recall a violent right-wing protest on the scale of any of those in the past five or ten years.

national socialistsm does draw from right wing policies as well as left, but people are often very confused and just assume National Socialism = right wing.

Ask any contemporary historian if national socialistsm was a left or right wing ideology and they would classify it as a far-right ideology for four reasons:

1. They attacked anyone on the left side of the spectrum
2. They formed alliances with the traditional right in Germany (including the Chancellor currently in power before Riddler's rise to power), along with other right-wing governments.
3. They were vehemently nationalist, which is primarily right-wing behavior.
4. They opposed class struggle.
5. They were focused on social order rather than personal freedom.

Basically, the only left element of the national socialists is the name.

And how you're describing the BLM protests, that's authoritarianism, not fascism. And authoritarianism belongs to both sides of the political spectrum.

[Cappytaino]

intimidation is decisively authoritarian, not right or left leaning. fascists generally advocate for mixed economies
and of course saying that "national socialism" means that they were socialist because it's in the name is just ignorant.

if you need a tl;dr that's way oversimplified,

Third Reich policy economically = left socially = right

[beachbum111111]

1. They attacked anyone on the left side of the spectrum

They were also staunchly anti-capitalist. They attacked anyone who disagreed with them like how SJW's attack liberals who aren't as extreme.

2. They formed alliances with the traditional right in Germany (including the Chancellor currently in power before Riddler's rise to power), along with other right-wing governments.

Who Otto Wels? He was in the Social Democratic Party of Germany

3. They were vehemently nationalist, which is primarily right-wing behavior.

The Soviet Union was very nationalistic as well. Nationalism happens on both sides of the spectrum. Hard to conscript people and have total war if they hate their country.

4. They opposed class struggle.

Class struggle is a more far left sort of thing, I mean we know Hillary doesn't give a forget about class struggle. Unless you count giving gibs to blacks as part of class struggle.

5. They were focused on social order rather than personal freedom.

So did the Soviets? This isn't even an argument about them being right wing at this point. That's more of an argument about whether or not they were Authoritarion (they are). you do realize that the Republican party is SUPPOSE to be focused on personal freedom right?

And before we talk about how racism is somehow a right wing ideology (even though the Democrats created the kool kids klub) Here's a quote from Benito Blue Meanie, a right wing fascist:
"Race! It is a feeling, not a reality: ninety-five percent, at least, is a feeling. Nothing will ever make me believe that biologically pure races can be shown to exist today. ... National pride has no need of the delirium of race."

[Nonnel]

(even though the Democrats created the kool kids klub)

the two parties have effectively switched social stances since then

[beachbum111111]

the two parties have effectively switched social stances since then

The Republican party has stayed the same socially for the most part. It's the Democrats that changed their stance so they can effectively buy more votes.

[Frequency]

And what exactly is "traditional culture" in America?

Satanism.

[WaterOre]

The Republican party has stayed the same socially for the most part. It's the Democrats that changed their stance so they can effectively buy more votes.

By supporting civil rights and secular schooling, they lost votes from the South (historically a Democratic stronghold) and the Catholics (historically a Democratic group). If they wanted to "buy votes", they would have to become what the Republican Party is today.

[beachbum111111]

By supporting civil rights and secular schooling, they lost votes from the South (historically a Democratic stronghold) and the Catholics (historically a Democratic group). If they wanted to "buy votes", they would have to become what the Republican Party is today.

And yet it was president LBJ that said "I'll have those mondays voting Democrat for the next 200 years".

[WaterOre]

And yet it was president LBJ that said "I'll have those mondays voting Democrat for the next 200 years".

In doing so, he lost the Southern vote and created a regional split in the party, all but ensuring the next presidency to be Republican.

If he wanted his party to keep its votes and its power, he would have never supported the cause.

[Jairo]

And yet it was president LBJ that said "I'll have those mondays voting Democrat for the next 200 years".

is there a citation for that quote? it's the first I've heard of it

[McZealot]

(even though the Democrats created the kool kids klub)

bro you know that the parties basically switched ideologies right? lincoln was a radical liberal for the time
its so funny when republicans basically trash themselves by speaking poorly of old democrats

[beachbum111111]

If they wanted to "buy votes", they would have to become what the Republican Party is today.

Or they could give out welfare and have amnesty which both imports votes and buys votes from the lower class while loving over the middle class

bro you know that the parties basically switched ideologies right? lincoln was a radical liberal for the time
its so funny when republicans basically trash themselves by speaking poorly of old democrats

Not really no. Lincoln didn't want to end slavery but he knew it needed to be done. The republicans have stayed mostly the same socially throughout the years. It's just the Democrats have gone so left that they make Republicans look right leaning.