Let's Call Trumpism what it is - American Fascism.

Rebuttal-free rebuttal. Try again.

 

You mean claims.
You have not demonstrated any of your claims to be facts.


You cannot demonstrate the "xenophobic nationalism" or "domestic authoritarianism" you claim.
Until then, your the augments (above) that you believe support your premise ("trumpism" = American fascism) fail, and your premise collapses.

 

That doesn't follow.

 

Failing the burden of rejoinder, again. Let me help you. Make an argument for why I don't understand the meaning of "xenophobia," and in particular why my reasons for attributing it to Trump don't succeed. Stop making assertions, and make your case.

 

This burden does not exist until you demonstrate your claims to be true.

You cannot demonstrate the "xenophobic nationalism" or "domestic authoritarianism" you claim.
Until then, your the augments (above) that you believe support your premise ("trumpism" = American fascism) fail, and your premise collapses.

 

It follows, fully.
You re-defined "fascism" so you could make an argument that Trump is a fascist.
This means you know Trump is not an -actual- fascist.

And, of course, as you cannot demonstrate the "xenophobic nationalism" or "domestic authoritarianism" you claim, your the augments (above) that you believe support your premise ("trumpism" = American fascism) fail, and your premise collapses.

 

Let me help you. Make an argument for why I don't understand the meaning of "xenophobia," and in particular why my reasons for attributing it to Trump don't succeed. Given the plain facts of Trump's own statements and actions, I conclude he's a xenophobe. It's so beyond a reasonable doubt, that if you deny it you're the one making the novel claim and the burden of proof now is on you. So stop making assertions, and make your case.

 

Pay attention - I already posted this, and I don't want to have to repeat myself again:

Xenophobia:
Xeno - foreign or different people or things
Phobia - irrational fear

As you claim the things you listed are examples of Trump's xenophobic nationalism, It's up to YOU to demonstrate how they are a example of Trump acting on an irrational fear of people or things different from himself.

And you can't.

As you cannot demonstrate the "xenophobic nationalism" or "domestic authoritarianism" you claim, your the augments (above) that you believe support your premise ("trumpism" = American fascism) fail, and your premise collapses.

 

A strictly etymological definition - that's what you're going with? Alright, you really have wasted enough of my time, now. I leave it to the readers of this thread to decide if you ever had any point to make, at all.

 

Whatever will you do on January 20th at noon and you don't have Trump to kick around any more? Donnie will be laughing his way all the way to the bank.

 

What's that?
You know your premise is unsound unless you change the definition of the words you use to suit your needs?


I accept your surrender.

 

Are you not reading my posts?

I'm not American, so couldn't vote for Trump even if I wanted to - and I don't. You may also have missed the bit about my being a hefty margin more Left than almost everyone here.

 

So if the actions don't fit the definition, we should change the definition? That makes no sense. And yes, liberals can claim to oppose fascism by pushing for big government, just not honestly. While neither party can qualify as fascist, liberals are closer as they support more government interference on our lives.

What next, should we change the definition of xenophobic to mean "one that marries an immigrant"?

If you want to have an honest discussion about fascist government, we would have to discuss places where people live under strict government control, like the Middle east, or Los Angeles

 

Islam is a religion. Religion is a choice and therefore a mutable. You cannot commit racism or xenophobia against mutables. Also, which particular race within Islam was being condemned? Blue eyed Bosnians? Indonesians? English converts? Africans? Arabs? Chinese?
If Trump finds countries in which the majority practice Islam sh!tty, he's referring to the effects of that cultural choice upon the material circumstances of those nations. That's plain talk pragmatics. You're welcome to find those nations delightful, but I'll wager that since you would never live in any of them, you don't. FTR, I've lived in two of them.

Upshot, you still haven't provided a single example of racism or xenophobia.

 

Well, he CAN... but only if he changes the definition of the terms.

.

 

And of course these kids (including the adult ones) never mention the loud-as-you-like "he's not black" and "I had to remind him he's a black man, so he's not allowed to vote for Trump", and "black people can't figure out how to use computers, so can't obtain voter ID", and the myriad other REAL examples of REAL racism practiced by the Left.

 

Democrats can't be racists.
Ask them - they will tell you.

 

Is it just me, or are Lefty Progressives becoming easier and easier to pummel? It's like shooting fish in a barrel at this point.

 

I note something of a pattern, as of late
Many of them - like the OP - come in loud and strong, with highh and mighty claims and long-winded (what they believe to be) arguments to back them up.
When you ask them to defend those arguments - especially when it comes to demonstrating how what they claim is true, and/or how it supports their premise - they quickly devolve into nonsense.

The OP, for example, once challenged, quickly moved into an absurd and fallacious "I made the claim, now prove me wrong" defense, indicating either he knew he could not demonstrate those claims to be true/relevant, or did not understand the onus of demonstration lies entirely with him.

I guess MSDNC no longer has the time or the crayons to sufficiently flesh out their talking points.

 

I think what happens is that they believe their self-appointed moral high ground is all they need. The come into these spaces having never spent more than a token amount of time thinking through even their own philosophy, much less the bigger picture. Never check for internal consistency, never drill down and extrapolate, never consider broader and longer range implications, etc etc. And of course there's the hubris of believing The Other is necessarily stupider, so should be easy to defeat. Combined, that makes 'em fish in barrels.

It's fun to watch the reactions in RL, actually. The pompous asses have little silent breakdowns when confronted for the first time by the reality that The Other often knows more about the game than they do. It's like when Christians encounter atheists who know far more about the Bible. Same kind of deer in headlights epiphany .. and in the case of the political, that's a well-deserved kick in ass.

 

You have a lot of trouble with the concept of, "context," don't you? Let me rephrase that, for clarity's sake: your most recent reply confirms for me something I've noticed about you (including being the source of our last exchange, in this thread)-- you have a real problem understanding/applying the concept of CONTEXT; do you realize this? The PURPOSE of my reply to Reiver was to point out that his calling himself an Internationalist puts him, in my view, in the same boat with Corporatists, vis a vis those among Trump's base, and the Brexiteers in Britian, and the Brazilians for Bolsonaro, et al, who are on the rise (i.e., the people to which HE was referring) because of their opposition to a complex of varied but inter-related attributes of the status quo. What part of that would make any reasonable person conclude that it was meant to enumerate all the people who oppose Globalism, or Corporatism?

Hell, I have oppositions to those two-- though my perspective, on all things, is not so black-&-white as yours appears to be, so my oppositions are specific, not absolutist-- & I generally fall on the left side of the political spectrum. So you're not telling me ANYTHING that I don't already know (just as when you pointed out that the electoral ballots have yet to be cast). So, unless being an irritant is expressly your aim, & you're misrepresenting others' posts knowingly, I'm going to conclude my reply with a Forum, public-service suggestion:
before you respond to someone's, white-backgrounded, REPLY, the considerate thing, generally-- &, based on the evidence, the essential need for you, if you actually intend to, "discuss," anything w/ the person you're quoting-- is to read the blue-backgrounded material, the QUOTE, to which the poster is INDICATING HE IS, SPECIFICALLY, RESPONDING.

There may still be instances when some will assert that you, "should have read further back," to get your context. I, for one, will have no problem explaining the context to you if the material I quoted did not make it clear. That is not the case, here, however. And this is the last slow-walk you get from me when all the information you need, to avoid making an asinine argument, is available within my original posting, to which you're responding.

 

All true.

 

Exactly what you'd expect from religionists, hence the similarities (though religionists at least have an excuse .. childhood indoctrination, and aren't usually so obnoxious).

"Prove that G-d doesn't exist", et al. Fundamental philosophical error.

 

Sure, sure. You didn't actually mean that nationalism is the province of the Far Right. Gotcha.

 

LOL