The debate "What type of government does America have what's their real IDEOLOGY Fascism Nationalism ETC" was started by
February 4, 2017, 1:07 am.
1 person is on the agree side of this discussion, while 11 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
SharpHost posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
dalton7532 posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
lilmiller, slipknot, dalton7532, ScepticalPeasent, LSpalding, regnar375 and 5 visitors disagree.
1. I did not know I was acting that way, and again Trump was elected because of his vision for America. Was he not?
2. Unconstitutional is not illegal, so I see no contradiction.
3. I will wait and see on Trump's donor picks to make a more informed conclusion.
As this debate was fun, it is getting way off track, and we would just be repeating our self if we go on. Until next time.
your acting as if I'm saying Hillary should have won. I'm saying trump should recognize it was a close race and not act like he was given a mandate by the entire nation. the fact that he didn't even get 50% should be something acknowledged, not dismissed.
a few months ago you were telling executive orders much more tame were "unconstitutional"
did I only complain about their resume? what set this off was the deregulation. and considering his rhetoric during the campaign, this should be really suspicious.
the fact that these Goldman sachs execs happen to be the ones that donated heavily to trump was the point I stressed more strongly which you avoided, but I'm sure you'll excuse it as loyalty or a show of agreement, while completely ignoring the fact you are inviting corruption.
Why do you have an outright dismissal for anyone from Goldman Sachs, and have you not bothered to look at their qualifications? Trump has said he would put the top names in business to help run his administration, so it is not a surprise to me. Working in a large financial institution such as Goldman Sachs seems more than enough to qualify for agencies such as the NEC, which is exactly what Trump did. I seriously doubt if they had anything major on them, he would have not selected them. Trump has enacted rules to prevent corruption that is almost universally agreed to be more productive than Obama's. I expect more to come, which is good.
Trump was elected to pursue his agenda in office, and he is using his full authority given to him to do so. I disagree with his use of executive orders, but it is not illegal to do so. I would say executives orders harm our system, but the policy he is pushing will help us. To be totally honest, it is already a broken and ineffective system, so you can also argue the only way to be productive and successful is through executive orders.
I am not in the demographic where my vote can be changed easily, but there are people who can. If Trump wants to tone down his policies, that is his choice, but he was elected for his vision for America to represent us. I do not completely disregard the popular vote, but this is a Democratic-Republic. Hillary and Trump ran campaigns to win the electoral vote, not the popular vote. If Trump was trying to win the popular vote, he would have campaigned differently and the outcome could have been very well different. If the system was changed to a popular vote equates to a win, I would agree with everything you are saying, but that is not the case.
still waiting on the actions that supposedly promote liberal democracy?
is his ignoring of Congress and attacks on judiciary a promotion of democracy?
why do you think the popular vote is not important? this is a democracy right? regardless of who was targeted how, the people spoke. should it be ignored?
if Hillary came to your town would your vote really have changed?
I understand the merits of the electoral system and the balancing for smaller states, but do you really think the popular vote is completely irrelevant? does it not at least give trump a "mandate" to be less extreme and tone his policies down now that he is supposed to represent us all?
why would you completely disregard the popular vote in a supposed democracy?
his claim of drain the swamp is indeed not only liberal, but I would hope bipartisan american.... and yet it turned out to be just words.
I've laughed at his words for over a year now. show me actions, words are meaningless. his actions are a cabinet full of Goldman Sachs executives and specifically, just the ones who donated to his campaign, along with anyone who ever supported him politically. hiring friends and bankers is not draining any swamp, it's building a great swamp.
how are you not picking up on this!!!
you are religious, the devil, the deceiver, is also known for saying sweet words, will you believe the serpent blindly as well just because he claims to promise you paradise.... or will you actually examine the details and think...
and please, provide me a defense to an accusation that did not involve absolutely and verifiably false information or an outright dismissal (like "stop whinning" or "trust us")
I thought it was pretty evident that I meant the news networks like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox as media. Trump has continuously provided counter arguments to false accusations by the press, and then attacked them outright for implicit bias. No president or person should have to accept unfair treatment by the press, and barely any of them have been treated fairly. We need to fix that.
The nationalist in the conservative movement want everyone to succeed, but believe the USA is getting taken advantage of. They do not want to bully other nations. I do not see why you brought that up as it would be irrelevant and invalid if you are tying it with the current administration.
To your question, I would state that Trump draining the swamp supports a liberal democracy, but since we having opposing ideologies, you would find a way to disagree.
One more thing I would like to address, why do people find the popular vote to be relevant in this election? Trump and Hillary ran campaigns to win the electoral vote, not the popular vote. If Trump was trying to win the popular vote, he would have went to states like to California and New York more often.
I agree. but it is a problem. we need to explain to them that such things are extremely important.
would you want those who are disinterest to be forced to make an I'll informed choice? even if they are fed information, if they have no interest they will just zone out.
I'd love to motivate all to participate, but I am glad those who don't want to participate can just sit out. the last thing we need is more people voting for the best sounding name.
by not speaking they are harming are system. how can we be ruled by the people if half of them don't do anything to change things?
you don't vote, you don't count.
I'm sure those who do not care or do not know about politics would consider themselves "moderates" and fit into my category #3.
eitherway, their voices are irrelevant as they choose not to speak.
actually over half of America (stupidly) doesn't vote so who knows who was more popular
nationalism is fine. there is nothing wrong with putting ourselves first, to an extent. I wouldn't promote a policy where we lose, but I wouldn't mind gaining a little less if it makes a big difference to the other party. I wouldn't want us, from a position of power, to bully other nations into a 1 sided deal that week build resentment. mostly because that type of us first thinking will blow up in our face eventually. morality aside, it's stupid long term.
also, people forget other nations can think that way too, and the US has been leading the entire world away from that but that has been undone. if international diplomacy becomes purely transactional, what will happen to our stable and peaceful existence?
I know you on the right think the world is in chaos, but when was the last war between western nations capable of actually launching conventional bombing campaigns against each other? this situation is nice, safe, and in danger of unraveling with this international "us first" mentality.
the media is entrainment.
just because some media claim to be press does not make it press.
media is not the same as press, press is a specific type of media. they are not synonymous.
but here is what is fascist:
in a democracy, if the press says false accusations, the official defends against the accusation.
in fascism, the official doesn't defend himself, instead attacks the entire press as a whole and avoids the actual accusation... like Trump.
and which president was treated nicely by the press? none! why did none of them just dismiss every accusation, request, and question like this administration?
which of Trump's actions support liberal democracy?
You cannot deny the media is corrupt, and is in the need of criticism. In all honesty, What is wrong with that? If the media was honest and had integrity, and Trump continued bashing the media for coverage he did not like. I would agree with you. There is nothing wrong with defending oneself.
On so many levels does facism oppose Trump's values. "Facists reject liberal democracy" "Facists, on the other hand, prefer one-party rule." Trump supports Liberal Democracy and supports multiple party rule. No action in his presidency has proved otherwise for your claim to be relevant.
Be honest what is wrong with strong nationalism? Yes, it is a quality of facism, but also a quality of many good things. The same thing can be said with a strong leader. I left questionable out because he does allow himself to be questioned. Try again.
Politics has a point. I mean, Hillary won by 2 million votes, but the electoral college got Trump elected. 1 vote doesn't really touch it...
and by you don't matter, don't be insulted, you matter as much as me or any other individual, which is not much.
we the people may be powerful,
but you a person are by yourself insignificant as far as policies go.
you don't matter. you are a tiny spec of the American population.
look at how the white house treats the press? and this from the party that demonized the press all campaign, and whose spokesperson said the press "are the opposition party"
this country is turning into russia/china... fascism.
well I question Trump daily. and I'm conservative. I also know of others. idk how much. I would look it up but I doubt there's a statistic.
a strong unquestionable leader.
those are the 2 premises that made me reach the fascist conclusion. which one do you disagree with?
I don't associate bigotry. that's other people. but the fascism is real. so far any criticism of Trump has been met with dismissal by spicer. there is no debate. we are told to stop questioning the president and just "trust him"
that's not democracy, that's fascism.
and I doubt you can deny the ultra nationalism. a hallmark of fascism.
whether you want to admit it or not, it's not fascism yet, but the specter is growing.
This conservative movement is nowhere near becoming facist nor is it in the direction of becoming facist. Quit falsely associating facism and bigotry in our politics to fit your depraved world view.
it does not have 1.
currently there are 3 major views.
1. a fusion of capitalism and socialism.
2. a strong conservative movement that is in the process of becoming fascist.
3. the "moderates" who are mostly, imo the disinterested who have not examined their views.