In fairness to you it has happened quite a few times.
archomrade
joined 1 year ago
This isn’t incompetence, its a deliberate strategy. One candidate plays the Nice Polite Republican and the other whips the base.
Maybe I could see that? I mean, if Vance rationalizes Trump enough to actually win then I guess it's effective. Trump is just such a sweaty big boy, a lot of libs who would otherwise go along with it just can't get themselves to associate, whereas if Vance was at the top of the ticket I think a lot of libs would be like "fuck me, that doesn't sound so bad".
Idk. If i'm thinking of any other historical example of fascist leaders, they're basically all deeply serious people. Bibi is a good example actually - Harvard educated, military background, exceptional political maneuvering. When he makes his threats you know he has the political capital to actually back it up. Contrast with Trump: he is just so plainly self-obsessed that his fascist message misses the mark for most people. Trump just flubs around in front of a camera and makes demands and only about half of his target audience takes it seriously, maybe less.
Taking a step back even, maybe what you're saying could apply to the duopoly, too. It would certainly explain Harris' shift to the right on immigration and law enforcement: Trump riles up the electorate into pogroms, and the liberal candidate offers a reactionary policy as a concession to placate the bloodlust.
I just don’t see anyone on the Dem side of the aisle who is going to do better than Hilary did in 2016, once Trump is off the stage.
Yea, that's my thing. Trump has created an appetite for reactionary governance, and the democrats just don't have a real response to it except "yea ok, I guess you're right". They'll either lose to the next republican or they'll slide into fascism themselves.
I think this way of viewing fascism is misleading. All fascist leaders use it to gain power - it is the willingness to use force against the out-group and hyper-nationalism that helps them solidify their position. It is the belief that doing so will make their country 'great' that is the ideological underpinning, and Trump absolutely fits that description.
I think he's just really bad at it.
The point is that the law is difficult to administer clearly because 'dual-use' is too vague. Russia's been hitting electrical facilities all across Ukraine for over a year, and they've been saying they're all legal military targets, even if they're serving a major city (including hospitals, critical civilian services, ect). The more hawkish crowd here is pretty selective when classifying war crimes depending on the parties involved, and even the UNSC is unable to make clear rulings (they don't have any teeth, anyway), especially when they involve an American-backed ally.
Israel has been hitting schools, Mosques, orphanages, ect, and they've thus far gotten away with it by arguing they were being used by Hamas. I wouldn't put much stock in what's being said is 'fair-play' or not. It's all questionable and it's all an escalation that nobody really wants.
Pretty sure their military uses electricity and water, too, so that means their electrical grid and water supply are fair game, right?
If they're shared by civilian infrastructure then they're probably using it as a shield, so that means it's OK to hit them anyway
This line of analysis really highlights just how incompetent Trump is at being fascist.
Most seasoned politicians are more like Vance and can sell their reactionary policy in all the nice language liberals like to use.
It also highlights how fucked the US is once Trump becomes irrelevant, because any one of the more competent fascists could potentially take his place, and Trump has set the bar so low that just about anyone else will be able to clear it.
Israel has already destroyed more than 60% of Gaza and has not shown any signs of stopping. If nothing is done to stop Israeli aggression Gaza will cease to exist anyway.
A full scale war with Iran would be catastrophic for everyone in the region, no question - but portraying it as somehow worse for Palestine specifically is adjacent to denying/understating the genocide they are already enduring under Israeli occupation.
It's wild how western war-mongers will point to restrictive domestic policy as a justification for (seemingly) unlimited violent aggression against them
Like, "look what you made me do! if you weren't so mean to your citizens I wouldn't have had to bomb them and destroy their homes and infrastructure!"
As if the US hasn't overlooked exactly those humanitarian offenses when they funded and armed religious extremists in order to install pro-western governments the world over. It's the kind of double-speak you read about in science fiction.
More Palestinians will also die if Iran and Israel don't go to full scale war, especially if the western world keeps shrugging their shoulders as Israel keeps expanding the conflict unilaterally.
It's actually extremely uncomplicated in this case. That's why they had to present counterfactual evidence to congress to evade the explicit restrictions spelled out by the law.
I swear there was actually a name for that.... pur.... purge.... perjury? Is it perjury? Wow i'm having some wild dejavu, has this happened before?
view more: next ›
Lmao Iowa City might be the funniest place for someone to own a cybertruck