but you worry about a war with Russia..... hmmm...yes of course Russians would suffer terribly......
The whole world would suffer terribly, if that war would become nuclear. And what would prevent it? If Russia would be unable to defend its own territory, it is official policy that it can use its nuclear weapons. And the US is the only state in the world which has already used them.
War may be unavoidable..... sealed by Putin's interference in the USA election process....are you ready for it...?
War is certainly not unavoidable. I think the danger of nuclear war is actually lower than before the election.
You also make a vast presumption that the USA Military is under the control of a POTUS that most in the military would consider insane...
Else they would have been under the control of a known warmonger, who has already started several wars.
and you seriously think claiming Amnesty International as a Fake news source is really going to work.
Further do you actually think supporting your argument with utter rubbish is worth your time and effort?
If you think that the arguments are utter rubbish, ok, your decision. In my youth, I had also an AI sticker. I have disposed it long ago, don't remember the reason, but it was also because of fake news. So, for me AI was already known as fake news many years.
so ... uhm what do you think about President Bannon's troop build up on the Russian border?
Nothing. In general, it is far from clear what will be Trump's policy. My "less evil" argument was always of the type "known murderous warmonger vs. completely unknown". This includes, of course, the possibility that the completely unknown may appear as bad or even worse than the known murderous warmonger. We will see.
Ah, the crux of the issue surfaces at last... in essence, you don't give two shits about indecency, sexual assault, assault and battery, ...
In comparison with the danger of nuclear war, indeed. If you think otherwise, your choice.
Like I keep saying - you have a blind spot. You can't see incoming despotism from the right.
Wrong. I see it. I have argued already a long time that all those color revolutions will have natural reactions everywhere - reactions which are quite fatal for real peaceful revolutions. Because everybody who disagrees with Washington has to be afraid of an US-paid color revolutions and to prepare for it. The preparation against a color revolution requires (1) control of the big media, (2) preparations of police and laws for defense against mass demonstrations.
The economic system of fascism is capitalist corporatism. "Extreme regulation" is not involved - regulations are designed to benefit the capitalists who are embedded in the government, which means deregulating them certainly, and regulating their enemies as they may prefer. Trump's deregulations - which would continue the deregulating trend since Reagan, a major feature in the US - are easily possible given the Republican Congress. That would be a direction toward, not away, from corporatism.
Extreme regulation is what distinguishs fascistic economic policy from free market economic policy. So, it is required if you mean "fascistic" seriously and not only as a content-free invective. That some amount of free markets may be in the interest even of big corporations, so that they support some deregulation, is a possibility, but if the US corporations use them, this would be a step away from corporatism. Fascistic regulation is quite extreme regulations.
None of this changes the ideology or stances of the Left, which are not fascist by definition of "left".
Nonsense. As Mussolini, as Hitler came from the left. They have embraced nationalism - but even nationalism was, originally, from the left too. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wartburg_Festival
They also highly valued Nature, animal protection and so on, like the Greens today. So, definitions will hardly help you to make a difference between the left and fascism. Except, of course, for Orwellian definitions of type "what the Big Brother does not like is fascism".
I didn't "suppose" anything, I read your posts - you told me how you got your opinion of Trump - from what he said, from his status as a businessman, etc.
You had to suppose something to get the idea that I have somehow be influenced by some "charisma" of this guy.
That he is a businessman is a simple fact. Do you want to dispute that one can use it to make some plausible guesses about what he will do? What one can say, looking at the propaganda, is that the people he uses are attacked mainly for their political views, not that much for their competence. This would be natural behavior for a businessman. He would have to care to have competent guys in his team, not that much politically loyal ones.
What one needs to "rule the world" is irrelevant. The threat is from how Trump may employ the military he commands. It is a big national military greater than the US can afford. Trump has promised to use it internationally, to kill Islamic terrorists and their families - what he lacks in ideology he can easily make up for in tactical nukes.
So, this sounds like that all those things one can establish in a rational way - like that a nationalist ideology does not allow one to rule the world, because there is no nation big enough to rule the world against everybody else, and nationalism makes everybody else an enemy - do not matter at all. What matters are subjective evaluations of the personality of a few political leaders.
I have no doubt that the personalities of the political leaders are important too. But they are, first of all, the first target of propaganda. This is very easy to establish, to smear the political leaders of the enemy is a standard tool of propaganda. And if somebody uses such personal smear, one would better dispose that as propaganda without caring. Then, if one nonetheless thinks, based on such propaganda, that it really is important, one would better judge oneself by looking at what that person actually does, how it behaves and so on.
This method you have clearly rejected, see the discussion about the Clinton videos. I have not yet seen any necessity to care myself about the personality traits of Trump. Why? The part of what can be dismissed as obviously propaganda is very big. Some of this openly (anti-white) racist, like that about small "hands" (I know that blacks are proud of their big "hands", and not without reason), his hair and skin color. Another big chunk is part of the cultural war against political correctness, where he has simply intentionally provoked. Up to now, I give him his 100 days.
Don't be afraid, I'm quite open to the possibility that Trump appears to be really worse than Clinton. (You may remember, I have supported the thesis that Putin may have reasons to prefer Clinton too.) But up to now I have not seen anything to support this conclusion.
The pre-election thesis which has been supported even much more than expected is that Trump will be weak president simply because of the split within the American elite - so that US has to care more about this inner-American fight. "Divide et impera" as a weapon of the multicultural world against the unipolar US world rule is really funny. Here, the situation seems already clear: The globalists have decided to fight Trump with all means available. The old Russian joke that a color revolution is impossible in the US, because it does not have a US embassy, is already falsified.
