That definitely justifies people not stopping a fascist from getting elected. It’s not like he said he would be a dictator out loud or anything, am I right?
Jesus Fucking Christ… it should not be the job of any political party to have to tell people to not let the fascist dictator win.
I mean, you can say that but it’s clearly not reflective of reality so what’s the point in maintaining that kind of thinking? Fascism doesn’t scare people the way you think it should which means your view on it is the outlier, not theirs.
Then maybe blame the people who aren’t scared of fascism for allowing a fascist to get elected and not expect a political party to teach them basic fucking history.
Politics isn’t about history or knowledge. It’s about popularity and perception. You should know that by now. Democrats are perceived to be ineffectual and their policy positions are poorly communicated at best. Republicans have simple messaging and they respond to their voters. You can disagree all you like with what they’re saying but it doesn’t mean that their voters are suddenly going to start sharing your values. They aren’t afraid of fascists or fascist rhetoric no matter how many different ways you come up with to insist that they should be.
I’m saying that expecting the term fascist to be a deterent to voters is clearly a losing strategy no matter how you or I feel about fascism, as demonstrated by the fact that we’ve tried it twice now and it only barely worked the first time. Democrats do need to learn how to fight dirty but I wouldn’t use the term fascistic to describe those tactics.
If the endless blockbuster WWII movies and channels full of documentaries and major TV miniseries haven’t been enough to convince the U.S. that fascism is a terrible fucking idea, the Democratic Party didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell.
“both sides are bad”-ism is what made trump win the election
No, Democrats being ineffectual corporate stooges for 50 years is what gave Trump the opportunity to win.
That definitely justifies people not stopping a fascist from getting elected. It’s not like he said he would be a dictator out loud or anything, am I right?
Jesus Fucking Christ… it should not be the job of any political party to have to tell people to not let the fascist dictator win.
I mean, you can say that but it’s clearly not reflective of reality so what’s the point in maintaining that kind of thinking? Fascism doesn’t scare people the way you think it should which means your view on it is the outlier, not theirs.
Then maybe blame the people who aren’t scared of fascism for allowing a fascist to get elected and not expect a political party to teach them basic fucking history.
Politics isn’t about history or knowledge. It’s about popularity and perception. You should know that by now. Democrats are perceived to be ineffectual and their policy positions are poorly communicated at best. Republicans have simple messaging and they respond to their voters. You can disagree all you like with what they’re saying but it doesn’t mean that their voters are suddenly going to start sharing your values. They aren’t afraid of fascists or fascist rhetoric no matter how many different ways you come up with to insist that they should be.
So you’re saying the Democrats should have been more fascist?
I’m saying that expecting the term fascist to be a deterent to voters is clearly a losing strategy no matter how you or I feel about fascism, as demonstrated by the fact that we’ve tried it twice now and it only barely worked the first time. Democrats do need to learn how to fight dirty but I wouldn’t use the term fascistic to describe those tactics.
If the endless blockbuster WWII movies and channels full of documentaries and major TV miniseries haven’t been enough to convince the U.S. that fascism is a terrible fucking idea, the Democratic Party didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell.