2020 US Presidential Election

But Donald is always off-script... Because he can't read, hehe!

My point is that no political force cares about minorities bar dedicated ones. Nothing is genuine when it comes to politics. They just want to look "beautiful" in the pic. On Fascism, I agree with the end. Not with the means. We really need an aristocracy which isn't only capable, but virtuous. Not out of blood, but out of virtue. If religion can curb this viciousness of sexual freedom, then I am all for it. I also like the "Our country for our citizens". To be honest, I'd like, "Our continent, for our continent", but that doesn't work as much. It would be hypocritical if I would just bail men for having multiple affairs, while I condemn women for such. While the idea of actually making men's rampant polygamous sexual desires a social offense doesn't return to society, let women's now rampant hypergamy be. My issue is with cheating and abandoning family without a divorce, things that were even more normalized among men after the Sexual Revolution of '67 and currently isn't as condemned with women with the rise of sex-positive feminists. Equality is no reason for succumbing for vices and being a living sex machine IS a vice and a certification you aren't even a human, but a beast. Globalism is more around international organizations having more authority over a country rather the country itself. It is a must for anyone who shuns international authority over their own country's to point that shit up. It never worked, so why continue? You don't need to be an anti-semite for preferring your country to rule for its citizens instead of an international court or a world organization. Hm. I was wrong there over "free movement of people". I give it. Needless to say, I don't believe first-generation immigrants can be part of a country. I also give it in the Suleimani part. Some minoritarian lefties here hate joos. But any fringe group likes to blame them. Also, the IMF is clearly Orthodox, that's for the better. Orthodox economy always worked well, so why should we try horsecrap Heterodoxy like Developmentalism, Socialism and Austrian economics? Besides, in 2002, the IMF alerted us our economy would screw up in the long run should Lula (our main leftist "leader", was arrested for corruption) win the elections. However, in his first government, Lula not only benefited from the Real Plan (Plano Real), he also benefited from his Economy Minister, Henrique Meirelles, an Orthodox Economist's work. In the second government, Meirelles left and Guido Mantega, a Developmentalist (Heterodox) assumed the Economy. Our economy screwed up starting in 2013 when Dilma maintained him and conceded benefits to big national corporations and even other countries with the taxpayer's money (Puerto de Mariel as an example). Not to mention the glaring issues of corruption, but these are superficial at best, to be frank. The Latin American Left never admits when it's wrong, so it relies on crap the CIA had Lula arrested and the judge that sentenced him is an agents; the IMF sabotaged our economy; that any non-leftist wants to exterminate poor and blacks and other crap. I just say conspiracies aren't just a Right-wing thing. I mean, only in the US it may be exclusive to the Right. And it was in 2017~2018 that the Right gained more relevance in our continent. Yes, we Brazilians chose an excuse of a man as our President hoping he would be a Neoliberal Technocrat on his choices over Ministers. Turns out he sabotages his own Ministers' plans and now drools over Heterodoxy. Any populist uses Conspiracy theories and take them to another level. The Fascists' flair is adding Jews and Liberalism as enemies. That's why I cannot consider Thwomp a Fascios because of his... well, bootlicking to our twisted nosed friends (hehehehehe munee munee munee). Iran as a country is an enemy of the US (albeit extremely hypocritical for so). I went out of proportion when I said Holy War, as it is still Ideological at best (like NK). And I am sure I meant organizations in my last comment, amirite? ISIS is an organization, not a country. That is, an enemy created by the US itself lol. About Thwomp being a narcissist... no one can disagree with that. Unless those who like him, which isn't my case. @songofsisyphus

To be honest. I'd really like to point out that while I really have reactionary stances over society... outside monarchy, I don't really wish for them to come into fruition. My problem stems from the fact that Conservative and even Mainstream thought are being stigmatized in favor of said "openess" to difference. Reactionarism and Revolution haven't done anything other than to spread chaos and misery, not to mention the said castes they "fought for" never gaining the power they were promised. It also was the suit of proxy wars and other crap. Imagine if someone that thinks like I do wanted to have power? Civil war, expansionism and other misery I cannot even fathom. So long Economical Orthodoxy is maintained and rampant progressive thought is warded off like the plague from pop culture, society is bearable.

Reactionaries want to overthrow the current status quo to bring back an old one. Conservatives want to maintain the current status quo. Revolutionaries want to overthrow the current status quo and rise a new one.

@nebelstern I am against socialism. I have seen first hand what it has done. There is an entire branch of my family tree destroyed to the last child by Soviet revolutionaries. The local store owner's father was in Vietnam as an ARVN soldier back in the Vietnam war who saw entire villages wiped out by Vietcong not Americans. A local Cambodian who lost his mother, brothers and sisters to the Khmer Rouge. In driving school there was a man who's father fled to the US from Angola during the Angola Civil War where the MPLA destroyed his village. I even go to church with a former KGB officer who's job was to promote radical groups in other countries and have them destroy it. Then Soviet Union would come in to "save" the people. Revolutionaries were rounded up and killed and then a puppet government is set up to serve the Soviet Union. I cannot go into specifics, but it was something that he regretted. People who think they can do it better are damned fools who will get something started that they cannot control. It will end with them betrayed and lined up against a wall to be shot.

@dyadka_yar Indeed. Unfortunately, pointing out the Soviet Union's atrocities make some left-wingers go crazy on "whataboutism" regarding all the dictatorships the US funded and the proxy wars it fought against the Soviets. The so called Iron Curtain was the Soviets' most blatant case of rigging those countries' institutions. I oppose all things that vye to change society, economics and the status quo. It did nothing but to wreak havoc in social fabric and to be frank, were never really necessary outside of Independence wars (at least in the Modern era). Be they Socialism (actually I refuse to see Socialism only as Marxist Socialism) or Fascism. But I am not like the right-tards in my country who think that Fascism is a "brother" of socialism. It isn't, in a Conservative scope, but it can be in a Traditionalist scope (as both are "children" of Liberalism, despite both renegading it).

@momoichi So, I don't want to derail the thread but there are some points people made that I feel need to be responded to. Just let me know if stuff is getting out of hand and I'll try and meme about the actual current state of the US presidential election (like how Biden is like 10 points ahead of Trump in the polls). @nebelstern , a few things: It is not rationally possible to agree with the 'end' of fascism but not the means if you wish to actually achieve your own political ends (and if you don't wish to achieve your political ends I must question why you have them). The reason why fascism has the means that it does is because they are necessary to achieve its ends. The only way you end up with a situation in which one particular group or class of people is raised hierarchically over another in the kind of way you're thinking (for example, reinstating a monarchy or aristocracy, or especially in the case of fascism an ethnic and overly narrow national identity), is through violence, because without violence there is no way to achieve those ends. Nobody will simply give up their freedoms and liberties, such that they can be forced to conform to your ideal of what people should be like, without coercion, violence or very convincing deception. Seems like you'd go for the 'deception' angle, based on what you just said about aesthetics being all that there is ("Nothing is genuine when it comes to politics") - well, okay it would be uncharitable for me to assert that without first clarifying whether or not you think that that is justified - but one thing quite notable about fascists is that they behave as though there are *only* aesthetics. I will also note, as a point of entertainment for myself, that fascism is doomed to failure in what it purports to do because it's a murderous death-cult ideology in which no-one can ever actually be 'pure' enough. I won't bother to address your weird essentialism and dehumanisation of people based on their sexual habits (something you also share with a number of fascists), I think most people can probably see how that is pretty unjustifibly prudish, to an almost comical sense. You know, this 'anti-globalism' thing, in the terms you put it - suspicion of hierarchical authorities above the levels of nations - would probably be a little more convincing if you didn't literally want a monarchy, and hold up the nation, thinking that there should be a 'virtuous aristocracy', while it is plainly obvious that the nation-state is also a hierarchical and coercive authority over people. There's obviously no greater principle of autonomy at work here in your motivation. It also seems kind of odd that you hold to this decision and yet hold up the IMF as alright actually as it conforms to 'economic orthodoxy', despite the fact that it is not particularly on the level of individual nations, and does appear to have economic powers that can exert soft economic influence over those nations - this does strike me as a rather glaring contradiction. Also, can we curb the antisemitism in this discussion? For one thing it isn't really helping your case with regards to saying that you aren't antisemitic. Indeed, it seems like many Neo-Nazis hate Trump because they don't think he's antisemitic enough, but for one thing, as I understand it, antisemitism isn't a strictly necessary characteristic of Fascism (though there is certainly overlap), and if I recall, Trump has said a couple of things that do point towards an underlying antisemitism. All of the data I've seen in the past (though admittedly I don't often go specifically looking for data) showed that first generation immigrants tend to contribute far more to the country they immigrate to than its native population, proportionally speaking. By what measure would they be considered not a part of the country? Arguably they would be more 'virtuous' than this aristocracy you seem so keen on having, if we were only gauging contribution. Again, I have to look more into Lula and Brazil (honestly I'm inclined to trust Lula on this, but it is important to actually verify as far as is possible), so for now I don't have any further comment on the state of Brazilian politics. I'll also say that it's probably understandable that the Latin American left, broadly, would be stubborn, considering the sheer number of actual coups that have actually been sponsored by the CIA. "So long Economical Orthodoxy is maintained and rampant progressive thought is warded off like the plague from pop culture, society is bearable." -- Maybe for you. Not quite so for the people all across the world who prop up that orthodoxy through sweatshop labour, proxy wars and starvation. And it obviously wouldn't be better for the people who would benefit from a more progressively-oriented society, such as all of the various social minorities you seem to have such a callous disregard for.

"There cannot be a truly voluntary exchange between labour and wages unless a person is not at risk of destitution and/or death if they do not make the exchange. I've not really seen an argument against this point of mine yet." I've made the counter argument multiple times. Employers are not analogous to feudal lords. You are making employers sound worse than what they really are. Nobody is getting whipped. It is not implicit slavery. Working for an employer is a voluntary business transaction. Civilizations discovered thousands of years ago that money is the most efficient way to transact business transactions. Whether money takes the form of gold, silver, fiat, or crypto currency. It is less efficient to barter for goods. For this very reason. People do not barter for milk and eggs at the supermarket. It is alot more efficient to use money. How does one get money? Most people get money by working. Working is a completely voluntary exchange. Employee wants money. Employer wants work done. Employee gets work done. Employer pays the employee. That business transaction is completely voluntary. Money is nesesary to function in an organized civilized society. The exchange of money is a voluntary business transaction. Even assuming I granted your argument that work was paramount to violence. Which it is not, but assuming I did grant you that argument. How do you establish this communist utopia with zero money transactions? As you have stated, "it would be important to phase money out and allocate resources based on need, rather than wage based on labour-time". Communism sounds all good on paper. But the practical applications of communism failed. Look no further than Solviet controlled East Germany. Eastern Germany was a centrally and mostly state onwed economy. In the interest of wealth equality. Prices of housing, basic goods and services were heavily subsidised. The East German government tried to eliminate the implicit violence that you speak of. As most everyone had a legally guaranteed security of tenure and ownership to the properties. The communist economic policies of East Germany sound good on paper. But what happened? A lot of people fled East Germany for capitalist West Germany. People knew that the capitalist economy of west Germany was alot better then the communist economy of East Germany. Housing was all but guaranteed in East Germany. But thousands of people still chose to leave for west Germany. East German citizen opted out to the so called implit violence of capitalism then the implied fairness of communism. Do not give me the argument that East Germany was not true communism. Hence under true communism. The problems in East Germany would never would have happened. It is a double edge sword. As a capitalist could also make the same counter argument. Well you see. Capitalism has flaws because it is not true capitalism. If true capitalism existed. Then those problems would go away. Do not mention China either. China is not under true communism. China is politically communist, but economically capitalist. Some of the biggest capitalist companies exist in China. Under true communist economic principles. Companies like Tencent and Alibaba would have been disbanded and redistributed to the people long ago. Sure, the Chinese government still controls large parts of the economy. But Chinese workers do not wholly owned the companies. The Chinese figured out a long time ago that the implied fairness of communism was not good for economic expansion. Hence why large capitalist companies exist in China today. "I believe I used the term 'functionally'; what is important is that implicit or explicit, it is still a coercive force." You either chose not to see it or are acting dishonesty. I can't tell. You found it amusing that I used rape and murder in the same sentence. When utilizing your own logic. Rape and murder are functionally the same. Rape and murder are still a coersive force. Yes, your logic is amusing to me. When I stated rape and murder. It was under the rules of your own logic. To point out the flaws in your reasoning. Yang gave a plausible solution from the left to AI and automation. The left absolutely does not have a solution to automation and AI. Absolute statements are for the most part. Bad logical constructs. To be absolute. It must be deemed without a reasonably doubt. The Earth being an oblate spheroid. Is an absolute statement. The solution that Yang gave is not an absolute solution to the problem. It is bandaid to the problem. Universal basic income does not fully address the millions of jobs that will be lost to AI and automation. Giving people a little bit of money is not a full solution. Otherwise people wouldn't be unemployed. Analogous to the current Covid pandemic. Governments around the world gave people a little bit a money because they're unemployed. Giving people money does not fix the underlying issue. People are still unemployed because of covid. The government must address Covid directly. Just as the government must eventually address AI and automation. Giving out money does not fix the underlying issue. It is only a bandaid to a much deeper wound. A honestly have not heard any solutions from the right on AI and automation. Just as nationalistic right wingers did with immigration. To protect American jobs. I would not be surprised if nationalistic right wingers would eventually want to ban AI and automation. Banning technological advancement is a retardation. If the US bans technological innovations. Some other country will take up the mantel and proceed technology forward. In reagard to AI and automation. No real solutions exist from the right or left. @songofsisyphus