Kevin McCarthy, and the weird phenomenom of the Democrats fueling the Right Wing Extremism

[Deluge]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

Deplorability.

That's leftists, all day, every day. 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Hitler was not a socialist.

Of course hitler was socialist.  THE socialists were different but there are many kinds of socialists just like there's many kinds of democracies (republic, westminster etc)

Hitler is what we refer to today as  a 'democratic socalist'  (amusingly enough).  And just like the dem socialists we have in europe today it's just a flavour of market socialist.

Hitler believed in the idea of private ownership of business and a "free" market (unlike traditional socialsts who believed the gov't should own all that), but he believed that the market should be HEAVILY regulated and include a fair bit of state ownership for the express purpose of guiding it to serve the interests of the nation.   Something the far left today or socailists in europe would whole heartedly agree with as a model

The problem was that he felt the interests of teh nation were in military expansion.  Today it's more likely to be climate change. But make no mistake, the nazi model of gov't was heavily socialistic and that's why they had that right in the name,  It just wasn't THE socialist party.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

He doesn’t know what “socialism” means. He thinks it simply means “authoritarian”.  Therefore in his view all authoritarians are socialist and vice-versa while all conservatives are libertarian and vice-versa. To him, the existence of right wing dictators and left wing democracies are impossibilities 

Sigh,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism

I remember when i was so young and stupid that i thought there was only one kind of socialism.  But its' been many decades since i was in grade 2

Does it ever occur to you to look this stuff up BEFORE making an !diot of yourself? Just curious

Hitler was definitely a socialist. There are right wing dictators in history - hitler wasn't really one.  The left just doesn't like the comparison.  Funny enough the left called hitler a socialist right up until ww2 started.

But hey  - there's even some who claim stalin was right wing   LOL - ohhh those lefties.

 

[BeaverFever]

28 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Of course hitler was socialist.  THE socialists were different but there are many kinds of socialists just like there's many kinds of democracies (republic, westminster etc)

Hitler is what we refer to today as  a 'democratic socalist'  (amusingly enough).  And just like the dem socialists we have in europe today it's just a flavour of market socialist.

Sorry that is not correct. 
 

28 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Hitler believed in the idea of private ownership of business and a "free" market (unlike traditional socialsts who believed the gov't should own all that), but he believed that the market should be HEAVILY regulated and include a fair bit of state ownership for the express purpose of guiding it to serve the interests of the nation.   Something the far left today or socailists in europe would whole heartedly agree with as a model

I don’t think any European socialists or far “wholeheartedly agree” with Nazi Germany as an economic model. You are massively overgeneralizing to make 2 disparate things sound more similar than they are. 
 

 

28 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It just wasn't THE socialist party.

“National Socialism” is not the same as “socialism” and Hitler didn’t come up with the party name anyway the Nazi party already existed as a fringe populist worker’s party.  Hitler took it over and eventually had its founder murdered during the “night of the long knives” after the founder left the party claiming Hitler had turned his back on workers and was colluding with wealthy industrialists and other socially conservative groups. 
 

The Nazis didn’t simply persecute “the socialist party” as you claim they persecuted any people they identified as “socialists” or having socialist values, period. The father of socialism, Karl Marx was a hated villain to the Nazis and the evils of Marx and socialism in general were frequently the targets of Nazi propaganda.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

That's leftists, all day, every day. 

Whatever happened to the pride deplorables had in themselves?

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, myata said:

OK I'm not an expert in the US politics. But American people voted GOP to have a majority in the House and they expect both parties be responsible and mature to make the House work for them (the people), not itself! Because GOP has the majority the Speaker has to be GOP and the House has to work.

So it could have played out as:

Responsible Democrats and Republicans talk who they could work with on the agenda needed for the country, the citizens. They have a majority for a candidate in this case, he/she is elected and the House gets to working for the people.

The Republicans say no, no we'll elect them just by ourselves no help needed and agree on a candidate who then has to accept the strings to the extreme margin. And it zips from there in the only possible direction.

Question: was the former option even considered, by both parties? Or it's something no longer necessary? Because partisanship has become a thing in its own right, it controls the decisions of (purportedly) people's representatives, instead of representatives working for the people as they must and expected to?

I think the first version is what will play out. I don't think Republicans have any interest in further empowering the kook contingent. They are staring daggers at Gaetz 

[eyeball]

45 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Sigh,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_socialism

I remember when i was so young and stupid that i thought there was only one kind of socialism.  But its' been many decades since i was in grade 2

Does it ever occur to you to look this stuff up BEFORE making an !diot of yourself? Just curious

Hitler was definitely a socialist. There are right wing dictators in history - hitler wasn't really one.  The left just doesn't like the comparison.  Funny enough the left called hitler a socialist right up until ww2 started.

Does it ever occur to you to read the sources you use before...you know? 

The word Nazi isn't even mentioned in your source.

Meanwhile... 

Quote

 

Some left-wing nationalist groups have historically used the term national socialism for themselves, but only before the rise of the Nazis or outside Europe. Since the Nazis' rise to prominence, national socialism has become associated almost exclusively with their ideas and it is rarely used in relation to left-wing nationalism in Europe, with nationalist socialism or socialist nationalism being preferred over national socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_nationalism

 

 

Quote

But hey  - there's even some who claim stalin was right wing   LOL - ohhh those lefties.

Cite.

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Does it ever occur to you to read the sources you use before...you know? 

The word Nazi isn't even mentioned in your source.

Why would it be? I don't think ANY specific gov'ts are mentioned for most of them.

You pretended there was one meaning for socialist - i presented you with ample evidence that there's a wide range.

Man - it's getting bad when you not only fail. you fail to realize why you failed

Quote

Meanwhile... 

So europeans prefer the term nationalist socialist over national socialist?

And?

Quote

Cite.

Why? As we just saw when  i do cite things you can't understand it anway. It would be like showing a dying rat a source on advanced physics. He has neither the time or the intellect to make any use of it

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You pretended there was one meaning for socialist

?

No, I just called bullshit on your notion the Nazis were amongst them.

You as usual are corroborating the fact you're full of shit better than any cite, source or link ever could.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Of course hitler was socialist.  THE socialists were different but there are many kinds of socialists just like there's many kinds of democracies (republic, westminster etc)

Hitler was NOT a socialist, he WAS the definition of FASCIST.

What does fascism mean?

Quote

 

Many experts agree that fascism is a mass political movement that emphasizes extreme nationalism, militarism, and the supremacy of both the nation and the single, powerful leader over the individual citizen. This model of government stands in contrast to liberal democracies, which support individual rights, competitive elections, and political dissent.

In many ways, fascist regimes are revolutionary because they advocate the overthrow of existing systems of government and the persecution of political enemies. However, when it advances their interests, such regimes can also be highly conservative in their championing of traditional values related to the role of women, social hierarchy, and obedience to authority. And although fascist leaders typically claim to support the everyman, in reality their regimes often align with powerful business interests.

....

Extreme nationalism: Fascist leaders believe in the supremacy of certain groups of people based on characteristics such as race, religion, ethnicity, and nationality. Hitler and his Nazi Party, for instance, advanced the idea of Aryan (essentially white Germanic) racial superiority. 

 

 

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Sorry that is not correct. 
 

It is entirely correct. Sucks to be you punkin

Quote

I don’t think any European socialists or far “wholeheartedly agree” with Nazi Germany as an economic model. You are massively overgeneralizing to make 2 disparate things sound more similar than they are. 

They would, and when you present the nazi model to them but substitute 'World domination' with climate change' or the like they love it.

Quote

“National Socialism” is not the same as “socialism”

But it's socialism.  There are many models of market socialism - the "socialists" realized nobody was ever going to go for the brand where the state owns all the means of production (which is just communism lite) and they started down the road of "we can have an open market AND still control it for socialistic purposes!"

There's quite a few examples and a wide variety of flavors.

Hitler believed in achieving socialistic goals by super-tight control of the market and busineses as well as social elements of society. He was absolutely a socialist.  He spoke on it MANY times

I don’t think any European socialists or far “wholeheartedly agree” with Nazi Germany as an economic model. You are massively overgeneralizing to make 2 disparate things sound more similar than they are. 
 

Quote

The Nazis didn’t simply persecute “the socialist party” as you claim they persecuted any people they identified as “socialists” or having socialist values,

So "The Socialists" and their supporters.  So the socialists. Thanks for coming out kiddo

Hilter hated marx's socialists, but he had his own version he loved and as we've seen there are MANY flavours of non-marxist socialism.

I don’t think any European socialists or far “wholeheartedly agree” with Nazi Germany as an economic model. You are massively overgeneralizing to make 2 disparate things sound more similar than they are. 
 

 

“National Socialism” is not the same as “socialism” and Hitler didn’t come up with the party name anyway the Nazi party already existed as a fringe populist worker’s party.  Hitler took it over and eventually had its founder murdered during the “night of the long knives” after the founder left the party claiming Hitler had turned his back on workers and was colluding with wealthy industrialists and other socially conservative groups. 
 

As noted hitler spoke on this regularly. The people should work  for the purpose of aiding the state's goals for a more equal and balanced and fair society - which he felt would be achieved by wiping out the lesser races and expanding the country by military force.  Take away that last part, and he's the same as any other socialist.

At the end of the day a sociailist (or socialistic) model is any that puts the state and it's goals ahead of the individual rights of the person and without a doubt germany did that.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Hitler was NOT a socialist, he WAS the definition of FASCIST

 

No, even he and mousellini didn't think that.

Hitler was a socialist.  But i suppose using your definition someone could be boht. By your definition Stalin was a facist, and if we're going that route it just means anyone who controlles an org and is Militaristic. So mao - facist, Putin facist BLM - facist.  Not exactly right wing leaders

Sorry - i keep forgetting your english comprehension skils are so weak

[West]

The left/right spectrum is more accurately defined as max government control on one end (left wing) vs max individual freedom (right wing). 

Why people equate nazism (government control over business) to right wing I dunno. Seems like a radicalized center. 

[myata]

6 hours ago, eyeball said:

Deplorability.

Prolific, pathological and disgusting lying. Genetic, too?

[eyeball]

On 10/3/2023 at 3:07 PM, QuebecOverCanada said:

He has been ousted with an unanimity of the votes of the Democrats, who voted alongside 8 Republicans. The 8 Republicans are considered to be at the far Right of the GOP in general.

Is there a possibility that Republicans could screw things up so much by splitting their vote that a Democrat winds up winning the Speaker's seat?

The entire House — Republicans and Democrats — votes for the Speaker, who would hold the position until early January 2025, unless they were deposed as well. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries is expected to run against any Republican candidate nominated by the party conference, as he did in January.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-house-speaker-candidates-1.6986712

[eyeball]

Just now, myata said:

Prolific, pathological and disgusting lying. Genetic, too?

No, I highly doubt that.

[myata]

51 minutes ago, West said:

Why people equate nazism (government control over business) to right wing I dunno.

Doesn't it like speak for itself?

Who is Putin (in your definition)? A fascist, totalitarian dictator.

Who is Join Un (your defition)? A brutal totalitarian dictator.

Then, if the former is "genius" and the latter, "very honorable" who the speaker is? This is a very simple question. Only plain logic.

[West]

9 minutes ago, myata said:

Who is Putin (in your definition)? A fascist, totalitarian dictator.

May be true but what makes him "right wing"? 

[Aristides]

23 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Just like in 2015.

 

 

Do you seriously think every Republican wouldn't have voted in favour of a motion to get rid of Pelosi when she was speaker? 

[QuebecOverCanada]

9 minutes ago, Aristides said:

 

 

Do you seriously think every Republican wouldn't have voted in favour of a motion to get rid of Pelosi when she was speaker? 

History isn't written by ifs but whats.

And the Democrats showed their true colours.

[Aristides]

10 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

History isn't written by ifs but whats.

And the Democrats showed their true colours.

So you don't think they would have all voted to get rid of Pelosi>

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Is there a possibility that Republicans could screw things up so much by splitting their vote that a Democrat winds up winning the Speaker's seat?

The entire House — Republicans and Democrats — votes for the Speaker, who would hold the position until early January 2025, unless they were deposed as well. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries is expected to run against any Republican candidate nominated by the party conference, as he did in January.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/us-house-speaker-candidates-1.6986712

Theoretically but probably not in practice.

[CdnFox]

44 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So you don't think they would have all voted to get rid of Pelosi>

They would have had to think long and hard about who the replacement would have been at that time and if that would be better somehow. Honestly i don't think they would have.

Also - republicans are more sensitive to the 'mutual destruction' concepts that have been tradition. They don't go after presidents  or candidates becuase they don't want the dems doing that to them - the dems are currently the exact oppisite - they are breakng those rules and then are surprised when the republicans say they intend to as well.

The republicans would be cautious about ousting a speaker like that.

[Rebound]

14 hours ago, West said:

The left/right spectrum is more accurately defined as max government control on one end (left wing) vs max individual freedom (right wing). 

Why people equate nazism (government control over business) to right wing I dunno. Seems like a radicalized center. 

There is no difference. 
In the extreme version of either system you have an oligarchy. Russia and China are both oligarchies.  The United States is rapidly moving towards an oligarchy, as the gap between rich and poor continues to widen. 
 

America’s life expectancy has dropped dramatically over the last twenty years. Funny things, that drop has occurred solely among the 2/3 of Americans without college degrees.  They are the same group who was conned into thinking that national health insurance would be bad for them… they voted against getting it, and now they’re dying at much younger ages than their peers in the western democracies who have national health. 

[West]

7 minutes ago, Rebound said:

There is no difference. 
In the extreme version of either system you have an oligarchy. Russia and China are both oligarchies.  The United States is rapidly moving towards an oligarchy, as the gap between rich and poor continues to widen. 
 

America’s life expectancy has dropped dramatically over the last twenty years. Funny things, that drop has occurred solely among the 2/3 of Americans without college degrees.  They are the same group who was conned into thinking that national health insurance would be bad for them… they voted against getting it, and now they’re dying at much younger ages than their peers in the western democracies who have national health. 

No the extreme end of right wing would be no legal system/ruler whatsoever. Full freedom.