chomsky, a prestigious scientist and political commentator calls the GOP the "most dangerous organisation in human history".

That means, he thinks the GOP is more dangerous than Al Quaida, the nazis and anyone.

Is the conclusion that the GOP must be stopped at all costs?

Only if you like breathing oxygen.

Look how happy they are. They sure don't look dangerous to me.

They've killed waaaay more people than AQ. Probably fewer than the Nazis, tho.

Fewer than the Mongols too so far, but Chomsky is talking about climate change here. It's going to be hard to count how many people the Republicans kill, but it'll add up.

They do seem hellbent on becoming a lesson in history books. If we still have history books...

While their potential for future damage is certainly high, Chomsky continues to make the same mistake all the other alarmists make... comparing someone to Nazis. The only purpose that serves is to water down the Nazi atrocities.

while you are certainly right that this comparison shoudlnt be made easily i think never comparing anybody to the nazis isnt the best strategy either, as it gives us the false feeling of security, that a crime to humanity in the size of the genocide will never happen again.

Also i wouldnt speek of alarmism, when democracy is about to decay.

Lol

Didn't you hear? It's been 70 years, hitler comparisons are fine now (as long as you don't compare him to a dictator who uses chemical weapons against his own people)

somehow i bet you wouldn't be laughing if Jeff Sessions was trying to restrict voting rights for white people instead of black people

US democracy is stronger now than it's ever been. You alarmists should read some history books about the way it used to be.

Trump is a dumbass. We all agree. But he can't do even 10% of what he wants to do. Lower level judges aren't even afraid to overrule him. His own party won't let him do stuff. He's the Bluffer in Chief.

Democracy will march on and we'll all vote again in 2 years.

im afraid if trump gets an impeachment the vice-president will become POTUS, he is a man with mental problems as well.

There is a steady decline of democracy since the 9/11, only an ignorant cant see.
I suggest you read some books yourself.

btw: read this if you are one of those ignorants i mentioned above. you dont have to stay that way.

http://www.businessinsider.de/econom...17-1?r=US&IR=T

Some things to look up:

Democracy Index

Princeton study on the correlation of wealth and correspondence between political opinions and outcomes and oligarchy.

Citizens United

Voter disenfranchisement

Gerrymandering

U.S. democracy is at its weakest in a long time.

- There is very little advancement of popular policy preferences. Studies show that the overwhelming majority, those in the bottom 98% of income, have essentially no influence over policy. Take gun control or health care for examples where the majority opinion is essentially ignored.

- Many of the most substantial policy initiatives are prepared and launched in secret, without public debate or consent of any form. See the massive domestic spying program or the TPP.

- The popularity of congress is at an all time low. Yet the incumbents are re-elected at an amazing clip, consistently in the high 90s. The nominations of Trump and Hillary, the two most disliked candidates in any presidential race since that was measured, are further evidence that undesirable candidates are being foisted upon the public. The system is set up so decent people can't run. You can't have a democracy when your candidates are chosen for you by moneyed interests. The two party stranglehold, and it's severe limitations within, decrease democracy as it gets stronger.

- If any of you people understood how vulnerable the actual voting systems are, or had a summary of some of the documented/proven election chicanery that has been going on, you might be a little freaked out. You can't have democracy without the voting mechanism itself being fairly run.

- Disenfranchisement efforts are recently reinvigorated.

- Even with all the anti-democratic devices listed above, probably the biggest threat is gerrymandering. I don't see that being discussed ITF or in the media ever, but it is an insidious problem of massive proportion.

Can we conclude LBJ would essentially have been a neocon today? His generals at the time certainly were. That puts the death count at the hands of cons in the ballpark of the Nazis. To say nothing of GOP-funded death squads across South America for decades.

Using that definition, every president was a neocon. lol

And no, it's still not in the ballpark of the Nazis... and even farther from the ballpark of the British empire, of which no country can even come close.

The British are nowhere near the Soviets or Communist China.

Yes, I guess we're only in bronze medal position in that event.

If May continues to hold hands with Trump to the bitter end maybe we could make a bid for silver.

Sure, if we're comparing the worst half century or so, but the Brits perfected their atrocities over many centuries.

You've earned your spot at #1. Enjoy it.

Chomsky did not say that the GOP has killed more people than any other organization in history. Dangerous, he said, not murderous. Danger is a form and degree of risk. It so happens that at this particular point in time, in Chomsky's view, the current republican party has more potential for harm than any other organization in history. Of course, they have the advantage of existing now, when technology is outstripping collective human judgement.

For example, it might be true that this immediate period is our last chance to avoid environmental catastrophe. If it turns out that the republicans have arrested efforts to stop global warming which would have otherwise been successful, then they could be responsible for the death of billions. That's danger.

In my estimation the democratic party is just as dangerous. The corporations you sheeple let run the world are amoral and will institute the same program no matter what puppet show you are watching.

zizek claims that hillary could be more dangerous than trump regarding a nuclear war. zizek claims alot of things though.

so far my impression is, that the GOP transformed to a party for crazy violent people, while the democratic party has moved so far to the right that it is the old GOP now.

I've made that same argument which is supported by a lot of Hillary quotes and insider prediction. Plus, there is just something really, really wrong with her, a less tangible nihilist/sociopath quality that some people just refuse to see in spite of all the leaked documentation spelling out clearly just who she really is.

The GOP has transformed into the fear, superstition, and negation coalition, naturally stocked up with irrationality and violence. With the actual majority of voters effectively unorganized and unrepresented, the GOP has consolidated the fringe which is related to mainstream republicanism through a variety of shared myths like free market magic, race, the bootstrap fallacy, American exceptionalism, freeloading minorities, and Jesus Christ.

Democrat leadership has adopted a strategy of corporate sponsorship and placating the middle. "Is there food at the grocery store? Do you want to live in a Christian theocracy? Is science better than superstition? If you answered yes, no, yes to these questions then you had better vote democrat! We're the non-crazies!". So philosophically the democrats position themselves as the gatekeepers keeping the lunatics out of power, an essentially conservative mission. The consequences of their corporate sponsorship often positions the democrats to the right of the old GOP. Eisenhower's support for unions would be considered scandalous by corporate-owned democrat leadership today.

Reminds me of when Stephen Hawking said he has finally proven how the world was created without God, and then it turned out to be some silly, tautological nonsense.

What is it with these once-great intellectuals growing old and saying absurd things? Is it a plea for attention or a sign of dementia?