Germany/Hitler v. USSR/Stalin was kind of Nationalism v. Internationalism. Of course there was still rallying around Mother Russia during the war, but the theory was international. (and Stalin wasn't Russian)

Trump is definitely a nationalist. His overt lack of respect for the rule of law, and harping on order are authoritarian, whether you call it fascist or not.

Sure. D.Trump spews some stuff with strong similarities to prior fascist leaders.

One of those strong similarities is virulent anti-socialism. For some reason, einbert wants to deny and ignore this fact. Pointing this out isn't nitpicking.

Obama exactly prescribed to the bush doctrine geopolitically sans the torture. HRC claims to want to do the same, yes? You guys like to disconnect the glory days of ole wwii when blacks weren't quite slaves and we fought gainst the bad guys for the 2nd time in our 200 year history. You like to disconnect our history but the shining hill rhetoric of the democratic/republican west continues. Recall this whole mess was created by league of nations and subsequent generations which are exactly being exalted. These same people who literally accused the press of being apart of the soviet-jewery a few years later.

HRC literally voted for the iraq war. At best case her intentions were that she thought it sounded kinda fishy but it was politically inconvenient. Obama just told you at the DNC 'this is just how politics works' in one breath than tells us not to complain, to 'just vote' and people are supposed to lap it up like only platitudes matter. Remember the history of the presidency to pass any legislation is very weak so these promises imply that they will have some supermajority or just tell us that 'opps thats the way washington works.'

Oh come on. You could sail the fifth fleet between Obama's and Bush's foreign policy.

Yeah. I wouldn't presume there's no Obama torture. But, the Obama doctrine is 30 drone missions a month and innocent people killed by the hundreds. The Bush doctrine is 150000 troops, countless bombings, hundreds of thousands of people dead, millions of refugees and poverty for tens of millions.

If Hillary sends 100k troops to Iran, then that will be the Bush doctrine.

That's not the question being asked.

Quiz time. Lets put the total horse crap blinders on assume that freedom is as the west defines it, ignoring all evidence (aka history), asking the question who the # threat in the middle east region is?

I'm on vacation in Germany. A large number of Germans see a whole lot of Hitler in Trump. While there are obvious differences, it's not as big of a stretch as I originally thought.

Sent from my LG-K430 using Tapatalk

At what point after WWII was American foreign policy not imperialistic and grossly immoral?

Compared to Vietnam and Cambodia, Iraq was just an honest misunderstanding. Compared to Iraq, Obama's drone war is a mitzvah. So if US state-sponsored terror is your primary concern, then the status quo today is historically not bad.

So why do you think the status quo today is a disaster?

Answer my q first please. I have done plenty to define 'western fascism'.

Yeah, maybe I should have referred you to point 4.

The word you could have used was 'Authoritarian'. Authoritarianism could be said to not be a thing of the left or right, and D.Trump's spew has strong similarities to historical authoritarians.

But you didn't, you chose the word 'fascist' instead.

But, realize you're making up your own definition. In common parlance, the USSR wasn't facist. If you were taking AP history, and you identified the eastern front of WW2 as a fascist -vs- fascist conflict, you're getting zero credit. The Cold War wasn't said to be capitalism -vs- fascism. No reputable academic classes the USSR as fascist. Including the dude you quoted yourself. Etc, etc, etc.

Now, I can't read your "secret inner heart", but my spidey sense is telling me that (a) you feel the word 'fascist' punches more propogandic punch, (b) you like calling Trump a fascist, and (c) you just like saying the word fascist.

But, I think you're actually shooting yourself in the foot. For two reasons: (1) you lose credibility when you start making up your own words like that, and (2) Trump is most certainly a thing of the right, the regimes of B.Mussolini, F.Franco, etc were most certainly things of the right. As propaganda, you should want to assert and highlight this similarity, not deny and ignore it.

It's not really clear what your question is. You want people to acknowledge that Hillary is a poor candidate and the perfect embodiment of so many things that are wrong with the status quo? Granted! She totally is! What's your point? And what does it have to do with fascism?

Is your claim that trump is fascist-y while hillary is not? Yes no something in between. If something inbetween, please rate both on a 1-10 scale providing examples of 1 and 10 on the fascism scale (purely iyo).

If the answer to the above is yes, then who do you view is the #1 threat country-wise in the middle east?

I consider HRC not fascisty at all, and TRUMP a greater threat in every way on every issue imaginable.

You seem to be forgetting his own words about the 30k troops he wants to send to Syria, all the innocent civilians he wants to kill, the oil he wants to steal, the Iran deal he wants to tear up, his willingness to abandon Israel, and that he's perfectly OK with Putin running roughshod over everything in the region. Maybe it's just me, but those things sound kinda destabilizing imo.

I have no idea, because I'm still not sure what your point is.

Regret$ -

Wake up bro, I pre-ordered Who Rules the World? the first day it was listed.

I (mostly) agree with your take on U.S. foreign policy and domestic flag-waving, I'm just curious why you think the status quo today is especially bad.

I still have no idea what's going on. Regrets, any chance of you circling back and making some sort of point about fascism? I'm kinda feeling like I'm the butt of a shaggy dog story here.

How the hell did Bernie come into this? Seriously, I have no idea what you're talking about.

I deleted it. Anyways you can answer my question cause I explained my viewpoint plenty. GL 2 u.

You haven't explained anything and your thread sucks.

you should have used totalitarianism instead of fascism to avoid the pointless semantics debate

Yeah you're probably right. Hindsight is 20/20.

FWIW, I agree with Shame Trolly! and others that at some points in my OP, I have mixed up the terms fascism and authoritarianism a bit. It wasn't intentional, this is a learning process for all of us. Anyway, to try to get the discussion back on track a bit:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...amily-members/
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with his economic views. But this view is incredibly dangerous and perhaps even more dangerous is the fact that it did not seem to erode his support one bit. It seems like Donald Trump supporters are fine with authoitarianism/fascism, as long as TRUMP is the one who is implementing it. But when Clinton wants to say, pass background checks on guns, they claim she is the real fascist. This kind of nonsense argument takes up a lot of time and energy even though there is no real validity to it. And so the election today is practically a coinflip.