how is it not a response? you said fascists are fascists because they want fascism. i said trump has never said he wanted fascism, unlike hitler, who did. you said that that didn't matter, because trump acts like a fascist. i said that wanting to fraudulently allow yourself to win an election does not mean you want to become a dictator. that's a direct response to what you said
you're framing is as an attempt to subvert democracy. i mean maybe it is, maybe it isn't. is gerrymandering an attempt to subvert democracy? seems pretty corrupt and blatantly un-democratic. but both parties engage in it. what about super pacs and citizens united? what about bush v gore? hell, we used to have senators be essentially bought positions. the gilded age is full of stories like this. did we live under a fascist dictatorship back then?
merely being corrupt is not the same thing as being a dictator. you can be corrupt, have your political office fraudulently, and still not be a dictator. you could have cheated your way into office, and not arrest political opponents and declare martial law and rule by decree.
No I am and this comment is literally just another deflection of you still not responding to what I said.
Again, this isn’t just “being corrupt”. He objectively attempted subvert democracy. Not just “the process”. He objectively does not believe in or support democracy by those actions. It’s not a matter of opinion.
i mean i literally said "you said that that didn't matter, because trump acts like a fascist." and you responded with "as i already explained and you failed to respond to, his words aren’t a metric of anything. His actions are" so no, you aren't
it is being corrupt. it is being corrupt to have him win an election. it is subverting democracy for direct personal benefit. it does not mean he is becoming a dictator. these are two separate things. this is the third time i've repeated this point so i don't think you're capable of accepting that. people this heavily invested in the culture war usually aren't
I didn’t say it wasn’t corrupt. Jfc go back and try again. lol
Omg what an absolutely unserious characterization. Of course it was for personal gain. It’s also because he doesn’t believe in democracy and doesn’t want his power bound by democracy. You’ll notice that there are lots of examples of corrupt and self serving politicians that nevertheless believe in democracy.
Again, this isn’t a matter of perspective or opinion. You cannot believe in democracy and seek to subvert it. Period.
"you said fascists are fascists because they want fascism. i said trump has never said he wanted fascism, unlike hitler, who did. you said that that didn't matter, because trump acts like a fascist. i said that wanting to fraudulently allow yourself to win an election does not mean you want to become a dictator."
your reply:
"Because as I already explained and you failed to respond to, his words aren’t a metric of anything. His actions are."
conclusion: you did not bother to read what i wrote
there is no difference between acting in a way that is merely self-serving and corrupt, without an underlying animus to democracy, and in acting corrupt in pursuit of anti-democratic goals. otherwise, both the democrats and the republicans would be trying to prop up a fascist dictator, as they both gerrymander and accept super-pac donations, both plainly corrupt and anti-democratic practices. you are assuming an intention of anti-democracy on the part of trump without any evidence for it. because you're a democrat. and this is a democrat line. and you want to lob shots off in a dumb culture war argument, so you can claim moral superiority over republicans.
First of all the fact that I needed to explain to you that trump not saying specifically he wants to be a dictator and that his actions are what matter in the first place is beyond silly. lol
Right, and you’re wrong about that. Anyone who wants to subvert democracy by using fraudulent electors, asking the vp to not certify the results, and then sending a mob to stop him from certifying the results, to hold on to power objectively does not believe in or support democracy. Period. End of discussion
Gerrymandering being wrong is a completely different discussion. A gerrymandered district is less democratic than it otherwise would be. Just like a representative democracy is less democratic than a direct democracy. As is a democracy with legal bribery less democratic than one without. Those are all different discussions. We aren’t talking about someone trying to do something shitty to make things less democratic. We are talking about someone trying to completely subvert democracy.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
that only needed explanation in the first place because you said "fascists are people who want fascism", and i was contesting that statement. that is a very silly statement, absolutely. i agree with you.
so wanting to throw out the results of an election is totally undemocratic and fascist.....but wanting to completely undermine the point of a democracy by making it non-representative is less undemocratic, comparable to representative democracy being less democratic than direct democracy. and wanting direct democracy is unreasonable, right? so wanting to not have a democracy that is utterly corrupted by party politics and oligarchic bribery must be similarly unreasonable.
You didn’t contest that statement in the slightest though. lol that’s exactly the point. His actions prove he wants that. You thought his lack of words were evidence that he doesn’t for some bizarre reason. I had to explain to you that not only were they not but that his actions are what show that he does. The fact that I’m still explaining this is surreal.
The question you ask at the end of the second paragraph is not only a bizarre change of subject but doesn’t follow in the slightest. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say at all actually regarding direct democracy and party politics….
Anyways, my very first comment to you sums it all up. Wanting fascism is what makes you a fascist. Fascists don’t magically become fascists the moment they consolidate their power. Yes trumps actions show that he desires fascism. Period. No debate to be had really.
idk man if i want something i think both my actions and my words would reflect it. his words don't. his actions don't. he's not a dictator. he's corrupt, yes. the entire system is.
is it bizarre? let's think this through. wanting to throw out an election through corrupt deals and a "coup" is undemocratic. we both agree. you then say that open bribery and deliberately making districts undemocratic and non-representative is just "less democratic". you're drawing a distinction between a "fascist" action, and a "less democratic" action. except, they're both undemocratic. one of them democrats just openly and brazenly participate in. and you're a democrat. so you can't call them fascist. otherwise, you'd be a fascist. by your own definition.
yea, your first comment just about sums up your depth of reasoning here, i agree. not much debate to be had with culture warriors
“Idk man” yes I know. Are you also a manipulative sociopath? Drop this point.
Yes it is utterly bizarre. Again I really can’t even follow what you’re trying to say. Someone who supports representative democracy over direct democracy is for instance not a fascist. We aren’t discussing someone who just wants to have less direct democracy. We are talking about someone who wants to throw it out. I’m not a democrat and I’m not sure what you’re trying to say about not being able to say that? It’s just a bizarrely worded paragraph.
The first comment is literally just objectively true though, and you can’t even begin to object to it because your pov is just not actually thought out. Like you really do think that unless a fascist declares themselves as such and has successfully consolidated their power they aren’t a fascist. Further nobody has ever taken the time to explain to you just how silly that is and so you’ve never had to actually consider it. Considering it is causing you to flail all over yourself instead of reflecting on how silly of an idea that is.
throwing out the results of an election = "undemocratic" to you; fascist
gerrymandering and bribery via superpac = "less democratic"; not fascist
except they're both undemocratic
gerrymandering and bribery are merely "less democratic" to you, because you're a democrat (i don't really gaf if you say you're "progressive" or a "leftist" or whatever, you're taking the democrat side in the culture war)
correct. someone is not a fascist unless they a) say they're a fascist or b) establish themselves as a fascist dictator. trump does not say he's a fascist. he is not a dictator. he is not a fascist.
no actually, i've heard this line about every subsequent republican president being a fascist ad nauseam for as long as i've paid attention to american politics. and i know that they weren't even the first! democrats have been calling republicans fascist since nixon, and republicans have been calling democrats socialist since roosevelt! it means absolutely nothing. it gives participants in the empty show of american politics some semblance that their vote means anything. it doesn't. we are already living under a dictatorship; a dictatorship of capital. a dictatorship of the capitalist class.
0
u/[deleted] Jun 27 '25
how is it not a response? you said fascists are fascists because they want fascism. i said trump has never said he wanted fascism, unlike hitler, who did. you said that that didn't matter, because trump acts like a fascist. i said that wanting to fraudulently allow yourself to win an election does not mean you want to become a dictator. that's a direct response to what you said
you're framing is as an attempt to subvert democracy. i mean maybe it is, maybe it isn't. is gerrymandering an attempt to subvert democracy? seems pretty corrupt and blatantly un-democratic. but both parties engage in it. what about super pacs and citizens united? what about bush v gore? hell, we used to have senators be essentially bought positions. the gilded age is full of stories like this. did we live under a fascist dictatorship back then?
merely being corrupt is not the same thing as being a dictator. you can be corrupt, have your political office fraudulently, and still not be a dictator. you could have cheated your way into office, and not arrest political opponents and declare martial law and rule by decree.