[POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

[Lacius]

Tell you what .. we have a long history of discourse and disagreement here, which I respect and don't want to throw away impulsively, so I'll give ya a shot at this. Remember, I did not say the Nazis were left wing. I said they were too difficult to pin down and ideologically inconsistent. But let's hear it ... tell me how and why the Nationalist Socialists were far right. And I don't mean just posting where some other people said they were --- what policies or actions did the Nazis practice, consistently, that were definitively right wing?

You ended the conversation, but here's some homework:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Position_within_the_political_spectrum

 

[Hanafuda]

You ended the conversation, but here's some homework:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Position_within_the_political_spectrum

Well you just posted where someone else said it after all. Huh. As for the content of the article though, it starts by saying most scholars say the Nazis were a far-right group. But then it doesn't back that up. (typical wikipedia) Instead it describes what I said -- a government with many factions, with leanings to both socialist and capitalist interests, not a consistent ideology, no definitely discernible right or left lean. The Nazis did practice the fascist plan for industry, of private ownership with strict government participation and supervision. It's a broken paradigm ripe for cronyism, which worked very well for corrupt members like Goering. They also had this well-known antipathy for the Jews and all the racial theory .... leftists usually point to this first and foremost to explain how the Nazis were far right wing, but don't want to talk about the Soviet Union practicing similar policies and killing even more Ukrainians and Jews than did Hitler, or how the Chinese Communist Party's policies are working an effective genocide on the Uyghers today. Are those Communist governments "far right?"


This is from the article you linked:
When asked in a 27 January 1934 whether he supported the "bourgeois right-wing", Hitler claimed that Nazism was not exclusively for any class and he indicated that it favoured neither the left nor the right, but preserved "pure" elements from both "camps" by stating: "From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living, creative Socialism".

Here's another quote from Hitler:
Addressing his own party, the NSDAP, in Munich in August 1920, he pledged his faith in socialist-racialism: "If we are socialists, then we must definitely be anti-semites - and the opposite, in that case, is Materialism and Mammonism, which we seek to oppose." There was loud applause. Hitler went on: "How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-semite?"


I think Hitler used "socialism" when it served his purposes, effectuated controls on industry when it served his purposes, pushed nationalist propaganda when it served his purpose. The Nazis practiced government like a feudal domain, that's why I don't think any political label can be attached to them. The Nazis were fucking Nazis. When I see anyone desperately insisting the Nazi Party was far right, or left, or Socialist, I dismiss it as motivated by a particular contemporary bias.

 

[Lacius]

Well you just posted where someone else said it after all. Huh. As for the content of the article though, it starts by saying most scholars say the Nazis were a far-right group. But then it doesn't back that up. (typical wikipedia) Instead it describes what I said -- a government with many factions, with leanings to both socialist and capitalist interests, not a consistent ideology, no definitely discernible right or left lean. The Nazis did practice the fascist plan for industry, of private ownership with strict government participation and supervision. It's a broken paradigm ripe for cronyism, which worked very well for corrupt members like Goering. They also had this well-known antipathy for the Jews and all the racial theory .... leftists usually point to this first and foremost to explain how the Nazis were far right wing, but don't want to talk about the Soviet Union practicing similar policies and killing even more Ukrainians and Jews than did Hitler, or how the Chinese Communist Party's policies are working an effective genocide on the Uyghers today. Are those Communist governments "far right?"


This is from the article you linked:
When asked in a 27 January 1934 whether he supported the "bourgeois right-wing", Hitler claimed that Nazism was not exclusively for any class and he indicated that it favoured neither the left nor the right, but preserved "pure" elements from both "camps" by stating: "From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living, creative Socialism".

Here's another quote from Hitler:
Addressing his own party, the NSDAP, in Munich in August 1920, he pledged his faith in socialist-racialism: "If we are socialists, then we must definitely be anti-semites - and the opposite, in that case, is Materialism and Mammonism, which we seek to oppose." There was loud applause. Hitler went on: "How, as a socialist, can you not be an anti-semite?"


I think Hitler used "socialism" when it served his purposes, effectuated controls on industry when it served his purposes, pushed nationalist propaganda when it served his purpose. The Nazis practiced government like a feudal domain, that's why I don't think any political label can be attached to them. The Nazis were fucking Nazis. When I see anyone desperately insisting the Nazi Party was far right, or left, or Socialist, I dismiss it as motivated by a particular contemporary bias.

You sure do have a lot to say for someone who ended the conversation, but here's some more homework:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Position_in_the_political_spectrum

In summary, Nazis were/are nationalistic and fascist, and these are far-right traits. The fact that Nazism, alt-right, white nationalist, etc. are far-right is not controversial.

 

[FAST6191]

alt-right ... are far-right is not controversial.
Is that so?

alt-right always seems to be a nebulous term to describe any number of movements, groupings and the like.
Some do seem to be the hardcore "I love my white skin" types (never mind that there are half a hundred flavours of that), others from what I can see tend to be what would have been called South Park republicans 10 years earlier (keep that religious/neoconservative stuff back in the 80s but explore some of these free market and free speech ideals, whether Trump represents that sort of change then most of what I heard from them is not so much but heading vaguely in that direction more than Bush Jr ever did), some appear to be plain old libertarian types, others use it as a snarl word to dismiss people and the original self defined term seems to have been abandoned and/or supplanted by others.


As for Nazis. If we ignore the dislike of blacks, jews, gypsies and the whole Arian thing (a hard thing for some people it seems, and a fairly key component of the idea as a whole) would their policies have been more or less universally favoured by right wing factions today? Many of those would have been a hard sell from where I sit if the right is generally going to heavily favour free enterprise, low levels of nationalisation of industries/services, low government spending, general freedom to do what you will and whatnot (everything within the state, nothing outside the state and all that, which might fit with various takes on communism from those that abandoned the "continuous revolution until the whole world is" in favour of just in my country as well for that matter).
I certainly have my problems with horseshoe theory (generally speaking go extreme in either direction and it all starts looking pretty similar, and they might but the reasoning ends up rather different at key points) and even without that the nazis had some policies that were fundamentally at odds with left wing of the time and today. Some reckon the generally simplified, dare I say reductionist, view of Nazism (or local equivalents thereof) might be what occurs when you push right wing thought as far as it will go and meet practical reality, just like [points to everywhere communism was tried] is when you push left wing thoughts as far as they will go and meet physics, practical reality and human nature, something to explore there but as with most things attempting to be fit on two or maybe three axes on a graph it is prone to oversimplification, even if it poses some interesting simplifications.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

Who is Giovanni Gentile?

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

Some do seem to be the hardcore "I love my white skin" types (never mind that there are half a hundred flavours of that)

A strawman and the Lewontin fallacy in one sentence.
Although large parts of the alt-right hate me, I have to point our your misrepresentation. The equation race = skin color does not come from the alt-right but is primarily used to ridicule it.
Furthermore, it does not matter how many shades their are among "blacks". "blacks" do exist. If you agree with this statement, then the same applies to "whites".

 

[Deleted User]

not american, but my interests align way more with trump's than biden's. america has a theme of third parties never doing anything, and i would credit that on only being able to vote for one candidate per voter, but only letting you choose one candidate per voter is an issue in many places besides the america

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

You (and most people) have learnt very little from World War 2.
It does not matter whether Hitler was left- or right-wing [depends on the definition; you are just talking past each other].

What matters is that ideological differences and expansionism can be used to justify war. The USSR and USA have continued along these lines right after Germany´s defeat and it is still very much present in both parties in the US, i.e. in the form of interventionism (and in Russia as well).

If there is World War 3 with billions of deaths, maybe the survivors will suddenly have an epiphany: Live and let live.

 

[KingVamp]

I know, don't base things on gbatemp polls, but it is still interesting how the poll is shaping so far, versus the 2016 one.

 

[Lumstar]

Three wrong turns won't lead the country in a positive direction. The GOP leads the pack in a century of economic catastrophe. Is there any mystery in the Great Depression, 2008 crisis, and mishandling the coronavirus recession each occurring under a republican administration? I think not.

Surely I jest though! Other parties have their own skeletons in the history books. The democrats crossed the line in commanding face coverings without going through fair and just legislative procedures to draft and ratify the measures. Irrespective of any merits of wearing masks, a nanny state is a pebble's erosion from dictatorship. The cliche about trading liberty for security ya know.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

I'll leave this here.

 

[Ibcap]

View attachment 222534
I'll leave this here.

Thats some next level bad faith arguing, it takes 5 seconds to find out that guy has continuously denounced the KKK and his former involvement with them https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...biden-isnt-kkk-grand-wizard-photo/3183887001/. How are republicans able to let Trump have a pass when hes supported by literal grand wizards and white supremacists like David Duke and refused to disavow them when asked, but Biden should be criticized for holding hands with someone who disavowed the KKK and supported the civil rights act.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

 

[Xzi]

Snip

I'm sorry, but you gotta be a whole other level of dumb to be fifteen and form all your political opinions from shitty boomer memes on Facebook.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

I'm sorry, but you gotta be a whole other level of dumb to be fifteen and form all your political opinions from shitty boomer memes on Facebook.

At least I don't trust fake news and quacks.

 

[Ibcap]

View attachment 222536 View attachment 222537

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...can-dream-is-to-be-donald-trump-idUSKBN23G275
As for the joe quote, politico says that an anonymous source claims to have heard obama say that. Thats your hard evidence? This is a joke, stop posting fake shit without even googling it first.

 

[Xzi]

At least I don't trust fake news and quacks.

Riiight, you only trust fake news from somebody's 70-year-old inbred uncle with dementia.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

Riiight, you only trust fake news from somebody's 70-year-old inbred uncle with dementia.

Joe Biden?

 

[Xzi]

Joe Biden?

Nah, none of the trailer park retirees on Facebook have had the slightest bit of success in any field at any point in their lives. Same road you're on as long as you keep absorbing and regurgitating their mindless drivel.

 

[UltraSUPRA]

Nah, none of the trailer park retirees on Facebook have had the slightest bit of success in any field at any point in their lives. Same road you're on as long as you keep absorbing and regurgitating their mindless drivel.

It really says something when you're calling someone out for being stupid without refuting anything said.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...can-dream-is-to-be-donald-trump-idUSKBN23G275

He still said that either he or his kids were going to become the next Donald Trump.