Can Donald Trump become President Again?

[The Catboy]

Considering on how all those sites are biased and has regularly changed definitions to follow the mainstream nonsense narrative:
https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/6/10/21286656/merriam-webster-racism-definition
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...ses-definitions-eliminate-prejudiced-language
https://www.newsmax.com/us/wikipedia-liberal-activist-website/2020/11/29/id/999156/
(to name a few examples)
I'm not putting much stock or trust in them. I'd rather to stick to what words and their definitions actually mean.

None of those links even say anything about fascism.

I'm clearly a fascist myself.

At least you finally said it

 

[SG854]

Probably because you made it up.

He didn't make it up if he got it from the wiki article.

That apparently @BitMasterPlus says not to trust because they changed the definition of racism. So don't trust @Foxi4 wiki source either thanks to BitMasterPlus.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

All those links you listed says nothing about fascism.

None of those links even say anything about fascism.

Because I was using those as examples on why I don't completely trust their definitions on most words since they change them based on

At least you finally said it

Now admit you have daddy issues and we're good

He didn't make it up if he got it from the wiki article.

That apparently @BitMasterPlus says not to trust because they changed the definition of racism. So don't trust @Foxi4 wiki source either thanks to BitMasterPlus.

I'm just careful on which sources to trust. Sometimes they can be right, and sometimes they can be completely bias so one must be careful. Besides, what makes catboy's definition more valid that Foxi4's? Aside from half the people belonging to the same circlejerking group to stick up for one another.

 

[The Catboy]

Now admit you have daddy issues and we're good

I don’t recall that being part of fascism either. Your examples really didn’t prove a point though. You just don’t like being corrected. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[SG854]

Because I was using those as examples on why I don't completely trust their definitions on most words since they change them based on

Now admit you have daddy issues and we're good


I'm just careful on which sources to trust. Sometimes they can be right, and sometimes they can be completely bias so one must be careful. Besides, what makes catboy's definition more valid that Foxi4's? Aside from half the people belonging to the same circlejerking group to stick up for one another.

Was the definition of fascism changed? Do you have any evidence that they changed the definition and therefore should not be trusted?

Or are you just going on a hunch based on changes to racism. You gave links to changes of racism but not facism.

Provide evidence they changed fascism for mainstream nonsense.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

I don’t recall that being part of fascism either. Your examples really didn’t prove a point though. You just don’t like being corrected. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

sigh Ok whatever, keep living in fantasy land.

Was the definition of fascism changed? Do you have any evidence that they changed the definition and therefore should not be trusted?

Or are you just going on a hunch based on changes to racism. You gave links to changes of racism but not facism.

Provide evidence they changed fascism for mainstream nonsense.

Like I said, I was using them as examples as to why I don't completely trust those sites anymore, what part of that is not getting your thick god damn skull? I trust Foxi4's definition more because it actually what it is, and not the made up shit people like you believe in. And since people on this site spit on evidence anyways, I don't see why I should go to all that trouble. Make of that what you will, but I know what you people usually think or believe in, the opposite is true.

 

[SG854]

sigh Ok whatever, keep living in fantasy land.


Like I said, I was using them as examples as to why I don't completely trust those sites anymore, what part of that is not getting your thick god damn skull? I trust Foxi4's definition more because it actually what it is, and not the made up shit people like you believe in. And since people on this site spit on evidence anyways, I don't see why I should go to all that trouble. Make of that what you will, but I know what you people usually think or believe in, the opposite is true.

I an not the one that said I don't trust foxi's definition. I trust it because he gave a source.

Provide evidence they changed fascism for bias.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

I an not the one that said I don't trust foxi's definition. I trust it because he gave a source.

Provide evidence they changed fascism for bias.

I already stated multiple times what I meant in my posts, it's not my fault you're illiterate, so I'm not repeating myself again and ending this here.

 

[Foxi4]

That's actually not the definition of fascism.

I provide a source link in the very same post you and the other two geniuses have a problem with - from a reliable source that *you’re quoting as a rebuttal*. It’s *not* the definition of a corporatocracy, it’s *corporatism* and *dirigism*, you’re way off. Those two terms are often confused, but not the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme

A corporatocracy is *the exact opposite* scenario, where private business uses its influence to control the government, as per *your own source* which you clearly failed to read.

It’s *the* defining characteristic of every fascist economy - one of the few, actually, since those states were pretty diverse in economic policy otherwise. From Mussolini’s fascist cartels to Hitler’s relationship with Hugo Boss or Volkswagen, fascist states have always existed on the intersection of government and private industry. It’s literally called VOLKS WAGEN, “the people’s car”. Good grief, what do they teach y’all in schools these days? Again, same link.

In general, fascist governments exercised control over private property but they did not nationalize it. Scholars also noted that big business developed an increasingly close partnership with the Italian Fascist and German fascist governments. Business leaders supported the government's political and military goals. In exchange, the government pursued economic policies that maximized the profits of its business allies.

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

This is truly painful. It’s one thing to not know something, another to double down on it. I was unaware that words only have one strict definition - I was under the impression that there can in fact be multiple. Fascism has many *defining* traits, and this is one of them, period. It’s not even a discussion, it’s historical fact. Shall we argue what a “defining trait” is as well, or are we done here now? Dear lord, I never thought I’d have to argue about what economic fascism is.

 

[Deleted member 194275]

Definition of fascism by the founder of the fascism: "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato".

No the founder of fascism was not Trump nor Sanders.

 

[The Catboy]

I provide a source link in the very same post you and the other two geniuses have a problem with - from a reliable source that *you’re quoting as a rebuttal*. It’s *not* the definition of a corporatocracy, it’s *corporatism* and *dirigism*, you’re way off. Those two terms are often confused, but not the same.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme

A corporatocracy is *the exact opposite* scenario, where private business uses its influence to control the government, as per *your own source* which you clearly failed to read.

It’s *the* defining characteristic of every fascist economy - one of the few, actually, since those states were pretty diverse in economic policy otherwise. From Mussolini’s fascist cartels to Hitler’s relationship with Hugo Boss or Volkswagen, fascist states have always existed on the intersection of government and private industry. It’s literally called VOLKS WAGEN, “the people’s car”. Good grief, what do they teach y’all in schools these days? Again, same link.



This is truly painful. It’s one thing to not know something, another to double down on it. I was unaware that words only have one strict definition - I was under the impression that there can in fact be multiple. Fascism has many *defining* traits, and this is one of them, period. It’s not even a discussion, it’s historical fact. Shall we argue what a “defining trait” is as well, or are we done here now? Dear lord, I never thought I’d have to argue about what economic fascism is.

The honorable thing to do is say that I appear to have been wrong and to note that I should do a bit more research beforehand.

 

[Foxi4]

The honorable thing to do is say that I appear to have been wrong and to note that I should do a bit more research beforehand.

I don’t know why this is even an argument at all. The relationship between the state and big business in fascist states is well-known, splitting hairs over it is both off-topic and a waste of time. The entire point of the post was that the Biden administration has been exerting extensive control over private business over the course of the last two years as part of their strategy against COVID. Those who play along get to make money - those who don’t are out of luck. It’s gotten so ridiculous that they roped in the CDC in order to justify an *eviction moratorium* because legislating one instead would’ve been illegal. They’ve been sliding in regulation under the guise of health recommendations and mandates as means of exerting control over how businesses run - that was my point. It’s undeniable. Whether they did so rightly or wrongly is another matter, that depends on your point of view.

 

[The Catboy]

I don’t know why this is even an argument at all. The relationship between the state and big business in fascist states is well-known, splitting hairs over it is both off-topic and a waste of time. The entire point of the post was that the Biden administration has been exerting extensive control over private business over the course of the last two years as part of their strategy against COVID. Those who play along get to make money - those who don’t are out of luck. It’s gotten so ridiculous that they roped in the CDC in order to justify an *eviction moratorium* because legislating one instead would’ve been illegal. They’ve been sliding in regulation under the guise of health recommendations and mandates as means of exerting control over how businesses run - that was my point. It’s undeniable. Whether they did so rightly or wrongly is another matter, that depends on your point of view.

My dude, I’ve conceded that I was wrong and need more research. I am always open for correction but this just feels like you expected me not to concede. I would actually like some more reliable sources to read on the topic because I want to properly make sure I am informed and any incorrect information I am holding onto is corrected.

 

[weatMod]

imagine still beleiving elections are real
imagine still believing your vote means fuckall
imagine still believing presidents are Elected and not SElected

but yeah I do see \TPTB installing him again, I believe it is part of their plan

 

[SG854]

I already stated multiple times what I meant in my posts, it's not my fault you're illiterate, so I'm not repeating myself again and ending this here.

Catboy gave two links to the definition of Facism which matches the definition provided by wiki. Catboy sources and Foxi sources says the same thing.


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

The extreme authoritarianism and nationalism of fascism often manifests a belief in racial purity or a master race, usually synthesized with some variant of racism or bigotry against a demonized "Other". These ideas have motivated fascist regimes to commit genocides, massacres, forced sterilizations, mass killings, and forced deportations.[13]

Why even mention you don't trust the two sites Catboy linked as a response to what Catboy said? When the definitions are correct. Why mention that at all?


Me thinks you did not actually read the sources Catboy provided and decided to argue instead.


You still need to provide evidence the the two sites Catboy provided are biased changes for the definition of fascism.

 

[KingVamp]

So, ignoring the context and intentions, any attempt to regulate businesses would be consider fascism.

 

[Foxi4]

My dude, I’ve conceded that I was wrong and need more research. I am always open for correction but this just feels like you expected me not to concede. I would actually like some more reliable sources to read on the topic because I want to properly make sure I am informed and any incorrect information I am holding onto is corrected.

Not really ragging on you, just saying that the conversation is kind of pointless in context. If I wanted to drag you over the coals, it’d be way more abrasive than that - c’mon, give me (or rather, my venom) some credit, and allow me to enjoy my well-deserved victory lap.

So, ignoring the context and intentions, any attempt to regulate businesses would be consider fascism.

Regulate? No. Play favourites? Yes. If your regulation clearly incentivises one kind of business activity over another in the same sector, you’re bending the rules instead of letting the market decide. You can see this in action right now as far as fossil versus renewable is concerned. Bigger subject, to be sure.

 

[BitMasterPlus]

Catboy gave two links to the definition of Facism which matches the definition provided by wiki. Catboy sources and Foxi sources says the same thing.


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




Why even mention you don't trust the two sites Catboy linked as a response to what Catboy said? When the definitions are correct. Why mention that at all?


Me thinks you did not actually read the sources Catboy provided and decided to argue instead.


You still need to provide evidence the the two sites Catboy provided are biased changes for the definition of fascism.

Why don't you provide evidence of you being an asshole? Oh wait, you already did.
Dude the conversation about this has ended. Let it go.

 

[KingVamp]

Regulate? No. Play favourites? Yes. If your regulation clearly incentivises one kind of business activity over another in the same sector, you’re bending the rules instead of letting the market decide. You can see this in action right now as far as fossil versus renewable is concerned. Bigger subject, to be sure.

The market would have decided that unbounded pollution was more worth it than protecting our planet and the livings things on it, hence regulation.

 

[Foxi4]

The market would have decided that unbounded pollution was more worth it than protecting our planet and the livings things on it, hence regulation.

This is incorrect. The market decides what is most cost-efficient is best. It’s a balancing act of how much it costs to do X versus Y, if recycling a bottle costs more than making a new bottle, we’re making a new bottle. What most people don’t understand, because it’s removed by one degree, is that there’s a reason behind that. Let’s say, for the sake of an argument, that it takes more overall energy, or a more complex infrastructure - I don’t know if it does, this is a hypothetical. That additional infrastructure and energy carries a cost, not just monetary, but also environmental. You can run into a situation where recycling a certain material causes *more* pollution than just making a new unit because the energy it took to make it happen went straight into the atmosphere. We used to call money the “petrodollar” for a reason, although admittedly those times are behind us. Bigger topic of discussion, to be sure. For the record, all the “green” industries out there exist because they’re profitable - the government didn’t do that, consumers did.