Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The name was a formality. It was not a "union," it was a communist Russian empire. And during WWII, Stalin appealed to the nationalist sentiments of the Russian people.Yea, uh the Soviet Union was anything but nationalist. If you understood nothing about their ideology it still says so in the name!
”Who can say what a fascist is? But it’s definitely not us, it’s our enemies.”
So basically, any form of totalitarianism is left wing, and communism is fascism? Even though a good part of both German and Italian fascism, both right-wing, was premised on virulent anti-Communism? You’re tying yourself in knots to make things comport to a definition only you use.The name was a formality. It was not a "union," it was a communist Russian empire. And during WWII, Stalin appealed to the nationalist sentiments of the Russian people.
Oh come on dude. This is a completely biased take that goes beyond any sort of reasonability. It’s fine to have a liberal worldview, but to minimize the craziness of the left and maximize the craziness of the right in an attempt to make the right seem like it’s uniquely awful is ridiculous.You can’t always find a couple whackos in any large group. The difference between the major parties today is that the “left” party has a few idiots in campus drum circles. The establishment is run by adults with a governing philosophy well within the norm. And no, they aren’t Communists or Marxists, either.
The right has put the inmates in change of the asylum. It a death cult of personally, where the actual leadership tried to overthrow the government and talks about terminating the Constitution. This is not a serious equivalence.
No, that is a different thing. You were talking about a pure popular vote, I’m not.Yes, but scrapping the system will do just that as well.
At the level of the nation-state, pretty much all forms of totalitarianism will be a form of left-wing (by the economic definition). That was one of the great realizations by the late, great free market economist Milton Friedman, that political freedom and economic freedom are inextricably interlinked. It is pretty hard to maintain a dictatorship if the private-sector can tell you to take a hike. At the non-nation state level, oppression can be right or left-wing, for example you can have very economically right-wing racists who hold the conspiratorial belief that the Jews secretly run the world and cause all the wars and the Federal Reserve is a primary instrument of such and have no problem oppressing the rights of non-whites, gays, etc...but in order to establish an actual authoritarian government, they will have to reverse on that whole free market absolutism thing.So basically, any form of totalitarianism is left wing, and communism is fascism? Even though a good part of both German and Italian fascism, both right-wing, was premised on virulent anti-Communism? You’re tying yourself in knots to make things comport to a definition only you use.
If Trump (and MAGA) is a fascist, why do his positions so undermine such a system? (free-markets, reduce regulation, adhere to Constitution, gun rights, keep America out of wars, etc...?). And again, you can't just throw out "right-wing" without a definition. The Nazis for example were most definitely not strict believers in the rights of the individual and limiting the powers of the State. Their belief in racial purity was also scientific in nature (well pseudoscientific but no one thought it that at the time), via the (pseudo)science of eugenics. In the U.S., much of the early 20th century American Progressives were it could be argued a form of light-hearted fascist, and they leaned (economically) left. They disdained the limits of the Constitution, favored state control and top-down rule by the elites, seeking to remake America into an administrative state. They also were strict eugenicists. Planned Parenthood, for example, was founded by a eugenicist and run by a eugenicist for many years. In Buck v Bell, when the SCOTUS ruled that the State could forcibly sterilize people, numerous states then enacted such laws. California, being the most progressive state, performed more forced sterilizations than any state in the union. The Nazis took all this to a super-duper extreme, actively conquering other countries, trying to conquer others, and rounding up and executing all the "subhumans."That’s some twisted logic. Trump is a fascist. Fascism is premised on right-wing nationalism, often tied to an idealized past. That’s why the Nazis got so into an idealized mythology of racial purity and Paganism mixed with Christianity. Make America Great Again is practically a carbon copy.
I will say I am not knowledgeable enough about the EC to speak about how it should be reformed. But I do not support the elimination of it as some on the left do.No, that is a different thing. You were talking about a pure popular vote, I’m not.
If you portion the electoral votes in each state by the percentage that the candidate gets in that state, then you maintain the disproportionate weight given to the small states, but also give all of the voters at least some voice in the election.
The EC allocates votes to a state same as it allocates Congress peoples. Two votes (two senators) and then same as the reps. Wyoming gets 3 EC votes, for example.I will say I am not knowledgeable enough about the EC to speak about how it should be reformed. But I do not support the elimination of it as some on the left do.
Could be wrong on this, but Maine is the only state/one of a very few states that allows this, albeit with two congressional districts/electoral votes.The EC allocates votes to a state same as it allocates Congress peoples. Two votes (two senators) and then same as the reps. Wyoming gets 3 EC votes, for example.
The problem is winner take all. If the Repubs win by 50.1% or by 99% in Wyoming, they take all 3 votes. Since Wyoming always goes Repub, there is zero reason for a Prez candidate to give a shit about Wyoming, other than grubbing for money. PA gets all the love and attention.
Allocate those 3 votes proportionately, and now there’s a reason to care.
Such bullshitAt the level of the nation-state, pretty much all forms of totalitarianism will be a form of left-wing
At the level of the nation-state, pretty much all forms of totalitarianism will be a form of left-wing (by the economic definition).
From an economic standpoint, no it isn't. That's why you virtually never see any totalitarian states with vibrant free-enterprise economies. I think you also missed where I said that the right is fully capable of a totalitarian mindset too, but to implement it at the nation-state level, they have to renege on strict adherence to being (economically) right-wing.Such bullshit
I am not engaging in any sweeping generalizations here. I pointed out in my prior posts that the right is plenty capable of being okay with oppression. My point is that when it comes to actually creating a dictatorship though, they will economically have to move to the left.Again man, let’s stop with the sweeping generalizations. The left and right can be (and have been throughout history) guilty of behavior that could be called totalitarian. Both at the national level (20th century dictators/national leaders come to mind) and at the modern day social level (American politicians).
Nebraska is the other state.Could be wrong on this, but Maine is the only state/one of a very few states that allows this, albeit with two congressional districts/electoral votes.
But that example also gets at another dynamic that should be reformed- gerrymandering. Those two districts are pretty blue (along the coast) and pretty red (everything else). When really the state at large is pretty purple; the thing I appreciate is both of their Senators, Collins a more centrist Republican, and Angus King, an independent, take seriously their responsibility to parse through why they vote a certain way on an issue, weighing pros and cons, and how they determined the way they voted was best for the country and for their state.
I think knowing you’ll probably piss off half your voters is a healthy thing in terms of appreciating you work for them and communication and levelheadedness are valued. Gerrymandering allows politicians of either side to govern by soundbite only.
This is an unpopular opinion, but I don't think that we should have direct elections of either the President or Senators. Roll back to legislatures voting for Senators and governors should elect the President.Any system that basically leaves choosing the next president of ALL the states to the citizens of just a few states is @#$-ed up.
Can we agree on that?
Reform is definitely needed. Do away with winner take all. Apportion the votes in the states by percentages won by the candidates in those states would fix it.