• ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Democrats are not a far right party even by the most expensive definition:

    The Democrats are not authoritarian in that they promote democracy, protect human rights, and promote political plurality.

    Neither Biden nor his cabinet have absolute power so he does not qualify as a dictator and the government does not qualify as an autocracy.

    Democrats do not forcibly suppress the opposition.

    Democrats do not believe in a natural social hierarchy.

    Democrats do not believe in the subordination of personal interest for the perceived good of the nation or race. You could maybe say that some environmental policies count as subordination of personal interest, but that is for the benefit of all humanity, not one race or nation.

    Democrats do not believe in a strong regimentation of society.

    One could argue that many Democrats believe in strong regimentation of the economy, but that quality alone is common in various types of governments other than fascism.

    As you say, you can’t disagree with facts and the fact is that US Democrats are not fascist.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Democrats are not authoritarian in that they promote democracy, protect human rights, and promote political plurality.

      that’s a lie: “vote blue no matter who” and accusations against the green party highlight this. tehy also arrested jill stein at the debate in 2012.

      • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Vote blue no matter who is a political slogan, not an order with any weight. It’s not like people are prevented from voting Republican in any way.

        Stein was arrested because she didn’t meet the polling threshold to be eligible to be considered as a candidate and then tried to force her way on stage. It’s no different than you or I going to hear a band play and trying to force our way on stage because we thought we could play guitar better.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          again, it’s a matter of interpretation. you making excuses for it would look bad if the prevailing opinion matched mine.

          • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Facts are facts. She was not a political opponent because she did not get enough support to even participate in the debate. She was arrested for breaking the law, not for being a political opponent

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  this is just rhetorical posturing. she had opposing political positions and was denied a platform with others vying for the same seat.

                  • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Denied because she had insufficient support to qualify. That’s a requirement in every democracy on the planet to be considered a serious candidate.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Democrats do not believe in the subordination of personal interest for the perceived good of the nation or race. You could maybe say that some environmental policies count as subordination of personal interest, but that is for the benefit of all humanity, not one race or nation.

      oh? seems to me the curtailing of gun rights is a major part of their platform, as well as constant incursions into my right to digital privacy.

      • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Those are not examples of subordination of personal interest. Those are balancing the rights and personal interests of one group of citizens vs another. One group has right to guns, another has a right not to get shot to death. The same goes for digital rights. Your right to privacy has to be balanced with others right now to be the victim of crime/terrorism.

          • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They arrested her because she was trespassing and causing a disturbance, not because she was a political opponent. It’s not like she posed any threat to their power. She had 0% chance of becoming president. It’s completely absurd to think they needed to arrest her to beat her. She didn’t get enough votes to participate and she threw a Karen fit.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              the voters were disenfranchised by being denied a legitimate voice. she was systematically excluded from every media platform. the debate was just one example in a long series of disenfranchisement. her arrest there was clearly to prevent her from challenging them.

              • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Candidates must have a requisite amount of supporters to participate in a debate. This prevents candidates who have zero mathematical chance of winning from wasting everyone’s time. Stein did not meet the requirements. Her supporters were not disenfranchised. Their candidate just lost. She had already lost when she was arrested, so it had no impact on enfranchisement.

                • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  debates are gatekept on arbitrary criteria to prevent candidates who the gatekeepers don’t like from participating in democracy. stein was disfavored by the gatekeepers, and when she challenged the legitimacy of that gatekeeping, they arrested her.

                  • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Having supporters is not an arbitrary criteria. She had bad ideas and was a bad candidate. That is why she had insufficient support to be considered a legitimate candidate. You can blame others all you want, but she is a failure all on their own without any interference from Democrats.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Neither Biden nor his cabinet have absolute power so he does not qualify as a dictator and the government does not qualify as an autocracy.

      but the democrats would have it if they could. their philosophy is autocratic even if they still lack the means of effecting that policy.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Democrats do not believe in a natural social hierarchy.

      sure they do: look at how they endorse the capitalist system of haves-and-have-nots.

      • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is a developed social hierarchy, not a natural one. An example of a natural social hierarchy is the belief that whites are naturally a superior race of that women are inherently subordinate to men.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          i don’t think you know anything about theories of hierarchy or even the natural world. what you’ve written here is incoherent.

          • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Let me simplify. You used the example of Democrats believing in haves and have nots. Observing that some people are more wealthy than others is reality, not belief in a hierarchy. Believing that rich people are rich because they are innately better and poor people are poor because they are innately worse is a belief in a natural social hierarchy.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      As you say, you can’t disagree with facts and the fact is that US Democrats are not fascist.

      this is some gymnastic bullshit. you are ignoring facts and then claiming they support your interpretation of them.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          the facts must be interpreted to determine whether they fit the definition. words do have meanings, and i’m willing to believe that you honestly don’t think the facts point to fascism, but i would say that’s a failure in your ability to interpret the facts, where i recognize you probably feel the same about my interpretation.