The rise of fascism, nationalism and populism today

[ptbw forever]

So, quoting Rolling Stone, the RAG that printed the FAKE STORY about the UVA Gang Rape case is taken as an actual news source these days?

And you people wonder why you got the living SHIT kicked out of you....

R.S. has been in print since 1967, for 50 years, dumbass. And they retracted the story. But they have NEVER had to retract a political piece.
And once you open your eyes, you'll see you got the shit kicked out of you, too. You're just too stupid to see it yet.

That was a political piece, moron.

Rolling Stone is a fucking tabloid.

 

[ptbw forever]

I watched several biographical/documentary series on Hitler recently, the early years when he was struggling to gain credibility and the numerous failures he had before von Hindenburg made him chancellor. His rallies were much like Trump's where he would only go where people already loved him. They were desperate people and he told them only he could fix their problems. Yup, these are very, very troublesome times, as Coyote said.

Hitler is the only reason anyone cares about what Germany has to say today.

On the economic front he was remarkable.

 

[Edgetho]

So, quoting Rolling Stone, the RAG that printed the FAKE STORY about the UVA Gang Rape case is taken as an actual news source these days?

And you people wonder why you got the living SHIT kicked out of you....

R.S. has been in print since 1967, for 50 years, dumbass. And they retracted the story. But they have NEVER had to retract a political piece.
And once you open your eyes, you'll see you got the shit kicked out of you, too. You're just too stupid to see it yet.

They also got sued -- And lost.

Jury awards $3 million in damages to U-Va. dean for Rolling Stone defamation

Most of the people the RAG libels don't have the means to sue them. The University did,

Rolling Stone is one of the biggest purveyors of Fake News on the Planet.

That's bullshit, you've never picked up a copy. The reason Breitbart, WND, The Blaze, et al. haven't been sued for their fake shit is because the laws are different for online publishers. You can put virtually any lie online with impunity. Just ask General Flynn and his sorry-assed son. Just ask Steve Bannon....You know, Trump's ADVISERS, dumbass.

I was reading Rolling Stone before your daddy got his first job.

They're just like every other piece of the DISGUSTING FILTH in the leftist, dimocrap scum media.

You'll never get it. You're one of them. You have no individual thoughts, no originality. All you know is what you get from pop-culture 'news' sites at Comedy Central, Rolling Stone and the entertainment RAGS that call themselves newspapers these days.

They're not. Most of them are nothing more than propaganda outlets for dimocfrap scum

You qualify

 

[TNHarley]

TN is correct. Those powers are conferred via the War Powers Act. The last time we declared war was 1941 and that sole power rests with congress.

So does an AUMF.

I'm right. And a LOT of Constituyional scholars agree with me.

There is no wording for a Declaration of War. Doesn't exist.

Congress can Declare War through an AUMF and they can call it whatever they want.... "We're in a pissy mood and want you to bomb the shit out of Iran AUMF"

Or, "We're declaring that a State of War exists between the United States and Canada because they don't take enough showers and make REALLY bad beer."

A Decof War can say anything Congress wants it to say.

It's called an AUMF. No such thing as a Declaration War.

No such thing as a DoW?
Again, they are NOT the same. I honestly have never heard this argument and I think I know why..
Here, man. Read up.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31133.pdf

Main article: Declaration of war by the United States
In the United States, Congress, which makes the rules for the military, has the power under the constitution to "declare war". However neither the U.S. Constitution nor the law stipulate what format a declaration of war must take. War declarations have the force of law and are intended to be executed by the President as "commander in chief" of the armed forces. The last time Congress passed joint resolutions saying that a "state of war" existed was on 5 June 1942, when the U.S. declared war on Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania.[48]Since then, the U.S. has used the term "authorization to use military force", as in the case against Iraq in 2003.

Sometimes decisions for military engagements were made by US presidents, without formal approval by Congress, based on UN Security Council resolutions that do not expressly declare the UN or its members to be at war. Part of the justification for the United States invasion of Panama was to capture Manuel Noriega (as a prisoner of war)[49] because he was declared a criminal rather than a belligerent.[citation needed]

In response to the attacks on 11 September 2001, the United States Congress passed the joint resolution Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists on 14 September 2001, which authorized the US President to fight the War on Terror.[50]

You link wiki to argue with a Congressional Report? Really?
Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist, said something along the lines of "during War the President is like the King of GB, but inferior. Such as actually declaring war" or something along those lines. AGAIN, DoW grants automatic powers to the President. That's why DoW are like 4 sentences. AUMFs do not and are not.

 

[Edgetho]

Hitler is the only reason anyone cares about what Germany has to say today.

On the economic front he was remarkable.

Germany was badly beaten down by the rest of the world. Quite unfairly, too.

We are anything but beaten down. We're just sick of lying dimocrap scum

Think about it for a minute......

We're not at War, really.

The economy isn't that bad.

There is some growth in the economy.

But The American People absolutely REJECTED Ubercunt, the Lying Cocksucker's hand-picked successor!!!!

He campaigned for her. The DISGUSTING FILTH in the Lame Stream Media got on their collective knees for her. They lied for her. They put out fake polls, published fake stories....

Hollywood was almost Unanimously on her side -- Brucey-Boy, Madonna (who promised to suck everbody's dick that voted for Ubercunt -- NO wonder she lost)

I mean -- All this going for Ubercunt and AGAINST The Donald.....

But HE WON!!

BIGLY

Why are dimocrap scum so hated??

Simple -- They're scum.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

So, quoting Rolling Stone, the RAG that printed the FAKE STORY about the UVA Gang Rape case is taken as an actual news source these days?

And you people wonder why you got the living SHIT kicked out of you....

R.S. has been in print since 1967, for 50 years, dumbass. And they retracted the story. But they have NEVER had to retract a political piece.
And once you open your eyes, you'll see you got the shit kicked out of you, too. You're just too stupid to see it yet.

They also got sued -- And lost.

Jury awards $3 million in damages to U-Va. dean for Rolling Stone defamation

Most of the people the RAG libels don't have the means to sue them. The University did,

Rolling Stone is one of the biggest purveyors of Fake News on the Planet.

That's bullshit, you've never picked up a copy. The reason Breitbart, WND, The Blaze, et al. haven't been sued for their fake shit is because the laws are different for online publishers. You can put virtually any lie online with impunity. Just ask General Flynn and his sorry-assed son. Just ask Steve Bannon....You know, Trump's ADVISERS, dumbass.

I was reading Rolling Stone before your daddy got his first job.

They're just like every other piece of the DISGUSTING FILTH in the leftist, dimocrap scum media.

You'll never get it. You're one of them. You have no individual thoughts, no originality. All you know is what you get from pop-culture 'news' sites at Comedy Central, Rolling Stone and the entertainment RAGS that call themselves newspapers these days.

They're not. Most of them are nothing more than propaganda outlets for dimocfrap scum

You qualify

Then name some other pieces they've written that come to your dense, myopic pea brain?
The article was a subject that is difficult to parse and verify since most rapes are he-said-she-said.
RS has been spot on about Viet Nam, the mortgage crisis, the big banks, Bush, the Republican clown bus and now Trump.

Crawl back up Bannon's ass where you belong.

 

[Edgetho]

TN is correct. Those powers are conferred via the War Powers Act. The last time we declared war was 1941 and that sole power rests with congress.

So does an AUMF.

I'm right. And a LOT of Constituyional scholars agree with me.

There is no wording for a Declaration of War. Doesn't exist.

Congress can Declare War through an AUMF and they can call it whatever they want.... "We're in a pissy mood and want you to bomb the shit out of Iran AUMF"

Or, "We're declaring that a State of War exists between the United States and Canada because they don't take enough showers and make REALLY bad beer."

A Decof War can say anything Congress wants it to say.

It's called an AUMF. No such thing as a Declaration War.

No such thing as a DoW?
Again, they are NOT the same. I honestly have never heard this argument and I think I know why..
Here, man. Read up.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31133.pdf

Main article: Declaration of war by the United States
In the United States, Congress, which makes the rules for the military, has the power under the constitution to "declare war". However neither the U.S. Constitution nor the law stipulate what format a declaration of war must take. War declarations have the force of law and are intended to be executed by the President as "commander in chief" of the armed forces. The last time Congress passed joint resolutions saying that a "state of war" existed was on 5 June 1942, when the U.S. declared war on Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania.[48]Since then, the U.S. has used the term "authorization to use military force", as in the case against Iraq in 2003.

Sometimes decisions for military engagements were made by US presidents, without formal approval by Congress, based on UN Security Council resolutions that do not expressly declare the UN or its members to be at war. Part of the justification for the United States invasion of Panama was to capture Manuel Noriega (as a prisoner of war)[49] because he was declared a criminal rather than a belligerent.[citation needed]

In response to the attacks on 11 September 2001, the United States Congress passed the joint resolution Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists on 14 September 2001, which authorized the US President to fight the War on Terror.[50]

You link wiki to argue with a Congressional Report? Really?
Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist, said something along the lines of "during War the President is like the King of GB, but inferior. Such as actually declaring war" or something along those lines. AGAIN, DoW grants automatic powers to the President. That's why DoW are like 4 sentences. AUMFs do not and are not.

Whatever dewd. Give me the wording and the format for a formal Declaration of War and I'll go away.

There isn't one.

I'm done here

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Hitler is the only reason anyone cares about what Germany has to say today.

On the economic front he was remarkable.

Germany was badly beaten down by the rest of the world. Quite unfairly, too.

We are anything but beaten down. We're just sick of lying dimocrap scum

Think about it for a minute......

We're not at War, really.

The economy isn't that bad.

There is some growth in the economy.

But The American People absolutely REJECTED Ubercunt, the Lying Cocksucker's hand-picked successor!!!!

He campaigned for her. The DISGUSTING FILTH in the Lame Stream Media got on their collective knees for her. They lied for her. They put out fake polls, published fake stories....

Hollywood was almost Unanimously on her side -- Brucey-Boy, Madonna (who promised to suck everbody's dick that voted for Ubercunt -- NO wonder she lost)

I mean -- All this going for Ubercunt and AGAINST The Donald.....

But HE WON!!

BIGLY

Why are dimocrap scum so hated??

Simple -- They're scum.

If bile could be bottled and sold, you'd be a millionaire.

 

[Desperado]

So now nationism which is just another word for patriotism you now consider it as a bad thing! God how the values of this country have changed

 

[WaitingFor2020]

So, quoting Rolling Stone, the RAG that printed the FAKE STORY about the UVA Gang Rape case is taken as an actual news source these days?

And you people wonder why you got the living SHIT kicked out of you....

R.S. has been in print since 1967, for 50 years, dumbass. And they retracted the story. But they have NEVER had to retract a political piece.
And once you open your eyes, you'll see you got the shit kicked out of you, too. You're just too stupid to see it yet.

That was a political piece, moron.

Rolling Stone is a fucking tabloid.

The story that they retracted was about rape on college campuses and the alcohol abuse involved, dumbass.

 

[Edgetho]

Then name some other pieces they've written that come to your dense, myopic pea brain?
The article was a subject that is difficult to parse and verify since most rapes are he-said-she-said.
RS has been spot on about Viet Nam, the mortgage crisis, the big banks, Bush, the Republican clown bus and now Trump.

Crawl back up Bannon's ass where you belong.

Ubercunt will never be president.

Loser

On your knees and give all praise to your new GOD, scumbag!!

 

[ptbw forever]

So, quoting Rolling Stone, the RAG that printed the FAKE STORY about the UVA Gang Rape case is taken as an actual news source these days?

And you people wonder why you got the living SHIT kicked out of you....

R.S. has been in print since 1967, for 50 years, dumbass. And they retracted the story. But they have NEVER had to retract a political piece.
And once you open your eyes, you'll see you got the shit kicked out of you, too. You're just too stupid to see it yet.

That was a political piece, moron.

Rolling Stone is a fucking tabloid.

The story that they retracted was about rape on college campuses and the alcohol abuse involved, dumbass.

It was about the new left's "rape culture" bullshit narrative, dumbass.

 

[TNHarley]

TN is correct. Those powers are conferred via the War Powers Act. The last time we declared war was 1941 and that sole power rests with congress.

So does an AUMF.

I'm right. And a LOT of Constituyional scholars agree with me.

There is no wording for a Declaration of War. Doesn't exist.

Congress can Declare War through an AUMF and they can call it whatever they want.... "We're in a pissy mood and want you to bomb the shit out of Iran AUMF"

Or, "We're declaring that a State of War exists between the United States and Canada because they don't take enough showers and make REALLY bad beer."

A Decof War can say anything Congress wants it to say.

It's called an AUMF. No such thing as a Declaration War.

No such thing as a DoW?
Again, they are NOT the same. I honestly have never heard this argument and I think I know why..
Here, man. Read up.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31133.pdf

Main article: Declaration of war by the United States
In the United States, Congress, which makes the rules for the military, has the power under the constitution to "declare war". However neither the U.S. Constitution nor the law stipulate what format a declaration of war must take. War declarations have the force of law and are intended to be executed by the President as "commander in chief" of the armed forces. The last time Congress passed joint resolutions saying that a "state of war" existed was on 5 June 1942, when the U.S. declared war on Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania.[48]Since then, the U.S. has used the term "authorization to use military force", as in the case against Iraq in 2003.

Sometimes decisions for military engagements were made by US presidents, without formal approval by Congress, based on UN Security Council resolutions that do not expressly declare the UN or its members to be at war. Part of the justification for the United States invasion of Panama was to capture Manuel Noriega (as a prisoner of war)[49] because he was declared a criminal rather than a belligerent.[citation needed]

In response to the attacks on 11 September 2001, the United States Congress passed the joint resolution Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists on 14 September 2001, which authorized the US President to fight the War on Terror.[50]

You link wiki to argue with a Congressional Report? Really?
Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist, said something along the lines of "during War the President is like the King of GB, but inferior. Such as actually declaring war" or something along those lines. AGAIN, DoW grants automatic powers to the President. That's why DoW are like 4 sentences. AUMFs do not and are not.

Whatever dewd. Give me the wording and the format for a formal Declaration of War and I'll go away.

There isn't one.

I'm done here

No shit lol. Because its all AUTOMATIC. Thats my whole point. All DoWs say is "we are declaring war on $#@!@ because %$#^
I have explained this to you and gave you a congressional report. Im sorry if you ignore what the things actually are. Have an awesome weekend!

 

[Edgetho]

Hitler is the only reason anyone cares about what Germany has to say today.

On the economic front he was remarkable.

Germany was badly beaten down by the rest of the world. Quite unfairly, too.

We are anything but beaten down. We're just sick of lying dimocrap scum

Think about it for a minute......

We're not at War, really.

The economy isn't that bad.

There is some growth in the economy.

But The American People absolutely REJECTED Ubercunt, the Lying Cocksucker's hand-picked successor!!!!

He campaigned for her. The DISGUSTING FILTH in the Lame Stream Media got on their collective knees for her. They lied for her. They put out fake polls, published fake stories....

Hollywood was almost Unanimously on her side -- Brucey-Boy, Madonna (who promised to suck everbody's dick that voted for Ubercunt -- NO wonder she lost)

I mean -- All this going for Ubercunt and AGAINST The Donald.....

But HE WON!!

BIGLY

Why are dimocrap scum so hated??

Simple -- They're scum.

If bile could be bottled and sold, you'd be a millionaire.

Outrage porn??

That's all you got??

Best you start thinking about why, oh why does America hate you scumbags so very, very much.

Hillary will never be president. And you might not live to see another dimocrap hold the office.

Yeah, you got beat THAT bad

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Then name some other pieces they've written that come to your dense, myopic pea brain?
The article was a subject that is difficult to parse and verify since most rapes are he-said-she-said.
RS has been spot on about Viet Nam, the mortgage crisis, the big banks, Bush, the Republican clown bus and now Trump.

Crawl back up Bannon's ass where you belong.

Ubercunt will never be president.

Loser

On your knees and give all praise to your new GOD, scumbag!!

Attack the messenger when you don't like RS's message. He's a fucking tyrant and you're one of the stupidest people that ever drew a breath.

 

[TNHarley]

Rolling Stone says what they want. Hell, I read an article some time ago that said most mass murders were done with ar-15s

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Hitler is the only reason anyone cares about what Germany has to say today.

On the economic front he was remarkable.

Germany was badly beaten down by the rest of the world. Quite unfairly, too.

We are anything but beaten down. We're just sick of lying dimocrap scum

Think about it for a minute......

We're not at War, really.

The economy isn't that bad.

There is some growth in the economy.

But The American People absolutely REJECTED Ubercunt, the Lying Cocksucker's hand-picked successor!!!!

He campaigned for her. The DISGUSTING FILTH in the Lame Stream Media got on their collective knees for her. They lied for her. They put out fake polls, published fake stories....

Hollywood was almost Unanimously on her side -- Brucey-Boy, Madonna (who promised to suck everbody's dick that voted for Ubercunt -- NO wonder she lost)

I mean -- All this going for Ubercunt and AGAINST The Donald.....

But HE WON!!

BIGLY

Why are dimocrap scum so hated??

Simple -- They're scum.

If bile could be bottled and sold, you'd be a millionaire.

Outrage porn??

That's all you got??

Best you start thinking about why, oh why does America hate you scumbags so very, very much.

Hillary will never be president. And you might not live to see another dimocrap hold the office.

Yeah, you got beat THAT bad

You assume much and know nothing. Just because most of the people in this country find Trump to be one of the most vile assholes in America, you think we want Hillary for POTUS. Wrong.
Just make sure you have plenty of vaseline on hand, you're going to need it just like everybody else.

 

[yiostheoy]

Fascism is loosely defined as a form of extreme “authoritarian nationalism” identified with Italy’s Mussolini. It’s principle attributes were an aggressive nationalism, a militarized society, a populist charismatic leader and prolific promises to cure every political and economic ill. It was particularly appealing to an economically depressed post-war society that had seen its way of life and culture turned upside down. Fascism promised action, not diplomacy, not nuance, even if it could not in reality deliver on those promises.

Mussolini was the “anti-establishment outsider” who became the voice of all those disillusioned with the government, the democratic process, and the economy. His rhetoric attracted the unemployed, the economically disenfranchised, veterans, and nationalists. In 1922, when Italy’s king called on Mussolini to form a government he had no idea what that entailed other than fulfilling a personal ambition for power.

In 1938, fascism took on distinctly racist/anti-semitic overtones when it began to collaborate with the Nazi’s. Italy passed it’s “Italian Racial Laws”. These laws codified what had previously been a campaign conducted in the media with the publication of the “Manifesto of Race” Manifesto of Race - Wikipedia This manifesto declared Italians to be of a superior race, and targeted other races as “inferior” - notably Jews and immigrants from Italy’s colonies. They were banned from marrying Italians, and from positions in banking, education, government and their property was confiscated.

Fascism, extreme nationalism and ideas of racial, ethnic, cultural or religious superiority are closely entertwined. Almost every country that has seen a rise in populist movements, such as fascism, has also seen a rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, legislation targeting specific racial, ethnic or religious groups and a rise in “justified” violence or special restrictions aimed at those groups.

World War 2 saw increased nationalistic fervor after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. American citizens of Japanese were first required to register. Then, their assets were frozen. Then they were ordered to “assembly points” and interned. Their property was confiscated. American citizens of Italian and German descent joined them. Is it so impossible for people to conceive of the fact that American citizens regardless of their ancestry are Americans first? Apparently it is.

We want to say “that was then, this is now”. That today is somehow different. But is it?

Look at the rise of populist rightwing movements across Europe and with the recent election of Donald Trump.

Geert Wilders, recently in the news again and with a very real chance of winning a government now with a coalition. What is the platform for his Party for Freedom?

They include the predictable anti-immigrant/Islam rhetoric, including completely banning an entire religion, closing all mosques and banning the Koran, the withdrawal of all residence permits granted to asylum seekers, and some rather obscurely defined planks such as:

Ban of overall Muslim expressions that are against the public order (defined how?)
Preventive incarceration of radical Muslims (determined how?).​

They also include populist promisies that likely can't be delivered upon:

The Netherlands will reclaim its independence. Therefore, we leave the EU.
Direct democracy: binding referendums, citizens have the power.
Deductible/excess in healthcare insurance is eliminated
Rents to be lowered
No more money for foreign aid, windmills, art, innovation, public broadcasters, etc.
Plenty extra funds for defense and police
Lower income taxes
50% reduction for vehicle ownership taxes​

Donald Trump campaigned on deporting immigrants and halting immigration, registries for Muslims, border security, tax cuts, bringing jobs back and increased defense. Supporters don’t rule out internment camps and banning entire religions. Mussolini attacked the leftwing media and attempted to close them down, a few managed to continue to operate under difficult conditions. We've heard Trump rail about the media and we've heard him propose legislation against them and creating his own media service.

I think these are truly dangerous times for civil liberties and freedoms throughout the western world.

I think you are correct.

But it is too early to see if Trump will continue to emulate Benito or Adolf.

So far he has.

Whether he will now wise up or not has yet to be seen.

Hopefully you are wrong.

But it is too early to tell if you are right.

Ross Perot and Steve Forbes both wanted to introduce business management principles to government.

They did not get a chance.

Trump is getting a chance.

We shall see if this works or not.

The worst he can do is to end up like Carter or "W".

The best he can do is like Reagan.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Rolling Stone says what they want. Hell, I read an article some time ago that said most mass murders were done with ar-15s

Thanks for the link, lazy ass.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

TN is correct. Those powers are conferred via the War Powers Act. The last time we declared war was 1941 and that sole power rests with congress.

So does an AUMF.

I'm right. And a LOT of Constituyional scholars agree with me.

There is no wording for a Declaration of War. Doesn't exist.

Congress can Declare War through an AUMF and they can call it whatever they want.... "We're in a pissy mood and want you to bomb the shit out of Iran AUMF"

Or, "We're declaring that a State of War exists between the United States and Canada because they don't take enough showers and make REALLY bad beer."

A Decof War can say anything Congress wants it to say.

It's called an AUMF. No such thing as a Declaration War.

No such thing as a DoW?
Again, they are NOT the same. I honestly have never heard this argument and I think I know why..
Here, man. Read up.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31133.pdf

Main article: Declaration of war by the United States
In the United States, Congress, which makes the rules for the military, has the power under the constitution to "declare war". However neither the U.S. Constitution nor the law stipulate what format a declaration of war must take. War declarations have the force of law and are intended to be executed by the President as "commander in chief" of the armed forces. The last time Congress passed joint resolutions saying that a "state of war" existed was on 5 June 1942, when the U.S. declared war on Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania.[48]Since then, the U.S. has used the term "authorization to use military force", as in the case against Iraq in 2003.

Sometimes decisions for military engagements were made by US presidents, without formal approval by Congress, based on UN Security Council resolutions that do not expressly declare the UN or its members to be at war. Part of the justification for the United States invasion of Panama was to capture Manuel Noriega (as a prisoner of war)[49] because he was declared a criminal rather than a belligerent.[citation needed]

In response to the attacks on 11 September 2001, the United States Congress passed the joint resolution Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists on 14 September 2001, which authorized the US President to fight the War on Terror.[50]

You link wiki to argue with a Congressional Report? Really?
Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist, said something along the lines of "during War the President is like the King of GB, but inferior. Such as actually declaring war" or something along those lines. AGAIN, DoW grants automatic powers to the President. That's why DoW are like 4 sentences. AUMFs do not and are not.

Whatever dewd. Give me the wording and the format for a formal Declaration of War and I'll go away.

There isn't one.

I'm done here

Here's a few.

What's So Important About a Declaration of War? - Antiwar.com Original