Also many other outlets.
>“He’s a really brilliant and talented person, without any doubt. It’s not our job to judge his qualities, that’s a job for American voters, but he’s the absolute leader in the presidential race,” Putin said.
Putin is playing his position.
>wow, Americans are actually stupid enough to allow this maniac businessman to lead them.
>let me endorse this to get a weak political figure in office so that I may have my way with him later
>Let me get this weak political figure in office
Are you even American? Obama bows down before Saudi royalty all the time in public. The only thing weaker than him would be a literal slug in office.
The US is not fascist, it's not an oligarchy, it's not the faintest symbolence of any described political structure. It's chaotic politik. We have no idea what we are doing anymore.
Edgy. Communist societies cannot exist without authoritarianism.
And they also lack the capability to adapt quickly to demands
>inb4 Paris free commune
The US isn't fascist, nor is Russia, politics isn't a 2d sliding scale.
>trying to wiggle out of the biggest fallacy communists ever commit
Now you can say that there is a difference between stalinism, leninism, or maoism. But they are all still comminism.
>can't explain position
>r-read a b-book senpai!~
Start here and find some books friend. They will help you understand why the Mutual exclusiveness of socialism and communism are exactly the reason communism can never happen.
And the point is, socialism is apart of them implementation of communism.
>everything that opposes me is fascist
you're a fascist yourself m8.
>The whole entire West calls him a facist
>THAT'S YOUR OPINION!!!!
Lmao he is a facist.
Have you heard of the horseshoe theory?
Okay so the U.S. has been butting into everything since WWI. Sound better?
>He is a fascist
He doesn't even fit the dictionary definition.
Ukrainian please go.
Yes, but it all began with that wretched French Revolution.
>He doesn't even fit the dictionary definition.
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
Putin leave now.
>The horseshoe theory in political science asserts that rather than the far left and the far right being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear political continuum, they in fact closely resemble one another, much like the ends of a horseshoe.
Thus, Putin is a facist.
>using a political scale from the 17th century to describe modern complex sociopolitical systems
He isn't fascist. It's not even the proper definition.
And yes, while horseshoe theory is closer to an accurate representation, still is nothing but an oversimplification of politik.
So no, he isn't a fascist.
He is a true reactionary by the looks of him wanting to reinstate the Romanovs.
>>using a political scale from the 17th century to describe modern complex sociopolitical systems
Then why say
>Putin is not a facist!!
>He isn't fascist. It's not even the proper definition.
Okay then where my definition if he's not a facist?
He's still a facist no matter how much you'd like to insist that he's not.
I'd take it over Trump any day. When it started, I thought it was funny that such an overtly racist asshole was doing so well in his campaign. Now that he's been the GOP frontrunner for almost the entirety of the campaign, and he's said things like "We should kill the families of all ISIS members" I don't think that it's funny anymore.
>National Socialism is parrallel to fascism.
Toppest of laughs mate.
>Putin isn't fascist
>the US isn't fascist.
Soon it will be.
>Go back to reddit you meme spouting tard
Go back to /pol/ you meme spouting mong.
the US is fascist
why don't people get this
most people in prison in the world
the crime of hacking is just about the most severely and ridiculously punished, anywhere in the world even china (even though it makes no sense)
most surveillance of any nation besides britain
ranked low in freedom of the press
military and government do basically what they want all the time
congress is a scared lil bitch and will do whatever big money or big military wants at the end of the day
media is a joke and run by the political parties
70% of the people in this country make less than 40k per year and it's getting worse
openly lie about unemployment figures to it's own people (it's around 20%)
dominated by banks
your life as an american will reach it's high point when you pay off your debt. around 40 probably. but no, they don't own you. think of it like leasing.
>sensationalist media outlets letting out terms loosely to attract viewers
>the media says it
The media can legally lie whenever they want.
>the US is fascist
No it isnt. There isn't a merger of the corperate and government world where the government supercedes corperations. It is not "for the health and well being of the people", it is not based on the capability or ability of the people.
It is not fascist.
>why don't people get this
Because you're a sensationalist drooling slightly left of center moron
>most people in prison in the world
Percentagage wise I dont think so, but we also have a lot of minorities that commit a disproportionate amount of crime.
Prison population doesn't determine a fascist state.
>the crime of hacking is just about the most severely and ridiculously punished, anywhere in the world even china (even though it makes no sense)
White collar crimes are not punished severely enough. In Singapore you get death, in the US you get washed out of the system after the case becomes too expensive.
Prison sentence for "hacking" doesn't determine fascism.
>most surveillance of any nation besides britain
This doesn't define fascism. There are plenty of other countries that have tougher surveillance, Singapore, HK, N.Korea, and other places that censor.
>ranked low in freedom of the press
Blatant lies, the media here can print anything they want.
>military and government do basically what they want all the time
They usually operate within their lawful bounds, not constitutional, but lawful. The actions of individuals isn't representative of the specific actions of the government; and vice versa. You have to prove deliberate action.
>congress is a scared lil bitch and will do whatever big money or big military wants at the end of the day
Congress is in a dead lock because of ChaosPolitik. Nobody knows how or what to do, and they are just interested in keeping their seat. The military and big money have always done what they want, regardless.
>media is a joke and run by the political parties
Yes, the majority is state funded media with a heavy left bias
>70% of the people in this country make less than 40k per year and it's getting worse
>openly lie about unemployment figures to it's own people (it's around 20%)
It's higher than that.
>dominated by banks
We have been since the end of Jackson. Every country is.
>your life as an american will reach it's high point when you pay off your debt. around 40 probably. but no, they don't own you. think of it like leasing.
I don't have any debt, and only will when I want better credit.
No. The US isn't fascist, and your little circle jerk doesn't prove it.
I am voting for Trump because lulz.
If not, Ben Carson deep chocolate voice is good.
Any person you vote for, it really doesn't matter.
Lol it's not lies because there are phone calls with Trump you ignoramus.
Call it sensationalist all you want, but it really isn't since it's sincere.
Not a shill, but I'm also not a dumbass who doesn't realize that Trump would literally fuck this country harder than any president could ever do. You have fun with your wall, and basically becoming a terrorist nation. I'm voting for literally anybody else. Probably Bush, since he's pretty much the only moderate republican in the race at this point.
It's not actually fucked. The media outlets just want you to believe it, because it gives them better ratings. America will be fine, it just has a few problems to deal with. Like literally every country in existence.
>The future is unsettling to me
The future is unsettling to everybody. The fear of the unknown and change is the real reason that most people think that we're so fucked. Don't get me wrong, America has its fair share of problems. But, all of them could be addressed if the got a leader that actually knew what he/she was doing. Unfortunately, none of the current presidential candidates from either party could address all of these problems. I feel like a few of them could make positive headway, but we should be in this for the long haul, and not be looking for short-term solutions. Those usually bite you in the ass later on.
I really don't see how people haven't realized that trump is a democrat mole
>everything he says goes against his past beliefs
>used to be an avid supporter of the Clinton campaigns
>acts like an extreme caricature of a republican
That would somewhat make sense. I honestly don't remember his old campaigns. The real worry is that he's leading by such a wide margin despite being a caricature. It concerns me that most republicans wouldn't be able to differentiate the real politicians from the ones who are purposefully being an extreme parody of a politician.
It seems like out of a movie and I'm well aware I sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist. But I think that's exactly it, he gave it a shot as a stunt, joke, what have you, and it blew up larger than they ever imagined.
I think that you may need to redefine what liberal means. I don't know enough about Clinton to know how liberal her foreign policy is, although she seems actually rather moderate, so it's possible that it would be more conservative than the other candidates. However, Trump is most certainly not liberal. He's pretty much hyper conservative. Liberals don't build walls to keep out illegal immigrants or try to deport all illegal immigrants. Those are very conservative values. He also would much rather go to war than try diplomacy, which is also extremely conservative. Not to mention his stance on guns. No, he's definitely not overtly liberal. If he's hiding it, then he's doing a damn fine job of it.
He's just very "American" guy. Like Reagan was. Maybe not totally competent but at least a charismatic guy. The fact that we have two guys that dare to question things so much being so popular shows that lot of Americans are tired of the system and want it to change. But Hillary is the ultimate baby boomer candidate so she will win. She's now trying to bait millennials too because she realized young women actually don't care whether they get first female president now or not and turned to Sanders.
Well, and I know that I'll almost certainly get shit on for this, I like to believe that the Sanders will be able to get the nomination. I wouldn't really mind either of them, but I like him a little bit more. I'm not really a democrat or a republican, but I feel like liberal politics might work better for the problems that we currently have.
sanders is not going for the nomination. look how obama beat down hillary to see what somebody who wants to be president looks like. sanders wants to be VP or get into another position. the people who legitimately wanted to be the democrat nominee dropped out already. hillary has the party support and therefore the media support.
Instigating a third world war is a huge stretch. That implies that basically the rest of the world actually cares about this, which I highly doubt they do. At worst, it would spawn another cold war, and I highly doubt that would even happen. Eventually, both the US and Russia will come to their senses and realize that diplomacy is a better solution for this than aggression.
If there will be another patch of Muslim refugees in Europe there will be at least one Civil War, it's already cracking with West constantly oppressing East for being the "fascist bigots". And with Hillary it's completely possible there will be another crisis like Syria.
Please explain why Hillary would cause another crisis like Syria, because your argument is honestly starting to sound pretty ridiculous. It's conservative politics that played the most major role in the shit that's happening in Syria.
She wants to destroy ISIS and Assad with ground troops at the same time, sorry but that's not going to happen. Also look at her foreign policy in the past and tell me one good decision - she has supported all those things that these conservative politics caused. She's a hawk, Republican disguised as Democrat to bait votes. Rand Paul is the wisest guy when it comes to this situation.
I agree that destroying ISIS and Assad with ground troops wouldn't work, and if it did it would just bite us in the ass later. We honestly shouldn't have put ourselves in the situation to begin with. But, we're in it, and something has to be done. I'm more for the training of the troops there to be able to deal with it on their own as opposed to direct conflict, but I honestly don't think that I have any answers on how to stop it completely. You cannot fight an idea with guns. However, the idea that she is just a republican who is baiting votes is possibly one of the most paranoid things that I've heard, aside from the other side saying exactly the same things about the republican candidates that they don't like. Have you ever stopped to think that maybe not everybody is strictly on one end of the spectrum, and that a democrat can have some conservative values? Also, I don't know about Rand Paul's stance on the situation. Judging from the polls though, nobody really knows or cares about his stances on any of the problems that we're facing.
No, all of those would have been terrible in their own ways. This isn't just something that can be fixed by supporting the right totalitarian regime. It's a problem that cannot really be solved imo, and we shouldn't have tried to solve it in the first place.
how do you destroy an ideology?
>we shouldn't have put ourselves there in the first place
The middle east has been a shithole of beheading and fighting since the beginning of history. And no matter what, they would hate westerners not our fault, nothing we can do. Just live it out do what we can to prevent terrorists from entering the country ie: not take in possible terrorists in disguise when ISIS clearly stated they would be sending in militants disguised as refugees
I believe that I stated later in the post that it's impossible to fight something like this with guns. You can destroy an ideology, but it takes a very long time, and it isn't what the US has in mind. We would obviously rather bomb all of it, or kill all of the brown people from a funny sounding country. Also, while it is definitely true that a minority of the refugees would be ISIS militants, that doesn't mean that we should just tell them that they're out of luck because we're too scared to let them in. That's why we actually screen people. We may not be able to let all of them in, but at least we can let some of them in. Besides, if we simply close our doors out of fear, then their intended goal has been accomplished.
And you know this how? We can both play this little game of assumptions. I'm going to go on the assumption that since literally all of those people were totalitarian dictators, they would have fucked us over once they were done "dealing with" the terrorist groups. Which, by the way wouldn't have been effective since you can't just shoot an ideology until it doesn't exist anymore. Then, we would have had to deal with them in some way, which would probably spawn more terrorist groups that hate us because it probably would have fucked over their country in some way. Either that, or they would have you know, not been able to keep the other zealots from getting into power. Have you ever thought to consider that they could have failed? Probably not. You probably saw what we did, and since it didn't work you assumed that the alternative would have. Well, the world doesn't work that way. Sometimes you can't just give terrorists who want to kill us slightly less weapons and expect them to not turn on us. That's the mark of a fool. It's a stupid idea and it would not have worked, no matter how much you want to believe that it would have. Also, we tried that with Saddam. It didn't really work out that well for us.
Or you could just slowly morph it into something that isn't dangerous by educating people and inserting your values into it. But you're probably right. If we go in and kill them all again, it will probably work. Third time's the charm, right?
You understand that the entire ISIS problem, the entire Al Queda problem, all of it. Was by us toppling governments and instilling puppets?
They wouldn't have to deal with terrorist groups cause they would never rise.
Start some shit? Saddam drops some gas on your ass.
Start some shit? Gaddafi sends his royal guard to fuck you.
Start some shit?
Assad sends his army after you.
Start some big shit? All three form a coalition to kill you.
The US has no place outside of the western hemisphere, should have stayed that way.
The best way to counter religious extremism in the middle east is with strong central, secular rulers.
Atuturk proved that.
Kill it before it forms.
>You understand that the entire ISIS problem, the entire Al Queda problem, all of it.
I understand it better than you, in that I understand it at all.
>Start some shit? Saddam drops some gas on your ass.
Start some shit? Gaddafi sends his royal guard to fuck you.
Start some shit?
Assad sends his army after you.
Start some big shit? All three form a coalition to kill you.
So, what you're saying is that we should just give these slightly less crazy people guns and power? Yeah, that can't ever go wrong can it? Is it nice to live in this fantasy world in which these people aren't terrible, or could somehow know when and where terrorist groups were rising up? I bet it must be nice. In all seriousness though, the problem is that one you've "started some shit" it's too late. Once you're a big enough problem to be noticed, you're too big of a problem to be dealt with so easily. Unless you just want to kill everybody. That would probably work I guess. You'd just be kinda Hitlery for it.
>Kill it before it forms.
Also, killing it before it forms is literally impossible. You can't kill an idea before somebody has it and can spread it to others. Seriously, where are you getting these solutions from?
Rand Paul is the only one who talks about how the terrorist problem roots from toxic societies like Saudi Arabia, asks to boycott them, calls out to Hillary's hypocrisy how her campaign is supposed to be about women's rights but she keeps getting money from them etc. No delusional plans like "let's put no-fly zone on Syria even though that makes Russia completely handicapped and we will kill all ISIS".
>I am le smarter than uuuu XDDDD
Well, I didn't outright say that, but thanks to you putting this, I guess I'll never have to prove it myself. You've already done it for me by being such an idiotic faggot and posting this.
>Grow some balls
>Tap out argumentation
>le XD can't kill an idea before it forgmmsdss
Good arguments anon. I really can't believe that you caught me like that. How could I have been so wrong?
>implying you're nothing but a slightly left than center cuckshit
Well, you're right about that. I'm not enough of a fucking retard to think that either conservative politics or liberal politics will work in any situation, like you obviously are.
>We don't have to give them guns, we just don't interfere at all faggot
This directly goes against what I was arguing against in the first place. It' true that simply not interfering in the first place would have been the best way to avoid this entire situation, but the thing is that we already did, and now we have to find a way to fix the clusterfuck that it caused.
>They are perfectly well of rulers.
What proof do you have that they are anything less than psychotic dictators?
>Good christ I can't deal with this drivel.
At least we agree on one thing. If you weren't so persistent, I'd assume that you were just baiting with how incomprehensibly stupid your arguments are.
The thing is, with Nazism there was no apologists. It was easier to control it. With Islam people refuse to admit there are problems in the current structure. Also USA and UK are being friendly with countries that practice the worst kind of Islam, so it basically gets green light from us. Rand Paul suggests to boycott them like we did with South Africa to end apartheid. When you have candidates like Hillary getting money from Wahhabist society, what does it tell?
>The thing is, with Nazism there was no apologists. It was easier to control.
>With Islam people refuse to admit there are problems in the current structure.
> Also USA and UK are being friendly with countries that practice the worst kind of Islam, so it basically gets green light from us.
>Rand Paul suggests to boycott them like we did with South Africa to end apartheid.
>When you have candidates like Hillary getting money from Wahhabist society, what does it tell?
You do know that Saudi Arabia, the society that has Wahhabi structure and source of the toxic Islam, is important business partner with USA and UK? And that Hillary's moneyman just got new connection with them. It's obvious they would fund Hillary because they are nervous about the possible political changes in USA and with Hillary those changes obviously won't happen.
The reason why Indonesian Muslim community is so much different is that they don't have this Wahhabist/Salafist political instructure, and so they mosques they export to Asian countries don't cause problems.
Sometimes I wonder if Americans know less what happens in their own country than foreigners do, or maybe you're just a /pol/tard.
Clinton getting money from Saudis:
Rand Paul criticizing Clinton for cooperating with community that should go against her campaign:
Rand Paul shows good insight with Syria crisis:
Also Paul's brutally honest opinion of US foreign policy that has been problematic for years:
The situation is complicated because either way one group will be in power, Sunnis and Shiites will never come to agreement with their theological in-fighting. But Saudi Arabia also is partially cause for this, as their education promotes Shiaphobia.