Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl1017




Hooray for the fall of the two party system!

Now all we have to do is kick the left wing nuts out of the Democrat party.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Now all we have to do is kick the left wing nuts out of the Democrat party.

No, the counterpart to this would be the leftwing nuts taking over the Democratic party.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, the counterpart to this would be the leftwing nuts taking over the Democratic party.

They already did that.

Personally, i'd love it for the GOP to split into multiple parties. Seems like it would decrease their chances of winning much.

I'd love to see the Republicans AND the Democrats, IE the Republicrats, go away.

On the other side, I guarantee you that Social Democrats and/or Democratic Socialists are more popular with liberals than the Democratic Party right now.

Both are reactions to the "inverted totalitarianism" theory proving true except the tea party people are playing right into the hands of the people they're supposedly against.

Too bad american liberals are too scared to form a real liberal party.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Too bad american liberals are too scared to form a real liberal party.

They can and then name it the Epic Fail Party.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Too bad american liberals are too scared to form a real liberal party.

I'm pretty sure that if there was ever a truly representative, reform minded party with popular support behind it in the current culture, the response would be REX 84 (which is what it was intended for anyway and why Oliver North should be executed as a traitor) and creative domestic use of the neutron bomb.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
I'd love to see the Republicans AND the Democrats, IE the Republicrats, go away.

And be replaced with these people?

Originally posted by WickedDynamite
They can and then name it the Epic Fail Party.




And after the Liberal Party epically fails, the tea party should have a Tea Bag party. WEEEEEEEE!

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I'm pretty sure that if there was ever a truly representative, reform minded party with popular support behind it in the current culture, the response would be REX 84 (which is what it was intended for anyway and why Oliver North should be executed as a traitor) and creative domestic use of the neutron bomb.



REX 84, huh?


DRAMMATICS, DRAMMATICS!




(Sorry for the double post. Workin' away, here.)

It was thought up as a way to continue government in cases of mass dissent, especially during wars and police actions.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
It was thought up as a way to continue government in cases of mass dissent, especially during wars and police actions.

I know.



I was continuing a joke that I have with you where you say something that is over-the-top and/or drammatic to make a point.

Republicans split, probably be the more moderate Conservatives with someone like Powell leading them and then those other assholes lead by someone like Limbaugh.

I'd welcome the Rep moderates lead by a Powell-type though, over the current Democratic party, at this point in time.

I think the best idea would be for the republicans and conservative democrats to merge into a central party, and then hyper-conservatives can have the tea party and also a liberal party on the left.

Would give a wider range of options and lead to more actual change in US politics imo.

The Obama administration is tanking and people are realizing Democrats are bigger scumbags then Republicans could ever dream of being.

We could see a REAL Republican party form in the next decade..one can hope.

One certainly could, I can agree with you on that. The current christian-right hijacked one is a joke.

Originally posted by KidRock
The Obama administration is tanking and people are realizing Democrats are bigger scumbags then Republicans could ever dream of being.

We could see a REAL Republican party form in the next decade..one can hope.

You mean like Lincoln-Roosevelt-Eisenhower Republicans? The kind that bust the shit out of businesses, raise taxes, and initiate progressive social policies? Cause that would be a nice change in pace.

Unless you mean Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Those aren't republicans, those are fascists.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
You mean like Lincoln-Roosevelt-Eisenhower Republicans? The kind that bust the shit out of businesses, raise taxes, and initiate progressive social policies? Cause that would be a nice change in pace.

Unless you mean Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Those aren't republicans, those are fascists.


Hannity came out and said he's a conservative not a Replublican.

Both parties stink, why in the land of the "free" do we still only have a two party political system.

Because we're not free. As I said, I'm starting to like the phrase "inverted totalitarianism" to describe America

The Republican Party line as described by Reagan has always been (with a few notable exceptions) as follows-Your government, "we the people", is incompetent and corrupt and can't do anything right, so give all your money to all my rich friends and they'll be your government and decide who you can vote for and run things for their own benefit and you'll all benefit through something I call "magic". Mussolini said that Fascism was the merger of state and corporate interests but it's not fascism when we do it because we're America and we're exceptional.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
You mean like Lincoln-Roosevelt-Eisenhower Republicans? The kind that bust the shit out of businesses, raise taxes, and initiate progressive social policies? Cause that would be a nice change in pace.

Unless you mean Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. Those aren't republicans, those are fascists.

I am not a fan of any of those 3, except for Lincoln freeing the slaves from the Democrats and Eisenhowers efforts during World War II there are few other things that I could think of that i agree with them on.

We know, we know, you Democrats hate the idea of people being able to spend their own money and obtain ownership over property (except for that whole slavery thing they supported). Freedom is fascism to you, we know.

Originally posted by KidRock
I am not a fan of any of those 3, except for Lincoln freeing the slaves from the Democrats and Eisenhowers efforts during World War II there are few other things that I could think of that i agree with them on.

We know, we know, you Democrats hate the idea of people being able to spend their own money and obtain ownership over property (except for that whole slavery thing they supported). Freedom is fascism to you, we know.

My interpretation of Republican politics (delivered in Ronald Reagan's voice): You're government (we the people) is inefficient and can't do anything right except die in wars and tell everyone what to do in their personal lives. So let's shut down all government programs and give all your money to my friends, the wealthy elite. They'll decide what's best for you!

Originally posted by Darth Jello
My interpretation of Republican politics (delivered in Ronald Reagan's voice): You're government (we the people) is inefficient and can't do anything right except die in wars and tell everyone what to do in their personal lives. So let's shut down all government programs and give all your money to my friends, the wealthy elite. They'll decide what's best for you! Perhaps. That's not what happened though, is it? Government is huge and getting bigger and bigger and we can see the consequences everywhere.

Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between the social democratic huge government taking care of everything inefficiently and the corporate fascism of the Republicans (though in practice there's little difference between either)

Little difference between social democracy and corporate fascism?

Maybe there's little difference between republicans and democrats, but the difference between the US and European systems is like night and day.

Social democracy is about as far away from fascism as you can get. Corporate fascism is a redundancy since Benito Mussolini defined fascism as a merger of state and corporate interests. Plus Social Democracy in Europe actually works. I'm liking the term "inverted totalitarianism" more and more to describe American style fascism.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Social democracy is about as far away from fascism as you can get.

Not really. Especially using your limited definition as brought forth by Mussolini.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Corporate fascism is a redundancy since Benito Mussolini defined fascism as a merger of state and corporate interests.

Well, a) he doesn't have the definition rights and b) that doesn't address in what way corporations and state are merged. The phrase corporate fascism is still a valid phrase.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Plus Social Democracy in Europe actually works.

Well, we have to make a difference here between parties calling themselves social democrat and the implentations of social market economy, which is much more libertarian than social democratic parties work. If you are in favour of a system as seen in France or Germany, I would agree that these systems do have value. But based on them you can still be more socialist leaning or more libertarian or more nationalist. So when you say Social Democrats do you mean a specific party line or the creation of a social democratic market system in the US?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I'm liking the term "inverted totalitarianism" more and more to describe American style fascism.

It is somewhat accurate.

Ok, let's once again define fascism. The root of the word fascism is the fasces. The fasces was an ancient polearm made of hard treated reeds bound together with a single bladed axe head attached. It has always represented strength and security and was adopted by the fasci, the precursor to the fascists in the early 20th century. Fascism is essentially a modern update to feudalism that emerged in the early 20th century and continues to exist to this day. There are several brands of fascism including Democratic Fascism, Benevolent Autocracy, Corporatism, inverted totalitarianism, and National Socialism but all fascist systems represent certain commonalities-

1. The devaluing of public needs to that of the state or the controlling interests of the state.
2. Third-Way economics: the merger of corporate and state interests being defined as the collusion of the political and wealthy elite and the exercise of power by one or either party over the other or its people.
3. The legitimization of violence and terror as political speech.
4. The idealization of the masculine.
5. The maintenance of society via a police and military state and/or the artificial creation of a large middle class by redistribution of wealth from what society defines as dissidents and minorities.
6. Criminalization of and hard opposition to left-wing ideologies including socialism and communism.
7. The zealous idealization of conservative religious or traditional values and the demonization of supposed internal and external enemies not upholding or in opposition to these virtues.

edit-
Examples of Fascist regimes-
Italy under Mussolini
Nazi Germany
Vichy France
Romania under Ion Antonescu
Spain under Francisco Franco
Argentina under Juan Peron
Russia since the election of Vladimir Putin
Chile under Augusto Pinochete
Greece from 1950-1973

Don't really see any relation to Social Democracy in practice or in theory other than using government intervention to create a middle class which is the only way to create a middle class that isn't miniscule anyway.

That's interesting but it would have been more interesting had you defined your idea of Social Democracy as I asked, rather than fascism.

Social Democracy-

A liberal democratic form of government seeking to combine the freedom and innovation of capitalism with the protections of socialism. The economy is that of regulated market capitalism. Utilities, banks, natural monopolies, the commons, and social services are kept either socialized or non-profit by law. A strong civil service exists within the state in order to keep unemployment down and the labor market in high demand. Inflation is driven by wages, not market prices. Benefits and protections are provided by the state. Government is democratically elected and transparent.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Social Democracy-

A liberal democratic form of government seeking to combine the freedom and innovation of capitalism with the protections of socialism. The economy is that of regulated market capitalism. Utilities, banks, natural monopolies, the commons, and social services are kept either socialized or non-profit by law. A strong civil service exists within the state in order to keep unemployment down and the labor market in high demand. Inflation is driven by wages, not market prices. Benefits and protections are provided by the state. Government is democratically elected and transparent.

Transparent? That would eliminate the current administration from this definition.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Transparent? That would eliminate the current administration from this definition.

It never was. As stated before, America is an inverted totalitarian state functioning through either illiberal or fascist democracy.

Meaning that officials are elected by the people but do not represent their interests and power and choice of who runs as candidates is maintained by a rich elite over the state.

It's called inverted totalitarianism because in traditional totalitarianism the state trumps economics whereas here, economics trump the state, the state being defined by the constitution as "we the people".

And why does everyone think I've got such a huge boner for Obama. I've called him a pussy on this board at least 50 times.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
And why does everyone think I've got such a huge boner for Obama. I've called him a pussy on this board at least 50 times.

hey, you criticize Republicans, there is only one other option

though, about your definition of facism, you see it in a strictly Eurocentric historical perspective hmmm? I can't say I could define it any better, but can't a state be both fascist and not run by corporate interests?

Originally posted by inimalist
hey, you criticize Republicans, there is only one other option

though, about your definition of facism, you see it in a strictly Eurocentric historical perspective hmmm? I can't say I could define it any better, but can't a state be both fascist and not run by corporate interests?

Fascism is always run with the direction or collusion of wealthy elites. Without them it's either communism or stalinism which are totalitarian and absolutely socialist with a planned economy. So technically no.

And you equate corporations with wealthy elites?

Yes.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Yes.

I see.

You don't?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
You don't? Oh no, most definitely not.

explain

Well, it's just that there are wealthy elites that are not affiliated with any corporations as well as there are corporations which aren't actually wealthy. So calling them the same seems wrong to me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, it's just that there are wealthy elites that are not affiliated with any corporations as well as there are corporations which aren't actually wealthy. So calling them the same seems wrong to me.

Except they have the same effect on government when they subvert it. It's like bacterial conjunctivitis and viral conjunctivitis, they're different, they're treated differently, but they both cause conjunctivitis!

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Except they have the same effect on government when they subvert it. It's like bacterial conjunctivitis and viral conjunctivitis, they're different, they're treated differently, but they both cause conjunctivitis!

Perhaps, though I don't quite agree. I'd still say that by your definition you still can't say that there can't be fascism not run by corporate interest. It is very much misleading.

it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always wins.

:/

Originally posted by Bardock42
Perhaps, though I don't quite agree. I'd still say that by your definition you still can't say that there can't be fascism not run by corporate interest. It is very much misleading.

I never said run. I said run or are influenced by. Whether corporate interests control those in power or those in power control corporate interests is what separates traditional totalitarianism from inverted totalitarianism

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I never said run. I said run or are influenced by. Whether corporate interests control those in power or those in power control corporate interests is what separates traditional totalitarianism from inverted totalitarianism

Actually you just said run.

But yes, I guess with this inclusion you can somewhat make a case for that.

Tea is for mugs.