Quashing reports, manipulating search results, and throwing its weight around seem par for the course for Google. After all, they want some return on their investment in politicians, the media, and intellectuals.
Does bitcoin work without electricity or the internet?
What a stupid question.
Inverted totalitarianism
There is nothing "inverted" about American totalitarianism: it's the same kind of totalitarianism that socialist, progressive, and fascist countries have always had and that has always been rooted in state supported corporatism. And it is gullible fools like you that promote this state of affairs.
(1) That meaning of "right wing" is almost completely useless today. It's now used for conservative and corporatist movements, which Fascism definitely is
Fascism may be corporatist, it is most definitely not capitalist. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between corporatism and capitalism? Or perhaps you are deliberately equivocating? If the somewhat ill-defined term "captialism" confuses you, let's be more precise: conservatives and libertarians favor free markets (in the actual economic sense of little government intervention in the economy), while socialists, fascists, and progressives favor strong state intervention in the economy and strong control over capital investments. You can't have two economic positions more diametrically opposed than that, and the socialists and fascists group together.
Furthermore, Fascism is most certainly not conservative; it opposes both major traditional ideologies of government found in the US and in Europe: classical liberalism and monarchy. And the Nazis were not socially conservative either: they rejected both conservative social norms and progressive social norms. That is, both economically and socially, fascists sought a "third way" beyond liberal free market societies and socialist/communist societies. But socialists/communists simply lumped everybody other than themselves together as "the right" because that worked well for propaganda purposes.
(2) Fascist movements are nationalistic, mystical as opposed to materialistic, and frequently don't have a coherent philosophy. Socialism is internationalist, materialistic, and has coherent philosophies.
Well, yes, there are differences between fascism and socialism. So what? They are both totalitarian, anti-free-market, and illiberal; they both have led to economic collapse and mass killings every time they have been tried.
(3) Traditional economic socialism has tried, and it has failed spectacularly, so what are now Socialists are concerned with the general welfare of the masses
Yes, which means that "ne/ow Socialists" have made pretty much the same political transition that Mussolini and the NSDAP made: instead of having the state take over the economy, they simply want to regulate every aspect of the economy and personal lives for everybody's welfare. They call that "third way economics" (as opposed to "third position economics" of the old fascists), talk about how "it takes a village to raise a child", and want public financing for higher education, healthcare, retirement. And those "new Socialists" made that transition for the same reason as "old Socialists": they realized that class warfare and government ownership of industries doesn't work either economically or politically as platforms in Western democracies. And the "new Socialists" are like the old fascists in other ways: they divide people up by race and adopt separate policies for each race, they worship artisans and small shops, favor environmentalism and national parks, favor vegetarianism, are into high tech and modernism, and idolize Native People.
Are you actually going to tell me that what Hitler said has any relation, other than tactical, to the truth?
Not at all. But neither do I have any reason to assume that what Hillary or Sanders or Warren say have any relation, other than tactical, to the truth. In fact, I don't make that assumption even for libertarian or Republican candidates. What we are discussing here is what each political ideology promises and what assumptions it makes, not what it actually delivers.
Now let's be clear about why we are talking about this. Conservatives and libertarians like myself really don't give a f*ck about Hitler-style fascism anymore: we despise it, but it's not going to happen in the US. We're happy to condemn Democrats and progressives on the substance of their ineffective and deplorable policies.
Actually, that kind of left-right division is centuries old, and based on where legislators sat.
This is what you are saying now:
The frames of reference changed to keep the distinction useful.
So, you knew full well that the left-right wing distinction we are making now is completely different from the one that is "centuries old", but you misrepresented it as being "that kind of centuries-old distinction" anyway.
Now, as to "keeping the distinction useful", the new distinction was indeed useful: as I was pointing out, it was useful as a propaganda tool for socialists/communists to shed the stench of totalitarianism and mass murder that had started to cling to them starting in the 1930's. But as far as I can tell, the "new frame" you talk about really has no consistent definition. But you're welcome to try to give one.
According to the original use, as you say, approximately everyone today is a leftist, including Republicans, the alt-right, and libertarians.
That's incorrect: both Republicans and libertarians generally are simply "conservative": that is, we prefer less government, smaller government, and more individual responsibility, like the US used to have after emancipation and before the progressive era. That is what makes us "right wing" in the old sense. Socialists, communists, and fascists are "left wing" in the old frame because they want change towards socialist/progressive government, towards a European-style nation.
Mussolini was not a socialist. Fascist Italy was definitely capitalist.
Sorry, but you're proving again how ignorant you are of history. Mussolini engaged in massive deficit spending, building public works, and building up the military. Mussolini embraced syndicalism and fascist corporatism, in which the economy was managed by "councils" consisting of workers, industry, and government representatives. Mussolini said: When brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.
I mean, how gullible do you have to be to believe that a political movement whose credo is "everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" would allow private investors to decide what the economy does?
but I am saying that YOU present yourself as an uninformed conspiracy theorist, judging by your obsession with a radical activist that Hillary has explicitly rejected from the earliest point of her career
Hillary is clearly using some of the techniques described by Alinsky; that doesn't require any "conspiracies". And the fact that Hillary "explicitly rejects" something is meaningless given her problems with truth.
and your naive portrayal of democrats as cackling cartoon villains
Do you dispute that the Democratic party is historically the party of "slavery, eugenics, segregation, scientific racism, the party on which European fascists modeled themselves"? If so, you need to read up on your history because you're evidently historically illiterate. And if you're disputing that Hillary cackles, you need to listen to her more.
You seem to live in a world where you get to make up the facts. That's probably why you're so at home in the Democratic party. It's also why I left the party last year.
I'm not trying to brag, but showing that a well-informed intelligent person came to a conclusion that completely disagrees with yours.
I have no doubt that "well-informed intelligent persons" can reach your conclusions, because I used to reach the same conclusions as you.
has presented reasons to his conclusions, and has not seen any substantive answers
Your words: "The only reason not to argue that fascists aren't leftists to you is that you will disregard anything that doesn't fit your warped beliefs. Learn some goddam history and political science." That's the extent of your "reasons".
Want to supply some reasons instead of insults?
I've given you reasons: (1) "right wing" historically meant "royalists and traditionalists", while fascists are neither; (2) historically, fascist movements grew out of socialist/communist movements and overlap strongly in terms of ideology; (3) what calls itself "the left" in the US today promotes fascist economic ideas (private ownership of the means of production under tight government regulation) as opposed to traditionally socialist economic ideas (public ownership of the means of production), so fascism and socialism have effectively merged today.
Fascists even tell you in their own words (of course, the quote might have come just as readily from Clinton or Sanders, as from Strasser or Hitler, further illustrating the ideological proximity of fascism, progressivism, and socialism):
We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system! And with my inclination to practical action it seems obvious to me that we have to put a better, more just, more moral system in its place, one which, as it were, has arms and legs and better arms and legs than the present one!
Actually, that kind of left-right division is centuries old, and based on where legislators sat. It may not have been heavily used for a while.
No, it is not because you are conflating two kinds of divisions: the one that originated in French parliament, and the one that arose in the 20th century. The original division was between royalists and traditionalists on the right and revolutionaries and innovators on the left. By that grouping, fascists, socialists, and communists clearly belong together on the left. The division in the 20th century was a different one: fascists and communists hated each other, so they generally sat apart, but that didn't turn fascists into royalist traditionalists.
Mussolini is an interesting case, since he was basically a revolutionary who hated the current government of Italy (a popular opinion then), and switched from left-wing to right-wing
Mussolini started out as a communist and realized that class struggle and internationalism didn't sell well, so he switched from international class-based socialism to a socialism based on national identity; this was a relatively small ideological adjustment, after all, Stalin also pursued a socialism-in-on-country policy. The "switch from left-wing to right-wing" is again a meaningless propagandistic tool, not a relevant characterization of political ideology.
Technically, NASA does Earth science because Congress tells NASA to do Earth science -- for example, the 1976 NASA authorization bill specifically directed NASA "to conduct a comprehensive program of research, technology and monitoring of the phenomena of the upper atmosphere," including developing satellites for that purpose.
Your logic: "X is Z. Congress directed NASA to study X. Y is Z. Therefore Congress directed NASA to study Y." Sorry, doesn't work.
NASA's objectives are defined by the 1958 act establishing it; Congress amended that in 2012 by one more objective. Go read it.
Earth is a planet, and while NASA's missions to study non-Earth planets get lots of press (and deservedly so), Earth is a useful point of comparison (one that is much easier to reach than any other)
By that reasoning, NASA could justify anything and everything they want to do on Earth.
It can sometimes turn into a delicate dance of nomenclature, principal investigatorship, data priority and custody, and funding.)
Let's simplify that "delicate dance" by just making the NASA budget $0.
Yellowstone is about 10000 km2 and the magma chamber is probably about 10km high, so the total volume is around 100000 km3 = 1e5 km3 or 1e14 m3 or 100 Tm3. So your original volume estimate is about right.
There are about 20 known super volcanoes on Earth, NASA says. A major eruption occurs about once every 100,000 years. And these odds are much higher than a repeat of an Earth-changing comet impact of the type that wiped out the dinosaurs.
If it happens every 100000 years, then logically it can't be a "greater threat to life on earth than any asteroid".
You're contributing to the problem by making ludicrous and disengenous claims that have no grounding in reality.
Well, your version of reality doesn't seem to be doing you much good since the only explanation you have for the implosion of the Democratic party is that everybody other than a select elite of voters like you is a stupid, uninformed conspiracy theorist.
U.S. Hillary was more pro-business and pro-bank than Obama
Hillary started out in college sympathizing with left wing radicals, but for the last couple of decades, she has simply been an opportunist who would say and do anything to gain power; voters despised her for it so much that she actually lost to a pathetic character like Donald Trump. The Democratic party meanwhile has been taken over by identity politics and neo-Marxist economics, and Americans want that even less than they want a creep like Hillary in charge.
It has been a mistake to create this hyper-partisan polarized atmosphere, and it has been happening on both sides since the Clinton administration, at least. But the solution is for people to stop the hyperbole, not to hit back with it in the opposite direction.
It didn't use to be happening on both sides. It was progressives who started following Alinsky's playbook for political change. Obama and Hillary were the first major presidential candidates to do so. And it has taken a couple of elections for the rest of the political spectrum to figure out what was going on and how to respond. That genie isn't going back into the bottle any time soon, simply because progressives show no signs of wanting to change.
What? I get that you hate Democrats, but you're just applying random insults at this point.
You made reference to "the party of Lincoln", i.e., what Republicans used to be. I made reference to what Democrats used to be.
Voting for Hillary was voting for a centrist policy wonk who would probably have governed slightly to the right of Obama.
Hillary and Obama are both acolytes of Alinsky. If you haven't read "Rules for Radicals" I suggest you do. Hillary was in no way a "centrist" or a "moderate". Unlike Obama, who I think is at least a fundamentally decent and honest human being (I voted for him), I think Hillary is an amoral opportunist, in addition to being thoroughly incompetent.
Slavery and eugenics? That's utter nonsense.
That's the history of the Democratic party and of American progressivism. Of course, Democrats have mellowed a bit since and have disavowed those policies. Democrats are also right when they say that there is widespread structural racism and oppression of African Americans today. But when you look at where African Americans live and who governs them, you see that their plight is overwhelmingly the responsibility of the Democratic party, because the Democratic party has been dominating the inner cities and the educational system.
You're contributing to the problem.
If by "the problem" you mean that Hillary and people like her aren't in power, I'm glad to hear it.
No, the definition of "alt-right" is essentially an umbrella label for the assortment of ignorant and/or reprehensible ideologies variously held by Trump supporters at this point
Well, yes, and Democrats call everybody who didn't vote for Hillary or who is critical of Hillary or Democrats "ignorant", "reprehensible", and "racist". Hence my point: as far as Democrats are concerned, anybody who didn't vote for Hillary or opposes the Democrats is considered "alt-right" by the Democrats.
No decent Republican did vote for Trump - he's antithetical to every principle that the party claims to hold dear: individual liberty, constitutionalism, fiscal responsibility, moral uprightness, and the basic politeness and sense of down-to-earth decency that gave even unpopular Republicans like GWB an inherent charm
Your concern for Republicans is touching, but Democrats used to abuse GWB and Romney the same way they are abusing Trump: Bush was portrayed with a Hitler moustache, compared to Nero, called a Nazi, a racist, a homophobe, etc. Cry wolf too often and this is what happens.
Trump voters have no business claiming to be members of the party of Lincoln.
But Hillary voters certainly are entitled to claim being members of the party of slavery, eugenics, segregation, scientific racism, the party on which European fascists modeled themselves.
At this point, the only people with any kind of moral authority are people who refuse to support either party. I'm embarrassed that I didn't figure this out until 2016, when I finally left the Democratic party.
Did I say that? No, of course not. No, Democrats are not all the same: there are the billionaire Democrats, the sexist tech bro Democrats, the feminist Democrats, the minority Democrats. Democrats are quite diverse, just not where it counts.
We should get them...
Well, that kind of thinking is certainly typical of Democrats, and is well reflected in Hillary's campaign statements.
That's why left the Democratic party last year and became an independent. I couldn't in good conscience lend my support to a party of bigots anymore.
Nope, you made an incorrect statement that is easily disproved.
You didn't "disprove" anything. In practice, Democrats are using the term "alt-right" synonymous with "anybody who didn't vote for Hillary". And they are doing that precisely because the term originally referred to right wing fringe groups. It's a way of demonizing people.
That's not a theoretical statement, that's what people like me encounter when we tell Democrats that we chose not to vote for either candidate: Democrats become abusive and call us "alt-right" simply for saying that we found Hillary to be as bad a candidate as Trump.
You're referring to the original meaning of the term.
American leftists have given the term a new meaning: they are using it interchangeably with "fascist" and "Nazi" and apply it to anybody other than themselves.
I can look at the policies favoured by US politicians or politically visible people and pretty much everything save for a very small percentage of individuals is either the politics of our mainstream right-wing party (which currently has ~13% voter support) or politics to the right of it.
Well, since you don't say what country you're from, that's kind of hard to disprove. I mean, you could be from Marxist F*ckistan.
What you say is, however, wrong when talking about major European democracies like the UK or Germany: those are generally more conservative than the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Google Critic Ousted From Think Tank Funded by the Tech Giant and New Think Tank Emails show "How Google Wields its Power" in Washington
Quashing reports, manipulating search results, and throwing its weight around seem par for the course for Google. After all, they want some return on their investment in politicians, the media, and intellectuals.
What a stupid question.
There is nothing "inverted" about American totalitarianism: it's the same kind of totalitarianism that socialist, progressive, and fascist countries have always had and that has always been rooted in state supported corporatism. And it is gullible fools like you that promote this state of affairs.
Fascism may be corporatist, it is most definitely not capitalist. Perhaps you don't understand the difference between corporatism and capitalism? Or perhaps you are deliberately equivocating? If the somewhat ill-defined term "captialism" confuses you, let's be more precise: conservatives and libertarians favor free markets (in the actual economic sense of little government intervention in the economy), while socialists, fascists, and progressives favor strong state intervention in the economy and strong control over capital investments. You can't have two economic positions more diametrically opposed than that, and the socialists and fascists group together.
Furthermore, Fascism is most certainly not conservative; it opposes both major traditional ideologies of government found in the US and in Europe: classical liberalism and monarchy. And the Nazis were not socially conservative either: they rejected both conservative social norms and progressive social norms. That is, both economically and socially, fascists sought a "third way" beyond liberal free market societies and socialist/communist societies. But socialists/communists simply lumped everybody other than themselves together as "the right" because that worked well for propaganda purposes.
Well, yes, there are differences between fascism and socialism. So what? They are both totalitarian, anti-free-market, and illiberal; they both have led to economic collapse and mass killings every time they have been tried.
Yes, which means that "ne/ow Socialists" have made pretty much the same political transition that Mussolini and the NSDAP made: instead of having the state take over the economy, they simply want to regulate every aspect of the economy and personal lives for everybody's welfare. They call that "third way economics" (as opposed to "third position economics" of the old fascists), talk about how "it takes a village to raise a child", and want public financing for higher education, healthcare, retirement. And those "new Socialists" made that transition for the same reason as "old Socialists": they realized that class warfare and government ownership of industries doesn't work either economically or politically as platforms in Western democracies. And the "new Socialists" are like the old fascists in other ways: they divide people up by race and adopt separate policies for each race, they worship artisans and small shops, favor environmentalism and national parks, favor vegetarianism, are into high tech and modernism, and idolize Native People.
Not at all. But neither do I have any reason to assume that what Hillary or Sanders or Warren say have any relation, other than tactical, to the truth. In fact, I don't make that assumption even for libertarian or Republican candidates. What we are discussing here is what each political ideology promises and what assumptions it makes, not what it actually delivers.
Now let's be clear about why we are talking about this. Conservatives and libertarians like myself really don't give a f*ck about Hitler-style fascism anymore: we despise it, but it's not going to happen in the US. We're happy to condemn Democrats and progressives on the substance of their ineffective and deplorable policies.
We are talking a
The FDIC doesn't guarantee the value of savings, only the nominal amount.
That is true for government-issued and government-manipulated fiat currency. It isn't true of money in general.
Or anything else of durable value, or a fiat currency outside the control of governments like, oh, Bitcoin.
This is what you said originally:
This is what you are saying now:
So, you knew full well that the left-right wing distinction we are making now is completely different from the one that is "centuries old", but you misrepresented it as being "that kind of centuries-old distinction" anyway.
Now, as to "keeping the distinction useful", the new distinction was indeed useful: as I was pointing out, it was useful as a propaganda tool for socialists/communists to shed the stench of totalitarianism and mass murder that had started to cling to them starting in the 1930's. But as far as I can tell, the "new frame" you talk about really has no consistent definition. But you're welcome to try to give one.
That's incorrect: both Republicans and libertarians generally are simply "conservative": that is, we prefer less government, smaller government, and more individual responsibility, like the US used to have after emancipation and before the progressive era. That is what makes us "right wing" in the old sense. Socialists, communists, and fascists are "left wing" in the old frame because they want change towards socialist/progressive government, towards a European-style nation.
Sorry, but you're proving again how ignorant you are of history. Mussolini engaged in massive deficit spending, building public works, and building up the military. Mussolini embraced syndicalism and fascist corporatism, in which the economy was managed by "councils" consisting of workers, industry, and government representatives. Mussolini said: When brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State.
I mean, how gullible do you have to be to believe that a political movement whose credo is "everything for the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state" would allow private investors to decide what the economy does?
FDIC doesn't guarantee the value of currency, only of savings.
It's also unclear why FDIC is still needed. If you keep your money in an FDIC-insured account, you're a fool.
Translation: "OMG, we can't screw over regular people anymore by manipulating the money supply or charging excessive fees for transactions."
Well, Mr. Sheng, perhaps you can't ignore cyber currencies, but cyber currencies can ignore you. That's kind of the point.
Hillary is clearly using some of the techniques described by Alinsky; that doesn't require any "conspiracies". And the fact that Hillary "explicitly rejects" something is meaningless given her problems with truth.
Do you dispute that the Democratic party is historically the party of "slavery, eugenics, segregation, scientific racism, the party on which European fascists modeled themselves"? If so, you need to read up on your history because you're evidently historically illiterate. And if you're disputing that Hillary cackles, you need to listen to her more.
You seem to live in a world where you get to make up the facts. That's probably why you're so at home in the Democratic party. It's also why I left the party last year.
I have no doubt that "well-informed intelligent persons" can reach your conclusions, because I used to reach the same conclusions as you.
Your words: "The only reason not to argue that fascists aren't leftists to you is that you will disregard anything that doesn't fit your warped beliefs. Learn some goddam history and political science." That's the extent of your "reasons".
I've given you reasons: (1) "right wing" historically meant "royalists and traditionalists", while fascists are neither; (2) historically, fascist movements grew out of socialist/communist movements and overlap strongly in terms of ideology; (3) what calls itself "the left" in the US today promotes fascist economic ideas (private ownership of the means of production under tight government regulation) as opposed to traditionally socialist economic ideas (public ownership of the means of production), so fascism and socialism have effectively merged today.
Fascists even tell you in their own words (of course, the quote might have come just as readily from Clinton or Sanders, as from Strasser or Hitler, further illustrating the ideological proximity of fascism, progressivism, and socialism):
No, it is not because you are conflating two kinds of divisions: the one that originated in French parliament, and the one that arose in the 20th century. The original division was between royalists and traditionalists on the right and revolutionaries and innovators on the left. By that grouping, fascists, socialists, and communists clearly belong together on the left. The division in the 20th century was a different one: fascists and communists hated each other, so they generally sat apart, but that didn't turn fascists into royalist traditionalists.
Mussolini started out as a communist and realized that class struggle and internationalism didn't sell well, so he switched from international class-based socialism to a socialism based on national identity; this was a relatively small ideological adjustment, after all, Stalin also pursued a socialism-in-on-country policy. The "switch from left-wing to right-wing" is again a meaningless propagandistic tool, not a relevant characterization of political ideology.
Your logic: "X is Z. Congress directed NASA to study X. Y is Z. Therefore Congress directed NASA to study Y." Sorry, doesn't work.
NASA's objectives are defined by the 1958 act establishing it; Congress amended that in 2012 by one more objective. Go read it.
By that reasoning, NASA could justify anything and everything they want to do on Earth.
Let's simplify that "delicate dance" by just making the NASA budget $0.
Yellowstone is about 10000 km2 and the magma chamber is probably about 10km high, so the total volume is around 100000 km3 = 1e5 km3 or 1e14 m3 or 100 Tm3. So your original volume estimate is about right.
If it happens every 100000 years, then logically it can't be a "greater threat to life on earth than any asteroid".
Well, your version of reality doesn't seem to be doing you much good since the only explanation you have for the implosion of the Democratic party is that everybody other than a select elite of voters like you is a stupid, uninformed conspiracy theorist.
Hillary started out in college sympathizing with left wing radicals, but for the last couple of decades, she has simply been an opportunist who would say and do anything to gain power; voters despised her for it so much that she actually lost to a pathetic character like Donald Trump. The Democratic party meanwhile has been taken over by identity politics and neo-Marxist economics, and Americans want that even less than they want a creep like Hillary in charge.
Why don't you take your own advice and go beyond the simplistic, self-serving high school version of history that guides your infantile reasoning?
Most of my friends used to be Democrats. Not anymore.
That kind of left/right division is a convenient fiction created by communists post-WWII.
In fact, what you call "American leftists" are far closer to Mussolini than to Stalin.
I think both the left and the right are "bad".
It didn't use to be happening on both sides. It was progressives who started following Alinsky's playbook for political change. Obama and Hillary were the first major presidential candidates to do so. And it has taken a couple of elections for the rest of the political spectrum to figure out what was going on and how to respond. That genie isn't going back into the bottle any time soon, simply because progressives show no signs of wanting to change.
You made reference to "the party of Lincoln", i.e., what Republicans used to be. I made reference to what Democrats used to be.
Hillary and Obama are both acolytes of Alinsky. If you haven't read "Rules for Radicals" I suggest you do. Hillary was in no way a "centrist" or a "moderate". Unlike Obama, who I think is at least a fundamentally decent and honest human being (I voted for him), I think Hillary is an amoral opportunist, in addition to being thoroughly incompetent.
That's the history of the Democratic party and of American progressivism. Of course, Democrats have mellowed a bit since and have disavowed those policies. Democrats are also right when they say that there is widespread structural racism and oppression of African Americans today. But when you look at where African Americans live and who governs them, you see that their plight is overwhelmingly the responsibility of the Democratic party, because the Democratic party has been dominating the inner cities and the educational system.
If by "the problem" you mean that Hillary and people like her aren't in power, I'm glad to hear it.
Well, yes, and Democrats call everybody who didn't vote for Hillary or who is critical of Hillary or Democrats "ignorant", "reprehensible", and "racist". Hence my point: as far as Democrats are concerned, anybody who didn't vote for Hillary or opposes the Democrats is considered "alt-right" by the Democrats.
Your concern for Republicans is touching, but Democrats used to abuse GWB and Romney the same way they are abusing Trump: Bush was portrayed with a Hitler moustache, compared to Nero, called a Nazi, a racist, a homophobe, etc. Cry wolf too often and this is what happens.
But Hillary voters certainly are entitled to claim being members of the party of slavery, eugenics, segregation, scientific racism, the party on which European fascists modeled themselves.
At this point, the only people with any kind of moral authority are people who refuse to support either party. I'm embarrassed that I didn't figure this out until 2016, when I finally left the Democratic party.
Did I say that? No, of course not. No, Democrats are not all the same: there are the billionaire Democrats, the sexist tech bro Democrats, the feminist Democrats, the minority Democrats. Democrats are quite diverse, just not where it counts.
Well, that kind of thinking is certainly typical of Democrats, and is well reflected in Hillary's campaign statements.
That's why left the Democratic party last year and became an independent. I couldn't in good conscience lend my support to a party of bigots anymore.
You didn't "disprove" anything. In practice, Democrats are using the term "alt-right" synonymous with "anybody who didn't vote for Hillary". And they are doing that precisely because the term originally referred to right wing fringe groups. It's a way of demonizing people.
That's not a theoretical statement, that's what people like me encounter when we tell Democrats that we chose not to vote for either candidate: Democrats become abusive and call us "alt-right" simply for saying that we found Hillary to be as bad a candidate as Trump.
You're referring to the original meaning of the term.
American leftists have given the term a new meaning: they are using it interchangeably with "fascist" and "Nazi" and apply it to anybody other than themselves.
Well, since you don't say what country you're from, that's kind of hard to disprove. I mean, you could be from Marxist F*ckistan.
What you say is, however, wrong when talking about major European democracies like the UK or Germany: those are generally more conservative than the US.