I Won't Be Watching the Debates If This Keeps Up . . . .

If the debates went something like The Wiki Kid's and mine, I might watch.




https://libcom.org/files/Robert%20O....f%20(2004).pdf

This book takes the position that what fascists did tells us at least as much as what they said. What they said cannot be ignored, of course, for it helps explain their appeal. Even at its most radical, however, fascists’ anticapitalist rhetoric was selective. While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization—capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation. When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history. For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity. Once in power, fascist regimes confiscated property only from political opponents, foreigners, or Jews.

If the debates went something like The Wiki Kid's and mine, I might watch.

THE
ANATOMY OF
FASCISM


ROBERT O. PAXTON

https://libcom.org/files/Robert%20O....f%20(2004).pdf


Quote:
This book takes the position that what fascists did tells us at least as much as what they said. What they said cannot be ignored, of course, for it helps explain their appeal. Even at its most radical, however, fascists’ anticapitalist rhetoric was selective. While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization—capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation. When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history. For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity. Once in power, fascist regimes confiscated property only from political opponents, foreigners, or Jews.


Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

now if you could only make a point that ties Trump directly into your radical agenda you might be on to something




BAHHAHHHAAAAAAAAAAAA

now if you could only make a point that ties Trump directly into your radical agenda you might be on to something Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Point blank: Dump's fault. Who knew? This lady:

Trump’s Agenda: A Recipe for Civil Unrest

BY GABRIELLE GURLEY SEPTEMBER 23, 2016

At a Cleveland town hall, also this week, ostensibly aimed at African American voters, Trump called for a nationwide stop-and-frisk policy similar to the program instituted by his good friend, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. He failed to point out that in 2013, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that the New York policy, which disproportionally affected African Americans and Latinos, was an unconstitutional violation of Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure and of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. During a campaign stop in Philadelphia, where stop-and-frisk continues despite a federal consent decree, he called the practice "a very positive thing." He later qualified his statement, saying that he meant to apply the practice only to Chicago, where more than 500 people have been murdered this year.

I can already predict:

"if you say so" Or, better stated, if she says so.



















Ignorance is unbecoming, sir.

Point blank: Dump's fault. Who knew? This lady:

Trump’s Agenda: A Recipe for Civil Unrest

BY GABRIELLE GURLEY SEPTEMBER 23, 2016




I can already predict:

"if you say so" Or, better stated, if she says so.


Ignorance is unbecoming, sir. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

stop and frisk worked. ask Bloomberg


Mike Bloomberg Can't Shake The Legacy Of Stop-And-Frisk Policing In New York

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/25/80936...bergs-new-york


Bloomerpuddin' coulda scored some points if he'd had the nutsack to stand up for Law and Order. butt he caved in to you progressive radicals. now he's out of the race with only 2 delegates from American Samoa to show for it. hell for 500 million he could have bought it

have a nice day comrade terrorist!!


BAHHAHHHAAAAAAA

Why don't they have the debates between the nominees instead of answering random questions from a moderator? Whole system is gay af. Originally Posted by Strokey_McDingDong

its a controlled debate format, something that was set up when tv first came out. networks grabbed it and made themselves kingmakers.


prior to this type of debate, it wasn't moderated unless one was on radio. they did a few of those.

DPST controlled debate - with One candidate wearing a wire for prompting, and drugged to prop him up
hint - refused urinalysis!
hint - not Trump!
Hint - biased as hell moderator.



These are not debates - it is propaganda staged by the DPST's and XiNN.

Don't have any more debates....Biden is winning...and Trump has no stamina

Thank You Mole - you are looking in a mirror - as usual.!

And you are stalking him with your one line insults - as usual!

Take a vacation now before you no longer have a choice, bitter little man.

And seek professional help.

if yous say so


Was Vichy France a Puppet Government or a Willing Nazi Collaborator?

The authoritarian government led by Marshal Pétain participated in Jewish expulsions and turned France into a quasi-police state

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...zis-180967160/


How France’s Vichy Regime Became Hitler’s Willing Collaborators

https://jacobinmag.com/2020/07/vichy...r-world-war-ii



Philippe Pétain and Adolf Hitler in 1940. Photo: German Federal Archive


It’s eighty years today since the notorious Vichy regime took power in France under Nazi domination. Vichy-style fascism wasn’t simply a German plant on French soil — it drew on powerful reactionary currents in French politics and society.


The Vichy regime in France was established on July 10, 1940, following the French surrender to Germany. The terms of the armistice divided France into an occupied zone covering the north and west of the country, and the so-called free zone in the south. Marshal Philippe Pétain, a hero of the First World War for his role in the defence of Verdun, became the leader of the new regime, having been granted full powers by both chambers of parliament.

Pétain and his entourage saw the defeat of France and the collapse of the Third Republic as a chance to wipe out the legacy of permissiveness and decadence represented by the left-wing Popular Front government of the 1930s and the French Revolution. The Vichy ruler dispensed with parliamentary democracy and engaged in a policy of collaboration with Nazi Germany, hailing it as a new beginning for France — a “National Revolution.” Charles Maurras, the ideologue of the antisemitic Action Française movement, welcomed these developments as a “divine surprise.”

National Myth

After the defeat of Nazi Germany, a carefully constructed national myth obscured the reality of the Vichy regime. Charles de Gaulle, leader of the Free French forces, propagated that myth, and historians echoed it for many years. School textbooks depicted wartime France as a nation of resisters who had refused to collaborate with the occupier. Influential historical accounts, like Robert Aron’s Histoire de Vichy, depicted Pétain as a “shield” and De Gaulle as a “sword,” each of whom had been necessary in their different ways for the defense of French interests.


At the time of the liberation, De Gaulle claimed that “only a handful of scoundrels” had behaved badly during the occupation: the rest of the country could look themselves in the eye as patriots. This “sublime half-lie,” as Henry Rousso dubbed it, formed the basis for postwar attempts at national reconciliation, symbolized in 1964 by the transfer of the remains of resistance hero Jean Moulin to the Pantheon in an elaborate two-day ceremony.

Although critical accounts of the regime did appear in French during this period, such as Henri Michel’s Vichy: Année 40, it was research by foreign historians that overturned these postwar conceptions of the regime. After the publication of studies by Stanley Hoffmann, Alan Milward, and Eberhard Jäckel (whose Frankreich in Hitlers Europa has yet to be translated into French), it was Robert O. Paxton’s Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order, 1940–1944 that blew away the established consensus about Vichy as a structure that protected French interests and resisted Nazi demands.


Coming in the wake of the May 1968 revolt and the death of De Gaulle, Paxton’s book turned the study of Vichy on its head, with an impact matched by very few historical works, inspiring talk of a “Paxtonian revolution.” As Paxton himself has been careful to stress, it was May ’68 that had proved the decisive element here, as “students began challenging their elders’ reticence,” and the French started to confront “the dark side of their response to Nazi occupation.”

Collaboration, Paxton argued, was not merely a catastrophe forced upon France by military defeat, but part of an internal French conflict with a much longer history. It was something actively sought by the Vichy leaders, not a demand placed upon France by Germany. Conservative, authoritarian, and counterrevolutionary traditions incubated in France itself underpinned the politics of the regime. Vichy was not a “lesser evil.”


BAHHAHHAAAAAAAA Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

And - again nothing cogent or constructive - just name-calling and abhorrent hateful imagery!

more scatologies from the mole

More coprology from the failed grocery store chain

She's really taking "control" of the debate. Fuck this!

C-SPAN is 30 seconds faster than national broadcast television.