He's a billionaire. Traditionally speaking society at large accepts that people with incredible wealth are powerful.

If he's elected then by definition no force is needed and he doesn't need to try and seize the reigns. He's the president. He has a lot of parliamentary power. The reigns are handed to him on a silver platter. That said, he's still got congress to deal with, and if it's a hostile congress then he could be pushing shit up a hill.

Thank you for your fascism elucidation. I disagree that system will happen if he is elected. It's almost fanciful.

I don't believe Clinton has been charged or convicted. That's why I said she's "innocent until proven guilty".

No, not satisfied. I'd need to see links to court outcomes. But I'm not that interested so don't bother on my behalf.

As per the Oxford Dictionary the common use of naive is: showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgement. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/naive

Dictionary.com doesn't cut it for me

I have an admitted bias towards Sanders, but the fact he leads by larger numbers in all polls against Trump, even Fox's poll, I think speaks volumes about where the voting public is at. They want an outsider.

If they think that Trump's, apparent fascism will turn voters to Hilary, they are mis-reading the voting public. What is more likely to happen is voter apathy, especially among independent voters if there's even a hint of real controversy coming out just in time for the general election. Democratic turn out keeps going down, so they can't count on their base to make it up. Also, Trump has already started to change his tone, to bring down his rhetoric to appeal to the general populous. If they think they'll stick a flip-flop label to him, it won't stick. Trump is on a whole other level in the public mind for some reason.

This election is too important to let the Republicans win and I don't know if they get that or don't care because Trump has donated tons in the past to them so they are willing to take a chance with him in. We'll lose what little respect in the world that we managed to gain since Bush's wars that Obama built back up. We'll lose our bids for the Olympics and World Cup, both of which are heavily in our favor at the moment, but a Trump presidency, at least at current rhetoric levels, would turn the voting committees off, and might turn them off even if he tones the no Muslims can visit, bit off. The very perception of hate in this nation will turn them off vetting us when there are other qualified bids. Then there's the Supreme Court vacancy, it would be great to throw back the fact they wouldn't vet the moderate they asked for by name, and have a liberal as a President and take back over the Senate in one election and get a far more liberal nominee passed, at the going rate we may continue to have a court leaning to the right if Trump wins.

Would Sanders get to push much of any of his agenda? No. The Republicans and even many Democrats would push back. Congress will continue to be deadlocked against the President like it is against Obama, perhaps to even higher levels. But it will move the conversation. The fact that he wins period would show where the American public actually wants to go.

I'm seriously concerned about what's going on. It's like they want to give the presidency to Trump.

Agreed.

They managed to turn a treatise on Nietzsche's abyss and the nature of Anarchy & Fascism; into a one sided fairytale about extreme neo-conservatism vs pseudo-liberal collectivism.

& don't get me started on the fucking "eggy in a basket"!

V is supposed to be a god-damned monster, not a relatable hero.

Reading V after seeing this film was what made me truly understand why Alan Moore wants nothing to do with film adaptations.

I don't know, I suspect that when the US goes overtly fascist - perhaps sooner than anyone thought (though it has flirted with fascism for a some time) - I suspect that the US army will just fall into line.

From an article by Chris Hedges:

Robert Paxton wrote in “The Anatomy of Fascism”:

The language and symbols of an authentic American fascism would, of course, have little to do with the original European models. They would have to be as familiar and reassuring to loyal Americans as the language and symbols of the original fascisms were familiar and reassuring to many Italians and Germans, as [George] Orwell suggested. Hitler and Mussolini, after all, had not tried to seem exotic to their fellow citizens. No swastikas in an American fascism, but Stars and Stripes (or Stars and Bars) and Christian crosses. No fascist salute, but mass recitations of the pledge of allegiance. These symbols contain no whiff of fascism in themselves, of course, but an American fascism would transform them into obligatory litmus tests for detecting the internal enemy.

I got to disagree that they need the Tea Party vote... well they need the Tea Party's great love, Fox News, Rush. and all the other far right nutters, so they try to appeal to the Tea Party more specifically, but I think that's why they've lost the last two elections.

McCain, had he ran as the centralist candidate he has been in the Senate, was very electable. Unfortunately for the party he stepped to the right in his campaign to appeal to what would become the Tea Party. Then he went over the deep end by choosing a VP candidate that was certifiably crazy and too far to the right for the Nation to take seriously. All in an attempt to appeal to the far right.

Then the party mishandles Obamacare. Rather than own up to it, and say "hey, this is the same plan we tried to pass 3 times into federal law. The Democrats wanted a single payer system, Obama was promising a government option, but they in the end took our plan." Instead they try to run the thing into the ground, and build on the far right anger over it, rather than appeal to where the Nation actually was. Obama's re-election was largely because of Obamacare, something the party and it's media machines like Fox don't understand. To be fair in 2008, I don't think anyone could have predicted the rise of Obama, but the fact his message took off so well, should have been a sign to the Republican party the country was trying to move back to the center from the pull to the right of the Bush years.

Romney could have ran with that further, saying how Romneycare is the model for Obamacare and that his state was the one who really started the ball rolling. Romney as he was as governor was far more electable at the national level than the Romney we got during the campaign... and again there is an appeal to the Tea Party with a Washington Insider but solid Tea Party member in Ryan.

The Republican party has a near solid slam dunk if they put up Rubio/Kasich ticket. It's a moderate ticket that has broad appeal to the masses of America without making most liberals/progressives so afraid that they'll show up in droves the way a Trump ticket does (or a Cruz ticket to a slightly smaller extent). The far right would still vote for Rubio/Kasich over Clinton/Sander (or Clinton/Warren, Clinton/Kucinich... she needs a solid, well known progressive to give her the best chance of winning), so the Rubio/Kasich is safe from all sides.

I agree though, a Trump ticket spells doom for the party period. Not only do they loose the Presidential election, the fact so many Republicans fear Trump's near Fascism will mean they might stay home, and the liberals/progressives will show up in greater than normal numbers to insure he doesn't win, which means a possible to likely loss of control of the Senate. Cruz won't scare away the Republican base as much, but still bring out more liberals/progressives than normal, which likely means a loss of the Presidential election, but perhaps not as much of a loss of the Senate. A Rubio/Kasich combo ticket is safe and gives the best broad appeal... or course if they did go Rubio, they'd tie him up with a Tea Party candidate to pull those votes in, as they don't understand they need to really shed those people and let them form their own party... I think they fear that Fox News, Rush and the like will follow the new Tea Party line rather than the mainstream Republican party and they want that attention... they are so wrapped up in the echo chamber now they don't see the nation is far more to the center than they are willing to go. The fact that Obama is far closer to Regan era style Republicans than most anyone in the race today speaks volumes to how disconnected the party is from reality.

Meanwhile, I'll wish for a Sanders/Warren or Sanders/Kucinich ticket... though realistically, he needs a young moderate up coming Democrat to broaden his appeal... and let's face it, odds are it'll be Clinton, whom I fear the Republican's first day of action will be to try an impeach her over the email and Benghazi... I mean we've had what? 3 or 4 times as many hearings on how she handled Benghazi than we had over 9/11, even though there are tons of fishy things going on with that too (without having to go into crazy conspiracy theories). So go... Clinton/Sanders or Clinton/Warren.

oh bobby bobby bobby..
you should know better than to talk smack like that my boy.
you need to back that shit up son!

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/2/amy_goodman_two_democracy_now_producers

https://www.nlg.org/sites/default/files/RNC%20DNC%20Final%20Draft%20REV1.pdf

http://rnc08report.org/archive/361.shtml

http://www.prisonplanet.com/why-we-were-falsely-arrested.html

http://911blogger.com/news/2008-09-05/lockdown-st-paul-adam-turl-september-5-2008

still think it didnt happen at an RNC?
why you keep defending fascism only to be forced to eat humble pie eludes me.
you may be republican but those cocksuckers dont give two shits about you bobby boy.

not...one...bit.

@gorillaman, I admit I'm veering close to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but equally, I never claimed that all feminists were sane and moral people.

The difference is, I think most people these days are reasonably feminist and I think the vast majority of them are not man-hating nutjobs. There's undoubtedly a lunatic fringe, but that's the case for every group/ideology.

I also agree that meanings change over time. "national socialism", shorn of its historic baggage, doesn't sound that terrible. But we know that what it actually signifies is actually national fascism, racism and other abhorrent concepts.

The question is at what point the lunatic fringe comes to represent the whole. For example, at one point the Republicans were once the party of small government and fiscal conservatism, but it's becoming increasingly more difficult to describe them as anything other than the party of religious nutjobs and idiots.

I don't feel feminism has been hijacked to the same extent. I believe there are still a lot of normal rational people who describe themselves as feminists (I'd like to think I'm one, for a start).

Finally, I'm with Joss Whedon.... "feminism" is a terrible word, but ultimately, "You either believe women are people or you don't. It's that simple."

I think article linked below on reading level is important to note in regards to this.
https://contently.com/strategist/2015/01/28/this-surprising-reading-level-analysis-will-change-the-way-you-write/ By keeping his language simple, he is able to reach, and have his keywords understood by a larger American audience. Of course understanding speech and reading are slightly different, but it's word choice still becomes important.

As this video notes. Trump is a salesman. And he's selling his crap expertly well. He circumvents the answer with babble that never actually answers the question. He never answered if it's un-American to have a religious litmus test to allow people to visit the US, he just says we have a problem, and implicates all the people of one faith in that, which ISIL itself said sometime ago was their goal, to turn the world against all of Islam to make it easier to recruit and radicalize more people... which is off topic. He doesn't address the point of the question, he sort of skirts it and generalizes it into his overall framework. One could argue that yes, saying there's a problem is itself an answer to the question, but it isn't a direct answer.

I don't know as if he's intentionally talking at that low a level though, or if he's just his style period.

It'd also be interesting to see if Hitler's run-up to being elected, if he used similar style. That is if he used a simple style to appeal to the masses. Not just Hitler, but other leaders of his ilk. I choose Hitler here as more an example of an elected leader gone wrong, that had mass appeal to his people, but later regretted to the point of shame.

Even if Britt's famed Warning Signs of Fascism isn't fully accurate by all scholars (and I'm aware he doesn't actually have academic scholarship) many do come close. I think most can agree that it requires at least Extreme Nationalism, warmongering, a loss of civil liberties and rights (Patriot Act, wanting to increase the spy power of the NSA, etc), corporatism a merger of the state and corporate power, racism (Britt's warning signs says sexism, but I think racism is more apt and I don't think what people normally think about sexism applies, though we need more of a racism slash something, to note those who "sin" differently than others, such as the gays).

yeah..i am with @VoodooV on this one.

the man was not working.
was not wearing any company logos or identification,yet loses his job.

for what?
being an insensitive racist idiot?

public shaming?
all for it,and it might even change a few hearts and minds.inject a little empathy in an otherwise rigid and narrow worldview.

losing his job?
eeeeeeh..i think some people are taking the social warrior thing a tad too far,and are not being far sighted in their execution.

sure..we can hate on this racist asshole and ridicule him for his idiocy,but what happens when the PC police find something that YOU do offensive or inappropriate?

would you still be as confident in losing your livelihood?

i have been following this case in canada where this graphic designer is facing 6 months in jail for criticizing and disagreeing with two feminists.these women are trying to make the case that his criticisms,in the form of tweets,constitutes harrassment.

he lost his job.
is 80k in the hole,and the case has been ongoing for three years.

so there is already a frightening amount of this PC police,social warrior fascism having actually consequences.

so where do we draw the line?
who is going to arbitrarily monitor that line?
who decides what is offensive and what is not?

you start going down this road and that line will become more and more blurred until the first amendment is toast.

i am finding it more and more disturbing that people are beginning to think that being offended somehow equates to a right.that their little world,their minute and tiny habitat should be protected from offensive language.

unless you are ok with destroying peoples lives for being an idiot or an asshole.

social warriors:morality police concerned with their own little habitat,but they have your best interest as well.

oh goodie....

The article linked above mentions Röpke and Eucken as champions of free market capitalism, so to speak. Ironically, Bernie Sanders is quite in line with many of Walter Eucken's core ideas. For instance, Eucken declared legal responsibility to be an absolute necessity for competition within a market economy. Meaning that under Eucken's notion of capitalism, US prisons would be filled to the brim with white collar criminals from Wall Street and just about every multinational corporation, including Volkswagen.

Ludwig Erhard, credited by many to be the main figure behind the German "Wirtschaftswunder" (nothing wonderous about it), postulated real wage growth in line with productivity and target inflation as an imperative for a working social market economy. Again, very much in line with Bernie Sanders. Maybe even to the left of Sanders. A 5% increase in productivity and a target inflation of 2% requires a wage increase of 7%, otherwise your economy will starve itself of the demand it requires to absorb its increased production. You can steal it from foreign countries, like Germany's been doing for more than a decade now, but that kind of parasitic behaviour is generally frowned upon. Minimum wage in the US according to Erhard would be what now, $25-$30? So much for Sanders' $15...

Sennholz further mentions the CDU as a counterweight to the SPD. Well, the CDU's "Ahlener Programm" in 1947 declared that both marxism and capitalism failed the German people. In fact, it put significant blame for Germany's descent into fascism at the feet of the capitalistic system and called for a complete restart with focus NOT on the pursuit of profit and power, but the well-being of the people. They called for socialism with Christian responsibility, later watered down and known as social market economy or Rhine capitalism.

As for the economic policies conducted by the occupation forces: German industry, and large corporations in particular, were shackled for the role they played during the war. If you work tens of thousands of slaves to their death, you lose your right to... well, anything. If they had stripped IG Farben, Krupp and the likes down to the very bone, nobody could have complained. No economic liberties for the suppliers behind a genocide.

Next in line, the comparison with Germany's European neighbours. Sennholz wrote that piece in '55, so you can't really blame him for it. Italy had more growth from '58 onwards, France had more growth than its devastated neighbour from '62 onwards. The third Axis power, Japan, had significantly more growth from '58 onwards.

Why did some European and Asian countries grew much more rapidly than the US? Fair Deal? Nope, Bretton-Woods. Semi-fixed exchange rates caused the Deutsche Mark and the Yen to be ridiculously undervalued compared to the Dollar, thus increasing German and Japanese competitiveness at the cost of the US. Stable trade relations created by the semi-fixed exchange rates plus the highly expansive monetary policy in the US – that's what boosted Germany's economy most of all. Sort of like China over the last two decades, except we were needed as a bulwark against the evil, evil Commies, so the US kept going full throttle.

Our glorious policians tried the same policies (Adenauer/Erhard) in East Germany after reunification, even though global conditions were vastly different, and the result is the mess we now have over there. The entire industry was burned to the ground when they set the exchange rate too high, thus completely destroying what little competitiveness remained. Two trillion DM later, still no improvement. A job well done, truly.

Anyway, if anything, Bernie Sanders' program is closer to post-war German social market economic principles than to the East-German bastard of socialism, state capitalism and planned economy imposed by an autocratic system. However, even that messed up system produced significantly less poverty, both in quality and quantity, than the current US corporatocracy. No homelessness, no starvation, proper healthcare for everyone – reality in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). And despite the fact that they were used as cheap labour for western corporations, no less. My first Ikea shelf was produced by our oppressed brothers and sisters in the East. The Wall "protected" the West from cheap labour while letting goods pass right through – splendid membrane, that one.

PS: Since that article was written in '55, I have to mention one of my city's most famous citizens: Otto Brenner. He was elected head of the IG Metal, this country's most influential trade union, in 1956 after having shared the office since 1952. The policies he fought for, and pushed through, during his 16 years in charge of the union are very much in line with what Sanders is campaigning for.

And that is what hyperbole looks like.

We have no evidence as to exactly what happened here. When the video starts we see a police officer attempting to arrest the "kid" who is clearly resisting arrest.

Here's the thing, even if you are 100% in the right, you are not allowed to physically resist arrest. It's a crime. Even if the arrest was wrong, if you resist, you are automatically guilty of a separate crime.

That's not fascism, that's common sense.

I've had it, after using it for 22 years the internet has become so freakin stale. Same old lazy know-it-all spectators who couldn't walk a mile in their own shoes, much less anybody else's. The predictable drama queen cliches about revolution and fascism and cop trolling and "he's just a kid" and race baiting and "I'm the face of the oppressed" and all the fake controversy and forced celebrities and all the shit-eating selfies. This clumsy new interface on Videosift made me realize it takes more mouse clicks just to read the same old crap. It's been fun.

This is what fascism looks like.

My race, whatever that might be, doesn't throw people into prison for failure to obscure arbitrarily-chosen areas of their body from sacred mountains. Sounds like a pretty good race to me.

How did you become such a cliche that you'll defend any act of fascism in the name of cultural sensitivity, and cry racism at anyone who prefers freedom to religious domination?