Trump and his allies plan to make him a dictator, reports NY Times

I’m talking about people who loudly self-identify as such. By most progressive accounts I’d come across as a moderate, and that’s fine. I’m also not a Dem party stalwart. I do identify as what Steve Gilliard called a “fighting liberal” and do tend to vote Dem (because I acknowledge the realities of the duopoly system), so I can’t call myself a “moderate” or “independent” or “centrist” even if others might view me that way.

I agree, but whether they’re brocialists or “moderate centrists” they’re both falsely claiming that voting Dem in elections is not a way to fight fascism.


I consider my party affiliation “Not Republican”. I don’t want to vote Democrat, but any third party I’ve seen an just about any election is either an obvious spoiler or dangerously naive or both, so I’ve been effectively a Democrat.


Yeah, it got old and the targets were too easy. That’s why I also stopped playing to the nugget of ignorance mentioned here:


Placing sandbags during a flood isn’t how we stop climate change, but it helps reduce the disastrous effects.


Imagine what would happen in that non-metaphorical situation to some smug white dude standing to the side and lecturing them about their efforts doing more harm than good.

Whether we’re talking about Libertarians or brocialists, it’s always Mr. Gotcha.


… I doubt that write-in ballots have ever been a significant factor in any presidential election

If we’re still looking for scapegoats for 2016, then people who didn’t vote at all vastly outnumber all the other suspects


I have two words for you: Ralph Nader.


… I don’t think people who wrote-in Nader in 2016 were a significant factor in the outcome either


Was he a write-in?

I thought he was on ballots, at least in most states.

(And either way, no need to blame him for the 2000 outcome, what with that maddening SCOTUS decision that stopped the recount in Florida.)


The difference was Florida, which Bush won by fewer than 600 votes to give him a 271-to-266 Electoral College edge. Had even a small percentage of the nearly 100,000 votes garnered by Nader in Florida shifted to Gore, the Democratic candidate would have won the election. In addition, the 22,000 votes won by Nader in New Hampshire were three times the size of Bush’s margin of victory in that state. If New Hampshire had flipped to Gore, that too would have given him the victory.


So he was a write-in?

Yes, Nader cost Gore at least New Hampshire, but I still blame the SCOTUS for stealing the election for Gore. That’s a crime, or akin to one; running as a candidate who legitimately garners votes is instead what democracy is all about.

Not to dust off and rehash the whole bitter thing, but it’s long seemed to me that blaming him instead of the SCOTUS for that loss is misplaced.

A year later, in November 2001, the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago announced the results of an examination of all 170,000 undervotes and overvotes.

NORC found that with a full statewide hand recount, Gore would have won Florida under every possible vote standard. Depending on which standard was used, his margin of victory would have varied from 60 to 171 votes.

The recount was paid for by a consortium of news outlets — CNN, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Tribune Company, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, the St. Petersburg Times, and the Palm Beach Post. But this was just two months after the September 11 terrorist attacks. The outlets patriotically buried the blockbuster news that George W. Bush was not the legitimate president of the United States.


He was a write-in candidate in Idaho, Wyoming, Indiana, and Georgia. In South Dakota, Oklahoma, and North Carolina he was neither a write-in nor on the ballot. In all other states, including New Hampshire and Florida, he was on the ballot as a Green Party candidate.

He also campaigned harder in swing states, and it is generally understood that he drew voters who would probably have voted for Gore. So, he likely cost Gore New Hampshire and Florida.


Ugh, there it is again. What “cost him” Florida, and thus the entire election, was the scurrilous SCOTUS decision (not to mention, as the Intercept piece points out, Dem fecklessness in response).


The Rehnquist court certainly bears the lion’s share of the responsibility for 2000 (and what came after), but that still leaves plenty of blame to go around.* Nader played his part in de-legitimising Gore’s popular win and giving conservative pundits a talking point. He also set the Green Party decisively on the road to what it’s become: a party that exists to siphon off votes from the Dems to the benefit of the Republican Party.

As a result, it’s also become a haven for pseudo-progressive crunchy cranks and for the kind of virtue-signaling fool who insists that there’s no real difference between the Dems and the GOP. If the No Labels billionaires can’t woo him to be their spoiler candidate with lots of money in 2024, RFK Jr. will be a natural fit for the Greens.

[*the doormat Dem establishment you mentioned, Pat Buchanan, Florida election officials, crappy ballot design…]


I personally blame both.


Em. I hate to be contrary, but a corporation in Corporatism really does come from corporazione, the Italian word for medieval guilds, not the American sense of a modern business.

Fascist Italy’s corporazioni were various trade guilds like the Wood Guild, Clothing Guild, Construction Guild, etc. that were made up of workers and employers and were responsible for determining labor contracts for their field. A representative of the trade guild would get a seat in parliament… well in theory. In practice the Chamber of Fasces and Corporations was controlled by Mussolini and he outlawed anyone who might challenge him.

After the fall of Fascism, the term “corporatism” fell out of favor, but the idea continued on. Social Corporatism, for instance, is at the heart of the Nordic system.

Unfortunately, the term is misused by some to refer to corporatocracy and the quote to associate it with Fascism.

Edit: Snopes covers some of this pretty well.


I know. I would joke around with the ignorant leftist’s misunderstanding that Mussolini’s corporatism was all about supporting American-style for-profit companies instead of voluntary associations like the guilds you mentioned. These were seen as power blocs to be manipulated or banned as political expediency demanded.

The reality as far as for-profit companies in relation to fascism exists but in a different way. Conservative capitalists do see fascists as their guard labour and defenders of the “free” market – foolishly and repeatedly, since fascists have shown themselves to be economic neo-feudalists at heart who consider themselves as the natural owners of industry.


How to become a Nazi, in the dumbest possible way.

Start as a republican. Define yourself as a conservative,
Demonize liberalism, the ideology of your political adversary.
Discover Carl Schmitt.
Read his critiques of liberalism.
Discover that he was a Nazi
Do likewise.


That Schmitt completely escaped justice after the war is one of the few complete failures of the Nuremberg tribunals. As an influential legal theorist, he was as if not more culpable than most of the judges who received prison sentences and certainly more unrepentant than some of them. Via neoCon creeps like Strauss and Gonzales and Yoo, one can draw a direct line between him and the conservative American legal theorists trying to justify MAGAt fascism today.

That said, there are a lot more dumb ways for people to become Nazis. I doubt most of the current crop of arseholes even in Germany, let alone America, know who Schmitt is.


I’m a capitalist (I own capital) as well as a believer in capitalism, albeit the modern regulated market variety with a healthy welfare state rather than theoretical free market kind, and I certainly don’t see fascists as anything but harmful.

There certainly are those who think they can manipulate fascists into supporting economic policies they like, but that’s an incredibly dangerous game being played by short-sighted fools. I mean, ffs, Trump managed to push Mercantalist policies despite his babysitters. I shudder to think what someone far more competent could do.