I am for a neutral state, in which the laws of the land apply equally to all citizens, and is not set on a foundation of inequity to rights based on identity. I fail to see how that is an extreme, maybe extremely neutral. I am against identity politics because to favor law, policy, and culture that values a particular set of attributes is radicalizing identitarian ideology.
I'm not calling you extreme, I'm saying you are defending extremist rhetoric from your side due to political tribalism. You cannot deny that the extremists within your ranks are being roused by rhetoric such as Tim Kaine's "fight in the streets", the constant calls for a democratically elected leader's removal of power, the constant false equivalencies to Fascism, or any other thing I have already mentioned. You do not understand that if you do not self-police your political party, extremist elements will act out. Such is the case of many movements within this country.
Also, I do not assume your political stance. I assume you are critical of resistance to an equitable state, of which demands relentless political resistance. I never state that you are a Republican, rather I clearly state that you are anti-resistance by claiming Trump is being villified. Your assuming that I am assuming.
Then you continue to backtrack by stating you are not against anti-discrimination rhetoric and resistance; however, you claim Trump has been unfairly vilified as if to say the level of threat to equity posed is trivial. So which is it?
Except you just explained that you did. You assumed I was anti-resistance when, in fact, I am against
BOTH sides of the damned argument because they are trying to justify each other's violence by crying wolf about everything they hate about the other side, trying to fit a narrative into anything, are uncompromising, and will find anything to justify not condemning their sides' violence and rhetoric. If I condemn both sides, does that mean that I want your state or am I somehow some alt-Right scumbag that you insinuate in your last paragraph? You see, I am afraid that the left of this country is leading this country into a path where the state
will being taken over by a right-wing authoritarian through increasing violence, just like in Italy and Germany. What will you do when your extremist buddies finally try their revolution for real? All it takes is Trump to start martial law and we become a tinpot dictatorship and you don't want to self-police rhetoric from your side to prevent people from becoming extremist?
The birther movement was accompanied by villifying the president as a Muslim terrorist, without any support. To base dislike based on FALSEHOOD is not justified villification. Do you not understand the point. Whereas Trump's supposed "vilification" was of his own doing. I am stating that your claim that said vilification by the resistance is someone unjustified is representing complicity to an authoritarian advancing white christian nationalism and downplaying the unwarranted vilification of President Obama. I of course, like many have points of contention with President Obama, but certainly we can see that in many regards his vilification was based on myth, whereas Donald Trump's action are having a negative impact on large groups of people's lives.
Again, by a fringe group that wasn't supported by the entirety of the GOP, but mainly Neocons and Paleocons. No one in
this country deserves vilification on a level in which there are constant calls for his removal of power, threats to him and his family, or to justify attacks on him, his supporters, or politicians with similar views. This is not a country of savagery; yet neither party has the moral high-ground and neither party will condemn anything that they've done wrong. Thus, it is fit to say we are becoming a country of such description. We're all stuck in a tribe and whenever we see someone not conforming to that tribe's rules, they are cast out as a vagabond. At what point will both parties stop before an actual Fascist union is brought upon the United States?
Also, Trump has yet to do anything that really "discriminates" people to begin with. Unless you count his immigration ban "discriminatory" despite the fact that it's not even a blanket Muslim ban and targets countries deemed by the Obama administration as dangerous. Deporting illegals is also not discriminatory because they aren't legally in the country. So, is he really advancing this "ideology" you are speaking?
Moreover, the President is utilizing the racist foundation of American Politics when he makes claims that illegal immigrants are rapists since he is hopping onto the right-wing rhetoric that Hispanic men are part of a sexually violent culture. It is naive to say the least, and demonstrative of your complicity to racism when you defend the President's (then presidential candidate) words by stating that racism is not related to . Let's not also forget that during the first debate, Trump was asked to speak about race relations, and the very first words out of his mouth were "law and order". He is reducing people to the label of criminals as central to their identity. Let's not also forget Muslim=terrorist, which is again a primarily brown group. He is purposely targeting groups that are phenotypically non-Caucasian for the purpose of constructing a white Christian nationalist movement of which religion, race, and nationalism all play central roles. Your defense of the President speaks volumes to either your naivete that race has nothing to do with nationalism and religion, or you are a complicit racist-apologist. I fail to see how ignorance to inequity or conscious racism is at all compatible with actual libertarianism seeing as though inequity affords some negative liberties and some fewer negative liberty, and to defend the President is to be for that disparity of liberty. You can say you are not politically affiliated all you want, but to not be against the president's racism, or go as far as defending his racism, makes you culpable of discrimination and anti-liberty.
Or he's just saying that illegal immigrants are more likely to commit crimes because they got here illegally, and not because of a "cultural" thing as you seem to claim. But sure, you can project your own racism into the mix. Even then, culture is not a race and the terminology you're looking for is xenophobia. Also, calling for "law and order" in regards to race relations is not saying someone's identity is equivalent to that of a criminal either.
Secondly, nationalism does
INDEED have nothing to do with race. Ethnonationalism does, but not nationalism because it is either cultural nationalism or civic nationalism. Donald Trump is a cultural nationalist, not an ethnonationalist. Therefore, he is more likely to be xenophobic than racist. That doesn't exclude him from anything he did in the past (such as discrimination at his businesses), but people do change.
I never said I was against Trump's racism, xenophobia, etc. I just said that his rhetoric was mainly xenophobia than actual racism and that the rest of your accusations can definitely be debated (as in yes). You're assuming I'm some racist-apologist by tribal delusion alone. If you read through
this, I see nothing hinting towards racist-apologia. However, since I'm a dissident to your political ideology, you've got to use any form of buzzword to make me look bad.
The resistance is justified toward restoring equity, whereas the anti-resistance is not justified in defending or even moderating the degree of inequity. To be a centrist would mean what exactly in this sense??? To actually be far-left would require that minorities want to have more rights and power than non-minorities. To view our the resistance movement as radical to the left is only a relativistic perspective which creates a narrative that there are two groups of dueling ideologues. In actuality, to dismantle a state of inequity is merely to dismantle radical identarian ideology, and let pluralism (non-hegemony) be the reigning "anti-ideology". Neutrality is not an extreme in an absolute sense. The rhetoric needs to continue to be strong on the left and relentless.
To be far-left is not this; you must be extremely naive. You see, there is this thing called Marxism and the last time I checked, Marxists had equal rights for all as well as equal oppression under the law by an authoritarian government when they're "stateless" society is actually set up. The Resistance's rhetoric is being used by these extremist groups to justify their violence, which in turn the far-Right will use that violence to justify their own.
You see, in this country, we are heading towards Fascism.
Social Security will be insolvent by 2034, the GOP's tax plan is set to send our economy down the crapper again, and political strife is rising as extremist groups are also rising. Once Social Security becomes insolvent and the GOP ruins our economy, it will bring prime conditions for the rise of Marxism combine with a Red Scare as well as a huge slight to national pride.
ALL of these bring conditions in which Fascism will grow. Donald Trump will not be the face of American Fascism, but someone much more insidious. But obviously we shouldn't self-police ourselves to prevent extremist rhetoric from radicalizing people because it's our side and not those nasty SJWs/Alt-Reichers, amirite?
