Hacker News Reader

Comment by jackmott | Hacker News Reader

the left are mostly moderates. we lost our shit and started sounding like extremists when we elected a nazi as president. I will not apologize for that either.

View on HN

We detached this flagged subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15017043.

Calling the president a Nazi isn't a moderate position.

Yeah, technically more correct would be Al Sharpton position which is Trump Traffics in Racism.

Trump is beholden to what he believes is his base: Alt-Right and Putin. He does not and never had really a position but is begging for applause from reliable sources.

It is if the president is.

I'm not saying our current one is, just that logically, if the president is, then it would be moderate to describe him as he is.

Also, a comparison to them in the 1930s, say pre-Kristalnacht, is different and may have more relevance than a comparison to them in the mid-40s.

Fair enough. But calling the current president a Nazi is not moderate. Israel would not treat him the way they do if he was. A post-WW2 Nazi or similar party is impossible and unsustainable especially in the US and most EU countries. Erdogan is the closest leader in the world at this point.

He's not a Nazi, but he is a racist. The Birther movement was purely racist, as was his witch hunt against the Central Park Five.

And, guess who loves him? White supremacists in all forms. Do you think he did anything to garner their approval?

I personally dont't think Trump is a Nazi.

But it seems he doesnt mind Nazi support and is not willing to piss them off if it costs him their vote.

He’s not a Nazi because he’s not a member of the National Socialist party, but is he a fascist? Umberto Eco’s definition from the mid 90s is worth reading, as most if not all of the characteristics can quite easily be applied to the Trump presidency: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Umberto...

>Disagreement Is Treason

Isn't that what the left is doing by trying to silence the alt-right right now? Now that I agree with the alt-right, honestly I despise them, but leftists who call the alt-right fascists and want to censor their views for being "Unamerican" really need to look in the mirror.

The right are mostly moderates too, no?

The right ran 200 yards further right. As much as I hate Reagan, that guy wouldn't recognize the current GOP. There are barely any moderate republicans left.

The current GOP is defunding everything from the state department, EPA to education. Meanwhile the democrats (outside of Sanders who's a self-defined independent, and Warren) are afraid to even suggest universal healthcare because it would be too left-leaning.

The democrats are TOO moderate.

If a significant portion of the US population doesn't want Universal Healthcare, then it is too left leaning. Just because many European countries have adopted a policy doesn't mean the US should, especially if the populace disagrees.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/23/public-suppo...

> Currently, 60% say the federal government is responsible for ensuring health care coverage for all Americans

That's not the same thing as single payer. And, like Henry Ford said, if he asked people what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse.

OK, so the implication being that we need more democrats from the far-left, or a collective shift by existing members in that direction?

Neither extremes of the spectrum have a particularly good track record, so you'll have to excuse my preference for moderation.

No, my point is that moderate SHOULD mean somewhere in the middle. But if the geometric middle is moved 100 yards right, then "moderate" loses its meaning.

The "left" is moderate, the current right is something else.

Moderate Republicans have been driven out of the party. They're considered RINOS.

But the moderate republican voters still vote republican.

Trump was the most moderate Republican candidate.

There were far more candidates that did not run on racist, misogynist platforms, ie. Bush, Rubio, Johnson. Trump was never the most moderate. The Republican party didn't even choose him. Their constituents did. And if they had been paying attention they would have known a demagogue could have walked off with the party base.

I take that back; Kasich was the most moderate. He also had very little charisma, unfortunately. He could have been a perfect VP for this administration if the two could get along.

Trump was typically more moderate on the economy and tax policy, abortion, military. His stance on immigration is the more conservative than the rest. Rubio and most of the rest were very strict on abortion, had typical Republican ideas on tax, support interventionist military campaigns, but had varying but less conservative stances on immigration. Although Trump's behavior was boorish and comedic at times, that appeals to Americans and gets you media exposure. Just like the coolness of Obama and Bill Clinton.

If the DNC didn't engage in shenanigans, wouldn't the Democratic demagogue have had a much better chance at winning than Hillary?

> I take that back; Kasich was the most moderate.

Which is interesting, because Kasich is not in any objective sense a moderate. (I live in his state) Relative to the rest of that field, sure, but that's what is alarming.

I was thrown by your claim, but that all makes perfect sense.

Well, the media liked giving him lots of attention and air time. It was in the best interest of left wing demagogues to get a fresh new bad guy for the new season of American Politics.

Sadly, you have either say outlandish things or buy airtime.

Also, I don't think anyone on the left needed a new, worse bad guy. We've had plenty sitting in Congress.

Those were the days. Sadly, of the issues for which Candidate Trump was politically moderate, few have survived into his presidency. Actually, I can't think of any.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com