Since you are still a democracy find those people who make your policy decisions. It's not that yellow man.
Genuine question: who put Iran in their policy portfolio?
Rubio and Walz have been Iran hawks. But I’m not yet convinced they were unilateral. Instead, it looks like a Rice-Powell alignment of vague interests with enough groupthink that dissenters weren't in the room.
The US president hasn't required a new war resolution since Afghanistan. They each keep stretching it farther and farther. It cannot be rescinded without a veto-proof majority. If there was a veto proof majority willing to stand up to the executive, a conviction and removal would have already occurred.
The assertion that the US is a democracy is nisguided. It will be downgraded by vdem this month to an electoral autocracy. It is also worth noting that it only takes senators receiving the votes of <7% of the total population to filibuster all legislation, prevent overriding any vetos, and halt all impeachment trials. The fact it has looked like a democracy for so long is astounding.
Correct. But interests need to be animated to have power. Who was arguing that this should be a priority, and a priority now, who is familiar in the White House?
> The assertion that the US is a democracy is nisguided. It will be downgraded by vdem this month to an electoral autocracy
This is nonsense.
> halt all impeachment trials
False. Senate Rule 193 sets time limits on debate for impeachment trials [1].
[1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-117sdoc1/pdf/CDOC-1...
As far as vdem goes, Lindberg has recently as much as confirmed they will down grade the us below democracy status.
I mean, that's interesting from a political theoretical perspective. And if you want to put sacred meaning into it, sure. I'm not sure most people would take a decade-old Swedish institute as a harbinger of whether or not America is a demoracy too seriously (versus other sources, to be clear).
I do want to know who the bad guy is though.
Even if they do it's book reports.
> On the senate conviction, my point is that only 33 senators need to oppose a conviction to stop it
Yes. The bar is high for removing an elected executive. That's not a sign of not being a democracy.
...no? Majority of the House and two thirds of Senators doesn't require 90%. Nixon still had way more than 10% of support in the country when his removal from office was imminent.
> have you already replied with it and it got shadow blocked?
I don't think I've written anything that got shadow blocked for many years.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt6wpgvg
This is bipartisan. The long term goals were to start with Libya, Iraq, Syria and then Iran. The latter two required Russia to be tied up in another conflict.
They don't explicitly put Iran in their portfolio because for Reality TV it is better to be a peace lover.
Now, undoubtedly the Democrats will pretend to complain, but Schumer and Pelosi want this, too.
[I am expanding on your comment, not trying to contradict anything.]
Also there are many countries in the middle east that we are friends with which would be happy if Iran falls.
Literally, perhaps true...at least initially. But:
- Take a look at how poorly the fall of the Iraqi gov't in 2003 actually worked out for the U.S. and its regional friends.
- Iran has 92 million people, very deep issues with being able to support that large a population, and very long borders. If things really went to crap there, it could produce tens of millions of desperate refugees.
This is an immensely risky operation. But part of the reason for Iraq being a shitshow was De-Ba'athification. You don't need to clean house to effect regime change. My guess would be we're hoping someone in the IRGC disappears Khamenei and a few senior commanders and then makes a call to Geneva.
There's a number of reasons this is happening now that I think are more plausible than American interest:
- Saudis want Iran weak as they are primary geopolitical rivals. There are deep ties between the Saudi dynasty and the Trump dynasty. Without Iranian support, the Houthis will have a much tougher time. (Although they should not be underestimated regardless. They are not an Iranian proxy, but an ally, and field one of the strongest armies in the whole region.)
- Israel wants Iran weak, and pro-zionism is a strong wedge in American politics. Again, there's also a lot of personal business interests involved. Iranian allies and proxies are the chief causes of grief for Israel's expansionist agenda, and a very credible threat to their national security.
- This war conveniently moves the headlines away from a faltering economy, the Epstein files, and ICE overreach. There's probably hope that it will improve chances with the 'war president bonus' in the mid-terms. It could also be a convenient cover for and excuse to increase rigging in the elections.
Expecting positive regime change after bombing a school full of little girls is... naive. This is not how you turn an enemy into a friend.
I think that from the point of the neighbouring countries, Iran is fine as it is. Israel and the USA keep it in check, it is under sanctions, which are both beneficial for its adversaries.
If the regime in Iran were to fall, first of all you would have repercussions on the neighbors, (refugees and the like), and instability. But also, in the longer run, the chance of a more better government, which could make the country stronger than it is.
And now of course you're going to label me an AIPAC nutter, but in this particular case I think the evidence is fairly plain given the collaboration between the two countries on this. If Israel had done this by their lonesome or if the US had not involved Israel then you could make the case that they reached this point independently, right now it looks to me as if collusion is a 100% certainty and that the US is executing a foreign policy that will not benefit it but that will benefit Israel. It also makes me wonder whether this will end up as a Venzuela re-run where the top names change but everything else remains the same, just with US companies the beneficiaries of the oil, which is, besides policy the main driver behind these things anyway.
Also in power balance, Venezuela is a joke militarily. Iran has the capacity to end calm life in the GCC and possibly disrupt oil flows. Really an orange and apple comparison. Case in point today, Iran was able to project its missile to several countries in a couple hours.
Israel needs it, Trump wants it, this was going to happen either now or next year. The potential for escalation is massive and I sincerely hope that it will not. Iran is a problem, but Israel is also a problem and the United States is becoming a bigger problem every day. It would be nice if the people in charge of this planet could hold back from throwing matches into the powder kegs for a while.
The issue with Iran is that it’s selling energy outside of the US system. This was less of an issue 20 years ago when the persians needed to funnel the money back to the Western system at a cost so that they can access world trade. The situation changed today as they can mostly survive on China imports and completely bypass the US financial system. Iran has half the exports (in total value!) of Tunisia at x8-9 the population. Something doesn’t add up.
> It would be nice if the people in charge of this planet could hold back from throwing matches into the powder kegs for a while
That’s not how the world works. The relative peace of the last 20 years or so was mostly because US hegemony was uncontested. This might be no longer the case. Someone in the far East will be watching for opportunities.
Who says these are rational actors. I think it is a bit much for coincidence.
> Iran does x4 times the volume of Venezuela in oil and x10 in gas.
Until yesterday. We'll see whether their infrastructure is going to survive this war.
> The issue with Iran is that it’s selling energy outside of the US system.
I'm well aware of that.
> This was less of an issue 20 years ago when the persians needed to funnel the money back to the Western system at a cost so that they can access world trade. The situation changed today as they can mostly survive on China imports and completely bypass the US financial system. Iran has half the exports (in total value!) of Tunisia at x8-9 the population. Something doesn’t add up.
What doesn't add up is that there are a lot of parties that would like to see regime change in Iran, including a lot of Iranians. The question always is whether the fire that you light remains contained or not and Iran is very much not like Venezuela in that sense.
> That’s not how the world works.
I'm well aware of that too. But that doesn't change how I feel about it.
> The relative peace of the last 20 years or so was mostly because US hegemony was uncontested. This might be no longer the case.
In no small part because of the idiot-in-charge.
> Someone in the far East will be watching for opportunities.
And that's precisely why I think there is a massive potential for escalation here.
None of their energy infra. was hit and I don’t see it happening. Hitting their energy infra. will result in them hitting the GCC oil infra. This is more likely, in my opinion, part of the negotiations. They couldn’t agree to the terms of their power projection, so they went to the field to test it out.
> What doesn't add up is that there are a lot of parties that would like to see regime change in Iran, including a lot of Iranians.
You are buying into Western propaganda. Not that I know about the conditions on Iran and the Mullah popularity. It’s not possible to gauge that since freedom of information is limited there but I wouldn’t trust the latest campaign either. Only time will tell on this one.
> In no small part because of the idiot-in-charge.
This is where we disagree; though I could agree that the democrats will have handled this differently but not necessarily in a non-violent way.
> And that's precisely why I think there is a massive potential for escalation here.
I still think this one will pass. Though China will probably stick to its own deadlines when it’s ready on its own terms.
I'm genuinely surprised the mines haven't rolled out, to the point that I believe they won't be. (They were–in the initial strikes–destroyed or incapacitated, or they never existed.)
> Iran was able to project its missile to several countries in a couple hours
To minimal effect. And every launch exposes a missile and firing team to American and Israeli jets flyig in uncontested airspace.
I'd assume, until further evidence, it's because the Strait is an active war zone.
All of them are, even those that haven't had a show on TV.
What's cosmetic about this?
And the DoW was the original name from 1789 to 1947.
There’s more to it than Trump being a TV show personality. Far too complex and insidious than a simple quip.
Of course, I agree that Trump is worse because, by removing the mask of civility and attacking others without first bothering to create propaganda and a narrative about how it is for the greater good and justice, he made the plundering and crimes faster and more efficient.
Of course we can. People disagreeing with you doesn't mean they don't exist.
These are the Senate seats in play this cycle [1]. How many of those do you think would be flipped based on any foreign policy item?
If you're on this thread you pay attention to foreign policy. The notion that someone doesn't–not isn't informed, but literally doesn't to any degree–is almost more foreign than the strangest countries we read about. But the truth is most Americans have never ranked any foreign policy item as being in their top three issues since the Vietnam War.
We could change it if we wanted to. We don't because it's not personally pertinent or worse, it's boring. (And, I'd argue, because a lot of foreign-policy oriented activists are preaching for the choir versus trying to actually effect change.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_Senate_elec...
But 2016 was different because Trump was the first candidate in some time to run on something even vaguely flirting with being anti-war, as he actively called out the endless wars of the political establishment, and argued that America first should not involve us wasting our money bombing countries half-way around the world. It was a relatively weak position but even that was enough to get 13% of voters to declare foreign policy as their key issue, tied with immigration. And Trump ended up winning their vote by an 18 point margin.
Anti-war is one of the relatively large number of issues that Americans largely agree on, but the political establishment makes it impossible to vote for, because you'll never find a mainstream candidate running on a platform that aligns with public interest. So for instance 84% of Americans think that "the American military should be used only as a last resort", that Congressional approval should be required for military action, and so on. [2]
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia...
[2] - https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/new-poll-shows-pub...
In general, yes. What fraction of Trump voters do you think would agree that Trump should face any consequences for bypassing the Congress?
Many Americans have a hero complex. Their national mythology post World War II includes them being the "good guys" against the "bad guys." That mythology needs a bad guy.
But then, history shows this sort always do.
Whether you think the current targets are legitimate or not, the fact that the U.S. is going to war without seeking any democratic approval anymore is deeply troubling.
"Harris to Jewish voters: ‘All options on the table’ to stop Iran from going nuclear In pre-election High Holidays call, US vice president says diplomatic solution still preferable to keep Islamic Republic from the bomb, charges Trump won’t stand by Israel"
https://www.timesofisrael.com/harris-to-jewish-voters-all-op...
The far left loves to categorize everything at its right as "fascist". The infamous Berlin wall was the "antifascist protection wall". In Yugoslavia, you'd hear every day at the radio a rant about the "fascists", even though the country was communist.
There are many definitions of what "fascism" is. The best I think is to refer to the historical italian fascist government, to understand it.
Btw presidential immunity is not fascist, many countries have similar laws.
Sure, why don't we:
- leader with a cult of personality
- an idealized story of the prosperous past (make america great again)
- pinning blame for the nation's downfall on marginalized minorities and persecuting them (immigrants, socialists)
- aggressively anti-socialist/leftist, protection of capital and suppression of labor rights
- glorification of violence (ICE, hate crimes, "department of war")
- ramping up existing and starting new imperialistic conflicts (Venezuela, Cuba, now Iran)
- rolling back personal liberties (freedom of speech, right to due process, women's rights)
- suppression of the free press given unfavorable reporting (revocation of TV licenses, revocation of access to white house)
- clear desire with ongoing attempts to dismantle democracy (capitol attack, violating separation of powers by illegally withholding funding for programs and violating court orders)
- demands complete subservience rather than competence in all appointed roles
- all of this with full support of the elites (clear shift in the 2nd term)
If you want to argue that the US isn't fascist because Trump hasn't completely dismantled the judicial branch yet, be my guest.
But fascism isn't just a concrete political system where a dictator has absolute power, it's an ideology, and Trump and the Republican party are clearly fascist in that sense - that is their goal. It's just a question of whether they'll succeed in dismantling the judicial branch before his term is over.
The only people who benefit from this sort of language policing are the fascists themselves.
P.S. I probably shouldn't be saying this but the fact that you refer to people sounding the alarm as "the far left" really gives the game away.
For instance, the US didn't start a war against Venezuela or Cuba under Trump. America was much more aggressive in the 80´s, if you want to compare.
Immigration can totally be a problem, and voters in the western world increasingly ask their leaders to address it. It's not "democracy" when it suits your ideas and "fascism" when it doesn't.
Opposing socialism isn't "fascist" and afaik the Trump admin has done nothing significant about it: social expenses and the deficit are still growing faster than ever. What is mainly happening is that ressources are being redirected toward the retired, who are influencial voters and a growing demographic. It's the same everywhere in the western world.
Again, all of those measures are very superficial and nothing like what real fascism did in Italy or what Nazis did when they came to power. You can't reason just with outrage and headlines.
By the way, most of those points have their Democrat counterpart with a different style, it's mainly linked to the evolution of the governance style in the US. Democrats also had their DEI unsuited hires, censorships (Meta was censoring on the order of the White House), and so on.
Stop equivocating. I didn't say that opposing immigration = fascism, I said that identifying marginalized groups, pinning all of the nation's problems on those groups and then persecuting, victimizing, terrorizing anyone who looks like they belong to one of those groups - that is fascist.
> Opposing socialism isn't "fascist"
Again, stop equivocating. I didn't say that opposing socialism is fascist, I said "aggressively anti-socialist", as in, violent anti-socialist rhetoric. Similar to the previous point.
> afaik the Trump admin has done nothing significant about it
That's wholly detached from reality. The only reason he hasn't dismantled all of the social programs yet is because the courts have stepped in and intervened when he tried. See: USAID, withholding SNAP funding, Medicaid, the whole DOGE disaster.
> Again, all of those measures are very superficial and nothing like what real fascism did in Italy or what Nazis did when they came to power. You can't reason just with outrage and headlines.
Those are the core qualities of fascism. I get it, you don't like being called a fascist so you sea-lion about the differences to distract from the overwhelming similarities.
Even when Trump dismantles the judicial branch, people like you will maintain that the US isn't fascist because people aren't speaking Italian like they did in fascist Italy, or German like they did in nazi Germany.
I feel comfortable saying this because we're not just disagreeing on whether the US is fascist right now and there's still room to have argue there, but we're disagreeing on whether Trump has a fascist agenda and whether he's actively working to transform the US into a totalitarian regime following the fascist playbook, which he absolutely is.
I still don't understand why "aggressively anti-socialist" policies are fascist. Fascism is itself a branch of socialism (Mussolini was one, in France the fascist leader Jacques Doriot was one as well, for instance). Being a totalitarism, it aims at engulfing every aspect of the daily life, which means supporting socialist policies (similar to communism, another totalitarism).
Authoritarian regimes in the 30´s that were "aggressively anti-socialist" weren't fascist. Franco or Salazar are relevant examples, even thought today they would be categorized as such, since you guys seem now to have only single word left to designate populist or authoritarian regimes then don't like.
Trump lacks deeply indeed the socialist aspect of fascism; it would likely be better defined as plutocratic cesarism, even though he did not make a coup (yet).
You don't have to be American to be a fascist-sympathizer, which you clearly are, since you label opposition to totalitarian methods as "the far left", lie about matters of fact, and grossly misrepresent the events that happened in fascist Italy while trying to represent yourself as someone intimately familiar with the matter.
For example:
> Fascism is itself a branch of socialism (Mussolini was one)
> Authoritarian regimes in the 30´s that were "aggressively anti-socialist" weren't fascist.
> Trump lacks deeply indeed the socialist aspect of fascism
Fascism is not a branch of socialism, fascism frames socialists as enemies of the state and pledges to destroy socialism. Mussolini was clearly not a socialist ideologically, as he had them killed. That was the entire MO of the blackshirts.
> since you guys seem now to have only single word left to designate populist or authoritarian regimes then don't like.
No, we're just using the word appropriately and you hate it. You'd rather lie and make up a story about fascism being a branch of socialism than admit that Trump is a fascist.
You should read more about this, the creator of the fascist doctrine stated plainly that fascism was socialism with nationalist characteristics.[0]
Socialism and fascism share many similarities, given that they developed in the same context with the same roots : youth movements, focus on controlling education, citizen's health seen as a responsibility of the State, strong management of the economy, and so on. Both tend to classify political ennemies as a single group ("communists" in the case of fascists, "fascists" in the case of socialists), without distinction, just like what you are doing.
The fact that Black Shirts (which don't have a Trumpian equivalent) didn't like the other socialists doesn't make fascism less socialist, just like the soviet campaign against Trotskists doesn't mean that the USSR was less communist.
> we're just using the word appropriately
Rubio just admitted that the US participated in the strikes against Iran to please Israel. There is nothing fascist about this, and again plutocracy is a much more efficient explanation for the current regime actions. Saying that something isn't fascist doesn't make me a fascist.
"If you are not with me, you're against me" type of thinking... where did I see this historically?
[0] https://fee.org/articles/theres-no-denying-the-socialist-roo...
Honest question, but if this is not fascism, then what is? Aren't you also wasting the meaning of a word by refusing to acknowledge any application of that word?
I'd suggest you read about fascist Italy to get a sense of what fascism is. So far I haven't seen Democrats repeatedly kicked out of cars in Times Square after drinking a bottle of castor oil. Trump said that he wouldn't look to be reelected for a third mandate.
The Iran war is mainly a consequence of the Israeli influence on US politics; it has nothing to do with fascism, and it is in continuity with the previous administration.
So yeah, populism likely, a plutocracy (evidenced by the role of AIPAC in elections) but not fascism.
January 6th had all the hallmarks of the black shirts marching on Rome. And ICE is definitely pulling people out of cars and homes in Democratic cities. But I guess everything is fine because they're not making them drink castor oil.
Immigration enforcement is necessary, but these actions clearly have less to do with people's immigration status and more to do with political reprisal.
> Trump said that he wouldn't look to be reelected for a third mandate.
They'll always say they'll follow the Constitution to legitimize themselves, but their actions don't reflect it.
> The Iran war is mainly a consequence of the Israeli influence on US politics; it has nothing to do with fascism, and it is in continuity with the previous administration.
It has everything to do with fascism, not because of its motivation, but it's lack of democratic approval. This administration has a clear disdain for the democratic process.
I sincerely hope there was some secret vote by Congress that we don't know about.
> So yeah, populism likely, a plutocracy (evidenced by the role of AIPAC in elections) but not fascism.
I would've agreed with you if we were talking about Trump's first term, that was clearly just populism. This second term goes far beyond what any populist leader has done in Europe.
Trump has no structured paramilitary militias like the Squadras or the SA. The January 6th was mainly a crowd movement, participants were a heteroclite bunch with very different political ideas.
> ICE
ICE is a state agency, which existed before and has never been known for its benevolent and non-violent actions. The problems mainly arise from the overhiring, lack of training, and braindead managers. By the way, many members agency are not white, which contradicts the racism narrative. Alex Pretti was shot by two latino officers, for instance.
> lack of democratic approval
Lack of democratic approval for a war isn't facism. It's a strong presidential regime. France has the same and is not fascist. And it's legal in the current form[0].
> farther than any populist leader
Politics aren't a 1d political spectrum were the ends are facism. Afaik declaring a war to satisfy the billionaires of another nation is clearly not fascism, nor even nationalist in the strict sense.
Words are important because if you earnestly want the situation to change, you need to assess it clearly. The Trump presidency has a more to do with the influence of money in US politics, and the media system which favors outrage and "loud" candidates. Democrats also commited a historical blunder with the botched Biden candidacy and the lack of a credible replacement (Kamala was clearly not convincing from the early start).
[0] https://time.com/7380309/iran-war-legal-trump/?utm_source=ch...
The black shirts were no different.
> ICE is a state agency, which existed before and has never been known for its benevolent and non-violent actions.
Much of the prosecution of minorities in fascist regimes was not done by the militias, it was done by law enforcement.
> Lack of democratic approval for a war isn't facism. It's a strong presidential regime. France has the same and is not fascist. And it's legal in the current form[0].
A hallmark of fascism is the refusal to acknowledge any democratic limitations on the power of the leader. The article you reference states clearly that he has no legal authority to start the war, as he would need congressional approval.
France has the same system as the U.S., only parliament has the power to start a war.[0]
> Words are important because if you earnestly want the situation to change, you need to assess it clearly.
I'm glad we agree on that. I will concede that Trump may never become a true dictator, but the ideology is clearly there and if his power is not checked I worry about who will succeed him.
> The Trump presidency has a more to do with the influence of money in US politics
Fascists regimes have historically been well-funded by money in politics.
[0] https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
You can alternatively read the wikipedia article about squadrism and see that there is nothing in common between the people that did Jan 6th and squadrists, which were a highly organized and violent paramilitary force.
> Much of the prosecution of minorities
There are many latinos in ICE - the Axel Pretti murderers were latino agents. All of this rethoric about ideology hardly matches reality, which is more likely a chain of incompetent people mismanadging the situation.
> illegal war
Article states that "Under the War Powers Resolution, which dates back to the 1970s, if a president enters the military into hostilities without congressional authorization, the operation must end within 60 days unless Congress expressly authorizes it.". Trump is within this framework, similar to the previous strikes on the enrichment plants.
> Succession
As usual with this kind of cesarism, it is tied to an individual and will deflate after Trump's mandate. Since they didn't cancel elections (like a true fascist would do, by the way, as it is not a democratic ideology), it may end up this year when they'll lose the congress.
> money
Fascist regimes had rich donors, but it was for ideological reasons first - Henry Ford's support of the nazi party comes to mind. The current donors such as Miriam Adelson or the tech bros fund him to steer the policy towards their interest, or just pure corruption, as we saw with CZ (Binance). I mean look at it, 13 members of the government are billionaires. This is a classic case of plutocracy - rich people's government. Caesar was also a plutocrat, which fits well with Trump.
There's still time for that, but canceling elections would make it too obvious, then even people like you would realize what is happening. That's why these days autocrats prefer to simply subvert the electoral system. That way people who prefer to look away can simply continue to pretend everything is above board.
I'm pretty sure MAGA was always fascism. I mean, all the signs were there and people were sounding alarm bells almost immediately.
I don't like Trump. At all. I think he's a terrible president on the whole and a shameless opportunist. But I don't like one-sided politics and hypocrisy even more so, and I dislike hysteria. History and long term trends paint us a different picture of current events. Most people's horizons are limited to the shallow, tendentious, cherry-picked, and sensationalist news cycle, unfortunately, regardless of outlet. Should we criticize Trump? Yes. But we should criticize all leadership when they do what they should not be doing.
BTW, the Dept. of War was the original name from 1789 to 1947. Curiously, it was soon after the change to Dept. of Defense that people like Eisenhower began to worry about the Military-Industrial Complex. That should give us pause. The name change conceals the intention, and coincides with a hungry imperial war machine that WWII helped bring into existence. Recall that Americans were largely isolationist before that.