• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Portland sees peaceful night of protests following withdrawal of federal troops

Phys251 said:
Your president was the one who sent in goons to incite violence. Nice try. :)
Click to expand...

The president sent federal troops because Democrat goons were burning and defacing federal property.

AND, BTW, you should probably not try to gaslight about a lack of violence in Portland protests when your lie is so easy looked up.

Portland police declare riot as protests turn violent again

Federal law enforcement didn't show up for another two weeks.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
The president sent federal troops because Democrat goons were burning and defacing federal property.

AND, BTW, you should probably not try to gaslight about a lack of violence in Portland protests when your lie is so easy looked up.
Click to expand...
:lamo

I know that you think you're being clever by using big words such as "gaslight," but please, try less hard to telegraph your desire for the Reichstag Fire, OK? ;)

What you refuse to acknowledge is the much larger truth of the OP. So what if there was a one-off arsonist--just arrest him and be done with it. No need for your president to send in federal thugs to incite violence. :)
 
Phys251 said:
:lamo

I know that you think you're being clever by using big words such as "gaslight," but please, try less hard to telegraph your desire for the Reichstag Fire, OK? ;)

What you refuse to acknowledge is the much larger truth of the OP. So what if there was a one-off arsonist--just arrest him and be done with it. No need for your president to send in federal thugs to incite violence. :)
Click to expand...

Your thug buddies were setting fires to federal building and rioting weeks before the federal officers were sent in. You are the one supporting the fascists here. Your thugs pals are the brown shirts of your awful movement.
 
jmotivator said:
Your thug buddies were setting fires to federal building and rioting weeks before the federal officers were sent in. You are the one supporting the fascists here. Your thugs pals are the brown shirts of your awful movement.
Click to expand...
:2funny:

You think you are being clever with your projection. :lol: What you choose not to understand is by supporting 45's thugs when a local and state response would have sufficed, you are the one supporting the fascists. You are the one who wants authoritarianism in a city such as Portland. Hell, you don't even know what fascism even is! (Don't even ask me to provide you with a definition; I am not going to do your homework for you.)
 
Phys251 said:
You think you are being clever with your projection. :lol: What you choose not to understand is by supporting 45's thugs when a local and state response would have sufficed, you are the one supporting the fascists. You are the one who wants authoritarianism in a city such as Portland. Hell, you don't even know what fascism even is! (Don't even ask me to provide you with a definition; I am not going to do your homework for you.)
Click to expand...

You folks look at fascist movements in the wrong direction and conclude that federal power and nationalism are a prerequisite to fascism, therefore all power you don't like in becomes fascism. This is false. Fascism is an authoritarian ideology differentiated by its extreme nationalism and corporatism but the nation it swears fealty to is the one it wishes to create, not the one that is in power while it is rising. The fascist movement of Italy had no love for the Italian Liberal Party or the Italian government under Luigi Facta, nor did Hitler's Nazi movement have any love for the parliamentary system of Germany. Both movements hated the country they rose to power in... much like Antifa today.

Likewise, fascist movements are marked by their willingness to oppress and silence opposition. In the early days of fascist movements they do this by starting fights at opposing rallies, shouting down opposing speakers, acts of violence against authority, opposition speakers and those they view as in support of authority, and the destruction of the symbols and culture they see as embodiment of the opposition. This can be quite effective since the majority of people in a country just want peace, and will blindly look past the methodology to the pointless demands thinking that if they give them what they ask for the violence will stop. It doesn't. How a group rises to power is how that group will wield power.

The other aspect of German fascism was it's extreme views on race, which is also a fundamental piece of Antifa and the current riots, it just trades extreme antisemitism for extreme anti-Caucasian views.

As for Corporatism, all you need to do is look at the current heads of the largest US companies as they push to either white wash or fund the Antifa movement and you know all you need to know.

In short: They're fascists.
 
jmotivator said:
You folks look at fascist movements in the wrong direction
Click to expand...

Let's make this simple. Which of these does not apply to #45? Support your answer with unbiased evidence.
 
Phys251 said:
Let's make this simple. Which of these does not apply to #45? Support your answer with unbiased evidence.
Click to expand...

LOL. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.

Now, out of 1, 4, 7.. how many don't apply to most US presidents? I mean, hell, 4 and 7 and pretty much the job description.

So that leaves #1... He loves the United States. You got 'eem!! :lol:

You make this too easy.

Also, from your sudden shift I suppose you no longer want to discuss what fascism actually is and the fact that all growing fascist movements start out looking exactly like Antifa?

Look at CHAZ to see that your favorite social movement can't even form a commune without checking at least half of those 14 boxes. :lol:
 
calamity said:
Yes, when the Nazis leave, peace breaks out. Imagine that.
Click to expand...

When have the fascists left? ANTIFA is still in Portland.

ANTIFA is:
(1) authoritarian (2) nationalist (with CHOP or whatever the name of that former ANTIFA sovereign land in DT Seattle) (3) racist - hates whites...ANTIFA is fascist.
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
LOL. 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.

Now, out of 1, 4, 7.. how many don't apply to most US presidents? I mean, hell, 4 and 7 and pretty much the job description.

So that leaves #1... He loves the United States. You got 'eem!! :lol:

You make this too easy.

Also, from your sudden shift I suppose you no longer want to discuss what fascism actually is and the fact that all growing fascist movements start out looking exactly like Antifa?

Look at CHAZ to see that your favorite social movement can't even form a commune without checking at least half of those 14 boxes. :lol:
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit. Let me provide you with the help that you obviously need:

Phys251 said:
Let's make this simple. Which of these does not apply to #45? Support your answer with unbiased evidence.
Click to expand...

Let's see that unbiased evidence. Now. :)
 
Phys251 said:
Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit. Let me provide you with the help that you obviously need:



Let's see that unbiased evidence. Now. :)
Click to expand...

You seem to think my refusal to do your bidding is because I didn't read your comment. I am not responsible for putting any more work into my reply than you have put into your argument.

You are the one making the accusation, you are the one responsible for making the argument, not me.
 
jmotivator said:
You folks look at fascist movements in the wrong direction and conclude that federal power and nationalism are a prerequisite to fascism, therefore all power you don't like in becomes fascism. This is false. Fascism is an authoritarian ideology differentiated by its extreme nationalism and corporatism but the nation it swears fealty to is the one it wishes to create, not the one that is in power while it is rising. The fascist movement of Italy had no love for the Italian Liberal Party or the Italian government under Luigi Facta, nor did Hitler's Nazi movement have any love for the parliamentary system of Germany. Both movements hated the country they rose to power in... much like Antifa today.

Likewise, fascist movements are marked by their willingness to oppress and silence opposition. In the early days of fascist movements they do this by starting fights at opposing rallies, shouting down opposing speakers, acts of violence against authority, opposition speakers and those they view as in support of authority, and the destruction of the symbols and culture they see as embodiment of the opposition. This can be quite effective since the majority of people in a country just want peace, and will blindly look past the methodology to the pointless demands thinking that if they give them what they ask for the violence will stop. It doesn't. How a group rises to power is how that group will wield power.

The other aspect of German fascism was it's extreme views on race, which is also a fundamental piece of Antifa and the current riots, it just trades extreme antisemitism for extreme anti-Caucasian views.

As for Corporatism, all you need to do is look at the current heads of the largest US companies as they push to either white wash or fund the Antifa movement and you know all you need to know.

In short: They're fascists.
Click to expand...

Yes. ANTIFA is fascist.

Except there are those who embrace the relative definition of fascism to only include the ultra-right-winged. When you're progressive and ultra-left-winged, everyone not progressive is right-winged.:lamo
Except ANTIFA has antifascist in its name.:lamo

Side note: What's ultra-left-winged to a progressive? Not a communist. A communist would be left-winged (since a progressive is a 'centrist' (progressive)).
 
Last edited:
jmotivator said:
The other aspect of German fascism was it's extreme views on race, which is also a fundamental piece of Antifa and the current riots, it just trades extreme antisemitism for extreme anti-Caucasian views.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
jmotivator said:
You seem to think my refusal to do your bidding is because I didn't read your comment. I am not responsible for putting any more work into my reply than you have put into your argument.
Click to expand...

So you struggle with burden of proof, too! :lol:

You are the one making the accusation, you are the one responsible for making the argument, not me.
Click to expand...

See, I told you that reading comprehension wasn't your strong suit. I clearly phrased my point to you about 45's fascism as a question. Since he obviously isn't a fascist, it should be easy for you to show that he doesn't support powerful and continuing nationalism, the disdain for the recognition of human rights, the identification of enemies and scapegoats as a unifying cause, and so forth.

But I am going to throw you a bone. How about we split this 50-50. You name the 7 characteristics where you want to prove don't apply to 45 and put the burden onto me to prove that the other 7 do apply to him. You pick your seven and I get the other seven. Remember, we both must use objective sources to argue our point. So, which ones do you want?

Or do you want to play the "la la la can't hear you, 45 is not a fascist" game? You can do that if you want, but then you'd just be making my point for me. :shrug:
 
Here's something else that doesn't make sense about 45's thugs in Portland:

115857707_10163729553815696_4377020031516543776_n.jpg
 
Phys251 said:
So you struggle with burden of proof, too! :lol:
Click to expand...

Now THAT is projection. You have made the accusation, the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders, not mine.

See, I told you that reading comprehension wasn't your strong suit. I clearly phrased my point to you about 45's fascism as a question. Since he obviously isn't a fascist, it should be easy for you to show that he doesn't support powerful and continuing nationalism, the disdain for the recognition of human rights, the identification of enemies and scapegoats as a unifying cause, and so forth.
Click to expand...

Your skill with logic is rather suspect. It is impossible to prove a negative. The fact that you can't prove a negative is why the burden of proof in on the person making the accusation, in this case, you.

There is a perfectly clear reason why the burden of proof is on the accuser (which is, if you have forgotten already, you): When you give a list of 14 characteristics of a Fascist regime, my argument against your assertion is the lack of evidence to support your assertion, which would mean there is no evidence for me to provide. My evidence is the lack of evidence for your assertion.

But I am going to throw you a bone. How about we split this 50-50. You name the 7 characteristics where you want to prove don't apply to 45 and put the burden onto me to prove that the other 7 do apply to him. You pick your seven and I get the other seven. Remember, we both must use objective sources to argue our point. So, which ones do you want?
Click to expand...

Nope, we are not bargaining to split up your workload. Either do the work to support your claim or you don't.

Or do you want to play the "la la la can't hear you, 45 is not a fascist" game? You can do that if you want, but then you'd just be making my point for me. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I'm just here trying to teach you introductory logic and rational thinking skills at this point.
 
jmotivator said:
I'm just here trying to teach you introductory logic and rational thinking skills at this point.
Click to expand...

That's one hell of a case of arrogance you're displaying there, dude.
 
Phys251 said:
Here's something else that doesn't make sense about 45's thugs in Portland:

View attachment 67290031
Click to expand...

Libertarians embrace the protection of the gov't. They may want little gov't but they don't want to see the destruction of said gov't. Ask any libertarian. You and this guy on Twitter haven't, obviously.
 
Luce said:
That's one hell of a case of arrogance you're displaying there, dude.
Click to expand...

Just stating the truth. It's not my job to disprove an accusation and Phys251 doesn't understand that. I'm only continuing this discussion to tell him why logic and rational thinking stand against him.

But I agree that at some point this discussion makes me look like I am out seal clubbing....
 
cabse5 said:
Libertarians embrace the protection of the gov't. They may want little gov't but they don't want to see the destruction of said gov't. Ask any libertarian. You and this guy on Twitter haven't, obviously.
Click to expand...

So much for the rugged individualist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom