@wildgrass saidHe was always considered centrist.
No it is the freaking opposite. A Democrat in the 1990s like Bill Clinton would now be considered a centrist. The right wing went fascist all on their own.
@wildgrass saidAmerica is going through a period of great social and demographic upheaval. Since the 1960s, more and more previously silenced sub-groups have gained their voices, more and more previously politically marginalized sub-groups have demanded, and received, a share of the levers of power: women's liberation, gay liberation, Black voting rights, were just the tip of the ice berg. Gays not only wanted to have sex together without being thrown into prison--they want to live together, buy homes together, have joint bank accounts, get married, raise children, inherit the other's property when one of them dies. For some, this went too far, whereas for others, it did not go far enough. And it's not just about gays--that is only one example. I could give you dozens of others...
I think everyone on a base levels understands the importance of moderation and sustainability. Protect long-term health, maintain balanced relationships, avoid fixations on extreme viewpoints.
So why is everyone in America now either a socialist or a fascist?
In short time, Chuck Schumer went from a well-regarded centrist Democrat to either a boring milquetoast Democr ...[text shortened]... tic Socialist just won in Colorado as well.
Why is moderation dying? Can it come back? I miss it.
When I was growing up (in TX), there were still states in which miscegenation was a crime. When my mother divorced my father, she could not get a credit card or a telephone connection in her own name--only a married woman could get such things. When she was no longer Mrs. So-&-So, she was a legal non-entity. She took my father to court to force him to pay alimony, and his lawyer argued in court that she should get married again instead of harassing her ex-husband for support!
So many things have changed in my own lifetime, it can hardly be surveyed. America of the 1950s is gone and will never come again. In times of great social and political upheaval, people do not yearn for the status quo, for that would be to yearn for continued upheaval. No one can bear continuous revolution. In times of great upheaval, what people yearn for is an end to upheaval and a re-establishment of stability, and that means, either: a) radical reform (a new level of stability), or b) radical revisionism (a previous stability). The greater the upheaval, the more radical the proposed solutions will be, whether towards a new level of stability or backwards to a previous form of stability. Moderation, in times of upheaval, is off the menu.
This is nowhere more clearly visible than in that arch-revisionist institution, the Roman Catholic Church. You might have missed the news that Pope Leo has excommunicated a 'schismatical' group of Swiss Catholic bishops who want to return to the Tridentine Mass (in Latin) because they reject Vatican II and the vernacular. Even that was too much for the ultra-radical revisionist faction of the Catholic Church.
So it is in America today: there are people who have been left behind by the information revolution, the data-center boom, the billions to be won in selling raw data and imaginary currencies (Mark Z'berg, Larry Paige, and co.). The steel mills of Pennsylvania are rusted dinosaurs--not only dead, but fossils, and they are never coming back. For the people left behind, gay lib, women's lib, Black liberation, were all way too much to cope with already--and now there are 'queers', 'trans-people', Muslims, with no end in sight, every week a new self-identified sub-group demanding rights. It is literally off the Richter scale for people already struggling to cope with legal homosexuality, upptiy Black people being President, inter-racial women running for President.
@moonbus said“It is literally off the Richter scale for people already struggling to cope with legal homosexuality, upptiy Black people being President, inter-racial women running for President.”
America is going through a period of great social and demographic upheaval. Since the 1960s, more and more previously silenced sub-groups have gained their voices, more and more previously politically marginalized sub-groups have demanded, and received, a share of the levers of power: women's liberation, gay liberation, Black voting rights, were just the tip of the ice berg. ...[text shortened]... legal homosexuality, upptiy Black people being President, inter-racial women running for President.
Oh look…another liberal creating things to be racist about.
Show us some proof of what you claim.
The white liberal uses racism as a means to have power over someone else, at the expense of devaluing actual racism. This is just another prime example.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidAnd here I thought you weren't capable of hyperbole.
“It is literally off the Richter scale for people already struggling to cope with legal homosexuality, upptiy Black people being President, inter-racial women running for President.”
Oh look…another liberal creating things to be racist about.
Show us some proof of what you claim.
The white liberal uses racism as a means to have power over someone else, at the expense of devaluing actual racism. This is just another prime example.
This is not racism, you muppet.
"... at the expense of devaluing actual racism."
You're actually kidding, right? How do you have the balls to lie this outrageously badly?
@moonbus saidStability is achieved through moderation. Compromise, consensus, incremental reform. It is counterintuitive to me why people reach for the extremes in order to achieve stability.
America is going through a period of great social and demographic upheaval. Since the 1960s, more and more previously silenced sub-groups have gained their voices, more and more previously politically marginalized sub-groups have demanded, and received, a share of the levers of power: women's liberation, gay liberation, Black voting rights, were just the tip of the ice berg. ...[text shortened]... legal homosexuality, upptiy Black people being President, inter-racial women running for President.
@AThousandYoung saidSure, but I was rebutting the silly statement declaring that Bill Clinton would be considered a Republican in today's political climate.
He was always considered centrist.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidAbsolutely, mate. I think I've posted a few times previously as well. One of these in isolation, maybe not fascism. But ALL OF THEM?? The resemblances are too strong and too many to deny, it needs to be called what it is. Not that it'll do any good, but... here you go.
Can you give an example of the rights fascism that you claim ?
1) demolition of norms - remember Trump mocking war heroes?
2) Glorifying violence - shooting protestors, praising violent mobs, endorsing torture.
3) Police state tactics - think Kristi Noem's sign "one of ours, all of yours"
4) Dehumanization - immigrants "poisoning the blood of our country"
5) Blood-and-soil nationalism
6) Leader aggrandizement
7) Alternative facts
8) Territorial aggression
9) Attacks on the news media
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/america-fascism-trump-maga-ice/685751/
@PuzZuLz saidIf a Democrats previous policies are centrist, then that forces other people to become fascists? What?
You just said Bill got pushed to center!
That's left to right one step.
Meaning you pushed us farther right by your crazy new definitions!
I don't think you understand, conceptually, what you are talking about.
- Joined
- 04 May 26
- Moves
- 804
2 edits
@wildgrass
For the slow ones...
You people...think regular traditional life...is fascist and racist.
You moved the goal posts to fit your agenda.
Republicans and trads didn't change, y'all went lefter and call us extreme to try to shame us into obedience.
Y'all lost the election. Your midterm chances are less because only inner city losers vote for socialists.
The only reason people have voted for delusional socialists is because the candidates said they will give away free stuff.
They lie to win elections.
Does NYC have free buses yet? No they don't.
Mamdani ran his campaign on promises of free stuff.
Your thread is based on a lie.
We aren't extreme. We are the usual republicans.
Just because y'all say it's extreme, doesn't make it true.
@PuzZuLz saidYeah right. Republicans didn't change?
@wildgrass
For the slow ones...
You people...think regular traditional life...is fascist and racist.
You moved the goal posts to fit your agenda.
Republicans and trads didn't change, y'all went lefter and call us extreme to try to shame us into obedience.
Y'all lost the election. Your midterm chances are less because only inner city losers vote for socialists. ...[text shortened]... t extreme. We are the usual republicans.
Just because y'all say it's extreme, doesn't make it true.
Before Trump, the party was led by John McCain, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Free trade, fiscal responsibility, market solutions, supply side economics. The general goals of the most extreme right-wing politicians were to cut entitlement spending (the so-called Tea Party Republicans). The policy positions were reasonable.
Republicans now? Y'all are banning abortion. Y'all are anti-vax. Y'all wanna end birthright citizenship. Ya'all completely reversed on free trade. Y'all are election deniers. Not to mention that y'all spend public money now like drunk sailors. McCain, Romney, Ryan, recent party leaders are now ostracized by their own party.
You went fascist.
@wildgrass saidHow much truth is there to that really? Trump's cult of personality has demonized those prior Republican stalwarts, but outside of tariffs where is a great ideological divide between the GOP in the 2000's or even Reagan from the group now?
Yeah right. Republicans didn't change?
Before Trump, the party was led by John McCain, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Free trade, fiscal responsibility, market solutions, supply side economics. The general goals of the most extreme right-wing politicians were to cut entitlement spending (the so-called Tea Party Republicans). The policy positions were reasonable.
Republica ...[text shortened]... Cain, Romney, Ryan, recent party leaders are now ostracized by their own party.
You went fascist.
Republicans always talked fiscal discipline but never exercised it when in power, preferring tax cuts that favored the wealthy over any type of balanced budget.
It's hard to see substantial ideological differences though the crudeness and appeals to bigotry and partisanship are more blatant.
@wildgrass saidNegative, stability is not achieved through moderation; stability is maintained through moderation.
Stability is achieved through moderation. Compromise, consensus, incremental reform. It is counterintuitive to me why people reach for the extremes in order to achieve stability.
Maintaining stability in times of stability is fertile ground for moderate politics and moderate opinions, because only small adjustments are required to maintain stability.
In times of upheaval, moderate opinions and small adjustments do not achieve stability; they maintain upheaval. Hence, times of instability are fertile ground for radical solutions and radical opinions.
Very few people want to stoke upheaval--Donald Trump is an exception, he thrives on stoking chaos, but people will tire of it, and him, soon.