I know perfectly well it's bad. A "step up" from imperialism? It is imperialism, although it's less brutal than historical imperialism. Just look at India under British rule, for example, or the sugar plantation islands under all the imperialists of the past. Imperialism has always been horribly brutal. That doesn't make it all fascist. I don't think many would argue the British monarchy was fascist. It was an imperialist monarchy.

Yeah, those are traits of fascism, not a definition of fascism. Anyway, yeah the US has met many of them throughout its history. So has almost every other nation. The term is useless if you just call everyone fascist. The US has not met most of them at any one particular time. You can't just take that list and say some traits were met in this period, some others in this other period, etc. and then say they covered all the traits at some point in time so must be fascist. That's not how that works.

I didn't handwave them away. I explained why they were wrong, if they were wrong. Also, they aren't sufficient to call something fascist anyway. They are traits of fashism, not the definition of fascism. How have I refused to engage with "the material evidence?" I engaged with all of the comments and detailed my reasoning. I don't think I'm the one being emotional. I'm not the one trying to dismiss an argument by saying someone else isn't engaging in the correct method. I think you are possibly projecting.

Monarchies have been for most of history. I get you put in the stipulation of after the industrial revolution, but still monarchies are top dog. Yeah, Fascists did too, but I'd say the US did more, although you're arguing that the US is fascist, but you're arguing it because the starting point is Fascists are imperialist.

fascists are the only ones to practice imperialism to nearly this extent after the industrial revolution.

How did you come to this conclusion? This is absolutely made up to make your argument seem stronger than it is.

Man, it's so easy to dismiss an argument by saying someone is just arguing from emotion. I don't feel like anything I said had anything to do with emotions, but I guess it makes you feel like you won the argument so I'm glad that makes you happy. It doesn't make you right, but whatever.

Lol. Getting called a tanky for saying America isn't fascist. That's different. I don't know why you're talking about Russia.

I don't deny it's fascism because I benefit from it. It's because imperialism is not the definition of fascism or we wouldn't have two very different words for that. You want to call it fascism because your political vocabulary apparently sucks. Fascism is not just a synonym for something bad, which I agree the US has done tons of evil. It just isn't that specific word.

Dude, that is not fascism. That's imperialism. Those are totally different things and Fascists are not the only imperialists, nor are Fascists imperialist by definition. Fascism is something specific, not just "evil" government.

Why would I say that. That is a dictator. If they meet the other requirements, sure. They aren't just because they have a single person ruling, but they could be.

Yeah, that's grasping really hard. Even if we assume the it isn't a democracy because voting was unfair, it still isn't a dictatorship because power was being passed around to different people. Also, outside has nothing to do with the definition of a dictatorship.

So when I kick down your door and execute you for not agreeing with me politically, it won't be a fascist action, good to know.

It could be. They can do that without being fascist as well. It is neither necessary nor sufficient.

Im probably not going to go through all these, but for 1 your example is far too broad. Every single thing we make is inspired by other things in the past. That's how we improve. A cult of tradition is more like saying "we are the third Roman empire (third riech), and we are deserving of inheriting their history. We will enforce this idea and destroy anything counter to it." America does have better examples of this that what you used though. I wouldn't argue it doesn't have a cult of tradition.

For 8, that's also a bad example. I don't think there was an idea the natives were strong. They were just savage and violent. They needed us to "civilize" them was the (bullshit) idea. I don't recall seeing much ever about them being particularly strong, just murderous and evil. A better example, though you have to get fairly modern, is communism. It's both a useless form of government destined to fail, but also we need to send solders and spies all over to protect other countries from falling to it.

9 we do not have really. We are fairly jingoist as a nation, but it's never (or rarely) said to be treason to disagree. After 9/11 it would be hard to be elected whole disagreeing with a war, but Bernie Sanders did and has done fairly well politically and not executed for treason.

11 is not about individualism. It's about every person needs to live their life for the glory of the nation. Individualism is anti-hero. A hero should live their lives (and die) for others. Individualism is you should be self-serving.

Go unalive yourself, you deliberately blinded ostrich.

Wow dude. Wtf is wrong with you? What did I do to you?

(Don't actually, but maybe grow the fuck up and realize that times we fought monarchists and Nazis doesn't change everything else)

No. Obviously not. I never said such. Things change over time and the same nation could be fascist at one point and anarchist at another. Don't imply I said something that I didn't please. This is actually an argument against the US "always" being fascist though, because we haven't met all the traits you've listed at the same time, even using the examples you gave which I don't agree with. Any nation will meet all of those eventually if you give it enough time.

Also, these are traits of fascism. They are not definitionally fascist. Again, probably the main point of fascism is a dictatorship. Without that you can only be fash-ish not fascist.

I wasn't implying it was a good thing, just the explanation of why they don't get more done.

That said, they have improved a few things. It just isn't as much as we need. Insulin, for example, is in a much better place, and that should be expanding to cover more drugs. Thr democrats are significantly better than the Republicans. They are not both the same. They just aren't as good as we deserve.

Those are fascist things, but they do not make fascism. Dictatorial rule is pretty core to fascism. Yes, it shares similarities to fascism, but it is not fascist. It also shares traits with a ton of other political idiologies that it does not totally meet the definition of.

For an example of insufficient conditions, Skyrim is a first person game where you fight enemies, sometimes while shooting. It is not a first person shooter though, even though they share traits it it. You must meet all traits to be that thing, not just some of them.

Which dictionary are you reading? A key component of fascism is a dictatorship. You can argue about controlling oppositional voices or segmentation of society in the US, but a dictatorship is pretty core to fascism in any definition I've seen. And yeah, our voting system sucks that still doesn't make it a dictatorship.

Those are definitely trait you'd expect from fascism, but they are neither necessary nor sufficient to be fascist. Fascism is not just doing a bad thing. It's a very specific set of traits, which the US does not meet —in my opinion and any other informed opinion that I've seen.

It's crazy because so much of the constitution is about ensuring no one is above the law, because they were trying to get away from a monarchy. Somehow this SC either can't read or understand the constitution though because here we are.

I think it's much more obvious that one party cares about decorum no matter what is going on.

Article 2, section 4 clear says "and all civil officers." It specifies president and vice president likely because they were getting away from a monarchy and wanted to specify they aren't above the law, but it clearly should apply to any federal civil officers.

Does this actually matter if the Supreme Court is ruling in the constitutionality of how accountable they are to other's power? Probably not. This supreme court at least will always argue in favor of serving themselves. I don't know how that plays out at that point.

I'm not sure if you meant Jaz and had a typo or the canonical star wars musical genres that somehow actually exists called jizz.