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.
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.
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.
New report argues for obviously needed change that probably isn't going to happen.
The picture is clearly far too high quality for pre-internet. Technically it could be a DSLR or something, but almost certainly this was a phone camera, so it must be fairly modern.
I'm taking a trip, so I held off on it until I get back. I'm looking forward to it though.
I agree, and the fact that you just run past most of it on Torrent really makes it feel pointless. The corridor design made it so you at least had to try to run past all the enemies. The limited scale also made every location feel more meaningful. That isn't to say there isn't amazing design in Elden Ring, but there's also a huge number of essentially useless locations.
Elden Ring was great, but I like the other games better. I really hope they do another fully connected world like Dark Souls 1 again.
I agree totally. He's not the best option, just the best option that's plausible if we entertain the hypothetical that Joe isn't running. Also, yeah it probably would piss some people off to skip Harris, so it's probably her no matter what.
He's still not a villain, like some like to say, but definitely not the good guy we all think of when we use that term. He's a kid who was put into a horrible situation with no good outcome. He sacrificed his humanity to try to guide the rest of humanity on the best path. Humans were just flawed because they wanted a glorious leader and they needed to learn not to trust someone with that much power.
The obvious answer is Harris. The less obvious but I think better option is Buttigieg. He's not who I would pick ideally, but I think people still remember him and he's part of the Biden adm.
I'm pretty confident they're running Biden unless he dies though.
The issue is appearances are all that mattered. I don't believe anyone who was interested enough in politics to watch that debate was undecided. It's now time for the campaigns to cut up the debate to use for ads that will actually reach the undecided voters. I feel it's going to hurt Biden a lot more than Trump.