I think this way of viewing fascism is misleading. All fascist leaders use it to gain power - it is the willingness to use force against the out-group and hyper-nationalism that helps them solidify their position. It is the belief that doing so will make their country 'great' that is the ideological underpinning, and Trump absolutely fits that description.
I think he's just really bad at it.
The point is that the law is difficult to administer clearly because 'dual-use' is too vague. Russia's been hitting electrical facilities all across Ukraine for over a year, and they've been saying they're all legal military targets, even if they're serving a major city (including hospitals, critical civilian services, ect). The more hawkish crowd here is pretty selective when classifying war crimes depending on the parties involved, and even the UNSC is unable to make clear rulings (they don't have any teeth, anyway), especially when they involve an American-backed ally.
Israel has been hitting schools, Mosques, orphanages, ect, and they've thus far gotten away with it by arguing they were being used by Hamas. I wouldn't put much stock in what's being said is 'fair-play' or not. It's all questionable and it's all an escalation that nobody really wants.
Pretty sure their military uses electricity and water, too, so that means their electrical grid and water supply are fair game, right?
If they're shared by civilian infrastructure then they're probably using it as a shield, so that means it's OK to hit them anyway
This line of analysis really highlights just how incompetent Trump is at being fascist.
Most seasoned politicians are more like Vance and can sell their reactionary policy in all the nice language liberals like to use.
It also highlights how fucked the US is once Trump becomes irrelevant, because any one of the more competent fascists could potentially take his place, and Trump has set the bar so low that just about anyone else will be able to clear it.
It's wild how western war-mongers will point to restrictive domestic policy as a justification for (seemingly) unlimited violent aggression against them
Like, "look what you made me do! if you weren't so mean to your citizens I wouldn't have had to bomb them and destroy their homes and infrastructure!"
As if the US hasn't overlooked exactly those humanitarian offenses when they funded and armed religious extremists in order to install pro-western governments the world over. It's the kind of double-speak you read about in science fiction.
Pretty sure they would consider this "format shifting", which is not a valid exception to bypassing copy protection
Well that's the neat thing: depending on where you draw the line pretty much anyone can be either poor and envious or rich and hypocritical. A flexible way of dismissing radical change, if ever there were one.
With a little 'lazy' garnish on top, I'd say it's an effective reactionary recipe. Subtle but compelling.
I believe it stems from their often rich background. They’ve got it too easy, they never have to work or struggle to make ends meet, makes them feel guilty (and rightfully so, might I add).
If that one doesn't fit, there's always "communism is an ideology of envy"
It's less a problem with racial profiling and more a problem with it being a poverty-tax.
Enforcing a flat-rate fee structure with speed cameras disproportionately hurts low-income drivers (who are already economically unstable), and allocating state/city funding toward road maintenance instead of public transit infrastructure pushes people into a loop of auto costs-> traffic fines -> loss of work -> more financial insecurity, ect.
True enough: reducing officer interactions is a good thing, but those cops end up spending that saved time escalating other non-violent interactions instead. If that's your goal, you should be de-funding and reforming law enforcement, not automating fine collection.
Lemmy try not to post crimes challenge - impossible. Granted, as far as crimes go, this one seems innocuous enough, but still.
I've been told repeatedly on c/piracy that lemmy is just too small to attract the attention of law enforcement and three-letter agencies
Paradoxically, I've also been told that lemmy is rife with state-sponsored troll farms, so....?
Edited for legibility
Maybe I could see that? I mean, if Vance rationalizes Trump enough to actually win then I guess it's effective. Trump is just such a sweaty big boy, a lot of libs who would otherwise go along with it just can't get themselves to associate, whereas if Vance was at the top of the ticket I think a lot of libs would be like "fuck me, that doesn't sound so bad".
Idk. If i'm thinking of any other historical example of fascist leaders, they're basically all deeply serious people. Bibi is a good example actually - Harvard educated, military background, exceptional political maneuvering. When he makes his threats you know he has the political capital to actually back it up. Contrast with Trump: he is just so plainly self-obsessed that his fascist message misses the mark for most people. Trump just flubs around in front of a camera and makes demands and only about half of his target audience takes it seriously, maybe less.
Taking a step back even, maybe what you're saying could apply to the duopoly, too. It would certainly explain Harris' shift to the right on immigration and law enforcement: Trump riles up the electorate into pogroms, and the liberal candidate offers a reactionary policy as a concession to placate the bloodlust.
Yea, that's my thing. Trump has created an appetite for reactionary governance, and the democrats just don't have a real response to it except "yea ok, I guess you're right". They'll either lose to the next republican or they'll slide into fascism themselves.