JBar2

Yeah, OK, the US isn't the most economically and militarily powerful country, and by extension, politically powerful🙄

To say otherwise makes you not serious

As does bringing the metric system into the argument

Fascism needs a strong leader - authoritarianism is at the core of fascism. Of course the rank and file don't go away, but without a strong leader, they lose their power.

Serious question: Referring back to the points I made in my previous post, who is going to effectively step into the fascism void in the US when Trump is gone?

Vance? He's a clown and isn't a true believer in Trumpism

DeSantis? Another clown

Ken Paxton? He's evil enough but not sure he has the charisma to inspire the MAGAts

Trump's base is comprised of sniveling sycophants who don't have the personality, influence, or will to actually try and take over

Sure, but I was specifically talking about the US.

That said, when the US has a potential leader embracing fascism/authoritarianism, it creates an opportunity for the growth of those political ideologies across the world.

Keeping Trump out of office and believers in democracy in office will help blunt the power and growth of fascism across the globe. It's not the sole solution, but it's quite important that the most powerful country in the world not elect fascists.

While I generally agree with what you said, I'm not convinced Trumpism doesn't die or at least go back into its hole when he goes away.

Trumpism is really nothing more than a power grab by an authoritarian who uses white nationalism rhetoric to enthrall the baser segment of society and amass a voting base to maintain power long enough to undermine democracy.

Trump could die tomorrow, and there's a dozen wannabe authoritarians that would try to fill that void and run on Trumpism.

I'm not convinced there's any MAGAts out there than can inspire the base, get the MAGAts in Congress to coalesce behind them, and solidify the financial support of the Musks, Thiels, etc of the oligarchy.

Not sure how to tell you this, but the right wing has, does, and will target ANY Democratic (or 3rd party) candidate that poses a realistic chance of beating them in the presidential election. The right wing doesn't want or know how to govern, they just want to control, so they attack those that are qualified to govern.

Russia and China support and amplify unserious 3rd party candidates like Stein and RFK Jr with the support of the Republicans, because without splitting the left's votes, the Republicans would be a powerless minority

I'm not following what point you're trying to make here.

Kamala Harris' team is going to make known any and all Republicans who support her in an effort to try and convince Independents and Republicans who don't like Trump to get out on Election Day and vote for her, particularly in swing states. That's just smart politicking to try and beat Trump.

I would guess the average Democratic voter hates Dick Cheney but understands that when people as awful as Liz or Dick Cheney actually endorse Harris publicly, it is a clear indication just how dangerousTrump and MAGA really are.

Ona daily basis, Trump and Vance make no attempt to hide their hatred of women, drag queens, gays, lwsnians, immigrants, people of color, etc. While Harris and the Dems defend those groups publicly, legally and politically.

Whether the Left is perfect or not is not the point. MAGA would like to see Chappel Roan censored, disempowered, and possibly imprisoned.

I'm not calling Chapell a centrist, I'm saying she being foolish and failing to exercise her influence. She couldn't instead say "I don't disagree with Harris on A, B, C, but I support her candidacy because of basic human rights, and here's what I would like her to commit to".

Instead, she's failing to help her fans understand what's at stake here, and they may sit on the sidelines come election day

I don't see how the full quote really changes anything.

I fully agree with her position that folks she be informed and engaged in their local politics.

Fully agree with her that people should use critical thinking skills.

But saying both sides have the same amount of problems is a ridiculous false equivalency, and directly threatens the very people she supports. One side is going to make life a living hell (if not outright cause deaths - see: abortion rights for an example) for LGTBQ+ people, for women, and for people of color. There's no "both sides" argument here.

She's within her right to call out the Left for specific issues she disagrees on, but she loses credibility for effectively saying one side is not better than the other in all the areas I've described

Which quote is cherry picked? Honestly curious

I'm quite disappointed in her both-sidesism comments. Maybe that approach is defensible in "normal" times, but not when one candidate/party is fascist, authoritarian, anti-democracy, anti-women's rights, anti-trans, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-people of color.

My feeling is that Chappell is effectively supporting that party by not taking a more vocal stand against them, particularly when she has the ability to influence so many young voters whose lives will be impacted for decades by what the extreme right has done in this country, and will further try to do if they win the White House (and/or Congress) again.

https://muckrack.com/jeannine-mancini/articles

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeannine-mancini-9b4348224

If this is a real writer and not AI generated content (with a fake public profile), it's a college student doing intern work writing articles on topics she is given.

It's clickbait, pure and simple

I dunno. Maybe because the average consumer doesn't have nuclear waste sitting around their house that they can throw away in their trash?

What in the sam hell are you trying to communicate with this word salad?

But if you want to talk politics and healthcare, there's one party that's made any real effort at improvement in the last 2 decades, and it's the Democrats. The Republicans try to gut the system at every opportunity.

There are plenty of Democrats in Congress that would like to continue to improve healthcare, but the Dems don't have the numbers - particularly in the House - to pass further reform.

The article doesn't state he voted multiple times in the same election;it appears to be saying he voted in multiple elections across several years while he was ineligible to vote.