We all hear this endless loop of Trump and the gop are fascists, or some version of this. Aren’t we morally bound to lie cheat and steal to prevent it? In my opinion nothing is off limits to stop the rise of Mussolini and Hitler. However, I and millions of other Americans don’t buy into this neo fascism rhetoric but I understand many do. So which is it? Break laws, weaponize government agencies to defeat fascism? Or is this just TDS run amok?

Actually, this is the point of a lot of our civil rights protections…

Some folks feel a subgroup of the population is so heinous that the rules shouldn’t apply protecting them.

Once you agree with that once, in one instance, you’ve opened the door to making those rules meaningless.

It’s kind of why I’m disappointed in the various civil rights orgs not stepping up in defense of some of these groups (even though they are antithetical to some of the beliefs of the groups like the ACLU)…

In the past they would have been.

It’s not our job to police other nations politics… until they affect our national security interests.

Ukraine does indirectly affect ours… and our intervention now is a lesson from WWII, with the west refusing to act early on when Hitler annexed the Sudetenland. The chezchs were willing to fight, and France and England sold them down the river.

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
We all hear this endless loop of Trump and the gop are fascists, or some version of this. Aren’t we morally bound to lie cheat and steal to prevent it? In my opinion nothing is off limits to stop the rise of Mussolini and Hitler. However, I and millions of other Americans don’t buy into this neo fascism rhetoric but I understand many do. So which is it? Break laws, weaponize government agencies to defeat fascism? Or is this just TDS run amok?

That post is somewhat difficult to decipher. Some of the sentence structure seems to conflict with a central premise.

But, I'll presume the fascism you're talking about is on the Right, deemed so by the Left.

Key: "Break laws, weaponize government agencies to defeat fascism?"

There seems to be a presumption there, which is a projection, by definition. It's also the means justifies the end, by definition.

Recently, in one of his many rants, Trump stated factually that the radical leftist fascists were persecuting him as frontrunner opposition candidate.

That's projectionism at its finest, and his base believes it, shockingly to the rest of us.

Trumpsters, and many GOPers, actually believe the Left is using/corrupting the constitution and rule of law as a political weapon.

The Left sees such a claim as a direct attack on the Founding Principles.

Also, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that if given power, a sample as seen now with a GOPer House majority, we ain't seen nothin' yet of the possibilities of what Gym Jordon and other GOPers will do in weaponizing their powers.

The rule of law, and other Founding Principles, can be violated in many ways. Political corruption, towards Fascism, is best evidenced by choosing who/what to prosecute, or just as importantly - not to prosecute, for political purpose. Rightists know that as a fact, however the associated facts, like failing to lock up Clinton and other "criminals" in their fantasies, believing Trump's lies, do not support the premise of leftist weaponization or harboring a two-tier justice system.

Although not yet happened, we know as a fact it will happen because Trump says so - the real weaponization will start when he's re-elected - the purging and loyalist packing, the retribution/revenge, the exec powers rampage, the pardons of criminals, the prosecutions and investigations of political opposition, the threats of and actual violence, the intimidations of poll staff, judges and many others, the utter corruption of the media, and so forth.

Ok let’s keep it simple. Do we have a moral obligation to stop fascism by any means necessary?

IMO, "We" have a moral obligation to NOT justify a means, to achieve an end or avoid an end.

If "We" can't stop fascism by using the legit tools of rule of law, the constitution, the Founding Principles, then "We" deserve whatever "end" emerges.

So far, that's what distinguishes what's happening now with past fascism.

There could be worse things - a nuke war, and asteroid strike, or worse - both.

=====================================================

The same statement, of moral obligation, is applicable to "progressivism".

The "end" of fascism is not an antidote to progressivism.

Progressivism could be defined as progressive or linier founding principles, whereas Fascism or Trumpism is NOT.

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
Ok let’s keep it simple. Do we have a moral obligation to stop fascism anything by any means necessary?

No legal basis
no moral basis
no ethical basis

the US legal system is based on process and fairness - that *I* don't like how *you* treat your dog doesn't give me the *RIGHT* to steal your dog / stop-you-by-any-means-necessary - If I feel obliged to stop you, there are several courses of legal action, including using force to stop you, and all have repercussions - If someone shot someone else over illegal actions, they are taking on the role of vigilante - something that has VERY narrow legal protections

In short, just because you are offended, you don't have the right to use illegal methods to stop it, with the carve out for self protection

Placing We in “ “ marks is telling. I get it now more than ever. There is no we. The gulf is too large. There’s two ways to look at it. “We” compromised “our” institutions of integrity attempting to bring down a lawfully elected official. And that’s a tuff pill to swallow. Or we assume everyone speaking out about this is a conspiracy theorist. It’s unfortunate that the latter goes down easy while the former is true.

quote:

a lawfully elected official

Are you talking about when Trump won in 2016, or lost in 2020?

Oh, and BTW, "We" is accurate, whether you like it or agree with it or not. The nation was founded on the concept of "We". For you to declare it ain't so is telling upon you.

I refuse to buy into your BS of Us vs Them. Therein is your problem and the Nation's problem, at your behest and folks who think like you.

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
Do we ?

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
Placing We in “ “ marks is telling. I get it now more than ever. There is no we.

Weird - i mean, you use "we" several times as an appeal to moral authority - and then demand that there is no "we" --

Alas, I agree with you -- when YOU us "we" to justify illegal actions, then you are correct, that isn't "we" = that's all on you

Which means your question boils down to "can YOU do illegal things?" --

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
Ok let’s keep it simple. Do we have a moral obligation to stop fascism anything by any means necessary?

No legal basis
no moral basis
no ethical basis

the US legal system is based on process and fairness - that *I* don't like how *you* treat your dog doesn't give me the *RIGHT* to steal your dog / stop-you-by-any-means-necessary - If I feel obliged to stop you, there are several courses of legal action, including using force to stop you, and all have repercussions - If someone shot someone else over illegal actions, they are taking on the role of vigilante - something that has VERY narrow legal protections

In short, just because you are offended, you don't have the right to use illegal methods to stop it, with the carve out for self protection

So a citizen has the Right to use force to stop what a reasonable person would perceive as a threat to their person that the Law is unable to deal with in time but no Right to use force to stop what all reasonable people perceive as a threat to the Constitution that the Law is unable to deal with in time?

Looks like you've found a kindred soulmate, Jeff -

Committee of Public Safety

Reign of Terror