GOOGLE Listing “NAZISM” As The Ideology Of The California Republican Party

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

They likely could, but they aren't alive in today's America.

If we had a revolution today, it would be today's Americans vs. today's Americans, not today's American's vs. those mythical men of the past.

Then we’d have a whining war in the streets.

Picturing that almost makes me wish for a real civil war.

Lmao.

Only people I see whining like little bitches are those who are so pissed off they lost an election an they are willing to do anything necessary to get their way!

I predicted this behavior when the shrinks and our school systems promoted the BS agenda that EVERYONE IS A WINNER!

Our psychiatric INDUSTRY RULES the Progressive Left! They created you!

Want some cheese with that wine?

originally posted by: magnetik
when i think of republicans its sad I immediately think racist, bigoted folks. they did nothing to distance themselves from white nationalism and white supremicist that they literally stand next to them in support of the same platforms

That's rather odd. When I think republicans, I think politicians. I save the judgments for the actions of individuals.

There is an obvious and deliberate attempt to paint conservative Republicans as Nazi fascists. Never mind that fascism is an ideology cut from the same cloth as socialism and communism. Hegelian dialectic anyone?

GOOGLE Listing “NAZISM” As The Ideology Of The California Republican Party

Isn't it the California democratic party that's disarmed it's citizens and letting illegal immigrant murders roam their streets?

a reply to: seeker1963

What to do indeed.
This might be the answer!
www.nytimes.com...

the two-party system has rigidified and ossified. The two parties no longer bend to the center. They push to the extremes, where the donor bases and their media propaganda arms are. More and more people feel politically homeless, alienated from both parties and without any say in how the country is run.

Moreover, the whole way of practicing politics has been transformed. Each party imagines that it is one wave election from destroying the other side and gaining total power. Therefore, as Drutman notes, there’s no interest in compromise, just winning and losing, gloating and seething.

The way to do that is through multimember districts and ranked-choice voting. In populous states, the congressional districts would be bigger, with around three to five members per district. Voters would rank the candidates on the ballot. If no candidate had a majority of first-place votes, then the candidate with the fewest first-place votes would be eliminated. Voters who preferred that candidate would have their second-choice vote counted instead. The process would be repeated until you get your winners.

The process also means that people with minority views in their region have a greater chance to be represented in Congress. A district in Southern California, for example, might elect a Bernie Sanders-type progressive, a centrist business Democrat and a conservative.

The expected result?

Every district becomes a swing district, each vote much more important. Congress begins to work differently because with multiple parties you no longer have stagnant trench warfare — you have shifting coalition-building.

So basically the country would end up with about 4 or 5 parties and in order to get anything done, they would have to forge coalitions by way of compromise.

I think this idea has merit! The hatred is borne of the fact that the US has fractured by way of identity politics into various "tribes" of particular interest groups whether it be along wealth class, social status or ethnic background and with every election, one or more of the tribes feels they are being robbed by the winning tribe. Unless each tribe has a seat at the table, you end up with a country that is near ungovernable. With this new system each tribe would at least feel like they have some say-so in the system.

Where did the “Nazism” tag come from? A likely candidate is Wikipedia, a known data source for knowledge panels. The current Wikipedia page for the California Republicans does not list “Nazism” as one of its ideologies. But recently, it did. The Wikipedia revision history shows that a user added the term “Nazism” last week. It was removed after several days. That would have been enough time for Google to cache that data, include it in its search results, and display it for up to a week. And while “Nazism” has been scrubbed, another Wikipedia user today added “Authoritarianism” to the ideology listing for the California Republican Party. That too was deleted—but if Google drew on the page at just the wrong time, “authoritarianism” could also be displayed in the knowledge panel.

qz.com...

List the Republicans and Democrats with it...why not, clearly people have no understanding of actual Nazi ideology, or Fascist ideology

I think it has to due with the nazi tattoos and white nationalist allies

Monday, June 4, 2018

Google can be summoned before Congress, just like Facebook was.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said on Sunday there may be a need for Google to testify after the company’s search engine showed results linking Republicans to “Nazism.”

More at: www.infowars.com...