> Only MAGA sycophants and fascist adjacents would not want appropriate checks and balances.
No true Scotsman
> Tells me what I need to know about you.
Ad hominem
-
But leaving these logical fallacies aside, I bet you can’t make any coherent argument about “fascism” because there is no clear definition for this word - other than simply labeling anything right of socialist as “fascist”. This gaslighting no longer works, and is why Trump was able to win again.
The check and balance you’re looking for is in the law already - if one side wants body cams for federal agents they can win Congressional seats and pass a law around it. If they want to change administrative policy they can win a presidential election.
But letting people violently attack federal agents and then trying to hamper operations in the court is just lawfare and judicial activism at best, and directly enabling terrorists at worst.
> ... because there is no clear definition for this word - other than simply labeling anything right of socialist as “fascist”.
fascism /făsh′ĭz″əm/
noun
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
^^^
Sorry, but The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition (and just about every other English language dictionary, I suspect) begs to differ. There is indeed a very clear definition for that word.
No true Scotsman
> Tells me what I need to know about you.
Ad hominem
-
But leaving these logical fallacies aside, I bet you can’t make any coherent argument about “fascism” because there is no clear definition for this word - other than simply labeling anything right of socialist as “fascist”. This gaslighting no longer works, and is why Trump was able to win again.
The check and balance you’re looking for is in the law already - if one side wants body cams for federal agents they can win Congressional seats and pass a law around it. If they want to change administrative policy they can win a presidential election.
But letting people violently attack federal agents and then trying to hamper operations in the court is just lawfare and judicial activism at best, and directly enabling terrorists at worst.