That's because they cut out 20 minutes from this clip. There were two speakers Lieu called upon between those two clips and he did not ask Candace to respond to his allegations/insinuations.

She basically had to sit there and listen to two "experts" tell her why she was a Nazi.

https://youtu.be/cpMZ8A3qVrs

Fox News was the ONLY media outlet that included the part where other speakers talked before Candace, which is not good. It means leftist media is very much trying to distort the narrative. This is why I left the left. Shit like this, where they edit things selectively to try to paint any conservatives as unjustified in any of their opinions or responses.

And yes, Fox is selective in their editing as well. This is why I think nobody fucking wins when they do this shit. If a full clip contextualizes things far better, and it was purposefully done to try to manipulate me, it's not going to win me over when I find out about it later.

I thought you left because you're a reactionary fuckboi and got tired of everyone calling you out on your bullshit.

I'm not a Republican, either.

I consider myself a moderate with Libertarian leanings when it comes to government interference in our personal lives. I'm liberal when it comes to healthcare and the environment. I'm conservative when it comes to budget spending.

I'm not a reactionary fuckboi because those words indicate a) a strong prejudice of your own to anyone that brings up topics you don't want to discuss and b) I don't react to something without a reason so it's a bit condescending of you to assume that I need to be "called out" for even discussing a subject you don't like.

Namely that both sides use the same implementation of selective truth and selective editing and we have spawned a nightmare culture of people who not only look aside as logic is thrown out the window but cheer it on due to their pathological need to be on "the morally right side".

Here we see that Marlon Brawndo is still a piece of shit.

"I'm liberal when healthcare and the environment. I'm conservative when it comes to budget spending."

...k

Yes, I'm a piece of shit because I can think for myself and I don't need a group of people to do that for me. And I don't think we should call everyone Nazi. I know it's shocking.

So I keep going back to what Candace said--literally just sat through about 15 minutes of garbage that consisted of that hearing, and reread the whole quote (not just the excerpt) that people are getting all into just to find what little nugget of truth you claim to have found that disproves this whole narrative you claim is being pushed by the left, and--

I didn't find shit. It was a waste of my time, the only narrative the 'left' has pushed is that Candace is an idiot and thinks extreme nationalism is great and doesn't seem to understand what the fuck she is saying. Also you're a moron, a reactionary, etc. You claim to think for yourself but you don't seem to think at all, you get spoonfed bad takes and you believe it because it makes you feel all good and smart; you react, you are a reactionary, you suck, fuck off.

All she did was deflect, "but antifa!!!"

Nationalism is nothing more than a mixture of patriotism and putting the needs of your own citizens above those of other countries and there is nothing wrong with that. I've been to Mexico and believe me the nationalism there is just as strong if not stronger than in the US.

I think it's hilarious that you think I'm an idiot because I don't want to call everyone a Nazi that disagrees with me and I don't think Congressmen should be doing it, either. Candace Owens is not a white nationalist and she is not espousing white nationalism. The idea of that is so beyond ludicrous it doesn't even belong as a topic discussion from our government's highest seats of power. The issue is one of Ted Lieu's inappropriately painting her as one and smugly thinking he'd won some huge battle by making that insinuation.

My feelings about the issue of white nationalism is that it's bad and you shouldn't blame black people for it.

Oh my god, people are still using the "social liberal, fiscal conservative" self descriptor with zero irony?

P.S. Go back to eating shit

MB, people aren't calling you out for being a piece of shit because you "think for yourself", they're calling you out because you're a piece of shit. Learn to self-aware.

Hazelnut you could at least try to make points, instead of just calling MB a piece of shit.

oh yeah, nothing is more libertarian than clinging to outdated notions of belonging based on arbitrary geographic boundaries drawn by shitlords who exploited, drafted and subjugated their people wholesale to satiate their lust for power

Here comes teethsalad to claim countries don't exist.

Poetv: where the left of left of left comes to argue with the left of left, joining sides just long enough to gang up on anyone more centrist than left of left.

they exist, sure, that doesn't make becoming emotionally invested in ethnic or national identity to the detriment of all other factors a good idea

and it's still very un-libertarian to do so. anybody claiming to be a libertarian and a nationalist probably hasn't really wrestled with the contradictions and just wants the political cover so they can remain in polite society

My stars go to That Guy

To respond, I don't think any "ism" or party is entirely 100% correct in their platforms. I tend to agree sometimes with liberals (we should have money allocated to good public education, make it cheap as hell for college students again, and have a universal healthcare system, high level environmental protection) and conservatives on others (reasonable limits on immigration, religious liberties and free speech absolutely protected, less restrictions and regulations on small business owners). I'm not a fan of the extreme left and it is corroding the majority of the left with its laughable social justice movement (not aptly named). I'm not a fan of the extreme right (problems with racism but not to the degree the left makes it out to be, hypocrisy, penchants for risky financial stock scenarios). I think libertarians consistently favor capitalist interests over military industrial complex designs, which have gone hand in hand for decades and we'd like to try something different so our markets can be even stronger. No more wars, new policy and focus on using military to protect our own infrastructure, and a zero tolerance policy for infringing on free speech and personal religious or artistic freedoms would also be great. Legalize prostitution and most street drugs using the Portugal model for using state funds to hospitalize addicts. And yes, I diverge from the libertarian model when I say we should absolutely have tariffs if other countries do, as well as have a structured approach to punish outsourcing from here on.

I like to think for myself, not let parties do it for me.

Nobody is criticizing you for "thinking for yourself."

The valid criticisms in this thread (maybe 15% or so) aren't coming from indoctrinated sheeple who are triggered into a frenzy by a righteous free-thinker.

The valid criticisms here seem to revolve around two things:

1. Your tendency to pick and choose nice-sounding pieces of very different political paradigms without considering how those paradigms might be in conflict with each other, or how the pieces you've picked might not be compatible with each other. You want government-mandated universal healthcare and ecological stewardship, but you ALSO want to embrace the idea of fiscal conservatism that would forbid government from spending a money on either one? Uhhh... okay.

2. Your tendency to remove a word like 'nationalism' from its historical and political context and broaden its definition to the point of meaninglessness, all to render it toothless enough that you can call yourself a nationalist without having to embrace the horrifying conclusions of that concept. 'Nationalism' means, "This above all: my country gets what it wants and needs." You may want to regard yourself as some sort of "moderate nationalist" who wouldn't dream of exploiting non-nationals to advance your own country's interests. But the moment a nationalist refuses to exploit foreigners, HE CEASES TO BE A NATIONALIST. There is no version of nationalism that regards foreign conquest, interference, or exploitation as morally wrong.

In both 1 and 2, it's a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. You want the cool pieces of liberal policy without paying for them. You want the collectivist sentiments of nationalism, but also the rugged individualism of libertarianism. Above all, you want to pretend polical and cultural ideas exist in a vacuum so you can theorycraft whatever system feels good, without committing to the shortcomings of any one paradigm. If that's "thinking for yourself," then so is buying a Greatest Hits of the '90s album.

I suspect what you really want is just a way to reconcile liberal policies with a modicum of cultural self-acceptance, to enjoy sensible healthcare, ecological, and economic laws but reject the naive self-flagellation of the far left.

Well, if that's the case, join the club.

Yeah, Marlon, I think Two Jar has at least given you something to chew over. The site gets really silly sometimes, but Two Jar had some points, there.

Sorry for coming off as a prick in my last message! I stand by the points I was trying to make, but if you could mentally dial down my 'tude by about 50%, that'd be about right.

I read 3 comments down from the top and then just wanted to congratulate Marlon Brawndo for comparing multiple TV news sources including the shittiest ones. I think they try to provide just the minimum amount of information sufficient to 'appeal' to either the 'left or right' over some story in the news cycle, and are not individually at least really useful at all for information if you even think these news cycle stories are important enough to watch an hour of TV over (rather than it just being about the most passive thing a human can do to do not even make a decision if TV at the same time/station every day is a habit)

Nationalists are arguing that Hitler wasn't a nationalist because he had conquests outside of Germany. They ignore that empire building is nationalism. You invade and plunder other countries in the name of the homeland.

Yuuup

I don't believe she interprets exploitation of other countries as part of what defines nationalism.

You don't think a lot of things are the way they are.
na·tion·al·ism
/ˈnaSH(ə)nəˌlizəm/
noun
identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.

I think she's playing a word game pretty common on the right, in which one conflates "nationalism" -- as Americans have understood it in the European sense, which has had bad associations for a long time -- with flag-waving, country loving patriotism, which Americans see as benign.

Anyway, she's ill-informed and full of shit. Hitler wasn't a guy who loved Germany a whole bunch and got carried away and invaded a bunch of countries by accident. He believed that Germany had to either kill or enslave Jews and Slavs or the German race would perish. He wasn't so fond of disabled Germans, remember, and he had plans to kill Germans with "defective" health conditions after his wars ended. His outlook was basically tribal/racial, not nationalistic in that he didn't care all that much for Germany as a state. He was much more concerned about the "Aryan race," which you could probably argue never existed as he understood it.

Owens simply doesn't have the historical chops to talk about this intelligently, and anyone who puts her on a stage oughta feel ashamed of themselves.

owens doesn't have the chops for anything besides lazily repeating far-right talking points for hours at a time, but what other PROUD BLACK FEMALE would the GOP be able to use? diamond and silk? c'mon.

Patriotism, jingoism, and nationalism are difficult to discern when you're a jingoist.

But it always does, Brawndo. You ignore that militarism is a part of nationalism. Nationalists are all about building up militaries, then they become about using them. Think about it. Imperial England, Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany, America's empire building, Imperial Japan. Your grap of Histroy is worse than Candace's.

Cena, I think you're ignoring current historical trends. Are we going to go to war with China if we have nationalistic interests in setting up tariffs or laws that punish outsourcing? I've wanted laws against outsourcing for decades, but neither party ever pushed for it, and now here we fucking are.

You're associating ONLY militaristic interests with nationalism. What about just focusing on the economic ones?

That's not nationalism. That's merely trade policy. Don't ignore our militaristic efforts. We've been at war for the last 17 years. As nationalist imperialists we only go after weak nations. We're not going to fight a nation with a competent army and nukes.

You bought the nationalist's propaganda. They've labeled these shitty neo-liberal policies as "globalism" and have labeled their answer to them as "nationalism", which of course is laughable as Trump is a neo-liberal shill just like all the others. Jobs are still going overseas. He's doing nothing to stop it, he just gives lip service.

Well I cited Australia's recent attempts at immigration reform as a type of nationalism. They have the interests of their citizens at heart when they limit what jobs foreign nationals can get in their country. I think that is an indication of how nationalism can work to favor and benefit the citizens living in that country.

I don't doubt that the military industrial complex should be limited. But nationalism isn't just about supporting the military and the orders given to them and the decisions made by the higher ranking officials.

One can't even compare Australia to USA in immigration. They don't boarder any other nations. They don't have nations that they've fucked over for generations in walkable access. The answer to our immigration issues can't be solved the way they did it, and no, a wall isn't going to fix shit.

Funny that you Reich wingers will proclaim that we must duplicate their immigration policy, but ignore the left when we bring up Australia's success in implimenting gun control.

I'm halfway to thinking that maybe you shouldn't have been beaten up upthread, but this definition of nationalism is so broad as to be more or less useless, as it's kind of axiomatic -- if you're anything near a foreign policy realist -- that states in almost all instances will act in their own best interest, whether that means as-needed cooperation or some sort of go-it-alone venture. Likewise, there are hardly any states whose populations don't have positive sentimental feelings about the country they belong to. The question is whether these sentiments and ideas slide into something darker, which is what Americans have mostly referred to as "blood and soil nationalism." It's a useful distinction, I think, more useful than "a mixture of patriotism and putting the needs of your own citizens above those of other countries"

In a certain sense the rehabilitation of the term could be seen as another chance for the American right to have one of their famously productive "Who Loves America More" non-debates. And I don't know whether the flag-waving hombres you saw down in May-hee-co were simply displaying their pride and happiness in being Mexican or would have advocated, say, an expulsion of all or most non-Mexicans and non-Mexican interests from Mexico, a policy of bullying central American states to Mexico's sole advantage, and a narrative that cast every problem Mexico's ever had on foreigners of some sort of another. The latter is nationalism, the former patriotism.

:D

Stars for both of you trying in good faith to steer this conversation towards something that couldn't be accurately dubbed by a pack of yowling dogs.

MissHenson, that was well thought out. I would respond by saying that nationalism to me can be an expression of patriotism applied into a real world scenario by passing laws that reflect the interests of the people in that country. For instance, Australia quietly passed laws that stated immigrants in about 200 different professions would not be allowed to immigrate based on the fact that Australia wanted to reserve those positions (both in government and in the private sector) for Australian nationals. There is nationalism in looking at how your population will be impacted by an issue and saying, "Okay, these needs of our citizens come before the needs of citizens in other countries". I think that it's easy to get emotional over the word "nationalism" and automatically equate it with something evil. But we don't live in a One World State and the idea of "there are no illegal humans" doesn't change the reality of problems that come with mass migration.

I used to be pretty far left back in the day, but when I had questions other leftists couldn't answer, I never really felt comforted. How do we take the idealism of wanting to help everyone and deal with the world humanely, but still prioritize the needs of the citizens already here. Gavin Newsom just left the fucking state to go to El Salvador. Uh, they need you here, asshole. Have you looked around your cities homeless skid rows lately? And that's the sort of prioritization I speak of. It's one thing to wear your heart on your sleeves and say you want to help everyone. But practically, it's just not possible for us to solve all the world's problems. At a certain point, most countries draw the line very clearly that they want their own citizens to thrive more than they want the citizens of other countries to thrive. It's self-preservation and it's logical for every country on Earth to do this. Nationalism doesn't have to be emotional but every person from another country I've ever met has people who genuinely feel intense pride in where they come from. And their loyalties are usually strong for that country of origin. Which is to be expected.

So yes, I think the entire debate over nationalism is ignoring these realities.

Okay, I suppose, but I don't think any of what you said needs carry the tag "nationalist." You work with the terms available to you, more or less, and when you use the term "nationalist" in American politics, it carries a fairly defined set of associations that most people just can't ignore. Trump's choosing "America First" as a presidential slogan has the same problem: it was used by people who were adamantly opposed to our entrance into World War II. Not that it's bad to put America first, but lots of fascist sympathizers got to the term first, so it's tainted. Patiently explaining that you mean a policy that is America-centric or prioritizes the US is not going to do a ton after that word or that slogan's left your mouth. Words mean things. Perhaps another, perhaps a new term, is needed.

Actually, one of the things that I dislike most about the political moment that we're currently in is the modern right's existence that words don't mean things and don't have histories. When assholes like Steve King (R-IA) or Donald Trump call themselves "nationalists," I hardly think they care about the well-being of Americans more than they hate foreigners and what they see as foreign cultural influence. One of the big differences between Trump and most of the Republicans that preceded him is that he has no real problem with mining the dark side of Americans' feelings: Trump and King and their allies are often idiots, but not so dumb to know what buttons their pushing with their supporters, many of whom I suspect are basically authoritarians-in-waiting who've been waiting to vote for someone like Trump their whole lives. I suspect they think they know exactly what Trump means when the talks about "nationalism." It probably isn't very pretty.

I think you also have to keep in mind that not everyone's taken your journey from left to right and that your words go out into a shared space that isn't defined by your experience. It's all very nice that you're conscious of how your politics have been refocused by more America-centric interests, but as I said before, that probably doesn't meet a traditional definition of the term "nationalism," which is something far harsher, and I find it unlikely that it'd find a lot of common ground with current Trump supporters, many of whom are so far-right they're practically falling off of any previous political maps. You can't just use these terms to reflect your experience: other people are going to hear them, too.

Lastly, I don't mind or care that Gavin Newsom's in El Salvador. Frankly, the fact that Central America's been utterly destabilized by drug cartels that those governments are far too weak to handle is one of the greatest "pushes" for current migrants. I suspect a good deal of the people at the border don't just want a better life in the United States, they also want not to get shot at home. Call it foreign aid for a domestic purpose: there's been talk of a "Marshall Plan" for Central America, and if that helps keep citizens of those countries at home, I think it's a fine investment. Beats a border wall, anyway. It won't halt economic immigration entirely, of course, but making El Salvador a more livable, survivable place is certainly in the US's interest. I suspect that Newsom might also be trying to sharpen up his foreign-policy chops for a presidential run, but that's another thing.

I have no doubt Newsom is going to run for president. He's ambitious enough to lie about supporting the big fast rail project and then cutting it as soon as he was in office, so I wouldn't put anything past him. He's playing a chess game of international politics and he is brand new to the governorship. And yes, I do have a problem with that in terms of prioritizing California above other countries. His job is not in the State Department and he isn't an ambassador. His job is is in California, which has PLENTY of problems.

But I digress. I agree with you that Trump is mining all that sentiment for all it's worth and the question is how much does he back up all of that America first sentiment. For me the answer is not enough at this point in time, because I think a lot of that is just talk. But when you look at the reality of our current politics, most people are totally removed from the historical reality of isolationism that defined the 1930s. Most people don't know anything about it. Most people know we fought Hitler in WWII and won and that we stopped the Holocaust from continuing. But that is the bare bones history. That's the basics. Most Americans don't know a whole lot about the isolationist-nationalist policies of the pre-WWII era. So when I look at the world nationalism, I look at it in the context of its current association and form. The collective consciousness of our nation is aligning that term with our economic self interests and a large portion want to decrease our military involvement with outside countries. We have a movement towards a more isolationist stance, but is it the same thing to want to pull the troops out of every country after almost 20 years of conflict? I would say both the terms of nationalism and isolationism have undergone radical changes in terms of context to the world we live in now. I'm not saying the pre WWII era isn't important and that we shouldn't learn from the mistakes we made in not accepting Jewish refugees, but we do need to adapt to the world we live in now. And we need to look at the current immigration crisis as not being identical to WWII because I think that's false comparison. The truth is, very few people relate those terms to the pre WWII era and most of them associate it now with staying competitive and not letting other countries run us over with economic shenanigans where we wind up losing out.

Two Jar, I should thank you and Miss Henson for peaceful and reasonable discussion! Thank you.

Hey, no problem. I enjoyed it, too.

Actually, it is wrong to call people a Nazi if they aren't a Nazi and you just suspect them of racism. That is indeed wrong. As to your second sentence, are you trying to be ironic?

Marlon, I think that the term gets used sloppily, but the problem with fascism is that, if you're adhering to a very strict, historically based definition of fascism, nothing outside of the Mussolini and Hitler regimes is really, actually fascist. The best you can say afterwards is "this has aspects that are similar to fascism," since just about nobody meets the real definition these days and you've got to find a way to talk about regimes (Perón, for example) that aren't fascist but are somewhere along the continuum.

In the current American scene, I don't think that Milo Yannowhatshisname's a fascist. But his relentless shallowness, campiness in what is usually an arena for serious people, and obsession with his image? That kinda rings the fascist bell for me, and I don't mind saying so.

Milo's career is deader than Michael Jackson's. He ain't coming back from that fall from grace. I personally think that he is at least somewhat mentally ill, so I ten to dismiss him altogether.

That aside, I would look at actual Nazis to use as examples of Nazis. Richard Spencer is a Nazi. Your friend's dad that voted for Trump because he thinks secret Muslims infiltrated the government might be a tad paranoid, but he isn't a Nazi. There's paranoia on both sides. But I think the liberals have become more paranoid than the right within the last few years and it's kind of in overdrive with the Nazi thing. It's becoming WAY too common to hear that word thrown around at the tip of a hat. There are genuine Nazi white supremacists in America but you can't suspect everyone of that. It's hysteria at this point, as much as the Satanic Panic of the 80s but moreso.

My genuine concern is the fact that if you keep calling a group something extremely ugly, eventually they embrace it as a “fuck you” to the name-callers. You see this all over in history.

I like the connection between overuse of words like "fascist" and "nazi" to the Satanic panic, which was also grounded in moral Puritanism, media echo chambers, and boredom.

no