The rise of fascism, nationalism and populism today

[owebo]

Dead people. Made so by a terrorist.

All mass shootings are conducted by terrorists?

Not all liberals are shooters, but all shooters are liberals.....

Nice try but we don't give out participation trophies.

No, you just shoot us.....

Hold still please....

No, you, please....

 

[owebo]

Fascism is loosely defined as a form of extreme “authoritarian nationalism” identified with Italy’s Mussolini. It’s principle attributes were an aggressive nationalism, a militarized society, a populist charismatic leader and prolific promises to cure every political and economic ill. It was particularly appealing to an economically depressed post-war society that had seen its way of life and culture turned upside down. Fascism promised action, not diplomacy, not nuance, even if it could not in reality deliver on those promises.

Mussolini was the “anti-establishment outsider” who became the voice of all those disillusioned with the government, the democratic process, and the economy. His rhetoric attracted the unemployed, the economically disenfranchised, veterans, and nationalists. In 1922, when Italy’s king called on Mussolini to form a government he had no idea what that entailed other than fulfilling a personal ambition for power.

In 1938, fascism took on distinctly racist/anti-semitic overtones when it began to collaborate with the Nazi’s. Italy passed it’s “Italian Racial Laws”. These laws codified what had previously been a campaign conducted in the media with the publication of the “Manifesto of Race” Manifesto of Race - Wikipedia This manifesto declared Italians to be of a superior race, and targeted other races as “inferior” - notably Jews and immigrants from Italy’s colonies. They were banned from marrying Italians, and from positions in banking, education, government and their property was confiscated.

Fascism, extreme nationalism and ideas of racial, ethnic, cultural or religious superiority are closely entertwined. Almost every country that has seen a rise in populist movements, such as fascism, has also seen a rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, legislation targeting specific racial, ethnic or religious groups and a rise in “justified” violence or special restrictions aimed at those groups.

World War 2 saw increased nationalistic fervor after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. American citizens of Japanese were first required to register. Then, their assets were frozen. Then they were ordered to “assembly points” and interned. Their property was confiscated. American citizens of Italian and German descent joined them. Is it so impossible for people to conceive of the fact that American citizens regardless of their ancestry are Americans first? Apparently it is.

We want to say “that was then, this is now”. That today is somehow different. But is it?

Look at the rise of populist rightwing movements across Europe and with the recent election of Donald Trump.

Geert Wilders, recently in the news again and with a very real chance of winning a government now with a coalition. What is the platform for his Party for Freedom?

They include the predictable anti-immigrant/Islam rhetoric, including completely banning an entire religion, closing all mosques and banning the Koran, the withdrawal of all residence permits granted to asylum seekers, and some rather obscurely defined planks such as:

Ban of overall Muslim expressions that are against the public order (defined how?)
Preventive incarceration of radical Muslims (determined how?).​

They also include populist promisies that likely can't be delivered upon:

The Netherlands will reclaim its independence. Therefore, we leave the EU.
Direct democracy: binding referendums, citizens have the power.
Deductible/excess in healthcare insurance is eliminated
Rents to be lowered
No more money for foreign aid, windmills, art, innovation, public broadcasters, etc.
Plenty extra funds for defense and police
Lower income taxes
50% reduction for vehicle ownership taxes​

Donald Trump campaigned on deporting immigrants and halting immigration, registries for Muslims, border security, tax cuts, bringing jobs back and increased defense. Supporters don’t rule out internment camps and banning entire religions. Mussolini attacked the leftwing media and attempted to close them down, a few managed to continue to operate under difficult conditions. We've heard Trump rail about the media and we've heard him propose legislation against them and creating his own media service.

I think these are truly dangerous times for civil liberties and freedoms throughout the western world.

I think you are absolutely right. And this victory "thank you" tour Trump is taking is ridiculous. He should be going to PA and CA and NY and offering olive branches. Maybe go on a "listening tour" but instead he's going for air time in places where he won. And he's surrounding himself with some TRUE deplorables.

From Rolling Stone Online, sums it up nicely:

They're already building the inaugural stand on the west side of the Capitol building. In six weeks, Donald Trump will stand on it, in front of thousands, and take the oath of office to become the 45th president of the United States.




Donald Trump, Loser-in-Chief
Our next president cannot stand that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote – and America will suffer for it

What happens next is anyone's guess. But here's what we do know.




We know Trump has named as his chief counselor a man who runs a website read and appreciated by the most virulent racists in America, a man who, according to court documents, told his wife he didn't want his children going to school with Jews and who reportedly thought it would be "not such a bad thing" if fewer African-Americans voted.

We know Trump named as his national security adviser a man who, days before the election, promulgated a conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton and sex crimes with children. (But not "Pizzagate," yet another conspiracy theory involving Clinton and child sex crimes – it was Flynn's son and chief of staff who tweeted about that one.) We also know that national security adviser called Islam a "political ideology" and said the religion is like a "malignant cancer."

We know Trump nominated for attorney general a man the Senate refused to confirm as a federal judge for being too racist in 1986, a year when it was still openly debated whether apartheid was all that bad.

We know he appointed a secretary of housing and urban development who knows nothing about housing or urban development. We know he appointed an education secretary who has made it her life's work to dismantle her state's public school system. We know he's appointed a Treasury secretary who foreclosed on thousands of homes during the housing crisis. We know he's appointed an EPA administrator who has sued the EPA to stop it from protecting the environment and bragged that he's a "leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda."

We know he's inexperienced and ignorant enough to cause genuine harm to America's interests. Trump's recent call with Taiwan's leader caused a genuine international furor. He endorsed the campaign of extrajudicial murder the president of the Philippines launched against his country's drug trade. These are irresponsible actions with real consequences.

We know Trump has business interests all over the world. We know diplomats are planning events at his new Washington, D.C., hotel. We know his daughter Ivanka sat in on a meeting with Trump and the Japanese prime minister as she was wrapping up a deal with a Japanese clothing company owned in part by the state. We know his plan to "divest" himself of his business interests by giving control to his children is meaningless – foreign investors and governments will know exactly how to influence him.

We know the next president of the United States uses his powerful platform to take revenge on individual citizens. He attacked Alec Baldwin for parodying him on Saturday Night Live, threatened to cancel a contract with Boeing because its CEO questioned his trade policy and called a union leader "terrible" for pointing out Trump lied in his characterization of the Carrier deal.

We know he doesn't understand or care about the most fundamental constitutional rights, after he threatened to revoke the citizenship of anyone who burned a flag. We know he's suggested using the power of his office to go after the press for vigorously reporting on what he says and does. (Quote him, and he'll call you a liar.)

Add it all up, and what do you see? A child who reacts to the slightest perceived attack with vicious vitriol. A vengeful president who is willing to violate basic rights. A government run by incompetents, racists, bullies and conspiracy-mongers.

It's a formula for tragedy.

No one can predict the future – we learned that lesson the hard way a month ago. But if you were to imagine what impending American fascism would look like, you couldn't place the pieces on the board any more neatly than they've been placed in the last year.

There is no reason to believe Donald Trump understands or will accept the checks on an American president's power. There is no reason to believe he won't trample over the Constitution when it suits him. How far will he go? Is it impossible to imagine that the man who talked about "opening up" libel laws could start tossing journalists in jail? How about the guy who makes fun of him on SNL? Or anyone who criticizes him?

How confident can we be that a man who spreads lies about illegal voters giving his opponent the popular-vote win and talks endlessly about rigged elections will give up power in four years if he loses? Or in eight years, just because some amendment says he's supposed to?

Who will stop him from grabbing power he's not entitled to? The madmen he's surrounded himself with? The weak-willed leaders of the Republican majority in Congress who have yet to provide hardly any resistance to the things he's said and done, no matter how outrageous or un-American?

We can't guess how bad it's going to get over the next four or eight years. We don't know what America will look like. But if you think things won't change because they never have, you aren't paying close enough attention to Donald Trump.

At the very least, we're being led by an unqualified man-boy who doesn't grasp even the most basic tenets of governance.

At worst, we're headed down an extraordinarily dark road where the things that make America America simply cease to exist. A president who won on a campaign of anti-immigrant furor, who believes in casting aside freedom like litter, who craves constant validation and can't abide criticism or satire – that's a tyrant in the making."""""""""""

Awwww....your Hillary lost....Poor fascist democrat snowflake....

 

[koshergrl]

Do try again and tell us......since you were clueless the first time....

Rights (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Stanford.....coupled with this...

"There are two leading philosophical approaches to explaining which fundamental rights of conduct there are,"

Tells me you still don't have a fucking clue......

So you're trying to claim that your right to something allows you to deprive others of their rights?

A right to own land is fundamental, and by purchasing land you become the rightful owner and are depriving others of the right to use the land you own.
Individual Rights are exactly that.....INDIVIDUAL.

This Collectivist Right Bullshit IS PURE EVIL. Just because one man has a right to obtain someone does not mean another man is deprived of that right. The Land owner is not depriving another citizen of Owning Land, just taking ownership of the land he owns. The Individual can still go out and Purchase his Own Land.

Collectivism is the most ASSININE philosophy that ever existed. Collectivist Rights mean this..... NO INDIVIDUAL HAS A RIGHT TO ANYTHING, therefore ALL ARE EQUALLY DEPRIVED of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

You don't deprive another individual of any rights by asserting your own. You are simply saying to that other individual, "If you want what I have, go out and earn it like I did"
And if you want to have MORE THAN WHAT I HAVE, you have the right to out work me, and out compete me for it.

COLLECTIVIST RIGHTS are for the lazy, unmotivated and morally corrupt. These types of societies almost always collapse under their own weight of trying to create artificial equality, and group rights where none really exists.

So...you are depriving no one else of their rights if you decide to:

assert your right to freedom of assembly by calling for a riot that destroys local business?
assert your right of free speech by inciting a lynch mob to attack another person?
assert your right to freedom of religion by conducting sexual orgies on another's private property?

 

[Edgetho]

So, quoting Rolling Stone, the RAG that printed the FAKE STORY about the UVA Gang Rape case is taken as an actual news source these days?

And you people wonder why you got the living SHIT kicked out of you....

 

[owebo]

So...you are depriving no one else of their rights if you decide to:

assert your right to freedom of assembly by calling for a riot that destroys local business?
assert your right of free speech by inciting a lynch mob to attack another person?
assert your right to freedom of religion by conducting sexual orgies on another's private property?

That is one HELL of a stretch.

Even for you

He also has no understanding of Liberty as he seems to be confusing it with freedom like most liberals do....

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Fascism is loosely defined as a form of extreme “authoritarian nationalism” identified with Italy’s Mussolini. It’s principle attributes were an aggressive nationalism, a militarized society, a populist charismatic leader and prolific promises to cure every political and economic ill. It was particularly appealing to an economically depressed post-war society that had seen its way of life and culture turned upside down. Fascism promised action, not diplomacy, not nuance, even if it could not in reality deliver on those promises.

Mussolini was the “anti-establishment outsider” who became the voice of all those disillusioned with the government, the democratic process, and the economy. His rhetoric attracted the unemployed, the economically disenfranchised, veterans, and nationalists. In 1922, when Italy’s king called on Mussolini to form a government he had no idea what that entailed other than fulfilling a personal ambition for power.

In 1938, fascism took on distinctly racist/anti-semitic overtones when it began to collaborate with the Nazi’s. Italy passed it’s “Italian Racial Laws”. These laws codified what had previously been a campaign conducted in the media with the publication of the “Manifesto of Race” Manifesto of Race - Wikipedia This manifesto declared Italians to be of a superior race, and targeted other races as “inferior” - notably Jews and immigrants from Italy’s colonies. They were banned from marrying Italians, and from positions in banking, education, government and their property was confiscated.

Fascism, extreme nationalism and ideas of racial, ethnic, cultural or religious superiority are closely entertwined. Almost every country that has seen a rise in populist movements, such as fascism, has also seen a rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, legislation targeting specific racial, ethnic or religious groups and a rise in “justified” violence or special restrictions aimed at those groups.

World War 2 saw increased nationalistic fervor after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. American citizens of Japanese were first required to register. Then, their assets were frozen. Then they were ordered to “assembly points” and interned. Their property was confiscated. American citizens of Italian and German descent joined them. Is it so impossible for people to conceive of the fact that American citizens regardless of their ancestry are Americans first? Apparently it is.

We want to say “that was then, this is now”. That today is somehow different. But is it?

Look at the rise of populist rightwing movements across Europe and with the recent election of Donald Trump.

Geert Wilders, recently in the news again and with a very real chance of winning a government now with a coalition. What is the platform for his Party for Freedom?

They include the predictable anti-immigrant/Islam rhetoric, including completely banning an entire religion, closing all mosques and banning the Koran, the withdrawal of all residence permits granted to asylum seekers, and some rather obscurely defined planks such as:

Ban of overall Muslim expressions that are against the public order (defined how?)
Preventive incarceration of radical Muslims (determined how?).​

They also include populist promisies that likely can't be delivered upon:

The Netherlands will reclaim its independence. Therefore, we leave the EU.
Direct democracy: binding referendums, citizens have the power.
Deductible/excess in healthcare insurance is eliminated
Rents to be lowered
No more money for foreign aid, windmills, art, innovation, public broadcasters, etc.
Plenty extra funds for defense and police
Lower income taxes
50% reduction for vehicle ownership taxes​

Donald Trump campaigned on deporting immigrants and halting immigration, registries for Muslims, border security, tax cuts, bringing jobs back and increased defense. Supporters don’t rule out internment camps and banning entire religions. Mussolini attacked the leftwing media and attempted to close them down, a few managed to continue to operate under difficult conditions. We've heard Trump rail about the media and we've heard him propose legislation against them and creating his own media service.

I think these are truly dangerous times for civil liberties and freedoms throughout the western world.

Wow......you could have simply stated...fascism is socialism...Trump is a capitalist...therefore he is not a fascist, and called it a day...

Capitalists pay taxes and their contractors. Trump is a plutocrat in a redneck red hat.

 

[owebo]

Fascism is loosely defined as a form of extreme “authoritarian nationalism” identified with Italy’s Mussolini. It’s principle attributes were an aggressive nationalism, a militarized society, a populist charismatic leader and prolific promises to cure every political and economic ill. It was particularly appealing to an economically depressed post-war society that had seen its way of life and culture turned upside down. Fascism promised action, not diplomacy, not nuance, even if it could not in reality deliver on those promises.

Mussolini was the “anti-establishment outsider” who became the voice of all those disillusioned with the government, the democratic process, and the economy. His rhetoric attracted the unemployed, the economically disenfranchised, veterans, and nationalists. In 1922, when Italy’s king called on Mussolini to form a government he had no idea what that entailed other than fulfilling a personal ambition for power.

In 1938, fascism took on distinctly racist/anti-semitic overtones when it began to collaborate with the Nazi’s. Italy passed it’s “Italian Racial Laws”. These laws codified what had previously been a campaign conducted in the media with the publication of the “Manifesto of Race” Manifesto of Race - Wikipedia This manifesto declared Italians to be of a superior race, and targeted other races as “inferior” - notably Jews and immigrants from Italy’s colonies. They were banned from marrying Italians, and from positions in banking, education, government and their property was confiscated.

Fascism, extreme nationalism and ideas of racial, ethnic, cultural or religious superiority are closely entertwined. Almost every country that has seen a rise in populist movements, such as fascism, has also seen a rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, legislation targeting specific racial, ethnic or religious groups and a rise in “justified” violence or special restrictions aimed at those groups.

World War 2 saw increased nationalistic fervor after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. American citizens of Japanese were first required to register. Then, their assets were frozen. Then they were ordered to “assembly points” and interned. Their property was confiscated. American citizens of Italian and German descent joined them. Is it so impossible for people to conceive of the fact that American citizens regardless of their ancestry are Americans first? Apparently it is.

We want to say “that was then, this is now”. That today is somehow different. But is it?

Look at the rise of populist rightwing movements across Europe and with the recent election of Donald Trump.

Geert Wilders, recently in the news again and with a very real chance of winning a government now with a coalition. What is the platform for his Party for Freedom?

They include the predictable anti-immigrant/Islam rhetoric, including completely banning an entire religion, closing all mosques and banning the Koran, the withdrawal of all residence permits granted to asylum seekers, and some rather obscurely defined planks such as:

Ban of overall Muslim expressions that are against the public order (defined how?)
Preventive incarceration of radical Muslims (determined how?).​

They also include populist promisies that likely can't be delivered upon:

The Netherlands will reclaim its independence. Therefore, we leave the EU.
Direct democracy: binding referendums, citizens have the power.
Deductible/excess in healthcare insurance is eliminated
Rents to be lowered
No more money for foreign aid, windmills, art, innovation, public broadcasters, etc.
Plenty extra funds for defense and police
Lower income taxes
50% reduction for vehicle ownership taxes​

Donald Trump campaigned on deporting immigrants and halting immigration, registries for Muslims, border security, tax cuts, bringing jobs back and increased defense. Supporters don’t rule out internment camps and banning entire religions. Mussolini attacked the leftwing media and attempted to close them down, a few managed to continue to operate under difficult conditions. We've heard Trump rail about the media and we've heard him propose legislation against them and creating his own media service.

I think these are truly dangerous times for civil liberties and freedoms throughout the western world.

Wow......you could have simply stated...fascism is socialism...Trump is a capitalist...therefore he is not a fascist, and called it a day...

Capitalists pay taxes and their contractors. Trump is a plutocrat in a redneck red hat.

I don't pay my contractors if they do shit work.....do you?

 

[Tilly]

It is the left who are the fascists. It is the left who champions islam - a fascist ideology. So, no, since Shrillary lost, fascism is no longer on the rise.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

Declarations of War confers special powers to the President, AUMFs do not. They are NOT the same. AUMFs are just more traditional now.

I don't know about all that.

There is no wording for a DecofWar.

An AUMF is no different than a DecofWar, AFAIK.

TN is correct. Those powers are conferred via the War Powers Act. The last time we declared war was 1941 and that sole power rests with congress.

 

[TNHarley]

Declarations of War confers special powers to the President, AUMFs do not. They are NOT the same. AUMFs are just more traditional now.

I don't know about all that.

There is no wording for a DecofWar.

An AUMF is no different than a DecofWar, AFAIK.

TN is correct. Those powers are conferred via the War Powers Act. The last time we declared war was 1941 and that sole power rests with congress.

1942 Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary

 

[WaitingFor2020]

So, quoting Rolling Stone, the RAG that printed the FAKE STORY about the UVA Gang Rape case is taken as an actual news source these days?

And you people wonder why you got the living SHIT kicked out of you....

R.S. has been in print since 1967, for 50 years, dumbass. And they retracted the story. But they have NEVER had to retract a political piece.
And once you open your eyes, you'll see you got the shit kicked out of you, too. You're just too stupid to see it yet.

 

[jc456]

Yes. I do.

Do try again and tell us......since you were clueless the first time....

Rights (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Stanford.....coupled with this...

"There are two leading philosophical approaches to explaining which fundamental rights of conduct there are,"

Tells me you still don't have a fucking clue......

So you're trying to claim that your right to something allows you to deprive others of their rights?

A right to own land is fundamental, and by purchasing land you become the rightful owner and are depriving others of access to use the land you own.
Individual Rights are exactly that.....INDIVIDUAL. It allows an individual to be successful materially, to pursue happiness as he sees fit by the sweat and ingenuity of his own brow.

This Collectivist Rights Bullshit IS PURE EVIL. Just because one man has a right to obtain something does not mean another man is deprived of that right.

The Land owner is not depriving another citizen of Owning Land, just taking ownership of the land he owns, legally and legally obtained. The Individual (butt hurt lazy lefty) can still go out and Purchase his Own Land.

Collectivism is the most ASININE philosophy that ever existed. Collectivist Rights mean this..... NO INDIVIDUAL HAS A RIGHT TO ANYTHING, therefore ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE EQUALLY DEPRIVED of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Only group rights and faux equality exists. Equivalent Poverty.

You don't deprive another individual of any rights by asserting your own. You are simply saying to that other individual, "If you want what I have, go out and earn it like I did"

And if you want to have MORE THAN WHAT I HAVE, you have the right to out work me, and out compete me for it.

COLLECTIVIST RIGHTS are for the lazy, unmotivated and morally corrupt. These types of societies almost always collapse under their own weight of trying to create artificial equality, income equality, climate justice, and group rights where none really exists.

WEALTH WITHOUT WORK is the biggest hoax the Left ever Invented.

This is why trump won! The middle class finally got tired of the group faux!

 

[Edgetho]

TN is correct. Those powers are conferred via the War Powers Act. The last time we declared war was 1941 and that sole power rests with congress.

So does an AUMF.

I'm right. And a LOT of Constituyional scholars agree with me.

There is no wording for a Declaration of War. Doesn't exist.

Congress can Declare War through an AUMF and they can call it whatever they want.... "We're in a pissy mood and want you to bomb the shit out of Iran AUMF"

Or, "We're declaring that a State of War exists between the United States and Canada because they don't take enough showers and make REALLY bad beer."

A Decof War can say anything Congress wants it to say.

It's called an AUMF. No such thing as a Declaration War.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

I watched several biographical/documentary series on Hitler recently, the early years when he was struggling to gain credibility and the numerous failures he had before von Hindenburg made him chancellor. His rallies were much like Trump's where he would only go where people already loved him. They were desperate people and he told them only he could fix their problems. Yup, these are very, very troublesome times, as Coyote said.

 

[Edgetho]

So, quoting Rolling Stone, the RAG that printed the FAKE STORY about the UVA Gang Rape case is taken as an actual news source these days?

And you people wonder why you got the living SHIT kicked out of you....

R.S. has been in print since 1967, for 50 years, dumbass. And they retracted the story. But they have NEVER had to retract a political piece.
And once you open your eyes, you'll see you got the shit kicked out of you, too. You're just too stupid to see it yet.

They also got sued -- And lost.

Jury awards $3 million in damages to U-Va. dean for Rolling Stone defamation

Most of the people the RAG libels don't have the means to sue them. The University did,

Rolling Stone is one of the biggest purveyors of Fake News on the Planet.

 

[TNHarley]

TN is correct. Those powers are conferred via the War Powers Act. The last time we declared war was 1941 and that sole power rests with congress.

So does an AUMF.

I'm right. And a LOT of Constituyional scholars agree with me.

There is no wording for a Declaration of War. Doesn't exist.

Congress can Declare War through an AUMF and they can call it whatever they want.... "We're in a pissy mood and want you to bomb the shit out of Iran AUMF"

Or, "We're declaring that a State of War exists between the United States and Canada because they don't take enough showers and make REALLY bad beer."

A Decof War can say anything Congress wants it to say.

It's called an AUMF. No such thing as a Declaration War.

No such thing as a DoW?
Again, they are NOT the same. I honestly have never heard this argument and I think I know why..
Here, man. Read up.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31133.pdf

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

Declarations of War confers special powers to the President, AUMFs do not. They are NOT the same. AUMFs are just more traditional now.

I don't know about all that.

There is no wording for a DecofWar.

An AUMF is no different than a DecofWar, AFAIK.

TN is correct. Those powers are conferred via the War Powers Act. The last time we declared war was 1941 and that sole power rests with congress.

1942 Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary

A bit more detail:

War Powers

 

[jc456]

I watched several biographical/documentary series on Hitler recently, the early years when he was struggling to gain credibility and the numerous failures he had before von Hindenburg made him chancellor. His rallies were much like Trump's where he would only go where people already loved him. They were desperate people and he told them only he could fix their problems. Yup, these are very, very troublesome times, as Coyote said.

Too funny!

 

[Edgetho]

TN is correct. Those powers are conferred via the War Powers Act. The last time we declared war was 1941 and that sole power rests with congress.

So does an AUMF.

I'm right. And a LOT of Constituyional scholars agree with me.

There is no wording for a Declaration of War. Doesn't exist.

Congress can Declare War through an AUMF and they can call it whatever they want.... "We're in a pissy mood and want you to bomb the shit out of Iran AUMF"

Or, "We're declaring that a State of War exists between the United States and Canada because they don't take enough showers and make REALLY bad beer."

A Decof War can say anything Congress wants it to say.

It's called an AUMF. No such thing as a Declaration War.

No such thing as a DoW?
Again, they are NOT the same. I honestly have never heard this argument and I think I know why..
Here, man. Read up.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl31133.pdf

Main article: Declaration of war by the United States
In the United States, Congress, which makes the rules for the military, has the power under the constitution to "declare war". However neither the U.S. Constitution nor the law stipulate what format a declaration of war must take. War declarations have the force of law and are intended to be executed by the President as "commander in chief" of the armed forces. The last time Congress passed joint resolutions saying that a "state of war" existed was on 5 June 1942, when the U.S. declared war on Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania.[48]Since then, the U.S. has used the term "authorization to use military force", as in the case against Iraq in 2003.

Sometimes decisions for military engagements were made by US presidents, without formal approval by Congress, based on UN Security Council resolutions that do not expressly declare the UN or its members to be at war. Part of the justification for the United States invasion of Panama was to capture Manuel Noriega (as a prisoner of war)[49] because he was declared a criminal rather than a belligerent.[citation needed]

In response to the attacks on 11 September 2001, the United States Congress passed the joint resolution Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists on 14 September 2001, which authorized the US President to fight the War on Terror.[50]

 

[WaitingFor2020]

So, quoting Rolling Stone, the RAG that printed the FAKE STORY about the UVA Gang Rape case is taken as an actual news source these days?

And you people wonder why you got the living SHIT kicked out of you....

R.S. has been in print since 1967, for 50 years, dumbass. And they retracted the story. But they have NEVER had to retract a political piece.
And once you open your eyes, you'll see you got the shit kicked out of you, too. You're just too stupid to see it yet.

They also got sued -- And lost.

Jury awards $3 million in damages to U-Va. dean for Rolling Stone defamation

Most of the people the RAG libels don't have the means to sue them. The University did,

Rolling Stone is one of the biggest purveyors of Fake News on the Planet.

That's bullshit, you've never picked up a copy. The reason Breitbart, WND, The Blaze, et al. haven't been sued for their fake shit is because the laws are different for online publishers. You can put virtually any lie online with impunity. Just ask General Flynn and his sorry-assed son. Just ask Steve Bannon....You know, Trump's ADVISERS, dumbass.