Jump to content

Because Trump 2.0


Mr King

Recommended Posts

"...Why this has never been explored in the US, I do not know. I guess it flies in the face of the usual perception that Socialism is synonymous with atheism. Which at least as far as Britain is concerned, is wildly off base..."

 

Stuart, I can sense your and our other European members frustration of the American use of the noun Socialism and the European one. In today's American English. Socialism and Communism are two nouns that for all practical purposes mean the same thing to the average American voter, especially the conservative ones. One has to mentally keep an open mind when using European vs American thoughts on the meaning of these words. I am guessing, but I would presume even these nouns have different meanings in the U.K. vs other European countries, but perhaps not as drastic as they do in the U.S.?

This does not change the truth of the article, that as many on the Grate Site have pointed out, that as seen in the U.S., these two ideologically syphilitic offspring of the disease liberalism means absolute power over others, not benevolence,

In the U.S. liberalism is obviously the villain when compared to the Ten Commandments #1, #8, and #10. Liberalism is the occupier of the intellectually immature mind and the lazy soul, fact born out by far to many in academia and the media. By whatever name one wishes to give to this horror; liberalism/socialism/communism is all about demonic power over others, the antithesis of financial, mental, and spiritually freedom. Hence every day I am thankful Trump is President and not Clinton!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Stuart Galbraith

    2809

  • rmgill

    2506

  • DKTanker

    1814

  • Josh

    1672

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Yes, but on this one, the US has this belief Socialism and Communism are the same thing. This is demonstrably wrong. The earliest Communism can be said to have existed was 1848, when Marx published the Communist manifesto. In Britain, where Marx was writing, we had socialist groups since the 1820's. At the very least 1830's, when the Tolpuddle Martyrs were deported to Australia for trying to form their own trade union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolpuddle_Martyrs

The Chartists whom touched on similar territory also arose in the 1830's. So to my mind looks as if what is Socialism is actually a British variant on what is French teachings from the French revolution.

 

I accept terms in the US are different. But this conflation perhaps ought to be seen through the eyes of American industrialists whom would want to conflate the two, perhaps for strike breaking purposes. it was also pretty useful to depict socialists as being atheists, because that clearly keys into the American belief that as America is based on the right of freedom of religion, a group that is irreligious is inherently unAmerican. Fair enough, but as you can see, there WERE Christian socialist groups. In fact I know there was at least one Bishop in the Church of England (I forget his time) that said in his opinion Jesus was a Socialist. Which is taking an argument way too far in my opinion, but it does illustrate that the argument Americans have been using about what is Socialism and what is Communism is way too simplistic.

 

Its not just about words, its about dates. It simply doesnt add up that Marx invented Socialism, because in his works he is already refering to preexisting Socialists, whom he criticises in the Communist manifesto. Therefore, they ARE different.

https://www.booksontrial.com/marx-engels-reactionary-utopian-socialism/

 

 

I could also argue the use of the word 'liberal' in the US is somewhat confusing. Here it means what are essentially the Whigs, whom were for abolition of slavery, something of a contrast to that in the US where Democrats were one of the leading supporters of slavery. Here they were also in favour of Political reform. Im not detecting either of the main parties in the US are greatly enthused by that thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whigs_(British_political_party)

 

Maybe this sounds overly pedantic, but if one must paint with broad brushes, its not out of line to point out where the paint misses the cracks. Politics is just not as simple as you are citing here, not even I suspect in the US where it seems people want to reduce things to the lowest possible denominator.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this isn't just ignorance on the Americans' end. It's also a result of the openly communicated Communist agenda that considered Socialism as an importing stepping stone towards the (elusive) end goal of "true" communism. And since their socialism didn't work, they called it the "socialism-in-practice" (vs the "socialism in theory", probably with Yogi Berra's aphorism in mind that that in theory the difference between theory and practice is smaller than in practice).

 

So if someone proposes "socialism" you are inevitably left wondering if his ulterior motive is "communism, no matter the cost (in others' lives)", or effectively just a social democrat's idea of a liberal democracy with free but relatively strongly regulated markets. In any case it's at odds with the ideal of libertarians and some conservatives of a "lean state" that is best kept small because "government can't manage". And indeed, the only justification for a strong state seems to be that it actually lives up to the promise of getting shit done - be it maintaining a good infrastructure, providing safety to its citizens - from violence, both dometic and foreign, and from threats to prosperity (the main justification for unified healthcare and pension systems).

It doesn't help when someone like Bernie Sanders calls himself "socialist" when his program appears to be mostly social democratic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"government can't manage"

 

 

I have seen dumb waste in big firms first hand. Really no difference between state administrations and corporate administrations wasting their budgets.

 

 

It doesn't help when someone like Bernie Sanders calls himself "socialist" when his program appears to be mostly social democratic.

 

 

Well social democracy is considered a subtype of socialism, isn't it?

Edited by Panzermann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/article237364239.html

 

 

“The bottom line is that North Carolina, like Kansas before it, has shown that cutting taxes does not have much, if any, positive impact on job creation,” Mazerov said.

What drives state economies, he said, is state spending on education, transportation and amenities such as parks.

Mazerov said, “States are shooting themselves in the foot when they cut taxes and cut back on investments in these crucial building blocks of the state economy.”

 

Once again trickle down voodoo economics failed.

 

The Republicans keep insisting voodoo economics work, claiming a boom after every major tax cut.

That's not meeting the definition of insanity, that's outright lying and pursuit of plutocracy. They're ripping 90% of the nation off in pursuit of the interests of 1%, and they fool roughly a third of the people into supporting them with lies, fearmongering and hatemongering.

From the truth of the history of socialism

https://catholicinsight.com/dancing-on-pinnochios-grave-the-ten-lies-of-socialism

 

 

 

Dude, facts can't be countered by propaganda pamphlets.

Knowing this, I graciously accept your surrender on the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/20/gordon-sondland-impeachment-testimony-071708

 

Now before anyone replays the typical character assassination smear attacks:

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJ01gEVWwAImGNd.jpg:large

 

This is but one example of how the right wing propaganda's decision whether to smear or not to smear is not about the target or its deeds, but its allegiance.

Nowadays it's not about its allegiance to the party, but to the dear leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find LDs comparison of trump to the dear leader amusing considering it was a pet name people here for Obama. But while his post are exceedingly partisan even by my standards and unnecessarily rude and personal, he has a point: if there ever was a cult of personality that demanded absolute loyalty on a level of bestest Korea, its Trump not Obama. All dissent will be ruthlessly primaried and ridiculed in conservative media until those still standing show the proper fealty. Obama could never have dreamed of that level of party and media support; left wing media and all. People who break with trump insight the ire of the entire conservative machine and Romney is about the sole significant survivor due to his unique placement in a Mormon stronghold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this sounds overly pedantic, but if one must paint with broad brushes, its not out of line to point out where the paint misses the cracks. Politics is just not as simple as you are citing here, not even I suspect in the US where it seems people want to reduce things to the lowest possible denominator.

 

Polarization has a tendency to reduce itself down to lowest denominators, unfortunately. 1990: Japan evil. 2020: Japan good. 2050: ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit to buying that koolaide, but in my defense, I didn't graduate highschool until 1994. I think part of my cold war mind was just looking for someone to fear after growing up with Rocky V and the Wolverines...I think I just assumed I was going to die and I kinda needed someone to fear since I grew up with it. In retrospect Japan was never a threat economically in the late 80's/90's for exactly the same reasons it wasn't in the early 40's. But tell a kid who grew up with SS-18s that everything is fine. I kinda feel like the US could have occupied the world and I still wouldn't have felt safe for a while until I decompressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I confess stopped reading when I hit the usual speedblocks when talking about Socialism in the US, IE the Soviet Union, international communism that kind of thing. Yes, they came from a common origin, but Socialism is not, and is distinctly different from, Communism. By way of example, I recall reading in Taubmans book on Khrushchev, that when he want to an automobile plant in the US, he has his ass kicked in a debate by a union worker (presumably a Democrat) who asked him what the hell kind of right did he have to speak for all the worlds working class. Khrushchev was still fuming about it a decade later.

 

If you want to look at the rise of Socialism in the Anglo Saxon world (and yes, which clearly had an impact on Marx's writings, though English Socialists, who existed before Marx, apparently couldn't stand him) then you probably want to look through the wiki entry on rise of Socialism in the United Kingdom. The tickboxes for its formation were philanthropy (which I guess makes Bill Gates a Socialist), workers groups to support families of killed miners, and Christianity, most notably the Methodist movement.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

 

Christian socialism

The rise of Non-Conformist religions, in particular Methodism, played a large role in the development of trade unions and of British socialism. The influence of the radical chapels was strongly felt among some industrial workers, especially miners and those in the north of England and Wales.

The first group calling itself Christian Socialists formed in 1848 under the leadership of Frederick Denison Maurice. Its membership mainly consisted of Chartists (see below). The group became dormant after only six years, but there was a considerable revival of Christian socialism in the 1880s, and a number of groups sprang up. Ultimately, Christian socialists dominated the leadership of the Independent Labour Party, including James Keir Hardie.

 

Why this has never been explored in the US, I do not know. I guess it flies in the face of the usual perception that Socialism is synonymous with atheism. Which at least as far as Britain is concerned, is wildly off base.

 

 

Which also partly explains why the Welsh have been so prominent in the British Labour Party. The same skills that made a great orator to a Welsh Methodist preacher, are the same skills that made great orators in Parliament or elsewhere.

"The English and the Americans are two peoples divided by a common language." A quote I heard somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit to buying that koolaide, but in my defense, I didn't graduate highschool until 1994. I think part of my cold war mind was just looking for someone to fear after growing up with Rocky V and the Wolverines...I think I just assumed I was going to die and I kinda needed someone to fear since I grew up with it. In retrospect Japan was never a threat economically in the late 80's/90's for exactly the same reasons it wasn't in the early 40's. But tell a kid who grew up with SS-18s that everything is fine. I kinda feel like the US could have occupied the world and I still wouldn't have felt safe for a while until I decompressed.

 

Everyone was looking for a new threat after the cold war ended, so I cant fault you for that. For me, it was already the middle east. My father worked on a USAF base in the UK, and the Americans there in 1989 were openly saying 'Well the next threat is the middle east'. To a large extent they were looking for a justification for all the military equipment they had assembled, but they were still right. Far sooner than they thought.

 

I couldn't see what Japan would gain from becoming Neo Imperialist. They already had the world by the balls through the product they exported. I couldn't see what else they had to gain by invading anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I confess stopped reading when I hit the usual speedblocks when talking about Socialism in the US, IE the Soviet Union, international communism that kind of thing. Yes, they came from a common origin, but Socialism is not, and is distinctly different from, Communism. By way of example, I recall reading in Taubmans book on Khrushchev, that when he want to an automobile plant in the US, he has his ass kicked in a debate by a union worker (presumably a Democrat) who asked him what the hell kind of right did he have to speak for all the worlds working class. Khrushchev was still fuming about it a decade later.

 

If you want to look at the rise of Socialism in the Anglo Saxon world (and yes, which clearly had an impact on Marx's writings, though English Socialists, who existed before Marx, apparently couldn't stand him) then you probably want to look through the wiki entry on rise of Socialism in the United Kingdom. The tickboxes for its formation were philanthropy (which I guess makes Bill Gates a Socialist), workers groups to support families of killed miners, and Christianity, most notably the Methodist movement.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

 

Christian socialism

The rise of Non-Conformist religions, in particular Methodism, played a large role in the development of trade unions and of British socialism. The influence of the radical chapels was strongly felt among some industrial workers, especially miners and those in the north of England and Wales.

The first group calling itself Christian Socialists formed in 1848 under the leadership of Frederick Denison Maurice. Its membership mainly consisted of Chartists (see below). The group became dormant after only six years, but there was a considerable revival of Christian socialism in the 1880s, and a number of groups sprang up. Ultimately, Christian socialists dominated the leadership of the Independent Labour Party, including James Keir Hardie.

 

Why this has never been explored in the US, I do not know. I guess it flies in the face of the usual perception that Socialism is synonymous with atheism. Which at least as far as Britain is concerned, is wildly off base.

 

 

Which also partly explains why the Welsh have been so prominent in the British Labour Party. The same skills that made a great orator to a Welsh Methodist preacher, are the same skills that made great orators in Parliament or elsewhere.

"The English and the Americans are two peoples divided by a common language." A quote I heard somewhere.

 

 

Well thats true. But Im of a mind, if you mean a Communist, one should say a Communist. Saying Socialist is just a means of confusing the debate, particularly among Europeans.

 

No disrespect intended Rick btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this isn't just ignorance on the Americans' end. It's also a result of the openly communicated Communist agenda that considered Socialism as an importing stepping stone towards the (elusive) end goal of "true" communism. And since their socialism didn't work, they called it the "socialism-in-practice" (vs the "socialism in theory", probably with Yogi Berra's aphorism in mind that that in theory the difference between theory and practice is smaller than in practice).

 

So if someone proposes "socialism" you are inevitably left wondering if his ulterior motive is "communism, no matter the cost (in others' lives)", or effectively just a social democrat's idea of a liberal democracy with free but relatively strongly regulated markets. In any case it's at odds with the ideal of libertarians and some conservatives of a "lean state" that is best kept small because "government can't manage". And indeed, the only justification for a strong state seems to be that it actually lives up to the promise of getting shit done - be it maintaining a good infrastructure, providing safety to its citizens - from violence, both dometic and foreign, and from threats to prosperity (the main justification for unified healthcare and pension systems).

It doesn't help when someone like Bernie Sanders calls himself "socialist" when his program appears to be mostly social democratic.

Only on this Grate Site can I get a former New York Yankee baseball catcher quote that I have not heard of before from a German Well played sir! But, sadly, I will break with Tank Net tradition and remain on topic Words mean things, just different things to different people. An American will see Liberalism as one shade of red; a lighter shade may be Socialism and the darker one Communism, but it's all red and leave it at that. A European may call it this simplistic, an American would call it pragmatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I confess stopped reading when I hit the usual speedblocks when talking about Socialism in the US, IE the Soviet Union, international communism that kind of thing. Yes, they came from a common origin, but Socialism is not, and is distinctly different from, Communism. By way of example, I recall reading in Taubmans book on Khrushchev, that when he want to an automobile plant in the US, he has his ass kicked in a debate by a union worker (presumably a Democrat) who asked him what the hell kind of right did he have to speak for all the worlds working class. Khrushchev was still fuming about it a decade later.

 

If you want to look at the rise of Socialism in the Anglo Saxon world (and yes, which clearly had an impact on Marx's writings, though English Socialists, who existed before Marx, apparently couldn't stand him) then you probably want to look through the wiki entry on rise of Socialism in the United Kingdom. The tickboxes for its formation were philanthropy (which I guess makes Bill Gates a Socialist), workers groups to support families of killed miners, and Christianity, most notably the Methodist movement.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

 

Christian socialism

The rise of Non-Conformist religions, in particular Methodism, played a large role in the development of trade unions and of British socialism. The influence of the radical chapels was strongly felt among some industrial workers, especially miners and those in the north of England and Wales.

The first group calling itself Christian Socialists formed in 1848 under the leadership of Frederick Denison Maurice. Its membership mainly consisted of Chartists (see below). The group became dormant after only six years, but there was a considerable revival of Christian socialism in the 1880s, and a number of groups sprang up. Ultimately, Christian socialists dominated the leadership of the Independent Labour Party, including James Keir Hardie.

 

Why this has never been explored in the US, I do not know. I guess it flies in the face of the usual perception that Socialism is synonymous with atheism. Which at least as far as Britain is concerned, is wildly off base.

 

 

Which also partly explains why the Welsh have been so prominent in the British Labour Party. The same skills that made a great orator to a Welsh Methodist preacher, are the same skills that made great orators in Parliament or elsewhere.

"The English and the Americans are two peoples divided by a common language." A quote I heard somewhere.

 

 

Well thats true. But Im of a mind, if you mean a Communist, one should say a Communist. Saying Socialist is just a means of confusing the debate, particularly among Europeans.

 

No disrespect intended Rick btw.

 

Absolutely no disrespect assumed from your end Stuart. I enjoy your posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/article237364239.html

 

 

“The bottom line is that North Carolina, like Kansas before it, has shown that cutting taxes does not have much, if any, positive impact on job creation,” Mazerov said.

What drives state economies, he said, is state spending on education, transportation and amenities such as parks.

Mazerov said, “States are shooting themselves in the foot when they cut taxes and cut back on investments in these crucial building blocks of the state economy.”

 

Once again trickle down voodoo economics failed.

 

The Republicans keep insisting voodoo economics work, claiming a boom after every major tax cut.

That's not meeting the definition of insanity, that's outright lying and pursuit of plutocracy. They're ripping 90% of the nation off in pursuit of the interests of 1%, and they fool roughly a third of the people into supporting them with lies, fearmongering and hatemongering.

From the truth of the history of socialism

https://catholicinsight.com/dancing-on-pinnochios-grave-the-ten-lies-of-socialism

 

 

 

Dude, facts can't be countered by propaganda pamphlets.

Knowing this, I graciously accept your surrender on the issue.

 

Every day I am thankful that Trump is President and Clinton is not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find LDs comparison of trump to the dear leader amusing considering it was a pet name people here for Obama. But while his post are exceedingly partisan even by my standards and unnecessarily rude and personal, he has a point: if there ever was a cult of personality that demanded absolute loyalty on a level of bestest Korea, its Trump not Obama. All dissent will be ruthlessly primaried and ridiculed in conservative media until those still standing show the proper fealty. Obama could never have dreamed of that level of party and media support; left wing media and all. People who break with trump insight the ire of the entire conservative machine and Romney is about the sole significant survivor due to his unique placement in a Mormon stronghold.

Do you live in the U.S.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2103908/4-twitter-lot-say-donald-trumps-strange-hand-written-notes/

In the midst of the impeachment hearings, US President Donald Trump took a moment to speak with the press. But it wasn’t his words that created waves on social media this time, rather his strange hand written notes that was captured by photographers from a variety of outlets.

In marker-drawn capital letters, the quirky leader wrote, “I WANT NOTHING. I WANT NOTHING. I WANT NO QUID PRO QUO. TELL ZELLINSKY [sic] DO THE RIGHT THING. THIS IS THE FINAL WORD FROM THE U.S,” reported InStyle.

Naturally, social media had a field day with Trump’s mysterious notes. “The mental image of Donald Trump scribbling “I WANT NOTHING / I WANT NOTHING” in huge letters on a sheet of paper with a Sharpie so that he won’t forget to say “I want nothing” 45 seconds later to a gaggle of reporters is just the most dismal and embarrassing thing and I hate it,” one Twitter user ranted.

Another took humour out of the perplexing situation by making a story how Trump could’ve possibly thought to write such strange things on his notepad.

 

” Trump aide: Tell them you want nothing. Trump: I want something? Aide: No, you want nothing. Tell them you want nothing. Trump: Wait, what should I say? Aide: Say, “I want nothing.” Trump: I want what again? Aide: Never mind, I’ll write it down for you, sir.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was quoting the words Gordon Sondland testified Trump had said to him on the phone (except I believe for that bit at the end about the final word).

 

--

Soren

Well, he WAS there. You would think he would probably know what he said without having to remind himself.

 

I suddenly had a vision of Winston Churchill in 1940 writing down on a flip pad in big black marker 'Mention Beaches. Fighting on them. Blood and tears. Blood sweat and tears. This is the last word from the English.'

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was quoting the words Gordon Sondland testified Trump had said to him on the phone (except I believe for that bit at the end about the final word).

 

--

Soren

The US media, and I presume much of their counterparts round the world, are refusing to report the testimony during which Sondland related the conversation he'd had with Trump.

 

All aboard the Schiffshow Railroad Express.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

He was quoting the words Gordon Sondland testified Trump had said to him on the phone (except I believe for that bit at the end about the final word).

 

--

Soren

Well, he WAS there. You would think he would probably know what he said without having to remind himself.

 

I suddenly had a vision of Winston Churchill in 1940 writing down on a flip pad in big black marker 'Mention Beaches. Fighting on them. Blood and tears. Blood sweat and tears. This is the last word from the English.'

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...