The GOP Has Been HIJACKED!

[Kinser79]

(05-23-2016, 06:25 AM)Mikebert Wrote:

Kinser79 Wrote:Because I've changed my mind I can say that it would be a good thing.....Trump may be bad for the country...but Hillary is infinitely worse:  We know her, she's been in DC since 1992 at least...I'll take my chances with him.

When you were a Marxist the statements you made about Marxism comported with what I knew about Marxism leading me to believe you knew your shit.  You supported Trump then, which was completely consistent with historical Marxists who tended to oppose liberals/progressives who sought to ameliorate the lives of workers while preserving the capitalist economic structure since this would delay the revolution.  I did not agree with your pov, but I could acknowledged that you generally stuck to facts and mostly argued from logic, meaning your input was worth reading.

You have made no secret of your visceral hatred for Clinton and if you just said you were for Trump because you hate her, that would make sense.  Again I would not agree with your position, but I could respect that this was the way you felt.

Mike let me make this as concise as possible since I think going into detail will probably melt your brain. I mean you're using Buzzfeed as a source--that is only slightly better than using Vice or Salon, in short you're quoting a regressive left rag.

As a Marxist I viewed Trump as potentially not improving through welfare state-ism--not that welfare state-ism can improve the lot of working people. As such supporting Trump on those grounds is consistent with Marxist-Leninist tactics.

As someone whose been personally involved in politics since 1992, and a Marxist for most of that time yes, I do hate HRC. I've been very consistent on hating her. I hate everything about her. I would vote for Hitler if she ran against him. This too is consistent.

Finally, as someone who is opposed to the Neo-Con agenda, and having been opposed to that agenda both as a Marxist and now. As such since the Neo-Cons are supporting HRC but do not support Trump it should be clearly consistent that the person the Neo-Cons don't like are not likely to implement their agenda.

Quote:Instead you are making a full-throated endorsement of Trump.  In doing so you now do not stick to facts and instead spout known falsehoods like Trump was against the Libya War:

Donald Trump Wrote:“Now we should go in, we should stop this guy, which would be very easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it, and save these lives. This is absolutely nuts.

And statements like Trump opposed the Iraq war are also not really truthful:
Donald Trump on the Howard Stern show said: Are you for invading Iraq?” Howard Stern asked him, and Trump answered, “Yeah, I guess so.

Now you could preface both of these statements with Donald Trump says, and then the question of whether the speaker is lying or not rests on Mr. Trump, but when you repeat his statements without that qualifier then it is you who lying. This displays a kind of poor judgment I have not seen previously in your postings, leading me to conclude that your support is emotional and comes entirely from your animus towards Mrs. Clinton.

I'm sorry but I don't consider what anyone says on Howard Stern to be credible or worth contemplating over much. Seriously the show while funny is mainly vulgarity. It would be like making up a political decision on the basis of a SNL skit. Not the action of intelligent persons.

Now let us just suppose for a second that Trump did support action in Libya before but opposes it now cause "it didn't work and now we got terrorists all over the place". Which is basically what he said in the video provided by Buzzfeed, I'm only trusting them as far as I trust CNN because I watched that Debate and still have it on my DVR. In that clip Trump is very clear. He did not discuss taking up actions in Libya, but now that Libya has happened we have terrorists all over the place and we were better off with Qaddafi in place because while he was running Libya he was killing terrorists.

You can try to twist that into a logic pretzel all you want. But if the man says he is against taking action in Libya now even if he was for it before shows that he managed to see the cause and effect of involvement in the Middle East by US/NATO results in more Terrorists. This clearly demonstrates that the man can see that if X is a mistake then one shouldn't do X again.

HRC meanwhile wants to double down on that X, maybe even have exponentials of X in the theory that if we keep doing those things that don't work eventually they will work. I don't know about you but I consider it insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.