Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[David Horn]

(01-20-2019, 12:07 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: What interest to do you think or believe that you have in all the machinery and profits associated with my business or anyone else's business? The blues are sure making a lot of important business decisions for local business owners/ local employers that are located in their urban areas these days. I mean, allowing people to work thirty hours of work for forty hours of pay is an important business decision for blues to be making for its business owners these days. I mean, doubling or tripling wages of their employees is another important business decision that blues have made for its business owners as well. I'm not sure how long they'll be able to afford doing business that way or how long they'll opt to remain in business or how long people will be able to afford to do business with them with the blues making important business decisions that increases the cost/price associated with the consumers/customers these days. I can see why stuff could get really  screwed up/messed up in some blue urban areas and some blue states within a decade or so.

You are complaining about the response to past afflictions.  It's been 45 years since the economy has shared its bounty with all.  Finally, the ability to pull that off forever has been challenged, and the current winners are livid.  Sorry, but you, among many others, benefitted from a paternalistic government, subservient to money first and foremost.  For all of that, you benefitted very little, because the big gains went to capital ... as always.  If there is no corrective, then the economy will devolve into a 21st century version of Feudalism.  That's nuts by any measure.  Oh yeah, the proof:

Classic-Xer Wrote:We aren't socialist/fascist yet and I don't see a large portion of America converting/submitting  to socialists, Communists or fascists without violence and significant amount of casualties and all kinds of pain and suffering being felt by millions upon millions of people. Blue America on the other hand seems to be getting pretty close to becoming one or the other or a lethal combination of all of them. Honestly, I don't know who is what these days. The fascist seemed to follow or subscribe to the same basic left wing ideological belief as the blues these days. I guess that's an issue for blues to sort out and determine among themselves.

We are moving toward socialism because capitalism couldn't control its own lusts.  Capital has always taken somewhat more than its share, but, starting in 1973, capital took most if not all of it.  Since 1970, productivity has more than doubled.  Wages?  They're flat.  This has been covered up by bluster, from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, and by "generous" credit.  Mr. Working Stiff may have been fooled for a long time, but, as Abe Lincoln said, you can't fool them all forever.  Trump's mistake was assuming that he could play on the fears of the very people who've been screwed while stealing even more.  Here's a hint: people noticed and they're pissed.

[pbrower2a]

(01-20-2019, 12:07 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [quote pid='41009' dateline='1547950167']


What interest to do you (Eric the Green) think or believe that you have in all the machinery and profits associated with my business or anyone else's business? The blues are sure making a lot of important business decisions for local business owners/ local employers that are located in their urban areas these days. I mean, allowing people to work thirty hours of work for forty hours of pay is an important business decision for blues to be making for its business owners these days. I mean, doubling or tripling wages of their employees is another important business decision that blues have made for its business owners as well. I'm not sure how long they'll be able to afford doing business that way or how long they'll opt to remain in business or how long people will be able to afford to do business with them with the blues making important business decisions that increases the cost/price associated with the consumers/customers these days. I can see why stuff could get really  screwed up/messed up in some blue urban areas and some blue states within a decade or so.

The productivity of 1900 required that multitudes work 60-70 hour weeks just to meet the productive needs of the most technologically-advanced countries. The productivity of the 1930s had reduced the need for so many hours of work to meet such needs. The Great Depression in part reflects the reduction in the need for labor -- and wise political leaders in the democracies chose to make the 40-hour workweek the norm. Countries like Britain, America, and France turned what would have been unemployment into leisure. Contrast Nazi Germany, a worker's nightmare, where hours of employment increased -- for building show projects and of course the war machine dedicated to the enslavement of millions while German industrial workers even lost the freedom to change jobs without the permission of their employers (which is serfdom in the modern world).

We may need to go to the 30-hour workweek and encourage people to make appropriate adjustments -- with higher pay for the hours that they work.

Quote:We aren't socialist/fascist yet and I don't see a large portion of America converting/submitting  to socialists, Communists or fascists without violence and significant amount of casualties and all kinds of pain and suffering being felt by millions upon millions of people. Blue America on the other hand seems to be getting pretty close to becoming one or the other or a lethal combination of all of them. Honestly, I don't know who is what these days. The fascist seemed to follow or subscribe to the same basic left wing ideological belief as the blues these days. I guess that's an issue for blues to sort out and determine among themselves.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'socialism'. Do you mean the Soviet nightmare  with a centrally-planned economy that always fares worse than capitalism?  Do you mean "democratic socialism", which means that the government owns stuff but is responsible to the people through the political process? People capable of making their own solutions through a political process might as well be small-scale capitalists. Social democracy? That requires a strong capitalist economy, so that isn't really socialism.

Fascist? Trump encompasses all of the 14 warning signs of fascism according to Laurence Britt, and all fourteen ways of looking at fascism according to the late Umberto Eco. Either way one sees it, fascism is political pathology entirely to be avoided.

Quote:I bet Hitler and his crony's ate well as their utopian world was coming apart at the seams and crumbling down all around them. Does Nancy have a clue as to how powerful  and resilient and determined  the real  American people are during real crisis's and major wars that matter as far as American survival goes. Your Millie's ain't quite up par with the old GI's. Of coarse, the old GI's didn't really have a choice to vote themselves out of a war or obtain a college deferment to avoid being drafted and being sent to fight a war or the right to vote themselves out of college debt or the right vote themselves out of foreclosure or the right to vote for a free college degree or the right to vote to receive  free healthcare or the right to drink at 18 or the right to smoke pot or the right to vote for a guaranteed job that pays a middle income wage. Yes, I have a pretty good idea of  what blues are about and a pretty good idea of what kind of government that the blues will need to elect  and a pretty good idea of how the utopian blue world will eventually end up as well. I say thanks for the offer but I'm not interested in becoming a blue.[/quote}

[/quote]
Eating well? That is the norm for the middle  class and much of the working class. Some Americans endure food insecurity, but such reflects the extreme disparity of economic result in America as the result of economic choices of our right-wingers.  Let us remember that the GIs saw a government uniformly sympathetic to their economic interests  while Millennial adults saw such only for a couple of years in 2009 and 2010. The economic elites who believe that the common man has a duty to compete to show who can suffer most for those elites in a contest to decide who deserves survival have had continuing influence in American political life through the 4T. Their dream is of German productivity on African wages. Those elites believe in a managed economy with themselves as the managers deciding who wins and who fails. I have heard such called 'socialism for the rich'.
But here is how you could benefit from America becoming more 'blue' in its politics: you are in the Twin Cities area, where air conditioning isn't quite a necessity as it is in Kansas City. Air conditioning is not quite a necessity for housing in places like Grand Rapids or Lansing -- yet. It can make life more pleasant, at least on those sultry days of midsummer when the temperature and humidity both soar. If income is more evenly distributed, more people would get air conditioning, and you would have more business.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-20-2019, 03:07 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-20-2019, 12:07 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: What interest to do you think or believe that you have in all the machinery and profits associated with my business or anyone else's business? The blues are sure making a lot of important business decisions for local business owners/ local employers that are located in their urban areas these days. I mean, allowing people to work thirty hours of work for forty hours of pay is an important business decision for blues to be making for its business owners these days. I mean, doubling or tripling wages of their employees is another important business decision that blues have made for its business owners as well. I'm not sure how long they'll be able to afford doing business that way or how long they'll opt to remain in business or how long people will be able to afford to do business with them with the blues making important business decisions that increases the cost/price associated with the consumers/customers these days. I can see why stuff could get really  screwed up/messed up in some blue urban areas and some blue states within a decade or so.

You are complaining about the response to past afflictions.  It's been 45 years since the economy has shared its bounty with all.  Finally, the ability to pull that off forever has been challenged, and the current winners are livid.  Sorry, but you, among many others, benefitted from a paternalistic government, subservient to money first and foremost.  For all of that, you benefitted very little, because the big gains went to capital ... as always.  If there is no corrective, then the economy will devolve into a 21st century version of Feudalism.  That's nuts by any measure.  Oh yeah, the proof:

Classic-Xer Wrote:We aren't socialist/fascist yet and I don't see a large portion of America converting/submitting  to socialists, Communists or fascists without violence and significant amount of casualties and all kinds of pain and suffering being felt by millions upon millions of people. Blue America on the other hand seems to be getting pretty close to becoming one or the other or a lethal combination of all of them. Honestly, I don't know who is what these days. The fascist seemed to follow or subscribe to the same basic left wing ideological belief as the blues these days. I guess that's an issue for blues to sort out and determine among themselves.

We are moving toward socialism because capitalism couldn't control its own lusts.  Capital has always taken somewhat more than its share, but, starting in 1973, capital took most if not all of it.  Since 1970, productivity has more than doubled.  Wages?  They're flat.  This has been covered up by bluster, from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, and by "generous" credit.  Mr. Working Stiff may have been fooled for a long time, but, as Abe Lincoln said, you can't fool them all forever.  Trump's mistake was assuming that he could play on the fears of the very people who've been screwed while stealing even more.  Here's a hint: people noticed and they're pissed.

I don't work in manufacturing and I'm not a manufacturing/blue collar worker who would normally vote Democratic. I'm a professional/skilled tradesman who owns and operates a small business who would normally vote Republican. I'm not one who is/has been complaining as you say. Although, I have listened to the complaints of those who expressed concerns over the years and my solution was very similar to what Trump has been doing to change existing trade deals and addressing illegal immigration which hurts middle class workers and the working poor the most. I'm bullet proof as far as a cheap illegal coming in and replacing me or eliminating my job. I'm also pretty bullet proof as far as the global economy goes as well. Right now, my primary issues are ILLEGAL immigration and HEALTHCARE costs.

At what point did the Democrats stop voting the way Democrats should have been voting or used to vote instead of voting on behalf of the interests millionaires and billionaires (Big Business and wealthy foreign interests associated with the global economy and wealthy movie stars and the wealthy heirs of old robber barons or industrialists and voting on behalf of welfare recipients and voting in favor of more welfare programs and supporting the expansion of welfare programs.

Now, if you were able to use/apply some common sense reasoning and you were able to use or apply an objective (non partisan) view and/or take of things, you could easily determine that the two are connected to each other politically and view them as being a major Democratic problem as far as it's primary political interests are concerned. So, what happened under your nose that you weren't aware of as far as the Democratic party or left wing politics goes? I've had no interest in the Democratic party or left wing politics my entire adult life as you can see by my views and my posts. I have Democratic voters for friends ( the majority of whom are affiliated with trade unions or affiliated with a labor union or affiliated with their parents party that they haven't come to grips with the fact that it no longer shares the same values and beliefs as them). 

I'm not a avid fan of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity or any of the major conservative talk show hosts these days. Although, I would most likely agree with most of their views pertaining to the liberals (blues)/ the majority of the Democratic party these days. The Democratic voters are going to have a choice/ decision to make now or in the not so distant future relating to their future and the future of their children. The American right has already decided which direction it's going and the direction that it's chosen isn't in the direction socialism, fascism or Communism. As I've mentioned before, the blues have issues they better figure out ways to resolve among themselves pretty quick or they're going to learn first hand what it was like when left wing utopian societies like those of Nazi's, Bolshevik's and so forth came crashing down around them. So, as you see, I share your view as far as the end result. Hint: If our wages (Republican/conservative/classical liberal voters) were flat, you'd have more support from those on the American right these days.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-20-2019, 08:47 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Eating well? That is the norm for the middle  class and much of the working class. Some Americans endure food insecurity, but such reflects the extreme disparity of economic result in America as the result of economic choices of our right-wingers.  Let us remember that the GIs saw a government uniformly sympathetic to their economic interests  while Millennial adults saw such only for a couple of years in 2009 and 2010. The economic elites who believe that the common man has a duty to compete to show who can suffer most for those elites in a contest to decide who deserves survival have had continuing influence in American political life through the 4T. Their dream is of German productivity on African wages. Those elites believe in a managed economy with themselves as the managers deciding who wins and who fails. I have heard such called 'socialism for the rich'.
But here is how you could benefit from America becoming more 'blue' in its politics: you are in the Twin Cities area, where air conditioning isn't quite a necessity as it is in Kansas City. Air conditioning is not quite a necessity for housing in places like Grand Rapids or Lansing -- yet. It can make life more pleasant, at least on those sultry days of midsummer when the temperature and humidity both soar.   If income is more evenly distributed, more people would get air conditioning, and you would have more business.

Did I make your choices or any decisions for you during your life? I'm not your parent. I'm not your boss. I'm not a fellow coworker or a friend or even a casual acquaintance. I'm a reddish poster here who has little interest in you and that's it. I suppose you could blame me or the Republicans for your personal problems or personal woes if you think it helps or gains sympathy or political support. I suppose you could claim to be able to identify with the bad feelings and the financial hardships experienced by American workers who lost their jobs because of a combination of multiple government related trade deals with Asian allies and neighboring countries and the passing of a bunch of new environmental laws and regulations that have taken place over the last fifty years and a bunch of cheap foreign goods entering the American market on a regular basis and so forth and demand that government fixes all the problems that it played a significant role in creating for decades. I keep pointing out that their are economic elites who have influence over your political elites but you seem unable to acknowledge them or seem to be oblivious of their presence and power of influence over your second rate politicians.

[David Horn]

(01-21-2019, 11:40 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I don't work in manufacturing and I'm not a manufacturing/blue collar worker who would normally vote Democratic. I'm a professional/skilled tradesman who owns and operates a small business who would normally vote Republican. I'm not one who is/has been complaining as you say. Although, I have listened to the complaints of those who expressed concerns over the years and my solution was very similar to what Trump has been doing to change existing trade deals and addressing illegal immigration which hurts middle class workers and the working poor the most. I'm bullet proof as far as a cheap illegal coming in and replacing me or eliminating my job. I'm also pretty bullet proof as far as the global economy goes as well. Right now, my primary issues are ILLEGAL immigration and HEALTHCARE costs.

If you ask anyone who really understands trade, you'll find a consistent position that trade is a net benefit to the US. You'll find the same for employing immigrants. Both cases can be proven mathematically. In both cases, the overall amount of economic activity in the US increases, with the side benefit of immigrant labor vastly improving the actuarial problems with both Medicare and Social Security -- even if they get to claim benefits themselves later. The real issues are off-shoring, which is possible because big business has gotten tax breaks rather than penalties for doing it, and automation, which eliminates entire classes of jobs. In short, the jobs are going to low-pay areas, then vaporizing. Trump's policies have made that even worse, by letting big business reclaim their off-shore earnings on the cheap, with 99% of the benefit going to shareholders and management.

None of that is effected by illegal immigration, and healthcare costs will never be brought under control until the government takes over and demands fairness.

Classic-Xer Wrote:At what point did the Democrats stop voting the way Democrats should have been voting or used to vote instead of voting on behalf of the interests millionaires and billionaires (Big Business and wealthy foreign interests associated with the global economy and wealthy movie stars and the wealthy heirs of old robber barons or industrialists and voting on behalf of welfare recipients and voting in favor of more welfare programs and supporting the expansion of welfare programs.

Supporting the interests of big business used to be the GOP mainstay, not the Democrats, but all that changed under Nixon and, later, Reagan. Throw in the "New Democrats" under the Clintons, and interests of business have been the prime focus of both parties. I think that's finally changing. Notice the departure date on my earlier posted chart. That's when it started, and it didn't just affect factory workers. It affected everyone in the country, with the top decile getting ahead and the rest falling behind.

Classic-Xer Wrote:Now, if you were able to use/apply  some common sense reasoning and you were able to use or apply an objective (non partisan) view and/or take of things, you could easily determine that the two are connected to each other politically and view them as being a major Democratic problem as far as it's primary political interests are concerned. So, what happened under your nose that you weren't aware of as far as the Democratic party or left wing politics goes? I've had no interest in the Democratic party or left wing politics my entire adult life as you can see by my views and my posts. I have Democratic voters for friends ( the majority of whom are affiliated with trade unions or affiliated with a labor union or affiliated with their parents party that they haven't come to grips with the fact that it no longer shares the same values and beliefs as them). 

Here You lose me, because you seem to favor a return to much more liberal economic policies by the Democrats, yet you complain they are too left wing. Are your issues with Democrats more cultural? No one is more leftie on economics that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, yet her entire economic platform is focused on a return to the policies that predate the Nixon-Reagan era. Here's a good article by two leading economists that discusses that in enough depth to see the whys and wherefores.

Classic-Xer Wrote:I'm not a avid fan of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity or any of the major conservative talk show hosts these days. Although, I would most likely agree with most of their views pertaining to the liberals (blues)/ the majority of the Democratic party these days. The Democratic voters are going to have a choice/ decision to make now or in the not so distant future relating to their future and the future of their children. The American right has already decided which direction it's going and the direction that it's chosen isn't in the direction socialism, fascism or  Communism. As I've mentioned before, the blues have issues they better figure out ways to resolve among themselves pretty quick or they're going to learn first hand what it was like when left wing utopian societies like those of Nazi's, Bolshevik's and so forth came crashing down around them. So, as you see, I share your view as far as the end result.  Hint: If our wages (Republican/conservative/classical liberal voters) were flat, you'd have more support from those on the American right these days.

If anyone is marching toward Fascism, its the Trump administration. I have no idea where you get the idea that you have an ally there. Trump is 100% about himself, and he'll lie, cheat and steal if it gets him something he wants … which is primarily money. And when exactly did the anti-Communist right start to love Russia so much?

And fyi: the Nazis and Fascists were anything but left wing. They were, and still are, as far to the right as you can get. For that matter, they share a love of autocracy with the old Communists. In no case were any these utopian.

[pbrower2a]

(01-22-2019, 01:29 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-21-2019, 11:40 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I don't work in manufacturing and I'm not a manufacturing/blue collar worker who would normally vote Democratic. I'm a professional/skilled tradesman who owns and operates a small business who would normally vote Republican. I'm not one who is/has been complaining as you say. Although, I have listened to the complaints of those who expressed concerns over the years and my solution was very similar to what Trump has been doing to change existing trade deals and addressing illegal immigration which hurts middle class workers and the working poor the most. I'm bullet proof as far as a cheap illegal coming in and replacing me or eliminating my job. I'm also pretty bullet proof as far as the global economy goes as well. Right now, my primary issues are ILLEGAL immigration and HEALTHCARE costs.

If you ask anyone who really understands trade, you'll find a consistent position that trade is a net benefit to the US.  You'll find the same for employing immigrants.  Both cases can be proven mathematically.  In both cases, the overall amount of economic activity in the US increases, with the side benefit of immigrant labor vastly improving the actuarial problems with both Medicare and Social Security -- even if they get to claim benefits themselves later.  The real issues are off-shoring, which is possible because big business has gotten tax breaks rather than penalties for doing it, and automation, which eliminates entire classes of jobs.  In short, the jobs are going to low-pay areas, then vaporizing.  Trump's policies have made that even worse, by letting big business reclaim their off-shore earnings on the cheap, with 99% of the benefit going to shareholders and management.  

None of that is effected by illegal immigration, and healthcare costs will never be brought under control until the government takes over and demands fairness.

And remember well: immigrants are attracted most to the places with the greatest opportunities or at the least, accessible improvements in their lives. One of the largest migrations in human history has been the tide of blacks from the agrarian South to the industrial North -- from the part of America that had traces of a feudal heritage to full-blown capitalism.

Classic-Xer Wrote:At what point did the Democrats stop voting the way Democrats should have been voting or used to vote instead of voting on behalf of the interests millionaires and billionaires (Big Business and wealthy foreign interests associated with the global economy and wealthy movie stars and the wealthy heirs of old robber barons or industrialists and voting on behalf of welfare recipients and voting in favor of more welfare programs and supporting the expansion of welfare programs.

Supporting the interests of big business used to be the GOP mainstay, not the Democrats, but all that changed under Nixon and, later, Reagan.  Throw in the "New Democrats" under the Clintons, and interests of business have been the prime focus of both parties.  I think that's finally changing.  Notice the departure date on my earlier posted chart.  That's when it started, and it didn't just affect factory workers.  It affected everyone in the country, with the top decile getting ahead and the rest falling behind.[/quote]

Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama all felt the seduction of technology as a solution to all problems that this country has. No technological fix can solve the fact that real estate is fiendishly expensive in places with genuine opportunity, that much of America's old industrial base is crumbling or becoming irrelevant, or that cartels and monopolies dominate the economy.  The Right has had no delusion that its optimum comes from the debasement and pauperization of all people but themselves. It would bring back the lash or institute Nazi-style labor camps to get maximal profit through brutal discipline of workers.

Technology is largely a good thing -- unless it comes under the command of evil people.

Classic-Xer Wrote:Now, if you were able to use/apply  some common sense reasoning and you were able to use or apply an objective (non partisan) view and/or take of things, you could easily determine that the two are connected to each other politically and view them as being a major Democratic problem as far as it's primary political interests are concerned. So, what happened under your nose that you weren't aware of as far as the Democratic party or left wing politics goes? I've had no interest in the Democratic party or left wing politics my entire adult life as you can see by my views and my posts. I have Democratic voters for friends ( the majority of whom are affiliated with trade unions or affiliated with a labor union or affiliated with their parents party that they haven't come to grips with the fact that it no longer shares the same values and beliefs as them). 

Here You lose me, because you seem to favor a return to much more liberal economic policies by the Democrats, yet you complain they are too left wing.  Are your issues with Democrats more cultural?  No one is more leftie on economics that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, yet her entire economic platform is focused on a return to the policies that predate the Nixon-Reagan era.  Here's a good article by two leading economists that discusses that in enough depth to see the whys and wherefores.[/quote]

His issues with Democrats probably are cultural. He sounds much like "Archie Bunker", and I can almost expect him to call his harried wife a "dingbat" and the Mexican-American fellow dating his precious daughter (I had to update it) a "meathead".

But this said, I have huge 'cultural' problems with Donald Trump for his vicious sexism, his callow greed, his contempt for the intellect, and his soulless ostentation. 

America needs a return to liberal education as the norm for undergraduate education so that people can make best use of the fruits of their toil, and strong unions that can stand up to narcissistic executives who see workers as livestock at best and vermin at worst. We have probably gone as far as we can with technology (except perhaps in medicine to extirpate some nasty diseases) as we can in improving human existence. Above all, America needs to assert in 2020 and 2022 that the quality of political leadership matters far more than does the ability of some demagogue to press the right buttons.

Quote:

Classic-Xer Wrote:I'm not a avid fan of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter or Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity or any of the major conservative talk show hosts these days. Although, I would most likely agree with most of their views pertaining to the liberals (blues)/ the majority of the Democratic party these days. The Democratic voters are going to have a choice/ decision to make now or in the not so distant future relating to their future and the future of their children. The American right has already decided which direction it's going and the direction that it's chosen isn't in the direction socialism, fascism or  Communism. As I've mentioned before, the blues have issues they better figure out ways to resolve among themselves pretty quick or they're going to learn first hand what it was like when left wing utopian societies like those of Nazi's, Bolshevik's and so forth came crashing down around them. So, as you see, I share your view as far as the end result.  Hint: If our wages (Republican/conservative/classical liberal voters) were flat, you'd have more support from those on the American right these days.

If anyone is marching toward Fascism, its the Trump administration.  I have no idea where you get the idea that you have an ally there.  Trump is 100% about himself, and he'll lie, cheat and steal if it gets him something he wants … which is primarily money.  And when exactly did the anti-Communist right start to love Russia so much?  

And fyi: the Nazis and Fascists were anything but left wing.  They were, and still are, as far to the right as you can get.  For that matter, they share a love of autocracy with the old Communists.  In no case were any these utopian.

David, your assessment of Donald Trump is spot-on.

The Right used to hate the Soviet Union because it was socialist in the sense of the government owning everything and leaving nothing to a privileged class of capitalists. The Right envied the labor discipline and the command system, wishing that it could adopt such in the service of class privilege.

Putin is ex-KGB, but unlike his predecessors as bosses from Dzierzhinksy to Kryuchkov he has never had to sell Marxism-Leninism. He needs not try. He can appeal to the vanity, selfishness, and cruelty, and alienation of capitalists just as his predecessors could appeal to the vanity, selfishness, cruelty, and alienation of people willing to sell  at the least some spy secrets to the USSR. Putin can offer a business deal as a Soviet-era Cheka, OGPU, NKVD, or KGB never could. Putin can find more traitors willing to sell out democracy because those who sell out no longer need sell out their class privilege or identity. A traitor like Donald Trump who wants to change the system to fit his vision (he has a vision, and it is a sick one) has more to offer than does a treacherous spy like Aldrich Ames who wants to keep up some Good Life that necessitates the survival of the system whose secrets he sells for 'thirty pieces of silver'. 

But Donald Trump has something in common with Commies: a contempt for liberal democracy. The President that we elect in 2020 must reassert the values that really did make America great.

[pbrower2a]

[Classic-Xer]

David, your assessment of Donald Trump is spot-on.

The Right used to hate the Soviet Union because it was socialist in the sense of the government owning everything and leaving nothing to a privileged class of capitalists. The Right envied the labor discipline and the command system, wishing that it could adopt such in the service of class privilege.

Putin is ex-KGB, but unlike his predecessors as bosses from Dzierzhinksy to Kryuchkov he has never had to sell Marxism-Leninism. He needs not try. He can appeal to the vanity, selfishness, and cruelty, and alienation of capitalists just as his predecessors could appeal to the vanity, selfishness, cruelty, and alienation of people willing to sell  at the least some spy secrets to the USSR. Putin can offer a business deal as a Soviet-era Cheka, OGPU, NKVD, or KGB never could. Putin can find more traitors willing to sell out democracy because those who sell out no longer need sell out their class privilege or identity. A traitor like Donald Trump who wants to change the system to fit his vision (he has a vision, and it is a sick one) has more to offer than does a treacherous spy like Aldrich Ames who wants to keep up some Good Life that necessitates the survival of the system whose secrets he sells for 'thirty pieces of silver'. 

But Donald Trump has something in common with Commies: a contempt for liberal democracy. The President that we elect in 2020 must reassert the values that really did make America great.
[/quote]

The American Right was opposed to the Soviet Union and its Communist system for obvious reasons. As an older American, you should be able to know  and understand those reasons. If not, here's a reason, every American citizen (regardless of their economic status/class and political affiliation (Republican or Democrat) who own property like homes, farms, business's, land of any kind, cabins and so forth would no longer have a right to own them because the individual freedom and financial means to do so wouldn't exist under the Soviet Union and it's Communist system. Every blue minded poster should be able to read this and hopefully learn why the 99% approach doesn't ever work for them within the US like it could/should be able to within some poor Latin American countries that haven't been torn apart and ravaged by cival war's between Communists and Fascist Regimes or dictators.

[Classic-Xer]

David, your assessment of Donald Trump is spot-on.

The Right used to hate the Soviet Union because it was socialist in the sense of the government owning everything and leaving nothing to a privileged class of capitalists. The Right envied the labor discipline and the command system, wishing that it could adopt such in the service of class privilege.

Putin is ex-KGB, but unlike his predecessors as bosses from Dzierzhinksy to Kryuchkov he has never had to sell Marxism-Leninism. He needs not try. He can appeal to the vanity, selfishness, and cruelty, and alienation of capitalists just as his predecessors could appeal to the vanity, selfishness, cruelty, and alienation of people willing to sell  at the least some spy secrets to the USSR. Putin can offer a business deal as a Soviet-era Cheka, OGPU, NKVD, or KGB never could. Putin can find more traitors willing to sell out democracy because those who sell out no longer need sell out their class privilege or identity. A traitor like Donald Trump who wants to change the system to fit his vision (he has a vision, and it is a sick one) has more to offer than does a treacherous spy like Aldrich Ames who wants to keep up some Good Life that necessitates the survival of the system whose secrets he sells for 'thirty pieces of silver'. 

But Donald Trump has something in common with Commies: a contempt for liberal democracy. The President that we elect in 2020 must reassert the values that really did make America great.
[/quote]

The American Right was opposed to the Soviet Union and its Communist system for obvious reasons. As an older American, you should be able to know  and understand those reasons. If not, here's a reason, every American citizen (regardless of their economic status/class and political affiliation (Republican or Democrat) who own property like homes, farms, business's, land of any kind, cabins and so forth would no longer have a right to own them because the individual freedom and financial means to do so wouldn't exist under the Soviet Union and it's Communist system. Every blue minded poster should be able to read this and hopefully learn why the 99% approach doesn't ever work for them within the US like it could/should be able to within some poor Latin American countries that haven't been torn apart and ravaged by cival war's between Communists and Fascist Regimes or dictators.

[pbrower2a]

(01-24-2019, 12:56 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

Quote: (I said)

The Right used to hate the Soviet Union because it was socialist in the sense of the government owning everything and leaving nothing to a privileged class of capitalists. The Right envied the labor discipline and the command system, wishing that it could adopt such in the service of class privilege.

Putin is ex-KGB, but unlike his predecessors as bosses from Dzierzhinksy to Kryuchkov he has never had to sell Marxism-Leninism. He needs not try. He can appeal to the vanity, selfishness, and cruelty, and alienation of capitalists just as his predecessors could appeal to the vanity, selfishness, cruelty, and alienation of people willing to sell  at the least some spy secrets to the USSR. Putin can offer a business deal as a Soviet-era Cheka, OGPU, NKVD, or KGB never could. Putin can find more traitors willing to sell out democracy because those who sell out no longer need sell out their class privilege or identity. A traitor like Donald Trump who wants to change the system to fit his vision (he has a vision, and it is a sick one) has more to offer than does a treacherous spy like Aldrich Ames who wants to keep up some Good Life that necessitates the survival of the system whose secrets he sells for 'thirty pieces of silver'. 

But Donald Trump has something in common with Commies: a contempt for liberal democracy. The President that we elect in 2020 must reassert the values that really did make America great.

The American Right was opposed to the Soviet Union and its Communist system for obvious reasons. As an older American, you should be able to know  and understand those reasons. If not, here's a reason, every American citizen (regardless of their economic status/class and political affiliation (Republican or Democrat) who own property like homes, farms, businesses, land of any kind, cabins and so forth would no longer have a right to own them because the individual freedom and financial means to do so wouldn't exist under the Soviet Union and it's Communist system. Every blue minded poster should be able to read this and hopefully learn why the 99% approach doesn't ever work for them within the US like it could/should be able to within some poor Latin American countries that haven't been torn apart and ravaged by civil was between Communists and Fascist Regimes or dictators.

The American Right is about one thing above all else: class privilege. It has consistently sought to grind the working class into submission until workers are little more than serfs -- people with debt but without property, obliged to suffer for those elites like peons in thrall to feudal lords. For the ideal of those elites, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are solely for the economic masters. It now fits a Marxist stereotype, which is destructive to the domestic tranquility that a well-working capitalist order fosters.


The American Right has readily sacrificed such prosperity as workers have had and is gutting the middle class. It compels sacrifices in a futile effort to satisfy people of insatiable appetites for personal indulgence. It prefers paying people in debt instead of wages. Credit replaces pay. Because people must go heavily into debt or induce parents to sell off the legacy of middle-class assets just to stay in the middle class through college education that  might allow one to participate in the 'Good life' as those elites define it. Maybe -- if those elites are so generous as to hire one. They one must pay unprecedented rent, wear expensive clothes, and pay high tolls.  It's an 'ownership society' -- those who own the assets rule those who lack those assets.

I am reminded that exploiters often see their victims as beneficiaries of the exactions of the masters. Slave-owners saw themselves as benefactors to slaves and insisted that everyone else recognize such as truth. As late as 1860 they thought that Americans outside the South would come to their senses and recognize such as the truth. Americans who owned no slaves didn't come to their senses as the planters expected; they voted for Abraham Lincoln.

[David Horn]

(01-24-2019, 12:50 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The American Right was opposed to the Soviet Union and its Communist system for obvious reasons. As an older American, you should be able to know  and understand those reasons. If not, here's a reason, every American citizen (regardless of their economic status/class and political affiliation (Republican or Democrat) who own property like homes, farms, business's, land of any kind, cabins and so forth would no longer have a right to own them because the individual freedom and financial means to do so wouldn't exist under the Soviet Union and it's Communist system. Every blue minded poster should be able to read this and hopefully learn why the 99% approach doesn't ever work for them within the US like it could/should be able to within some poor Latin American countries that haven't been torn apart and ravaged by cival war's between Communists and Fascist Regimes or dictators.

Communism reached pretty far into the ownership of property; there's no question about that. Is ownership by a class of oligarchs better? It merely privatized what was communal up to that point. Putin and the roughly 2 dozen oligarchs that surround him own roughly $1Trillion of assets … Putin owning a quarter of that personally. All that, in a country with a GDP of roughly $1.25Trillion. More to the point, Russia actively attacks our institutions, because it's weak and wants us weaker too. Why support any of this? It borders on treason.

And as far as alignment with the 99% is concerned, that's vastly preferable to aligning with the .01% that Trump favors. Even they know that this is wrong. It's been a topic of conversation at Davos: the annual meeting of the mega-wealthy. Of course, they aren't disgorging their wealth, only "empathizing" with those who have too little. But they are starting to read the tea leaves, and know change has to come and reasonably soon. Only the hardcore Trumpist seem inured to the underlying unfairness of the system. They blame everything on immigrants.

[David Horn]

(01-19-2019, 09:09 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We blues do not say that labor should not be replaced, where it's productive to do so. We say if we do this, then the resulting profits do not belong to just the owners of the machines, but should be distributed to all the workers who make them profitable, and to all people in need. All of society has contributed to this advancement. If the machines save labor, as promised, then it should save labor for workers, and everybody. Robotics means the end of the Republican anti-welfare meme that you guys are SO devoted to, and which is the basis of your votes. Americans will have to let go of the work ethic, since less work is needed, and make sure that the profits from the machines get distributed, and that workers and other creative and enterprising people of all kinds only need to work part time at full pay. That won't mean the end of ethics, or the goal of fulfilling and productive activities, or even of self-reliance. But if the conservative red Reagun/Gingrinch/Bushed/Drumpface Republican voters insist on keeping this outdated anti-welfare meme as the ruling doctrine of our society, then we'd be willing to let you guys go live in your separate Dixieland Heartland, and let us forge ahead with progress by ourselves.

Well said, not that it will be heard.

[Eric the Green]

Quote:(Classic Xer)
The American Right was opposed to the Soviet Union and its Communist system for obvious reasons. As an older American, you should be able to know  and understand those reasons. If not, here's a reason, every American citizen (regardless of their economic status/class and political affiliation (Republican or Democrat) who own property like homes, farms, business's, land of any kind, cabins and so forth would no longer have a right to own them because the individual freedom and financial means to do so wouldn't exist under the Soviet Union and it's Communist system. Every blue minded poster should be able to read this and hopefully learn why the 99% approach doesn't ever work for them within the US like it could/should be able to within some poor Latin American countries that haven't been torn apart and ravaged by cival war's between Communists and Fascist Regimes or dictators.

The American Left was also opposed to the Soviet Union and its Communist system. Before the sixties and the end of the Vietnam War, it was the Democrats who waged actual war on them. Meanwhile, the Republicans like McCarthy and Nixon spent most of their "anti-communist" energy on taking away our basic rights that Americans hold dear, and resisting the movements to expand those rights.

Here is what the Left says about America and the totalitarian systems:





The Republicans have opposed the rights of Americans. Trump tries to suppress our rights. But we on the Left are not going to let them turn us around.

The Republicans are only concerned with property rights and lower taxes, and about suppression of the immigrants and lower classes whom they blame for the economic pressures that affect them, and about opposing the government that seeks to make the economy fair to everyone, rather than only to that .01% of the people that Trump and the Republicans are concerned to protect. The Democrats protect union rights, and Republicans oppose them, so workers are still in the right camp if they are Democrats. The Democrats enforced immigration laws already; Trump's campaign against immigrants was merely a campaign gimmick to appeal to your mis-directed fear and anger, and it works on that level. A fair immigration system would protect rights and work well for all; the Republicans in the House stopped it from happening.

The 99% approach always works, and the 1% trickle-down Republican Reaganoid system never does. The 99% approach only seeks equal opportunity for all. It is opposed to a Communist system that would take all property rights and all other rights away, and vest them in an oligarchic elite of political operatives. That system does not work well for the people either. It may protect equality for most of the people, including gender equality, and sometimes ethnic equality (but often deliberate ethnic oppression), but it is equality at a low level.

Greens, Democrats and progressives are true Americans. Those who protect the rights of a few to exploit the many are not. A fair system that makes sure that people get a fair wage for their work, and that people are protected against the frequent capricious and destructive behavior by capitalist pigs, is not a Communist system. It is a mixed system that protects our ability to engage in free enterprise and to have equal opportunity.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-24-2019, 01:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The American Left was also opposed to the Soviet Union and its Communist system. Before the sixties and the end of the Vietnam War, it was the Democrats who waged actual war on them. Meanwhile, the Republicans like McCarthy and Nixon spent most of their "anti-communist" energy on taking away our basic rights that Americans hold dear, and resisting the movements to expand those rights.

Here is what the Left says about America and the totalitarian systems:





The Republicans have opposed the rights of Americans. Trump tries to suppress our rights. But we on the Left are not going to let them turn us around.

The Republicans are only concerned with property rights and lower taxes, and about suppression of the immigrants and lower classes whom they blame for the economic pressures that affect them, and about opposing the government that seeks to make the economy fair to everyone, rather than only to that .01% of the people that Trump and the Republicans are concerned to protect. The Democrats protect union rights, and Republicans oppose them, so workers are still in the right camp if they are Democrats. The Democrats enforced immigration laws already; Trump's campaign against immigrants was merely a campaign gimmick to appeal to your mis-directed fear and anger, and it works on that level. A fair immigration system would protect rights and work well for all; the Republicans in the House stopped it from happening.

The 99% approach always works, and the 1% trickle-down Republican Reaganoid system never does. The 99% approach only seeks equal opportunity for all. It is opposed to a Communist system that would take all property rights and all other rights away, and vest them in an oligarchic elite of political operatives. That system does not work well for the people either. It may protect equality for most of the people, including gender equality, and sometimes ethnic equality (but often deliberate ethnic oppression), but it is equality at a low level.

Greens, Democrats and progressives are true Americans. Those who protect the rights of a few to exploit the many are not. A fair system that makes sure that people get a fair wage for their work, and that people are protected against the frequent capricious and destructive behavior by capitalist pigs, is not a Communist system. It is a mixed system that protects our ability to engage in free enterprise and to have equal opportunity.

In my opinion, there is a difference between the American left and the old left or far left that you represent. As I've said, the America right has already made its decision and the American Left is now positioned as having to make a decision as to which direction/system is best suited for them and their future generations.

[Eric the Green]

(01-24-2019, 03:44 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-24-2019, 01:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The American Left was also opposed to the Soviet Union and its Communist system. Before the sixties and the end of the Vietnam War, it was the Democrats who waged actual war on them. Meanwhile, the Republicans like McCarthy and Nixon spent most of their "anti-communist" energy on taking away our basic rights that Americans hold dear, and resisting the movements to expand those rights.

Here is what the Left says about America and the totalitarian systems:





The Republicans have opposed the rights of Americans. Trump tries to suppress our rights. But we on the Left are not going to let them turn us around.

The Republicans are only concerned with property rights and lower taxes, and about suppression of the immigrants and lower classes whom they blame for the economic pressures that affect them, and about opposing the government that seeks to make the economy fair to everyone, rather than only to that .01% of the people that Trump and the Republicans are concerned to protect. The Democrats protect union rights, and Republicans oppose them, so workers are still in the right camp if they are Democrats. The Democrats enforced immigration laws already; Trump's campaign against immigrants was merely a campaign gimmick to appeal to your mis-directed fear and anger, and it works on that level. A fair immigration system would protect rights and work well for all; the Republicans in the House stopped it from happening.

The 99% approach always works, and the 1% trickle-down Republican Reaganoid system never does. The 99% approach only seeks equal opportunity for all. It is opposed to a Communist system that would take all property rights and all other rights away, and vest them in an oligarchic elite of political operatives. That system does not work well for the people either. It may protect equality for most of the people, including gender equality, and sometimes ethnic equality (but often deliberate ethnic oppression), but it is equality at a low level.

Greens, Democrats and progressives are true Americans. Those who protect the rights of a few to exploit the many are not. A fair system that makes sure that people get a fair wage for their work, and that people are protected against the frequent capricious and destructive behavior by capitalist pigs, is not a Communist system. It is a mixed system that protects our ability to engage in free enterprise and to have equal opportunity.

In my opinion, there is a difference between the American left and the old left or far left that you represent. As I've said, the America right has already made its decision and the American Left is now positioned as having to make a decision as to which direction/system is best suited for them and their future generations.

But I don't think you understand what people on the left such as myself, David or P.Brower represent. You keep calling us communists, or say that what we advocate is communism, and that we are not Americans. As long as you do this, you are not capable of discerning what anyone on the Left thinks. There are differences among the Left and the Center-Left, to be sure, but the line is very fluid, and the moderates still have an electoral advantage, although this could shift in the next decade.

I suspect many on the Right and the Left alike are firm in a lot of their opinions. Right now those who lean left have about a 51 to 45% lead in opinion polls on various issues and approval/disapproval polls. There is some variation in this, of course. But our hope on the Left is that this lead will grow a bit over the next few years, and that it will be enough to overcome the systemic advantage that you guys on the right have through voter suppression, gerrymandering, the electoral college, the senate, the money in politics, the supreme court, etc. 

If we can have a winning streak in elections, then the right wing will shrink and gradually disappear amid the success of the country and the government. If the Left starts to win elections, it will be up to you guys whether to rebel over guns and/or taxes or immigrants, etc., and whether to do it violently. If the Left fails in the coming election years, then the country will decline, and some will exercize the option to move away. The Left historically has not been able to win a revolution unless it is well-organized with state and foreign help. That is also true on the Right. 

But I suspect the Left will not be the ones to organize such a successful revolution. We will just keep plugging away while right-wing rule ruins the country, in hopes the younger people will wake up. The more your side wins, the greater the decline our country will face. I suspect it will become quite a steep decline in short order, and fueled by climate change.

[Bill the Piper]

Trump is a son of Satan:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/christoph...70168.html

[pbrower2a]

(01-24-2019, 04:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-24-2019, 03:44 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-24-2019, 01:35 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The American Left was also opposed to the Soviet Union and its Communist system. Before the sixties and the end of the Vietnam War, it was the Democrats who waged actual war on them. Meanwhile, the Republicans like McCarthy and Nixon spent most of their "anti-communist" energy on taking away our basic rights that Americans hold dear, and resisting the movements to expand those rights.

Here is what the Left says about America and the totalitarian systems:





The Republicans have opposed the rights of Americans. Trump tries to suppress our rights. But we on the Left are not going to let them turn us around.

The Republicans are only concerned with property rights and lower taxes, and about suppression of the immigrants and lower classes whom they blame for the economic pressures that affect them, and about opposing the government that seeks to make the economy fair to everyone, rather than only to that .01% of the people that Trump and the Republicans are concerned to protect. The Democrats protect union rights, and Republicans oppose them, so workers are still in the right camp if they are Democrats. The Democrats enforced immigration laws already; Trump's campaign against immigrants was merely a campaign gimmick to appeal to your mis-directed fear and anger, and it works on that level. A fair immigration system would protect rights and work well for all; the Republicans in the House stopped it from happening.

The 99% approach always works, and the 1% trickle-down Republican Reaganoid system never does. The 99% approach only seeks equal opportunity for all. It is opposed to a Communist system that would take all property rights and all other rights away, and vest them in an oligarchic elite of political operatives. That system does not work well for the people either. It may protect equality for most of the people, including gender equality, and sometimes ethnic equality (but often deliberate ethnic oppression), but it is equality at a low level.

Greens, Democrats and progressives are true Americans. Those who protect the rights of a few to exploit the many are not. A fair system that makes sure that people get a fair wage for their work, and that people are protected against the frequent capricious and destructive behavior by capitalist pigs, is not a Communist system. It is a mixed system that protects our ability to engage in free enterprise and to have equal opportunity.

In my opinion, there is a difference between the American left and the old left or far left that you represent. As I've said, the America right has already made its decision and the American Left is now positioned as having to make a decision as to which direction/system is best suited for them and their future generations.

But I don't think you understand what people on the left such as myself, David or P.Brower represent. You keep calling us communists, or say that what we advocate is communism, and that we are not Americans. As long as you do this, you are not capable of discerning what anyone on the Left thinks. There are differences among the Left and the Center-Left, to be sure, but the line is very fluid, and the moderates still have an electoral advantage, although this could shift in the next decade.

Marx made clear that communism was a certainty as the result of economic and social progress as well as technological advancement.  He saw progress from the capitalist order that he knew (basically, the early, or Gilded-Age capitalism) to socialism (with a revolutionary elite toppling leaders beholden to the capitalist class and taking over ownership of the productive economy on behalf or the working class/proletariat, bringing faster progress because they would eliminate the exploitation of capitalism that manifests itself in elite indulgence that itself devours capital that might better be invested in industrial progress), and bringing about communism as an age without scarcity and political or economic command. 

Marx could not see that the capitalist class would choose to establish a consumer economy that transforms the proletariat from a sullen mass of exploited toilers who hate the capitalists who exploit them like planters exploited slaves into consumers who actually bought most of the products of their toil. The worker who dwells in a ramshackle hovel or a fire-trap flat, who sees his children die of hunger or hunger-rushed diseases, knows that he will be beaten if he strikes for better pay or working conditions, has no meaningful vote, who fears an industrial accident or violent crime that will cause the starvation of his family, and who knows of elite indulgence is the sort whom revolutionaries can rile with the words "Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!" The worker who has a sanitary dwelling, whose kids go to school instead of being pressed into industrial labor at a tender age, who owns a car, who has a house or at least a sanitary apartment with furniture,and appliances, wears clothes that are not rags, witnesses the police arresting violent criminals instead of strikers, and can vote for politicians receptive to his economic interests has far more than chains to lose.

The problem is that we may have gone as far as we can with the consumer society as is possible. Do we go backward to the norms of the Gilded Age of early capitalism? Do we go toward Marxist socialism? Do we push on with a consumer society that pushes people to consume to pointless excess that degrades the human environment? Or do we skip Marxist socialism and end up with the communist dream of a world without scarcity?

Not one of those solutions work. The first necessitates fascism, Nazism, or Ku Kluxism.  I have my idea of what a Klan-dominated America would look like -- and it would be much like Nazi Germany, complete with torture chambers and concentration camps. Marxism-Leninism did not fit American culture except where Americans brought Marxist ideas over from Russia, and still does not. I see people downsizing so that they can simplify their lives. A world without scarcity? Nobody has a practical idea on how that works. Most people still have nothing to sell but their toil.

So much for political theory.

Quote:I suspect many on the Right and the Left alike are firm in a lot of their opinions. Right now those who lean left have about a 51 to 45% lead in opinion polls on various issues and approval/disapproval polls. There is some variation in this, of course. But our hope on the Left is that this lead will grow a bit over the next few years, and that it will be enough to overcome the systemic advantage that you guys on the right have through voter suppression, gerrymandering, the electoral college, the senate, the money in politics, the supreme court, etc. 

America is still split about 45-10-45 between the Left, the Center, and the Right. We have not seen an electoral blowout since the 1980s in the popular vote. The elder Bush may have won the Electoral College 426-111 in 1988, but that was with about the same percentage of the popular vote as Obama in 2008 (about 53-46 both times). Should there be an electoral blowout in 2020 (which will happen if Trump support is as hideous as I see now or is even close to that in 2020), then Trump the loss will not reflect so much the failure of conservatism as it will be the inability of Trump to fit conservative values. It is far too early to predict how independent or third-Party nominees (who might be more orthodox conservatives than Trump) will fare. It could also be that President Trump is seen as unusually corrupt and incompetent, which is not good for political survival in a country split
nearly down the middle.

I am convinced that orthodox conservatism will emerge anew no matter who wins the 2020 Presidential election even if we have a political realignment such as the one in 1930 and 1932. Democrats could go too far and too fast in anti-capitalist measures; remember well that the Tea Party pols won big because the Hard Right funded those pols well. The Hard Right wanted an absolute plutocracy once and for all in America and came close to achieving such. For some people, no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as it turns, indulges, enhances, or enforces a profit. This said, strip conservatism of cronyism, corruption, and cruelty and one might have another Dwight Eisenhower, a conservative version of Barack Obama. 

Quote:If we can have a winning streak in elections, then the right wing will shrink and gradually disappear amid the success of the country and the government. If the Left starts to win elections, it will be up to you guys whether to rebel over guns and/or taxes or immigrants, etc., and whether to do it violently. If the Left fails in the coming election years, then the country will decline, and some will exercize the option to move away. The Left historically has not been able to win a revolution unless it is well-organized with state and foreign help. That is also true on the Right. 

How big is a streak?

In 2009, Democrats saw Obama as the ideal President, the sort who would inspire Americans to major reforms and benign change. In 2016 America effectively voted for a return to the values of the Gilded Age or at least the Harding-Coolidge-Hoover "New Era" in which Capital was King and labor got what Big Business saw fit to offer (basically as little as it could get away with). Perhaps it is all the worse now because Big Business has heirs devoid of empathy and because the bureaucratic elites of our time cultivate narcissism among themselves as a supposed (if obviously perverse to most of us) virtue.

It took a three-year economic meltdown that ravaged America's economic elites and created niches for new capitalists who could start up new businesses in the wake of such a meltdown. Inventories, property, and labor was cheap. Customers were loyal, often making their economic decisions based on a relative working at a place.  So you have a relative working at Kroger? You might just get your groceries at Kroger to help your nephew keep his job. If at some mom-and-pop grocery, you might get your groceries at that mom-and-pop grocery.

Quote:But I suspect the Left will not be the ones to organize such a successful revolution. We will just keep plugging away while right-wing rule ruins the country, in hopes the younger people will wake up. The more your side wins, the greater the decline our country will face. I suspect it will become quite a steep decline in short order, and fueled by climate change.

Today's young adults are hostile to Donald Trump and every vice for which he stands. I approve of such.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-24-2019, 04:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: But I don't think you understand what people on the left such as myself, David or P.Brower represent. You keep calling us communists, or say that what we advocate is communism, and that we are not Americans. As long as you do this, you are not capable of discerning what anyone on the Left thinks. There are differences among the Left and the Center-Left, to be sure, but the line is very fluid, and the moderates still have an electoral advantage, although this could shift in the next decade.

I suspect many on the Right and the Left alike are firm in a lot of their opinions. Right now those who lean left have about a 51 to 45% lead in opinion polls on various issues and approval/disapproval polls. There is some variation in this, of course. But our hope on the Left is that this lead will grow a bit over the next few years, and that it will be enough to overcome the systemic advantage that you guys on the right have through voter suppression, gerrymandering, the electoral college, the senate, the money in politics, the supreme court, etc. 

If we can have a winning streak in elections, then the right wing will shrink and gradually disappear amid the success of the country and the government. If the Left starts to win elections, it will be up to you guys whether to rebel over guns and/or taxes or immigrants, etc., and whether to do it violently. If the Left fails in the coming election years, then the country will decline, and some will exercize the option to move away. The Left historically has not been able to win a revolution unless it is well-organized with state and foreign help. That is also true on the Right. 

But I suspect the Left will not be the ones to organize such a successful revolution. We will just keep plugging away while right-wing rule ruins the country, in hopes the younger people will wake up. The more your side wins, the greater the decline our country will face. I suspect it will become quite a steep decline in short order, and fueled by climate change.

I associate your socialist views and socialist ideology with communism. I associate the term socialism with the term communism as well. Now, you may not be directly advocating for communism as you say. However, I do believe that communism or a  more communist like system is the end result that you'd prefer to see representing you and your interests and serving the interests of blues in general. Yes, I view you and David as communist sympathizers/believers. However, I happen to view PB as more of a useful idiot or political pawn at this point. BTW, I think the American Right could win an American war with the Left without having to count on foreign help these days. I mean, we'd have an American government in place and an American system in place and an economic system in place and an American army in place and a large population of Americans who would be willing to support them.

[David Horn]

(01-25-2019, 09:21 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote: Trump is a son of Satan:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/christoph...70168.html

In today's insane world, there is certainly a percentage of otherwise functional adults who will believe this, given half a chance.  Most who do will fully approve. 

[David Horn]

(01-26-2019, 01:31 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I associate (Eric's) socialist views and socialist ideology with communism. I associate the term socialism with the term communism as well. Now, you may not be directly advocating for communism as you say. However, I do believe that communism or a  more communist like system is the end result that you'd prefer to see representing you and your interests and serving the interests of blues in general. Yes, I view you and David as communist sympathizers/believers. However, I happen to  view PB as more of a useful idiot or political pawn at this point. BTW, I think the American Right could win an American war with the Left without having to count on foreign help these days. I mean, we'd have an American government in place and an American system in place and an economic system in place and an American army in place and a large population of Americans who would be willing to support them.

You are free to believe in the tooth fairy, if you wish, but belief doesn't make it so.  The grinding, abusive and totally corrupt economic system of today is Capitalism, and even the capitalists understand that.  Here is a perfect example ripped directly from today's headlines.  More to the point, Capitalists have mastered the brainwashing techniques to make everyone not-them into automatons, as described here.  Please tell me you are opposed to the insanity economy that's rapidly building right under your nose, because people like you are next to the trash heap.

And fwiw, if the war you describe actually happens, it will not be between the left and right. It will be between the haves and have-nots. Just so you know, you're closer to the second group than the first.