Now That Trump Has Won...

[Carborendum]

19 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

You can believe what his critics (like Reuning) say about him from some out-of-context statements (if you look at the actual Mullin quote, he gave it a very different framing) as well as "anonymous sources." 

Or you can listen to his co-workers who are willing to go on record by name to defend him, witnessing his work day-in and day-out in an early morning news show which has strict policies against being intoxicated at work.  They all say that they never saw him seeming remotely intoxicated at work.

So far, none of the allegations have any names or faces associated with them.

If there are some faces and names, we can actually look into those allegations.  But accusations with virtually no actual facts or details is just noise at this point.  Let them expose themselves and we can investigate.  But until then, these are just rumors.

[Traveler]

On 12/11/2024 at 4:36 AM, Phoenix_person said:

Yep. Our issues with Trump are less about policy and more about stuff like this. He actively encourages the worst actors in the culture war by cozying up to the extremists on the right. But I'm the bad guy for pointing out there are literal Nazis and pedophiles at the gates (Gaetz?).

Just to clarify – Nazis are socialists and therefore are not extremists of the right but of the left and those that tout socialism.

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

16 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Just to clarify – Nazis are socialists and therefore are not extremists of the right but of the left and those that tout socialism.

 

The Traveler

 

To a degree.

To clarify, Nazi's in germany were Facists.  General Wikipedia article on it at it's start

wikipedia entry on Nazism

Quote

Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsɪzəm, ˈnæt-/ ^ⓘNA(H)T-siz-əm), formally named National Socialism (NS; German: Nationalsozialismus, German: [natsi̯oˈnaːlzotsi̯aˌlɪsmʊs] ^ⓘ), is the far-right totalitarian socio-political ideology and practices associated with Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party (NSDAP) in Germany.^[1][2][3] During Hitler's rise to power in 1930s Europe, it was frequently referred to as Hitler Fascism (German: Hitlerfaschismus) and Hitlerism (German: Hitlerismus). The later related term "neo-Nazism" is applied to other far-right groups with similar ideas which formed after the Second World War and therefore after the Third Reich collapsed.

Merriam-Webster on the differences between Facism and Socialism

Merriam-Webster Difference between Facism and Socialism

Quote

While fascism is often used broadly to refer to any tendency toward (or exercise of) autocratic or dictatorial control, historically it refers to a political philosophy, movement, or regime with some key traits. In general, fascism is characterized by extreme nationalism; enforces strict social, economic, and often racial hierarchies; is corporatist and imperialist; supports autocratic control of the government (as by a dictator); promotes strict traditional gender roles and military values; and forcibly suppresses opposition. Fascist movements throughout history have also been typified by their opposition to Marxism, democracy, and political and cultural liberalism.

------------------------------------------

Since the term socialism entered English around 1830, it has consistently referred to a system of egalitarian social organization in which private property (not to be confused with personal property) and the distribution of income are subject to social control. The conception of that control, however, has varied, and socialism has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, “pure” socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are social democracies, such as Sweden and Denmark: democratically elected governments that employ some socialist practices but within a capitalist framework in the belief that extensive state regulation paired with limited state ownership produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.

The Nazi's did have some socialistic items they used (in regards to industry and other areas), but in views and other areas, were more authoritarian and what one would consider Capitalistic as well, at least in a regard that they were more inline with Corporatism (as the US is becoming as we see large corporations gain more power and wealth which actually hinders a more true form [as I would see it] of capitalism from progressing).

However, to claim Nazi's were champions of the Left or would be today, I think may not be portraying them exactly in the right light (haha...see what I did there?).

They were also extremely far right in some areas as well (such as hierarchical positions of society and enforced views on races and discriminational activities [for example, one of the more notorious is their treatment of the Jewish people, along with others they considered undesirables). 

[Phoenix_person]

9 hours ago, Traveler said:

Just to clarify – Nazis are socialists and therefore are not extremists of the right but of the left and those that tout socialism.

 

The Traveler

Nationalism is not a leftist ideal. Nazi Germany was a nationalist ethnostate that operated on a socialist economy. And economically, Nazi Germany actually did quite well, considering how they were left devastated by WWI. Arguably, their economic strength was directly tied to their militaristic industrialization (also more of a conservative feature than a leftist one), so it's hard to say how successful a peaceful Nazi regime would have been economically. But as it stands, the socialism was by far the least problematic part about Hitler's Germany, and also the only non-conservative aspect of it.

[Carborendum]

12 hours ago, Traveler said:

Nazis are socialists and therefore are not extremists of the right but of the left and those that tout socialism.

2 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Nationalism is not a leftist ideal. 

Let's just ditch the effort to compare modern American political sensiblities to the symbol of governmental overreach, itself.

The bottom line is that "as we commonly use the term today" it is a word with no meaning, but powerful negative connotation.  In other words, it is simply a slander word with no meaning whatsoever.

It's much more profitable to debate individual policies and laws/actions.

Edited December 13, 2024 by Carborendum

[NeuroTypical]

3 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

Nationalism is not a leftist ideal.

Again, you're absolutely correct, and yet, it's hard to hear you over the screams of history where so many leftist movements turned into murderous nationalist fascist totalitarian things. 

Nobody starts out wanting to turn into Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot or whoever wrecked Venezuela or Argentina.  They all start out like you.

Again, it's a difference in understanding how humans work.  Your collectivist and socialist notions will all work just fine, as long as everyone does their part to make them work.  And those who don't need to be handled somehow.  And the more power you and yours gain, the more tempting it is to put scary scare quotes around the word "handled", because the handling gets more and more scary.

Already you're realizing how difficult your utopian dream of single payer healthcare will be.  You think it won't happen in your lifetime.  And yet, should some strong movement from the left show up with enough support to force it, I'm thinking you'd jump on board.  Even though some of the tactics might not be to your liking.  Even though some of the methods might be a tad harsh or distasteful to you.  Government force becomes a distasteful and rare thing, then a necessary thing, then the norm.  Over and over and over again.  Throughout history.  Lots of places.  Because it's human nature. 

And should your dream turn into a dystopian nightmare, and need to be overthrown, then folks like Johnson Jones will describe what happened by copying and pasting a bunch of stuff with the word "socialism" in it, in order to claim it wasn't really socialism. 

13 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

To clarify, Nazi's in germany were Facists.  

Quote

Nazism (/ˈnɑːtsɪzəm, ˈnæt-/ ^ⓘNA(H)T-siz-əm), formally named National Socialism

Edited December 13, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[Traveler]

The basic concept of right verses left is about government control.  The far right would be anarchy and everyone for themselves.  The far left is the opposite – total government control and dominance.  I consider myself a libertarian which is a limited government with powers to enforce laws enacted by the majority of the citizens - which is under civilian oversight.

In the USA we have two parties that are vying for power so they can enact laws that gives them control over that part of society that does not agree with them.  I personally consider both democrats and republicans as extreme leftists.  I consider libertarians, like myself, as true centrists.  I believe that our founding fathers were best defined as libertarians.

More control to government is left leaning – less control is right leaning.  Bigger government is left leaning – less government is right leaning.  Defining or recognizing racial differences (racism) is left leaning – racial blindness is right leaning.  Equal opportunity is right leaning – equity of outcome is left leaning.  Entitlements are left leaning – individual charity is right leaning.  Privilege is left leaning – responsibility is right leaning.

I could go on but to me what encourages and allows individual contribution and responsibility is right wing leaning.   What forces individual contribution through government powers of enforcement of laws is left wing leaning.  I realize that there is a proclivity to muddle terms to hide and confuse.  I believe definitions should be simple and easy to apply.  When definitions become contradictory and confusing it is a mistake driven by an intent to beguile and mislead.  

 

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

6 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Nobody starts out wanting to turn into Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot or whoever wrecked Venezuela or Argentina.  They all start out like you.

Don't believe me, take it directly from Mr "No Marxism, no Communism, just Representative Democracy and Social Justice in a Well Planned economy" himself:

 

 

[JohnsonJones]

20 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

And should your dream turn into a dystopian nightmare, and need to be overthrown, then folks like Johnson Jones will describe what happened by copying and pasting a bunch of stuff with the word "socialism" in it, in order to claim it wasn't really socialism. 

I think you missed the point of the post, and didn't actually read what it said...but

🤷‍♂️

 

PS: The reason I copy and paste is it's always good to show sources so people know it's not just something one makes up on their own. 

It's even better when the source is a more neutral source that has facts so that people can't just counter and say it's an opinion or something one made up.

A source also provides the information so others can go and interpret it as they want, or discuss the information with a basis of where another's ideas or thoughts may be coming from, and if they interpret it differently, can also use their own sources or point out the information from the source they feel backs up their ideas.

It's like when we talk about the teachings of the Lord.  It's great to express our opinions and beliefs.  It can be stronger when we post the actual scriptures behind it supporting those beliefs for some people. 

Edited December 14, 2024 by JohnsonJones

[Traveler]

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think you missed the point of the post, and didn't actually read what it said...but

🤷‍♂️

 

PS: The reason I copy and paste is it's always good to show sources so people know it's not just something one makes up on their own. 

It's even better when the source is a more neutral source that has facts so that people can't just counter and say it's an opinion or something one made up.

A source also provides the information so others can go and interpret it as they want, or discuss the information with a basis of where another's ideas or thoughts may be coming from, and if they interpret it differently, can also use their own sources or point out the information from the source they feel backs up their ideas.

It's like when we talk about the teachings of the Lord.  It's great to express our opinions and beliefs.  It can be stronger when we post the actual scriptures behind it supporting those beliefs for some people. 

Greetings Brother Jones:

I like reading your posts.  Mostly because your views are different than my own – but not that different.  I wanted to follow on to this particular post.  Not because I disagree.  But rather to provide some things from my own opinion.

I personally like to discuss things with people that are well versed in their own opinions.  The problem with opinions is that sources are difficult to define and identify.   In such discussions, I find it more important to understand their logic along lines of why and how they came to their conclusions.

Anyone can quote scripture.  In fact, quoting scripture is a ploy often used by Satan.  Seldom have I experienced scripture altering opinions especially when I have attempted to convince someone that is somewhat rebellious.   There is a saying that to convince someone against their will are of the same opinion still.

There are many views of my own that have been radically changed.  In all cases it has come from a discovery of my own flaws in logic – often with the help of someone that previously walked through the same logical conundrums.

In religion we talk about Hell as a place or status of being damned.  In essence, living under binding laws that set limits and bind us – often forcing us into a service of others.  Jesus said that the greatest in heaven were those servicing others.  The reason (logic) for me making this reference is because it seems quite logical that many will consider living Celestial as a living hell for them.

As I have attempted to understand the logic of what is possible in eternity – I do not think what we do not enjoy here in mortality will suddenly become enjoyable in eternity.  My great-grandfather was the executive secretary of a United Order.  Many think the United Order was a socialistic order.  I have come to think it was exactly the opposite.  It was about teaching individual service and responsibility and avoiding individual reliance on the work and service of others.  The essence of a willingness to give more than one receives.

I am convinced that this concept of giving more than one receives is only possible in Celestial orders of individuals.   All other social orders must live (exist) by the laws of lessor orders somewhat akin to socialism, capitalism and others we may encounter in mortality.  If you would like some references other than my opinion, I would suggest the following reads – not necessarily in the order given:

The Law – by Frederic Bastiat

Anything by Milton Friedman - - Capitalism and Freedom, There’s No Such Thing as a Free Lunch, Free to Choose.

12 Rules for Life and Beyond Order – by Jordan Peterson.

How to Win Friends and Influence People – by Dale Carnegie

Standard Works of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Jesus the Christ – by James Talmage

The Peacegiver – by James L. Ferrell

 

The Traveler

[Ironhold]

https://apnews.com/article/finance-minister-chrystia-freeland-resigns-trudeau-a8355a62870edd962fee8138dc6bfc77

Apparently, a dispute between the finance minister and PM Trudeau over how best for Canada to handle Trump's threatened tariffs got bitter enough that she's resigned. 

I don't know the details, but she was a key part of Trudeau's cabinet and so if she's gone he might be gone as well. 

If that's the case then Trump's tariffs have just upended a foreign government without even having been enacted yet.

[NeuroTypical]

I'm not exactly expecting it, but I wouldn't be too surprised if Zelynski and Putin announced a deal and a date sometime this month.   

I've also seen two different news reports of migrant convoys not entering Mexico to travel into America.  

Reminds me of compared Thanksgiving tweets in 2020.

[Vort]

5 hours ago, Ironhold said:

https://apnews.com/article/finance-minister-chrystia-freeland-resigns-trudeau-a8355a62870edd962fee8138dc6bfc77

Apparently, a dispute between the finance minister and PM Trudeau over how best for Canada to handle Trump's threatened tariffs got bitter enough that she's resigned. 

I don't know the details, but she was a key part of Trudeau's cabinet and so if she's gone he might be gone as well. 

If that's the case then Trump's tariffs have just upended a foreign government without even having been enacted yet.

Trump appears to have more influence right now, when he's not even in office, than President Biden. I find that both hilarious and more than a little unsettling.

[zil2]

57 minutes ago, Vort said:

Trump appears to have more influence right now, when he's not even in office, than President Biden. I find that both hilarious and more than a little unsettling.

IMO, this is evidence that people respond to leadership.  Biden had never demonstrated leadership.  The minute he was elected, Trump took it and ran with it.

[Carborendum]

9 hours ago, zil2 said:

IMO, this is evidence that people respond to leadership.  Biden had never demonstrated leadership.  The minute he was elected, Trump took it and ran with it.

This means that Trump will go full throttle on his policies.  That can be good, or it can be bad.

I suppose that many of his policies will turn out to be good.  And we will all profit by that.  But a few will be bad.  And when you go full throttle, any bad policies will be absolutely terrible.

It is wisdom to realize we have to take the good with the bad. On the balance, I'm more optimistic than pessimistic.  But I'll expect some few missteps that can be corrected.  And I'll also expect some missteps that may cost him a LOT of political points that he will not be able to recoup.  Even Kennedy had the Bay of Pigs.

Edited December 17, 2024 by Carborendum

[Vort]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Even Kennedy had the Bay of Pigs.

Aside from the obvious fact that he was assassinated just over halfway through his term, Kennedy was a remarkably lucky president. He was a politician through and through, and not the visionary leader he was made out to be. For example, his famous proclamation that America would land men on the moon and bring them back by the end of the decade was almost pure political theater, a statement that Kennedy himself did not believe. Not to refuse due credit to the man, but I think he has been given very distinctly rose-colored treatment in history, a treatment not altogether merited by his actions as president. La vie en rose.

[LDSGator]

21 hours ago, Vort said:

Aside from the obvious fact that he was assassinated just over halfway through his term, Kennedy was a remarkably lucky president. He was a politician through and through, and not the visionary leader he was made out to be. For example, his famous proclamation that America would land men on the moon and bring them back by the end of the decade was almost pure political theater, a statement that Kennedy himself did not believe. Not to refuse due credit to the man, but I think he has been given very distinctly rose-colored treatment in history, a treatment not altogether merited by his actions as president. La vie en rose.

I’m not saying you are wrong, you aren’t. But have you have ever read JFK, Conservative by Ira Stoll? 
 

No one will argue that JFK is Barry Goldwater, but Stoll makes the excellent case that JFK was much more conservative (free markets, pro gun, pro death penalty, several more) than what is realized. 

[Vort]

50 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

No one will argue that JFK is Barry Goldwater, but Stoll makes the excellent case that JFK was much more conservative (free markets, pro gun, pro death penalty, several more) than what is realized.

I believe that's true, but only because there has been a sea change in the position of Democrats on various issues. Such ideals as patriotism and anticommunism used to be widely shared American values, not the province of any single political party. JFK surely was more "conservative" than modern Democrats—conservative in the classic sense, someone who understands that what we have received from our parents is a sacred and valuable treasure that needs to be defended every day. In that sense, you could argue that JFK was more "conservative" in some ways than most modern so-called conservatives.

But—and here's a controversial opinion for you—I believe that Nixon would have been a better president to elect in 1960. For all his imperfections, I believe that 1960 Nixon was a more virtuous leader (and certainly a more faithful husband) than JFK. Kennedy's win was IMO largely due to his immense popularity with the media, especially compared to Nixon, whom the media detested. Nixon's infamous whining about "you won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" was not without solid basis. And while I'm not going to defend Nixon's indefensible Watergate woes, I think you would have to be terminally naive to believe that only Nixon (or only the Republicans) was/were playing that game. If you believe that LBJ was not at least as corrupt as Nixon, probably far moreso, then I would suggest that you have no idea what was going on back at that time.

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

But—and here's a controversial opinion for you—I believe that Nixon

Not controversial for me, I still would have probably still voted for Kennedy.  Nixon was pretty moderate and I’ve always been a AuH2o guy. 

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I’ve always been a AuH2o guy

Now there's a guy who got the screw by the media and whose current historical image is thereby tainted.

[LDSGator]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Now there's a guy who got the screw by the media and whose current historical image is thereby tainted.

Yup

[NeuroTypical]

51 minutes ago, Vort said:

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

No one will argue that JFK is Barry Goldwater, but Stoll makes the excellent case that JFK was much more conservative (free markets, pro gun, pro death penalty, several more) than what is realized.

I believe that's true, but only because there has been a sea change in the position of Democrats on various issues.

"JFK was a dittohead" - Rush Limbaugh in the '90's.   Rush was observing this leftening of the Democrats and telling us about it way back then.