Can Donald Trump become President Again?

[Foxi4]

Talk about mental gymnastics here. Wasn't aware you were one of those denialists trying to whitewash history.

How is it white washing? It’s a 100 million dead people, from all factors (war/conflict, ethnic cleansing and European diseases). It’s actually at the high end of estimates - there are lower numbers floating about. If anything, I’m being generous. As far as Marx is concerned, yes - I do blame him. He created the abjectly amoral framework that all those those oppressive regimes based their own system on, he’s one of the catalysts of collectivist thought. In the absence of Marx, none of them would ever be established. I wonder how the world would’ve looked like then - an interesting thought.

@Xzi @smf we could have a 200th “communism versus capitalism” conversation on this forum, but frankly, we’ve been over this to death. It’s just not that interesting to me. We have a very different point of view in regards to responsibility. To me, the guilty party is *always* the party that performs a deliberate action leading to the negative consequence. I can’t blame capitalism for what a particular individual decided to do - that’s asinine. We’re comparing like to like - systemic failure to systemic failure. Under communism those decisions are made by the state, so I *must* blame the state, it’s the only conclusion that logically follows. The failures of communism are systemic specifically because it’s centralised. We can’t agree on that premise, so further discussion is pretty much pointless. I will shake hands on “20th century communist regimes were horrible”, which is an objectively true statement that we can all agree with - that way we avoid 5 pages of a nonsensical back and forth that ends with an unsatisfying crescendo of “let’s agree to disagree”.

 

[FAST6191]

Re world wars. Are we ignoring the socialist part (and they were) of national socialist for at least round two? The history of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and earlier rearmaments is also a fun one in this.
As far as 1 being a right wing affair... that is a drastic oversimplification but I don't know how much time we have for that one. That said I think it is more the usual right-left being a weak lens when it was made in the French revolutions and hundreds of years did not serve to make it better.

Also have we got the colonial era was bad thing around here now? Thought we had dodged that one for a while.
Oh well. I was not around but on behalf of whatever ancestors I had that participated then you are welcome is my usual response, would do it again. Certainly some fuck ups along the way, great fun studying those, but ultimately way better off than they would have been otherwise, though I suppose that immediately devolves into subjective and interference discussions (freedom be good yo).
On the disease thing. Today it would be a thing, however... I suppose some tentative steps in the history of germ theory were known before then but we are still in the mid to late 1800s for stuff to get real (several hundred years after the first of said colonies), and if doing virology then give or take sniffing scabs (a wildly unreliable method, though better than baseline) was 1796 for the smallpox-cowpox thing and taking a few years to hit the US ( https://www.historyofvaccines.org/timeline#EVT_89 ). Equally in a background to all this I would have to do the *points at history of cures for scurvy*. To that end with death and disease being a fact of life really it is hard to usefully look back with modern eyes in judgement on that one.

Anyway we seem to be way way off topic, though I guess that is normal for this section.

The mid terms appear to be heating up and are usually seen as a bellwether for things here.
https://www.bonus.com/election/midterms/ is a betting company (their odds moving in line with input bets to mean they don't lose money* rather than polling, historical analysis or some kind of revealed preference approach) but at time of writing and some historical patterns there

77% odds of Republican house and senate there.

*give or take a perfunctory concern for fairness as it applies to them then betting companies don't care who wins, they make their money from the rake (their little cut for facilitating the bet/paying out the bet). The losing bets going to pay the winners and the odds calculated accordingly.

I suppose a more interesting question is it looks like the republican governor of Florida (Ron Desantis, born 1978 if that matters) is setting about making a name for himself on the national stage (usually a prelude to such a run and I doubt this is going to be for a US Senate or congress seat unless they park him there to age up/have the boomers die off) by appealing to various people**, and not necessarily being as divisive as some cast Trump as (though there is time and the media is not quite dead yet, appear to be ramping up their efforts as well). Now we are still some years off but internal threats for nomination... could be a fun one to debate. For those not knowing their US states then Florida is 4th largest sate by GDP (New York, Texas, California being ahead, California being and about 50% larger than Florida), third in terms of population (experiencing considerable growth over the last few years), Florida also enjoying a fairly notable status in the entertainment and tourism sector as well.

**not necessarily your rank and file republican either, though there were some questionable moves if he wants to get the more centrist democrats (the anti abortion thing being one, and props to the media for managing to coin "don't say gay" even if that is not what it was -- https://web.archive.org/web/2015090...ng-techniques-theyre-using-you-right-now.html once more RIP amusing version of cracked). That or I am massively underestimating the hispanic voting segment (one the democrats are fairly rapidly losing the support of, and that represents a larger and larger section of the population) which is possible.

What state is the economy likely to be in by this point and is that likely to change things? Maybe a nice depression that the democrats can point at and say we would have done it better but we were not in power, and have people believe it or does that go straight to the top and the one in charge bear the blame in the eyes of the population (who are rarely skilled economists).
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts if accurate (and CPI is clearly doctored to skew lower -- look at actual housing costs for one) if allowed to continue and the fed continuing to not being doing much*** (while nominally free to operate outside of the government... who actually believes that? Granted it is no Turkish central bank but yeah).
For the record money printer has gone brrr for well over a decade at this point ( http://www.shadowstats.com/charts/monetary-base-money-supply ) and a lot of that did go into making a few nice bubbles in stocks and housing.

***or indeed benefiting themselves and their friends playing investor rather than the common man.

 

[tabzer]

Mistaking crony politicized opportunism as capitalism misses the "socialism" in effect.

If capitalism was pure, you'd be able to buy Gucci handbags with pocket change. The "socialist" tendencies of your government decided to give their friends "a fair chance" in "owning" thoughts and ideas. Sooner or later you won't be able to think of anything without infringing on someone's rights, if that hasn't happened already.

 

[Dr_Faustus]

Mistaking crony politicized opportunism as capitalism misses the "socialism" in effect.

If capitalism was pure, you'd be able to buy Gucci handbags with pocket change. The "socialist" tendencies of your government decided to give their friends "a fair chance" in "owning" thoughts and ideas. Sooner or later you won't be able to think of anything without infringing on someone's rights, if that hasn't happened already.

Can you elaborate on that further, because the concept of "owning" thoughts and ideas is typically taken in the form of patent law as well as copyright law, both things have been implemented in capitalist systems and have been abused as hell by those who are at the top end of the capitalist system. Between shit like Apple suing people left and right for the patents of a rectangle and "slide to unlock" and companies like Disney flushing cash into congressional pockets every 20 years to extend the deadline of copyright laws so the public domain cannot exist.

 

[Foxi4]

Can you elaborate on that further, because the concept of "owning" thoughts and ideas is typically taken in the form of patent law as well as copyright law, both things have been implemented in capitalist systems and have been abused as hell by those who are at the top end of the capitalist system. Between shit like Apple suing people left and right for the patents of a rectangle and "slide to unlock" and companies like Disney flushing cash into congressional pockets every 20 years to extend the deadline of copyright laws so the public domain cannot exist.

I’d say that there’s a benefit to ownership of ideas, and the concepts of a copyright and a patent, but there need to be sensible limitations imposed on both. Initially those concepts entered the legal system in order to enable inventors and creators to monetise their work regardless of whether they had the means to manufacture or create en masse straight away. It morphed into a patent trolling and gate keeping dystopia that definitely needs to be reigned in. Patent trolling in and out of itself should be banned as it runs contrary to the spirit of patents. They exist to create a window of monetisation opportunity - if a given party has no interest in actually using the patent and sits on it instead in the hopes of others wanting to use it and thus having to pay dividends, they should be instantaneously stripped of it. That’s neither here nor there though. You raise a good point - in Soviet Russia for instance all intellectual property “belonged to the people” as a “common good”, which was a long way of saying it belonged to the state as far as international trade was concerned. Authors had rights within the Soviet states themselves, but not beyond that scope. The state had a monopoly as far as negotiating foreign contracts was concerned.

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

The Tetris debacle comes to mind - Alexey Pajitnov barely made any money on possibly the most recognisable puzzle game of all time. He couldn’t collect royalties until 1997 when the rights for the game finally reverted to him.

http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/9701/22/tetris.inventor/

 

[tabzer]

Can you elaborate on that further, because the concept of "owning" thoughts and ideas is typically taken in the form of patent law as well as copyright law, both things have been implemented in capitalist systems and have been abused as hell by those who are at the top end of the capitalist system. Between shit like Apple suing people left and right for the patents of a rectangle and "slide to unlock" and companies like Disney flushing cash into congressional pockets every 20 years to extend the deadline of copyright laws so the public domain cannot exist.

Capitalism isn't a government enforced idea. When government can overrule the market, it is no longer capitalism.

 

[Purple_Shyguy]

What if Trump seized the means of production, bros?

Would the delusional communist sympathizer in this thread then vote for him?

 

[BitMasterPlus]

Socialism and Communism are bad because yes, they take control of the people, and usually leads to millions of deaths. Even the best systems, like Capitalism, usually have one fault that no system can really fix: Human greed. You can create a near perfect system that's fair for everyone, but someone will take advantage of any weaknesses one way or another because greed is a common sin in man. Not everyone is greedy, but you can and will have someone to take advantage in some shape or form. We can never have a "truly perfect system", but we can improve on the great system we have and try to mitigate the greed one can possess. But a free market is a free market. People have the freedom to do business however they please to a certain extent, and other people are free to give their support and money if they want to or not. You can't stop a person from being greedy, and you can't force people not to support anyone who you think are greedy, even if they are, because it's all personal choice, and that's one of the greatest strengths in Capitalism, personal freedom and choice.

 

[Xzi]

I can’t blame capitalism for what a particular individual decided to do - that’s asinine. We’re comparing like to like - systemic failure to systemic failure.

No kidding, that's why I gave you an out early on by saying essentially the same thing. There are individuals we can point to as responsible for the failures of communist regimes. They weren't granted power by communism, hell they didn't even follow the basic tenants of communism; they seized power by force from an already-broken system. Same way the US now has "businessmen" with designs on becoming dictator running for president every four years, thanks largely to shit like citizens' united making money = speech.

Under communism those decisions are made by the state, so I *must* blame the state, it’s the only conclusion that logically follows. The failures of communism are systemic specifically because it’s centralised.

Same logic would apply to a private sector that owns the state. Communism does not require centralization, that's why anarcho-communism and democratic socialism exist. All forms of government and economic systems require the people in power to work in good faith to function properly.

What if Trump seized the means of production, bros?

Would the delusional communist sympathizer in this thread then vote for him?

What if there's a large population of unicorns on Mars? Trump is already the beneficiary of keeping the means of production right where it is, firmly in the hands of billionaires. If he did make such a power grab, though, we'd all know it's because he's about to declare himself dictator, and not because he intends to redistribute any of it. "Seize the means of production" is intended for the working class, not yuppie nancy-boys like Trump who never did a single honest day's work in his life.

 

[Valwinz]

Lowest unemployment in decades, salary growth, an anti covid programme which wasn't insane, gave america again the position of leader of the west... yep, a disaster all right.

Man i cant wait to see your reacting in the midterms im sure Joe will do fine with his approval rating been lower than trump

 

[Foxi4]

No kidding, that's why I gave you an out early on by saying essentially the same thing. There are individuals we can point to as responsible for the failures of communist regimes. They weren't granted power by communism, hell they didn't even follow the basic tenants of communism; they seized power by force from an already-broken system. Same way the US now has "businessmen" with designs on becoming dictator running for president every four years, thanks largely to shit like citizens' united making money = speech.

As I said countless times before, it is the basic tenants of communism that lead to this behaviour, the individuals involved are only enacting them. It a divisive system by design, it is intended to be enacted through violent revolution and it separates people into antagonistic groups by design. It’s perpetuated by a continuous pursuit of new boogeymen, hence the countless deaths. There’s always an “enemy of the state” around the corner - communism is a hungry beast that requires constant worship and sacrifice.

Same logic would apply to a private sector that owns the state. Communism does not require centralization, that's why anarcho-communism and democratic socialism exist. All forms of government and economic systems require the people in power to work in good faith to function properly.

I wouldn’t describe democratic socialism as communism. As for anarcho-communism, as far as the historical record goes, it fell on its face wherever it was tried, specifically due to the absence of the state. The state has its functions - that’s why I’m a minarchist, not an anarchist. The kind of structure you describe can only work in small, tightly knit groupings, like a family - nobody runs a family based on market principles. It doesn’t work on the level of a state. Off the top of my head I can think of Korea, where it lasted all of two years, and some small regions of Spain where it had a better chance of survival (due to smaller groupings), but was ultimately conquered as well. Again, bigger subject - one that has nothing to do with Trump’s run, and one that’s intensely boring. I don’t really have a problem with people believing in the false song of socialism as long as they’re not running apology tours for the Soviet Union, North Korea, China or Cuba. Stalinism wasn’t awful because of Stalin - Stalin’s just one guy. Stalinism was awful because it was designed on a rotten foundation. The same applies to Maoism - Mao’s responsible for the bad policies, but it’s the machine itself that was faulty.

 

[Foxi4]

Man i cant wait to see your reacting in the midterms im sure Joe will do fine with his approval rating been lower than trump

I do like that he’s cheering himself on with the “biggest reduction in unemployment ever” because… people returned to work after their workplaces were locked down… by the government. Reminds me of this:



The way some people interpret this data is mind boggling. These are not “new jobs”. Inflation is outpacing growth 2:1 - no wealth is being generated, people are losing money hand over fist, and they think they’re getting “raises”. At this point they may as well enact a $15 minimum wage - by the time it goes through Congress that $15 will be worth about as much as the $7.25 from 2 years ago.

"Democratic socialism", "anarcho communism", dumb long terms that mean nothing. Humanity doesnt need those lies. Politics aint real. Demographics are. And they are also destiny.

Pump the breaks on that ethnonationalist train.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

I do like that he’s cheering himself on with the “biggest reduction in unemployment ever” because… people returned to work after their workplaces were locked down… by the government. Reminds me of this:

View attachment 307228

The way some people interpret this data is mind boggling. These are not “new jobs”. Inflation is outpacing growth 2:1 - no wealth is being generated, people are losing money hand over fist, and they think they’re getting “raises”. At this point they may as well enact a $15 minimum wage - by the time it goes through Congress that $15 will be worth about as much as the $7.25 from 2 years ago.
Pump the breaks on that ethnonationalist train.

You do realize the liberals who were clamoring over raising the minimum wage are now eating their words that prices wouldn't also increase therefor nullifying any wage increases. Of course they're not going to admit they were wrong and the people who warned them were right.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

"Democratic socialism", "anarcho communism", dumb long terms that mean nothing. Humanity doesnt need those lies. Politics aint real. Demographics are. And they are also destiny.

Anything containing the word socialism or communism is already set up to fail. That's why our enemies are trying to manipulate the dumb liberals into adopting it. They're just too stupid to realize they are pawns.

 

[Xzi]

As I said countless times before, it is the basic tenants of communism that lead to this behaviour, the individuals involved are only enacting them. It a divisive system by design, it is intended to be enacted through violent revolution and it separates people into antagonistic groups by design. It’s perpetuated by a continuous pursuit of new boogeymen, hence the countless deaths. There’s always an “enemy of the state” around the corner - communism is a hungry beast that requires constant worship and sacrifice.

Again I could replace every instance of communism in this quote with capitalism and it would make just as much sense/be just as valid. Millionaires and billionaires are constantly antagonistic of the lower classes, even inflict violence upon them through the enforcement arm of capitalism (police). The profit motive requires a continuous pursuit of new boogeymen, hence the countless deaths and destruction of lives caused by the war on drugs and the war on terror.

Again I repeat myself: every economic system and system of government requires those individuals in power to operate in good faith. Else they break down and allow for authoritarianism and oligarchy to seep in through the cracks.

"Democratic socialism", "anarcho communism", dumb long terms that mean nothing. Humanity doesnt need those lies. Politics aint real. Demographics are. And they are also destiny.

"Only tribalism is real because I'm a weak-minded tool who can't imagine anything better."

 

[Foxi4]

You do realize the liberals who were clamoring over raising the minimum wage are now eating their words that prices wouldn't also increase therefor nullifying any wage increases. Of course they're not going to admit they were wrong and the people who warned them were right.

Well, it’d be silly to admit that the market reacts to new disposable income via price adjustments. That’s asinine, of course the rent isn’t going to go up after you magically start earning double… right? Your landlord wouldn’t do that, nu-uh.

 

[Foxi4]

Again I could replace every instance of communism in this quote with capitalism and it would make just as much sense/be just as valid. Millionaires and billionaires are constantly antagonistic of the lower classes, even inflict violence upon them through the enforcement arm of capitalism (police). The profit motive requires a continuous pursuit of new boogeymen, hence the countless deaths and destruction of lives caused by the war on drugs and the war on terror.

Again I repeat myself: every economic system and system of government requires those individuals in power to operate in good faith. Else they break down and allow for authoritarianism and oligarchy to seep in through the cracks.

Millionaires and billionaires are not the state. They can only influence policy if the state itself is crooked, which it is. The market didn’t do that - politicians designed it so, for their own benefit. Perhaps if they had a little less power over your life there wouldn’t be a point to buying their favour. I will agree that the members of government should operate in good faith, but that ship has sailed the moment we started paying them. I was always of the opinion that the government should not be revered - it should be in a constant state of fear. They are servants, we are the masters. They enjoy brief, but conditional power - conditional based on our approval or disapproval. Sadly, since the government is worshipped as a holy cow, we can’t have nice things. Again, the difference between capitalism and communism is that under communism the market and the state are one and the same, therefore any culpability is de facto on the state.

 

[Xzi]

Millionaires and billionaires are not the state.

I know, they fucking own the state. Which is another thing I could claim is by design of capitalism. The private sector will always outgrow the public sector unless heavily and strictly regulated. Which means the amoral in pursuit of pure profit will always eventually have undue influence over all aspects of governance.

The market didn’t do that - politicians designed it so.

Precisely, because those were and still are politicians who put their oaths to capitalism before their oaths to the people and the constitution.

I was always of the opinion that the government should not be revered - it should be in a constant state of fear. They are servants, we are the masters. They enjoy brief, but conditional power. Sadly, since the government is worshipped as a holy cow, we can’t have nice things.

Agreed. The upper echelon of the private sector should be treated similarly and should have to submit to similar restraints. Assuming they're going to keep paying their employees poverty wages and forcing the government to make up for it, anyway. Or keep taking massive corporate welfare checks on an annual basis. Basically trying to squeeze government to death from both sides, and make the dystopian autocracy depicted in Blade Runner reality.

 

[Foxi4]

I know, they fucking own the state. Which is another thing I could claim is by design of capitalism. The private sector will always outgrow the public sector unless heavily and strictly regulated. Which means the amoral in pursuit of pure profit will always eventually have undue influence over all aspects of governance.


Precisely, because those were and still are politicians who put their oaths to capitalism before their oaths to the people.


Agreed. The upper echelon of the private sector should be treated similarly and should have to submit to similar restraints. Assuming they're going to keep paying their employees poverty wages and forcing the government to make up for it, anyway. Or keep taking massive corporate welfare checks on an annual basis. Basically trying to squeeze government to death from both sides, and make the dystopian autocracy depicted in Blade Runner reality.

You lost me on the last point. “Rich people” don’t owe you anything - you’re the one willingly giving them money for goods and services. There’s some overlap though, so not too shabby as a closer.

 

[Xzi]

You lost me on the last point. “Rich people” don’t owe you anything - you’re the one willingly giving them money for goods and services. There’s some overlap though, so not too shabby as a closer.

If they're heisting my tax dollars from government, and they very frequently are, then they do owe me something. Corporations would never in a million years be able to repay all the taxes they've illegally avoided, let alone all the handouts given to them by the politicians they've bought.