Politics, local-national-global-galactic

[Zoraptor]

45 minutes ago, Gorth said:

Yeah, damn Polish imperialist kept making border raids into western USSR in an attempt to seize chunks off it. Luckily the combined military forces of the USSR and Nazi Germany were able to neutralize the threat before Poland took over all of Europe!

You joke, but Poland did invade Lithuania*- by surprise, wouldn't be ironic otherwise- grabbed 30% of its territory and probably would have conquered it if they hadn't then incompetently lost against a force 1/3 their size. They also took part in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia post Munich rather than supporting her.

*Ironically, and relevant to my previous post, one of Lithuania's problems was that the only country that recognised their independence was the USSR- none of the western allies recognised Lithuania as at that time they were still hoping to reinstate Imperial Russian rule.

[Chilloutman]

1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:

You joke, but Poland did invade Lithuania*- by surprise, wouldn't be ironic otherwise- grabbed 30% of its territory and probably would have conquered it if they hadn't then incompetently lost against a force 1/3 their size. They also took part in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia post Munich rather than supporting her.

*Ironically, and relevant to my previous post, one of Lithuania's problems was that the only country that recognised their independence was the USSR- none of the western allies recognised Lithuania as at that time they were still hoping to reinstate Imperial Russian rule.

 

they just tried to took part of Czechoslovakia, we kicked them out

[Bartimaeus]

me still waiting for iowa to officially declare a winner

apparently it's supposed to come monday after they correct the est. 100 precinct errors

[Skarpen]

5 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

*rollseyes*

Never change, liberals.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will applaud Stalin and Russians for their performance in WW2 despite being dealt an initial bad hand and playing it the best they could.  Not a fan of dictatorships or One Party states but credit and respect can go where they're due.

Do you also applaud Nazis for their performance? They were equally able in the same fields of exterminating people as Russians.

 

[Elerond]

8 hours ago, ComradeMaster said:

*rollseyes*

Never change, liberals.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will applaud Stalin and Russians for their performance in WW2 despite being dealt an initial bad hand and playing it the best they could.  Not a fan of dictatorships or One Party states but credit and respect can go where they're due.

It is good that you applaud for USSR invading it neighbouring countries without provocation and killing hundreds of thousands people. It is just so sad that USSR had to invade for example Finland in order to ensure that their initial bad hand don't cause them too much problems 

[213374U]

Funny story, Stalin looked into hopping on the Axis bandwagon in 1940 but was rebuffed by Hitler taking exception to his Eastern European sphere of influence ambitions.

Just imagine. Soviet Union in the Anti-Comintern Pact. Waste of a historic opportunity, man.

[Guard Dog]

41 minutes ago, 213374U said:

Funny story, Stalin looked into hopping on the Axis bandwagon in 1940 but was rebuffed by Hitler taking exception to his Eastern European sphere of influence ambitions.

Just imagine. Soviet Union in the Anti-Comintern Pact. Waste of a historic opportunity, man.

Makes sense to me. Brutal tyrants stick together. Joe was a better match to Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito than he ever was to Roosevelt and Churchill. 

You know I am puzzled by one thing. We have had a lot of folks come here and defend Communism as an economic system. Some have been utter trolls who enjoy provoking people. Some have been (I think) genuine like Ben. But everyone of them feel compelled to defend the indefensible like Lenin, Stalin Mao, and the worst acts of the USSR and other oppressive nations that delighted in killing people by the thousands. 

Personally I don't think the brutality and the economic system CAN be separated.  But you'd think at least one of our so called Commie's would have tried to make the argument. If they have I don't recall. 

Edited February 9, 2020 by Guard Dog
And another thing

[HoonDing]

[ComradeYellow]

5 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Makes sense to me. Brutal tyrants stick together. Joe was a better match to Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito than he ever was to Roosevelt and Churchill. 

You know I am puzzled by one thing. We have had a lot of folks come here and defend Communism as an economic system. Some have been utter trolls who enjoy provoking people. Some have been (I think) genuine like Ben. But everyone of them feel compelled to defend the indefensible like Lenin, Stalin Mao, and the worst acts of the USSR and other oppressive nations that delighted in killing people by the thousands. 

Personally I don't think the brutality and the economic system CAN be separated.  But you'd think at least one of our so called Commie's would have tried to make the argument. If they have I don't recall. 

Well hard times call for strange bedfellows.  It was evident back then that the West would rather get in bed with the Soviets than the Nazi's.  Likewise, I'd rather get in bed with the likes of Putin, XI, and Kim than I would right wing lunatics like Netanyahu and Bolsonaro, even though I don't subscribe to "brutal dictators".  Choices and consequences.

[Guard Dog]

16 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

Well hard times call for strange bedfellows.  It was evident back then that the West would rather get in bed with the Soviets than the Nazi's.  Likewise, I'd rather get in bed with the likes of Putin, XI, and Kim than I would right wing lunatics like Netanyahu and Bolsonaro, even though I don't subscribe to "brutal dictators".  Choices and consequences.

Completely disagree with you there too. Netanyahu does not have absolute power. He can be voted out of office at any time. The others you mentioned cannot be voted out and DO have absolute power. They also command large military forces with nuclear weapons that are threatening your country and people either directly or indirectly. All have committed acts of espionage against you. Getting in bed with any of them is like getting in bead with a woman who wants you dead. 

I am trying to take you seriously CM. But sometimes you make me wonder. 
 

[213374U]

If you think Bibi ain't got nukes, and that doesn't (indirectly) threaten your country...

[pmp10]

5 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

You know I am puzzled by one thing. We have had a lot of folks come here and defend Communism as an economic system. Some have been utter trolls who enjoy provoking people. Some have been (I think) genuine like Ben. But everyone of them feel compelled to defend the indefensible like Lenin, Stalin Mao, and the worst acts of the USSR and other oppressive nations that delighted in killing people by the thousands. 

Personally I don't think the brutality and the economic system CAN be separated.  But you'd think at least one of our so called Commie's would have tried to make the argument. If they have I don't recall. 

You can easily argue that they were only latecomers to the games of imperialism and colonization which always left dead by the thousands.

[Zoraptor]

Well yeah, the classic example is the British Raj starving Indians because they were growing opium that they'd then fight a war to force China to allow people to buy. All perfectly imperialist and perfectly capitalist.

The problem with economic theory of any sort is that it- inherently- turns people into numbers. And it's been shown time and time again that it is extraordinarily easy to treat people extraordinarily badly when they aren't people any more but just numbers, and numbers that you want to go a certain way.

[Skarpen]

2 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

Well yeah, the classic example is the British Raj starving Indians because they were growing opium that they'd then fight a war to force China to allow people to buy. All perfectly imperialist and perfectly capitalist.

If that was example of capitalism then so was the Conquistadors and ancient Greece and Rome conquests. Unless you want to tell us that capitalism is thousands year old then your argument doesn't hold water. Just because someone has done something out of greed doesn't make it a capitalistic deed. Heck, Raskolnikov killed old lady to steal her money, but you would have a hard time explaining to anyone that Dostoevsky was writing about a capitlistic youth.

[Maedhros]

7 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

You know I am puzzled by one thing. We have had a lot of folks come here and defend Communism as an economic system. Some have been utter trolls who enjoy provoking people. Some have been (I think) genuine like Ben. But everyone of them feel compelled to defend the indefensible like Lenin, Stalin Mao, and the worst acts of the USSR and other oppressive nations that delighted in killing people by the thousands.

Do we really though? There are many here and elsewhere who want the government to provide cheaper healthcare and education through raised taxes, which is fully possible without abandoning a capitalist system - but I don't see many people who genuinly defend communism? Except the occational oddball every now and then.

[213374U]

31 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

If that was example of capitalism then so was the Conquistadors and ancient Greece and Rome conquests. Unless you want to tell us that capitalism is thousands year old then your argument doesn't hold water. Just because someone has done something out of greed doesn't make it a capitalistic deed. Heck, Raskolnikov killed old lady to steal her money, but you would have a hard time explaining to anyone that Dostoevsky was writing about a capitlistic youth.

I was under the impression that Raskolnikov killed the money lender because "he could", figured he was an übermensch of sorts and thus, in a position to decide over the life of an old woman who in his eyes brought nothing of value. The money he got was a bit of a vehicle for the grand deeds he'd accomplish and the people he'd aid which would more than justify murder. The money was a classic macguffin.

And yes, most humans throughout history have lived under one empire or another. They were all brutal, but not all were capitalist in a modern sense. If you're suggesting that you can separate capitalism from imperialist brutality by pointing at pre-modern empires that weren't capitalist, you'll find that no capitalist societies exist that aren't imperialistic, or otherwise exist under and benefit from the superstructure of an empire. Which will undoubtedly be brutal.

[Guard Dog]

25 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

Do we really though? There are many here and elsewhere who want the government to provide cheaper healthcare and education through raised taxes, which is fully possible without abandoning a capitalist system - but I don't see many people who genuinly defend communism? Except the occational oddball every now and then.

More social programs paid for by taxes is not socialism. Socialisim starts when the government becomes the sole provider of healthcare and the practitioners become agents of the state. In this country such a system exists for military veterans run by the Veterans Administration and is is s--t. 

That is not quite what is being suggested in the US at this time. Rather what is being suggested is the practitions remain a private practice and the government pays the bill. The only problem is in a country of 327M people 10% pay 90% of all the taxes. You could strip that 10% of dollar they have. Then kille them and sell their organs on the black market and you still won't come close to covering the cost. 

The "medicare for all" solution faces the same problem as the health insurance solution. When the end user is not responsible for the cost there is no way to check price escalations. And no incentive for the providders not to scalp the payer. The problem in the US is not access. It's runaway cost. It's basic economics. Subsidize the ability to pay for the cost of widgets and there is no incentive not to increase the cost of widgets. 

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, 213374U said:

If you think Bibi ain't got nukes, and that doesn't (indirectly) threaten your country...

Well you know what I say. Draw a line down the middle of the Atlantic east of Purto Rico and the US Virgin Islands and down the Pacific west of Guam and American Samoa. Withdraw all US military forces to bases inside those lines. Then aborgate all defensive treaties and tell the world "this side is ours and that side is yours. Leave us alone and we'll leave you alone. 

Too bad I'll never be elected to anything. 

[Skarpen]

30 minutes ago, 213374U said:

And yes, most humans throughout history have lived under one empire or another. They were all brutal, but not all were capitalist in a modern sense. If you're suggesting that you can separate capitalism from imperialist brutality by pointing at pre-modern empires that weren't capitalist, you'll find that no capitalist societies exist that aren't imperialistic, or otherwise exist under and benefit from the superstructure of an empire. Which will undoubtedly be brutal.

They weren't capitalistic in any sense at all.

And of course you can separate capitalism from anything a country does. Simply because capitalism, as opposed to for example socialism, is not an ideology but solely an economic system. Therefore it can be implemented in any governmental system. A monarchy can be capitalistic, democracy can be capiralistic, military junta can be capitalistic. Doesn't mean that anything they do is in the name of capitalism. If Soviet Union was capitalistic it wouldn't make gulags capitalistic invention.

Edited February 9, 2020 by Skarpen

[213374U]

Yeah, I vaguely remember somebody making that exact same argument before. It was thoroughly refuted then, and I have little desire to revisit that discussion. Especially since you apparently refuse to accept the fact that there is an inextricable bond between politics and economics. This is the equivalent of discussing physics with someone who rejects Newton's laws.

[ComradeYellow]

2 hours ago, Maedhros said:

Do we really though? There are many here and elsewhere who want the government to provide cheaper healthcare and education through raised taxes, which is fully possible without abandoning a capitalist system - but I don't see many people who genuinly defend communism? Except the occational oddball every now and then.

Correct, yes.  There's literally nothing wrong with a robust public economic/health/education sector and also a private sector.  It's not about taking away anything it's about adding things.  More options.  Now if we cut the military budget in half, and translate that money to a Green sector in public works, it would uplift society as a whole.

[Skarpen]

6 hours ago, 213374U said:

Yeah, I vaguely remember somebody making that exact same argument before. It was thoroughly refuted then, and I have little desire to revisit that discussion. Especially since you apparently refuse to accept the fact that there is an inextricable bond between politics and economics. This is the equivalent of discussing physics with someone who rejects Newton's laws.

I'm not surprised someone did (I'm surprised that this"quoted person" doesn't exist outside of the quote anywhere on this forum) as this is common knowledge and simple facts. But it seems yet again when lacking arguments mods relay on character assassination and hoaxes here, sad.

You would need to explain in detail what do you mean by "bond between politics and economy" as this is very vague statement. It's obvious that in a given country politics influence economy and vice versa, but it's not what I was saying. 

Edited February 10, 2020 by Skarpen

[Katphood]

This pretty much sums up everything:

 

 

[Agiel]

On 2/8/2020 at 11:30 AM, Gromnir said:

am agreeing with chris matthews, but probable not exact same as gd.

somebody needs to start asking bernie tougher questions. elizabeth warren, like her or hate her, can answer questions 'bout how she is gonna pay for all the bright new toys she promises, and we know exact where she stands on virtual every issue. bernie is less certain. the lack o' certainty has, so far, been good for his campaign 'cause is less likely drive folks away for practical reasons related to implementation or policy. serious flame brands and more moderate democrats may both support bernie just so long as we don't know what exactly he is selling.

the following happened a few days past and were similar bothersome to us.

bernie folks selling the us v. them bit with "billionaires" being the evil them. not just nina or a few folks. is one o' the new rallying cries, or so it seems. blame on billionaires is just so cheap and easy for bernie folks and is becoming a mindless refrain rather than a point o' real discussion. if having money is making a person bad, then bernie and warren is terrible people deserving o' scorn and ridicule. am knowing there ain't gonna be much sympathy for billionaires 'round these parts, but jason johnson were right on this point. "oligarch" is tame compared to some o' the labels being bandied 'bout by the bernie folks. 

am thinking most o' us agree it were wrong for somebody in the warren campaign to leak bernie's previous observations 'bout women Presidential candidates right before iowa, but am understanding some o' the frustration the various campaigns is feeling when dealing with bernie supporters and their social media antics.

https://thebulwark.com/bern-it-all-down/

we always gave credit to bernie regarding the consistency o' his outspoken views on violence and bullies. bernie were vocal and unequivocal with his condemnation o' antifa shenanigans. the thing is, his campaign is indeed embracing increasing divisive and unrestrained elements 'bout which more recent he has been uncharacteristically silent. perhaps we would be willing to endure his billionaire blame game if he were more outspoken 'bout chastising some o' the more unsavory elements in his campaign. am bothered by his silence.

course am gonna once again observe, in spirit o' full disclosure, we ain't a big bernie fan. am thinking he is good for the campaign 'cause he forces Americans to discuss relevant issues such as income disparity, but he ain't our horse in this race save for unpleasant scenario where we end up with bernie v. trump.  

HA! Good Fun!

I would rather that the conversation moves past whether or not a public healthcare system is "socialism" (something similar to Warren's plan was championed by icons of American politics like Ted Kennedy and George McGovern, so I hardly think it would lead to the US becoming a Stalinist hellhole) so that there is an actual debate on serious questions that must be answered before such a scheme can move forwards.

 

1. Would the American people be willing to endure the undeniably inevitable additional tax burden on ordinary citizens? I remain unconvinced that under Warren's taxation plan even if enforcement was reasonably airtight the revenue it generated alone could cover the cost of a Medicare-for-All, almost assuredly passing on some of the cost to middle to upper-middle class workers. Just as a great deal many recent college grads are getting their student debts to manageable levels suddenly things like an annual vacation, home ownership, and sending their own children to college loan-free will be placed out of reach once again.

2. Would Americans tolerate what some may consider overly-intrusive state-intervention in the physical well-being of its citizens in order to reduce the burden on a public health-care system? In much the rest of the developed world there are hefty taxes levied on fatty and sugary snacks and beverages. It's rather hard to be an alcoholic in Norway and Sweden due to taxes on hard liquor. In the UK there is a ban on ads for candies and snacks deliberately targeting children. And in Japan there is the dreaded "metabo law," wherein employers and municipalities will incur financial penalties if those under their charge do not meet guidelines in weight and waist circumference. When this question was put to the citizens of New York under Mike Bloomberg the answer seemed to have been a resounding "no." Given how obesity rates in the US compare to the rest of the developed world, I would think even those in Norway, Japan, and France would believe it totally irresponsible to institute "Medicare-for-all" in the US as its citizens are now.

3. What is to be done in order to overcome the social and racial divisions that permeate American politics? Judging by the content of the rhetoric of the current candidates on the campaign trail and the company they keep this is an area I find Sanders severely wanting. My outlook is that a great deal of Trump voters would actually like healthcare provided by the state, BUT, they don't want it if it means their taxes insure that inner-city blacks and single-mothers "who made bad life decisions" get it too. As Jim Goad put it "My hatred is a thousand times more powerful than all of your good intentions."

Edited February 10, 2020 by Agiel

[Skarpen]

35 minutes ago, Katphood said:

This pretty much sums up everything:

 

 

Nah. I think is not reasonable to search other points of origin of WW3 then the one that was the matching point of two previous ones. 

WW3 most likely scenario will be EU creating it's own military that Germany want's so badly followed by declaring federalization of the union to which some countries will be opposed and try to leave the union. The EU will try to use it's new military to force those countries to submission and it will go downhill from there.