Trump - 4 more years of this at least...

[Berries]

Those bloody Communards.

[Pursang]

That is what your takeaway from that was? So , I can assume the rest is correct?

I could go on - but I will leave with this:

Once you believe in a Collectivist narrative (Us vs Them) - and you run that experiment to its ultimate conclusion - you end up with either Cambodia or Mid-Century Germany - both of which, from a practical point of view, are virtually indistinguishable............

Please explain how MAGA is Not aggressively (Us Vs Them) and their Project 2025 is Not a path to an Authoritarian Kleptocracy!

[sugilite:Me]

This I don’t agree, you need to ask yourself - what did each president do? What happened in their term? Instead of - hey that number is bigger than that one!

Hi dean, I must say this is an odd post.
I simply stated bush inherited a surplus and then burned through it in record time as you yourself then went on to point out.
So with Bush starting the wars thus burning through the cash, how exactly was I wrong?

Fun fact: The Iraq war was illegal, and based on completely false pretenses. But by happy coincidence I'm sure - America ended up with with options on a bunch of oil at a great knock down rates.

[TheDemonLord]

That is what your takeaway from that was? So , I can assume the rest is correct?

You assume incorrectly - I am trying not to argue as much as I used to. However - one of my favorite bugbears is the attempt at the disassociation of Fascism with Marxism.

Please explain how MAGA is Not aggressively (Us Vs Them)

Because the us (in the context of those that are MAGA) is fundamentally an Individualist philosophy - it is opposed to the myriad of Collectivist philosophies (which all, curiously enough, have their roots in Marxism).

The majority of MAGA folks simply want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit. Case in point - one of the subsets of the MAGA movement could be considered the GamerGate folks - and whilst there is a lot of differences - I am using them to make this comment - the Battle cry of these people was:

We just wanted to play Video Games.

That is to say, they did not want their chosen form of entertainment subverted for a political goal that they did not share.

Or to put it another way: I don't care if you want to make a computer game with Gay/Women/Black/Other characters.

What I do care about is if you want to take over a computer game franchise that I enjoy and completely disregard the existing Lore, Canon, Context etc. and artificially insert those characters making the game worse for it.

And before anyone says it: I like well written Gay/Women/Black/Other characters.

and their Project 2025 is Not a path to a Authoritarian Kleptocracy!

To be clear, I have not read through the entire 900 pages - I have downloaded a copy though.

In terms of the parts I have read - the key takeaway points are:

- Shrinking the size of the Federal Government (that, right there, is a rebuttal to the claim of Authoritarian Kleptocracy).
- limiting the power of, or in some cases disbanding Federal agencies that are acting as the Legislature.
- Ousting Civil servants who are philosophically opposed to the direction that the people have voted for.
- Getting rid of DIE, CRT and other Marxist subversions.
- Preventing *federal* funds from being spent on things that are political issues (such as Abortions).
- Promoting Christian Family values.

There are elements I do not entirely agree with, the advocacy for Christianity for example - especially in the US context where the Federal Government is meant to be religiously neutral.

There are other elements that I think are more wish-list items and unlikely to happen (getting rid of the Department of Education, for example)

There are other elements I quite like - getting rid of people who work in departments and actively subvert what was voted for - and of course getting rid of all the DIE and CRT stuff.

Edit:

Pursang - in the pursuit of fairness - I would like to know what parts of Project 2025 is, in your opinion, a path to a Authoritarian Kleptocracy.

[Dean]

Welcome back TheDemonLord!

Great to have another Trump supporter on here.

And great analysis/posts.

[nerrrd]

Are they?

Marx quite clearly said that Socialism was a stepping stone to Communism.

...

The antidote is an individualist narrative.

I'm not remotely qualified to comment from a political or ideological point of view, but from a pragmatic point of view, working together in a co-operative society seems to me to be central to humanity's survival and is one of the unique qualities that has made our species so 'successful'. It's also a biological imperative to maintain a healthy gene pool.

So while I enjoy being an individual, I get many more benefits from being a citizen of New Zealand than I do from just being me. I'm not sure if co-operation is technically socialism, but if it is, I'm down with it.

[Dean]

Hi dean, I must say this is an odd post.
I simply stated bush inherited a surplus and then burned through it in record time as you yourself then went on to point out.
So with Bush starting the wars thus burning through the cash, how exactly was I wrong?

Fun fact: The Iraq war was illegal, and based on completely false pretenses. But by happy coincidence I'm sure - America ended up with with options on a bunch of oil at a great knock down rates.

Hi,

What I was pointing out was that those said wars would have occurred under a Democrat government regardless.

They were in large a response to the terrible events of 9/11.
And a decision made or supported by multiple people outside of the President (such as but not limited to military generals, advisors and Americans).

So it is unfair to pass judgement on GOP spending when their elected presidents were in office during these circumstances where they had no option but to spend to deliver on desired outcomes.

A better analysis would be to look for both GOP and Democrat presidents operating under similar conditions to make a fair and reasonable comparison.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm not remotely qualified to comment from a political or ideological point of view, but from a pragmatic point of view, working together in a co-operative society seems to me to be central to humanity's survival and is one of the unique qualities that has made our species so 'successful'. It's also a biological imperative to maintain a healthy gene pool.

So while I enjoy being an individual, I get many more benefits from being a citizen of New Zealand than I do from just being me. I'm not sure if co-operation is technically socialism, but if it is, I'm down with it.

Co-Operation is not Socialism.

So - you raise a good point, I entirely agree, voluntary Co-Operation is a wonderful thing. I want something from you, you want something from me - we find a way that we both get what we want.

I would even argue say that the above is the foundation of Capitalism - but that is merely me trying to score points.

If I use the dictionary definition of Socialism (which I am loathe to do - but for the point, it will suffice) - it argues that the means of production should be owned by the community - that is not co-operation, but the equal (or Equitable...) distribution of profits. Not Co-Operation.

[sugilite:Me]

Hi,

What I was pointing out was that those said wars would have occurred under a Democrat government regardless.

But they didn't and the rest is pure speculation on your part. I'm dealing with facts here Dean, not shoulda, woulda, coulda.

A better analysis would be to look for both GOP and Democrat presidents operating under similar conditions to make a fair and reasonable comparison.

One political term has never mirrored another, like - ever.

[sugilite:Me]

Ahhh, I see the immanent arrival of marxism/communism if the dems are elected is front and centre once again.

So in my life time I have seen this warning from maga (formally known as the gop/republicans RIP) since the carter days. Since then we have had 24 years of what must be according to the right, marxism in the USA. Looks a lot to me much like capitalism under maga (formally gop/republicans RIP)

Looking at the countries listed above by tdl that are actually a brand of flavor of marxism/communism, even if severely warped - could it be that the gop are a little confused as to what that even is when applied to their own country? Especially as they are now ardent fans of putin and russia.
I'm sure it is an honest mistake and the right is not fanning the flames of fear in their, well shall we charitably say alternative fact based base.
I mean after 24 years of rampant dems led marxism in the USA, what have they achieved, well other than tampons in some boys school toilets?

Semi related: The far left "progressive" parts of the dems aint got shit this term, just look at US oil production, higher than in the trump years!

As a fun aside, last week trumps advisors set up a table behind him full of food to remind trump to talk about inflation. Did he? No, he just played the greatest grievance hits again, waaaah , wahhhh 2020 election stolen etc, etc. Only at the end did he turn around and address the table full of veges and other foods. This prompted a very impressive response from the former President "Look, cheerios, I've not seen those for years" he then wandered off the stage. Not a man who can follow any sort of good advice from his "advisors" and certainly not anyone that should be running a country

[Dean]

But they didn't and the rest is pure speculation on your part. I'm dealing with facts here Dean, not shoulda, woulda, coulda.

Sure, that never happened, because Bush was in office, despite the fact that to engage in an all out war the ultimate power is vested in Congress who operate separate from the president (not a red vs blue thing).

But if were talking about facts then your statement that GOP consistently overspend is false.

The top 3 out of 5 presidents in US history who had the greatest increase in debt while in office were democrats.

Now you could use my argument, which would be sensible to do, that number 1 on the list (Franklin D Roosevelt) was fighting a grand world war which rightfully equates to insane debt.

And based off your argument I could also say that this wouldn’t have happened if a GOP was in office - because that didn’t happen (coulda, woulda)…

Or maybe I could compare every GOP’s financial performance to Franklin? (Because no president is the same…right?).

3rd on the list - Obama.
4th - Ronald Raegan.

One political term has never mirrored another, like - ever.

Agreed, but there a clear and strong indicators of difference such as:

- President A had been in no recessions or economic crisis.
- President B had multiple
= substantial difference

- President A was involved in minor military operations
- President B started full scale large wars
= substantial difference

It doesn’t need to go down to the enth degree in comparison.
Just at a common sense level.

I believe above is a common sense level.

[sugilite:Me]

A wall of text TDL would be proud of

Dean, you are doing it again.
If you go to my earliest post about this, I said both dems and republicans spend and waste money. My ENTIRE point was that it grinds my gears that republicans only "care" about fiscal responcibility when they are not the ones in power. As soon as they have power it is spend, spend, spend away - yes, just like the dems spend, spend, spend.
I'm used to dealing with magas that do the old ignore what I actually say and then write screes of unrelated text based on what I did not say. If you can read my posts with a little more care, you will save a bunch of time in typing.

[TheDemonLord]

Ahhh, I see the immanent arrival of marxism/communism if the dems are elected is front and centre once again.

So in my life time I have seen this warning from maga (formally known as the gop/republicans RIP) since the carter days. Since then we have had 24 years of what must be according to the right, marxism in the USA. Looks a lot to me much like capitalism under maga (formally gop/republicans RIP)

Looking at the countries listed above by tdl that are actually a brand of flavor of marxism/communism, even if severely warped - could it be that the gop are a little confused as to what that even is when applied to their own country? Especially as they are now ardent fans of putin and russia.
I'm sure it is an honest mistake and the right is not fanning the flames of fear in their, well shall we charitably say alternative fact based base.
I mean after 24 years of rampant dems led marxism in the USA, what have they achieved, well other than tampons in some boys school toilets?

What have they achieved - a good question. I am going to give the succinct answer first: Shifting the Needle and undermining social cohesion.

Now for the expanded answer:

Shifting the needle - Remember yonks ago when I talked about being a Centrist with some left-leaning sensibilities - things like Drug legalization, Pro-Choice, Free Speech (yes, this used to be a left-wing virtue) - all your classic Libertarian viewpoints that I hold.

Lets go back to a current Right-wing talking point - the need to secure the border - and I can think of no one better to make the point for me, than that most famous of Right Wing philosophers... Joe Biden:



Put aside who it is saying it (for the moment, I am sure you can guess the point I am making) - None of those talking points would appear out of place on a Republican ticket today, yes - More guards, more surveillance.

Yet, in 17 years - An issue that had broad cross-party agreement: The need for a secure border has now become a partisan issue. Whereby one side thinks the other is racist for merely saying people shouldn't come in illegally and conversely that side thinks the other is committing treason by openly advocating for illegal migrants.

We have gone from a position where we both agree on something being a problem, but we cannot agree on how to solve it:

e.g. The bike wont start - I say to check the fuel pump and you say to check the spark plugs

To a position where we cannot even agree on the problem:

I say the bike wont start and the Dems say that the bike is an object of White supremacist colonialism.

This is just one issue. There are a myriad more political issues that I can think of where 20-30 years ago there was a broad agreement at least about the problem, but disagreement on the solution.

FWIW - I dont think America will ever go into a full revolution - that is not the danger of Marxism in the US context that I worry about. Which brings me to the second point:

Social Cohesion.

The late 90s and early 2000s were, IMO probably the peak time for Social Cohesion. You had a Media that was largely neutral (although not referencing the 90s and 2000s - this is an excellent video on the polarization of reporting), You had the birth of the Internet which meant people were able to find kinship in a way that perhaps they weren't able to do previously (instead of being the one weird guy that you knew, suddenly there were groups of other weird people, doing weird people things... and those weird people no longer felt alone or isolated, but got a sense of community) You had tolerance and acceptance of Homosexuality... to a degree, you had the decline of overt racism that was common in the 60s and 70s, you still had the majority of people living in the Nuclear Family.

The late 2000s though - that is when we saw first the rise of the Atheism vs Theism debates, which then morphed into the Feminism debates, which then morphed into Intersectionality debates - and now we have the full plethora of Race, Gender, Sexuality etc. politics on display.

I could go on, at length on all of these - but to make the point I am going to pick on Gender.

Go back 20 years, There was Male and Female. We all knew what that was, as had everybody from every culture for as far back as humanity can be bothered going. Sure we had Cross-dressers, we even had a few trans people - but even those knew what they were, Biologically.

then 10 or so years ago - a claim was made that Sex and Gender was different, but biological sex was still a thing and so someone could be a biological Male, but their Gender was Female - but they are still a biological male.

Now - we have TransWomen are Women and people have been arrested for saying that a Woman is an adult human female.

A fundamental bedrock of society (that we are a sexually dimorphic species) has been undermined and that undermining hurts social cohesion. Societal expectations (and we can argue whether they are good, bad, relics of the past or useful ways to regulate behavior) around gender have been damaged - and this has real world implications - the classic example (in the US) is the ruined thanksgiving dinner by the discussion of Politics.

It used to be that Politics could be discussed as a difference of opinion (see the above about agreeing on the problem, arguing over the solution) but now Politicis is discussed as an extension of Morality - one look at this thread should provide ample evidence of this.

Have they ushered in the Utopia as promised? - Of course not. Have they implemented things like Socialized Healthcare? No.

But have they made society a more divisive place? I put it to you that they demonstrably have and that this is not a good thing.

[TheDemonLord]

A wall of text TDL would be proud of

Mate, I didnt even need to scroll up to read the whole thing.

In my holiday, I think you have forgotten what a true Wall o' Text is.

[sugilite:Me]

Mate, I didnt even need to scroll up to read the whole thing.

In my holiday, I think you have forgotten what a true Wall o' Text is.

Ill quote this one for others sanity. But pop in your ending from your earlier post for context below. Yes indeed, thank you for reminding us what a true wall of text is, and I can see areas where you were even holding back

Have they ushered in the Utopia as promised? - Of course not. Have they implemented things like Socialized Healthcare? No.

But have they made society a more divisive place? I put it to you that they demonstrably have and that this is not a good thing.

Mate, each side shows off their visions of a shiny utopia which somehow never comes to fruition. As you know very well, much of trumps brand is based on division. So for you to be speaking like only of the left are doing it is actually not even being on thin ice, as in fact it is deep, deep water. So unless your name is Jesus, or you wear scuba gear as your daily attire - I highly recommend you not go there! Unless if course you are wanting an avalanche of youtube videos showing the right wing separatists doing their worst?.

Lets do a good old sugilite analogy shall we? (like you have a choice? )
In the marxist corner (you pick the country that runs the closest version of actual marxism) we have their best cake, it is a joyless vegan, gluten free xmas cake made from the driest shitty ingredients possible, so not a cake for their leadership, but rather their people.

Now we have a cake made in good ole U.S.A., a spectacular capitalist heart attack inducing rich multilayered chocolate cake, oozing with cream and adorned with the finest icing available. A cake that is available for everyone - hurrah!

Now in the large scheme of things, I put it to you that if you were to compare the republican cake, and the dems version of the same cake, there would be little difference other than one has red sprinkles on it, and the other blue sprinkles - if it is a birthday cake, the dems candles may be made from tampons.
However, in no way would the dems cake share any meaningful likeness to the poor old dry unappealing marxist cake from an ACTUAL marxist regime.

Now if you don't mind I'm off to buy me a cake, for some reason I'm getting hungry for one, I will however forgo the dems bday candles