2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Anti Trumpers
post Jun 2 2016, 01:48 AM
Post #21


Group: Members
Posts: 2.942
Joined: 29-March 08
From: kansas, USA
Member No.: 4.733

QUOTE (AK Rich @ Jun 1 2016, 07:27 PM) *
It is no surprise that college students and grads lean left since public schools and universities have become more and more about social indoctrination than they are about higher education these days. And it is no secret that public education and institutions of higher education are predominantly run and managed by left leaning ideologues.

The results of the last two congressional elections sent a clear message to the establishment as to what the will of the people was and it was ignored so we have no confidence in them to represent us. So it is them, and the media who we also have no confidence in that are largely responsible for this situation. Enough is enough.

Oh and one more thing. It seems to me that it is the left and so called progressives (socialists) in this country that have the fascist tendencies that are more comparable to the National Socialist Party of Hitler. Just sayin'.

listen to the line at 5:40

This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Jun 2 2016, 01:52 AM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Todd Simpson
post Jun 2 2016, 03:10 AM
Post #22

Group Icon

Group: GMC Instructor
Posts: 16.947
Joined: 23-December 09
From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Member No.: 8.794

Thanks very much for this klasaine smile.gif Your explanation and history is clear and concise. Not to mention it saved me wads of time searching down sources and typing all this out. You are 100% percent correct in all of this. However, it I fear it won't matter. Folks who are hell bent on Trump are going to vote for him no matter what. As is their birthright. But I appreciate your analysis quite a bit and agree with all of it. As does history. Well written smile.gif

That said, for everyone who wants to vote Trump, go ahead smile.gif I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. Just pointing out things I see happening and links to historical context. The first video I posted isn't fake sadly. It was just a trap to get Trump supporters to look bad. Which is does. But again, doesn't matter as nobody who supports him would ever believe it. People will believe what they want. Also their birthright so I"m all for that.

In short, I"m just glad to have you involved in this discussion. Thanks very much for the post smile.gif

QUOTE (klasaine @ Jun 1 2016, 10:14 AM) *
Do I personally think the Donald is another Adolf?
No, but I think a couple of definitions and some history is in order ...

National Socialism is misnomer. It had nothing to do with Marxist style 'socialism'. Hence the National in front of it.
Not only was Hitler not a socialist himself (nor a communist) but he actually hated these ideologies and did as much as he could to eradicate them. At first this involved organizing bands of thugs to attack socialists in the street, but grew into invading Russia (a socialist country since it's revolution in 1917) in part to enslave the population and earn ‘living room' for Germans, and in part to wipe out communism and ‘Bolshevism’.

The key element here is what Hitler did, believed and tried to create. Nazism was fundamentally an ideology built around race, while socialism was/is built around class. Hitler aimed to unite the right and left, including workers and their bosses, into a new German nation based on the racial identity of those in it. Socialism, in contrast, was a class struggle, aiming to build a workers state, whatever race the worker was from. Nazism drew on a range of pan German theories, which wanted to blend Aryan workers and Aryan magnates into a super Aryan state, which would involve the eradication of class focused socialism, as well as Judaism and other ideas deemed non-German.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions. He supported the actions of leading industrialists - actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper class Germans into supporting him. Workers were targeted with slightly different propaganda, but these were promises simply to earn support, to get into power, and then to remake the workers along with everyone else into a racial state. There was to be no dictatorship of the proletariat as in socialism; there was just to be the dictatorship of the Fuhrer.

*The belief that Hitler was a socialist seems to have emerged from two sources: the name of his political party, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party, or Nazi Party, and the early presence of socialists in it.

While it does look like a very socialist name, the problem is that National Socialism’ is not socialism, but a different, fascist ideology (remember, Mussolini came first). Hitler had originally joined when the party was called the German Worker’s Party, and he was there as a spy to keep an eye on it. It was not, as the name suggested, a devotedly left wing group, but one Hitler thought had potential, and as Hitler’s oratory became popular the party grew and Hitler became a leading figure.

At this point ‘National Socialism’ was a confused mishmash of ideas with multiple proponents, arguing for nationalism, antisemitism, and yes, some socialism. The party records don’t record the name change, but it’s generally believed a decision was taken to rename the party to attract people, and partly to forge links with other ‘national socialist’ parties. The meetings began to be advertised on red banners and posters, hoping for socialists to come in and then be confronted, sometimes violently: the party was aiming to attract as much attention and notoriety as possible. But the name was not Socialism, but National Socialism and as the 20s and 30s progressed, this became an ideology Hitler would expound upon at length.

Hitler’s National Socialism wished to promote those of ‘pure’ German blood, removing citizenship for Jews and aliens, and promoted eugenics, including the execution of the disabled and mentally ill. National Socialism did promote equality among Germans who passed their racist criteria, and submitted the individual to the will of the state, but did so as a right-wing racial movement which sought a nation of healthy Aryans living in a thousand year Reich, which would be achieved through war. In Nazi theory, a new, unified class was to be formed instead of religious, political and class divisions, but this was to be done by rejecting ideologies such as liberalism, capitalism and socialism, and instead pursue a different idea, of the Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community), built on war and race, ‘blood and soil’, and German heritage.

Before 1934 some in the party did promote anti-capitalist and socialist ideas, such as profit-sharing, nationalization and old-age benefits, but these were merely tolerated by Hitler as he gathered support, dropped once he secured power . There was no socialist redistribution of wealth or land under Hitler – although some property changed hands thanks to looting and invasion - and while both industrialists and workers were courted, it was the former who benefited and the latter who found themselves the target of empty rhetoric. Indeed, Hitler became convinced that socialism was intimately connected to his even more long standing hatred - the Jews – and thus hated it even more. Socialists were the first to be locked up in concentration camps.

It’s worth pointing out that all aspects of Nazism had forerunners in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and Hitler tended to cobble his ideology together from them; some historians think that ‘ideology’ gives Hitler too much credit for something which can be hard to pin down. He knew how to take things which made the socialists popular and apply them to give his party a boost. But historian Neil Gregor, in his introduction to a discussion of Nazism which includes many experts, says:
"As with other fascist ideologies and movements it subscribed to an ideology of national renewal, rebirth, and rejuvenation manifesting itself in extreme populist radical nationalism, militarism, and – in contradistinction to many other forms of fascism, extreme biological racism…the movement understood itself to be, and indeed was, a new form of political movement … the anti-Socialist, anti-liberal, and radical nationalist tenets of Nazi ideology applied particularly to the sentiments of a middle class disorientated by the domestic and international upheavals in the inter-war period."

*The psychology and sociology of this campaign season is much more interesting than who'll actually get elected.
Both Sanders and Trump appeal to some base frustrations of a lot of the populace. Though I personally think that most of that frustrated populace doesn't really understand how politics or government actually works and that neither Bernie or Donald will be able to enact 1/10 (if anything?) of what they propose.
Even if Hillary doesn't get elected, it'll be like if Hillary did get elected.

As another poster pointed out, "National Socialism" had nothing to do with actual Socialism other than borrowing part of the name. The explanation by Mr. K is quite good and worth a read.

Also, I"m not trying to say anyone shouldn't vote for Trump. Everyone has the right to vote any way they like. The first vids posted in this thread could easily be called "fake" by the oher side of the argument as could really any video at all. Just having a little political discourse is all smile.gif I'm not angry at anyone and I"m not throwing mud, or calling names or anything like that. Not suggesting that you are, just saying that I"m certainly not and that I'm trying to take a tone of calm. There really is no point in getting upset about a political discussion thread. It's just a thread. smile.gif

I was pointing out a few things that seem historically linked to me and providing some hard data/charts on just who the "base" is for Trump. Not throwing mud, just offering some facts. These facts relate directly to my historical argument as that same demographic in other countries has voted in some really bad folks due to the frustration that you are talking about. That frustration can lead folks to vote in people that are not always good for a given country. That's my only point here.
Letting frustration and anger guide your anyones voting decision is just never a good idea and Mr. Trump has
found a direct line to tap in to this frustration at washington, general distrust of immigrants, and ideas of protectionism and tribalism.

It's really those ideas which I'm against. It's our diversity that has made us strong. The 11 million "illegals" do work that nobody else would do (like picking fruit all day for $5). They are not taking jobs anyone else would want. They pay more in taxes than they take in services, Trump is playing on the fears of a larged chunk of the U.S. fear of the "other". Building walls, creating protectionist trade deals, etc. In short, ISOLATION in an increasingly globalized world. His message has found a home and he may be our next president. If he is, I fear it will go very badly for our nation and we will bear the stain of it for generations to come.

But again, that's just me smile.gif Just my thoughts. One guy in one thread having a talk. No reason for anyone to get too cross. I do get the vibe that the supporters are getting upset so I"ll let someone else have the last words as this will be my final post since I want to get back to guitar related stuff. After seeing the first post, just wanted to post something from the other side to balance it out. That's done now. Thanks for the chat guys always fun smile.gif

This post has been edited by Todd Simpson: Jun 2 2016, 05:08 AM

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
AK Rich
post Jun 2 2016, 06:21 AM
Post #23

Learning Guitar Hero

Group: Members
Posts: 2.867
Joined: 10-September 11
From: Big Lake, Alaska
Member No.: 13.839

QUOTE (Todd Simpson @ Jun 1 2016, 06:10 PM) *
The 11 million "illegals" do work that nobody else would do (like picking fruit all day for $5). They are not taking jobs anyone else would want. They pay more in taxes than they take in services,

Sorry Todd but I just couldn't let this one slide. The estimate by DHS from 2010 ending in January 2011 was 11.5 million undocumented, or unlawful, foreign-born persons. So you are half million short and 5+ years in the past with that number unless we are to believe that 500 thousand left and no more have arrived since then.
I also disagree with the "illegals do the work that nobody else will" statement but I am not going to go into that since we have already discussed this in another thread some time ago. It's that third sentence that got my attention. "They pay more in taxes than they take in services."
I am leaving a link so that you can read this paper (The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer) in it's entirety if you like. It is a long read but here is a portion that gets to the opposing view of your statement.
Thanks for the back and forth, Todd. No hard feelings here man. Rock on!

Many politicians believe that households that maintain steady employment are invariably net tax contributors, paying more in taxes than they receive in government benefits. Chart 5 shows why this is not the case. As Table 2 shows, unlawful immigrant households have high levels of employment, with 1.6 earners per household and average annual earnings of around $39,000 for all workers in the household. But with average government benefits at $24,721, unlawful immigrant households actually receive 63 cents in government benefits for every dollar of earnings.

To achieve fiscal balance, with taxes equal to benefits, the average unlawful immigrant household would have to pay nearly two-thirds of its income in taxes. Given this simple fact, it is obvious that unlawful immigrant households can never pay enough taxes to cover the cost of their current government benefits and services.

Net Annual Fiscal Deficit. The net fiscal deficit of a household equals the cost of benefits and services received minus taxes paid. As Chart 6 shows, when the costs of direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services are counted, the average unlawful immigrant household had a fiscal deficit of $14,387 (government expenditures of $24,721 minus $10,334 in taxes) in 2010.

For the average unlawful immigrant household to become fiscally solvent, with taxes paid equaling immediate benefits received, it would be necessary to increase the household’s tax payments to 240 percent of current levels. Alternatively, unlawful immigrant households could become solvent only if all means-tested welfare and nearly all public education benefits were eliminated.

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd October 2018 - 07:11 PM