General US Politics Discussion

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

1 hour ago, Raavi said:

https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/08/police-contradict-claims-spread-online-exaggerating-arsons-role-in-australian-bushfires?

The outback has been in drought conditions for years.  Add to that the tinder dry and flammable wood, and the ability of dry thunderstorms to form in such low humidity.

 

This was a powder keg, ready to blow for years.

[Pesos]

Pretty impressive arsonists to be responsible for fires encompassing (in total) an area larger than Belgium.

[sivispacem]

1 hour ago, Pesos said:

Pretty impressive arsonists to be responsible for fires encompassing (in total) an area larger than Belgium.

Another John Smith "reposting stuff from right-wing Facebook groups I'm a member of" special I think.

[Smith John]

"The Guardian told me so!"

1 hour ago, sivispacem said:

Another John Smith "reposting stuff from right-wing Facebook groups I'm a member of" special I think.

I don't even think you and your cohorts on here even know what constitutes "right-wing" anymore...

[Svip]

Just because you've forgotten?

[Smith John]

Eh?

[sivispacem]

37 minutes ago, Smith John said:

I don't even think you and your cohorts on here even know what constitutes "right-wing" anymore...

Given your political position is best described as somewhere on the spectrum between "populist national conservative", and "alt-lite", I think describing you as "right wing" is fairly accurate.

Are you suggesting that you are, in fact, not right-wing?

[make total destroy]

18 hours ago, Smith John said:

If i wasnt already convinced by ^this kid's member title, I'm now 1000% certain this account has been a troll/parody account all this time! 

 

this is the third time now that you've said the same exact thing almost word-for-word. and as i said last time, it doesn't surprise me that you feel that way, given that you don't seem to understand what parody actually is, nor how it works. i think you're intentionally missing the point i was intending to make, though, which is that your supposed rejection of identity politics is rather selective. 

[Smith John]

8 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Are you suggesting that you are, in fact, not right-wing?

Given every political compass test I've taken places me very slightly left-of-centre (I know m8, it surprised the sh*t of even me!), I'd suggest that yes, yes I'm not "right-wing". I'm a nationalist - not the type of "nationalism" those SNP bellends attempt to enforce - yes, but that doesn't necessarily make me "right-wing" chap.

7 hours ago, make total destroy said:

you don't seem to understand what parody actually is

Pal, you're literally that self-unaware that you don't even realise your member title is a parody. Again, I hope for your sake, that you are a troll! It really is difficult to distinguish these days.

[Clem Fandango]

On 1/8/2020 at 4:14 PM, Smith John said:

And yet you loons politisise the suffering of people by blaming it on climate change or whatever, despite it being proven as multiple arson attacks - most likely committed by the same dumbass students/man children who will put human and animal life at risk to make their "point"......

Hottest take yet: it isn't climate change burning down the country, it's "most likely" leftist protesters. 

 

17 hours ago, Smith John said:

"The Guardian told me so!"

I don't even think you and your cohorts on here even know what constitutes "right-wing" anymore...

No, the NSW police told you so, The Guardian is just reporting on it because that's what newspapers do.

 

Anyway sorry for politicising the massive unprecedented wildfires raging right outside the city where I live. I don't know about you but I've never seen the entire city covered in smoke and the sky turn orange. 

 

The Australian climate is getting hotter; the hotter it is, the more fires there are, it's really that f*cking simple. It's not just the far-left that acknowledges this, basically everyone does, there's something pretty convincing about the top brass of the fire services calling for immediate action on climate change. The idea that fires on this scale could be caused by anything but broad climate trends let alone arson is completely retarded and people only peddle it because of right-wing (yes, right-wing) insularity and general disconnection from reality. 

 

8 hours ago, Smith John said:

Pal, you're literally that self-unaware that you don't even realise your member title is a parody.

How are you 30 something man that doesn't know what the word parody means? A parody is a spoof, saying something you don't mean so as to ridicule that thing, not just saying something that could be construed as ridiculous. Saying "I'm John Smith I suck and I eat poo" is a parody where as "No borders, no wall, no USA at all" is a common anarchist protest chant, I've heard it many times.

[sivispacem]

8 hours ago, Smith John said:

Given every political compass test I've taken places me very slightly left-of-centre

That's odd, because your political positions across a broad range of areas are firmly right of centre- economic and social policy, social and criminal justice, you name it. Plus, ethno-nationalism. 

 

I can only assume you've been taking the political compass tests designed for yanks and their reimagining of left-versus-right, where everything is shifted about eight miles left and centrists appear far left.

 

8 hours ago, Smith John said:

I'm a nationalist

You're not really a nationalist though. You don't actually support national self determination in principal; you're anti- basically defined nationalist movement- Scottish, Catalan, Basque.

 

In fact, you only display any kind of nationalist sentiment towards the UK; or, more specifically, ethnic Britons (in reality an idealised caricature of an ethnic Briton with little bearing on reality).

 

You're correct that nationalism and left wing ideologies aren't mutually exclusive, but ethno-nationalism is almost solely the preserve of the (far) right.

[Pesos]

If there was something other than climate change to talk about re: these fires, it'd have to be about the government and its stupendous incompetence. From the NSW Liberals slashing funding to fire services by two thirds to the complete mismanagement of the murray darling basin - no surprise that Gladys "Koala Killer" Berejiklian's state is the hardest hit. Said incompetence extends to the federal level as well, mirroring some of the NSW Liberals shenanigans, being incredibly slow to act and ignoring experts etc. Not that this removes climate change from the equation (and anyone who thinks so is an idiot) given it spurred advice given to the government before the bushfire season even got started.

Arsonists are a regularly occurring cunty thing during bushfire seasons here but almost always are a footnote in the grand scheme of things (and these past few months are no different).

[Clem Fandango]

John the reason you appear on the centre on political quiz thingies is because they ask about actual issues and not cultural minutia. I'm sure if the questions were like "is Owen Jones a fa**ot?" and "were SJWs BTFO after the Golden Globes?" you'd be off the charts right-wing.

 

3 minutes ago, Pesos said:

If there was something other than climate change to talk about re: these fires, it'd have to be about the government and its stupendous incompetence. From the NSW Liberals slashing funding to fire services by two thirds to the complete mismanagement of the murray darling basin - no surprise that Gladys "Koala Killer" Berejiklian's state is the hardest hit. Said incompetence extends to the federal level as well, mirroring some of the NSW Liberals shenanigans, being incredibly slow to act and ignoring experts etc. Not that this removes climate change from the equation (and anyone who thinks so is an idiot) given it spurred advice given to the government before the bushfire season even got started.

Y'know I'm starting to think that neoliberal austerity might be bad..

[Eutyphro]

So when did John defend ethno-nationalism? He might've, I don't know, but I would be interested in when exactly. Also kind of inconsistent to say he's not nationalist but is ethno-nationalist? But yeah, you could easily be right wing culturally, but still a social democrat economically. The Nazis were social democrats and thus economically left wing. Hayek fanboys use this as an argument that the Nazis were left wing, which is very false in my view. Not that I'm associating John with Nazism in any way, but this is a simple example to elaborate the point.

Not really much to do with "US politics" though.

 

[sivispacem]

29 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

So when did John defend ethno-nationalism? 

John's entire perspective on immigration and British identity is inherently ethno-nationalist. He's frequently lamented the destruction of British cultural heritage (cue muffled laughter) and actively promoted notions such as "British jobs for British workers" which are explicit ethnic favouritism.

 

29 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

Also kind of inconsistent to say he's not nationalist but is ethno-nationalist? 

You can hold nationalist views without being a nationalist- that is to say, holding nationalist views towards a particular nation whilst not promoting the concept of nationalism more generally.

 

Actual nationalists, like Scottish independence movement, Irish republicans, Catalan separatists etc, typically support nationalism as a concept, not just in isolation to their own imprinted national identity. 

 

29 minutes ago, Eutyphro said:

The Nazis were social democrats

Er, no they weren't. They fail on both counts, as the political system they created was not democratic, and the economic model they implemented was not social. Wholesale privatisation of industry, implementation of economic isolationism and self sufficiency, huge rolling back of workers rights and destruction of the Labour movement hardly align with social democracy.

 

Really it was a model of cabal corporatism where enormous private monopolies were encouraged as long as workers were suppressed and the leadership remained ideologically adherent to Nazism. Economic and social development programmes only existed for the purposes of enabling rearmament of the Wehrmacht and most of the flagship policies (such as the modernisation of transport networks) were actually instituted by the Weimar government and rolled back in scope by the Nazis (except where they were militarily useful).

 

The SPD were the social democratic party of Germany in the interwar period, though they failed to implement most of their policies. In fact, one of Hitler's first actions was to ban them 

[Eutyphro]

When I say 'social democrat economics' what I mean more specifically is Keynesianism, which is the economic model social democrats enforce, economic stimulus through large spending. What I'm reading is that though there was significant privatization, these 'privatized' institutions were still almost completely run by the government through central planning. The debate on to what extent Nazi Germany was socialist seems quite lively. They did engage in quite extensive welfare programs aimed at ethnic Germans. We also know the Nazis were fundamentally opposed to free market ideology and liberalism more generally, and thus were also extremely protectionist. The privatization was enforced mainly for the purpose of raising money fort the war effort. You could say the Nazis were not principled but pragmatic in their economics, and pragmatic in a quite Keynesian manner.

  

2 hours ago, sivispacem said:

He's frequently lamented the destruction of British cultural heritage (cue muffled laughter)

Which isn't ethno-nationalist, considering there's wide scale support in most countries from left to right to protect cultural heritage.
 

Quote

and actively promoted notions such as "British jobs for British workers" which are explicit ethnic favouritism.

Where though?

Edited January 9, 2020 by Eutyphro

[Svip]

There is only a lively debate by people who don't understand Socialism, or wish to paint Socialists in a bad light by comparing them to Nazis, as if their strongest argument boils down to the imagination of 'what if our opponent was HITLER?'.

 

Nazis and their Fascist counterparts in Italy was running a corporatist regime.  Where members of the inner circles of high power go get the freedom to run their business as they saw fit, while those who did not, had little recourse.  Hardly free market nor Liberalism, but hardly Socialism either.  The welfare programmes of the Nazi regime were mostly put in place by the Weimar Republic, and the regime only maintained them to keep the people content enough, to avoid too much civil unrest.

 

But their motivation was hardly social in any sense of the word.  Fascists take what they can get from Socialism, Capitalism, whatever, to cling onto power.  They don't have any ideological problem with using tactics with either, as long as they can reign with an iron fist.

[Eutyphro]

I actually agree with everything you say, but many consider corporatism combined with large social spending socialism. Technically it isn't, but it is often considered so, hence why Bernie Sanders is widely considered a socialist, eventhough in the purest sense he isn't one, eventhough he definitely deeply sympathizes and asssociates with socialists and socialist ideas.

[Svip]

Yeah, but that's like saying Napoleon I was a Social Democrat because he instituted publicly funded education in France?  It kind of dissolves the meaning and understanding of either term.  Social Democrats believe that they can attain social reform within a liberal capitalist democracy society rather than revolution.  Democratic Socialists, on the other hand, agree with Social Democrats, except that the final end to their struggle is still a Socialist regime.

 

At best, I would consider Bernie Sanders a Social Democrat.  Unless he truly believes that a Socialist regime is what the US need in the end.

Edited January 9, 2020 by Svip

[Eutyphro]

Is Bernie Sanders aiming at a socialist regime though? I do not think he is. It dissolves the meaning if you do not consider cases fully and within context. Most radical libertarians support the state providing security to its citizens, but indeed, that doesn't make them social democrats.

[Svip]

I wasn't suggesting they were Social Democrats.  I am just saying Sanders' policies approaches that of a European Social Democratic left-of-centre party.  And he would probably be in the right wing of most of those European parties.  If we are to shoehorn people into boxes, Sanders closest approaches a Social Democrat, not a Democratic Socialist, as he calls himself, nor a Socialist, as his enemies call him.

[sivispacem]

1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

When I say 'social democrat economics' what I mean more specifically is Keynesianism

Keynesianism is hardly confined to social democracy, and not all social democracies are Keynesian. The only people who seem to argue this are libertarians and self-identifying anarcho-capitalists like Lew Rockwell, who have an inherent personal interest in denigrating any economic model that promotes state interventionism. And what better way to do so than LITERALLY NAZIS.

 

1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

What I'm reading is that though there was significant privatization, these 'privatized' institutions were still almost completely run by the government through central planning. 

They were run by people who were Nazi party members, and had to align to a certain degree with particular ideological policies...but many of the senior industrialists that ran these conglomerates were the same people as during the Weimar period and they actually helped define policy in many areas.

 

Much more a case of Cabal Corporatism (IE economic cabals actually running the state in their own interests) than centrally planned economics (which isn't a hallmark of social democracies anyway).

 

One notable example of this is Nazi policy towards drugs and the promotion of methamphetamine by the state...which was pretty much solely architected by Friedrich Hauschild and Otto Ranke in collaboration with the conglomerate Temmler-Wekke. Similar examples exist within other sectors such as aerospace, civil engineering and scientific research.

 

1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

They did engage in quite extensive welfare programs aimed at ethnic Germans. 

The main purpose of the NSV was not actual welfare support but social engineering. Volksgemeinschaft was designed as a method of indoctrination, as were concepts like Blood and Soil. They were about aligning the populace with particular aspects of Nazi ideology- the concept of personal sacrifice for national gain, and realignment of the working class and bourgeoisie in order to destroy the last vestiges of Marxist/Leninist resistance to the party.

 

1 hour ago, Eutyphro said:

Where though?

Numerous points over quite literally years across dozens of threads.

[Smith John]

I've been skim reading, but I really wish I had the time to address the absolute utter lying bollocks safespacem has made up about me on this page.

 

The only thing I want to ask him is this: Back in 2014 you were an advocate of the British union. Now all of a sudden you're calling me out on my disdain for the SNP? Couldn't possibly have anything to do with their support of the EU? Surely not... And it didn't take long before you took the, "he's just a bigot" angle, did it? You middle class snobs will never, never learn. Double down all you want, and let's see where it further leaves you losers.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

2 minutes ago, Smith John said:

I've been skim reading, but I really wish I had the time to address the absolute utter lying bollocks safespacem has made up about me on this page.

 

The only thing I want to ask him is this: Back in 2014 you were an advocate of the British union. Now all of a sudden you're calling me out on my disdain for the SNP? Couldn't possibly have anything to do with their support of the EU? Surely not... And it didn't take long before you took the, "he's just a bigot" angle, did it? You middle class snobs will never, never learn. Double down all you want, and let's see where it further leaves you losers.

Since 2014, Scotland has discovered that London doesn't listen to any of the other home nations, to the point the executives are essentially ignored on their wishes.

On the 8th of January, Holyrood rejected Boris' Brexit Bill 92 to 29 (Boris dreams of that sort of percentage win) and the Welsh Assembly rejected it 37-16 in October, now a deal has been struck in Stormont it's possible they'll vote on it too before the end of the month.  Since the DUP know they've been shafted, I wouldn't like to think they'll be warm to it either (I bet it's rejected with a larger majority than Holyrood).  If that is the case, then it's proof Little England alone is calling Brexit.

 

The UK will end up returning to the EU in the mid-long term (Partly because the generation that wants it the most is currently in the process of shortening their already short life span via their own wishes).  I doubt it will return as a unified nation and instead it will be in phases.  When the hard borders appear between Carlisle and Berwick, then Queensferry to the Severn Crossings, bigots might understand better.

[Smith John]

And I thought Trump Derangement Syndrome was bad. Listen, the sooner you lot accept the world has changed from the so-called "progressive" movement in the West, you'll be happier people. I'm just trying to help.

6 hours ago, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

bigots might understand better.

Zzzzzzzs 

 

Scotland isn't leaving the Union mate. Get back to me in 5 years to prove me wrong.

 

Hey sivis & co, that Eptein thing - just a far-war-tar-mar-far-far-far-right conspiracy theory, right?

[Clem Fandango]

51 minutes ago, Smith John said:

Hey sivis & co, that Eptein thing - just a far-war-tar-mar-far-far-far-right conspiracy theory, right?

You mean Capitalists having a secret paedo island? No, that's not a far-right conspiracy theory.

 

Anyway I have no idea why you're even allowed to post in here. All you do is start discussions, refuse to engage with responses and then derail the discussions (that you started!) with blatant metaposting about the mods. When they're not metaposts, they're sh*tposts like the one I'm responding to. Nobody else could get away with all that. 

[sivispacem]

6 hours ago, Smith John said:

Back in 2014 you were an advocate of the British union.

And I- personally- still am. Where have I said anything to the contrary?

 

You appear to be confusing advocacy for Scottish independence for advocating the right to national self determination. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

6 hours ago, Smith John said:

Now all of a sudden you're calling me out on my disdain for the SNP?

I'm not calling out your disdain for the SNP, I'm calling out your disdain for national self determination in someone who self identifies as a "nationalist". 

 

6 hours ago, Smith John said:

Couldn't possibly have anything to do with their support of the EU?

Nice straw man, but maybe try learning to read next time?

 

1 hour ago, Clem Fandango said:

All you do is start discussions, refuse to engage with responses and then derail the discussions (that you started!) with blatant metaposting about the mods. When they're not metaposts, they're sh*tposts like the one I'm responding to.

And yet he has the audacity to criticise the contributions of other posters, despite his own additions having the total value of zero. Talk about a lack of self awareness.

 

 

 

John, do you know who quite literally the only people who refer to their opponents (be they the media, forum members, or anyone else) by the blanket term "leftists" as if it were derogatory are?

 

People on the far right.

[make total destroy]

On 1/8/2020 at 6:45 PM, Smith John said:

Given every political compass test I've taken places me very slightly left-of-centre

Political Compass places most people left of center, largely because of the wording of the questions. You have to try pretty hard to end up in any other quadrant than the bottom left. In no way is an internet quiz more indicative of your political beliefs than the things you actually say. 

On 1/8/2020 at 6:45 PM, Smith John said:

yes I'm not "right-wing". I'm a nationalist

On 1/8/2020 at 6:45 PM, Smith John said:

Pal, you're literally that self-unaware that you don't even realise your member title is a parody. 

Except that it isn't. It's an anarchist slogan. A protest chant. Again, you don't understand what 'parody' is.

[Eutyphro]

22 hours ago, sivispacem said:

not all social democracies are Keynesian

They are.
 

Quote

 The only people who seem to argue this are libertarians and self-identifying anarcho-capitalists like Lew Rockwell, who have an inherent personal interest in denigrating any economic model that promotes state interventionism. And what better way to do so than LITERALLY NAZIS.

Yeah, true, and by now I have to concede that the economic model of Nazi Germany was pretty unconventional, and not in every way (but in some ways) resembling the type of welfarist Keynesianism we find all over Western and Northern Europe, but most easily comparable to the economic model of the Soviet Union. Kind of Western European welfarism (the most essential part of social democracy) mixed with Soviet Union style authoritarian corporatism and protectionism, with some privatization for the effort of raising money to wage war.
 

Quote

Much more a case of Cabal Corporatism (IE economic cabals actually running the state in their own interests)

The Nazi state wasn't run by corporate power but by the Nazi party though.
 

Quote

The main purpose of the NSV was not actual welfare support but social engineering.

It was opposed to the protection of the weak, but it was still a welfare state with public healthcare.

[sivispacem]

17 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

They are.

Er no, they're not. Social Democracy as a movement predates Keynes birth by more than two decades. Most social democracies are Keynesian, but the two are not mutually inclusive. Notable examples of social democracies that haven't been Keynesian include early post independence India, which was a centrally-planned economy, and that of South Korea, with its Chaebol-driven corporatist oligopoly.

 

I'm glossing  over your definition of "Keynesian" in this context which I think somewhat misrepresents actual Keynesian though; that is to say, "economic stimulus through large spending" reads more as a libertarian straw-man of Keynesianism than "economic and fiscal interventionism by central banks and governments to promote market economy stability", which is a more accurate synopsis.

 

17 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

Kind of Western European welfarism (the most essential part of social democracy)

Amongst the most prevalent aspects of social democracy yes, but not its most essential. Welfarism is a means rather than an end; its one of the methods that can be leveraged to enable socially minded intervention, but far from the only one.

 

Welfarism isn't a central tenet of social democracy, it just happens to be a particularly effective way of instituting it's aims.

 

17 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

The Nazi state wasn't run by corporate power but by the Nazi party though.

This is highly debatable. In many policy areas senior corporate figures were in fact responsible for the production and development of state policy, particular in the earlier years of the Nazi regime. Remember, almost all of the heads of the largest conglomerates were senior party members, who often had personal relationships with individual political figures within the party who were used to competitively promote the particular interests of these conglomerates.

 

These existed within an ideological framework of the War Economy and Nazi eugenic and social thought, obviously.

 

It was only towards the middle and end of WWII when aggressive personal interventionism by senior political figures within the party (especially from Hitler himself) overided this model, and even then primarily in areas directly related to the war economy such as engineering and aerospace (and often hugely to the detriment of capability in these areas).

 

17 hours ago, Eutyphro said:

It was opposed to the protection of the weak, but it was still a welfare state with public healthcare.

The core principal of social democracy is social equality. A "welfare state" specifically designed to discriminate against particular social, racial and ethnic groups isn't really a welfare state and certainly isn't characteristic of social democracy.