The Strategic Blunder of ‘Trump-as-Hitler’

...Meanwhile...

Trump is recalibrating the size of the social services program (along with the size of taxes) in order to save the nation as not only an extended family, bound by a sense of fairness, but a PEACEFUL family content with its culture.

America is not an ethno-state as cohesive as, say, Israel or Poland (95% racially cohesive, 90% religio-cohesive).

America has to be held together by an ideological cohesion. Currently, it is not ideologically cohesive enough to be fully socialist (say, 80% tax bracket).

Offering the lowest tax bracket in the world is one way of creating ideological cohesion.

Keep in mind, the lower the tax bracket, the less socialistic the national economy.

In this regard, it's not fair to compare Trump to Hitler...or Roosevelt, a more benign socialist in terms of expansionary aims, but still rather ruthless, as in the case of gold confiscation in April 1933.

No, Trump is going the other way to remedy the problems of dissapation...the wasting of resources on an increasingly feeble national cohesion...as in the case of present day Germany.
 
Last edited:
Good1 said:
...Meanwhile...

Trump is recalibrating the size of the social services program (along with the size of taxes) in order to save the nation as not only an extended family, bound by a sense of fairness, but a PEACEFUL family content with its culture.

America is not an ethno-state as cohesive as, say, Israel or Poland (95% racially cohesive, 90% religio-cohesive).

America has to be held together by an ideological cohesion. Currently, it is not ideologically cohesive enough to be fully socialist (say, 80% tax bracket).

Offering the lowest tax bracket in the world is one way of creating ideological cohesion.

Keep in mind, the lower the tax bracket, the less socialistic the national economy.

In this regard, it's not fair to compare Trump to Hitler...or Roosevelt, a more benign socialist in terms of expansionary aims, but still rather ruthless, as in the case of gold confiscation in April 1933.

No, Trump is going the other way to remedy the problems of dissapation...the wasting of resources on an increasingly feeble national cohesion...as in the case of present day Germany.
More...

Emm.. ok. and the previous post.. there are so many unsound foundations there I literally don't know where to start.

The problem with boomers generally is they have a fixation with 'socialism' as a bad word. No pure socialist or capitalist system is stable in the real world.
 
Good1 said:
...Meanwhile...

Trump is recalibrating the size of the social services program (along with the size of taxes) in order to save the nation as not only an extended family, bound by a sense of fairness, but a PEACEFUL family content with its culture.

America is not an ethno-state as cohesive as, say, Israel or Poland (95% racially cohesive, 90% religio-cohesive).

America has to be held together by an ideological cohesion. Currently, it is not ideologically cohesive enough to be fully socialist (say, 80% tax bracket).

Offering the lowest tax bracket in the world is one way of creating ideological cohesion.

Keep in mind, the lower the tax bracket, the less socialistic the national economy.

In this regard, it's not fair to compare Trump to Hitler...or Roosevelt, a more benign socialist in terms of expansionary aims, but still rather ruthless, as in the case of gold confiscation in April 1933.

No, Trump is going the other way to remedy the problems of dissapation...the wasting of resources on an increasingly feeble national cohesion...as in the case of present day Germany.
More...
I posted this earlier on the subject of Socialism in case you haven't read the article.

**********

"The real key to Scandinavia’s unique successes isn’t socialism, it’s culture. Social trust and cohesion, a broad egalitarian ethic, a strong emphasis on work and responsibility, commitment to the rule of law — these are healthy attributes of a Nordic culture that was ingrained over centuries. In the region’s small and homogeneous countries (overwhelmingly white, Protestant, and native-born), those norms took deep root. The good outcomes and high living standards they produced antedated the socialist nostrums of the 1970s. Scandinavia’s quality of life didn’t spring from leftist policies. It survived them.

Sanandaji makes the acute observation that when Scandinavian emigrants left for the United States, those cultural attributes went with them and produced the same good effects. Scandinavian-Americans have higher incomes and lower poverty rates than the US average. Indeed, Danish-Americans economically outperform Danes still living in Denmark, as do Swedish-Americans compared with Swedes and Finnish-Americans compared with Finns. Scandinavian culture has been a blessing for native Scandinavians — and even more of one for their cousins across the ocean.

No, Scandinavia doesn’t “violate the laws of the economic universe.” It confirms them. With free markets and healthy values, almost any society will thrive. Socialism only makes things worse."

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...list-utopia/lUk9N7dZotJRbvn8PosoIN/story.html
 
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Usually attributed to Socrates, but actually came in vogue around 2008. Honestly, the extremists on both side of the isle have lost all credibility, and therefore have lost the debate. Then why oh why are we still listening to the debate? Good question and here's the answer. The extremists own the media, have the microphone, and have an agenda to push. That, and what else are these do nothing knuckleheads going to rant and rave about on the never ending campaign trail. So we continue on with the endless debate which has already been lost, and the losers, the losers are the American people who have brainwashed into thinking that their opinion, and by extension their vote, actually counts for something. Laughable, in the most tragic use of the word.
 
CaptainObvious said:
When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Usually attributed to Socrates, but actually came in vogue around 2008. Honestly, the extremists on both side of the isle have lost all credibility, and therefore have lost the debate. Then why oh why are we still listening to the debate? Good question and here's the answer. The extremists own the media, have the microphone, and have an agenda to push. That, and what else are these do nothing knuckleheads going to rant and rave about on the never ending campaign trail. So we continue on with the endless debate which has already been lost, and the losers, the losers are the American people who have brainwashed into thinking that their opinion, and by extension their vote, actually counts for something. Laughable, in the most tragic use of the word.
More...

Are you micro-dosing LSD?

You have given, you are old and tired, why not? So just give up. Stop talking.
 
Slartibartfast said:
Are you micro-dosing LSD?

You have given, you are old and tired, why not? So just give up. Stop talking.
More...
Well, I must admit taking some perverse joy of rubbing the noses of leftists like yourself in the obvious hypocrisy and double standards that you so typically employ, so there is that. I really hope that you're actually some 22 year old numbskull Marxist, because then there still might be some hope. If you truly are this mid fifties, well traveled, educated multi-millionaire that you claim to be, well then that just too much of a tragic loser for me to even imagine. To have wasted all that on the pursuit of some failed leftist ideology is just hard to conceive.
 
CaptainObvious said:
Well, I must admit taking some perverse joy of rubbing the noses of leftists like yourself in the obvious hypocrisy and double standards that you so typically employ, so there is that. I really hope that you're actually some 22 year old numbskull Marxist, because then there still might be some hope. If you truly are this mid fifties, well traveled, educated multi-millionaire that you claim to be, well then that just too much of a tragic loser for me to even imagine. To have wasted all that on the pursuit of some failed leftist ideology is just hard to conceive.
More...

I'm not a leftist but it may seem that way. I'm me. Not on a team. And the guys on this site are in absolutely no way 'radical' leftists. Very middle of the road and pragmatic. Just see Trump as dangerous.

The right has gone VERY right recently. You (and a few others) tilt at "left-ist" windmills that just don't exist here.
 
Slartibartfast said:
Emm.. ok. and the previous post.. there are so many unsound foundations there I literally don't know where to start.

The problem with boomers generally is they have a fixation with 'socialism' as a bad word. No pure socialist or capitalist system is stable in the real world.
More...

Whoever is using the term Nazi, nowadays, as a pejorative, should then consider whether socialism is bad or good in itself. Presuming you are a socialist, why would you use such a label, Nazi, on anyone?

If not socialism, then the pejorative use of the Nazi label must be about nationalism (bad) vs globalism (good).

Whether socialism is good or bad, I'm saying it is the status quo, anywhere taxes are levied, and redistributed back to the people in the form of infrastructure, subsidized services, or cash/food allowances.

From that basic foundation, we have more words to describe more redistribution vs less redistribution...more taxes vs less taxes...and the relationship between collecting (taxes) and redistributing (liberal waste vs conservative savings).

But socialism is the status quo across the globe, in America, Germany, Russia, China, and Canada.

A declared socialist, like Bernie Sanders, merely means he is in favor of more taxes and more ways to redistribute.

I'm saying the only way that works is within a very cohesive group. America, because it is no longer (never much was?) an ethno-state, is not cohesive enough to swallow Bernie's fiscal medicine.

It works in places like Israel because it is an ethno-state, with additional cohesive factors such as an ethno-religion.

Global socialists, like Bernie and his comrade Obama, merely use national flags to drape (camouflage) themselves with. They don't really give a damn about the cohesive factor, the nation, that makes socialism work.

Again, the more austere the socialism, the more cohesion you need to make the populace amenable to the sacrifices the taxpayers make.

Hence the emphasis on nationalism.

Hitler leveraged nationalism to make his social programs (tax and redistribute) work.

Before Trump, the US had social programs, some left over from Roosevelt the heavy socialist, and even more expansions along the way up to today. All together, they are probably more of a burden than Hitler''s socialism ever was.

Trump saw that the only way this can work is to increase national cohesiveness, and make adjustments to the tax-and-redistribute side of the equation.

The US is still a socialist, even a national socialist state! That continues to be the status quo before and after Trump!

When we talk about global socialism, we're really talking about the dissipation of the factors of cohesivessness that makes socialism work. The EU, for example, has dissipated so much cohesion, that the UK has voted to leave, and more are getting ready to, if it does not stop the waste.
 
Good1 said:
Whoever is using the term Nazi, nowadays, as a pejorative, should then consider whether socialism is bad or good in itself. Presuming you are a socialist, why would you use such a label, Nazi, on anyone?

If not socialism, then the pejorative use of the Nazi label must be about nationalism (bad) vs globalism (good).

Whether socialism is good or bad, I'm saying it is the status quo, anywhere taxes are levied, and redistributed back to the people in the form of infrastructure, subsidized services, or cash/food allowances.

From that basic foundation, we have more words to describe more redistribution vs less redistribution...more taxes vs less taxes...and the relationship between collecting (taxes) and redistributing (liberal waste vs conservative savings).

But socialism is the status quo across the globe, in America, Germany, Russia, China, and Canada.

A declared socialist, like Bernie Sanders, merely means he is in favor of more taxes and more ways to redistribute.

I'm saying the only way that works is within a very cohesive group. America, because it is no longer (never much was?) an ethno-state, is not cohesive enough to swallow Bernie's fiscal medicine.

It works in places like Israel because it is an ethno-state, with additional cohesive factors such as an ethno-religion.

Global socialists, like Bernie and his comrade Obama, merely use national flags to drape (camouflage) themselves with. They don't really give a damn about the cohesive factor, the nation, that makes socialism work.

Again, the more austere the socialism, the more cohesion you need to make the populace amenable to the sacrifices the taxpayers make.

Hence the emphasis on nationalism.

Hitler leveraged nationalism to make his social programs (tax and redistribute) work.

Before Trump, the US had social programs, some left over from Roosevelt the heavy socialist, and even more expansions along the way up to today. All together, they are probably more of a burden than Hitler''s socialism ever was.

Trump saw that the only way this can work is to increase national cohesiveness, and make adjustments to the tax-and-redistribute side of the equation.

The US is still a socialist, even a national socialist state! That continues to be the status quo before and after Trump!

When we talk about global socialism, we're really talking about the dissipation of the factors of cohesivessness that makes socialism work. The EU, for example, has dissipated so much cohesion, that the UK has voted to leave, and more are getting ready to, if it does not stop the waste.
More...

Good1.. the socialist bit in Nazi was to pull the wool over the eyes at the time. Socialism was a popular idea so they incorporated it and public works projects made their corporatist/fascist backers very happy. He also wanted infrastructure for his war plans.

You have it all arseways because labels mean too much to you.

Monty Python can explain it better. Notice the dictator, military and the rich man.


You could also do with reading up on this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Workers'_Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_People's_Welfare
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Labour_Front

Very socialist however just a means to an end.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top