Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Old 26th Feb 2019, 21:43
  #17601 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
John 11:35

OB, you chose to cite the OED. Well, then so did I. I gave it to you straight up from the OED, one meaning of "socialize," namely:

2. To render socialistic in nature; to establish or develop according to the theories or principles of socialism. Also in extended uses to administer or organize with social aims in view (rather than predominately for profit); to finance with public funds; to bring under public control

Then you wanted to refute the very source you cited, to tell us instead that "socialize" must solely have something to do with children and ... puppies?

No worries, mate. I am not going to confuse those, so long as you promise not to confuse me! Who confused you, though? Someone did. Probably Donald Trump, if I had to guess. Were you sat there staring at the monitor when "Covfefe" flashed across the screen and fried your cerebral cortex? Silly question, because how could you know that your cerebral cortex has been fried if your cerebral cortex has been fried?

I hope, OB, that you read your PDR with a bit more attention to detail than you read your OED.
chuks is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2019, 22:42
  #17602 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 594
Where did I use the word "solely", Chuks? Moreover, I don't use the PDR, and if you knew a bit more about it you'd be appreciative.

I take it you still have not come up with an answer to my question.
obgraham is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2019, 05:40
  #17603 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
It's like Jerry Lee Lewis's first marriage.

The use of the term "socialist" is relative, OB. In fact, you seem to be confusing it with "dictatorial, tyrannical, malign," or something like that.

My answer was that Germany is socialist and successful in relative terms: more socialist and more successful than the USA. Then there was that German who told us in a more precise way that Germany has a "social market economy." Don't you think he knows a bit more about Germany than either of us do?

If you don't think that anything you have been told here in answer to your question applies, not even quotes from the OED, the same source you cited, well, there's your problem, OB.

I assume that your burg has a library, OB, so why not go check out a book about Eugene V. Debs and the history of how some of his ideas about socialism came to be accepted by both major political parties in the USA? (You seem to lack intellectual curiosity to a remarkable degree.) I promise that it won't hurt you, learning about something you might not want to agree with, socialism in the USA. Either you will come to accept some contrary knowledge or else it will just bounce off harmlessly from that invisible shield of Trumpium you have chosen to live behind.

Start small if you like: the New Yorker, February 18 & 25, 2019 issue: "Eugene V. Debs and the Endurance of Socialism." Less than ten bucks at any reputable news stand near you. If you were a socialist then you would just steal it: one more blow against the rotten capitalist system!
chuks is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2019, 06:24
  #17604 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,963
Or to paraphrase, Google ‘Social Democracy’
Hempy is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2019, 07:00
  #17605 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 368
Lightbulb

Obgraham,

Germany is a mixed economy like the US and UK, but much more “left/socialist“. As ThorMos said, it has a soziale Markwirtschaft. It is not a planned economy (forget any comparison with the DDR), but it is the state‘s role to ensure social justice. The taxes paid by both employees and employers are quite high and fund a big public sector. It also has manifestly less poverty and a much better infrastructure and environmental standards than the US or UK. It also has proportional representation at both national and state level, making it quite different politically to both the UK and the US. For example, the Greens are a significant political party; unimaginable in the UK and US, dominated as they are by 2 parties where other perspectives have little prospect of establishing themselves on the national stage.

Germany is pretty successful. But it doesn’t have a neo-liberal capitalist economy to thank for that.



Last edited by Torquetalk; 27th Feb 2019 at 07:29.
Torquetalk is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2019, 10:46
  #17606 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland
Posts: 163
The bone spurs have obviously healed since the war!
Wonderworld is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2019, 15:08
  #17607 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 79
Posts: 1,147
ob,
"Socialism" is an economic model.
If you are looking for a simple definition of "Socialism", here is a short and sweet one to consider:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs! Karl Marx
As it stands at the moment in the United States, some needs are not being met as the wealthy are increasing their wealth by jiggling the system to self serve themselves. Trump and McConnell are the leaders in this effort. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, a law of physics that applies to politics and is demonstrated accordingly. "Socialistic" ideas from Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren come to mind as the opposite reaction...
Turbine D is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2019, 15:46
  #17608 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 594
With the exception of Turbine's last post, which actually somewhat addresses my question, the rest of you are missing the point and are attempting to divert the discussion.. I was not commenting on the relative merits of US vs European countries' approaches to the social welfare structure of their country. They are different, and for multifactorial reasons are probably working appropriately for each.

The question arises because we are seeing here in the US a re-appearance of the true idea of Socialism as an appropriate model for the USA. What started out as a plan by environment advocates for doing "something" about the climate has morphed into the "Green New Deal" which essentially calls for government takeover of vast sectors of the economy. A centrally planned economy would be essential to accomplishing their goals. Nobody in Nebraska is going to give up their car unless they are on their way to prison for "car possession". Well we have seen this story before.

The most superficial perusal of history reveals that in every single instance where such central planning has been fundamental, authoritarianism and eventually outright dictatorship has ensued. It has to: individual behavior becomes proscribed, and somebody has to be in the position of telling others what to do and how to live their lives. The same would occur should this silly plan be adopted in the US. The reaction from proponents is always the same: "we will do it differently this time, and we won't go down that tyrannic road".

So the question "where has socialism been successful" has a very clear answer: No where. That's why Chuks, and Per, and others here fall back to the old standard line that "some bits of socialism are better than what goes on in the US". Guess what: I don't disagree. But that begs the question I brought up.
obgraham is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2019, 16:15
  #17609 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
OB, you take me back to getting our first child to eat her carrots, all that "playing helicopter" with a spoonful of something hateful. Do us all a big favor and just read that New Yorker article I cited, please. It will show you something you obviously do not understand about socialism in the USA. Either you are just as dull of wit as that man you admire, or else you are just being childish now.

You are taking an "all or nothing" approach here, pretending that unless it looks like the DDR it's not socialism. People who actually live in Scandinavia and Germany, where socialism does feature, have been trying to get you to understand that this absolutist approach is wrong, yet you stick to that furrow you are plowing most stubbornly, blind to reason. If you are trying to be exasperating, like a true Trumpion, that's fine, but this insistence that answers are not answers is foolish. Not even the OED is good enough for you, after you cited it yourself; you just pick the bit that says what you want to read and skip the rest.

In fact, socialism in the dictionary sense of the word has become an increasing feature in American life, ever since the Gilded Age. Your moan about "every single instance where such central planning has been fundamental" suggests that you seem to have missed the way that the FAA operates. (It would be nice to have the freedom to just go wazzing off in IMC, free of the constraints of that horrid, socialist central planning, that need for permission first from the government to exercise our Constitutional right to travel. Well, except for all those mid-air collisions that doing that might cause. Maybe we should get back to the capitalist, individualist approach. What do you think, OB?)

How about the FDA, OB? Central planning or what? No more freedom to sell Carter's Little Liver Pills, or Lydia Pinkham's Vegetable Compound, and why is that? Are you okay with that socialist government interference with capitalism? You shouldn't be, if you are 100% behind capitalism.

Last edited by chuks; 27th Feb 2019 at 20:27.
chuks is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2019, 16:23
  #17610 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 594
So now, Chuks, instead of answering my question, you cite the FAA way of operating as a case for socialism! We could pursue the difference in the air traffic situations in Germany vs USA, but that is probably for a different thread. (Well, that, and I'd accept you have more expertise there!) FDA?: I guess you don't come across all the snake oil treatments offered here.

Carry on with the Bernie love, though. Just don't plan on seeing it to fruition.
obgraham is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2019, 17:16
  #17611 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 594
A bit more, my Chuksy friend.

I know you like stories, such as how you landed and departed the Twotter single-pilot on a 600 foot grass clearing in Gabon while being pursued by AK47-toting militia, cannibal locals, and lions who hadn't eaten in two weeks. So here is mine:

Back in the day, early '70's, I was preparing for my oral specialty examinations by the Royal College examiners in Canada. It was a rigorous process, much more so than the US exams I took a bit later. We were actually expected to know the treatment for most conditions that fell into our specialty, unlike today where a specialist simply checks some boxes to allow his corporate boss to bill the maximum amount while telling the patient to go see Dr X instead because "I don't deal with that". I digress.

A fellow was studying with us, and related his experience with the examiners. He was of that ethnicity often associated with a lot of sand, so perhaps you can see a parallel to your own line of work. He was presented with a case report, I believe of a specific and somewhat unusual variety of ovarian cancer, and asked what his recommendation to the patient would be. "Well", he said, "At MD Anderson, they do this; but at Sloan Kettering they do this, and at Princess Margaret this is the advice".

Immediate response: "Well, suppose you come back here next year and tell us what YOU will do."

So, Chuks, in the course of a discussion here, tell me what YOU think. Don't try to disparage my discussion by telling me that if I only were to read "this article" or look up "this word" in your favorite dictionary, all will be well and I will acknowledge the superiority of your argument. If I want to know what the New Yorker thinks, as I sometimes do, I'm perfectly capable of finding that myself.
obgraham is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2019, 20:17
  #17612 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
Jesus wept.

OB, you asked me to provide an example of a successful country that practices socialism. (Actually, I could have cited the USA itself, not that you understand that.)

Germany fits the OED definition of socialism in significant measure, as I detailed. There was my answer. For you, because there is no rule by Central Committee, no Five Year Plan, no use of deadly force keeping people in, no absolute state ownership of all of the means of production, then there is no socialism in Germany, and none in Scandinavia either.

OB, unbridled American capitalism had people making a very good buck peddling such things as Carter's Little Liver Pills, and before that Lydia Pinkham's Vegetable Compound. There was no purely capitalist reason to put an end to the sale of these things; that was done on socialist grounds by a government agency, the FDA. Feel free now to tell us your own version of why the FDA acted as they did, whether it was a purely capitalist or else a socialist motivation for their action.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... Cohen is dumping on Trump while faithful Republicans are grilling him about a possible book deal. Yeah, let's worry about a book deal for his personal lawyer, instead of his personal lawyer telling Congress about having been ordered to lie about various dodgy dealings by President Donald Trump.

This reminds me very, very much of the Watergate hearings, when Representative Charles Sandman, Jr., of New Jersey tried every trick he could think of to obscure the essential truths that were coming out about what Nixon had got up to, truths that sealed his fate.

Cohen is a convicted liar; it is one reason he will be going to jail for a nominal three years.

The thing is this, though: Say that I swore that I did not meet John Doe. Later it comes out that I did meet John Doe, so that I end up convicted of perjury. Later still, I give sworn testimony stating that, yes, I lied then, that I really did meet John Doe. Now we have a conundrum: Why should anyone believe me, a convicted perjurer? The answer seems to be obvious, that if my not meeting Mr. Doe was proven to be false, then my meeting him must be true. It would have to be one or the other, especially when we now know which it has to be.

When Cohen now tells the opposite of what he was convicted of lying about it would seem to be safe to take some of what he now says as the truth.

There's a little logic puzzle that applies:

There is a pair of identical twins, when one always lies, and the other one always tells the truth. One day you come to a fork in a forest path, when you need to know whether to go left or right, and there stands one of the twins, when both know the way. What question do you ask to get a reliable answer?

You ask "Which way would your brother tell me to go?"

The liar will lie about the truthful answer; the truth-teller will faithfully repeat the lie. If the answer is "He would tell you to go left," then you go right, and vice-versa.

By the way, OB, I have no need to make up war stories about my time in Africa. The reality was quite enough, thank you very much! Feel free to tell us about how you get the plutonium dust out of the breakfast granola when the wind blows strong from Hanford.
chuks is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2019, 20:41
  #17613 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 594
Germany is a socialist country?

What are Siemens, BASF, Merck, BMW, and Bayer -- state controlled? Must be news to them.

Oh, and no, we don't have a problem with Plutonium dust. Americium 241 maybe, not Plutonium.
obgraham is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2019, 23:22
  #17614 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 368
Originally Posted by obgraham View Post
Germany is a socialist country?

What are Siemens, BASF, Merck, BMW, and Bayer -- state controlled?
No, of course they are not state controlled - its a soziale Marktwirtschaft! It is not a planned economy (but you already know that). The question you need to ask yourself is why would big profit-driven companies such as those you mention choose to be in a county with high taxes and social obligations. Clearly they could relocate to any number of countries with cheaper labour and lower tax obligations. But they dont.
Torquetalk is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2019, 23:31
  #17615 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
We can look forward to two more days of Cohen telling us all sorts of damning details about Trump.

As a Vietnam vet I very much enjoyed Cohen telling about how Trump did not want him to go into any detail about those dodgy draft deferments, closing by saying to Cohen something like "Do you think I am stupid? I never wanted to go to Vietnam." Well, words to that effect. Trump, the guy who was dumping on John McCain for not being a real war hero, just someone who happened to be captured ....

Then there was the fact of Cohen threatening schools and the SAT folks about what would happen to them if they ever disclosed Trump's SATs and his grades. (The way I got into Mensa was on the basis of my SATs, because they are an accepted way to measure one's IQ. So there was Trump, he who likes to brag very often about how he is such a genius, going to some trouble to hide his SATs. I guess they do not put him into the genius range, probably not even close. Otherwise, why hide them?)

Well, that was just good fun. What really matters, I think, is that just what we have been told on Day One should create tremendous pressure to obtain and read Trump's tax returns. You know, the same returns he was perfectly willing to release ... until he wasn't. Too complicated for ordinary folks to understand, or so he said. Well, maybe Congress can find some tax experts to read and understand them for us.
chuks is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2019, 23:59
  #17616 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 138
I enjoyed reading of Cohen's retort to one of the Republican attack dogs as to why the Damascene conversion--a real Saul to Paul thing in coming clean at this late date.

Cohen said that he was doing for ten years what his interlocutor and his bedfellows were now doing--protecting a criminal and he had had enough. I would have to link the exact words but that was the gist from what I was scanning. Well played indeed.

Will any of this today have made a difference? We already know that the Republicans worship Trump and cherish his ideals of dishonesty, duplicity, and unethical comportment that he so embodies. Why would any of them wish to convert now?
Uncle Fred is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2019, 00:49
  #17617 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 80
Originally Posted by Uncle Fred View Post
Will any of this today have made a difference?
Nope, it's just political theater. Bunch of politicians getting time on camera, asking tough questions, digging for answers, etc., etc.

Those who believe Trump is the devil incarnate still believe that, those who believe Trump is making America great again still believe that, and those who believe something in between still believe that. Cohen has plead guilty to lying to Congress, so there's plenty of room for doubt in what people want to believe.
Tango and Cash is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2019, 02:58
  #17618 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 63
Posts: 3
I find it difficult to comprehend how voters in the US were unaware of the nature of the man when they voted to elect Donald Trump President. Nothing I have seen, heard, or read about him to date has changed my opinions formed when watching him on episodes of The Apprentice.

There is certainly no doubt that he is doing the job his way and seems to be making some,significant headway in changing how things are run. While those changes may not necessarily be for the better, they are certainly upsetting the old order and way of doing things. Seems like the establishment do not agree with change and are out to get him any way possible.

So a lying, philandering, con artist, draft dodging, cheat, got elected as President. Seems to fit in pretty well with previous encumbants of the office. I predict he will be a shoe in for a second term in office.
G0ULI is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2019, 05:41
  #17619 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
NFN?

Gouli, your cynicism has led you astray. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush all served on active duty in the military. Both Kennedy and George H.W. Bush, Navy combat veterans, narrowly escaped capture by the Japanese. That might have meant them having their heads chopped off, something that was taken seriously at the time.

On the other hand, both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump dodged the Vietnam draft and are notorious for shagging anything with a pulse. Kennedy was later found out to be a philanderer but that was kept well hidden from those who voted for him so that it has little political significance.

By the way, it is spelled "shoo in," and I doubt that Trump is going to be one of those once Cohen gets through detailing his ten years at his side, including doing many things at Trump's bidding that were flatly illegal. It's one thing to have a fling with a porn star, something else to buy her silence with what probably amounted to a large, illegal campaign contribution.
chuks is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2019, 08:00
  #17620 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 72
Posts: 718
I am probably one of a small number of people in the UK who spent at least an hour watching the Congressional interrogation of Cohen, courtesy of the BBC web site. I was at times impressed and at other times appalled by the whole circus. It didn't take me long to realise both sides were using Cohen to further their own particular agenda. On the one hand, the Democrats were asking questions aimed at discrediting Trump, while the Republicans questions were solely aimed at discrediting Cohen. The representative from Louisiana (Higgins?) struck me as a good ole boy blow hard who leaned very heavily on his limited experience as a reserve police officer to trash Cohen. He referred, more than once, to his experience of having arrested people who, when charged and tried, were full of remorse and promised they had mended their ways, only to go back to their previous criminal ways. On the basis of that, Cohen's statements of remorse were to be discounted totally. Overall, I had the impression that Cohen was there to tell the truth. If he was telling the truth in order to try to get a bit knocked off his sentence or perhaps to boost sales of a possible book deal doesn't matter; if he is telling the truth then it is the truth. I noticed how, when he didn't know an answer or details of various incidents, he answered with an admission he didn't know or was not aware etc. If he was there to get at Trump, he could have answered differently, perhaps using innuendo or hearsay etc. In fact, at one point there was mention made of an alleged tape from an elevator which purported to show Trump hitting Mrs Trump. Cohen came to Trump's defence very strongly, rubbishing the existence of this alleged tape, saying he didn't believe the allegations of violence and stating that Trump would never do such a thing.
One particular spot of Republican stupidity related to some documents that Cohen referred to as being in boxes somewhere. Cohen had already explained these documents were in his house when the FBI raided it. The FBI had read the documents and garnered what evidence they felt they needed and had returned the documents to Cohen. One Republican representative thundered at Cohen, demanding to know why he had not made these documents available and what may be had from these documents. This despite Cohen having already explained the actions of the FBI. The same Congressman finished by demanding Cohen make these documents available.
An interesting watch. I was left with the impression that Cohen was probably telling the truth. He seemed to have an air of "I have cocked up, been found out and am about to pay the price for that so I don't give a rat's arse about Trump and his forthcoming problems". If I had been in his position, my attitude may have been different and I would probably have had in mind some form of payback for the way Trump dumped him and set out to rubbish him via his Twitter outbursts. I think there may be interesting times ahead.
KelvinD is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.