The General US Politics Thread

Nazism was the weird bastard child of Fascism and Social Democracy (basically creating Social Fascism) with a large dose of Racial and Religious institutionalized discrimination.

It's pretty weird but here's Hitler to clarify things:

I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. . . . What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism

edited 13th Oct '12 9:59:46 AM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

A lot of dictators went the Communist route, as... well... going straightforward Facist was... just not on after WWII, for some reason. That, and calling yourself "communist" was a way of getting other countries to support your efforts to crush your populous under your boot and supply you a trade/ money route to do so.

Such styles of "communism" had nothing to do with Marxism, regardless of their saying they did with increasingly desperate forms of rationalisation. In short: it turned into the best excuse for anybody willing to create a dictatorship after 1932. The degree of rationalisation even Stalin started doling out to support such draconian methods should be a bit of a hint as to the snake oil nature of things.

If we had been trading with Cuba instead of blockading it, it would be a capitalist democracy by now. Vietnam, Korea, and Turkey would be postcommunist countries in the vein of Ukraine by now if we'd kept our noses out (though I do believe intervention in Korea could be justified; had we been smarter and not provoked the Chinese, there'd be one Korea today). And there's no justification for what we did throughout Latin America before and during the Cold War; Pinochet and Trujillo were not superior to Castro in any way, shape, or form. Heck, there wouldn't have been a Cold War in the first place if Woodrow Wilson hadn't decided to back the White Russians during the Russian Revolution.

NOW BACK ON TOPIC.

How's the Senate and House hanging? Those are the elections that really worry me.

edited 13th Oct '12 10:03:08 AM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

It's still an incredibly stupid ideology because it gives the government complete control, with no way to punish the government if it abuses that control.

The fact that Marxism has never truly been pulled off says to me that it was an unrealistic ideology.

I also love how people yell "DATS NOT TRUE COMMUNISM!!!" but throw the label of Fascism at every totalitarian government.

And for the record, the USSR was a dictatorship from the start. It was a (somewhat) benevolent dictatorship under Lenin that turned into a genocidal dictatorship under Stalin, but it was always a dictatorship.

"Heck, there wouldn't have been a Cold War in the first place if Woodrow Wilson hadn't decided to back the White Russians during the Russian Revolution. "

This is another trend I see on TV Trope, 'Woodrow Wilson is to blame for everything.'

Also I fail to see how Communist forces winning every conflict would have lead to there downfall.

edited 13th Oct '12 10:25:41 AM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/13/romney-to-give-spending-deficit-speech-friday/

Romney's to give a Spending & Deficit Speech. This should be popcorn worthy.

"Spending is bad, that is why I'm going to add 2 Trillion to our military's budget."

Yea, that doesnt make any sense to blame him for it. He tried to stop the communists, but didnt want to launch a full-on war. that would have been the only way to ensure a white russian victory, and would have required help from england at a minimum.

I'm baaaaaaack

I wasn't aware nuclear war was considered a reasonable option. Please try to avoid creating fictional opponents to contrast yourself with.

<><

Yeah, the basic Cold War nuclear stratagem for both sides was "build enough nukes to make using them/starting a full scale war a suicidal decision". MAD was a bit insane but it worked well enough.

The main American mistake of the Cold War was mistaking left leaning anti-colonial/nationalist movements as Soviet align rebellions. Vietnam and especially Cuba weren't that anti-American until they were forced to be. This mistake is also why we are having issues with Iran for the past few decades; turns out overthrowing a democracy in favor of a monarchy pisses people off.

Unfortunately even bringing this up in public circles gets one branded a "bleeding heart liberal apologist who is weakening America" so the best we can hope for is that our leaders quietly learn from the past and rectify it. Mitt Romney has probably already failed in this regard.

edited 13th Oct '12 11:41:01 AM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

Just Crazy Enough to Work.

I'm baaaaaaack

They may be referring to how, when asked about whether they'd strike first with nuclear weapons, American presidents have consistently said, "Well, never say never . . ."

And having a plan for the worst case is a pretty smart move. But this is rapidly derailing into a retrospective of the Cold War.

...My brother told me that the Columbia Institute, which has successfully predicted the last 12 presidential races, predicted that Romney would win. Can anyone back this up or give any thoughts on the matter. ...Could be unlucky number 13 for them.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

I don't know what the Columbia Institute is, but the betting markets have gone from 4-1 odds in Obama's favor just before the debates to a bit less than 3-2 odds in Obama's favor now. His advantage, which looked pretty good before, is rapidly eroding.

<><

they have betting markets on presidential elections?

I'm baaaaaaack

Oh yes. There's millions of dollars riding on this one.

<><

wow...

I'd bet on it, but i'm both underage and at this point less than 100% sure Obama will win. Still pretty sure though.

I'm baaaaaaack

People will bet on anything. Mainly gambling addicts.

Also, in regards to everything in the Cold War: HINDSIGHT IS 20/20. It's easy to take the high moral ground now and say we'd do something different, and to judge everyone as morally bankrupt at the time, but we weren't living then and we weren't the ones making the decisions. Granted, there's a lot of things that were tactically stupid, but they usually had no way of knowing that at the time. The wise thing to do is attempt to learn from it.

Also, communism was always unworkable. There was never any workable plan to shift to a classless society. Socialism, however, works just fine.

Moving on. Eh. Still think Obama's going to win. Dems seem to be calming down about the whole poll hullabaloo. Makes me wonder how many of the early votes are in Obama's favor, since everyone's saying that early voters are a lot more likely to vote for him. Although I guess they won't count those until the official election day.

Born in 1975, thanks. I remember the '80s rather well (and, the effects of the Cold War in Africa, specifically). Granted, I couldn't do an awful lot about it, but...

My opinions aren't just based on hearsay, but also what I went through. And, my observation is this: American politics seems to thrive on an exaggerated Good vs Bad Guy mentality, and doesn't seem to be able to cope with a "just people we need to work with" mindset very well. The Cold War is only a part of possibly why.

edited 13th Oct '12 12:50:12 PM by Euodiachloris

I wasn't aware other people were copying my idea; as far as I knew, I was the only one blaming Wilson, and I'm happy to do so. It takes a special kind of presidential failure to be directly or indirectly responsible for the rise of Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Ho Chi Minh. Why was it our damn problem if the Russian Czar was overthrown? Virtually no one's employed hindsight in regards to the Cold War, though. Hell, virtually no one employed foresight. We've never tried the "let other countries sort their own shit out" approach as a default foreign policy, and we certainly have never considered addressing the underlying wealth disparities that lead to such ideologies as jihadism and communism

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Indeed.

Of course, the electoral system doesn't help, too. FPTP fosters dual-party politics (most of the time), and therefore, adversarialism.

There is always an 'enemy' because there's not much choice in friends.

... Really? I mean, wasn't it the Senate's fault that the TOV didn't get ratified?

edited 13th Oct '12 12:53:58 PM by Inhopelessguy

And, take a long, hard look at the wealth gap growing in the States (and, to a lesser extent, in parts of Europe). It's a danger sign.

I'm 98% sure he's gonna lose,Obama failed the first debate by being too polite and Biden failed by being a destructive,contemptuous Red Oni rather than a constructive (even if it's all bullshit) Red Oni.

The signs Obama is like Carter are all too obvious,and look how that turned out. I wouldn't be surprised if down the road Obama even gets the Hate Dumb part to.

I still hope he keeps his word about being more aggressive.

I've missed the live viewing of the first two, so I really want to go see the town meeting one.

InTrade still the odds of Obama winning at 58%, and Nate Silver says that it's at 59%. I'm keeping my hopes up, but I think Romney may win this thing.

edited 13th Oct '12 1:20:10 PM by Completion

It's closer than some(including me) would like, but I think obama has it unless he royally fucks up.

I'm baaaaaaack