Impeaching Donald Trump

[BernardLanguillier]

I don’t even know what that is, let alone be in favor of it. If that means doing what people want, expressed in elections, than, yes, I might be a populist. Doing what people want, isn’t that the very essence of democracy?

Populism is basically telling people what they want to hear instead of the reality. It's rooted in deception and lies.

Typical examples include blaming economic issues on foreigners, lie about the degree of immigration, claim to be in for the modest people and lower taxes for the richest,...

In other words, Trump is a perfect example of a populist.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Populism is basically telling people what they want to hear instead of the reality. It's rooted in deception and lies...

I thought that’s called politics? 

Then again, if people want to hear “deception and lies” and vote for it, that’s democracy after all.

Typical examples include blaming economic issues on foreigners, lie about the degree of immigration, claim to be in for the modest people and lower taxes for the richest,...

In other words, Trump is a perfect example of a populist.

In your humble opinion.

[RSL]

Russ,

I am wondering to what degree you are able to deal with complexity.

I don't know what sort of crap you read over there in Tokyo, Bernard, but evidently it's full of complexity. There's nothing complex about the problem I cited. Give me a single example of a success by socialism. There simply aren't any. That's not complex. Capitalism, as is true of any human endeavor, has its problems, but it brings more prosperity to more people than any other approach to economics the world has ever seen. Adam Smith's invisible hand always triumphs if given a chance.

[Alan Klein]

Hum... how does that work when Trump got 49% of votes in 2016 and only 40% of people are against the impeachment?

It would appear that you are missing 9% of of people at this point... which is more than 10 million people whose opinion will not be taken into account by their representatives.

That sounds like a great democracy!

And that is assuming that Fox survey number represent the reality of the situation... which would be a bit surprising considering the vested interest they have in showing Trump in good light.

Cheers,
Bernard

There are two Senators who represent each of the 50 sovereign States, not the people of the country in general.  Congressman represent the people.  Senators do not represent quantity of people but their states.   It's not by popular vote that the Senate decides to convict or not during impeachment proceedings. We are a Federal Republic, not a Democracy.  For reference,  Trump won 30 of 50 states in the 2016 election. Another example is there are 25 million people for each of the two senators from the State of California but only half a million for each senator from the State of  Montana.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Give me a single example of a success by socialism. There simply aren't any....

Russ,

Apparently, Bernard et al found a way to weasel out of the historic embarrassment (actually, more like tragedy) that socialism was and is by pretending that, e.g., Sweden is a socialist country 

But, I forgive him, given that he, by his own admission, has no clue what socialism is.

[RSL]

Yeah, I know, Slobodan. Unfortunately, Bernard seems incapacitated by his world of complexity, and he, like his fellow socialists will tell you that what’s going on in Venezuela isn’t really socialism, nor was what went on inside the Soviet Union, or inside Mao’s communist heaven. Real socialism is a dream that people involved in complexity dream, avoiding any contact with reality. They’re overcome by complexity, utterly unable to deal with it.

[JoeKitchen]

I think the best example against state run power is Venezuela's state run oil program.  Venezuela sits on the largest oil reserves in the world, but as soon as it was nationalized, oil production steadily fell.  Forbes has a great article on this.

But anyway, enough with energy talk; back to the irony of the era of Trump.  Have we all lost our minds, or are the media and liberals really this easy to manipulate?

OK sign is under siege: How the squeaky-clean hand gesture was twisted by trolls and acquired racist undertones

I wonder how much longer before Apple removes it from their list of emojis? 

[Rob C]

What do you call it when nobody listens, but everybody claims to understand the other person's position as they dismiss it?

Whatever you call it, this is what we have right here and now: endless repetitions of catechisms learned at the family knee.

And to think I thought democracy used to make sense!

Populism: what Boris is about in promising cake today, tomorrow and forever after when he knows damned well there's neither a fucking bakery within sight nor being built any time soon. Populism is about getting 52% of a vote and instantly discounting the 48% that neither wants to buy cake nor pie in the sky, because it understands that open borders and customs within an agreed and mutually useful group is the least complicated, most productive model for international trade that there is when much of that trade consists of manufacture of parts in many member countries for assembly within others. Populism is catering to the political aspirations and tribal beliefs of a crowd of semi-literates whose news comes from the red top newspapers, echo chamber websites; whose idea of a good time is sitting on a couch watching interminable soaps about dull people in even more dull British towns, or standing in pubs, large beer glasses in hand, cheering like mad whenever the appropriate hero says something or scores something. It's a manifestation of tribalism in the extreme; that vote is popular populism: we are the people, there's nobody like us! Unfortunately for the world, that's also wrong: there are zillions just like them.

We saw it in Germany in the 30s and raising its head again today; we see it in the US and UK today, and it has never gone away in France, just bides its time because it can. Italy? As with Spain and France, the concept of country is fairly recent and miriad little states were the way it was.

The danger we face today is that somebody gave baby an atom bomb; when that gets chucked out of the pram, say your prayers, if you have time. You will also find your religious faith has been instantly rekindled.

;-(

[James Clark]

Russ,

Apparently, Bernard et al found a way to weasel out of the historic embarrassment (actually, more like tragedy) that socialism was and is by pretending that, e.g., Sweden is a socialist country 

But, I forgive him, given that he, by his own admission, has no clue what socialism is.

You (all of you) are being pretty circular, arent'cha?  You (Slobodan) are starting with the premise that socialism is something that doesn't work, and then essentially stating that if it does work it can't be socialism.  Bart and others are identifying things that work and assigning the term "socialism" due, I assume, to a heavy degree of public (i.e government or non-private-owned) involvement.   Within that construct, it's no surprise that the people here that dislike "liberal" policies simply define them as "socialism" as a convenient way of dismissing varying degrees of government oversight/regulation/control, even though, in the context of this discussion, really only Bernie Sanders and potentially Elizabeth Warren seem to be actively advocating for state-ownership of a major facet of the US economy.

Carry on.

[Rob C]

I think the best example against state run power is Venezuela's state run oil program.  Venezuela sits on the largest oil reserves in the world, but as soon as it was nationalized, oil production steadily fell.  Forbes has a great article on this.

But anyway, enough with energy talk; back to the irony of the era of Trump.  Have we all lost our minds, or are the media and liberals really this easy to manipulate?

OK sign is under siege: How the squeaky-clean hand gesture was twisted by trolls and acquired racist undertones

I wonder how much longer before Apple removes it from their list of emojis?

Venezuela is neither socialist, communist nor capitalist: it is a simple dictatorship where labels are used as suits the boss to disguise the reality. It is a land held hostage to a gang of thugs. It's in good company right across the third world.

[RSL]

So, Rob, you’re saying that Karl Marx was neither socialist nor communist in advocating state ownership of the means of production? That’s exactly what we have in Venezuela, and in a more disguised form in Russia and China. Marx was simply in favor of dictatorship?

I keep coming back to where it all starts: “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need.” Sounds wonderful if you have little ability and a lot of need. But we’ve demonstrated over and over and over and over that the approach arising out of that idea simply doesn’t work, even though it’s a dream of masses of people who have little contact with reality.

In the end, to provide the most for people with a lot of need, the only thing that really makes sense is the entrepreneur who’s setting out to make a buck. In the process he produces something that masses of people want and, to produce it, hires masses of people – gives them jobs. Doesn’t matter whether he’s a prince or a pirate. And that’s where the socialist gets hung up. He hates the guy who makes a bundle without virtue-signaling that he wants to help the people who adore his product or the people who work to produce it. What’s important to the avowed socialist is that the entrepreneur cares! Socialism is nothing more than emotionalism on steroids.

I've gotta stop doing this, but it's really a lot of fun.

[PeterAit]

“Patriotism and the survival of our nation in the face of the crimes, corruption and corrosive nature of Donald Trump are a higher calling than mere politics,”

Quote from a flaming liberal? A Democratic candidate? Nope--from the Lincoln Project, a group of conservatives, mostly if not all Republicans, that formed a PAC to fight against Trump's re-election. It includes George Conway, the husband of Kellyanne Conway, Trump's chief assistant liar.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/george-conway-and-other-conservative-critics-launch-pac-to-take-down-trump

[RSL]

Good one, Peter. What you're describing is otherwise known as the "deep state."

[JoeKitchen]

Venezuela is neither socialist, communist nor capitalist: it is a simple dictatorship where labels are used as suits the boss to disguise the reality. It is a land held hostage to a gang of thugs. It's in good company right across the third world.

Rob, there is no way for socialism to work without a dictatorship, or at the very least a totalitarian government.  The simple reason for this is that people tend not to want to give up their property to the state, but that is the very essence of socialism.  The state owns and controls everything. 

After it begins, regardless if the socialist government was or was not started with good intentions, it quickly becomes apparent that the only way to nationalize private property is to take it by force, and thus begins the reign of terror and devolution into dictatorship. 

It is unavoidable, and what many on the left don't want to admit.  Not necessarily to those on the right mind you, but, IMHO, to themselves.  The fact that your new found religion of collectivism, brought forth by socialism, is bound to always devolve into misery would be quite the hard pill to swallow. 

FYI, I am using socialism in the sense of state owned and operation of assets, whether on a macro or micro level. 

[kers]

Rob, there is no way for socialism to work without a dictatorship, or at the very least a totalitarian government....

But there are many dictatorships without socialism ... So what is your point ?

... There's nothing complex about the problem I cited. Give me a single example of a success by socialism. There simply aren't any. That's not complex ...

YES it is complex...
And there exists in this real world no pure Socialism nor pure Capitalism...

Good one, Peter. What you're describing is otherwise known as the "deep state."

Deepstate ? on the front page?
Not so long ago we used to call that just a different political opinion... It was allowed.

[Alan Klein]

You (all of you) are being pretty circular, arent'cha?  You (Slobodan) are starting with the premise that socialism is something that doesn't work, and then essentially stating that if it does work it can't be socialism.  Bart and others are identifying things that work and assigning the term "socialism" due, I assume, to a heavy degree of public (i.e government or non-private-owned) involvement.   Within that construct, it's no surprise that the people here that dislike "liberal" policies simply define them as "socialism" as a convenient way of dismissing varying degrees of government oversight/regulation/control, even though, in the context of this discussion, really only Bernie Sanders and potentially Elizabeth Warren seem to be actively advocating for state-ownership of a major facet of the US economy.

Carry on.

Communism socialism and liberalism just represent varying degrees of government power and control over individual freedom.  All government has that effect.   Every rule and regulation reduces personal, economic,  and political liberties.

But to argue that because we're all under some form of government therefore control is good, can justify the worse forms of government power. 

[JoeKitchen]

I am sorry you think this is joke material.

Cheers,
Bernard

Seriously, lighten up.  It was pretty obvious my "there is room for improvement" comment was just a quip. 

But anyway, getting back to your private vs. state argument, what would the state have done differently to avoid the humanitarian crisis?  Would they have built a whole new, but unoccupied, city, just waiting in the wings for a catastrophe? 

I just cant see how having the state owning the power company would have made the humianrtian crisis any less severe. 

[RSL]

YES it is complex...
And there exists in this real world no pure Socialism nor pure Capitalism...

No kidding, Pieter. But Britain in the old days, and Hong Kong until the communists clobbered it were pretty close to pure capitalism. Notice how well that worked.

And Venezuela is pretty close to pure socialism. Notice how well that's working.

Deepstate ? on the front page?
Not so long ago we used to call that just a different political opinion... It was allowed.

It still is. If it weren't, you wouldn't know anything about it, would you?

[PeterAit]

Good one, Peter. What you're describing is otherwise known as the "deep state."

Russ - Your response belongs in the humor thread.

[RSL]

Always, Peter.