Trump and his cabinet/buffoonery- Get your bunkers ready!

[LadySkinsFan]

39 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

 

This kinda sounds like a global implementation of communism.  If not, what do they want?  Has there ever been a working example of communism that didn't need a totalitarian government to help enforce it?

 

Pure communism as written by Marx isn't anything like what evolved after the Revolution.

 

Historically, Russians seem to want an authoritarian ruler whether Tsar or dictator or President/dictator. So that's what they have had through the centuries. 

[Bozo the kKklown]

Genuinely don’t care about America being the world’s leader or not.

 

Domestically we have been in decline for a four decades. Trump is accelerating our decline.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

21 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Russians seem to want an authoritarian ruler whether Tsar or dictator or President/dictator.

Americans want that too.

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

3 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Americans want that too.

 

Only some Americans. Actually, they are in the minority.

[thebluefood]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

 

This kinda sounds like a global implementation of communism.  If not, what do they want?  Has there ever been a working example of communism that didn't need a totalitarian government to help enforce it?

https://iww.org

Here's our website

https://www.iww.org/culture/official/preamble.shtml

Here's the preamble to our Constitution

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World

Here's a link to our Wikipedia page

 

As far as "communism" is concerned, we're a non-sectarian outfit so no, we're not really communists in the normal sense of the word - quite the opposite. We're usually associated with Syndicalism like the CNT in Spain - the folks who fought Franco in the Spanish Civil War (we're even in a partnership with them).

 

We've got Marxists and Leninists and even a few Maoists here and there but most Wobblies you meet aren't really too fond of having a boot on their neck of any kind.

[Renegade7]

8 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

Only some Americans. Actually, they are in the minority.

And that's because they don't know what it is.  They think locking up their political opponents like Hillary is cute.

[thebluefood]

(Also Helen Keller was a member so, you know...got that going for us. Which is nice.)

[LadySkinsFan]

Another distant little country heard from (Liz Cheney).

[visionary]

 

[Renegade7]

21 minutes ago, thebluefood said:

As far as "communism" is concerned, we're a non-sectarian outfit so no, we're not really communists in the normal sense of the word - quite the opposite. .

 

We've got Marxists and Leninists and even a few Maoists here and there but most Wobblies you meet aren't really too fond of having a boot on their neck of any kind.

Ok, I'm really confused now. The first place I went to when I saw you say you were a member was their wiki page, and I didn't understand it, why I asked you to try to explain it.  Isn't the opposite of communism capitalism? 

 

Your preamble is on the wiki page, but I read it again since you posted it. What I really want to know is what in the world does "getting rid of the wage" system even mean?  Wasn't that a concept formulated by Karl Marx himself? Are you saying Business Owners or Neurosurgeons shouldn't be making more then farmers or public school teachers based on their contributions to society? 

[Mr. Sinister]

2 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

I'm just posting my opinion and nothing more.  I know some feel I have no right to say a damn thing since I made the wrong choice in 2016 and won't recognize my error and say I will correct that in 2020.  If I disgust you that much, all I can say it avoid me.  IF you can block me, block me.  

 

 

 

Will do. ✌

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

[Llevron]

Heading for a real financial crisis. 

 

Also, Jr. and his wife are two horribly, horribly ugly people. Jesus. 

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, LadySkinsFan said:

 

Pure communism as written by Marx isn't anything like what evolved after the Revolution.

 

You'd still have to implement that by gun point in this country, especially if you want to throw in his feelings on abolishing the wage system (if I'm understanding it correctly). .

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

[LadySkinsFan]

She has that dead eyed look that says get me out NOW!

[thebluefood]

3 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Ok, I'm really confused now. The first place I went to when I saw you say you were a member was their wiki page, and I didn't understand it, why I asked you to try to explain it.  Isn't the opposite of communism capitalism? 

 

Your preamble is on the wiki page, but I read it again since you posted it. What I really want to know is what in the world does "getting rid of the wage" system even mean?  Wasn't that a concept formulated by Karl Marx himself? Are you saying Business Owners or Neurosurgeons shouldn't be making more then farmers or public school teachers based on their contributions to society? 

What we are saying is that no one should have more or less access to the fruits of their labor or the means of existence just because of their occupation. Under the current system, our access to even the bare necessities depends on our wage and, by extension, it puts an artificial value on our contribution to society and our lives. That's one of the reasons why we organize along industrial lines instead of by trade.

 

You mentioned a neurosurgeon- someone who works in the health-care industry. How many different occupations or trades make up that industry? Aren't they all interconnected and dependent upon one another in some capacity? What good is the most brilliant surgeon if they don't have a team of nurses helping them or orderlies to ensure they have the right equipment at their fingertips or janitorial staff to ensure a clean, safe working environment or even beyond that - transportation personnel to ship the equipment to the hospital to begin with (and so on and so forth).

 

To quote the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer instead of Marx (which has been more influential in shaping my ideology thus far): "our common life depends on each other's toil." For me or anyone else to say one is more important than the other is at best shortsighted. No one should be deprived of anything - bread or roses - because of their occupation. Not only is it ghoulish and exploitative but it is wholly unnecessary.

 

And you mentioned "business owners" as well. The IWW is not only an industrial union but an anti-capitalist outfit as well and always has been. The current version of the preamble expands on that and proposes three additional goals along with the abolition of the wage system. One of them is common ownership of the means of production - the abolition of private property. There is no "business owner" because no one individual (or individuals) own the business. Wobblies (and most anti-capitalists) demand and strive for democracy in every facet of life - including the workplace. 

 

This, too, is a Marxist principal but Marx (and his disciples) weren't the only ones to propose it. There's a whole different stream of anti-capitalist thought with it's own figure heads (Bakunin, Kropotkin, etc.). 

 

Now as far as communism being the opposite of capitalism that's a whole different kettle of fish and I've already derailed the thread quite enough for one day. Suffice it to say the One Big Union is far from achieving its goals here in the States and in most places so as it stands now, we try to offer our support for working folks the best we can - whether it's helping a fired worker get their job back or organize a shop for better wages or support folks on the picket line with our money and our presence (which we did most recently in West Virginia during the education strike).

 

I'd go into more detail but I'm on my phone at present and my thumbs are starting to get sore.

[tshile]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

I gotta ask, why do you even bother voting 3rd party when they obviously aren't even trying to win the presidential election?  If one of them made it to the presidential debates, I think I'd be more understanding.

 

I agree that blaming people that voted third party is not the right way to go on this, I don't believe anyone really thought she was going to lose regardless of who they did or didn't vote for until they announced she lost Florida. Hillary lost because so many Democrats that liked Bernie or Obama didn't like her and decided not to vote.  We can debate about significance of Trump being able to tap in to people's frustration that they were living in areas were the economy wasn't doing nearly as well as the national average, but that's how he got the nomination, not the Presidency.  

 

Given Trump won, would anyone who voted 3rd party still stay with their vote?  I don't believe anyone should get credit for sticking to their convictions if they say "no" considering what we've been though only halfway through his first term.

 

You vote third party for a number of reasons. Maybe the third party is exactly what you think should be in control. Maybe you're sending a message to the other two parties - change something to recruit me for next time.

 

Our system doesn't allow for a viable "third party" over the long term. But it does allow for people to show something other than the two parties appeals to them, and to give those two parties a reason to adjust. If a third party ever rose to be a major contender, that would mean one of the other two collapsed, and it wouldn't be a third party anymore it would just be the new 1 of a 2 party system. It's sort of how our system is designed (intentionally or not.)

 

I had the luxury of voting in a state where I had no doubt which candidate would win, and the luxury of being right about it. If I lived in a state that was a true toss up, I would have had to vote for Clinton because as bad as I think her ilk is it's at least competent and not an embarrassment and not a danger to our country.

 

I think one's vote is something to cherish and be taken seriously. I think the real blame is with people who don't bother to show up - and I consider that despicable and lacking perspective of what the world is and how lucky we are to be a place where we do have a say.

 

I disagree with your analysis of why Trump won. Or at least I consider it incomplete. Voter turnout was absolutely affected by what you said, but in key rust belt states the dems lost control of the union folk. These people are not liberals, in fact they have many conservative views (and tend to think trump must be smart and a successful business man because look he has lots of money, and isn't that what that means? Only smart successful people have money. Oh and he told us so) and they voted blue because the dems supported unions and the Republicans are for busting (or preventing unions.) But after decades of throwing their votes to the Democrats and watching their jobs vanish they went with the drain the swamp guy.

 

I know people in unions and the few willing to discuss it said the flyers and emails and meetings were unlike any of the previous ones. People completely lost trust in the Democrats; one told me it appeared the Clinton campaign never even bothered to reach out to them about anything.

 

But the reason I said what you quoted is because ever since election night the liberals have been ridiculous with their excuses for their poor performance. They're quick to blame everyone but themselves. Russia, stupid people, etc. Hell, a good number of them tried to get a real campaign going to abolish the electoral system because they'd rather cry about its any thing's fault other than their own. Even societal structures.

 

It's nonsense. In regards to % of the eligible voter population, trump performed rather poorly. He only won because Clinton managed to do worse. When you dive down into individual States that matter, the story is even worse. CA doesn't matter. Yeah she got a lot of votes there, but the state was never in contention. Look at WVA, NC, PA, Ohio,Wisconsin... low voter turnout, loss of union people -> loss of election.

 

Some (not all but some) of our liberal posters have been able to have some reflection and see that. Others, and most of the media and public it seems, have not.

 

These same people are talking about movements but it's hard to take seriously when you realize their group of people they're dependent on managed to not vote, for whatever reason, last time around. Meanwhile old white people show up to every election.

 

I think the field for the dem primary is going to tell us everything we need to know about whether the dem party recognized what happened or whether they too live in a fantasy land.

 

The election in pa had a dem running to win who's pro life, pro gun. Performed well. The mid terms will be interesting. It's setting up for a battle over what the identity of the dems are (from hard liberal to Republican light, and everything between) and I'm not ready to say what they pick will be able to beat trump. 

[LadySkinsFan]

Third parties don't accomplish much besides derailing some elections. Even Sanders knew that, it's why he tried to hijack the Democratic party, and ****ed about the primary rules that had been in place for years and to which he implied acceptance by joining and running under the party.

 

Personally I hope he passes from natural causes soon.

[PokerPacker]

3 hours ago, mcsluggo said:

On this particular day in November 2016, we were all (almost literally) placed on a life-raft in the middle of the ocean, told we were going to have to be there for 4 straight years....... and we were collectively given a choice between collectively getting a steady supply of baloney on white bread sandwiches (that you didn't particularly like) and (again, almost literally) a daily **** on asbestos bread sandwich.

I have to stop your analogy here.  Clearly people have differing opinions on the level of absolute **** the two candidates were.  Your analogy fails by only painting things in terms of your own personal opinion of the candidates.  I could make the same analogy with a different set of opinions on the candidates:

 

On this particular day in November 2016, we were all (almost literally) placed on a life-raft in the middle of the ocean, told we were going to have to be there for 4 straight years....... and we were collectively given a choice between collectively getting a supply AIDS-infected sewage that people someone has spent a lot of time sculpting into the shape of a sandwich (oddly, someone was trying to make it look like a sandwich before you even set sail, much less got stranded), and a hastily prepared diarrhoea stew.

 

Of course that analogy gets us nowhere; it just states that both candidates were ****, which is merely one person's view on the choices.

10 hours ago, Mr. Sinister said:

Not being pompous?

 

Keep digging that hole. You might reach China by tonight

Ah, yes, my response to someone being lambasted for voting their conscience rather than voting how someone else tells them they should vote.  How pompous of me.

 

If someone actually likes a Republican or Democrat running for President and votes for them (even if it's Trump or Clinton), then more power to them.  I respect that they will vote for who they personally want to see president even if I disagree with whom that means they vote for.  If someone chooses to vote for a Democrat just to keep a Republican from winning (say... Clinton), then I accept that, too.  It is not my preferred candidate selection methodology, but it is not for me to tell people how to come to their decision on who to vote for.

 

If someone tells me that I voted incorrectly because I voted for the person I truly believe to be the best candidate running rather than using their methodology for picking a candidate to vote for, that is where I start to have a problem.  If you don't want someone like Trump being president, then don't go throwing your blame at me for not voting for the person you voted for.  I certainly am not blaming individuals for it.  It is a systemic problem that needs to be solved at its root.

[tshile]

I have a higher standard for tacitly rooting for the death of someone other than political differences.

 

Like ruining my favorite sports te.... eh, uh, being... evil.

 

[PleaseBlitz]

1 hour ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

Who is this person and what learning disability does he have?

[Hersh]

14 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

I have to stop your analogy here.  Clearly people have differing opinions on the level of absolute **** the two candidates were.  Your analogy fails by only painting things in terms of your own personal opinion of the candidates.  I could make the same analogy with a different set of opinions on the candidates:

 

On this particular day in November 2016, we were all (almost literally) placed on a life-raft in the middle of the ocean, told we were going to have to be there for 4 straight years....... and we were collectively given a choice between collectively getting a supply AIDS-infected sewage that people someone has spent a lot of time sculpting into the shape of a sandwich (oddly, someone was trying to make it look like a sandwich before you even set sail, much less got stranded), and a hastily prepared diarrhoea stew.

 

Of course that analogy gets us nowhere; it just states that both candidates were ****, which is merely one person's view on the choices.

Ah, yes, my response to someone being lambasted for voting their conscience rather than voting how someone else tells them they should vote.  How pompous of me.

 

If someone actually likes a Republican or Democrat running for President and votes for them (even if it's Trump or Clinton), then more power to them.  I respect that they will vote for who they personally want to see president even if I disagree with whom that means they vote for.  If someone chooses to vote for a Democrat just to keep a Republican from winning (say... Clinton), then I accept that, too.  It is not my preferred candidate selection methodology, but it is not for me to tell people how to come to their decision on who to vote for.

 

If someone tells me that I voted incorrectly because I voted for the person I truly believe to be the best candidate running rather than using their methodology for picking a candidate to vote for, that is where I start to have a problem.  If you don't want someone like Trump being president, then don't go throwing your blame at me for not voting for the person you voted for.  I certainly am not blaming individuals for it.  It is a systemic problem that needs to be solved at its root.

 

Did you want someone like Trump?

[DogofWar1]

Where's the right place to post the "Tomi Lahren admitted to kicking her dog" story?