Off Topic Politics Thread

[shoot_spiderman]

Why is socialism even being discussed? From what I gather from anyone even slightly left wing that is not what we have with the current government. At best they are apparently just bland centrists and at worse “Red Tories” who are basically the same as the last lot. At least according to some of the louder voices on the “left”

Have we had anything really close to socialism in living memory of many people posting on here?

Because the post I’m responding to referenced Socialism. So I was curious to know exactly what O was criticising …

“Socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death”

I await his response with interest

 

[Gregm1988]

Because the post I’m responding to referenced Socialism. So I was curious to know exactly what O was criticising …

“Socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death”

I await his response with interest

My question was sort of rhetorical because clearly Os is suggesting that socialism is what we now have - which is basically just the panicked spewing of a bunch of right wing types. Suggests not reading their manifesto at all. And only getting a view on it from right wing sources alone. Which tracks to be honest.

As to the bit about destruction of human spirit and levelling mankind to death - well that’s hyperbole. And probably cherry picking of what is considered “socialism” (hence why someone asked for a definition because no doubt Os’s definition is either vague or absolutely bananas. Or both).

Because several of the countries at the top of the global happiness index have “social democrat” governments with a strong favouring of left wing / centre left politics (and I mean actual left and centre left - not what right wing types like the lotus eaters call left wing. Those lot claim our last government was left wing or Le Pen’s party is left wing). But I guess those will not count for…reasons. And then we’d have to focus on Cuba, Maoist China and the USSR. Which his statement would be true for - but are certainly not what we are going to be getting anything even slightly close to from Starmer. Notice how you kind of need to have no elections to implement stuff like that

 

[Libby]

Biden introducing Zelensky as 'President Putin' isn't going to help his case.

 

[tomw24]

Biden introducing Zelensky as 'President Putin' isn't going to help his case.

Oh dear lord.

 

[SaintinNZ]

Socialism is always bad on the right until their chosen money machine stops going. Then the hands go out faster than you can say chickens coming home to roost and it’s ’too Big to fail’ ‘think about the little employees’ or ‘we had no way of knowing’. Please government can we have lots of money.

 

[Osvaldorama]

Socialism is always bad on the right until their chosen money machine stops going. Then the hands go out faster than you can say chickens coming home to roost and it’s ’too Big to fail’ ‘think about the little employees’ or ‘we had no way of knowing’. Please government can we have lots of money.

It’s a quote from a famous commencement speech which took place at Harvard University in 1978.

The speaker, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, was in exile from the Soviet Union.

In his speech Solzhenitsyn gave a dire warning to the West about the perils of liberalism eventually leading to socialism and eventually communism.

Worth a listen.

 

[Osvaldorama]

Biden introducing Zelensky as 'President Putin' isn't going to help his case.

The truly scary part is that this has been obvious for years and yet people were so brainwashed they completely ignored it.

 

[StJabbo1]

What a ****ing choice. Bumbling bewildered Biden or the proven liar, misogynistic pussy grabbing serial adulterer, convicted felon and fraudster Trump. Leaders of the free world for ****s sake what mess!

 

[Saintjoey]

I’ve watched the whole press conference back and beyond the two gaffes he came across very well. The thing is, he’s always been bad with names so it can be spun either way.

But the fact that this issue is dominating the campaign and overshadowing actual policy debate (if you ever really get that with trump anyway) is a major issue

 

[Osvaldorama]

I’ve watched the whole press conference back and beyond the two gaffes he came across very well. The thing is, he’s always been bad with names so it can be spun either way.

But the fact that this issue is dominating the campaign and overshadowing actual policy debate (if you ever really get that with trump anyway) is a major issue

Beyond calling the president of Ukraine Putin, it went well?

LOL

 

[shoot_spiderman]

My question was sort of rhetorical because clearly Os is suggesting that socialism is what we now have - which is basically just the panicked spewing of a bunch of right wing types. Suggests not reading their manifesto at all. And only getting a view on it from right wing sources alone. Which tracks to be honest.

As to the bit about destruction of human spirit and levelling mankind to death - well that’s hyperbole. And probably cherry picking of what is considered “socialism” (hence why someone asked for a definition because no doubt Os’s definition is either vague or absolutely bananas. Or both).

Because several of the countries at the top of the global happiness index have “social democrat” governments with a strong favouring of left wing / centre left politics (and I mean actual left and centre left - not what right wing types like the lotus eaters call left wing. Those lot claim our last government was left wing or Le Pen’s party is left wing). But I guess those will not count for…reasons. And then we’d have to focus on Cuba, Maoist China and the USSR. Which his statement would be true for - but are certainly not what we are going to be getting anything even slightly close to from Starmer. Notice how you kind of need to have no elections to implement stuff like that

All fine, but it’s not for us to discuss what he might mean, it’s for him to say what he actually means, otherwise it’s just flim-flam

There’s no substance to his post which makes it the equivalent of wummery even though he gets offended when accused of it

He said this is a political thread so why doesn’t he say something political?

EDIT: Maybe he should change his username to Farrageorama?

 

[Shandy_top_89]

Socialism is always bad on the right until their chosen money machine stops going. Then the hands go out faster than you can say chickens coming home to roost and it’s ’too Big to fail’ ‘think about the little employees’ or ‘we had no way of knowing’. Please government can we have lots of money.

Our society has run on a theme of 'Privatized profits, socialized losses' since the Thatcher years, but it has really ramped up since the 2008 crash.

 

[......loading......]

The truly scary part is that this has been obvious for years and yet people were so brainwashed they completely ignored it.

Yes! When you get an elderly relative who begins showing some signs of dementia, I bet you bin them off immediately as useless.
Plenty of people begin to bumble but are still very intelligent and capable of making difficult choices.

You should just accept that Biden is old and the US chose an old guy to run their country. It is not a conspiracy and just because the US government wanted to focus on what this man was good at doesn’t mean people were hiding it. The nature of age related brain issues is they get worse, causing increasing confusion and getting muddled over simple things.

That is not a crime and I am afraid you have to be a bit wet to find that scary. Perhaps if Biden ruled with an iron fist over a dictatorship, the world should fear, but he is just an old man being minded by people selected for their political competence. Unlike Trump who is an old man being minded by people related to him with no political competence whatsoever.

 

[Shandy_top_89]

What a ****ing choice. Bumbling bewildered Biden or the proven liar, misogynistic pussy grabbing serial adulterer, convicted felon and fraudster Trump. Leaders of the free world for ****s sake what mess!

Thing I don't quite get with Biden is that he has had a pretty solid four years and if he had passed on the torch with grace it would have cemented a reasonably positive legacy, he wouldn't be seen as weak for it either because most of us recognize that he is 81 years old (82 by the time a second term would start).

Lyndon B Johnson decided against seeking a second (full) term and he certainly isn't considered weak in terms of domestic US politics (didn't do particularly well abroad but thats another matter).

Instead he is becoming an accomplice to Trump and if he stays on and loses he will be complicit in every act of a future Trump Presidency.

There is no way in hell Biden wins reelection, time for someone close to him to give him the truth.

 

[......loading......]

Thing I don't quite get with Biden is that he has had a pretty solid four years and if he had passed on the torch with grace it would have cemented a reasonably positive legacy, he wouldn't be seen as weak for it either because most of us recognize that he is 81 years old (82 by the time a second term would start).

Instead he is becoming an accomplice to Trump and if he stays on and loses he will be complicit in every act of a future Trump Presidency.

Absolutely agree. Stubborn men who desire power so much it risks damaging the country dominate US politics. How sad. Biden’s wife should really be telling him off.

 

[Gregm1988]

Thing I don't quite get with Biden is that he has had a pretty solid four years and if he had passed on the torch with grace it would have cemented a reasonably positive legacy, he wouldn't be seen as weak for it either because most of us recognize that he is 81 years old (82 by the time a second term would start).

Lyndon B Johnson decided against seeking a second (full) term and he certainly isn't considered weak in terms of domestic US politics (didn't do particularly well abroad but thats another matter).

Instead he is becoming an accomplice to Trump and if he stays on and loses he will be complicit in every act of a future Trump Presidency.

There is no way in hell Biden wins reelection, time for someone close to him to give him the truth.

It’s because Harris would be a disaster but there was no clean way of cutting her out. And a messy primary would not have been ideal. Look up the election post LBJ. A massive Nixon win

 

[ChilcoSaint]

It’s because Harris would be a disaster but there was no clean way of cutting her out. And a messy primary would not have been ideal. Look up the election post LBJ. A massive Nixon win

True, but Nixon sabotaged the Vietnam peace talks via his CIA contacts, or Humphrey would have won a landslide in 1968.

 

[Archers Road]

Why are people convinced Harris would be a disaster? I don't know much about her, but have heard her chances dismissed without any explanation as to why.

 

[All_Southampton_FC]

Beyond calling the president of Ukraine Putin, it went well?

LOL

It's so cringe watching Biden.
I don't know enough about US politics, but the choices of Trump or Biden is utterly horrendous. It's like living in dystopia.

Realistically, how long can the democrats leave it before swapping Joe Biden with a new candidate? No idea how it works, how much time will that process take? Anyway, if it's even remotely possible, to me, that's surely the favourable/ sensible option for the democrats; remove Biden and replace him with someone who can string a sentence together and preferably be under the age of 70 (no offence to you oldies on here!).

 

[OddRiverOakWizards]

Why are people convinced Harris would be a disaster? I don't know much about her, but have heard her chances dismissed without any explanation as to why.

She's got really low approval ratings.