Trump MAGAthread IX: Korea, The Dreamers and Trump

[Aidannadia]

Might push Republicans back in line and finally pass the bills, though I don't know if taxes will actually get passed in time. I know there are some state elections that could be using the money right now, so Koch are definitely drawing a line in the sand.

However, what if Koch doesn't get the tax reform that it wants? What do they do if Trump passes a middle of the road, decrease on middle and lower class with the same high up or possibly greater?

[Ifreann]

Might push Republicans back in line and finally pass the bills, though I don't know if taxes will actually get passed in time. I know there are some state elections that could be using the money right now, so Koch are definitely drawing a line in the sand.

However, what if Koch doesn't get the tax reform that it wants? What do they do if Trump passes a middle of the road, decrease on middle and lower class with the same high up or possibly greater?

Fund primary challenges against him and anyone else who didn't obey their dread commands.

[Aidannadia]

Might push Republicans back in line and finally pass the bills, though I don't know if taxes will actually get passed in time. I know there are some state elections that could be using the money right now, so Koch are definitely drawing a line in the sand.

However, what if Koch doesn't get the tax reform that it wants? What do they do if Trump passes a middle of the road, decrease on middle and lower class with the same high up or possibly greater?

Fund primary challenges against him and anyone else who didn't obey their dread commands.

They already did that and I assumed that was a given anyway. How do they make that more effective than last time?

I mean for christs sake, they put their money behind Clinton instead of Trump.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carbonate ... 80354.html

[Mombombu]

Trump: *Trashes socialism in a room full of countries where socialism works*


[Pauses for applause]


UN: Oh...uh...*clap* *clap*

Shit that never happened

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-was-laugh ... ism-667785

Ok, I'm sorry but did you say "shit that never happened" or "shit that definitely happened and other people also picked up on it and wrote articles about it because it was such an awkward an embarrassing moment?"

In the middle of his comments, Trump paused to take the room's temperature, but it was apparent world leaders were unmoved by the rebuke of the worker state. The room was silent. It was reminiscent of Jeb Bush's "please clap" moment.

Conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly perhaps described it best: "Most fascinating part of Trump [United Nations] speech: After lambasting socialism, he paused, perhaps waiting for applause. None came. Stony silence."

[Ifreann]

Fund primary challenges against him and anyone else who didn't obey their dread commands.

They already did that and I assumed that was a given anyway. How do they make that more effective than last time?

I mean for christs sake, they put their money behind Clinton instead of Trump.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carbonate ... 80354.html

Fund primary challenges more? I mean, when your only tool is money your options are either spend money to get what you want or threaten to withhold money to get what you want. If that doesn't work you can only really do the same but more.

[The Sauganash Union]

Trump: *Trashes socialism in a room full of countries where socialism works*


[Pauses for applause]


UN: Oh...uh...*clap* *clap*

t. Venezuela

[Holy Tedalonia]

Yeah, since all words have meaning
We have a language for a reason and I'm using it

"Nationalism is only in conservatism" oh dear god

Pops misstyped. Was writing to fast. Meant to say "nationalism is not only in conservatism"


Anyways got a article here linking nazis to socialism like how I said they are linked. Anyways this was initially about socialism and Nazis nit about far right beliefs. If Nazis had capitalism then that'd be another story.

[The Flutterlands]

Killing should be for when it is truly proven that our government doesn't care about us and takes our healthcare away regardless of how much we kick and scream

Could you, like, not kill people? A bad government policy, even a very bad one, isn't really something that can only reasonably be responded to with mass killing.

How else can we fight back Against A government that's hell bent on bankrupting and killing us no matter how much we cry and scream in protest? They don't care about their voters and a government that refuses to represent the people properly doesn't deserve to exist.

I can only pray that those who voted no last time, especially Mccain will vote no again this time.

[Ifreann]

Could you, like, not kill people? A bad government policy, even a very bad one, isn't really something that can only reasonably be responded to with mass killing.

How else can we fight back Against A government that's hell bent on bankrupting and killing us no matter how much we cry and scream in protest? They don't care about their voters and a government that refuses to represent the people properly doesn't deserve to exist.

Maybe elect someone else? Just a thought.

[Cannot think of a name]

"Nationalism is only in conservatism" oh dear god

Pops misstyped. Was writing to fast. Meant to say "nationalism is not only in conservatism"


Anyways got a article here linking nazis to socialism like how I said they are linked. Anyways this was initially about socialism and Nazis nit about far right beliefs. If Nazis had capitalism then that'd be another story.

Okay, here are the several ways that went wrong.

First, this article comes not only from a libertarian website, but one focused on the work of one particular libertarian to buttress his ideas. As such, this website is selling a particular point of view and not even representing a veneer of objectivity. That's kind of a pun...moving on.

Now, having a point of view does not inherently make one wrong. However, to borrow from a libertarian phrase, 'buyer beware.'

So where does this start? First with the admission that it's really just the guy the website is dedicated to who thinks this:

Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

What's his first piece of evidence? The name.

When one remembers that the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party — Mises's identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?

This particular argument is so comically weak that I honestly can't come up with fresh material for it.

But it's a long article. It can't just be him huffing and puffing and pointing to the name. And there is more...mostly going on about how interfering in the market is the worst thing ever...

The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It's not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.

As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.

You might think that this is a bizarre sudden turn in the article to wander into libertarian economics...but it has a purpose aside from just bloviating!

It's to establish an essential libertarian principle: any control of the economy outside of laissez faire is, to use the language of the article, de facto socialism.

As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.

So...Nazis were socialist because they called themselves that (the Nazi party that Hitler joined and the one he thrust into power were different beasts) and because they did anything to fix an economy that was in freefall after a previous World War and reparations to the nations they lost to.

All from one particular libertarian thinker and the people who were big enough fans to make his ass a website.

Unconvinced.

[The Flutterlands]

How else can we fight back Against A government that's hell bent on bankrupting and killing us no matter how much we cry and scream in protest? They don't care about their voters and a government that refuses to represent the people properly doesn't deserve to exist.

Maybe elect someone else? Just a thought.

The damage would already be done. I Want to stop the damage from happening in the first place. Besides, I mostly have Democrats, who are only a little better than their counterparts.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Pops misstyped. Was writing to fast. Meant to say "nationalism is not only in conservatism"


Anyways got a article here linking nazis to socialism like how I said they are linked. Anyways this was initially about socialism and Nazis nit about far right beliefs. If Nazis had capitalism then that'd be another story.

Okay, here are the several ways that went wrong.

First, this article comes not only from a libertarian website, but one focused on the work of one particular libertarian to buttress his ideas. As such, this website is selling a particular point of view and not even representing a veneer of objectivity. That's kind of a pun...moving on.

Now, having a point of view does not inherently make one wrong. However, to borrow from a libertarian phrase, 'buyer beware.'

So where does this start? First with the admission that it's really just the guy the website is dedicated to who thinks this:

Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed.

What's his first piece of evidence? The name.

When one remembers that the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party — Mises's identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?

This particular argument is so comically weak that I honestly can't come up with fresh material for it.

But it's a long article. It can't just be him huffing and puffing and pointing to the name. And there is more...mostly going on about how interfering in the market is the worst thing ever...

The effect of the combination of inflation and price and wage controls is shortages, that is, a situation in which the quantities of goods people attempt to buy exceed the quantities available for sale.

Shortages, in turn, result in economic chaos. It's not only that consumers who show up in stores early in the day are in a position to buy up all the stocks of goods and leave customers who arrive later, with nothing — a situation to which governments typically respond by imposing rationing. Shortages result in chaos throughout the economic system. They introduce randomness in the distribution of supplies between geographical areas, in the allocation of a factor of production among its different products, in the allocation of labor and capital among the different branches of the economic system.

In the face of the combination of price controls and shortages, the effect of a decrease in the supply of an item is not, as it would be in a free market, to raise its price and increase its profitability, thereby operating to stop the decrease in supply, or reverse it if it has gone too far. Price control prohibits the rise in price and thus the increase in profitability. At the same time, the shortages caused by price controls prevent increases in supply from reducing price and profitability. When there is a shortage, the effect of an increase in supply is merely a reduction in the severity of the shortage. Only when the shortage is totally eliminated does an increase in supply necessitate a decrease in price and bring about a decrease in profitability.

As a result, the combination of price controls and shortages makes possible random movements of supply without any effect on price and profitability. In this situation, the production of the most trivial and unimportant goods, even pet rocks, can be expanded at the expense of the production of the most urgently needed and important goods, such as life-saving medicines, with no effect on the price or profitability of either good. Price controls would prevent the production of the medicines from becoming more profitable as their supply decreased, while a shortage even of pet rocks prevented their production from becoming less profitable as their supply increased.

You might think that this is a bizarre sudden turn in the article to wander into libertarian economics...but it has a purpose aside from just bloviating!

It's to establish an essential libertarian principle: any control of the economy outside of laissez faire is, to use the language of the article, de facto socialism.

As Mises showed, to cope with such unintended effects of its price controls, the government must either abolish the price controls or add further measures, namely, precisely the control over what is produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it is distributed, which I referred to earlier. The combination of price controls with this further set of controls constitutes the de facto socialization of the economic system. For it means that the government then exercises all of the substantive powers of ownership.

This was the socialism instituted by the Nazis. And Mises calls it socialism on the German or Nazi pattern, in contrast to the more obvious socialism of the Soviets, which he calls socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern.

So...Nazis were socialist because they called themselves that (the Nazi party that Hitler joined and the one he thrust into power were different beasts) and because they did anything to fix an economy that was in freefall after a previous World War and reparations to the nations they lost to.

All from one particular libertarian thinker and the people who were big enough fans to make his ass a website.

Unconvinced.

Socialism:
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Yeah... socialism is the theory that their should be regulated or owned, and well.... that means this libertarian thinker is kinda right, you know, since well any control is known to exist is regulations or ownership... which means that the Nazis used socialism. Which kinda proves the arguement that Nazis were more inline with socialists...

The bad thing is the Nazis didn't last that long, so we'll never get to see if they decide to become capitalist, so all we have is Nazis align socialist wise.

[Ifreann]

Maybe elect someone else? Just a thought.

The damage would already be done. I Want to stop the damage from happening in the first place.

Well, tough shit.

Besides, I mostly have Democrats, who are only a little better than their counterparts.

You aren't constantly going on about how badly you want them murdered, that seems significantly better to me.

[The Flutterlands]

The damage would already be done. I Want to stop the damage from happening in the first place.

Well, tough shit.

Besides, I mostly have Democrats, who are only a little better than their counterparts.

You aren't constantly going on about how badly you want them murdered, that seems significantly better to me.

Well, my Senator, Sheldon Whitehouse, is the most vocal on Climate Change In Congress which good enough for me.

[Cannot think of a name]

Okay, here are the several ways that went wrong.

First, this article comes not only from a libertarian website, but one focused on the work of one particular libertarian to buttress his ideas. As such, this website is selling a particular point of view and not even representing a veneer of objectivity. That's kind of a pun...moving on.

Now, having a point of view does not inherently make one wrong. However, to borrow from a libertarian phrase, 'buyer beware.'

So where does this start? First with the admission that it's really just the guy the website is dedicated to who thinks this:


What's his first piece of evidence? The name.

This particular argument is so comically weak that I honestly can't come up with fresh material for it.

But it's a long article. It can't just be him huffing and puffing and pointing to the name. And there is more...mostly going on about how interfering in the market is the worst thing ever...

You might think that this is a bizarre sudden turn in the article to wander into libertarian economics...but it has a purpose aside from just bloviating!

It's to establish an essential libertarian principle: any control of the economy outside of laissez faire is, to use the language of the article, de facto socialism.


So...Nazis were socialist because they called themselves that (the Nazi party that Hitler joined and the one he thrust into power were different beasts) and because they did anything to fix an economy that was in freefall after a previous World War and reparations to the nations they lost to.

All from one particular libertarian thinker and the people who were big enough fans to make his ass a website.

Unconvinced.

Socialism:
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Yeah... socialism is the theory that their should be regulated or owned, and well.... that means this libertarian thinker is kinda right, you know, since well any control is known to exist is regulations or ownership... which means that the Nazis used socialism. Which kinda proves the arguement that Nazis were more inline with socialists...

The bad thing is the Nazis didn't last that long, so we'll never get to see if they decide to become capitalist, so all we have is Nazis align socialist wise.

"Not libertarian" is not socialist. Even "de facto." Enacting any set of controls on an economy does not immediately shove the dial "more in line" with socialism then capitalism.

Your "all or nothing" principle is unconvincing and lacks any appropriate nuance needed to discuss the real world and instead is a long winded scree to make sure that the reason anything bad that happens in the world is the result of market controls. No sale.

[Galloism]

Socialism:
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Yeah... socialism is the theory that their should be regulated or owned, and well.... that means this libertarian thinker is kinda right, you know, since well any control is known to exist is regulations or ownership... which means that the Nazis used socialism. Which kinda proves the arguement that Nazis were more inline with socialists...

The bad thing is the Nazis didn't last that long, so we'll never get to see if they decide to become capitalist, so all we have is Nazis align socialist wise.

"Not libertarian" is not socialist. Even "de facto." Enacting any set of controls on an economy does not immediately shove the dial "more in line" with socialism then capitalism.

Your "all or nothing" principle is unconvincing and lacks any appropriate nuance needed to discuss the real world and instead is a long winded scree to make sure that the reason anything bad that happens in the world is the result of market controls. No sale.

Embrace it. Every single government since at least the romans (and probably before that) has been socialist. Clearly, socialist governments are the only ones that work.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Socialism:
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Yeah... socialism is the theory that their should be regulated or owned, and well.... that means this libertarian thinker is kinda right, you know, since well any control is known to exist is regulations or ownership... which means that the Nazis used socialism. Which kinda proves the arguement that Nazis were more inline with socialists...

The bad thing is the Nazis didn't last that long, so we'll never get to see if they decide to become capitalist, so all we have is Nazis align socialist wise.

"Not libertarian" is not socialist. Even "de facto." Enacting any set of controls on an economy does not immediately shove the dial "more in line" with socialism then capitalism.

Your "all or nothing" principle is unconvincing and lacks any appropriate nuance needed to discuss the real world and instead is a long winded scree to make sure that the reason anything bad that happens in the world is the result of market controls. No sale.

Definition wise he's right and reality wise is another story, but it doesn't really matter, since most of what Hitler did was mainly socialist to reboot the economy, and everything was state owned even the corporations. We'll never actually got to see Hitler revert to capitalism or have a plan to so all we can go off of is that Hitler was using socialism.

[Ifreann]

"Not libertarian" is not socialist. Even "de facto." Enacting any set of controls on an economy does not immediately shove the dial "more in line" with socialism then capitalism.

Your "all or nothing" principle is unconvincing and lacks any appropriate nuance needed to discuss the real world and instead is a long winded scree to make sure that the reason anything bad that happens in the world is the result of market controls. No sale.

Definition wise he's right and reality wise is another story, but it doesn't really matter, since most of what Hitler did was mainly socialist to reboot the economy, and everything was state owned even the corporations. We'll never actually got to see Hitler revert to capitalism or have a plan to so all we can go off of is that Hitler was using socialism.

Yeah, Hitler was all about turning over control of the means of production to the community as a whole, not concentrating control under his own totalitarian government. It was the German people(minus the untermensch, who were of course not really people at all) who guided the German war economy, not Adolf himself and his chosen lieutenants.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Definition wise he's right and reality wise is another story, but it doesn't really matter, since most of what Hitler did was mainly socialist to reboot the economy, and everything was state owned even the corporations. We'll never actually got to see Hitler revert to capitalism or have a plan to so all we can go off of is that Hitler was using socialism.

Yeah, Hitler was all about turning over control of the means of production to the community as a whole, not concentrating control under his own totalitarian government. It was the German people(minus the untermensch, who were of course not really people at all) who guided the German war economy, not Adolf himself and his chosen lieutenants.

Regardless it was a state owned economy since the gov owns everything... what you just said was German willpower, although Hitler started several businesses to prepare for war.

"Not libertarian" is not socialist. Even "de facto." Enacting any set of controls on an economy does not immediately shove the dial "more in line" with socialism then capitalism.

Your "all or nothing" principle is unconvincing and lacks any appropriate nuance needed to discuss the real world and instead is a long winded scree to make sure that the reason anything bad that happens in the world is the result of market controls. No sale.

Embrace it. Every single government since at least the romans (and probably before that) has been socialist. Clearly, socialist governments are the only ones that work.

I wouldn't go that far, but yeah your right. I mean I like capitalism, but you need some form of socialism, so I'd prefer a economy where their are minimal regulations, but their necessary ones.

[Eibenland]

Could you, like, not kill people? A bad government policy, even a very bad one, isn't really something that can only reasonably be responded to with mass killing.

How else can we fight back Against A government that's hell bent on bankrupting and killing us no matter how much we cry and scream in protest? They don't care about their voters and a government that refuses to represent the people properly doesn't deserve to exist.

I can only pray that those who voted no last time, especially Mccain will vote no again this time.

I don't want to bring up something you regret again, but you helped put this government in power. You do have a say and you did use it.

[Proctopeo]

"Not libertarian" is not socialist. Even "de facto." Enacting any set of controls on an economy does not immediately shove the dial "more in line" with socialism then capitalism.

Your "all or nothing" principle is unconvincing and lacks any appropriate nuance needed to discuss the real world and instead is a long winded scree to make sure that the reason anything bad that happens in the world is the result of market controls. No sale.

Embrace it. Every single government since at least the romans (and probably before that) has been socialist. Clearly, socialist governments are the only ones that work.

More accurately, governments with socialist policies. There's a difference.

[Ifreann]

Yeah, Hitler was all about turning over control of the means of production to the community as a whole, not concentrating control under his own totalitarian government. It was the German people(minus the untermensch, who were of course not really people at all) who guided the German war economy, not Adolf himself and his chosen lieutenants.

Regardless it was a state owned economy since the gov owns everything...

Your definition of socialism refers to ownership or regulation by the community as a whole. So socialist Nazi Germany's means of production were, surely, owned and regulated by the community of Nazi Germany as a whole.

what you just said was German willpower,

A triumph, one might say...

although Hitler started several businesses to prepare for war.

Owning a business? Socialism!

[Holy Tedalonia]

Regardless it was a state owned economy since the gov owns everything...

Your definition of socialism refers to ownership or regulation by the community as a whole. So socialist Nazi Germany's means of production were, surely, owned and regulated by the community of Nazi Germany as a whole.

what you just said was German willpower,

A triump, one might say...

although Hitler started several businesses to prepare for war.

Owning a business? Socialism!

More like government runned businesses, but sure whatever you prefer to dub it...

[Corrian]

Koch network 'piggy banks' closed until Republicans pass health and tax reform

So basically unless the ACA is repealed now and the rich get their tax breaks then there's going to be no funding from the Kochs at midterms.

Man, are they backed into a corner. They don't get their precious funding, but if they pass the healthcare, they may be fucked in the more swing state places. So pick your poison...

Honestly it may go better for them if they had some balls and just went "No, I won't repeal it" anyway, and they get funding a different way.

But this is the Republican party we're talking about.

[Galloism]

Embrace it. Every single government since at least the romans (and probably before that) has been socialist. Clearly, socialist governments are the only ones that work.

More accurately, governments with socialist policies. There's a difference.

I was mocking the "anything not laissez faire capitalism is socialism" mumbo jumbo.