GoldenBoy89
We're Still Here
- Sep 25, 2012
- 27,472
- 30,436
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
-
We hope the site problems here are now solved, however,
if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us
California Billionaires Are Leaving the State in Response to Proposed Wealth Tax
- Thread starter Hentenza
- Start date
Hans Blaster
Area Meathead
- Mar 11, 2017
- 24,160
- 17,802
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Soviet Socialist Republic.
Oh wait, you were using Latin letters, must be the Community College of Philadelphia.
Upvote
0
GoldenBoy89
We're Still Here
- Sep 25, 2012
- 27,472
- 30,436
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I’m pretty positive he meant Communist Party of China and not CCCP but it doesn’t matter. All of this started with another poster asking what’s a successful socialist country. Everyone points to Venezuela. China is a successful socialist country. Insisting “but they’re actually communist!” doesn’t really defeat my point that their socialist policies haven’t failed them.
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Area Meathead
- Mar 11, 2017
- 24,160
- 17,802
- 56
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
No, not my intent. Советская Социалистическая Республика (ССР) (Soviet Socialist Republic), such as Украинская Советская Социалистическая Республика (УССР) (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic), were the parts of Союз Советских Социалистических Республик (СССР) (Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics). The first word in USSR (Союз) is probably recognizable when transliterated into Latin characters as "Soyuz".
Upvote
0
A2SG
Gumby
- Jun 17, 2008
- 10,321
- 4,134
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I'm not sure about the greed being "much more with socialism" part, frankly. Greed is pretty much built in to capitalism, and it's so prevalent you pretty much cannot have capitalism without it. That's why guardrails and safety net programs are necessary. Socialism, it seems to me, is more often a part of a country's economic system rather than the whole of it. The problem arises when socialism becomes the governing system, necessitating government ownership and control of industry, which seems to inevitably lead to an authoritarian leader and we're off to the races. That, it seems to me, is less about greed per se than consolidation of power and control.
Corruption, though, is universal. Every system has it.
Your vote, your decision, of course.
For my part, I'm not afraid of socialist programs or progressive ideas, and I think we need more of them, not less. Since the 1980s and Reagan, this country has become more and more beholden to monied interests (aka "greed"), leading to public policy favoring the rich over the middle class and everyone else which has left us with staggering income inequality, even worse than we had in the early 20th century. And we all know where that led.
-- A2SG, brother, can you spare a dime....
Upvote
0
In name only.
China is certainly not operating under the sort of economic or political systems that Marx envisioned in Das Kapital or that he and Engles wrote about in The Communist Manifesto.
In ideology and practice China is a hybrid system. Or a system of hybrids. It's really a bit of a free-for-all.
In terms of economics, it's a mixed mode economy with features of free-market capitalism, rubbing shoulders with both corporatism and socialism. While there is state central planning and ownership/control of large firms in areas of strategic interest, China's economy is primarily market driven. It has private ownership protected under law, significant non-state capital accumulation and there's general independence in business decisions (excluding those aforementioned strategic areas).
In terms of politics, it's an autocratic single party state with a mix of Marxist, Leninist and Maoist ideologies, with a bit of 'Xi Jinping Thought' flavouring thrown in for good measure. Formally, this is "Socialism with a Chinese character", also known as the Party-State system.
However, outside of the central party committees there was once a surprising amount of decentralisation of power. People got vote on their local representatives (provided, of course, they're already CCP members). Since the mid 2010s though, much of this local autonomy has been done away with, and there's been various crackdowns on academic freedoms, the press, local political decision making, small companies and the like.
One of the best descriptions I've seen for the Chinese system is 'decentralised authoritarianism'.
Upvote
0
eclipsenow
Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works
- Dec 17, 2010
- 10,258
- 2,729
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
Actually - you were. Actually - it was far worse back then! You were not earning as much from Europe as you are now.
Previous Presidents discouraged an "EU Army" ever forming and divided Europe!
Previous presidents understood the importance of the NATO alliance from a geopolitical and security angle. So why would they discourage Europe from all the advantages of unifying and streamlining production of their own kit? For exactly that reason. They did not want them producing ALL their own kit!
Previous President's discouraged the EU from ever developing their own EU army. They wanted countries to 'specialise' in certain fighters and tanks, and those other EU countries to 'specialise' in their OWN fighters and tanks. Why? So they could never reach economies of scale and form their own Military Industrial Complex. Everything they build is at tiny runs at enormous cost per unit. Nothing that can compete with Uncle Sam. They have over 175 different weapons platforms. The USA has 30 - and built at enormous economies of scale and efficiencies that streamline production, and streamline operations in the field.
Here's the punchline.
Previous President's understood the sheer PROFITS involved in supporting Europe and NATO!
For their "leadership" role in supporting NATO, the EU were hoodwinked into mainly buying American military kit. As a result, America earns over 105 TIMES more from NATO than it puts into running European military bases and 'defending Europe.' (These bases mostly pursue America's own agenda in the region anyway!)
To hear JD Vance on Signalgate actually complain about 'bailing out the Europeans again' made me shudder. I thought all this buffoonery and whining must be for show - that they could not be this ignorant! Please no!
JD Vance believes America is losing out on this NATO deal in his bones.
What have they done?
As a result of Trump and MAGA - the EU is now scaling back their investment in American kit - and building their own.
Carney's speech has pricked the bubble. Europe stood up to Trump. Even the far-right European parties that value nationalism over this EU project are distancing themselves from Trump now that he threatened a European ally's sovereignty!
By the time they have weaned off American weapons 2 things should have happened:
1. The American military will lose $60 billion in investments. That's about 7%, so not the end of military jobs by any means. But that's not the point. As industries scale back, the cost-per-unit goes up. America will literally have a bit less 'bang for their buck' after the EU weans of American arms because of this whining, pouting Trump regime.
2. The EU will have scaled up their own military production - and possibly their own integration!
For the first time ever, 6 different EU nations entrusted the EU with their arms money to do a bulk tender of military kit to the EU marketplace. It was ony about $300 million - not the billions we've been talking about. But if this works, and the EU gets all the jobs, it could escalate. The call for a combined EU army would require a combined EU international policy - a European mandate. That is a stepping stone towards a "United States of Europe" - with 500 million citizens compared to America's 330 million.
By then Trump will be well out of office, and most probably out of this world.
But the damage he would have done to America on a geopolitical and economic level could take decades to repair. Because Americans saw Trump in all his ignominy, all his court cases, his losing a sexual harassment case, his inciting a mob to march on the Capitol, his denial of reality and pouting over losing 2020, his being fined for defrauding the state of New York, his racist lies ("They're eating the dogs" straight out of a 1970's racist trope): and American's elected him anyway. Twice.
The damage has been done.
Good luck with that!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Oompa Loompa
Well-Known Member
- Jun 4, 2020
- 10,981
- 5,904
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Did you ever think for one second that Trump thinks, "[blessing not curses] to the previous presidents because they enabled NATO to become complacent and completely forget why they exist?" Heck, NATO countries are still buying oil from Russia, the adversary that prompted NATO's existence! Do you really think Trump cares about revenue from the military industrial complex? Did you miss the announcement from Peat Hegseth about addressing the mass fraud found in military contracts? At the WEF, Trump and others were correct in pointing out that the NATO countries are now too weak and inept to carry out their basic duties as members of NATO, and gave a stark ultimatum. Being that they either start making the much needed effort to robust their own defense, or find themselves once again being invaded by a foreign adversary and begging for good old Uncle Sam to bail them out once again. Yes, everything you said was true. However, everything you said has resulted in the situation that we have today. You think it is a bad thing for the EU to distance themselves from the US? I say it is a good thing. Like a mother bird kicking it's spoiled and entitled little chick out of the nest after telling it, "You have the rest of your life to learn how to fly." Would it not be better for the entire world if NATO countries learned how to fly instead of depending entirely on the US to be their bodyguard?
Upvote
0
Pommer
CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
- Sep 13, 2008
- 23,489
- 14,461
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
It hasn’t been United States policy that Russia fails in the global-marketplace for over 35 years; it is in nobody’s “best interests” for this to occur. (The original ”adversary” was the USSR)
Cost-plus has been the rule since forever; any Leader will want the companies suppling our military with weapons to be financially robust, lest they “go under” and leave a hole in our supply chain.
Yes, what was the…”reasoning”?
World’s richest country is tired of the continual noblesse oblige?
Creating instability in the world seems to be Trump’s long suit.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Poll
