'It Is Still The Trump Cult': Why The GOP Isn't A Party But A 'Hot Mess'

With the Midterm season fast approaching, what does the Trump Party really have to offer as an alternative? Apparently, they don't feel the need to tell us. Who needs a stinkin' legislative agenda?

 

It disgusts me when a national news agency is blatant in its party affiliation. This talking head opens the piece by saying, “the Republican Party may take one or both houses of Congress this November and we cannot allow that to happen”….. This is coming from a newscaster……. No, we aren’t allowed to have an opinion based on facts any longer. News is no longer about reporting facts. We all must lock step with those that tell us how we are expected to think. Phooey….. And we wonder why the nation is at odds with one another.

 

News? This is commentary and entertainment like all cable shows. The fact that they throw out a topic with a couple of facts doesn't make any of these cable shows actual NEWS! I can tolerate the topics right up to the point the talking heads start stroking each other's opinions. I will listen more carefully if they also tell me what the other side's spin is on the topic but being either a conservative outlet or a liberal outlet, the dominating opinions will inevitably swing right or left. When the opinions start treading in dangerous territory, like riling people up to the point that they show up at people's doors or non-existent basements in pizza shops, I make a distinction between commentary and dangerous rhetoric disguised as news. The funny part about this particular topic is Cawthorne's claim about drugs and orgies in his own party ranks. True or not, you have to see the clusterfu** the Right has allowed to the GOP to devolve into. They've just given up on everything to maintain the party and nothing else matters. Kind of dug their own graves when they crawled into bed with the Devil.

 

If you really want some straight talk, I give you Brian Tyler Cohen.

 

That dude is such a joke

Not really all that smart. Just wears a suit and spouts left wing talking points.

Even FOX would do better.

MSNBC may very well be worse than CNN in the bullcrap espoused... but CNN markets themselves as the most 'trustworthy' name in news, so its really quite close.

 

let me understand....MSNBC gets Psaki.
Fox gets Jenner.
Sigh......

 

Just WHY

She is so disingenuous its shocking. Her and Kamala both.

 

JN says, 'The GOP Isn't A Party But A Hot Mess'


Really, @JoeNation , you call that collective of Democrats a Party . . . ?

. . . I call it a Free For All.

 

It's funny, there is only Fox and then every other news network. Kind of reminds you of Russian State Media. One source is a common indication that you are part of a cult.

 

I guess Dems and Independents are cultist too.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...watch-fox-news-during-primetime-than-cnndata/

 

"The Difference Between Republicans and Democrts: Republicans make more sense, but Democrats are more fun" ...Art Buchwald

 

The difference is that you are cult members but as usual, you are the last to realize it.

 

I seriously can’t read a single message of yours without thinking it’s some twisted prank where you just project everything you hate most about yourself on everyone else.

Literally, almost every message I’ve ever seen you post here is utterly rebuked by your actions.

Your best option is seeing a psychiatrist. Not being facetious - maybe you can come to terms with who you are someday so you can stop projecting it on all of us.

 

That's what the cult wants you to think.

 

With all of you Democrats espousing the writings of Karl Marx, I'm a firm believer that you're right about that.

 

You mean with all ReichWingers saying Democrats are espousing the writings of Karl Marx rather than any Democrats at all saying anything of the kind. Stop believing your own lies. It's a little sad.

I get a kick out of absolutist statements like this. "All of you Democrats". Please show me "ALL of the Democrats" espousing anything at all. You can't. You just say stuff like this to make the barking seals clap.

 

Bullcrap! I never met a Democrat who didn't believe in equality of outcome, irrespective of a lack of effort or production.

 

So...you're a Fabian Socialist (aka. Anarchist) instead of a Marxist? Is your goal the destruction of the American Capitalist Democratic-Republic?

What is democratic socialism, and where is it headed?
The complex history—and promising future—of a movement

October 22, 2019
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Democratic socialism is an idea with a rich manifold history in Europe and a slight electoral history in the United States—until recently. A new generation of American voters, one that does not remember the Cold War but is steeped in the severe inequalities of neoliberal capitalism, has brushed aside the assumption that democratic socialism is impossibly un-American. Many young Americans flatly demand the same universal health care, free higher education, and solidarity wages that are commonplace in Europe.

“Democratic socialism” has become the favored shorthand for what is missing in the United States: the recognition that all citizens have rights to not just liberty but also economic well-being and a healthy ecosystem. This concept of democratic socialism is long-standing; it is also one among others. Its resurgence has brought up old questions about what democratic socialism should be.
*
*
*
The idea that socialism is about centralized public ownership arose in 19th-century Germany, explicitly through Ferdinand Lassalle and ironically through Karl Marx. Lassalle was a democratic state socialist who wedded socialism to the Prussian desire for a united German state and who founded Germany’s first Social Democratic Party. Marx was a far more complicated case. He taught that the structure of economic ownership determines the character of an entire society and that socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production—a sufficient condition for fulfilling the essential aspirations of human beings.

Once a socialist revolution succeeded, Marx claimed, the state would wither away, for the real function of the modern state is to protect capitalism. This utopian expectation shielded Marxian socialists from their own statism; they saw “state socialism” as an absurdity that had nothing to do with them. Marx blasted the Lassalle tradition on this account. In the 1880s the British Fabian movement cast aside all such pretensions, straightforwardly identifying socialism with centralized government collectivism. Thus the two most consequential traditions of 19th-century socialism both espoused state socialism: Marxism did so without admitting it, while Fabian collectivism did so with bureaucratic enthusiasm.

In the Marxist view, the existing bourgeois form of political democracy was a fraud that perpetrated the rule of the capitalist class; true democracy would emerge only after a proletarian revolution. To promote democracy as the road to socialism would be ridiculous. Marxists believed that true democracy would come about only after the revolution made the state irrelevant. Marxists and anarchists clashed with each other over the difference between believing that the state would wither away (Marxism) or that the state had to be destroyed (anarchism).
*
*
*
https://www.christiancentury.org/ar...what-democratic-socialism-and-where-it-headed

 

Looking back...

Barack Obama, Fabian Socialist
Nov 3, 2008,12:32pm EST

Barack Obama is a Fabian socialist. I should know; I was raised by one. My Grandfather worked as a union machinist for Ingersoll Rand during the day. In the evenings he tended bar and read books. After his funeral, I went back home and started working my way through his library, starting with T.W. Arnold's The Folklore of Capitalism. This was my introduction to the Fabian socialists.

Fabians believed in gradual nationalization of the economy through manipulation of the democratic process. Breaking away from the violent revolutionary socialists of their day, they thought that the only real way to effect "fundamental change" and "social justice" was through a mass movement of the working classes presided over by intellectual and cultural elites. Before TV it was stage plays, written by George Bernard Shaw and thousands of inferior "realist" playwrights dedicated to social change. John Cusack's character in Woody Allen's "Bullets Over Broadway" captures the movement rather well.

Arnold taught me to question everyone--my president, my priest and my parents. Well, almost everyone. I wasn't supposed to question the Fabian intellectuals themselves. That's the Fabian MO, relentless cultural and journalistic attacks on everything that is, and then a hard pitch for the hope of what might be.

That's Obama's world.

He's telling the truth when he says that he doesn't agree with Bill Ayers' violent bombing tactics, but it's a tactical disagreement. Why use dynamite when mass media and community organizing work so much better? Who needs Molotov when you've got Saul Alinski?

So here is the playbook: The left will identify, freeze, personalize and polarize an industry, probably health care. It will attempt to nationalize one-fifth of the U.S. economy through legislative action. They will focus, as Lenin did, on the "commanding heights" of the economy, not the little guy.

As Obama said, "the smallest" businesses will be exempt from fines for not "doing the right thing" in offering employer-based health care coverage. Health will not be nationalized in one fell swoop; they have been studying the failures of Hillary Care. Instead, a parallel system will be created, funded by surcharges on business payroll, which will be superior to many private plans.

The old system will be forced to subsidize the new system and there will be a gradual shift from the former to the latter. The only coercion will be the fines, not the participation. A middle-class entitlement will have been created.

It may not be health care first; it might be energy, though I suspect that energy will be nationalized much more gradually. The offshore drilling ban that was allowed to lapse legislatively will be reinstated through executive means. It may be an executive order, but might just as well be a permit reviewing system that theoretically allows drilling but with endless levels of objection and appeal from anti-growth groups. Wind and solar, on the other hand, will have no permitting problems at all, and a heavy taxpayer subsidy at their backs.

The banking system has already been partially nationalized. Bush and Paulson intend for their share purchases to be only non-voting preferred shares, but the law does not specify that. How hard will it be for Obama, new holder of $700 billion in bank equity, to demand "accountability" and a "voice" for the taxpayers?

The capital markets are not freezing up now, mostly because of what has happened, although community organizers' multidecade push for affirmative-action mortgages has done enormous harm to the credit system. Markets are forward looking.

A quick review of the socialist takeovers in Venezuela in 1999, Spain in 2004 and Italy in 2006 show the same pattern--equity markets do most of their plummeting before the Chavez's of the world take power. Investors anticipate the policy shift in advance; that's their job.

It's not just equity markets, though; debt markets do the same thing. Everywhere I turn I hear complaints about bankers "hoarding" capital. "Hoarding" is a word we've heard often from violent socialists like Lenin and Mao. We also hear it from the democratic left as we did during the 1930s in America. The banks, we're told, are greedy and miserly, holding onto capital that should be deployed into the marketplace.

Well, which is it, miserly or greedy? They're not the same thing. Banks make money borrowing low and lending high. In fact, they can borrow very, very low right now, as they could during the Great Depression.

So why don't they lend? Because socialism is a very unkind environment for lenders. Some of the most powerful members of Congress are speaking openly about repudiating mortgage covenants. Local officials have already done so by simply refusing to foreclose on highly delinquent borrowers. Then, there's the oldest form of debt repudiation, inflation. Even if you get your money back, it will not be worth anything. Who would want to lend in an environment like this?

Will Obama's be the strong-man socialism of a Chavez, or the soft socialism that Clement Atlee used to defeat Churchill after WWII? I don't know, but I suspect something kind of in between. Despite right-wing predictions that we won't see Rush shut down by Fairness Doctrine fascists. We won't see Baptist ministers hauled off in handcuffs for anti-sodomy sermons. It will more likely be a matter of paperwork. Strong worded letters from powerful lawyers in and out of government to program directors and general mangers of radio stations. Ominous references to license renewal.

The psychic propaganda assault will be powerful. The cyber-brown-shirts will spew hate, the union guys will flood talk shows with switchboard-collapsing swarms of complaint calls aimed at those hosts who "go beyond the pale" in their criticisms of Obama. In concert with pop culture outlets like The Daily Show and SNL, Obama will use his podium to humiliate and demonize those of us who don't want to come together and heal the planet.

You've heard of the bully pulpit, right? Well, then get ready, because you're about to see the bully part.

https://www.forbes.com/2008/11/03/obama-fabian-socialist-oped-cx_jb_1103bowyer.html?sh=20d5f10b317c

 

So, let's see all those statements Democrats are supposedly espousing. I'll wait.