What Legacy Does Trump Leave?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Imagine being top side and looking down into that pool!

When those down ... look up can they see stars ... it is a stellar view of the great beyond ... and some have to rise out out of it ...WOKE 'T De state we're in ...

Unspeakable stupidity so we can identify with it ...

A psychitrist I was once doing work for rendered this down to a point: point is if you work with the non sane extensively ... something in yu will flip ... and there heh was "gone like the wind!"

Born in a shack by the rail tracks ... there's myth hiding there ... ad evice of literary nature ... chez whispers ...
 
Last edited:
jimkenney12 said:
People over 80 have a lot pf power and wealth and many are reluctant to lose control if it means they may also lose wealth.
Click to expand...
Except I will point out that a significant percentage of the world's wealthiest are nowhere near 80. Even the most senior of the tech billionaires (e.g. Gates) are only in their sixties and many of that crowd are in their 40s and 50s, even their 30s in some cases (e.g. Musk is 52, the Zuckerbergs are 40 and 39).
 
BetteTheRed said:
I mean, honestly, dear neighbour, if two 80 year olds are your "brightest and best" candidates to lead a country, maybe you're digging in a shallow pool, or....why?
Click to expand...
Maybe, just maybe they're easier to manipulate and steer towards the parties personal agenda?
 
If the lyre wins ... does this spread through a corrupt the greater medium ... adding to the song heard from the devil down in GEO Ghia?

Is it as bad as bag pipers ... them's free Scots Wahl 'n in the heights ... Gaels?

And if a legal debate is geared mostly on emotional content ... will reason go down? Thus an ithchii was created as "V" an upset "^" ... it 's like something coming from a libra 'erie ... once a large free bibliography!
 
Someone a few thousand years ago wrote that there is nothing new under the sun.

"Both Mussolini and Hitler arose from the left, both were considered progressive, and both had strong support from the health establishment, the wealthy, the Economist, and the New York Times."
 
Another hallmark of fascism would be the suppression of political opposition.

However because of the bad history associated with fascism most modern day leftists are very quick to try and distance themselves from that word.
 
Fascism is about authoritarianism, not left or right. Sure, the Nazis had "socialist" in their title. It was not a "leftist" thing.

Socialism and "The Left" have been the boogeyman for time immemorial. I doubt that anyone using those terms really understand their meaning.

Since when has being concerned about the common good ("the left") been a bad thing?
 
"Socialism" is really a rather broad idea, not terribly specific and certainly not particular to right or left. It only got associated with the left because of Marx and his followers taking over the term. It is really the opposite of individualism, where it is the good of society (or what the thinker in question thinks is good for society) rather than the good of individual people in that society that matters. Of course, it also means that power should reside in the masses, not in the hands of plutocracies or aristocracies but clearly, many so-called socialist states have not really embraced that aspect. Look at how many autocratic strongmen have come from "socialist" systems (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and on it goes). So the basic concept has been used and misused in some pretty horrible ways even if it looks good on paper, making "socialism" almost a derogatory term even without the demonization that it has been subject to.

I think that's why you see left-wing parties like the NDP and the UK Labour Party looking more to terms like "social democracy" than to "socialism". The idea of supporting individuals within society as individuals rather than focussing on some kind of homogenous "masses" as socialist thinkers sometimes do makes more sense, too.
 
Thanks Mendalla. That's a good description.

Sadly, people have conflated "socialism" with "The Left".

Whenever we demonize ANY group, we are at risk of developing a fascist ideology. We're in a time when Jewish people are feeling antisemitic actions and beliefs. Trans and LGBTQ+ in general folks are seen as villains somehow. Women are seeing their rights and freedoms being constrained.

Sad times.
 
Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” is a good read on re-thinking the received notions about who is on “the left” and who is on “the right.”

@Northwind It is a book for people who want to think, rather than repeat rhetoric.

The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left, and regardless of its disastrous consequences. - Thomas Sowell
Click to expand...
 
WhyCzar said:
@Northwind It is a book for people who want to think, rather than repeat rhetoric
Click to expand...

Read Strongmen: From Mussolini to the Present by Ruth Ben-Ghiat if you want to think.

I am not repeating rhetoric. I am disagreeing with your assertion that "The Left" is the problem.
 
WhyCzar said:
Sadly, people have conflated "fascism" with the political right.

​

Click to expand...
The problem is that fascism kind of trumps (no pun intended) the right-left spectrum so that, really, that spectrum almost needs to be left out of the discussion. There's little difference between Stalin/Mao on the supposed left and Hitler/Mussolini on the supposed right when push comes to shove. They are all authoritarian strongmen who promoted a strong, aggressive military and police and targetted identifiable groups within and without their society as "enemies". In the world right now, and focussing on actual functioning authoritarian governments vs. Western leaders accused of fascism, one could cite Putin or Orban as being nominally on the right, Xi and Kim as nominally left (in that they lead supposed Communist parties) but when you look at their tactics and approaches, there's actually almost no difference. Now, are all of those fascist? There's elements of it in all of them. I would say that the two Europeans are probably more clearly fascist than the two Asians but that's maybe a function of history and culture. Fascism is a European idea rooted in nineteenth century nationalism, after all.
 
Last edited:
And one thing I will add relevant to the thread title, Trump himself kind of sits outside the right-left spectrum. He come across right on a lot of issues but when you look at what he actually does and says (when he actually says anything of substance rather than slamming his opponents and puffing up himself), he's not as easy to pin down. For instance, while he appointed pro-life judges to the Supreme Court, he also seems disinclined to bring in a national law, leaving room for blue states to still allow abortion and maybe even taken in women from red states needing them. How much he takes any stand on principle rather than in the interest of garnering votes seems a big vague, too. I still think he's actually kind of apolitical and more in this because of his own fat ego and desire to be the focus of power and attention than because he really has anything to offer either side in terms of real policies. Which arguably makes him both more and less dangerous in some ways. And is not, I might add, fascist in and of itself.

Now, if you want to target real potential fascists in the US, try the right wing thinktanks, many of whom are hoping to gain influence in a Trump government. They are far more dangerous than the man himself.
 
I agree with @Mendalla that the right-left spectrum (almost*) needs to be left out of the discussion.

It is important to note that many scholars do not regard fascism to be a solely right-wing or left-wing affliction. It may have elements of both sides of the spectrum.

Mussolini himself described fascism as a movement that would strike “against the backwardness of the right and the destructiveness of the left”.

*almost ( "real potential fascists in the US, try the right wing thinktanks, many of whom are hoping to gain influence in a Trump government." )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top